Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Dr. Maserati]

It's no fun when you make this slow.

Second time you have said this - if I am slow on your uptake it is because you are attributing to me something I do not think or have not said.

I thought you enjoyed this for other reasons. Again, how much existing goodwill and big deals are external to fraud? Why should anyone care about him? Because of disgruntled cycling fans?

That's a wild argument to suggest that I'm defending Armstrong by way of suggesting that autobiographies are fiction. Back in the day they called that postmodern relativism.

Back to our argument last month, who knowing history of the UCI and cycling is going to sit around grumpy if LA was not upfront about his enhancement.

I'll ask this one more time: whose chastity are you defending? to what ends?

yours? mayos? ullrich's?

You can ask it as many times as you wish - the answer will be the same. I am not the one defending here - I point out that Armstrong is a cheat a liar and a fraud - it is what it is.

Other than that you appear to be trying to act like a smartass or attributing things I did not say.
The blue highlighted appears nothing more than trolling - so unless you have anything interesting to offer i will leave you to it.

 

[doolols]

Where's Polish? Has he been replaced by Louison? Has he been sacked? Is he on holiday? Has he been riding in Argentina? I think we should be told. I'm kinda missing the guy.

 

[aphronesis]

Second time you have said this - if I am slow on your uptake it is because you are attributing to me something I do not think or have not said.


You can ask it as many times as you wish - the answer will be the same. I am not the one defending here - I point out that Armstrong is a cheat a liar and a fraud - it is what it is.

Other than that you appear to be trying to act like a smartass or attributing things I did not say.
The blue highlighted appears nothing more than trolling - so unless you have anything interesting to offer i will leave you to it.

Not trying to be smartass. Nor am I trolling. The thread is 10,000 what, posts, pages, in? I'm sure if you or Velodude or someone wanted to make a new links only thread that it would be not only accommodated, but welcomed.

I am not asking, but it remains, you are defending a set of values that don't exist. I'm not disputing them, but I'm asking you to locate them.

Nothing is what it is. That is an oppressive and banal meme of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Any basic study of linguistics, philosophy, aesthetics, political science, anthropology, sociology, etc, will tell you otherwise.

 

[aphronesis]

I will ask again, what topic is it exactly that I have written that you disagree with? I am sure you can come up with many examples....This would be a more constructive way to engage then essentially saying everything I write sucks

Sorry, I am still confused by what you mean by "Damages made specific" Are you saying that enforcement of rules is only needed if someone is damaged?

I never said everything you write sucks. You are a fount of information no doubt. Sometimes your posts are rigid and dismissive. Or so it seems.

Don't know how to rephrase "damages made specific." Tyler and Floyd are great guys, but their own baskets. LA didn't do that to them. He was the vector through which they emerged. Simoni, etc. So what do you want to see done.

And to where should the reparations go? (Ideally speaking?)

 

[Velodude]

Where's Polish? Has he been replaced by Louison? Has he been sacked? Is he on holiday? Has he been riding in Argentina? I think we should be told. I'm kinda missing the guy.

I would speculate the "FactsforLance" strategists temporarily benched Polish & Cobblestoned to experiment with new blood to craft a different approach - drop the humor and pummel the opposition into submission.

 

[MarkvW]

I made no mention of Mass murder, however nice strawman.

Perhaps you could explain the argument? Please use the simplest possible terms as my brain is not working well after today's ride...and I am kinda dumb to begin with

This is what you said: "So far all I see is someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does he is above question and we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow."

That is not a fair characterization of what he claimed. You're the one who used the "someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does . . ."

"No matter what" is harsh, unfair, language and you used it. Why? Why do you have to put words in the guy's mouth when he didn't say them. The poster was NEVER arguing what you said he was arguing.

You can argue fairly, I've seen you do it.

 

[Berzin]

So what's left, well the 'brand' is to be protected with damage limitation and make out Armstrong was doing what everyone else did and he had no choice but to and he did it for those who suffer....

This is also a major point, because according to the underlined hypothesis Armstrong still wound up resoundingly beating his competition on a level playing field, making his athletic accomplishments no less awesome than had there been no dope on the part of any of the riders to begin with.

It his awesomeness that is also being protected. Dope or no dope, according to his blithering fanboys, he would have still won. And nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[BroDeal]

Could you refresh me on what exactly the argument is?

It is a bit muddled. I am having a hard time understanding it myself, but apparently it is this: One side [We'll call them "You Guys"] thinks that Armstrong is doping lying fraud. The other side [We'll call them "The Louisors"] thinks that Armstrong is a doping lying fraud. It might appear that the two sides are the same, but The Louisers don't think Armstrong is as bad as You Guys thinks he is. It's a bit like like a medieval religious schism.

 

[Race Radio]

I never said everything you write sucks. You are a fount of information no doubt. Sometimes your posts are rigid and dismissive. Or so it seems.

Don't know how to rephrase "damages made specific." Tyler and Floyd are great guys, but their own baskets. LA didn't do that to them. He was the vector through which they emerged. Simoni, etc. So what do you want to see done.

And to where should the reparations go? (Ideally speaking?)

Let me know when you can find something I have written that you disagree with or that I can make more clear. Your approval is very important to me.

Again are you saying that a rule is only broken if someone is damaged? Certainly an interesting idea, one the Feds are sure to ignore.

The US Postal Service must be ecstatic that for decades to come their brand will be associated with organized doping. They must be very happy that whenever there is an article discussing the team sitting around the bus taking transfusion that their brand will be front and center.

 

[aphronesis]

It is a bit muddled. I am having a hard time understanding it myself, but apparently it is this: One side [We'll call them "You Guys"] thinks that Armstrong is doping lying fraud. The other side [We'll call them "Louisors"] thinks that Armstrong is a doping lying fraud but not as bad as the first group thinks he is. It's a bit like like a medieval religious schism.

See my post to Doc earlier. Remind me where you live. Do you think we're not back in that new era of medievalism?

 

[MarkvW]

This is also a major point, because according to the underlined hypothesis Armstrong still wound up resoundingly beating his competition on a level playing field, making his athletic accomplishments no less awesome than had there been no dope on the part of any of the riders to begin with.

It his awesomeness that is also being protected. Dope or no dope, according to his blithering fanboys, he would have still won. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Armstrong would have never prevailed in an ideal, clean field. Unfortunately an ideal, clean field has never existed.

I really dislike the Armstrong Era races. His Tour wins were calculated, brute strength wins that perfectly exploited the power of EPO and blood doping. So much for drama, breakaways, and stunning reversals. Every aspect of the race was tightly controlled and predicated on Armstrong's superior and steady oxygen carrying capacity. But I couldn't care less about what a bad man Armstrong is, or how many fanboys he has.

 

[Race Radio]

This is what you said: "So far all I see is someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does he is above question and we should all go ride our bikes and wear yellow."

That is not a fair characterization of what he claimed. You're the one who used the "someone claiming that no matter what illegal, immoral, or socially reprehensible actions Armstrong does . . ."

"No matter what" is harsh, unfair, language and you used it. Why? Why do you have to put words in the guy's mouth when he didn't say them. The poster was NEVER arguing what you said he was arguing.

You can argue fairly, I've seen you do it.

Thanks for not answering my question

My response was to the ridiculous claim that

you guys are so predictable in your hate for Armstrong. You guys should ride your bikes once in a while and maybe you would not have such irrational, festering anger for someone you do not even know.

A blanket dismissal. the "Guys" who question Lance are driven by "Hate" and "irrational, festering, anger".....I guess it is easier to attack the messenger then address the message

 

[aphronesis]

Let me know when you can find something I have written that you disagree with or that I can make more clear. Your approval is very important to me.

Again are you saying that a rule is only broken if someone is damaged? Certainly an interesting idea, one the Feds are sure to ignore.

The US Postal Service must be ecstatic that for decades to come their brand will be associated with organized doping. They must be very happy that whenever there is an article discussing the team sitting around the bus taking transfusion that their brand will be front and center.

Just as your approval is crucial to me.

The USPS has bigger issues on its horizon. You are not that dense. Any cursory glance at economic restructuring for this century will tell you that.

So are you saying that you only had a professional grudge against LA before? But that now the Feds have provided you with an itemized list, you're out there waving the flag?

edited by mod


Or can you tell me in your own words (not legal statutes) what LA's real offenses are?

Can you skip the soup anecdote?

 

[Mambo95]

With the amount of posts this thread has got it is a shame that Armstrong is not British.

In Britain, with you can put forward a proposal that, if it gets 100,000 supporters then it has to be debated by parliament.

Maybe some of you can put forward some sort of proposal. Here's something to start with.

"We put it to the house that we got interested in cycling in the early 2000s due to Lance, who we really really loved. We loved him with all our heart and we thought he was a hero. But then slowly we started to realise that some cyclists cheat. Dirty Europeans we could understand. But our messiah? Surely not. When it became clear to us that he was not the hero we imagined we didn't take it well - a massive betrayl. 'We hate him so much, because we loved him so much'. So we put it to the house that we have suddenly got really interested in insurance fraud etc to justify our hatred for being fooled by our former idol."

 

[Race Radio]

Just as your approval is crucial to me.

The USPS has bigger issues on its horizon. You are not that dense. Any cursory glance at economic restructuring for this century will tell you that.

So are you saying that you only had a professional grudge against LA before? But that now the Feds have provided you with an itemized list, you're out there waving the flag?

Funny. Got some editorials you posted in the years 2000-05.

Or can you tell me in your own words (not legal statutes) what LA's real offenses are?

Can you skip the soup anecdote?

Because the USPS is in financial trouble it is ok to violate an agreement with them? Really? Interesting theory, doubt it will hold up on court

Editorials from 2000-2005? You have been stalking me for that long? Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a journalist and have never written any editorials.

 

[Race Radio]

It is a bit muddled. I am having a hard time understanding it myself, but apparently it is this: One side [We'll call them "You Guys"] thinks that Armstrong is doping lying fraud. The other side [We'll call them "The Louisors"] thinks that Armstrong is a doping lying fraud. It might appear that the two sides are the same, but The Louisers don't think Armstrong is as bad as You Guys thinks he is. It's a bit like like a medieval religious schism.

Ahh, sounds like a cross between House and Hombre....Wait...oh now I get it.

Time to walk away from the keyboard slowly

 

[Dr. Maserati]

With the amount of posts this thread has got it is a shame that Armstrong is not British.

In Britain, with you can put forward a proposal that, if it gets 100,000 supporters then it has to be debated by parliament.

Maybe some of you can put forward some sort of proposal. Here's something to start with.

"We put it to the house that we got interested in cycling in the early 2000s due to Lance, who we really really loved. We loved him with all our heart and we thought he was a hero. But then slowly we started to realise that some cyclists cheat. Dirty Europeans we could understand. But our messiah? Surely not. When it became clear to us that he was not the hero we imagined we didn't take it well - a massive betrayl. 'We hate him so much, because we loved him so much'. So we put it to the house that we have suddenly got really interested in insurance fraud etc to justify our hatred for being fooled by our former idol."

Ah the hater card - never gets old although you do try to spruce it up with the "you loved him, now you hate him" guff.

But just to test your theory - (wouldn't like to send off something ridiculous to be debated in your Houses of Parliament)
Who are you saying "got interested in cycling in the early 2000s due to Lance" - me, BroDeal, RR, who? - because I think you might find that to be quite incorrect.

 

[aphronesis]

Because the USPS is in financial trouble it is ok to violate an agreement with them? Really? Interesting theory, doubt it will hold up on court

Editorials from 2000-2005? You have been stalking me for that long? Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a journalist and have never written any editorials.

Good we can throw paranoid delusions into the mix. I've never heard of you other than this site. I'm asking if your anti-Armstrong vociferousness predated the comeback.

Seems not.

It's not a matter of the USPS being in financial trouble....

But of what will come to pass. You have all the facts. Snuggle up with them.

 

[Louison]

Thanks for not answering my question

My response was to the ridiculous claim that



A blanket dismissal. the "Guys" who question Lance are driven by "Hate" and "irrational, festering, anger".....I guess it is easier to attack the messenger then address the message

I find the part in bold to be quite ironic considering that most of the posts by you and your buddies today have been attacking the messenger then...maybe...addressing the message.

P.S.- Sorry not House/Hombre. If you recall he was very much in the "show me real proof" camp, unlike myself who believes that Armstrong did dope. Of course by posting that now I know who you were at that forum and am not surprised by the way you act on here. You and brodeal have always been such a cute couple. The funny part is that you and I agreed on quite a few things at that forum.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I find the part in bold to be quite ironic considering that most of the posts by you and your buddies today have been attacking the messenger then...maybe...addressing the message.

P.S.- Sorry not House/Hombre. If you recall he was very much in the "show me real proof" camp, unlike myself who believes that Armstrong did dope. Of course by posting that now I know who you were at that forum and am not surprised by the way you act on here. You and brodeal have always been such a cute couple. The funny part is that you and I agreed on quite a few things at that forum.

What message have you attempted to bring to this forum?

So far all I have read is you discussing the posters - you have offered nothing about the subject, Mr. Armstrong and his doping ways.


You appear to be upset at the reaction you claim to be getting - but was not that the basis of your very first post in the Clinic?

Ok, I believe that Armstrong doped but I seriously don't get you guys spending so much time talking about him, searching for blogs and posts on other sites simply to rip on those people. Why is it that any Armstrong thread on any cycling forum gets turned into ripping on anyone who does not say Armstrong is the scum of the earth? I simply don't get that mentality, it really smacks of insecurity.

No, I am not trying to rip on anyone in this thread, I am hoping someone will try to present to me the reason for resorting to these kinds of things in an intelligent and logical manner. Thanks.

When you attribute things to posters that they did not say, then you cannot complain if you get a reaction.

Which is why I offer you the opportunity - again, to discuss the nice Mr. Armstrong and leave out the posters.

 

[doolols]

What message have you attempted to bring to this forum? So far all I have read is you discussing the posters - you have offered nothing about the subject, Mr. Armstrong and his doping ways.

You appear to be upset at the reaction you claim to be getting - but was not that the basis of your very first post in the Clinic? When you attribute things to posters that they did not say, then you cannot complain if you get a reaction.

Which is why I offer you the opportunity - again, to discuss the nice Mr. Armstrong and leave out the posters.

I've just wasted twenty minutes of my time, trying to create a post to make a point that I now see the good Dr. has already made, and in a much more eloquent fashion. Thank you, DM, and good luck getting a reasoned response without further personal remarks. You'll need it.

 

[doolols]

Funny. Got some editorials you posted in the years 2000-05.

Editorials from 2000-2005? You have been stalking me for that long? Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a journalist and have never written any editorials.

Good we can throw paranoid delusions into the mix. I've never heard of you other than this site.

This is just so typical of the type of response I see here.

Person A - (throws out a wild accusation)

Person B - (refutes the accusation)

Person A - (doesn't show any evidence for his wild accusation, ignores the response, and carries on in the same delusional style).

And so it goes on .... (and on)

 

[Louison]

What message have you attempted to bring to this forum?

So far all I have read is you discussing the posters - you have offered nothing about the subject, Mr. Armstrong and his doping ways.


You appear to be upset at the reaction you claim to be getting - but was not that the basis of your very first post in the Clinic?

When you attribute things to posters that they did not say, then you cannot complain if you get a reaction.

Which is why I offer you the opportunity - again, to discuss the nice Mr. Armstrong and leave out the posters.

To quote you: "Can you please quit with the personal stuff, which I highlighted in Blue." Oops, never mind I forgot that it's ok for you to get personal but not for me to do it.

Does it really matter what message I have brought since you have already taken a simple concept and played dumb because it hit too close to home? Because you and your buddies have taken many things I have and turned them into things I have not said. You guys have no desire to hear anything that is not 100% in agreement with yourselves. Go back and look through this thread from the start and see how often you guys attack people who don't agree with everything. As a mod on another forum (not cycling) I can tell you that a thread that includes about 90% non topic BS like this one would have been shot down a long time ago.

The message I have brought is about how the extremes on both sides simply can't have a rational, logical, intelligent discussion without insults, attacks, bullying and making things up to push your agenda. People like Polish do it from one extreme and people like brodeal do it from the other. Just today their has been an abundance of proof about what I have said coming from the extreme you sit on.

Deny, spin, insult, attack, ignore, whatever. The facts are their for all to see and the only people who can't see them are those who are doing it.

 

[aphronesis]

This is just so typical of the type of response I see here.

Person A - (throws out a wild accusation)

Person B - (refutes the accusation)

Person A - (doesn't show any evidence for his wild accusation, ignores the response, and carries on in the same delusional style).

And so it goes on .... (and on)

It was a question. Not an accusation. I'll spell it out slowly for the slow: for all the vitriol and virtue that Race Radio espouses re. LA, I would like to see some pre comeback interrogation of the myth.
~edited by mod~

 

[Louison]

I've just wasted twenty minutes of my time, trying to create a post to make a point that I now see the good Dr. has already made, and in a much more eloquent fashion. Thank you, DM, and good luck getting a reasoned response without further personal remarks. You'll need it.

I was waiting for you to stop your obfuscation, but now it has come clear that you are just the sidekick who runs along going "yeah, yeah."