Poster double standards

[Glockers]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Vino the man who has actually doped and served a suspension then waltzed back into the team like he hasn't done anything wrong. Plus he is just like Armstrong in dictating who the boss will be and the terms that team members should agree to. He seems to have every bit the ego of Lance. He is a Euro version of Lance, but he also is a convicted doper.

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

While it is by no means everyone, there is a sizeable chunk of the forum that are rabid Lance haters who accuse him of doping yet massive fanboys of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador. Double standards?

 

[TRDean]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Vino the man who has actually doped and served a suspension then waltzed back into the team like he hasn't done anything wrong. Plus he is just like Armstrong in dictating who the boss will be and the terms that team members should agree to. He seems to have every bit the ego of Lance. He is a Euro version of Lance, but he also is a convicted doper.

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

While it is by no means everyone, there is a sizeable chunk of the forum that are rabid Lance haters who accuse him of doping yet massive fanboys of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador. Double standards?

I think a lot of people don't like Vino the person...but love the way he races...attack, attack, attack!!! He is exciting. He also served his suspension, and has every right to waltz back into the peleton...he did his time. Also, he is the one behind Astana...it really was/is his team. Armstrong came into Astana from retirement and basically tried to take over.

Whatever, I like to watch Vino race...Armstrong not so much.

 

[Race Radio]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Vino the man who has actually doped and served a suspension then waltzed back into the team like he hasn't done anything wrong. Plus he is just like Armstrong in dictating who the boss will be and the terms that team members should agree to. He seems to have every bit the ego of Lance. He is a Euro version of Lance, but he also is a convicted doper.

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

While it is by no means everyone, there is a sizeable chunk of the forum that are rabid Lance haters who accuse him of doping yet massive fanboys of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador. Double standards?

You appear to like massive generalizations. Could you give an specific example of this duplicity instead of trying to paint an entire group with the same brush? There are many posters, like myself, who believe that Vino, AC, and Armstrong are all dopers, liars, and hypocrites.

It is hard to take you seriously when you write that AC's "background is more dodgy then Armstrong".

 

[Anonymous]

Vino, love his riding style agressive racing and he been caught, done his time

contador, valverde, cheats that havnt done their time (and whos racing frankly doesnt appeal to me)

simple...

 

[python]

i think threads like this should be transferred to a special forum - 'whining and sour grapes'.

 

[Escarabajo]

Vino, love his riding style agressive racing and he been caught, done his time

contador, valverde, cheats that havnt done their time (and whos racing frankly doesnt appeal to me)

simple...

No Armstrong? Talk about rosy glasses.

 

[poupou]

Vino is not an Euro, he is Asian !

Have you never seen Borat?

 

[Galic Ho]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Double standards or moronic thinking on your behalf? I am not saying your are an idiot but your post implies as much and I feel it prudent to ask you the question.

Firstly, people are fans of riders for the way they ride a bike. LA equats with boredom these days. Yeah when he was younger and winning the TdF his attacks in the hills were good. But Vino has style, that panache the French go on about. So liking the riding style is not a double standard.

Secondly I believe you have mistaken "the haters" (which is an unfare term) dislike of Armstrong with hatred. Some, do loathe the man, but it is not primarily for his doping alone. Most have stated on this site numerous times (I've read their posts) that they could tolerate the doping, what they cannot tolerate is LA's behaviour off the bike. Bassons, Simoni, the list of abnormal and narcissistic habits are well documented. Most of the distaste is for LA the human being, not LA the doper. The doping and enforcement of omerta makes it worse.

Thirdly, look up Angliru. He had a post in the Astana thread about their future that summed up LA's stated goals and actual behaviour for this year to the letter. MASSIVE CONTRAST. Sure Vino has waltzed back in. It was his team, paid and financed for by Kazakh's to promote Kazakh riders. LA rode, for free on the team of his choice. Forget the promotion of cancer label and look at what he did. Claimed he'd get no salary and was back for the love of cycling. Million in the bank from South Australian taxpayers.The top aussie domestic footballers don't get that. He did for 6 days work. The Giro, RCS paid him 2 million euro. Most pro's don't get anywhere near that in a year. They will never invite him back after the Milan debacle! Why join Astana? Oh, thats right, buddy boy Bruyneel is there. Then we get to July and after the subterfuge and internal strife don't get Lance yellow, the real reason he is back is announced...he could have waited to show respect but Lance just has to be no.1 and we get the Radioshack announcement. Then the ransacking of the best GT ProTour team to facilitate an ex-champs comback shot against his previous teammate. A team that freely welcomed him in and were the sole reason he podiumed in a race he wasn't even the 3rd best rider on his team. What did the Kazakh's do to deserve this treatment?

Personally I hoped Astana would tell Bruynell, Kloden, Popo and Zubeldia their contracts were going to stick just to teach those turncoats a lesson in etiquette.

AC's history dodgier than Lance's? Is there a book about his doping history I missed? Or maybe a documentary advertising the myth and proclaiming the science behind the Spaniard known as Pistolero? You know a tell all book about how weight lose after a brain problem, higher cadence work and wind tunnel testing transformed him into the winner of all 3 grand tours. Can't wait for you to tell me what I've been missing.

Finally think about and dwell on this. Do you think that in 2007 after standing on the podium as the winner of the Tour de France, that Alberto Contador was thinking that in a year and a half, his world would turn upside down as the man who sat in his team car for the ITT that saw him finish in yellow, would not only be on his team racing but attempting to undermine him? I don't and I bet Lance didn't either, oh how times change.

 

[pmcg76]

I think most dopers receive plenty of flak on this forum. Its just many Lance lovers dont look at any thread not connected with Lance so dont realise it is happening. Holp crap Contador and Vino have plenty of threads dedicated to them and doping. I have heard Contadope mentioned plenty of times. Also with Lance dominating the media so much, of course he will get more flak. Thats normal, no.

Vino had a riding style that people love and that is why people still love Pantani also. There are plenty who are not happy to seem him back.

As for more evidence against Contador than Lance, yes it could be him in Puerto but I have also heard Angel Casero and Antonio Colom mentioned as the possible AC in the files. I think I read somewhere once that Fuentes said he had never heard of Contador. Other than being too good to be true, there is practically no evidence against AC.

 

[luckyboy]

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

There is a lot more evidence against Armstrong than there is against Contador.

 

[Anonymous]

No Armstrong? Talk about rosy glasses.

no, i didnt mention the "texan devil" purely because i cant really be bothered with yet another LA thread.. vino/contador/piti was enough for me to be going on with..

it was more borne out of indifference than rose tinted spectacles

 

[Anonymous]

I think I read somewhere once that Fuentes said he had never heard of Contador. Other than being too good to be true, there is practically no evidence against AC.

that on its own.....

Fuentes would say he hadnt heard of his own mother if it suited him... where has he been living, in a cave... hes never heard of contador??? Preposterous!

 

[Ferminal]

I don't dislike/hate cyclists based on whether or not they cheat. I'm not that ignorant to believe that there are a few cheaters and we should hate them all because they are ruining the sport. If we hated everyone we thought doped, who do we cheer for?

I base my dislike more on their actions regarding their (alleged) doping and also more generally on their personality/cycling attractiveness. I prefer some dopers over some "clean" cyclists.

I don't even hate Armstrong, but if you can produce a list of actions for anyone which compares to Armstrong, I will happily treat them with equal contempt.

 

[red_flanders]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Vino the man who has actually doped and served a suspension then waltzed back into the team like he hasn't done anything wrong. Plus he is just like Armstrong in dictating who the boss will be and the terms that team members should agree to. He seems to have every bit the ego of Lance. He is a Euro version of Lance, but he also is a convicted doper.

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

While it is by no means everyone, there is a sizeable chunk of the forum that are rabid Lance haters who accuse him of doping yet massive fanboys of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador. Double standards?

If you want a productive thread, you're going to need to include specific quotes which outline what you're talking about.

No one can reasonable respond to massive generalizations.

 

[Digger]

I really don't get the double standards some posters have here surrounding the Astana/Armstrong/Contador/Vino situation.

It seems the Armstrong bashers allude to cheating and doping all the time (which could be accurate) but have rosey eyes for Contador and Vino.

Vino the man who has actually doped and served a suspension then waltzed back into the team like he hasn't done anything wrong. Plus he is just like Armstrong in dictating who the boss will be and the terms that team members should agree to. He seems to have every bit the ego of Lance. He is a Euro version of Lance, but he also is a convicted doper.

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance. Puerto suggests it is highly likely he dopes. Plus his mountain climbing is just ridiculous. It is a level above Pantani even and we know about Marco's dogy EPO levels.

While it is by no means everyone, there is a sizeable chunk of the forum that are rabid Lance haters who accuse him of doping yet massive fanboys of a cheat Vino and a suspected cheat Contador. Double standards?

No more than Lance in his heyday. And Contador's background being more dodgy than Lance? Are you high?
And for the record, Vino, AC, Valverde, et al are pieces of sh**, in my opinion.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I don't think it's really a double standard. I think that things generally don't escalate for other riders like they do when Armstrong as the topic.

Is Contador a doper? I can't see why he wouldn't be topping up with his own blood. About the only argument I've heard to the contrary is that he has had previous health problems due to his blood... Well, cycling is an inherently risky sport. If he was really so risk averse, he'd likely find a different livelihood.

 

[Anonymous]

If you want a productive thread, you're going to need to include specific quotes which outline what you're talking about.

No one can reasonable respond to massive generalizations.

(Note: not picking on you specifically red, it's just your post was the last one up. Peace.)

Why does he need to site specific examples? He's making an observation we all see on this forum (and most others). Yes, he generalized, but that doesn't make his thread any less relevant. Plus, if he picked specific examples he'd certainly get lambasted by the person(s) he quoted and by everyone else for attacking him. So you make a generalization to make enough of a point but you keep it civil at the same time.

It seems that whenever someone makes this or similar observations y'all ask for the same things. Site this. Site that. Where's the proof. I like him better. He rides with panache. Etc... So basically, if you want to state an opinion against anti-LA fans you need to site everything West of the Mississippi in a multi-volume book, need a degree in science and be an English-Lit major, amongst other things.

Yes, I know I'll get lambasted myself. But frankly, the crap you guys complain about, some with and without merit, is like a broken record. I can paste most of the comments on this thread on any anti-LA thread on here.

But to answer your question Glockers, yes, there is a double standard. Everyone loves to villify Armstrong but will nut hug those that have actually been caught because they like their riding style or what-not. Don't get me wrong though. I'll be the first to say that if Armstrong is doping now bust him. But until they do the past allegations, proof, whatever anti-LA fans bring up from 1999 is just that, in the past. Again, if he's doping now, bust his @ss! Until then, it's all generalizations.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think all sane people can agree that this shapes up to be a very stupid thread, which will do nothing more than to serve to rekindle the same old argument that has raged on countless other threads already, including one very recent one which started with almost exactly the same premise. Furthermore all sane people can agree that the OP either hasn't read many of those other threads or he is trolling because he misses the forum wars which have only very recently subsided.I think we can all agree on those points, no?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Well, I certainly agree.
Anyone who has to ask this question, is unlikely to receive an answer from those he seeks to question.
Inaccurate, ill informed and irrelevant.
A real snoozer of a threadbare thread.

 

[mitchman]

There is a double standard, but it has more to do with the human trait of envy more than anything else. We hate anybody that has more then what we think they should have…….then we make reason how the screwed everybody or cheated to get what they got……that’s why, WE LOVE THE UNDERDOG.
LA is the most successful cyclist, not just in cycling wins but business too. There for we must hate him…..
AC is successful (and will be) but hasn’t come close to LA over the long haul…..We love him now because we still view him as the underdog….but that will change and we will hate him too someday.
O-yea, Operación Puerto I never heard AC's name in that, did you? Face it their Both HUGE doper’s

 

[VeloCity]

Then we have Contador whose background is more dodgy then Armstrong. I think the evidence is stronger for a case against Contador then against Lance.

I don't think there are very many people who doubt whatsoever that Contador is a doper, but to say that there's more evidence against Contador than there is against Armstrong is absurd.

 

[mitchman]

If the thread is “***” then why bother to post.....

 

[Hugh Januss]

that on its own.....

Fuentes would say he hadnt heard of his own mother if it suited him... where has he been living, in a cave... hes never heard of contador??? Preposterous!

I believe Fuentes said that right from the beginning before Contador had won much of anything. While I personally think Contador is on the same program as all the contenders, when it comes to Puerto he has kept his nose pretty clean (with the considerable help of the Spanish Fed. and UCI).

 

[Polish]

Maybe Lance would be more popular if he shot air bullets from his hand,
or silkscreened his "GRRRR Face" onto his LAF Kit. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Digger]

There is a double standard, but it has more to do with the human trait of envy more than anything else. We hate anybody that has more then what we think they should have…….then we make reason how the screwed everybody or cheated to get what they got……that’s why, WE LOVE THE UNDERDOG.
LA is the most successful cyclist, not just in cycling wins but business too. There for we must hate him…..
AC is successful (and will be) but hasn’t come close to LA over the long haul…..We love him now because we still view him as the underdog….but that will change and we will hate him too someday.
O-yea, Operación Puerto I never heard AC's name in that, did you? Face it their Both HUGE doper’s

Considering how I am a fan of other successful sportspeople in other sports, and thinkg Lance is a piece of sh**, where does your theory come then?