Milan - San Remo report

dave_1 · March 2009

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

You've spent many hours per week digging up all you can on LA...

Eh? It seems that one can't help but read about the man if one reads the cycling press, and there are plenty of places you can vist and find all the dirt you want on Armstrong in a moment, no 'digging' required.

Dave_1 wrote:

I personally think you will try something if you get near him at a race you seem that angry.

Please! I am as chilled as could be. It's just that rattling the cages of Armstrong's fan-boys is just too much fun to resist.

Dave_1 wrote:

Any hardcore cycling fan knows what he and others had to do-move on!...

So who are all those people who claim that he never doped everytime that the subject is mentioned?

Dave_1 wrote:

psl don't , greg and stef link me

OK, by way of a change...

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81ba27/ ... s_1_50_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81bb10/ ... 51_100_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/aaa0f2/ ... 01_150_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81b9c5/n/BigTex_4_pdf

Thnaks for the book links...as a matter of fact, have tried to retrieve them...read them 2 years ago and a friend I know hasn't had the benefit of reading them...however, you spend too much time on one person and your contributions on other race topics would no doubt be good. Leave the LA stuff a bit eh...you come across as disturbed at times, the depth of of your anger such that I would not be surprised ifyou've been attracting the attention of LAs guys keeping in mind he is paranoid about fans on the roadside...maybe your details requested from this website or to be?

moray_gub · March 2009

aurelio wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

The level of sadness required to sit and count the words is what im getting at.

I didn't 'sit and count' them. If you paste text into a word processing program you can use a feature called 'word count'. Takes about 5 seconds. :roll:

Anyhow, thanks for that 'valuable contribution' to the debate. Personally I think that making such personal attacks is a poor substitute for saying something sensible and relevant.

You are obsessed with LA anyobody reading these forums can see that, its not a personal attack to point that out. As for forum guidelines you should read this.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12611535

MG

leguape · March 2009

aurelio wrote:

Today's news page on Cyclingnews.com - Cavendish's win 323 words, Armstrong's 125th place at 8.19, 349 words. True there is is a longer report as well, but this hardly makes a dent in the total number of words they have expended on Armstrong's participation in the race.

And not a single word about Emma Pooley's win in the opening race of the GP Etrusca races, nor Kristin Armstrong coming in second, nor Sarah Duster making it 2 from 2 for Cervelo Test Team. Meanwhile they happily infringe Rai/RCS copyright by using Youtube footage ripped from another rightsholder's coverage.

I can understand why an online site would flog Armstrong for all it's worth for the simple reason that search volumes demand it and search is supposedly king. It's also long and flabby copy that could have done with a good hard subbing.

aurelio_-_banned · March 2009

leguape wrote:

It's also long and flabby copy that could have done with a good hard subbing.

:shock:

iainf72 · March 2009

leguape wrote:

I can understand why an online site would flog Armstrong for all it's worth for the simple reason that search volumes demand it and search is supposedly king. It's also long and flabby copy that could have done with a good hard subbing.

Wot, my attempt at humour needs a good subbing! How dare you sir! I'll have you know I'm not even a journalist...

dave_1 · March 2009

iainf72 wrote:

leguape wrote:

I can understand why an online site would flog Armstrong for all it's worth for the simple reason that search volumes demand it and search is supposedly king. It's also long and flabby copy that could have done with a good hard subbing.

Wot, my attempt at humour needs a good subbing! How dare you sir! I'll have you know I'm not even a journalist...

being more serios...i am looking forward to Tuesday, wednesday next week when contador and LA race the TT and mountain stage...

oh and there's another interview to sneer at him for if you guys aren't done already

How many words Aurelio?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews.p ... rong_mar09

aurelio_-_banned · March 2009

Dave_1 wrote:

oh and there's another interview to sneer at him for if you guys aren't done already

How many words Aurelio?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews.p ... rong_mar09

Over 2,800...

What is interesting is how there is so little discussion of cancer or his 'Cancer campaign', apart from his evasive answer to the question asking whether his donates any of his huge 'appearance fees' to the cause. "The answer is a tricky answer, I could say yes and I can say no." Give the relative meanings of 'could' and 'can' in that sentence I guess the answer is 'No".

And I had though his comeback was all about 'raising the awareness of cancer', whatever that means. :roll:

dave_1 · March 2009

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

oh and there's another interview to sneer at him for if you guys aren't done already

How many words Aurelio?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews.p ... rong_mar09

Over 2,800...

What is interesting is how there is so little discussion of cancer or his 'Cancer campaign', apart from his evasive answer to the question asking whether his donates any of his huge 'appearance fees' to the cause. "The answer is a tricky answer, I could say yes and I can say no." Give the relative meanings of 'could' and 'can' in that sentence I guess the answer is 'No".

And I had though his comeback was all about 'raising the awareness of cancer', whatever that means. :roll:

you're up early...lightening fast reply...busy day for you Aurelio? thinking about Lance all day am sure. Has a request been made fo the details kept on you for this website? I think likely...and given no competent court has found him guilty of what you'd like all readers to believe...you will have to watch what you say

you're slightly ...doing the impression of being mentally ill IMO...not for being annoyed about what we all know about how the grand tours are won...but for the level of obsession-you're a little pathological IMO. Given your level of anger I think you are a danger to LA in any event that passes near you with him or that you attend-any psychiatrist would agree I think

edit-do you live on the other side of the Atlantic...judging by the time of your reply???

Kléber · March 2009

Dave_1 wrote:

am sure the organiser of the castilla y leon is sick of hearing about LA and wants him nowhere near the event in case viewers swtich off and don't watch...like they did in South Australia

Yes but Armstrong will be gone next year. Race organisers need to get people interested in Contador and Sanchez and to build up the race on sustainable foundations, not a one off circus event.

For all those attacking Aurelio, if half your energy was spent lobbying the UCI for cleaner racing the sport would be so much healthier. Remember the news that prosecutions under the bio passport scheme were "days or weeks away"? Only that was... months ago.

Like it or not, organised doping, whether internal to the team or outsourced to witchdoctors, has been the scourge of professional cycling in creating an arms race with riders taking increasing risks to outperform each other.

Anyone shining a light on these dark practices, those who lift the carpet to reveal the sweepings of Verbruggen and McQuaid, those willing to chip away at the omerta, all these people should be supported. By all means question the argument but try not to get personal.

dave_1 · March 2009

Kléber wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

am sure the organiser of the castilla y leon is sick of hearing about LA and wants him nowhere near the event in case viewers swtich off and don't watch...like they did in South Australia

Yes but Armstrong will be gone next year. Race organisers need to get people interested in Contador and Sanchez and to build up the race on sustainable foundations, not a one off circus event.

For all those attacking Aurelio, if half your energy was spent lobbying the UCI for cleaner racing the sport would be so much healthier. Remember the news that prosecutions under the bio passport scheme were "days or weeks away"? Only that was... months ago.

Like it or not, organised doping, whether internal to the team or outsourced to witchdoctors, has been the scourge of professional cycling in creating an arms race with riders taking increasing risks to outperform each other.

Anyone shining a light on these dark practices, those who lift the carpet to reveal the sweepings of Verbruggen and McQuaid, those willing to chip away at the omerta, all these people should be supported. By all means question the argument but try not to get personal.

as you say, next year they will have others to build the event up on...buit for now, in the current economic climate I am sure the organiser will never take your view...they will be happy LA is there. As for Aurelio, he's like the loon that runs in front of F1 cars, the one they were handing out leaflets about years back at ToB...look out for the guy...plenty others make their point and discuss cycling generally on other threads...you need to realise that...i want to talk about cycling , not one issue

blazing_saddles · March 2009

I would imagine the organisers are extremely pleased that the event will go ahead.
It, unlike so many other Spanish races, that weren't so lucky, managed to avoid falling off the financial cliff.
Nothing to do with the appearance of LA, however. They secured the cash before he signed up.

What is interesting, however, is the amount of tv coverage this race is now getting.
That is almost certainly due to the attraction of the Astana men.

Of course, if the recession remains with us, next season, I would expect this race to be cancelled. It will join an ever increasing list.
The more "casual" attitude to organised doping, that has flourished for almost two decades in Spain, is finally unravelling theiir calander, race by race.
Cash strapped sponsors have a ready made excuse to pull the plug.

The long term initiative must be as Kleber has outlined. The UCI must not be allowed to drag their feet, for we all know the cheaters certainly don't.

dave_1 · March 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I would imagine the organisers are extremely pleased that the event will go ahead.
It, unlike so many other Spanish races, that weren't so lucky, managed to avoid falling off the financial cliff.
Nothing to do with the appearance of LA, however. They secured the cash before he signed up.

What is interesting, however, is the amount of tv coverage this race is now getting.
That is almost certainly due to the attraction of the Astana men.

Of course, if the recession remains with us, next season, I would expect this race to be cancelled. It will join an ever increasing list.
The more "casual" attitude to organised doping, that has flourished for almost two decades in Spain, is finally unravelling theiir calander, race by race.
Cash strapped sponsors have a ready made excuse to pull the plug.

The long term initiative must be as Kleber has outlined. The UCI must not be allowed to drag their feet, for we all know the cheaters certainly don't.

don't you think the viewing figueres, TV , radio, online will be used by the organiser securing sponsors, or trying to sign sponsors for the following year???

Kléber · March 2009

A sponsor will know the results were inflated by the comeback circus. They will look at long term trends. Remember, if Valverde is punished by CONI then the entire Caisse d'Epargne team could fold, with staff paid their salaries in full but the sponsor withdraws mid-season. Another blow to Spanish cycling.

dave_1 · March 2009

Kléber wrote:

A sponsor will know the results were inflated by the comeback circus. They will look at long term trends. Remember, if Valverde is punished by CONI then the entire Caisse d'Epargne team could fold, with staff paid their salaries in full but the sponsor withdraws mid-season. Another blow to Spanish cycling.

that is assumed...we don't know about next year yet. Things look bad in Spain though.

GroupOfOne MkII · March 2009

johnfinch wrote:

cougie wrote:

Times relegated Cavs win to a few paragraphs at the back. they did have a full page spread on F1 though - which doesnt even start til next week....

....and is a crap, boring sport for couch potatoes.

Yeah, whereas cycling is a crap sport for druggies :roll:

finchy · March 2009

GroupOfOne MkII wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

cougie wrote:

Times relegated Cavs win to a few paragraphs at the back. they did have a full page spread on F1 though - which doesnt even start til next week....

....and is a crap, boring sport for couch potatoes.

Yeah, whereas cycling is a crap sport for druggies :roll:

Blasphemer! Burn the blasphemer! Kill! Hate! Destroy! :twisted:

aurelio_-_banned · March 2009

P.s at times Armstrong even makes me laugh out loud. For example:

CN: What allows this 'new' openness to speak about doping?

LA: I didn't know it wasn't allowed.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews.p ... rong_mar09

And this from one of the greatest-ever enforcers of the doping 'omerta' what with his treatment of Bassons, Simeoni and so on! What a card!

Kléber · March 2009

aurelio wrote:

Hang on a minute, didn't this come from a man who was recently earning 26 million dollars a year and who has amassed a huge personal fortune from advertising deals and so on?

I'd heard from someone in "wealth management" that he'd lost a lot in a small Texan hedge fund called Trident and had to sell one of his houses.

dave_1 · March 2009

you can party lads...not that you bitter or anything eh

dave_1 · March 2009

Aurelio, you're not chilled. I am well aware of how grand tours are won. But in your postings we see the anger of a bitter loser in life, ...this forum should strike a balance between free speech and bitter losers being able to take over the forum debates...

what have you acheieved as a racing cyclist?

