Armstrong Lies

[Dr. Maserati]

It was impressive that a GC contender took it upon themselves to chance someone down that was no threat to the overall, wasn't it? Credit where credit is due.

Simeoni was 2 hours and 42 minutes down - yes very impressive.

 

[Anonymous]

Simeoni was 2 hours and 42 minutes down - yes very impressive.

You just don't see GC guys wasting energy like that anymore unless it's one of their rivals. It shows you how great Armstrong was.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You just don't see GC guys wasting energy like that anymore unless it's one of their rivals. It shows you how great Armstrong was.

What I remember was the breaching up in a very short time - that was impressive, what would have been much more impressive would have been LA staying away and winning the stage. Since he did not I considered it was just a AA personality thing - understandable, but not a sign of cycling greatness.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You just don't see GC guys wasting energy like that anymore unless it's one of their rivals. It shows you how great Armstrong was.

Hmmm....so if he was soooo great why didn't he keep the attack going?

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm....so if he was soooo great why didn't he keep the attack going?

Because he proved how good he was and the others pleaded for a chance to win the stage. Like any great champion, he let them have some glory.

 

[Anonymous]

What I remember was the breaching up in a very short time - that was impressive, what would have been much more impressive would have been LA staying away and winning the stage. Since he did not I considered it was just a AA personality thing - understandable, but not a sign of cycling greatness.

Well, what you have to understand is the importance of team work in the peloton. I'm not just talking about within teams, but also being a wider team player with your colleagues. People strive for individual achievement and that's great, but they can't do that without also playing their part in the peloton and relying on other people.

This explains it very well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9zF8G2Pvc

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm....so if he was soooo great why didn't he keep the attack going?

Not every attack succeeds. It's the fact that the enthusiasm was there to race. You don't often see that now.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Well, what you have to understand is the importance of team work in the peloton. I'm not just talking about within teams, but also being a wider team player with your colleagues. People strive for individual achievement and that's great, but they can't do that without also playing their part in the peloton and relying on other people.

This explains it very well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9zF8G2Pvc

Not buying this any more than the bike on the other thread.

 

[rata de sentina]

You just don't see GC guys wasting energy like that anymore unless it's one of their rivals. It shows you how great Armstrong was.

If great=vindictive, sure.

 

[filipo]

Well that's a little pi$$y of you. Why insult her work? BTW she was acting as a forum moderator, not as a journalist, and part of that role is to talk about what is off limits.

The articles you cite are announcements of a divorce and the birth of a child. They do not contain personal opinion about the subject's worthiness as a husband or a father. A clear difference.

My original point was that we are here to express our personal opinions about all things cycling, and that will always include opinions about a cyclist's personality. Nothing wrong with that so long as we stay within the limits. But calling a guy a bad husband or a bad father based on stories that for the most part originate from the entertainment media? I think that's offside. Creepy too. It drags the quality of content on this forum down several notches. And it's kind of pathetic to sign up under a pseudonym and comment on a guy's family. Especially when it's Armstrong, there are so many examples of his behaviour that deserve critique and which can be sourced appropriately. My two cents. Your opinion may differ.

If Armstrong's family is not relevant to cycling, then it's not relevant to cyclingnews. If it's news for the cycling world, then it's relevant for us, as cycling fans, to comment on.

But hell, I'll comment on whatever. I couldn't give a sh!t what's "in bounds" and what's not. If a guy puts his family in front of a camera, he's made his family public pickings -- and that's his fault, not mine. As for the "entertainment media", you forget that's where the Lewinsky scandal originated. Like it or not, the entertainment side of life is a prominent part of the culture. If Armstrong wants to court it, he's got to be prepared to deal with its negatives. You act like he's just some hapless naif in all this.

To bang on which sources are "appropriate" and which subjects are "out of bounds" is to offer another smokescreen to the powerful, a convenient way to stop questions. You may think such things are trifles; I don't -- not in sport, not in any other facet of public life.

This is an internet forum, in which we're all asked to express our opinions. The way my opinion of Armstrong is formed includes how he treats his kids and his wives/girlfriends. How is it that his family too personal to opine about, but a totally objective event -- cancer -- forms the very core of his personality? So I can talk about his personal struggles with cancer, but not with divorce? You're saying his divorce doesn't/didn't influence his personality?

