• 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!

Armstrong - 5 Types of Forum Posters

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 3, 2009
176
0
0
Visit site
kayaspeed said:
Hi people,
I have just read a bunch of posts concerning Armstrong. Can someone (likely the Armstrong haters), tell me, specifically, (point me to a website, article, newspaper, picture, video, etc) what he has done, to warrant the criticism people in this forum have written? Some have said he has behaved reprehensibly.
I'm all ears.
Common sense,Lance left Ullrich and Heras in the dust in more than one tour.They were arguably the #2 & #3 best riders in the world.
They were both juiced to gills.Do the math.;):p
Don't get me wrong,I used to admire LA,it would have been a tremendous human interest story,but alas,common sense tells me different.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
erader said:
alot of folks who are inspired by lance don't know or care about bike racing. and you are taking everything i say literally to fuel your hatred.

please note that i think lance's behavior has been despicable and i think he is a cheat ... but i think they "all" cheat ... and at this point i just don't care.

ed rader

Sorry, but where is the hatred? I'm just pointing out that attitude has nothing to do with cancer survival rates. There is no hatred in that statement at all. Just fact. You say you are a critic of Lance, but you behave like one of his chamois sniffers when you respond to a benign reply like mine accusing me of being a hater.
 
flicker said:
First things first. The odds that anyone could survive the cancer type and stage that Armstong had are extremely slim. That info comes from someone close to me who works in hospital 5-7 days per week.(Operating theatre nurse)

It was not pure medicine that saved Lance. It was his character.

Read his first book. Beyond the simple fact that "character" is not a well known cancer treatment, even Armstrong acknowledges that his survival was pure luck.

Why do people need to make more of it, I wonder?
 
Mar 7, 2010
64
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
First things first. The odds that anyone could survive the cancer type and stage that Armstong had are extremely slim. That info comes from someone close to me who works in hospital 5-7 days per week.(Operating theatre nurse)

It was not pure medicine that saved Lance. It was his character.

Anything else the haters in the forum say may or may not be true.

It is rude to criticize anyone who has cancer or had cancer.

As to Lances' character, he is focused, stong and ruthless. I think that him and that combo has made him a winner.

I beg to differ on the doper issues.
I really like following the road races and Lance is a blight on the entire sport. My father died of cancer and to say he was perfect would be delusional on my part, cancer or no. In fact, sometimes my Dad was an @sshole. You, sir, are the most inconsistant poster in this forum, and I dare say, very delusional and unbalanced.

I do not believe a great athlete has to be a jerk, or in your word, ruthless. I think true champions have real character, that being honest, kind and moral, which L.A. is NOT. He has proved that over and over.

Try reading From Lance To Landis and get back to us on the issue of doping.

velo54
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Cerberus said:
Well it can hardly have hurt. I really don't know how large the difference between top notch care and average care is for cancer. Average care is pretty good in most western countries so the difference might not be that big.
He was lucky, but not 3-5% lucky. Wikipediasays Armstrong quotes a doctor for saying that he has under 40% chance of survival in his book. Granted 3-5% is under 40%, but I'm sure that's not what he meant. Testicular cancer has a very good prognosis, even at late stages. At early stages survival is close to 100%.

Cerberus, you are correct. In another search, 50-60% of men with a poor tumor prognosis (ie, lung and/or brain metastasis) are cured following surgery. I was sure that Armstrong said in his book "It's not about the bike" that he had a 3% or 5% chance of survival. I just flicked through his book and could not find that statement, so maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, you are correct and LA had a >50% chance of survival.
 
Feb 2, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
erader said:
Type 6 - respect the man for cheating death and i NOW realize the characteristics i despise were necessary for him to not only survive but also call it beforehand. this is a recent revelation for me, unfortunately.....

p959756284-4.jpg



ed rader

Dudes got some seriously crooked teeth eh?

As far as type 6 goes man, seriously dude, exploiting people with cancer for financial gain deserves a very special place in H, E, double hockey sticks, IMHO.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There probably needs to be a 1A or a 2.A subclass depending on how you see it: those who go off on the egostrong fanboys (cat 3.) and take it up a notch and seem to think fanboys are being paid actual salaries by the egostrong corporation to come out here and write positive stuff or argue against the negative...like the guy would really give a **** about what any of us write out here ( I would think he is probably more interested in negotiating his next ad hawking ****ty ultra michelobe lite light crap beer )...very odd ideas of self importance really via truth on this forum...
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Visit site
Cash05458 said:
...like the guy would really give a **** about what any of us write out here...and have a workforce behind that...very odd ideas of self importance really...

In Bold: I doubt it, yet given the level of narcissism, I wouldn't put it past him either.


I usually don't go off on his fans just for being fans, you can go back and read anything I have said. I WAS a fan until last year.
 
Thanks Elapid and Cerberus for the Input.

I am a little shock about the attitude not having a bearing in the Cancer treatment response, because I have always been a believer of this. And of course the quality of life improves. Having said that once you get hit by Cancer you want to make yourself believe that attitude will have a good consequence in the Cancer treatment, just because you have no options.

My best friend died 3 years ago at age 35 and I am still trying to find answers. I always look for the scientific explanation. But I guess sometimes it is just plain luck.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ravens said:
In Bold: I doubt it, yet given the level of narcissism, I wouldn't put it past him either.


I usually don't go off on his fans just for being fans, you can go back and read anything I have said. I WAS a fan until last year.

Hey, wasnt mentioning any names...and to be honest, can't really remember who has pushed that idea...just have seen it alot as a comeback...maybe some believe it, maybe some just say it as a sorta putdown....no biggie...
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
velosopher54 said:
I really like following the road races and Lance is a blight on the entire sport. My father died of cancer and to say he was perfect would be delusional on my part, cancer or no. In fact, sometimes my Dad was an @sshole. You, sir, are the most inconsistant poster in this forum, and I dare say, very delusional and unbalanced.

I do not believe a great athlete has to be a jerk, or in your word, ruthless. I think true champions have real character, that being honest, kind and moral, which L.A. is NOT. He has proved that over and over.

Try reading From Lance To Landis and get back to us on the issue of doping.

velo54
My Dad and Grandpa died of colon cancer and lung cancer respectivlly. I feel your pain. Luckily the deaths were fairly quick and painless for them.

Tomarrow I will ride my bike 60 miles in the mountains with some athletes.

I will not be thinking about Barry Bonds, Lance, Flandis David Walsh nor Bin Laden. After I will be with my family watching the academy awards.

Brother do not take these jerk athletes personally. Don't waste your time. If they choose to cheat just shine em.
 
Jan 30, 2010
166
0
0
Visit site
laziali said:
Broad observations follow. Feel free to add more types.

Type 1 - The Rational Poster
The majority of posters believe the Uniballer dopes and base their views on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. They don't think LA is the only doper and recognise the underlying and long, long culture of doping in professional cycling.

Type 2 - Just Plain Angry
A few believe the Uniballer is a doper and base their views on their personal sense of jealously, memories of being teased at school, feeling wronged by society etc.

Type 3 - The Fanboy
A few believe he is innocent despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and fall within the Fanboy description. Their judgement is clouded by personal emotional investment in the Lance story.

Type 4 - The Principled
A few believe in applying the rule of law to their personal judgement and therefore believe him to be innocent until proven guilty. This is about their sense of ethics, and so they are distinguishable from the fanboys.

Type 5 - The Don't Cares
These posters think he dopes but couldn't care less. They just want to enjoy the specatacle of top-level, 100% committed athletes beating the cr@p out of themselves on the muddy pave and in the high mountains.


To be honest, each poster is completely different from the next, and labelling posters into the 'haters' and 'fanboys' is an easy way to get around an argument with a particular poster. It detracts from the argument and is delibrately intend to fire up someone. But to add to my hypocricy about stereotyping, here are some additional 'types'...


1.5 - The Angry Rational Poster - preaches 'rationality' when judging Armstrong, but there is clearly some personal anger there.


3.5 - The fanboy that applies 'innocent until guilty' rule to justify why they follow the rider.


7 - WonderLance - in a league of his own, and absolutely hilarious!


8 - Those that call him the Uniballer - That's low. Below the belt ;). Shows a huge disrespect to cancer sufferers in general.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
oh yeah....there is also 1B and 2B...the anti egostrong guys who accuse anyone with another point of view via egostrong as needing medications and diagnosing mental illness..couch psychologists....it goes on and on...but it is funny to read...like a bad people mag thing...jessica simpson stuff and how dumb she is...total upside down reverse of the fan boy thing...but they seem to really feed on it...they seem to depend on egostrong in some odd way...like he has really come over and ****ed their ex wives or something....differ side of the the fanboy coin if you ask me...
 
Escarabajo said:
Thanks Elapid and Cerberus for the Input.

I am a little shock about the attitude not having a bearing in the Cancer treatment response, because I have always been a believer of this. And of course the quality of life improves. Having said that once you get hit by Cancer you want to make yourself believe that attitude will have a good consequence in the Cancer treatment, just because you have no options.

My best friend died 3 years ago at age 35 and I am still trying to find answers. I always look for the scientific explanation. But I guess sometimes it is just plain luck.

You don't know where that attitude comes from. Maybe the "positive" people are only that way because the way their body reacts to the disease etc. I feel that it's a bit self-centered to think that "I defeated this disease because I thought I could". Really is a grey area though...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
On Cancer: My two cents

One of my employees, who just had a miscarriage, says her 2 year old son has been diagnosed with stomach cancer. It is in the family.

A friend (and customer) who recently retired told me recently he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Before starting treatment they found it has spread to his bones. No treatment now. He says he takes it one day at a time. Also, " I don't buy green bananas anymore."

Another friend / customer / banker (younger than me) was diagnosed with lung cancer within the last 6 months (I think). He didn't smoke, pretty health couscious. Had some therapy, had more therapy scheduled, then they found it had spread to his lymphatic system and bones. They cancelled his therapy.

Does having cancer make any of these people morally superior to anyone? No, it just means they have cancer. Does the cancer make me feel differently toward them? Yes, I mourn their loss, my heart aches for the pain I know their loved ones feel, and I know it could be me instead of them.

And LA? Cheat, fraud, liar, or worse? Maybe, probably? He is a conspicuous example that Cancer does not have to be only death and sorrow. There can be hope. I am reminded (by LA) that, unlike my other two friends, the baby might survive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
On LA: My two cents worth

Does everbody remember the great TV coverage when Andy H won the Giro? How about when he won Alp D'Huez? No? That's because there was virtually none.

Why I "like" LA. Because without him we in North America would probably live in a cycling vacuum. For better or worse, he keeps the TV coverage switched on.
 
laziali said:
Broad observations follow. Feel free to add more types.

Type 1 - The Rational Poster
The majority of posters believe the Uniballer dopes and base their views on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. They don't think LA is the only doper and recognise the underlying and long, long culture of doping in professional cycling.

Type 2 - Just Plain Angry
A few believe the Uniballer is a doper and base their views on their personal sense of jealously, memories of being teased at school, feeling wronged by society etc.

Type 3 - The Fanboy
A few believe he is innocent despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and fall within the Fanboy description. Their judgement is clouded by personal emotional investment in the Lance story.

Type 4 - The Principled
A few believe in applying the rule of law to their personal judgement and therefore believe him to be innocent until proven guilty. This is about their sense of ethics, and so they are distinguishable from the fanboys.

Type 5 - The Don't Cares
These posters think he dopes but couldn't care less. They just want to enjoy the specatacle of top-level, 100% committed athletes beating the cr@p out of themselves on the muddy pave and in the high mountains.

And some use offensive language like "uniballer."
 
brewerjeff said:
Does everbody remember the great TV coverage when Andy H won the Giro? How about when he won Alp D'Huez? No? That's because there was virtually none.

Why I "like" LA. Because without him we in North America would probably live in a cycling vacuum. For better or worse, he keeps the TV coverage switched on.

Stop living in the past. The '88 Giro was more than twenty years ago. The world has changed.

Does anyone remember watching live coverage of the '88 Paris-Nice over the Internet? I thought not.
 
BroDeal said:
That is a bunch of crap. The only thing required to survive cancer is good luck.

Back to the OP, I don't think #2 even exists except in the minds of trolls like Speedway and the other losers who periodically come here to complain about people dissing LA.

So good to be called a loser by you. Wouldn't want it any other way especially by someone who never complains about anything.:rolleyes:
 
Jun 20, 2009
654
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
...

As for this thread breaking posters down into "types", it's bullcrap. I guess it's important for those who have problems understanding the nuances of human personality to have to categorize things so it can make sense to them, but it's baloney.

Who came up with this stupid list?

That would be me. As for accusations of "bullc@p" and lack of "nuance", you are wrong on two counts. First, I prefaced the OP with "Broad observations follow". Secondly, there have been 70 posts on this thread which plainly legitamises the subject matter.
 
Berzin said:
This is NOT true. People who say you have to a be graceless, lying, controlling a-hole to get anything positive or difficult done have no idea what they're talking about.

He survived cancer because of his doctors.

As for this thread breaking posters down into "types", it's bullcrap. I guess it's important for those who have problems understanding the nuances of human personality to have to categorize things so it can make sense to them, but it's baloney.

Who came up with this stupid list?

While I can understand not liking the concept of 'typing' or fitting everyone into a category, you seem a little over the top angry about the OP.
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
This is NOT true. People who say you have to a be graceless, lying, controlling a-hole to get anything positive or difficult done have no idea what they're talking about.

He survived cancer because of his doctors.

As for this thread breaking posters down into "types", it's bullcrap. I guess it's important for those who have problems understanding the nuances of human personality to have to categorize things so it can make sense to them, but it's baloney.

Who came up with this stupid list?

Relative to most internet forum topics, I think thou doth protest too much.
 

Joey_J

BANNED
Aug 1, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
Really??

BroDeal said:
Stop living in the past. The '88 Giro was more than twenty years ago. The world has changed.

If LA didn't ride the Giro last year, would we have had Universal Sports coverage?

And I was in Spain/Italy in 88 and got to watch it live every day.

I still have a poster (right there..I'm pointing) of that famous shot of Hampsten on the Gavia which I bought from a bike shop owner in Barcelona.
 

TRENDING THREADS