John Stevenson · March 2009

Dave_1

Play the ball not the man please. Flagging posts because you don't like someone's opinion is abuse of the system, as is calling them names.

Knock it off.

andyp · March 2009

Dave_1 wrote:

Aurelio, you're not chilled. I am well aware of how grand tours are won. But in your postings we see the anger of a bitter loser in life, ...this forum should strike a balance between free speech and bitter losers being able to take over the forum debates...

what have you acheieved as a racing cyclist?

Not that old chestnut. Can someone please explain to me why only those who've performed at the highest level of a sport are qualified to give an opinion on it?

The level of 'analysis' provided by the likes of Shearer and Lawrenson on Match of the Day would strongly suggest that it's no qualification whatsoever.

dave_1 · March 2009

John Stevenson wrote:

Dave_1

Play the ball not the man please. Flagging posts because you don't like someone's opinion is abuse of the system, as is calling them names.

Knock it off.

I think it reasonable that people prove what they say...if 7 TDF wins are a "scam", then prove it..you post terms we should agree to so, surely a competent court has to prove his comment... and has not. . the forum has been unmoderated for over a year..since C+ finished...Boardman, Wiggins...everyone gets accused on here...why should that be allowed?

Kléber · March 2009

Dave_1 wrote:

Boardman, Wiggins...everyone gets accused on here...why should that be allowed?

That got shut down very quickly and rightly so, for the poster presented no evidence, nothing to support their case. By contrast, Aurelio can present many sources - a library full - which can make some posters reflect on Armstrong's career.

camerone · March 2009

i thought there was a Lance ultimate doping thread so that every post in Pro race didnt spiral into the usual aurelio et al 'who has the biggest library of circumstantial evidence on Lance' contest?

moray_gub · March 2009

John Stevenson wrote:

Dave_1

Play the ball not the man please. Flagging posts because you don't like someone's opinion is abuse of the system, as is calling them names.

Knock it off.

Here we go selective moderation again :-(

MG

moray_gub · March 2009

Kléber wrote:

Boardman, Wiggins...everyone gets accused on here...why should that be allowed?

That got shut down very quickly and rightly so, for the poster presented no evidence, nothing to support their case. By contrast, Aurelio can present many sources - a library full - which can make some posters reflect on Armstrong's career.[/quote]

get a room !

andyp · March 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

Here we go selective moderation again :-(

MG

What? Dave_1 called Aurelio a bitter loser, a defamatory and personal attack. How is that selective moderation?

aurelio_-_banned · March 2009

John Stevenson wrote:

Dave_1

Play the ball not the man please. Flagging posts because you don't like someone's opinion is abuse of the system, as is calling them names.

Knock it off.

It seems that my post questioning just why Armstrong is pocketing huge appearance fees, supposedly because he 'has to earn a living', when he is already a very wealthy man and his comeback is supposedly all about 'raising cancer awareness', and pointing out that practically everything Armstrong does is manipulated in a way that is intended to enhance the earning power of 'The Armstrong Brand' (the fifth biggest ‘brand’ in the USA) has, nonetheless, been deleted.

Is any post that is flagged automatically deleted?

aurelio_-_banned · March 2009

Dave_1 wrote:

I think it reasonable that people prove what they say...if 7 TDF wins are a "scam", then prove it..you post terms we should agree to so, surely a competent court has to prove his comment...

And where did I say that his 7 TDF 'wins' were a 'scam'? Suggesting that the motivation for his return has a lot more to do with factors other than 'raising cancer awareness' (especially it seems financial factors) makes a very different point indeed.

Once again you are doing nothing more than attempting the classic 'Straw man' tactic because you know that you can't argue against the point that is actually being made.

Milan - San Remo report

Comments

Categories