peloton said:Excellent -and a must- read for every cycling (and Lance) fans
Race Radio said: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?
Mountain Goat said: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"...
Mountain Goat said: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.
Race Radio said: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.
Mountain Goat said: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)
Ok - this was your first post in that other thread and it was the 3rd post in that thread...........Mountain Goat said: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 )
Mountain Goat said: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
Mountain Goat said:I agree, we should discuss BOTH sides of the story and not resort to childish name-calling.
Mountain Goat said: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.
Race Radio said:This "Good Point" you refer to. Was it the "French Conspiracy" excuse or the Space Alien/Nazi Frogmen explanation?
Good work professor. Pwned!Dr. Maserati said:Ok - this was your first post in that other thread and it was the 3rd post in that thread...........
flicker said: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.
That is ridiculous. Your intention may have been hypothetical but you failed miserably since it is far from clear.Mountain Goat said:@ 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.
Subtlety doesn't appear to be your strong point. The argument is clear; blind unreasoning faith in the face of a deluge of logical argument and evidence. Geddit?Mountain Goat said:@ 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
See above, re: flippancy.Mountain Goat said:@ 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.
karlboss said:There are some awesome disabled athletes out there. The world champs was over 19.4 km and the winner LC3 (one leg) held better than 40kph.
On Lance. If it were certain he doped he'd have been caught and paid damages etc. So in a legal sense in each case, with due process, there has been some/enough doubt. Correct me if i'm wrong but in the US civil suits are decided on the balance of probability, so a judge thought the more likely of two options was he didn't dope.