• 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 and Landis and Doping, Oh My!

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
Visit site
flicker said:
For a bunch of people who hate a certain Mr. Lance Armstrong you guys sure do know a lot more about him than I. I am a fan of his. Please, carry on your obsescion.

Did you mean abscession? Because that's what Armstrong is to the sport.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
I hope that Armstrong goes down, and soon.
That way all you guys who are obsessed with "the truth" can pat yourselves on the back and start your lives.

Cycling fans, my ****.

Some of us aren't fans - we actually race, and don't want to have to dope in order to benefit from the hard work we put in.

Letting people get away with cheating in order to protect the sport's image will send down a message to guys who actually race at a high level that they can also get away with it, and that it is part of the sport. This cancer will spread - in fact the number of Masters and Amateur riders on the Papp client list show that.
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Some of us aren't fans - we actually race, and don't want to have to dope in order to benefit from the hard work we put in.

Letting people get away with cheating in order to protect the sport's image will send down a message to guys who actually race at a high level that they can also get away with it, and that it is part of the sport. This cancer will spread - in fact the number of Masters and Amateur riders on the Papp client list show that.

Its doping, not cancer, try to remember that.
If people on here were as passionate about fighting cancer, then I would understand.

My post was less about the fight against doping and more about the fight against Armstrong. Believe it or not they are two different things.

Armstrong didn't invent doping, he didn't create the system where doping became necessary to compete, he just exploited it. He will probably get the punishment that many are hoping for, but guess what, nothing will change.

When people have finished agonising over Armstrongs's legacy, there will be a hundred wannabee Armstrongs lining up to take his place

The fight against doping is necessary and good, what isn't, is the desire for a mythical clean sport. Why should we have something that no other professional sport enjoys?

Put your effort into training and racing hard and leave the dopers to the testing procedures, because doping will continue, Armstrong or not.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
Its doping, not cancer, try to remember that.
If people on here were as passionate about fighting cancer, then I would understand.

My post was less about the fight against doping and more about the fight against Armstrong. Believe it or not they are two different things.

Armstrong didn't invent doping, he didn't create the system where doping became necessary to compete, he just exploited it. He will probably get the punishment that many are hoping for, but guess what, nothing will change.

When people have finished agonising over Armstrongs's legacy, there will be a hundred wannabee Armstrongs lining up to take his place

The fight against doping is necessary and good, what isn't, is the desire for a mythical clean sport. Why should we have something that no other professional sport enjoys?

Put your effort into training and racing hard and leave the dopers to the testing procedures, because doping will continue, Armstrong or not.

Well said, and sadly, probably very true!
 
andy1234 said:
Its doping, not cancer, try to remember that.
If people on here were as passionate about fighting cancer, then I would understand.

My post was less about the fight against doping and more about the fight against Armstrong. Believe it or not they are two different things.

Armstrong didn't invent doping, he didn't create the system where doping became necessary to compete, he just exploited it. He will probably get the punishment that many are hoping for, but guess what, nothing will change.

When people have finished agonising over Armstrongs's legacy, there will be a hundred wannabee Armstrongs lining up to take his place

The fight against doping is necessary and good, what isn't, is the desire for a mythical clean sport. Why should we have something that no other professional sport enjoys?

Put your effort into training and racing hard and leave the dopers to the testing procedures, because doping will continue, Armstrong or not.

Armstrong certainly didn’t invent doping but he was certainly the first guy to be taking more gear than a Columbian cargo train and then to sell himself as a clean messiah. The differences between him and Ullrich are staggering. Ullrich doped but did it for the reasons of remaining competitive. Armstrong doped but lied to the world that he was clean, the French hated him and ever pushed anyone out of the sport who was fighting for a clean future. He profited from the fact that he was the one clean rider amongst a lot of dirty cheats. He also took it one step further and sold his clean story to cancer sufferers of a way to fight their disease. What sort of person lies to people when they are in need? That’s why you see such anger on this boards. It has very little to do with the fact that he doped. Its more with the way he behaved to those who tried to be clean and to those who are in need of care and assistance. Not a very nice person.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
Its doping, not cancer, try to remember that.
If people on here were as passionate about fighting cancer, then I would understand.

My post was less about the fight against doping and more about the fight against Armstrong. Believe it or not they are two different things.

Armstrong didn't invent doping, he didn't create the system where doping became necessary to compete, he just exploited it. He will probably get the punishment that many are hoping for, but guess what, nothing will change.

When people have finished agonising over Armstrongs's legacy, there will be a hundred wannabee Armstrongs lining up to take his place

The fight against doping is necessary and good, what isn't, is the desire for a mythical clean sport. Why should we have something that no other professional sport enjoys?

Put your effort into training and racing hard and leave the dopers to the testing procedures, because doping will continue, Armstrong or not.

I don't agree. There will always be guys willing to cheat - the sport is hard.

But if the top names get busted even way after they have made their achievements, and the corruption that these guys have conspired in can be purged then I believe (only then) can a proper framework of genuine independent and adequate controls be put in place. The next sociopaths who want to grab success at any cost might either think twice or get exposed before they even get the chance to take the "Ferrari option".

Lance is "The Boss". With him on the way out they'll be a new boss. You know the phrase "meet the new boss, same as the old"? Is that something we want?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
elizab said:
Whoa, I never complained he's called me fat. Rather, I think it's a term of endearment. And seriously, so what if I am fat. What does that have to do with anything?
Thanks for the bat signal, by the way.

*** edited by mod ****
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
Its doping, not cancer, try to remember that.
If people on here were as passionate about fighting cancer, then I would understand.

My post was less about the fight against doping and more about the fight against Armstrong. Believe it or not they are two different things.

Armstrong didn't invent doping, he didn't create the system where doping became necessary to compete, he just exploited it. He will probably get the punishment that many are hoping for, but guess what, nothing will change.

When people have finished agonising over Armstrongs's legacy, there will be a hundred wannabee Armstrongs lining up to take his place

The fight against doping is necessary and good, what isn't, is the desire for a mythical clean sport. Why should we have something that no other professional sport enjoys?

Put your effort into training and racing hard and leave the dopers to the testing procedures, because doping will continue, Armstrong or not.

Do other sports "enjoy" the reputation that Pro Cycling has? That is why there is a need to try and clean up the sport.

No Armstrong didn't "invent' doping - but he built his legacy on doping and having everyone turn a blind eye to it.
Which is why he - like any other doper - needs to be exposed to show the favoritism and corruption surrounding the top names of the sport.

Otherwise the latest big name rider will be afforded the same protection by the UCI....O wait.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
andy1234 said:
Its doping, not cancer, try to remember that.
If people on here were as passionate about fighting cancer, then I would understand.

My post was less about the fight against doping and more about the fight against Armstrong. Believe it or not they are two different things.

Armstrong didn't invent doping, he didn't create the system where doping became necessary to compete, he just exploited it. He will probably get the punishment that many are hoping for, but guess what, nothing will change.

When people have finished agonising over Armstrongs's legacy, there will be a hundred wannabee Armstrongs lining up to take his place

The fight against doping is necessary and good, what isn't, is the desire for a mythical clean sport. Why should we have something that no other professional sport enjoys?

Put your effort into training and racing hard and leave the dopers to the testing procedures, because doping will continue, Armstrong or not.

The progression of the Armstrong/Doping apologist is amusing. (not just you, but all the other apologist dimwits posting on this thread too) As time passes, your former positions are exposed as being as laughably moronic as we knew they were, so you move the ball a little more and pretend you didn't actually say what you all used to say. Its brilliant stupidity. What a bunch of sore losers. Sorry your big hero guy shot up bad stuff. Junkie freaks are all like that, they lie, cheat, and steal, and there is always some doormat there willing to help facilitate it. I'd suggest Al-anon as its all about fixing the sickness in you, and letting the junkie suffer the consequences of his actions. You all don't have to be victims anymore!
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
The progression of the Armstrong/Doping apologist is amusing. (not just you, but all the other apologist dimwits posting on this thread too) As time passes, your former positions are exposed as being as laughably moronic as we knew they were, so you move the ball a little more and pretend you didn't actually say what you all used to say. Its brilliant stupidity. What a bunch of sore losers. Sorry your big hero guy shot up bad stuff. Junkie freaks are all like that, they lie, cheat, and steal, and there is always some doormat there willing to help facilitate it. I'd suggest Al-anon as its all about fixing the sickness in you, and letting the junkie suffer the consequences of his actions. You all don't have to be victims anymore!

Sorry for my behavior, I have had a moment of clarity. Please take me into your fold. Forgive me, I have been rather daft.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Do other sports "enjoy" the reputation that Pro Cycling has? That is why there is a need to try and clean up the sport.

No Armstrong didn't "invent' doping - but he built his legacy on doping and having everyone turn a blind eye to it.
Which is why he - like any other doper - needs to be exposed to show the favoritism and corruption surrounding the top names of the sport.

Otherwise the latest big name rider will be afforded the same protection by the UCI....O wait.

Armstrong is an ***, most agree, no need for another 20000 posts on the subject.

Other sports don't enjoy the reputation cycling has because less of their athletes get caught, not because less are doping.

Doping in cycling has the profile it does because of the misconception that exposing dopers cleans the sport up. It doesn't.
The dopers still dope, the sports reputation goes down the pan while tennis and football enjoy their well protected public image.

Catch the dopers, punish them within the guidelines of the sport and move on. Save the moral outrage for something more important.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flicker said:
Sorry for my behavior, I have had a moment of clarity. Please take me into your fold. Forgive me, I have been rather daft.

Reverse Psychology only works on the very gullible.

I understand you had to give it a shot though.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
The progression of the Armstrong/Doping apologist is amusing. (not just you, but all the other apologist dimwits posting on this thread too) As time passes, your former positions are exposed as being as laughably moronic as we knew they were, so you move the ball a little more and pretend you didn't actually say what you all used to say. Its brilliant stupidity. What a bunch of sore losers. Sorry your big hero guy shot up bad stuff. Junkie freaks are all like that, they lie, cheat, and steal, and there is always some doormat there willing to help facilitate it. I'd suggest Al-anon as its all about fixing the sickness in you, and letting the junkie suffer the consequences of his actions. You all don't have to be victims anymore!

What former position would that be Genius?
You sound like someone who could benefit from some (more) therapy yourself.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
Reverse Psychology only works on the very gullible.

I understand you had to give it a shot though.

When I read Floyds interview I was enlightened. His description of the inside world of pro sports was short but telling. If you read Armstrongs' war and one of his other books on his tour + watch the PR films done by VERSUS when he was with Sheryl, read the book Snake by Ken Stabler (Raiders), watch the ESPN documentary on the NFL; PLAYERS, a little WWF, a little Papp, add a dash of pepper and port sand your body on asphalt I think that is PRO Cycling.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
andy1234 said:
What former position would that be Genius?
You sound like someone who could benefit from some (more) therapy yourself.

My therapy is when I do your mom. She soothes the savage beast like no other.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
Armstrong is an ***, most agree, no need for another 20000 posts on the subject.

Other sports don't enjoy the reputation cycling has because less of their athletes get caught, not because less are doping.

Doping in cycling has the profile it does because of the misconception that exposing dopers cleans the sport up. It doesn't.
The dopers still dope, the sports reputation goes down the pan while tennis and football enjoy their well protected public image.

Catch the dopers, punish them within the guidelines of the sport and move on. Save the moral outrage for something more important.

Why do you bring up other sports? I don't give a shit about other sports. Nice strawman on the 'moral outrage' - my views or not based on any morals.

Cycling has its reputation - first and foremost because many of the riders are doping.

Second is that incidents like Festina, USPS '01, Giro 01, T-Mobile and Puerto are all exposed by authorities out side cycling.
Trying to hide the extent of the doping is what the UCI has tried to do since Festina and has failed.

If you don't like the 20000 posts on LA than ask Miloman and posters like him, to stop starting threads that are trying to find a reason why he is either innocent or if guilty deserves some pass. He doesn't - he is a doper who pays off the UCI and so he and they deserve to be exposed for the frauds they are.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
andy1234 said:
What former position would that be Genius?
You sound like someone who could benefit from some (more) therapy yourself.

I guess you can't read? The striking feature is that none of you are willing to admit your former positions. You all pretend you never were toe sucking fanboys, but a leopard cannot change its spots. Sorry Charlie, but the scent of denial is strong on this thread. If Al-anon isn't your flavor, maybe consider hammering a bottle of scotch every night. It will take the pang of having been a complete moron away.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood, keep it out of the gutter! If you don't have a rebuttal, move on to another thread or better still, wait until you have something constructive to add. Not impressed!
 
andy1234 said:
Armstrong is an ***, most agree, no need for another 20000 posts on the subject.

Other sports don't enjoy the reputation cycling has because less of their athletes get caught, not because less are doping.

Doping in cycling has the profile it does because of the misconception that exposing dopers cleans the sport up. It doesn't.
The dopers still dope, the sports reputation goes down the pan while tennis and football enjoy their well protected public image.

Catch the dopers, punish them within the guidelines of the sport and move on. Save the moral outrage for something more important.

So it is all WADA's fault that cycling is in the state that it is in?
What does it take to cause you moral outrage? Politicians who lie and steal money? If we catch one it seems like he is just replaced by another, so why bother. Maybe carjackers, hell they've got to eat too, the insurance company will get you another car. It's really not worth tax payers money to go after them. Maybe the bank bailout is what gets you steamed. We give them all this money to keep them going and then they refuse to loan it to anyone that really needs it. Naw, if we try to reform that we will just upset the status quo.

I guess the whole world is fine just the way it is, look over there, flowers, ahhh.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flicker said:
Sorry for my behavior, I have had a moment of clarity. Please take me into your fold. Forgive me, I have been rather daft.

The only position I have available at the moment is "fluffer." If you're willing to try to sound like a woman, and mop up afterward, I might consider it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
miloman said:
Thoughtforfood, keep it out of the gutter! If you don't have a rebuttal, move on to another thread or better still, wait until you have something constructive to add. Not impressed!

Oh, I was so hoping to impress you...dang. (Who are you BTW?)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Oh jeez TFF, you have failed to impress miloman. Try not to let this setback ruin your entire day.

I was totally going to wash my anus with alcohol today, but I guess I have to set aside some time for millo, so that will just have to wait.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.