• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Official Lance Armstrong thread

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
colwildcat said:
I would just hope that if he does, the Anti Lance crowd here will be men enough to eat a little crow and admit you might be wrong.

Oh wait, nevermind, you'll just say he's doping.

If he flames out miserably, I'll admit that I was wrong when I predicted he'll finish alongside contador at the top.

I am never afraid to say that I was wrong when I was wrong. It is quite an outstanding characteristic of everyone walking the planet to be wrong about things. Again, I am not so married to my opinions and commentary that I just cannot stand to be wrong. I worry about decisions involving my family, those worry me. THIS, this is just a cycling forum. In the grand scheme of things, it is really not that important. I would guess most here feel the same.

But your post was done to make a point. Well, you made it.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I am never afraid to say that I was wrong when I was wrong. It is quite an outstanding characteristic of everyone walking the planet to be wrong about things. Again, I am not so married to my opinions and commentary that I just cannot stand to be wrong. I worry about decisions involving my family, those worry me. THIS, this is just a cycling forum. In the grand scheme of things, it is really not that important. I would guess most here feel the same.

But your post was done to make a point. Well, you made it.


Not really done to make a point, just killing a few minutes while I get my kids to bed. I, like you, have bigger priorities.

I just continue to be puzzled at the hatred that some have (not necessarily talking about you) for this man. I don't see the same vitriol for guys who have admitted to doping, who have been caught, who have won Tours and then been caught, etc. In the grand scheme of things, I don't see the point of it.

Tomorrow will be interesting, love Lance or hate him, want him to win or want him to fail miserably, I feel there will be a lot of spin going on here tomorrow regardless of the outcome.
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
colwildcat said:
I just continue to be puzzled at the hatred that some have (not necessarily talking about you) for this man. I don't see the same vitriol for guys who have admitted to doping, who have been caught, who have won Tours and then been caught, etc. In the grand scheme of things, I don't see the point of it.

I think feelings about Lance are complicated. Yea, there are some people who just hate the guy. I reserve my hate for evil people. Lance is not evil.

But, I'm really angry at the whole come back thing. Why? AC's won 3 GTs. He's 26, widely regarded as the best GT rider right now and payed to be the team leader for Astana.

Lance apparently hasn't found anything else to with this life and decides he'd like a shot at another tour victory even though he already has 7. So Alberto, who's worked very hard, is suddenly put in an awkward position because of LA's ego. And here we are today.

That's what's turned me so much against the guy. I guess he feels he still has something to prove. What? Got me. Seems like he wants to be more liked or something now.
 
colwildcat said:
I just continue to be puzzled at the hatred that some have (not necessarily talking about you) for this man. I don't see the same vitriol for guys who have admitted to doping, who have been caught, who have won Tours and then been caught, etc. In the grand scheme of things, I don't see the point of it.

It is the same reason that Hamilton and Landis are reviled. They continue to lie about it, even long after it is obvious that they are guilty. If Armstrong would man up to what he did then there would not be such revulsion for him. Instead he continues to deceive cancer patients. That is just disgusting.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
It is the same reason that Hamilton and Landis are reviled. They continue to lie about it, even long after it is obvious that they are guilty. If Armstrong would man up to what he did then there would not be such revulsion for him. Instead he continues to deceive cancer patients. That is just disgusting.

Would the money he's raised help a cancer patient less if he admitted to something to appease you? Would the work that his foundation does mean any less to those that they help? I fail to see how he deceives cancer patients. Believe it or not, there are a lot of very educated people who believe he didn't dope.

Let's see, give millions of people dying of a disease some hope and inspiration, or admit to something to make some bitter cycling fans hate him less? Not a tough decision. I'll even concede that he probably was doping early in his career. But, I don't believe for a second he's doping today. With all he and his Foundation have to lose if he was caught, he'd have to be the world's biggest fool.

But, if he can go out at 37 and give a strong performance clean, it might mean those that feel he only won by doping might not have such a great argument.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
I wrote the following post in another thread in the Clinic section, but it equally belongs here:

I believe many of us are arbitrarily labelled lovers or haters when most of us don't believe that strongly either way. I would probably be labelled a hater, although I am not. I believe Lance doped, I am disappointed by his support of the Omerta, and the public image of his personality is very arrogant, controlling and unlikable. However, he is very determined and successful, he has done a great deal to promote cycling in the US and elsewhere, and his support of cancer causes is laudable (no matter how much is for profit), and he is a talented cyclist and I am very impressed at how well he is riding at this age and after a few years out of competitive cycling. I honestly did not think that Astana would do so well in the TTT because I thought that there were too many captains and the team would be divided. I was wrong and I admit it. I would like to think I can express my opinions on Lance, or anyone else, and not be labelled as a hater or a lover because of which side my opinions lie. My thoughts on Lance are considered and not blinded but hate (or love).

In regards to why Lance is so maligned compared to the likes of Contador, I think you need to look at his history and personality. Historically, he won the Tour of Redemption (1999) which was meant to be the dope-free tour after the Festina Affair. When the EPO positives became known from the 1999 TdF, this made a mockery of the so-called Tour of Redemption. Contador was never in a similar situation: he was one of 50+ riders implicated in OP and, by this stage, most people accepted doping was rife within the peloton. One of the strongest criticisms of Lance is his open support of the Omerta (Bassons, Simeoni, etc), and Contador has never done anything like Armstrong has in this regard. As far as Lance's wins go, they tended to be clinical and monotonous (and rather boring). Contador has more of the European style and panache, and his wins have either been exciting (TdF) or extraordinary (Giro). Lastly, Lance is brash and arrogant, and Contador is not. In Australia, we have something called the tall poppy syndrome. Whether it be deliberate or not, tall poppies are cut down to size. No one really wants to cut an affable guy like Contador down to size because he is just nice and unassuming, but there are no problems with people with Lance's personality because it is just so easy and desirable to want them to be brought down a notch or two. The same thing is happening with Cavendish at the moment as well. It doesn't make it right or wrong, its just a personality thing.
 
colwildcat said:
But, if he can go out at 37 and give a strong performance clean, it might mean those that feel he only won by doping might not have such a great argument.

What makes you think he is clean now? He has been proven to have doped in 1999. Why would he change his behavior now? A leopard does not change its spots.
 
colwildcat said:
I just continue to be puzzled at the hatred that some have (not necessarily talking about you) for this man. I don't see the same vitriol for guys who have admitted to doping, who have been caught, who have won Tours and then been caught, etc.
You don't? How many threads have you been sifting through? If you're only starting from the days leading into the Tour, or into the Giro, you owe it to us to do some searching.
 
Jun 13, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
What makes you think he is clean now? He has been proven to have doped in 1999. Why would he change his behavior now? A leopard does not change its spots.

I don't really want to get involved in all this anti-Lance or love-Lance argument but of all the things that scream out for correction (by the anti-brigade) it's this one.

It has never been proven that Lance doped. If it were proven that he doped he would have a suspension of his license, this has never happened. To be a proven drug cheat you have to have a failed A test, and B test.

And before you start the flaming, yes, I am well aware of the endless speculation, the steroid cream, the accusations by riders, wives and doctors, etc, etc ... that's not proof, it's speculation. It may be accurate, it may not be, but one things it's not ... is proven.
 
subzro said:
I don't really want to get involved in all this anti-Lance or love-Lance argument but of all the things that scream out for correction (by the anti-brigade) it's this one.

It has never been proven that Lance doped. If it were proven that he doped he would have a suspension of his license, this has never happened. To be a proven drug cheat you have to have a failed A test, and B test.

And before you start the flaming, yes, I am well aware of the endless speculation, the steroid cream, the accusations by riders, wives and doctors, etc, etc ... that's not proof, it's speculation. It may be accurate, it may not be, but one things it's not ... is proven.

I try to stay away from these topics as well. You are wrong, it has been proven. Not proven by a court that would cause a sanction, but still proven. If you believe he is innocent after the 6 epo positives, then you're an idiot. I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but i prefer to be honest to people.

The science behind those 6 positives are sound. If you call them into question, then you have to believe that every epo positive is a false positive. unless of course you believe he was framed, in which case you're a loon.
 
subzro said:
I don't really want to get involved in all this anti-Lance or love-Lance argument but of all the things that scream out for correction (by the anti-brigade) it's this one.

It has never been proven that Lance doped. If it were proven that he doped he would have a suspension of his license, this has never happened. To be a proven drug cheat you have to have a failed A test, and B test.

And before you start the flaming, yes, I am well aware of the endless speculation, the steroid cream, the accusations by riders, wives and doctors, etc, etc ... that's not proof, it's speculation. It may be accurate, it may not be, but one things it's not ... is proven.

I suggest you to read this interview (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden) by Michael Ashenden. Very elucidative.
 
Jun 13, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
I love how you say you try to stay away from these arguments, yet two paragraphs in you're saying something I didn't imply, then call me a loon.

For the record.

No, I don't believe there is a conspiracy.
Two, to have sound science it needs to have peer review, and a positive b sample. None of these existed.

Again, you got it right when you said "Not proven in court"

Not proven in court, means not proven.
 
subzro said:
I love how you say you try to stay away from these arguments, yet two paragraphs in you're saying something I didn't imply, then call me a loon.

For the record.

No, I don't believe there is a conspiracy.
Two, to have sound science it needs to have peer review, and a positive b sample. None of these existed.

Again, you got it right when you said "Not proven in court"

Not proven in court, means not proven.

Just like you try to stay away from these arguments then still participate? ;)

Let's end it here. You believe in Santa and I actually think it's kind of cute for an adult to do that. :)
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Sorry subzro, but nearly everyone will agree with B. Rasmussen. While Lance has not been sanctioned, and he cannot be for the positive EPO results in 1999, the proof is there and it is undeniable. While the remainder of the evidence is circumstantial, it is also convincing and their number overwhelming. For instance, the following people or events have independently stated or implicated that Lance has doped: Emma O'Reilly, Frankie and Betsy Andreau, Ron Jongen, text message between Jonathon Vaughters and Frankie Andreau, and association with Michele Ferrari and Johan Bruyneel. Where there's smoke, there's fire. To bury your head in the sand and negate the factual and circumstantial evidence because he has not been sanctioned is both ignorant and ludicrous.
 
Jun 13, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
Just filling in time until the coverage starts lol I wouldn't mind having a debate on the topic but both sides go off on such a heated tangent and lose sight of point being argued. I'd rather just talk about the racing.

Anyway, the live coverage has started so I'm out of here.

And hey, don't knock santa, he bought me a new fizik bike seat last year ;)
 
subzro said:
Just filling in time until the coverage starts lol I wouldn't mind having a debate on the topic but both sides go off on such a heated tangent and lose sight of point being argued. I'd rather just talk about the racing.

Anyway, the live coverage has started so I'm out of here.

And hey, don't knock santa, he bought me a new fizik bike seat last year ;)

******* got me a tricycle from toysRus. I guess it's my own fault for not believing in him, but still...

And no worries subzro, just killing time here as well while i wait for the live feed. Hopefully with some fireworks, doping or no doping ;)
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
afpm90 said:
I suggest you to read this interview (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden) by Michael Ashenden. Very elucidative.

Ashenden is simply NOT CREDIBLE on this issue. He is a bias hired legal gun. He studied 5 year old samples, which may or may not have even been Armstrongs, and completed testing according to no accepted standard in the industry/sport for biological testing on samples (may or may not be Armstrongs) which completely lack a reliable chain of custody. Moreover the samples were only available due to a sleight of hand by a bunch of bias French journalists.

Ashenden may be a competent scientist but his bias paid for opinion on this issue means absolutely nothing.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
the proof is there and it is undeniable. While the remainder of the evidence is circumstantial, it is also convincing and their number overwhelming. For instance, the following people or events have independently stated or implicated that Lance has doped: Emma O'Reilly, Frankie and Betsy Andreau, Ron Jongen, text message between Jonathon Vaughters and Frankie Andreau, and association with Michele Ferrari and Johan Bruyneel. Where there's smoke, there's fire. To bury your head in the sand and negate the factual and circumstantial evidence because he has not been sanctioned is both ignorant and ludicrous.

Your analysis of reliable "evidence" is what is "ignorant and ludicrous." Ashenden is a bias hired legal gun. The samples can't be affirmatively ties to Armstrong (it relies on a bunch of bias French journalists) and even . . . IF . . . they were Armstrongs there is absolutely no reliability to the samples because they totally lack a chain of custody. The opportunity for tampering is very abundant. Moreover, the samples were not tested according to any standard whatsoever. Not WADA, not UCI, not IOC, not nada. A bias hired legal gun obtains the questionable samples which may or may not even be genuine and then conducts some so called tests on them according to no accepted standards and Voila! Its reliable evidence. Please . . . not be so naive.
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
Telling interview with LA at the end. The plan wasn't for AC to take the jersey today. LA doesn't look happy. He's the team guy when it suits his purpose. Love to be in on the team meeting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS