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

joelsim

OCDuPalais wrote:

I'll be disappointed if the sandman dennisn doesn't drop by to rub sand in our eyes as we sleep... His pinger must go off every time this thread is bumped.

He'll be here soon, after he's finished polishing Lance's shoes.

ddraver

Astonishing hypocrisy aside, interesting viewpoint from festinagirl - http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-to ... rong-doing

iainf72

ddraver wrote:

Astonishing hypocrisy aside, interesting viewpoint from festinagirl - http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-to ... rong-doing

The laughable attempts at trying to be David Foster Wallace or something killed me. And using "narrative" 3 times in 3 lines?

What Suze doesn't seem to grasp is she is not the audience Lance is after. She's writing for a different audience entirely.

As the man himself said in 2008

There's no point in me sitting down with Procycling if these are your readers, because they don't want to read about me and i don't want to talk to them

tailwindhome

On reading that you can see how desperate some people are to be in at the start of a Sky doping scandal, to be the one's who called it first and have fought the good fight.

Where were you, eh?

Anonymous

She's one of the worst when it comes to twitter, all hearsay, moans about obsession on LA etc, then continues to write huge articles about him. I'd say I dislike her more than Digger.

pinno

"And while Armstrong claims that the likes of Marco Pantani are now deified while the American is reviled, it didn’t rescue the Italian from a lonely, sleazy death in a hotel room."

Why did she have to use the word 'sleazy' ? If the audience are non-cyclists, she really paints a grim picture and won't endear them to being spectators of the sport.

Gazzetta67

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... -scapegoat

Just when you thought he had crawled under his rock - the "blarney stone" rears its ugly head.

joelsim

I'm not sure Lance is able to get any audience these days. Everyone knows he's a cant.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

I'm not sure Lance is able to get any audience these days. Everyone knows he's a cant.

Oh, but he can get an audience. A very willing audience - not least amongst those that complain about him the most.

Two tweets from yesterday sum it up:
"He's still box office, that's the main conclusion" - Richard Moore
"There's as much outrage when Armstrong tells the truth as when he lies." - Daniel Friebe

You see, for the self-proclaimed anti-doping activist Armstrong was the ultimate villain. It was the glory days of doping and hero is judged by the quality of their nemesis.

But by and large they all missed it. There was no social media for the bloggers and tweeters and many the journalists who rage against him now were creating his myth back then (hello Shane Stokes).

So they want to recreate those days. And in particular they've tried to make Sky into the new Armstrong - look how often their critics invoke Armstrong and the significance a run of the the mill TUE took on because it evoked memories of Armstrong. And see how suspicion is fabricated via spurious statistics.

But it's not really working. Sky may inspire venom in people, but they haven't done anything sinister yet. Sky aren't Darth Vader, they're Jar Jar Binks. So the anti-dopers eagerly go back to the original whenever possible even though he has fallen.

I have in the passed compared Armstrong to Margaret Thatcher. The 80s were a boom time for socialist politics because they had a great nemesis. But once she went they faded, so they still bring up her name at every opportunity - even now. And so it will be with Armstrong.


(That wasn't really a response to you Joel, I was going to write it anyway - you just gave me a suitable intro).

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I'm not sure Lance is able to get any audience these days. Everyone knows he's a cant.

Oh, but he can get an audience. A very willing audience - not least amongst those that complain about him the most.

Two tweets from yesterday sum it up:
"He's still box office, that's the main conclusion" - Richard Moore
"There's as much outrage when Armstrong tells the truth as when he lies." - Daniel Friebe

You see, for the self-proclaimed anti-doping activist Armstrong was the ultimate villain. It was the glory days of doping and hero is judged by the quality of their nemesis.

But by and large they all missed it. There was no social media for the bloggers and tweeters and many the journalists who rage against him now were creating his myth back then (hello Shane Stokes).

So they want to recreate those days. And in particular they've tried to make Sky into the new Armstrong - look how often their critics invoke Armstrong and the significance a run of the the mill TUE took on because it evoked memories of Armstrong. And see how suspicion is fabricated via spurious statistics.

But it's not really working. Sky may inspire venom in people, but they haven't done anything sinister yet. Sky aren't Darth Vader, they're Jar Jar Binks. So the anti-dopers eagerly go back to the original whenever possible even though he has fallen.

I have in the passed compared Armstrong to Margaret Thatcher. The 80s were a boom time for socialist politics because they had a great nemesis. But once she went they faded, so they still bring up her name at every opportunity - even now. And so it will be with Armstrong.


(That wasn't really a response to you Joel, I was going to write it anyway - you just gave me a suitable intro).

lol. I did actually watch it later on last night, missed it first off but then watched catch up. You're right he is still box office. He seemed a little more normal last night but then again he has a couple of big things coming up. It's all so carefully orchestrated though, as ever.

ddraver

To add to Rich's post, there are a few people in my bike "club" who still regard him as the greatest cyclist ever and they cite the reality/tired canard that everyone was up to the same thing, that he got them into cycling, that he was great to watch etc...

It is notable that most of the outrage is coming from Clickbait Whores like Stokes, Velocast and festinagirl whereas journalists who are good enough to work for print publications are much less vocal (see tweets)

Whether or not it's carefully orchestrated or not is irrelevant. Very few - if any - people in the public eye give interviews out of the goodness of their hearts. They have a film/album/book to sell or an agenda to push.

joelsim

ddraver wrote:

To add to Rich's post, there are a few people in my bike "club" who still regard him as the greatest cyclist ever and they cite the reality/tired canard that everyone was up to the same thing, that he got them into cycling, that he was great to watch etc...

It is notable that most of the outrage is coming from Clickbait Whores like Stokes, Velocast and festinagirl whereas journalists who are good enough to work for print publications are much less vocal (see tweets)

Whether or not it's carefully orchestrated or not is irrelevant. Very few - if any - people in the public eye give interviews out of the goodness of their hearts. They have a film/album/book to sell or an agenda to push.

I have no doubt that he was a great cyclist, that is obvious as he was able to beat everyone else at will. No-one will ever know if he would have been the same if it hadn't been the EPO era, whether he responded better than others to that and blood bags, what effect the protection he was given had, what effect the amount of disposable income he had compared to others etc etc

ddraver

True - but in an argument you must sympathise with Joel, I think you could say that about most of his competitors. Ullrich and Riss don't bear much resembance to most GT riders eh?

joelsim

Absolutely fella. We'll never know what would have happened if everyone had been clean. No doubt he would have been among the very best, although no idea if he would have been quite so superior.

ugo.santalucia

Joelsim wrote:

Absolutely fella. We'll never know what would have happened if everyone had been clean. No doubt he would have been among the very best, although no idea if he would have been quite so superior.

In an interview Ferrari said he was interested in working with Armstrong because he had exceptional numbers (VO2 max etc...) Ferrari knew how to pick his horses, I doubt he would have picked him had he not been one of the best. He took a very good horse and made him into the best out there.

Let's not forget he won 7 tours in the absence of other great contenders: Pantani had been busted and Contador was still to come. His opponents were Zulle, Beloki, Basso, Kloeden and an Ullrich struggling with form year on year... I think right now we are blessed with Quintana, Froome, Contador and Nibali, but back then there wasn't such quality out there

sherer

Joelsim wrote:

Absolutely fella. We'll never know what would have happened if everyone had been clean. No doubt he would have been among the very best, although no idea if he would have been quite so superior.

It's the great unknown but prior to the 98 Vuelta he hadn't really shown much sign of winning a GT.

He was a good sprinter \ one day rider but I've read the EPO had the power to turn lesser riders into great riders.

ddraver

He was Sagan, EPO turned him into Froome...as it were...

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

He was Sagan, EPO turned him into Froome...as it were...

More Gilbert than Sagan

ddraver

pedant!

My attempt at a point was that he was a GOOD one day racer...

Zerotails99

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Absolutely fella. We'll never know what would have happened if everyone had been clean. No doubt he would have been among the very best, although no idea if he would have been quite so superior.

In an interview Ferrari said he was interested in working with Armstrong because he had exceptional numbers (VO2 max etc...) Ferrari knew how to pick his horses, I doubt he would have picked him had he not been one of the best. He took a very good horse and made him into the best out there.

Let's not forget he won 7 tours in the absence of other great contenders: Pantani had been busted and Contador was still to come. His opponents were Zulle, Beloki, Basso, Kloeden and an Ullrich struggling with form year on year... I think right now we are blessed with Quintana, Froome, Contador and Nibali, but back then there wasn't such quality out there

Froome is ok but has difficulty staying on his bike. Rest are wheel suckers with poor gamesmanship.

deejay

Zerotails99 wrote:

deejay wrote:

The Media should just ignore the Scumbag and let us all get on with our lives (never mind him, let him Rot) but they won't and so this thread will get much longer.
Gawd Help Us.

You don't seem to keen on ignoring him either and getting on with your life.

To get the record straight :- I have not seen the Opera show and I certainly don't need to read Matt Slater and the BBC or any other statements he makes unless I see comments on this forum.
I gave up buying cycling magazines or visiting the TDF a decade or so ago because I had seen enough and lost any respect for the New Superman. (and others)
I just make an opinion here when something seems to be missing, like this present Bull Shyte about his sprinting ability's when I recall a highlight of his performances where he lost in a two up break, finish with Outschakov and other times. (You are building a Myth)
The period before the USADA ban, he could not win a Stage Race in Europe and would have needed several years to mature for a Podium in a GT race.
He was better at single day racing (with better results than Bjarne Riis) but neither could win anything in a GT unless it was a Transitional Stage. (and then very few)

I still say he is attempting Credibility for a run in Politics where he would fit perfectly.

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

I still say he is attempting Credibility for a run in Politics where he would fit perfectly.

Not much chance for him there. He's a left-leaning atheist in Texas. They only way he'll get their vote is if he shoots Raul Alcala sneaking over the border.

Zerotails99

He was in his early 20s pal. Just become a pro cyclist. As a teenage triathlete he was smashing his experienced competitors. Extremely talented. Won the 7 tdf without even putting in 100 percent

deejay

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

I still say he is attempting Credibility for a run in Politics where he would fit perfectly.

Not much chance for him there. He's a left-leaning atheist in Texas. They only way he'll get their vote is if he shoots Raul Alcala sneaking over the border.

OK, then perhaps It's the "After Dinner" speaking engagements he want's more of. !

I often wonder about atheist's and that they are willing to live a Christian way of life and accept those Laws without thought.
(myself an agnostic)

rick_chasey

deejay wrote:

I often wonder about atheist's and that they are willing to live a Christian way of life and accept those Laws without thought.
(myself an agnostic)

Totally off topic, but screw it, we're on page 370 or whatever - how would you propose Atheists live?

sherer

Zerotails99 wrote:

He was in his early 20s pal. Just become a pro cyclist. As a teenage triathlete he was smashing his experienced competitors. Extremely talented. Won the 7 tdf without even putting in 100 percent

How on earth do you know how much effort he was putting in during his racing ?

Can you also post some links to these times and results that show he was smashing experienced competitors.

Also see Sagan he's young and has great results but still can't win or podium on a GT. Strong results on a one day event doesn't equate to best rider over 3 weeks.

shinyhelmut

Mixing it with the big names in Bermuda in '87.

I'm not sure how he did on the run.

[warning]clip includes ligget and men in bikinis[/warning]

http://youtu.be/HorLQHQ3pMc

andy_wrx

Rick Chasey wrote:

deejay wrote:

I often wonder about atheist's and that they are willing to live a Christian way of life and accept those Laws without thought.
(myself an agnostic)

Totally off topic, but screw it, we're on page 370 or whatever - how would you propose Atheists live?

I've always thought how totally arrogant it is of religions to claim a monopoly of the moral high ground of laws/sins/etc; to suggest that it's only through religion that we think theft/murder/screwing your daughter/etc are wrong.

joelsim

andy_wrx wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

deejay wrote:

I often wonder about atheist's and that they are willing to live a Christian way of life and accept those Laws without thought.
(myself an agnostic)

Totally off topic, but screw it, we're on page 370 or whatever - how would you propose Atheists live?

I've always thought how totally arrogant it is of religions to claim a monopoly of the moral high ground of laws/sins/etc; to suggest that it's only through religion that we think theft/murder/screwing your daughter/etc are wrong.

That's a different matter entirely. If I had my way I'd make believing in (whichever) god a crime.

Now back to Lance...if you believe anything about what he said he was racing on just normal doping before 95 ish, whereas the Indurains of this world were more clued up. Ferrari knows his stuff for sure which is why those still under his wing aren't getting caught.

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

using "narrative" 3 times in 3 lines?

'Narrative' is the word of the week for cycling blogger/tweeter types.
It replaces 'polemic'.