• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Great White said:
I think red_flanders believes people from the internet should be able to randomnly blood test Armstrong as they please. :rolleyes:

When you say in front of the entire world that you will have an in house drug testing program and you will offer "total transparency" in every phase, and then you do none of it, well I think you should expect a little questioning.
 
Dec 8, 2009
63
0
0
www.livestrong.com
Race Radio said:
The test was performed in California durinng training camp. More likely USADA and not the UCI.

If it was indeed a mistake then it would be easy to clear up, Armstrong would just authorize WADA to release the actual number. This would be in line with his promise of "complete transparency".

This issue has been discussed for months. Multiple requests for clarification have been submitted.....nothing. In fact quite the opposite, the numbers were taken off the site. Comments asking about it were deleted. When questions about his numbers started being asked what did Armstrong do? Simple, he stopped talking to reporters.

I think we can all agree the likelihood that this was a mistake is low. If it is then it would be very simple for Armstrong to correct this perception....instead he has just reinforced it by trying to cover it up.
Who were the multiple requests from?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
When you say in front of the entire world that you will have an in house drug testing program and you will offer "total transparency" in every phase, and then you do none of it, well I think you should expect a little questioning.

Actually he did post his numbers online for year, as he said. But the drug testing program, that was abandoned for being too costly and complex for no benefit (who was going to believe in house testing?), had nothing to do with people being allowed to smear him on his own forum. There is enough of that already on the internet; he is not obliged to host that.
 
Dec 8, 2009
63
0
0
www.livestrong.com
Cozy Beehive said:
2ro6l39.jpg





Apparently, Livestrong."com", the for-profit version of the brand, is censoring or deleting Lance doping related threads on their forum. Interesting reply above to the first poster, from someone who appears to be a Livestrong forum rat...observe how she tells the other woman "this isn't a democracy here" :)

A blog ran by a mechanical Failure!
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Visit site
Great White said:
Actually he did post his numbers online for year, as he said. But the drug testing program, that was abandoned for being too costly and complex for no benefit (who was going to believe in house testing?), had nothing to do with people being allowed to smear him on his own forum. There is enough of that already on the internet; he is not obliged to host that.

Funny that he has no problem smearing others online/in the press etc. I guess comrade lance doesn't believe in freedom of speech.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BYOP88 said:
Funny that he has no problem smearing others online/in the press etc. I guess comrade lance doesn't believe in freedom of speech.

Do those people host Armstrong doing that on their own website? Have you got a link to that?
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
neither here nor there> snipped from the interweb and found it interesting

the price for lying

People lie so easily these days. There are overt lies, such as how old we are, how much money we make and where we were last night. Then there are the covert lies — lies of omission. For instance, when an executive tells his wife he will be travelling abroad on business but neglects to add the fact he is also visiting his mistress.

Then there are lies of implication – we know, in saying one thing, there is a whole series of implications our listener is likely to make based on their character and previous experience. Of course these do not count as lies in court of law, but they are no less misleading than the other two categories.

An example that comes to mind was when my friend Chris referred to his friend Lex, saying, “That boy, I worry about him. I do my best but I don’t know…”

The implication being that there is something wrong with Lex, and Chris is a really swell guy who cares about his friend. Of course in reality there is little wrong with Lex aside from his poor judgment in his choice of friends.

Living in a talk world as we do, the temptation to lie is great. First impressions count for so much, there is a huge incentive to embellish our self-representations. At the same time, the chances of being found out are usually relatively low. At a bar or at the club, it is very difficult for listeners to vet what we’re saying. This swings the risk- return payoff strongly towards lying and away from telling the truth. Furthermore, in our highly competitive world if we believe there is a very good chance the other person is less than honest, pure survival instinct impels us to follow suit.

This may come as a surprise, but the skilled liar is always more compelling than an honest man because the liar is expert at packaging their message in the most digestible way. A message which aligns itself perfectly with what we wish to believe, such as presenting negative facts about Muslims to a Christian fundamentalists crowd, is an easy sell, and vice versa. It is little wonder that psychologists have found a high correlation between skilled liars and popularity in schoolchildren. Now, leaders are selected on the basis of popularity; so those leaders chosen through a process of natural selection are the best liars among us.

One reason really good liars are so effective is that they are able to convince themselves what they’re saying is the gospel truth. A kind of self-hypnosis takes place that has a similarly entrancing effect on the listener.

The true liar, the Player, was born to lie – they cannot but lie, because for them there is no truth, there are no lies. They are like actors reading their lines. There is an absence of the internal tension most of us experience when we tell a lie that leaves telltale clues on our faces. They easily exchange one lie for another as an actor exchanges costume to play a new role. The lines are words and gestures designed to create an impression – nothing more.

What of the rest of us? What price do we pay when we lie? Having established that there is not likely to be any social penalty to pay for lying, is there no price to pay for lying our way through life?

The answer to this question very much depends upon whether you subscribe to the belief that there is an aspect of ourselves which transcends this life: a soul or essence we brought with us into this world and will take with us into the next. If we do believe this, then whatever returns might be gained from deceiving or manipulating another are far outweighed by the cost. The blemish of treachery is with us when we wake in the morning, and follows us into our dreams at night.

So, for most of us who have some connection to our essence, however sporadic or fleeting, when we lie we are giving away so much and getting so little in return.

Furthermore, one lie begets another. When we lie, we have to maintain the pretence, not just to the outside world, but to ourselves as well. We need to deny the lie. This is yet another lie. A single lie can spin off a multitude of lies that become so numerous, so dense, that finally the original lie becomes incidental, insignificant in relation to the mountain of lies it has spawned.

As time progresses, the weight of lies and our own denial increases, yet our perceived cost at coming clean grows even faster. Eventually, we reach a point of no return where no matter how great the cost, we will not unburden ourselves of our deceit. Sooner or later this load becomes simply too great and our aging bodies and minds succumb to it.

When the final curtain falls, the autopsy will describe death from cancer, heart failure or a list of other ailments. However in truth it will be the individual’s own lies which will be the real killer.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Great White said:
Actually he did post his numbers online for year, as he said. But the drug testing program, that was abandoned for being too costly and complex for no benefit (who was going to believe in house testing?), had nothing to do with people being allowed to smear him on his own forum. There is enough of that already on the internet; he is not obliged to host that.
From the Livestrong website (the for profit one ;) )...no mention of it being for a year.

"Lance also announced he would return to the sport with complete transparency to eliminate any possible question that he is competing clean
...........
We at LIVESTRONG.COM are pleased to host the medical data from these tests, and will be updating it as often as we receive the data from the respective agencies. By posting these results online, we hope not only to provide that element of transparency that Lance envisioned, but also help to inform and educate our community about these tests and what they mean".


http://www.livestrong.com/lance-arm...sting-results-to-be-posted-at-livestrong-com/
 
Great White said:
Actually he did post his numbers online for year, as he said. But the drug testing program, that was abandoned for being too costly and complex for no benefit (who was going to believe in house testing?), had nothing to do with people being allowed to smear him on his own forum. There is enough of that already on the internet; he is not obliged to host that.

If you click on the path to Livestrong forum, it shows OP was not interested in smearing him, she was looking for a response from other forum members on what they thought. One quickly jumped up and on behalf of all of them, told her to take it somewhere else. http://www.livestrong.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=47929
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Cozy Beehive said:
If you click on the path to Livestrong forum, it shows OP was not interested in smearing him, she was looking for a response from other forum members on what they thought. One quickly jumped up and on behalf of all of them, told her to take it somewhere else. http://www.livestrong.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=47929

Don't try to reason with him, it is not possible. He is the resident troll who has used multiple usernames Arbiter/Ban Pro Cycling/British ProCycling/Sprocket1/Earth Tribe/Great White

His only goal is to disrupt the threads with useless questions and conspiracy theories. He will be banned by morning.

You can add him to your ignore list by clicking here
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Race Radio said:
Don't try to reason with him, it is not possible. He is the resident troll who has used multiple usernames Arbiter/Ban Pro Cycling/British ProCycling/Sprocket1/Earth Tribe/Great White

His only goal is to disrupt the threads with useless questions and conspiracy theories. He will be banned by morning.

My username is Great White. This is the only name I have. You must be confusing me with someone else.

The only person who is making speculative points with no evidence to back it up, and is trying to disrupt the thread, is you. If the facts are on your side then why do you have to lie about other posters? It seems your only intention is to provoke an argument. If you don't want to discuss a topic then stay out of it. Don't ruin the threads with this guff.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cozy Beehive said:
If you click on the path to Livestrong forum, it shows OP was not interested in smearing him, she was looking for a response from other forum members on what they thought. One quickly jumped up and on behalf of all of them, told her to take it somewhere else. http://www.livestrong.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=47929

Thanks, but the doping debate quickly turns into smears as people make allegations and speculate. I don't think anyone really expects Armstrong's own site to host lots of people making these allegations. There are plenty of places to do that, like here.
 
Cozy Beehive said:
If you click on the path to Livestrong forum, it shows OP was not interested in smearing him, she was looking for a response from other forum members on what they thought. One quickly jumped up and on behalf of all of them, told her to take it somewhere else. http://www.livestrong.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=47929

Don't respond to this Great White guy - he is our resident troll who keeps posting here under different usernames. Recent past usernames are Sprocket01/Max Power/BritishProCycling/BanProCycling/UnBanProCycling, blah blah blah he's had many.

He'll be banned by tomorrow but his tone of smarmy ***-speak is impossible to miss. People here are so used to him now that we can recognize his uniquely moronic prose style in one or two posts. He is quite possibly one of the most pathetic examples of human life that has ever drooled upon a keyboard.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BikeCentric said:
Don't respond to this Great White guy - he is our resident troll who keeps posting here under different usernames. Recent past usernames are Sprocket01/Max Power/BritishProCycling/BanProCycling/UnBanProCycling, blah blah blah he's had many.

Again I can confirm this is incorrect.

I'll give you or anybody else here a simple little challenge.

Cite one post of mine that is trolling. Just one. Go on.....?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
his tone of smarmy ***-speak is impossible to miss. People here are so used to him now that we can recognize his uniquely moronic prose style in one or two posts. He is quite possibly one of the most pathetic examples of human life that has ever drooled upon a keyboard.

(This was the post where he accused ME - that's right, ME - of trolling.)

What is it that you hate so much about me that you are drawn to use such nasty trolling, off topic, rhetoric? Show me where I have ever trolled like that? Ever?
 
Great White said:
(This was the post where he accused ME - that's right, ME - of trolling.)

What is it that you hate so much about me that you are drawn to use such nasty trolling, off topic, rhetoric? Show me where I have ever trolled like that? Ever?

What I'm doing to you is called flaming, not trolling. Flaming is defined as insulting another forum user in a usually over-the-top and exceedingly personal manner.

I don't do this to other forum members because I respect the knowledge of most all of them.

However, what I hate most in this world are stupid people and this is why I hate you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BikeCentric said:
What I'm doing to you is called flaming, not trolling. Flaming is defined as insulting another forum user in a usually over-the-top and exceedingly personal manner.

If it's done to disrupt a thread then it is trolling I'm afraid. Why would you want to do that? It ruins the forum.

I don't do this to other forum members because I respect the knowledge of most all of them.

In short, you agree with them. But a forum should be a place for people of different views. You don't have to disrupt threads and troll simply because you disagree with someone.

However, what I hate most in this world are stupid people and this is why I hate you.

That's a very arrogant and elitist attitude you have. I haven't seen you say anything particularly intelligent - you merely repeat the bog standard cliches of others - but I don't hate you for it, and I would not disrupt a thread by attacking you with off topic remarks because of this.

You really need to take a look at yourself and your motivations here.