• 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!

Johan Bruyneel talks AC/LA

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
TheArbiter said:
It's all a lie then....all the pro cyclists, cycling journalists and commentators are lying. It was all a hoax. Armstrong just magically won 7 times in a row after taking some dope. That everybody else was doped too, but couldn't win, has nothing to do with anything...

You stay in that hateful little bubble if it makes you feel better. As a cycling fan myself I can't help but appreciate great riders. That's just me though.

You didn't answer my question. What type of preparation did Armstrong do that was so innovative? You made it sound like the answer is so obvious.
 
TheArbiter said:
The other person to win two grand tours in the same year, this decade, is Contador, but that was only because he wasn't in the ToF that year. I don't know why you have to deny the way Armstrong transformed tour preperation. It's a fact.

If he changed Tour preparation, why would these cyclists mentioned not do what Lance did and turn up for one Grand Tour a year, instead of what they all do, which is race more than one Tour. And anyway, what was he doing this year so by racing the Giro. And don't mention cancer awareness, because he put a muzzle in himself as regards media.
Give me the name of a teammate who commented on how tough these camps were.
 
Digger said:
Why, does it hurt your feelings to hear the truth? no mix up with cabs...it was team cars. El Pais article, and I don't see Lance disputing the key points of it.
Just a 'tabloid' though sure?!!!:mad:

So, I take that you find this article in a Spanish publication to be 100% credible?
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
ellobodelmar.spaces.live.com
B.Rasmussen said:
I just noticed that you have 3 numbers in your nickname like they do. You're not gonna go mental on us as well, are you? :eek::D

please notice jackhammer111 add the 1's = 3. BYU123 combine 1+2 =3
what does all mean? 3 names all connected by 3's
coincidence I think not!
I have been the keeper of the cosmic flame since 1979. The cosmos cannot afford for me to go mental.
 
TheArbiter said:
You stay in that hateful little bubble if it makes you feel better. As a cycling fan myself I can't help but appreciate great riders. That's just me though.

So your appreciation for Armstrong as a "great rider" is what then? And please spare me the Fanboy innuendo. No one cares what you think of him personally. We are all well aware that he's an ***.
 
TRDean said:
What exactly has he done for cycling? Is the sport better today than it was before he came along? I would actually argue differently. More boring today than ever...give me van Impe, Lucho Herrera, LeMond, Moser, Bungo, heck..there are many great riders who I would rather watch. Answer the question...what the heck has he done for cycling? I mean really!!

I am no Lance fan, but even I have to agree that the guy has affected the popularity of professional cycling on a global level. Whether it's the cancer connection or the accomplishments, is immaterial. They guy has made significant history. Methods and character don't matter to the vast majority of fans. If they did the NFL wouldn't exist.

Back in the 70's Sports Illustrated used to publish a World Wide Top 10 Athlete's survey, and i used to have to explain to my friends who Eddy Merckx and Pele' were. I just Googled: Greatest Athletes of all Time - Top Ten List. Guess who is number 9?

Whethter you like the guy or hate him, you'd have to have your head in the sand to say he has not affected the sport of cycling.
 
VeloFidelis said:
I am no Lance fan, but even I have to agree that the guy has affected the popularity of professional cycling on a global level. Whether it's the cancer connection or the accomplishments, is immaterial. They guy has made significant history. Methods and character don't matter to the vast majority of fans. If they did the NFL wouldn't exist.

Back in the 70's Sports Illustrated used to publish a World Wide Top 10 Athlete's survey, and i used to have to explain to my friends who Eddy Merckx and Pele' were. I just Googled: Greatest Athletes of all Time - Top Ten List. Guess who is number 9?

Whethter you like the guy or hate him, you'd have to have your head in the sand to say he has not affected the sport of cycling.

ok- I thought this thread was about JB's comments on his blog......
 
Digger said:
Lol, what aspects of it would you like to dispute?

Just one. How accurate do you think it is?

I am constantly amazed that when I read something in the paper and I am even slightly knowledgeable about the situation regardless of the topic, they usually get it about 50% right. So why should I apply any less standard to a story where I don't have personal knowledge or background?

I am not implying a nationalist bias here, although it is a consideration, but just how much credibility do you give the press?

