Armstrong vs Contador

Richrd2205

DaveyL wrote:

You were probably comprehensively flamed by one or two posters, dare I call them "fanboys" ? The threads are still there, 80-odd pages back. I had a quick look and the "Dertie" moniker was not imagined, neither was the flak he received for associating himself with Bruyneel.

I've just had a look back & "comprehensively flamed" might have been a wee exaggeration, but it was more than one or two posters & more than one of them would struggle to be called "fanboys"....

(It is quite bizarre to see the faith in Damsgaard's programme that was around last year too...)

I'm guessing that there were different experiences in different threads, but it wasn't that he was comprehensively condemned, nor is he comprehensively celebrated just now...

I accept that he may have been slated in some threads, but it wasn't comprehensive, nor universal. Likewise, his acceptance now is somewhat shy of this...

DaveyL

The levels of hate weren't Lance-like but I can't think of another rider - other than Ricco - who got more criticism before LA's comeback.

andyp

Can you think of another rider whose behaviour is as antagonistic as LA though, Davey?

I've not seen anyone badmouthing rivals and bullying those who want a cleaner sport recently.

Richrd2205

DaveyL wrote:

The levels of hate weren't Lance-like but I can't think of another rider - other than Ricco - who got more criticism before LA's comeback.

[devil's advocate]
Gusev??? Despite that there was never any published or authenticated evidence against him...
[/devil's advocate]

Other than the above, you're right....

DaveyL

andyp wrote:

Can you think of another rider whose behaviour is as antagonistic as LA though, Davey?

I've not seen anyone badmouthing rivals and bullying those who want a cleaner sport recently.

Nope.

El Conejo Ingles

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I bet Leiphemer and LA are not happy Contador vetoed Horner's selection for team... reckon LA will be isolated within the team?

I bet Vino was behind that. JB/LA/LL all wanted Horner in. How did AC manage to over-rule?

WOW, what great pictures, it looks like Almodovars first Hollywood movie. You could not make it up.

I keep saying this, but will again...VIVE LA POLEMICA.

I'm (just) too young to remember Lemond Hinault being "at arms" and although Armstrong is more than Lemond ( feel free to interpret in your own personal way) Contador is not The badger ( except he does win a lot ...hold on this may not be a good analogy)
Its is still very picaresque.

VIVE LA POLEMICA!

afx237vi

^ PMSL

Mods, can you please not delete the above comment? It's too funny.

blazing_saddles

Would a one post ban be a record?
Must be getting very hot and humid down in deepest Bumcrack County.

DaveyL

I wonder if he was lurking for ages, then eventually it all got too much and he felt compelled to "contribute". What a cracking first/last post.

Jeff Jones

He has been banned. One post was sufficient.

(we have banned spammers before they've even made their first post)

mididoctors

Armstrong is bluffing strength with this showboating stuff chasing down early breaks

if he really had it I think he would play the old man then crush everyone ruse

Le Commentateur

I'm (just) too young to remember Lemond Hinault being "at arms" and although Armstrong is more than Lemond ( feel free to interpret in your own personal way) Contador is not The badger ( except he does win a lot ...hold on this may not be a good analogy)
Its is still very picaresque.

I'm thinking it's more like Star Wars:

AC: "Your powers are weak old man."
LA: "You can't win, Bertie. If you chase me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

andyp

It seems Armstrong has finally admitted what many of us have worked out ourselves from watching the race (from Lionel Birnie's twitter)

Lionel Bernie wrote:

"Armstrong has just been interviewed on France 2's post-Tour programme. "The honest truth is there's a little tension in the team".

jerry3571

I must admit to begin to hate AC by that SIDI advert that is constantly on the Eurosport channel. I can say that the "spinning the shoe" game is left for people who have no shame and these people should be locked away in a darkened room. It's as straight as that. :evil:
-Jerry

dougzz

I'm thinking it's more like Star Wars:

AC: "Your powers are weak old man."
LA: "You can't win, Bertie. If you chase me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Most excellent.

iainf72

Armstrong also said he will probably be back next year.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Woooo hoooo.

I'm trying to make sense of thisone.

DaveyL

"Sucked!" ? Perhaps he got Bobke or Sherwen to use a little capillary action to get things moving?

micron

Setting up the French conspiracy theory in case he slips up in a doping control.

I see he also played the 'I could have caught Contador but expected the other GC contenders to pull me back to him' card. He'll do well in politics - he wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the ball.

diamondbacker

I don't get it? I wasn't a huge fan of cycling until recently but there does seem to be an awful lot of animosity towards LA.

As far as I'm concerned he's an all time great and, personality wise, seems no worse (or better) than any other rider. As for doping etc - there are many who've been found out/banned and received sympathy and the general public reaction has been 'meh'. He hasn't had a positive test despite being the most tested athlete on the planet in all likelihood.

For cycling in the wider public eye I think he has been a massive draw and positive model, including his charity work. Regardless of many opinions to come back from what he has done is an inspiration.

frenchfighter

I can't be bothered to explain why I don't like him, but if you read this thread you will understand at least enough as it has been covered.

As for never had a +ve, sorry to disappoint but he tested +ve for cortocoids: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tour_d ... 400344.stm
and apparently six urine samples tested +ve for EPO:
http://velonews.com/article/8740

Also, you only need read: L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong. If you still think he was clean after that then I don't know what to say to you.

afx237vi

diamondbacker wrote:

I don't get it? I wasn't a huge fan of cycling until recently but there does seem to be an awful lot of animosity towards LA.

As far as I'm concerned he's an all time great and, personality wise, seems no worse (or better) than any other rider. As for doping etc - there are many who've been found out/banned and received sympathy and the general public reaction has been 'meh'. He hasn't had a positive test despite being the most tested athlete on the planet in all likelihood.

For cycling in the wider public eye I think he has been a massive draw and positive model, including his charity work. Regardless of many opinions to come back from what he has done is an inspiration.

Basically 3 things:-

1. Many people think he was a doper. The fact that he never failed a dope test is irrelevant, because neither did many of his rivals, who were later proved to be dopers. The "most tested athlete" spiel is far from being true, btw.

2. Many people think he is a bully. See his treatment of people who have spoken out against him, and his treatment of journalists he dislikes. He's sued more people than you've had hot dinners.

3. Many people think he overshadows the sport of cycling. See the TV coverage of races he turns up at. How much of it is about the race and how much of it is about him? That's what the average once-a-year fan may want, but it's a bit boring for people who might want to talk about other riders.

That's the way I see it. I'm not really interesting in getting into an debate over it, but that's why some people dislike him.

diamondbacker

Ok, that's fine. Like I say, I just didn't understand the reasons why. Now off to read some of those links posted by frenchfighter.

rokkala

frenchfighter wrote:

I can't be bothered to explain why I don't like him, but if you read this thread you will understand at least enough as it has been covered.

As for never had a +ve, sorry to disappoint but he tested +ve for cortocoids: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tour_d ... 400344.stm
and apparently six urine samples tested +ve for EPO:
http://velonews.com/article/8740

Also, you only need read: L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong. If you still think he was clean after that then I don't know what to say to you.

The positive samples that were apparently inadmissable or mishandled so couldn't be used as evidence, fair enough to bring that up. But the cortocoids? Didn't he have a medical certificate lodged with the UCI for use of the saddle sore cream that contained it?

andy_wrx

Well he got his team doctor to write him one after he tested positive for it...

jackhammer111 - banned

frenchfighter wrote:

I can't be bothered to explain why I don't like him, but if you read this thread you will understand at least enough as it has been covered.

As for never had a +ve, sorry to disappoint but he tested +ve for cortocoids: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tour_d ... 400344.stm
and apparently six urine samples tested +ve for EPO:
http://velonews.com/article/8740

Also, you only need read: L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong. If you still think he was clean after that then I don't know what to say to you.

It might matter if anybody thought he was riding against a clean peloton. All of his contenders were caught doping he still won. So people get all holier than thou about it.

In America you have a presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. H'e never had that presumption or process in cycling and he's still never been sanctioned.

The ONLY proof against him was old blood samples which an independent investigation concluded.there was no protocol to assure security or proper storage and handling in the years the 'd been kept.

Everything else is hearsay.

You could say "what do you want? Blood?" but he's giving plenty of that.

They tested him 3 times in 49 hours recently.

Anonymous

Anyone fancy a pint?

iainf72

micron wrote:

Setting up the French conspiracy theory in case he slips up in a doping control.

This is what I'm wondering. Also, apparantly Liggett has been saying he doesn't "believe in" targetted testing.

If LA is being target tested (3 in 48 hours would suggest this is the case), then something is giving them cause to do it. Of course, it may just be because he's very high overall and fair enough.

Anyone have a list of who's on the daily lists BTW?

micron

Of course neither Vrijman, Armstrong or the UCI ever denied the samples were his

I thought Armstrong didn't believe in testing full stop

dave_1

jackhammer111 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

I can't be bothered to explain why I don't like him, but if you read this thread you will understand at least enough as it has been covered.

As for never had a +ve, sorry to disappoint but he tested +ve for cortocoids: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tour_d ... 400344.stm
and apparently six urine samples tested +ve for EPO:
http://velonews.com/article/8740

Also, you only need read: L.A. Confidential, the Secrets of Lance Armstrong. If you still think he was clean after that then I don't know what to say to you.

It might matter if anybody thought he was riding against a clean peloton. All of his contenders were caught doping he still won. So people get all holier than thou about it.

In America you have a presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. H'e never had that presumption or process in cycling and he's still never been sanctioned.

The ONLY proof against him was old blood samples which an independent investigation concluded.there was no protocol to assure security or proper storage and handling in the years the 'd been kept.

Everything else is hearsay.

You could say "what do you want? Blood?" but he's giving plenty of that.

They tested him 3 times in 49 hours recently.

one of the B samples from his 1999 TDF was actially listed as missing from the freezer...they tested all the others. I still think he doped...but the way he is riding in 09 must also lead one to conclude he's very good at cycling too,which means his 7 TDF wins are worth respecting

Kléber

No one's saying Armstrong was a couch potato who ended up winning thanks to Dr Ferrari.

But the 1990s were a period where the deciding factor was which "doctor" you had on board. We can take training, talent and other factors as fixed, you could be the best rider around but if you didn't dope, forget it; you could train your socks off but if you didn't take EPO then you'd flounder. Just ask Chris Boardman.