Why do so many people hate Disco / USPS / Lance Armstrong

jimmythecuckoo

I am just saying why I think Pantani is more popular than Lance amongst the cycling fans.

drenkrom

I don't like Tailwind Sports because they so controlled the information that got out about their team that you have to start a thread to ask why people don't like them.

NlEDERMEYER

paulf2007 wrote:

if I didn't have a bad knee I would be out riding right now instead I'm reading this crap. Lance opened non cycling peoples eyes to the tour. He was misquoted so many times by the french press he finally refused to talk to them. He was tested constantly for dope and as he said in his book, after all the chemicals he had in his body to kill the cancer he wouldn't ever put drugs in his body again. Scientists tested armstrong and said they had never met another athlete who could absorb as much oxygen into his blood. He was a gifted rider who could win in a sprint but cycling etiquette means you don't take away the sprinters days to win a stage. So for gods sake let the man alone. If you want to knock anyone, pick on the cheats that have been found out, like our own david millar for instance who is half the time triallist he used to be.

This oft-quoted statement has to be the most illogical ever. "I had to take loads of drugs. They cured me of cancer. Therefore I will never take any drugs again" .Duh?

overmars

NlEDERMEYER wrote:

paulf2007 wrote:

if I didn't have a bad knee I would be out riding right now instead I'm reading this crap. Lance opened non cycling peoples eyes to the tour. He was misquoted so many times by the french press he finally refused to talk to them. He was tested constantly for dope and as he said in his book, after all the chemicals he had in his body to kill the cancer he wouldn't ever put drugs in his body again. Scientists tested armstrong and said they had never met another athlete who could absorb as much oxygen into his blood. He was a gifted rider who could win in a sprint but cycling etiquette means you don't take away the sprinters days to win a stage. So for gods sake let the man alone. If you want to knock anyone, pick on the cheats that have been found out, like our own david millar for instance who is half the time triallist he used to be.

This oft-quoted statement has to be the most illogical ever. "I had to take loads of drugs. They cured me of cancer. Therefore I will never take any drugs again" .Duh?

"I had to take loads of alcohol. They cured me of [insert reasoning]. Now that I'm cured... I will never take any alcohol again"

:twisted:

drenkrom

Yeah! the only thing between the riders' legs we care about is their bike. Do you see us calling LA "Monotestie"?

DaveyL

Given the aggressive nature of chemotherapy drugs, especially "back" in the mid-90s, these courses of treatment would have been extremely unpleasant (and often still are). It's highly possible LA developed the attitude quoted above.

DaveyL

PS Meant to say - having looked through the Armstrong rebuttal stuff on the paceline website (after listening to those radio shows) - the key thing that jumped out at me was Armstrong's oncologist, Dr Carig Nichols, statement that he monitored Armstrong's blood right up to 2001 and he would have known if LA had been taking EPO or blood doping, and that he found no such evidence. It's possible this guy could be covering, but he's a highly respected doctor and this would be a massive conspiracy theory (fearing bad PR for Indiana medical centre, or cut off of funds).

Kléber

DaveyL wrote:

Armstrong's oncologist, Dr Carig Nichols, statement that he monitored Armstrong's blood right up to 2001 and he would have known if LA had been taking EPO or blood doping, and that he found no such evidence.

I gather Walsh alleges that soon before the sworn statement was made, a $1.5 million donation was made to Indiana University by Armstrong's foundation: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-arm ... &cset=true

DaveyL wrote:

It's highly possible...

You can believe in him if you want to, or indeed if you need to. Similarly, if you want to debate possibility, the fact that a rider was systematically producing higher power/weight data than known EPO users makes it possible too that he was doping too.

We can speculate for hours and hours about possibilities. Start with your conclusion and work backwards to find the evidence to back your arguments...

overmars

Kléber wrote:

We can speculate for hours and hours about possibilities. Start with your conclusion and work backwards to find the evidence to back your arguments...

But if your conclusions are based on speculation how can there be any evidence?

If there really is credible evidence give it to a lawyer and put it in court. If not, well... serialise it in the Sun.

Edit: whoops! Wrong guy name with quote!

DaveyL

I'm pretty agnostic on this one, Kleber. You'll note the wording of my posts did not reveal whether I believe in LA or not, I was just pointing out possibilities. That's a pretty major conspiracy theory brewing with Nichols though. Still, if Walsh *alleges* it...

Mark Alexander

gsd wrote:

When Lance was around they seemed to only focus on the Tour de France. They focused all of their energies on that race due to its profile and abandoned some of the prestigious classics. They applied more clinical, controlling tactics to the tour which took away some of its excitement and made it more predictable. In short, they made it all more boring.

Look at the Ferrari years 2000, "01"02 "03 "04. Everyone loves to hate a sucess.

hevipedal

The old green eyed monster

People hate other peoples success. LA and DISCO were never boring, I watch those TdFs DVDs again and again
Inspiring

whiskywheels

And so it came to pass.......................four and a half years later......................and still no positive test for Armstrong.

andyp

You feel vindicated?

Wow. It's like the last two years never happened.

mfin

LA isnt hated by people who dont know a lot though, people with a casual interest in cycling love the 'dominance', they find it a wonderful story. Add to that the cancer recovery, and then the Livestrong charity, and if you dont know any better you'll think its brilliant.

Personally I dont hate LA. But, I throughly believe, 100% that he was doped to the gills. Ive read a lot to decide it. Ive read enough to decide it. Hate is a strong word though. I think he's a cheat, amongst a lot of cheats in that era. Cheating to beat other cheats is still cheating. I believe he was doping, so therefore believe he was cheating. End of.

The cancer recovery as a personal story is great. Ignore the cycling. One of my very best friends had Tesicular Cancer at 17-18, lost one of them as you do... then in his case it spread to his stomach. He survived, thank god. He did not beat cancer. He survived it, and years and years later he's still fine.

My friend hasnt gained magical super-powers post cancer.

I dont find Livestrong honourable. Perhaps being British, the Corporate/Charity share of the brand makes me feel uneasy. I find it sick that they use Charity money to fight court cases which should be taken on by the Corporate, ie. the BarkStrong rubbish that went on.

I also find the running costs of Livestrong wrong. The percentage of donations that get used to help anyone is far far too small. I dont mind that they help people with cancer rather than invest in research, but I think 'beating cancer' is a phrase used by LA and it sounds too much to me like research, which its not. Its sounds like a 'high fiving' americanesque thing to say, empty and stupid.

Look at the Michael J Fox charity as another charity with a superstar figurehead and see how much they spend on expenses, its a lot less percentage???

A lot of money is spent on 'Livestrong awareness' not 'Cancer awareness', whatever that would mean... but you can see the promotion of Livestrong and the huuuuuuge spend there.... and the more brand strength in the Charity, (created from promotion made possible by spending donations), well, the more the Corporate of the same name and logo gets promoted and makes more money.

Now, I could be wrong on any of the above, but Im not wrong that it all makes me feel very uncomfortable with the LA phenomenon or whatever you'd call it.... the only thing I am sure of thats revelant to cycling is that he is/was a talented cyclist, no doubt there at all.

The 'never tested positive' is perhaps the stupidest defence Ive ever heard though for the doping, I cant see how anyone can possibly believe that holds any water when so many have admitted doping, or got caught by other means than testing positive, and have never tested positive either.

No-one will believe me if I say I dont hate him now ...but I dont.

blazing_saddles

Blimey, this corpse took some digging up.

ddraver

Wow - this is even older than BE WARNED!!!

rick_chasey

shouldbeinbed

Lance who? Never heard of the fella.