Lance Haters

1457910

Comments

  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    drenkrom wrote:
    damn... the bottom of the barrel is really further than I thought...

    Amen brother. Somewhat interesting though, simply because I can't help but wonder why someone would consider a couple of guys spouting off at each other as anything out of the ordinary.
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    Distinct lack of rational adult thought on this thread....

    Anyone here actually ridden with LA/AC or the others? Or are we all just reacting to whatever spin our chosen media source chooses to put on these stories???
  • avalon
    avalon Posts: 345
    Monkeypump wrote:
    Distinct lack of rational adult thought on this thread....

    Anyone here actually ridden with LA/AC or the others? Or are we all just reacting to whatever spin our chosen media source chooses to put on these stories???


    oh yes
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    avalon wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    Distinct lack of rational adult thought on this thread....

    Anyone here actually ridden with LA/AC or the others? Or are we all just reacting to whatever spin our chosen media source chooses to put on these stories???


    oh yes
    Lance haters have less cojones than Lance :!:
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • avalon
    avalon Posts: 345
    rockmount wrote:
    avalon wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    Distinct lack of rational adult thought on this thread....

    Anyone here actually ridden with LA/AC or the others? Or are we all just reacting to whatever spin our chosen media source chooses to put on these stories???


    oh yes
    Lance haters have less cojones than Lance :!:

    I have medically but not gutsy if you get my drift.
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    avalon wrote:
    sjeffer wrote:
    You lot are a closed minded bunch (this is directed at the 'Lance Haters'). I now regret wasting my time posting on this thread, I had mistaken it for a open discussion but some of the comments above just prove that your minds are well and truly shut on this one.[/quote]


    Unlike your's hey?. :roll:

    Sounds like the Pot calling the Kettle something or other.

    Remember sjeffer we are the one's with No Respect for Armstrong and we are still open for you to attempt to Justify your love of the man. ???

    It would help if you were born before (say) 1982, but I doubt it.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    deejay wrote:
    Sounds like the Pot calling the Kettle something or other.

    Remember sjeffer we are the one's with No Respect for Armstrong and we are still open for you to attempt to Justify your love of the man. ???

    It would help if you were born before (say) 1982, but I doubt it.
    So you have an inferiority complex ... get over it :wink:
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    rockmount wrote:


    BEER%20shiner%20bock.gif
    :wink:
    rockmount wrote:
    So you have a inferiority complex....get over it :wink:

    Yes I can see where your problem lies. 8)
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    This is unusual, a Lance related item.

    I don't hate him, I don't know him. He IS a cheat. But then many of the people he beat were also cheating. Drugs or not I am impressed by being able to get up and perform every TDF day for 7 years.But then he's never really been a full season cyclist, just a TDF rider.

    As for the whole cancer survivor thing, so what. It's just random chance, both getting it and beating it. It's something he's milked pretty mercilessly down the years for his own commercial gain wouldn't you say?
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Imagine he never had cancer.

    Everything else remains the same.

    How would your opinion change.

    Quite revealing for some people when you think about it.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    dougzz wrote:
    He IS a cheat.
    Sure he is .... :roll: You read it on an internet forum ...
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    dougzz wrote:
    He IS a cheat.

    How so? (From a non-love/non-hate POV please)
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    Monkeypump wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    He IS a cheat.

    How so? (From a non-love/non-hate POV please)

    [I'm going to regret this]

    When l'Equipe stated Lance had EPO in his 1999 samples he didn't sue; he said he couldn't be bothered as he was moving on with his life beyond cycling (despite threatening to sue the ass off everyone else for ages).

    You would think his return to cycling means that he should reconsider suing l'Equipe? The biggest sporting newspaper in France has blatantly called him a liar and a cheat.

    I've not seen any credible reason why an innocent rider would not sue? Any suggestions?

    [/I'm going to regret this]
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    Monkeypump wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    He IS a cheat.

    How so? (From a non-love/non-hate POV please)

    Given what David Walsh wrote in "From Lance to Landis: The..." if LA thought he could litigate against it I'm sure he would. The facts are that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence building up that in 1999 to 2001 for certainty LA was using PED. Some of the stuff that wasn't admissible in the SCA case but is recorded fact such as the conversation between Lemond and the Oakley rep is damning for him. There's the IM conversation between Vaughters and Frankie Andreu. I feel that on balance there is enough evidence for me to have formed the opinion he's a cheat.

    As it happens I don't hate him, but I certainly don't like him. I feel he's played the cancer card for commercial gain, he's very self serving, and from his own books and other things written about him it's clear he's always demanded the total loyalty of his team, yet when AC wanted that same support and loyalty in this year's TDF, LA threw a hissy fit and kicked off his publicity machine against AC.
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    Monkeypump wrote:
    dougzz wrote:
    He IS a cheat.

    How so? (From a non-love/non-hate POV please)

    Given what David Walsh wrote in "From Lance to Landis: The..." if LA thought he could litigate against it I'm sure he would. The facts are that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence building up that in 1999 to 2001 for certainty LA was using PED. Some of the stuff that wasn't admissible in the SCA case but is recorded fact such as the conversation between Lemond and the Oakley rep is damning for him. There's the IM conversation between Vaughters and Frankie Andreu. I feel that on balance there is enough evidence for me to have formed the opinion he's a cheat.

    As it happens I don't hate him, but I certainly don't like him. I feel he's played the cancer card for commercial gain, he's very self serving, and from his own books and other things written about him it's clear he's always demanded the total loyalty of his team, yet when AC wanted that same support and loyalty in this year's TDF, LA threw a hissy fit and kicked off his publicity machine against AC.
  • avalon
    avalon Posts: 345
    That's one hell of a stammer you got there dougzz.
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    calvjones wrote:
    You would think his return to cycling means that he should reconsider suing l'Equipe? The biggest sporting newspaper in France has blatantly called him a liar and a cheat.
    As has been pointed out, the main reason he won't do this is that there is a lot of evidence backing up L'Equipe's revelations and showing that he isn't innocent, so he would almost certainly lose! (See below for some of the experts who might be called to give evidence). Since his libel case against the Times a lot 'new' evidence and testimony has entered the public area, including that relating to his 'positives' for Epo in 1999. (This evidence wasn’t admissible in the Times case as the supposed ‘libel’ occurred before the results were made public).

    What's more any court case would undoubtedly see a lot more skeletons fall out of his closet, and he knows this. He is probably taking note of what Bill Stapleton said in relation to his attempts to sue the publisher of ‘LA Confidentiel’ “the best result for us is to …drop the fucking lawsuit and it all just goes away. Because the other option is full out war in a French court and everybody’s gonne testify and it could blow the whole sport”.

    (This may happen in any case with the Lemond /Trek case).


    "So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

    http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

    UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

    It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

    ...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "


    http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    Thanks for the info - didn't want to open a can of worms, just curious.
  • rockmount
    rockmount Posts: 761
    bla bla ...evidence this...bla bla evidence that ...bla bla
    Surely wiz ziss you are taking zee pizz :lol::lol::lol::lol:
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Hey stegosaurus I've got something for you...it should entertain you for a few days at least.

    www.kidsspell.com

    Mature, adj
    Fully developed in body or mind
    Completed, perfected, or elaborated in full by the mind
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Nice interview MA, BB - I will print and read later.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    6092_629040126383_223705_36243033_7210523_n.jpg

    PCY99.wish.shoes-280-75.jpg
    Contador is the Greatest
  • As if you've been talking about this for nearly a week and a half. I gave up after three or four days.

    I know that doesn;t add anything to the debate, but it's not a debate I want to add anything to.
  • PauloBets
    PauloBets Posts: 108
    TTFN this thread is
  • Earthbound
    Earthbound Posts: 109
    Personally don't care wether he took EPO in 1999 or at any other time.
    Also don't care that he had cancer or that the LAF does fantastic work for cancer sufferers.

    I'm only interested in cycle racing, which Lance has shown a complete lack of interest in based on his lack of appearances in almost ANY race other than the tour and maybe a Dauphine warm up.

    The ordinary public who know little about our sport get a very distorted view of our sport and Armstrong. This 'winning 7 tours' is undoubtedtly impressive but there's so much more to cycling than winning the Tour. And there's so much less to Lance's victories than the rich fabric oc cycle racing.

    Lance is NOT a great cyclist, he has had a very EFFICIENT strategy for winning theTour. Namely take a very good athlete, Lance, and spend 11 months of the year preparing exclusively to ride hard in 3 or 4 key days in July. Not anymore than that. You also need an expensively assembled squad of top quality domestiques who will ride exclusively for you. These domestiques will protect Lance by riding at the required pace for all the other days on the tour. Lance only needs to actually perform exceptionally for 3 or 4 days. And as he's been doing bugger all for the rest of the year when all the other riders, including any potential challengers, have actually been earning a living as a professional cyclists, it's VERY much easier for Lance to perfrom at the required level on those 3 or 4 days.

    His 'efficiency' at planning and managing this exclusively dedicated 'percentage game' approach to winning the Tour demeans our sport, it's rich history and tradition, the characters and the legends we know so well and most importantly all the races from l'Overture de Marellaise in February to the Tour of Lombardy in October. All of which are valid and worthy sporting contests.

    Finally, on a personality note, and this years Tour has surely cemented this in everyone's minds. Lance Armstrong is a self obsessed, greedy, untrustworthy, mutinous, disrepectful, spoiled, bitchy (or Twittery whichever you prefer), arrogant in victory and petulant in defeat, scheming, manipulative individual.

    Personally I tend to NOT have any respect for people who so clearly display a significant number of those 'qualities' and certainly not for anyone who displays them ALL in such abundance.

    If half of the rumours about the way Armstrong manipulated and connived and bribed the Astana team to ride against their team leader are true then Arsmstrong is a very despicable person. wether it's offering tasty contracts for next year with Shack if you ride for LA and against your team leader Contador, or arranging for all the team cars to be missing when Contador needs a lift to the start line of the TT.

    For me the snatching the water bottle incident for the sole purpose of saying 'I drink first THEN you drink' to Contador would be the actions of a spoilt 11 year old schoolgirl if it wasn't for the fact it's suppoosedly a 37 year old professional man. Anybody who can think of that action and then carry out the insult has got some very serious personality deficiencies.

    It's clear that Radio Shack are now the Man City of cycling, rewarding those who worked so hard for Armstrong this Tour, throwing juicy contracts at any good rider, Schlecks or Martin, who Arsmtrong seems to think will be prepared to throw away their dignity and any chance of winning next years Tour to be Arsmtrong's personal carpet for him to walk all over all the way to Paris shows you two things:
    Armstrong NEEDS a very strong team to carry him around France on all the days other than the 3 or 4 key stages his planning and tactics identify.
    That Armstrong/Bruyneel/Shack actually think that a rider like Andy Schleck would throw away his own ambitions and subjugate his efforts to the cause of Armstrong is a measure of Armstrong disrespect and arrogance.

    Just my considered opionion.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Earthbound wrote:
    Personally don't care wether he took EPO in 1999 or at any other time.
    Also don't care that he had cancer or that the LAF does fantastic work for cancer sufferers.

    I'm only interested in cycle racing, which Lance has shown a complete lack of interest in based on his lack of appearances in almost ANY race other than the tour and maybe a Dauphine warm up.

    The ordinary public who know little about our sport get a very distorted view of our sport and Armstrong. This 'winning 7 tours' is undoubtedtly impressive but there's so much more to cycling than winning the Tour. And there's so much less to Lance's victories than the rich fabric oc cycle racing.

    Lance is NOT a great cyclist, he has had a very EFFICIENT strategy for winning theTour. Namely take a very good athlete, Lance, and spend 11 months of the year preparing exclusively to ride hard in 3 or 4 key days in July. Not anymore than that. You also need an expensively assembled squad of top quality domestiques who will ride exclusively for you. These domestiques will protect Lance by riding at the required pace for all the other days on the tour. Lance only needs to actually perform exceptionally for 3 or 4 days. And as he's been doing bugger all for the rest of the year when all the other riders, including any potential challengers, have actually been earning a living as a professional cyclists, it's VERY much easier for Lance to perfrom at the required level on those 3 or 4 days.

    His 'efficiency' at planning and managing this exclusively dedicated 'percentage game' approach to winning the Tour demeans our sport, it's rich history and tradition, the characters and the legends we know so well and most importantly all the races from l'Overture de Marellaise in February to the Tour of Lombardy in October. All of which are valid and worthy sporting contests.

    Finally, on a personality note, and this years Tour has surely cemented this in everyone's minds. Lance Armstrong is a self obsessed, greedy, untrustworthy, mutinous, disrepectful, spoiled, bitchy (or Twittery whichever you prefer), arrogant in victory and petulant in defeat, scheming, manipulative individual.

    Personally I tend to NOT have any respect for people who so clearly display a significant number of those 'qualities' and certainly not for anyone who displays them ALL in such abundance.

    If half of the rumours about the way Armstrong manipulated and connived and bribed the Astana team to ride against their team leader are true then Arsmstrong is a very despicable person. wether it's offering tasty contracts for next year with Shack if you ride for LA and against your team leader Contador, or arranging for all the team cars to be missing when Contador needs a lift to the start line of the TT.

    For me the snatching the water bottle incident for the sole purpose of saying 'I drink first THEN you drink' to Contador would be the actions of a spoilt 11 year old schoolgirl if it wasn't for the fact it's suppoosedly a 37 year old professional man. Anybody who can think of that action and then carry out the insult has got some very serious personality deficiencies.

    It's clear that Radio Shack are now the Man City of cycling, rewarding those who worked so hard for Armstrong this Tour, throwing juicy contracts at any good rider, Schlecks or Martin, who Arsmtrong seems to think will be prepared to throw away their dignity and any chance of winning next years Tour to be Arsmtrong's personal carpet for him to walk all over all the way to Paris shows you two things:
    Armstrong NEEDS a very strong team to carry him around France on all the days other than the 3 or 4 key stages his planning and tactics identify.
    That Armstrong/Bruyneel/Shack actually think that a rider like Andy Schleck would throw away his own ambitions and subjugate his efforts to the cause of Armstrong is a measure of Armstrong disrespect and arrogance.

    Just my considered opionion.

    C'mon. Tell us how you really feel. You love him? Right? Only a person who has loved and lost can feel the way you do.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    Earthbound, that pretty much goes to the heart of it for me.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    micron wrote:
    Earthbound, that pretty much goes to the heart of it for me.

    Let's see now. Earthbound and micron? I've pretty much decided that you guys are trolls.
    Couldn't be anything else. If you were that angry for real, ulcers would have eaten away your stomachs by now. If you are real, take my advice and stay on your meds. I remember a teenage nephew of mine that reminds me of you. Angry at everyone and everything, depressed, zero love life(go figure), no friends, real loner. I keep thinking I should have decked him that time he gave me a bunch of grief and threatened to punch my lights out. Instead I couldn't stop laughing. He was just an *sshole. A really big *sshole.
  • I've been looking in here for some time but felt somewhat intimidated by the number of active members and the level of expertise. However when I started to read down this thread I felt a bit better. This is because on another forum, while the Tour was going on, I posted a few anti-Armstrong remarks. For that, I was rounded on, had my posts deleted, and was thoroughly vilified as a "shameful" person.

    So, Hallo. My first post and I hope I'll be more at home here?

    Where I live there are three bookshops. I am a devoted cycling fan and despite just ordering two more cycling books off the internet - for which, thank you for the reading list I found here, it's great - I'm greedy for more. Three books in town and only one book on the subject of cycling.

    Guess who it was about?
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited August 2009
    dennisn wrote:
    Let's see now. Earthbound and micron? I've pretty much decided that you guys are trolls. Couldn't be anything else. If you were that angry for real, ulcers would have eaten away your stomachs by now. If you are real, take my advice and stay on your meds. I remember a teenage nephew of mine that reminds me of you. Angry at everyone and everything, depressed, zero love life(go figure), no friends, real loner. I keep thinking I should have decked him that time he gave me a bunch of grief and threatened to punch my lights out. Instead I couldn't stop laughing. He was just an *sshole. A really big *sshole.
    I wouldn't like to see 'dennisn' banned as he (in common with all those anti-universal health care nuts over in the USA) does such a good job of reminding us that the sort of negative stereotypes which people often have of Americans are, more often than not, based on a rather scary reality.

    However, such a sideways attempt to label other people on here as being '*ssholes', along with the poster's previous transparent effort to call one of the female posters on here a 'stupid c_u_n_t', and get away with it, surely deserves the attention of the mods. Then again, the mods seem to be more interested in removing those critical of Armstrong from the forum.