To those that still believe Lance was clean, listen to this:
Comments
-
Jez mon wrote:Well in case you didn't note, Contador is more or less riding with the same back up team as Lance did, so read into that what you will.
BUT some mitigating factors.
Lance beat the best stage racers of his generation 7 times, in fact people beleived that Ullrich had MORE natural talent than Lance, Contador, beat someone who despite using CERA, couldn't ride a TT for s***.
HOWEVER, I'm not going to say that I'm sure Contador is clean, however, I there is more chance of him being clean than Lance
That just baffles me. The fact that you can honestly claim that Contador is more likely to be clean than Lance. Why? Because Lance beat Ullrich? Well, just as you pointed out Ricco can't time trial, Ullrich let himself get fat and out of shape during the winter. I am not making a case for Contador using peds I am just making the point that the standards and the goalposts change for different riders. Because it's Lance, ye, ye, guy who won the Tour De France 7 times, he's got to be on something while it's quite possible Contador isn't. You can't tell me it's more or less likely that either have been using drugs. The fact that there is no real evidence against Armstrong after all the investigations could in fact suggest it's more likely that he is/was clean. It's a bit backwards for people to state that because there have been investigations - investigations that have not found anything naughty - then he must have been doping for there to be investigations.
You could be taken to court tomorrow, connected to an incident that you aren't even aware of. In this context, think of how important the evidence is to you. It's the same for Lance.0 -
Oh well, seeing as this thread seems to have gone to the dogs already, going even further off-topic can`t really hurt much...
The problem is that to some Americans regard criticising anything to do with the US as being evidence of `Anti-American hate`!idaviesmoore wrote:
Sorry, I'm confused. Was hate ever mentioned. :?PauloBets wrote:Just cause you hate Americans
Armstrong himself has exploited such attitudes, as when he tried to portray the exposè of his use of Epo in the 1999 Tour as being motivated by `Anti-Americanism`. (A ploy which more than anything highlighted the rabid `Freedom Fries` anti French xenophobia which clearly exists amongst many in the US).
I have a feeling this hang-up some Americans apparently have about such supposed `hatred` is actually a reflection of the way America as a nation itself often behaves on the world stage, the subconscious logic being that, given the way the US behaves, much of the rest of the world surely cannot but hate America!
Dismissing justified criticism as being motivated by nothing more than blind `hate` is also a strategy used to deflect and trivialise such criticism.
I feel there are many issues where criticism of the US is fully justified, especially when these issues have a global influence. For example, just look at the actions of the goons in the Republican party; the US`s illegal invasion of Iraq; it`s international program of kidnap and torture (euphemistically termed `rendition`) and it`s refusal to sign international treaties on issues such as chemical/biological weapons and climate change. The US is also leading to ongoing imposition of neo-liberal hegemony across the globe. Then there is the fact the US has one of the highest levels of poverty in the developed world and locks up more people per head of the population than any other country on earth. (Nationally 1 in 130 Americans is in Jail, with the figure being more than 1 in every 100 in some southern states, with the figures for ethnic minorities being even higher). Then there are all those anti-science, anti-rationalist Bible-belt fanatics, gun nuts, white supremacists, rednecks, and small town hicks who couldn`t find the New York on a map let alone somewhere like Britain, and which form a such a `colourful` part of the American scene !
However, I would argue that highlighting any or even all of the above is certainly not evidence of Anti-American `hate`, not least because so many of the issues which draw criticism are themselves perversions of what the US has historically stood for.* Similarly whilst I might not personally have much time for Armstrong or his pal Bush, I also have a deep admiration for many Americans , ranging from Paul Robeson to Noam Chomsky and Bill Hicks to Greg Lemond.
* Thankfully, many Americans feel likewise:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
(To understand why this site has the name it has do a little research on `Project for the New American Century.`. Be warned though, some of what you will read is rather scary!).0 -
In reality there is enough to quite literally fill a book! Ever read From Lance to Landis?Patrick1.0 wrote:The fact that there is no real evidence against Armstrong...
What `investigations`? There was one judicial investigation I know of, which was launched in France after those Epo `positives` came to light. Given that it was prior evidence of doping which led to this investigation it cannot be claimed that the investigation in no way reflected on the question of whether Armstrong doped!Patrick1.0 wrote:...after all the investigations could in fact suggest it's more likely that he is/was clean. It's a bit backwards for people to state that because there have been investigations - investigations that have not found anything naughty - then he must have been doping for there to be investigations.
Secondly, it is really stretching things to claim they did not find anything because there was nothing to find. Rather the investigation foundered because those called to give evidence, such as the notorious doping doctor and Armstrong`s `trainer` Michael Ferrari, refused to hand over the material requested, with the investigation running out of time as a consequence.0 -
The US is also leading to ongoing imposition of neo-liberal hegemony across the globe.
Wait, what? The US? Liberal? By what definition?0 -
Brits don't like winners.0
-
aurelio wrote:
In reality there is enough to quite literally fill a book! Ever read From Lance to Landis?Patrick1.0 wrote:The fact that there is no real evidence against Armstrong...
What `investigations`? There was one judicial investigation I know of, which was launched in France after those Epo `positives` came to light. Given that it was prior evidence of doping which led to this investigation it cannot be claimed that the investigation in no way reflected on the question of whether Armstrong doped!Patrick1.0 wrote:...after all the investigations could in fact suggest it's more likely that he is/was clean. It's a bit backwards for people to state that because there have been investigations - investigations that have not found anything naughty - then he must have been doping for there to be investigations.
Secondly, it is really stretching things to claim they did not find anything because there was nothing to find. Rather the investigation foundered because those called to give evidence, such as the notorious doping doctor and Armstrong`s `trainer` Michael Ferrari, refused to hand over the material requested, with the investigation running out of time as a consequence.
All of this proves what? Oh wait, I forgot, you read "From Lance to Landis". Ya know, I
just might write a scathing expose on the "Lance Problem". I don't really know much about it, but then again who does? Plus look at all the suckers buying every book that
comes along. I'm going to tap into that money for myself. So get ready because it's going
to be filled with BLOCKBUSTER info, never before heard in public. I intend to expose the
underbelly of cycling like no one before me. No one is safe. No one too high up to avoid
careful scrutiny. Every email, every doctors record, everyone involved. No stone left unturned. Or is it no left turn unstoned?
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote:
In reality there is enough to quite literally fill a book! Ever read From Lance to Landis?Patrick1.0 wrote:The fact that there is no real evidence against Armstrong...
What `investigations`? There was one judicial investigation I know of, which was launched in France after those Epo `positives` came to light. Given that it was prior evidence of doping which led to this investigation it cannot be claimed that the investigation in no way reflected on the question of whether Armstrong doped!Patrick1.0 wrote:...after all the investigations could in fact suggest it's more likely that he is/was clean. It's a bit backwards for people to state that because there have been investigations - investigations that have not found anything naughty - then he must have been doping for there to be investigations.
Secondly, it is really stretching things to claim they did not find anything because there was nothing to find. Rather the investigation foundered because those called to give evidence, such as the notorious doping doctor and Armstrong`s `trainer` Michael Ferrari, refused to hand over the material requested, with the investigation running out of time as a consequence.
If you dealt in reality more often, you wouldn't be criticised for your opinions so much. You choose what you want to believe due to an ingrained bias. That's fine but just don't expect me to see everything the same way as you, OK?
And I am English, not American, but unlike the French, I have no axe to grind with Lance Armstrong. The findings are the findings, you can always show me something to change my mind, but we both know that won't happen because there is nothing substantial that you can offer. It's all out there and yet the guy is returning to pro cycling. Go figure.0 -
Brits don't like poeple who after reading a long detailed and thoughtful post about how some Brits don't like some aspects of America, suddenly go on to conclude that Brits don't like winners.
Yes there is some negativity towards the domination of track cycling and Cavendish. BUT the supporters far outweigh the grumpy old fools who want to be like Victor Meldrew.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
You'll be well liked, then.PauloBets wrote:Brits don't like winners.
This forum has gone down the toilet, in the space of a week."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
PauloBets wrote:Brits don't like winners.
Only the ones called PauloBets 8) .
But in seriousness, cycling is just about the only sport I have come across where winning is not always the biggest part of the deal. In athletics, tennis, football, etc, the winning is everything. In a major bike race, because there are so many roles performed by different riders, it isn't in every case. I think that's part of cycling's charm. Sure, if you're a GC contender, it's your job to try and win but you won't necessarily be in that position all the year round. I think Lance explained that he enjoyed working for Roberto Heras in one particular stage race. The whole thing of winners and losers is a really limited perspective; you are where you are and if you want to get better, nobody is stopping you.0 -
It's known here as the 'Lance effect'. Hopefully all the Lance acolytes will disappear soon and we can get back to talking about racing again.Blazing Saddles wrote:This forum has gone down the toilet, in the space of a week.0 -
andyp wrote:
It's known here as the 'Lance effect'. Hopefully all the Lance acolytes will disappear soon and we can get back to talking about racing again.Blazing Saddles wrote:This forum has gone down the toilet, in the space of a week.
Pleeeeeeeease. Do any of the people in these threads (both sides) even like cycling?0 -
andyp wrote:
It's known here as the 'Lance effect'. Hopefully all the Lance acolytes will disappear soon and we can get back to talking about racing again.Blazing Saddles wrote:This forum has gone down the toilet, in the space of a week.
No, No, No. This post has to keep going . At least until my "scathing expose" on Lance comes out in print.. Hang in there guys. How long could it take to write one of those
books?? Couple of weeks, tops? Then all will be revealed. Trust me.
Dennis Noward0 -
Whatever the case, be it because he is Made in America, from Texas, or simply makes cycling look too easy, there are always going to be all the haters for Lance.
This subject falls into the same level of Mustang 5.0 vs. Honda Civic Turbo, to those who have visited Streetfire, its the same dog with different collar.
Here are some words of wisdom; LA is GOD! Suck it up.
He is the Elite Pimp Daddy of racing, the Mecca, The Ying and the Yang and all because he is Made in America, LOL.0 -
psiturbo wrote:Whatever the case, be it because he is Made in America, from Texas, or simply makes cycling look too easy, there are always going to be all the haters for Lance.
This subject falls into the same level of Mustang 5.0 vs. Honda Civic Turbo, to those who have visited Streetfire, its the same dog with different collar.
Here are some words of wisdom; LA is GOD! Suck it up.
He is the Elite Pimp Daddy of racing, the Mecca, The Ying and the Yang and all because he is Made in America, LOL.
ROFLCOPTER @ your complete lack of knowledge of cycling. Yet another Lance fan who doesn't know who Eddy Merckx is.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:psiturbo wrote:Whatever the case, be it because he is Made in America, from Texas, or simply makes cycling look too easy, there are always going to be all the haters for Lance.
This subject falls into the same level of Mustang 5.0 vs. Honda Civic Turbo, to those who have visited Streetfire, its the same dog with different collar.
Here are some words of wisdom; LA is GOD! Suck it up.
He is the Elite Pimp Daddy of racing, the Mecca, The Ying and the Yang and all because he is Made in America, LOL.
ROFLCOPTER @ your complete lack of knowledge of cycling. Yet another Lance fan who doesn't know who Eddy Merckx is.
Edouard Louis Joseph Merckx - Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "Eddy".
No clue why I posted that.
Dennis Noward0 -
i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true?
not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.0 -
rapid_uphill wrote:i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true?
not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.
No, youve got it all wrong. We don't love our "steds" but we do love our "roids".
Dennis Noward0 -
`Steroids are as American as apple pie.`dennisn wrote:
No, youve got it all wrong. We don't love our "steds" but we do love our "roids". Dennis Nowardrapid_uphill wrote:i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true? not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.
http://www.biggerstrongerfastermovie.co ... mpaign=BSF
`God knows what happened during that winter but Lance came back the spring of `96 and he was frickin` huge. He looked like a linebacker. It was `Holy shit, man, he is big.` Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about Ferrari not realising the effect the weight room was going to have...`0 -
aurelio wrote:
`Steroids are as American as apple pie.`dennisn wrote:
No, youve got it all wrong. We don't love our "steds" but we do love our "roids". Dennis Nowardrapid_uphill wrote:i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true? not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.
http://www.biggerstrongerfastermovie.co ... mpaign=BSF
`God knows what happened during that winter but Lance came back the spring of `96 and he was frickin` huge. He looked like a linebacker. It was `Holy shit, man, he is big.` Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about Ferrari not realising the effect the weight room was going to have...`
I won't comment on the apple pie thing. I couldn't possibly think of anything quite that stupid to say.
As for the linebacker stuff. Have you ever really taken a good look at a Pro Football
linebacker? Make Lance look like a scrawny pencil neck geek.
And this "effect" the weight room had. Put a barbell across your shoulders and do deep
knee bends and all that other leg work. You'll get thighs like Lance. I don't ride a lot in the winter. I switch over to weights(lots of leg presses, toe raises, leg curls, leg extensions but no squats - neck problem) and some running. If I really push it my legs just seem to
sprout muscle and I'm almost 60. Then again I have somewhat short legs and that always
helps when it comes to building big muscles. Don't know if Lance has short legs or not.
Weights build muscle . Whether you use steroids or not.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
`Steroids are as American as apple pie.`dennisn wrote:
No, youve got it all wrong. We don't love our "steds" but we do love our "roids". Dennis Nowardrapid_uphill wrote:i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true? not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.
http://www.biggerstrongerfastermovie.co ... mpaign=BSF
`God knows what happened during that winter but Lance came back the spring of `96 and he was frickin` huge. He looked like a linebacker. It was `Holy shit, man, he is big.` Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about Ferrari not realising the effect the weight room was going to have...`
I won't comment on the apple pie thing. I couldn't possibly think of anything quite that stupid to say.
As for the linebacker stuff. Have you ever really taken a good look at a Pro Football
linebacker? Make Lance look like a scrawny pencil neck geek.
And this "effect" the weight room had. Put a barbell across your shoulders and do deep
knee bends and all that other leg work. You'll get thighs like Lance. I don't ride a lot in the winter. I switch over to weights(lots of leg presses, toe raises, leg curls, leg extensions but no squats - neck problem) and some running. If I really push it my legs just seem to
sprout muscle and I'm almost 60. Then again I have somewhat short legs and that always
helps when it comes to building big muscles. Don't know if Lance has short legs or not.
Weights build muscle . Whether you use steroids or not.
Dennis Noward
Dennis For President!!!!............YAAAAAAAY
'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity0 -
He seems well qualified, given that what he writes is about as coherent as the sort of stuff Bush comes out with! Reading his `stream of consciousness` postings on this thread I was tempted to think that Dennis might be posting under the influence of mind-altering chemicals. Apparently he just suffers from being an `merican!idaviesmoore wrote:Dennis For President!!!!............YAAAAAAAY 0 -
idaviesmoore wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
`Steroids are as American as apple pie.`dennisn wrote:
No, youve got it all wrong. We don't love our "steds" but we do love our "roids". Dennis Nowardrapid_uphill wrote:i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true? not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.
http://www.biggerstrongerfastermovie.co ... mpaign=BSF
`God knows what happened during that winter but Lance came back the spring of `96 and he was frickin` huge. He looked like a linebacker. It was `Holy shit, man, he is big.` Obviously we all noticed it and he knew we did. He said something about Ferrari not realising the effect the weight room was going to have...`
I won't comment on the apple pie thing. I couldn't possibly think of anything quite that stupid to say.
As for the linebacker stuff. Have you ever really taken a good look at a Pro Football
linebacker? Make Lance look like a scrawny pencil neck geek.
And this "effect" the weight room had. Put a barbell across your shoulders and do deep
knee bends and all that other leg work. You'll get thighs like Lance. I don't ride a lot in the winter. I switch over to weights(lots of leg presses, toe raises, leg curls, leg extensions but no squats - neck problem) and some running. If I really push it my legs just seem to
sprout muscle and I'm almost 60. Then again I have somewhat short legs and that always
helps when it comes to building big muscles. Don't know if Lance has short legs or not.
Weights build muscle . Whether you use steroids or not.
Dennis Noward
Dennis For President!!!!............YAAAAAAAY
Actually I'm running for Vice-Predident. Lot less work - more time to ride.
Dennis Noward0 -
aurelio wrote:
He seems well qualified, given that what he writes is about as coherent as the sort of stuff Bush comes out with! Reading his `stream of consciousness` postings on this thread I was tempted to think that Dennis might be posting under the influence of mind-altering chemicals. Apparently he just suffers from being an `merican!idaviesmoore wrote:Dennis For President!!!!............YAAAAAAAY
You just wait until you're 60 years old and we will see how many mind altering chemicals the doctors have you taking. A little Prozac for depression here and god knows what else for god knows what else there. It helps your writting(I think).
As for the suffering, well, I'm almost retired and knowing that, I've gotten a whole new
attitude toward life in the past few years(or maybe it was the mind altering chemicals).
It's so confusing.
Dennis Noward0 -
who cares about lance- what the fupp is a ROLFCOPTER?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
fast as fupp wrote:who cares about lance- what the fupp is a ROLFCOPTER?
Ya. what is a ROLFCOPTER?0 -
Tsk your such n00bs :roll:
It's roflcopter, not rolfcopter
I.E. rolling on the floor laughing, but with copter added on the end, like a sort of sentence enhancer unfortunately, spending too much time with geeks does bad things to your vocabulary! You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
A Rolfcopter is piloted by a troll, I think0
-
'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity0
-
rapid_uphill wrote:i heard that once you have had testicular cancer you are regularly prescribed steroids for the rest of your life, can anyone confirm if this is true?
not that it makes that much difference as all americans love their steds.
Rubbish. I was diagnosed with TC about a mnoth before LA - Really buggered up my xc season that did!
Anyway throughout the chemo I took the prescribed steroids once, they made me throw up, I never took them again (with medical consent) and have never been prescribed them or any other form of medication in the last 11 or so years, and have been clear for that time.dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0
