http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0729steinjul29,0,119772.story

I think this is a interesting and somewhat truthful article
that I happen to somewhat agree with.

Of course there are those who will disagree and act
offended and put out by the facts and truths the article touches
on.

No matter who agrees or disagrees, the fact that
everyone's opinion can be expressed and discussed
is a key component of the issue. I always dislike
when a subject is made to be irreproachable or
differing opinions brand a writer or reader as
an outcast or woefully misguided.

The fact is, there are truths in all arguments.

Who cares what Mr. Stein thinks? I completely disagree with his conclusion. True, the efforts are less superhuman, but if that's what he wants to see, he should watch a video game.

or a strongman competition

I think his idea is interesting, but not realistic or "socially acceptable." I think its funny how people create false idealistic history, thinking back to the good ol' days when racers relied on brute strength and iron will:rolleyes:

Joel Stein is an idiot. Not funny, has never been funny. He is probably slower than me.

Joel Stein is an idiot. Not funny, has never been funny. He is probably slower than me.

+1 to Jax and +100 to TDF for their anti-doping efforts.

Who cares what Mr. Stein thinks? I completely disagree with his conclusion. True, the efforts are less superhuman, but if that's what he wants to see, he should watch a video game.

I completely agree with you

I think his idea is interesting, but not realistic or "socially acceptable." I think its funny how people create false idealistic history, thinking back to the good ol' days when racers relied on brute strength and iron will:rolleyes:

cocaina cocaina, yo me voy para bolivia!

Translation.

Even though none of the places on the podium were decided until the time trial on the next to last stage there was only an outside chance an American would take one of those three spots, and no chance at all that it would be First Place so I don't care.

What a delightful and informative post.

Apparently, if an entire sport has been using performance-enhancing drugs for decades, when you toss out the dopers, you're not left with anyone who wants to win badly enough.

I simply had no idea that the drugs affected how badly you wanted to win. If someone could tell me what drugs affect motivation, I think I may become an armchair doper!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0729steinjul29,0,119772.story

I think this is a interesting and somewhat truthful article
that I happen to somewhat agree with.

Of course there are those who will disagree and act
offended and put out by the facts and truths the article touches
on.

No matter who agrees or disagrees, the fact that
everyone's opinion can be expressed and discussed
is a key component of the issue. I always dislike
when a subject is made to be irreproachable or
differing opinions brand a writer or reader as
an outcast or woefully misguided.

The fact is, there are truths in all arguments.


This is the lazy misguided approach our press has taken over the last few years: give air time to all sides and you'll get to the truth. BS.

Didn't Joel Klein have something else to write about?

This is the lazy misguided approach our press has taken over the last few years: give air time to all sides and you'll get to the truth. BS.

Didn't Joel Klein have something else to write about?


Ok, so from your quote - "give air time to all sides and you'll get to the truth. BS."
you are stating that only one side, the side that you or who ever agrees with,
is the only side that should be heard?

Is this what you are truly saying?

Ok, so from your quote - "give air time to all sides and you'll get to the truth. BS."
you are stating that only one side, the side that you or who ever agrees with,
is the only side that should be heard?

Is this what you are truly saying?

I took it to mean that journalists seem timid to reach their own conclusions based on sorting through plausible evidence.

This fellow Klein doesn't seem afraid to go out on a limb, but I feel he's completely out to lunch. Anything to sell a paper I guess.

I'm sure one of the reasons he wrote in this tone is that writing along the lines of "Gee, I really liked the Tour de France this year, it was an awesome race" wouldn't sell many papers. The Enquirer School of Journalism strikes again.

Ok, so from your quote - "give air time to all sides and you'll get to the truth. BS."
you are stating that only one side, the side that you or who ever agrees with,
is the only side that should be heard?

Is this what you are truly saying?

No, I'm saying I disagree with your statement that there are truths in all arguments. It's not true. Some arguments are not valid, and Joel Klein's doesn't appear to be serious. He's just trying to stir things up.

I'm sure one of the reasons he wrote in this tone is that writing along the lines of "Gee, I really liked the Tour de France this year, it was an awesome race" wouldn't sell many papers. The Enquirer School of Journalism strikes again.

exactly, tabloid journalism.

No, I'm saying I disagree with your statement that there are truths in all arguments. It's not true. Some arguments are not valid, and Joel Klein's doesn't appear to be serious. He's just trying to stir things up.


..."Some arguments are not valid,"

Why? Because you say so?

It seems pretty arrogant to me that you can emphatically make that statement.
Again, because you and others do not like what Stein wrote you get your lycra
in a bind and take some personal offense. I don't get it, mainly because it is not a
totally logical response, but rather emotional one. Remove your feelings from
the argument, if possible, and then examine it from different perspectives.

I grew up on American football and baseball, when I was 7, 8, & 10 years old
watching games, getting excited, and playing in the sandlot - I had no idea
these guys were doped up. For years and years I had no idea about it.
When I eventually came to understand about ped's and steroids, it didn't change
my love for the games at ALL. Never has...never will.

I still love each one, and it does not matter who is taking what. What matters
is the game itself, and I don't care if someone has an advantage.
Cheating is a part of professional sports, always has been always will.
Read "The Unfair Advantage" (Mark Donohue). It just doesn't matter.
But some people for whatever emotional and personal reasons get so worked
up over it, and will never let it rest. You can fight it, but you will never beat it.


If I were a professional I would always be searching for the unfair advantage
no matter what it took, and no matter what the consequences might be.
Too much at stake, too short of a time span to capture glory.
Science and nature have made some amazing advances in our society
and as human beings we should each be allowed the freedoms to choose
what we want to do to our own bodies and minds. If science can produce
a better athlete then so be it, I am all for it.

edgecrusher,

Everyone has opinions, and sometimes my opinion might be that someone else's opinion isn't very well founded. Sometimes, it seems apparent that the person expressing an opinion does so without even considering the topic (in short, they're just talking out their butt). If I notice that, I might feel like pointing it out. Does that make me arrogant? Perhaps, but be careful coloring me with that brush, lest you expose yourself to be a hypocrite.

I just read an article in The Economist that suggested that gene doping is ethical and should be allowed. Their reasoning was that some athletes aren't as naturally gifted as others, so it's unfair to not allow them to manipulate their genes to give them an 'equal chance'. The article reminded me of why I don't read The Economist anymore.

edgecrusher,

Everyone has opinions, and sometimes my opinion might be that someone else's opinion isn't very well founded. Sometimes, it seems apparent that the person expressing an opinion does so without even considering the topic (in short, they're just talking out their butt). If I notice that, I might feel like pointing it out. Does that make me arrogant? Perhaps, but be careful coloring me with that brush, lest you expose yourself to be a hypocrite.

So now you go from saying that all arguments do NOT have truths, to saying that it is
just your opinion. I s e e.

Maybe you could be more careful with what you say, as to whether
you are stating something concrete or just an opinion.
Opinions are fine, hell some of mine are fairly radical as well.

So now you go from saying that all arguments do NOT have truths, to saying that it is
just your opinion. I s e e.

Maybe you could be more careful with what you say, as to whether
you are stating something concrete or just an opinion.
Opinions are fine, hell some of mine are fairly radical as well.

Read who said what.

Fact: Not all arguments are based upon truth.

Opinion: Not all opinions carry weight.
Opinion: Covering all points of view in an article is generally neither possible, nor is it likely to make the article better.

so what's the alternative,tell our kids it's ok to use drugs?????
so the armchair enthousiast can have a god time????

..."Some arguments are not valid,"

Why? Because you say so?

It seems pretty arrogant to me that you can emphatically make that statement.
Again, because you and others do not like what Stein wrote you get your lycra
in a bind and take some personal offense. I don't get it, mainly because it is not a
totally logical response, but rather emotional one. Remove your feelings from
the argument, if possible, and then examine it from different perspectives.

I grew up on American football and baseball, when I was 7, 8, & 10 years old
watching games, getting excited, and playing in the sandlot - I had no idea
these guys were doped up. For years and years I had no idea about it.
When I eventually came to understand about ped's and steroids, it didn't change
my love for the games at ALL. Never has...never will.

I still love each one, and it does not matter who is taking what. What matters
is the game itself, and I don't care if someone has an advantage.
Cheating is a part of professional sports, always has been always will.
Read "The Unfair Advantage" (Mark Donohue). It just doesn't matter.
But some people for whatever emotional and personal reasons get so worked
up over it, and will never let it rest. You can fight it, but you will never beat it.


If I were a professional I would always be searching for the unfair advantage
no matter what it took, and no matter what the consequences might be.
Too much at stake, too short of a time span to capture glory.
Science and nature have made some amazing advances in our society
and as human beings we should each be allowed the freedoms to choose
what we want to do to our own bodies and minds. If science can produce
a better athlete then so be it, I am all for it.


Listening to all sides -- no matter how poorly thought out -- is no replacement for critical thinking.

We're now discussing two things: How valid Klein's article is in the doping discussion and your insistence that it should be given as much weight as any other point of view. I think you're taking his tongue in cheek article more seriously than he took it himself.

By your tone, it seems you're rather emotionally attached to your method of inquiry.

As for whether drugs should be allowed, it's a worthwhile discussion. I've argued for it myself (during last year's tour) because the anti-doping process seemed to be making this less fair rather than more.

But Klein is arguing for allowing drugs simply to make the competition more exciting. It's still not clear to me what your position is on that. Pro-drugs to make lesser athletes more like better ones, thereby leveling the field? That doesn't add to the excitement, does it?. How far back is the doping hayday Klein is referring to, when things were more exciting? Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Lance? Expound please.

Listening to all sides -- no matter how poorly thought out -- is no replacement for critical thinking.

We're now discussing two things: How valid Klein's article is in the doping discussion and your insistence that it should be given as much weight as any other point of view. I think you're taking his tongue in cheek article more seriously than he took it himself.

By your tone, it seems you're rather emotionally attached to your method of inquiry.

As for whether drugs should be allowed, it's a worthwhile discussion. I've argued for it myself (during last year's tour) because the anti-doping process seemed to be making this less fair rather than more.

But Klein is arguing for allowing drugs simply to make the competition more exciting. It's still not clear to me what your position is on that. Pro-drugs to make lesser athletes more like better ones, thereby leveling the field? That doesn't add to the excitement, does it?. How far back is the doping hayday Klein is referring to, when things were more exciting? Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Lance? Expound please.

I don't have a specific 'position' on doping or taking performance enhancing drugs.
I could care less why athletes take them, it is their personal choice. I am all for it though.
Personally, I would take them to increase my abilities and performance.

PED's should be allowed for maximum performance, just as equipment and technology
is pushed to its limit using science, so too should human performance.
Again, I could care less who takes what and for whatever reasons.
It is a personal choice, period - as I have stated many times prior.

As for Stein's article I don't believe it was as t & c as you say either, but that is
my perception of the piece.

Read who said what.

Fact: Not all arguments are based upon truth.

Opinion: Not all opinions carry weight.
Opinion: Covering all points of view in an article is generally neither possible, nor is it likely to make the article better.


Again, why don't all opinions carry weight? Who said so?
"Covering all points of view in an article is generally neither possible, nor is it likely to make the article better."

Then why bother? If you can't cover all points, what gives it weight? What makes it valid?
Because you or I agree or disagree with an author?
I completely disagree with your assessment.

so what's the alternative,tell our kids it's ok to use drugs?????
so the armchair enthousiast can have a god time????


What have you told your kids about the last 50 odd years of doping (probably more)
in just about every major sport in the world, as well as the Olympics?

Oh, forget about all that history kids...today the real competition starts! :rolleyes:

Here's a clue-Athletes don't take ped's for the enthusiasts...
they take them to performe better, to win.

It's a bit naive sunshine, to think they would take ped's and assume the
health and competition risks for the "armchair enthusiasts"