Levi Leipheimer

[Hugh Januss]

[/B]


I guess the point is that when you get your Cat 1 license you'll realize that everyone out there with you still has to pedal his bike, still has good days and bad, and still suffers greatly for the results he gets. That while suspicion of doping is always a convenient fall back position, it is harder to admit that I just sucked out there today. The realization that other riders are on a whole different performance plane than yourself has little more meaning when it is derived from actual experience, and it makes you a little less judgmental. It's very obvious from so many of the cavalier opinions and attitudes expressed here to see, who gets that concept and who doesn't.

Please feel free to criticize and castigate any rider any rider you choose. That is what this forum is ultimately about; a place for those of us who can't, to openly criticize those who can. And while your distain for any one rider can be as arbitrary as you care to make it, to challenge their palmares as "unimpressive" reflects far more on your personal character than your knowledge of cycling.

You can despise an Armstrong, Ullrich , Basso, or (fill in the blank) for all the personally justified "right reasons", but you cannot get by the fact, that as a doped rider, they often crushed a field of similarly doped riders, while you sat there with remote in hand cheering, and replayed the moment time and time again. Forgive me if the attitude du jour rings a little hollow now.

Well I have been there and done that, as a contemporary of the '84 blood doping gang.
I despise none of the riders, but do want to see things cleaned up and put right within the sport that I have spent my life in. If heads have to roll for that to occur then that is fine it was their doing.
The ones that I focus on are Bruyneel, Verbruggen, McQuaid, Conconi, Ferrari, Fraysse, Eddy B., Armstrong, Carmicheal, Ochowitz,both Stapletons, the list could go on and on. The powers behind cycling who have developed and gotten rich off of a sport that has become totally dependent on doping with their complicit knowledge and protection.
Yes I know there has always been doping in cycling, even Eddy Merckx was busted for doping, but if you were trying to compete clean would you rather be going up against someone who had popped a few bennies or who was on a designer program of EPO, HGH, testosterone, etc and etc?
It has gotten entirely out of control and it is time it was swept clean.

 

[kurtinsc]

Well I have been there and done that, as a contemporary of the '84 blood doping gang.
I despise none of the riders, but do want to see things cleaned up and put right within the sport that I have spent my life in. If heads have to roll for that to occur then that is fine it was their doing.
The ones that I focus on are Bruyneel, Verbruggen, McQuaid, Conconi, Ferrari, Fraysse, Eddy B., Armstrong, Carmicheal, Ochowitz,both Stapletons, the list could go on and on. The powers behind cycling who have developed and gotten rich off of a sport that has become totally dependent on doping with their complicit knowledge and protection.
Yes I know there has always been doping in cycling, even Eddy Merckx was busted for doping, but if you were trying to compete clean would you rather be going up against someone who had popped a few bennies or who was on a designer program of EPO, HGH, testosterone, etc and etc?
It has gotten entirely out of control and it is time it was swept clean.

While I'm not disputing anything... I do find it odd the company you have Armstrong on that list with.

I know he doped. I know he made a lot of money off of it. I know how he helped enforce Omerta. But I think there are a good number of riders who you could say the same about... from Indurain to Riis (also as a manager) to Ulrich to Contador.

While it may not be the case... it feels like the only reason Armstrong is on this type of list while Ulrich or Indurain are not... is because Lance is a jerk and they weren't... not because of the level of involvement or guilt.

 

[Hugh Januss]

While I'm not disputing anything... I do find it odd the company you have Armstrong on that list with.

I know he doped. I know he made a lot of money off of it. I know how he helped enforce Omerta. But I think there are a good number of riders who you could say the same about... from Indurain to Riis (also as a manager) to Ulrich to Contador.

While it may not be the case... it feels like the only reason Armstrong is on this type of list while Ulrich or Indurain are not... is because Lance is a jerk and they weren't... not because of the level of involvement or guilt.

Riis was included in the on and ons. Armstrong for all he has done to defend omerta and hide behind a self enriching Charity has risen above any other racer in terms of profit from and defense of the status quo.

 

[Benotti69]

.... Armstrong for all he has done to defend omerta and hide behind a self enriching Charity has risen above any other racer in terms of profit from and defense of the status quo.

for all Armstrongs defense of the omerta, the way he went about it raised more questions about doping then ever, he had to do it that made him look powerful, ie in the case of Simoni, instead of sending a domestique up to tell Simoni and the break that they were not gonna get away with Simoni in it, no LA had to ride up and demonstrate his power, which led to a lot of people questioning why did he do that, which in turn connected the media and fans to Armstrongs link to a dirty Doctor......

but i agree that he has used the sport for his own ends, always, yes it made it more popular but not in a good way, and riders money has risen, but that would have happened anyway as it is an international sport and sport in general has become very popular with advertisers to sell their wares so LA can take little praise for that. No one footballer raised the wages in europe, it was the influx of money from TV and advertising that did that. Same with cycling.

 

[BikeCentric]

[/B]


I guess the point is that when you get your Cat 1 license you'll realize that everyone out there with you still has to pedal his bike, still has good days and bad, and still suffers greatly for the results he gets. That while suspicion of doping is always a convenient fall back position, it is harder to admit that I just sucked out there today. The realization that other riders are on a whole different performance plane than yourself has little more meaning when it is derived from actual experience, and it makes you a little less judgmental. It's very obvious from so many of the cavalier opinions and attitudes expressed here to see, who gets that concept and who doesn't.

Please feel free to criticize and castigate any rider any rider you choose. That is what this forum is ultimately about; a place for those of us who can't, to openly criticize those who can. And while your distain for any one rider can be as arbitrary as you care to make it, to challenge their palmares as "unimpressive" reflects far more on your personal character than your knowledge of cycling.

You can despise an Armstrong, Ullrich , Basso, or (fill in the blank) for all the personally justified "right reasons", but you cannot get by the fact, that as a doped rider, they often crushed a field of similarly doped riders, while you sat there with remote in hand cheering, and replayed the moment time and time again. Forgive me if the attitude du jour rings a little hollow now.

^
More Omerta Enforcement.

"Pro cyclists are better than you at riding a bike so you shouldn't criticize them because they're faster than you." Or something.

 

[BikeCentric]

[/B]
You can despise an Armstrong, Ullrich , Basso, or (fill in the blank) for all the personally justified "right reasons", but you cannot get by the fact, that as a doped rider, they often crushed a field of similarly doped riders, while you sat there with remote in hand cheering, and replayed the moment time and time again.

^
Omerta Enforcement

"How dare you criticize a doped up pro for doping. Because they beat other dopers and they're still better athletes than you are you have no right to criticize them for doping"

LOL LOL LOL fanboy pro cyclist worshipper

 

[BikeCentric]

[/B]
I guess the point is that when you get your Cat 1 license you'll realize that everyone out there with you still has to pedal his bike, still has good days and bad, and still suffers greatly for the results he gets.

Indeed, no one could ever understand something so profound as this untill they upgrade to Cat 1. LOL.

 

[VeloFidelis]

^
More Omerta Enforcement.

"Pro cyclists are better than you at riding a bike so you shouldn't criticize them because they're faster than you." Or something.

"Or something" is obviously code for;" I can't quite grasp the subtlety of your point, so in my frustration, I will both misquote you, and just throw out some bullsh!t sound bite to misrepresent your point further, all to help me feel better about myself".

Excellent job!!

 

[kurtinsc]

Riis was included in the on and ons. Armstrong for all he has done to defend omerta and hide behind a self enriching Charity has risen above any other racer in terms of profit from and defense of the status quo.

You don't see the charity profiteering as a separate issue from the cycling side? I don't really see how those are connected... Lance could have been totally clean and the charity stuff would be the same... and he could have never done the cancer stuff but it wouldn't have changed his doping.

The only thing different he did with Omerta then any other rider would seem to be chasing down Simeoni... but to be honest that seemed to actually be very stupid and open up cycling to questions. The others that would have done it more quietly would have been more effective at hiding things.

Again... it seems to me that you're more focused on bringing him down for his ego and jerkish personality then the actual cycling transgressions.

Not saying he doesn't deserve it... just wondering why he deserves it more then Indurain, Ulrich... or perhaps even Contador.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Indeed, no one could ever understand something so profound as this untill they upgrade to Cat 1. LOL.

Wow!! Three responses to one post in the time it takes me to reply to the first; each one more obtuse than the last.

It delights me to get so far under your skin.

What?... no emoticons?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

...Again... it seems to me that you're more focused on bringing him down for his ego and jerkish personality then the actual cycling transgressions.

Not saying he doesn't deserve it... just wondering why he deserves it more then Indurain, Ulrich... or perhaps even Contador.

I get what you are saying but Indurain, Ulrich and Contador haven't had all their wins on untouchable teams. That's only one of the many little things that gives me the overall impression that Armstrong's doping practices raised the bar for GT cyclists. YMMV

 

[Hugh Januss]

You don't see the charity profiteering as a separate issue from the cycling side? I don't really see how those are connected... Lance could have been totally clean and the charity stuff would be the same... and he could have never done the cancer stuff but it wouldn't have changed his doping.

The only thing different he did with Omerta then any other rider would seem to be chasing down Simeoni... but to be honest that seemed to actually be very stupid and open up cycling to questions. The others that would have done it more quietly would have been more effective at hiding things.

Again... it seems to me that you're more focused on bringing him down for his ego and jerkish personality then the actual cycling transgressions.

Not saying he doesn't deserve it... just wondering why he deserves it more then Indurain, Ulrich... or perhaps even Contador.

As far as I know LA is the only one who makes TV ads with cancer victims in them to deny his doping. Maybe I should have left out the self-enriching part and only talked about the hiding behind part? Because that was what I was focusing on.
Maybe there is a TV spot in Spain where Indurain says "what am I on? I'm on my bike" etc but I haven't seen it. If I did maybe Indurain would make the club too.

 

[kurtinsc]

As far as I know LA is the only one who makes TV ads with cancer victims in them to deny his doping. Maybe I should have left out the self-enriching part and only talked about the hiding behind part? Because that was what I was focusing on.
Maybe there is a TV spot in Spain where Indurain says "what am I on? I'm on my bike" etc but I haven't seen it. If I did maybe Indurain would make the club too.

Mig has made statements about how people talking about doping (including Riis) should shut up. He backed up Omerta.

He wasn't a guy searching for publicity like Lance... but I'm still struggling with seeing how that means his use of doping was any "less bad" then Lance's was. Both doped. Both achieved results they likely couldn't have otherwise by doping. Both encouraged other riders to keep quiet about it.

Lance was just loud, self promoting and a jerk... while Mig was quiet, humble, and a nice guy.

Yes, Lance filmed a commercial (for Nike) where he says "What am I on?..." He's denied doping in a hundred different ways. But how does that change the facts... he's a doper who lied about it while profiting... just like all the other dopers in cycling. I'm struggling to see the logic behind including him with people involved further up the line in the direction of cycling as a whole.

I struggle to see (in the context of doping and punishing dopers) how he differs from other successful dopers.

If you want to go after him from profiting off cancer stuff... go ahead. I can't think of other cyclists who have done that. I still don't see how that questionable behavior ties in with shutting down/punishing doping. Again... if he did it without doping... it would be just as bad. If he doped without the cancer stuff... that wouldn't make the doping any better.

I guess I don't see any of the cancer stuff as him attempting to hide from doping. I see it is him increasing his advertising brand by being viewed as a "cancer crusader" and having made a "miraculous comeback". Yes... it fits with the publicity seeking and jerkish side of his personality... but if he didn't do that would cycling be less doped? If not... then where's the connection?

 

[SpartacusRox]

No, Levi just shuts up and takes the check to the bank. He's got you and Stephens and Velofidelis to make all his noise for him. None of that means he is not a doper though. I really wish someone sane could tell me where this idea that you have to be a pro bike racer (and evidently a very good one to boot) in order to form the opinion (with a great deal of supporting evidence) that there is cheating going on, came from.
Does one need to be a 70 handicap golfer to express the opinion that Tiger Woods is (or was) an out of control horn-dog?
Can I criticise my state senator even if I have never held public office?
How many years do I have to have held a Cat 1 license before I can accuse a pro of cheating?

My response to Moose actually had nothing to do with doping or cheating. it was made in response to him insinuating that all Levi can do is win low grade races. I just find stuff like that pretty pathetic. A bit like saying that Tiger can only beat guys on his home course.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

C'mon. Do we really need to dredge up everyone who has doped in the past? We can go back a half-century of racing and find those who doped, like Anquetil, who admittedly doped and posed the question (paraphrased) "how can anyone expect us not to dope with races this hard". Oops... there I did it!

 

[barn yard]

C'mon. Do we really need to dredge up everyone who has doped in the past? We can go back a half-century of racing and find those who doped, like Anquetil, who admittedly doped and posed the question (paraphrased) "how can anyone expect us not to dope with races this hard". Oops... there I did it!

the past is the past

lets move forward

no need to look back

i doped last week but thats in the past, time to move forward

wait dont put me in jail

 

[Oldman]

My response to Moose actually had nothing to do with doping or cheating. it was made in response to him insinuating that all Levi can do is win low grade races. I just find stuff like that pretty pathetic. A bit like saying that Tiger can only beat guys on his home course.

Comparing Levi to Tiger is like comparing Brittany to anyone that can sing. There is not even to basic genetics for comparison. Levi is more of an example of fine-tuned program rider with the pathological need to please (earn income for that fine-lookin' wife-how are you Odessa? Long time) more than Lance Armstrong. His focus locked on earlier with the Natz team and he worked hard. That doesn't make him as good as John Daly; a natural, albeit compromised talent.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Comparing Levi to Tiger is like comparing Brittany to anyone that can sing. There is not even to basic genetics for comparison. Levi is more of an example of fine-tuned program rider with the pathological need to please (earn income for that fine-lookin' wife-how are you Odessa? Long time) more than Lance Armstrong. His focus locked on earlier with the Natz team and he worked hard. That doesn't make him as good as John Daly; a natural, albeit compromised talent.

Yeah whatever. Actually Brittany is quite talented.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What?... no emoticons?

Enjoy!

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah whatever. Actually Brittany is quite talented.

from the neck down

 

[BikeCentric]

Yeah whatever. Actually Brittany is quite talented.

Come on now, he makes an obvious point.

Tiger is perhaps the all-time best golfer ever. He is pretty much the Eddy Merckx of golf.

Levi in that historical context is a very average if not very bad GC rider.

That doesn't mean I'm not impressed with what Levi has accomplished especially as a fellow American, but in a historical context of the sport that's just the ojective truth.

Of course, I'm well aware that you'd get your "Rox" off by personally telling Levi that you think he's one of the all-time greats of cycling. This is what makes you a deluded fanboy and seperates you from those of us that posses actual critical thinking skills.

 

[BikeCentric]

"Or something" is obviously code for;" I can't quite grasp the subtlety of your point, so in my frustration, I will both misquote you, and just throw out some bullsh!t sound bite to misrepresent your point further, all to help me feel better about myself".

Excellent job!!

Yeah, you're about as "subtle" as a box of rocks Velo. Every one of your posts on here is a paraphrase of the same exact theme: that people who fail to worship pro cyclists are losers because those pro cyclists are better athletes than them.

The reason I and many others continue to flame and laugh at you is because it's obvious to non-retards that the reason pretty much anyone watches pro cycling in the first place is to watch the very best athletes in the world at what they do. So it's pretty much a massive "no shi! Sherlock" when you point out ad nauseum that these guys are better than the fans. I mean really, that's why we watch them.

Furthermore, the point that a lot of fans want to watch a clean sport has absolutely nothing to do with athletic ability differences between the fans and the riders. On the contrary it has everything to do with the fans wanting to see the true relative athletic ability among the pros not be obscured by drugs.

 

[schnebit]

Furthermore, the point that a lot of fans want to watch a clean sport has absolutely nothing to do with athletic ability differences between the fans and the riders. On the contrary it has everything to do with the fans wanting to see the true relative athletic ability among the pros not be obscured by drugs.

Exactly!!!

 

[VeloFidelis]

Yeah, you're about as "subtle" as a box of rocks Velo. Every one of your posts on here is a paraphrase of the same exact theme: that people who fail to worship pro cylcists are losers because those pro cyclists are better athletes than them.

The reason I and many others continue to flame and laugh at you is because it's obvious to non-retards that the reason pretty much anyone watches pro cycling in the first place is to watch the very best athletes in the world at what they do. So it's pretty much a massive "no shi! Sherlock" when you point out ad nauseum that these guys are better than the fans. I mean really, that's why we watch them.

Furthermore, the point that a lot of fans want to watch a clean sport has absolutely nothing to do with athletic ability differences between the fans and the riders. On the contrary it has everything to do with the fans wanting to see the true relative athletic ability among the pros not be obscured by drugs.

Dude! your Dept of Redundancy Dept is working overtime. Calm down... and wipe the spit of your screen so you can go back and really read anything I have posted here. If you need help I can use smaller words. Whatever it takes. I'm willing to spend the time to help you get it, because you currently have your head so far up your a$$ that you should be starting to see daylight, and that has just got to be uncomfortable.

Completely missing the point is really nothing to be ashamed of... It's hard, I know. But emphatically misstating and misquoting, or invoking tired cliches of Fanboy worship, and rehashing the extremely obvious like it is a new and meaningful revelation... well, frankly... we think you can do better, although the prevalent "non ***" theme is a little troubling. I hope that you are not suffering pangs of inadequacy in that regard. I am sure that if you go back and really apply yourself, you'll find the real meaning there. But then again, if you don't feel up to it... well, I'm sure we'll understand.

 

[Anonymous]

Dude! your Dept of Redundancy Dept is working overtime. Calm down... and wipe the spit of your screen so you can go back and really read anything I have posted here. If you need help I can use smaller words. Whatever it takes. I'm willing to spend the time to help you get it, because you currently have your head so far up your a$$ that you should be starting to see daylight, and that has just got to be uncomfortable.

Completely missing the point is really nothing to be ashamed of... It's hard, I know. But emphatically misstating and misquoting, or invoking tired cliches of Fanboy worship, and rehashing the extremely obvious like it is a new and meaningful revelation... well, frankly... we think you can do better, although the prevalent "non ***" theme is a little troubling. I hope that you are not suffering pangs of inadequacy in that regard. I am sure that if you go back and really apply yourself, you'll find the real meaning there. But then again, if you don't feel up to it, I'm sure we'll understand.

Says the guy working himself into a hissy fit...

His hero acts like a 12 year old girl, why be surprised that the people who sniff his chamois do also?