When did it start for you?

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

not to many Americans have the time or the inclination to worry about or hate the French or whomever. Why would we do this and to what end?

I don`t know what you mean exactly by `too many`, but from the Bush administration threatening to `make the French pay` for not supporting the US`s illegal invasion of Iraq* to disciples of Armstrong posting such gems as GO, LANCE, GO!!! that ball cancer surviving bastard is a model american Fuck the French! there is plenty of evidence that anti-French attitudes are common in the US. Just try doing a search for key terms such as `Screw the French`, `Fuck the French` and so on. Add `Armstrong` to get the cycling angle. There is also plenty of much more scary anti-French xenophobia to be found on all those right wing/ Republican blogs and forums you have over there.

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/24/politics.iraq

Way too much time on your hands.
Try to get out more and enjoy life.
It's not as bad as you think.

Dennis Noward

aurelio_-_banned

dennisn wrote:

Way too much time on your hands. Try to get out more and enjoy life. It's not as bad as you think.

That`s a bit rich coming from someone who has posted 1692 times on here since last September. Especially as it has taken me 2 years to get to my paltry 395 posts total!

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Way too much time on your hands. Try to get out more and enjoy life. It's not as bad as you think.

That`s a bit rich coming from someone who has posted 1692 times on here since last September. Especially as it has taken me 2 years to get to my paltry 395 posts total!

It's not about how many times I post. I enjoy it.
If someone enjoys posting a bunch of hate, well, I find that really strange. Fascinating
if you will. Angry people are interesting(for lack of a better word). Seems like they all tend to "not get out enough"(for lack of a better phrase).

Dennis Noward

moray_gub

dennisn wrote:

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Way too much time on your hands. Try to get out more and enjoy life. It's not as bad as you think.

That`s a bit rich coming from someone who has posted 1692 times on here since last September. Especially as it has taken me 2 years to get to my paltry 395 posts total!

It's not about how many times I post. I enjoy it.
If someone enjoys posting a bunch of hate, well, I find that really strange. Fascinating
if you will. Angry people are interesting(for lack of a better word). Seems like they all tend to "not get out enough"(for lack of a better phrase).

Dennis Noward

Your right angry people are interesting if somewhat irrational, still its good entertainment to see how much Lance and American foreign policy gets under his skin.

cheers
MG

blazing_saddles

Funny how this word "haters" appears on all these threads. Reading the one on the ASO buyout rumour and there it is again.
There was I thinking, it was about a potential venture, but no, I was wrong; all about hate, once again.

So many Lance threads, so little time.

Maybe we should equate hate with boredom?

Arkibal

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Way too much time on your hands. Try to get out more and enjoy life. It's not as bad as you think.

That`s a bit rich coming from someone who has posted 1692 times on here since last September. Especially as it has taken me 2 years to get to my paltry 395 posts total!

LOL!!!
How many of your 395 posts haven't been about LA????
Max 1 or 2 I'd guess, don't even bother to check it up.....

Talk about obsession................

blazing_saddles

There certainly are two distinct factions on this forum. Those that post their thoughts on pro racing and those that post their criticism of those thoughts, but contribute few thoughts of their own.

Here's a thought from me. This defunct race came up in another thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_DuPont

Unknown in some circles, although, a US "Biggy", at the time.
Won on it's last two occasions, (twice second in previous editions) by none other than Lance Armstrong. The the financial plug was pulled and the race went belly up.

Odd, you might think? Ah, but the answer lies in when he won: 1995 and '96 is the answer.
Now, had he won in '99 and '00 or '04 and '05...........

That says a lot, to me, about why there is this constant and pointless war of words.

leguape

aurelio wrote:

leguape wrote:

Hahaha, you are joking aren't you?

Perhaps you should change your name to `Francophobe`....

a cheap, wildly inaccurate ad hominem attack. The reality is that French companies did pretty well out of the Iraq carve up. Granted Elf lost some exploration rights but there's a good layer of French companies who got sub-contracts for lots of the reconstruction work, in part due to existing relationships in Iraq.

But this is all a diversion from the topic. I don't remember Jose Bove being entirely without support.

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

There certainly are two distinct factions on this forum. Those that post their thoughts on pro racing and those that post their criticism of those thoughts, but contribute few thoughts of their own.

That says a lot, to me, about why there is this constant and pointless war of words.

Id say the factions are as follows

1) Those that are obsessed with the taking of PEDs whether there is evidence or not and in particular the case of Lance Armstrong

2) and those that are not obsessed with the taking of PEDs and who are not obsessed with lance Armstrong and who continue to enjoy the sport without displaying hate and vitriol about it all.


cheers
MG

unclemalc

Dennis, Dennis, you naughty boy. This was a deliberate attempt to bait the easily snared wasn't it......

dennisn

unclemalc wrote:

Dennis, Dennis, you naughty boy. This was a deliberate attempt to bait the easily snared wasn't it......

Well, in a way yes, but it really does fascinate me as to why people form such wild
opinions, loyalties, and hatreds of someone or something that they have no real
world experience with other than what they read or hear. Most of the people who are howling for some "Pros" head or screaming for lifetime bans have never raced in the "Pro Tour", never been on a "Pro" team, don't know any "Pro" riders or team personnel on a personal basis, never lived with a "Pro" team for a season, yet claim to know all there is
about it because they "read" this or that.
I think there are a few people on this forum who have lived vicariously thru these riders
and when they hear or read even the smallest hint of scandal about their heroes they
become enraged that there heroes/gods have let them down. Then again I've said that before. I'll quit now(I know, "thank god").

Dennis Noward

iainf72

Moray Gub wrote:

1) Those that are obsessed with the taking of PEDs whether there is evidence or not and in particular the case of Lance Armstrong

MG - Do you believe there is a problem in cycling with doping?

Do you not wonder how the AFLD can do dope testing for 1 Tour and get 6 or 7 positives for EPO yet the UCI did the same function for years with no positives at all? Do you not read articles by anti-doping scientists who said that a lot of blood samples taken in the Tour last year showed signs of manipulation

I'm just curious in your opinion.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

1) Those that are obsessed with the taking of PEDs whether there is evidence or not and in particular the case of Lance Armstrong

MG - Do you believe there is a problem in cycling with doping?

Do you not wonder how the AFLD can do dope testing for 1 Tour and get 6 or 7 positives for EPO yet the UCI did the same function for years with no positives at all? Do you not read articles by anti-doping scientists who said that a lot of blood samples taken in the Tour last year showed signs of manipulation

I'm just curious in your opinion.

Of course cycling in common with a lot of sports has a doping problem but i dont think its an endemic as people would like us to believe it is.As far as i see cycling does as much testing any almost any other pro sport and i think the battle is being won I cant see how people can enjoy a sport when they think its rotten to the core as some do in here. It just baffles me to be honest.What enjoyment do you get whan watching a race thinking most of the riders are juiced up ?

cheers
MG

iainf72

Moray Gub wrote:

What enjoyment do you get whan watching a race thinking most of the riders are juiced up ?

That has been the reality for the last 15 years though, hasn't it?

It depends how much it consumes you. I think many people watch it and enjoy it but accept it for what it is. Then when people get caught the sense of disappointment isn't so acute. But it's different for everyone

Have you seen this? Clearly all juiced to the gills but amazing to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8MOQuF4_BI

DaveyL

I think that clip is disgusting.

Did you see the state of Ullrich's shoes? They look like spats.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

What enjoyment do you get whan watching a race thinking most of the riders are juiced up ?

Have you seen this? Clearly all juiced to the gills but amazing to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8MOQuF4_BI

I'm going to assume that you're a either a doctor or pro rider with many years of experience in observing "riders who are juiced up". What are the signs that you look for?
Is "juiced up" the actual medical term for "it"? What kind of drug was he using and how do you spot it while they are riding? Is it something in their eyes or is it more subtle and only something a trained "juiced up" observer, like yourself, can spot? How do you tell if someone is just having a really good day or he's juiced? You must have to go to races for years and years to develope this, almost, 6th sense. I'm sure we will all rest easier knowing that a competent, trained, professonal, "juiced up" observer like yourself, is out there.

Dennis Noward

richard wants a baum

Same thread different name,

blazing_saddles

richard wants a baum wrote:

Same thread different name,

Hardly surprising as there are only those who post about dope and hate Lance and those who don't post about dope and love Lance. :roll:

Dennis; How's the Tour DuPont going?

LangerDan

On stage 18 and 19 of that years Vuelta, Vandebroucke - a man who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar on more than one occasion - rode some of the best climbers off his wheel in a race a year after the Festina affair. VdB's forte was one-day classics and short tours, yet nearly 3 weeks into a GT, he's monstering the climbs. Look at the riders he destroyed over those two stages - Ullrich, Zulle, Jiminez, Piepoli (yup, he's that old), Heras, Galdeano, Beltran... all of whom have been banned. And just in case one suspects that VdB was shepherded, Lance-like, to the foot of the climbs, Cofidis were down to two riders at that point - VdB and Lelli (also to be added to list of banned riders) - and bizzarely spent much of the time working for Ullrich when the two of them weren't up front, string along the bunch.

Perhaps VdB is having a really good day, but I wouldn't be prepared to bet the farm on it.

micron

Seems to me there are two factions on this forum - those who are well informed and make arguments based on that knowledge and those who talk out of their arses

oldwelshman

dennisn wrote:

aurelio wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Jeez you really do have some issues with Lance dont you , to equate him with that right wing nonsense is quite ludicrous .

I think you are stretching your interpretation of what I was arguing way beyond what I actually said.

I am not saying that Armstrong personally buys into the sort of right-wing insanity which holds that the US should bomb France or believes that Obama is a card-carrying communist. However, Armstrong knows full well that he can undermine the position of bodies such as the LNDD by playing on anti-French xenophobia. By doing this he inevitably validates and reinforces such prejudices.

Why do I think this? Firstly, we know that strong `Freedom Fries`, anti-French attitudes are common over in the USA. One reason for this seems to be that over in the `Land of the Free` so many are brainwashed into regarding anything to the left of G.W. Bush as being practically Soviet-style communism and a threat to `The American Way`. (The planks of which appear to include maintaining a poverty rate of 22% , the denial of health care to 40 odd million people, 700 Billion dollar subsidies for the financial fat cats and a militarised quest for global domination costing around 350 million dollars per day in Iraq alone).

Secondly, anti-French attitudes of various shades of bile are frequently expressed by those defending Armstrong (including by Pat McQuaid).

Thirdly, Armstrong himself has frequently resorted to anti-French rhetoric, has spread the myth that he and the likes of Landis are the victims of an `Anti-American conspiricy` on the part of `The French` and has even said that a major attraction of riding the Tour was to `piss off the French`.

I think it would be rather disingenuous to claim that all these factors are unrelated and have no influence on each other.

And I thought I was good at coming up with conspiracy theorys. I need more practice.
Anyway, IF you are really for real(and I'm starting to have my doubts) I can assure you
that not to many Americans have the time or the inclination to worry about or hate the
French or whomever. Why would we do this and to what end? I don't buy whatever it is
you're preaching and to be honest I really don't know what you're trying to say. I do know hate when I hear it and definately sense a bit of excess baggage in that area.

Dennis Noward

Have to agree Dennis that most Americans do not hate the French, probably only becsue they do not know where France is
On many occasions I have been to USA, Chicago, LA, NY, Miami. most Americans have very limited knowledge of world affairs and a very poor grasp of Geography outside USA.
I was talking to a couple of people in Chicago and they asked me about my accent, I told them I was from Wales and they asked " Hey, is that in London? " enough said 8)

dennisn

micron wrote:

Seems to me there are two factions on this forum - those who are well informed and make arguments based on that knowledge and those who talk out of their arses

Got to disagree. A lot of people write in talking like they know all these riders and all they
really know is that they read a book or two about them or by them. You don't learn about people by reading a book, either by them or about them. You don't know these people
any more than you know the Queen or Henry the Eight. You know people only when you
live, work, share interests, and go through life's ups and downs with them. Books, magazines, and newspapers don't even scratch the surface of who people really are.
Yet you all make judgements(often harsh) on the basis of something you read or heard.
"Informed" - now that's talking out your arse. The only people I would be confident that you are "informed" about are your family and long time friends. Anything else is a guess.
I know that some people need to think that they are part of an elite group(they're called
groupies) and try to follow their heroes every little move. This, they think, makes them
part of this group and an expert on whomever. It's all a lie. They are no more a part of The
Rolling Stones than you are a part of the "Pro Tour", yet all of you claim to "know" that
this or that person is a nice guy or an *sshole without ever having spent even a minute with them.

Dennis Noward

blazing_saddles

............and there are some expert posters around here, who don't know Paris Roubaix, from Paris Hilton.

