Forum home Road cycling forum Road general

Lance Blooming Armstrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

debelidebeli Posts: 582
edited January 2015 in Road general
I would like to say how depressing and (yes) tedious I find it that this chap Armstrong has only to frown (or smile) at a camera - or indeed ignore one in a provocative manner - to soak up all available online column inches in little more than an instant.

My fears that the Internet might soon be full notwithstanding, surely we have more to talk about in this day and age than this tired, tedious, Texan troll.

Why is is (why indeed?) that no sooner is his name mentioned than the Internet is full of quite pointless whining about how pernicious his behaviour was or wasn't.

Why, also, does it so often appear that the dullards writing this whingeing nonsense seem to have little or no love for the sport of track-based bicycle racing?

I am frankly of the view (and I am not one to jump to conclusions) that there are people out there on the Internet - probably in Slough, but you never know - who just feel the need to rant on about any subject that tickles their goldfish-like attention span.

Enough of all this nonsense about Armstrong. Particularly if you waste valuable space on the Internet without ever really seeming to make a point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
«1

Posts

  • RDWRDW Posts: 1,900
    It's a good thing we're far too sensible to respond to him here.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    This feeds into what he wants. LA will never vanish from the public eye if he has anything to say about it. He is after any publicity he can get, good or bad.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,687
    Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,358
    Let's see if we can start another 300 page thread about how there's too much of LA all over the internet.
  • debeli wrote:
    I would like to say how depressing and (yes) tedious I find it that this chap Armstrong has only to frown (or smile) at a camera - or indeed ignore one in a provocative manner - to soak up all available online column inches in little more than an instant.

    My fears that the Internet might soon be full notwithstanding, surely we have more to talk about in this day and age than this tired, tedious, Texan troll.

    Why is is (why indeed?) that no sooner is his name mentioned than the Internet is full of quite pointless whining about how pernicious his behaviour was or wasn't.

    Why, also, does it so often appear that the dullards writing this whingeing nonsense seem to have little or no love for the sport of track-based bicycle racing?

    I am frankly of the view (and I am not one to jump to conclusions) that there are people out there on the Internet - probably in Slough, but you never know - who just feel the need to rant on about any subject that tickles their goldfish-like attention span.

    Enough of all this nonsense about Armstrong. Particularly if you waste valuable space on the Internet without ever really seeming to make a point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How ironic, you make a post about something you find irrelevant, by feeding the irrelevancy. Sure you have a goldfish-like attention span for ranting about any subject that tickles you?
  • redvisionredvision Posts: 2,637
    bompington wrote:
    Let's see if we can start another 300 page thread about how there's too much of LA all over the internet.

    Good idea! Why not try and beat the 300 pages?!!! :lol:

    FWIW i found the BBC articles pretty interesting. Granted they do keep Armstrong in the public eye but like it or not the first half of this year will be, in one way or another, dominated by him and the whole EPO era as the Circ investigation is concluded.

    Lets just hope the investigation helps put the EPO era to bed once and for all, although i find it hard to believe it will....
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    Are his arms actually that strong? :shock:
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    RideOnTime wrote:
    Are his arms actually that strong? :shock:

    Not since he returned from the moon. Muscle wastage. Thats why he took EPO. But it really effected his trumpet playing. Thats how he was caught. See.
  • ai_1ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    You really just started a thread titled "Lance Blooming Armstrong!!!!!!!!!!!"to tell us we shouldn't be contributing to discussions involving Lance Armstrong?
  • debeli wrote:

    Why...

    Why...

    Love him or hate him, he only won the Tour de France... 7 times... in a row. Then a major player in the biggest sporting drugs bust ever. So he probably is a significant person in the cycling history books. For the right or wrong reasons you can associate that era of cycling with him.
    Theres also the fact that media love sensationalism and would have nothing else interesting to write about.
    "The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,001
    RideOnTime wrote:
    Are his arms actually that strong? :shock:

    No - you're confusing him with that other guy - Lance Armsverystrong...
  • de_sistide_sisti Posts: 1,184
    Must have been a slow news day for the BBC to interview him.
  • The game he is playing now is every bit as cynical, manipulative and dishonest as the one he played on the bike. He's not going to go away, he's embedded in the US pro scene, but you can choose not to start threads about him.
  • StedmanStedman Posts: 377
    I just wish that he would quietly retire and let our sport move on.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    Fallen idol
    Hated by the public
    Serious debt/lawsuit action against him


    Stick a bet on him being on celebrity Big Brother / Im a Celebrity........
  • BozmanBozman Posts: 2,570
    Fallen idol
    Hated by the public
    Serious debt/lawsuit action against him.

    Serious debt? He's still worth 100 million dollars.

    The guy was an ar5e and he deserved major punishment purely for the way he treated people, but I don't like the way he's been made a scapegoat while other(the majority of the peleton at the time) riders have got off scot free. Plus I just don't get the life time ban from all forms of sport that is bloody madness.
  • ai_1ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    Bozman wrote:
    ....Plus I just don't get the life time ban from all forms of sport that is bloody madness.
    Why is it madness?
    Seems reasonable to me that someone who has been found to have cheated constantly for many years, bullied/threatened others in the sport, preached about how he was clean while in reality being quite the opposite and generally been a most cynical "sportsman" should be banned from competitive sport. He can still ride, run, swim, etc. He just can't compete. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    Not sure he is going to keep much of that 100 million you say he has. He will either be successfully sued by sponsors etc or it will go to the lawyers defending him. Either way he faces financial ruin
  • BozmanBozman Posts: 2,570
    Not sure he is going to keep much of that 100 million you say he has. He will either be successfully sued by sponsors etc or it will go to the lawyers defending him. Either way he faces financial ruin

    Devils advocate. He made those sponsors millions if not billions and their reputations were hardly effected when the Armstrong thing went t1ts up, what case have they got to sue?
  • redvisionredvision Posts: 2,637
    ai_1 wrote:
    Bozman wrote:
    ....Plus I just don't get the life time ban from all forms of sport that is bloody madness.
    Why is it madness?
    Seems reasonable to me that someone who has been found to have cheated constantly for many years, bullied/threatened others in the sport, preached about how he was clean while in reality being quite the opposite and generally been a most cynical "sportsman" should be banned from competitive sport. He can still ride, run, swim, etc. He just can't compete. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me.

    I agree with Bozman. Dont get me wrong, LA deserves a long ban, but to ban him indefinitely is wrong IMO, especially when those who have admitted doping during that era were given such reduced bans.
    Lets not forget that whilst they didn't intimidate others like LA, they all categorically denied doping until the USADA investigation, by which point most were either retired or so close to retirement that they didn't really have to worry about losing their jobs as a pro rider.
    I think if the UCI/USADA etc would come out and say that he is banned from competing for x no. of years (10 would be appropriate in my mind, the same as Bruyneel) then it may stop him constantly making appeals for his ban to be reduced, and help everyone move on - that is until his ban is up and he competes again when the press would be dominated by him again :roll:
  • seanoconnseanoconn Posts: 5,815
    Not sure he is going to keep much of that 100 million you say he has. He will either be successfully sued by sponsors etc or it will go to the lawyers defending him. Either way he faces financial ruin
    A few books and a film should cover the cost.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    ai_1 wrote:
    Bozman wrote:
    ....Plus I just don't get the life time ban from all forms of sport that is bloody madness.
    Why is it madness?
    Seems reasonable to me that someone who has been found to have cheated constantly for many years, bullied/threatened others in the sport, preached about how he was clean while in reality being quite the opposite and generally been a most cynical "sportsman" should be banned from competitive sport. He can still ride, run, swim, etc. He just can't compete. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me.

    Its madness because its disproportionate, we don't jail a pick pocket to a life term....... and since when was bullying a capitol offence? look how the patrons of the peloton in past eras have behaved.....
    Had LA raced and won all those tdf's in the 60s 70s or 80s he would now be hailed as one of the all time greats and his doping would be brushed under the carpet, just as it is with all the great riders from that era.

    Cycling and sport are his life, to deny him ever taking part in a amateur sportive or local 10k run is cruel and shows zero compassion, would you be happy if he were driven to depression and took his own life?
  • debelidebeli Posts: 582
    My apologies to one and all. Most sincerely.

    My OP was a sort of spoof rant - clearly a fairly poor one, although I found it funny.

    I was trying (and clearly failing) to poke gentle fun at the type of person I purport to be in the OP.

    Now that one or two posters have got a little gnashy-of-tooth about LA and the whole Juicegate Crime & Punishment thing, I feel the spoofery should be admitted (to those who hadn't seen it) and the thread put to bed.

    The only serious point in the OP was my fear that we are about to fill the Internet right up if we keep writing this tripe. For that reason, if no other, I have kept this post brief, succinct and to-the-point.

    My apologies again. I will only be very serious from now on. :oops:
  • ai_1ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    mamba80 wrote:
    ai_1 wrote:
    Bozman wrote:
    ....Plus I just don't get the life time ban from all forms of sport that is bloody madness.
    Why is it madness?
    Seems reasonable to me that someone who has been found to have cheated constantly for many years, bullied/threatened others in the sport, preached about how he was clean while in reality being quite the opposite and generally been a most cynical "sportsman" should be banned from competitive sport. He can still ride, run, swim, etc. He just can't compete. It doesn't seem inappropriate to me.

    Its madness because its disproportionate, we don't jail a pick pocket to a life term....... and since when was bullying a capitol offence? look how the patrons of the peloton in past eras have behaved.....
    Had LA raced and won all those tdf's in the 60s 70s or 80s he would now be hailed as one of the all time greats and his doping would be brushed under the carpet, just as it is with all the great riders from that era.
    Not sure I agree with your first paragraph. I would see it as being more akin to banning a serial dangerous driver from driving. Not a perfect analogy I admit but erhaps closer than a capital punishment for pick-pocketing. The fact that previous eras did not punish severely is hardly a reason not to do so now. There may be reasons but I don't think that's a valid one.
    mamba80 wrote:
    Cycling and sport are his life, to deny him ever taking part in a amateur sportive or local 10k run is cruel and shows zero compassion, would you be happy if he were driven to depression and took his own life?
    I take your point but I'm not sure I agree. No, I wouldn't like the guy miserable for the rest of his life. In reality I don't believe punishment for the sake of it is a solution to anything. It's just revenge. making someone else miserable doesn't do anything to make the world a better place. However keeping him out of competition does protect other athletes from having to share the field with someone who will always I think taint the reputation of any event from now on.
  • Bozman wrote:
    The guy was an ar5e and he deserved major punishment purely for the way he treated people, but I don't like the way he's been made a scapegoat while other(the majority of the peloton at the time) riders have got off scot free.

    I think the emboldened is the worst part of the whole debacle. I don't disagree with treating Lance a bit differently to the rest of them, but when you look at some of the riders that are unpunished, it all just looks a bit farcical - selective and politically motivated. Bjarne Riis for example - forget the tour win, he manages one of the biggest teams at grand tour level, and has been involved with doping since retiring from competition if the allegations are to be believed. What does that say about the sport's stance on cheating?

    But selectively erasing names from history just doesn't make sense to me - it's either got to be all or none, IMO; and the former is impossible. I wouldn't be very surprised if Indurain had used EPO for some or all of his tour wins, but there's no proof.
  • slowmartslowmart Posts: 3,981
    debeli wrote:
    My apologies to one and all. Most sincerely.



    My apologies again. I will only be very serious from now on. :oops:

    Forget about it, it's only an internet forum and not real life although I'm sure someone will be along shortly and share another view…or not…. :wink:
    “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”

    Desmond Tutu
  • I don't see why the guy gets such a bad rep. He did the same as the majority of the peleton so on a level playing field he was the fastest rider. He's a victim of his own success where the rest who are unknown to Joe Public get off scot free.
  • supermurph09supermurph09 Posts: 2,471
    barrowmatt wrote:
    I don't see why the guy gets such a bad rep. He did the same as the majority of the peloton so on a level playing field he was the fastest rider. He's a victim of his own success where the rest who are unknown to Joe Public get off scot free.

    Come on then, please can you back up the level playing field argument? It's not a level playing field, despite the fact that EPO affects each person differently, I might get 10% improvement, you might get 2% etc, EPO is an expensive drug. So the people with the most money (Lance) get the best doctors, again not a level playing field.

    The bigger issue for me, is what people are on now and how they are hiding it.
  • ai_1ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    barrowmatt wrote:
    I don't see why the guy gets such a bad rep. He did the same as the majority of the peloton so on a level playing field he was the fastest rider. He's a victim of his own success where the rest who are unknown to Joe Public get off scot free.
    It's true the majority were likely involved with banned substances but it was far from a level playing field. Also I don't think the use of the banned substances was the worst part, I think his abuse of other people and his cynicism were much more reprehensible.
  • redvisionredvision Posts: 2,637
    barrowmatt wrote:
    I don't see why the guy gets such a bad rep. He did the same as the majority of the peloton so on a level playing field he was the fastest rider. He's a victim of his own success where the rest who are unknown to Joe Public get off scot free.

    Im afraid that’s too simplistic a view, EPO isn’t a level playing field. It has a different effect on each person. Have a read of Tyler Hamilton’s book, he explains why EPO has little effect on some riders but massive on others (its due to the haematocrit levels in the blood).

    Also, don’t forget that Armstrong has been deemed to have played a major (if not main) role in developing the doping system his team used. Not to mention the harassment, abuse, threats etc he made to others.

    As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I do feel a lifetime ban is too strong and I do feel he has been made a scapegoat. That said, in my opinion he clearly deserves a lengthy ban, I just think lifetime is too severe.
This discussion has been closed.