This is Scary!

Patrick1.0

Hmm, people need to relax a little bit. These debates go round and round and the camps never change their attitudes.

On things like the Tour, people dope to recover from the day to day as much as anything else. 5 hours in the saddle is hard, no matter how much you train for that and when you throw in going up mountains on your limit, it's very hard. They do it because the body can only take so much of a pounding before it breaks down. If everybody else in the peloton was taking epo and hgh when Lance was winning theTour, Lance was taking this stuff too. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise because people do not just ride away from people stuffed to the eyeballs on epo. Certainly not at that level. Not unless they're taking it too.

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Earlier this year I said that the Giro d'Italia was a festival of doping and that I could not care for the results as it was riddled with doping. A couple of voices asked what I was on about but now we've seen Ricco, Piepoli and Sella caught and there were probably many others. No one is that surprised. Yet if you dare to mention that a certain US rider might have done the same as every other GC contender from the past 15 years, a debate/fight breaks out on here, people leap up to defend this one rider when they are rare to stand behind Ricco, Vinokourov or other riders. I can't find another rider with such evangelical support.

It`s just this sort of inconsistency / irrationality that keeps me coming back to this issue! Despite what some might like to believe I couldn`t care less about Armstrong on any personal level. Rather I find the whole Armstrong debate fascinating because it so well illustrates the power of the corporate-controlled media and the way `my truth is as good as yours` relativism is coming to replace rationalism in the modern age. And when people seriously begin to argue that the truth doesn`t matter as much as protecting corporate profits ("On balance, I think I would prefer the lie to the truth....think how many jobs would be lost in cycling"), well, it all adds to the fears I have for the future of humanity...

I also find the psychology of many of Armstrong`s disciples intriguing. I am not saying that this applies to posters on here, nor does this apply to all Armstrong`s supporters, but it does seem that many side with Armstrong largely because this fits in with their generally Francophobe attitudes. (Something which Armstrong himself has not been slow to exploit). It also seems that many Armstrong supporters are rather right-wing in their outlook, but perhaps this is what is to be expected given that a classic characteristic of the right-wing mindset is a high level of admiration for `heroes` and authority figures. Given Armstrong`s mythical status and power, not to say the way he so well represents the individualistic, all-powerfull `Übermenschen`, it is perhaps unsurprising that such individuals should be affronted when one of the `lower orders` such as myself dare to criticise him!

you're a bore. LA is no worse than indurain who maintains a lie and criticised Riis for confessing. You repost, repeat repost, repaste old links you've pasted in over and over that anyone with google search can source...you talk like you're some sort of investigative journalist...you present no new evidence of anything about LA and anyone can find it...you add nothing new, don't you notice that you repaste the same links in ever week or two?...unauthenticated recording, the science of Lance Armstrong clips...boring boring...we've all seen them or listened to them already

I'll enjoy watching a doper among dopers, or a former doper among former dopers...and LA's ego will get him into trouble in 09 when he can't win and finally we see him throw the toys out the pram, blame everyone around him, I'll enjoy it- why can't you?

moray_gub

[quote="John Stevenson"



If you believe that a heated debate has crossed over into personal abuse, and posters are playing the man, not the ball, then bring it to our attention and we'll deal with it.[/quote]


You only deal with it when it suits you though, when it comes to this forum the admins only seem to step in with certain posters and let others have a free reign.

MG

moray_gub

aurelio wrote:

It also seems that many Armstrong supporters are rather right-wing in their outlook, but perhaps this is what is to be expected given that a classic characteristic of the right-wing mindset is a high level of admiration for `heroes` and authority figures. Given Armstrong`s mythical status and power, not to say the way he so well represents the individualistic, all-powerfull `Übermenschen`, it is perhaps unsurprising that such individuals should be affronted when one of the `lower orders` such as myself dare to criticise him!

Buddy you sure as hell have some issues you need to sort out.

MG

aurelio_-_banned

Moray Gub wrote:

aurelio wrote:

It also seems that many Armstrong supporters are rather right-wing in their outlook, but perhaps this is what is to be expected given that a classic characteristic of the right-wing mindset is a high level of admiration for `heroes` and authority figures. Given Armstrong`s mythical status and power, not to say the way he so well represents the individualistic, all-powerfull `Übermenschen`, it is perhaps unsurprising that such individuals should be affronted when one of the `lower orders` such as myself dare to criticise him!

Buddy you sure as hell have some issues you need to sort out.

Issues? Looking at the comments of many posters it seems fairly clear that an individual`s attitude towards Armstrong is often influenced, at least partly, by their view of what Armstrong represents. This includes the way he is an icon of corporate America, his single-minded `dog eat dog` individualism, his anti-French xenophobia and so on. Taking such factors into account it seems quite natural that those with a generally right-wing outlook would tend to see him as being more admirable that someone with more egalitarian, liberal views!

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

You repost, repeat repost, repaste old links you've pasted in over and over that anyone with google search can source...

OK, here`s a challenge. Find some links, other than those I have provided, to a copy of L.A. Confidentiel anywhere else on the web....

Kléber

We've all got "issues". Some like to post about the superiority of Campagnolo or spend time denouncing Rapha clothing. Others will swear power meters are essential training tools. Some on here are strongly against motoring. And yes, some people are concerned about Armstrong's presence in pro cycling.

None of this is that scary, it's partly what the internet is about, as you can find a niche and enjoy it, debate it and rant about it. It's a forum, so you can post on what you like but I'd like to hope people don't just start threads trying to have a go at fellow forum members just because they have different views or because they like to post on a particular topic.

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

You repost, repeat repost, repaste old links you've pasted in over and over that anyone with google search can source...

OK, here`s a challenge. Find some links, other than those I have provided, to a copy of L.A. Confidentiel anywhere else on the web....

I read those links 2 years ago mate...you googled them out. I i found them when I did a random search just to see what gets written about LA back in 06. I hate LA as much as most. Somes lies are best not revealed...I admit I'd rather the truth did not get out as I'd feel for all the poor sods coming into pro cycling that would lose their chance at a career in cycling when all the sponsors run after an LA+

Anyway, Lance will get beaten by Contador...this is the best battle in pro cycling since Hinault-Lemond...

andylav

These debates go round and round

I know what you mean - go to Veloriders.co.uk and do a search for posts by Howard Peel.

Makes the posts in here seem like Groundhog Day

blazing_saddles

Kléber wrote:

We've all got "issues".

None of this is that scary, it's partly what the internet is about, as you can find a niche and enjoy it, debate it and rant about it. It's a forum, so you can post on what you like but I'd like to hope people don't just start threads trying to have a go at fellow forum members just because they have different views or because they like to post on a particular topic.

I absolutely agree. Appallingly intolerant behaviour towards individuals, simply because the views held don't conform to what is, a questionable perception.
This is a far more tangible form of hatred, than can be associated to any labelling of a faction.

I seem to recall a thread of this nature a while back. It was rapidly locked down. I wonder why this one has been allowed to fester for so long.

colint

maybe because even the mods are so utterly bored by the whole thing that they can't be ar$ed reading it all.....

dave_1

colint wrote:

maybe because even the mods are so utterly bored by the whole thing that they can't be ar$ed reading it all.....

yes, am a little bored by it...LA has done 11 tests now in 3 1/2 months...a lot out of season for anyone...but not enough...no substance yet added to the "he fled a dope test" in Spain story...there are no mods and it's exploited

moray_gub

aurelio wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

aurelio wrote:

It also seems that many Armstrong supporters are rather right-wing in their outlook, but perhaps this is what is to be expected given that a classic characteristic of the right-wing mindset is a high level of admiration for `heroes` and authority figures. Given Armstrong`s mythical status and power, not to say the way he so well represents the individualistic, all-powerfull `Übermenschen`, it is perhaps unsurprising that such individuals should be affronted when one of the `lower orders` such as myself dare to criticise him!

Buddy you sure as hell have some issues you need to sort out.

Issues? Looking at the comments of many posters it seems fairly clear that an individual`s attitude towards Armstrong is often influenced, at least partly, by their view of what Armstrong represents. This includes the way he is an icon of corporate America, his single-minded `dog eat dog` individualism, his anti-French xenophobia and so on. Taking such factors into account it seems quite natural that those with a generally right-wing outlook would tend to see him as being more admirable that someone with more egalitarian, liberal views!

I dont think you could be any more stereotypical if you tried. My political views or which side of the right/left diviide i sit has absolutely no bearing on how i feel towards Lance Armstrong. I suspect thats the case for most folks the fact is your anti american attitude is somewhat distatseful and toi hide this you use nonsense like the above.

MG

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

[
I absolutely agree. Appallingly intolerant behaviour towards individuals, simply because the views held don't conform to what is, a questionable perception.
This is a far more tangible form of hatred, than can be associated to any labelling of a faction.

.

Your right the anti Lance brigade when they are in full flight are not a pretty sight.

MG

moray_gub

Kléber wrote:

We've all got "issues". Some like to post about the superiority of Campagnolo or spend time denouncing Rapha clothing. Others will swear power meters are essential training tools. Some on here are strongly against motoring. And yes, some people are concerned about Armstrong's presence in pro cycling.

None of this is that scary, it's partly what the internet is about, as you can find a niche and enjoy it, debate it and rant about it. It's a forum, so you can post on what you like but I'd like to hope people don't just start threads trying to have a go at fellow forum members just because they have different views or because they like to post on a particular topic.

The difference is my cycling issues (and i have a few) dont get me so wound up that i resort to extreme anti americanism and foaming at the mouth left wing nonsense.

MG

aurelio_-_banned

Moray Gub wrote:

My political views or which side of the right/left diviide i sit has absolutely no bearing on how i feel towards Lance Armstrong.

For one, to assume that such a statement must apply to you, or any other individual for that matter, is to do nothing more than to commit a common error of logic, that of `affirming the consequent`.

Secondly, whilst it is perfectly possible that an individual`s `political` world view has no bearing on their attitude towards a specific issue, it remains the case that, generally speaking, an individuals views are as much a reflection of their general `political` outlook as much as the evidence available. John Adams book `Risk` provides an interesting discussion of this issue in relation to the perception of risk, and why `right-wing` hierarchists are, for example, much more likely to be climate change skeptics than `left-wing` egalitarians.

aurelio_-_banned

Moray Gub wrote:

my cycling issues (and i have a few) dont get me so wound up that i resort to extreme anti americanism and foaming at the mouth left wing nonsense.

Well, using terms like that is one way to nail one`s political colours to the mast.

moray_gub

aurelio wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

my cycling issues (and i have a few) dont get me so wound up that i resort to extreme anti americanism and foaming at the mouth left wing nonsense.

Well, using terms like that is one way to nail one`s political colours to the mast.

Not so..... if you came away with foaming at the mouth right wing nonsense i would say exactly the same.

MG

aurelio_-_banned

Moray Gub wrote:

Not so..... if you came away with foaming at the mouth right wing nonsense i would say exactly the same.

OK, thats a point to you. Well played!

aurelio_-_banned

andylav wrote:

These debates go round and round

I know what you mean - go to Veloriders.co.uk and do a search for posts by Howard Peel. Makes the posts in here seem like Groundhog Day

Great minds think alike? Or perhaps a case of everything on the internet having been borrowed from somewhere else on the internet.

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

andylav wrote:

These debates go round and round

I know what you mean - go to Veloriders.co.uk and do a search for posts by Howard Peel. Makes the posts in here seem like Groundhog Day

Great minds think alike? Or perhaps a case of everything on the internet having been borrowed from somewhere else on the internet.

