Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

Wily-Quixote

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Betsy Andreu - consistently and uncompromisingly ethically courageous when all else, including (allegedly) 'hard-man' riders, were submitting to Armstrong's bullying.

Just to remind you that you said "...when all else...were submitting....". I take this to mean you're claiming he bullied everyone? In any case you're argument that he was / is a bully makes you sound like you're 10 years old. Sort of a "I'm gonna tell my mom" thing. :?

I'm presuming you're just being contrary rather than illiterate. There is a workplace definition of bullying that encompasses behaviour from adults towards other adults, there's a dictionary online, look it up if you don't believe me.

When I said 'when all else... Were submitting' I was referring to 'all the people he bullied, dominated or acted aggressively towards'. That was implied in the statement 'all else'. If you think that I meant 'everyone he came into contact with' or 'everyone on the planet' than you have to learn to take written communication less literally. Are you autistic? Or American?

This is an offensive post. You're using disability and nationality as a means to ridicule Dennis. Perhaps you should look at you pc "workplace definitions" and in particular discrimination then grow up.

how is it offensive? i asked if dennis was autistic. That isn't offensive, I am enquiring whether denni's resistance to change and fixed ideas were a manifestation of a disorder, much as I might ask: do you have a headache.

Unless you're implying that I meant to insult dennis by inferring that he was autistic. Which means that you think that people with autism is equivalent to an insult.... which means that you must think people with autism are...what?

whoami

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Betsy Andreu - consistently and uncompromisingly ethically courageous when all else, including (allegedly) 'hard-man' riders, were submitting to Armstrong's bullying.

Just to remind you that you said "...when all else...were submitting....". I take this to mean you're claiming he bullied everyone? In any case you're argument that he was / is a bully makes you sound like you're 10 years old. Sort of a "I'm gonna tell my mom" thing. :?

I'm presuming you're just being contrary rather than illiterate. There is a workplace definition of bullying that encompasses behaviour from adults towards other adults, there's a dictionary online, look it up if you don't believe me.
When I said 'when all else... Were submitting' I was referring to 'all the people he bullied, dominated or acted aggressively towards'. That was implied in the statement 'all else'. If you think that I meant 'everyone he came into contact with' or 'everyone on the planet' than you have to learn to take written communication less literally. Are you autistic? Or American?

This is an offensive post. You're using disability and nationality as a means to ridicule Dennis. Perhaps you should look at you pc "workplace definitions" and in particular discrimination then grow up.

how is it offensive? i asked if dennis was autistic. That isn't offensive, I am enquiring whether denni's resistance to change and fixed ideas were a manifestation of a disorder, much as I might ask: do you have a headache.
Unless you're implying that I meant to insult dennis by inferring that he was autistic. Which means that you think that people with autism is equivalent to an insult.... which means that you must think people with autism are...what?

You are being a di%k . Because someone does not see it your way and you cannot accept their view then you try and insult them in a way that you think is clever and is not an insult. It is in fact an insult to people with autism and an insult to dennis....you know full well what you are doing. Your an Idiot.

salsiccia1

Is this thread still going? Looking at some of the recent posts, it should have been killed off ages ago :roll:

deejay

Coachb wrote:

I saw quite a few of Armstrongs wins in the flesh. I never ever thought for once that the riders were riding clean.
Armstrong's doping does not bother me one bit. I would never have taken away his titles he was the greatest rider of his era in my view.

I too was out there to see the Freak riding the mountains in an unbelievable way that was incomprehensible before he he had a bit of Cancer. I then gave up this false circus act of a "Magic Man" and didn't go again. (I tell a lie as I was on Alpe D'Huez for the TT)
The Bully Boy confounded the the Media (who misled the public) into thinking he was the greatest rider of his era but nobody checked that he couldn't ever win a "Monument" or even a "Classic" to equal the past Era's GREAT riders that didn't need Blood Transfusions to gain publicity. They only had Amphetamines that most of the Peloton were taking anyway. (even Lemond)
Bully Boy, Sure he was because he needed "Minders" and body guards to protect his feeble Lies.

I will say again :- Did you hear the Bum in 1994 as World Champion say to his mechanics "nobody recognises me" in front of a crowd of Belgians watching them adjusting machines. (He was just a Big Headed Wanna Be then)

This forum is dead right to forget his antics in the same way as an eclipse of the sun or the Japanese death camps and let dennisn keep winding up gullible people.

dennisn

deejay wrote:

Did you hear the Bum in 1994 as World Champion say to his mechanics "nobody recognises me" in front of a crowd of Belgians watching them adjusting machines. (He was just a Big Headed Wanna Be then)

This forum is dead right to forget his antics ...........let dennisn keep winding up gullible people.

"nobody recognises me". You say that as if he were to only person in the history of mankind to think like that. Worlds full of people with like thoughts.

At 300+ pages on this topic I'd say you were dead wrong in your "This forum is dead right...." statement. People(you included) love this kind of stuff. Scandal, deceit, betrayal, wrong doing, indecent behavior, cheating, etc., etc. It's why you're still here. It's not me that keeps him in the news. It's you. You buy the books about him. You follow every bit of news that he makes. You can't give him up. He's too important in your life. Otherwise why are you here? :roll:

Paulie W

deejay wrote:

Coachb wrote:

I saw quite a few of Armstrongs wins in the flesh. I never ever thought for once that the riders were riding clean.
Armstrong's doping does not bother me one bit. I would never have taken away his titles he was the greatest rider of his era in my view.

I too was out there to see the Freak riding the mountains in an unbelievable way that was incomprehensible before he he had a bit of Cancer. I then gave up this false circus act of a "Magic Man" and didn't go again. (I tell a lie as I was on Alpe D'Huez for the TT)
The Bully Boy confounded the the Media (who misled the public) into thinking he was the greatest rider of his era but nobody checked that he couldn't ever win a "Monument" or even a "Classic" to equal the past Era's GREAT riders that didn't need Blood Transfusions to gain publicity. They only had Amphetamines that most of the Peloton were taking anyway. (even Lemond)
Bully Boy, Sure he was because he needed "Minders" and body guards to protect his feeble Lies.

I will say again :- Did you hear the Bum in 1994 as World Champion say to his mechanics "nobody recognises me" in front of a crowd of Belgians watching them adjusting machines. (He was just a Big Headed Wanna Be then)

This forum is dead right to forget his antics in the same way as an eclipse of the sun or the Japanese death camps and let dennisn keep winding up gullible people.

I dont really get why you consistently suggest that LA was such a sh!t rider. His palmares prior to getting a 'bit of cancer' (sic) was fairly impressive - I though Fleche Wallone was a classic? - for a 25 year old. OK, there is every chance that he was drug fuelled at that point also and there's no doubt that his arrogance was not fully translated into results but he had promise. I dont think LA is a rider who should be classed alongside Bjarne Riis as someone who would have been more or less an also-ran witout the drugs. This is not to say I believe his results should stand or that I have any sympathy for him as a cyclist.

whoami

David Millar ,known doper, recalls calling Armstrong on new years day or xmas [ can't remember which one] ...Millar was partying . Armstrong was on his bike training when he called him. That's why he won the tour. We know he doped but he was out their busting his arse when others were having a party.
He set the template for what Sky and other teams are now doing.
A great champion.

Mark_P

What?!? He cheated?!?!

deejay

dennisn wrote:

It's not me that keeps him in the news. It's you. You buy the books about him. You follow every bit of news that he makes. You can't give him up. He's too important in your life.

deejay wrote:

let dennisn keep winding up gullible people.

Give it up sonny (ie son of dennis)
Me buy books on cycling, well that's a joke as my Library has only one cycling book in it. (and that was an Xmas present, who should know better)
I have magazines (ie "Sporting Cyclist" from before your time in cycling) and other stuff but because of him I turned my back on such rubbish and can honestly say that this century I bought nowt.
Don't have to as It's all here, even the twisted gullible Idiots that you play on.

Just get the Bum into Court, Please.

lostboysaint

whoami wrote:

David Millar ,known doper, recalls calling Armstrong on new years day or xmas [ can't remember which one] ...Millar was partying . Armstrong was on his bike training when he called him. That's why he won the tour. We know he doped but he was out their busting his ars* when others were having a party.
He set the template for what Sky and other teams are now doing.
A great champion.

Aside from the obvious problem of you confusing being a cheating scumbag with "busting his ars*" you've also got the story the wrong way round. Armstrong wrote it in that work of fiction that he did.

deejay

whoami wrote:

David Millar ,known doper, recalls calling Armstrong on new years day or xmas [ can't remember which one] ...Millar was partying . Armstrong was on his bike training when he called him. That's why he won the tour. We know he doped but he was out their busting his ars* when others were having a party.
He set the template for what Sky and other teams are now doing.
A great champion.

Don't you go out on a bike Christmas Day.
With Time Zone differences that story could be right but I would think he was on a gentle ride somewhere.

LA could never win a Paris-Nice, because it was usually too cold for the little darling.

Paulie W

deejay wrote:

FACT - LA could never finish a Paris-Nice, never mind win it because it was too cold for the little darling.

He finished 2nd in 1996.

Anonymous

Paulie W wrote:

deejay wrote:

FACT - LA could never finish a Paris-Nice, never mind win it because it was too cold for the little darling.

He finished 2nd in 1996.

Um, don't you know that if he states FACT in capitals (and bold) that means it's irrefutable.

Not been on this internet thing long, have you?

dennisn

deejay wrote:

Me buy books on cycling, well that's a joke as my Library has only one cycling book in it. (and that was an Xmas present, who should know better)
I have magazines (ie "Sporting Cyclist" from before your time in cycling) and other stuff but because of him I turned my back on such rubbish and can honestly say that this century I bought nowt.
Just get the Bum into Court, Please.

OK, so you don't buy cycling books. You turned your back on this stuff because one man cheated? What's that about? Pretty unhealthy obsession I would say? And now you can't wait for the next big thing? His going to court. Sounds to me like, for you, life without LA in it is something you don't want to contemplate. He's what you live for. So to speak. :?

deejay

Paulie W wrote:

I dont really get why you consistently suggest that LA was such a sh!t rider. His palmares prior to getting a 'bit of cancer' (sic) was fairly impressive - I though Fleche Wallone was a classic? - for a 25 year old and there's no doubt that his arrogance was not fully translated into results but he had promise. I dont think LA is a rider who should be classed alongside Bjarne Riis as someone who would have been more or less an also-ran witout the drugs. This is not to say I believe his results should stand or that I have any sympathy for him as a cyclist.

LA and Bjarne Riis were about the same class of rider except one came to Europe with a big Fanfare (champion triathlete etc) and the other started as a Fignon domestique.
I was near the finish as he rode up alone to win the 1996 Fleche Wallonne but you hav'nt thumped me with Sans Sebastian or his earlier World Championship wins. None of which are known as "Classics".

Regarding the Tour De France which is his main claim to fame and that of Riis it can be seen that they could only win the "Transitional" stage when the sprinters were not involved and so very similar in performance.
One became a sh!t rider in 1996
The other a sh!t rider in 1999 onwards.
They both remain sh!t people evermore.
Check out another rider of similar ability - Laurent Brochard

deejay

Paulie W wrote:

deejay wrote:

FACT - LA could never finish a Paris-Nice, never mind win it because it was too cold for the little darling.

He finished 2nd in 1996.

You are so right and I found my mistake before I read your post but I think that was the only time he finished. ?
It is now edited as I intended to. :oops:

My memory plays tricks with having seen him drop out of Paris-Nice a couple of times because it was cold or snowing and return to Texas. (as was stated in the media)

type:epyt

I'd rather not get embroiled in this but LA won Fleche Wallone in '96 so that ticks the 'classic' box.

I only know this because he only had half a dozen decent wins pre-cancer and they show them in every documentary going.

Paulie W

I drifted away from cycling in the early 2000s because I didnt believe in miracles. I do believe that, while some riders such as Riis and Brochard benefitted out of all proportion to their talent through the use of EPO, blood tranfusions and other PEDs, LA (alongside riders like Pantani, Landis and more recently Contador) was an incredible natural talent who would have been a prominent rider without doping - this may not have been in Grand Tours but instead in 1-day races and 1-week stage races. This is no more than an opinion, of course, but I dont think there is much doubt that Armstrong has pretty incredible physiological characteristics and over time demonstrated the psychological stengths needed to be a great champion.

deejay

dennisn wrote:

deejay wrote:

let dennisn keep winding up gullible people.
Me buy books on cycling, well that's a joke !
I have magazines (ie "Sporting Cyclist" from before your time in cycling) and other stuff but because of him I turned my back on such rubbish and can honestly say that this century I bought nowt.
Just get the Bum into Court, Please.

OK, so you don't buy cycling books. You turned your back on this stuff because one man cheated? What's that about? Pretty unhealthy obsession I would say? So to speak. :?

OK I will bite this one.
I've said this before that I avoided his rubbish of once a year and enjoyed going to so many other cycle races that make up the season.
I have other interests and sports to follow including the Bears and Niners and have even been to Arlington and the Aggies.
Oh yes Canton also. :arrow: came past your door.

dennisn

deejay wrote:

dennisn wrote:

deejay wrote:

let dennisn keep winding up gullible people.
Me buy books on cycling, well that's a joke !
I have magazines (ie "Sporting Cyclist" from before your time in cycling) and other stuff but because of him I turned my back on such rubbish and can honestly say that this century I bought nowt.
Just get the Bum into Court, Please.

OK, so you don't buy cycling books. You turned your back on this stuff because one man cheated? What's that about? Pretty unhealthy obsession I would say? So to speak. :?

OK I will bite this one.
I've said this before that I avoided his rubbish of once a year and enjoyed going to so many other cycle races that make up the season.
I have other interests and sports to follow including the Bears and Niners and have even been to Arlington and the Aggies.
Oh yes Canton also. :arrow: came past your door.

Why would you let one person, with no ties to yourself, rule what you read and do? :?

salsiccia1

dennisn

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Great movie. One of my favorites.

shinyhelmut

morstar wrote:

He wants to race triathlons. Both his first love and a healthy age group competition structure. A more ambivalent view of doping and ex-dopers too. The sport is wrestling with where it stands on the subject as they don't really know. Key people have already said they want LA in the sport.
LA could potentially be a world champ in a triathlon age group and it does have far more status than many masters sports. You can be sure he'd be able to secure good sponsorship deals too. Like him or loathe him, or his actions, he's still got to earn a living.

Not necessarily



The age group winner I'd Antonio Colom, a name you may recognise;

http://www.dopeology.org/people/Antonio_Colom/

The chap in the home-made t-shirt is Sam Gyde, a Belgian triathlete;

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Interview/Sam_Gyde_made_his_point_4440.html

morstar

Those articles kind of prove my point. Some people don't like the dopers but organisations such as WTC seem to welcome them.
Given the testing regime, it's definitely an attractive proposition for an unrepentant doper.

Wily-Quixote

whoami wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Betsy Andreu - consistently and uncompromisingly ethically courageous when all else, including (allegedly) 'hard-man' riders, were submitting to Armstrong's bullying.

Just to remind you that you said "...when all else...were submitting....". I take this to mean you're claiming he bullied everyone? In any case you're argument that he was / is a bully makes you sound like you're 10 years old. Sort of a "I'm gonna tell my mom" thing. :?

I'm presuming you're just being contrary rather than illiterate. There is a workplace definition of bullying that encompasses behaviour from adults towards other adults, there's a dictionary online, look it up if you don't believe me.
When I said 'when all else... Were submitting' I was referring to 'all the people he bullied, dominated or acted aggressively towards'. That was implied in the statement 'all else'. If you think that I meant 'everyone he came into contact with' or 'everyone on the planet' than you have to learn to take written communication less literally. Are you autistic? Or American?

This is an offensive post. You're using disability and nationality as a means to ridicule Dennis. Perhaps you should look at you pc "workplace definitions" and in particular discrimination then grow up.

how is it offensive? i asked if dennis was autistic. That isn't offensive, I am enquiring whether denni's resistance to change and fixed ideas were a manifestation of a disorder, much as I might ask: do you have a headache.
Unless you're implying that I meant to insult dennis by inferring that he was autistic. Which means that you think that people with autism is equivalent to an insult.... which means that you must think people with autism are...what?

You are being a di%k . Because someone does not see it your way and you cannot accept their view then you try and insult them in a way that you think is clever and is not an insult. It is in fact an insult to people with autism and an insult to dennis....you know full well what you are doing. Your an Idiot.

You can explain to me why being called autistic is an insult?

Wily-Quixote

:arrow:

sherer

This is something I've said in the past

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/29510575

Even IF he road the last two tours clean he still had the benefit of 10 years plus of drugs use which doesn't leave the system overnight.

deejay

sherer wrote:

This is something I've said in the past

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/29510575

Even IF he road the last two tours clean he still had the benefit of 10 years plus of drugs use which doesn't leave the system overnight.

I heard this story early this morning and laughed my socks off. (put them on again)

It stood out a mile last year with a some guy wining the Vuelta.

joelsim

I don't think those female mice will be Gatlin though no matter how many years they take steroids.

mm1

Tantalisingly good interview with he who should not be named in the new Rouleur - for those who care. Tantalising because its to be continued in the next edition...by which time we will most likely have heard from CIRC. LA continues to be good for bike biz.