This is Scary!

Anonymous

Guys,

I don't usually enter into the Race section too much, mostly because it concentrates so heavily on doping and now that LA has returned, it has swung the Anti LA brigade into overdrive...sometimes its just a bit of banter, sometimes its funny, and everyones obviously allowed there own viewpoint BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...or should concentrate his passions else where...to focus so much of one's time towards one man cannot be good for anyones mental health....surely.

JC.152

that is pretty weird. what did he do for the 3 years lance didn't race?

Monty Dog

I think it's a natural reaction to all the derivative PR drivel that's being regurgitated in the cycling press and people bring up on the forum and don't like the fact that there might just be another side to the story....

Arkibal

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Guys,

I don't usually enter into the Race section too much, mostly because it concentrates so heavily on doping and now that LA has returned, it has swung the Anti LA brigade into overdrive...sometimes its just a bit of banter, sometimes its funny, and everyones obviously allowed there own viewpoint BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...or should concentrate his passions else where...to focus so much of one's time towards one man cannot be good for anyones mental health....surely.

+1

feersumendjinn

ssshhhh! Its best not to disturb them..
You will realise that the anti camp in here have gradually become more & more evangelical than the pro camp & basically feed off themselves seeing who can copy & paste the most links or quote from this walsh or that whittle book winding themselves up into a feeding frenzy
They'll criticise anyone for believing anything good written about the Texan claiming it to be spin & lies but will claim anything negative however spurious as the gods honest truth & undeniable fact.

Anyhoo on a lighter note Have a Cool Yule Everyone..

skavanagh.bikeradar

Yeah, they are all fckuing crazy and they don't have girlfriends. Ha! LOL. Twitter etc.

Kléber

Some of us bang on about doping because it matters. You might enjoy the scenic images of Alpine stages or have your heroes for the Northern Classics but if these guys are risking their health by consuming banned substances, what good is it for?

I've never been in a position where I've had to risk by health and break the law just to be able to do my job but in pro cycling, this has been the choice for many riders for the last 20 years. It's simply not right. If you care for pro cycling, you want it cleaned up, no?

Some people might just want "the show to go on" and not to talk about this sinister side but it can't go on like this. People can't put their health at risk and a sport can't be distorted by pharmaceuticals and crazed "doctors".

Doping is also unavoidable. Visit the Equipe.fr website and of the ten stories on theere, fiver are about doping. We can pretend these things don't exist or we can examine them and debate them, and this forum is a place to do it.

Encouragingly things are slowly changing, we won't ever get a totally clean peloton but look at the recent interview with Pierre Bordry, he thinks that well over half the bunch rode the Tour clean, this is astounding compared to previous years.

RICHYBOYcp, I know you single out Aurelio, but he (or she) has put some well worded articles on here. If you want to challenge them, why not take some time to gather your evidence and explain things from your point of view?

At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales.

Monty Dog

At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales

Great analogy Kleber, but somehow I'm not sure these guys are up for listening.

Anonymous

Kléber wrote:

RICHYBOYcp, I know you single out Aurelio, but he (or she) has put some well worded articles on here. If you want to challenge them, why not take some time to gather your evidence and explain things from your point of view?

At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales.

I'm not talking about doping...I simply cannot be bothered...you are correct in much of what you say...but its been in Procycling since Coppi...and of course I'd love to see an end of it all....but like you say...Fairytales...

How did you know I was speaking of 'Aurelio'?....Im not going to challenge anyone...all I'm saying as this fanatical obsession is bordering on lunacy...its not 'right'....I simply cannot beleive the energy a person puts into a sporting icon?....I reckon a couple on here put more time on LA than they do with there partners...

And another thing...I honestly beleive that many would like to enter into topics about LA on this forum but are intimidated by the Anti LA bully boys.... and thats exactly what I think a few on here are...Bullies (only keyboard warriors right enough)....Ive seen on countless occasions people who have written in positive stuff about the man only to be slated and laughed at as if they were some type of ill educated imbecile....thats just out of order!...and I can't personally stand it....I dont mind conflicts of opinion but when its a ganged up attack- thats different.

I think a few on here should have rethink on how they word things...and take some of the 'aggression' out of there offerings....

iainf72

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Ive seen on countless occasions people who have written in positive stuff about the man only to be slated and laughed at as if they were some type of ill educated imbecile....thats just out of order!...and I can't personally stand it....I dont mind conflicts of opinion but when its a ganged up attack- thats different.

I can't think of many examples of that happening. But yes, that would be out of order. And there have been cases where people have been told to argue the point not the man.

As some people on here will know, before the comeback I used to get annoyed when people kept on banging on and on about Armstrong. As far as I was concerned, he was the past and lets talk about the now and future. Lance has decided to comeback and is now part of the now therefore is open to scrutiny. He's the one who talked of openness and transparancy yet what we're seeing seems to be more akin to spin and revisionism.

GeorgeShaw

BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...

Checking people's post history seems a bit obsessive as well. Chill. I think we get a good discussion here. No head-burying. Let's stick to discussing the point, not the people making the points.

Anonymous

GeorgeShaw wrote:

BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...

Checking people's post history seems a bit obsessive as well. Chill. I think we get a good discussion here. No head-burying. Let's stick to discussing the point, not the people making the points.

Disagree...we dont get good discussion here..(well not around LA anyway) we get the same hatred repeatably...with the guys.....Ive personally been called 'Niave'..'a Lance Fanboy' etc...all because I respect the man...and I simply state the facts about the man and his acheivements...no untruths...just the plain facts...and Ive seen a good few other guys in LA topics come to the same conclusion as me about a certain member....as I said Im very rarely on the Race section...its just so hostile.....but every time I have ventured onto it for a bit info I see the same guys all over every LA topic...its like they smother the topic....or they even turn non LA topics into 'LA Hate' topics...

Like I say, I think the attitude of some deter many others from entering discussion....and if Im correct then thats a real pity....and if the 'people who are making the points' are responsible for deterring others then I think we should discuss them also....

Im a fairly confident guy but even I have really had it with LA topics now...its just so much hassle... I would like to maybe take part in much of the topics here but the attitude here has completel put me off...and if its done that to me...then its surely done that to others...

Nothing wrong with healthy debate...thats what forums are all about....but around LA, there is very little healthy debate...more of a 'angry mob' mentality...

Grimone

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Guys,

I don't usually enter into the Race section too much, mostly because it concentrates so heavily on doping and now that LA has returned, it has swung the Anti LA brigade into overdrive...sometimes its just a bit of banter, sometimes its funny, and everyones obviously allowed there own viewpoint BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...or should concentrate his passions else where...to focus so much of one's time towards one man cannot be good for anyones mental health....surely.

Superb post. Totally agree.

andyp

About 20 years ago doping in cycling moved on, away from drugs like ampetamines that dulled the pain of racing hard and gave users a slightly euphoric feeling to drugs like EPO and synthetic HGH and doping techniques like blood doping that gave riders a 15-20% gain in performance.

Almost without exception, anyone who has won a grand tour since 1990 has done so using these methods. Some people still like to believe that Armstrong somehow achieved his wins without recourse to these methods mainly due to his statements that he did it on hard work and talent alone and the fact that he recovered from cancer. If he did win without drugs then he must be some kind of superhuman genetic freak but all the available evidence contradicts this. Too many people who come on here seem to be prepared to deny this and they get shot down by those of us weary of the myth of Armstrong.

Belokki

andyp wrote:

About 20 years ago doping in cycling moved on, away from drugs like ampetamines that dulled the pain of racing hard and gave users a slightly euphoric feeling to drugs like EPO and synthetic HGH and doping techniques like blood doping that gave riders a 15-20% gain in performance.

Prove it...

leguape

Kléber wrote:

At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales.

That's an weak analogy but one which is very telling about one side of the debate. At this time of year you can tell the kids Father Christmas doesn't exist, of course you can. That's one very narrow and proscriptive act which encourages no understanding whatsoever.

Or you can explain to them how "Father Christmas" is part of an extended tradition of folk story that can be traced back through various countries to the early catholicism of Saint Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra, who is associated with the giving of gifts. That his feast day, in early December, is still fairly widely marked in Catholic communities and that by some process of osmosis the Catholic church seems to have used him in its own takeover of the traditional mid-winter/solstice festivals which pre-date Christianity.

andyp wrote:

If he did win without drugs then he must be some kind of superhuman genetic freak but all the available evidence contradicts this. Too many people who come on here seem to be prepared to deny this and they get shot down by those of us weary of the myth of Armstrong.

So you discount every other influencing factor, such as racing one event a year with a team entirely focused on that. Or the 6 minutes that he gained on Passage de Gois which when discounted gives a win margin of about a minute and a bit? Or just the plain dumb luck of his chainstay not snapping in 2003 after the crash and when he'd been looking under pressure from Ullrich?

If your going to damn Armstrong with all the available evidence then you're, to some extent, damning Chris Boardman as well because a good clean rider could never win among dopers. Achievement in elite sport is always about some degree of genetic or other aberrance, if it wasn't then it simply wouldn't exist.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on these boards, based on the evidence presented and available. Those "weary of the myth of Armstrong" can posture all they like but I am happy to continue to argue the toss with evidence which is at best incomplete and at worst the worst sort of mythology dressed up as fact. Too many people on here get shot down by "you are stupid/wrong" posters before they even have a chance to form an opinion.

Anonymous

andyp wrote:

About 20 years ago doping in cycling moved on, away from drugs like ampetamines that dulled the pain of racing hard and gave users a slightly euphoric feeling to drugs like EPO and synthetic HGH and doping techniques like blood doping that gave riders a 15-20% gain in performance.

Almost without exception, anyone who has won a grand tour since 1990 has done so using these methods. Some people still like to believe that Armstrong somehow achieved his wins without recourse to these methods mainly due to his statements that he did it on hard work and talent alone and the fact that he recovered from cancer. If he did win without drugs then he must be some kind of superhuman genetic freak but all the available evidence contradicts this. Too many people who come on here seem to be prepared to deny this and they get shot down by those of us weary of the myth of Armstrong.

Hi Andy,

Ive got my own feelings on LA and doping....but I need a postive test or an admission....Imagine this was a Jury...Jeez...the man would be guilty without hard evidence or solid proof?...in court the case would be thrown out...

LA and drugs is not what Im getting at with this topic..its nothing to do with that at all.....its the stuff Ive said previously...so please dont turn this into another LA topic...

iainf72

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Like I say, I think the attitude of some deter many others from entering discussion....and if Im correct then thats a real pity....and if the 'people who are making the points' are responsible for deterring others then I think we should discuss them also....

Phew - Can't be me you're talking about. I went away for a while and we didn't get many new posters

If it's a debate and you have an opinion then why not chuck your 2p in. However you need to be prepared to back that opinion up. When the "anti" side can consistantly make a better case than the pro side that's got to tell you something, no?
Because if the argument is so weak surely someone could just bust out a killer fact?

eh

Only 2 things are scary:

1) That anyone could believe LA was clean. (It was that magic cadence I tell you :roll:)

2) That LA thinks coming back is a good thing. Sheesh like you've made millions dude enjoy it, rather than replacing Mike Tyson as the sports person everyone loves to hate.

nickwill

I've always subscribed to the maxim that its nearly impossible to prove a negative.

Its very easy for people to throw dirt, but its nearly impossible to completely disprove an allegation.

Whatever the facts are re Armstrong, I sense that a lot of the negativity is due to barely concealed anti- American racism. Otherwise many of his contemporaries would have received similar or greater levels of criticism over the years.

I also agree with Richie on the mob mentality which leads to a virtual lynching of anyone who shows any support for Armstrong.
Like a lot of people, I have some reservations about him, but I also can't help feeling that his return is quite exciting for the sport!

Yellow Peril

Surely logic dictates that the Anti LA lobby will prevail on the forum as the onus is on them to bring down Armstrong and expose him for being the drug cheat they believe him to be?

At the moment he is sitting reasonably pretty with his super human reputation relatively intact (the Simeoni "denial" though was a major gaffe)

How many pro racer career threads are there? I doubt there will be many banging on about how good someone is/was as a reputation and glittering racing career, considered cheat free and unblemished, speaks for itself. What could a pro Armstrong fan possibly have to say other than "prove it"?

LA is a powerful personality and a great influence worldwide. If he has mananged to pull off the greatest scam in cycling history then he should be exposed.

aurelio_-_banned

This thread contains so much that I love about the defenders of Armstrong! Cheers guys, you are priceless!

Firstly, we have, once again, people making personal attacks whilst moaning about being `bullied` when they regurgitate the spin and nonsense put out by Armstrong`s corporate-backed propaganda machine. (And I can only assume that by `bullied` they actually mean having the flaws and omissions in their `arguments` pointed out to them...).

Next we have the `hate` word bandied about. Ironic really given that, by his own admission, Armstrong himself has been so motivated by hate and a desire for vengeance on others...

We have people going on about how Armstrong would never be found guilty in a criminal court, conveniently overlooking the fact that doping, as controlled under WADA rules, only needs to be proved to the `comfortable satisfaction` of the investigatory panel. It is also the case that many people have been convicted of serious criminal offences on far less eye-witness, `forensic` and `circumstantial` evidence that stands against Armstrong.

Then we have talk about his `achievements`. I guess this mean doping his way to seven Tour `wins` with the help of doped team-mates and acknowledged doping experts such as Ferrari; his bullying and intimidation of those who have spoken out against doping, such as Bassons and Simeoni; his rock-solid adherence to cycling`s doping `omerta` and , last but not least, his cancer `awareness` foundation which spends almost half of it`s revenue on promoting the LAF/ Lance Armstrong and which, despite some clearly believing otherwise, has donated just 19 million dollars to cancer research out of the 270 million dollars it has raised since it was set up.

Best of all we have the old `anti-American` thing. Again such irony given that Armstrong himself has exploited and fed anti-French xenophobia whenever he has felt doing so would strengthen his position!

aurelio_-_banned

leguape wrote:

If your going to damn Armstrong with all the available evidence then you're, to some extent, damning Chris Boardman as well because a good clean rider could never win among dopers.

Er, how many times did Boardman win the Tour, which, after all is still the ultimate test and a far cry from some controlled, specialist event such as the pursuit or even the hour record? (Where, as we know, focusing on positioning and aerodynamics can make around 7km an hour difference to the rider`s performance).

The most telling comments that Boardman ever made was when he recalled how his physiological parameters said he should be up there in the top ten in the Tour, and then when the race hit the first set of mountains he found that `a hundred riders` just rode away from him. Now we know why...

aurelio_-_banned

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

I honestly beleive that many would like to enter into topics about LA on this forum but are intimidated by the Anti LA bully boys...

It seems to me that the `bullying` more often than not comes from the pro-Armstrong camp. Take some of the comments on this thread for instance.

Or this one. http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... ht=aurelio

andrewgturnbull

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Imagine this was a Jury...Jeez...the man would be guilty without hard evidence or solid proof?...in court the case would be thrown out...

Hi RichyBoycp.

In the court of public opinion people naturally go for the balance of evidence, rather than the reasonable doubt that a criminal court requires. It is instructive to look at the background and experience of those in the 'anti' camp as to those in the pro LA one.

Most people eventually seem to go through the same stages - starting of as fans, then going through the disappointment and betrayal of finding out the truth about pro cycling - then anger as the same sh!t seem to happen year after year without fail.

Maybe you're just on the early part of the curve? I dunno. Have you read the LA confidential translation links posted recently? Once you've read and digested that, you have the choice of either dismissing the first-hand witness accounts or starting to see that Lance was no different from Landis, Hamilton, Ullrich, Basso, Pantani, Vinokourov etc.

The only difference is that if you conclude that Lance doped, then the scale of the deception is greater than anything we've seen in cycling, or perhaps any sport to date.

Cheers, Andy

CyclingBantam

Kléber wrote:

Some of us bang on about doping because it matters. You might enjoy the scenic images of Alpine stages or have your heroes for the Northern Classics but if these guys are risking their health by consuming banned substances, what good is it for?

I've never been in a position where I've had to risk by health and break the law just to be able to do my job but in pro cycling, this has been the choice for many riders for the last 20 years. It's simply not right. If you care for pro cycling, you want it cleaned up, no?

Some people might just want "the show to go on" and not to talk about this sinister side but it can't go on like this. People can't put their health at risk and a sport can't be distorted by pharmaceuticals and crazed "doctors".

Doping is also unavoidable. Visit the Equipe.fr website and of the ten stories on theere, fiver are about doping. We can pretend these things don't exist or we can examine them and debate them, and this forum is a place to do it.

Encouragingly things are slowly changing, we won't ever get a totally clean peloton but look at the recent interview with Pierre Bordry, he thinks that well over half the bunch rode the Tour clean, this is astounding compared to previous years.

RICHYBOYcp, I know you single out Aurelio, but he (or she) has put some well worded articles on here. If you want to challenge them, why not take some time to gather your evidence and explain things from your point of view?

At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales.

That is totally missing the point though. The complaint clearly was not about people discussing doping it was people slating LA at every opportunity. I fully agree as well. Sure there are some dodgy things in LA's past however, bloody hell, how many positives are there as well. Vino doesn't get the same abuse, or Basso, Floyd, Anquetil etc... The LA 'hatred' seems to become totally obsessive. I get the impression some are more bothered about hating Lance than liking cycling.

andyp

Anquetil admitted to using drugs. He's not a good example in your list.

CyclingBantam

aurelio wrote:

This thread contains so much that I love about the defenders of Armstrong! Cheers guys, you are priceless!

Firstly, we have, once again, people making personal attacks whilst moaning about being `bullied` when they regurgitate the spin and nonsense put out by Armstrong`s corporate-backed propaganda machine. (And I can only assume that by `bullied` they actually mean having the flaws and omissions in their `arguments` pointed out to them...).

Next we have the `hate` word bandied about. Ironic really given that, by his own admission, Armstrong himself has been so motivated by hate and a desire for vengeance on others...

We have people going on about how Armstrong would never be found guilty in a criminal court, conveniently overlooking the fact that doping, as controlled under WADA rules, only needs to be proved to the `comfortable satisfaction` of the investigatory panel. It is also the case that many people have been convicted of serious criminal offences on far less eye-witness, `forensic` and `circumstantial` evidence that stands against Armstrong.

Then we have talk about his `achievements`. I guess this mean doping his way to seven Tour `wins` with the help of doped team-mates and acknowledged doping experts such as Ferrari; his bullying and intimidation of those who have spoken out against doping, such as Bassons and Simeoni; his rock-solid adherence to cycling`s doping `omerta` and , last but not least, his cancer `awareness` foundation which spends almost half of it`s revenue on promoting the LAF/ Lance Armstrong and which, despite some clearly believing otherwise, has donated just 19 million dollars to cancer research out of the 270 million dollars it has raised since it was set up.

Best of all we have the old `anti-American` thing. Again such irony given that Armstrong himself has exploited and fed anti-French xenophobia whenever he has felt doing so would strengthen his position!

Again you are totally missing the point of the OP's complaint. This is not a thread intended to discuss if LA is clean or not. It is (or seems to me, I can't really comment for the OP I guess! :oops: ) about the obsession some people have with him. Every thread that discusses LA descends to conversation about him cheating. Fair enough, some threads specifically about it sure, but not every thread. I am not saying that means we all gather together in a circle of Lance love but lay off the obsession with proving his guilt. You can't.

At the end of the day, I have doubts about LA however until he is proven guilty via official channels (or I see him doping with my own eyes) I will not proclaim him to be a cheat based on what someone has claimed on a website, irrespective of the 'evidence' provided.

CyclingBantam

andyp wrote:

Anquetil admitted to using drugs. He's not a good example in your list.

I think you get the point I was making. He was still a cheat anyway, but it was ok for him to do it wasn't it...

Anonymous

aurelio wrote:

This thread contains so much that I love about the defenders of Armstrong! Cheers guys, you are priceless!

Firstly, we have, once again, people making personal attacks whilst moaning about being `bullied` when they regurgitate the spin and nonsense put out by Armstrong`s corporate-backed propaganda machine. (And I can only assume that by `bullied` they actually mean having the flaws and omissions in their `arguments` pointed out to them...).

Next we have the `hate` word bandied about. Ironic really given that, by his own admission, Armstrong himself has been so motivated by hate and a desire for vengeance on others...

We have people going on about how Armstrong would never be found guilty in a criminal court, conveniently overlooking the fact that doping, as controlled under WADA rules, only needs to be proved to the `comfortable satisfaction` of the investigatory panel. It is also the case that many people have been convicted of serious criminal offences on far less eye-witness, `forensic` and `circumstantial` evidence that stands against Armstrong.

Then we have talk about his `achievements`. I guess this mean doping his way to seven Tour `wins` with the help of doped team-mates and acknowledged doping experts such as Ferrari; his bullying and intimidation of those who have spoken out against doping, such as Bassons and Simeoni; his rock-solid adherence to cycling`s doping `omerta` and , last but not least, his cancer `awareness` foundation which spends almost half of it`s revenue on promoting the LAF/ Lance Armstrong and which, despite some clearly believing otherwise, has donated just 19 million dollars to cancer research out of the 270 million dollars it has raised since it was set up.

Best of all we have the old `anti-American` thing. Again such irony given that Armstrong himself has exploited and fed anti-French xenophobia whenever he has felt doing so would strengthen his position!

Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!

andyp

BenBlyth wrote:

I think you get the point I was making. He was still a cheat anyway, but it was ok for him to do it wasn't it...

In a sense, yes it was as whilst drug usage was frowned upon during the bulk of Anquetil's career there was almost no testing for it. At worse he was taking amphetamines, which are somewhat less effective in real, quantifiable performance improvements than EPO or HGH.

You are also comparing him against today's attitudes and morals rather than those of his own era.