Prend, you rated a mention in the last few lines.
I don't understand the phrasing you used (might be one of a few colloquial differences in variations of English), but I'll guess that the last few lines of the article are in reference to earlier discussions in this thread...
Which brings me back to this: are you thinking I actually condone
his actions? Because I do not. In fact, why don't you (and while we're at it, the multiple personalities of artray) go back and take a read of this thread. Please do. I'll wait. Go for it....
You'll find: I do not condone his actions - but I also point out that he's a young kid. I point out that he should mature. In fact, I mention this several times. He also apologized (albeit via twitter) for his actions, which is a hopeful sign - again, as I wrote earlier - that he will mature in time.
Now, what I'm wondering is this: is there a serious difficulty in people being able to read clearly? At what point did I actually condone
his actions? Seriously, when? I suggested some possible reasons for it, and did point out that he is young, but do I condone his actions? No. Did I state then as I state now that he needs to mature and change that aspect? Yes. How are you and others missing that? Are you seriously not reading?
What I don't understand - of many of you here - is that when one person praises a rider's actions in the race, you assume that the same person is suddenly making a hero of that rider... I really don't see that unless that person states that exact phrase. Where are many of you making that illogical leap or assumption?viewtopic.php?f=14&t=103986&p=925677&hilit=heroes#p925677
prendrefeu wrote:I never understood why a professional athlete would be considered a "hero" when they do nothing to directly affect the future of the world. ...
Professional athletes are not heroes.
Pro cycling, like any professional sport, is just entertainment. That's all it really is. Sure there's an industry in alignment with a sport, and as such the entertainment value of that sport helps support (in some part, but not completely) the industry - and there's an economy with that industry (jobs, families, livlihoods, etc:.) but in the end it's just entertainment. As I write this professional sport has absolutely no real-world consequence. Professional athletes, no matter how they are paid, have very little or no impact on the well being of the world while they are professional athletes. They certainly have the capability of making an impact afterwards, but the liklihood is low. The future of the world, whether it be in cures for diseases, explored lands, environmental issues, social issues, or even things such as land aquisitions, power and control (ie, wars) is never affected by sport. If the UCI ends tomorrow, if there are no more pro races to watch, I'll still go out and ride my bike. It won't affect how much I enjoy my ride. It won't change my desire to improve as a cyclist or affect in any way my desire to improve in other aspects of my life. Sport, in the end, is just enterainment. Why do people take it so seriously?