How to co-exist with a LA fanboy??

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Escarabajo said:
There was a Colombian involved too. Nobody even cared because it was a low profile rider. I don't remember the number but there were quite a few including the Spanish Manuel Beltran. It would have been basically impossible to pick Armstrong samples. You would actually had to know the other riders codes from the UCI and know how much to spike each one. And remember that you would have to do this gradually because there was a perfect doping pattern in Armstrong samples.

The reason that Bo's results were known was because the media reported the riders who had been tested at the prolouge. It was the first stage and they had the list, as usual, outside the testing RV so the riders knew who had to come in for randoms.

All the samples from the prologue were positive so it was easy to figure out.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Race Radio said:
The reason that Bo's results were known was because the media reported the riders who had been tested at the prolouge. It was the first stage and they had the list, as usual, outside the testing RV so the riders knew who had to come in for randoms.

All the samples from the prologue were positive so it was easy to figure out.

Who were the riders? (besides the top three that were mandatory at the time)
 
ImmaculateKadence said:
Thanks. I typically try to avoid Lance discussions, but sometimes I can't help myself :eek: Maybe one day I'll learn.

Immaculate, its a common misconception of Lance supporters that all the other posters on here have it in for just Lance when it comes to doping. Not true, Ask most of these same guys if they think Contador, the Schlecks, Sastre and others are doping or doped and most of them believe they too are, so its not just Lance and most of those guys have far less evidence against them than there is against Lance.

In the 20 years that I have followed the sport, no athlete has singularly used PR and the media as Lance has(well perhaps Cipo but that was more self promotion). The point is that Lances backstory brought him to the attention of the mainstream media which is less interested in the details rather than the story and due to this, the myths surrounding Lance have been spread to the masses and Lance has done an admirable job in using these sources. Lets be honest, very few mainstream papers have dedicated cycling reporters in the English speaking countries so they dont look at things in depth.

In my opinion, Lance fed into the paranoid, siege mentality of early 00s mainstream US to fuel the conspiracy theories when anything was thrown against him. If Contador or the other guys I mentioned were in the same position as Lance in 2005 regarding the EPO in the samples, the posters here would still have no doubt about the guilt of the athlete. Would you still hold to your belief if it was anybody else?

If you spend time in the Clinic, you will realise there are different views on doping. There are those who believe everybody is doped regardless of whether there is any evidence or not. They believe doping is so ingrained in pro cycling that its normal to assume eveybody is dirty until proven otherwise.

Then there is a group who believe that doping is a problem in the sport but reserve judgement until there is some form of evidence against an athlete. Does not have to be a positive test, could be like the Lance case or the Puerto file or suspicious blood profiles or sudden performances. This group recognise that people could be doping but until there is some form of evidence, its unfair to point fingers.


There is a small percentage who believe fullproof evidence or positive tests are necessary before accusing people. I think most people who followed the sport pre 98 would have fallen into this category but are now in the other two categories.

I sometimes wonder if there is any mentality differences of the cycling fans who lived through the whole Festina affair in 98 and those who came to the sport during the Lance era. Would be an interesting study. Judging from the people on here, I dont think there is any poster who was following the sport before 98 that believes Lance was/is clean. I stand to be corrected on that though.
 
issoisso said:
Who were the riders? (besides the top three that were mandatory at the time)

Was Jose Castelblanco(Kelme rider) the Colombian, not 100% sure. Ironic that Beltran eventually was caught for doping and Hamburger was the first to fail the EPO test but escaped on a technicality and Kelme were the team at the epcentre of the Manzano testimony and Puerto investigation.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Was Jose Castelblanco(Kelme rider) the Colombian, not 100% sure. Ironic that Beltran eventually was caught for doping and Hamburger was the first to fail the EPO test but escaped on a technicality and Kelme were the team at the epcentre of the Manzano testimony and Puerto investigation.

Thanks for that :)
 
Mar 17, 2009
157
0
0
Race Radio said:
I see, so now the French and the UCI are working together in this great conspiracy to take down Armstrong. That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

:confused: That's not what I said. I never claimed there was conspiracy. All I said was that it was possible that two individuals shared information. I do not believe the UCI as an organization deliberately leaked info. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
pmcg76 said:
Was Jose Castelblanco(Kelme rider) the Colombian, not 100% sure. Ironic that Beltran eventually was caught for doping and Hamburger was the first to fail the EPO test but escaped on a technicality and Kelme were the team at the epcentre of the Manzano testimony and Puerto investigation.

Don't forget that Hamburger admitted that he used EPO after he retired.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Murray said:
:confused: That's not what I said. I never claimed there was conspiracy. All I said was that it was possible that two individuals shared information. I do not believe the UCI as an organization deliberately leaked info. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

?
Let me know where I have this wrong. You are saying that someone from the LNDD had an inside person at the UCI (Even thought they hate each other) who risked their career to leak Armstrong's forms?

These forms were then used to tamper with Armstrong's samples in such a way that the levels reflect the standard doping practices at the time....something experts in the field say is close to impossible. Of course any tampering can be easily proved with a DNA test....something Armstrong refuses to do because as he says "There is no doubt the samples are mine"

You are talking about a conspiracy involving someone at the UCI and multiple people at LNDD. Conspiracy is the only word that fits.

It is a pretty wild theory that is completely unsupported by the facts or evidence.
 
Race Radio said:
?
Let me know where I have this wrong. You are saying that someone from the LNDD had an inside person at the UCI (Even thought they hate each other) who risked their career to leak Armstrong's forms?

These forms were then used to tamper with Armstrong's samples in such a way that the levels reflect the standard doping practices at the time....something experts in the field say is close to impossible. Of course any tampering can be easily proved with a DNA test....something Armstrong refuses to do because as he says "There is no doubt the samples are mine"

You are talking about a conspiracy involving someone at the UCI and multiple people at LNDD. Conspiracy is the only word that fits.

It is a pretty wild theory that is completely unsupported by the facts or evidence.

Yes but it's the best theory they have, so they're sticking with it.
 
Sep 18, 2009
163
0
0
Boring

If you believe LA is clean and you want to try and defend his honor on the net.... in this forum

You are a troll...OR REALLY REALLY STUPID

I can't emphasise enough what a moron you are. Save your energy

BORING
BORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORINGBORING
 
Race Radio said:
?
Let me know where I have this wrong. You are saying that someone from the LNDD had an inside person at the UCI (Even thought they hate each other) who risked their career to leak Armstrong's forms?

These forms were then used to tamper with Armstrong's samples in such a way that the levels reflect the standard doping practices at the time....something experts in the field say is close to impossible. Of course any tampering can be easily proved with a DNA test....something Armstrong refuses to do because as he says "There is no doubt the samples are mine"

You are talking about a conspiracy involving someone at the UCI and multiple people at LNDD. Conspiracy is the only word that fits.

It is a pretty wild theory that is completely unsupported by the facts or evidence.

That is not the half of it. This conspiracy--let's just call them Nazi frogmen--was not only made up of members of the UCI and the LNDD, but the conspiracy relied upon a journalist obtaining the results with the French version of the Freedom of Information Act. The conspiracy then required the UCI to release Armstrong's code numbers to the journalist. This release required Armstrong's permission, so--ZOMG!11!, I don't believe it--Armstrong must have been in on the conspiracy! Armstrong is a Nazi frogman who was in on the conspiracy to frame himself!
 
Sep 18, 2009
163
0
0
Boring boring boring boring boring boring boring

Boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring
 
pmcg76 said:
...

If you spend time in the Clinic, you will realise there are different views on doping. There are those who believe everybody is doped regardless of whether there is any evidence or not. They believe doping is so ingrained in pro cycling that its normal to assume eveybody is dirty until proven otherwise.

Then there is a group who believe that doping is a problem in the sport but reserve judgement until there is some form of evidence against an athlete. Does not have to be a positive test, could be like the Lance case or the Puerto file or suspicious blood profiles or sudden performances. This group recognise that people could be doping but until there is some form of evidence, its unfair to point fingers.


There is a small percentage who believe fullproof evidence or positive tests are necessary before accusing people. I think most people who followed the sport pre 98 would have fallen into this category but are now in the other two categories.

I sometimes wonder if there is any mentality differences of the cycling fans who lived through the whole Festina affair in 98 and those who came to the sport during the Lance era. Would be an interesting study. Judging from the people on here, I dont think there is any poster who was following the sport before 98 that believes Lance was/is clean. I stand to be corrected on that though.
+11111111111111111111.

I think you nailed it. Young people still want to believe. It happened to me so badly that I think I fell in your group number 1 initially. And I think the main reason is because I am from Colombia, and I know that if I didn't believe in clean cycling there was not going to be hope for those poor farmers from my country who dream one day in winning the Tour de France. Not without a specific expensive program. No money, no glory.

Now we are really off topic.


For the question in the thread, I would have to say that I would avoid the topic with that person. But I really have to tell you that I would have pre-judgment against him in other topics. That tells me something about the personality of a person that I don’t want to say.
 
Aug 16, 2009
322
0
0
Wow,
12 pages in and we aren't even in the clinic.

Well, my personal take - the sport is so dirty and the dopers are so good at it most won't be caught, it is time to just allow everything. Let each rider have a doping sponsor just like a bike sponsor.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Lance has used. Is he clean now? I don't know (or really care). I'd just like our sport to get back to being about riding and not about drug busts and where was who at 5 am on such-and-such day. If we have to let everybody dope to get there, so be it.
 
I would avoid bringing up Lance as a subject with a fan face to face, I would just say I dont like him, even joke about it. It really depends on what type of person you are dealing with. I know how difficult it is to explains things to non-cycling fans who only get the mainstream view of Lance. The vast majority of people who have come to the sport in the last decade have usually got the mainstream unquestioning view of Lance first, cancer survivor hero who won 7 Tours and this inspires them and provides them with a pre-concieved opinion on Lance.

Its like indoctrination but then when they come to the sport, they run headlong into a group of fans who have followed the sport for years and are more knowledgable and cynical because of what they have experineced, the same initial beliefs in the heros and a clean sport and then suffering the huge disappointment when these beliefs were shattered. The new fans have two options, put the head in the sand or accept that cycling aint or pro cyclists are not perfect. I know its hard to digest for the newbies, how can these people be so negative towards a sport they claim to love and its biggest porsonality and hero. Many feel bewildered and bitter at the attitudes of the old hands which is what happens on here over and over. We are all bitter cranks, they never seem able to digest why.

What I find amusing is that most people believe cycling to be the dirtiest sport but Lance is still held up as an a clean hero who beat all the dopers. The divergent attitudes is surreal. The kicker is that those who followed the sport pre 98 didnt have the level of knowledge on doping because there had been no major scandals, it was always rumours or heresay so myself and a lot of others believed in a relatively clean sport until 98. There was some sort of excuse for gullability.

With what happened in 98 and all that has happened in the last 10 years, I find it hard to understand how people cannot be even open-minded to the possibility that Lance and many others did in fact dope. That is just plain denial. For me, if people are like that, there is no point even bothering with them because they will never change their opinion.
 

ravens

BANNED
Nov 22, 2009
780
0
0
Ferdinand Artichoke said:
Boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring

I don't get this, there's 1000's of threads, I don't go into each one that doesn't interest me and announce rudely to those who ARE interested that their topic is boring. If you were talking to someone and I popped in and listened for a minute and thought the conversation was uninteresting, I wouldn't stand there going boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring

I'd just politely move on.