One for Lance fans

245

Comments

  • Gav888
    Gav888 Posts: 946
    zippypablo wrote:
    tonight, Thursday and Friday, ESPN classic (sky 442) are showing some stages of previous tours. it's 2001 tonight at 1705

    Thanks for the info, ive set my Sky plus to record them :D
    Cycling never gets any easier, you just go faster - Greg LeMond
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    mididoctors wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:

    I dont deny its a cheesy video but i ceratinly dont see it as the 2nd rate hack does.

    sometimes those second rate hacks are still on the right side of a point in this haters vs fanboy pissing contest

    you ought to fettle them by agreeing once in a while... mess with their heads ... jedi mind tricks

    The fanboys and haters can piss contest all the want, i am in neither camp.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • mididoctors
    mididoctors Posts: 18,908
    Moray Gub wrote:
    mididoctors wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:

    I dont deny its a cheesy video but i ceratinly dont see it as the 2nd rate hack does.

    sometimes those second rate hacks are still on the right side of a point in this haters vs fanboy pissing contest

    you ought to fettle them by agreeing once in a while... mess with their heads ... jedi mind tricks

    The fanboys and haters can wee-wee contest all the want, i am in neither camp.

    I'm not
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Moray Gub wrote:

    I dont deny its a cheesy video but i ceratinly dont see it as the 2nd rate hack does.

    The question is, what does having doping or cheating allegations made against him have to do with his cancer work?

    Nothing at all so why mention it.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • FOAD
    FOAD Posts: 318
    edited July 2009
    iainf72 wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:

    I dont deny its a cheesy video but i ceratinly dont see it as the 2nd rate hack does.

    The question is, what does having doping or cheating allegations made against him have to do with his cancer work?

    Nothing at all so why mention it.

    Well I suppose for a start if the message of "hope" comes from a guy who cheated pre- and post cancer to get where he is, it would be a false hope for those who take it from LA's success...

    The video is promoting Lance Armstrong (and Nike) and not his "fight", "awareness bringing" or whatever people are calling it for cancer, hence why he takes pot shots at his critics in it. The upshot I take from it is that he is back on his bike to prove the critics wrong. If he was back on his bike to promote hope and awareness, then it would have been a nice video to talk about "I am back on my bike to promote cancer awareness and hope for victims"...lol

    If by judging LA based on everything I have read (from both sides), seen (this video for instance) and heard with regards to LA with an open mind and formed the opinion based on that that he is a self-centred, lying, bullying doper; then if that makes me a LA "hater"then so be it.

    Personally I see it as someone who has made an informed decision based on the only information I have access to. I think certain others would still argue that black is white if he tested positive tomorrow.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Moray Gub wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Guy makes video to sell me some Nike Hyperdunk (wtf?) trainers.
    Throws in some cancer patients for added guilt-trip.

    Anyone who doesn't wear Hyperdunks loves cancer.

    Get a grip, indeed.

    I didnt see him trying to sell anything there than say maybe the Nike brand and i cant see where he says or even implies that if you dont wear hyeprdunks you love cancer. Do you always see things that are not there ?

    Isn't using (real?) cancer sufferers to sell the Nike brand bad enough? If Lance Armstrong wants to raise awareness of cancer, why does Nike have to be involved at all? Why not just make a Livestrong ad?

    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    My other comment was facetious, as I'm sure you worked out for yourself.
  • sampras38
    sampras38 Posts: 1,917
    zippypablo wrote:
    tonight, Thursday and Friday, ESPN classic (sky 442) are showing some stages of previous tours. it's 2001 tonight at 1705[/quote

    I have a few of the tours on DVD but nice one...just put them in the Sky Planner.

    8)

    Some of you lot really need to get a life.

    The OP was telling you about some programmes on Sky and you turn it into a debate about Lance's motives for riding the Tour. FFS...
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    afx237vi wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Guy makes video to sell me some Nike Hyperdunk (wtf?) trainers.
    Throws in some cancer patients for added guilt-trip.

    Anyone who doesn't wear Hyperdunks loves cancer.

    Get a grip, indeed.

    I didnt see him trying to sell anything there than say maybe the Nike brand and i cant see where he says or even implies that if you dont wear hyeprdunks you love cancer. Do you always see things that are not there ?



    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    I don't know that you can say that "Nike has no intention off......". The powers that be in
    that company are just as likely to have a family member / relative suffer with cancer as the rest of us. Just because they are "executives" doesn't make them uncaring, inhuman brutes, who have "no intention" of helping if they can. And some may have been active
    in this fight for some years.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:
    Just because they are "executives" doesn't make them uncaring, inhuman brutes, who have "no intention" of helping if they can. And some may have been active
    in this fight for some years.

    http://www.toolness.com/nike/faq.html

    :wink:

    Nike have a fantastic record for caring.

    BTW, Dennis, there's a thread about Dekker testing positive. Do you fancy laying down some of your wisdom over there? Oh, sorry, it's not about Lance....
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    dennisn wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    I don't know that you can say that "Nike has no intention off......". The powers that be in
    that company are just as likely to have a family member / relative suffer with cancer as the rest of us. Just because they are "executives" doesn't make them uncaring, inhuman brutes, who have "no intention" of helping if they can. And some may have been active
    in this fight for some years.

    Dennis, you're confusing the human beings who work at Nike (some of whom may or may not be 8 year old children in Far Eastern sweatshops) with Nike Inc. The former may care about fundraising or raising awareness of cancer, the latter only cares about making money.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Just because they are "executives" doesn't make them uncaring, inhuman brutes, who have "no intention" of helping if they can. And some may have been active
    in this fight for some years.

    http://www.toolness.com/nike/faq.html

    :wink:

    Nike have a fantastic record for caring.

    C'mon, companies don't "care", but the humans who run them, and their families, are just as frail as you and I. Any one of them, or any one of us, at any time could find out out just
    what the "C" word means.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    But that ad doesn't feature Nike CEOs or PAs or whatever - it features the Nike brand. As I said elsewhere, my concern is that money that might have gone to an array of cancer charities involved in research and palliative care will lose funds to a corporate backed survivors charity because it's 'sexier' than giving money to nurses who work for peanuts or faceless research scientists who might actually achieve a cure.
  • don key
    don key Posts: 494
    zippypablo wrote:
    I wouldn't describe myself as his biggest fan but can't be bothered with the vitriol he seems to attract.
    Anyway Jan's in the coverage too. Maybe I should've tiltled it "one for TDF fans) :wink:

    What about the vitriol he projects?
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    afx237vi wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Guy makes video to sell me some Nike Hyperdunk (wtf?) trainers.
    Throws in some cancer patients for added guilt-trip.

    Anyone who doesn't wear Hyperdunks loves cancer.

    Get a grip, indeed.

    I didnt see him trying to sell anything there than say maybe the Nike brand and i cant see where he says or even implies that if you dont wear hyeprdunks you love cancer. Do you always see things that are not there ?

    Isn't using (real?) cancer sufferers to sell the Nike brand bad enough? If Lance Armstrong wants to raise awareness of cancer, why does Nike have to be involved at all? Why not just make a Livestrong ad?

    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    My other comment was facetious, as I'm sure you worked out for yourself.

    Agreed Nike is about sales / image etc, but surely using one of your high profile sponsors to promote the cancer awareness thing is a good move ? If you buy the raising awareness thing, then what better way to do it. If Livestrong produced the advert, it wouldn't get the same exposure, plus critics would be complaining about the amount of cash spent on it by the charity. This way it gets more bank per buck
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • don key
    don key Posts: 494
    butcher_boy wrote:
    Guy makes a video that is to raise Cancer awareness & gets slated!!!

    FFS some people need to get a grip

    He may do one day but the signs are not , how you say, vital. Different bar tape might help.
  • don key
    don key Posts: 494
    Pork Sword wrote:
    LA brings out strong emotions that's for sure. I personally think it'll be one in the eye for all the haters out there if he does win his 8th TDF!!!!

    Jealousy is an emotion we can all live without.

    He hasn't won one yet, his drug of choice has though.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    colint wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Isn't using (real?) cancer sufferers to sell the Nike brand bad enough? If Lance Armstrong wants to raise awareness of cancer, why does Nike have to be involved at all? Why not just make a Livestrong ad?

    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    My other comment was facetious, as I'm sure you worked out for yourself.

    Agreed Nike is about sales / image etc, but surely using one of your high profile sponsors to promote the cancer awareness thing is a good move ? If you buy the raising awareness thing, then what better way to do it. If Livestrong produced the advert, it wouldn't get the same exposure, plus critics would be complaining about the amount of cash spent on it by the charity. This way it gets more bank per buck

    I agree in theory, but that ad in particular wasn't really about cancer awareness or anything like that, was it? It was about Armstrong setting out to prove he isn't a doper or a fraud... as if people with cancer care about that.

    If Nike, or Lance Armstrong for that matter, really want to help people with cancer, then all power to them. But I object to using pictures of cancer sufferers in order for an egomaniac to prove a point. It's emotional blackmail.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    The one thing it proves beyond doubt - especially after the 'haterade/hatertots' comment - is that Armstrong (and/or his scriptwriters) has the mentality of a 5 year old. This is at the level of a playground spat with added exploitation. It's about as classy as his treatment of Simeoni.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:

    I dont deny its a cheesy video but i ceratinly dont see it as the 2nd rate hack does.

    The question is, what does having doping or cheating allegations made against him have to do with his cancer work?

    Nothing at all so why mention it.

    Oh thats easy his critics use his doping and cheating allegations to shamefully have a go at his cancer work, take this thread as example of that.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    micron wrote:
    The one thing it proves beyond doubt - especially after the 'haterade/hatertots' comment - is that Armstrong (and/or his scriptwriters) has the mentality of a 5 year old. This is at the level of a playground spat with added exploitation. It's about as classy as his treatment of Simeoni.

    A bit like using the mans cancer charity to have a pop i spose .
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,821
    don key wrote:
    zippypablo wrote:
    I wouldn't describe myself as his biggest fan but can't be bothered with the vitriol he seems to attract.
    Anyway Jan's in the coverage too. Maybe I should've tiltled it "one for TDF fans) :wink:

    What about the vitriol he projects?

    I don't know what vitriol means.
  • DavMartinR
    DavMartinR Posts: 897
    Jeez how far will corporate America go to sell something? Does anybody now how much a Nike Livestrong jersey costs at a Mellow Jonny store? And how much of that goes to the charity?

    I can imagine McDonalds, Burgerking and Wendys are at war now trying to get the catering contract for the Micheal Jackson Funeral.
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    afx237vi wrote:
    colint wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Isn't using (real?) cancer sufferers to sell the Nike brand bad enough? If Lance Armstrong wants to raise awareness of cancer, why does Nike have to be involved at all? Why not just make a Livestrong ad?

    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    My other comment was facetious, as I'm sure you worked out for yourself.

    Agreed Nike is about sales / image etc, but surely using one of your high profile sponsors to promote the cancer awareness thing is a good move ? If you buy the raising awareness thing, then what better way to do it. If Livestrong produced the advert, it wouldn't get the same exposure, plus critics would be complaining about the amount of cash spent on it by the charity. This way it gets more bank per buck

    I agree in theory, but that ad in particular wasn't really about cancer awareness or anything like that, was it? It was about Armstrong setting out to prove he isn't a doper or a fraud... as if people with cancer care about that.

    If Nike, or Lance Armstrong for that matter, really want to help people with cancer, then all power to them. But I object to using pictures of cancer sufferers in order for an egomaniac to prove a point. It's emotional blackmail.

    I kind of agree that this is more about Lance and ego than cancer, but is it possible it could still work in terms of raising awareness / cash ? Most poeple who see that advert and are disgusted by it would be, I'd day, people who know a lot about LA and the type of person he is. If cycling wasn't your sport and you saw that advert, would you be just as annoyed by it ?

    I also think if I was watching it and was involved with cancer somehow, I'd be thinking that this guy was on my side.
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    don key wrote:
    Pork Sword wrote:
    LA brings out strong emotions that's for sure. I personally think it'll be one in the eye for all the haters out there if he does win his 8th TDF!!!!

    Jealousy is an emotion we can all live without.

    He hasn't won one yet, his drug of choice has though.

    So on that basis we must assume that the great Fausto Coppi didnt win any either or how about Master Jacques or Louison Bobet..........in fact have we any TDF winners ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,821
    Moray Gub wrote:
    don key wrote:
    Pork Sword wrote:
    LA brings out strong emotions that's for sure. I personally think it'll be one in the eye for all the haters out there if he does win his 8th TDF!!!!

    Jealousy is an emotion we can all live without.

    He hasn't won one yet, his drug of choice has though.

    So on that basis we must assume that the great Fausto Coppi didnt win any either or how about Master Jacques or Louison Bobet..........in fact have we any TDF winners ?

    Maurice Garin. Stand up guy, would never resort to anything like that...
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    DavMartinR wrote:
    Jeez how far will corporate America go to sell something? Does anybody now how much a Nike Livestrong jersey costs at a Mellow Jonny store? And how much of that goes to the charity?

    I can imagine McDonalds, Burgerking and Wendys are at war now trying to get the catering contract for the Micheal Jackson Funeral.

    Given his disgraceful father id imagine he has the contract all sown up for that one.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    don key wrote:
    Pork Sword wrote:
    LA brings out strong emotions that's for sure. I personally think it'll be one in the eye for all the haters out there if he does win his 8th TDF!!!!

    Jealousy is an emotion we can all live without.

    He hasn't won one yet, his drug of choice has though.

    So on that basis we must assume that the great Fausto Coppi didnt win any either or how about Master Jacques or Louison Bobet..........in fact have we any TDF winners ?

    Maurice Garin. Stand up guy, would never resort to anything like that...

    Does taking a train count as doping :D
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    don key wrote:
    zippypablo wrote:
    I wouldn't describe myself as his biggest fan but can't be bothered with the vitriol he seems to attract.
    Anyway Jan's in the coverage too. Maybe I should've tiltled it "one for TDF fans) :wink:

    What about the vitriol he projects?

    Is he criticizing you and your family or friends personally? How does Lance criticizing anyone affect you? And why would it? He really makes you angry, doesn't he? You seem controlled by Lance? He could make you do lots of things I would guess. You think
    that I'm under his "spell" but I'm guessing it's the other way around. Like I once said to
    aurelio(but got no responce) "He who makes you angry, controls you". Not sure who said it but on this forum it rings true.
  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,821
    What??!?!?!?!?!?!?! Who took a train? Surely not? In this day and age?!?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    afx237vi wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Nike has no intention of helping cancer whatsoever. It is there to sell shoes, make money, and is doing it by using images of people with cancer. I find that very tasteless.

    I don't know that you can say that "Nike has no intention off......". The powers that be in
    that company are just as likely to have a family member / relative suffer with cancer as the rest of us. Just because they are "executives" doesn't make them uncaring, inhuman brutes, who have "no intention" of helping if they can. And some may have been active
    in this fight for some years.

    Dennis, you're confusing the human beings who work at Nike (some of whom may or may not be 8 year old children in Far Eastern sweatshops) with Nike Inc. The former may care about fundraising or raising awareness of cancer, the latter only cares about making money.

    No, you're wrong. Nike, the company, hasn't a care in the world. It's a company, not a human. It has no feelings, no family, no friends(or enemies). All it has is a name, and I'm not sure calling it an it is even correct. Nike is a product of humans, 100%. To blame Nike
    for anything is ridiculous. Maybe you think you don't like Nike but humans are responsible
    for what happens, good or bad. In your perfect world everything is beautiful and there are no mean and nasty people, but c'mon, lets be real here.

Categories