What about Sir Warnie? 😀

If personal conduct is to prevent Warne from being knighted, then quite a few knights (Ian Botham, Mick Jagger, Elton John for example) should be made to return their knighthoods.

Warne is the only non-knight to be named by Wisden one of the five cricketers of the century. On that basis alone, I think he more than deserves it.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with (most of) Warne’s behaviour, however I do think that, regardless of his off field behaviour, he is the most deserved knight among post-Bradman cricketers not to have been knighted.

How is he a shocking bloke? I don’t see what was so bad about what he said.

No player deserves life. If anything, his punishment was far too tough.

It may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it is of absolute importance within a sporting context. That ‘he represents hope for cancer patients’ is insignificant within a sporting context.

“You people are focusing on the small shit.”

No, on a sporting site, we are focusing on the significant shit. Why does it matter whether he ‘he represents hope for cancer patients’? Is that meant to get him off the hook for being a cheat?

“Surely you cannot compare Lance Armstrong to such things, Amazonfan. That’s “OTT”.”

If you’re referring to Meagher’s killer, I was referring to abuse on FB. Surely that was obvious.

“In terms of debating whether he doped, I have stated in many previous posts that I think it is highly likely he doped, but at the same time I have also stated that the evidence gathered by USADA are based primarily on testimonies of witnesses, many with conflicts of interest or an axe to grind and that Armstrong has a chance in a court of law where higher standards to convict are required.” 

I don’t how to respond to this, except to say there is no ‘highly likely’. Armstrong doped, however I guess we’re all free to believe what we want to believe.

“I think it’s misleading to say he has given up his rights  – he hasn’t given up anything and he has not been convicted.”

How is it misleading? He had an oppirtunity to defend himself, which he choose not to take. For all intents and purposes, he has given up his rights.

“Well, I think people can indeed choose how they want to respond. As you said, you were offended by the idea that Armstrong is persecuted. You then gave a highly inappropriate example of a monster that has performed acts hardly befitting whatever wrongdoing LA has committed, which basically justified whatever abuse LA received from “lynch-mob mentality of certain parts of society”. ”

Two comments:

1)Let me get this straight. It’s “highly inappropriate” for me to talk about Meagher’s killer, when discussing FB, and yet you bring up mobs and persecute? Right.

2)I never justified anything. Did you even read what I wrote? Incredible.

“By the way, you really do sound like a politician when you say “I don’t operate on dis/agreement by omission”. ”

I may sound like a politician (which one?) however I do not like being told by someone that I dis/ agree with them simply because I choose not to respond.

BTW, attempting to insult me is just plain juvenile.

“It’s really simple, you said he was prosecuted. I pointed out he wasn’t. You wanted to make a big deal out of prosecution versus persecution. So whilst we can agree to disagree on the use of persecution, I think the use of prosecution is black and white, and you know it.”

Do NOT tell me what I know.

The term prosecution can be used specifically or in a general sense. So, no, I don’t think that the use of prosecution is black and white. But you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.

Anyway, you’re wrong about one thing. I ‘wanted to make a big deal’ out of the term persecution. Prosecution is a side-issue for me.

“Or are you still saying he was prosecuted?”

Honestly, I couldn’t care less. Whether he was prosecuted or not has no bearing on whether he was persecuted, and that is the key issue for me.

“Firstly,  I’m glad to see we can at least agree he hasn’t been prosecuted.”

I wouldn’t say that. Simply because I choose not to respond to certain points does not mean that I agree. I don’t operate on dis/agreement by omission. 
 
“Second, I think if you take a look at the abusive daily comments left at his FB site and elsewhere in the media from everyday folks, many of which goes beyond criticism considered appropriate in a civilised society, some people would have different opinions on whether he has been persecuted. Various media outlets have referred to the “persecution” of Lance Armstrong.”

FB can be horrible, however there is a difference between being persecuted and being abused by a section of the public.

As for the media outlets who have used the term, well, their job is to sell papers (and spots to advertisers).

 “Just because you don’t feel LA has been persecuted doesn’t reflect the feelings of his family and friends.”

I’m sure they do feel that way, as would the family and friends of anybody who has lost so much. They aren’t exactly objective. I mean, how else are they going to feel?

“Infliction of suffering (mental, financial etc) by a mob for his own personal belief that he is not guilty of doping which differ from what many others believe could be called persecution.”

Armstrong’s personal belief is irrelevant. We aren’t debating the existence of God; rather, we are debating whether he doped. He could have defended himself, but by not doing so, he gave up his right to have his ‘personal belief’ that he didn’t dope be regarded as credible. He’s a sporting cheat, and his beliefs are actually more like (absurd) denials. 

As for ‘infliction of suffering by a mob’, that is incredibly OTT.

There isn’t a mob. The only financial suffering relates to prize money/rewards he is required to return, and the loss of sponsorships. As for mental, well, as I said, FB and social media can be horrible.

“But you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.”

I wasn’t aware that I said you weren’t entitled to your opinions.

“If you choose to be offended, it is your choice as it is certainly not my intention to offend anyone.”

Two comments:

1)I wasn’t so much offended by you as I was by this idea that Armstrong has been persecuted. I’ve read similar sentiments elsewhere, and I expect to read more in the future (as long as he still has admirers). So, no, I wasn’t offended by you specifically.

2)Of course it’s not your intention to offend anybody, however saying “If you choose to be offended, it is your choice” is completely ridiculous. Why bother saying anything (“If you” etc..) at all?

Exept he hasn’t been subjected to harassment, systematic or otherwise, and to use the term persecute, is IMO absurd and offensive.

Putting aside the fact that persecute is an incredibly serious thing, and so using it in this context is not exactly appropiate, how has he been persecuted? 

He’s lost his titles, but then he never legitimately won them in the first place. He’s lost sponsors as sponsors generally don’t like sporting cheats. He’s required to return prize money, which he stole. His reputation has been damaged which is what happens when you lie and cheat at sport. As far as I can see, he hasn’t been persecuted at all.

I’m with you there. IMO Cousins was treated horribly by the AFL.

Armstrong wasn’t persecuted, he was prosecuted. He was given an opportunity to defend himself, however he refused.

This idea that he was persecuted is not only false, but is offensive to people who have actually been persecuted.

That said, I don’t think anybody in the AFL should be engaging in these kinds of deals, however I don’t like that he is being presented by some as the bad guy.

“At this point , Tippett is my least favourite player. His lack of loyalty to the Crows and money hungry grubby deals to be ‘entitled’ to trade elsewhere have left a bad stain on his character.”

Completely disagree. He doesn’t owe Adelaide any loyalty and he has every right to want to leave the Crows and join any other club for any reason he chooses. As for the deals, nobody forced Adelaide, whom I have no sympathy for whatsoever, to get involved in these deals. As far as I’m concerned, his character is fine. 

“Cousins won a flag on freakin ice, your kidding aren’t you. Saw a madman on ice take on half a dozen coppers, they get super human strength.”

I’m not kidding at all. There is no indication Cousins took ice when he won the flag and to suggest that he does puts you on very dangerous ground.

“West Coast should be stripped of the flag, don’t forget he was captain so how many other clowns in that team were on the pipe”

Actually Chris Judd was captain. I don’t care how many Eagles took illicit drugs, in no way on earth should WCE have been stripped of the flag. They won it fair and square.

There is no indication that any Eagle took performance enhancing drugs, and as such, I couldn’t disagree with you more that the flag should be stripped. Especially since I remain horrified at the treatment of Cousins.

Cousins and Carey took performance enhancing drugs. In no way can you compare them to Armstrong.

Horrible, horrible film. Who would have thought the director also made ‘The Godfather’, ‘The Godfather Part II’, ‘The Conversation’ & ‘Apocalypse Now’?!

If Davis doesn’t win, his season should be judged as disappointing. It’s his award to lose.

Safety is certainly an issue, and I agree that it’s terrible that people were putting their lives at risk in order to compete. However the reason I personally hate doping (and I imagine a lot of other people as well) has nothing to do with safety.

There is no doubt that it can be difficult to determine which substances should be allowed, and there is also no doubt that athletes can gain advantages through non-doping means such as funding. However IMO the discussion should not revolve around safety. If we condemn the use of drugs, we should do so regardless of whether they are safe or not. Otherwise we might as well fund chemists. 

As such if Armstrong is to be condemned (and I believe he absolutely should be) then IMO it should mainly be because he stole his victories, not simply because he put peoples lives at risk. Although that is disgusting.

“As I stated, I don’t think any one of those competitors was clean, so it was a level playing field.”

That is simply not true. Not every competitor took drugs, and even among those who did, their doping regimes weren’t equal. Plus, putting aside that you can apply this argument to other cheats (perhaps Landis should ask for his TDF back), cheating is still cheating, irrespective of how many people cheat.

“Drugs don’t make you win. They just help.”

They help enough that they enable people to win, who wouldn’t ordinarily win or in such a dominant fashion.

“Additionally, why destroy this icon? He was much better as a role model and hero than he is as a known drug cheat.”

Whether he’s an icon is irrelevant. Nobody is above the rules. We can’t pick and choose which cheats we go after. We especially can’t hide the truth. If the truth, that he was a drug cheat, tarnishes the ideal image that some have of him, then so be it.

As for being a hero and a role model, I don’t think he ever was.

“Should have just let it go.”

Right. We should just let him off the hook because he did some charity work. Great attitude.

“Collingwood Football Club is a leader in its field, the premier sporting club in Australia, and sets an example for others to follow.”

How can Collingwood be the premier sporting club in Australia when it’s not even the premier club in the AFL?

“Just a little bit jealous, are you.”

Who would be jealous of Collingwood?

I don’t think VFA flags should be included. It was a separate competition.

It’s not just about safety, doping also violates the integrity of the sport. Even if doping was 100% safe, I would be just as disgusted by all the cheating as I am now. 

In fact, personally, my first thoughts go out, not to the children, but to the clean athletes who were cheated of their dreams.

The 3 strikes rule in the AFL concerns illicit drugs, not performance enhancing drugs.

I’m no patriot, but Sailer & Johns shouldn’t even be mentioned. Unless they took performance enhancing drugs, what illicit drugs they may have taken is irrelevant.

Speaking of which, “Two West Coast AFL players, Chris Mainwaring and Ben Cousins, were headline grabbers a few years ago – Mainwaring died at 41 from an overdose of cocaine.”

Completely irrelevant. Neither took performance enhancing drugs.

I don’t care how hard Armstrong worked or how determined he was, he took drugs. Thus, he cheated. As far as I’m concerned, he’s no more a legend than Landis, or any other cheat. As for your friend, I don’t see how it is relevant. If you are suggesting that Armstrong should be let off because he had cancer, I completely disagree.

“I bet you his wins came more from his determination and will power and soul than from his drugs.”

I hope you don’t do much gambling.

“Amazonfan the statement by AJ was about individual women in our parliament, and like many men there, they are indeed ” destroying the joint ” ”

Really? Yet he talked about how women are destroying the joint. That is the very definition of sexism.

“and those particular people you mentioned with their escapades in the street deserved what Jones said not to mention heavier police attention”

Are you serious?! Members of the community were subjected to loathsome racism and xenophobia by Jones, and you think what he said was deserved? If a member of the Muslim Lebanese-Australian community said the same comments about Westerners, you would probably be outraged. His comments were disgusting, and that you’re attempting to defend them is the epitome of ridiculous.

Let’s get one thing straight: NOBODY deserves to be subjected to the abuse Jones produced. Any decent person would understand that.

Oh, and as for police attention, that is what he deserved.

“AJ is not a bigot”

Yes, he is. Repeating ‘AJ is not a bigot’ multiple times does not make you right, it simply demonstrates you’re trying to cover your ears and block out the reality that your beloved AJ is a horrible bigot, and one whom should have been arrested for inciting violence!