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.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
andy1234 said:Im glad you got that off your chest.
It doesn't have much to do with my question though.
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.
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.
Susan Westemeyer said:Everyone seems determined to mis-understand and insult one another.
Either play nicely or I will close this thread.
Susan
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?
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!!!
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.
thanks for the feedback.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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Benotti69 said:if you read my post carefully, you i was addressing the post above mine, posted by veganrob.
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.
Cobblestoned said:If Lance wasn't there, he should have to be invented.
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.
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.