• 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 @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!

Lemond/Trek new thread

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 20, 2009
164
0
0
Visit site
Wow, imagine if I got banned for this thread. Look at RR and Dr Maserati scrambling to find reasons why I am "trolling" and utterly failing. It's utterly absurd. I'm embarrassed for them.

Every moderator on this site should look at this thread and see how these pair work. What complete nonsense.
 
Sep 20, 2009
164
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You finally admitted it.

YOU brought in the SCA case - which has absolutely no relevance to the ongoing Lemond V Trek dispute - so yes it is "irrelevant and off topic".

You've got to admit that's a pile of crap. Man to man. You've been sucked into RR's game and it's had nothing but a negative influence. This is ridiculous.

Lets get back to the topic.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
British Pro Cycling said:
But I quoted you:



guilder said:
the incessant Lance hate 24/7 internet smear campaign.
.

It appears to me that guilder is saying that Lance is still popular despite a 24/7 internet smear campaign. If he is talking about Lemond then he is confused as I think we can all agree that Lemond's reputation has taken a substantial hit. That is why I replied that there is no campaign to smear Lance.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
If I get a PM from someone offering money in exchange for forum gymnastics, should I be suspicious about whether they are a double agent or not? I am thinking if they have 'strong in their user name I should probably think they are from the Lance end of the spectrum.

Anyone remember the guy whispering in all the kid's ears in Willy Wonka? I always thought it was strange he was RIGHT THERE when they opened the winning ticket. These dark and mysterious PR guys are probably just that slick.

images

Somebody in this forum has to be part of the GL smear campaign. The odds must dictate it.

I'm doing ok financially, but if anybody from the PR firm wants to contact me for the smear GL campaign I can easily be bought. I am a ***** and I admit it. :cool:

Would that mean I can't talk about LA afterwards?
 
Sep 20, 2009
164
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
It appears to me that guilder is saying that Lance is still popular despite a 24/7 internet smear campaign. If he is talking about Lemond then he is confused as I think we can all agree that Lemond's reputation has taken a substantial hit. That is why I replied that there is no campaign to smear Lance.

Well you should have been a lot clearer about what you said. Declaring "there is no Lance smear campaign", in the middle of a thread where people are trying to say there is a Lance smear campaign, was not wise. You obviously don't blame me for the misintepretation of your remarks, if indeed it was a misintepretation.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
British Pro Cycling said:
Wow, imagine if I got banned for this thread. Look at RR and Dr Maserati scrambling to find reasons why I am "trolling" and utterly failing. It's utterly absurd. I'm embarrassed for them.

Every moderator on this site should look at this thread and see how these pair work. What complete nonsense.
Nice - an 'ad hominem' to add to your attempts to defect the thread away from its original subject by introducing incorrect information from the SCA case that is 'irrelevant and off topic".

If you feel so hard done by then why not 'flag' any post of mine for consideration of the moderators and let them judge.

I would advise you to get back on topic - before you do get banned for your 'trolling'.
 
Sep 20, 2009
164
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Nice - an 'ad hominem' to add to your attempts to defect the thread away from its original subject by introducing incorrect information from the SCA case that is 'irrelevant and off topic".

LA testomony about the same issues is off-topic? You're joking right? Seems you want any mention of this case striken from the record because LA won it. That couldn't be true, could it?

If you feel so hard done by then why not 'flag' any post of mine for consideration of the moderators and let them judge

I would advise you to get back on topic - before you do get banned for your 'trolling'.

Cheeky ****er. :rolleyes:
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Nice - an 'ad hominem' to add to your attempts to defect the thread away from its original subject by introducing incorrect information from the SCA case that is 'irrelevant and off topic".

If you feel so hard done by then why not 'flag' any post of mine for consideration of the moderators and let them judge.

I would advise you to get back on topic - before you do get banned for your 'trolling'.

His incorrect statement pertained to the fact he thought it was a jury trial? He's from the UK, and they're drunk most of the time. Shouldn't that afford some leeway here? He made a mistake, big deal.

You guys do tag team him, and I notice most of that tag-teaming happens when he has y'all on the ropes. Most of the rebuttal to him involve name-calling. It's an inconsistency in the rules across several forums that has me perplexed; somebody says something somebody else doesn't like or can't respond to then they get called troll, etc., then they get banned. Wash, rinse, repeat. I admit it is an easy way to argue if you are teamed up with doc, rr, tff, etc.
 
A quick question

Does this squabbling fulfil some need in each of you? Do you enjoy it? :confused:

If you did not have this forum as an outlet would you be doing this somewhere else in the real world? Would you be driving your families, friends and work colleagues nuts?

I only ask because if allowing you to continue to post this nauseating drivel is keeping you off the streets so to speak at least it is serving some purpose!
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
Can somebody draw me a diagram of what a PR firm in this case would look like?

Sure.

First you work with sympathetic media to produce negative coverage of Lemond. I think we can all agree that this occurred. Do you really think that all those articles about Lemond being unstable came out of nowhere? As nobody on this board has been able to come up with an actual lemond quote to support this position I think we can all agree that much of the "Lemond is nuts" story was invented.

It would not be the first time that Armstrong exploited the media with a story that turned out to be a lie. Who doesn't remember almost every major newspaper and website had an article about Armstrong being born a freak of nature. They cited the since disgraced Coyle study and said his heart was the size of a pumpkin. Funny how the same story showed up everywhere at the same time. Wasn't too hard to replicate this success but this time they used the "Lemond is Nuts" narative.

When suddenly a bunch of new posters come on message boards to talk about Lemond's "Iron Injection" it was hard not to see this as a concerted effort. This of course backfired as the more informed posters consistently tore apart these ideas and lemond looked even better then before. I would doubt that BPC is in anyway paid or influenced as he would be more of an embarrassment then an assist.

Armstrong has boasted often of the power of social media. We can all agree that when he tweets about "Hateraide and Hatertots" to his 2,000,000 followers that this is an effort to slime Lemond.

The fact remains that the current public image of Lemond is not supported by facts.....much like the Armstrong myth that is believed by so many.
 
Mar 3, 2009
377
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I would advise you to get back on topic

I would appreciate it if people would take the good Doctor's advice. Like every other thread, you should keep in line with discussion on the original post/title of the thread.

You don't have to agree with one another, but respect one another opinions and don't go trolling or else this thread will also be locked, action taken against those involved in the disruptive practices, and further attempts to revive it will be killed off. This is quiet a big issue within the industry at the moment, it would be unfortunate if we had to prevent it from being discussed because people can't stop baiting one another (and jumping on the hook).

Cheers
Greg
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
A quick question

Does this squabbling fulfil some need in each of you? Do you enjoy it? :confused:

If you did not have this forum as an outlet would you be doing this somewhere else in the real world? Would you be driving your families, friends and work colleagues nuts?

I only ask because if allowing you to continue to post this nauseating drivel is keeping you off the streets so to speak at least it is serving some purpose!

Yes, it is nauseating. It is clear that one poster is the cause of the sickness.
 
Sep 10, 2009
16
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
It will never cease to amaze me how people who don't want to believe a thing can gloss over the blatantly obvious, and convince themselves there's some meaningful chance that Ferrari is anything but a top-flight doping doctor who is among the best ever at getting athletic results for his clients.

Is he more than a doctor? Of course, he's a brilliant doctor who specializes in performance through doping. His success is unmatched, and clearly his ability to apply his knowledge and techniques to garner athletic success for his clients is nearly unmatched.

No one is using him as a coach to train themselves without dope. No one.
how do you know that?
 
Polish said:
Point 1.....I do not know why Greg Secretly Taped the Phone Call to Stephanie, but I will guess it was not ethically right. Was it morally justified? Was it it was meant to help homeless people or cancer victims or soon-to-be-laid-off bicycle-assembly-line workers:(??

Point 2....the time Greg taped you and you both knew it, did you make it clear during the conversation that it was taped?


So the only time something is morally or ethically justifiable is if it's meant to help the homeless or those with cancer? That's a really stupid statement.

As to point 2, I did NOT know Greg had taped me the first time we ever spoke on the phone. I didn't find out he had until a year or two later. The second time we spoke, he asked me if he could tape me.

I have never publicly stated that Lance's foundation was a fraud from the start to insure an income. If anyone's going to quote me, please either say what I've said verbatim and don't paraphrase because it may not be accurate.
 
ChrisE said:
Can somebody draw me a diagram of what a PR firm in this case would look like?

And, toss in some concrete examples of direct influence of this PR campaign in terms of the case. I believe sprocket and scribe are potential prime examples, but they refute they were contacted. Polish my be a plant. I'm certainly not, because I can see the validity of the case yet call BS on all the conspiracy. LA should get his money back on me. :confused:

This sort of thing is pretty common these days. It is most often used for marketing a product.

The Internet Movie Data Base is filled with bogus reviews. For many bad films it is easy to see a pattern on many films. The first reviews are gloriously positive. The suspicious reviews end after a film has been out for about a month. When the film opens in foreign markets, honest and scathing reviews start pour in by brits. After the DVD is released it is hard to find a good review. The overall rating remains quite high due to the biased early reviews.

Political operative working for campaigns began posting in various online forums and newsgroups about ten years ago.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
elizab said:
......
As to point 2, I did NOT know Greg had taped me the first time we ever spoke on the phone. I didn't find out he had until a year or two later. The second time we spoke, he asked me if he could tape me.

Unfortunately, the one thing that needs taping hasn't happened yet. Can you just provide links to your beef that is scattered in hundreds of places across the internet, instead of regurgitating it here? Thanks.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
This sort of thing is pretty common these days. It is most often used for marketing a product.

The Internet Movie Data Base is filled with bogus reviews. For many bad films it is easy to see a pattern on many films. The first reviews are gloriously positive. The suspicious reviews end after a film has been out for about a month. When the film opens in foreign markets, honest and scathing reviews start pour in by brits. After the DVD is released it is hard to find a good review. The overall rating remains quite high due to the biased early reviews.

Political operative working for campaigns began posting in various online forums and newsgroups about ten years ago.

Very common in the Hotel and restaurant business as well.
http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2009/06/tripadvisor_tries_to_respond_t.html
 
ChrisE said:
Unfortunately, the one thing that needs taping hasn't happened yet. Can you just provide links to your beef that is scattered in hundreds of places across the internet, instead of regurgitating it here? Thanks.

Make digs all you want. I have every right to answer a question concerning me regarding this lawsuit. You don't have to read, you don't have to or shouldn't respond - especially when it doesn't add to the discussion.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
In a feeble attempt to bait me into responding to your drivel you have to resort to lying again. Only confirms you are interested only in trolling, not contributing.

Hey, what's up?

You and I see this the same way.

I think the only question on this issue is how Armstrong is going to minimize the damage. I really believe there is a fair chance this could be his downfall.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
elizab said:
Make digs all you want. I have every right to answer a question concerning me regarding this lawsuit. You don't have to read, you don't have to or shouldn't respond - especially when it doesn't add to the discussion.

elizab,

Bromance is a very powerful force in the universe although I don't understand it myself either.:D

Evidently the worshippers think it's okay for the object of their affections to utilize slash and burn tactics and character assasination to ruin people.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
A quick question

Does this squabbling fulfil some need in each of you? Do you enjoy it? :confused:

If you did not have this forum as an outlet would you be doing this somewhere else in the real world? Would you be driving your families, friends and work colleagues nuts?

I only ask because if allowing you to continue to post this nauseating drivel is keeping you off the streets so to speak at least it is serving some purpose!

No - the squabbling frustrates me probably as much as it frustrates you.

I enjoy good debate - and in particular an informed one.
BPC often posts 'irrelevant and off-topic' pieces, which is trolling. That 'hook' can be easily avoided.
However when they post inaccurate or unfounded comments then I believe it is necessary to point out those inaccuracies - as often on online forums uncontested mistaken information is taken as fact.

The problem - I believe - is not the obvious 'trolling' it is the concerted effort to misrepresent the facts.

If the CN forum is to be taken as a serious place to discuss all matters cycling related - and I believe it does - then I do not see why unsubstantiated claims should go uncontested.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
elizab said:
Make digs all you want. I have every right to answer a question concerning me regarding this lawsuit. You don't have to read, you don't have to or shouldn't respond - especially when it doesn't add to the discussion.

You were the 5th post in this thread. None of the previous 4 said anything about you. You jumped in so now you are fair game. Sorry but those seem to be the rules, but I may be trolling here since you are one of the good guys.

Why don't you explain your unique ability to pop up on obscure forums thoughout the internet when things "concern" you. You sure do surf alot, and have good luck.