Define a Lance fan please.......

moray_gub

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ? various posters who dislike Lance have taken some sort moral and intellectual high ground for some reason. Its as if ,if you like Lance your intellectual capacity and cycling knowledge is somehow diminished compared to theirs.So what gives are people who dislike Lance blessed with some sort of brain power and cycling knowledge that Lance fans dont have ? ...........who would have thought ones intellectual capacity or cycling knowledge was based on what cyclist t he/she like or dislikes.

cheers
MG

redddraggon

I think a lot of the Lance fan boys just show a little naivety and try to make out he's the greatest cyclist ever/a saviour for the world/the next messiah/a guy who is totally selfless/want his babies/etc

I just think the extreme haters wind up the Lance lovers and vice versa.........but it's all boring now.

calvjones

Moray Gub wrote:

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ?

cheers
MG

Somebody who seriously entertains the possibility he didn't dope?

ms_tree

There wouldn't be any point to these forums if we all agreed on everything would there? It's a fact of life that we like some people and not others - don't you find that amongst people you went to school/college with, work with, neighbours etc? There's just no accounting for taste. Personally I find that the more someone is lauded the more I dislike them - or is it woman's intuition?

moray_gub

Ms Tree wrote:

There wouldn't be any point to these forums if we all agreed on everything would there? It's a fact of life that we like some people and not others - don't you find that amongst people you went to school/college with, work with, neighbours etc? There's just no accounting for taste. Personally I find that the more someone is lauded the more I dislike them - or is it woman's intuition?

Sure i agree with you but you'd think people wouldnt stereotype purely based on what cyclist he/she likes dislikes.

cheers
MG

FJS

redddraggon wrote:

I just think the extreme haters wind up the Lance lovers and vice versa.........but it's all boring now.

And it has only just begun...... :shock:

rapid_uphill

i dont like lance and i think hes a cheat but he is one of the greatest

NJK

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ?

cheers
MG

Somebody who seriously entertains the possibility he didn't dope?

But he didn't dope i tell you. He was the most driven athlete on the planet no stone left unturned. He thought all of my rivals are doping as there are no proper dope tests but NO NO i'm L.Armstrong i can beat them all including the naturally gifted German on nothing but powerbars :roll: Head in the biggest bit of sand the lot them.

Amos

Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?

liversedge

Amos wrote:

Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?

apply occam's razor ... perhaps its because he didn't dope.

nasahapley

It's a good question Moray. Am I a Lance fan if I:

a) recognise that he's a bit of a nasty piece of work,

b) realise the evidence points fairly heavily towards him having taken PEDs in the past, but

c) nevertheless am still looking forward to seeing him ride in the 2009 TDF?

From the various threads relating to LA that have graced this forum recently it appears that if you don't want to see him hung drawn and quartered then you're a 'Lance fanboy' (whatever the hell a 'fanboy' is), and not a 'proper cycling fan'. Have I got that right?!

NJK

Amos wrote:

Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?

The same way as 100's of riders throughout the golden era. One step ahead as they say. Or you could say he did get caught and got lucky.

Patrick1.0

NJK wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ?

cheers
MG

Somebody who seriously entertains the possibility he didn't dope?

But he didn't dope i tell you. He was the most driven athlete on the planet no stone left unturned. He thought all of my rivals are doping as there are no proper dope tests but NO NO i'm L.Armstrong i can beat them all including the naturally gifted German on nothing but powerbars :roll: Head in the biggest bit of sand the lot them.

I love the way Jan is always this "amazingly talented" cyclist who you could only beat if you got doped up.

There are any number of reasons why Lance beat Jan without bringing doping into this. The fact that Lance was slimmer - something quite clear to everybody with a pair of eyes - the fact that Lance developed a very high cadence where Ullrich couldn't and the fact that Armstrong trained religiously in the mountains where Ullrich was reported as being out of shape at races like the Tour of Switzerland and usually relied on riding himself into form during the Tour. Now, you can make the case that Ullrich was more talented, I don't see it because Lance has pretty much everything you need, but you can make the argument. However, those basic things that I've mentioned are more than enough to offset any slight natural advantages. And at the very, very top level, they are always only slight differences in natural ability anyway.

NJK

Patrick1.0 wrote:

NJK wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ?

cheers
MG

Somebody who seriously entertains the possibility he didn't dope?

But he didn't dope i tell you. He was the most driven athlete on the planet no stone left unturned. He thought all of my rivals are doping as there are no proper dope tests but NO NO i'm L.Armstrong i can beat them all including the naturally gifted German on nothing but powerbars :roll: Head in the biggest bit of sand the lot them.

I love the way Jan is always this "amazingly talented" cyclist who you could only beat if you got doped up.

There are any number of reasons why Lance beat Jan without bringing doping into this. The fact that Lance was slimmer - something quite clear to everybody with a pair of eyes - the fact that Lance developed a very high cadence where Ullrich couldn't and the fact that Armstrong trained religiously in the mountains where Ullrich was reported as being out of shape at races like the Tour of Switzerland and usually relied on riding himself into form during the Tour. Now, you can make the case that Ullrich was more talented, I don't see it because Lance has pretty much everything you need, but you can make the argument. However, those basic things that I've mentioned are more than enough to offset any slight natural advantages. And at the very, very top level, they are always only slight differences in natural ability anyway.

I'd have a look at a few Ullrich pictures at the tour, pretty lean to me probably 3-5% bodyfat the same as Armstrong. If Ullrich and all the other GC rides of that era doped so did Armstrong. He wouldn't have been competitive otherwise hence performance enhancing drugs, high cadence or not. Actually he may have be good for the first week or mountain stages but then he would have faded pretty badly.

moray_gub

nasahapley wrote:

It's a good question Moray. Am I a Lance fan if I:

a) recognise that he's a bit of a nasty piece of work,

b) realise the evidence points fairly heavily towards him having taken PEDs in the past, but

c) nevertheless am still looking forward to seeing him ride in the 2009 TDF?

From the various threads relating to LA that have graced this forum recently it appears that if you don't want to see him hung drawn and quartered then you're a 'Lance fanboy' (whatever the hell a 'fanboy' is), and not a 'proper cycling fan'. Have I got that right?!

Pretty much it goes something like this............your a Lance fan boy who doesnt know cycling existed pre 1999 and you know nothing about cycling even if you have followed it since you were knee high to grasshopper . As opposed to these anti Lance fans who are cycling sages and are well versed in the ways of cycling and its traditions and ways right back to days of Maurice Garin.

cheers
MG

moray_gub

NJK wrote:

Amos wrote:

Not knowing a lot about LA, how did he manage to never get caught doping?

The same way as 100's of riders throughout the golden era. One step ahead as they say. Or you could say he did get caught and got lucky.

But those top cyclists all got caught so why not lance ?

cheers
MG

Patrick1.0

NJK wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

NJK wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ?

cheers
MG

Somebody who seriously entertains the possibility he didn't dope?

But he didn't dope i tell you. He was the most driven athlete on the planet no stone left unturned. He thought all of my rivals are doping as there are no proper dope tests but NO NO i'm L.Armstrong i can beat them all including the naturally gifted German on nothing but powerbars :roll: Head in the biggest bit of sand the lot them.

I love the way Jan is always this "amazingly talented" cyclist who you could only beat if you got doped up.

There are any number of reasons why Lance beat Jan without bringing doping into this. The fact that Lance was slimmer - something quite clear to everybody with a pair of eyes - the fact that Lance developed a very high cadence where Ullrich couldn't and the fact that Armstrong trained religiously in the mountains where Ullrich was reported as being out of shape at races like the Tour of Switzerland and usually relied on riding himself into form during the Tour. Now, you can make the case that Ullrich was more talented, I don't see it because Lance has pretty much everything you need, but you can make the argument. However, those basic things that I've mentioned are more than enough to offset any slight natural advantages. And at the very, very top level, they are always only slight differences in natural ability anyway.

I'd have a look at a few Ullrich pictures at the tour, pretty lean to me probably 3-5% bodyfat the same as Armstrong. If Ullrich and all the other GC rides of that era doped so did Armstrong. He wouldn't have been competitive otherwise hence performance enhancing drugs, high cadence or not. Actually he may have be good for the first week or mountain stages but then he would have faded pretty badly.

OK, some pictures are flattering and some aren't, but you can see my point, sometimes he was very lean, yes, other times... not as much.

feersumendjinn

Its become almost a religious experience.
On the one hand you have the church of Lance, who's mantra is "Never proved positive"
On the other the disciples of Walsh/Kimmage/Lemond etc who quote the books of the sages as pure & unadulterated truth.
Neither side will give up its belief, neither side will see the possibility that the other may have a valid point
Both will ridicule each others believers casting aspersions as to knowledge or intelligence & taking perfectly good words such as fan & boy and making them an insult
This of coarse will stop when the church of Lance takes ownership of the the term "fanboy" & it becomes a honorific

What can the rest of us do?
Watch the bike racing & leave them to it while their in here their not out in the world causing more trouble.

don key

feersumendjinn wrote:

Its become almost a religious experience.
On the one hand you have the church of Lance, who's mantra is "Never proved positive"
On the other the disciples of Walsh/Kimmage/Lemond etc who quote the books of the sages as pure & unadulterated truth.
Neither side will give up its belief, neither side will see the possibility that the other may have a valid point
Both will ridicule each others believers casting aspersions as to knowledge or intelligence & taking perfectly good words such as fan & boy and making them an insult
This of coarse will stop when the church of Lance takes ownership of the the term "fanboy" & it becomes a honorific

What can the rest of us do?
Watch the bike racing & leave them to it while their in here their not out in the world causing more trouble.

On one side its goad and the other anvil ,if goad only had the anvil they could hammer the flinstones into submoistsion

unclemalc

redddraggon wrote:

I just think the extreme haters wind up the Lance lovers and vice versa.........but it's all boring now.

Agreed. It IS boring now.
The debate will NEVER end because everybody wants to be right in their opinion over the other guy - its human nature. "...told you so..."
Frankly, nobody on this, or any other forum, unless they work for a dope-testing agency that has some of LA's p__s in a bottle to test, can say anything new.

If HE comes back and wins some races, it proves nothing: this is now, not 1999-2005.
The debate can only move on if Lance himself one day says : "Yeah - I doped and you suckers missed it". No other scenario will illuminate the debate because who can be trusted, either pro- or anti-doping?
Personally I think its a shame he is back because his presnce in the peleton, and any results (or lack of) will overshadow the 'New Generation'. That is simply a product of the media scrum that will follow him, and that is more than likely the point of it all. He will probably win some races and not disgrace himself: ("never mind, the guy has been away for nearly 3 years and he is 38 - what did you expect...?).BUT the media coverage will put his campaign in your face ALL the time, and that, if you remove it from the controversy surrounding the man and his career, is NOT a bad thing.

There is still the potential in this sport for everybody's hero, past and present, to be found out as a cheat, because of some way 'round the system. We all hope that, increasingly, this will be less likely - but not yet....

NJK

Patrick1.0 wrote:

NJK wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

NJK wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Ive gotta ask the Q what exactly constitutes a Lance fan ?

cheers
MG

Somebody who seriously entertains the possibility he didn't dope?

But he didn't dope i tell you. He was the most driven athlete on the planet no stone left unturned. He thought all of my rivals are doping as there are no proper dope tests but NO NO i'm L.Armstrong i can beat them all including the naturally gifted German on nothing but powerbars :roll: Head in the biggest bit of sand the lot them.

I love the way Jan is always this "amazingly talented" cyclist who you could only beat if you got doped up.

There are any number of reasons why Lance beat Jan without bringing doping into this. The fact that Lance was slimmer - something quite clear to everybody with a pair of eyes - the fact that Lance developed a very high cadence where Ullrich couldn't and the fact that Armstrong trained religiously in the mountains where Ullrich was reported as being out of shape at races like the Tour of Switzerland and usually relied on riding himself into form during the Tour. Now, you can make the case that Ullrich was more talented, I don't see it because Lance has pretty much everything you need, but you can make the argument. However, those basic things that I've mentioned are more than enough to offset any slight natural advantages. And at the very, very top level, they are always only slight differences in natural ability anyway.

I'd have a look at a few Ullrich pictures at the tour, pretty lean to me probably 3-5% bodyfat the same as Armstrong. If Ullrich and all the other GC rides of that era doped so did Armstrong. He wouldn't have been competitive otherwise hence performance enhancing drugs, high cadence or not. Actually he may have be good for the first week or mountain stages but then he would have faded pretty badly.

OK, some pictures are flattering and some aren't, but you can see my point, sometimes he was very lean, yes, other times... not as much.

I see your point that picture was probably in March or April he was as lean as every other GC rider come July. How he did it i wouldn't like to say

NJK

feersumendjinn wrote:

Its become almost a religious experience.
On the one hand you have the church of Lance, who's mantra is "Never proved positive"
On the other the disciples of Walsh/Kimmage/Lemond etc who quote the books of the sages as pure & unadulterated truth.
Neither side will give up its belief, neither side will see the possibility that the other may have a valid point
Both will ridicule each others believers casting aspersions as to knowledge or intelligence & taking perfectly good words such as fan & boy and making them an insult
This of coarse will stop when the church of Lance takes ownership of the the term "fanboy" & it becomes a honorific

What can the rest of us do?
Watch the bike racing & leave them to it while their in here their not out in the world causing more trouble.

Its funny but evidence that the pro Armstrong club got that he rode clean, isn't much in the current days climate, he didn't fail a test. So what! His massive improvements, 7 tour wins, virtually no bad days, his whole team riding like machines all day. He isn't superhuman and never was as proved by a 45plus year old beating him by 2mins in a 100mile mtb race. Very talented athlete yes but no way super human and definately not dope free otherwise why would you comeback in the so called cleaner era.

dave milne

NJK wrote:

feersumendjinn wrote:

Its become almost a religious experience.
On the one hand you have the church of Lance, who's mantra is "Never proved positive"
On the other the disciples of Walsh/Kimmage/Lemond etc who quote the books of the sages as pure & unadulterated truth.
Neither side will give up its belief, neither side will see the possibility that the other may have a valid point
Both will ridicule each others believers casting aspersions as to knowledge or intelligence & taking perfectly good words such as fan & boy and making them an insult
This of coarse will stop when the church of Lance takes ownership of the the term "fanboy" & it becomes a honorific

What can the rest of us do?
Watch the bike racing & leave them to it while their in here their not out in the world causing more trouble.

Its funny but evidence that the pro Armstrong club got that he rode clean, isn't much in the current days climate, he didn't fail a test. So what! His massive improvements, 7 tour wins, virtually no bad days, his whole team riding like machines all day. He isn't superhuman and never was as proved by a 45plus year old beating him by 2mins in a 100mile mtb race. Very talented athlete yes but no way super human and definately not dope free otherwise why would you comeback in the so called cleaner era.

??

NJK

dave milne wrote:

NJK wrote:

feersumendjinn wrote:

Its become almost a religious experience.
On the one hand you have the church of Lance, who's mantra is "Never proved positive"
On the other the disciples of Walsh/Kimmage/Lemond etc who quote the books of the sages as pure & unadulterated truth.
Neither side will give up its belief, neither side will see the possibility that the other may have a valid point
Both will ridicule each others believers casting aspersions as to knowledge or intelligence & taking perfectly good words such as fan & boy and making them an insult
This of coarse will stop when the church of Lance takes ownership of the the term "fanboy" & it becomes a honorific

What can the rest of us do?
Watch the bike racing & leave them to it while their in here their not out in the world causing more trouble.

Its funny but evidence that the pro Armstrong club got that he rode clean, isn't much in the current days climate, he didn't fail a test. So what! His massive improvements, 7 tour wins, virtually no bad days, his whole team riding like machines all day. He isn't superhuman and never was as proved by a 45plus year old beating him by 2mins in a 100mile mtb race. Very talented athlete yes but no way super human and definately not dope free otherwise why would you comeback in the so called cleaner era.

??

??. Quite straight forward. My guess is that the time of hie retirement he didn't think so many of his rivals would be implicated in doping without actually failing any tests. This way he thinks he may be able to gain a bit of credibility back by winning another tour with the so called clean generation & more anti-doping procedures.

sicrow

Promoting getting your life back after cancer - it's a good story for all cancer sufferers and something positive in a world that is so negative -

If someone throws doping into the conversation it seems to me that they are narrow minded and selfish, the discussions and greater awareness of cancer and a posivive story is good and if for the next 12 months it promotes that alone then he has my vote.

too many people i'm afraid have their head up their own ar*e

NJK

sicrow wrote:

Promoting getting your life back after cancer - it's a good story for all cancer sufferers and something positive in a world that is so negative -

If someone throws doping into the conversation it seems to me that they are narrow minded and selfish, the discussions and greater awareness of cancer and a posivive story is good and if for the next 12 months it promotes that alone then he has my vote.

too many people i'm afraid have their head up their own ar*e

This is a pro sport i thought, there are plenty of ways he could get his message across. I to like many others have been effected by cancer, my argument has nothing to do with this just purely sport and doping and when he comes back IMO is just a step back.

So on another level you are saying that if someone recovers from cancer they can take all th PE drugs available to win to promote a message.

pottssteve

NJK wrote "I to like many others have been effected by cancer, my argument has nothing to do with this just purely sport and doping and when he comes back IMO is just a step back."

toO
Affected!

NJK

pottssteve wrote:

NJK wrote "I to like many others have been effected by cancer, my argument has nothing to do with this just purely sport and doping and when he comes back IMO is just a step back."

toO
Affected!

Gud 1. :roll:

Patrick1.0

Guys, the weather is beautiful, you should all seriously be outside sampling it, unless you're just bunking off work, as per usual, hey? 8)

dennisn

I just don't understand why a person who wants to race again can't do so. Maybe he "got
bitten by the bug" again. Is that so hard to understand? What's wrong with him just wanting to race? Oh wait, I know why. Because if it doesn't have all the aspects of
a good "soap opera" or some sort of "conspiracy theory" most of the naysayers just aren't interested. Just plain old racing isn't exciting enough for them. They seem to want to know all the "dirt". It almost seems to me that want all this doping to satisfy some weird craving that they have. Or is it because they are nowhere near as good as pro riders and this hurts there pride so in order to feel better about themselves they kind
of adopt an attitude of "I could be that good IF I doped" and then tell everyone that this
or that rider is only better than myself because he's a doper. Trust me on this one guys.
Most of you couldn't keep up with a Lance or Ivan or Alberto if you took all the drugs in the world and they were squeaky clean. You're just not that good. You do however, know just about everything about all of these riders (or so you claim).

Dennis Noward

emadden

"..... since you were knee high to grasshopper . ...."

You can only use this expression if you are a David Duffield fan/real cycling fan, and by extension Armstrongphiles can't use this term