so whats so bad about Lance
Comments
-
Nicolo/Paganini, "pray tell" ...you give yourself away
0 -
My point is that you can admire someone for what they have done but to dislike someone needs, I feel, a little more insight.
I've had cancer and I ride a bike. I know what both of them are like, first hand. I also know just how hard it is for me to ride at my level and so have some understanding of how difficult professional cycling must be. I can admire him for his dedication, skill and ability.
However, I don't know whether I would like Lance because I don't know him. I therefore don't know if I wouldn't like him. I certainly don't hate him in much the same way that I organised a Livestrong event to raise money for his charity, not to reward him.Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
As they say, 'Faith is blind'.shogunsteve wrote:
Utter nonsense. A) He has never tested positive, and,aurelio wrote:I would say that the biggest reason to dislike Pharmstrong is, like most Messianic figures, the total arses he attracts as disciples.
He won [7 times...AFTER cancer].0 -
pottssteve wrote:My point is that you can admire someone for what they have done but to dislike someone needs, I feel, a little more insight.
I've had cancer and I ride a bike. I know what both of them are like, first hand. I also know just how hard it is for me to ride at my level and so have some understanding of how difficult professional cycling must be. I can admire him for his dedication, skill and ability.
However, I don't know whether I would like Lance because I don't know him. I therefore don't know if I wouldn't like him. I certainly don't hate him in much the same way that I organised a Livestrong event to raise money for his charity, not to reward him.
The voice of reason from Hong Kong..again, i agree.....I imagine LA would be not very nice to work aside in any job, but have not met him. Andyp has met him, he said, twice...but did not say what impression he had of LA as a person0 -
aurelio wrote:
As they say, 'Faith is blind'.shogunsteve wrote:
Utter nonsense. A) He has never tested positive, and,aurelio wrote:I would say that the biggest reason to dislike Pharmstrong is, like most Messianic figures, the total arses he attracts as disciples. He won [7 times...AFTER cancer].
Works both ways. You place your faith in one thing(whatever is written is true).
Got to be , you read it. The way you see things is the way they are. The rest of us couldn't be expected to have anything even remotely like an opinion that meant anything.
You are the all knowing.
Dennis Noward0 -
Hi Dave_1,
Do you want to buy a pottssteve fanclub T-shirt?
That's the first time I've been called the "voice of reason" - I'd rather not be lumped in with Woodrow Wyatt, so I'll have to try harder
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
rockmount wrote:
The need to classify everyone you encounter is, I'm guessing a sign of some deeper emotional disturbance ... :roll:Blazing Saddles wrote:No wonder you are a Lance fan :oops: ...........
Yeah, golf lovers do tend to disturb me.
Btw: In this case, shouldn't you be a Garmin fan?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Your 'argument' falls at the first fence. I do not believe 'whatever' is written is true. Least of all that written by Armstrong's corporate-backed propaganda machine...dennisn wrote:
Works both ways. You place your faith in one thing (whatever is written is true)...aurelio wrote:As they say, 'Faith is blind'.0 -
I think i remember seeing somewhere Lance pipped Schummy to the most hated sportsman of all time as voted by the French public. Now i think some of that has to do with the Man United effect, and with him dicking all over their national race for 7 years- but more than that, I think a good number of cycling fans feel his success epitomizes the dark and unsavory aspects of pro cycling and however despite being to many people, outlandishly "to good to be true" he hardly has a blemish on his record to show for it (at least to the layman's eye).
There's issues like the simeoni treatment and his exposed 1999 test samples- but still the Armstrong enterprise storms onwards relatively unhindered. I think it's this untouchable aspect of the LA machine which really aggravates most people in sport. Because he's such an inspirational story, enigmatic character and exciting (debatable) champion he has created an incredibly strong cult of personality which will support and shelter him unquestionably and eat up the french conspiracy stuff without any debate.
If you look at his 7 year dominance, it's book-ended by the two biggest doping busts ever seen the in sport. The people he raced and won against in 1999 and early 2000's were involved in the festina affair and his later rivals pretty much all got busted by opperation puerto (correct me if i'm wrong). I mean assuming the likes of Jan Ullrich and Pantani were doping while they were racing against, and being beaten consistently by Lance- aren't we entitled to at least question the integrity of his performances? And instead of trying to help the fight against doping Lance just seems angry when ever he gets questioned about doping.
I think most people who think he doped are furious that he didn't get caught while they feel he was blatantly something was afoot.
You should read Bad Blood by Jemremy Whittle- fascinating and eye opening book.0 -
Well, my Dad's bigger than your Dad so congratulations, your playtime antics have made bed the better option.Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0
-
pottssteve wrote:Hi Dave_1,
Do you want to buy a pottssteve fanclub T-shirt?
That's the first time I've been called the "voice of reason" - I'd rather not be lumped in with Woodrow Wyatt, so I'll have to try harder
lol :-)....will give you a tour of wanchai on my next visit...soon...Dave_1 is well known down there :!: 0 -
Dave,
I'm a happily married man, thank you. I have no need of Wanchai
Anyway, it would take me ages to get there Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
pottssteve wrote:Dave,
I'm a happily married man, thank you. I have no need of Wanchai
Anyway, it would take me ages to get there ..yes, well...that is understandable. Dave_1 and wanchai 
... ending up in some Indonesian/Philipino nightclub till 4am 0 -
Unsheath wrote:dennisn wrote:So you've never disliked someone because they "just rubbed you the wrong way"?
I think you're wrong about Kimmage though. He doesn't hate LA, he loves him. He's
riding on LA's shirttails, writting books about him, and making money using LA's name.
LA is his lifeblood and he knows it.
To be fair, Kimmage makes his bread and butter as a sports journalist and it's only his crusade against doping that has brought him on the Armstrong warpath. I think if he'll have to option of removing the scourge of Armstrong and his cohorts or the financial rewards from book sales, he'll take the former. There is a quote out there from Kimmage himself where he mentions that his royalties from book sales are not substantial, which probably means he makes more from The Times.
As for Armstrong, I doubt anyone has hated him from day 1. It's just that there's been too many lose ends, inconsistencies and indiscretions that have built up over the years to give him any credibility. Less said the better...
I don't think the way Paul Kimmage had set him self out as a man on a mission hard hitting campaigner, has done his journalism career any harm at all. Yes he did establish himself as journalist in his own right. But yes his career also accelerated when he wrote Rough ride and essentially positioned himself as Pro Cyclist tourned tough anti drug campaigner. As such I think he has benefitted from Lance Armstrong as without the likes of Armsrong (or Miller) he would have nothing to rage against.
Don't get the wrong impression - I quite like Paul Kimmage as he makes it all a bit more interesting. I also quite like Lance Armstrong for the same reason. If he rides in the tour this year his mere presence will make it more interesting than it would be without him (and I don't mean the media curcus I mean that the other riders will act differently because he is there). I felt a bit embarassed last year when for a while it looked like Cadel Evans could win the tour because he never tried to lead from the front in the mountains and to my eyes he never demonstrated himself as being worthy of the title. If Armstrong makes it to the tour start line I don't think he can still win it, but I do think we will see better rides from the other contenders becasue he is there and their victory would be that much more for beating Lance.0 -
I was at one time the only Gweilo in the village.....
I've got nothing against Philippino girls (literally and metaphorically speaking), but I don't do the "expat thing" - it's soooo 1989! Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:
As they say, 'Faith is blind'.shogunsteve wrote:
Utter nonsense. A) He has never tested positive, and,aurelio wrote:I would say that the biggest reason to dislike Pharmstrong is, like most Messianic figures, the total arses he attracts as disciples. He won [7 times...AFTER cancer].
Works both ways. You place your faith in one thing(whatever is written is true).
Got to be , you read it. The way you see things is the way they are. The rest of us couldn't be expected to have anything even remotely like an opinion that meant anything.
You are the all knowing.
Dennis Noward
Faith is nothing to do with it. I think the point is in order to educate yourself, you read things- these are going to be from a range of sources and will have varying credibility. It's then the responsibilty of the recipient to to make a judgment based on the the evidence presented in said sources.
Faith suggests believing in something regardless or ignorant of sufficient evidence.
*cough* God *cough*0 -
Greg,
We're discussing God on cake stop, if you want to unburden... Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
pottssteve wrote:I was at one time the only Gweilo in the village.....
I've got nothing against Philippino girls (literally and metaphorically speaking), but I don't do the "expat thing" - it's soooo 1989!
I know what you mean...I left HK in 2007 as had enough of it, 10 years of it...but time and distance leave me looking back seeing it not so bad...a few thousand of my posting have come after a drunken expat evening0 -
aurelio wrote:
As they say, 'Faith is blind'.shogunsteve wrote:
Utter nonsense. A) He has never tested positive, and,aurelio wrote:I would say that the biggest reason to dislike Pharmstrong is, like most Messianic figures, the total arses he attracts as disciples. He won [7 times...AFTER cancer].
What has anything I said got to do with faith??
He won AFTER cancer...7 times. Was that true or not?0 -
Dave_1 wrote:pottssteve wrote:I was at one time the only Gweilo in the village.....
I've got nothing against Philippino girls (literally and metaphorically speaking), but I don't do the "expat thing" - it's soooo 1989!
I know what you mean...I left HK in 2007 as had enough of it, 10 years of it...but time and distance leave me looking back seeing it not so bad...a few thousand of my posting have come after a drunken expat evening
HK wears you down - it's draining. It's polluted, noisy, rude, dirty, stressful and strange. It's also a hell of a lot more interesting than many other places. The money's not as good, the prices have gone up and the Chinese are slowly turning it Chinese again...And yet...Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
pottssteve wrote:Dave_1 wrote:pottssteve wrote:I was at one time the only Gweilo in the village.....
I've got nothing against Philippino girls (literally and metaphorically speaking), but I don't do the "expat thing" - it's soooo 1989!
I know what you mean...I left HK in 2007 as had enough of it, 10 years of it...but time and distance leave me looking back seeing it not so bad...a few thousand of my posting have come after a drunken expat evening
HK wears you down - it's draining. It's polluted, noisy, rude, dirty, stressful and strange. It's also a hell of a lot more interesting than many other places. The money's not as good, the prices have gone up and the Chinese are slowly turning it Chinese again...And yet...
yes, true...on balance, wish i had not left despite all the negatives...it's a hard life in many places though...grass is always greener being my thinking...but... :?
The main highly knowledgeable cycling conversation there is the barman at The White Stag on Lockhart Rd who always showed the TDF live and others, and forces punters who complain to put up with it...the only place in HK I could have a decent chinwag about the bike. other than good ol cycling+ forum 0 -
I gather the White Stag is still going strong, although I've never been there. I'm up in New Territories so it's a hike.
It's also bedtime now - Midnight 35 here in HK.
TTFN,
SteveHead Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
To believe that he 'won' his 7 Tours 'clean', on no more evidence than he 'never tested positive' (apart from that positive for corticoids and all that Epo in his 1999 Tour samples* of course) is to hold a belief that is based on not only blind faith, but also a wilful ignorance of the available evidence.shogunsteve wrote:
What has anything I said got to do with faith??aurelio wrote:As they say, 'Faith is blind'.
* For more on that see: http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... l-ashenden
"If it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping." Dr. Michele Ferrari.0 -
aurelio wrote:
To believe that he 'won' his 7 Tours 'clean', on no more evidence than he 'never tested positive' (apart from that positive for corticoids and all that Epo in his 1999 Tour samples* of course) is to hold a belief that is based on not only blind faith, but also a wilful ignorance of the available evidence.shogunsteve wrote:
What has anything I said got to do with faith??aurelio wrote:As they say, 'Faith is blind'.
* For more on that see: http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... l-ashenden
"If it doesn't show up in the drug controls, then it's not doping." Dr. Michele Ferrari.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty....the basis behind our own laws and one which I am sure given certain circumstances we would all be glad of. Shame some cannot extend that same policy to Lance.0 -
WADA rules require doping allegations to be proved to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the investigatory panel. The amount of evidence against Armstrong goes way beyond that. If he does not want to play the game according to the rules, including those of WADA, he shouldn't bother. Then again, since when have the UCI actually expected Armstrong to abide by the rules that everyone else has to? (Accepting pre-dated TUE forms, allowing him to race before his statutory 6 months wait after announcing his comeback were up and so on).shogunsteve wrote:I believe in innocent until proven guilty....the basis behind our own laws and one which I am sure given certain cercumstances we would all be glad of. Shame some cannot extend that same policy to Lance.
The bottom line is that Armstrong has 'friends in high places' in the UCI that allow him to do more or less as he wants, even going so far to protect him whenever they can. (That hatchet job on the LNDD, McQuaid joining in with Armstrong’s anti-French rantings, McQuaids’s fatuous recent claim that he didn't know if Armstrong should have stayed with the tester and so on). The Fact that 'the French' refuse to be 'corrupted' in this way is what infuriates him, as he is so arrogant that he apparently believes he should be treated as being above the rules and clearly thinks that his PR machine is so powerful that he can get away with saying one thing whilst doing the opposite (as with his 'testing program) without anyone really noticing.0 -
aurelio wrote:
WADA rules require doping allegations to be proved to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the investigatory panel. The amount of evidence against Armstrong goes way beyond that. If he does not want to play the game according to the rules, including those of WADA, he shouldn't bother. Then again, since when have the UCI actually expected Armstrong to abide by the rules that everyone else has to? (Accepting pre-dated TUE forms, allowing him to race before his statutory 6 months wait after announcing his comeback were up and so on).shogunsteve wrote:I believe in innocent until proven guilty....the basis behind our own laws and one which I am sure given certain cercumstances we would all be glad of. Shame some cannot extend that same policy to Lance.
The bottom line is that Armstrong has 'friends in high places' in the UCI that allow him to do more or less as he wants, even going so far to protect him whenever they can. (That hatchet job on the LNDD, McQuaid joining in with Armstrong’s anti-French rantings, McQuaids’s fatuous recent claim that he didn't know if Armstrong should have stayed with the tester and so on). The Fact that 'the French' refuse to be 'corrupted' in this way is what infuriates him, as he is so arrogant that he apparently believes he should be treated as being above the rules and clearly thinks that his PR machine is so powerful that he can get away with saying one thing whilst doing the opposite (as with his 'testing program) without anyone really noticing.
Thats just conspiracy theory.
He never tested positive...end of story.
And even if he was doping, as I said earlier, he was not that far ahead of the crowd...0 -
No, that's called taking an objective look at the available evidence.shogunsteve wrote:Thats just conspiracy theory.0 -
aurelio wrote:
No, that's called taking an objective look at the available evidence.shogunsteve wrote:Thats just conspiracy theory.
No its called intelligent evaluation of 7 years of negative testing.
Just basic stuff really.0 -
He did test positive for EPO but given the nature of the test, no sanction can be applied.shogunsteve wrote:He never tested positive...end of story.
Read the article I've linked to in full and come back and let me know your views.0 -
Kléber wrote:
He did test positive for EPO but given the nature of the test, no sanction can be applied.shogunsteve wrote:He never tested positive...end of story.
Read the article I've linked to in full and come back and let me know your views.
If no positive was applied it was negative surely. In other words they screwed up.0
