Brad's tribute to Lance

[Altitude]

Novitzky could care less about cycling. He hates fraud.

You mean he couldn't care less

 

[BotanyBay]

You mean he couldn't care less

 

[flicker]

Novitzky could care less about cycling. He hates fraud.

Dang it and he hates what happened to Judy Garland and Liza Minnelli you bet rootin tootin!!

 

[flicker]

Novitzky could care less about cycling. He hates fraud.

Dang is that tin-tin playing the wizard of Oz? Is that gizmo-meter tin-tin is studying the dopometer that can tell if Novitzky can cross the Madiot-line of Omerta?

 

[rhubroma]

Let's say for the sake of argument we throw away a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence. There's still the fact that Lance won most of his tours by minutes. (save 2003) At times, he could have attacked to gain even more time. He focussed on the Tour only, had a strong team, etc. but he was in the range of 5-10% better than the competition...most of whom are known dopers. If you can believe that Lance is that far superior to the competition clean, okay, end of discussion. I have nothing more to add.

A recently posted interview with Joe Papp stated, "A certain percentage of the public will believe you're clean no matter what the evidence." I think there are still quarters where Tyler Hamilton, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are defended.

In other words: where faith or ideology are involved, reason is useless.

Such people as SC1990 will believe that the sky is actually purple with pink polka dots if they are told so by the right source. Nevermind that for even them it appears blue.

No what's really pathetic, is how such people totally sucumb to the persona or storyline of another and, not being able to think for themselves, prefer to have someone else (or institution) do their thinking for them which is embarassing.

 

[SC1990]

I'd bother to reply properly but evidently a judgement on my life, personality and intelligence has already been made form about 25 lines of text on a cycling forum, which sort of illustrates my point.

 

[L'arriviste]

I'd bother to reply properly but evidently a judgement on my life, personality and intelligence has already been made form about 25 lines of text on a cycling forum, which sort of illustrates my point.

Sorry you feel like that. Re-reading the threads I can understand what you mean.

I will just say that I'm cynical about Armstrong getting a two-page mention and an appearance on the cover (I've seen another version which shows Wiggins alone) as a means of selling more copies. Not because LA is guilty of this or that but because LA is LA. This may not be correct but it would turn me off of buying a copy this Christmas (and as a consumer I'm allowed, nay, encouraged to be a cretin).

You may see what I mean if you remember This Is Your Life when, on some occasions, they would get young folks in who had barely been on this planet five minutes only to have their life stories - short as they were so far - peddled for the advert-watching viewers. It just smacked of something too commercial for my tastes and I have always kind of thought that books should offer lessons for posterity.

Anyway, stick with the forum and keep posting. It is worthwhile.

 

[thingswelike]

First of all. The cover shown is from his previous book. Not the one we're discussing.

Personally, I put myself in the position of a young rider who saw Armstrong during the late nineties and early naughties and though "I want to be him". There must be a lot of them in the current pro peloton.

You put him up there as your goal (without knowing what he's up to) and then the information starts to slowly come out.
I can imagine it's very difficult to balance the feeling of being inspired throughout your career by this person and the realisation that maybe he doesn't deserve it.

It's a lot easier from this outside position to suggest he should do this or that, but for someone who actually knows Lance and has spoken to him and admired him, it must be far more difficult.
Whatever we ultimately find out about Lance, doesn't undo all the motivation and inspiration he's provided for up-and-coming riders.

Just like it's difficult for me to see Pantani as anything other than inspirational because of the emotions I felt at the time.

 

[thehog]

First of all. The cover shown is from his previous book. Not the one we're discussing.

Personally, I put myself in the position of a young rider who saw Armstrong during the late nineties and early naughties and though "I want to be him". There must be a lot of them in the current pro peloton.

Brad is not young. But right you are. I want to be Armstrong: http://www.gossipcop.com/tony-parke...armstrong-cheating-cheated-affair-infidelity/

 

[rhubroma]

I'd bother to reply properly but evidently a judgement on my life, personality and intelligence has already been made form about 25 lines of text on a cycling forum, which sort of illustrates my point.

No all that this illustrates is that any reasoned analysis of Mr. Armstrong's case is simply beyond those in need of a reality check. In light of all the evidence about doping practices in cycling over past two decades (and his own 6 positives at the 99 Tour), any claims to the man's innocence while branding all those who pronounce him guilty (including a former teammate) as "haters" and "propagandists," can only come from one who is blind and deluded and who thus sets himself up to be ridiculed. But that isn' the fault of seeing, but of the aggressive nonsense spewn forth and directed at us by the one who is living in the dark.

 

[andy1234]

*** edited by mod***

 

[rhubroma]

*** edited by mod ****

If there's anyhting to reproach you and your kind about, it isn't your ideas, however eccentric and poorly written they may be. It's that you have put an otherwise well written forum at the disposition poorly written cause: namely Armstrong's.

Wiggins is guilty of the same offense in his book.

 

[Benotti69]

Hi mate, Let me help you out here.
...........

*** edited by mod ***

and so on....

hasn't stopped you coming back and talking about it all the time....

got anything interesting to say about doping in cycling that is not related to Armstrong then start your own thread and ask mods to keep it on topic.

 

[andy1234]

hasn't stopped you coming back and talking about it all the time....

Got anything interesting to say about doping in cycling that is not related to armstrong then start your own thread and ask mods to keep it on topic.

bla bla bla

I didn't say it did, just stating a fact.
Your also missing the point. EVERY thread turns into one about Armstrong....

 

[andy1234]

If there's anyhting to reproach you and your kind about, it isn't your ideas, however eccentric and poorly written they may be. It's that you have put an otherwise well written forum at the disposition poorly written cause: namely Armstrong's.

Wiggins is guilty of the same offense in his book.

See highlighted....

 

[Big Doopie]

and now gesink and breukink are being supportive of contador. gesink at least says that -- if guilty -- contador should be suspended. but he says so because "there are rules after all" not because "he cheated". he gives the feeling that okay the rules have to be obeyed -- not, man that guy cheated and robbed other riders. he then goes on to say that he hopes contador comes back as he is the most talented rider. which begs the question -- how does he know that? if contador doped, and most likely blood doped, how can anyone say that he is then still the most talented...?

the only reason is that gesink, like all the other contenders simply know that to contend at a three week tour you are all blood doping...

don't they realize that when they say these things, rather than making the public/fan feel better about the sport, it shines transparency on how corrupt they all are...

 

[patricknd]

See highlighted....

it's not his fault, he thinks in multiple languages

 

[pmcg76]

bla bla bla

I didn't say it did, just stating a fact.
Your also missing the point. EVERY thread turns into one about Armstrong....

No, every thread you read turns into an Armstrong thread becuase those are the only threads you guys read. I have rarely seen the Lance defenders post anywhere else in the forum other than on the Lance threads and they then always make the same claim.

Armstrong is the epicentre of doping, just look Heras, Hamilton, Landis, Contador, Vaughters, Watson, McQuaid, UCI all have direct links with Lance so its hard to ignore the obvious.

 

[SC1990]

For the record, I never called anyone propogandists, and if you'd bothered to read the point, you'd have seen that the reference to 'haters' was in reference to the interent, not Armstrong.

But tell you what, seeing as I'm apparently so blind and will believe the 'sky is purple' despite such 'overwhelming evidence' - convince me! I'll go from a blank slate and you can provide me with the evidence that Armstrong has taken drugs, note, evidence, not just some speculation off the back of a blog, or what someone alleges, but something backed up by more then one respectable source. Obviously i'll play devils advocate, but hey, you can prove the superiority complex you all seem to hold over anyone who doesnt agree with your opinion, and then maybe by the end you can send the log off to Notizky and he can use it...

 

[rhubroma]

See highlighted....

Fair enough, let's try that again:

If there's anything to reproach you and your kind about it isn't your ideas, however eccentric and weirdly thought out they may be. It's that you have put an otherwise well written forum at the disposition of a poorly written cause: namely Armstrong's.

Wiggins is guilty of the same offense in his book.

 

[sniper]

For the record, I never called anyone propogandists, and if you'd bothered to read the point, you'd have seen that the reference to 'haters' was in reference to the interent, not Armstrong.

But tell you what, seeing as I'm apparently so blind and will believe the 'sky is purple' despite such 'overwhelming evidence' - convince me! I'll go from a blank slate and you can provide me with the evidence that Armstrong has taken drugs, note, evidence, not just some speculation off the back of a blog, or what someone alleges, but something backed up by more then one respectable source. Obviously i'll play devils advocate, but hey, you can prove the superiority complex you all seem to hold over anyone who doesnt agree with your opinion, and then maybe by the end you can send the log off to Notizky and he can use it...

why? you wouldn'T recognize an argument even if it is standing in front of you with a nameplate that says "I'm an ARGUMENT".

 

[L'arriviste]

But tell you what, seeing as I'm apparently so blind and will believe the 'sky is purple' despite such 'overwhelming evidence' - convince me! I'll go from a blank slate and you can provide me with the evidence that Armstrong has taken drugs, note, evidence, not just some speculation off the back of a blog, or what someone alleges, but something backed up by more then one respectable source.

why? you wouldn'T recognize an argument even if it is standing in front of you with a nameplate that says "I'm an ARGUMENT".

Let's all stick to the topic, shall we?

 

[VeloCity]

bla bla bla

I didn't say it did, just stating a fact.
Your also missing the point. EVERY thread turns into one about Armstrong....

You guys just see what you want to see, and what you want to see is Everything Armstrong. Take the f**king blinkers off.

 

[VeloCity]

but something backed up by more then one respectable source.

I guess that leads to the obvious question: what, exactly, then constitutes a "respectable source"?

 

[rhubroma]

For the record, I never called anyone propogandists, and if you'd bothered to read the point, you'd have seen that the reference to 'haters' was in reference to the interent, not Armstrong.

But tell you what, seeing as I'm apparently so blind and will believe the 'sky is purple' despite such 'overwhelming evidence' - convince me! I'll go from a blank slate and you can provide me with the evidence that Armstrong has taken drugs, note, evidence, not just some speculation off the back of a blog, or what someone alleges, but something backed up by more then one respectable source. Obviously i'll play devils advocate, but hey, you can prove the superiority complex you all seem to hold over anyone who doesnt agree with your opinion, and then maybe by the end you can send the log off to Notizky and he can use it...

Like I said, SC1990, there's no point in trying to convince you. Probably even if Lance came out and said he doped to the whole universe, you would still cry foul play, conspiracy, manipulation, etc.

But you obviously don't know anything about cycling. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to educate you here. I've lived and raced in Italy for many years. I dont think I'm superior to anyone, but I've been around, have seen a lot of things, talked with a lot of people with more direct knowledge than me regarding the subject and so have drawn my own conclusion, like many others with similar experiences on this site.

But if you want hard evidence we have it: 6 positives from the 99 Tour. Plus loads of circumstantial evidence and, now, a devestating confession from a former teammate about systematic doping, bribery and corruption that happend for years on US Postal. We also have eye witness testimony from Betsy Andreu regarding Lance's own admission about the PEDs he took during his early career spoken to his cancer doctor.

But I know, none of this means anything to you. So like I said, keep enjoying that psychodelic sky. Evidently it's much more interesting and comforting to you than the plain truth. In any case there is a significant chance that the Fed investigation is about to change those crazy colors of yours in the celestial sphere. Whether or not that will change your mind, however, leaves me with serious doubts.

Ciao bello.