Armstrong wins because he trains harder/smarter . . . not doping

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
beroepsrenner said:
If someone is facing death by a possibly incurable disease what harm canbe done by receiving inspiration from a high profile person who beat the same odds. Yes some of Armstrongs motivation comes from his own ego. SO WHAT? Its not for you and I to condemn him for it. As I've said elsewhere on this forum all the negative sentiment directed at him is nothing more than the tall poppy syndrome at work.
Oh I see, in his own ego it looks good.

The reality is he's Jacked through the 84th floor Dr. Ferrari suppository.... If Lance had not been more scientifically doped than 95% of his rivals he would never have won a single Tour. He wouldnt have gotten so much as a one liner on ESPN in the fall of 1998.

People look for "hope" and "inspiration". WHERE is that? Surely not from his sporting "accomplishments." Lance survived his cancer. He survived, many people do in today's day and age.
 
beroepsrenner said:
If someone is facing death by a possibly incurable disease what harm canbe done by receiving inspiration from a high profile person who beat the same odds. Yes some of Armstrongs motivation comes from his own ego. SO WHAT? Its not for you and I to condemn him for it. As I've said elsewhere on this forum all the negative sentiment directed at him is nothing more than the tall poppy syndrome at work.
Well the issue for us isn't whether or not his cancer thing helps the sick, I for one believe that it does not: but rather it's function as propaganda to advance his public image by coopting the cancer community. Lance has huge transparency and ethical issues because of his cycling career, and in my book isn't worthy of the favorable light the cancer foundation has cast him in. Because he is a liar, but also a fraud for lying about his doping, while additionally being corrupt for having protected the omertà in the Simeoni affair. This last point is his most serious offense. He simply isn't worth the public accolades he receives from people who don't know anything about pro cycling. And rather than Lance serving the cancer community, it is they who are serving him.

This is also demonstrated by the terrible 3 rating (the lowest possible score) the independent US agency that monitors the non-profit organizations has given Livestrong, where very little money that it brings in actually makes it to the cancer world.
 
beroepsrenner said:
This is without doubt the most ilinformed trash I have ever heard, obviously written by an armchair expert with no knowledge of doping other than heresay and the garbage put out by the media.
Ahhh, I see that no one has shown you how the "ignore" feature works. :)

Seriously, good post. The only point I disagree on is that it's my believe that the higher up the ladder, the better and more refined the gear, which is a level where I'm critical of LA. But I do understand your posts here, and elsewhere, and will credit LA for the fact that he's completely driven, a very worthy trait in this business.

BigB, remember this is a perception game. Sort of like politics. If a lot of those cancer patients think that Lance is a hero, even though there's a real thin curtain over it you see behind, a lot of people don't, and find hope in that. Though I agree with Rhubroma on true values of non-profits. I want a non-profit where when I look into it, I don't have to question anything, and don't feel like there's something else there. It's usually a cause I can give to with zero hesitation, regardless if I've been personally affected by it or not. This is why when I give it's usually to a real, true blue American cycling hero, Freddie Hoffman's cause for Leukemia and Lymphoma. I don't have to wonder for a second about his aspirations, and have no questions on his intentions for even one second. Or I give to the Davis Phinney Foundation, as Davis was my favorite cyclist, and still deeply affected by his illness. I haven't seen one shred that Davis is trying to profit, or has at all, from this foundation.
 
Jul 9, 2009
37
0
0
beroepsrenner said:
This is without doubt the most ilinformed trash I have ever heard, obviously written by an armchair expert with no knowledge of doping other than heresay and the garbage put out by the media. Every pro cyclist originally got to that level because he was an exceptional athlete. Without first having the natural ability and then doing the training required, no drug is going to make you perform. All doping does is give the extra edge required. I tried the lot and while yes it gave me strength and endurance beyond what i could achieve from training alone it made no difference at all to my results. Most cyclists I raced with at pro level did so simply to cope with the constant demands placed upon them to get results and to stand up to the constant workload of racing for 9 or 10 months of the year. While I agree that armstrongs results come first and foremost from ability and training, to assume that he has never used performance enhanceing substances would be a little naive. It makes no difference to his results one way or the other.
Thank you!;)
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
lance has great natural talent and is very hard worker. he is also a liar and a doper. same as 1000s of other pro athletes in various sports.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS