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

[peloton]

Excellent -and a must- read for every cycling (and Lance) fans
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/200...mpaign=Feed%3A+CozyBeehive+%28COZY+BEEHIVE%29

 

[Race Radio]

Great blog and post. This should be made a sticky and mandatory reading prior to posting in the clinic

 

[Lifeshape]

Excellent -and a must- read for every cycling (and Lance) fans
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/200...mpaign=Feed%3A+CozyBeehive+%28COZY+BEEHIVE%29

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

 

[BroDeal]

"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.

 

[peloton]

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

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

 

[Race Radio]

"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?

 

[Anonymous]

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.

 

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

 

[Anonymous]

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 )

 

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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 )

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

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

 

[ihavenolimbs]

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 ***, 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 *******!

 

[Race Radio]

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?

 

[BroDeal]

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.

 

[Anonymous]

@ 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...

@ 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

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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"

 

[flicker]

An anology

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.

 

[rata de sentina]

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.

 

[Digger]

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.

 

[rata de sentina]

@ 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.

That is ridiculous. Your intention may have been hypothetical but you failed miserably since it is far from clear.

@ 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

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?

@ 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.

See above, re: flippancy.

 

[craig1985]

"you're nothing but a ****in conspiracy theorist. why don't you ever take your bike and race it the way lance did. you cant even come close."

"I beg to differ mate! Absolutely vulgar,nasty stuff being dragged out of the recycle bin again and again. The agenda is to destroy one man, but funny thing is it destroys the instigators and the sport in the process. What a pity."

I lol'd. And then there is:

"while i too am of the opinion that armstrong is not a nice guy and that he likely doped, i cannot say that i am convinced he took banned substances. none of what you presented is tangible evidence of his doping. it is all circumstantial and hearsay, therefore unlikely to sway a fan boy. unless and until there is a doping positive concomitant with and not retrospective to some particular race or season, few who worship at the armstrong alter will be swayed. even then, like with hamilton and landis, there will still be some people who will not change their opinions about their here."

How is the fence sitting. And BroDeal, WAG.

 

[karlboss]

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

What Judge???
What Civil Suit? Are you referring to the SCA Promotions case that was a contract dispute?

It was covered in thisright at the beginning of the blog.

"The ruling of the three person arbitration panel charged with deciding the case became moot once its Chairman declared the entity guarantying the bonus (SCA) was an insurance company, and all that mattered was that Armstrong had won his sixth Tour, regardless of how he night have done it"

 

[Big GMaC]

The link has lots of detailed an well documented accounts, for me the interesting page being related to the 'CSI effect', with everyone happy to ignore the huge wealth of circumstantial evidence in the absence of irrefutable truth. People like Simeoni, Walsh, Kimmage and Greg LeMond would not be saying things if the problem of Lance Armstong's doping was not there.

Also as an aside,

1. In that world Champs photo he was a chubby little boy wasn't he?

2. Compare the facial structure to the photo on page 40. His head looks too big for his features in the second one...