Armstrong was really good today

BikingBernie

JamLala wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

To be honest I am surprised by his performance, last year he was only jacking his haemocrit up to 48% - far short of the 58% Prentice Steffen (USP's former team doctor) talked about as being the norm for a big mountain stage back in the 'old days'. I had expected a more comprehensive 'program' this year but if he is on one it doesn't seem to be working.

We also need to remember that even when he was young - back in the days before he teamed up with Ferrari - he was hopeless as a Tour rider, packing in his first two Tours and coming in one and half hours down in his third.

The reality is that it is almost impossible to judge the true worth of a rider once doping is factored into the equation. However, there is every reason to believe that without the Epo and blood doping Armstrong would never have 'won' seven Tours.

Do you have evidence for this? I am surprised at the allegations that individuals are putting their name to on this (and many other) forums. It amazes me how few people understand the the phrase ' libel.'

Yes, and the evidence has been repeated on here many, many times. Given that the Fed's are in the process of exposing Armstrong I feel it is only a matter of time before much more evidence comes to light. Also, any worries about 'libel' did not deter the publication of 'From Lance to Landis', and Armstrong never bothered trying to sue them either. Good job too, given that telling the truth a strong line of defence in a libel case!

SunWuKong

I'm with Moray on this. I am not a fan of Armstrong, although I used to be. I remember being really impressed the stage he won after Casartelli died. The more I found out about him the less I liked, to the point where I quite dislike him. For me it isn't the doping so much as his attitude to others I do not like, Lemond, Simeoni, Contador, the list goes on and on. Nor am I a fan of AC, AS or any of the other GC contenders (I do like Sastre but don't think he's in with a shout). But I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

jamlala

But I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

+1

BikingBernie

SunWuKong wrote:

I'm with Moray on this. I am not a fan of Armstrong, although I used to be. I remember being really impressed the stage he won after Casartelli died.

Wasn't he 'gifted' that stage in recognition of Casartelli's death? Doing so is the traditional thing to do on the Tour.

ratsbeyfus

JamLala wrote:

But I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

+1

-1

I loved it... perhaps it marks the end of a particularly odious era (probably not though as I thought at the time that the Festina affair was the end of an era - ho hum)... I think LA's crashes will be replayed forever on Tour highlights programmes for a good while yet.

...Cue snivelling fan-boy dribble...

iainf72

BikingBernie wrote:

SunWuKong wrote:

I'm with Moray on this. I am not a fan of Armstrong, although I used to be. I remember being really impressed the stage he won after Casartelli died.

Wasn't he 'gifted' that stage in recognition of Casartelli's death?

No

disgruntledgoat

My recollection was that MOtorola were allowed to go ahead of the peloton on the netralised stage the day after and then Armstrong winning the next one very impressively after attacking from a break about 25km out.

jamlala

ratsbeyfus wrote:

JamLala wrote:

But I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

+1

-1

I loved it... perhaps it marks the end of a particularly odious era (probably not though as I thought at the time that the Festina affair was the end of an era - ho hum)... I think LA's crashes will be replayed forever on Tour highlights programmes for a good while yet.

...Cue snivelling fan-boy dribble...

No worse than the 'anti' fan-boy dribble being written also (see paragraph starting 'I loved it....)

BikingBernie

SunWuKong wrote:

I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

When a rider calls Tours won in his absence a 'Joke' and says that his is going to 'kick ass' on his return to the Tour, in my book he deserves little sympathy when it is his 'ass' that receives the kicking.

BikingBernie

disgruntledgoat wrote:

My recollection was that MOtorola were allowed to go ahead of the peloton on the netralised stage the day after and then Armstrong winning the next one very impressively after attacking from a break about 25km out.

I don't doubt that he had to 'work' for the win, but it would have probably been considered very bad form to chase him down.

disgruntledgoat

Credit where it's de Bernie, I'm no fan of the bloke but he took that stage very impressively and it was a contest no doubt.

BikingBernie

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Credit where it's de Bernie, I'm no fan of the bloke but he took that stage very impressively and it was a contest no doubt.

Fair enough!

csp

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but does anyone think Armstrong's losing time yesterday was deliberate? There have been suspicious cases of stomach bugs and crashes this year.

ratsbeyfus

JamLala wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

JamLala wrote:

But I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

+1

-1

I loved it... perhaps it marks the end of a particularly odious era (probably not though as I thought at the time that the Festina affair was the end of an era - ho hum)... I think LA's crashes will be replayed forever on Tour highlights programmes for a good while yet.

...Cue snivelling fan-boy dribble...

No worse than the 'anti' fan-boy dribble being written also (see paragraph starting 'I loved it....)

Smart! 1-0 to the fan-boys.

SunWuKong

BikingBernie wrote:

SunWuKong wrote:

I honestly did not enjoy LA having that bad a day. I found it a bit sad really, and find others gloating in the misfortune of others really sad.

When a rider calls Tours won in his absence a 'Joke' and says that his is going to 'kick ass' on his return to the Tour, in my book he deserves little sympathy when it is his 'ass' that receives the kicking.

Bernie I do not disagree you in respect to what he said about Sastre's win and I am not saying he deserves sympathy from you or anyone else. I found last year's TdF amusing with him trying his best to undermine AC while trying to spin the PR in his favor. II really am not an LA fan, as I stated earlier, I do not like the guy. All I am saying is that I found it a bit sad, and I do not see the point in gloating over it.

calvjones

I wonder if Armstrong gloated on le Clerc's last day in the office?

mididoctors

disgruntledgoat wrote:

My recollection was that MOtorola were allowed to go ahead of the peloton on the netralised stage the day after and then Armstrong winning the next one very impressively after attacking from a break about 25km out.

drpped tafi..which is no mean feat

micron

Dave_1 I don't get that line of argument - those of us who are disgusted at the way the sport has been dragged down bt frauds and cheats are ruining the sport and those who have facilitated the cheats like Dr Ferrari should be left in peace? Does it never occur to you or Moray that those of us who speak out against doping do so because we deeply love the sport. If you genuinely believe that those of do so want to destry the sport I really suggest you take a step back and look at your priorities - what destroys a sport more: fans speaking out about what they feel is wrong with it and would like to see cleaned up or having a figurehead of the sport who acts as a lightning rod for doping and fraud allegations and whose name is always mentioned in the same breath as the word 'doping'. Seriously, how is that healthy for the sport?

You won't find me gloating about LA until he is properly convicted of the fraud he has perpetrated and that may not even happen. No gloating from me over a rider whose body fails them - at some point or other it's happened to many champions. It's human physical frailty and all of us are subject to it. It's the mentality of cheating and fraud I object to.

dennisn

micron wrote:

Dave_1 I don't get that line of argument - those of us who are disgusted at the way the sport has been dragged down bt frauds and cheats are ruining the sport and those who have facilitated the cheats like Dr Ferrari should be left in peace? Does it never occur to you or Moray that those of us who speak out against doping do so because we deeply love the sport. If you genuinely believe that those of do so want to destry the sport I really suggest you take a step back and look at your priorities - what destroys a sport more: fans speaking out about what they feel is wrong with it and would like to see cleaned up or having a figurehead of the sport who acts as a lightning rod for doping and fraud allegations and whose name is always mentioned in the same breath as the word 'doping'. Seriously, how is that healthy for the sport?

You won't find me gloating about LA until he is properly convicted of the fraud he has perpetrated and that may not even happen. No gloating from me over a rider whose body fails them - at some point or other it's happened to many champions. It's human physical frailty and all of us are subject to it. It's the mentality of cheating and fraud I object to.

I don't buy your line of argument. You're not about "deeply love the sport". You're about feeling threatened by LA. And that's really the sad part. And I mean that in all sincerity. It must be awful to have to live in fear of something or someone that's not even close to the reality of what's happening in your life. Yet somehow you have managed to convince yourself that LA is indeed a threat to your life.

warrior4life

BikingBernie wrote:

JamLala wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

To be honest I am surprised by his performance, last year he was only jacking his haemocrit up to 48% - far short of the 58% Prentice Steffen (USP's former team doctor) talked about as being the norm for a big mountain stage back in the 'old days'. I had expected a more comprehensive 'program' this year but if he is on one it doesn't seem to be working.

We also need to remember that even when he was young - back in the days before he teamed up with Ferrari - he was hopeless as a Tour rider, packing in his first two Tours and coming in one and half hours down in his third.

The reality is that it is almost impossible to judge the true worth of a rider once doping is factored into the equation. However, there is every reason to believe that without the Epo and blood doping Armstrong would never have 'won' seven Tours.

Do you have evidence for this? I am surprised at the allegations that individuals are putting their name to on this (and many other) forums. It amazes me how few people understand the the phrase ' libel.'

Yes, and the evidence has been repeated on here many, many times. Given that the Fed's are in the process of exposing Armstrong I feel it is only a matter of time before much more evidence comes to light. Also, any worries about 'libel' did not deter the publication of 'From Lance to Landis', and Armstrong never bothered trying to sue them either. Good job too, given that telling the truth a strong line of defence in a libel case!

Im a huge lance fan but i do have to agree with pretty much everything bernie says, ive read from lance to landis, bad blood and ive also read all the pro armstrong books...
I believe all the evidence does point to the fact the Armstrong did use drugs to win and before them he was a great rider but not a tour winner.
It was strange seeing him dropped.. Not sure about the current state of drugs in the peleton or if he's clean or not... I'm not sure what the future holds for him or how i feel.. Its just very interesting to watch at the moment... I cant see him winning a stage (unless its a gift).. Im looking forward to the next few days.

micron

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

Dave_1 I don't get that line of argument - those of us who are disgusted at the way the sport has been dragged down bt frauds and cheats are ruining the sport and those who have facilitated the cheats like Dr Ferrari should be left in peace? Does it never occur to you or Moray that those of us who speak out against doping do so because we deeply love the sport. If you genuinely believe that those of do so want to destry the sport I really suggest you take a step back and look at your priorities - what destroys a sport more: fans speaking out about what they feel is wrong with it and would like to see cleaned up or having a figurehead of the sport who acts as a lightning rod for doping and fraud allegations and whose name is always mentioned in the same breath as the word 'doping'. Seriously, how is that healthy for the sport?

You won't find me gloating about LA until he is properly convicted of the fraud he has perpetrated and that may not even happen. No gloating from me over a rider whose body fails them - at some point or other it's happened to many champions. It's human physical frailty and all of us are subject to it. It's the mentality of cheating and fraud I object to.

I don't buy your line of argument. You're not about "deeply love the sport". You're about feeling threatened by LA. And that's really the sad part. And I mean that in all sincerity. It must be awful to have to live in fear of something or someone that's not even close to the reality of what's happening in your life. Yet somehow you have managed to convince yourself that LA is indeed a threat to your life.

Dennis, please stop projecting - but thank you for a good laugh

micron

BTW Dennis, I've just been blocked by Lance Armstrong - now whose threatened by whom?

iainf72

micron wrote:

BTW Dennis, I've just been blocked by Lance Armstrong - now whose threatened by whom?

The cool kids were blocked by Armstrong a year ago

Me and Ed Pickering on the same day.

dennisn

micron wrote:

BTW Dennis, I've just been blocked by Lance Armstrong - now whose threatened by whom?

Congratulations or you have my deepest sympathy. Whichever applies. And I honestly don't know. I'm not even sure what you've been blocked from. I can guess why, no matter what it was that you could do before and can't now.

How about a truce. You can't beat me and vice versa. I really am only interested in the reasons behind the Anti Lance mindset, but I doubt anyone is going to admit much of anything. Even after all my trying all I ever get is the same old, same old. Doper, arrogant,
egotistical, blah,blah, blah.

Thinking again about being blocked by Lance. What's the next step? Restraining order?
Hopefully you're not turning into some stalker that he has to hire a bodyguard for.

BikingBernie

dennisn wrote:

I really am only interested in the reasons behind the Anti Lance mindset, but I doubt anyone is going to admit much of anything. Even after all my trying all I ever get is the same old, same old. Doper, arrogant, egotistical, blah,blah, blah.

Perhaps because that is the real answer. :roll:

paulcuthbert

micron wrote:

BTW Dennis, I've just been blocked by Lance Armstrong - now whose threatened by whom?

Just out of interest - where from, and how did you do it?

Me and some friends all got banned from James Blunt's forum one night. That was a laugh!

micron

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

BTW Dennis, I've just been blocked by Lance Armstrong - now whose threatened by whom?

Congratulations or you have my deepest sympathy. Whichever applies. And I honestly don't know. I'm not even sure what you've been blocked from. I can guess why, no matter what it was that you could do before and can't now.

How about a truce. You can't beat me and vice versa. I really am only interested in the reasons behind the Anti Lance mindset, but I doubt anyone is going to admit much of anything. Even after all my trying all I ever get is the same old, same old. Doper, arrogant,
egotistical, blah,blah, blah.

Thinking again about being blocked by Lance. What's the next step? Restraining order?
Hopefully you're not turning into some stalker that he has to hire a bodyguard for.

Dennis, allow me a little counter analysis - you had a bad day yesterday, tough seeing a hero on the floor, losing time, looking all too human, having so much bad luck (karma?) after so many years of apparent invincibility. Then, to add insult to injury, a lot of nasty Internet People appear to take pleasure in the fall of the idol.

Bernie makes a very salient point - perhaps Armstrong just doesn't play well to the majority of fans who were there way before 1999. Or maybe they just hate the prosletyzing fanboys and that fuelled the 'hate' - who knows which came first? There have been many, many intelligent, well reasoned posts on this forum as to why certain people (on either side) hold the positions that they do. And we all know how intractable those positions are - and should accept that people hold those positions for their own justifiable reasons. I'm endlessly fascinated by the pro-Lance mindset and acknowledge that to some he's an inspiration in their own experience of cancer, some like his aggression and egotism, some don't care that he doped he's still the best. But I'm surprised that you can't admit that there is a great deal of evidence - some circumstantial and some direct - that points to Armstrong being considerably less than the hero some others paint him as.

Me, I don't care for lying, cheating and corruption - the thought that I would either be jealous of and/or threatened by someone whose morals I simply can't find any common ground with seems a little silly. The fact that I've loved this sport since I shook Tom Simpson's hand many years ago plays some part in that - that Simpson's death wasn't a genuine wake up call for the sport, the fact that we've since seen suicides and careers ruined because of the arms race that is doping, the fact that Festina changed nothing and instead led to the embrace of a rider who, in my opinion has taken the piss out of the sport and been supported in that aim by a corrupt governing body and the collusion of big brands - it all saddens me. But in your view I'm not motivated by passion for the sport and a desire to see the Augean stable cleaned of a steaming pile of shit - from the top downwards - but instead some kind of psychological illness saddens me not a little (particularly since my husb is a psychotherapist and has declared me perfectly sane if a little over the top in my passion for a sport that he sees as recreation ).

Everyone's motivations are different - there's no one pro or anti mindset. We all have our reasons for the positions we take. I'm interested to know why a) what's behind your pro Armstrong stance and b) why you apparently can't take people at their word, preferring instead to shoehorn their statements to fit your 'hater' stereotype (as some fit all pros into the fanboy template).

You know what Dennis - I was at the final TT in the 1999 Tour. An American friend and I saw Armstrong power past and then repaired to a local bar to watch the finish. My friend was carried out of the place shoulder high after getting thoroughly pissed on all the free drinks he was bought. People were cheering and yelling 'chapeau' as Armstrong crossed the finish line. He was a hero, the comeback kid. So what changed their minds so they were booing him 4 years later? Why did I walk away from the last TT in the pouring rain in the 2003 Tour thoroughly disheartened? Because of what I'd seen, disgusted by what I'd read and heard in those 4 years.

Anyway, as you were - apologies for the loooooong post but I can't help a bit of a rant when I'm passionate about something

IainF - I'm not worthy (and certainly haven't been a cool kid since about 1977)

ratsbeyfus

^ Shock! Someone has posted something intelligent on a forum! :shock:

dennisn

micron wrote:

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

BTW Dennis, I've just been blocked by Lance Armstrong - now whose threatened by whom?

Congratulations or you have my deepest sympathy. Whichever applies. And I honestly don't know. I'm not even sure what you've been blocked from. I can guess why, no matter what it was that you could do before and can't now.

How about a truce. You can't beat me and vice versa. I really am only interested in the reasons behind the Anti Lance mindset, but I doubt anyone is going to admit much of anything. Even after all my trying all I ever get is the same old, same old. Doper, arrogant,
egotistical, blah,blah, blah.

Thinking again about being blocked by Lance. What's the next step? Restraining order?
Hopefully you're not turning into some stalker that he has to hire a bodyguard for.

Dennis, allow me a little counter analysis - you had a bad day yesterday, tough seeing a hero on the floor, losing time, looking all too human, having so much bad luck (karma?) after so many years of apparent invincibility. Then, to add insult to injury, a lot of nasty Internet People appear to take pleasure in the fall of the idol.

Bernie makes a very salient point - perhaps Armstrong just doesn't play well to the majority of fans who were there way before 1999. Or maybe they just hate the prosletyzing fanboys and that fuelled the 'hate' - who knows which came first? There have been many, many intelligent, well reasoned posts on this forum as to why certain people (on either side) hold the positions that they do. And we all know how intractable those positions are - and should accept that people hold those positions for their own justifiable reasons. I'm endlessly fascinated by the pro-Lance mindset and acknowledge that to some he's an inspiration in their own experience of cancer, some like his aggression and egotism, some don't care that he doped he's still the best. But I'm surprised that you can't admit that there is a great deal of evidence - some circumstantial and some direct - that points to Armstrong being considerably less than the hero some others paint him as.

Me, I don't care for lying, cheating and corruption - the thought that I would either be jealous of and/or threatened by someone whose morals I simply can't find any common ground with seems a little silly. The fact that I've loved this sport since I shook Tom Simpson's hand many years ago plays some part in that - that Simpson's death wasn't a genuine wake up call for the sport, the fact that we've since seen suicides and careers ruined because of the arms race that is doping, the fact that Festina changed nothing and instead led to the embrace of a rider who, in my opinion has taken the wee-wee out of the sport and been supported in that aim by a corrupt governing body and the collusion of big brands - it all saddens me. But in your view I'm not motivated by passion for the sport and a desire to see the Augean stable cleaned of a steaming pile of shoot - from the top downwards - but instead some kind of psychological illness saddens me not a little (particularly since my husb is a psychotherapist and has declared me perfectly sane if a little over the top in my passion for a sport that he sees as recreation ).

Everyone's motivations are different - there's no one pro or anti mindset. We all have our reasons for the positions we take. I'm interested to know why a) what's behind your pro Armstrong stance and b) why you apparently can't take people at their word, preferring instead to shoehorn their statements to fit your 'hater' stereotype (as some fit all pros into the fanboy template).

You know what Dennis - I was at the final TT in the 1999 Tour. An American friend and I saw Armstrong power past and then repaired to a local bar to watch the finish. My friend was carried out of the place shoulder high after getting thoroughly pissed on all the free drinks he was bought. People were cheering and yelling 'chapeau' as Armstrong crossed the finish line. He was a hero, the comeback kid. So what changed their minds so they were booing him 4 years later? Why did I walk away from the last TT in the pouring rain in the 2003 Tour thoroughly disheartened? Because of what I'd seen, disgusted by what I'd read and heard in those 4 years.

Anyway, as you were - apologies for the loooooong post but I can't help a bit of a rant when I'm passionate about something

IainF - I'm not worthy (and certainly haven't been a cool kid since about 1977)

Great post, or rant if you like. I can tell you are passionate about all this.
I think maybe I'm a little misunderstood. I'm not really defending LA. H*ll, I've not read any of his books, either by him or any others. I don't belong to his fan club. I've never given to his cancer charities and don't wear a yellow band(I do have yellow bar tape on my bike but not for that reason - color coordination you know). I've never had any athletes for heroes(opps forgot F1 driver Jimmy Clark). I can't help but think that lots of people seem to put these guys on pedestals and that just bothers the h*ll out of me. I don't understand how people can be so absorbed with a person they don't even know. i.e. movie stars, the Queen, sports figures. How can people be so self righteous in there judgement of these celeb's? H*ll , how can I be so self righteous in my judgement of others? And yet I am. Guess I answered my own question, huh?

iainf72

Den - Is there something wrong with your keyboard? It seems to be producing *'s rather than e.