Even the non cunty dopers have received far more backlash over positives or not even testing positive.I think it's more down to PR. Eddy wasn't a c%!$. Indy wasn't a c%!$. LA, he was always a c*%!$.
Yes, but Pantani became an outcast even in Italy, I doubt that Lance already had a big effect on that. Maybe that one had more to do with how it happened, in the middle of a race he was dominating at will and the fact that he was never the same afterwards.Even the non cunty dopers have received far more backlash over positives or not even testing positive.
Can't help but think Armstrongs 'look at me I'm clean cycling Jesus' made the cleanz much more important than it was before.
Some depends on definitions here, which is why I wrapped it up in PR. Consider Millar versus Riccò , consider Pantani and Ullrich versus Riis and Menchov. Some of this will obviously vary from country to country, given it is PR. In Germany, Ullrich may not be as loved as he is in the UK and the US, cause they know more about him. In Denmark, Riis may be more loved than he is in the UK and the US for the very same reason. Most of what we are responding to is a media representation of riders.Even the non cunty dopers have received far more backlash over positives or not even testing positive.
Well, he did sit on Lemond’s wheel for most of the climb up to Luz Ardiden and then scorched him at the end to take that stage in the 3rd week of the 1990 Tour. But Lemond may have just been happy that they finally dropped Chiappucci, setting up his 3rd overall title. I remember announcers questioning why Indurain didn’t stay with their team leader Delgado, but the team probably gave him the okay to go for the stage.Yes, but Pantani became an outcast even in Italy, I doubt that Lance already had a big effect on that. Maybe that one had more to do with how it happened, in the middle of a race he was dominating at will and the fact that he was never the same afterwards.
Indurain was not as ruthless as Eddie or even Hinault, he never went for stage wins in the mountains just because he could, usually he was happy to stay with the climbers (who lot minutes in the itts) even when he was stronger. He wasn't the kind of guy who demolished riders on a mountain stage just to prove a point, there are very few instances of him actually going all out on a mountain stage (La Plagne 1995 would be the obvious outliner)
Pantani only became the mythical figure he is today again after his death, when he was still alive Madonna was hanging like a cloud above his head.That's a bit of a stretch when you consider the scale of the Pantani industry today, even in Italy.
It's important to remember this is not black and white, heroes and villains, there is a middle ground into which a lot of riders/dopers fall. Some because they are loved and people want to give em a second chance, others simply because they're not known enough to be either loved or hated. I don't think Pantani ever fell into the villain category (even when his treatment of Tafi in 1999 was LA-level c&%$ishness).Yes, I could have used another expression instead of outcast.
Certainly and to a point. LA was the Euro version of the typical, avaricious and classless American. He demonstrates that to this day so he stands high above everyone else in the Dickkingdom he built.I think it's more down to PR. Eddy wasn't a c%!$. Indy wasn't a c%!$. LA, he was always a c*%!$.
I love the way people are able to say all sorts of things without having to present proof. For all that Armstrong deserves to be criticised for the manner in which he used the Foundation as a shield, his detractors need to be criticised for all the unfounded claims they have made about the Foundation's finances.That, and charging expenses to a charitable foundation....
I may recall incorrectly but Cyclingnews reported that Tour Down Under appearance fees were paid to LA and his foundation jet flew him as one instance. His own opinion on the Foundation benefit to society in light of he, himself wrecking it should also be of concern to you.I love the way people are able to say all sorts of things without having to present proof. For all that Armstrong deserves to be criticised for the manner in which he used the Foundation as a shield, his detractors need to be criticised for all the unfounded claims they have made about the Foundation's finances.
If LA is even half as evil as you think he is, you shouldn't have to lie to show the level of his wickedness. Stick to the truth.
So you're not going to produce the evidence? It's not this, is it?More and deeper than you know. Judge someone else and dig into their history.
Seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong has arrived in Adelaide ahead of next week's Tour Down Under.
"Mellow Johnny's Aviation" has touched down in Adelaide for the first time, bringing its much-anticipated passenger.
Seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong arrived with his partner Anna Hansen and their seven-month-old son Max ahead of next week's Tour Down Under.
Mellow Johnny is one of Armstrong's nicknames and it is a take on maillot jaune, which is French for yellow jersey - the Tour de France famous leader's jersey.
Armstrong and his entourage flew into Adelaide on his private jet and the Mellow Johnny's Aviation logo was visible inside the plane door.
He also has the Mellow Johnny's bike shop in his home city of Austin, Texas.
Armstrong WAS paid appearance fees to go to the TDU:You've not produced the evidence. And you have history. Lots of it.
What's your point? Oldermanish is fabricating proof?Poster 1: 2 plus 3 equals 6
Poster 2: I don't think 2 plus 3 does equal 6
Poster 3: 3 times 2 does equal 6!
You can refute anything if the claim wasn't made in the first place. Try this: the sky is blue! https://www.universetoday.com/74020/what-color-is-the-sky/
The disclosure for TdU suggests he was compensated for 2 first class seats and your promo indicates the MJ jet delivered him. Assuming he did use the MJ jet he would have considerable expenses for that use. You and I know that expenses for both Livestrong and Mellow Johnny's Aviation are buried deep in their audit; available via subpoena. What can be seen is the cost increases in travel reported by the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Livestrong coincidental with the purchase and drop off after sale. $350k(prox) less the year after the aircraft was sold. As someone impersonating an investigative reporter, perhaps you can use your skills to find out why the foundation's travel expenses were disproportionately high, along with lobbying and entertainment particularly with the low grant output vs. income.