Okay i will answer his post....
That's the problem with Armstrong haters - they try to enforce their warped version of reality onto everybody else and term anyone who doesn't toe the line as "uniformed". No, they just don't agree.
haters? why the adversarial binary. Critics and media are required to hold the powerful to account. Rectify this lack of enlightenment please.
Well we don't know. As I said, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have taken EPO in at least 1999. All the GC contenders, domestiques and most of the riders in general were taking it at that point - it was pretty standard procedure. Why wouldn't he do it? People outside of the sport don't understand this though, and would claim his victories were a "myth" if they knew about it, so it's obvious why Armstrong is very touchy about that. Wouldn't you be?
have you seen the power outputs from Cyclismag, these numbers paint a compelling picture of the peloton, and the wattage thresholds they hit once the O2 drugs entered the sport. It is a powerful case for anyone thinking a clean rider could compete for GC in this era.
No evidence to back that up. But even if true, so what? Ferrari was his coach and friend for many years - a very good coach. We can all see why he would want to continue to see him, even if he was caught up in a doping scandal. Big deal.
goes to credibility, a factor you hold in esteem, criticising the critics for their lack of it.
He was certainly one of the most tested athletes. I wouldn't get bogged down on whether he was second of third or whatever. Only someone with a hate-filled grudge would do that.
again, goes to credibility, and Armstrong being unaccountable and allowed to control the message. Facts are important, and cannot be manipulated, like crit and hemoglobin numbers he posts on Livestrong.
Well you've got to admit it was unprecedented. To spring on him urine tests from SEVEN YEARS AGO, after he had retired, is extremely unusual, unethical and does smack of a witch hunt. I think athletes of all sports would unite on that point - you can only face the official doping authorities in the proper manner. It's also true that he hasn't had the best of relations with the French, in part because of his brash American personality, so it was not unreasonable.
those who espouse their virtue, need to be exposed to rigorous investigation.
Not at all. He has kept a long list of friends and team mates for years and they are very loyal to him. His excellent books have been an inspiration to countless people around the world, whether amateur athletes or cancer survivors. I'm sure you know lots of people who were inspired by them. If you don't like him then obviously you don't like him writing books, but people have a right to do so, and they're obvious not going to write a bad book about themselves.
would these people who are inspired, feel betrayed, or would they prefer the comfort of cognitive dissonance. A dispassionate reading would suggest they would be better without the fraudulent narrative. Because all things are relative, for every Armstrong narrative completely built on myth, there will be a similarly inspiring story to fill the void. The difference is the Armstrong myth had the weight of momentum from corporate America pushing him to the Whitehouse lawn, the Lateshow, and Today. The other inspiring stories would be more organic, but still get some traction and inspire those who require healing.
.
Loopy nuts territory. Yes, it's true, as he says in his book, that he is a "player" - some people may like that, some people may hate it, some maybe jealous of it - but it doesn't take away the respect one has for him as a rider. He also has shown an ability to inspire people to work for him and his charity causes that most other people wouldn't posses. Love him or hate him, he is one of life's natural leaders. It wouldn't be a great surprise to see him run for office in the years to come - he's certainly got all the atributes to be a politician, we'll agree on that.
Armstrong is for Armstrong, that we agree on
So Armstrong is directly responsible for this guy having a seasure because they fellout? That's a very extreme view. In cycling you tend to get lots of backbiting and tensions - it just goes with the territory. You can't blame Armstrong if someone has a medical problem who he is having a dispute with. That's plain silly.
seizure
Armstrong doesn't like people spreading rumours about him and responded in his famously direct way. So what? Some people respect him for that tough style of standing up for himself. Americans are also very loyal to their heroes and don't like journalists talking them down without the evidence, so Gerard Knapp knew what he was doing. And needless to say, Armstrong is not responsible for Knapp's poor business skills.
Armstrong is unethical and a lier, Americans on the whole, are mindless jingoists, gullible to believe myths and American supremacy.
.
Well there is no doubt that he revolutionised the training programme for the tour and brought a new focus too it. Anyone who denies that is doing so for their own reasons. The money that went into his team also saw manufacturers bring forward a lot of new technology. I don't think anybody has said his competitors were stupid and lazy, but Ulrich certainly didn't prepare in the same strict fashion. We wont entertain your conspiracy theory about the UCI.
no, Armstrong was not doing anything that someone who had come before him do
Obviously the top riders are going to have a lot of interest in them, and for someone like Armstrong who has won so many tours, people will want to see what makes him special. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, you need to pay Ferrari 15% of your salary.
Who said anything about fat? Unfortunate that you had to mention that since nobody here has. As for claims that she blogs 24/7; well it IS unusual to see somebody caught up in this drama issues taking such an active role on the message boards right along side the extremist trolls who just spout endless propaganda about Armstrong being a "myth". As I keep trying to warn her, these people are using her stance to further their own twisted agenda, which doesn't make her look good in the process. It is also a little bit strange that she is so into attacking Armstrong and not the guy who was actually a professional rider who rode with Armstrong. One doesn't know either way, but it's sometimes hard not to conclude she is milking her tiny bit of Armstrong-related fame for all its worth. It must be fun to check out what the internet people are writing about an incident you were involved in.
Actually Armstrong and the apparatchiks used the media to attack Mrs Andreu with a megaphone. She did it with no PR team, and no fora to disabuse the media and fanbois of the mythology. Chapeau Betsy
All great stars have endless people like this to deal with, whether they were former school friends they fellout with or whatever. I'm not saying it makes Betsy a bad person.
I am not a racist, but...
This is just assertion. You don't know if they tried to hire anybody to look into Lemond. Lemond, like Armstrong, is a bit prickly and does rube people up the wrong way. He also has his own demons. I watched him on youtube from a few years ago at the Tour and he was slurring his words. If Armstrong had done that you can just imagine what people on forums would be saying, but because it's Lemond he gets a free pass. It's okay for him to sue everyone to keep his business empire going that has already made him millions, and he is allowed to protect his reputation, but if Armstrong does it he gets called greedy and nasty.
In my mind, Lemond lowered his colours a great deal, taping the phonecall with McIlvain. But Lemond is one of the few to standup to Armstrong, and deserves respect for that.
Assertion and gossip - you have no idea if that is true and you know this.
Everything is hearsay, speculation, gossip in your mind, and means nothing. In journalism, this is background, and creates your informing context.
All you provided is a bunch of personal disputes and grudges that have nothing to do with anything. It doesn't prove Armstrong's victories were a myth, but rather proves that you are a bitter hater who will stoop to claiming any half fact or gossip is 100% true if it damages Armstrong.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram