Questions for Lance haters

emadden · February 2009

Belokki wrote:

1. NO!... To me he's clean until proven guilty 8) ... you can speculate all you want, but he would not be the same in my eyes :?

2. NOPE!....never got cought...those tours were great...it was about cycling and rivalries...not tabloids and gossips full of the riders dirties... these days its all a out the reporters...

3. I already admited that he's special...people don't like him cuz he has a strong caracter and doesn't let himself get pushed around... he proved himself being clean by not being + in any test...there's your answer

4. Er no... But they proved that Eddy has doped, still they don't consider him a cheat but the greatest ever( mostly by people who didn't even see him ride...) To me Lance is the best, I did not see the others race( saw pantani and who... :shock: ...giving Ulle 9+ minutes in his prime is out of this world( DOPE)...even Lance could only give him 2 at max) so I can't judge them... I'm still you and I only saw the races from Indurain- onwards

Belokki

u r a funny man... I havent laughed like that for a while

warrior4life · February 2009

I watched my 1st tour in 89 and i would say i'm a lance fan, ive read books against him and for him and i honestly dont know what to think, if someone says he's clean i'd argue against them and if someone said he doped i'd argue.
Im sure plenty of people know the truth but i doubt anyone on here does.

1, if he had doped in that 1st year i would say he is one of the greatest, to say the greatest is a matter of opinion, im sure if you spent hours adding up all the variables you could come to an answer.

2, i cant answer this question, i honestly believe i have no idea.

3, He is pretty special no matter where he comes, if he wins this year then i would say the greatest tour rider ever.

4, Im very anti pantani. Merckx im a fan of, ive only read and seen clips.. my biggest memory of him is at the morgul bismark in american flyers.
As for Jacques Anquetil i really dont know anything about him.
My knowledge is only really from the tours from 89 onwards, ive seen every stage of everyone and lance armstrong is the best i've seen.

rockmount · February 2009

Pantani was a victim.

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

rockmount wrote:

Pantani was a victim.

I'd tend to agree. It could be argued that he was a victim of the culture that the likes of Armstrong create. As David Walsh said, quoting a former team mate of Armstrong, (I paraphrase) some people are dragged into doping in order to survive in a sport riddled with doping, and others, by virtue of the degree they are prepared to push the doping envelope, drag others into the doping arena. Armstrong was one of the 'draggers' not one of the 'dragged'.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

DaveyL · February 2009

I think you'll find the epo culture was a product of Spanish and Italian riders and doctors, and Armstrong was probably dragged into it by the Gewiss 1-2-3 at the Fleche Wallone in 1994. If you believe David Walsh, that is...

I'm sure Pantani was comfortably immersed in said culture just as early as Armstrong was.Trying to implicitly blame Armstrong for Pantani's demise is a bit far-fetched, even for you.

feersumendjinn · February 2009

I doubt Armstrong can be blamed for the culture of doping in cycling since its been prevalent from almost the beginning whether it be brandy & painkillers or epo
Its not easy to see any of them as victims either as unless they've been living on Mars for 200 years they would be fully aware of the doping going on within the sport after all you don't become a pro cyclist overnight
No one held them down to administer the drugs its a choice they made to further a career, if you don't want to do it there is other work out in the world

dennisn · February 2009

feersumendjinn wrote:

I doubt Armstrong can be blamed for the culture of doping in cycling since its been prevalent from almost the beginning whether it be brandy & painkillers or epo
Its not easy to see any of them as victims either as unless they've been living on Mars for 200 years they would be fully aware of the doping going on within the sport after all you don't become a pro cyclist overnight
No one held them down to administer the drugs its a choice they made to further a career, if you don't want to do it there is other work out in the world

+1 very well put

Dennis Noward

cadenza · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

rockmount wrote:

Pantani was a victim.

I'd tend to agree. It could be argued that he was a victim of the culture that the likes of Armstrong create. As David Walsh said, quoting a former team mate of Armstrong, (I paraphrase) some people are dragged into doping in order to survive in a sport riddled with doping, and others, by virtue of the degree they are prepared to push the doping envelope, drag others into the doping arena. Armstrong was one of the 'draggers' not one of the 'dragged'.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

Brilliant. Not only does the guy get convicted without evidence...he's now to shoulder the blame for the whole history of doping in cycling. Priceless!

What about the credit crunch...and my broken cistern...damn that Armstrong!!!

moray_gub · February 2009

DaveyL wrote:

I think you'll find the epo culture was a product of Spanish and Italian riders and doctors, and Armstrong was probably dragged into it by the Gewiss 1-2-3 at the Fleche Wallone in 1994. If you believe David Walsh, that is...

I'm sure Pantani was comfortably immersed in said culture just as early as Armstrong was.Trying to implicitly blame Armstrong for Pantani's demise is a bit far-fetched, even for you.

