How we view cycling... or how we hate cyclists.

[benpounder]

"In my opinion, Paul certainly overstepped things a bit during the pre Tour of California press conference with Armstrong. It appears Paul is on a crusade that's more anti-Lance than anti-doping. Say what you will about Lance, he's brought bike racing to the American conscience, boosting the bike industry, the cause for cancer, etc."

[my edit - sorry, not my words]

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

His reputation is expanding..... faster than the universe.

 

[BikeCentric]

I would highly recommend Parkin's book "A Dog in a Hat."

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

How about Sartre's "No Exit"?

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Right now I'm reading Peter Mayle

'A Year in Provence'
'Toujours Provence'
'Hotel Pastis: A Novel of Provence'
'Encore Provence: New Adventures in the South of France'

I used to work with Joe Parkin. Already heard his book through casual conversation.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Right now I'm reading Peter Mayle

'A Year in Provence'
'Toujours Provence'
'Hotel Pastis: A Novel of Provence'
'Encore Provence: New Adventures in the South of France'

I used to work with Joe Parkin. Already heard his book through casual conversation. A good read none the less.

 

[ElChingon]

First off to answer the question, we or at least I view cycling (Pro Racing) through the Cyclist (Racers), what they do in the race and their interviews on the race/team tactics. If we hate a cyclist it is most likely due to their lack of backing up their word or expectation based on their announced expectations of a race or season, then there is getting banned for any reason.

Did Paul overstep the line? Well if he did not would you say he didn't ask the appropriate question or have the testicles to ask the real questions? As an interviewer/reporter he has the right to ask. Is it right to attack a cyclist? Well if you have evidence or extra information on a situation it is the reporters duty to get to the bottom of it. Sure it could of been done a bit more tactically but he did it and its done. I would still at this point after the events have transpired for more information on the matter from those two parties (not the peanut gallery, aka forum guess bots).

As for books, when will the next cycling related book come out that's not you know what related? I'd like to see a book on a cyclists career and team/race tactics used throughout, how it failed/succeeded, possibly some antidotes on riders personalities/failings/jokes/etc...
Some day.

 

[BroDeal]

"In my opinion, Paul certainly overstepped things a bit during the pre Tour of California press conference with Armstrong. It appears Paul is on a crusade that's more anti-Lance than anti-doping. Say what you will about Lance, he's brought bike racing to the American conscience, boosting the bike industry, the cause for cancer, etc."

Typical Armstrong and his supporters: Attacking the press (and anyone else for that matter) for daring to speak the truth--and now even asking about the truth.

 

[ak-zaaf]

Calling a cancer-survivor 'a cancer' is below the belt. no matter what you think/know.

 

[biker jk]

Calling a cancer-survivor 'a cancer' is below the belt. no matter what you think/know.

Well LA is a cancer on professional cycling (in the metaphorical sense, of course). I noted LA didn't answer Klimmage's original question on why he believed Basso and Landis should be welcomed back to the sport with open arms.

 

[benpounder]

Typical Armstrong and his supporters...

Not as much an armstrong supporter. Just opposed to mobs burning others based upon myopic "righteousness."