What does he mean by "win it again?" As far as I can see Oscar Pereiro won it in 2006. I don't see that Landis has ever won it. Floyd should just go away.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
cody251 said:
Amen about poster Tom Morris using personal slurs to refer to riders. There's no room for that kind of approach to dialog in an intelligent debate. Come and make your point all day if you want but spiteful cheap shots just take away from any message you want to get across.
....and he'll still be contemplating a Tour return, in 2011.
Automatically gets an ASO no show.
He's got as much chance of riding the Tour, as Paul Kimmage has of becoming Lance's new baby's godparent.
More drivel from Merivel.
Automatically gets an ASO no show.
He's got as much chance of riding the Tour, as Paul Kimmage has of becoming Lance's new baby's godparent.
More drivel from Merivel.
cody251 said:Look, you can hate on Lance all you want, be referring to him as "the cancer" is complete bull***t. What he has done for people who have dealt with cancer can never be quantified. Obviously you are not one of these people, instead some dirtbag taking cheap shots at him. You don't like him, we get it, and while I'm not sure I understand the "Lance Haters", I understand that making fun of cancer or those affected by it can at minimum be considered reprehensible.
I won't be roped into another conversation about 1999 though....
What is this? Is it now "cool" to use the terms "hater", "hating on" to actually describe something meaningful? What in hell does it mean to "hate on" somebody? Does it mean to "say something bad about"? Does it mean to "criticize" someone? It's a cliche. Cliche. Overused with little meaning.
When it comes to Armstrong, he put himself in the position he is in. He is criticized because he was an arrogant kid, arrogant young rider and remains an arrogant, brash man who is ruthless toward anyone who wants to break the cycle of drug abuse and use in pro cycling. We are allowed to criticize him without being accused of "hatred". We can have mixed feelings about the man. Imagine that. His cancer foundation LAF is doing some pretty amazing things. But that doesn't mean we think he's all good, and we "love" him. Wait, should I say "loving on him"? Is that the new really cool term?
Using the term "the cancer" has been around a lot longer than Armstrong's reign in the pro peloton, which this recent Paul Kimmage interview states clearly:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/paul-kimmage
It's a metaphor for doping in cycling, and ironically, one of the cancers of pro cycling is Lance Armstrong, since his return is symbolic of rampant doping in cycling. For the record, I don't believe for one second that Armstrong rode clean (for that matter, I don't believe anyone in the UCI Pro Tour rode or rides clean, even now). I do believe he never failed a drug test (except for the one positive test for corticosteroids for which he received a back-dated TUE). I do believe he made a huge donation to the UCI (on the order of half a million dollars) disguised as a smaller donation. I do believe he tested positive for EPO in six urine samples from 1999. And I do believe the statute of limitations for those samples lapsed by the time they were found positive. The UCI agreed (cough, cough).
Calling him a "cancer" is not a "cheap shot". It's a metaphor. It's appropriate if you believe Paul Kimmage. And Paul Kimmage knows more about this topic than you or I ever will. He's also been a trustworthy journalist (as has David Walsh) for many, many years. Armstrong's attempts to paint these journalists as otherwise is absurd. Armstrong's past has slowly beren catching up with him. He dug his own grave. As they say, if you live by the sword, you may die by the sword, and so it is with Armstrong and doping. Calling it like we see it isn't "hating on". It's criticizing. It isn't "hatred". It's a balanced perspective based on a lot of evidence. The world is not black-and-white. It's not either-or. It's both. It's grey and every shade of grey in between.
Even if Landis does manage to race in the TdF again, I don't see him able to come close to a podium again.
But in all honesty, I was very happy to see him back in the pro peloton!
But in all honesty, I was very happy to see him back in the pro peloton!
We grew up in the same area. I know many of the roads that he rode on prior to becoming a professional.Jarvis said:
Patrick_Schmidt said:
i wish the could cure idiocy and blabbermouth disease cuz you could be the posterboy
Patrick_Schmidt said:
Wow, you are a fine individual.
1. "lucrative" is relative. It kills millions each year, if you find treating, supporting and researching cancer something we shouldn't devote money towards, then good for you.
2. Again, not going to dig this up, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is clearly debatable but un-realted to cancer.
3. Nike is a sponsor, Livestrong and his current contract with Nike pays the FOUNDATION millions and millions a year, not Lance. The foundation supports people living and dealing with cancer. How is this bad?
4. This is the dumbest thing you've said so far. Bill Gates and Bono won't cure AIDS and Susan B Komen won't cure breast cancer.
5. So is an a$$hole...
6. What the h#ll are you talking about? "Trick them" ???
You, like some of your buddies, obviously have not dealt with cancer or someone with cancer. You make no sense, and have no idea what a support network and what MONEY does for finding cures to terrible diseases.
I can only hope you're trolling and saying such stupid things to get a rise out of people like me. You are mixing your distaste for Lance with Livestrong, a cause that is noble.
Hey, Jarfly
Guess what. Don't watch cycling. It's much too vile for a virteous soul such as yourself. You need a clean sport to observe...You know: Baseball.
Patrick_Schmidt said:
Guess what. Don't watch cycling. It's much too vile for a virteous soul such as yourself. You need a clean sport to observe...You know: Baseball.
Patrick_Schmidt said:
run upstairs now lil troll, momma's calling, your mac and cheese w/the hot dogs all cut up nice for you is ready. then you can play on your computers some more before daddy gets home to ride your face and pedal your ears. run troll.
Everyone seems to be very opinionated when it comes to Landis. The only opinion that I can have is that until the A and B samples are tested by two different labs run by different companies, any doping case is suspect. I simply don't know if Landis doped or not. Nobody else except for Floyd Landis knows this.
The other thing that I have a problem with is the lack of any real protection for the riders against sabotage. I know that a lot of effort goes into making sure that nothing is slipped to the riders, but you cannot watch everything all the time. Consider what would happen if you were able to get some testosterone gel into the gloves or shorts of a rider, or perhaps into the lotions that their soigneur uses. They are now a "doper", though certainly not guilty of any crime on their part. However, if they're tested and come up positive, the punishment is the same.
The other thing that I have a problem with is the lack of any real protection for the riders against sabotage. I know that a lot of effort goes into making sure that nothing is slipped to the riders, but you cannot watch everything all the time. Consider what would happen if you were able to get some testosterone gel into the gloves or shorts of a rider, or perhaps into the lotions that their soigneur uses. They are now a "doper", though certainly not guilty of any crime on their part. However, if they're tested and come up positive, the punishment is the same.
cody251 said:Look, you can hate on Lance all you want, be referring to him as "the cancer" is complete bull***t. What he has done for people who have dealt with cancer can never be quantified. Obviously you are not one of these people, instead some dirtbag taking cheap shots at him. You don't like him, we get it, and while I'm not sure I understand the "Lance Haters", I understand that making fun of cancer or those affected by it can at minimum be considered reprehensible.
I won't be roped into another conversation about 1999 though....
I ahve done a significant amount of work with children who had cancer. Quite a bit more than most people I would suggest. So, it is with surety that I say that Lance Armstrong is a cancer to Professional Cycling.
I don't need a lecture from someone who thinks they have to discount a metaphor because they are so sensitive that they get their feelings hurt at the mere suggestion. It has nothing to do with insensitivity and EVERYTHING to do with an appropriate METAPHOR.
CapeRoadie said:
Wow, you're dating yourself, fancy slang that makes you angry. Sorry, "those who dislike Lance Armstrong". Cliché, sure. Overused, no. You just spent several lines giving it meaning so welcome to the "not making sense club”. Maybe one day I'll be a fancy writer and I can look some classic words up for you. I’ll leave my first attempts along the way….
CapeRoadie said:
What position would that be? The greatest American Cyclist ever? You don’t like him, you can’t stand him, perhaps disrelish his accomplishments? He comes BACK and creates the biggest buzz around cycling. IS that what you’re mad about? He retires, comes back and is the most popular and most disliked cyclists in the world. You and some others are blurring the line between your distaste for him, and the LAF. You don’t have to like him, really you don’t.
Great, good for smarty- pants-Kimmage. I’m saying, calling LA a “cancer “no matter what you mean is completely inappropriate and a blatant smear to people who are hit by this disease.CapeRoadie said:
So how can you say his return is symbolic over the return of any other rider in the pro peloton? In fact, I question why you even follow cycling, or any sport for that matter with statements like this. There has always been doping, so how can you single out LA and his “era” as being ANY worse? Perhaps your permanent aversion to Lance should spread to ALL of cycling! As a member of the NMSC you just won a Member’s Only jacket!CapeRoadie said:
Paul Kimmage can be the expert, Grand Poobah of whatever, and you can believe everything he says because he is “trustworthy”. Your disfavor for LA and his presence should NEVER be referred to as a “cancer”. There are much more appropriate things one with so much aversion to LA can use. Given his history and what his foundation is supporting, CANCER is not it.CapeRoadie said:
You “call out” LA, state your abhorrence for him, blast the entire pro peloton and still take the time to post to a cycling forum so we can see how balanced you are. Congrats, you’ve just been voted president of the club.
Really guys, if half as much energy was spent combatting doping as spent flaming people on forums, cycling would be the cleanest sport going, no?
Cyclingfans should all be wanting a clean and honest sport and lobbying for this, instead of turning on each other.
Similarly, what if people spent time talking about new, promsing riders instead of yesterday's talent. Anyone want to start a thread on Taylor Phinney, Jacob Fuglsang, Julien El Fares or Tony Martin rather some busted cheat from the past?
Cyclingfans should all be wanting a clean and honest sport and lobbying for this, instead of turning on each other.
Similarly, what if people spent time talking about new, promsing riders instead of yesterday's talent. Anyone want to start a thread on Taylor Phinney, Jacob Fuglsang, Julien El Fares or Tony Martin rather some busted cheat from the past?
Go away, Floyd. It's over. You should have retired on what you spent on legal fees.
Hey mods: This being a new forum, don't let it meet the same fate as cyclingforums, taken over by the doping nihilists and conspiracy theory nutcases, turning every discussion into a dope accusation.
It was not only negative and largely based on innuendo, but utterly monotonous.
Hey mods: This being a new forum, don't let it meet the same fate as cyclingforums, taken over by the doping nihilists and conspiracy theory nutcases, turning every discussion into a dope accusation.
It was not only negative and largely based on innuendo, but utterly monotonous.
cody25`,
Seriously, I have known hundreds of people with cancer, and lost close friends. It does them not a single speck of disservice to call Lance a cancer to professional cycling. Their memories are not denigrated in any way with that statement. The idea that unless a narcissistic media ***** rides a bicycle, cancer will get the best of us is ludicrous. What you do not see is that your man crush on Mr Armstrong has almost everything to do with your objection, and very little to do with people who have/had cancer. Get off the cross, we need the wood.
Seriously, I have known hundreds of people with cancer, and lost close friends. It does them not a single speck of disservice to call Lance a cancer to professional cycling. Their memories are not denigrated in any way with that statement. The idea that unless a narcissistic media ***** rides a bicycle, cancer will get the best of us is ludicrous. What you do not see is that your man crush on Mr Armstrong has almost everything to do with your objection, and very little to do with people who have/had cancer. Get off the cross, we need the wood.
So, you combat people who spend energy writing critical statements about another person on a cycling forum by writing critical statements about them on a cycling forum. I suggest mirrors in your house do have a purpose.Stani Kléber said:
Thoughtforfood said:
Sorry, this isn't lecture time. So, when you "work with children who had cancer" and they wear their Livestrong band, read about his story and hope because their cancer isn't as bad as his, maybe I'll live... Do you tell them that the person that brings them inspiration, the foundation that supports this child right now is a man/because of a man that is a cancer to the sport he championed? Use whatever metaphor you'd like to express your angst towards LA, but calling him a cancer is totally f$$$ked up. You are mixing your passion for cycling and what you feel LA has done to this sport but clearly can't wrap your mind about what that statement means to people with cancer. You get back to thinking about yourself now and how important your metaphors are.
BTW, to all the people who enjoy tossing the word cancer around, have any of you had or dealt with cancer FIRST hand (family)?
Who are YOUR favorite cyclists? We already know CapeRoadie hates all pro cycling, but what about the rest of you?
Lying cheater not needed or welcome
First of all, the lying cheater Landis doesn't deserve to be seen at the TdF. What he stole from Oscar Pereiro can never be repaid in full.
Second, there is exactly zero chance that Landis would ever be allowed to appear at the TdF. It's not his choice.
First of all, the lying cheater Landis doesn't deserve to be seen at the TdF. What he stole from Oscar Pereiro can never be repaid in full.
Second, there is exactly zero chance that Landis would ever be allowed to appear at the TdF. It's not his choice.
Sorry, it was not a criticism or a flame at you or anyone, if you took it that way. Just suggesting a little less anger amongst fans, that's all....Thoughtforfood said:
cody251 said:
You cannot wrap your mind around metaphors because you get a woody over a narcissistic p$%ck who is in the business of drawing attention to himself more than ANY cause. Just look at the comeback material printed and passed out during the last few months. It all has a great big picture of ONE PERSON on it. What I talk to children who have cancer has nothing to do with cycling. But go ahead, make yourself feel better with your righteous indignation, it suits you and your hero.
cody251 said:
Yes, I have. My mother.
Lance is a cancer to cycling. He is a unrepentant doper whose main purpose in life is to stay in the lime light and get all of the attention he can. My offense is directed at a man who uses his cancer to get the spotlight on himself. It isn't about the bike, it isn't about cancer, it is about Lance.
Thoughtforfood said:
It's not about JUST Lance, it's about the use of the word if reference to someone who battled and beat the same disease millions are trying to beat themselves. Call him a cheat, an A$$hole, whatever, I don't care, just THINK about cancer and what it means.
Thoughtforfood said:
How is this any different from YOUR obvious distaste for Lance? He didn't ride a bike for years and did more for cancer than he did on it. You don't like him, I do. I don't care about his personal life, I'm a fan of his cycling and his cancer story. I don't care if you hate him, just be choice with your metaphors as a courtesy to those who have cancer and symbolize LA as inspiration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championships 2024: Men's Road Race (September 29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
Coppa Bernocchi Oct 7/103rd Tre Valli Varesine, October 8- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 221
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 28K
-
Il Lombardia 2024, one day monument, October 12, the final showdown- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 45
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 10K
-
Women’s RR - World Championships 2024 (September 28)- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 327
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram