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

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Lappartient will not attend Ronde van Vlaanderen in protest of Lance Armstrong invitation

UCI president says Armstrong is 'not the symbol of a clean sport'
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-will-not-attend-tour-of-flanders-in-protest-of-lance-armstrong-invitation/

Thank god, now make it a permanent thing. Cookson spent 50% of his "presidency" on travel to, presence at and travel from various races where his disheveled, homeless looking appearance sought out the attention of the cameras as he enjoyed his stay on the costs of the race organizers who in all likelihood despised him and the perfunctory busybody of an organization he came to embody (but not represent, that implies some sort of active role).

LOL! He spent the other 50% issuing licenses to teams/riders( *cough* Nibali and his merry band of dolts *cough*) blatantly caught cheating, then backtracking/deflecting on much of it when he was called out on it. Cookson was almost as bad as McQuack :surprised:

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

Technically I'm an atheist, but sure, I'll play catch with the kids if you're too busy (I'm breaking in a new mitt right now, convenient, no?). It's in our our nature to judge, and when it comes to LA, it doesn't take a genius to figure out he isn't the guy you want to invite to your barbecue. But by all means keep defending, we're sort of used to it here.

Why wouldn't I want to invite LA to a barbecue? I think he would be a very interesting character to talk to over a beer, but that's just me personally. Yes, he's a pariah and the poster child of the cycling doping culture but he's still a human being.

I find him fascinating. I can listen to him for hours. He's articulate, thoughtful and intelligent. It's very clear that he is reflective.

So, I'm with you. I'd invite him over. I think he has something to offer cycling too.

 

[86TDFWinner]

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

I thought people stopped being angry at Armstrong long ago? He is a nice deflection for those not wanting to address the current ills of the sport. Flanders is a beer swilling all day drink fest for middle aged men. Perfect location for Armstrong to turn up and talk about her good old days of hardcore doping.

Let's not forget Froomey and his "I didn't dope, I swear on my dogs life, I didn't . Over 546 tests and no positives, not a one" attitude. :razz:

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

I think he has something to offer cycling too.

:sad: Which is what exactly?

 

[macbindle]

Commentary.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Technically I'm an atheist, but sure, I'll play catch with the kids if you're too busy (I'm breaking in a new mitt right now, convenient, no?). It's in our our nature to judge, and when it comes to LA, it doesn't take a genius to figure out he isn't the guy you want to invite to your barbecue. But by all means keep defending, we're sort of used to it here.

Why wouldn't I want to invite LA to a barbecue? I think he would be a very interesting character to talk to over a beer, but that's just me personally. Yes, he's a pariah and the poster child of the cycling doping culture but he's still a human being.

Why? Cuz he'd drink Lance-aritas all night while hitting on your wife. You better want to talk about Lance and what he's interested in, because that's all that will be on offer. And when he knocks over that precious vase, he'll get in your face when you confront him.

Yeah, good times.

John Swanson

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Technically I'm an atheist, but sure, I'll play catch with the kids if you're too busy (I'm breaking in a new mitt right now, convenient, no?). It's in our our nature to judge, and when it comes to LA, it doesn't take a genius to figure out he isn't the guy you want to invite to your barbecue. But by all means keep defending, we're sort of used to it here.

Why wouldn't I want to invite LA to a barbecue? I think he would be a very interesting character to talk to over a beer, but that's just me personally. Yes, he's a pariah and the poster child of the cycling doping culture but he's still a human being.

Why? Cuz he'd drink Lance-aritas all night while hitting on your wife. You better want to talk about Lance and what he's interested in, because that's all that will be on offer. And when he knocks over that precious vase, he'll get in your face when you confront him.

Yeah, good times.

John Swanson

Sounds like you got Lance figured out. Maybe you shouldn't invite him over...

 

[GraftPunk]

Just saying, his doping is the least of his poor decisions. I'm neither religious or pious, but I do strive to be virtuous. People says he's changed? Then he can prove it. So far there has been zero remorse, just his usual sociopathic behavior and need to be in a spotlight. I'm sure (insert Godwin's law) could tell some stories too.

 

[aphronesis]

Remorse for what? How?

A pound of flesh for Betsy? A group hug with Tyler? Self-immolation on your front lawn?

Spotlight? So what? So in your selectively virtuous world only the pure as the driven snow are allowed access to the celebrity, money machine?

So you’re keeping daily tabs everytime there’s some “sociopathic” behavior? And have, what, some psychiatric training?

Sounds like a catechism to me.

 

[GraftPunk]

Re:

Remorse for what? How?

A pound of flesh for Betsy? A group hug with Tyler? Self-immolation on your front lawn?

Spotlight? So what? So in your selectively virtuous world on the pure as the driven snow are allowed access to the celebrity, money machine?

So you’re keeping daily tabs everytime there’s some “sociopathic” behavior? And have, what, some psychiatric training?

Sounds like a catechism to me.

Easy little buddy. It's simple enough to google sociopathy and use your best judgement to see if it matches up. I get it, you are a LA fanboy, carry on, no need to take it personally. Unless you are actually LA, in which case please do.

ETA: I do love a good self-immolation BTW.

 

[aphronesis]

Actually, I’m not. In fact I did and do despise the dude/bro culture that he was part of.

I know it’s hard for you to understand this, but I’ll try: I’m not defending LA; I’m questioning your conveniently selective moral indignation.

You’re actually the one getting riled “little buddy”. Calling me names and imagining things about me that I’ve never said.

So you basically have no present examples? You’re just repeating a lot of things you memorized years ago rather than changing as the world changes?

Got it. Think of it like politics: the fact that I disagree with inane statements made about Trump doesn’t mean I like or voted for him. See if you can hold those dissonant thoughts simultaneously. It’s work, I know.

 

[GraftPunk]

How is my moral indignation selective? In LA's time pretty much everyone was on rocket fuel. Using that as a baseline, his poor behavior is what puts him above the rest as far being a ***-heel. Having said that I do apologize for for the little buddy thing, that was incorrect behavior on my part. When it comes to examples of LA's bad choices however, google can help you. There are so many that they are difficult to miss.

 

[aphronesis]

Look man, this has long since passed tedious.

The fact that you feel qualified to take a moral highground, but dropped into “fanboism” after a few posts pretty much makes the point for me.

But whatever, you apologized.

This is pretty simple: I like pretty much anyone on this board know the history of LA. You’re not introducing me to some hidden truths. This isn’t 2004 with new cycling fans.

We’re talking about the present. What can you google up that’s happening now?

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Technically I'm an atheist, but sure, I'll play catch with the kids if you're too busy (I'm breaking in a new mitt right now, convenient, no?). It's in our our nature to judge, and when it comes to LA, it doesn't take a genius to figure out he isn't the guy you want to invite to your barbecue. But by all means keep defending, we're sort of used to it here.

Why wouldn't I want to invite LA to a barbecue? I think he would be a very interesting character to talk to over a beer, but that's just me personally. Yes, he's a pariah and the poster child of the cycling doping culture but he's still a human being.

Why? Cuz he'd drink Lance-aritas all night while hitting on your wife. You better want to talk about Lance and what he's interested in, because that's all that will be on offer. And when he knocks over that precious vase, he'll get in your face when you confront him.



Yeah, good times.

John Swanson

John .... pal. Where you’re livin there in Canader ... don’t they teach you anything about hospitality? Or are they all a buncha ponces with 177.5 crankarms stuck up their arses?

Ya never know. Lance might apologise (ad nauseum) to you. At least it might also give him a chance to tease out a bit of the bs you promote about some of his actions.

You’re welcome to attend. Will be some other good people there to shoot the breeze ... to talk cycling, fishing, science ... whatever.

I’ll put on the food. Carnivorous to veggie. I’ll also put on the Coronas and Lone Stars and maybe some AKs.

Let me know ... would be great to have you.

Social Science is Cool.

 

[thehog]

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

Armstrong on his Forward podcast is interviewing Bryan Fogel from the Icarus documentary. Looks to be very interesting. I don’t mind redemption Lance. Would have him over David Millar redemption version.

 

[proffate]

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

On what?

Film making? Dogs? Cycling? Pressure to dope? Doping? Doping Scandals? Witness Protection? Art Deco?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

On what?

Film making? Dogs? Cycling? Pressure to dope? Doping? Doping Scandals? Witness Protection? Art Deco?

Nominated for an Oscar. At least Fogel gets it. It wasn’t just the Russians, which appears to be the Anglo talking point to absolve of sins on earth.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

On what?

Film making? Dogs? Cycling? Pressure to dope? Doping? Doping Scandals? Witness Protection? Art Deco?

Nominated for an Oscar. At least Fogel gets it. It wasn’t just the Russians, which appears to be the Anglo talking point to absolve of sins on earth.

Yep ... I thought it was a great documentary.

Ahhhh, ... yes. The Anglos. Waking up each morning with that Western Canon staring you in the face. What to do? The poor dears.

My comment re Outside Online over on Froome thread. What I meant was ... and FMK grasps this clearly, I must add. Yes, there was the pre-downfall fawning by OO and most everyone else in print, as you point out. Post downfall, OO wants to get their pious kick in and help in crushing Armstrong. Like good soldiers ... being made aware of the of the Livestrong collateral damage that was being perpetrated by them ... their notion ... eg. Gifford and Heard, is ... “war is hell.” TDF 2017 ... they’re best buds with Lance again. Hence the flip flopping observation ... which is not surprising from a publication whose main motivation is to make money. However, it surely does call into question their journalistic credibility/integrity.

In addition, one of their big ticket cycling/Lance items ... the Livestrong investigative article .... was such a weak, pallid, flaccid piece of shyte. Sure ... it was giddiness-inducing cannon fodder for the Clinic hyper-vigilantes (their impacted adenoid-toned voice imploring ... “Negatory ... they don’t do reeeeeeee-search ... reeeee-search.”) FFS. Throw them a fish, someone.

So whenever OO starts preaching the end of days .... don’t lose your mouthful of coffee over your laptop screen.

 

[proffate]

Re: Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

On what?

Film making? Dogs? Cycling? Pressure to dope? Doping? Doping Scandals? Witness Protection? Art Deco?

doping. Like anyone who's "covering" it, he's spinning the narrative. He wants to make it OK to like Lance again, restoring his "wins" in at least a spiritual sense. He should be paid no attention.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

On what?

Film making? Dogs? Cycling? Pressure to dope? Doping? Doping Scandals? Witness Protection? Art Deco?

doping. Like anyone who's "covering" it, he's spinning the narrative. He wants to make it OK to like Lance again, restoring his "wins" in at least a spiritual sense. He should be paid no attention.

That cat is like ... way outa the feckin bag, bro. No stuffing that baby back.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

On what?

Film making? Dogs? Cycling? Pressure to dope? Doping? Doping Scandals? Witness Protection? Art Deco?

Nominated for an Oscar. At least Fogel gets it. It wasn’t just the Russians, which appears to be the Anglo talking point to absolve of sins on earth.

Yep ... I thought it was a great documentary.

Ahhhh, ... yes. The Anglos. Waking up each morning with that Western Canon staring you in the face. What to do? The poor dears.

My comment re Outside Online over on Froome thread. What I meant was ... and FMK grasps this clearly, I must add. Yes, there was the pre-downfall fawning by OO and most everyone else in print, as you point out. Post downfall, OO wants to get their pious kick in and help in crushing Armstrong. Like good soldiers ... being made aware of the of the Livestrong collateral damage that was being perpetrated by them ... their notion ... eg. Gifford and Heard, is ... “war is hell.” TDF 2017 ... they’re best buds with Lance again. Hence the flip flopping observation ... which is not surprising from a publication whose main motivation is to make money. However, it surely does call into question their journalistic credibility/integrity.

In addition, one of their big ticket cycling/Lance items ... the Livestrong investigative article .... was such a weak, pallid, flaccid piece of shyte. Sure ... it was giddiness-inducing cannon fodder for the Clinic hyper-vigilantes (their impacted adenoid-toned voice imploring ... “Negatory ... they don’t do reeeeeeee-search ... reeeee-search.”) FFS. Throw them a fish, someone.

So whenever OO starts preaching the end of days .... don’t lose your mouthful of coffee over your laptop screen.

One good thing about cycling is that very, very few media outlets are dependent upon the sport for revenue. The reporters can therefore cheerily tout the superheroes on their way up as they record superhuman alien efforts, and then cheerily debunk the fraudulent cheaters as they plummet into the abyss.

Websites like this one have to be very careful. They are compelled by their business model to promote the sport, otherwise they'll help kill the goose that lays the (somewhat) golden egg. On the other hand, if they don't cover doping, they lose a lot of viewers to other outlets that give coverage to doping. This website artificially segregates doping talk from the racing talk (as if they were not inextricably intertwined in reality) so that they can maximize viewership.

Coverage of Launce has really illustrated this for me. Dungheads Phil Liggett and Bob Roll are the perfect example. Their economic self-interest had them honoring their hero long after his downfall was readily apparent to everyone else in the world.

Fans are going to love the sport, regardless of the doping. It is fun watching them argue with each other over whose self-delusion is the best. The ones who proclaim that they are not at all deluded are the best!

 

[manafana]

Re:

Fogel is a huge Armstrong fanboy. He admits it. He defends Armstrong because "they were all doing it". He has zero cred. The only reason we know his name is that he set out to make a documentary about himself and stumbled onto a largish scandal.

While I agree he had some negative qualities about him, as most ultra competitive amateurs tend to show. He is also a Lance fan boy, but he is also a realist who sees the bigger picture

 

[aphronesis]

Man, I thought the crusaders would be all over this one and its implications

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-invited-to-pantani-gran-fondo-to-celebrate-1998-giro-tour-double/

And Alpe is off for a week.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

Man, I thought the crusaders would be all over this one and its implications

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-invited-to-pantani-gran-fondo-to-celebrate-1998-giro-tour-double/

And Alpe is off for a week.

Doper goes to a dope fest
where's the polemic?

No-one in Italy serious challenges the idea the Pantani wasn't doping.
It's just not a polite topic of conversation.