# Where have all our hero's gone?



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Just read this AM that Lance Armstrong has given up his fight against those who attribute his athletic achievements to processes other than simply commitment and hard work! The dogs have been howling and nipping at his heels, almost since he first retired from cycling and the harassment seemed never to be stopping. While Armstrong has not admitted guilt and he still maintains his accomplishments are attributable to only that old fashioned approach...hard work...,he is convinced the allegations will never stop and he is simply tired of fighting back.

Did he dope? None of us can make that claim with absolute certainty, but he was active in a sport in which seemingly every participant at the professional level seems to, at some point, cross that line at some point. Did he deserve those seven Tour de France wins? Certainly more than most and (almost as certainly) as much as any of the other competitors in each of those races! Do sports regulatory authorities, generally peopled by "wannabe's" in their particular sports, rather than accomplished athletes from each respective sport, become over zealous and get carried away in the execution of their oversite authority and if so, why? 

Where have all our hero's gone(!)? Well...actually, we've killed them and seem intent on eating their rotting corpses!


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

That's the tricky part about having heroes.

And there's always the question as to whether their (later discovered) personal foibles cancel out their achievements.

Particularly in the case of athletics, where the cheating supposedly allowed their great success.

But then you have most everything else, where the foibles are unrelated to the achievement.

I'm glad that I am not a politician, with people searching in every corner of my life history for "dirt". Not to mention "youthful indiscretions" may never be excused by people with an agenda.

Youthful indiscretion, there's a term that was tailor made for politics. I looked briefly but couldn't find the origin of that phrase. I bet it was recent though, an invented and nicely turned phrase to deflect some expose.

In the course of googling, I found another term, "middle-aged youthful indiscretions". I'm going to have to remember that one, just in case.

Politics have their special case, when the actions make them out to be hypocrites, violating public trust by taking bribes, and so forth.

Even George Washington, you know when he was young, was supposed to have been madly infatuated(?) with a friend's wife, Sally Fairfax.

Anyway, like I said, I'm glad I am not a politician.



OK just rambling here, but yeah I've long suspected that having heroes can be a tricky proposition, if we aren't ready to accept their human frailties.

Aren't most heroes people who have done really well in their fields?

Apart from athletes, generals, presidents, and so forth.

How about scientists, artists, musicians, and leaders who may not be politicians exactly?

It seems like the people who do really well, they get so interested in the subject that they think of little else. I'd like to get there, but am prone to distractions, for better or for worse.

Golly I am long-winded today! ! !

:redface:


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

How about Joe Paterno? He coached well, they played well, and now all of a sudden their victories have been taken away. If I had played on his team during the years that the Association vacated his wins, I would mail copies of my diploma to the board members who made the decision with a letter telling them to take away the degree I earned also. And remember, when they vacated Penn State's wins, there wasn't any suspicion of doping or any type of unfair advantage. The punishment was only to satisfy cries of revenge, and the ones who suffered were the students.


I have the funny feeling I might be opening a can of worms with this post, but so be it. It is on topic.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Whenever someone succeeds it is because they cheated, had advantages no one else had or because they stole their success from someone else.

Hero worship?? 

No.

Election 2012!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

blue suede shoes said:


> How about Joe Paterno? He coached well, they played well, and now all of a sudden their victories have been taken away. If I had played on his team during the years that the Association vacated his wins, I would mail copies of my diploma to the board members who made the decision with a letter telling them to take away the degree I earned also. And remember, when they vacated Penn State's wins, there wasn't any suspicion of doping or any type of unfair advantage. The punishment was only to satisfy cries of revenge, and the ones who suffered were the students.
> 
> I have the funny feeling I might be opening a can of worms with this post, but so be it. It is on topic.


I agree. What Paterno and other PSU officials knew and understood, and what each should or should not have been expected to do, can and will be the subject of earnest debate for a long time. But any sanctions should be settled in civil and criminal courts involving the appropriate parties -- i.e. those accused and those aggrieved. The job of the NCCA is to administer a level playing field for athletic contests. Its finding of "lack of institutional control" as a warrrant to punish the football program generally is a grotesquely unfair abuse.

And preemptively, any comments to the effect that child rape is much worse than recruiting violations are just stupid. Of course it is, but that is not the point. Outrage, however appropriate, is not a license to avoid logic and reason.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Every day after the first day Joe Paterno learned of the molestation - he was withholding evidence to protect his program. So for YEARS, he recruited players who helped him win games under false pretenses.

