Log in:  

Register

8 Things On Lance Armstrong From The "Other Side Of The Grass"

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

30 Nov 2009 01:21

Great blog and post. This should be made a sticky and mandatory reading prior to posting in the clinic
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,313
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

30 Nov 2009 02:31



"Proof" by verbosity for the "I despise Armstrong support group."
User avatar Lifeshape
Junior Member
 
Posts: 218
Joined: 27 Oct 2009 12:57
Location: Atlanta, GA

30 Nov 2009 02:43

Lifeshape wrote:"Proof" by verbosity for the "I despise Armstrong support group."


If Amrstrong would stop lying to people and defrauding people with terminal diseases then he would have a lot fewer despisers.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

30 Nov 2009 02:59

Lifeshape wrote:"Proof" by verbosity for the "I despise Armstrong support group."


http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/07/church-of-lance-armstrong.html

;)
peloton
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 12 Mar 2009 11:20

30 Nov 2009 03:10

Lifeshape wrote:"Proof" by verbosity for the "I despise Armstrong support group."


Why is it that Armstrong's groupies are unable to actually discuss the mountain of evidence and instead resort to calling anyone who questions him a hater?
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,313
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

30 Nov 2009 03:31

Race Radio wrote:Why is it that Armstrong's groupies are unable to actually discuss the mountain of evidence and instead resort to calling anyone who questions him a hater?


It's also very very very common that anyone who supports LA in this forum is heavily criticised as a fanboy/groupie/blinded idiot etc etc. I agree, we should discuss BOTH sides of the story and not resort to childish name-calling.

We had a thread about this (i think it was called "anti-armstrong fanboys" or something like that) and I'm certainly not keen to start another debate about this, but i'll just say a few things..

I was quite vocal in that thread. I noted that for every piece of evidence against armstrong, there was a counter argument which I adopted and put forth to the people who disliked him. I was called many things and alot of the time my arguments were ignored and the typical response was "just another fanboy, he's so blinded etc etc"...

so the issue of not accepting an argument works on both sides of the armstrong debate. i've seen supporters call LA dislikers 'haters' and i've seen more than often dislikers calling supporters 'fanboys' whilst ignoring a valid point.

it's basic forum pyschology. when someone doesn't understand a point, they give off a personal attack/name calling rant. it's a stupid strategy and diminishes the value of the post when the poster resorts to name calling and generalisations about one's m.o. in the thread, when rather, we should just discuss the issue at hand, respecting each others arguments.
Mountain Goat
 

30 Nov 2009 03:37

Mountain Goat wrote:I noted that for every piece of evidence against armstrong, there was a counter argument which I adopted and put forth to the people who disliked him. I was called many things and alot of the time my arguments were ignored and the typical response was "just another fanboy, he's so blinded etc etc"...


Maybe--just maybe--your "arguments" are ignored because you have never been able to come up with a remotely believably explanation as to why six of Armstrong's urine samples contained artificial EPO.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

30 Nov 2009 03:38

Mountain Goat wrote:It's also very very very common that anyone who supports LA in this forum is heavily criticised as a fanboy/groupie/blinded idiot etc etc. I agree, we should discuss BOTH sides of the story and not resort to childish name-calling.

We had a thread about this (i think it was called "anti-armstrong fanboys" or something like that) and I'm certainly not keen to start another debate about this, but i'll just say a few things..

I was quite vocal in that thread. I noted that for every piece of evidence against armstrong, there was a counter argument which I adopted and put forth to the people who disliked him. I was called many things and alot of the time my arguments were ignored and the typical response was "just another fanboy, he's so blinded etc etc"...

so the issue of not accepting an argument works on both sides of the armstrong debate. i've seen supporters call LA dislikers 'haters' and i've seen more than often dislikers calling supporters 'fanboys' whilst ignoring a valid point.

it's basic forum pyschology. when someone doesn't understand a point, they give off a personal attack/name calling rant. it's a stupid strategy and diminishes the value of the post when the poster resorts to name calling and generalisations about one's m.o. in the thread, when rather, we should just discuss the issue at hand, respecting each others arguments.


It is not about "accepting" an argument, it is about not even attempting to put forward a comprehensible one.

The link provided includes a large amount of information about Armstrong's doping. The Ashenden interview alone is very detailed. Instead of providing a counter argument to this the common response is to call someone a hater.

Sure both sides call names, but only one provides information to support their position.
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,313
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

30 Nov 2009 03:59

Race Radio wrote:It is not about "accepting" an argument, it is about not even attempting to put forward a comprehensible one.

The link provided includes a large amount of information about Armstrong's doping. The Ashenden interview alone is very detailed. Instead of providing a counter argument to this the common response is to call someone a hater.

Sure both sides call names, but only one provides information to support their position.


Actually, in that previous thread, I provided alot of information to support my position. When I struck a good point, the typical response was a name-calling rant, rather than a counter argument.

The reason I posted on THIS thread was that you elluded that the supporters always dismiss the dislikers as "haters", but as you've now clarified this happens on both sides.

But I can assure you that in the previous thread everyone of my posts countained a counter argument, that at times, was ignored (including my counter argument for the 6 positives, BroDeal) and instead I received a very disrespectful rant about my motives and even my ability to comprehend information, which in no way enhances the argument of the person disagreeing with me, it just makes them look a little silly, really...

My whole point is that if we want to discuss doping issues, the name-calling is just ridiculous. when someone comes in with a one-liner about calling someone a fanboy/groupie/hater/d!ck etc etc it's just a waste of time. I lose respect for those posters almost immediately. of course its a forum, and people have the right to say what they want, i'm all for that, but we could save some space if people just discuss the issue at hand (ironically, i'm not discussing the issue at hand in this thread, so i'll stop now :D)
Mountain Goat
 

30 Nov 2009 04:17

Mountain Goat wrote:But I can assure you that in the previous thread everyone of my posts countained a counter argument, that at times, was ignored (including my counter argument for the 6 positives, BroDeal)


You guys have never produced anything credible about Armstrong's six positives for EPO. It's all a french conspiracy or whining about how it cannot be true becuase you don't want to be true. You are not taken seriously because you refuse to operate in the world of facts, and if you won't deal with the facts then there is really no use discussing anything with you. We might as well argue about the color of the wings of fairies.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

30 Nov 2009 04:18

Mountain Goat wrote:Actually, in that previous thread, I provided alot of information to support my position. When I struck a good point, the typical response was a name-calling rant, rather than a counter argument.

The reason I posted on THIS thread was that you elluded that the supporters always dismiss the dislikers as "haters", but as you've now clarified this happens on both sides.

But I can assure you that in the previous thread everyone of my posts countained a counter argument, that at times, was ignored (including my counter argument for the 6 positives, BroDeal) and instead I received a very disrespectful rant about my motives and even my ability to comprehend information, which in no way enhances the argument of the person disagreeing with me, it just makes them look a little silly, really...

My whole point is that if we want to discuss doping issues, the name-calling is just ridiculous. when someone comes in with a one-liner about calling someone a fanboy/groupie/hater/d!ck etc etc it's just a waste of time. I lose respect for those posters almost immediately. of course its a forum, and people have the right to say what they want, i'm all for that, but we could save some space if people just discuss the issue at hand (ironically, i'm not discussing the issue at hand in this thread, so i'll stop now :D)

Ok - this was your first post in that other thread and it was the 3rd post in that thread...........
Mountain Goat wrote:The LA haters, generally, hate:

the fact that he is arrogant,
the fact that he has huge marketability,
the fact he has the ability to snag hollywood actresses,
the fact the media love him,
the fact that he is the greatest stage racer since indurain,
the fact that he's never served a doping suspension,
the fact that other people like him,
the fact that he was unbeatable for seven years straight,
the fact that he came out of retirement,
the fact that he will top 10 in the ironman,
the fact that he challenged the european approach to training for the TDF,
the fact that he was a superstar athlete from childhood,
the fact that every cyclist at one stage loved him,
the fact that he embraced twitter,
the fact that he inspires sick people to achieve,
and the fact that he got on the podium despite the fact that they all predicted he would not even be close!!

All of those FACTs, are FACTs that the the LA haters are scared of, and feel the need to hate the guy. I like him, there are a few here like me, and we try to defend him, but it falls on disgruntled ears..

In 5 years time, when Contador has won 7 tours, they will turn on him too.

Personally, I like all riders, especially the one's that show other people how to really ride a bike (Contador, Armstrong, Cancellara) and don't care what the plebs on cycling forums write about them ;):D
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

30 Nov 2009 04:23

Mountain Goat wrote:I agree, we should discuss BOTH sides of the story and not resort to childish name-calling.


Do you think creation should be taught alongside evolution? (And then the Scientologists would want "aliens populating Earth" taught alongside as well...)

All arguments aren't equally valid.

Rational people consider the evidence and come to logical conclusions. There is too much evidence for an informed, rational person to think that LA is clean. If someone has seen the evidence (seven failed drug tests from 1999 alone, many testimonies from people with little to gain, Michele Ferrari links, ...) and still deny the obvious then they are thinking irrationally.

There is no other side to the story in this case.

P.S. I'm still a fan of LA anyway, he makes cycling more interesting. Sure LA is a prick, most top athletes are, one tends to need to be 100% focused and selfish to make it to the very top.

P.P.S. I know an ex top coach in Aus.+NZ that retired recently because he finally got too fed up with high-level athletes. Their personality defects eventually got to him and they were always scamming for drugs.

P.P.P.S. This guy had a VO2max in the mid 80s when he was competing, that lucky *******!
User avatar ihavenolimbs
Junior Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: 24 Jul 2009 01:33
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand

30 Nov 2009 04:48

Mountain Goat wrote:Actually, in that previous thread, I provided alot of information to support my position. When I struck a good point, the typical response was a name-calling rant, rather than a counter argument.



This "Good Point" you refer to. Was it the "French Conspiracy" excuse or the Space Alien/Nazi Frogmen explanation?
User avatar Race Radio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,313
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 14:01

30 Nov 2009 05:03

Race Radio wrote:This "Good Point" you refer to. Was it the "French Conspiracy" excuse or the Space Alien/Nazi Frogmen explanation?


Actual picture of Nazi frogmen. They were a secret experiment of the Nazi high command in a bid to create a race of super aquatic soldiers who would one day rule the seven seas. Frozen in suspended animation by the Allies since the war, they were thawed out by the French to take on secret missions. One of those missions was to frame Armstrong for EPO use. Not even Batman and Aquaman could stop the fishy progeny of the Third Reich.

Image
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

30 Nov 2009 05:31

@ Doc maserati - that first thread post by me in that thread was clearly a hypothetical "if I were a hater, this is what I would hate about LA" response. I did not originally call anyone a hater, and as you and I discussed in that thread, I only called someone a hater (about 20 pages later) in response to them calling me a delluded fanboy. i also said, if people want to get childish with me, i'm more than happy to oblige with those kind of stupid comments, knowing full well that they are a waste of space.

@ i have no limbs - of course there is two sides of the story. the fact that you just posted a little armstrong rant and somehow related it to creationism is jsut a waste of space, and further enhances my point about how people IGNORE what i say. saying there is only one side of the story is almost by definition IGNORANT. in fact, i think it is the definition of ignorant. its like saying there is only one side to a coin - have you ever seen a one sided coin? they don't exist. of course there are two sides of the story... :rolleyes:

@ race radio and brodeal - again, thanks for reiterating my point about the pure ignorance about this issue. race radios suggestion about an alien invasion is almost as childish as ihavenolimbs suggestion about creationism. again, thanks for the ignorance. i was willing to discuss the actual issue, but i cant compete with comic books and alien invasions, they are both such compelling evidence (or 'facts' brodeal?) that LA doped

in case any of you haven't noticed, when i participate in LA threads i put on my defence lawyer hat. it's far too easy to put on your prosecutor hat when talking about LA, so by choice, i choose the other side of the story (see what i said there ihavenolimbs).

now i dont know about you guys, but when the prosecutor starts talking about alien invasions, comic books and creationsim, when the topic at hand is drug use, the usual comment in the court room is "objection your honour, what is the relevance of the prosecutor's comments"...

don't get me wrong, i mean, those kind of childish points really increase my respect for you (:rolleyes:) and show your intelligence on the issue, but, seriously, it's a bit of a lame forum strategy - possibly been used over a million times rather than an actual discussion, which by now is not going to happen, i'm not wasting my time with ignorant arguments. the irony is, that this kind of ignorance was the point of my first post. thanks again for confirming that.

rant = over
Mountain Goat
 

30 Nov 2009 06:17

There maybe two sides to a story - but there is only ever one truth.

You say you "choose" to defend Armstrong - well that is your choice.
When I talk about Armstrong I choose to use the facts and make up my own mind - when I offer an opinion I will try to back up my claim with facts.

As for your comments to RR & BroDeal, if you were the Defender and said "objection your honour, what is the relevance of the prosecutor's comments"...
Surely the reply from the Prosecutor would be "it has the same relevance as your argurments"
User avatar Dr. Maserati
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,437
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 10:31

An anology

30 Nov 2009 06:19

A one legged man passed me going up Kings Ridge. He must have been on EPO or something. Had to be, I swear. Could not have been that he was fitter then me.
flicker
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,125
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 16:38
Location: pacific grove ca. usa

30 Nov 2009 07:24

Dr. Maserati wrote:Ok - this was your first post in that other thread and it was the 3rd post in that thread...........

Good work professor. Pwned!

This really shouldn't require explaining but obviously Mr Goat doesn't get it. In many cases the resorting to flippancy is essentially the drawing of an analogy. It's another way of saying that the arguments of your interlocutor are equally fantastical and preposterous.
rata de sentina
Junior Member
 
Posts: 706
Joined: 28 Jul 2009 09:11

30 Nov 2009 07:30

flicker wrote:A one legged man passed me going up Kings Ridge. He must have been on EPO or something. Had to be, I swear. Could not have been that he was fitter then me.


Did the one legged man test positive for EPO?
Because that would be a more reflective analogy. Unless you can explain away the EPO tests.
Doping died with Lance.
Digger
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,463
Joined: 10 May 2009 17:24

Next

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fearless Greg Lemond, harryh, LaFlorecita, Rollthedice and 9 guests

Back to top