I think Lance Armstrong is the greatest rider in the last 20 yrs

Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
Well maybe I don't, but no matter which side of the argument you take he won 7 tours against the competition. The '99' samples are the only 'evidence' of him doping so what about the next 6 years, if he was doping so was everyone else at the top level so he won on a level'ish' playing field.

He also won with some quite impressive rides and attacks, BUT he only rode at that level for the tour so he trained for that one event and made it work.

Bring on the vitriol !!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
neil69cyclist said:
Well maybe I don't, but no matter which side of the argument you take he won 7 tours against the competition. The '99' samples are the only 'evidence' of him doping so what about the next 6 years, if he was doping so was everyone else at the top level so he won on a level'ish' playing field.

He also won with some quite impressive rides and attacks, BUT he only rode at that level for the tour so he trained for that one event and made it work.

Bring on the vitriol !!
Look man, nobody disputes that Mr Armstrong is talented. The problem I have is with the way he has mistreated others in his effort to hide his doping. It is his childish and heavy handed actions taken against riders who were open about being clean (Bassons), honest about the people with whom Mr Armstrong worked (Simeoni and LeMond), and honest about hearing him admit his usage of EPO during his time in the hospital (Betsy Andreau and Frankie Andreau) that cause me to want to see him to be exposed.

I understand that he doped among dopers. I want all dopers to be caught, and to have as clean a sport as possible. I do reserve however a special amount of vitriol for the keeper of the gate, and in this case, that person is most clearly Mr Armstrong. Name me one other rider who has so publicly tried to destroy the lives of those who offered only their knowledge or opinion of his actions.
 
Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
Actually most of the people on here deny his talents, comments around a mediocre rider without the doping but I am truly not defending more playing devils advocate. Lets also talk about keeper of the gate again refer to all of the senior riders over the last 20-30 yrs have used the code of silence we are just in different age of media and communication therefore we hear more.

I am not advocating burying head in the sand but the sooner we start using the forum to talk about something else and not bring every thread back to doping then we might just enjoy cycling that little bit more.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
Look man, nobody disputes that Mr Armstrong is talented. The problem I have is with the way he has mistreated others in his effort to hide his doping. It is his childish and heavy handed actions taken against riders who were open about being clean (Bassons), honest about the people with whom Mr Armstrong worked (Simeoni and LeMond), and honest about hearing him admit his usage of EPO during his time in the hospital (Betsy Andreau and Frankie Andreau) that cause me to want to see him to be exposed.

I understand that he doped among dopers. I want all dopers to be caught, and to have as clean a sport as possible. I do reserve however a special amount of vitriol for the keeper of the gate, and in this case, that person is most clearly Mr Armstrong. Name me one other rider who has so publicly tried to destroy the lives of those who offered only their knowledge or opinion of his actions.
hehe.. you took the bait. :p

Lance has fought to protect his carrerr, his reputation, his foundation, his family... I wouldn't expect any less from you.
Even most riders that got busted fought like hell.

You're just upset because you don't like the guy and he succeeded.

The hatred of him is way beyond context and proportion.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
I'm wondering if his ex-wife, Sheryl Crow and Ashley Olsen can share their perspective on this.
 
Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
Grimpeur, I can tell you one thing the pressure that he has gone through is enough to break a handful of relationships, I raced at much lower level and my wife was a cycling widow, and in recent years my 'quest' for a career cost me my marriage.

To get to the level of any top pro you sacrifice so much and(with few exceptions) there are few people that have survived that, add in the fact that his 1st wife was very religious, who knows what happened with Sheryl Crow and Ashley Olsen was quite a short term relationship and we've all had those.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,921
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Look man, nobody disputes that Mr Armstrong is talented. The problem I have is with the way he has mistreated others in his effort to hide his doping. It is his childish and heavy handed actions taken against riders who were open about being clean (Bassons), honest about the people with whom Mr Armstrong worked (Simeoni and LeMond), and honest about hearing him admit his usage of EPO during his time in the hospital (Betsy Andreau and Frankie Andreau) that cause me to want to see him to be exposed.

I understand that he doped among dopers. I want all dopers to be caught, and to have as clean a sport as possible. I do reserve however a special amount of vitriol for the keeper of the gate, and in this case, that person is most clearly Mr Armstrong. Name me one other rider who has so publicly tried to destroy the lives of those who offered only their knowledge or opinion of his actions.
Armstrong keenly understands the value of maintaining fan and sponsor interest in the sport, and the contradictory role that doping plays in that. On the one hand it produces inhuman performances, which draws interest and sponsorship funding. On the other hand, when exposed, it reduces interest. So from that perspective what's best for those involved in the sport is really a form of "don't ask, don't tell".

Regardless of how much Armstrong himself participates in doping -- whether it's none, more than anyone else, or anywhere in between -- he is absolutely convinced that the sport is better off the less exposure doping is given, and so he has no tolerance for those who expose it. I don't know if it's fair to say that he tries to "destroy the lives" of those who violate this code, but he certainly tries to do what he can to penalize them for it. Call it childish or heavy-handed if you will, but I don't know of anything that he's done that is illegal or totally inappropriate to these people.
 
neil69cyclist said:
Well maybe I don't, but no matter which side of the argument you take he won 7 tours against the competition. The '99' samples are the only 'evidence' of him doping so what about the next 6 years, if he was doping so was everyone else at the top level so he won on a level'ish' playing field.

He also won with some quite impressive rides and attacks, BUT he only rode at that level for the tour so he trained for that one event and made it work.

Bring on the vitriol !!
OMG-Just the title of this thread tells it all...

So you are categorically saying that LA is superior to Bernard Hinault?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ninety5rpm said:
Armstrong keenly understands the value of maintaining fan and sponsor interest in the sport, and the contradictory role that doping plays in that. On the one hand it produces inhuman performances, which draws interest and sponsorship funding. On the other hand, when exposed, it reduces interest. So from that perspective what's best for those involved in the sport is really a form of "don't ask, don't tell".

Regardless of how much Armstrong himself participates in doping -- whether it's none, more than anyone else, or anywhere in between -- he is absolutely convinced that the sport is better off the less exposure doping is given, and so he has no tolerance for those who expose it. I don't know if it's fair to say that he tries to "destroy the lives" of those who violate this code, but he certainly tries to do what he can to penalize them for it. Call it childish or heavy-handed if you will, but I don't know of anything that he's done that is illegal or totally inappropriate to these people.
Interesting take on his motivations.

I would suggest however that humans act on self interest, and that in someone like Mr Armstrong, that is taken to its narcissistic extreme. It isn't as though he passively engages the public in any of this. He twitters himself mad each day based on the idea that everyone wants to know his thoughts on everything from Greg Lemond, to the best skin product to use after running with famous celebrities. And obviously, many of you do.

I would also suggest asking the people involved in his vendettas how their lives have been affected. I think the clear anecdotal evidence is that your life in cycling becomes hard to impossible if someone such as Mr Armstrong decides you are outside. To suggest that he is just another rider protecting what is his is disingenuous and purposefully avoidant of the power someone with that much money has.

Add to all of that the manner in which he and his sponsors have used his cancer to enrich themselves, and you will have to excuse me if I don't think there is much value to his contribution to cycling or anything else.

As for the "hater" tag, it is an over simplification used by those who would rather use rhetoric rather than logic and facts. I understand that also, as hero worship is a necessity for people whose lives are devoid of personal satisfaction. (ninety, that isn't directed towards you as you were respectful and thoughtful in your response)

As to jackhammer's typically ignorant response (the number of times you stupidly fall into asserting thoughts that are clearly ignorant and easily refuted it amusing. See just about any thread for clarification.), well, I really intended to address the author of the thread in a respectful manner. I guess this is all a game of "Gotcha" favored by people with simple minds and opinions for you, so I will leave it and move on to discussion with people who have thoughtful ideas to present.
 
Mar 11, 2009
267
0
0
hfer07 said:
take 3 years of his retirement and we're back in 86:D:D
rephrasing:
Is he categorically saying that LA is superior to Miguel Indurain?:D:D
How should I say this without hurting your feelings...? Yep!
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
neil69cyclist said:
Grimpeur, I can tell you one thing the pressure that he has gone through is enough to break a handful of relationships, I raced at much lower level and my wife was a cycling widow, and in recent years my 'quest' for a career cost me my marriage.

To get to the level of any top pro you sacrifice so much and(with few exceptions) there are few people that have survived that, add in the fact that his 1st wife was very religious, who knows what happened with Sheryl Crow and Ashley Olsen was quite a short term relationship and we've all had those.
I wasn't contesting his relationships, I was wondering if the three women closest to him had a perspective on the thread question. But if you want to make your points the topic, he's probably a narcissistic, controlling—you fill in the blank________.
 
Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
grimpeur said:
I wasn't contesting his relationships, I was wondering if the three women closest to him had a perspective on the thread question. But if you want to make your points the topic, he's probably a narcissistic, controlling—you fill in the blank________.
I think they could give a judgement on his ability as a cyclist and would have to agree with the title of the thread, whether he was a good husband, partner, boyfriend has little to do with it.
 
Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
hfer07 said:
take 3 years of his retirement and we're back in 86:D:D
rephrasing:
Is he categorically saying that LA is superior to Miguel Indurain?:D:D
Way more superior to Big Mig because 7 is more than 5 and Hinault well again 7 is more than 5 and 8 will be loads more than 5.

Things have changed and with technology and sports science cycling is harder now than it was when both Hinault and Indurain rode.

Stop living in the past !!
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,921
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Interesting take on his motivations.

I would suggest however that humans act on self interest, and that in someone like Mr Armstrong, that is taken to its narcissistic extreme. It isn't as though he passively engages the public in any of this. He twitters himself mad each day based on the idea that everyone wants to know his thoughts on everything from Greg Lemond, to the best skin product to use after running with famous celebrities. And obviously, many of you do.
Well of course Armstrong acts on self interest. It's in his self interest to protect the sport, including the perception of the sport. Therefore it's in his interest to not support those who do things that damage that perception.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "It isn't as though he passively engages the public in any of this". So what?

Yes, he twitters a few times a day. Again, so what? I've been following him for a few months and haven't seen him mention Lemond (except a link to an article about Lemond) or skin care products. Where do you get this stuff?

Thoughtforfood said:
I would also suggest asking the people involved in his vendettas how their lives have been affected. I think the clear anecdotal evidence is that your life in cycling becomes hard to impossible if someone such as Mr Armstrong decides you are outside.
No doubt. What's your point?

Thoughtforfood said:
To suggest that he is just another rider protecting what is his is disingenuous and purposefully avoidant of the power someone with that much money has.
I'm not following this either. I will say that of course money gives someone power, but as long as that power is not used to violate anyone's rights, what's the problem? How is it your business or mine, or "ours", what Armstrong does with his power and money? If he violates the rights of others, then the line is crossed and it becomes all of ours business, but, so far as I know, he has not done that.

Thoughtforfood said:
Add to all of that the manner in which he and his sponsors have used his cancer to enrich themselves, and you will have to excuse me if I don't think there is much value to his contribution to cycling or anything else.
Again, have they stolen anything? Committed fraud? Murder? What is the problem?

Thoughtforfood said:
As for the "hater" tag, it is an over simplification used by those who would rather use rhetoric rather than logic and facts. I understand that also, as hero worship is a necessity for people whose lives are devoid of personal satisfaction. (ninety, that isn't directed towards you as you were respectful and thoughtful in your response)
Yes, I like logic and facts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
neil69cyclist said:
Way more superior to Big Mig because 7 is more than 5 and Hinault well again 7 is more than 5 and 8 will be loads more than 5.

Things have changed and with technology and sports science cycling is harder now than it was when both Hinault and Indurain rode.

Stop living in the past !!
OK, that's just stupid. You are either a sock puppet or you just fell off the turnip truck.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
neil69cyclist said:
Way more superior to Big Mig because 7 is more than 5 and Hinault well again 7 is more than 5 and 8 will be loads more than 5.

Things have changed and with technology and sports science cycling is harder now than it was when both Hinault and Indurain rode.

Stop living in the past !!
Hinault won 10 Grand Tours—5 Tour de France, 3 Giros and 2 Vueltas, plus a 2nd at the Tour de France. Plus these stage races and classics ;
Grand Prix des Nations (1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984)
World Road Cycling Championship (1980)
Paris-Roubaix (1981)
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré (1977, 1979, 1981)
Liège-Bastogne-Liège (1977, 1980)
Giro di Lombardia (1979, 1984)
La Flèche Wallonne (1979, 1983)
Ghent-Wevelgem (1977)
Amstel Gold Race (1981)
Tour de Romandie (1980)
Quatre Jours de Dunkerque (1984)

Armstrong is not, nor will ever be close to Hinault's achievements. Your knowledge of cycling history is nothing more than myopic.
 
Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
You guys have to know when your being wound up and not, Hinault and Merckx have the greatest palmeres on the planet and are gods of the sport.
 
Jun 17, 2009
83
0
0
grimpeur said:
Hinault won 10 Grand Tours—5 Tour de France, 3 Giros and 2 Vueltas, plus a 2nd at the Tour de France. Plus these stage races and classics ;
Grand Prix des Nations (1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984)
World Road Cycling Championship (1980)
Paris-Roubaix (1981)
Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré (1977, 1979, 1981)
Liège-Bastogne-Liège (1977, 1980)
Giro di Lombardia (1979, 1984)
La Flèche Wallonne (1979, 1983)
Ghent-Wevelgem (1977)
Amstel Gold Race (1981)
Tour de Romandie (1980)
Quatre Jours de Dunkerque (1984)

Armstrong is not, nor will ever be close to Hinault's achievements. Your knowledge of cycling history is nothing more than myopic.
Grimpeur your cutting and pasting skills from Wiki are second to none
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
neil69cyclist said:
Grimpeur your cutting and pasting skills from Wiki are second to none
Right, because copying and pasting means Hinault really didn't win those races zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
 
And of course 7 tours is more than Merckx's frankly pitiful 5 as well!

Armstrong could have beaten them both while filming a Nike add. Bet Merckx and Hinult never trained for six hours in one day.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY