Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[BullsFan22]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Just like crap music or politician(s), I just try to turn the other way. Armstrong getting (still) platforms to talk about cycling is a plus to him, bad press/good press, all the same. I am sure he's getting some Benjamins out of these types of public appearances, even podcasts. Sure, he'll get scrutinized, but he'll get some people on his bandwagon. In some ways it's like the Trump effect. Yeah, he'll alienate some, but there's always a 'proud base,' no matter what he does. And like Trump, it's not so much the individual, it's the hysterical media that still gives him a platform to have his voice heard.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

Good job sharing the link and spreading the word so that he gets more listeners and stays relevant.

Just doing my part.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Did you know Lance or have any skin in the game?

Neither, but I figured out pretty early on he was a cheater and a doper. How you might ask? Just couldn't win like he was winning "clean", it's just not possible. Plus, Indurain and a few others had opened eyes to doping & made it somewhat easy to figure out. I'm probably one of the few here who would say that I didn't believe he was that good, without some sort of "help", from the beginning. After Tour win #2 I think it was, I began to put 2 and 2 together(and my buddy who's forgotten more about doping than I'll ever know, was telling me stuff too at the time), and just began to see his huge gains and how he was embarrassing quality, clean riders, and making them look foolish. That made me question his "legitimacy" almost from the beginning. I didn't buy into his goodie goodie persona, like many here did.

I only ask this because I notice patterns here and on the comments section and I notice your pattern in posting vitriol about LA pretty consistently. It doesn't matter either way to me, I'm just curious to know what's driving some of our member's posting patterns that are a little more "rigid".

Admittedly, I'm a pretty big LeMond fan, so him trying to make Greg look foolish time after time, when Greg knew more about doping, than anyone here(and knew then that Wonderboy was most likely doping),really ticked me off. Plus, he tried destroying Greg's income stream, and was able to dupe others into believing in his scam. He's tried to discredit Greg's legitimacy as champion, to the point, he's actually tried offering up what was it, something like $300k+ to anyone who would say they saw Greg "dope too", He's even said so in interviews. I mean, who does that? You have to be pretty pathetic and a total bottom feeder, to do something like that.

Also, Look what he's done to really super nice and good folks like Betsy and Frankie Andreu, I mean many here have their own opinions on Betsy and Frankie, and that's their right, more power to them. I've spoken to Betsy on numerous occasions(and still do), and she seems like a sweet, honest, believable person, who's just tired of having her and Frankies names run through the mud, by a repeated pathological, delusional liar & his equally as delusional and loyal followers. She's ALWAYS been very kind and sweet to me, and she still catches crap from many here, and she's been nothing but nice to folks here.

Wonderboy has basically ruined the sport beyond any sort of credibility now. He's made it so that now, EVERYONE is thought to be doping(and most likely are/is), now EVERYONE winning, should be questioned.

His narcissism and selfishness caused him to get busted with his ill advised "comeback". He's tried to ruin many lives with his constant cheating and lying and covering up. He's pretty much ruined a sport I really loved and now, admittedly, I don't really watch much anymore. The sport is just filled with doping.

Lance has ruined(or tried to ruin) some good people, and didn't give a crap who he stepped on, to continue on with his fake "cleanliness" as a rider. His current reign of trying to stay relevant and honestly thinking people will still believe in 'Cancer Jesus", and that he's a scapegoat and a good guy, is quite hysterical to me. Truth be told, I hope he loses EVERY PENNY he's ever won or been given due to cycling. I wish he would go away and never be involved with the sport ever again, as long as he sticks around and continues giving his opinions on things, he questions the credibility of the sport. Riders are still talking to him, hanging out with hm, etc. That doesn't bode well for them to try to regain credibility.

Just MY opinion.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

There’s an interesting parallel between the LA case and the subprime mortgage crisis

I am quite taken by the many 'parallels' people find in the LA saga. Suffering through this book I came up with the following list:

* The economic collapse of the noughties? A Case Study with Google Data: Parallels of Doping Regulation in Cycling and Banking Regulation in Finance, by Bodo Herzog for the American Journal of Economics.

* Identity issues? It's Not About The Book: A Cyborg Counternarrative of Lance Armstrong, by Ted M Butryn and Matthew A Masucci, for the Journal of Sport and Social Issues.

* Religion? Recycling Religion: Lance Armstrong's Postmodern Spirituality of Suffering and Survivorship, by William JF Keenan in the Journal of Contemporary Religion.

* Anti-Americanism? Lance Armstrong and George W Bush: French Anti-Americanism and Texan Traditionalism in le Tour and the War, by P Carr, for Sport History Review.

* Masculinity? It Takes Balls: Lance Armstrong and the Triumph of American Masculinity, by Monica Casper and Lisa Jean Moore, for Men's Lives.

* Offence? Riding Along With Lance Armstrong: Exploring Antapologia in Response to Athlete Adversity, by Jimmy Sanderson and Marion E Hambrick in the Journal of Sports Media.

* Media studies? News Stories and the Creation of Myths: the Media Portrayal of Lance Armstrong as a Modern Icarus, by I Rusu, for the European Scientific Journal.

* Copyright? 'I Want to Pump You Up!' Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez, and the Biopolitics of Data-and Analogue-Flesh, by Graham Potts, for the M/C Journal.

* Aristotle? Lance Armstrong and the Scarlet C, by Alan Belk, for the magazine Think.

In the five years since USADA judged him guilty, while Armstrong's commercial sponsors have fled from him like Thomas Wyatt's lovers, in the halls of academe his popularity is, it would seem, undiminished.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

There’s an interesting parallel between the LA case and the subprime mortgage crisis

I am quite taken by the many 'parallels' people find in the LA saga. Suffering through this book I came up with the following list:

* The economic collapse of the noughties? A Case Study with Google Data: Parallels of Doping Regulation in Cycling and Banking Regulation in Finance, by Bodo Herzog for the American Journal of Economics.

* Identity issues? It's Not About The Book: A Cyborg Counternarrative of Lance Armstrong, by Ted M Butryn and Matthew A Masucci, for the Journal of Sport and Social Issues.

* Religion? Recycling Religion: Lance Armstrong's Postmodern Spirituality of Suffering and Survivorship, by William JF Keenan in the Journal of Contemporary Religion.

* Anti-Americanism? Lance Armstrong and George W Bush: French Anti-Americanism and Texan Traditionalism in le Tour and the War, by P Carr, for Sport History Review.

* Masculinity? It Takes Balls: Lance Armstrong and the Triumph of American Masculinity, by Monica Casper and Lisa Jean Moore, for Men's Lives.

* Offence? Riding Along With Lance Armstrong: Exploring Antapologia in Response to Athlete Adversity, by Jimmy Sanderson and Marion E Hambrick in the Journal of Sports Media.

* Media studies? News Stories and the Creation of Myths: the Media Portrayal of Lance Armstrong as a Modern Icarus, by I Rusu, for the European Scientific Journal.

* Copyright? 'I Want to Pump You Up!' Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez, and the Biopolitics of Data-and Analogue-Flesh, by Graham Potts, for the M/C Journal.

* Aristotle? Lance Armstrong and the Scarlet C, by Alan Belk, for the magazine Think.

In the five years since USADA judged him guilty, while Armstrong's commercial sponsors have fled from him like Thomas Wyatt's lovers, in the halls of academe his popularity is, it would seem, undiminished.

Brilliant!! :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

I am unaware of an other companies suing teams/riders for doping

Wilier said they were suing after that little moto thing.

It does actually happen, but just because you don't hear about it, it's easy to believe it doesn't. When it does, most cases it's simply a question of cut and run: there's nothing to sue, you provided the money. Cycling teams have very empty piggie banks at the end of a season.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Which is why USPS had specific language in their contract regarding doping. They knew the sport was stuffed with it and wanted nothing to do with the dark side.

I'll trust you know USPS's motives better than anyone but elsewhere this is pretty much boilerplate for sponsorship contracts and has been in use in cycling since at least the 1970s (Raleigh had it in their contract with the Peter Post team).

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached. All USPS has to do is point to that clause and say we never would have spent $30 million on a doper. We would have put it into something maybe less lucrative but would have had nothing to do with drugs and illegal activity. Good governance and all that.

Why didn't they, then? I mean, USPS is not going after LA here, this is the government and a qui tam case. If it is all as you say - and I don't for a moment doubt your knowledge here, I just need things explained to me - why didn't USPS get in there before Landis came along with his profiteering attempt?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Which is why USPS had specific language in their contract regarding doping. They knew the sport was stuffed with it and wanted nothing to do with the dark side.

I'll trust you know USPS's motives better than anyone but elsewhere this is pretty much boilerplate for sponsorship contracts and has been in use in cycling since at least the 1970s (Raleigh had it in their contract with the Peter Post team).

Yes indeed.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Okay. Contract written, Contract signed. Contract breached. All USPS has to do is point to that clause and say we never would have spent $30 million on a doper. We would have put it into something maybe less lucrative but would have had nothing to do with drugs and illegal activity. Good governance and all that.

Why didn't they, then? I mean, USPS is not going after LA here, this is the government and a qui tam case. If it is all as you say - and I don't for a moment doubt your knowledge here, I just need things explained to me - why didn't USPS get in there before Landis came along with his profiteering attempt?

Excellent point. USPS is somehow involved as well in a separate case involving Wonderboy, if I'm not mistaken? But you're right.

 

[JRTinMA]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

Thanks for the link, he blocked me on twitter because I trolled him so bad, I would have missed this stages podcast without the link. I hope he wins the case, I think he's suffered enough, time to move on.

If Lance ever comes in to read this crap, unblock me man. My trolling days are over.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

LOL. Your hatred of Lance Armstrong has not been exaggerated. But even you should realize the frailty of your post ... and I'm sure you do.That may be part of your frustration nao eh?

Lance Armstrong is more relevant, in a good light, than last year's TDF winner, whom I tend to admire. No value judgements ... just the truth.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

...Lance Armstrong is more relevant, in a good light, than last year's TDF winner, whom I tend to admire. No value judgements ... just the truth.

That's rather like saying Pablo Escobar is more relevant than El Chapo.

 

[staubsauger]

More like saying Fidel Castro is more relevant than Hugo Chavez which actually is true. Works fine as an analogy to Armstrong & Froome in fact.

 

[This Charming Man]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Nice insight on SAGANs' DQ today. https://www.facebook.com/lancearmstrong/videos/10156386880309778/

 

[ontheroad]

You can think what you want about Lance but the guy has got charisma, his podcasts are brilliant.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Yeah, he's focusing on his actual strength. He knows the sport inside and out, and is excellent at talking about it until he's blue in the face.

 

[SeriousSam]

Fantastic podcasts, I'm rediscovering my passion for cycling.

Does Lance have a patreon or something where we can show our appreciation financially?

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Fantastic podcasts, I'm rediscovering my passion for cycling.

Does Lance have a patreon or something where we can show our appreciation financially?

Sarcasm noted...

 

[Benotti69]

Seth Davidson has a great critique of Armstrongs commentating abilities

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/it-takes-work-dude/

ouch!!!! Bet that hurt in Texas/Colorado or wherever.......

 

[eleven]

For the average, half-informed cycling fan the Stages podcasts are damn insightful and told with some entertainment. That some attorney from SoCal takes exception to his style is pretty meaningless.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

For the average, half-informed cycling fan the Stages podcasts are damn insightful and told with some entertainment. That some attorney from SoCal takes exception to his style is pretty meaningless.

Not a question of style rather the lack of genuine insightful content from someone who should be able to provide it.

If you are happy with Armstrong being a pisspoor version of dementia head Ligget, great.

Considering how much Armstrong ran crying to his attorneys dont knock them too hard.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

You gotta admire Wonderboy for trying to stay "relevant". My question is: Who/why would someone come on any show this liar is on? What purpose does it serve? :redface:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-interview-podcast-tour-de-france-105700077.html

Thanks for the link, he blocked me on twitter because I trolled him so bad, I would have missed this stages podcast without the link. I hope he wins the case, I think he's suffered enough, time to move on.

If Lance ever comes in to read this crap, unblock me man. My trolling days are over.

Hilarious post! I had not been on this thread in over a year. I had almost forgotten how funny the exchanges can be.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

For the average, half-informed cycling fan the Stages podcasts are damn insightful and told with some entertainment. That some attorney from SoCal takes exception to his style is pretty meaningless.

Not a question of style rather the lack of genuine insightful content from someone who should be able to provide it.

If you are happy with Armstrong being a pisspoor version of dementia head Ligget, great.

Considering how much Armstrong ran crying to his attorneys dont knock them too hard.

And how would you know that, Benny Boy? FFS ... CEO of the former Clinic 12's been bending a curious yellow ear you know where.

 

[eleven]

Re: Re:

For the average, half-informed cycling fan the Stages podcasts are damn insightful and told with some entertainment. That some attorney from SoCal takes exception to his style is pretty meaningless.

Not a question of style rather the lack of genuine insightful content from someone who should be able to provide it.

If you are happy with Armstrong being a pisspoor version of dementia head Ligget, great.

Considering how much Armstrong ran crying to his attorneys dont knock them too hard.

Exactly my point. You can piss and take exception with his style all day. You can join the SoCal Attorney and spit in the wind hoping to land one on a disgraced Tour rider. That doesn't change the fact that it's an insightful podcast - as evinced by the figures it is pulling.

Perhaps you could create a podcast for the true cycling fans, those with more intellectual capacity, superior moral compass and a deeper appreciation of the sport and its criminal vagabonds than the half-educated Mr. Armstrong. All of the dad-letes riding $12,000 framesets at 16 mph will adore it.