• 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!

Hinault Taking a Shot at Armstrong

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
franciep10 said:
I hear what you're saying and I thought exactly the way you did about livestrong when my friend said his doctor contacted them, but then they started helping out with doctors finding great doctors that work with them so he get's a big discount in fees and when he couldn't pay they paid his doctor and hospital bills, they also helped my mom before she passed on. Now I don't believe what armstrong says I don't like what he does on the bike and I know livestrong is a business and like most they'll do just about anything for money, but nonetheless. I appreciate Livestrong not LA.

And I can appreciate your response and reasoning.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
2
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
i thought hinaults comments about lance where completely uninteresting compared with his comments about french riders etc...

nobody got any thoughts on those.. bunch of lazy bhastards he seemed to imply they where..

I brought that up but nobody cared.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Imagine this though, what if he had kept the last name on his birth certificate, Gunderson. "Liveunderson" just doesn't have that PAZZAZ now does it? I will give the guy one thing, he is lucky.

Most likely would of been "LiveSon".
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
but anyway..

i thought hinaults comments about lance where completely uninteresting compared with his comments about french riders etc...

nobody got any thoughts on those.. bunch of lazy bhastards he seemed to imply they where..

Well why would we complain about that? Forward that to the French division of this forum and I think you'd of gotten a response. :D
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
franciep10 said:
Listen this is the one thing that I detest with you guys, whatever the man has done in his racing career, I appreciate Livestrong, I appreciate what it has done to help my best friend and mother so you talk about you want to puke when you see a band that's ridiculous, fine he's an *** he has contributed to destroying cycling but I appreciate Livestrong, hell I own a livestong band not in support of him but in acknowledgment to what they have done for my family and freinds.

I agree, ANY help that goes towards battling cancer is considered a good thing in my book. My wife wears a livestrong band to this day. I haven't heard any negative comments about it at all, in fact, she receives quite a bit of positive feedback for wearing it. Quite a few people have told us how they have given to the Livestrong cause, as we have in my mothers memory (she lost her battle with the disease). Please don't give me the 45% goes to administrative costs either, as far as I am concerned 55% of the money it has raised is better than 100% of the complaining I see here.
 
slowoldman said:
Please don't give me the 45% goes to administrative costs either, as far as I am concerned 55% of the money it has raised is better than 100% of the complaining I see here.

Why not? 45% being siphoned off is a huge percentage. It is at the very high end of most charities. When I give money I expect the most possible to go to the cause, not to an administrator's fat salary and payments for first class plane flights and cushy hotels.

Despite anything that Livestrong has done, it it clear that Armstrong intends to turn Livestrong into a global sports brand. That means dollars in his pocket. What percentage does Nike own? What percentage does Armstrong own? What percent of sales will go to cancer causes? Where do the profits go? It looks like a cynical scam to me, the same way telling everyone he is riding for free to promote cancer awareness and then pocketing millions of dollars in start fees.

Hopefully Walsh and Ballester's new book will shed light on this.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
COLIN LAING said:
It also annoyed me that after watching an excellent track-meet, I realised why almost all the athletes wore yellow , A close-up shot then informed me of the LIVESTRONG LOGO,,,it very nearly made me send back my yellow, plastic wrist band, except I didn't buy one in the first place...

Maybe they were just looking for a well paying day job?

What's the next fad? A wristband with "I need a girlfriend that looks like my mother" on it?
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Why not? 45% being siphoned off is a huge percentage. It is at the very high end of most charities. When I give money I expect the most possible to go to the cause, not to an administrator's fat salary and payments for first class plane flights and cushy hotels.

Despite anything that Livestrong has done, it it clear that Armstrong intends to turn Livestrong into a global sports brand. That means dollars in his pocket. What percentage does Nike own? What percentage does Armstrong own? What percent of sales will go to cancer causes? Where do the profits go? It looks like a cynical scam to me, the same way telling everyone he is riding for free to promote cancer awareness and then pocketing millions of dollars in start fees.

Hopefully Walsh and Ballester's new book will shed light on this.

Why not? Because the 55% is a huge amount of money anyway, it helps tremendously.

Why did I know that you would respond?:rolleyes: It must be a cynical scam, you say so...

One more time, yes, things could be better, they could also be quite a bit worse. What if he never set up the charity? How many MILLIONS wouldn't have gone to cancer research, help for victims, etc...

I will accept the 55% happily right now as it is doing such good for many, many people. Your complaining, not so much.

If you set up a charitable cause that brings in MILLIONS to your cause, you could take 45% I would give you credit then too, as the 55% would still be helping the people you intended and they would be better off because of it.

I would also think people that insult your efforts might seem to be a little obsessed with bringing you down.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
I am a little cynical about Hinault bagging on french riders. It sounds a little like Armstrong building himself up by telling everyone how much harder he trains than everyone else.
Except Hinault is very retired and was a hugely superior rider to LA on all levels.
 
grimpeur said:
Except Hinault is very retired and was a hugely superior rider to LA on all levels.

Of course he was. That does not mean he cannot make himself (and his generation) look better by dissing the current generation. Then again, maybe he is right and the french riders are lazy and only concerned about being the first french rider over the line.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
slowoldman said:
I agree, ANY help that goes towards battling cancer is considered a good thing in my book. My wife wears a livestrong band to this day. I haven't heard any negative comments about it at all, in fact, she receives quite a bit of positive feedback for wearing it. Quite a few people have told us how they have given to the Livestrong cause, as we have in my mothers memory (she lost her battle with the disease). Please don't give me the 45% goes to administrative costs either, as far as I am concerned 55% of the money it has raised is better than 100% of the complaining I see here.

Why did you donate the money to Livestrong? I ask because Livestrong does little to support cancer research. It does a lot to support people through the treatment process, particularly acting as an advocate for people who are not aware of the treatment options and trials available. You can understand why Lance concentrates on the latter after reading his first book. I think it is important to support the causes you believe in and you've obviously been affected by cancer very personally. I also think it is important to contribute for the right reasons. There are a lot more deserving foundations out there if you want your donations to go towards research, but Livestrong probably does the best job in providing support and advice for people trying to decide their best treatment options.
 
slowoldman said:
I agree, ANY help that goes towards battling cancer is considered a good thing in my book. My wife wears a livestrong band to this day. I haven't heard any negative comments about it at all, in fact, she receives quite a bit of positive feedback for wearing it. Quite a few people have told us how they have given to the Livestrong cause, as we have in my mothers memory (she lost her battle with the disease). Please don't give me the 45% goes to administrative costs either, as far as I am concerned 55% of the money it has raised is better than 100% of the complaining I see here.

I have a cousin who is a testicular cancer survivor, like Armstrong, yet I don't use him as a n alibi to blur my judgement about Livestrong which is a corporate fad nothing more, invented by someone, who, in my opinion, has the indecentsy to (and because he is a cancer survivor) have coopted the cancer community to further his political goals and to cover up his career.

I realize that mine is a most unpopular impression, because who the **** am I to view with such cynicism something which does so much good in providing so much hope for so many suffering people? Well, the way I see it is that Livestrong doesn't provide any real hope to anybody. Not one person has been saved by his corpoarate cause and I frankly doubt anybody will, whereas what it has done to Armstrong's image is immense within the ignorant masses. Because of it nobody will ever nail the ******* for obscene doping in his career. How could they? They would be deluding all those poor suffering who are afflicted with a horrible disease. And it will probably help a man with a huge narcissistic complex become a major political force in future US politics, if this is what he chooses.

That so many have praised him for his "good work" and do not see any conveinence in it for his financial and political goals, nor any serious character flaws in a man who has doped throughout his entire career, lied about it, continues to do during his comeback and has attached anyone who dared to have tried to break the omerta which covers up a major problem in the sport: does not surprise in the least in today's world where commercialism and corporate propaganda have turned the vast majority of society into a flock of sheep, who, incapable of using their own brains to elaborate one critical thought, prefer to be led by the latest Good Shepherd figurhead who can do their thinking for them. It's easier that way. Less messy. And it can just go with the flow without rocking the boat.

The truth is that the cancer community deserves a better representative. But people prefer believing in myths than incovenient realities.
 
Mar 20, 2009
63
0
0
Visit site
rhubroma said:
a man who has doped throughout his entire career

Technically, I think he rode without modern help at first - at least according to the Swart interview. But yes I agree - he is an enormously unpleasant man who isn't afraid of a load of sanctimonious rubbish. Hinault, on the other hand, was an enormously unpleasant man whose antics were hugely entertaining and I'd pay good money to see him plant one on LAS this July.
 
I think a lot of younger people don't realize just how much of a powerhouse Hinault was. He's pretty much the second best bike racer ever, behind Merckx. Hinault won everything, in every way, and was a great team leader by all accords. And he rode in an era with some very talented competition, often crushing them.

All I can say on the other debate going on here is that if I were to donate to cancer research, I'd give to the American Cancer Society before Livestrong. But that's just me.

I'm not a wealthy man, at all, but I have donated quite a bit of money (for me anyway) to another very noble cause, from a much more heroic bike racer in my eyes, the Davis Phinney Foundation. Shame more people don't know about this, or Davis.

phinneytoft87alt.jpg
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
Even if you are a huge fan of Lance... Or Lance himself let me just get this out...

Hinault wants to see every team with talented riders have a shot! Not every team can get a packed refill (500cc of pure red cells) before the TTT and ride completely JACKED with a 57% bloody crit... Or for any key stage. Also, Lances natural V02 max now is 78-80... EVERYBODY talented riders can all get this...

If Lance had to ride the Tour clean against other clean riders he wouldnt stand an F-ing chance in hell agains Basso and Contador who have clean V02 maxes 10 points higher... He'd probably not be top 30 places even with adrenocorticotrophic hormone, HGH, insulin and 02 carriers....

WHAT A JOKE! And yet Lance is rated in the top 10 alongside Hinault, Merckx, Coppi, true freaks of nature. What a disgrace!!

So what makes you think the likes of Hinault, Coppi etc. are freaks of nature? Any evidence to back up your ramblings? If so, fair play to you.

whiteboytrash said:
I like Roger Federer. He is the greatest tennis player of all time. Does it with dignity, does it with panache and respects all his fellow players. He smashes them all on the court but is the nicest guy in tennis. Probably the best sportsman ever. Just proves you don’t need to be a khunt to win.

From what I've heard Federer is just as corrupt.

whiteboytrash said:
The chic Federer is banging is much better than any of ths skank Armstrong's been through. The guy is a legend.

Federer once said: "Its nice to be important but its much more important to be nice".

I saw him win the French Open at the weekend and Big Rog spoke French for the post match interview....... Big Austin would never do that !

Actually during the 2005 -preTour presentation, he actually spoke in French.

Alpe d'Huez said:
I think a lot of younger people don't realize just how much of a powerhouse Hinault was. He's pretty much the second best bike racer ever, behind Merckx. Hinault won everything, in every way, and was a great team leader by all accords. And he rode in an era with some very talented competition, often crushing them.

All I can say on the other debate going on here is that if I were to donate to cancer research, I'd give to the American Cancer Society before Livestrong. But that's just me.

I'm not a wealthy man, at all, but I have donated quite a bit of money (for me anyway) to another very noble cause, from a much more heroic bike racer in my eyes, the Davis Phinney Foundation. Shame more people don't know about this, or Davis.

phinneytoft87alt.jpg

Won't see me disagreeing.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
craig1985 said:
From what I've heard Federer is just as corrupt.

I know this isn't a tennis forum, but Craig1985 you have to back this statement with references or links. 99.9% of people are going to disagree with you on this one.
 
craig1985 said:
So what makes you think the likes of Hinault, Coppi etc. are freaks of nature? Any evidence to back up your ramblings? If so, fair play to you.

There was not the science to create such outliers on the performance graph back then.

Sure you could take something to numb the pain, something up make you subjectively feel like you were stronger.

Your VO2 max was fixed back then though.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
davidg said:
I think it has been misquoted.

"What a vainqueur, ..doesnt buy you common cents"

which before the Euro of course it would have bought Hinault French Francs. So nothing inflammatory at all really. :D

Nice spin! I think you should pursue that public relations position that Armstrong will have opening in July.
 
craig1985 said:
So what makes you think the likes of Hinault, Coppi etc. are freaks of nature? Any evidence to back up your ramblings? If so, fair play to you.



From what I've heard Federer is just as corrupt.



Actually during the 2005 -preTour presentation, he actually spoke in French.



Won't see me disagreeing.
According to this interview he had a VO2 max of 93. I am not sure what Armstrong VO2 max is but I think is around 80.

http://www.gitaneusa.com/Hinault.asp
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
Why did you donate the money to Livestrong? I ask because Livestrong does little to support cancer research. It does a lot to support people through the treatment process, particularly acting as an advocate for people who are not aware of the treatment options and trials available. You can understand why Lance concentrates on the latter after reading his first book. I think it is important to support the causes you believe in and you've obviously been affected by cancer very personally. I also think it is important to contribute for the right reasons. There are a lot more deserving foundations out there if you want your donations to go towards research, but Livestrong probably does the best job in providing support and advice for people trying to decide their best treatment options.

I have given to other cancer charities too, it is not exclusive to Livestrong. City of Hope did wonders for my family when dealing with the disease. Hospice services too, they are angels whose work has to be seen to be believed.

rhubroma said:
I have a cousin who is a testicular cancer survivor, like Armstrong, yet I don't use him as a n alibi to blur my judgement about Livestrong which is a corporate fad nothing more, invented by someone, who, in my opinion, has the indecentsy to (and because he is a cancer survivor) have coopted the cancer community to further his political goals and to cover up his career.

I realize that mine is a most unpopular impression, because who the **** am I to view with such cynicism something which does so much good in providing so much hope for so many suffering people? Well, the way I see it is that Livestrong doesn't provide any real hope to anybody. Not one person has been saved by his corpoarate cause and I frankly doubt anybody will, whereas what it has done to Armstrong's image is immense within the ignorant masses. Because of it nobody will ever nail the ******* for obscene doping in his career. How could they? They would be deluding all those poor suffering who are afflicted with a horrible disease. And it will probably help a man with a huge narcissistic complex become a major political force in future US politics, if this is what he chooses.

That so many have praised him for his "good work" and do not see any conveinence in it for his financial and political goals, nor any serious character flaws in a man who has doped throughout his entire career, lied about it, continues to do during his comeback and has attached anyone who dared to have tried to break the omerta which covers up a major problem in the sport: does not surprise in the least in today's world where commercialism and corporate propaganda have turned the vast majority of society into a flock of sheep, who, incapable of using their own brains to elaborate one critical thought, prefer to be led by the latest Good Shepherd figurhead who can do their thinking for them. It's easier that way. Less messy. And it can just go with the flow without rocking the boat.

The truth is that the cancer community deserves a better representative. But people prefer believing in myths than incovenient realities.


I tend to look at it another way, I see someone who is doing some good with what he was given to work with (atheletic celebrity). Who are you to say NO ONE has been helped. That is quite a statement. In fact, I would guarantee, that quite a few have indeed been helped. I do think your judgement is clouded, just as you accuse others, just in the opposite way.

My son is undergoing tests right now to see if he has testicular cancer. He has already talked about "Lance", you know what, it has helped already. So I don't delude myself into thinking anything, I have personal experience to base my judgment on.

As far as his sporting achievements, he probably cheated. As far as omerta, he is one of many, Armstrong couldn't have broken it in 1999, or in 2009. He would have been castigated as all are. He is very narcissitic. With regard to political aspirations, I could care less if he heads in that direction. I can tell you by what I have heard, I wouldn't vote for him so it really has no effect on me one way or the other. I honestly don't see the problem people have with it. In fact, all of you that hate Armstrong should probably encourage it, as he will be torn apart by "investigative reporting" then the truth you all so long for will be out there.

Does the cancer community need a better spokesperson? Absolutely, it can always use better and more voices. I think people will just take the help they can get when fighting such a horrible disease.
 
slowoldman said:
I have given to other cancer charities too, it is not exclusive to Livestrong. City of Hope did wonders for my family when dealing with the disease. Hospice services too, they are angels whose work has to be seen to be believed.




I tend to look at it another way, I see someone who is doing some good with what he was given to work with (atheletic celebrity). Who are you to say NO ONE has been helped. That is quite a statement. In fact, I would guarantee, that quite a few have indeed been helped. I do think your judgement is clouded, just as you accuse others, just in the opposite way.

My son is undergoing tests right now to see if he has testicular cancer. He has already talked about "Lance", you know what, it has helped already. So I don't delude myself into thinking anything, I have personal experience to base my judgment on.

As far as his sporting achievements, he probably cheated. As far as omerta, he is one of many, Armstrong couldn't have broken it in 1999, or in 2009. He would have been castigated as all are. He is very narcissitic. With regard to political aspirations, I could care less if he heads in that direction. I can tell you by what I have heard, I wouldn't vote for him so it really has no effect on me one way or the other. I honestly don't see the problem people have with it. In fact, all of you that hate Armstrong should probably encourage it, as he will be torn apart by "investigative reporting" then the truth you all so long for will be out there.

Does the cancer community need a better spokesperson? Absolutely, it can always use better and more voices. I think people will just take the help they can get when fighting such a horrible disease.

I wish all the best to your son for a full recovery. But my judgments in this regard aren't clouded, no, quite to the contrary. To fully be aware of why I don't support Livestrong, and never will, read my statement on another thread (Walsh Book/Armstrong etc.).

The problem is the man has public and political ambitions. He supports the omerta covering doping in cycling. He is in this sense part of the cycling mafia. And any mafioso is not fit for a political career. He needs to be stopped. And Livestrong is the launching pad for his future in politics. That's the real issue.