3 ms·

This is a story parallel to Lance Armstrong's own rise and fall. About how if you were to drill down, really drill down, to find the next ethical, justifiable c

by 001sky 14y ago

This is a story parallel to Lance Armstrong's own rise and fall. About how if you were to drill down, really drill down, to find the next ethical, justifiable company that used Facebook to great benefit for humanity you're going to be looking for the 27th, 28th, 29th place organizations. -- Interesting. If you look at the data, from 1996-2005 (10 Years) > source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9626520/Lance-Armstrong-How-Tour-de-Frances-recent-past-has-been-decimated-by-doping.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancear... TDF: Of those that placed top 3x: 15% clean, ~85% were not. You know you have a problem when you are on the wrong side of the 80 /20 rule, as an entire field. Lets hope the ills that plague Zynga are not like the TDF: Top 3 x 10 years = 30 places Only 5 of these "places" were awarded to "clean riders", of which there were only 3. First - None Second - Joseba Beloki (1) Thrid - Beloki(2), Bobby Ulrich, Fernano Escartin.

tatsuke95 14y ago
>"You know you have a problem when you are on the wrong side of the 80 /20 rule, as an entire field." Or, you can not care that these athletes are using science to perform optimally at their sport. That's what I do, but that's another argument.
- rprospero 14y ago
  If a racer was going to use science to perform optimally, why didn't he just buy a motorcycle? 19th century thermodynamics would push him far past anything he could achieve with 21st century biology. You might argue that it's against the rules to ride a motorcycle, but so was doping. It's also against the spirit of the sport, but so was doping. If the objective was to use the best available science to compete at the highest level, then they failed horribly.
tsotha 14y ago
>Top 3 x 10 years = 30 places Only 5 of these "places" were awarded to "clean riders", of which there were only 3. I'm skeptical there were any clean riders. Those three may just be the ones that didn't get caught. Hell, Armstrong was under the microscope for a decade and it took a long time for the truth to come out.

by 001sky 14y ago

tatsuke95 14y ago

>"You know you have a problem when you are on the wrong side of the 80 /20 rule, as an entire field." Or, you can not care that these athletes are using science to perform optimally at their sport. That's what I do, but that's another argument.

rprospero 14y ago
If a racer was going to use science to perform optimally, why didn't he just buy a motorcycle? 19th century thermodynamics would push him far past anything he could achieve with 21st century biology. You might argue that it's against the rules to ride a motorcycle, but so was doping. It's also against the spirit of the sport, but so was doping. If the objective was to use the best available science to compete at the highest level, then they failed horribly.

tsotha 14y ago

>Top 3 x 10 years = 30 places Only 5 of these "places" were awarded to "clean riders", of which there were only 3. I'm skeptical there were any clean riders. Those three may just be the ones that didn't get caught. Hell, Armstrong was under the microscope for a decade and it took a long time for the truth to come out.