+1

MG

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

DaveyL wrote:

I think you'll find the epo culture was a product of Spanish and Italian riders and doctors, and Armstrong was probably dragged into it by the Gewiss 1-2-3 at the Fleche Wallone in 1994. If you believe David Walsh, that is...

I'm sure Pantani was comfortably immersed in said culture just as early as Armstrong was.Trying to implicitly blame Armstrong for Pantani's demise is a bit far-fetched, even for you.

I would agree that it was events such as that Gewiss 1-2-3 that led to Armstrong making the decision to get onto a properly managed doping 'program'. And I was not trying to blame Pantani's demise directly on Armstrong! I would say that any rider who feels that they need to dope is in a sense a 'victim' of the doping culture, including Armstrong himself. However, some are more complicit in maintaining the doping culture than others, and Armstrong, what with his dedication to preserving the doping 'omerta' and the way he bullied and intimidated those speaking out against the doping culture, such as Bassons and Simeoni, is one of those people.

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

cadenza wrote:

aurelio wrote:

rockmount wrote:

Pantani was a victim.

I'd tend to agree. It could be argued that he was a victim of the culture that the likes of Armstrong create. As David Walsh said, quoting a former team mate of Armstrong, (I paraphrase) some people are dragged into doping in order to survive in a sport riddled with doping, and others, by virtue of the degree they are prepared to push the doping envelope, drag others into the doping arena. Armstrong was one of the 'draggers' not one of the 'dragged'.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

Brilliant. Not only does the guy get convicted without evidence...he's now to shoulder the blame for the whole history of doping in cycling. Priceless!

I think that if you look up the meaning of the terms 'likes of', 'others' and 'one of' you will find that what I said makes it perfectly clear that many other people, other than Armstrong, can also be held to be accountable for the doping culture in cycling. :roll:

Kléber · February 2009

The omerta is a key problem and I'd suggest Armstrong is a key enforcer of the rule of silence. From a blaze of legal actions that he drops when the media heat subsides to bullying rides like Bassons, Simeoni and Landis or blacklisting journalists, he was not exactly Mr Transparent.

Pantani though, if a victim, was a victim of many things. Perhaps chemical imbalances in his body and mental instability, not to mention being surrounded by a lot of the wrong people. Armstrong's "Dumbo" taunt apparently did annoy him and if anything Pantani was pushed into cycling by his entourage - instead of therapy - because he was the only rider of toppling the Texan. But there's not much of a direction connection between the two, they barely talked.

blazing_saddles · February 2009

I love Pantani; a climbing genius.
He was a victim, simply because he was introduced to the doping culture, at an early impressionable age. Similar to the way in which those US juniors got roped in, during the '80s. Carrera invested heavily in "young talent".
I doubt if he knew much else. I'd be surprised if the decision was his alone.

A bit different to a mature pro rider who takes concious decision, because he is unable to compete on a clean basis. The cloak of Omerta was and still is, an insurance policy, that makes this transition, viable.

SpaceJunk · February 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I love Pantani; a climbing genius.
He was a victim, simply because he was introduced to the doping culture, at an early impressionable age. Similar to the way in which those US juniors got roped in, during the '80s. Carrera invested heavily in "young talent".
I doubt if he knew much else. I'd be surprised if the decision was his alone.

A bit different to a mature pro rider who takes concious decision, because he is unable to compete on a clean basis. The cloak of Omerta was and still is, an insurance policy, that makes this transition, viable.

I've just finished reading 'Death of Pantani' by Matt Rendel and must admit I have mixed emotions about this.

I guess if anything I sympathise with the fact that when he became addicted to cocaine, the last thing he needed was bike racing. Of course, everyone close to him needed him competing and that only contributed to his premature end.

That said, after reading this book I'm surprised he lived to Feb 2004. At the time, I thought his death was a bit of a shock. Looking back on it now, I really shouldn't been shocked.

Back to LA. I'm not a fan of the Texan - but even I think its ludicrous to say he was an influence on riders like Marco to dope.

Evidence appears to suggest that Pantani could have been doping as an amateur.

colint · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

cadenza wrote:

aurelio wrote:

rockmount wrote:

Pantani was a victim.

I'd tend to agree. It could be argued that he was a victim of the culture that the likes of Armstrong create. As David Walsh said, quoting a former team mate of Armstrong, (I paraphrase) some people are dragged into doping in order to survive in a sport riddled with doping, and others, by virtue of the degree they are prepared to push the doping envelope, drag others into the doping arena. Armstrong was one of the 'draggers' not one of the 'dragged'.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

Brilliant. Not only does the guy get convicted without evidence...he's now to shoulder the blame for the whole history of doping in cycling. Priceless!

I think that if you look up the meaning of the terms 'likes of', 'others' and 'one of' you will find that what I said makes it perfectly clear that many other people, other than Armstrong, can also be held to be accountable for the doping culture in cycling. :roll:

Nice attempt at back tracking but I think even you must realise your vitriol has gone a tad to far this time

colint · February 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I love Pantani; a climbing genius.
He was a victim, simply because he was introduced to the doping culture, at an early impressionable age. Similar to the way in which those US juniors got roped in, during the '80s. Carrera invested heavily in "young talent".
I doubt if he knew much else. I'd be surprised if the decision was his alone.

A bit different to a mature pro rider who takes concious decision, because he is unable to compete on a clean basis. The cloak of Omerta was and still is, an insurance policy, that makes this transition, viable.[/quote

totally agree, you can't say he didn't know what was going on, but he definitely seems to have been very closely controlled from an early age.

rapid_uphill · February 2009

why have the admins/mods not closed this thread instead of letting it become 10 pages long now?
this is just baiting, when are u people going to give it up?
the original poster should be banned for trolling.

i cant believe the admins/mods are letting this carry on.

colint · February 2009

It's par for course I'm afraid, I'll do my bit and make this my last post on the thread

finchy · February 2009

rapid_uphill wrote:

why have the admins/mods not closed this thread instead of letting it become 10 pages long now?
this is just baiting, when are u people going to give it up?
the original poster should be banned for trolling.

i cant believe the admins/mods are letting this carry on.

Which bits do you object to specifically? Not criticising, just curious.

micron · February 2009

I thought this was a perfectly civilised thread with some well thought out arguments. The only 'vitriol' seems to be coming from one camp...

Of course the lines are drawn and nobody is going to change their minds because of this thread. Sure, some of the old arguments are getting rehashed again, but it's interesting that doping plays a relatively small part in reactions to Armstrong and that, while many posters may have a strong visceral reaction to him they can also admit his qualities as a rider.

Besides, isn't it better to have one thread on HWSNBN at a time, rather than a proliferation?

rapid_uphill · February 2009

i give up

does anyone here love marmite? apparently its really good for you. i personally hate the stuff.

and so on.

finchy · February 2009

rapid_uphill wrote:

i give up

does anyone here love marmite? apparently its really good for you. i personally hate the stuff.

and so on.

I wouldn't say I love it, but I always feel better for having eaten some.

dennisn · February 2009

rapid_uphill wrote:

i give up

does anyone here love marmite? apparently its really good for you. i personally hate the stuff.

and so on.

Had to look it up on the web(from the U.S. you know). Strange looking stuff. Never seen
or heard of it before.

Dennis Noward

colint · February 2009

micron wrote:

I thought this was a perfectly civilised thread with some well thought out arguments. The only 'vitriol' seems to be coming from one camp...

Glad we agree

rapid_uphill · February 2009

actually scrap that, i once had it with cheese on toast, it was quite nice as i remember.
i think in australia they call it vegimite or some cr@p not sure what its called in USA

finchy · February 2009

dennisn wrote:

rapid_uphill wrote:

i give up

does anyone here love marmite? apparently its really good for you. i personally hate the stuff.

and so on.

Had to look it up on the web(from the U.S. you know). Strange looking stuff. Never seen
or heard of it before.

Dennis Noward

I'd get some if I were you, it's a perfect boost to your immune system. I'm 107 years old, and I've worked down a coal mine since I was 10. I've eaten a slice of bread with a teaspoonful of marmite everyday of my life, and I have never once had so much as a slight cold.

Moomaloid · February 2009

Is this STILL going?? :roll:

finchy · February 2009

Moomaloid wrote:

Is this STILL going?? :roll:

Marmite or Lance? They are both fascinating debates, and long may they continue.

rockmount · February 2009

Moomaloid wrote:

Is this STILL going?? :roll:

.. I'm surprised the mods haven't considered the libellous nature of the opinions expressed (it's their responsibility, not the poster's) ... :shock: :shock:

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

colint wrote:

aurelio wrote:

cadenza wrote:

aurelio wrote:

rockmount wrote:

Pantani was a victim.

I'd tend to agree. It could be argued that he was a victim of the culture that the likes of Armstrong create. As David Walsh said, quoting a former team mate of Armstrong, (I paraphrase) some people are dragged into doping in order to survive in a sport riddled with doping, and others, by virtue of the degree they are prepared to push the doping envelope, drag others into the doping arena. Armstrong was one of the 'draggers' not one of the 'dragged'.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

Brilliant. Not only does the guy get convicted without evidence...he's now to shoulder the blame for the whole history of doping in cycling. Priceless!

I think that if you look up the meaning of the terms 'likes of', 'others' and 'one of' you will find that what I said makes it perfectly clear that many other people, other than Armstrong, can also be held to be accountable for the doping culture in cycling. :roll:

Nice attempt at back tracking but I think even you must realise your vitriol has gone a tad to far this time

Perhaps you should also take a look in a dictionary. You appear to be rather confused about the difference between 'backtracking' and 'explaining what I actually said for the benefit of those with limited English comprehension skills'. :roll:

Questions for Lance haters

Comments

Categories