Whether you 'stand at a face off' or 'stand for a face off'

Question

Hi,I intend to use the phrase 'stand for a face off' in a sentence below. I wish to know the correctness of the sentence belowin accordance with the grammatical rules:"Price to be paid for win-at-all-costs attitude and the unchallenged rise of an underdog to win the toughest sports event in the world stand for a face off. "Which is the correct construct to use in this case - "stand for a face off" or "stand at a face off" if I intend to contrast the the attitude to the rise in the above sentence.In case you need to refer, the entire paragraph is as below:"One of the wolds most celebrated sportsman and a personal favorite, the man who endured cancer and rose to fame against all odds by winning 7 consecutive Tour-De-France titles with sheer resilience, stakes to loose all that he has earned in a lifetime as surrenders to doping charges. He rests his case stating he has had enough of this nonsense. While two-year long federal investigations into Armstrong's doping allegations returned empty, while there exists zero physical evidence to support the claims of US Anti-doping agency Armstrong's case is trailed by allegations by former team mates, colleagues and controversial news. Price to be paid for Win-at-all-costs attitude and the unchallenged rise of an underdog to win the toughest sports event in the world stand for a face off. "Thanks in advance for your suggestions!

BarbaraPA · Accepted Answer

I'm sorry, but that entire sentence is unintelligible. Even in the context of the rest of what is written (which has a number of other mistakes), I really don't know what you mean.

What two sides are facing off? I understand the idea of paying a price for a "win at all costs" attitude, but is that what you think about Armstrong? You say he's a personal favorite, so the idea that he would lie, cheat, and be willing to hurt others (all implied by saying a "win at all costs" attitude) doesn't reconcile to your opinions.

Your sentences are just too long for your reader to easily follow. He "stands" (not stakes) to "lose" (not loose), there is no subject for the verb "surrenders." Was his direct quote "I've had enough of this nonsense" or is that your editorial view?

Anonymous · Answer

Hello Grammar Geek,

Thank you for your critique (and your patience) with my question. Any lacunae in being able to put forth my thoughts intelligibly in my argument result from my ignorance alone. I’ll be grateful if you could be so kind as to shed light on my mistakes (including the ones made in writing this reply).

I just wish to let you know, the write-up was meant to comment on a newspaper article about Armstrong's fight against doping charges (here is the link, if you care to read: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?smid=pl-share)

Please find the requested clarification to your questions as below:
What two sides are facing off?
It may not be clear from my write-up, but the alleged dispute is a face off between the doping charges filed by US Anti-doping agency, their attempt to strip Armstrong off all his achievements and their comments about how a win-at-all-cost attitude adhering to wrongdoing needs to pay the price versus Armstrong's claims of innocence in an attempt to retain his honor and achievements. I intended to contrast these two sides in my comment.

Your sentences are just too long for your reader to easily follow.
Why do you dissuade use of long sentences? Is it merely considered an aberration or is out rightly unacceptable?

He "stands" (not stakes) to "lose" (not loose), there is no subject for the verb "surrenders."
The subject ‘he’ was unintentionally missed out.

Was his direct quote "I've had enough of this nonsense" or is that your editorial view?
Yes, it was a direct quote.

Any other corrections/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks

Anonymous · Answer

Can someone please help answer my question?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Hello,
Usually quite a few people will answer. I, for one, have been stymied by your question because the post is quite difficult to interpret. . I will try to change it for the better..

"One of the world's most celebrated sportsmen and a personal favorite, the man who endured cancer and rose to fame against all odds by winning seven consecutive Tour De France titles by sheer resilience, stands to lose ( or "risks losing") all that he has earned in a lifetime as he drops his legal fight against ~~surrenders~~ to doping charges. He rests his case stating he has had enough of this nonsense.
While two-year-long federal investigations into Armstrong's doping allegations returned empty, and while there exists zero physical evidence to support the claims of the US Anti-doping agency, Armstrong's case has been plagued (dogged?) ~~is trailed~~ by allegations made by former team mates, colleagues and controversial news sources. The price to be paid for his win-at-all-costs attitude and his ~~the~~ unchallenged rise as an underdog to win the toughest sports event in the world stands at ~~for~~ a face off with his adversaries "

The last sentence is still quite problematic.
I don't understand how someone would "pay a price" for winning a sporting event.
That he would have issues arising from an arrogant attitude is understandable.
Also, how can a price stand at a face-off? Armstrong may stand at a face-off with his adversaries, but not a price.
Think about what you really want to say. Who or what is standing at a face-off?

Anonymous · Answer

Greetings AlpheccaStars,

Thank you very much for your critique. You guy's are benevolent puritans of the world of English grammar.

(pardon me if a smiley is not considered as a part of standard English usage.)

I agree the last sentence does not make sense, let me clarify what I intended to say:

When I said "pay a price" for winning a sporting event, I meant paying a price for winning a sports by adopting a win-at-all-costs attitude (even if it means resorting to performance enhancing drugs) which is immoral and therefore not justified. I wish to imply the following two sides: 1. US ADA's doping allegations resulting from adopting a win-at-all-cost attitude and 2. Armstrong's denial and his claims of innocence, supported by his rise to glory as the unchallenged underdog to win the toughest sports event are standing at a face-off.

So if I rephrase the last sentences, do you think it would make any sense?
"US ADA's doping allegations and the resulting price to be paid by forfeiting all that he has earned in his lifetime causal to adopting a runaway win-at-all-costs attitude and Armstrong's claims of innocence as the unchallenged underdog who won the toughest sports event in the world stands at face off"

If not, please help suggest a suitable construct.

Many Thanks,

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Thanks for the kudos!

Perhaps this might work:

So at present, there is a stand-off (or face-off) between Armstrong and the US ADA. Armstrong stands firmly in his denials and his unsoiled reputation as the unchallenged underdog who won the toughest sports event, never testing positive, and the US-ADA stands equally firmly in their conviction that Armstrong's win-at-all-costs attitude inevitably led to a regime of doping.

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks again! This helps resolve my question.

Whether you 'stand at a face off' or 'stand for a face off'

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions