Landis "retires", done with cycle racing

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
626
0
0
andy1234 said:
Good idea, lets ask Landis what really happened.
After that im going to give Armstrong a call and ask him to tell the truth too.

These two upstanding citizens should be very forthcoming....
Just tell them it is for the CyclingNews Forum. That'll add legitimacy to your calls.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
Of course these questions have been asked. Many of the answers have been taken as fact, without basis. (without basis= concrete proof)
Fan boys of professional cycling often get their undies in a bunch over opinions. I try to keep an open mind.

Did Armstrong dope......Don't know
Did LeMond dope......Don't know
Did Landis dope.......Yup
Did Landis cheat......Yup
Did Landis scam people......Yup.

It will be interesting what FACTS come out about Armstrong. Until then, I will neither support or condem him.
Just out of curiosity, then, who did dope? Pantani? Ullrich? Basso? Rasmussen? All of the riders in the OP case? As I don't really see any "concrete proof" as you define it with those guys either, I would have to assume that, for the sake of consistency and to avoid appearing hypocritical, you have an open mind about whether or not they were doping as well?
 
Jan 18, 2011
113
0
0
"from what I heard the feds actually provided some of the facts to the SI journalists. "

You've GOT to be kidding....... On an ongoing case........
That's funny.
 
Dec 14, 2010
154
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
SI is a "fact" finding journal?

"Fair and Balanced"?

I'm sure that the Feds plan on using all the "facts" in the article against Armstrong.
The FACT that you use a "Fox News Corp." term (often mocked, in their specific case) against a TIME-WARNER publication says more about you than I can add, except 2011 will be very painful for you "Lance Fans".
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
VeloCity said:
Just out of curiosity, then, who did dope? Pantani? Ullrich? Basso? Rasmussen? All of the riders in the OP case? As I don't really see any "concrete proof" as you define it with those guys either, I would have to assume that, for the sake of consistency and to avoid appearing hypocritical, you have an open mind about whether or not they were doping as well?
If one applies the "Lance rules" to the other guys the only people who doped are those who failed an official test, ratified by the UCI, WADA, Nat Federation, All Media, All sponsors, Congress, his fans, The president, God....

If just one person can cry foul then there must be doubt. And we can't rule out aliens and spies spiking samples.

If there is a possibility of doubt then there can be a probability of innocence.

Although Floyd Landis and Greg leMond definitely did dope as far as these people are concerned.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
If one applies the "Lance rules" to the other guys the only people who doped are those who failed an official test, ratified by the UCI, WADA, Nat Federation, All Media, All sponsors, Congress, his fans, The president, God....

If just one person can cry foul then there must be doubt. And we can't rule out aliens and spies spiking samples.

If there is a possibility of doubt then there can be a probability of innocence.

Although Floyd Landis and Greg leMond definitely did dope as far as these people are concerned.
Actually Micheal Boegard rules!
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
"I'm no math wizard but Lance has scammed how many hundreds of millions?"

For his own pocket??
$300 million plus according to the figures on livestrong's website.

His test/epitest ratios from before his cancer suggest that he may have precipitated his own cancer. Just as a smoker is asking for lung cancer, abusing testosterone is tempting fate. Oh, the irony!
 
Jan 18, 2011
113
0
0
"His test/epitest ratios from before his cancer suggest that he may have precipitated his own cancer."


You guys are so funny. What a hoot.

Was Armstrong also behind 911 ??
Is he an Evil criminal mastermind trying to enslave the world?
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
"His test/epitest ratios from before his cancer suggest that he may have precipitated his own cancer."


You guys are so funny. What a hoot.

Was Armstrong also behind 911 ??
Is he an Evil criminal mastermind trying to enslave the world?
what a stupid line of argument.

It is widely known that abusing steroids can cause cancers and health problems. Messing with the natural levels of a hormone produced by organs that later become cancerous is hardly shocking.

The defenders of Lance are now the paranoid minority. get used to it.
 
Jan 18, 2011
113
0
0
The lines from the rabid Anti-Armstrong people get funnier and funnier.

So much hate and so much knee jerk reaction.

Why is everyone taking the SI article so serious? Can you really take a publication seriously that is best known for it's Swimsuit edition?

Saying that Armstrong is responsible for his own cancer is plain wrong. Way wrong.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
The lines from the rabid Anti-Armstrong people get funnier and funnier.

So much hate and so much knee jerk reaction.

Why is everyone taking the SI article so serious? Can you really take a publication seriously that is best known for it's Swimsuit edition?

Saying that Armstrong is responsible for his own cancer is plain wrong. Way wrong.
10 posts in and you have dropped the inquisition into floyd and are now attacking so called 'rabid Anti-Armstrong'....

TROLL. amateur as well

money must be tight at the pr company.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
what a stupid line of argument.

It is widely known that abusing steroids can cause cancers and health problems. Messing with the natural levels of a hormone produced by organs that later become cancerous is hardly shocking.

The defenders of Lance are now the paranoid minority. get used to it.
Someone gave me this book yesterday.

Name: In koers, 10 jaar fiesten met Rabobank.

I like the riders in the book, such as Rory Sutherland, Benhard Kohl, Thomas Dekker, Alex Rassmussen Micheal Boegard, etc.

Is er sprake van natuurkracht bij natuurtalenten?
 
Jan 18, 2011
113
0
0
I just call them as I see them.

As soon as I see some hard proof against Armstrong (speculation on an internet forum is hardly proof), I'll be glad to say that I was wrong. Until then, I'll continue to snicker at finger pointers, and haters.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
I just call them as I see them.

As soon as I see some hard proof against Armstrong (speculation on an internet forum is hardly proof), I'll be glad to say that I was wrong. Until then, I'll continue to snicker at finger pointers, and haters.
Just wondered what hard proof constitutes in your book?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
I just call them as I see them.

As soon as I see some hard proof against Armstrong (speculation on an internet forum is hardly proof), I'll be glad to say that I was wrong. Until then, I'll continue to snicker at finger pointers, and haters.
admittance is the first step on the road to recovery.;)

now how you snicker off before you get banned:rolleyes:
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
what a stupid line of argument.

It is widely known that abusing steroids can cause cancers and health problems. Messing with the natural levels of a hormone produced by organs that later become cancerous is hardly shocking.

The defenders of Lance are now the paranoid minority. get used to it.
Actually they are not. At this point supportive fans outnumber his detractors in the neighborhood of 100,00 to 1. To dispute that fact is to admit to not understanding the global fascination with the Armstrong story/myth. The few hundred vociferous detractors who contribute to this Forum may think differently, but only small percentage of the general population even have a hint that Armstrong is about to fall.

We may see it as slow in coming, but the SI article and the ESPN coverage is just the tip of the iceberg as far as waking the sleeping giant of popular opinion. So expect a lot of push back. There are good reasons to question the evidence, and they should all be exhausted. But in the end the mounting glacier of evidence and testimony will slowly crush Armstrong and his legend and leave a lasting impression with several hundred million fans globally about professional cycling and sport in general that is likely to send our beloved sport back to the dark ages.

Not to say that it should not play itself out, and undoubtedly it will, but those who would celebrate this eventual fall from grace as a great thing for the sport of cycling, have no idea what kind of sh!t storm is about to rain down on us all. Like it or not; when you start tearing down a global personality on the scope of Elvis, you are sailing in uncharted waters. The law of unintended consequences is a powerful force, and justice for Armstrong may not equate to justice for cycling. I hope that we don't all come to regret what we have wished for.
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
andy1234 said:
+1
Landis would be Armstrong mk2 if he hadn't fu**ed up.
The morally conscious around here should analyse their allies with the same criteria they analyse their enemies.
Probably not; he got a later start, so he'd never have caught up, and he didn't have Ferrari working for him after he left the protected Tailwind bubble.

Anyway, a lot of the people who seem to like Landis now were just the opposite before, slagging him as bad or worse as they do Armstrong. It's what happens to ambiguous people in ambiguous situations surrounded by black-and-white thinking.

I'm a little sad he didn't get really get a chance to show what he can do clean, but not really surprised. He's apparently in better shape now than he's been since '06.

-dB
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
Not to say that it should not play itself out, and undoubtedly it will, but those who would celebrate this eventual fall from grace as a great thing for the sport of cycling, have no idea what kind of sh!t storm is about to rain down on us all. Like it or not; when you start tearing down a global personality on the scope of Elvis, you are sailing in uncharted waters. The law of unintended consequences is a powerful force, and justice for Armstrong may not equate to justice for cycling. I hope that we don't all come to regret what we have wished for.
armstrong as a bike racer isn't "too big to fail". he's hardly been relevant in the sport for 5 years except for a single 3rd place finish. who cares? the sport of bike racing has moved on without him.

armstrong as a celebrity is going to continue falling and people who have blindly latched onto his hope-train will come to terms with it pretty quickly. they'll feel sad for 2 or 3 ......................hours ;) seriously tho, you're overstating his importance by a mile.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
Hard proof= Conviction.
So again, does that also hold true for Pantani? Ullrich? the OP riders? Rasmussen? None of whom were actually "convicted" of doping.
 
Jan 18, 2011
113
0
0
"now how you snicker off before you get banned"

Does disagreeing with the mob get you banned on this forum????

Unlike others, I resist insulting forum members. I'll hold my judgement on the "rules" of, and my opinions of this forum until I can get a better handle on it.

Maybe I should have signed on as "I Hate Lance, and Wish He were Dead".
I might have started out on a better foot, that way.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MR_Sarcastic said:
I just call them as I see them.

As soon as I see some hard proof against Armstrong (speculation on an internet forum is hardly proof), I'll be glad to say that I was wrong. Until then, I'll continue to snicker at finger pointers, and haters.
Then you don't see too good.

Continue to snicker if you like. Just as those that can read and reason will will snicker at those that choose not to.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
"now how you snicker off before you get banned"

Does disagreeing with the mob get you banned on this forum????

Unlike others, I resist insulting forum members. I'll hold my judgement on the "rules" of, and my opinions of this forum until I can get a better handle on it.

Maybe I should have signed on as "I Hate Lance, and Wish He were Dead".
I might have started out on a better foot, that way.
no but trolling will get you banned. so keep it up.

if you were not a troll you would be also on other threads about cycling but here you are defending LA when the mountain of evidence points to a guy who is guilty of some of the worst sporting crimes going.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
MR_Sarcastic said:
I might have started out on a better foot, that way.
You seem to have one standard for Armstrong and a different standard for every other rider and it's really kind of hard to take anyone like that seriously.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Today isn't the day to test the patience of moderators. If we feel people are here purely to disrupt the thread, they won't find much sympathy. I don't care one bit what opinion they have, it is attitude that will count.

Have an opinion, share it. Come here to get a rise out of folk on the other side of the coin, you will miss some exciting posting days.

The day started off calm and people were sharing opinions and reacting to the various angles that the SI article threw up.

If folk can't keep it that way, we will carry on with those that can.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY