Lance Haters

SpaceJunk

Homer J wrote:

You don't hate him. He just make you feel inadequate , he's everything you want to be, but never will be.

Thanks for telling me how I feel Homer J.

Conversely, if you love LA, does that mean he makes you feel adequate, he's everything you don't want to be and always will be?????


For the record, I don't hate or love LA. Never met the guy. Watching him on a bike does nothing for me. Great success at the TdF, but too methodical for my liking.

So Homer, please tell me why this is the case - what's wrong with me.

dennisn

SpaceJunk wrote:

Homer J wrote:

You don't hate him. He just make you feel inadequate , he's everything you want to be, but never will be.

Thanks for telling me how I feel Homer J.

So Homer, please tell me why this is the case - what's wrong with me.

Just reread what "Homer J" said.

jamlala

Like it or not Bernie we live in a world of haves, have less and have nots. So unless you'd rather we imposed a communist state on everyone then there is little we can do about it. Of course if that was the case LA would probably lead the revolution anyway and build his own 'Peoples Palace' in Austin, TX!

BikingBernie

Pokerface wrote:

How is he enforcing this so-called Omerta (today)? Threats? What threats? I'm not saying you're wrong... well, yes I am.

To start with, Armstrong's position today is based on what he did in the past, including the way he enforced the doping omerta (Bassons, Simeoni, blacklisting journalists who asked awkward questions and so on). Secondly, I see little evidence of things having changed. It is clear that despite claims he would be totally open the old journalistic blacklist is still in operation (Kimmage for example) and as soon as he announced his comeback he was dishing out the threats. For example, when the German rider Linus Gerdemann said that Armstrong's return might not be in the best interest of the sport's credibility Armstrong said "He better hope he doesn't get in a breakaway with me because I can still ride hard." Shades of Simeoni, no? Plus he has been up to many of his other of his old tricks, such as feeding and exploiting anti-French xenophobia. It also appears that he played an important role in getting Patrice Clerc dismissed, the one man who seemed to be determined to tackle the problem of doping in cycling in a robust way.

Pokerface wrote:

I agree - those 'in the trenches' are the real heroes. But make no mistake - because of the work of people like Lance - keeping cancer at the forefront of the public consciousness and helping to raise money for the cause - these 'real' heroes might now be able to do their jobs as effectively. It takes all sorts from the corporate whores to the little guy to fight the disease. They are both important and play a role. Why slag off Lance because he is at one end of the food chain?

The point of my criticisms is not to 'slag off' Armstrong per say, but to argue that when one considers what he actually does - other than allowing his public image to be used - he doesn't really deserve the adulation he gets as some sort of patron saint of cancer.

Pokerface wrote:

Most things in this world are 'managed', 'packaged' and 'branded'. It's how we work and understand things. Is it right? Probably not - but again - why hate a man the plays within the system and uses that system to help others?

Who says I 'hate' Armstrong? I don't like much of what he stands for and think that as a human being he is an arse, but that is something rather different. What I would say is that his saintly image should be tempered by the realisation that the person Armstrong helps more than any other by 'playing the system' is Lance Armstrong himself.

Pokerface wrote:

Lastly - what kind of competitor likes losing or admitting defeat (or takes defeat well)? Striving to do better is what makes a competitor get better.

Yes, and it's about time people recognised that that is what Armstrong really is, an aggressive, driven competitor, not a 'nice guy', let alone a saint!

BikingBernie

BikingBernie wrote:

it's about time people recognised that that is what Armstrong really is, an aggressive, driven competitor, not a 'nice guy', let alone a saint!

---

Booknoise: What’s our biggest misconception about Armstrong?

Daniel Coyle: That he’s a nice guy. Lance is smart, charismatic, incredibly hardworking, and he does a lot of good works, especially within the cancer community. All that has led most of us to the misimpression that he’s saintlike or even cuddly. He’s not, by a long shot. Like DiMaggio, like Sinatra, like Babe Ruth, Armstrong is one of those who lives life all the way up. When it comes to his sport, and especially winning the Tour, niceness is just not part of his decision-making.

So what’s he really like? Let’s put it like this: He’s the kid from nowhere who became best in the world at a sport that is very difficult, painful, and dangerous. He’s the proof that Darwinism works. As his best friend, John Korioth, says, Lance is animalistic, the ultimate alpha wolf. On the bike, and often off the bike, he’s a competitive beast. It’s what makes him a fearsome competitor—it also makes him a complicated human being to deal with.

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html

---

"The thing about Armstrong," says UT's Hoberman, "is the mystery of his personality. Either he is being picked on because of his success or he is one hell of a brazen person. And the truth is, if he weren't tough in certain ways, he wouldn't be where he is."

Professional athletes are different from you and me. In Lance's book, he wrote how they cultivate the "aura of invincibility . . . neither are they especially kind, considerate, merciful, benign, lenient, or forgiving, to themselves or anyone around them." Lance was especially so early in his career. He was, like many young athletes, arrogant with success, a casual ladies' man (nicknamed by his teammates FedEx because of the slogan, "When you absolutely, positively have to have it—overnight"), a chest-thumping, angry testosterone geek. Lance, like other great athletes—Michael Jordan, Ted Williams—has a mean streak, a predatory nature that has to be channeled. "The guy can be a real hard-ass," says old friend Korioth. "He can be real egotistical. But he has to be. He has to wake up every morning and go out, rain or shine, and pound it out. He has to believe he's the best." He is a blunt, intense person, a loner who will always have an outsider's hardness.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-07-01/feature4.php

Pokerface

For most of us - it is all conjecture anyway.

I'm sure a few people here have met him, and I doubt anyone here actually KNOWS him well enough to pass an informed judgment.

He rides a bike. He says silly things. He won the Tour. A lot. And he has a cancer charity named after him. And.... he is a human being. And that - is all I have to say.

BikingBernie

JamLala wrote:

Like it or not Bernie we live in a world of haves, have less and have nots. So unless you'd rather we imposed a communist state on everyone then there is little we can do about it.

I don't agree, the world is not as 'black and white' as you make out. To my mind the 'market socialism' of countries such as Denmark and Sweden offers something approaching the ideal social / political model. (A high level of social inclusion, a high standard of living, national health care system, a more equitable distribution of wealth with poverty levels around the 2-3% level and so on).

On the other hand Armstrong very much represents the sort of individualistic, essentially right-wing, business-dominated, 'to the winner the spoils' and 'dog eat dog' system that in the US sees almost a quarter of the population living in poverty and leaves almost 50 million American's without access to health care. (A model that has been adopted in Thatcherite /Blairite Britain, so making Thatcher’s claim - ‘There is no such thing as society’ - an existing reality rather than just a piece of political rhetoric).

I would have a lot more time for Armstrong, for example, if he were to show his 'commitment' to cancer sufferers by campaigning in support of Obama's proposed changes to the 'health care' system in the US, but I have seen no evidence of him doing so. Perhaps the thought that 50 million Americans will, as individuals, probably die if they contract cancer is less important to him that ‘raising awareness’ of cancer, whatever that means.

Of course, this works both ways, and the reason many people like Armstrong is that he represents the sort of essentially political 'values' they themselves hold dear. (Unfortunately, this all too often seems to mean 'Stars 'n Stripes' waving Francophobes and charmers like our own sadly missed 'jackhammer').

rockmount

BikingBernie wrote:

... bla bla bla ...

Perhaps you should try forming an opinion of your own sometime, you may find it an enlightening experience !

jamlala

Sounds fairly black and white to me Bernie, if it is as you describe.

jamlala

Pokerface wrote:

For most of us - it is all conjecture anyway.

I'm sure a few people here have met him, and I doubt anyone here actually KNOWS him well enough to pass an informed judgment.

He rides a bike. He says silly things. He won the Tour. A lot. And he has a cancer charity named after him. And.... he is a human being. And that - is all I have to say.

P P P Pokerface, P P Pokerface Ma Ma Ma Maaa.......

I'll get my coat...........

BikingBernie

Pokerface wrote:

For most of us - it is all conjecture anyway. I'm sure a few people here have met him, and I doubt anyone here actually KNOWS him well enough to pass an informed judgment.

Which is why I gave some quotes from people who know him personally very well. If you want to make an 'informed judgement', be informed by what they say. And I deliberately chose people who Armstrong sees as being his friends and allies. Those who have fallen from his favour would paint a much more scathing (but no less informative) portrait.

Pokerface

JamLala wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

For most of us - it is all conjecture anyway.

I'm sure a few people here have met him, and I doubt anyone here actually KNOWS him well enough to pass an informed judgment.

He rides a bike. He says silly things. He won the Tour. A lot. And he has a cancer charity named after him. And.... he is a human being. And that - is all I have to say.

P P P Pokerface, P P Pokerface Ma Ma Ma Maaa.......

I'll get my coat...........

The moniker pre-dates that stupid song. But not by much. A not-so-famous UK based TV game show featuring Ant and Dec. On which I was a contestant. 8)

BikingBernie

rockmount wrote:

Perhaps you should try forming an opinion of your own sometime, you may find it an enlightening experience !

I had thought that I was expressing an opinion. For example,

To my mind the 'market socialism' of countries such as Denmark and Sweden offers something approaching the ideal social / political model.

Perhaps you meant to say 'You should try forming an opinion of your own without resort to evidence and logic, as I often do.'

SpaceJunk

Pokerface wrote:

For most of us - it is all conjecture anyway.

I'm sure a few people here have met him, and I doubt anyone here actually KNOWS him well enough to pass an informed judgment.

He rides a bike. He says silly things. He won the Tour. A lot. And he has a cancer charity named after him. And.... he is a human being. And that - is all I have to say.

Well put pokerface.

BTW - any YouTube footage of you being a contestant?

jamlala

Pokerface wrote:

JamLala wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

For most of us - it is all conjecture anyway.

I'm sure a few people here have met him, and I doubt anyone here actually KNOWS him well enough to pass an informed judgment.

He rides a bike. He says silly things. He won the Tour. A lot. And he has a cancer charity named after him. And.... he is a human being. And that - is all I have to say.

P P P Pokerface, P P Pokerface Ma Ma Ma Maaa.......

I'll get my coat...........

The moniker pre-dates that stupid song. But not by much. A not-so-famous UK based TV game show featuring Ant and Dec. On which I was a contestant. 8)

Sorry, its Friday and I'm working from home (ish). Not trying to do too much, apart from the fact our large annual sales campaign starts on Monday. No prep required much.

Hence the deliriously inane post, sorry. I'm sure you have your appearance on Ant and Decs show on video somewhere, one to show the kids eh?!

Stuey01

BikingBernie wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

it's about time people recognised that that is what Armstrong really is, an aggressive, driven competitor, not a 'nice guy', let alone a saint!

---

Booknoise: What’s our biggest misconception about Armstrong?

Daniel Coyle: That he’s a nice guy. Lance is smart, charismatic, incredibly hardworking, and he does a lot of good works, especially within the cancer community. All that has led most of us to the misimpression that he’s saintlike or even cuddly. He’s not, by a long shot. Like DiMaggio, like Sinatra, like Babe Ruth, Armstrong is one of those who lives life all the way up. When it comes to his sport, and especially winning the Tour, niceness is just not part of his decision-making.

So what’s he really like? Let’s put it like this: He’s the kid from nowhere who became best in the world at a sport that is very difficult, painful, and dangerous. He’s the proof that Darwinism works. As his best friend, John Korioth, says, Lance is animalistic, the ultimate alpha wolf. On the bike, and often off the bike, he’s a competitive beast. It’s what makes him a fearsome competitor—it also makes him a complicated human being to deal with.

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html

---

"The thing about Armstrong," says UT's Hoberman, "is the mystery of his personality. Either he is being picked on because of his success or he is one hell of a brazen person. And the truth is, if he weren't tough in certain ways, he wouldn't be where he is."

Professional athletes are different from you and me. In Lance's book, he wrote how they cultivate the "aura of invincibility . . . neither are they especially kind, considerate, merciful, benign, lenient, or forgiving, to themselves or anyone around them." Lance was especially so early in his career. He was, like many young athletes, arrogant with success, a casual ladies' man (nicknamed by his teammates FedEx because of the slogan, "When you absolutely, positively have to have it—overnight"), a chest-thumping, angry testosterone geek. Lance, like other great athletes—Michael Jordan, Ted Williams—has a mean streak, a predatory nature that has to be channeled. "The guy can be a real hard-ass," says old friend Korioth. "He can be real egotistical. But he has to be. He has to wake up every morning and go out, rain or shine, and pound it out. He has to believe he's the best." He is a blunt, intense person, a loner who will always have an outsider's hardness.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-07-01/feature4.php

To be honest, I already thought he was like this, and don't have a problem with it.

It doesn't mean he doesn't have a benevolent streak that could be admired. To be honest if he wasn't such a hard-nosed prick he probably wouldn't have made such a success of his Foundation.

He's not a saint, I don't think I ever argued that he was. But he has used his profile to do something good for others, which is more than can be said for a lot of celebrities and sportspeople.

Pokerface

SpaceJunk wrote:

BTW - any YouTube footage of you being a contestant?

I may regret this, but.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14eRp9C-tdA

jamlala

Are you Colin the Canadian?! Very good, I wish I knew what the hell was going on!
Interesting that all the 'Related Videos' are of Lady Gaga and not of you lol!

Well done for posting, not short of confidence are you?! Unless of course you are Jeremy....

Pokerface

JamLala wrote:

Are you Colin the Canadian?! Very good, I wish I knew what the hell was going on!
Interesting that all the 'Related Videos' are of Lady Gaga and not of you lol!

Well done for posting, not short of confidence are you?! Unless of course you are Jeremy....

Yes - the Canadian guy. :oops:

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds, ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation.

- William Hutton.

Thats complete and utter bullshit, ive seen many charities with TV ads saying how much they have spent and how many people they have helped, some of the biggest UK charities Macmiillan,Great Ormand St etc .are they now not charities becuase they put out ads saying what they do and how much they help and spend ? You need to open your eyes a bit and let the Lance hatred go

RichN95.

Pokerface wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

BTW - any YouTube footage of you being a contestant?

I may regret this, but.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14eRp9C-tdA

Where's the ending? Did you win anything?

SpaceJunk

Pokerface wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

BTW - any YouTube footage of you being a contestant?

I may regret this, but.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14eRp9C-tdA

Thanks for sharing that with us Pokerface!

Damn I was hoping you were Phillipa!

And without being rude; are the comperes vertically challenged? They look like carnies!

takethehighroad

SpaceJunk wrote:

And without being rude; are the comperes vertically challenged? They look like carnies!

Those are two of the finest, best paid presenters on this fair isle, I'll have you know!!!

But yes, they are short lol.

P.S. What the hell was going on on that show?

Pokerface

Pokerface is a show based around lies. You have to bluff your opponents into thinking that you are doing better than they are.

There are several rounds of general knowledge questions. Each person answers on their own keypad. You know how you are doing - no one else does. After each round of questions - conversation ensues - where to try your bluffing skills.

Then, everyone steps up to podiums with buzzers and there is a countdown of 10. If no one pushes their button - the person with the lowest score leaves with nothing. If you DO push your button, you leave but take what you've earned so far.

Thus - you want to try and convince others you are doing better than they are.

The money grows each round until there is one winner. The winner of each show (*there were 6) went onto the Grand Final to play for £1 million.

I came second in the Grand Final.


REALLY bad clip of the final bit... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bITPECe1A

takethehighroad

So how did you win your show then? If you press your button and you have the most money do you win? Or do you just have to stay to the end, having at least one person behind you all the time?

robmanic1

Pokerface wrote:

Pokerface is a show based around lies. You have to bluff your opponents into thinking that you are doing better than they are.

Sounds a bit like the tour

Pokerface

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

So how did you win your show then? If you press your button and you have the most money do you win? Or do you just have to stay to the end, having at least one person behind you all the time?

I won my show by A. having more money banked than anyone else and B. having the balls to NOT push my button. The girl I was up against folded.

I went to the final - but folded at the last minute as I knew I was beat.

takethehighroad

Makes sense now then lol! I'm happy with The Weakest Link to be honest, nice and simple.

Pokerface

(Nothing like diffusing a Lance argument by hijacking the thread into a discussion on UK game shows!)


:P

gabriel959

Armstrong is still a t**t like it or not

Worse than Lance are his acolytes though, scum of the earth. :twisted: