Lemond at Play the Game conference
Comments
-
actually...the way he catches breath at the end of the speech,he was perhaps very nervous during the speech? I guess he is waiting for lawyers calls right now from a few people
0 -
diarmuid wrote:
:roll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawdennisn wrote:Let's see now. I seem to recall seeing film of huge swastikas hanging in Paris and Hitler surveying the scene
Interesting. Is there something I've said that wasn't true? Or does your history book
tell you otherwise? Did what I described NOT happen?0 -
dennisn wrote:diarmuid wrote:
:roll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawdennisn wrote:Let's see now. I seem to recall seeing film of huge swastikas hanging in Paris and Hitler surveying the scene
Interesting. Is there something I've said that wasn't true? Or does your history book
tell you otherwise? Did what I described NOT happen?
No Godwin's law applies to first invocation of Nazi.
And yes you've said quite a bit that is untrue in terms of Normandy. The US were the minority partners in terms of troops hitting the beaches and in the delivery of them to the beaches. The overwhelming majority of the force deployed was British and Empire Dominions both in infantry and in the naval support that delivered them, which was almost entirely that of the British Royal Navy.
And to paraphrase the classic terrace chant with regard to the USA "If it wasn't for the French you'd be English". So perhaps you should just regard WW2 as making good the debt the US owes France.
Then again, the small matter of fact and truth has never been a going concern in Hollywood or large parts of the US, D-Day and the enigm code being but two recent WW2 examples.0 -
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/b ... nded-21947
Greg seems to have a point about McQuiaid - Boonen tests positive for a banned substance but as the paperwork won't be completed it's alright for him to ride in the tour - but that guy from Katwhoshka who no-one knows, he can't ride the tour cos he tested pos for a banned substance
double standard ahoy !"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
edhornby wrote:
Greg seems to have a point about McQuiaid - Boonen tests positive for a banned substance but as the paperwork won't be completed it's alright for him to ride in the tour - but that guy from Katwhoshka who no-one knows, he can't ride the tour cos he tested pos for a banned substance
Remind me again, when did Boonen test positive for a banned substance?
Oh wait, he didn't.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
leguape wrote:aurelio wrote:
I think that the phrase you were looking for is 'Just what we need, more quality investigative journalism'. As to where that sort of thing leads, here is one example you might have heard of:dennisn wrote:Just what we need. More people attaching themselves to the shirttails of celebrities. This has given us many great literary moments, too numerous to mention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... watergate/
There is plenty of further comment on the subject out there. The following somehow seems to reflect much of what you say. Perhaps you politics are showing again...
...the Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, turned the tables on the investigative journalists who had exposed the underside of American capitalism. He labelled them muckrakers, who were only concerned with digging up dirt.
http://phil-simms.blogspot.com/2006/10/ ... enemy.html
A few other names that spring to mind which you might like to look up include George Seldes, Upton Sinclair, Edward Murrow, Ralph Nader, George Orwell, John Pilger...
There's a good reason there's not more serious investigative journalism: cost. It's hideously expensive and has very little revenue in it.
As far as I know Kimmage is The Sunday Times Chief Sports Interviewer and as such writes about all sports, not just cycling. His primary work on doping is and has been his own testimony in Rough Ride. Didn't he admit he called Bernard Kohl wrong last year?
Likewise Walsh is employed by The Sunday Times as a Sports Writer. His books have been supported and published by Random House, one of the biggest and most powerful publishing houses in the world. His journalism is, by his own admission, open ended.
Both backed by some of the most powerful and wealthy publishing organisations in the world.
Watergate wasn't good investigative journalism, it was good basic journalism. They nailed down provable facts and details which couldn't be controverted - dates, times, specific events witnessed in provable fashion. That's what most journalists do because that's how you make a living as a journalist, just because they are obliged to abide by the law doesn't mean they aren't researching and following the stories you want to read. They are, they just can't publish them because it would probably cost too much to defend them.
You cite a bunch of star reporters, who are given free rein by their editors. Very few journalists get that opportunity because their name isn't bankable.
Orwell and Pilger, both tend towards the partisan, a fair and accurate observation of them. Pilger: supporter of Chavez, a man who has ruthlessly destroyed freedom of the press.
The other side of the"my mate Chugo Chav says" story is that he would have been dead quite a while back if he had not behaved as he did, oil is more addictive than crack to das Americanos du Norde. The Yankeros would have happily killed him as they haver done to dozens of South American leaders in the past, plus a few of their own.
Which former president of the USA was murdered by a future President of the USA?
It would be a joint enterprise scenario rather than actual trigger pulling.
Orwell being partisan is quite alright when you consider who he was partisan toward.
Down a stout in Dublin and parrots on for hours about the shower of shoights .........................0 -
I read the piece on Cycling News.
Lemond cracks me up.
"Back when I was racing in the early 90s, we only drank water, we had no radios, I rode so hard that I had to pick my moment to sacrifice another breath of air to take a sip from my bottle....
... then I showed Ferrari my power meter"
Sorry mate but almost nothing you say is credible. You like to perpetuate the 'old-school' cycling mysticism when it suits your argument at the time. E.g. you say you were riding so hard you can't spare a breath to take a drink. Then you switch 180 degrees when it suits you. You say the riders are going so hard they must be cheating. So, you must have been cheating, is that what we are meant to conclude?
Greg, todays pros use the radios when they can and when they need to. But not all of them. And they ride as hard as you did, when the racing is on. If they arent going full bore, sure they can use their radios more easily. So what?
You insinuate that technology like radios and better sports drinks are bad. OK you didnt have a radio (only because it hadn't been introduced to the sport at that point) but you didn't drink only water (we've seen the TdF videos sorry, you drank Gatorade and Coke - I guess you are ashamed that you did?).
Then you say you had a power meter before everyone else - I guess the kind of technology that you like is OK? Power meters good, sports drinks bad? Now you say you want to use power meters to prove people are cheating? I guess being faster than the next guy, that's cheating isn't it, especially if you were faster than yesterday/last week/2004?
It's just madness.... but it is quite funny sometimes. The majority of the time though, it's just sad.0 -
dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:He says that the real problem is obnoxious Americans who have the attitiude that the French should 'bend over' because they think the USA saved France in WWII.
Tell it like it is Greg!
Let's see now. I seem to recall seeing film of huge swastikas hanging in Paris and Hitler
surveying the scene while his armies marched through the streets. I suppose you could
interpret that as the French being able to defend their country. The Maginot Line was quite a success and Fort Eben-Emael held out for a whole day and a half. Without the US, England, Russia, and the rest you might, still be seeing those swastikas.
Tell it like it is Greg? I think my father might have a different opinion and as far as I'm concerned that's the one that matters. I don't recall Greg being there on D-Day and slogging throught the Fench countryside to help free a nation. To top it all off I know no one, repeat, no one who wants the French to "bend over". I guess if Greg says he does, according to you, then he must know a few, but I don't.
[pedantry]
England. England???. For fks sake don't say that to my Grandad.
Russia? USSR surely?
:roll:
[/pedantry]___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
scottfrasernz wrote:I read the piece on Cycling News.
Lemond cracks me up.
Lemond has never been an enemy of technology, after all, he introduced radios amongst other things.
His point about SRM's is that a great training guru should've known what they were. But he was more about blood than training.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
aurelio wrote:A few other names that spring to mind which you might like to look up include George Seldes, Upton Sinclair, Edward Murrow, Ralph Nader, George Orwell, John Pilger...
Don't forget Eric Schlosser -- author of Fast Food Nation, Reefer Madness, etc. I think he would do a good job of writing about the awkward relationship between ethics, commercial interests and match-fixing/doping.0 -
You're right Iain, he introduced loads of aero stuff some of which was latter banned....
E.g. the Lemond drop-in bar that i raced with for a season before they were explicitly banned
They were judged to be 'a cheat' ;-)
Not one that you could catch with a power meter though ;-)0 -
leguape wrote:dennisn wrote:diarmuid wrote:
:roll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawdennisn wrote:Let's see now. I seem to recall seeing film of huge swastikas hanging in Paris and Hitler surveying the scene
Interesting. Is there something I've said that wasn't true? Or does your history book
tell you otherwise? Did what I described NOT happen?
No Godwin's law applies to first invocation of Nazi.
And yes you've said quite a bit that is untrue in terms of Normandy. The US were the minority partners in terms of troops hitting the beaches and in the delivery of them to the beaches. The overwhelming majority of the force deployed was British and Empire Dominions both in infantry and in the naval support that delivered them, which was almost entirely that of the British Royal Navy.
And to paraphrase the classic terrace chant with regard to the USA "If it wasn't for the French you'd be English". So perhaps you should just regard WW2 as making good the debt the US owes France.
Then again, the small matter of fact and truth has never been a going concern in Hollywood or large parts of the US, D-Day and the enigm code being but two recent WW2 examples.
What exactly did I say that was "untrue" about D-Day. I never mentioned troop strength
from various countries. Never said England's commitment to that day was ANYTHING BUT "overwhelming" as you seem to say I did. Whole bunches of people died to save
Europe from a madman. To say that anyone or any country gave more or less than another is to diminish the memory of those who gave all they had. My father and a whole bunch of fathers and grandfathers weren't over there to repay any "debt" that was owed. They were there to save people from one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen.0 -
dennisn wrote:They were there to save people from one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen.
Wow I didn't know Lance was involved in WW2!0 -
calvjones wrote:dennisn wrote:aurelio wrote:He says that the real problem is obnoxious Americans who have the attitiude that the French should 'bend over' because they think the USA saved France in WWII.
Tell it like it is Greg!
Let's see now. I seem to recall seeing film of huge swastikas hanging in Paris and Hitler
surveying the scene while his armies marched through the streets. I suppose you could
interpret that as the French being able to defend their country. The Maginot Line was quite a success and Fort Eben-Emael held out for a whole day and a half. Without the US, England, Russia, and the rest you might, still be seeing those swastikas.
Tell it like it is Greg? I think my father might have a different opinion and as far as I'm concerned that's the one that matters. I don't recall Greg being there on D-Day and slogging through the French countryside to help free a nation. To top it all off I know no one, repeat, no one who wants the French to "bend over". I guess if Greg says he does, according to you, then he must know a few, but I don't.
[pedantry]
England. England???. For fks sake don't say that to my Grandad.
Russia? USSR surely?
:roll:
[/pedantry]
I once asked(on this forum) the meaning of the English / British "thing" but never got a really satisfactory answer. Or maybe I did and didn't "get it". Oh well, it still eludes me.
Don't want upset your Grandad.
USSR by all means. 1921 :oops:0 -
scottfrasernz wrote:dennisn wrote:They were there to save people from one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen.
Wow I didn't know Lance was involved in WW2!
Didn't you know? It was all a big conspiracy. He cheated so that the allies won
Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
A very simplistic view of things, especially given how so many high-powered Americans were fanatical supporters of Hitler and Fascism. If your father was so opposed to what Hitler stood for perhaps they should have turned their attentions to a few people rather closer to home. The grandfather of your last president was even involved in a planned right-wing coup, the proposed aim of which was to install a fascist dictatorship in the USA.dennisn wrote:My father and a whole bunch of fathers and grandfathers weren't over there to repay any "debt" that was owed. They were there to save people from one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/doc ... 0723.shtmlThe coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.
A closer view of history also shows that the motivations behind America's entry into WW2 had a lot more to do with furthering the long-terms interests of the US than any desire to get rid of Hitler. For example, the late entry of the US in the war was partially motivated by the hope that Hitler would crush the USSR, so saving the US the job of having to crush Soviet power after the war ended, or at the least leaving the USSR as an impoverished wasteland, which is pretty much what happened. Some historians have also argued that the US cynically exploited the war in Europe in a way that also ensured that the power of the UK would be greatly diminished in the post-war world to the advantage of the US. As A.J.P. Taylor put it:
As ever, the general rule seems to be that the US only ever does what is to the benefit of the US.'Soviet Russia did most of the fighting against Germany, sustained nine tenths of the casualties and suffered catastrophic economic losses. The British sustained considerable economic loss and sustained comparatively few casualties. The Americans made great economic gains and had a trifling number of casualties fighting against Germany - their main losses were in the war against Japan... Of the three great men at the top, Roosevelt was the only one who knew what he was doing: he made the United States the greatest power in the world at virtually no cost.’
P.s. I as much I am opposed to everything that Hitler stood for, to dismiss him as being no more than 'one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen' is incredibly facile.0 -
aurelio wrote:
A very simplistic view of things, especially given...........dennisn wrote:My father and a whole bunch of fathers and grandfathers weren't over there to repay any "debt" that was owed. They were there to save people from one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen.
As ever, the general rule seems to be that the US only ever does what is to the benefit of the US.
P.s. I as much I am opposed to everything that Hitler stood for, to dismiss him as being no more than 'one of the worst maniacs the world has ever seen' is incredibly facile.
Well, you could ask my father just how "simplistic" WW2 was. He's still around and knowing him he'd probably smack you around a bit. And whether you like it or not he's
one of the many, many reasons that you and I are allowed to say what we will.
As a general rule both you and I seem to only do what benefits us.
"Maniac" sure seemed like a good choice at the time. You may characterize him however you like. I'm listening. "Facile" huh. Just say easy and get it over with.0 -
leguape wrote:dennisn wrote:And yes you've said quite a bit that is untrue in terms of Normandy. The US were the minority partners in terms of troops hitting the beaches and in the delivery of them to the beaches. The overwhelming majority of the force deployed was British and Empire Dominions both in infantry and in the naval support that delivered them, which was almost entirely that of the British Royal Navy.
And to paraphrase the classic terrace chant with regard to the USA "If it wasn't for the French you'd be English". So perhaps you should just regard WW2 as making good the debt the US owes France.
Then again, the small matter of fact and truth has never been a going concern in Hollywood or large parts of the US, D-Day and the enigm code being but two recent WW2 examples.
In terms of troops that landed on the beaches
US Troops 73,000
British Troops 61,715 (out of 83,000)
Dress it up any way you want but that is not an overwhelming majority, thats why i love forums like this ,the history rewriting that goes on is hilarious.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:leguape wrote:dennisn wrote:And yes you've said quite a bit that is untrue in terms of Normandy. The US were the minority partners in terms of troops hitting the beaches and in the delivery of them to the beaches. The overwhelming majority of the force deployed was British and Empire Dominions both in infantry and in the naval support that delivered them, which was almost entirely that of the British Royal Navy.
And to paraphrase the classic terrace chant with regard to the USA "If it wasn't for the French you'd be English". So perhaps you should just regard WW2 as making good the debt the US owes France.
Then again, the small matter of fact and truth has never been a going concern in Hollywood or large parts of the US, D-Day and the enigm code being but two recent WW2 examples.
In terms of troops that landed on the beaches
US Troops 73,000
British Troops 61,715 (out of 83,000)
Dress it up any way you want but that is not an overwhelming majority, thats why i love forums like this ,the history rewriting that goes on is hilarious.
And in terms of the Naval deployment and the logistics that delivered those troops to the beaches as part of Operation Neptune, the attack phase of Overlord?
"Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries."
Now if you actually read my statement: "The US were the minority partners in terms of troops hitting the beaches and in the delivery of them to the beaches"
73000+52,889=125,889 US Troops
112,824+83,115+4988=200927 UK and Dominion Troops
Please point me to where I have rewritten history in a hilarious fashion. Last time I checked with anyone 70% more troops was an overwhelming majority. The American troops didn't swim to Normandy and none of it would have happened without the Naval force.
Iain/Diarmuid I think Lance on twitter yesterday was a bit "who forget to take their meds?", as they used to say. "Hater-ade", "hater-tots"? That's not even trash talk, it's just rubbish jeering that makes him look like a childish idiot.0 -
What is Armstrong - 3? Good grief, I knew sportsmen weren't known for their intelligence but Armstrong goes out of his way to set new lows.
Leguape, I don't often agree with you but you're spot on.0 -
dennisn wrote:I once asked(on this forum) the meaning of the English / British "thing" but never got a really satisfactory answer. Or maybe I did and didn't "get it". Oh well, it still eludes me.
Don't want upset your Grandad.
USSR by all means. 1921 :oops:
Here goes.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up of Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) and NI. Wales was incorporated into an Entity called 'England and Wales' in the 14th Century (IIRC) following the invasion and subjugation of the people by Edward I ('Longshanks' - you mat have seen him in Braveheart). Meanwhile, Scotland invested heavily in some dodgy New World investments at the start of the 18th Century, effectively went bankrupt and the Act of Union with England & Wales was the direct result. Northern Ireland is the bit of the Island of Ireland that 'we' kept after the rest of Ireland gained independence following a long, long history of English colonisation.
I'm sure I'll be corrected by any historians here.
So there are some minor tensions, which we only put to one side when the British and Irish Lions go on tour (as at the moment), Rugby is, however, a whole new thread. As this should probably have been!___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
Quite,
And as Dennis knows, there is still considerable national pride displayed by the welsh and the scottish. Quite rightly so, as both countries have excellent traditions and individual histories. The rivalries are now confined largely to Rugby and other sports.
England has its own national day however which has been hijacked by the liberals as a racist focul point. English pride history and tradition is in danger of being extinguished or re-written in order to accomodate others in the name of liberal unelected thinking.
Good flame dennis !0 -
He just seems so grumpy this year, so unhappy. Way too defensive. If someone upsets him, he openly calls them a w-anchor or broadcasts their personal email address out of spite. He refuses all media interviews following one newspaper's criticism. Even if a twitter follower criticises the paintjob on his bike, they're blocked!leguape wrote:Iain/Diarmuid I think Lance on twitter yesterday was a bit "who forget to take their meds?", as they used to say. "Hater-ade", "hater-tots"? That's not even trash talk, it's just rubbish jeering that makes him look like a childish idiot.
Unpleasant as it is, I can understand why he doesn't want to open up about his relationship with Dr Ferrari or why he releases the legal hounds on anyone in the media who crosses him. I suppose that's business, it's ugly but business. But the way he's behaving personally this year, he comes across as a total knob.0 -
Kléber wrote:
He just seems so grumpy this year, so unhappy. Way too defensive. If someone upsets him, he openly calls them a w-anchor or broadcasts their personal email address out of spite. He refuses all media interviews following one newspaper's criticism. Even if a twitter follower criticises the paintjob on his bike, they're blocked!leguape wrote:Iain/Diarmuid I think Lance on twitter yesterday was a bit "who forget to take their meds?", as they used to say. "Hater-ade", "hater-tots"? That's not even trash talk, it's just rubbish jeering that makes him look like a childish idiot.
Unpleasant as it is, I can understand why he doesn't want to open up about his relationship with Dr Ferrari or why he releases the legal hounds on anyone in the media who crosses him. I suppose that's business, it's ugly but business. But the way he's behaving personally this year, he comes across as a total knob.
not unusual for someone under huge pressure, physically, emotionaly, and mentaly to behave like that. Perhaps the pack of cards is ready to collapse?0 -
Perhaps he is worried about what Lemond might come out with when the case at last goes to court. After all, speaking out has already cost Lemond his business, and by the look of him it has extracted a heavy physical toll on him as well. Although Lemond is currently restricted by a 'gagging order' ( as he mentioned in his talk) I have a feeling he has little else to lose and so Armstrong's mob will find it hard to intimidate him into silence. Instead it seems they are already taking legal steps to try stop all those who could back up Lemond testifying at any future hearing.markwalker wrote:not unusual for someone under huge pressure, physically, emotionaly, and mentaly to behave like that. Perhaps the pack of cards is ready to collapse?0 -
If I had meant easy I would have said easy. If you buy a dictionary you will find that facile also means without depth or superficial.dennisn wrote:"Facile" huh. Just say easy and get it over with.0 -
aurelio wrote:
If I had meant easy I would have said easy. If you buy a dictionary you will find that facile also means without depth or superficial.dennisn wrote:"Facile" huh. Just say easy and get it over with.
Easy there. The old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you" would seem to
apply here. You don't want me controlling you?0
