Is Armstrong out to destroy cycling?

shazzz

Proof positive (sorry!) of your theory....

Patrick1.0

dennisn wrote:

I bow to "The Master". You've convinced me(and probably everyone else) that you
have a line of sh*t a mile long(possibly longer). I thought I had that title(best line of sh*t)
by a long shot and most everyone agreed that I did. I think I even got a death threat or two, but I'm now in a pathetic 2nd. place and may not even make the "Idiots" playoffs if
I can't find a way to make a comeback. I may have to resort to drugs. In a sport like blogging winning is everything and I fully intend to "blog" again, even though I retired.
I'm pretty sure I can get back in top form. I know I'll be hated for making a comeback and
accused of trying to ruin the sport but once the blog gets in your blood......
Just wait till next year. Then you'll see some real sh*t.

Dennis Noward

That's excellent.

I am sure you are aware, Dennis, there's been a lot of talk of the possibility for retrospective tests on your old blog entries... would you be willing to retest them? We assure you you can pick any expert in this field you like.


As an aside to the audience: the chosen expert will be kidnapped on the morning of the scheduled retest and Aurelio will take his place in disguise!

richard wants a baum

funny isnt it the title of the thread is pretty clear about whats going to be said. If your bored or annoyed by people ripping into LA dont go into threads with titles like 'I hate f#%$^&&%# Armstrong i hope he falls of the side of Mount Ventoux' pretty simple really

dennisn

Patrick1.0 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I bow to "The Master". You've convinced me(and probably everyone else) that you
have a line of sh*t a mile long(possibly longer). I thought I had that title(best line of sh*t)
by a long shot and most everyone agreed that I did. I think I even got a death threat or two, but I'm now in a pathetic 2nd. place and may not even make the "Idiots" playoffs if
I can't find a way to make a comeback. I may have to resort to drugs. In a sport like blogging winning is everything and I fully intend to "blog" again, even though I retired.
I'm pretty sure I can get back in top form. I know I'll be hated for making a comeback and
accused of trying to ruin the sport but once the blog gets in your blood......
Just wait till next year. Then you'll see some real sh*t.

Dennis Noward

That's excellent.

I am sure you are aware, Dennis, there's been a lot of talk of the possibility for retrospective tests on your old blog entries... would you be willing to retest them? We assure you you can pick any expert in this field you like.


As an aside to the audience: the chosen expert will be kidnapped on the morning of the scheduled retest and Aurelio will take his place in disguise!

I have never tested positive for drugs while blogging. I do believe that the French are out to get me because I am such a superior blogger and they just can't stand the thought of
an American being that good. I have just worked harder at it than everyone else. Test all my old blogs that you want. I'm sure you'll find that if anyone is on drugs it's Aurelio,
because no one can write lines of sh*t that crazy without them.

Dennis Noward

aurelio_-_banned

aurelio wrote:

I can`t also help thinking that `opening old wounds` is just what Armstrong wants. For him the war to discredit all those who have questioned `The Armstrong myth` has never been really over.

As I was saying....His latest attack targets Dick Pound, The LNDD, `the French Ministry` and WADA...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... onds_oct08

DaveyL

His latest "attack" being a response to the LNDD's attack.

If this guy is really that bad, you can get him without being disingenuous. Really.

leguape

aurelio wrote:

aurelio wrote:

I can`t also help thinking that `opening old wounds` is just what Armstrong wants. For him the war to discredit all those who have questioned `The Armstrong myth` has never been really over.

As I was saying....His latest attack targets Dick Pound, The LNDD, `the French Ministry` and WADA...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... onds_oct08

I didn't realise right of reply was such a malevolent beast.

Bronzie

Armstrong is not bigger than the Tour - I wouldn't put it past ASO to pull Astana's invite (assuming they get one) before next July.

idaviesmoore

Does anyone really think LA is twiddling his moustache and hatching a plot to bring the sport of bike racing to its knees?????

If so...why????

It's like those James Bond movies when the evil villain wants to 'Rule The World'. When you think about it Ruling The World would be a real pain in the ar$e IMHO.

OffTheBackAdam

What a stupid question!
Consign it and believers to the bin labelled "Conspiracy Theories" and they can snuggle up to Prince Phillip ordering Lady Di's "murder", Grassy Knolls and the CIA's planning of 9-11.
The guy's bored senseless, he believes that he's got another TdF win (or 2, 3...) in him.
He's like all those old boxers who keep coming back for more, who can't believe that the current champions are better than they are.
Very few have retired at the top and kept it that way.

derby

from: http://www.velonews.com/article/84005

"It comes down to an issue of distraction,..., I cannot accept this sort of grandstanding which distracts from the Livestrong message that is urgently needed."

I think he's referring to his trysts with confused, neurotic child stars looking for father figures.

Really though, I'm sure this re-cycling of his career is all about the kids.

Monty Dog

But if it wasn't for Aurelio's posts all the Fan Boys would still be in single digits.

ninjaslim

Come on guys, he ain't gonna ride forever. Perhaps if we ignore him he'll go away.

How sweet it would be though if Astana didn't get an invite again. :twisted:
Why should they FFS?

Cunobelin

1 - Armstrong is in fact the Antichrist
2 - Armstrong is simply a successful cyclist who wants to make a comeback

The point of these threads is to support option 1, and anyone who does not agree is naive and in denial.

That about sums it up.

damage36

DaveyL wrote:

If we're talking about the future of cycling, Armstrong is an irrelevance. He's going to be around for, what? One season? Two seasons, max? The only way he can influence the future of cycling is through his U23 team and we don't know much about that yet.

If we're really bothered about the present, and future, state of cycling, we should be talking about all these TdF retests. Even halfway towards the worst-case scenario, it could easily mean the plug being pulled on the biggest team in cycling, and the credibility of one of the world's leading anti-doping experts (and hence all of the anti-doping movement) being called into question. Worst-case scenario? Several teams go under and sponsors and the media start to question their involvement en masse.

Armstrong is a short-term irrelevance. He *may* be getting back into the game in a doomed attempt to cement his reputation, but aurelio and his fellow anti-Armstrong nodding dogs are only in this one in an equally doomed attempt to settle old scores and sores.

We need the message and transparency of Vaughters's Garmin-Chipotle across the board, not just for one guy who's back for a year or two. CSC and the CERA tests are today's real battleground, and that of the future, and making a big noise about that, and the current cleanliness, or otherwise, of cycling is what counts now.

+a billiion

You speak the truth sir! I'm sure many people feel the same way, but that is extremely well put. I'm more concerned about frank schleck than I am about LA.

derby

Ya know, it's easy to cheer for a rider like Bettini, good guy, hard worker, talented, fully functioning man, the complete package. It's easy to applaud a Zabel, solid, consistent, all the qualities of Bettini, etc... Add so many other riders to this group.

Then you get Armstrong. If you want to cheer for the guy, you have to either be in denial about, complacent about, or complicit with omerta, weird dalliances, obsessive loyalties, and the possible use of a charitable cause for personal benefits and manipulation of public opinion. And I cannot seperate his personal life from his cycling performance. The guy just makes my skin crawl.

I wish he would just go away so we could cheer for the good guys.

Ramanujan

Then you get Armstrong. If you want to cheer for the guy, you have to either be in denial about, complacent about, or complicit with omerta, weird dalliances, obsessive loyalties, and the possible use of a charitable cause for personal benefits and manipulation of public opinion. And I cannot seperate his personal life from his cycling performance. The guy just makes my skin crawl.

that's it in a nutshell, right there...

ExeterSimon

Some of you lot really need to take a step back.

He's said from day one the whole idea behind his comeback was to raise awareness of cancer. And if any of you detractors have ever had to watch a close relative get taken by this awful disease you'd probably think twice about having a pop.

If his comeback saves just one family from going through what I did earlier this year then he's done his job.

Seriously you lot...get a life and look at the wider picture off a fckng bike.

greeny12

ExeterSimon wrote:

Some of you lot really need to take a step back.

He's said from day one the whole idea behind his comeback was to raise awareness of cancer. And if any of you detractors have ever had to watch a close relative get taken by this awful disease you'd probably think twice about having a pop.

If his comeback saves just one family from going through what I did earlier this year then he's done his job.

Seriously you lot...get a life and look at the wider picture off a fckng bike.

I've just lost my oldest friend of more than 30 years to cancer, and whether LA wins a couple of bike races next year doesn't mean diddly squat to him or anyone else with the terminal version of the disease.

To me Geoff Thomas has done way more to raise awareness of cancer in the UK through bike-related activities than anything the toxic Texan will ever do, and he seems a decent bloke to boot....

ExeterSimon

doesn't mean diddly squat to him

Despite the millions of his own miney he's put into his foundation?

Don't get me wrong...i don't care what he does on a bike. I admire him for what he's done off the bike.

redddraggon

ExeterSimon wrote:

I admire him for what he's done off the bike.

The Olsen Twins?

aurelio_-_banned

ExeterSimon wrote:

Despite the millions of his own miney he's put into his foundation?.

I have read that Armstrong actually draws a salary from the LAF.

Even if were not the case, far too many people still bang on about all the `important contribution` the LAF makes to cancer research. Of the supposed 270 odd million US Dollars the LAF has raised, just 19.1 million has gone to research, almost an irrelevance in the multi-billion dollar world of medical research.

The LAF also spends a far greater proportion of the money donated to it on promoting the LAF itself (and in turn Armstrong Himself) than is recommended by charity watchdogs.

If Armstrong were genuinely committed to the well being of cancer victims in the US he might well be better off trying to persuade his Republican buddies to fundamentally change the profit-driven nature of US `health care`, a system which leaves tens of millions of Americans without access to heath care, and many more who do pay expensive insurance premiums denied care when they most need it.

Bronzie

derby wrote:

I wish he would just go away so we could cheer for the good guys.

Who did you have in mind? Problem is, just when I think I've found a "good guy" to cheer for, they turn out to be doped up to the eyeballs. Frustating isn't it?

ExeterSimon

Even if were not the case, far too many people still bang on about all the `important contribution` the LAF makes to cancer research. Of the supposed 270 odd million US Dollars the LAF has raised, just 19.1 million has gone to research, almost an irrelevance in the multi-billion dollar world of medical research.

Like the large majority of major chairties the world over

The LAF also spends a far greater proportion of the money donated to it on promoting the LAF itself (and in turn Armstrong Himself) than is recommended by charity watchdogs.

Again...it's what happens in the charity world.

[/quote]If Armstrong were genuinely committed to the well being of cancer victims in the US he might well be better off trying to persuade his Republican buddies to fundamentally change the profit-driven nature of US `health care`, a system which leaves tens of millions of Americans without access to heath care, and many more who do pay expensive insurance premiums denied care when they most need it.

One Michael Moore is enough thanks.

Bottom line is you don't like the guy. I have no opinion of who he is or what he may or may not have done. But what he does with the LAF is priceless. Go and speak to some of the people it's helped.....and those lives it's turned around.

You never know...you may need something similar one day. Or know someone who will.

ExeterSimon

I have read that Armstrong actually draws a salary from the LAF.

From what I can see you'd believe he's Hitler and Stalin's loveshild if you read it somewhere!

Patrick1.0

aurelio wrote:

ExeterSimon wrote:

Despite the millions of his own miney he's put into his foundation?.

I have read that Armstrong actually draws a salary from the LAF.
.

Holy cow, you mean he actually draws money out to live on himself? That's disgusting, I agree.

sicrow

I agree with ExeterSimon raising awareness and money can only be good,

Yes people will say that the charity is s**t and you shuld be giving it to this cancer charity or that cancer charity fine thats your preference,

You can claim he takes drugs and it maybe so, albeit he has managed as the most tested athlete to have got away with it so far, but then some people will never be convinced

all true but like ExeterSimon says until you have experienced it and lived with it, then made your own decisions how best to cope with it then leave the cynical doping comments.

If what he says he wants to do in the next 12 months re cancer awareness then for me with experience that's great and from that bit alone with his brand awareness it will help lots of other charities too

Still I could be a miserable cynic couldn't I

singlespeedexplosif

redddraggon wrote:

ExeterSimon wrote:

I admire him for what he's done off the bike.

The Olsen Twins?

[applauds]

leguape

aurelio wrote:

ExeterSimon wrote:

Despite the millions of his own miney he's put into his foundation?.

I have read that Armstrong actually draws a salary from the LAF.

Even if were not the case, far too many people still bang on about all the `important contribution` the LAF makes to cancer research. Of the supposed 270 odd million US Dollars the LAF has raised, just 19.1 million has gone to research, almost an irrelevance in the multi-billion dollar world of medical research.

The LAF also spends a far greater proportion of the money donated to it on promoting the LAF itself (and in turn Armstrong Himself) than is recommended by charity watchdogs.

If Armstrong were genuinely committed to the well being of cancer victims in the US he might well be better off trying to persuade his Republican buddies to fundamentally change the profit-driven nature of US `health care`, a system which leaves tens of millions of Americans without access to heath care, and many more who do pay expensive insurance premiums denied care when they most need it.

I'm assuming you didn't read about Proposition 15 passed by the Texas state legislature then?

aurelio_-_banned

Patrick1.0 wrote:

aurelio wrote:

I have read that Armstrong actually draws a salary from the LAF.

Holy cow, you mean he actually draws money out to live on himself? That's disgusting, I agree.

As I said, that is what I have read, but I would welcome independent verification one way or the other. To be honest I don`t see why Armstrong would risk damaging his `saintly` charity image by drawing openly drawing a salary, especially given that when he was racing he was raking in over 25 million dollars a year. That said, he is certainly listed as being on the Board of Directors, and whilst details for the whole board seem to be hard to find, it is public knowledge that Mitch Stoller was paid over 300,000 dollars in 2006.

Perhaps it is just the nature of `charities` but a quick web search also brings up some actions on the part of the LAF which many would regard as being rather dubious. For example, suing an animal welfare charity that produced a wristband of it`s own in order to raise money; paying congress members, usually Republicans, `expenses` when on cancer-related `fact finding` trips. Plenty of companies also seem to benefit from links with the LAF, such as Nike and financial and advertising companies.

I have a feeling such PR almost certainly benefits the companies themselves rather more than the money they provide benefits cancer sufferers, especially after fat directors fees, promotional costs and paying for the junkets of politicians have been taken into account. A cynic might also suggest that there is a strong element of `You scratch my back and I`ll scratch yours` going on in such relationships, especially with a companies like Nike who pays Armstrong some very fat fees for his endorsement of their sweat-shop produced products.

Anyhow, whatever the worth of his cancer awareness work, it in no way means that everyone should turn a blind eye to his `alleged` use of Epo, `800 ml of packed cells` and all the rest when he was racing.