Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

"The others" being the others who doped "to dominate" as I explained in the previous post. Not necessarily the guys who were dragged along with them.

Fair enough. Now who else has deceived millions suffering from a potentially fatal illness, such as cancer, by providing them with an 'inspiration' that was based on doping and deceit, in the way Armstrong has?

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

"Bernie" it's the other way round. He's anti-Lance but he's not anti-doping.

:roll:

I refer you to my posts earlier today about the large number of fatalities associated with doping in the 'Epo era'.

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

I refer you to my posts earlier today about the large number of fatalities associated with doping in the 'Epo era'.

On a Lance thread, to back up your argument about, er, Lance. And I refer you to your 600-odd posts out of 800 about, er, Lance.

Not even counting those from your previous incarnation, banned after an argument about, er, Lance. And your continued refusal to comment on other, current, European doping cases which aren't, er, Lance.

micron

But Sassi was the team manager at Mapei until Squinzi pulled the plug because of evidence of systematic doping. Or he is like Allan Lim, it was going on but he didn't notice it 'crazy, huh?'

Sassi may have banned outside doctors but was the team trainer in 1996 - just wonder why he gets the free pass (like Rihs, another figure involved with a dirty team)? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the Mapei team of Evans, Wegelius, Rogers, Bettini and Cancellara amongst others was as dirty as they come - and Sassi was in charge having come from a blood doping background (Moser's hour record).

DaveyL, I appreciate you think I'm simply anti Armstrong but it is largely because he's the rider that, for me, really took the p*ss with doping - I'd love to see the sport clean, but since that's an impossibilty I'd like it all to go back to the old ad hoc days, But then that potentially endangers rider's health so maybe it should be allowed under strict conditions (what I suspect Sassi was doing and why he disliked the Ferrai approach - too cavalier before he refined it and which is what Roussel claimed they were trying to do at Festina) but then that would be cheating and....this doping stuff is awfully difficult

DaveyL

it is, micron, it is diffiuclt and depressing.

And to be fair there is probably a lot more to hate LA for than the guys who were doing pretty similar stuff - his bullying tactics, the corruption he promoted within the UCI, etc. My point is more that on purely doping terms, there are plenty of others who were just as bad. They maybe just didn't have quite such a vile range of "extra-curricular" activities...

micron

Absolutely - tell you what, glad I've taken time to actually read responses on this thread instead of assuming they'd just polarise into the usual pro/anti arguments - learnt I have a lot more in common with some posters, like yourself, than I would have thought. Some really thought provoking debate - thanks.

It is difficult and it is depressing - will cleaning the Augean stables fix it? I'd like to think so but when you look at 20 year olds getting sanctioned for their second offense it's easy to feel that the culture is just too ingrained. Maybe there is too much scrutiny, maybe the sport needs to stop being too hard on itself. Or maybe it needs to push its agenda further and with more rigour and turn the spotlight on the big money sports with much more lax testing? Take the lead instead of being the whipping boy? The passport goes some way towards that and I agree with Ballester who said in a cyclismag interview that there are 2 types of people at the UCI - the ones who care and try to do something about it and the ones who'd like to sweep it under the rug. I'd just like to see the sport have a decent, transparent leader not a Verbruggen sock puppet, especially since sweeping it under the rug is no longer an option. And if that means cleaning it all out - the support staff, DSes, doctors - and watching espoirs contest the TdF then so be it. But whether you can stop the cycle from repeating itself.

You're right, it is depressing

mididoctors

DaveyL wrote:

it is, micron, it is diffiuclt and depressing.

And to be fair there is probably a lot more to hate LA for than the guys who were doing pretty similar stuff - his bullying tactics, the corruption he promoted within the UCI, etc. My point is more that on purely doping terms, there are plenty of others who were just as bad. They maybe just didn't have quite such a vile range of "extra-curricular" activities...

this is why he is the focus... your making the argument ..he placed himself at the center of affairs

I think he does stand out and above the others just by winning the tour 7 times.. he went out of his way to seize that accolade which is at the center of cycling and created a massive PR cancer thing myth.. which is rather distastful

it also highlights how the whole system of omerta and culture of brushing it under the carpet cant and doesnt work.. despite all the control freakery he has draw in and trusted loose cannon (idiots) such as Landis... the wider this BIG story went the more unstable it became...in hindsight its hard to imagine how it would not come to this

this day was going to come


here we are... if he was no big deal then why bother protecting him arguments that are designed to make him equivalent... what does it matter what BB motives are?

he isn't equivalent and that is evident from the size of the epic cr4pstorm this is making...

if your just pointing out BB is obsessed or somefink I think we all take that as read..

tell us all something we dont know.. :roll: i mean save your breath

in BB's defence I dont think he couldn't care less about doping

...thats a tad harsh.. cut the guy a break this is the rapture for him.. LA is going down...

well religion is a personnel thing

Even if we isolate the doping issue I put him up there as number 1... who do you have down as the worst doper of all time?

paulcuthbert

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Of course it makes him no better than the others - that's exactly my point. No better and no worse..

Personally, I would say that doping simply in order to survive is slightly less immoral than doping in order to dominate others. I would also say that the way Armstrong has based his whole 'cancer survivor' mythology on doping, and so deceit, is disgraceful.

Are you denying he survived cancer? That's pretty stupid of you dude

Wheelspinner

Wow, some of you guys really, really, REALLY need to get out and get a life.

Biking Bernie and Davey L, do either of you actually ride a bike, or do you spend your entire lives here sniping at each other in online forums?

Put down the keyboards, and go do something positive and healthy for once.

BikingBernie

paulcuthbert wrote:

Are you denying he survived cancer? That's pretty stupid of you dude

:roll:

I have never denied that Armstrong survived cancer. You also manage to squeeze two errors of reasoning - 'The straw man' and 'The Fallacy of Presumption’' into two short sentences. Well done, idiocy like that is a rare gift....

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Are you denying he survived cancer? That's pretty stupid of you dude

:roll:

I have never denied that Armstrong survived cancer. You also manage to squeeze two errors of reasoning - 'The straw man' and 'The Fallacy of Presumption’' into two short sentences. Well done, idiocy like that is a rare gift....

calling people idiots...you're getting worked up BB...if Lance A gets it together and is sitting top 3 in TDF i can imagine you'll lose it again and suffer the same fate as your previous handle Aurelio. Sour grapes is your stock on trade...that's my hunch...you gave the bike game a go and you were crap. I was crap and am not bitter.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

Sour grapes is your stock on trade...that's my hunch...you gave the bike game a go and you were crap. I was crap and am not bitter.

You might not be 'bitter', but you do sound pretty 'worked up'. Perhaps you should stand by what you said a couple of pages ago.

Dave_1 wrote:

don't worry about a reply..I don't read the thread replies here, not even sure what the replies were to my posting 5 days ago..

No_Ta_Doctor

Woah. This thread is rapidly becoming a touch hostile.There's clearly a bit of personal history between some posters which I have no wish to see replayed...

I think it might be relevant though to ask how it's possible to not be a little obsessed with LA. Once every generation, in every sport, an athlete comes along that reshapes their sport. They push the boundaries so far that we are forced to think differently about their sport. They do things previously thought impossible, they innovate, they dominate. They run the mile in under 4 minutes, jump close to a meter longer than anyone has jumped before, or pole vault a centimetre higher than their previous world record 15 times. They stand head and shoulders above their competitors. There is them, and everyone else.

LA did that to an extent that previously dominant riders, such as Indurain, look like lucky chancers who managed to have a good day in the saddle now and again. We're talking about someone whose performance should not just be mentioned alongside the names of Anquetil, Hinault and Merckx, but above them. How on earth is it possible to not be just a little bit obsessed with crossing his name out of the history books?

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Sour grapes is your stock on trade...that's my hunch...you gave the bike game a go and you were crap. I was crap and am not bitter.

You might not be 'bitter', but you do sound pretty 'worked up'. Perhaps you should stand by what you said a couple of pages ago.

Dave_1 wrote:

don't worry about a reply..I don't read the thread replies here, not even sure what the replies were to my posting 5 days ago..

I've never been locked by the mods...you've lost it and got locked at least once. I stand by what I said a couple of pages ago. I don't even know what replies there were, and don't care. This thread is packed with your brethren, I am not taking on 30 or so people foaming at the mouth to hang LanceA

top_bhoy

Dave_1 wrote:

I've never been locked by the mods...you've lost it and got locked at least once. I stand by what I said a couple of pages ago. I don't even know what replies there were, and don't care. This thread is packed with your brethren, I am not taking on 30 or so people foaming at the mouth to hang LanceA

Were you not banned for a period under the old 'Cyclingplus' banner? I doubt the threads will be available to confirm so perhaps you'd like to confirm or deny this. If the latter, I will go take some EPO and see if it helps my amnesia

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

I've never been locked by the mods...you've lost it and got locked at least once.

Rather than being locked for 'losing it', I was locked for jokingly using the phrase 'Jacking off thinking of Lance' in reference to a rather unpleasant and abusive apologist for Armstrong who posted on here using the pseudonym 'Jackhammer' . I'm not sure why this was deemed so offensive when dear old Dennis was around the same time implying that one of the female posters on here was a 'stupid cunt' without the mods raising an eyebrow, but there you go...

Dave_1 wrote:

This thread is packed with your brethren, I am not taking on 30 or so people foaming at the mouth to hang LanceA

Perhaps you would feel more at home here....

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20

andyp

30 people foaming at the mouth? No hyperbole there eh?

Maybe some of us just want to see justice served, as it was, eventually, with Valverde.

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

LA did that to an extent that previously dominant riders, such as Indurain, look like lucky chancers who managed to have a good day in the saddle now and again. We're talking about someone whose performance should not just be mentioned alongside the names of Anquetil, Hinault and Merckx, but above them.

I feel that is overselling Armstrong somewhat. How many races did he win, other than the 8 we all know about? The 'palmares' of a rider like Merckx is in another league. Similarly Indurain (albeit Epo powered, as he almost certainly was) managed to do the Giro / Tour double twice.

dave_1

andyp wrote:

30 people foaming at the mouth? No hyperbole there eh?

Maybe some of us just want to see justice served, as it was, eventually, with Valverde.

well, a little yes, but the neutral and pro armstrong camp is small.

BikingBernie

andyp wrote:

30 people foaming at the mouth? No hyperbole there eh?

Maybe some of us just want to see justice served, as it was, eventually, with Valverde.

Quite so. Still, religious zealots of all kinds tend to get nasty when their faith is challenged.

...if Jesus Christ and the Bible can be debated in a sound manner as is happening in many educated circles today, why not Lance Armstrong?

Well. Uh-oh. It doesn't work that way. In fact, if you do the same against Lance Armstrong, you're a jerk, a dick, a piece of shit, someone who doesn't value life or success and is a hater for the fight against cancer.

Really? Never has been the word 'hater' so overused and out of context. Who talked anything about cancer here? We're talking about the man. We're talking about his personality. We're talking about his wrongdoings and serious misdemeanors that need a place for focused, intelligent discussion.

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/07 ... trong.html

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

the neutral and pro armstrong camp is small.

And for the same reasons why the 'flat Earth' camp is small. That is, it runs counter to all the available evidence.

dave_1

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I've never been locked by the mods...you've lost it and got locked at least once. I stand by what I said a couple of pages ago. I don't even know what replies there were, and don't care. This thread is packed with your brethren, I am not taking on 30 or so people foaming at the mouth to hang LanceA

Were you not banned for a period under the old 'Cyclingplus' banner? I doubt the threads will be available to confirm so perhaps you'd like to confirm or deny this. If the latter, I will go take some EPO and see if it helps my amnesia

I can't remember being locked on c+ or here :shock: ...but thanks for trying memorise my history on here...

andyp

I don't ever recall you being locked either.

No_Ta_Doctor

BikingBernie wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

LA did that to an extent that previously dominant riders, such as Indurain, look like lucky chancers who managed to have a good day in the saddle now and again. We're talking about someone whose performance should not just be mentioned alongside the names of Anquetil, Hinault and Merckx, but above them.

I feel that is overselling Armstrong somewhat. How many races did he win, other than the 8 we all know about? The 'palmares' of a rider like Merckx is in another league. Similarly Indurain (albeit Epo powered, as he almost certainly was) manged to do the Giro / Tour double twice.

Yes, I may have over-egged the pudding slightly, and like LA himself I'm guilty of largely ignoring even the biggest of the "lesser" races. But still, 7 times? And how many bad days did he have in that, where it counted? How many times did he look in danger? How many times was there a significant challenge to him in the TdF?

I mentioned Big Mig's dominance, but didn't name him alongside the other 5 times winners of the TdF... You're allowed three guesses as to why, but should get it in one :-)

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

the neutral and pro armstrong camp is small.

And for the same reasons why the 'flat Earth' camp is small. That is, it runs counter to all the available evidence.

but I accept epoh was used most of them so not a flat earther.....anyways, your sour grapes and temper will see you have few runs ins this summer I reckon...esp if Lance is podium placed , you'll be cutting and pasting graphs and IM conversations like there is no tomorrow

mididoctors

You know how some people argue dragging up the past in relation to Armstrong is a unproductive...

dave_1

andyp wrote:

I don't ever recall you being locked either.

me neither...have defo had runs ins and have posted after a few too many beers back in the c+ days but that's all. Am clean living now

mididoctors

mididoctors wrote:

You know how some people argue dragging up the past in relation to Armstrong is a unproductive...

iainf72

This thread has made me undecided about whether to get a Livestrong band or follow a new sport.

Anyone who is obsessed with Armstrong from either camp is a dreadful bore. When there is something to tak about wrt Lance, I'll talk about it. But over the last few days the story has dried up a bit. Meanwhile, one of the best grand tours in living memory just took place.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

This thread has made me undecided about whether to get a Livestrong band or follow a new sport.

Anyone who is obsessed with Armstrong from either camp is a dreadful bore. When there is something to tak about wrt Lance, I'll talk about it. But over the last few days the story has dried up a bit. Meanwhile, one of the best grand tours in living memory just took place.

you are right Iainf, let's wait on new info...definitely its gone a little quiet on the Landis front in the media. LA seems very unworried...maybe he knows feds can't afford the risk, the cost with no material evidence , danger of losing a case, we'll see