How many blue chip players would have picked a different school - thus raising that school's win total and lowering PSUs win total? How many boosters and alumni would have pulled their financial support thus removing some of the prestige and the top line facilities and lavish recruiting trips?

Paterno's entire legacy after he began to cover up for his buddy is tarnished - and all of those wins were gained by an unfair advantage.

Totally appropriate to strip PSU of those wins. Guy was a liar, a cheater and a co-conspirator in dozens of crimes.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Every day after the first day Joe Paterno learned of the molestation - he was withholding evidence to protect his program. So for YEARS, he recruited players who helped him win games under false pretenses.
> 
> How many blue chip players would have picked a different school - thus raising that school's win total and lowering PSUs win total? How many boosters and alumni would have pulled their financial support thus removing some of the prestige and the top line facilities and lavish recruiting trips?
> 
> ...


You raise a fair point, mrkleen, but I still think the penalty was disordered. It was grounded not in any degree of advantage, but in the nature of the offense, the gravity of which is centered on its moral heinousness rather than any speculative competitive advantage. Moreover, many lawyers who have watched this unfold have expressed grave concerns regarding the fairness of the process. Freeh's report reads like an advocate's indictment (given Freeh's experience that may not be surprising) rather than an unbiased investigation (his supposed commission). Inferential liberties with the facts abounded, and PSU had no practical recourse to object. The actual *facts* revealed in the report were layered and far more open to interpretation than suggested by the conclusions that were "Freehly" inferred. Have you actually read the report?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Where have all our hero's gone(!)? Well...actually, we've killed them and seem intent on eating their rotting corpses!


My concern for the state of the Republic is that athletes and other entertainers, who do what they do for fame and money, are even classified as heroes. And resentment at people who have more fame and money than the average is as old as recorded history. As is the accumulation of fame and money due to privelege, dishonesty and brute force.

While I can admire (I guess that's the word) the time and effort a lot of people put in to get to the top of their field, I see _very _little heroism involved. Any cop out on a bad beat, any fireman answering a call, any teacher heading into certain schools or social worker heading into certain neighborhoods each day are putting more on the line than a jock, actor, or CEO.

_Caveat: _I have no knowledge at all of Armstrong's guilt or innocence. It doesn't concern me in the least


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Hey! I'm still here! 

Seriously, I think this is a decision that Mr. Armstrong will eventually regret. Every sleazy sports writer is going to tear him apart. 

I don't know what this outfit is or why it has sway over races not even in this country, and I don't know what happened to due process. I am sure it would cost a lot of money, but I think he should give it one more whack. 

I am sure there is no question that the cycle is to spec after a race. Why is it any different for body chemistry?


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

recently i stopped being upset at the sheer number of "heros" using PED's (performance enhancing drugs) in all sports... i am at the point where i think they should just allow all PED's in sports and be done with it... if multi-million dollar athletes want to shorten their lifespans & cause who-knows what other medical issues to themselves, so be it... historically athletes have used technological advances to better their careers/statistics... advances in plastics have made sports safer... better understanding of body/nutrition have made a bigger stronger athlete... modern technology helps in training... etc, etc, etc... as sports fans, we enjoy home runs, we enjoy big hits on the football field, we want it harder, faster, better... we want the best athletes science can make!... 

* and for anyone who is going to come in with a "what about the children..." comment: children are already looking up to drunk, womanizing, violent, thuggish, deviant, pot smoking, athletes already


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree. What Paterno and other PSU officials knew and understood, and what each should or should not have been expected to do, can and will be the subject of earnest debate for a long time. But any sanctions should be settled in civil and criminal courts involving the appropriate parties -- i.e. those accused and those aggrieved. The job of the NCCA is to administer a level playing field for athletic contests. Its finding of "lack of institutional control" as a warrrant to punish the football program generally is a grotesquely unfair abuse.
> 
> And preemptively, any comments to the effect that child rape is much worse than recruiting violations are just stupid. Of course it is, but that is not the point. Outrage, however appropriate, is not a license to avoid logic and reason.


Hello Mike

generously I will assume that in the function of your post you have chosen the role of the Devil's advocate.

Logic and reason are not always the most effective tools. Not every problem is equivalent to calculation of a mathematical formulae.

Boo-hoo that it's unfair on those involved to be stripped of their victories.


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

I've never been convinced that Armstrong's victories were not tainted. And I think it's absurd to claim, as some have done, that because Lance is an inspiration to so many we should cut him some slack. Armstrong's refusal to proceed to arbitration means he knows the evidence is too overwhelming to contest. It's an admission of guilt far more convincing than his media denial. Of course he knows that some people will continue to support him no matter what official bodies claim, but in the end the name Lance Armstrong, like Barry Bonds and Ben Johnson, will eventually be erased from the record books, and if remembered at all, will forever be connected with one of sports' great frauds.

 The people I find inspiring are the ones who laboured thru Le Tour year after year without doping. How hard must it have been for those deprived of glory because Armstrong and others cheated? - people like Cadel Evans- the man who won the 2005 Tour if you discount the 6 riders above him who were later caught/confessed.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Where have all our hero's gone(!)? Well...actually, we've killed them and seem intent on eating their rotting corpses!


They're either retired or passed away.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Well, none of my heroes were ever athletes, but I do have to say that I find the patrician reliance on avoiding performance enhancing drugs rather sad. Human beings continually evolve, not just biologically but mentally and technologically. To deny our athletes the ability to improve their performance by the use of certain chemicals is arbitrary and not at all based in logic. I look forward to the day when we all have robot bodies and can quite literally do any physical feat we desire. Until then, I won't judge those who try to push the biological envelope.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

blue suede shoes said:


> How about Joe Paterno? He coached well, they played well, and now all of a sudden their victories have been taken away. If I had played on his team during the years that the Association vacated his wins, I would mail copies of my diploma to the board members who made the decision with a letter telling them to take away the degree I earned also. And remember, when they vacated Penn State's wins, there wasn't any suspicion of doping or any type of unfair advantage. The punishment was only to satisfy cries of revenge, and the ones who suffered were the students.
> 
> I have the funny feeling I might be opening a can of worms with this post, but so be it. It is on topic.


+1. People do tend to overlook the limitations and shortfalls of Judge Freah's report and regulating agencies such as the NCAA have compounded that error by acting prematurely, based on non-vetted findings and conclusions that have yet to be tempered by their day in court. Given the fact that at least two of Pennsylvania's (and more likely three State agencies) agencies charged specifically with the protection our youth failed to disclose Sandusky's predilections and heinous crimes when they conducted their investigations and impromptu home visits to clear the Sanduskys to foster parent all those troubled youngsters and yes, even to adopt six of them, it is certainly possible that pedophile Sandusky in fact did a remarkable job of pulling the wool over many peoples eyes...as claimed by Spanier, Schultz, Curley and the late Joe Paterno. Sandusky stands convicted and rightly so, but we tend to forget that Mike McQuerry's (key) testimony changed substantively on three different occasions. It is quite possible the vagaries of his initial report to Paterno contributed to the mis communication claimed by Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley. The courts should appropriately be the fora in which such discrepancies are resolved, not through a rush to vest a balnket acceptance on the findings of the Freah Report.

If any are interested in a fairly balanced presentation of some of the facts at issue here, the Paterno biography, written by Joe Posnansky and released this past Teusday, provides an excellent read and leaves any final conclusions up the the thoughtful considerations of each reader!



phyrpowr said:


> My concern for the state of the Republic is that athletes and other entertainers, who do what they do for fame and money, are even classified as heroes. And resentment at people who have more fame and money than the average is as old as recorded history. As is the accumulation of fame and money due to privelege, dishonesty and brute force.
> 
> While I can admire (I guess that's the word) the time and effort a lot of people put in to get to the top of their field, I see _very _little heroism involved. Any cop out on a bad beat, any fireman answering a call, any teacher heading into certain schools or social worker heading into certain neighborhoods each day are putting more on the line than a jock, actor, or CEO.
> 
> _Caveat: _I have no knowledge at all of Armstrong's guilt or innocence. It doesn't concern me in the least


Perhaps not to all, but to many of us, our heros (be they athletes or otherwise) are important to us; providing future goals and performance targets to strive for, that were perhaps not provided by an absent parent! However, and even more importantly, what is the true motivation behind these incessant reviews and the eventual toppling of virtually every sports, political, military, etc, icon that we have found it appropriate to look up to. Can any of them survive such scrutiny? To date it seems that none have been able to make the cut! Could any of us survive such scrutiny? Who would want to do so and eventually, will the very best of the best be willing to endure such abuse to become the leaders in their respective fields? Was Pogo right when observing; "We have met the enemy and he is us!"?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Performance enhancing does not necessarily have to accomplished via drugs or other substances. Sometimes all you have to do is unlock your bodies natural potential. For example, we have all read stories about some guy who had a car wreck and was able to lift inhuman amounts of weight to free someone trapped in the wreckage. Adrenalin is an amazing performance enhancer when it is unleashed. With the approach of the paralympics, you guys are going to be hearing more and more about "boosting." It's the practice of doing something to your body to increase blood pressure and peak performance. These guys will break their useless toes with a hammer to fool their body into going into overdrive. Some of the quad rugby (wheelchair rugby) will sit on their scrotums to feed off of the surge in endorphins. I have worked with guys who will apply tourniquets to their legs to increase blood pressure. It's amazing what some of these guys will do. To me, the worst ones are the guys that who actually hook leads from a car battery to their testicles to get the surge of blood pressure. Yikes. Just look up "boosting paralympics."


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pliny said:


> I've never been convinced that Armstrong's victories were not tainted. And I think it's absurd to claim, as some have done, that because Lance is an inspiration to so many we should cut him some slack. Armstrong's refusal to proceed to arbitration means he knows the evidence is too overwhelming to contest. It's an admission of guilt far more convincing than his media denial. Of course he knows that some people will continue to support him no matter what official bodies claim, but in the end the name Lance Armstrong, like Barry Bonds and Ben Johnson, will eventually be erased from the record books, and if remembered at all, will forever be connected with one of sports' great frauds.
> 
> The people I find inspiring are the ones who laboured thru Le Tour year after year without doping. How hard must it have been for those deprived of glory because Armstrong and others cheated? - people like Cadel Evans- the man who won the 2005 Tour if you discount the 6 riders above him who were later caught/confessed.


Pliny, the post to which you were responding involved PSU and the NCAA, not Armstrong. That said I agree, at least in part, with your point. We may someday succumb to Harvey's temptation of simply allowing any performance enhancing drug no matter how dangerous, but no such speculation can detract from what should be an obvious point -- contests have rules and violations carry penalties. Those who secure unfair advantage by violating the rules of the contest should receive the applicable penalty. It is not like they are taken unfairly by surprise.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A few points:

First, it is sad the we look upon athletes and other entertainers as heroes. While we may admire their talent, skill, and dedication, a true hero is someone who acts selflessly, usually with courage and risk to his well-being, and does so with effectiveness and often great grace. Our celebrity culture is unfortunate and somewhat pathetic.

Heroes are not perfect. I've never met a man whose feet were not made of clay. The acknowledged saints of yesteryear (like the unacknowledged saints of today) were imperfect, but nonetheless performed extraordinarily selfless and courageous acts notwithstanding their imperfections. 

The fact the MLK, Jr. was a philanderer does not impair the fact that he was a hero, and I say that as a man who fully appreciates importance of marriage and the damage and gravity of infidelity. 

No man is impeccable, but a very few men are heroes nonetheless.

Finally, let me rant about hypocrisy -- the tribute vice pays to virtue. It has become fashionable to charge anyone who proclaims a virtue as being a hypocrite if he is in anyway imperfect, especially as it relates to the virtue proclaimed. In other words, no man has license to publicly oppose sin unless he is sinless. This is vile irrational nonsense. Hypocrisy is all too often the charge of lazy and prideful men who embrace low standards of behavior and take great satisfaction in being able to sustain those standards. The pride of these men impair their ability to embrace standards they cannot achieve. Ultimately, a man must choose one of two ways of living -- he can conform with ease his conscience to his actions and live in smug satisfaction or he can attempt imperfectly to conform his actions to his conscience and live with the uneasy guilt of knowing his limitations and need of mercy. Only the latter are called hypocrites.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Mike I agree with you about some of these politician's pecadillos, and they don't trouble me greatly.

But, I think it is a bit more objectionable when that person has gone to lengths to condemn others. Take for example the politicians/clergy who have been first in line in a battle against gays, and then they caught in some homosexual tryst. I actually feel sorry for them, but am not inclined to cut them much slack. Same thing for those who rail about corporate and individual's greed only to be found to have been participating themselves.

See what I mean?

I thought Jesse Ventura had a good way to handle things. He just came right out and said that when he was a USN Seal they did a lot of crazy things -- you can just imagine. At that, I've read he wasn't actually a Seal but in some other similar but perhaps not quite as elite group, eg. UDT. Maybe he figured that would be the easiest for people to understand and relate to, rather than intending it as a gross embellishment. As you can see I tend to excuse that as not a big deal.

Anyway, yeah, funny thing about having heroes, and yes I agree we tend to overlook the people who just go to work everyday and do their jobs!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

zzdocxx, I do see your point. That said, there is an important distinction between condemning acts and condemning others. A minister who preaches repeatedly against the evils of alcohol may well be doing so precisely because he is mindful of his own particular vulnerability to alcohol. Same with a person who emphasizes the problems associated with greed, lust, etc. This does not make them evil or their messages necessarily wrong. But condemning people instead of acts is different. It should be avoided regardless of one's own particular sins, shortcomings, or embarrassments. It is perfectly fine, for instance, if one wants to believe that homosexual acts are sinful and wrong (as do I), but it is presumptuous to judge those who engage in such acts since culpability is a subjective matter whose assessment rests within a higher domain. God gives us the rule book, but only He gets to decide when to call a particular foul and what the penalty is. We can all look around us and observe objectively fouls and penalties, but it is perilous to believe that the man in the mirror is posting a better score.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> You raise a fair point, mrkleen, but I still think the penalty was disordered. It was grounded not in any degree of advantage, but in the nature of the offense, the gravity of which is centered on its moral heinousness rather than any speculative competitive advantage. Moreover, many lawyers who have watched this unfold have expressed grave concerns regarding the fairness of the process. Freeh's report reads like an advocate's indictment (given Freeh's experience that may not be surprising) rather than an unbiased investigation (his supposed commission). Inferential liberties with the facts abounded, and PSU had no practical recourse to object. The actual *facts* revealed in the report were layered and far more open to interpretation than suggested by the conclusions that were "Freehly" inferred. Have you actually read the report?


Mike - I did read the report and agree that it was very subjective and clearly came from a point of view, rather than an impartial position.

However, I feel like the NCAA made their decision based on a number of factors....not just the report. Clearly PSU had a systematic coverup of the allegations - so the entire university benefited from the coverup - think of all the grant money etc that the university received based on the reputation and spotlight which begins and ends with the football program.

Penn State was a Podunk university in the middle of nowhere - before Joe Pa showed up. They all benefited from the rise he brought....and it is only fair that they also suffer with the fall.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

A hero of mine, and I am certain many other members of this forum, passed away yesterday. 

R.I.P Neil Armstrong.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> A hero of mine, and I am certain many other members of this forum, passed away yesterday.
> 
> R.I.P Neil Armstrong.


RIP.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

"Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand."---Neil Armstrong

All of us aspire to heaven... few have had the opportunity to see it up close.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Look for this the next time you start a new job...*

This guy usually writes a a good column.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120825,0,2080853.column

And those guys at the university should have dropped a dime...


----------



## duckboot (Mar 26, 2007)

Fair winds, following seas.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Orsini said:


> This guy usually writes a a good column.
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120825,0,2080853.column
> 
> And those guys at the university should have dropped a dime...


In retrospect, yes, but are they not entitled to their day in court or at least to having their opinions heard, prior to being convicted in the fickle court of public opinion? Last I heard Curley and Schultz were still being muzzled with threats of Grand Jury sanctions if they spoke too freely, prior to their pending cases being heard and JoePa is up there coaching a squad of "Heavenly hosts" now and in no position to comment on his own behalf! What happened to that old saw about a person "being presumed innocent, until proven guilty?"


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> In retrospect, yes, but are they not entitled to their day in court or at least to having their opinions heard, prior to being convicted in the fickle court of public opinion? Last I heard Curley and Schultz were still being muzzled with threats of Grand Jury sanctions if they spoke too freely, prior to their pending cases being heard and JoePa is up there coaching a squad of "Heavenly hosts" now and in no position to comment on his own behalf! What happened to that old saw about a person "being presumed innocent, until proven guilty?"


I only know that Orsini would have called the local police immediaiely, and arranged for his lawyer to send a registered letter to the local DA on the following Monday. And then shipped out to California for a news conference on Thursday...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Finally, let me rant about hypocrisy -- the tribute vice pays to virtue. It has become fashionable to charge anyone who proclaims a virtue as being a hypocrite if he is in anyway imperfect, especially as it relates to the virtue proclaimed. In other words, no man has license to publicly oppose sin unless he is sinless. This is vile irrational nonsense. Hypocrisy is all too often the charge of lazy and prideful men who embrace low standards of behavior and take great satisfaction in being able to sustain those standards. The pride of these men impair their ability to embrace standards they cannot achieve. Ultimately, a man must choose one of two ways of living -- he can conform with ease his conscience to his actions and live in smug satisfaction or he can attempt imperfectly to conform his actions to his conscience and live with the uneasy guilt of knowing his limitations and need of mercy. Only the latter are called hypocrites.


Nice rant!!

If someone is accused of hypocricy, they are usually doing or trying to do something right, though imperfectly.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

May he who is free of sin cast the first stone.
Otherwise=hypocrite

If you can't mind your own morals, don't foist them off on someone else.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> May he who is free of sin cast the first stone.
> Otherwise=hypocrite
> 
> If you can't mind your own morals, don't foist them off on someone else.


Apologies Bjorn but I must allow that this sentiment is rather trite and moreover far too simplistic to be applicable to all sins.

Further hypocrisy is not, as it is so often taken to be, the act of doing one thing but saying another. It is in pretending to be one thing when one is really another. A crucial difference.

I am a sinner but that does not, nor should it, prevent me from expresssing dismay in the face of revolting transactions.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

blue suede shoes said:


> How about Joe Paterno? He coached well, they played well, and now all of a sudden their victories have been taken away. If I had played on his team during the years that the Association vacated his wins, I would mail copies of my diploma to the board members who made the decision with a letter telling them to take away the degree I earned also. And remember, when they vacated Penn State's wins, there wasn't any suspicion of doping or any type of unfair advantage. The punishment was only to satisfy cries of revenge, and the ones who suffered were the students.
> 
> I have the funny feeling I might be opening a can of worms with this post, but so be it. It is on topic.


I, for one, was surprised at the severity of the punishment, but after thinking about it, it really doesn't bother me too much.

The NCAA punishment of PSU was so severe in part to discourage these types of cover-ups in the future. If one supposes that the (in)actions of Paterno and the University were a consequence of them trying to protect the hyperbolic reputation of Penn State Football at the expense of Sandusky's victims, then vacating the victories seems a reasonable action. If the University had come clean earlier or immediately, there is a real chance that no wins would have been vacated.

I don't love the NCAA, but we shouldn't blame them for meting out the punishment, rather the blame falls on (1) the University leadership for conspiring to hide the criminal acts of Sandusky and (2) the "We Are Penn State" culture that led them to believe that they could get away with it.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*beware of virus.*



eagle2250 said:


> What happened to that old saw about a person "being presumed innocent, until proven guilty?"


hummm... beware of virus, nothing has changed--especially if you have a Dell laptop. :crazy:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Apologies Bjorn but I must allow that this sentiment is rather trite and moreover far too simplistic to be applicable to all sins.
> 
> Further hypocrisy is not, as it is so often taken to be, the act of doing one thing but saying another. It is in pretending to be one thing when one is really another. A crucial difference.
> 
> I am a sinner but that does not, nor should it, prevent me from expresssing dismay in the face of revolting transactions.


Doesn't doing one thing and saying another, and pretending to be one thing when one is really another, often coincide? Pretension requires communication, saying something.

Isn't it more trite to claim that hypocrites should be excused on the basis of them at least trying (to bs us into believing that they are something they are not, usually by doing one thing yet saying another)?

Trying to be as good as you can and failing does not make anyone a hypocrite. That lies in the pretension, which generally presupposes interaction for the purpose of tricking someone into thinking the hypocrite is one thing, when he/she is really another (i.e. doing one thing while saying another).

Hypocrites should be despised for being deceitful. Someone who tries and fails but does not pretend is not a hypocrite. Someone who very strongly promotes standards to others that he/she himself fails to uphold becomes a hypocrite. True leadership is by example.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Doesn't doing one thing and saying another, and pretending to be one thing when one is really another, often coincide? Pretension requires communication, saying something.
> 
> Isn't it more trite to claim that hypocrites should be excused on the basis of them at least trying (to bs us into believing that they are something they are not, usually by doing one thing yet saying another)?
> 
> ...


They may indeed occasionally coincide but they are not intrinsically alike. Saying one thing and doing another is not hypocrisy unless you pretend to be doing something other than you are saying. As you suggest, trying and failing does not make you a hypocrite - I agree. Despising deceit is an action with which I agree. A person may do one thing whilst saying another without any deceit at all. As example, I smoke but strongly encourage others to not commence the habit.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Shaver said:


> A hero of mine, and I am certain many other members of this forum, passed away yesterday.
> 
> R.I.P Neil Armstrong.


Nice to see that you are recognizing it over there; it is too bad no one is recognizing it over here. NJ Governor Christie lowered the flags to half staff when Whitney Houston died, but no one lowered any flags when Neil Armstrong died.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

My definition of hero:

soldier, sailor, airman, marine in a conflict zone
police officer
fire fighter
ambulance crew
school teacher
youth leader, community leader etc.
care worker (handicapped, elderly)
nurse
charity volunteers
humanitarian aid volunteers
etc.

Sportsmen and women doing what they love doing as a full-time profession for obscene amounts of money are not within my definition of hero.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My definition of hero:
> 
> soldier, sailor, airman, marine in a conflict zone
> police officer
> ...


I'm curious, all bar the last two are paid for their efforts... Is their a particular reason why charity and humanitarian aid professionals - who are paid for their efforts - don't qualify?! (sidebar, there is very little volunteerism left in the charity and humanitarian aid sector - it's been pretty much proven that it's more efficient and therefore cheaper to run an organisation professionally)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

blue suede shoes said:


> Nice to see that you are recognizing it over there; it is too bad no one is recognizing it over here. NJ Governor Christie lowered the flags to half staff when Whitney Houston died, but no one lowered any flags when Neil Armstrong died.


That is very disappointing, Neil Armstrong was a true hero.

I was at the Kennedy Space Centre recently, fulfilling a life long ambition to visit the place and view the artifacts on display.

In my opinion the Moon Shot (whatever the motivations people may wish to ascribe to it) was one of the Human achievements to which we can all look with deeply deserved awe and pride.

Mr Armstrong and his fellows were tough and brave as the day is long.

Ad astra per aspera.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The President ordered that flags be lowered to half staff in remembrance of Neil Armstrong.



lovemeparis said:


> hummm... beware of virus, nothing has changed--especially if you have a Dell laptop. :crazy:


:icon_scratch: I'm so confused(?)!



Earl of Ormonde said:


> My definition of hero:
> 
> soldier, sailor, airman, marine in a conflict zone
> police officer
> ...


Good summary of the category in question and and excellent point as well, Earl! However, if in reality such were finally determined to be the case, why is it that so many (of us) spend so much of our time focused on sports, either as wannabe participants or simply as observers. Is it, perchance, the Coliseum revisited?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

blue suede shoes said:


> Nice to see that you are recognizing it over there; it is too bad no one is recognizing it over here. NJ Governor Christie lowered the flags to half staff when Whitney Houston died, but no one lowered any flags when Neil Armstrong died.


But why should someone lower a flag for Whitney Houston? Neil Armstrong did more than Whitney.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Good question and one might also logically ask, why do we invest such detailed media coverage and lavish such undeserved attention on celebrities who do themselves in by their own hands and through the exercise of thier own unlawful excesses! Hell, we get so carried away with our fawning that said celebrities achieve greater financial success in death, than they enjoyed in life! When viewed through that lense, we are a pretty pathetic lot.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Good question and one might also logically ask, why do we invest such detailed media coverage and lavish such undeserved attention on celebrities who do themselves in by their own hands and through the exercise of thier own unlawful excesses!


To sell crap to people who don't need it, of course!!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> To sell crap to people who don't need it, of course!!


Geez, you've just described the root of modern western civilisation... Distill further to a single word? Envy, perhaps?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Geez, you've just described the root of modern western civilisation... Distill further to a single word? Envy, perhaps?


MWC puts on perfect morality plays but the point is ignored.

Without context and judgement there is only phony glamour.

Success, excess, decline and Death.

Anna, Amy, Whitney.

Lather, rinse, repeat!!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

I don't know who or what MWC is or means.....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Geez, you've just described the root of *m*odern *w*estern *c*ivilisation... Distill further to a single word? Envy, perhaps?


MWC.

We've coined a new acronym!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Good question and one might also logically ask, why do we invest such detailed media coverage and lavish such undeserved attention on celebrities who do themselves in by their own hands and through the exercise of thier own unlawful excesses! Hell, we get so carried away with our fawning that said celebrities achieve greater financial success in death, than they enjoyed in life! When viewed through that lense, we are a pretty pathetic lot.


Hall Of fame? yes but lowering a flag for a junkie? No way!


----------



## jkranites (Jul 29, 2012)

to quote my Military relatives "the only hero's are the one's who didn't come back"


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

jkranites said:


> to quote my Military relatives "the only hero's are the one's who didn't come back"


Agreed. I saw Neil Armstrong step onto the moon when I was a kid. One of the highlights of my life. That said; the real heroes to me have always been those who fell on Normandy's beaches, and the beaches of Tarawa, Iwo Jima, etc.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hero??

Look!! Over there!!



> When the world looks at us today, they see an American
> government that cannot live within its means. They see an
> American government that continues to borrow money, that will
> mortgage the future of generations to come. The world knows
> ...


Condoleeza Rice

08/29/2012

Absolutely DREAMY!!


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My definition of hero:
> 
> soldier, sailor, airman, marine in a conflict zone
> police officer
> ...


This list sums it up for me. As far as sportsmen, I agree that individuals shouldn't be granted the hero title simply for being an athlete, but there are some, as in all fields, that may have done or overcome something extraordinary to get where they are, and they deserve recognition and emulation.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> I'm curious, all bar the last two are paid for their efforts... Is their a particular reason why charity and humanitarian aid professionals - who are paid for their efforts - don't qualify?! (sidebar, there is very little volunteerism left in the charity and humanitarian aid sector - it's been pretty much proven that it's more efficient and therefore cheaper to run an organisation professionally)


Let me make my point another way then:

People who do difficult yet vital societal jobs for little or no pay & often as a vocation, a calling to help society.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Let me make my point another way then:
> 
> People who do difficult yet vital societal jobs for little or no pay & often as a vocation, a calling to help society.


Cool. It's nice then, that I can be thought of as a hero!  (not that I think of myself that way, you understand. Modesty prevents.... et.al)


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> First, it is sad the we look upon athletes and other entertainers as heroes. While we may admire their talent, skill, and dedication, a true hero is someone who acts selflessly, usually with courage and risk to his well-being, and does so with effectiveness and often great grace. Our celebrity culture is unfortunate and somewhat pathetic.


Although I generally agree with this sentiment, being an athlete and a true hero aren't always mutually exclusive:

*Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans.

Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn't consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?

Sure, I'm lucky.

Who wouldn't consider it an honor to have known ? Also, the builder of baseball's greatest empire, ? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, ? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, ?

Sure, I'm lucky.

When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift - that's something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies - that's something. When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter - that's something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so that you can have an education and build your body - it's a blessing. When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed - that's the finest I know.

So I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for. Thank you.
*

- Lou Gehrig at Yankee Stadium, July 4, 1939​


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

absolutely right.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

There was an athlete in the 70s who said it best (I can't remember who it was "If your kid's hero is any farther than the head of table, something is wrong."


Don't get me wrong, there are people I admire, like Neil Armstrong (who once sued his own barber), and Lance Armstrong (who decided he wasn't going to be part of the witchhunt any longer), but heroes by their very nature are not real. They are an ideal. They are larger than life, something we hope to attain. People are imperfect, and their flaws are why we love them. We didn't watch the Tours De France to see Lance win? We watched to see him COMPETE. He was one of many men that could have one. He just happened to manage it 7 time. Neil Armstrong was the first on the moon, and he showed up mankind could get there. We could get there.


These are men who show us things are possible. But heroes? None of these men showed me how to use a table saw, or fix a toilet, or change a tire. Walking on the moon is cool and all, but being able to shoot a rifle and hunt my own food can save my life.


----------

