• 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 @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!

Landis considers return to Tour de France

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
patricknd said:
i too am affected by cancer. i was diagnosed 8 weeks ago. i find references to anyone as "the cancer" offensive. it is meant to provoke a reaction, pure and simple. anyone who equates cheating in sports with a horrible disease has a screwed up value system. one more thing. kimmage doped. as far as i'm concerned, pot meet kettle

I am sincerely sorry to hear about your diagnosis; however, metaphors have existed since humans started sharing ideas. It is a way of expressing thoughts about something and in this case does not denigrating the comparative element in any way. This insistence of rooting out anything that can be construed as offensive is just plain stupid. You have cancer, I would suggest that you have things other than someone referring to Lance as a cancer to think about.

However, if you insist on being offended, and because of that want Lance's effect on cycling is compared to something else, then let me suggest an alternative: Lance Armstrong is a venereal disease to cycling. He is the dripping clap of cycling. He is third stage syphilis of cycling. Its like cycling went to a truck stop chicken head, handed over their five bucks, pinched their nose and went to town only to find out later that the burning sensation and dripping puss were something to worry about.

There, feel better?
 
Mar 10, 2009
67
0
0
Visit site
CapeRoadie said:
I think you should harden the f*** up and stop deluding yourself into thinking Armstrong is clean.

Ugh, you sir are a brilliant writer and like EVERY other cycling forum out there, in about a week the attacks come out from the same old players in the same old way, my time is worth more to me. Perhaps you are smiling at home over your e-victory. Congrats.

:rolleyes:
 
Mar 12, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
cody251 said:
Ugh, you sir are a brilliant writer and like EVERY other cycling forum out there, in about a week the attacks come out from the same old players in the same old way, my time is worth more to me. Perhaps you are smiling at home over your e-victory. Congrats.

:rolleyes:

I take no joy in your disillusionment. You see, I once believed in Lance Armstrong. I remember him as a brash young talent but a real phenom. A joy to watch. After seeing what he went through with his cancer from reading his first book "It's Not About the Bike", I was moved. After seeing him in 1999, I was amazed by the story. But that book is myth. Oh yes, the cancer was real, but everything about the doping was not. David Walsh did an excellent job of assembling circumstantial evidence for the case for Armstrong doping. But when I watched Armstrong chase down that breakaway in 2004 to make sure Simeoni did not win Stage 18, I thought that was a very, very low thing to do. That was it for me. That said everything.

Add that to everything else I mentioned above, and you get a clearer picture of the man. True that almost everybody else was doping during his reign as Tour champ, and that's how the omerta game is played--you get caught, you lose; if you don't get caught, you win--but then those six positive urine samples. He didn't have to confess because he's got the UCI in his back pocket, most likely through bribe money masked as an undisclosed donation rumored to be close to half a million dollars.

One thing I'm sure of: If you don't look for anything, you're not going to find it. But with Armstrong, there's plenty to look at. Where there's smoke, there's fire. A person would have to be naive to think Armstrong is clean.

The funny thing is, I think Armstrong has done a lot for cycling. It's good that he's inspired so many people to ride a bike. His cancer foundation, LAF, is doing wonderful things and my family has used LAF. I have donated thousands of dollars to LAF. I believe in a lot of what he's done. He is an amazing cyclist (although I wouldn't put him in a top ten of all time). His feat of seven straight victories at the Tour will not likely be surpassed in our lifetime.

But he used performance-enhancing drugs to help him achieve much of that.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I am sincerely sorry to hear about your diagnosis; however, metaphors have existed since humans started sharing ideas. It is a way of expressing thoughts about something and in this case does not denigrating the comparative element in any way. This insistence of rooting out anything that can be construed as offensive is just plain stupid. You have cancer, I would suggest that you have things other than someone referring to Lance as a cancer to think about.

However, if you insist on being offended, and because of that want Lance's effect on cycling is compared to something else, then let me suggest an alternative: Lance Armstrong is a venereal disease to cycling. He is the dripping clap of cycling. He is third stage syphilis of cycling. Its like cycling went to a truck stop chicken head, handed over their five bucks, pinched their nose and went to town only to find out later that the burning sensation and dripping puss were something to worry about.

There, feel better?

not really. i know what a metaphor is, and i know that they are overused by writers who don't know how to argue their point. present your evidence clearly and you may convince the reader. resort to cheap, inflamatory language, and anything constructive you may have had to say will be lost.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
patricknd said:
not really. i know what a metaphor is, and i know that they are overused by writers who don't know how to argue their point. present your evidence clearly and you may convince the reader. resort to cheap, inflamatory language, and anything constructive you may have had to say will be lost.

Um, punctuation and spelling are generally attributes beneficial to expressing a point.

Tell you what, why don't you ask your hero why he doesn't have those samples from 1999 retested for EPO. I mean, he can choose ANY lab he wants, and it would clear him. Sweetie, I am pretty sure on these points regarding Armstrong, you don't want to take the Pepsi challenge.

Cheap and inflammatory language served my point quite well. It represents precisely what I think of your hero.
 
I have never understood these people who think their favorite rider must be clean. I will make an embarassing confession that I am a fan of FLandis, but I certainly don't think he was innocent or was framed or was jobbed out of his TdF win by the dastardly French. It would be like believing the earth is flat. The sport is dirty and always has been. It got kicked up ten notches in the EPO era. Now, maybe, just possibly, in the last couple of years we are seeing a better situation develop; but I certainly will not hold my breath until there can be any faith that a GT winner is not on the sauce.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
I have never understood these people who think their favorite rider must be clean. I will make an embarassing confession that I am a fan of FLandis, but I certainly don't think he was innocent or was framed or was jobbed out of his TdF win by the dastardly French. It would be like believing the earth is flat. The sport is dirty and always has been. It got kicked up ten notches in the EPO era. Now, maybe, just possibly, in the last couple of years we are seeing a better situation develop; but I certainly will not hold my breath until there can be any faith that a GT winner is not on the sauce.

I like George Hincape and, well....he won a mountain stage in the TdF. That being said, I can respect the Landis thing because you are not trying to portray him as something he is not. He doped. He served his time.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Um, punctuation and spelling are generally attributes beneficial to expressing a point.

Tell you what, why don't you ask your hero why he doesn't have those samples from 1999 retested for EPO. I mean, he can choose ANY lab he wants, and it would clear him. Sweetie, I am pretty sure on these points regarding Armstrong, you don't want to take the Pepsi challenge.

Cheap and inflammatory language served my point quite well. It represents precisely what I think of your hero.


i think you have me confused with someone else. i have never stated that armstrong is my hero, or made any opionion about the legitimacy of his wins. there are enough "experts" on the forums to take care of that, and in the grand scheme of life it really doesn't matter.

what i have tried to point out to people is that how you feel about the language used is a matter of perspective, and mine happens to be a little different than most at this time.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
Visit site
last km said:
Amen to that.........next :)

yay!! Moving on.....how could it work for Landis? wouldn't he immediately get a team excluded, as it seems quite common that any team that has had a rider busted for doping is automatically excluded from the TDF for at least one year, and this is the race he really wants to ride.:confused:

Or would this fall under the, already punished and can't punish them anymore???

Perhaps this has already been answered, but honestly there is so much ****e on this thread, it would do my head in to go back and find out!

:p
 
Mar 12, 2009
36
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I like George Hincape and, well....he won a mountain stage in the TdF. That being said, I can respect the Landis thing because you are not trying to portray him as something he is not. He doped. He served his time.

Yes! Now we can have the argument about Big George wheelsucking his way to victory!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CapeRoadie said:
Yes! Now we can have the argument about Big George wheelsucking his way to victory!

My point is that someone of his size shouldn't be winning TdF mountain stages under any circumstances.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Henri Desgrange said:
Not to mention how funny/upsetting it was when his bike blew up at Paris-Roubaix!

He does wheelsuck though Cape. But then he's a good lead-out man too.

Yep, that bike blow-up sucked because he was in position to win that year. I will also say that I haven't seen him wheelsucking this year. In fact, he has been putting the pain down in the finale pretty well. Columbia owe him a lot come Roubaix this year.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
msjett said:
Again....this thread is about Landis returning to the tour....why are you lot continuing the debate about Armstrong?:rolleyes:

We debate it and you post about debating it. How is your post any more on topic than ours?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
msjett said:
You are so funny I could just pee my pants! Looky off topic again!:rolleyes:

I suggest Depends or Oops I Crapped My Pants (they're good for a gallon of your own feces, but I am guessing they will take care of your **** too.)

Looky, you're off topic again too. You are struggling with this irony thing, huh? Its OK big fella, keep trying.
 
Mar 10, 2009
182
0
0
Visit site
skidmark said:
I am in the special olympics and am super offended by your similie.

Somehow I don't feel any angst over your impersonation of something you are probably not. If you truly are not "***" then it's your comment skidmark, that could feasibly have a derogatory tone to it. However, after reading some of your other posts there could be some underlying psychological patterns indicating that yes indeed you could qualify for the special olympics.

*** comes from the Latin retardare, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder." The first record of *** in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term *** was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because it was not a derogatory term.

For the books, so there is no other misunderstanding as to what the term used was suggesting, I will use the more politically correct term "Developmentally challenged."

In any case skidmark, I rest my case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Robert Merivel said:
"Arguing on the Internet is like cycling in a race in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still ***."

Well, considering the Special Olympics consist of events and races your "race" is redundant. So, posting quotes on the internet without citing the reference and quite probably using the quotation marks erroneously, combined with the grammatical error pretty much puts you on the Special Olympics writing team. Good job Robert, your parents will be soooooooo proud of you. Just remember, everyone is a winner!
 
Mar 10, 2009
182
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Well, considering the Special Olympics consist of events and races your "race" is redundant. So, posting quotes on the internet without citing the reference and quite probably using the quotation marks erroneously, combined with the grammatical error pretty much puts you on the Special Olympics writing team. Good job Robert, your parents will be soooooooo proud of you. Just remember, everyone is a winner!

Wellllll, I guess we'll be "racing" against each other, pal! Now that should be fun.

What did you say your handicap was? (no pun intended ;-o)