Lance Who?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
andy1234 said:
Im glad you got that off your chest.
It doesn't have much to do with my question though.
if you read my post carefully, you i was addressing the post above mine, posted by veganrob.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
jimmypop said:
You question was a troll. I imagine you're stroking some wood right now that this thread has expanded to three pages and managed to rope a few rubes in.
And yet you're still here...
Pure Genius.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
In answer to the original question, an Anglophone forum with such an extreme doping discussion forum would probably not exist because America wouldn't give a damn about the sport, but it would probably be replaced by an equally vociferous Germanophone forum going on and on and on about how multiple GT winner Jan Ullrich was or wasn't a doper. This wouldn't register on the consciousness of the English-speaking cycling fans except for those willing to read German forums.
Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
Everyone seems determined to mis-understand and insult one another.

Either play nicely or I will close this thread.

Susan
Susan,
The thread was started as a perfectly reasonable discussion point.
Without attempting to understand the post, the posters calling troll are derailing any genuine discussion.

If you close the thread, they have achieved their goal.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
andy1234 said:
OK, so lets pretend Armstrong never existed. Every tour since 1999 was won by an Indurain type character. ie likeable understated etc, but the doping situation remained.

Would the Clinic even exist? Would the same number of anti doping posters exist?
If Lance never existed, people like you wouldn't know anything about cycling, and we wouldn't have fanboy ignorance spread far and wide. In fact, Trek riding fanboys who started watching cycling in 1999 because some dude quoted Good Will Hunting when he won a stage, and they thought it was ****in' *****in' that a cancer dude in spandex was so hip wouldn't exist either. That would be SWEET!!!
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
If Lance never existed, people like you wouldn't know anything about cycling, and we wouldn't have fanboy ignorance spread far and wide. In fact, Trek riding fanboys who started watching cycling in 1999 because some dude quoted Good Will Hunting when he won a stage, and they thought it was ****in' *****in' that a cancer dude in spandex was so hip wouldn't exist either. That would be SWEET!!!
Now that's trolling....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
andy1234 said:
Susan,
The thread was started as a perfectly reasonable discussion point.
Without attempting to understand the post, the posters calling troll are derailing any genuine discussion.

If you close the thread, they have achieved their goal.
No it wasn't. It is a loaded question written by a person who isn't honest enough to cop to his troll. You're a liar. People recognize that. In short, you suck. I'm sure someone in your personal life already told you that today, but I figured I'd reiterate the point.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
No it wasn't. It is a loaded question written by a person who isn't honest enough to cop to his troll. You're a liar. People recognize that. In short, you suck. I'm sure someone in your personal life already told you that today, but I figured I'd reiterate the point.
:D thanks for the feedback.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
OK, so lets pretend Armstrong never existed. Every tour since 1999 was won by an Indurain type character. ie likeable understated etc, but the doping situation remained.

Would the Clinic even exist? Would the same number of anti doping posters exist?
Yes - they would.

Because they are anti-doping and they contribute to many threads on many different riders.

However posters like yourself probably would not exist.
A quick look through your posting history shows you mainly take part in Lance related threads and indeed you yourself have started threads that could be viewed as willful trolling like:
Why do you dislike Armstrong?
The reason for so many trolls.
Lance who?
 
Nov 7, 2010
142
0
0
andy1234 said:
OK, so lets pretend Armstrong never existed. Every tour since 1999 was won by an Indurain type character. ie likeable understated etc, but the doping situation remained.

Would the Clinic even exist? Would the same number of anti doping posters exist?
That is a totally irrelevant, irrational and hypothetical piece of a nonsensical fantasy. That requires an equally irrelevant, irrational and hypothetical nonsensical, answer.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
The Devil said:
That is a totally irrelevant, irrational and hypothetical piece of a nonsensical fantasy. That requires an equally irrelevant, irrational and hypothetical nonsensical, answer.
I didnt realise i was the first person to ask a hypothetical question in the clinic.
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes - they would.

Because they are anti-doping and they contribute to many threads on many different riders.

However posters like yourself probably would not exist.
A quick look through your posting history shows you mainly take part in Lance related threads and indeed you yourself have started threads that could be viewed as willful trolling like:
Why do you dislike Armstrong?
The reason for so many trolls.
Lance who?
Yeah, and if Lance didnt exist people wouldnt start such pointless threads. I reckon the clinic would still be here for the Spanish riders but who knows. He should make this a poll for a definitive answer!

But People like Susan, Barrus have to moderate and read through this crap so i feel for them for having their time wasted by completely dumb threads.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
No it wasn't. It is a loaded question written by a person who isn't honest enough to cop to his troll. You're a liar. People recognize that. In short, you suck. I'm sure someone in your personal life already told you that today, but I figured I'd reiterate the point.
Yes.
Exactly like all these fulltime-haters who claim that they would really be interested in clean cycling.

If Lance wasn't there, he should have to be invented. But not for the fanboys.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
Benotti69 said:
This question is trolling but i will give an answer for those yet to understand. Personally i dont hate Armsrtong. I actually pity him. I imagine for all his wealth and success he has no friends, but lots of yes people. People who say yes because they are scared to say no and friends are not yes people. Stephanie McIlvain comes to mind to prove my point.

Indurain won the TdF 5 times in a row, first time ever 5 in a row. He was obviously a doper during those tours. He went about his wins in a very quiet dignified manner that meant only the most clued in fans who knew about the workings of the sport guessed he was on something, most likely EPO.

Me i knew something was up when he went past Robert Millar on a Pyrenean Col and made it look so easy, a guy like Indurain passing a climbing specialist like Millar. Nah not possible, something wrong, made me lose interest in cycling for a long while.

So along comes Armstrong and wins his first, the miracle win back from cancer, media attention from the world focused on his win. But then he got cocky and brash. When LeMond doubted that was an eye opener, after that, well he started fighting it to try and paper over that big gaping crack of doubt in the only manner he knew how, bullying, threatening and aggressive tactics with PR and his lawyers. You think people like that. Even a F****r like Hinault never did what Armstrong has done. So why is he disliked? because he is a fraud, a cheat, a bully and all the other names lists that one associates with a sociopath. Were any other TdF winners like that? I dont know of any. Anquetil was not a nice guy. I dont imagine many outside France liked him at the time of his 5th Win. Merckx was not a pleasant guy. But he was respected for achieving what he achieved and not only his TdF wins.

So why is Armstrong so strongly disliked, probably for his greed, for his doping but more for the manner is which he won in that sociopathic way all the while espousing his so called cancer charity in that 'jock' american way. I remember a great one liner about the american sports 'Jocks' spawning on locker room floors. I imagined most cyclists not conforming to this stereotype but Armstrong reeks of it.

LeMond-evangelium
2. book of Benotti
psalm 51


amen
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
andy1234 said:
Exactly, either enter the debate or move on.
It's a simple question, would the doping problem be so prominent and widely discussed without Armstrongs legacy?
Understood?
I see this as being the irony of the situation.

There was a ground-swell of motivation to expose entrenched doping on pro teams when Festina went down. Things looked like they were actually going to change. Federal police from various countries were searching houses, 'the sh*t' became illegal in civil courts in key European countries. Etc. etc. etc.

It was starting to look promising...

Then Lance came along, and everything went sideways. Increased omerta, so many rumours of misdeeds that it's literally unprecedented in cycling, buy-outs, bribes, sh*t-talking, over-the-top claims, blatant lies, and even more obsufcation of the issue...

I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of LA's legacy, but I get the feeling that you're looking for a silver lining within this giant ball of manure.

Let me be clear - LA is a crucial part of the problem, and in no way can be seen as part of the solution.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I see this as being the irony of the situation.

There was a ground-swell of motivation to expose entrenched doping on pro teams when Festina went down. Things looked like they were actually going to change. Federal police from various countries were searching houses, 'the sh*t' became illegal in civil courts in key European countries. Etc. etc. etc.

It was starting to look promising...

Then Lance came along, and everything went sideways. Increased omerta, so many rumours of misdeeds that it's literally unprecedented in cycling, buy-outs, bribes, sh*t-talking, over-the-top claims, blatant lies, and even more obsufcation of the issue...

I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of LA's legacy, but I get the feeling that you're looking for a silver lining within this giant ball of manure.

Let me be clear - LA is a crucial part of the problem, and in no way can be seen as part of the solution.
Firstly, thanks for the reasoned response.
I wasn't really looking for a silver lining, I was more interested to see if the level of interest in doping shown around here would be the same if Armstrong didn't figure.
 
Nov 3, 2010
77
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I see this as being the irony of the situation.

There was a ground-swell of motivation to expose entrenched doping on pro teams when Festina went down. Things looked like they were actually going to change. Federal police from various countries were searching houses, 'the sh*t' became illegal in civil courts in key European countries. Etc. etc. etc.

It was starting to look promising...

Then Lance came along.
That's a cartoon version of reality. What happened is Lance came along and Americans started to notice what was already happening. The idea that Pantani and his ilk were about to stop doping up to 60%, or the deeply embedded cultures in Italy and Spain were going to change, is bogus.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
In answer to the original question, an Anglophone forum with such an extreme doping discussion forum would probably not exist because America wouldn't give a damn about the sport, but it would probably be replaced by an equally vociferous Germanophone forum going on and on and on about how multiple GT winner Jan Ullrich was or wasn't a doper. This wouldn't register on the consciousness of the English-speaking cycling fans except for those willing to read German forums.
One tourwin is enough for this szenario. :D
Believe me that.
Anglophones, feel free to join us.
We need fresh blood after all these years. :)

Many similarities on these two planets. And also @ both, haters and fanboys.

Ullrich the fat Oberdoperfraud invented doping, was protected by officials.
Jan is clean because he has so much talent. Conspiracy.
 
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
andy1234 said:
Susan,
The thread was started as a perfectly reasonable discussion point.
Without attempting to understand the post, the posters calling troll are derailing any genuine discussion.

If you close the thread, they have achieved their goal.
The terrorists have won!
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
andy1234 said:
Firstly, thanks for the reasoned response.
I wasn't really looking for a silver lining, I was more interested to see if the level of interest in doping shown around here would be the same if Armstrong didn't figure.
I''m not sure. I have yet to see another rider of his level (apart from Flandis) beating his breast in such a way as to be crying out "it's not me".

Anyone who loves the inherent beauty of cycling should be against doping. The problem is that these forums get a little myopic because there are far more Americans here p*ssing about LA (pro and con).

I think LA's media personna, and the Americans' love of fame at any cost, is really the kicker here. LA is not the end-all or be-all of cycling. The fact that he can't keep his mouth shut, and keeps cramming his foot into that gaping maw, is what has created this furor around him.

There are many riders who have been nailed. They should all be vilified, and are by cycling fans.

It's not all about Lance, it's about doping in cycling. A lot of people have cared about this for a long time, and as the Golden Boy fades from the limelight another cheater will step into place on the podium of disrepute.

They always do.

LA just happens to have painted a huge target on his back. He's got no one to blame but himself.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY