Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
Sigh.... As I have explained to you many times I am quite well aware that cycling has never been clean. However until the Epo / medically managed blood doping era the racing was pretty 'authentic' as the dope couldn't transform also-rans into multiple 'winners', as modern doping methods can.dennisn wrote:So you believed there was no doping / cheating before Lance, or someone else?Cycling was pure just exactly WHEN? I've never believed it was pure in my lifetime. I don't buy your reason or wish. I don't believe you believed the sport was ever clean.
I see. It's the riders and drugs that YOU think are bad. The past was clean by todays standards? Or should I say your standards. So if I follow you, the past was A - OK. It's only in the Lance era that it turned bad?
tell you what if the allegation specifics are true this debacle has to be right up there as one of the most grubby venal episodes in sport ever...
in essence not only did they cheat but the anti-doping regime with its 2 tier system effectively suppressed the ability of others to dope as much!
even the cheating playing field was tilted in their favour!"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Av it wrote:Cumulonimbus wrote:rapid_uphill wrote:Im sure his kids would prefare to know the truth.SpaceJunk wrote:Not that I am saying he should be excused for doping because he has kids, just the impact it would have.
But would they want everyone else to know too?
Thats wgat i like about the forum, people are making what i assume to be genuine belief that they know what children at the other side of the world that theyve never met are thinking ad a re likely to think in years to come.
that you guys know whats best for these children too is even better.
Dont you just love the internet
some of the older ones may know already...
what would be more damaging "i think" is knowing their mum betrayed their dad"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
dennisn wrote:turkeytickler wrote:
+1 I hope it gets bigger and uglier until the whole damn thing implodes and we get a clean start. The amount of evidence against Armstrong and his sycophants is just too compelling. Never liked the guy, always thought and tbh hoped he was a doper. Not saying the rest of them aren't either, he just has a particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans.BikingBernie wrote:
I don't, and nor should anyone who is genuinely interested in the future credibility of the sport.pitchshifter wrote:I really hope this goes away. Quickly.
Let's hope that this sees the truth about Pharmstrong, which is in any case largely public knowledge already, come out in an incontestable way.
If we are dreaming it might even lead to all the corruption in the UCI being exposed as well...
Please explain to me what Lance's "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans"
actually consists of. How does it work? Is it brainwashing on a scale not seen in this world? You have my curiosity up. Explain this grand theory of yours, please, and be particular.
not sure i appreciate your tone, but a small example to point you in the right direction would be his feigned indignation at kimmage on the use of the word cancer as an obvious metaphor as if he has a monopoly on the word. i will leave the rest to you if you are so interested. remember your manners please or next time i will disregard your post.0 -
dennisn wrote:So I have your assurance that cycling in the post Lance era will be pure as the driven snow? You guys are simply setting yourselves up for another let down. Good luck in you belief in the purity of "our sport".
Not a chance it will be clean, however, should he duly be exposed as the cheat he is widely expected to be, it's a big win for the anti-doping movement.
I don't even think Lance himself plays the victimization card this much.0 -
turkeytickler wrote:dennisn wrote:turkeytickler wrote:
+1 I hope it gets bigger and uglier until the whole damn thing implodes and we get a clean start. The amount of evidence against Armstrong and his sycophants is just too compelling. Never liked the guy, always thought and tbh hoped he was a doper. Not saying the rest of them aren't either, he just has a particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans.BikingBernie wrote:
I don't, and nor should anyone who is genuinely interested in the future credibility of the sport.pitchshifter wrote:I really hope this goes away. Quickly.
Let's hope that this sees the truth about Pharmstrong, which is in any case largely public knowledge already, come out in an incontestable way.
If we are dreaming it might even lead to all the corruption in the UCI being exposed as well...
Please explain to me what Lance's "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans"
actually consists of. How does it work? Is it brainwashing on a scale not seen in this world? You have my curiosity up. Explain this grand theory of yours, please, and be particular.
in short, no, i will post my opinions if i want to and i dont have to justify them to someone on a forum just because they dont agree, but a small example to point you in the right direction would be his feigned indignation at kimmage on the use of the word cancer as an obvious metaphor as if he has a monopoly on the word. i will leave the rest to you if you are so interested.
So, what you're saying is that Lance may not have any "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans". It's something you had thought up in a monent of Lance paranoia and it sounded good so you used it. At least that's how I take a NO answer to my request for a bit more info on this "particularly unpleast....". All I was asking was if I was a Lance fan, how was he deceiving me and everyone else(except of course you and you weren't even a fan, yet you saw through it all)?? "particlarly unpleasnt...." I love that. You make it sound like waterboarding.0 -
dennisn wrote:turkeytickler wrote:dennisn wrote:turkeytickler wrote:
+1 I hope it gets bigger and uglier until the whole damn thing implodes and we get a clean start. The amount of evidence against Armstrong and his sycophants is just too compelling. Never liked the guy, always thought and tbh hoped he was a doper. Not saying the rest of them aren't either, he just has a particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans.BikingBernie wrote:
I don't, and nor should anyone who is genuinely interested in the future credibility of the sport.pitchshifter wrote:I really hope this goes away. Quickly.
Let's hope that this sees the truth about Pharmstrong, which is in any case largely public knowledge already, come out in an incontestable way.
If we are dreaming it might even lead to all the corruption in the UCI being exposed as well...
Please explain to me what Lance's "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans"
actually consists of. How does it work? Is it brainwashing on a scale not seen in this world? You have my curiosity up. Explain this grand theory of yours, please, and be particular.
in short, no, i will post my opinions if i want to and i dont have to justify them to someone on a forum just because they dont agree, but a small example to point you in the right direction would be his feigned indignation at kimmage on the use of the word cancer as an obvious metaphor as if he has a monopoly on the word. i will leave the rest to you if you are so interested.
So, what you're saying is that Lance may not have any "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans". It's something you had thought up in a monent of Lance paranoia and it sounded good so you used it. At least that's how I take a NO answer to my request for a bit more info on this "particularly unpleast....". All I was asking was if I was a Lance fan, how was he deceiving me and everyone else(except of course you and you weren't even a fan, yet you saw through it all)?? "particlarly unpleasnt...." I love that. You make it sound like waterboarding.
i actually watered down my response to your post (see a couple of posts above) but anyway, i have given an example and in both versions of the post. i dont need to supply any more although others have and i wasnt posting to you in the first place so if you dont want to take my opinions on board i really dont mind. however since you have taken such a keen interest, i shall reciprocate, i would be interested in your opinion on what was going through armstrongs head when he responded to paul kimmages question?0 -
[/quote] You make it sound like waterboarding.[/quote]
now thats a ideaeating parmos since 1981
Canyon Ultimate CF SLX Aero 09
Cervelo P5 EPS
www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=130387990 -
[quote="BikingBernie
Armstrong was supposedly the man who through his sheer Nietzschean will 'beat cancer'. However, the medical evidence shows that a patient's attitude toward their illness or 'will to live' has absolutely no impact on whether they live or not. Also, if it is argued that sheer Armstrong-like willpower is the way to 'beat' cancer, what does that say about all those who succumb to it? That they didn't want to live enough and as such are at least partly to blame for their own demise?
[/quote]
Actually there are clinical trials that have shown that positive attitudes can increase survivability.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131656.htm
My wife is involved in clinical trials and she has shown me others in the past back when I was diagnosed and when my mother was fighting breast cancer
As for what it says about those who succumb, it means that very small extra boost was not enough. And lets face it in we have a fantastic health care system in the US, IF you can afford it. Lance had the money and support to get him to the best of the best.0 -
turkeytickler wrote:dennisn wrote:turkeytickler wrote:dennisn wrote:turkeytickler wrote:
+1 I hope it gets bigger and uglier until the whole damn thing implodes and we get a clean start. The amount of evidence against Armstrong and his sycophants is just too compelling. Never liked the guy, always thought and tbh hoped he was a doper. Not saying the rest of them aren't either, he just has a particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans.BikingBernie wrote:
I don't, and nor should anyone who is genuinely interested in the future credibility of the sport.pitchshifter wrote:I really hope this goes away. Quickly.
Let's hope that this sees the truth about Pharmstrong, which is in any case largely public knowledge already, come out in an incontestable way.
If we are dreaming it might even lead to all the corruption in the UCI being exposed as well...
Please explain to me what Lance's "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans"
actually consists of. How does it work? Is it brainwashing on a scale not seen in this world? You have my curiosity up. Explain this grand theory of yours, please, and be particular.
in short, no, i will post my opinions if i want to and i dont have to justify them to someone on a forum just because they dont agree, but a small example to point you in the right direction would be his feigned indignation at kimmage on the use of the word cancer as an obvious metaphor as if he has a monopoly on the word. i will leave the rest to you if you are so interested.
So, what you're saying is that Lance may not have any "particularly unpleasant way of deceiving his fans". It's something you had thought up in a monent of Lance paranoia and it sounded good so you used it. At least that's how I take a NO answer to my request for a bit more info on this "particularly unpleast....". All I was asking was if I was a Lance fan, how was he deceiving me and everyone else(except of course you and you weren't even a fan, yet you saw through it all)?? "particlarly unpleasnt...." I love that. You make it sound like waterboarding.
i actually watered down my response to your post (see a couple of posts above) but anyway, i have given an example and in both versions of the post. i dont need to supply any more although others have and i wasnt posting to you in the first place so if you dont want to take my opinions on board i really dont mind. however since you have taken such a keen interest, i shall reciprocate, i would be interested in your opinion on what was going through armstrongs head when he responded to paul kimmages question?
What was the question??? And while I'm at it what was the responce?? In any case, exactly how would anyone except Lance know what was going through his head?? In other words I have no opinion because I have no idea what you're talking about.0 -
And a lot that show the opposite....seemunkee wrote:Actually there are clinical trials that have shown that positive attitudes can increase survivability.
Cancer survival not influenced by patient’s emotional status
A patient’s positive or negative emotional state has no direct or indirect effect on cancer survival or disease progression, according to a large scale new study. The research, to be published in the December issue of Cancer, found that emotional well-being was not an independent factor affecting the prognosis of head and neck cancers. The question of whether or not the mind, through psychological state and emotional status, has the ability to heal organic disease in the body, continues to be reviewed and tested in human health research. A large body of evidence strongly suggests that, for life-threatening diseases such as advanced cancer, it does not.
http://www.ecancermedicalscience.com/news-insider-news.asp?itemId=38
Optimism 'no bearing on cancer'
Cancer growth was not affected by mental outlook
The power of the mind has been overestimated when it comes to fighting cancer, US scientists say.
They said they found that a patient's positive or negative emotional state had no direct bearing on cancer survival or disease progression.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7052318.stm
Positive thinking 'cuts no ice with cancer'
Neither stressful events, nor a woman's 'fighting spirit' have any impact on the likelihood of developing or dying from breast cancer, say scientists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/475128.stm
Things Not to Say to Someone With Breast Cancer
In our rush to be supportive, it's all too easy to fall back on such encouraging and inspirational messages. But they can give breast cancer patients a deep-seated feeling of failure. "I call this the Lance Armstrong syndrome, this idea that if you have the right fighting spirit you can overcome disease," says Knajdl. "I admire Armstrong, and he's done great things to publicize cancer, but this idea that people can triumph over cancer with will power and an upbeat attitude is just crazy.
http://www.caring.com/articles/saying-we-can-beat-cancer
Smile or Die: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America by Barbara Ehrenreich
To write Nickel and Dimed, about how America's working poor live, Barbara Ehrenreich took low-paid work herself. For Smile or Die, her latest instalment on what's eating America, having cancer was the personal starting-point for an investigation into the ubiquitous notion that positive thinking is essential to health, wealth and wellbeing. Positivity and magical thinking may actually make illnesses worse, prompt us to seek wars we can't win, make us waste time and money "improving" ourselves when the real impediments to happiness lie far beyond our control, and make bankers believe they're benevolent demigods.
It's when writing about the cancer industry that she's at her most eloquent. When she got breast cancer, Ehrenreich found that not only did she have to confront a life-threatening illness but also a whole bunch of idiotic pink products, from proud cancer-defying sweatshirts and breast cancer candles, to a teddy bear with a breast-cancer ribbon sewn on its chest.
Cancer victims are expected to exude happiness – otherwise you're apparently exposing yourself, and fellow cancer patients who come into contact with you, to toxic negativity. You might also make your friends uncomfortable. Ehrenreich was told by a Panglossian oncology nurse that chemotherapy smoothes the skin and helps you lose weight! But all the denial and courageous cookie-baking distract patients from questioning their treatment or why they got cancer in the first place.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/ja ... cy-ellmann0 -
Luckao wrote:dennisn wrote:So I have your assurance that cycling in the post Lance era will be pure as the driven snow? You guys are simply setting yourselves up for another let down. Good luck in you belief in the purity of "our sport".
Not a chance it will be clean, however, should he duly be exposed as the cheat he is widely expected to be, it's a big win for the anti-doping movement.
Well, I thought that Lance was the ONE. The serpent head. Kill it and it all dies. End of story. Everything is pure again. After all it WAS / IS all Lances fault. According to most everyone here. How can it not be clean after all this?
Sort of like WW1 was the war to end all wars. Bunch of dreamers, all.0 -
you need to read my post again. all the information you need is in there. if you dont want to thats fine, im not interested in continuing this tedious exchange.dennisn wrote:
What was the question??? And while I'm at it what was the responce?? In any case, exactly how would anyone except Lance know what was going through his head?? In other words I have no opinion because I have no idea what you're talking about.0 -
Dennis,
Please tell us, exactly how much acid did you drop in the '60's.
0 -
turkeytickler wrote:
you need to read my post again. all the information you need is in there. if you dont want to thats fine, im not interested in continuing this tedious exchange.dennisn wrote:
What was the question??? And while I'm at it what was the responce?? In any case, exactly how would anyone except Lance know what was going through his head?? In other words I have no opinion because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Read your post again, re-read a few older ones, in the hope of understanding what you're asking me, but I'm clueless. So this tedious exchange really is over, I guess.0 -
For once, Dennis actually makes an interesting point. (This was my face when I thought this - :shock: )
Even if LA is busted, does that mean the sport will be clean?0 -
mididoctors wrote:dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
Sigh.... As I have explained to you many times I am quite well aware that cycling has never been clean. However until the Epo / medically managed blood doping era the racing was pretty 'authentic' as the dope couldn't transform also-rans into multiple 'winners', as modern doping methods can.dennisn wrote:So you believed there was no doping / cheating before Lance, or someone else?Cycling was pure just exactly WHEN? I've never believed it was pure in my lifetime. I don't buy your reason or wish. I don't believe you believed the sport was ever clean.
I see. It's the riders and drugs that YOU think are bad. The past was clean by todays standards? Or should I say your standards. So if I follow you, the past was A - OK. It's only in the Lance era that it turned bad?
tell you what if the allegation specifics are true this debacle has to be right up there as one of the most grubby venal episodes in sport ever...
in essence not only did they cheat but the anti-doping regime with its 2 tier system effectively suppressed the ability of others to dope as much!
even the cheating playing field was tilted in their favour!
This gets better all the time. Now you're p*issed off because one set of supposed cheaters got cheated on by some other cheaters. Gee, that doesn't seem fair. Now I'm supposed to shed tears for another group of dopers because they didn't get their fair share of the GOOD dope? Dopers cheating dopers. How unfair is that?0 -
andyp wrote:For once, Dennis actually makes an interesting point. (This was my face when I thought this - :shock: )
Even if LA is busted, does that mean the sport will be clean?
If the allegations turn out to be true, this may depend on which doctors it takes down with it....I'm pretty confident one or two doctors aren't doing this stuff in isolation and that there is an established 'cottage industry' in doping set-up0 -
dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:Sounds like you're saying all Lance fans are idiots?? Could be, but I have my doubts.
There is an old saying about "fame is a fleeting thing" and Armstrong, like many others, will be pushed aside sooner than later. His fans will die out just like evey other "sporting hero". Don't worry, you guys are going to have your wishes granted. Sooner or later, in one way or another. I doubt it will be in the way you think or wish, but he, like everyone else will eventually be gone. Then you can all find some new distraction to obcess about.
We'll probably all go back to watching pro cycling. How about you?
So I have your assurance that cycling in the post Lance era will be pure as the driven snow? You guys are simply setting yourselves up for another let down. Good luck in you belief in the purity of "our sport".
How on earth did you get from this:
"We'll probably all go back to watching pro cycling. How about you?"
To this;
So I have your assurance that cycling in the post Lance era will be pure as the driven snow? You guys are simply setting yourselves up for another let down
Where did I suggest cycling would magically become clean when or if Armstrong is sanctioned? It won't, but I can live with that because I still enjoy watching the sport despite its many and obvious problems.
Now I'd appreciate it if you answered the question I asked you. What will you do once Armstrong disappears from cycling? Because you clearly have no interest in pro cycling, unlike everyone else on this section of the forum. Once Armstrong goes there'll be a far bigger hole in your life than there will be in mine.0 -
iainf72 wrote:andyp wrote:
Even if LA is busted, does that mean the sport will be clean?
No, of course not. But it will temper corruption for a while, and make people very very nervous. Fear of being caught is the big deterrent
.
Does the death penalty deter people from killing people??? Does the thought of prison
deter people from trying to cheat Las Vegas? Does the threat of getting caught deter someone from robbing a bank??? It only deters the honest people and only to a point. A two year ban versus fame and FORTUNE. You're joking, right. That's not even much of a choice for an honest person. It's all about money, houses in 2 or 3 countries. And you think that the threat of suspension will stop it or even slow it down? More money will only speed it all up. You and I may be able to resist the temptation of cheating for the big dollar payoff, but to what extent. How much would it take to get you or I to bend that rule JUST a little bit? How much to bend it a lot?0 -
Dennis,
Do I take it that the answer to my previous question is, 'A lot'. 0 -
I'll admit I'd like to see Lance caught, not because I have anything particularly against the guy, but because he is in some ways the lynchpin. The key thing is that the way cycling is run changes, and as Armstrong and the UCI are allegedly so intertwined that if he goes down the UCI may well go down with him. And that's the key to a brighter, cleaner future for cycling.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
dennisn wrote:iainf72 wrote:andyp wrote:
Even if LA is busted, does that mean the sport will be clean?
No, of course not. But it will temper corruption for a while, and make people very very nervous. Fear of being caught is the big deterrent
.
Does the death penalty deter people from killing people??? Does the thought of prison
deter people from trying to cheat Las Vegas? Does the threat of getting caught deter someone from robbing a bank??? It only deters the honest people and only to a point. A two year ban versus fame and FORTUNE. You're joking, right. That's not even much of a choice for an honest person. It's all about money, houses in 2 or 3 countries. And you think that the threat of suspension will stop it or even slow it down? More money will only speed it all up. You and I may be able to resist the temptation of cheating for the big dollar payoff, but to what extent. How much would it take to get you or I to bend that rule JUST a little bit? How much to bend it a lot?
Crikey your comments are tedious. Strikes me that you're a LA fanboy who's been living in denial for some time, but is now finally beginning to realise that he may actually be the most high profile cheat the sport (or indeed any sport) has seen in recent years. So what if exposing LA does nothing to clean up the sport - I couldn't give a monkeys, I just want to see the look on his face when he's finally exposed for the fraud he is. I wasted many hours of my life reading his two shitty books... LA owes me.
0 -
andyp wrote:For once, Dennis actually makes an interesting point. (This was my face when I thought this - :shock: )
Even if LA is busted, does that mean the sport will be clean?
I doubt it...
but cleaner possibly because people may look to the alternative business model more
its early days... I think the days of spending 90 grand a year on doping products may be coming to an end...
the money is going to contract across the board is my guess"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:Sounds like you're saying all Lance fans are idiots?? Could be, but I have my doubts.
There is an old saying about "fame is a fleeting thing" and Armstrong, like many others, will be pushed aside sooner than later. His fans will die out just like evey other "sporting hero". Don't worry, you guys are going to have your wishes granted. Sooner or later, in one way or another. I doubt it will be in the way you think or wish, but he, like everyone else will eventually be gone. Then you can all find some new distraction to obcess about.
We'll probably all go back to watching pro cycling. How about you?
So I have your assurance that cycling in the post Lance era will be pure as the driven snow? You guys are simply setting yourselves up for another let down. Good luck in you belief in the purity of "our sport".
Now I'd appreciate it if you answered the question I asked you. What will you do once Armstrong disappears from cycling? Because you clearly have no interest in pro cycling, unlike everyone else on this section of the forum. Once Armstrong goes there'll be a far bigger hole in your life than there will be in mine.
Well, I have been getting up and going to work before Lance was born, before he was a cyclist, before kids, after marriage, after kids, and I will probably do pretty much the same when his name stops appearing pretty much everywhere. He really doesn't interest me that much. What does interest me is the intense scrutiny, that the some people
on this forum seem to put forth, in some vain attempt to feel like they know him intimately.
Here's a question. Why does everyone think I'm a fanboy? i haven't read anything he's written or anything written about him(other than the standard sporting news stuff), I don't have a yellow wrist band, I haven't given money to his charities, I've never read his twitter(or anyone else's), I don't belong to his fan club(what 61 year old man does?). I'm thinking I'm being called a fanboy in some attempt to p*ss me off. Not because any of you actually believe it. I say things to p*ss people off, generate responce, so I'm guessing you all do the same.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Dennis,
Do I take it that the answer to my previous question is, 'A lot'.
Once was enough. Nasty stuff. Not being in control of your brain or having your brain out of control(whichever it was) was not my idea of fun.0 -
dennisn wrote:
Well, I have been getting up and going to work before Lance was born, before he was a cyclist, before kids, after marriage, after kids, and I will probably do pretty much the same when his name stops appearing pretty much everywhere. He really doesn't interest me that much. What does interest me is the intense scrutiny, that the some people
on this forum seem to put forth, in some vain attempt to feel like they know him intimately.
Here's a question. Why does everyone think I'm a fanboy? i haven't read anything he's written or anything written about him(other than the standard sporting news stuff), I don't have a yellow wrist band, I haven't given money to his charities, I've never read his twitter(or anyone else's), I don't belong to his fan club(what 61 year old man does?). I'm thinking I'm being called a fanboy in some attempt to p*ss me off. Not because any of you actually believe it. I say things to p*ss people off, generate responce, so I'm guessing you all do the same.
What interests me is your intense scrutiny of us. Well, OK, it doesn't really interest me... Anyway, we take your point, albeit it is inevitably slightly hypocritical. Can we stop all this now? We're making an interesting thread hugely tedious :oops:Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
I learned a long time ago that debating with Dennis is like a dog chasing its tale
Nothing against Dennis, his Socratic stance can be useful and he brings a lot to the forum, helpful advice on other sections.
But doping is a problem that needs to be tackled for the health of the riders first and foremost and there should be any doubt here, we can debate subtleties but Landis has supplied some information that needs to be fully investigated. Let's hope this happens.
Plus there might be some background to the leaks here, the story could take a few twists and turns...0 -
dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:afx237vi wrote:dennisn wrote:Sounds like you're saying all Lance fans are idiots?? Could be, but I have my doubts.
There is an old saying about "fame is a fleeting thing" and Armstrong, like many others, will be pushed aside sooner than later. His fans will die out just like evey other "sporting hero". Don't worry, you guys are going to have your wishes granted. Sooner or later, in one way or another. I doubt it will be in the way you think or wish, but he, like everyone else will eventually be gone. Then you can all find some new distraction to obcess about.
We'll probably all go back to watching pro cycling. How about you?
So I have your assurance that cycling in the post Lance era will be pure as the driven snow? You guys are simply setting yourselves up for another let down. Good luck in you belief in the purity of "our sport".
Now I'd appreciate it if you answered the question I asked you. What will you do once Armstrong disappears from cycling? Because you clearly have no interest in pro cycling, unlike everyone else on this section of the forum. Once Armstrong goes there'll be a far bigger hole in your life than there will be in mine.
Well, I have been getting up and going to work before Lance was born, before he was a cyclist, before kids, after marriage, after kids, and I will probably do pretty much the same when his name stops appearing pretty much everywhere. He really doesn't interest me that much. What does interest me is the intense scrutiny, that the some people
on this forum seem to put forth, in some vain attempt to feel like they know him intimately.
Here's a question. Why does everyone think I'm a fanboy? i haven't read anything he's written or anything written about him(other than the standard sporting news stuff), I don't have a yellow wrist band, I haven't given money to his charities, I've never read his twitter(or anyone else's), I don't belong to his fan club(what 61 year old man does?). I'm thinking I'm being called a fanboy in some attempt to p*ss me off. Not because any of you actually believe it. I say things to p*ss people off, generate responce, so I'm guessing you all do the same.
As a 61 year old with all your years of experience you are genuinely surprised that on a cycling forum people are interested in discussing whether or not the highest profile cyclist of the last decade may have been a drugs cheat? Really? Or is this just an example of you trying to provoke a 'responce' (sic)? Either way, it seems as if your posts would be better ignored from now on... which is what I'm gonna do! See ya Fanboy! 0 -
FFS, do you even read the posts you respond to?dennisn wrote:
Does the death penalty deter people from killing people??? Does the thought of prison
deter people from trying to cheat Las Vegas? Does the threat of getting caught deter someone from robbing a bank??? It only deters the honest people and only to a point. A two year ban versus fame and FORTUNE. You're joking, right. That's not even much of a choice for an honest person. It's all about money, houses in 2 or 3 countries. And you think that the threat of suspension will stop it or even slow it down? More money will only speed it all up. You and I may be able to resist the temptation of cheating for the big dollar payoff, but to what extent. How much would it take to get you or I to bend that rule JUST a little bit? How much to bend it a lot?
Can I help you out a little?
This debate has been had so many times. You are answering a point that hasn't been made & your argument contradicts itself.iainf72 wrote:Fear of being caught is the big deterrent
How's about answering the point above without contradiction within your argument?
(Just for background, the general research background is that sanctions don't really put folk off committing offences unless they believe that they will be caught. Taking down a big name will make folk feel more likely to be caught ergo less doping. You could have got all this with a little research, but I thought I'd help out!)0
