QuoteOriginally posted by: EtukaWTF has that all got to do with Lance Armstrong?Not a thing. I think Lance is awesome, I was responding to a comment earlier in the thread. I was wearing a yellow bracelet for 2 weeks to show my support of Lance and his advocacy for cancer patients.-t.

QuoteDCFC: Yes, but only crap ones. It would lose against France. Are you nuts?

Are you nuts? Probably Presumably, you believe that the USA an advantage because it spends 10 times as much as France on arms. has vastly superior technology, a professional army (rather than the amateur French one), huge resources, and lots more people that it would win a war.The resistance in Iraq has killed less than 1,000 Americans. Already, a large % of Americans want to quit. 9/11 killed less than 3,000 Americans, yet it is treated as the worst thing that ever happened , ever.In short, the US is a boxer that can hit hard, but can't take a punch. France has nukes, not good ones, but enough to cost the US several cities, and like N. Korea the US won't be mean to anyone with nukes. France has aircraft, really crap ones, but enough that the US would take time to gain air superiority. It can make any munition it feels it needs, from handguns to ballistic missiles, again, not 1st rate ones, but good enough. Thus the dumb way America uses "economc sanctions" will have less effect than it believes.

QuoteIn short, the US is a boxer that can hit hard, but can't take a punchThats possibly an excellent summary.Persistance in time of combat is all about how much the forces, and the public, beleive in what theyre fighting for ie tolerance for sacrifice. For this reason things always start to go pear shaped for the US when dropping bombs out of sky or charging a fleet of tanks is no longer advancing the battle.Fortunately for lance armstrong he beleives in winning the tour de france with all its blood, sweat and tears. He even outs up with the diplomacy necessary to apease the french and all those who acuse him of "le dopage"!