Anyway, while I generally enjoy your contributions, I couldn't give a sh!t what you think is appropriate. If Armstrong has a problem with some nobody talking about his family on some forum, I'm sure he can uncover my anonymity.

Excuse the rant, but the double standards are rather appalling to me.

 

[Anonymous]

But hell, I'll comment on whatever. I couldn't give a sh!t what's "in bounds" and what's not. If a guy puts his family in front of a camera, he's made his family public pickings

Not sure how you work that one out. If someone puts their family on their Christmas card then they're fair game?

But I actually agree that people should be allowed to talk about Armstrong's family. It reflects badly on them and their credibility, shows people what they're all about. They should be allowed to do that to themselves.

 

[filipo]

Not sure how you work that one out. If someone puts their family on their Christmas card then they're fair game?

But I actually agree that people should be allowed to talk about Armstrong's family. It reflects badly on them and their credibility, shows people what they're all about. They should be allowed to do that to themselves.

You really have no clue, but that's OK, you're just a shark. Sharks aren't known for their smarts.

 

[pedaling squares]

If Armstrong's family is not relevant to cycling, then it's not relevant to cyclingnews. If it's news for the cycling world, then it's relevant for us, as cycling fans, to comment on.

But hell, I'll comment on whatever. I couldn't give a sh!t what's "in bounds" and what's not. If a guy puts his family in front of a camera, he's made his family public pickings -- and that's his fault, not mine. As for the "entertainment media", you forget that's where the Lewinsky scandal originated. Like it or not, the entertainment side of life is a prominent part of the culture. If Armstrong wants to court it, he's got to be prepared to deal with its negatives. You act like he's just some hapless naif in all this.

To bang on which sources are "appropriate" and which subjects are "out of bounds" is to offer another smokescreen to the powerful, a convenient way to stop questions. You may think such things are trifles; I don't -- not in sport, not in any other facet of public life.

This is an internet forum, in which we're all asked to express our opinions. The way my opinion of Armstrong is formed includes how he treats his kids and his wives/girlfriends. How is it that his family too personal to opine about, but a totally objective event -- cancer -- forms the very core of his personality? So I can talk about his personal struggles with cancer, but not with divorce? You're saying his divorce doesn't/didn't influence his personality?

Anyway, while I generally enjoy your contributions, I couldn't give a sh!t what you think is appropriate. If Armstrong has a problem with some nobody talking about his family on some forum, I'm sure he can uncover my anonymity.

Excuse the rant, but the double standards are rather appalling to me.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. No harm in that. To clarify what I mean about appropriate sources - it is not necessarily the content but the source of the information. When people discuss Armstrong's association to PED, his treatment of teammates or opponents, his lies, or the way he conducts himself in public, their information can be sourced to a report, an interview, a test, Twitter, etc. When people talk about how he treats his kids, it is speculation based on his travel, his failed marriages etc. The information cannot withstand scrutiny in the same way, as the proof lies behind closed doors. That's why I don't see its relevance to these threads. Now, if an ex-wife ever went public, it would be relevant as we would not just be speculating about private affairs. I like your Clinton comparison, but I think your Head of State belongs in many ways to the American people so his blow job breaks in the oval office that you built are fair game.

 

[Anonymous]

Reminds me of a guy who keeps getting banned from this forum.

Don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

From what I've seen, all of Armstrong's Xs don't have a bad word to say about him, so he seems to be able to split up with them on good terms, which is rare.

 

[Anonymous]

Holy crap do some people here have a hate-on for Lance. I mean, he's a sports star, not the Dalai Lama.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

AFLD Drug Bust Hair Salon

"I returned home that day after a long training ride to find a man chasing me as I rode up to the house. He stopped me and told me he was from the French laboratory and was here to test me. I had never heard of labs or governments doing drug testing and I had no idea who this guy was or whether he was telling the truth.

"I've been tested in-competition and out-of-competition by USADA, by WADA, by the UCI, and by testing authorities at all the events in which I have competed, but I was unaware that in France the government tests athletes and takes the position it can test any athlete residing in or visiting France. I also had never heard of a laboratory (as opposed to an anti-doping organization) sending testers to collect samples.

"We asked the tester for evidence of his authority. We looked at his papers but they were far from clear or impressive and we still had significant questions about who he was or for whom he worked. I was there with Johan Bruyneel and two other people. We told the tester we wanted to check with the UCI to confirm who he was and to make sure he wasn't just some French guy with a backpack and some equipment to take my blood and urine.

"Johan stayed with him and in his presence called the UCI to find out what was going on. We asked if it was OK for me to run inside and shower while they made their calls and the tester said that was fine.

"As soon as they completed the phone calls, which took about 20 minutes, we started the tests. Johan had confirmed with the UCI that the tester had authority from the French government to take samples. I immediately provided blood, urine and hair samples – all the samples that he requested, as he requested. All this was done within 20 minutes of returning home from my ride and finding the tester at my home.

"I did not try to evade or delay the testing process that day. I had just returned from an all day training session, wasn't sure who this French man at my home was, and as soon as the UCI confirmed that he was authorised to conduct the tests, I let him take all the samples he requested.

"The drug collection forms we both signed state that we started the testing just 20 minutes after I arrived home. In addition, the form asked the tester to state if there were any irregularities or further observations from the testing process and to that he wrote "no". I have learned that after the tests were all negative, the laboratory has now suggested that the 20-minute delay should be investigated.

"I find it amazing that I've been tested 24 times without incident and the first test I do in France results in more outrageous allegations and negative leaks to the press. This is just another example of the improper behaviour by the French laboratory and the French anti-doping organisations.

"I am sorry that they are disappointed that all the tests were negative, but I do not use any prohibited drugs or substances. As always, I'm available anytime and anywhere to be tested. It is this sort of behaviour that hurts the entire system and causes me and many other athletes to call for reforms in general and an improvement in the conduct of French laboratories and authorities in particular."

Sorry, I was reading about his hair and couldn't help it. Enjoy AFLD Hair Salon : http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/06/afld-afld-team-up-with-supercuts-for.html

 

[Mellow Velo]

Don't know what you're talking about.

Not surprising. You don't know what anyone is talking about.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Hard to take a debate seriously, when one of the main protagonist, once again uses Simeoni and Simoni as the interchangeable being.
Defines their knowledge of the sport and their position on the incident.

 

[issoisso]

Speaking of old cortisone neck, he says he'll stop publishing his blood values.

*Awaits ridiculous excuse fanboys will come up with*

 

[Bala Verde]

Speaking of old cortisone neck, he says he'll stop publishing his blood values.

*Awaits ridiculous excuse fanboys will come up with*

From that Reuters Source Mellow mentioned before:

Armstrong, who welcomed news the Giro d'Italia could start from Washington in 2012, also said he would end his independent doping controls and stop putting results online because they cause silly speculation and authorities test constantly anyway.

 

[Ferminal]

Not sure how you work that one out. If someone puts their family on their Christmas card then they're fair game?

But I actually agree that people should be allowed to talk about Armstrong's family. It reflects badly on them and their credibility, shows people what they're all about. They should be allowed to do that to themselves.

Hey Shark, who do you think will win the PGA at Coolum this weekend?

 

[buckwheat]

From what I've seen, all of Armstrong's Xs don't have a bad word to say about him, so he seems to be able to split up with them on good terms, which is rare.

Your naivete is very sweet.

Where is this utopia you live in that has done away with the concept of money?

The person(s) who've concocted this scheme must have been awarded Nobel Prizes for Peace and Economics!

 

[rhubroma]

Maybe I missed something, Did Garmin chase down George because he testified in a court case that Lance's "Coach" had helped him get EPO?

Armstrong chased down Simeoni, and Eki spit on him, for one reason. To try to shut him up. To enforce the Omerta. I am sure we can all agree there is little ethical about that.

Amen. It is incredible how little his fanboys actually know about cycling. And how they refuse to see anything devious in LA's character.

 

[franciep10]

I found this article on the Simeoni incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/jul/24/tourdefrance2004.tourdefrance1