Armstrong - 5 Types of Forum Posters

[tifosa]

I reckon I'd cast myself as a -1 (Minus One).

Minus Ones are rational to the extent they realize Armstrong and legion of other cyclists past and present dope. However, minus ones also adopt the rationale that cheating at sport, by any method, is wrong, dammit! Cheating at sport is race fixing at its worst!! The b*astards!!! Upon getting the news that another of their beloved cyclists has doped (substitute any other cheating offense here), Minus Ones retreat into their caves of despair and lament the sad state of cycling - at least until the next race -- when they reappear if only to say, "If one more f*ucking cyclist test positive, THAT'S IT!!!!" Until the next race, anyway. Minus ones are also known to play a mean round of golf whenever any B sample shows positive for doping. The b*astards!!!!!

 

[Race Radio]

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

The fact is Armstrong's participation in the Giro almost cost the US the coverage.

RSC paid Armstrong $3,000,000 to race the Giro. Angelo Zomegnan made it clear that he expected to recoup this by selling the rights to a US broadcaster. This did not work. His talks with Versus and ESPN failed and it was not until the Day before the race that Universal got the rights for almost nothing because all other options had failed.

 

[frenchfry]

The fact is Armstrong's participation in the Giro almost cost the US the coverage.

RSC paid Armstrong $3,000,000 to race the Giro. Angelo Zomegnan made it clear that he expected to recoup this by selling the rights to a US broadcaster. This did not work. His talks with Versus and ESPN failed and it was not until the Day before the race that Universal got the rights for almost nothing because all other options had failed.

Race, you know too much for your own good.

 

[ustabe]

With regard to doping, I plead guilty to being a 4. With regard to everything else, I disliked from the day I finished reading It's Not About the Bike.

Actually, I disliked him before I read his book. The book only corroborated my gut. Little stunts like "gifting" Pantani the Ventoux in 2000 and then blabbing it to the press disgusted me. Cycle Sport USA sums up what I dislike about Armstrong. I paraphrase because I don't have the article in front of me--a condescending smile if you agree with him, a silent glare if you don't.

 

[Anonymous]

The fact is Armstrong's participation in the Giro almost cost the US the coverage.

RSC paid Armstrong $3,000,000 to race the Giro. Angelo Zomegnan made it clear that he expected to recoup this by selling the rights to a US broadcaster. This did not work. His talks with Versus and ESPN failed and it was not until the Day before the race that Universal got the rights for almost nothing because all other options had failed.

Sounds like Zomengan gambled on the LA card and lost. No fault of LA. There just wasn't enough interest in the Giro in the States to make any money, per VS and ESPN. The only race that gets coverage in the states is the TdF. Above that, the general US sports fan could care less about cycling.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Ok which one would I be? I'm thinking a four. I admire the guy for basically introducing me to the sport, think there is just as much evidence to support he didn't dope, and I'm perfectly to willing to criticize him as I don't believe he, or any other cyclist, are above reproach.

 

[BroDeal]

I...think there is just as much evidence to support he didn't dope...

And that would be?

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

And that would be?

I don't want to get into another "did he/didn't he" debate.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice post. Both my parents died of Cancer.

Thanks. There are things more important than whether or not LA is a jerk and a fraud.

 

[luckyboy]

There are many more important things than cycling, but this is a cycling forum.

 

[slcbiker]

Not sure exactly what category I fall into.
He's an arrogant narcisscist, but then I'd say that covers the majority of extremely sucessful athletes. So I don't know that I really hold that against him.
And while the circumstantial evidence would say it's likely he doped, I don't know that I'd also go the extra mile to say that he somehow benefited alot more from it than others.

And, having battled colon cancer last year, while there is definitely a large luck component, a good attittude can do alot as well. Complying with nasty chemo/radiation regimes is not easy, being willing to tolerate more discomfort can be a positive thing.
On the balance, the press and money he's brought to the fight against cancer is a good thing.

 

[this_is_edie]

From the original OP list, I'd put myself on #1. I don't care about his personal life, but I truly despise some of his actions like the Simeoni chase down, and his manipulations of the media. Of course, then the media is also to blame for letting themselves be pulled into it, they are so scared of losing access that they play the game.

The other thing that I dislike about the LA story are some of his rabid fans. I have been on many boards when even a comment about some race tactics - nothing to do about doping - brings down the army to call you a hater.

 

[Race Radio]

Sounds like Zomengan gambled on the LA card and lost. No fault of LA. There just wasn't enough interest in the Giro in the States to make any money, per VS and ESPN. The only race that gets coverage in the states is the TdF. Above that, the general US sports fan could care less about cycling.

Not exactly.

The Giro was shown prior to 2009 in the US by Cycling.tv. The only thing that kept this from happening again was Armstrong's appearance fee. RCS had to try to recoupe this investment but failed. Until Universal stepped in at the last minute Armstrong's fee was what
was going the keep the Giro off the air. In the end it ended up on a 3rd tier network with limited reach.

RCS wishes they never paid Armstrong's fee. It is no suprise they have not invited RadioShack to this years race.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I....think there is just as much evidence to support he didn't dope.

I thought about this a fair bit, before responding, just to make sure I audited the evidence of non-doping.
Other than: "The Science of Lance Armstrong", based upon Dr Ed's now universially acclaimed work of science fiction, the only evidence of non doping, is Lance's own mouth.

So, I assume what your are actually saying is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that Armstrong has doped.

Good luck with that.

 

[Digger]

Ok which one would I be? I'm thinking a four. I admire the guy for basically introducing me to the sport, think there is just as much evidence to support he didn't dope, and I'm perfectly to willing to criticize him as I don't believe he, or any other cyclist, are above reproach.

Please please provide us with your evidence for this. Lance's own mouth as has been said already.
Tests - failed.

 

[flicker]

The limit of hate in the Lance haters is unfathomable.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ok which one would I be? I'm thinking a four. I admire the guy for basically introducing me to the sport, think there is just as much evidence to support he didn't dope, and I'm perfectly to willing to criticize him as I don't believe he, or any other cyclist, are above reproach.

There is NO actual evidence to support an argument that he did not dope except him saying he didn't. There is lots and lots of hard evidence that he did and more annecdotal evidence that he did. If you have read more than 50% of the links that people have provided to evidence that LA doped and you still don't believe that he did then you just really really really want to believe that he didn't and you are willing to abandon all logical thought to hold on to that idea.

 

[blackcat]

if they want to believe StrongArm never doped. Who are we to disabuse them of that opinion. The World is full'o' blithering idiots. Why dignify their opinion.

 

[Piston Pete]

if they want to believe StrongArm never doped. Who are we to disabuse them of that opinion. The World is full'o' blithering idiots. Why dignify their opinion.

There is actually some circumstantial evidence and hearsay that Armstrong has doped at various points in his career. The extent of this and how much it helped him, we cannot know, but there is certainly some evidence.

However, if we just assert all riders we don't like are doped, this discredits the anti doping case. We must be careful we don't throw around allegations that have no basis whatsoever if we want to be credible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.........

To get this back on topic.........

To the OP - surely Piston Pete and all his other user-names are deserving of their own category?

 

[Nearly]

The fact is Armstrong's participation in the Giro almost cost the US the coverage.

RSC paid Armstrong $3,000,000 to race the Giro. Angelo Zomegnan made it clear that he expected to recoup this by selling the rights to a US broadcaster. This did not work. His talks with Versus and ESPN failed and it was not until the Day before the race that Universal got the rights for almost nothing because all other options had failed.

I do no know whether the Giro has had live coverage in the US in previous years but why is this not just a case of AZ finally realising he had done a bad deal and caving in to at least get something (with Lance still being the main reason it got shown live at all)?

Disappointingly we did not get live coverage last year here in Australia although the highlights package was as extensive as we have ever had. Like it or not LA hype was no doubt a factor in achieving even that (along with Cadel Evans' first tilt in some time).

The real issue is insufficient interest in cycling in the general viewing public but that is changing. Alas, again this year there will be no live cover but you have to believe it is not far away (and who knows things could even change before May). Like him or not Lance has certainly contributed at the very least to an increased "awareness" of cycling in these parts and judging by AZ's perhaps misplaced estimation last year even in the heartland of cycling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I do no know whether the Giro has had live coverage in the US in previous years but why is this not just a case of AZ finally realising he had done a bad deal and caving in to at least get something (with Lance still being the main reason it got shown live at all)?

Disappointingly we did not get live coverage last year here in Australia although the highlights package was as extensive as we have ever had. Like it or not LA hype was no doubt a factor in achieving even that (along with Cadel Evans' first tilt in some time).

The real issue is insufficient interest in cycling in the general viewing public but that is changing. Alas, again this year there will be no live cover but you have to believe it is not far away (and who knows things could even change before May). Like him or not Lance has certainly contributed at the very least to an increased "awareness" of cycling in these parts and judging by AZ's perhaps misplaced estimation last year even in the heartland of cycling.

Actually you asked a good question in your first paragraph - but unfortunately you answered it and unwittingly raised an interesting outcome.

CyclingTV covered the Giro in 2008 - as well as a heap of other good races.
At the time they had very good coverage - but since last year they have lost out on some of the big races and it appears to have crumbled.

Universal Sports are covering this weeks Tirreno-Adriatico, and 'you know who' is not riding, so it could well be argued that LAs participation in races actually prices out getting coverage to the races he participates in.

 

[Von Mises]

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.

I am somewhere between 4 and 5. (Though I personally believe he doped)

There is NO actual evidence to support an argument that he did not dope except him saying he didn't. There is lots and lots of hard evidence that he did and more annecdotal evidence that he did. If you have read more than 50% of the links that people have provided to evidence that LA doped and you still don't believe that he did then you just really really really want to believe that he didn't and you are willing to abandon all logical thought to hold on to that idea.

As far as I know, there are only two types of evidence what count if talking about doping: positive test or confession. Both favor LA. Everything else is just rumour, third and fourth hand gossip, opinions pretending to be facts etc.

 

[blackcat]

I am somewhere between 4 and 5. (Though I personally believe he doped)



As far as I know, there are only two types of evidence what count if talking about doping: positive test or confession. Both favor LA. Everything else is just rumour, third and fourth hand gossip, opinions pretending to be facts etc.

sorry, Frankie and Betsy Andreu is not rumour, third or fourth hand gossip, but direct evidence. The tests from 99 were evidence. The cortico positive. Evidence. The Astana trash medical waste evidence. The USPS trash medical waste evidence. Cant explain it all away, and twitter the French conspiracies.

 

[Cloxxki]

How about trying to categorize the various faces (or hats) Lance wears, depending on the occasion as it suits him? All are extremes, nothing is ever average, mediocre or normal. That would paint an odd picture.