Please don't tell me you take everything as face value. I know better.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
Just one. How accurate do you think it is?

I am constantly amazed that when I read something in the paper and I am even slightly knowledgeable about the situation regardless of the topic, they usually get it about 50% right. So why should I apply any less standard to a story where I don't have personal knowledge or background?

I am not implying a nationalist bias here, although it is a consideration, but just how much credibility do you give the press?

Please don't tell me you take everything as face value. I know better.


Is it me or are (all) articles much more accurate when they confirm what you (anyone) believe to be true and far less accurate when they are contrary?

Bias is everywhere. We read stories that were reported with bias with... bias. It is what it is.
 
VeloFidelis said:
I am no Lance fan, but even I have to agree that the guy has affected the popularity of professional cycling on a global level. Whether it's the cancer connection or the accomplishments, is immaterial. They guy has made significant history. Methods and character don't matter to the vast majority of fans. If they did the NFL wouldn't exist.

Back in the 70's Sports Illustrated used to publish a World Wide Top 10 Athlete's survey, and i used to have to explain to my friends who Eddy Merckx and Pele' were. I just Googled: Greatest Athletes of all Time - Top Ten List. Guess who is number 9?

Whethter you like the guy or hate him, you'd have to have your head in the sand to say he has not affected the sport of cycling.

And when you said World you mean USA :rolleyes:
Sorry mate but in Europe every child back in the 70's knew very well who were Eddy Merckx and Pele. And for example in France last year on a question: Do you like that Lance coming out of retirement ?! 90% said NO !?
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Visit site
Zen Master said:
And when you said World you mean USA :rolleyes:
Sorry mate but in Europe every child back in the 70's knew very well who were Eddy Merckx and Pele. And for example in France last year on a question: Do you like that Lance coming out of retirement ?! 90% said NO !?

Thank you for posting my exact thoughts!!!
 
VeloFidelis said:
Just one. How accurate do you think it is?

I am constantly amazed that when I read something in the paper and I am even slightly knowledgeable about the situation regardless of the topic, they usually get it about 50% right. So why should I apply any less standard to a story where I don't have personal knowledge or background?

I am not implying a nationalist bias here, although it is a consideration, but just how much credibility do you give the press?

Please don't tell me you take everything as face value. I know better.

Okay the one incident I am referring to from the article is the car story, whereby AC was left stranded. This has been reported in a number of sources and has not been denied by Lance.
 

TheArbiter

BANNED
Aug 3, 2009
180
0
0
Visit site
Zen Master said:
And when you said World you mean USA :rolleyes:
Sorry mate but in Europe every child back in the 70's knew very well who were Eddy Merckx and Pele. And for example in France last year on a question: Do you like that Lance coming out of retirement ?! 90% said NO !?

Nonsense. The Armstrong story boosted cycling everywhere.

One minute the criticism is that he made the tour do france too popular and important, the next minute he supposed to have made no difference to anything. It's very confused.

However, though he increased interest in cycling around the globe, the attitudes towards him in various places depend on general cultural attitudes. In Europe its no conincidence that success is often sneered at, whereas in the US they admire greatness.

Other factors play their part too. In Spain and Italy he was disliked, on one level, for downgrading their own grand tours, and in France disliked to winning it all the time, so their are always these little reasons. But for the most part its pantomime villain stuff. As we saw on the streets of France this year, and in Italy before that, the same people who probably slag him off all the time were lining the streets to cheer him on and grab a photo. People are very schizophrenic.

I know this isn't the clinic but that goes for doping matters too - those who shout the loudest about it are usually the same people that would bite their own arm off to get hold of some cera if they were competiting. They think everybody must think like they do, which is why they are so suspicious of the pros.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
ellobodelmar.spaces.live.com
TheArbiter said:
Nonsense. The Armstrong story boosted cycling everywhere.

One minute the criticism is that he made the tour do france too popular and important, the next minute he supposed to have made no difference to anything. It's very confused.

However, though he increased interest in cycling around the globe, the attitudes towards him in various places depend on general cultural attitudes. In Europe its no conincidence that success is often sneered at, whereas in the US they admire greatness.

Other factors play their part too. In Spain and Italy he was disliked, on one level, for downgrading their own grand tours, and in France disliked to winning it all the time, so their are always these little reasons. But for the most part its pantomime villain stuff. As we saw on the streets of France this year, and in Italy before that, the same people who probably slag him off all the time were lining the streets to cheer him on and grab a photo. People are very schizophrenic.

I know this isn't the clinic but that goes for doping matters too - those who shout the loudest about it are usually the same people that would bite their own arm off to get hold of some cera if they were competiting. They think everybody must think like they do, which is why they are so suspicious of the pros.

I am soooo confused (schizophrenic?) Is this what is referred to as pretzel logic? Or am I having an Acid flashback?
 
TheArbiter said:
Nonsense. The Armstrong story boosted cycling everywhere.

One minute the criticism is that he made the tour do france too popular and important, the next minute he supposed to have made no difference to anything. It's very confused.

However, though he increased interest in cycling around the globe, the attitudes towards him in various places depend on general cultural attitudes. In Europe its no conincidence that success is often sneered at, whereas in the US they admire greatness.

Other factors play their part too. In Spain and Italy he was disliked, on one level, for downgrading their own grand tours, and in France disliked to winning it all the time, so their are always these little reasons. But for the most part its pantomime villain stuff. As we saw on the streets of France this year, and in Italy before that, the same people who probably slag him off all the time were lining the streets to cheer him on and grab a photo. People are very schizophrenic.

I know this isn't the clinic but that goes for doping matters too - those who shout the loudest about it are usually the same people that would bite their own arm off to get hold of some cera if they were competiting. They think everybody must think like they do, which is why they are so suspicious of the pros.

This is hilarious stuff, even by your standards...you're now commenting on the traits of a whole continent of people, and more specifically, Italy, France and Spain...
I can assure you one hundred percent that success is not sneered at in Europe - there isn't much tolerance for bulls***.
What nationality are you, or do I need to ask?
 
TheArbiter said:
Nonsense. The Armstrong story boosted cycling everywhere.

One minute the criticism is that he made the tour do france too popular and important, the next minute he supposed to have made no difference to anything. It's very confused.

However, though he increased interest in cycling around the globe, the attitudes towards him in various places depend on general cultural attitudes. In Europe its no conincidence that success is often sneered at, whereas in the US they admire greatness.

Other factors play their part too. In Spain and Italy he was disliked, on one level, for downgrading their own grand tours, and in France disliked to winning it all the time, so their are always these little reasons. But for the most part its pantomime villain stuff. As we saw on the streets of France this year, and in Italy before that, the same people who probably slag him off all the time were lining the streets to cheer him on and grab a photo. People are very schizophrenic.

I know this isn't the clinic but that goes for doping matters too - those who shout the loudest about it are usually the same people that would bite their own arm off to get hold of some cera if they were competiting. They think everybody must think like they do, which is why they are so suspicious of the pros.

Oh dear. Srsly? Only Americans appreciate success/greatness?

And also: almost every cycling fan I've spoken with/know (and EVERY "hard-core" cycling fan I know) were displeased at the idea of Armstrong's comeback. I think it generated a lot of media buzz in the world outside of the cycling community, so if that's what you mean by "boosted cycling everywhere" then yeah, you're right--except for in the cycling community that I know first hand. It's admittedly small compared to "everywhere," but I doubt it's just an anomally.
 
Zen Master said:
And when you said World you mean USA :rolleyes:
Sorry mate but in Europe every child back in the 70's knew very well who were Eddy Merckx and Pele. And for example in France last year on a question: Do you like that Lance coming out of retirement ?! 90% said NO !?

I'm not really sure how you missed it, but that is exactly my point. Almost no one in the U.S. knew Merckx or Pele' or why they were on an SI World's Top Ten Athlete's list; hence the explanation. When I said World, I meant World.
 
Digger said:
Okay the one incident I am referring to from the article is the car story, whereby AC was left stranded. This has been reported in a number of sources and has not been denied by Lance.

I know exactly what you are referring to. And I am not disputing whether it happened or not, or who is denying what.

The question is; how much of the story do you think they got right? I have no idea, but I am inclined to give most of what I read, particularly when it deals with celebrity, a 50% bullsh!t factor.

What percentage do you give it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.