Lemond vs Trek suit

The Prodigy · November 2009

Maybe Lance should have said nothing about Landis.

He's in a no win situation when he does say something.

iainf72 · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

Well what would you expect him to say in the Landis case especially after Landis himself didnt admit guilt ? I dont get this at all if Landis isnt going to admit guilt then why should Lance admit it for him., thats like expecting me to admit and crticticse something one of my friends has done just to appease other people............just not gonna happen i often wonder why some of you guys think cyclists are in a different planet to the rest of us when it comes to normal human behaviour.

So, let me get this straight - If a friend of yours was found guilty of a crime but wouldn't admit it, you'd not think they were guilty?

moray_gub · November 2009

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Well what would you expect him to say in the Landis case especially after Landis himself didnt admit guilt ? I dont get this at all if Landis isnt going to admit guilt then why should Lance admit it for him., thats like expecting me to admit and crticticse something one of my friends has done just to appease other people............just not gonna happen i often wonder why some of you guys think cyclists are in a different planet to the rest of us when it comes to normal human behaviour.

So, let me get this straight - If a friend of yours was found guilty of a crime but wouldn't admit it, you'd not think they were guilty?

If he told me he wasnt guilty and had issues with the evidence trail then i woudlnt come out and say he was guilty.

blazing_saddles · November 2009

So, if he's proven innocent: he's innocent.
If he's proven guilty: he's innocent.
Well, just so long as there's a rumour floating around to muddy the water.
Floyd said it, so it must be true.
Where is the accredited evidence of innocence?

See, it's the same roundabout, just the opposite end.
One man's burden of proof is another man's burden of innocence.

moray_gub · November 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

So, if he's proven innocent: he's innocent.
If he's proven guilty: he's innocent.
Well, just so long as there's a rumour floating around to muddy the water.
Floyd said it, so it must be true.
Where is the accredited evidence of innocence?

See, it's the same roundabout, just the opposite end.
One man's burden of proof is another man's burden of innocence.

I really dont see why you would expect LA to come out and slag off Landis even if he was guilty (and for the record i think he was) just to appease others he has said as much previously . After all he is very complimentary about David Millar and Ivan Basso and one of those two says he didnt dope so why should he be any different towards Landis. Its quite funny really that as much as folk cant be bothered blah blah blah etc etc with LA people still feel he needs to somehow speak for the misdemeanours of others.

dennisn · November 2009

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Well what would you expect him to say in the Landis case especially after Landis himself didnt admit guilt ? I dont get this at all if Landis isnt going to admit guilt then why should Lance admit it for him., thats like expecting me to admit and crticticse something one of my friends has done just to appease other people............just not gonna happen i often wonder why some of you guys think cyclists are in a different planet to the rest of us when it comes to normal human behaviour.

So, let me get this straight - If a friend of yours was found guilty of a crime but wouldn't admit it, you'd not think they were guilty?

On sort of the flip side of that, people live next to a mass murderer for years, may even be friends with them, and when he gets caught they always seem to say "I just can't believe it, he was such a quiet guy". Lots of people THINK O.J. is guilty, in fact I've never heard anyone say he wasn't, except O.J. himself. Yet according to 12 good men and women he is not guilty of murder. I only bring this up to show that we don't live in a perfect world where things happen exactly the way YOU OR I think they should. Just because you want someone to confess this, admit that, say their are sorry for whatever,
tell all, live the way you think they should, be all YOU think they should be, doesn't mean it will happen. Sitting around moaning about it won't help either, it will simply cloud your judgement and 30 years from now you'll wonder why you put all that energy into it.
As for me "I could cry for the time I've wasted, but that's a waste of time and tears".

Vino · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Well what would you expect him to say in the Landis case especially after Landis himself didnt admit guilt ? I dont get this at all if Landis isnt going to admit guilt then why should Lance admit it for him., thats like expecting me to admit and crticticse something one of my friends has done just to appease other people............just not gonna happen i often wonder why some of you guys think cyclists are in a different planet to the rest of us when it comes to normal human behaviour.

So, let me get this straight - If a friend of yours was found guilty of a crime but wouldn't admit it, you'd not think they were guilty?

On sort of the flip side of that, people live next to a mass murderer for years, may even be friends with them, and when he gets caught they always seem to say "I just can't believe it, he was such a quiet guy". Lots of people THINK O.J. is guilty, in fact I've never heard anyone say he wasn't, except O.J. himself. Yet according to 12 good men and women he is not guilty of murder. I only bring this up to show that we don't live in a perfect world where things happen exactly the way YOU OR I think they should. Just because you want someone to confess this, admit that, say their are sorry for whatever,
tell all, live the way you think they should, be all YOU think they should be, doesn't mean it will happen. Sitting around moaning about it won't help either, it will simply cloud your judgement and 30 years from now you'll wonder why you put all that energy into it.
As for me "I could cry for the time I've wasted, but that's a waste of time and tears".

Who is this OJ? what is his womans like?

AVE Curious Calves

afx237vi · November 2009

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

moray_gub · November 2009

afx237vi wrote:

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

You seem to spend a lot time talking about Dennis talking about talking us talking about Lance

dennisn · November 2009

afx237vi wrote:

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

No, not at all. I find it thoroughly enjoyable conversing with everyone. I know I can be an
*sshole at times and I get carried away, way to often, and say things I shouldn't on a regular basis, but I'm hoping that, at the very least, I add a comment or two, that on that rare occasion, actually has some merit. I really don't mean to be abusive, but at times,
like everyone, I feel the need to call someone an idiot(so to speak). I blame it on old age.
I'm finally starting to understand what my uncle meant when he told me "wait until ya get as old as me, then you can spout off all ya want and everyone has to tolerate it because you're old". Ahhhhh, words to live by.

mfin · November 2009

I expect a clean rider and high profile figure of the sport to take a steadfast stance against anti-doping... I expect it as in 'it would seem the natural thing to do' in my eyes, if you have passion for your sport.

I expect anybody with any ounce of compassion to not want to have their sport in a situation where young people are sticking needles into themselves with potentially awful consequences.

Thats what the guy should be doing if he wants to go down in history as a real hero, he has a choice and control over what comes out of his mouth.

He sounded like he didn't want Landis to be judged by his positive results just on the back of Landis saying it wasn't true, ironically he could have said pretty much what Greg said about him... if he's clean then great achievement, if not he's a complete fraud. He sided with Landis on his word as against simple faith in strict laboratory testing, so he's not a very good judge of character IMO! Of course, when it suits him, he's the most tested athelete of all time so the tests are really good, which way does he want it? Fact is, people can and have doped for years and got round the testing, but when the tests do get them and the B samples confirm, there's not often much question.

moray_gub · November 2009

mfin wrote:

I expect a clean rider and high profile figure of the sport to take a steadfast stance against anti-doping... I expect it as in 'it would seem the natural thing to do' in my eyes, if you have passion for your sport.

I expect anybody with any ounce of compassion to not want to have their sport in a situation where young people are sticking needles into themselves with potentially awful consequences.

Thats what the guy should be doing if he wants to go down in history as a real hero, he has a choice and control over what comes out of his mouth.

He sounded like he didn't want Landis to be judged by his positive results just on the back of Landis saying it wasn't true, ironically he could have said pretty much what Greg said about him... if he's clean then great achievement, if not he's a complete fraud. He sided with Landis on his word as against simple faith in strict laboratory testing, so he's not a very good judge of character IMO! Of course, when it suits him, he's the most tested athelete of all time so the tests are really good, which way does he want it? Fact is, people can and have doped for years and got round the testing, but when the tests do get them and the B samples confirm, there's not often much question.

I still dont get it why he needs to condemn Landis to appease others such as yourself ok in a land of sweetness and light everybody would condem all cheats and vagabonds but this is the real world we live in well at least i do anyway. As for being a hero has any cycling great ever came out and condemned dopers like you want them to ? hell no even the greatest imo Coppi confessed to doping constantly.You need to face up to the reality of the situation sporting heroes tend not be to be heroes at all they suffer the same human frailties and emotions etc as the rest of us its just that some dont want to accept that.

afx237vi · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

You seem to spend a lot time talking about Dennis talking about talking us talking about Lance

A snake eating its own tail. We'll just keep going round in circles until we all self-combust in a fit of apoplexy. Happy days!

mfin · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

mfin wrote:

I expect a clean rider and high profile figure of the sport to take a steadfast stance against anti-doping... I expect it as in 'it would seem the natural thing to do' in my eyes, if you have passion for your sport.

I expect anybody with any ounce of compassion to not want to have their sport in a situation where young people are sticking needles into themselves with potentially awful consequences.

Thats what the guy should be doing if he wants to go down in history as a real hero, he has a choice and control over what comes out of his mouth.

He sounded like he didn't want Landis to be judged by his positive results just on the back of Landis saying it wasn't true, ironically he could have said pretty much what Greg said about him... if he's clean then great achievement, if not he's a complete fraud. He sided with Landis on his word as against simple faith in strict laboratory testing, so he's not a very good judge of character IMO! Of course, when it suits him, he's the most tested athelete of all time so the tests are really good, which way does he want it? Fact is, people can and have doped for years and got round the testing, but when the tests do get them and the B samples confirm, there's not often much question.

I still dont get it why he needs to condemn Landis to appease others such as yourself ok in a land of sweetness and light everybody would condem all cheats and vagabonds but this is the real world we live in well at least i do anyway. As for being a hero has any cycling great ever came out and condemned dopers like you want them to ? hell no even the greatest imo Coppi confessed to doping constantly.You need to face up to the reality of the situation sporting heroes tend not be to be heroes at all they suffer the same human frailties and emotions etc as the rest of us its just that some dont want to accept that.

He didnt need to condemn Landis, I found it odd he sided with him when he claimed his innocence when all the evidence was to the contrary. Also, we're talking about an era of EPO with a fair few deaths ...perhaps cheatings fine then, nevermind. Thanks for pointing out Lance could be frail though, I feel all sorry for him now! ...oh, hang on, no I don't cos he's got a massive PR machine and its brought him more wealth than any other rider in history you care to mention, so if he wants to be heard all the time, which he obviously does, he could potentially make a big difference to doping attitudes, but he doesn't.

afx237vi · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

No, not at all. I find it thoroughly enjoyable conversing with everyone. I know I can be an
*sshole at times and I get carried away, way to often, and say things I shouldn't on a regular basis, but I'm hoping that, at the very least, I add a comment or two, that on that rare occasion, actually has some merit. I really don't mean to be abusive, but at times,
like everyone, I feel the need to call someone an idiot(so to speak). I blame it on old age.
I'm finally starting to understand what my uncle meant when he told me "wait until ya get as old as me, then you can spout off all ya want and everyone has to tolerate it because you're old". Ahhhhh, words to live by.

Which is fine, but would be better if you actually added something substantive to the conversation rather than a never-ending critique of other users motivations.

mfin · November 2009

afx237vi wrote:

dennisn wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

No, not at all. I find it thoroughly enjoyable conversing with everyone. I know I can be an
*sshole at times and I get carried away, way to often, and say things I shouldn't on a regular basis, but I'm hoping that, at the very least, I add a comment or two, that on that rare occasion, actually has some merit. I really don't mean to be abusive, but at times,
like everyone, I feel the need to call someone an idiot(so to speak). I blame it on old age.
I'm finally starting to understand what my uncle meant when he told me "wait until ya get as old as me, then you can spout off all ya want and everyone has to tolerate it because you're old". Ahhhhh, words to live by.

Which is fine, but would be better if you actually added something substantive to the conversation rather than a never-ending critique of other users motivations.

That is true, he does seem to try play the (very) amateur psychologist quite a bit, but everybody's different.

dennisn · November 2009

afx237vi wrote:

dennisn wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

So what is YOUR motivation, then, dennis? You are continually puzzled over the amount of energy we expend (ie waste) talking about Lance Armstrong, yet wherever we are, you are there too, not talking about Lance Armstrong, but talking about us.

Isn't that an even bigger waste of time?

No, not at all. I find it thoroughly enjoyable conversing with everyone. I know I can be an
*sshole at times and I get carried away, way to often, and say things I shouldn't on a regular basis, but I'm hoping that, at the very least, I add a comment or two, that on that rare occasion, actually has some merit. I really don't mean to be abusive, but at times,
like everyone, I feel the need to call someone an idiot(so to speak). I blame it on old age.
I'm finally starting to understand what my uncle meant when he told me "wait until ya get as old as me, then you can spout off all ya want and everyone has to tolerate it because you're old". Ahhhhh, words to live by.

Which is fine, but would be better if you actually added something substantive to the conversation rather than a never-ending critique of other users motivations.

I'll keep that in mind, but I do love delving into peoples motivations for things. Just consider me nosy. Why people do and say things fascinates me.

mfin · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

I'll keep that in mind, but I do love delving into peoples motivations for things. Just consider me nosy. Why people do and say things fascinates me.

...apart from when its Lance Armstrong!!

moray_gub · November 2009

mfin wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

mfin wrote:

I expect a clean rider and high profile figure of the sport to take a steadfast stance against anti-doping... I expect it as in 'it would seem the natural thing to do' in my eyes, if you have passion for your sport.

I expect anybody with any ounce of compassion to not want to have their sport in a situation where young people are sticking needles into themselves with potentially awful consequences.

Thats what the guy should be doing if he wants to go down in history as a real hero, he has a choice and control over what comes out of his mouth.

He sounded like he didn't want Landis to be judged by his positive results just on the back of Landis saying it wasn't true, ironically he could have said pretty much what Greg said about him... if he's clean then great achievement, if not he's a complete fraud. He sided with Landis on his word as against simple faith in strict laboratory testing, so he's not a very good judge of character IMO! Of course, when it suits him, he's the most tested athelete of all time so the tests are really good, which way does he want it? Fact is, people can and have doped for years and got round the testing, but when the tests do get them and the B samples confirm, there's not often much question.

I still dont get it why he needs to condemn Landis to appease others such as yourself ok in a land of sweetness and light everybody would condem all cheats and vagabonds but this is the real world we live in well at least i do anyway. As for being a hero has any cycling great ever came out and condemned dopers like you want them to ? hell no even the greatest imo Coppi confessed to doping constantly.You need to face up to the reality of the situation sporting heroes tend not be to be heroes at all they suffer the same human frailties and emotions etc as the rest of us its just that some dont want to accept that.

He didnt need to condemn Landis, I found it odd he sided with him when he claimed his innocence when all the evidence was to the contrary. Also, we're talking about an era of EPO with a fair few deaths ...perhaps cheatings fine then, nevermind. Thanks for pointing out Lance could be frail though, I feel all sorry for him now! ...oh, hang on, no I don't cos he's got a massive PR machine and its brought him more wealth than any other rider in history you care to mention, so if he wants to be heard all the time, which he obviously does, he could potentially make a big difference to doping attitudes, but he doesn't.

You found it odd that a cycllist would side with an ex teammate in a doping case where the accused protested his innocence ???? I hardly think you can call Lance to account for other cyclist deaths he is not responsible for what other cyclists do .Meanwhile back on the planet we inhabit i think the reason he has made so much money was through his ability to win bike races the PR shite comes after, also i dont think anything Lance says or does would appease the likes of you so he is in no -win situation.

dennisn · November 2009

Back on the original subject. I remember "back when" Lemond bikes were being made that, here in the States, you couldn't open a cycling mag without seeing big ad's for both
Trek and Lemond. Now out on the road it seemed to be a different story. Treks were everywhere(and still are) and Lemonds were few and far between. At least that's how it seemed. I realize that I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, just my observations, but it does make me wonder if Lemond was really a viable brand. I would also note that the brand has not been picked up by another maker but that could be for any number of reasons. Most of which are probably legal and deal with his suit against Trek.

blazing_saddles · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

So, if he's proven innocent: he's innocent.
If he's proven guilty: he's innocent.
Well, just so long as there's a rumour floating around to muddy the water.
Floyd said it, so it must be true.
Where is the accredited evidence of innocence?

See, it's the same roundabout, just the opposite end.
One man's burden of proof is another man's burden of innocence.

I really dont see why you would expect LA to come out and slag off Landis even if he was guilty (and for the record i think he was) just to appease others he has said as much previously . ts quite funny really that as much as folk cant be bothered blah blah blah etc etc with LA people still feel he needs to somehow speak for the misdemeanours of others.

Sorry. Once again, I wasn't taking about Lance.
I thought it was obvious, which, of course, it was.

Anyhow, I leave everyone get on with your favourite subject.

moray_gub · November 2009

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

So, if he's proven innocent: he's innocent.
If he's proven guilty: he's innocent.
Well, just so long as there's a rumour floating around to muddy the water.
Floyd said it, so it must be true.
Where is the accredited evidence of innocence?

See, it's the same roundabout, just the opposite end.
One man's burden of proof is another man's burden of innocence.

I really dont see why you would expect LA to come out and slag off Landis even if he was guilty (and for the record i think he was) just to appease others he has said as much previously . ts quite funny really that as much as folk cant be bothered blah blah blah etc etc with LA people still feel he needs to somehow speak for the misdemeanours of others.

Sorry. Once again, I wasn't taking about Lance.
I thought it was obvious, which, of course, it was.

Anyhow, I leave everyone get on with your favourite subject.

A subject which you are not averse to pitching in with either.

mfin · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

mfin wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

mfin wrote:

I expect a clean rider and high profile figure of the sport to take a steadfast stance against anti-doping... I expect it as in 'it would seem the natural thing to do' in my eyes, if you have passion for your sport.

I expect anybody with any ounce of compassion to not want to have their sport in a situation where young people are sticking needles into themselves with potentially awful consequences.

Thats what the guy should be doing if he wants to go down in history as a real hero, he has a choice and control over what comes out of his mouth.

He sounded like he didn't want Landis to be judged by his positive results just on the back of Landis saying it wasn't true, ironically he could have said pretty much what Greg said about him... if he's clean then great achievement, if not he's a complete fraud. He sided with Landis on his word as against simple faith in strict laboratory testing, so he's not a very good judge of character IMO! Of course, when it suits him, he's the most tested athelete of all time so the tests are really good, which way does he want it? Fact is, people can and have doped for years and got round the testing, but when the tests do get them and the B samples confirm, there's not often much question.

I still dont get it why he needs to condemn Landis to appease others such as yourself ok in a land of sweetness and light everybody would condem all cheats and vagabonds but this is the real world we live in well at least i do anyway. As for being a hero has any cycling great ever came out and condemned dopers like you want them to ? hell no even the greatest imo Coppi confessed to doping constantly.You need to face up to the reality of the situation sporting heroes tend not be to be heroes at all they suffer the same human frailties and emotions etc as the rest of us its just that some dont want to accept that.

He didnt need to condemn Landis, I found it odd he sided with him when he claimed his innocence when all the evidence was to the contrary. Also, we're talking about an era of EPO with a fair few deaths ...perhaps cheatings fine then, nevermind. Thanks for pointing out Lance could be frail though, I feel all sorry for him now! ...oh, hang on, no I don't cos he's got a massive PR machine and its brought him more wealth than any other rider in history you care to mention, so if he wants to be heard all the time, which he obviously does, he could potentially make a big difference to doping attitudes, but he doesn't.

You found it odd that a cycllist would side with an ex teammate in a doping case where the accused protested his innocence ???? I hardly think you can call Lance to account for other cyclist deaths he is not responsible for what other cyclists do .Meanwhile back on the planet we inhabit i think the reason he has made so much money was through his ability to win bike races the PR shite comes after, also i dont think anything Lance says or does would appease the likes of you so he is in no -win situation.

Think you've lost your way a bit, I haven't said I hold Lance accountable for the deaths of cyclists!!! People have died of doping complications though, so it would be fair to think he might be in a position where he could have a positive effect on doping attitudes. In fact he seems to display the opposite to me.

Yes I do find it odd that he jumped to the defence of Landis with no basis for it, team mate or not.

His money making is initially 'made possible' by bike racing results, its not the reason he's sat on millions, not in the slightest! well, thats on the planet we're on anyway, don't you understand fundamental business? You don't think his fortune is made up of winnings do you? ...of course you don't.

With me he's in no way in a no win situation... Id love to see him come out with some real anti-doping comments, he waffles on about enough other stuff. It would make me think of him in quite a different light, ....ive seen him talk about doping, but not with any real anti-doping conviction.

Anyway, think most people would understand its just my point of view... thanks for trying to make it sound like its 'wild and crazy' or something, but I don't think it is.

mfin · November 2009

dennisn wrote:

Back on the original subject. I remember "back when" Lemond bikes were being made that, here in the States, you couldn't open a cycling mag without seeing big ad's for both
Trek and Lemond. Now out on the road it seemed to be a different story. Treks were everywhere(and still are) and Lemonds were few and far between. At least that's how it seemed. I realize that I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, just my observations, but it does make me wonder if Lemond was really a viable brand. I would also note that the brand has not been picked up by another maker but that could be for any number of reasons. Most of which are probably legal and deal with his suit against Trek.

I agree with that. But I still think the total french sales over that long period look very weird indeed.

moray_gub · November 2009

mfin wrote:

[
Think you've lost your way a bit, I haven't said I hold Lance accountable for the deaths of cyclists!!! People have died of doping complications though, so it would be fair to think he might be in a position where he could have a positive effect on doping attitudes. In fact he seems to display the opposite to me.
Yes I do find it odd that he jumped to the defence of Landis with no basis for it, team mate or not.
His money making is initially 'made possible' by bike racing results, its not the reason he's sat on millions, not in the slightest! well, thats on the planet we're on anyway, don't you understand fundamental business? You don't think his fortune is made up of winnings do you? ...of course you don't.

With me he's in no way in a no win situation... Id love to see him come out with some real anti-doping comments, he waffles on about enough other stuff. It would make me think of him in quite a different light, ....ive seen him talk about doping, but not with any real anti-doping conviction.
Anyway, think most people would understand its just my point of view... thanks for trying to make it sound like its 'wild and crazy' or something, but I don't think it is.

Nobody has said its wild or crazy bit it is very naive at least on the planet us mere mortals inhabit. As for Lance being in a position to influence other riders doping habits or attitudes i dont think anything he would say would have much influence after all a large amount of the cycling fraternity dont put much credennce on what he says and are quite happy to trash a lot of what he says . On the subject of money If he had not won bike races he wouldnt be mega rich end of he has become richer through other ventures but it needed him to win bike races to achieve it initially. He had the money to pay for his special cancer treatment becuase he earned a lot of money through winning bike races like the World Champs and Tour stages . No wins no mega rich status simple really

mfin · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

mfin wrote:

[
Think you've lost your way a bit, I haven't said I hold Lance accountable for the deaths of cyclists!!! People have died of doping complications though, so it would be fair to think he might be in a position where he could have a positive effect on doping attitudes. In fact he seems to display the opposite to me.
Yes I do find it odd that he jumped to the defence of Landis with no basis for it, team mate or not.
His money making is initially 'made possible' by bike racing results, its not the reason he's sat on millions, not in the slightest! well, thats on the planet we're on anyway, don't you understand fundamental business? You don't think his fortune is made up of winnings do you? ...of course you don't.

With me he's in no way in a no win situation... Id love to see him come out with some real anti-doping comments, he waffles on about enough other stuff. It would make me think of him in quite a different light, ....ive seen him talk about doping, but not with any real anti-doping conviction.
Anyway, think most people would understand its just my point of view... thanks for trying to make it sound like its 'wild and crazy' or something, but I don't think it is.

Nobody has said its wild or crazy bit it is very naive at least on the planet us mere mortals inhabit. As for Lance being in a position to influence other riders doping habits or attitudes i dont think anything he would say would have much influence after all a large amount of the cycling fraternity dont put much credennce on what he says and are quite happy to trash a lot of what he says . On the subject of money If he had not won bike races he wouldnt be mega rich end of he has become richer through other ventures but it needed him to win bike races to achieve it initially. He had the money to pay for his special cancer treatment becuase he earned a lot of money through winning bike races like the World Champs and Tour stages . No wins no mega rich status simple really

Sorry for being naive... I was more talking about the principals and atitudes on display (or not) and what I think might be responsible and moral ...enough other sports people display these qualities.

As for no-one has said its wild or crazy... thats how I interpreted "Meanwhile back on the planet we inhabit..." in response to what I said. God, aren't I weird for that!

Tell you what, you win... Lance is one of the most admirable sporting heroes of all time. He has overcome cancer to win 7 TDFs in remarkable style, helping and inspiring 1000s along the way. A true gent, his never and maybe ever to be matched 7 consecutive wins of the TDF are surely an unparallelled sporting achievement ...particularly in the light of the fact that many many professional competitors riding against him resorted to using highly advanced blood doping techniques and were still unable to beat this clean-riding superhuman sporting machine. God bless him and all who sail in him.

Seeya

dennisn · November 2009

mfin wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Back on the original subject. I remember "back when" Lemond bikes were being made that, here in the States, you couldn't open a cycling mag without seeing big ad's for both
Trek and Lemond. Now out on the road it seemed to be a different story. Treks were everywhere(and still are) and Lemonds were few and far between. At least that's how it seemed. I realize that I don't have any facts or figures to back this up, just my observations, but it does make me wonder if Lemond was really a viable brand. I would also note that the brand has not been picked up by another maker but that could be for any number of reasons. Most of which are probably legal and deal with his suit against Trek.

I agree with that. But I still think the total french sales over that long period look very weird indeed.

You'll have to fill me in on that. I'm ignorant of whatever the sales figures actually were anywhere. Thinking back I could count the Lemonds I saw on one hand(so to speak)
but Treks were, and still are, everywhere.

moray_gub · November 2009

mfin wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

mfin wrote:

[
Think you've lost your way a bit, I haven't said I hold Lance accountable for the deaths of cyclists!!! People have died of doping complications though, so it would be fair to think he might be in a position where he could have a positive effect on doping attitudes. In fact he seems to display the opposite to me.
Yes I do find it odd that he jumped to the defence of Landis with no basis for it, team mate or not.
His money making is initially 'made possible' by bike racing results, its not the reason he's sat on millions, not in the slightest! well, thats on the planet we're on anyway, don't you understand fundamental business? You don't think his fortune is made up of winnings do you? ...of course you don't.

With me he's in no way in a no win situation... Id love to see him come out with some real anti-doping comments, he waffles on about enough other stuff. It would make me think of him in quite a different light, ....ive seen him talk about doping, but not with any real anti-doping conviction.
Anyway, think most people would understand its just my point of view... thanks for trying to make it sound like its 'wild and crazy' or something, but I don't think it is.

Nobody has said its wild or crazy bit it is very naive at least on the planet us mere mortals inhabit. As for Lance being in a position to influence other riders doping habits or attitudes i dont think anything he would say would have much influence after all a large amount of the cycling fraternity dont put much credennce on what he says and are quite happy to trash a lot of what he says . On the subject of money If he had not won bike races he wouldnt be mega rich end of he has become richer through other ventures but it needed him to win bike races to achieve it initially. He had the money to pay for his special cancer treatment becuase he earned a lot of money through winning bike races like the World Champs and Tour stages . No wins no mega rich status simple really

Sorry for being naive... I was more talking about the principals and atitudes on display (or not) and what I think might be responsible and moral ...enough other sports people display these qualities.

As for no-one has said its wild or crazy... thats how I interpreted "Meanwhile back on the planet we inhabit..." in response to what I said. God, aren't I weird for that!

Tell you what, you win... Lance is one of the most admirable sporting heroes of all time. He has overcome cancer to win 7 TDFs in remarkable style, helping and inspiring 1000s along the way. A true gent, his never and maybe ever to be matched 7 consecutive wins of the TDF are surely an unparallelled sporting achievement ...particularly in the light of the fact that many many professional competitors riding against him resorted to using highly advanced blood doping techniques and were still unable to beat this clean-riding superhuman sporting machine. God bless him and all who sail in him.

Seeya

How many hero (your word not mine)cyclists do you know display these qualities you speak of, and why should Lance alone display these qualities you speak of. As for the last paragraph of yor post some of its true and some of its shite but then i dont have tunnel vision when it comes to Lance hey may have doped maybe not and he can be an arse but the double standards that you and others in here display when it comes to him needs to be pointed out. You expect him to act differently from other cycllists you expect him to say different things from other cyclists hell you even expect him to display different human traits than any other member of the general populace. You need to remember these people are not different from you or i they display the same traits and experience the same emotions so why expect them to behave differently becuase they ride a bike and have lots of money ?

frenchfighter · November 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

Objective acheived for you, you are so predictable you have now got the thread where you wanted it to go

Dave_1 wrote:

this thread...really again simply another go at Armstrong........

mididoctors wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Blimey, this thread has travelled further down the toilet than I thought possible.

what really? I suspect it could go a hell of a lot further

dulldave wrote:

Have to agree. I'm not a Lance fan, but this is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to start yet another Lance bashing thread.

No further comment is necessary.

iainf72 · November 2009

And back on topic, the wonderful NYVelocity posts an update

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... mond-watch

Some of the "no comment" questions were interesting (Oh, ok MG, no they weren't - there saved you the effort)

Lemond vs Trek suit

Comments

Categories