Official Lance Armstrong thread

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
objective skeptic said:
Again, just ignore everything else I posted and accept the 1999 as indisputable fact, although I think some degree of skepticism due to the extreme witch hunts is valid. But I'd bet he was clean in later races, and so just as easily as you say he continued to dope because of '99 (remember, he's only a year or two back in racing after being savaged by cancer), I can say he never doped because a reasonable person can believe he was clean in later years when he was just as dominant. It's the exact same logic, how can you dismiss that argument with 100% certainty?

Lance was doped only in the 1999 Tour de France, are you completely sure ?!?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/and...ped-about-us-postals-alleged-doping-practices
 
objective skeptic said:
I do wonder what people hate more: That LA has 7 TdF wins, or that they believe he lies about doping. Because it CAN'T be that they hate him for doping, since a key part of their belief is dominating a sport - which they still avidly watch and follow - they believe riddled with doping.

Can you possibly be more of a Cliché? I believe he is a doper (like many other riders) so I must be a jealous hater. What's next, that I love cancer?

Again, thank you for proving my point.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
objective skeptic said:
I do wonder what people hate more: That LA has 7 TdF wins, or that they believe he lies about doping. Because it CAN'T be that they hate him for doping, since a key part of their belief is dominating a sport - which they still avidly watch and follow - they believe riddled with doping.

It is his actions towards his fellow competitors (Bassons, Simeoni), and other like Betsy Andreau that have caused most people to dislike him. Many people incliding me will tell you that the day he chased down Simeoni was the day we said, that guy is not only a doper, but a complete ***. It really isn't such a big mystery, and you have turned from being "objective" to regurgitating the same fanboy lines that they all do. Dang, I thought you might be different. I think this means I want my Letter Jacket back.
 
Jul 16, 2009
35
0
0
B.Rasmussen said:
Can you possibly be more of a Cliché? I believe he is a doper (like many other riders) so I must be a jealous hater. What's next, that I love cancer?

Again, thank you for proving my point.

No, just wondering why you get so riled at someone who thinks Armstrong is clean.

It was a simple question....I didn't ask if you hate Lance Armstrong, I asked if you hate that you believe he's a liar or that he's a 7-time winner. Why else come and call people names who disagree with you? That certainly doesn't help your case for NOT being a jealous hater.
 
Jul 16, 2009
35
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
It is his actions towards his fellow competitors (Bassons, Simeoni), and other like Betsy Andreau that have caused most people to dislike him. Many people incliding me will tell you that the day he chased down Simeoni was the day we said, that guy is not only a doper, but a complete ***. It really isn't such a big mystery, and you have turned from being "objective" to regurgitating the same fanboy lines that they all do. Dang, I thought you might be different. I think this means I want my Letter Jacket back.

Well, to be fair, Simeoni testified against Ferrari and Armstrong subsequently ended that relationship. Ferrari was later exonerated on appeal (and no, I'm not going down that road, just providing context). Armstrong says Simeoni testified to cut a deal (plausible), Simeoni sues Armstrong for defamation and Armstrong countersues. They both drop their charges. I see your point about chasing down Simeoni, bad cycling manners whatever. I just know that most people aren't high and mighty enough to turn the other cheek when someone drags you into the mud.

And Andreau made accusations against Armstrong as well. Accusations that could not be corroborated and, of course, Frankie said he never saw LA do anything.

So basically, if Armstrong defends himself and has a bone to pick with accusers, he's an jerk. And pointing out that there is always two sides to a story makes me a fanboy, rather than objective. Ok, sure.
 
objective skeptic said:
So basically, if Armstrong defends himself and has a bone to pick with accusers, he's an jerk. And pointing out that there is always two sides to a story makes me a fanboy, rather than objective. Ok, sure.

Nope ! I'm afraid that's something else is problem... You are Lance Armstrong fan and not a true cycling fan, that's major difference in the way of thinking
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
RigelKent said:
The same EPO that help you fight cancer can help you win a bike race.

I am nitpicking, but EPO helps reverse the effects of chemotherapy (namely, anemia caused by bone marrow suppression). It is not a chemotherapy drug and has no anticancer effects.
 
Jul 16, 2009
35
0
0
Zen Master said:
Nope ! I'm afraid that's something else is problem... You are Lance Armstrong fan and not a true cycling fan, that's major difference in the way of thinking


Cultural difference, maybe. Just saying when people attack your personally, they deserve to get smacked around every opportunity you get. That makes him human and flawed, not a jerk. Although, yes, he is actually a jerk. But the particular examples I was referring to are understandable, even if not really excuseable.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
objective skeptic said:
This will be my final thoughts on the subject as I realize there is separate forum for this.

The simple truth is, even without concrete proof those who insist he is dirty will never be convinced he isn't. Armstrong can never prove he is clean, and it's obvious many give him absolutely zero benefit of the doubt.

Pre-cancer and even in the first few TdF wins compelling arguments can be made on both sides. Beyond that, I look at motivations, and I think I've pretty well laid out why Lance simply has more to lose and reasons NOT to cheat than just about any other athlete out there. And if later tours are clean, it certainly throws plenty of doubt on the speculation of the early ones.

Yes, books and articles have been written, and Armstrong has won libel suits (or the defendants have settled) against most of those people. It has to be an almost completely baseless attack to lose a libel case.

And let's talk about this year. 37 or 38 years old, four years off the bike and he's competing to win the tour? You say he must be using again. That's such an absurd claim it borders on fantasy. Why Why Why? Why, after beating it all those years, why come back and risk it all? Why come back, at least partially, to raise awareness and promote his foundation and jeopardize all that? Why stir up the old witch hunts and go through all this again? Why risk a potential political career (I've seen speculation, I find it laughable). He's an icon that has transcended sports and it simply makes ZERO sense to come back to the bike and risk it all getting caught cheating. I find the contention that he's motivated more, or even equally, to win another TdF as opposed to building some awareness for his foundation and other causes to be laughable. Your idea that he came back and is doping again because he cares more about winning another TdF than everything else he has going on, when he's arguably already the greatest TdF rider ever, is patently absurd. No one really expected he could win, he just has to not embarass himself. Yet if he does finish on the podium, you'll believe he doped out of some inexplicable desire to risk everything for another victory (yawn, #8).

Believe it or not, the most logical explanation here is that freaks come along every now and again (Babe Ruth, Secretariat, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, to name just a few). And there's more to it than that, Armstrong's TdF-specific training and dominant teams.

Honestly, to not look at motivations and legacy when speculating Armstrong has doped all along is ignorant. To dismiss the extremely powerful incentives Armstrong has to NOT dope is to ascribe to him a subhuman level of ego, hubris and self-centeredness that is pretty much rivaled by only some truly nasty people in human history. That's where the absurd wild speculation comes in, because I think that's what it would take for Armstrong to ignore those incentives.

I simply think it unfair and irresponsible to assume Armstrong dopes because "that's what it'd take to dominate a sport with other dopers" while dismissing or ignoring the very real (and obvious) motivations and incentives he has NOT to dope. You've got a large amount of circumstantial evidence, a pretty good circumstantial case there actually, but you fail miserably when it comes to motive. And a lot of that circumstantial evidence has been contradicted or retracted by the accusers themselves, or proven false. Of course, the sensational press doesn't have as much to say about that.

Again, I'm going to leave it at this:
If the most tested and scrutinized athlete, the most vigilant athlete in defending his name, and the athlete with the most to lose is cheating, then there is not one athlete in the world that I will ever believe is clean.

Objective Skeptic has some valid points IMO. But I have to (potentially) disagree on two points.

The argument that he wouldn't dope because he has too much to lose is a rational argument, but this is not necessarily a rational world. The drive for success can make people do silly things. I am not saying Armstrong is in this category, but he is ultra-competitive and obviously has a tremendous drive to succeed. People like this are known to do anything it takes to continue to succeed. However, he is also intelligent and knows his legacy.

The genetic freak argument can be ruled out by both physiology and his precancer performance. Physiologically, he is a middling professional rider. His VO2 max and FTP are nothing to write home about. Prior to being diagnosed with cancer, Lance was definitely a very good rider, but he was a one-day and/or classics rider, not a stage racer. If he were genetically gifted, his VO2 max and FTP would be much closer to Merckx, Lemond and Indurain, and he would have always been a stage racer (like, for instance, Contador and Andy Schleck who have been high finishers in GTs since their early 20s).
 
objective skeptic said:
No, just wondering why you get so riled at someone who thinks Armstrong is clean.

It was a simple question....I didn't ask if you hate Lance Armstrong, I asked if you hate that you believe he's a liar or that he's a 7-time winner. Why else come and call people names who disagree with you? That certainly doesn't help your case for NOT being a jealous hater.

Why would I hate that I believe (know) he is a doper? I'm actually quite content with having that knowledge.

I don't hate him at all, and i don't mind that he dopes any more than i dislike that many others do it. I don't like that he won 7 tours on dope, but i don't really fault him for it since we have to move quite a bit down the list to get to the first clean guy. I only really dislike him for reasons like the ones mentioned by TTF.

I get "riled up" by the Lance worshippers claiming their hero won clean for the same reason I'm annoyed by people who claim the world is 6000 years old, or adults who believe in Santa. It contradicts all the evidence we have and people really should know better.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
B.Rasmussen said:
Why would I hate that I believe (know) he is a doper? I'm actually quite content with having that knowledge.

I don't hate him at all, and i don't mind that he dopes any more than i dislike that many others do it. I don't like that he won 7 tours on dope, but i don't really fault him for it since we have to move quite a bit down the list to get to the first clean guy. I only really dislike him for reasons like the ones mentioned by TTF.

I get "riled up" by the Lance worshippers claiming their hero won clean for the same reason I'm annoyed by people who claim the world is 6000 years old, or adults who believe in Santa. It contradicts all the evidence we have and people really should know better.

+1. This is actually one of the better summaries I have read. There are a few haters and lovers on this forum, but most posters are able to critically think and form an opinion by themselves and express this opinion based on the available facts. For the latter, this does not make them haters because they have formed the opinion that Armstrong has doped. Best to be able to evaluate the evidence rather than have a myopic view of the world.
 
elapid said:
Physiologically, he is a middling professional rider. His VO2 max and FTP are nothing to write home about. Prior to being diagnosed with cancer, Lance was definitely a very good rider, but he was a one-day and/or classics rider, not a stage racer.

...and then one day our hero Lance met famous Dr Ferrari and suddenly everything has changed...
 
Mar 18, 2009
15
0
0
objective skeptic said:
Ummm, no, I didn't make a "freak of nature" argument per se. Just pointing out that athletes do come along every so often and dominate a sport, and that doesn't make them a cheat.

And, as you point out, Lance didn't dominate the sport so much as one particular event. We can find similar examples in tennis, where a guy is dominant on one surface but not very good on others, or swimming where a guy is dominant on a particular stroke or distance but not other events.

I agree with most of what you say, but you are clearly wasting your time trying to fence with TFF, Brodeal, MeloVelo, etc. They still believe the Earth is flat and since they don't have real lives they hate anybody that succeeds and spend most of their time trashing people on this forum. It makes them feel good, its their drug of choice.
 
objective skeptic said:
No, just wondering why you get so riled at someone who thinks Armstrong is clean.

It was a simple question....I didn't ask if you hate Lance Armstrong, I asked if you hate that you believe he's a liar or that he's a 7-time winner. Why else come and call people names who disagree with you? That certainly doesn't help your case for NOT being a jealous hater.

There is no case. Like the rest of them, he is a hater. They claim they don't like dopers, yet here they are following a thread about someone they call a doper. They can't help themselves, this level of hatred is a sign of brain damage. Possibly being dropped in a sink and landing on their head while their mum was bathing them many years ago. This tragic accident some how turned them into forum Nazis. Though sad and pathetic, they have to patrol this forum 24/7 to attack any and all posters that don't conform to their way of thinking. Fish in a barrel, you don't even need to connect the dots to get their number.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
SpeedWay said:
There is no case. Like the rest of them, he is a hater. They claim they don't like dopers, yet here they are following a thread about someone they call a doper. They can't help themselves, this level of hatred is a sign of brain damage. Possibly being dropped in a sink and landing on their head while their mum was bathing them many years ago. This tragic accident some how turned them into forum Nazis. Though sad and pathetic, they have to patrol this forum 24/7 to attack any and all posters that don't conform to their way of thinking. Fish in a barrel, you don't even need to connect the dots to get their number.

Sorry, gotta disagree with you here. Look at B. Rasmussen's reply. This is probably the best representation of what most posters are like on this forum. Reasonable people with opinions based on the available evidence. There are some true lovers and haters who are blinded, but most are like B. Rasmussen and Objective Skeptic. Posters who can form rational arguments and discuss their opinions like adults. And this is a forum - if you don't want to present and discuss your point of view then you shouldn't be on it.
 
Mar 18, 2009
15
0
0
SpeedWay said:
There is no case. Like the rest of them, he is a hater. They claim they don't like dopers, yet here they are following a thread about someone they call a doper. They can't help themselves, this level of hatred is a sign of brain damage. Possibly being dropped in a sink and landing on their head while their mum was bathing them many years ago. This tragic accident some how turned them into forum Nazis. Though sad and pathetic, they have to patrol this forum 24/7 to attack any and all posters that don't conform to their way of thinking. Fish in a barrel, you don't even need to connect the dots to get their number.

Well said!! I liked the part about them getting dropped in the sink.
 
B.Rasmussen said:
Why would I hate that I believe (know) he is a doper? I'm actually quite content with having that knowledge.

I don't hate him at all, and i don't mind that he dopes any more than i dislike that many others do it. I don't like that he won 7 tours on dope, but i don't really fault him for it since we have to move quite a bit down the list to get to the first clean guy. I only really dislike him for reasons like the ones mentioned by TTF.

I get "riled up" by the Lance worshippers claiming their hero won clean for the same reason I'm annoyed by people who claim the world is 6000 years old, or adults who believe in Santa. It contradicts all the evidence we have and people really should know better.

+1. This is absolute gold.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
wiggintona said:
I agree with most of what you say, but you are clearly wasting your time trying to fence with TFF, Brodeal, MeloVelo, etc. They still believe the Earth is flat and since they don't have real lives they hate anybody that succeeds and spend most of their time trashing people on this forum. It makes them feel good, its their drug of choice.

Oh dear, could you be anymore cliche? Another 3 week poster projecting his life on others. Surprise surprise.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
objective skeptic said:
And Andreau made accusations against Armstrong as well. Accusations that could not be corroborated and, of course, Frankie said he never saw LA do anything.

Yes, they could. You might want to look into this a little further.

As for the "hater" tag repeated by people like Speed and many others, I will wear the name with pride. I am indeed a "hater" of fraudulent, narcissistic divas with a desire to forcefully silence people who expose who they are to the public. Anyone who worships at the alter of such a person is laughably ignorant at best, and a moron at worst.
 
Mar 18, 2009
15
0
0
Zen Master said:
A question for all you guys ( wiggintona, SpeedWay and objective skeptic ): How many miles or kilometers do you ride per year ?
I'm just curious, that's all...

Probably not as many as you Zen Master, I recently completed a 1500 mile ten day ride and I have been an avid cycling fan for almost 60 years and know something about the sport. But that is beside the real point. I enjoy reading what others have to say but don't see why some posters just hijack the forum and attack anyone who differs in opinion. Some of the FACTS that they quote are dubious at best.

Some famous guy once said in referring to scientific facts "There are no facts, and thats a fact!" which is especially true when considering what are purported to be facts about LA. The EPO results from 1999 may or may not be factual, they were never confirmed by another lab. And any objective person would have to have some doubt about the credibility and integrity of the Chateau Malabry lab.

But this thread was supposed to be about LA and it seems that it has focused on doping(this part of the forum is supposed to be doping discussion free) It would be ok to set up another thread that focused on LA's doping if you want then this thread could talk about different aspects of LA.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
wiggintona said:
I agree with most of what you say, but you are clearly wasting your time trying to fence with TFF, Brodeal, MeloVelo, etc. They still believe the Earth is flat and since they don't have real lives they hate anybody that succeeds and spend most of their time trashing people on this forum. It makes them feel good, its their drug of choice.

wiggintona said:
I enjoy reading what others have to say but don't see why some posters just hijack the forum and attack anyone who differs in opinion.

I posted your first response on this thread, and then your last. It is amazing how incredibly stupid you fanboys are, do you have a set of posts that you send each other to cut and paste?

Another hypocritical chamois sniffer. Imaging that.

Now, you go on "ignore" because not only do you have little to no personal insight (to be as old as are you, that is really, really sad.), but you have nothing to post that I have not read hundreds of times.
 
Jun 13, 2009
99
0
0
B.Rasmussen said:
I get "riled up" by the Lance worshippers claiming their hero won clean for the same reason I'm annoyed by people who claim the world is 6000 years old, or adults who believe in Santa. It contradicts all the evidence we have and people really should know better.

I'm surprised you didn't add God in as well. I mean countless eastern and western countries supposedly in the civilized world base their entire legal and social systems around the misguided belief there is a God.
 
May 19, 2009
238
0
0
subzro said:
I'm surprised you didn't add God in as well. I mean countless eastern and western countries supposedly in the civilized world base their entire legal and social systems around the misguided belief there is a God.

God bless you. ;0)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.