Bob Hewitt expelled from the Hall of Fame

[Ricardo]

There are no feminists 'flooding the media.' No wonder you can't name a single feminist thinker. (Besides the fact that you're an anti-intellectual, so wouldn't know the famous ones, anyway.) There are people who speak to equality for the various minority groups in sports and in work, etc., men and women, but most are not really "feminists." "Feminism" has basically been absorbed into progressive thought, so it isn't necessarily distinguished, for most people. Sorry, but the 1970s moved on without you. It's sad that you have to insist endlessly that men are so much better at sports, even when men and women rarely compete directly. Why does it bother you, if women do well in sports on their own terms? Can't that just be fine? (And yes, there is an example of top women beating top men h2h: ultra-marathoning. So it can happen. Not to mention figure-skating, which you can't address with examples, even though you brought it up.) But I'm just wallowing at your level now, and being petty.

Armstrong has been stripped of all of his Tour de France wins. He is no longer a cycling champ. That is a reversal of his status. I don't know how else one can take that.

anti-intellectual? coming from someone who can't even read the technical details in tennis while having been watch the sport for years.

you know how petty you are? you are right about the word 'petty', especially now you go again with examples of figure skating and ultra marathon. The former has no objective way of deciding who is better, while with the ultra marathon, once i looked into it, guess what, don't resort to making it up here..... as the sample size increased, it was totally male dominated, when number of participants increased the men outran women. just be honest, who is better in ultra-marathon? resorting to lies does't work, it's too easy with all the info online. and you can stop pretending as if you know something, all you have is persistence to make up stuff and smear the focus, while throwing in pathetic examples which aren't even true or can't be proven.

someday you'll wish you can 'wallow' at my level, but you'll need to start by being honest and factual. btw i've studied many theories of science, but never knew anything of value ever came from a 'real feminist thinker'...... is there one and who is that?

 

[Ricardo]

Don't agree on Armstrong - PED's turned him from a top drawer classics racer into a Grand Tour champion. The thing with doping is that people think that if they're all doing it then you'd get the same results if they weren't all doing it.

That isn't the case, because if you look at hematocrit levels (red blood cells) and the explosion of EPO in cycling, it was deemed that a reading of anything upto 50 was acceptable and not classed as doping. Bjarne Riis was Mr 60% when he won the Tour in the 90s... they levelled it at 50 after because a few dutch cyclists with high readings died of heart attacks.

So, if Cyclist 1 had a natural hematocrit reading of 46 and Cyclist 2 had a natural hematocrit reading of 40, then Cyclist 2 benefits far more by taking his blood count upto 50 than Cyclist 1.

Ullrich who finished a bunch of tours second to Armstrong (and was also doping) had a better natural engine than Lance. If neither were doping, I reckon he'd have won more and Lance less.

It also puts a crap historical perspective on things when you have Lance winning all those tours and guys like Lemond (who won 3), when Lemond was probably clean-ish.

it's just bad, how far back can you backtrack after so many years?

what about Korda? should his AO medal be stripped only or all of his wins against his opponents nullified too? then how do we crown the 'real' winner? its a headache just thinking about a fair solution.