Doesn't matter whether or not the riders mentioned in the YouTube clip are part of one's immediate family. History has spoken on many of them, as LangerDan has so kindly explained.
An "informed" poster should know of their doping histories, but not whether they are personable. Only an ill-informed one could possibly try and defend them.

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Seems to me there are two factions on this forum - those who are well informed and make arguments based on that knowledge and those who talk out of their arses

and which category do you come into oh wise one ?

cheers
MG

moray_gub

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

Seems to me there are two factions on this forum - those who are well informed and make arguments based on that knowledge and those who talk out of their arses

Got to disagree. A lot of people write in talking like they know all these riders and all they
really know is that they read a book or two about them or by them. You don't learn about people by reading a book, either by them or about them. You don't know these people
any more than you know the Queen or Henry the Eight. You know people only when you
live, work, share interests, and go through life's ups and downs with them. Books, magazines, and newspapers don't even scratch the surface of who people really are.
Yet you all make judgements(often harsh) on the basis of something you read or heard.
"Informed" - now that's talking out your ars*. The only people I would be confident that you are "informed" about are your family and long time friends. Anything else is a guess.
I know that some people need to think that they are part of an elite group(they're called
groupies) and try to follow their heroes every little move. This, they think, makes them
part of this group and an expert on whomever. It's all a lie. They are no more a part of The
Rolling Stones than you are a part of the "Pro Tour", yet all of you claim to "know" that
this or that person is a nice guy or an *sshole without ever having spent even a minute with them.

Dennis Noward

Thats actually a very good post Dennis
there is nothing worse than a self confessed expert who in reality knows the sqaure root of feck all but likes to inform all and sundry that they are somehow more knowledgeable and others are not.



cheers
MG

moray_gub

oldwelshman wrote:

dennisn wrote:

aurelio wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Jeez you really do have some issues with Lance dont you , to equate him with that right wing nonsense is quite ludicrous .

I think you are stretching your interpretation of what I was arguing way beyond what I actually said.

I am not saying that Armstrong personally buys into the sort of right-wing insanity which holds that the US should bomb France or believes that Obama is a card-carrying communist. However, Armstrong knows full well that he can undermine the position of bodies such as the LNDD by playing on anti-French xenophobia. By doing this he inevitably validates and reinforces such prejudices.

Why do I think this? Firstly, we know that strong `Freedom Fries`, anti-French attitudes are common over in the USA. One reason for this seems to be that over in the `Land of the Free` so many are brainwashed into regarding anything to the left of G.W. Bush as being practically Soviet-style communism and a threat to `The American Way`. (The planks of which appear to include maintaining a poverty rate of 22% , the denial of health care to 40 odd million people, 700 Billion dollar subsidies for the financial fat cats and a militarised quest for global domination costing around 350 million dollars per day in Iraq alone).

Secondly, anti-French attitudes of various shades of bile are frequently expressed by those defending Armstrong (including by Pat McQuaid).

Thirdly, Armstrong himself has frequently resorted to anti-French rhetoric, has spread the myth that he and the likes of Landis are the victims of an `Anti-American conspiricy` on the part of `The French` and has even said that a major attraction of riding the Tour was to `piss off the French`.

I think it would be rather disingenuous to claim that all these factors are unrelated and have no influence on each other.

And I thought I was good at coming up with conspiracy theorys. I need more practice.
Anyway, IF you are really for real(and I'm starting to have my doubts) I can assure you
that not to many Americans have the time or the inclination to worry about or hate the
French or whomever. Why would we do this and to what end? I don't buy whatever it is
you're preaching and to be honest I really don't know what you're trying to say. I do know hate when I hear it and definately sense a bit of excess baggage in that area.

Dennis Noward

Have to agree Dennis that most Americans do not hate the French, probably only becsue they do not know where France is
On many occasions I have been to USA, Chicago, LA, NY, Miami. most Americans have very limited knowledge of world affairs and a very poor grasp of Geography outside USA.
I was talking to a couple of people in Chicago and they asked me about my accent, I told them I was from Wales and they asked " Hey, is that in London? " enough said 8)

Do i smell the whiff of stereotyping here............i am presuming you have met hundreds and thousands if not millions of Americans to be able to form such opinions. Or is it maybe a smaller number over a few drinks in a bar ?

cheers
MG

dennisn

Blazing Saddles wrote:

............and there are some expert posters around here, who don't know Paris Roubaix, from Paris Hilton.

Doesn't matter whether or not the riders mentioned in the YouTube clip are part of one's immediate family. History has spoken on many of them, as LangerDan has so kindly explained.
An "informed" poster should know of their doping histories, but not whether they are personable. Only an ill-informed one could possibly try and defend them.

You guys just don't get it. One last time now. I AM NOT DEFENDING ANYONE. I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT AS "INFORMED" AS YOU THINK YOU ARE. YOU DON'T
KNOW THESE PEOPLE. YOU'RE GROUPIES AT BEST. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS, OR YOUR ENEMIES FOR THAT MATTER. YOU HAVEN'T HAD BREAKFAST WITH THEM, NEVER MET THEIR FAMILIES, NEVER SUCKED DOWN A BEER WITH THEM,
NEVER ROAD WITH THEM, NEVER MET THEM, NEVER SPENT 5 OR 6 HOURS IN A CAR WITH THEM, NEVER TOOK A VACATION WITH THEM, AND THIS LIST GOES ON AND ON
AND ON. YET YOU INSIST YOU ARE "INFORMED". WHAT A LOAD OF.......
I'LL GRANT YOU I DON'T KNOW THEIR "DOPING" HISTORIES AND COULD CARE LESS.
"DOPING" IS A SINGLE EVENT IN THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING AND DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO CONVEY WHO THAT PERSON REALLY IS.

Dennis Noward

osxboy

I met Lance Armstrong (for 30 seconds or so) on a Ride of The Roses and he was very pleasent but VERY focused.

I was riding with my late friend John whom I met on the chemo ward the year before Lance Armstrong was diagnosed.

I used BOTH John and Lance as an inspiration to try and put my life back together after being ill and losing a very close friend.

He's not perfect but who is?

andyp

dennisn wrote:

You guys just don't get it. One last time now. I AM NOT DEFENDING ANYONE. I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT AS "INFORMED" AS YOU THINK YOU ARE. YOU DON'T
KNOW THESE PEOPLE. YOU'RE GROUPIES AT BEST. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS, OR YOUR ENEMIES FOR THAT MATTER. YOU HAVEN'T HAD BREAKFAST WITH THEM, NEVER MET THEIR FAMILIES, NEVER SUCKED DOWN A BEER WITH THEM,
NEVER ROAD WITH THEM, NEVER MET THEM, NEVER SPENT 5 OR 6 HOURS IN A CAR WITH THEM, NEVER TOOK A VACATION WITH THEM, AND THIS LIST GOES ON AND ON
AND ON. YET YOU INSIST YOU ARE "INFORMED". WHAT A LOAD OF.......
I'LL GRANT YOU I DON'T KNOW THEIR "DOPING" HISTORIES AND COULD CARE LESS.
"DOPING" IS A SINGLE EVENT IN THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING AND DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO CONVEY WHO THAT PERSON REALLY IS.

Dennis Noward

By your own logic, because you don't know all the people on this forum how can you say this about them?

derby

dennisn wrote:

"DOPING" IS A SINGLE EVENT IN THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING AND DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO CONVEY WHO THAT PERSON REALLY IS. Dennis Noward

Every choice we make in our lives conveys who we are to the world, and unless an individual is self-deluded, to ourselves. A single doping event does convey who a person is at that time and place. Granted, people can change, but we all must take responsibility for all our behaviors if we are honest with ourselves.

Whether or not a person is right or left handed, black or white, tall or short doesn't convey who we are to anyone. But choices do, and choices that involve breaking the law must be seen in a serious context by society, that means you and I.

And please, don't start shouting in caps about how we don't understand you and how you understand the human dynamic so much better than all of us.

People are suspicious of individuals like Armstrong precisely because as humans much of our lives are spent learning to distinguish between reality and illusion, truth and fallacy. When people hear him say he's never tested positive but refuse to say he never took performance enhancing drugs, they are intelligent enough to understand the distinction. When they see him bully and intimidate other riders who speak out against PED use, we are intelligent enough to understand what that means. When they see his team mates getting busted for PED use, they are able to use basic principles of math to make reasonable assumptions.

Quite frankly, you are the one who appears to argue for a position of naivite, you seem more interested in placing your head in the sand than facing hard realities of life. You should go look in the mirror and contemplate what that means about you.