Question about anti-armstrong fanboys

[Anonymous]

I doubt anyone on these forums does logic, logic is very tricky.

For example someone explain this to me and it's (pardon the pun implication in an example), A implies B is true when A is true or false and B is false or A and B are both true but is false whenever B is true but A is false. That's elementary logic it gets way tougher.

Yes, and the character of "logic" is inherent to the situation and not to the person seeking its conclusion.

 

[derailleur]

If nobody does logic, then there's no sense having all those syllogisms lying around.

But I'm not so gormless. I did indeed detect that you were playing semantic games in lieu of actually proving me wrong.

Which you've still failed to do, owing to your lack of ability to do logic, or at least to admit that you did the logic and it came out against you. No matter how many times you try to posit the fallacy, it's not going to stop being a fallacy.

The fact that there are some people who wanted you to post doesn't mean that there aren't many others who want you to stop posting.

 

[krebs303]

I doubt anyone on these forums does logic,

"I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."

 

[pmcg76]

To the original poster, I hope you gained some insight into why a lot of people do not like Lance. I set my initial response in what I consider a logical and clear-minded manner showing the progess in my attitude towards Lance.

Its not some deep seeded hatred of excellence, Americans, inferiority complex etc. It based on observing the incidents, the attitude and setting them in the overall context of a sport I have been following for 20 years, a sport that has proven to be corrupt, deceitful, fraudulent and full of people with warped mindsets wrapped up in the bubble that is pro cycling.

I still love it though, the most beautiful sport in the world. I would say I used the knowledge gained follwoing this sport and my own logic to then make my decision on what I think of Lance. I am a very easy going, logical thinking person and rarely have a dislike for somebody without some justified reason.

Looking back at it now, there was a lot more things I could have added in the original post but couldnt remember everything. A few Lance fanboys have been on the thread to shout about the haters as usual, blah, blah, blah. What you may also have noticed is that they never once addressed the issues I made in my original post. This is a very common trait in Lance fanboys, they either brush over or regard as irrelevant the issues we find offensive.

Throw the Simeoni incident at them and they will blow it off as a minor disagreemet whilst to many cycling fans, it represented a battle that goes to the very core of the sport. A rider willing to speak out about doping in cycling that has been very obvious over the last decade being chastened by a rider who has dominated the last decade and wants him silenced in the 'interests of the peloton' whatever that means.


I have never really had idols in cycling, the Irish guys of course when I was younger but nobody really stands out. I do have a current favourite, a guy who is from my neck of the woods who started out with same club that I competed with when I was young. I have met him but dont know him personally, I will defend him to a certain degree but if his behaivour gives me reason to doubt or if there is even a fraction of the stuff linked to Lance, then I will not be suspending belief to defend him the way the fanboys on here defend Lance.

It is difficult to explain to non-cycling fans, or even relative newbies our dislike for Lance as they do not fully understand the intricacies of pro cycling. They only ever get the mainstream news which is not interested in delving any deeper into the cycling world than it has to, especially the English speaking media.

Personally, I would like to hear your own opinion on the subject and what insight you have gained on the replies to your initial question.

 

[Hugh Januss]

They invested themselves in hating him, and because he's able to overcome illness, hate, and age, they're losing their investment.

They're unable to avert their eyes, so they believe he's being forced on them.

If they want him to go away, they should try beating him in a bike race, not shouting on the internet.

If I beat you in a bike race, will you shut-up and/or go away?

 

[ggusta]

can we set a cut of point when we stop talking about lance...

i would like to propose Friday April 19th 2013, unless anyone has any better ideas..

Thursday April 20, 2056. Hitler's Birthday.

 

[Hugh Januss]

To the original poster, I hope you gained some insight into why a lot of people do not like Lance. I set my initial response in what I consider a logical and clear-minded manner showing the progess in my attitude towards Lance.

Its not some deep seeded hatred of excellence, Americans, inferiority complex etc. It based on observing the incidents, the attitude and setting them in the overall context of a sport I have been following for 20 years, a sport that has proven to be corrupt, deceitful, fraudulent and full of people with warped mindsets wrapped up in the bubble that is pro cycling.

I still love it though, the most beautiful sport in the world. I would say I used the knowledge gained follwoing this sport and my own logic to then make my decision on what I think of Lance. I am a very easy going, logical thinking person and rarely have a dislike for somebody without some justified reason.

Looking back at it now, there was a lot more things I could have added in the original post but couldnt remember everything. A few Lance fanboys have been on the thread to shout about the haters as usual, blah, blah, blah. What you may also have noticed is that they never once addressed the issues I made in my original post. This is a very common trait in Lance fanboys, they either brush over or regard as irrelevant the issues we find offensive.

Throw the Simeoni incident at them and they will blow it off as a minor disagreemet whilst to many cycling fans, it represented a battle that goes to the very core of the sport. A rider willing to speak out about doping in cycling that has been very obvious over the last decade being chastened by a rider who has dominated the last decade and wants him silenced in the 'interests of the peloton' whatever that means.


I have never really had idols in cycling, the Irish guys of course when I was younger but nobody really stands out. I do have a current favourite, a guy who is from my neck of the woods who started out with same club that I competed with when I was young. I have met him but dont know him personally, I will defend him to a certain degree but if his behaivour gives me reason to doubt or if there is even a fraction of the stuff linked to Lance, then I will not be suspending belief to defend him the way the fanboys on here defend Lance.

It is difficult to explain to non-cycling fans, or even relative newbies our dislike for Lance as they do not fully understand the intricacies of pro cycling. They only ever get the mainstream news which is not interested in delving any deeper into the cycling world than it has to, especially the English speaking media.

Personally, I would like to hear your own opinion on the subject and what insight you have gained on the replies to your initial question.

+100% except for the Irish bit

 

[ggusta]

the day lance becomes president...?

Well Our election will be November of that year and the inauguartion or re-inauguration in the case of a second term is Jan 20, 2013 at noon by tradition.

I would actually like to see him run for office, either governor or senator of TX would be logical, especially Senator, which is becoming more and more the province of ultra rich or ultra famous no-nothings.

Why? If he ran for office his vicious, despicable demeanor would be on display for everyone to see in a sport that everyone can relate to: politics.

 

[ggusta]

Interesting post - just to clarify I did not suggest Americans are dull and slow witted, but the general sports fan knows little about cycling and most of the exposure in the mainstream USA is Lance centric.

Before this years Tour I thought it was win/win for him, as in if he won he is the returning hero, if not than he would appear human, humble and gracious in defeat which would enhance his marketability.
Unfortunately he was neither humble or gracious.

Shoot, you know me well enough by now to know I didn't mean you thought that, but many do.

His handling of the tour was a major mis-step for Mister Image. He shoulda just supported AC, at least he could have taken some credit for the win; now AC's status is inflated due to the fight against his team off the road being harder than on the road.

A PR disaster. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

 

[derailleur]

a sport I have been following for 20 years, a sport that has proven to be corrupt, deceitful, fraudulent and full of people with warped mindsets wrapped up in the bubble that is pro cycling.

I bet I could dig up a similar quote from the 1910's.

And yet we don't see people flaming on about Thys, Lapize, the Pelissiers, Coppi, Merckx, Ullrich, etc.

The h8rz only seem to have this crypto-fascist hard-on for Lance Armstrong. Ostensibly it's because he's still riding, even though he was retired for longer than any suspension would have lasted.

But they have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong now, so they dig up his past without bothering to condition it to what the sport's past was like.

The fact is, the fish that is pro cycling rots and un-rots from the head, and until each level knows that the level above it is clean and is willing and able to keep the levels below it clean, it will stay just as dirty as it needs to be to remain competitive.

Personally, I think anyone caught at this point should be banned for life and forced to disgorge his winnings and endorsement proceeds to charity. But the UCI and IOC don't see it that way and legal authorities don't deal in anything beyond the scope of possession and use of illegal substances. Protecting the fans from fraud isn't yet their focus. So the sport will be what it is.

I also believe in ex post facto, so whatever someone did in the past in the climate that existed then shouldn't be punished per new rules. So if the IOC and UCI (and ASO yadda yadda) do finally get their act together, there's no reason to apply these punishments to them.

So I don't have a problem reconciling what is allleged about Lance Armstrong's past with my personal admiration for what he's doing now both on and off the bike.

 

[derailleur]

If he ran for office his vicious, despicable demeanor would be on display for everyone to see in a sport that everyone can relate to: politics.

1. And he'd stand out from the rest of Congress exactly how?

2. Maybe he logs in here and poses as an "anti-armstrong fanboy," just to exercise that vicious, despicable demeanor. From what I've seen here, it'd be hard to discern him in that group as well.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I think the most important thing to know about the whole anti-armstrong/fanboy issue is that no one will ever get the last word.

 

[ggusta]

1. And he'd stand out from the rest of Congress exactly how?

2. Maybe he logs in here and poses as an "anti-armstrong fanboy," just to exercise that vicious, despicable demeanor. From what I've seen here, it'd be hard to discern him in that group as well.

1. In contradiction to the image he tries to sell to the mass culture. (I din't think that was a blank I had to fill in for you, Derailleur! ) Again, referring back to my 1st post in this thread, when people are sold an image and then are faced with behavior that contradicts it, what do YOU think they will conclude?

2. If you say so.

 

[derailleur]

Before this years Tour I thought it was win/win for him, as in if he won he is the returning hero, if not than he would appear human, humble and gracious in defeat which would enhance his marketability.
Unfortunately he was neither humble or gracious.

I agree a little politicking there would have done him more good than standing to the side eyeing Contador's cup enviously.

But really, he was never the one that was supposed to win. Sure if you believe that he and JB could outright betray Contador they could engineer an "accidental" win for Lance (and almost got it handed to them when the wind blew up the peloton), but the official story was that he'd be standing on a lower step at the end, and that's how it ended.

So the humility was baked-in at the beginning. He just refused to overcome the miscommunications and imprecations, so when he did end up on that lower step, leering at the bling, it was envy and not regret that we saw, and probably was what he felt.

And that has carried over to the post-race chatter.

Next year, if he loses, I would expect him to do the gracious humility, since it would then be unequivocal that he was unconstrained and the outcome was due to competitive strength and not office politics.

It may not be so clear on Contador's side. I don't expect Contador/Vinokurov to be any more synergistic a relationship than Contador/Armstrong was.

 

[pmcg76]

I bet I could dig up a similar quote from the 1910's.

And yet we don't see people flaming on about Thys, Lapize, the Pelissiers, Coppi, Merckx, Ullrich, etc.

The h8rz only seem to have this crypto-fascist hard-on for Lance Armstrong. Ostensibly it's because he's still riding, even though he was retired for longer than any suspension would have lasted.

But they have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong now, so they dig up his past without bothering to condition it to what the sport's past was like.

The fact is, the fish that is pro cycling rots and un-rots from the head, and until each level knows that the level above it is clean and is willing and able to keep the levels below it clean, it will stay just as dirty as it needs to be to remain competitive.

Personally, I think anyone caught at this point should be banned for life and forced to disgorge his winnings and endorsement proceeds to charity. But the UCI and IOC don't see it that way and legal authorities don't deal in anything beyond the scope of possession and use of illegal substances. Protecting the fans from fraud isn't yet their focus. So the sport will be what it is.

I also believe in ex post facto, so whatever someone did in the past in the climate that existed then shouldn't be punished per new rules. So if the IOC and UCI (and ASO yadda yadda) do finally get their act together, there's no reason to apply these punishments to them.

So I don't have a problem reconciling what is allleged about Lance Armstrong's past with my personal admiration for what he's doing now both on and off the bike.

We are not talking about the distant past, we are talking about the last decade. We are also not alking about whether he should be punished or not. We are talking about why we dont like him.

You can say he didnt dope more than anybody else. As I pointed out before, post Festina was a chance for a new beginning, forget what went before. We wanted a new clean champion, Lance fitted the bill perfectly. But as soon as he left everyone for dead on Sestriere, the accusations from other riders started, they knew what was happening. How many guys were thinking, this is the new star, which way is the sport going. Back to the dark past or into a new cleaner era. Do you think this might have influenced other riders sitting on the doping fence. Remember the 99 Tour was allegedly a lot cleaner than before.

Again, maybe he was not any worse than other at doping but it was his attitude, you find me another rider that done what he done to Simeoni or Bassons. These were doping related issues, not personal differences. Greg LeMond made an innocuos comment saying he was dissappointd to find out that Lance was working with Ferrari, kinda like a parent finding out their child is hanging around with a drug dealer. LeMond has been crucified ever since because of Lances response.

Lance has made bucketloads more money and gained a higher profile than any other cyclist ever, period. He fronts a charity organisation. Shouldnt he be held up to higher scrutiny than others and lets face it most of his rivals have been busted and mostly paid the price for their mistakes. Lance is one of the richest sportsmen in the world.

And finally, as I mentioned in my last post, you didnt address a single issue from my original post. You just waffled to try and distort the points as your kind usually do.

 

[derailleur]

1. In contradiction to the image he tries to sell to the mass culture. (I din't think that was a blank I had to fill in for you, Derailleur!)

I thought you'd get that I was saying everyone in Congress is a venal ******* cloaked in a polycarbonate shell of teeth and hair. We already elect them by the hundreds every couple of years.

Whatever meanness he has will prove to be insufficient up against most of them.

Seriously. Many of these people tell lies to start wars to make a few bucks on purpose. Nothing LA's ever done, and nothing anyone's said about LA, comes remotely close to that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I bet I could dig up a similar quote from the 1910's.

And yet we don't see people flaming on about Thys, Lapize, the Pelissiers, Coppi, Merckx, Ullrich, etc.

The h8rz only seem to have this crypto-fascist hard-on for Lance Armstrong. Ostensibly it's because he's still riding, even though he was retired for longer than any suspension would have lasted.

But they have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong now, so they dig up his past without bothering to condition it to what the sport's past was like.

The fact is, the fish that is pro cycling rots and un-rots from the head, and until each level knows that the level above it is clean and is willing and able to keep the levels below it clean, it will stay just as dirty as it needs to be to remain competitive.

Personally, I think anyone caught at this point should be banned for life and forced to disgorge his winnings and endorsement proceeds to charity. But the UCI and IOC don't see it that way and legal authorities don't deal in anything beyond the scope of possession and use of illegal substances. Protecting the fans from fraud isn't yet their focus. So the sport will be what it is.

I also believe in ex post facto, so whatever someone did in the past in the climate that existed then shouldn't be punished per new rules. So if the IOC and UCI (and ASO yadda yadda) do finally get their act together, there's no reason to apply these punishments to them.

So I don't have a problem reconciling what is allleged about Lance Armstrong's past with my personal admiration for what he's doing now both on and off the bike.

While it is good to see you articulate your views you are very wrong to try and suggest the "h8rz" have a "crypto-fascist hard-on" just for Lance.

There is a new thread on Jan Ullrich in the Clinic, many posters there are the exact same Lance "h8rz".... could it be they don't like the frauds of the sport not the personalities??

No-one has stepped in to defend Jan. No-one has pointed out that he never failed a PED test (his sole discretion was for ecstasy while out with an injury), and that no evidence has been presented nor have the Swiss who hold his licence opened an investigation. No-one has called in to question the chain of custody surrounding his alleged blood-bag. No-one has said how Jan only went to Dr. Fuentes because he was overweight.

If you have "personal admiration" for frauds and cheats why is it you have never rushed to protect the names of Basso, Ulrich, Riis, Menchov, Contador etc when they get named in the clinic and out the "h8rz'?

 

[cavfan11]

Looks like I worded this a bit wrong . Sorry, I'm not an English major or anything close to it, but I appreciate the responses and pmcg's in particular. I am aware of Armstrong's obvious douche-baggery now, but wasn't sure if he acted like that throughout his whole career. That question has been answered, so thank you.

TFF, care to explain the harsh attitude towards me and and all other people that seem to disagree? It's one thing to argue, but the holier-than-thou attitude that apparently comes with 3,000+ posts is another.

 

[derailleur]

We are not talking about the distant past, we are talking about the last decade.

Doesn't matter if it's the last week. It's not now. Do you hate Coppi as much as you hate Armstrong?

You can say he didnt dope more than anybody else. As I pointed out before, post Festina was a chance for a new beginning, forget what went before. We wanted a new clean champion, Lance fitted the bill perfectly.

Did he get the bill from "we"? Because, as I said, the people at the bottom can't trust the system unless the people at the top have made it trustworthy. Festina was evidence, not a sweeping end to the system's problems.

But as soon as he left everyone for dead on Sestriere, the accusations from other riders started, they knew what was happening.

Yeah. That nothing had changed.

Unless the sport is actually clean, there's no reason for any individual to deduce that being clean is a competitive advantage.

How many guys were thinking, this is the new star, which way is the sport going. Back to the dark past or into a new cleaner era. Do you think this might have influenced other riders sitting on the doping fence. Remember the 99 Tour was allegedly a lot cleaner than before.

They all were, going right back to 1905. Until things actually change, we're wringing our hands along with everyone who's considered the problem in the past hundred years.

Again, maybe he was not any worse than other at doping but it was his attitude, you find me another rider that done what he done to Simeoni or Bassons. These were doping related issues, not personal differences.

I don't see how the doping related issues weren't personal differences.

Greg LeMond made an innocuos comment saying he was dissappointd to find out that Lance was working with Ferrari, kinda like a parent finding out their child is hanging around with a drug dealer. LeMond has been crucified ever since because of Lances response.

Not by me. Greg is doing good things.

Lance has made bucketloads more money and gained a higher profile than any other cyclist ever, period. He fronts a charity organisation. Shouldnt he be held up to higher scrutiny than others and lets face it most of his rivals have been busted and mostly paid the price for their mistakes. Lance is one of the richest sportsmen in the world

He is held to higher scrutiny. The testing organizations say they haven't harassed him more than anyone else, and maybe they haven't, but they tested him plenty. And the tests have been publicized by LA himself. If he's racing dirty he's doing it by magic. Yet people insist he is as though it's impossible not to.

And finally, as I mentioned in my last post, you didnt address a single issue from my original post. You just waffled to try and distort the points as your kind usually do.

Whatever your prejudiced perception of "my kind" is, you'll make up whatever interpretation you want for that. I posted what I wanted to post, as my actual kind usually do. I don't see any waffling or distortion about it, so if you do, you might want to squint less and read with fewer voices in your head.

 

[pmcg76]

Doesn't matter if it's the last week. It's not now. Do you hate Coppi as much as you hate Armstrong?



Did he get the bill from "we"? Because, as I said, the people at the bottom can't trust the system unless the people at the top have made it trustworthy. Festina was evidence, not a sweeping end to the system's problems.



Yeah. That nothing had changed.

Unless the sport is actually clean, there's no reason for any individual to deduce that being clean is a competitive advantage.



They all were, going right back to 1905. Until things actually change, we're wringing our hands along with everyone who's considered the problem in the past hundred years.



I don't see how the doping related issues weren't personal differences.



Not by me. Greg is doing good things.



He is held to higher scrutiny. The testing organizations say they haven't harassed him more than anyone else, and maybe they haven't, but they tested him plenty. And the tests have been publicized by LA himself. If he's racing dirty he's doing it by magic. Yet people insist he is as though it's impossible not to.



Whatever your prejudiced perception of "my kind" is, you'll make up whatever interpretation you want for that. I posted what I wanted to post, as my actual kind usually do. I don't see any waffling or distortion about it, so if you do, you might want to squint less and read with fewer voices in your head.

Your idea is that we sweep everything under the carpet from his past and focus on the present. Well his behaviour this year at the Tour was enought to not like him either.

And once again, do you consider what he done to Simeoni or Bassons as incorrect behaviour and if naybody else has done anything similar in a cycling context.

Lance publicizes his test as part of a PR campaign to suggest he is the most tested athlete in the world. Not necessarily true but thats part of the problem, the PR BS.

There was genuine optimism the sport might change post 99, most of the French teams cleaned up for example. At the start of the season, a pro Jean Cyril Robin stated that he believed a small proportion of the peloton were still doping. It wasnt clean but had gotten a lot better.

Finally, its human nature to want to see the biggest gangster get their justs, the guy who has got away with it even though we know they cheated and benefited more than other gangsters.

For the rest, see Dr.Maserats post.

 

[Anonymous]

If nobody does logic, then there's no sense having all those syllogisms lying around.

But I'm not so gormless. I did indeed detect that you were playing semantic games in lieu of actually proving me wrong.

Which you've still failed to do, owing to your lack of ability to do logic, or at least to admit that you did the logic and it came out against you. No matter how many times you try to posit the fallacy, it's not going to stop being a fallacy.

The fact that there are some people who wanted you to post doesn't mean that there aren't many others who want you to stop posting.

You spent some time with a thesaurus didn't you Junior? Good for you!

You are still wrong and I don't need flowery language to show that, but you keep up the ignorance. If you aren't smart enough to figure out your error, then no effort on my part will do so. Dang.

 

[Anonymous]

Looks like I worded this a bit wrong . Sorry, I'm not an English major or anything close to it, but I appreciate the responses and pmcg's in particular. I am aware of Armstrong's obvious douche-baggery now, but wasn't sure if he acted like that throughout his whole career. That question has been answered, so thank you.

TFF, care to explain the harsh attitude towards me and and all other people that seem to disagree? It's one thing to argue, but the holier-than-thou attitude that apparently comes with 3,000+ posts is another.

No......................

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

You spent some time with a thesaurus didn't you Junior? Good for you!

You are still wrong and I don't need flowery language to show that, but you keep up the ignorance. If you aren't smart enough to figure out your error, then no effort on my part will do so. Dang.

What's up with the junior bit? Me no get

 

[Anonymous]

What's up with the junior bit? Me no get

Its a hook with a worm on it.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Its a hook with a worm on it.

me now get.