Hmmm...Apparantly you have the idea that I'm a white Catholic racist, who thinks anything America does is justified. Just so you know, I feel the Catholic church should pay for its misdeeds.I apoligise if I gave the impression that I thought you were a racist, but your tone was that of an American supremacist, which is close.I wasn't accusing you of being a Catholic, but pointing out that your views on protecting kids could be applied by you personally, but apparently aren't.But I still disagree with some of your fundamental viewpoints. I feel that some countries are indeed 'evil'.To me, evil is only possible if you are sentient. Countries are artifacts. Nukes aren't evil, nor are guns, socialism or betamax.I think that believing people of other races should not exist is evil. Ah, we part company here.For a start, many racists have grown up in cultures where 100% of the knowledge they have seen about some group, portrays them as evil. A good person who sees evil will dislike it. Also many racists are simply stupid. Neither of these two states count as evil. Again, merely bad.Even when this test is passed, it still doesn't make it to evil unless you act. Virtue does not come from refraining from bad things you didn't want to do anyway, but from being tempted and resisting. Why does it matter that NATO's charter doesn't specifically say that NATO should aid Kuwait? As a mutual group, we decided that it was in our best interests to help a country that needed help. That's what makes us a good participant in the global system.NATO, like a state is an artifact. It wasn't designed to fight this sort of war. Yes, Kuwait is not a democracy. Yes, I think that should change. But just like with many other countries, there comes a point where you choose the lesser of evils.I do not help a man because he is good, but because I am. Kuwaitis have done little to commend them as human beings, but their suffering was just as greivous as if useful people were being harmed. However, the USA and NATO did nothing to reduce the vastly greater suffering of Iran when attacked by Iraqis.If Saddam Hussein had controlled the resources of Kuwait, I believe the world would be a worse place.Hmm, maybe, I don't know either way.. Certainly he was a bad man, but so is the house of Saud, who presumably would have been next. Ultimately he would have had to sell oil, we would have bought it. Human rights would not have got much worse or better. That America didn't go the extra mile and try to install a democracy in Kuwait..? Is that the problem?One problem. It had a golden opportunity. Kuwait's government had showed itself to be crap, and the US had huge amounts of good will.You argue that embargoes don't work. I argue that Iran, Cuba, et.al are not currently endangering the rest of the world.Iran isn't endangering the world ? Really ? You truly believe that ? Over the years Cuba has exported many well armed soldiers to cause trouble. S. Africa had sanctions, but still managed to attack other countries. If the regimes of those countries changed, the embargoes would be lifted. Castro survives because of the sanctions. He has what all dictators crave, an external threat to make people cling to him, but one that doesn't do much harm. The Iranian regime has changed, several times. However, what won't change whilst the USA pisses them around is a large number or Iranians who just don't like the USA. But just because some of the innocent people of that country suffer doesn't imply to me that no action should be taken against that country. I think that embargoes make people suffer less than bombs.Why do you think that ?Thing that kills most people is poverty. As a % of human deaths, bombs barely show up. Many Iraqis have died for lack of medical supplies, and any decent health system requires a healthy economy. Perhaps we have a fundamentally different belief system. I believe that non-democratic governments are not right.We do.I believe that democracy is a tool, not an objective. Democracies are more efficient than dictatorships. They are not more inherently moral, but when they are nasty, at least they are uusally efficient enough to get it over with quickly. But every country, along with all the people in it, are represented by its government. If the innocent people in Cuba want a better life, they need a better government. I agree. To me a population is answerable for the acts of its government. I have zero sympathy for Iraqis, because it was they not Saddam who did all the horrible things. However Cuba isn't all that awful. Indeed if I had to pick a S. American country to live in for the last 40 years, Cuba would be high in my list. Good healthcare, relatively few human rights abuses, few death squads, people get to eat. Hate the music though... doesn't mean that Americans were wrong to stand up to the USSR. But this might be where we disagree about what would have happened, and we can never find common ground.Don't see what that has to do with Cuba. If that fool Kennedy hadn't nearly started WW III, it would be of no significance. Cuba is a crap place to put nukes. Unlike mainland Russia it is small, so hiding the launch sites, or relying upon having lots of them just doesn't work. Unlike Siberia, it isn't very hard to sneak special forces to take the silos out, and of course there is a non zero chance that a change of government hands them to the USA. Unlike east European states, Russia had only a weak ability to roll in tanks to keep them in line. Unlike subs, Americans know where Cuba may be found. In short by depriving the USSR of Cuba, the USA gave them the incentive to build the vastly more useful nuclear subs and silos in well defended places.The USA based much of its stealth technology by testing on equipment and information gained from countries occupied by the USSR. They leaked like a sieve. Cuban nukes would have given the USA all the Russian secrets. Now, can you tell me the name of your country so that I can bomb it, please? I don't own any countries. I was born in England of Irish parents. England of course isn't a state, and we don't recognise the Irish one.And please tell me how to get there, I didn't study any geography. Also, I'm grotesquely fat from eating a lot of cows and twinkies.Sorry to hear that.-t.

I don't think the boxer analogy is very good at all. A boxer who isn't sure that he wants to fight isn't the same as one who can't take a punch. Ask the mother of any dead soldier if she thinks it was worth it. It seems like you're claiming that it's ideologically wrong to attack Iraq, but you're simultaneously calling the US weak for thinking it's a bad idea to be there. Talking about what would happen if we fought France is ridiculous. We would bait a gigantic mouse-trap with foul smelling delicious cheese, and when they asked if our dog bites, we would say no, and they would fall under the weight of our stereotypes.I disagree with you about a few things, but mostly about the quality of Cuban music, which I quite like. I'm too lazy to bomb your country. If you want to discuss this whole topic further, we could find some more appropriate forum to talk about. I think the places where we part company will probably yield the most interesting discussions.As to Lance Armstrong, I agree with you, it took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to win. I'm proud that he represents my country. It's interesting that he comes from the same part of the country as our president. They have many similar beliefs. Ask Simeoni. Love them or hate them, when Texans say something, they say it LOUD.-t.

QuoteOriginally posted by: mikebellI seriously doubt that Lance dopes. If you really wanna know the secret behind his success, consider this:QuoteLance Armstrong's heart is almost a third larger than that of an average man. During those rar moments when he is at rest, it beats about thirty-two times a minute--slowly enough so that doctor who knew nothing about him would call a hospital as soon as he heard it. (When Armstrong i exerting himself, his heart rate can edge up above two hundred beats a minute.) Physically, he was a prodigy. Lance is not the only one to have such a slow heart-beat velocity (funny). indeed all the former great champions had the same characteristic. The most famous one (before lance) was miguel (indurain) which was (at rest) at 30bpm.a websource giving the link between bpm and performance in cycling: http://www.cptips.com/exphys.htmrgds

In cross country racing you hear the same kind of stuff about how super fit Filip Meirhaeghe is, and how strong his heart is blah blah. Every one loves him, he is a hero. Then...Filip Retires From Racing After Positive EPO Test

US olympic champion Tyler Hamilton (ex US Postal) just got tested positive during the Tour of Spain.

do you have a source for that - i dont see anything on the web? thanks

QuoteOriginally posted by: genieman17Lance Armstrong is a great competitor and a great athlete. I couldn't give a shit what the world thinks...The world is jealous and would hate the US whether he won it 6 times or he didn't. Do you see the world hating Kenyans who win every single marathon? No! I'm so sick and tired of this "the world hates the US crap." It seems to me that the ones playing it up the most are Americans who like to seem like they are the victims. I mean seriously do you really think I care what some frog-leg eating loser living in a rat and roach infested studio apartment somewhere in France thinks about me????? Are you serious???Well said!!!

Hamilton fails blood test

We still need the result of the B sample, but this is the first time an an athlete is tested positive for blood doping.There are 2 techniques of blood doping:1. Autotransfusion: you make reserves of your own blood and inject it when needed. It is impossible to get detected as far as i know. The problem is that during about 4 weeks after you have taken your own blood out, your body will be tired. So if you cycle all year this is a problem. But if you don't - like Armstrong - it is not a problem and it won t be detected.2. Transfusion from a compatible person. You use someone else s blood. Thanks to a new technique (the "australian" technique) this can now be detected by checking the DNA's of the different blood cells. Hamilton got tested during the Olympics and they found different DNA's in his blood cell. He got tested again during the Tour of Spain and again they found blood cells with different DNA's.

I'm inclined to beleive Hamiltons innocence - I dont know the science behind the test but from what i read its a) new and b) "more of a probability test". It shouldnt be possible to ruining someones career and brand them a criminal without evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Of course the authorities hold all the cards, but I think on this "inaugral" occassion even if the B test is positive then he will be lucky and find a way to get through it.Armstrong and a load of other guys Im no longer so sure about. Without a doubt he has the obsessive personality needed to do the 6 hours a day of training and combined with the genetics this is why he's so good in the races he targets. And I beleive that he isnt doping. But that is now.Work in offices long enough and one seems to develop such a nose for the management shenanigans and the politics that everything becomes clear, the facade becomes more an entertainment than a smoke screen and the realities and agendas become incredibly easy to spot...Ever since the Simeoni incident in this years tour (in which Armstrong acted to intimidate Simeoni, a rider who is testifying against a Doctor Ferrari, known to have previously promoted use of EPO by cyclists and a of long association with armstrong and many of the peloton - see below link for summary) it just seems that he and a lot of guys visibly have something to hide.Im betting that he and they were given EPO by Ferrari in the early 90's, probably they didnt even know it was unacceptable or at the most unacceptable but undetectable - and now, in cleaner years, he/they need to keep the lid on it using the power of the majority. I doubt it will ever be proven, but thats my gut feeling.http://www.loopdiloop.com/folderol/2004 ... ilippo.asp

Well, the B samples are out and the results are....:The B sample taken in the Tour of Spain is positive again.However, the B sample from the Olympics did not contain enough cells to do the test! So amazingly Hamilton is gonna keep his gold medal!Of course the fact that he tested positive for the 3 testable samples shows he did transfusion. But chances are that he s gonna claim he s innocent and says how proud he is of his medal...Cycling fans will have remembered that in the book LA Confidential, the ex US Postal doctor claimed that just before Arsmtrons's first win in the Tour he had been approached by Hamilton and another US Postal rider for assisting them taking drugs. The doctor had refused and got sacked.Arsmstrong supporteres were saying these claims were rubbish, and that the doctor was lying.Now that the truth about Hamilton has come out, this of course points into the direction that the US Postal doctor did not lie.