You're the king of cut and paste, save and re-post..every lance posting has you pasting in some phonecall or , clip or widely available uni report on LA...find something new or move on to a different topic

colint

or try riding your bike more, it clears the head

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

find something new or move on to a different topic

Look, I agree that this topic has been done to death. However, this thread only exists because someone saw fit to make a personal attack on me, so if you want to blame someone for providing an excuse to go through all this again, blame them. (In fact, as I recall, I have myself only started 3 threads about Armstrong the whole time I have been on this forum).

Secondly, do you think that the cycling magazines, press and TV will see fit to `move on to a different topic`, or will they continue to bore everyone to death with their insipid fawning over Armstrong, whilst also acting as a largely uncritical channel for the outpourings of his corporate PR machine?

In an ideal world the `party line` of the Armstrong PR machine would be challenged on an equal level. Unfortunately it seems that, for some at least, their intolerance and totalitarian impulses means that they cannot accept even a few lone voices of dissent on some cycling forum, a forum that probably only 0.000001% of those who are subjected to the spin, revisionism and propaganda of Armstrong`s PR machine will ever see.

ellieb

Dave_1 wrote:

You're the king of cut and paste, save and re-post..every lance posting has you pasting in some phonecall or , clip or widely available uni report on LA...find something new or move on to a different topic

Or post what to want to post... It's up to other people if they want to read it.

Moomaloid

ellieb wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

You're the king of cut and paste, save and re-post..every lance posting has you pasting in some phonecall or , clip or widely available uni report on LA...find something new or move on to a different topic

Or post what to want to post... It's up to other people if they want to read it.

+1

richard wants a baum

Moomaloid wrote:

ellieb wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

You're the king of cut and paste, save and re-post..every lance posting has you pasting in some phonecall or , clip or widely available uni report on LA...find something new or move on to a different topic

Or post what to want to post... It's up to other people if they want to read it.

+1

+2

dennisn

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

find something new or move on to a different topic

Look, I agree that this topic has been done to death. However, this thread only exists because someone saw fit to make a personal attack on me, so if you want to blame someone for providing an excuse to go through all this again, blame them. (In fact, as I recall, I have myself only started 3 threads about Armstrong the whole time I have been on this forum).

Secondly, do you think that the cycling magazines, press and TV will see fit to `move on to a different topic`, or will they continue to bore everyone to death with their insipid fawning over Armstrong, whilst also acting as a largely uncritical channel for the outpourings of his corporate PR machine?

In an ideal world the `party line` of the Armstrong PR machine would be challenged on an equal level. Unfortunately it seems that, for some at least, their intolerance and totalitarian impulses means that they cannot accept even a few lone voices of dissent on some cycling forum, a forum that probably only 0.000001% of those who are subjected to the spin, revisionism and propaganda of Armstrong`s PR machine will ever see.

WOW!!!! Just WOW!!!! Sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to get involved in this anymore but there was an asterisk on that and it said I reserved the right to make a snide remark every once in a while. WOW!!!

Dennis Noward

richard wants a baum

The for most post without any meaning or point goes to.... ( que drum roll)








DennisN

If something is that intresting to you dennis that you feel the need to comment then maybe you should also add the the discussion instead of just repeating one word.

Arkibal

richard wants a baum wrote:

The for most post without any meaning or point goes to.... ( que drum roll)








DennisN

If something is that intresting to you dennis that you feel the need to comment then maybe you should also add the the discussion instead of just repeating one word.

again you "attack" the poster, not his post.
Most of us think aurelio has a lance armstrong syndrome, you can't deny that?!
He/she has posted 400+ posts, very few not involving LA.
:roll:

moray_gub

ellieb wrote:

Or post what to want to post... It's up to other people if they want to read it.

yep its also up to people if they want to pass comment on what he posts .

MG