Comments on: public caning? http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/ wisdom and tripe from a lifetime runner Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:06:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Joan http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5106 Joan Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:53:16 +0000 http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5106 Georgue - U may use the English "u" whenever u want, just as long as u don't pronounce herb with the hard H. I ate that! Herb is someone's name, not something that grows in my neighbour's garden. Georgue -
U may use the English “u” whenever u want, just as long as u don’t pronounce herb with the hard H. I ate that!

Herb is someone’s name, not something that grows in my neighbour’s garden.

]]> By: George (Canada) http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5101 George (Canada) Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:22:14 +0000 http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5101 I think that only when cheating is seen as a serious and unacceptable infraction in society will this ever change. However, this seems to be getting worse as many kids in school see it as the norm and not necessarily a bad thing to cheat on exams and to plagiarize. This leads to Enron type behaviour and to drug cheats in sports. By the way, Joan, what is the acceptable "English" for comments on this site, US or UK (Canada). That is, labour or labor, color or colour ;-) I think that only when cheating is seen as a serious and unacceptable infraction in society will this ever change. However, this seems to be getting worse as many kids in school see it as the norm and not necessarily a bad thing to cheat on exams and to plagiarize. This leads to Enron type behaviour and to drug cheats in sports. By the way, Joan, what is the acceptable “English” for comments on this site, US or UK (Canada). That is, labour or labor, color or colour ;-)

]]> By: Fat Charlie the Archangel http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5087 Fat Charlie the Archangel Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0000 http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5087 You know, I can understand the temptation. My son is about 6'1" (at 14 years old) and he has feet the size of flippers. I told him that he should go out for the swim team, and then it occurred to me - is that fair to other swimmers that Silas has this natural advantage? So why wouldn't folks do everything that they can to gain every advantage? No, I'm not CONDONING cheating. I'm just saying that I can UNDERSTAND why folks would cheat. Let's face it - I will never, ever, EVER be as fast as you, Joan. I never could have been, no matter how much I trained or how much I starved. I simply don't have the genetics for it. In fact, truth be told, I don't have the genetics for ANYTHING. So there are no truly level playing fields, as long as we have different phenotypes (or is it genotypes? :) Some of us will be better able - naturally - to compete at this or that. An unbiased observer mightsay "hey - that's not fair! Why should one person get to win purely by picking the right parents?" and might argue that anything that somebody wanted to do to attempt to improve his performamnce is totally reasonable. We all agree that it's okay to train, it's okay to sleep, it's okay to eat anything that we want to eat while training, all of which might be performance enhancing - but we draw the line at certain chemicals and call them "drugs". Why do we do that? The only rationale that I've heard is that it's because those drugs are *dangerous*, and that we don't want to encourage their use, so we outlaw them so that NOBODY can use them. But overtraining is dangerous. Starting a sprint cold is dangerous. Lots of things are dangerous. So I can see how somebody might think that there isn't any real reason to outlaw those chemicals. Of course, the problem is that that means the person breaking the rules is BREAKING THE RULES, and therefore it's not a level competition. But I don't think that it's totally and blackly *evil*. It's just misguided. Although I'd like to say, for the record, that I'm always in favor of public canings : ) You know, I can understand the temptation.

My son is about 6′1″ (at 14 years old) and he has feet the size of flippers. I told him that he should go out for the swim team, and then it occurred to me - is that fair to other swimmers that Silas has this natural advantage?

So why wouldn’t folks do everything that they can to gain every advantage? No, I’m not CONDONING cheating. I’m just saying that I can UNDERSTAND why folks would cheat.

Let’s face it - I will never, ever, EVER be as fast as you, Joan. I never could have been, no matter how much I trained or how much I starved. I simply don’t have the genetics for it. In fact, truth be told, I don’t have the genetics for ANYTHING.

So there are no truly level playing fields, as long as we have different phenotypes (or is it genotypes? :) Some of us will be better able - naturally - to compete at this or that.

An unbiased observer mightsay “hey - that’s not fair! Why should one person get to win purely by picking the right parents?” and might argue that anything that somebody wanted to do to attempt to improve his performamnce is totally reasonable.

We all agree that it’s okay to train, it’s okay to sleep, it’s okay to eat anything that we want to eat while training, all of which might be performance enhancing - but we draw the line at certain chemicals and call them “drugs”. Why do we do that? The only rationale that I’ve heard is that it’s because those drugs are *dangerous*, and that we don’t want to encourage their use, so we outlaw them so that NOBODY can use them.

But overtraining is dangerous. Starting a sprint cold is dangerous. Lots of things are dangerous. So I can see how somebody might think that there isn’t any real reason to outlaw those chemicals.

Of course, the problem is that that means the person breaking the rules is BREAKING THE RULES, and therefore it’s not a level competition. But I don’t think that it’s totally and blackly *evil*. It’s just misguided.

Although I’d like to say, for the record, that I’m always in favor of public canings : )

]]> By: Jimmy B. http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5059 Jimmy B. Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:27:27 +0000 http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5059 I have no doubt that it is trickling down and has already reached the high school level and is probably in middle school as well at some places. All you need is an older brother/sister with a supplier. I'm sure my wife can find out from one of her talkative students. Hey, it's a good thing that teenagers aren't impressionable or this could become a real problem huh. I read an interesting piece in ESPN The Magazine where Landis spoke about winning the Tour once and being set for life. His words were that he could "put it in park." The author wondered if that kind of temptation was enough to make him risk all for the chance he would slip through. Apparently it was. It almost worked Floyd. Shame on you. That's what I want to put on the back of my truck window in big white letters, "Shame on you Floyd!" Maybe that's what we need to reverse this trend. Every billboard and bumper sticker condemning it. I have no doubt that it is trickling down and has already reached the high school level and is probably in middle school as well at some places. All you need is an older brother/sister with a supplier. I’m sure my wife can find out from one of her talkative students. Hey, it’s a good thing that teenagers aren’t impressionable or this could become a real problem huh.

I read an interesting piece in ESPN The Magazine where Landis spoke about winning the Tour once and being set for life. His words were that he could “put it in park.” The author wondered if that kind of temptation was enough to make him risk all for the chance he would slip through. Apparently it was. It almost worked Floyd. Shame on you. That’s what I want to put on the back of my truck window in big white letters, “Shame on you Floyd!” Maybe that’s what we need to reverse this trend. Every billboard and bumper sticker condemning it.

]]> By: Steve http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5058 Steve Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:06:16 +0000 http://www.runningland.com/2006/08/09/public-caning/#comment-5058 Subscribing in part to the conspiracy theory raised by Landis as his 48th defense to his positive drug test this week, I do have one question: how is it that with all of the testing done during the tour, Landis was the only athlete to test positive? Are there positives that are being covered up in an effort to avoid tarnishing cycling's image even more? And was Landis, as an American, targeted with the positive test release? Clearly, half of the peloton is on some sort of illegal, performance enhancing drug, so how are they all beating the tests? Are they that far ahead of the testing procedures? And are Landis and Phonak so incompetent that Floyd was the only person caught after three weeks of testing on 180 riders? It seems unlikely. Subscribing in part to the conspiracy theory raised by Landis as his 48th defense to his positive drug test this week, I do have one question: how is it that with all of the testing done during the tour, Landis was the only athlete to test positive? Are there positives that are being covered up in an effort to avoid tarnishing cycling’s image even more? And was Landis, as an American, targeted with the positive test release? Clearly, half of the peloton is on some sort of illegal, performance enhancing drug, so how are they all beating the tests? Are they that far ahead of the testing procedures? And are Landis and Phonak so incompetent that Floyd was the only person caught after three weeks of testing on 180 riders? It seems unlikely.

]]>