-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Hugh Januss said:
+1
And would you ask my mom what her pin# is for her debit card. Tell her I need it to send her some roses...
The fact that Contador's climbing is 'ridiculous' and 'Pantani-like' might have a great deal to do with the fact that, physically, he is a pure climber as Pantani was. Ridiculous climbing to me is watching much larger riders charging up mountains as if they were mountain goats.
The huge difference between Contador and Armstrong is that Contador has shown natural progression as a top flight GT rider, with a string of stage victories and top 5 finishes in prestigious short stage races. In 7 seasons he has racked up 4 GTs and a string of other podiums, results consistent with the likes of Merckx, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault etc. Contador has already achieved over half the number of victories in his 7 seasons that Armstrong achieved in 15 (in 7 seasons Armstrong had achieved 30 victories largely in domestic US races).
The point is that Contador has always been spoken of as a future great, a GT winner, in a way that Armstrong was never considered to be over the same period of his career. There is genuine talent and being a good responder. And, yes, I think Contador - along with every other elite rider - is doing all he can to enhance his ability. Someone who thought of Saiz as 'like a father' is unlikely to be clean. But then who is? The Schlecks? But the difference is that Contador's gift was there from the start, the ability to win a GT was always evident.
The huge difference between Contador and Armstrong is that Contador has shown natural progression as a top flight GT rider, with a string of stage victories and top 5 finishes in prestigious short stage races. In 7 seasons he has racked up 4 GTs and a string of other podiums, results consistent with the likes of Merckx, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault etc. Contador has already achieved over half the number of victories in his 7 seasons that Armstrong achieved in 15 (in 7 seasons Armstrong had achieved 30 victories largely in domestic US races).
The point is that Contador has always been spoken of as a future great, a GT winner, in a way that Armstrong was never considered to be over the same period of his career. There is genuine talent and being a good responder. And, yes, I think Contador - along with every other elite rider - is doing all he can to enhance his ability. Someone who thought of Saiz as 'like a father' is unlikely to be clean. But then who is? The Schlecks? But the difference is that Contador's gift was there from the start, the ability to win a GT was always evident.
TRDean said:
Yeah that's the thing...Vino doped, denied, served a suspension, denies still, muscles his way into Astana and gives The Hog - of all people! - the boot...but he is just so exciting to watch. He's like the Tasmanian devil, and he satisfies a desire for "sport as entertainment" like no other rider, even though he admittedly flicks the "sport as expression of man's honesty" (or whatever) w/o a second thought.
Since there is no lifetime ban for your first offense, shouldn't people be "allowed" to root for Vino and openly like him? I mean, if anyone should profess a dislike of him, it should be someone in my situation, right? (convicted dope cheat, trying to rehabilitate, therefore not wise to praise or even admit to enjoying the riding of another convicted dope cheat, who denied and will deny to the grave - it's like, by saying that I like Vino, I would somehow be supporting doping... lol) But I admit it - I like his riding style and I enjoy watching him race. He served his time...if he gets caught again, then he will be gone forever (however long "forever" is in UCI-fairytale land)...but until then...shoot. I like the color and style and personality he adds to the bunch. And I don't have to worry about one-day having to mourn him, because he cracked mentally and shifted to recreational drug use and eventually died from a cocaine overdose or embolisms in Africa... Blasted VDB... another rider who I liked to watch and empathized with, then sympathized with, then had my heart broken by when he turned-up dead. At least with Vino you just KNOW that's not going to happen. He might die of a bad liver in 25 years, but ex-Soviets just don't buckle under the pressure when they can still line their pockets with euro's earned from athletic feats (or maybe they do...someone contradict me if I'm wrong).
Anyway, just thought I'd ramble my way through that. lol
I hate doping but I like to watch Vino race. What should I do? 
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
Glockers said:
Gee333 said:
I am sorry to have to ask you guys the direct question - but your answer will help me form my opinion on the question of double standards.
To GLockers & Gee.... do you LOVE Lance? Just a simple yes or no will help thanks. (But if you wish to explain further I would be interested too!)
Gee333 said:
At least we'd know what he's talking about and that person could explain their conclusions or opinion. It's called making a cogent argument.
Instead he's taking everyone critical of Armstrong, lumping this varied assortments of opinions about Armstrong into one group, then attributing false motives and beliefs to them. Then the request is to defend this strawman. Sorry, it can't be done. I guess a lot of people didn't get to take logic or debate classes.
At least have the courtesy to outline a particular belief set for people to refute or not, so people can react to particulars instead of wild generalizations.
In other words, actually have something to say before you ask an entire group of people to defend it.
Glockers said:
Here's the problem. First you have to establish this is the case. Show evidence that any particular person is:
a) a rabid Lance hater
b) massive fanboy of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador
Then somehow establish that a sizable chunk of this forum fall into this category. I'll give you a hint--you can't do the latter, and you'll be challenged to do the former. So you have a false premise, and a useless, argumentative thread.
Here's a thought--why don't you ask a question in a thread? Why don't you ask, "If you are critical of Armstrong and supportive of Contador and Vino, can you explain why?"
I daresay you'd get a better response and a less trolling thread. But that would sort of allow that you don't know everything and would make this less a thread about you trying to take people to task for ripping Armstrong, and more about you honestly trying to figure out what people think. The latter clearly seems NOT to have been your goal.
See the difference?
But many on here are critical of LA. (He could save a baby from a burning building and there are those that would still not give him credit.) And again, yes he generalized, but what's wrong with that. It's his/her observation. Why does (s)he need to pinpoint a certain group or persons to make that observation known? Sure, it may not be what we learned in debate class but this is an internet forum. There are no rules on this forum that state one can't make an observation. Or did I miss that one? You make it sound like a class war where someone without an education such as yours should not be allowed to speak their mind.
What if one doesn't know how to articulate their words as well as you but still wish to speak their mind? They should be able to. But according to you guys, his debate skills, logic, et al, is not good enough to state his POV here. IMO, an attitude like that just does not foster growth or understanding and learning. (this is aside from actual trolls that just wish to stir the pot)
If I make an incorrect statement I'd be happy to correct it. But if I get attacked and told my posts or ideas are clueless then you lose the potential to open my mind up to new ideas.
I guess I'm saying there are more constructive ways to go about correcting someone or asking for a more concise explanation to their statements. But that doesn't always happen behind a monitor and keyboard. Instead I get asinine comments like "Do you LOVE Lance?"
I believe in fostering growth without getting confrontational. And some have and do. I respect those folks, even if I don't have similar beliefs. But there are those that don't and you end up running off potential fans of the sport we care so much about.
I just think sometimtes people get too critical of others on certain types of posts. (My generalization.) And although debating is good, bullying isn't.
What if one doesn't know how to articulate their words as well as you but still wish to speak their mind? They should be able to. But according to you guys, his debate skills, logic, et al, is not good enough to state his POV here. IMO, an attitude like that just does not foster growth or understanding and learning. (this is aside from actual trolls that just wish to stir the pot)
If I make an incorrect statement I'd be happy to correct it. But if I get attacked and told my posts or ideas are clueless then you lose the potential to open my mind up to new ideas.
I guess I'm saying there are more constructive ways to go about correcting someone or asking for a more concise explanation to their statements. But that doesn't always happen behind a monitor and keyboard. Instead I get asinine comments like "Do you LOVE Lance?"
I believe in fostering growth without getting confrontational. And some have and do. I respect those folks, even if I don't have similar beliefs. But there are those that don't and you end up running off potential fans of the sport we care so much about.
I just think sometimtes people get too critical of others on certain types of posts. (My generalization.) And although debating is good, bullying isn't.
Gee333 said:
Okay, great. My suggestion here (trying to be constructive) would be for you to try to get back on topic and try to address specifically whatever is that you want to talk about that is cycling related. Mmmkay? What are some of your "new ideas" that you allude to here? What is it that you want to debate?
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
Gee333 said:
Apologies if I offended you- that was not my intention - but you gave a viewpoint earlier and I am asking an honest question so I can offer an opinion.
Glockers said:
I fail to see your double standard. Many here are critical of LA because they think he doped. Many are also critical of Vino because they know he doped. Personally when it comes to Vino I do find it rather silly that he's allowed to be back winning races and talking about how classy is - it gets tiring rooting for the same old dopers and that's why I personally don't root for Vino at all. However, Vino served his time under the existing rules and is now back after serving his sentence.
If you have a problem with this you should also be critical of the system that the UCI has put in place. One the main issues with the UCI is the lack of consistancy. As I asked before, why is Vino allowed to be back racing especially when Jaksche, Ulrich, and Heras are blackballed from the sport? The difference I see there is that Vino quietly accepted his punishment, served his time, didn't make waves politically and is now back. The latter three riders however all talked about thier own doping and stated that doping is a problem in the sport. Seems the UCI doesn't like riders speaking about such things.
Dr. Maserati said:
You ask do I love Lance. I love watching the spectacle that is the TdF. I love watching Contador shoot like a bullet while leaving others dead in his wake. I love that Andy Schleck could some day wear the yellow jersey. I love seeing a train like Fabian pull his team in the TTT to take the yellow out of the grasps of a former 7 time Tour winner by a mere fraction of a second.
I also love to watch Eddy Merckx win everything. I love to learn about guys like Pantani and why people love him and hate him. I love watching Indurain destroy the field in a one off crazy @ss TT bike. I was cheering for Kristin Armstrong to win the double at this year's World's before she hangs up the cleats. It's great to watch cycling and learn as much as I can and pass on that knowledge to my kids.
Do I love cycling? I sure do. It literally saved my life. Before I started riding I found out from my doctor I was a candidate for a heart attack. And I was a mere 35yo with a 5yo daughter. I love cycling just like I love many other aspects of the sport! Do I love Lance? Good or bad he's a part of cycling and it's rich history. So to answer your question, yes, I do.
BikeCentric said:
How about this new idea? Let's not attack someone just because they like Lance. If they make incorrect statements, constructively correct them instead of demeaning them. How's that?
Off topic: Where in NorCal do you live? We should go ride sometime. I'm up in the Daly City area, although the weather is better farther down South in the Peninsula like San Mateo, Palo Alto. Fog sucks!
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
Thank you I sincerely appreciate your honest reply - and likewise share your passion for the sport.Gee333 said:
The point of this thread is that the OP believes there are double standards in relation to LA. However in arguing the point he has drawn a distiction that people who assume LA doped hate him.
Gee333 said:
The reason I asked is that you have stated that you are prepared to accept his past yet still admire his achievements. This is my point - as this is what some (not many) have said in relation to Vino, and I also believe that anyone who has stated their admiration for Vino has included a qualifier on his past.
Just like you mentioned in your honest post - people have different reasons and motivations for following different riders and cannot be simply put in to two opposite groups or covered with a broad statement - so if you accept that is the case than it would be incorrect to say that everyone "loves to vilify Lance" on his doping record alone.
In conclusion - while some people may have double standards - to suggest that there is an entire group with double standards is simply not the case.Glockers said:
Doc, points well taken. Thank you.
See we can all play nice together. And I come away with a little better understanding of what others are trying to say. And I hope others have a better understanding of what I'm saying.
And I hope you all understand that although I can disagree with certain POV's I still have respect for you guys. I know many of you have a ton of knowledge I can learn from re: cycling and I hope I can return the favor in one form or another.
See we can all play nice together. And I come away with a little better understanding of what others are trying to say. And I hope others have a better understanding of what I'm saying.
And I hope you all understand that although I can disagree with certain POV's I still have respect for you guys. I know many of you have a ton of knowledge I can learn from re: cycling and I hope I can return the favor in one form or another.
Gee333 said:
I'm not attacking you; I'm suggesting that we all discuss specifics rather than make broad generalizations.
I live in San Francisco and my weekends are pretty regimented in terms of riding with Cyclocross races most weekends and/or group rides with riders I know well.
Gee333 said:
There is the rub; many of the people making comments about Lance, who also are fans of his, are just as caustic. If you need proof, take an open mind into any thread where he is discussed and actually read the posts by these people. I think you will find that it is just as demeaning as anything written to them. So I would say that maybe you and the OP might want to help correct the people on your side of the street before venturing over here with your brooms.
Gee333 said:
I'm glad to see you taking this approach. For my part, I can certainly improve the manner in which some of my comments were delivered, but I stand firmly by the points I've made.
In the spirit of better understanding, I'd like to make a few things clear--why I object to the OP's post and your subsequent comments. From your post:
Gee333 said:
I'd certainly be more prone to listen to what you had to say without hyperbolic statements like this.
Because it's a generalization, it's also wildly inaccurate. That's wrong IMO.
No real need to pinpoint persons, just actual statements or arguments. Otherwise we're arguing about inaccurate abstractions, and inflammatory ones at that. I ask, what is the point?
And here is my biggest issue with your posts. Repeated strawmen. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE has said "one can't make an observation" or that "one should not be allowed to speak their mind". When you attribute these statements to people and then argue them like someone actually said this, you lose credibility. You can make any and all observations you like, and speak your mind all you like, but you cannot expect people to agree with you or ignore insults. You should expect to be criticized for making incorrect and inflammatory statements. Argue the points made--don't make up things and then argue them. Please. And I mean please in all seriousness. I'd like the see the level of discourse here elevated a bit.
However, if that requires calling out illogical arguments for what they are, I'm going to do so. If someone isn't as educated about how to debate, maybe they could stand to learn from others, rather than complain that they're not up to it.
They are. No one has said anyone is not "able to". That we argue with the comments is not censorship. In a free speech environment, you have the right to say what you like. You do not have the right NOT to be offended, or to go unchallenged. Disagreement is not censorship.
Excellent point, and I'll do well to remember it. But we should also recognize that at some point bad ideas and invalid points need to be called out for what they are. If you're here to learn and grow, sometimes it's going to feel a bit rough. Being uninformed or inarticulate is not the best foundation from which to launch aggressive arguments. Try a softer, more knowledge-seeking approach (this aimed more at the OP than you).
Good point, and to be super clear, it is the confrontational, uninformed and smear-tactic original post to which most object--for the very same reasons.
This is almost certainly true, and well said. Let's just make sure that we don't mistake our own feelings being hurt when we're wrong for someone else bullying, and let's make sure our initial approach didn't warrant some hard push-back. Again, aimed more at the OP than you.
It's funny--the same things you're objecting to in the responses is the same thing that garnered the responses in the first place.
Dr. Maserati said:
No I don't love the guy at all. I actually enjoy watching Vino more than Lance. My fav rider ever is Pantani. I pretty much hated Lance when in battle with Marco. I thought Marco was the more exciting and better cyclist who was screwed over by too much time trialling against Lance. I follow heaps of the Aussie guys as well. I have a particular liking of O'Grady, Rogers and Voigt ( I know German but strong Aussie links). I personally think Lance probably dopes (thought I made that clear in the post) but fail to see why he is focused on so much.
I suspect it might be the panache of Vino and AC that people love so they ignore the doping. Still I would argue would they have the panache with doping? Whereas Armstrong is more of a machine thus boring. I also think it is partly a Europe vs America thing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 506
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram