Question about anti-armstrong fanboys

[Dr. Maserati]

Certainly the group has paid attention to Jan Ulrich and made fun of him on the thread you mention - and I have not seen Jan fans out in mass to defend him, but the animosity is not there as it is with LA. If you actually look at the Jan thread what you see is not really much directed at Jan - the thread and Jan's activities are used as a parody to poke fun at LA and those who defend him.

I am really suprised you have missed that.
Jan fans out in mass? There has been no-one defending Jan, it is a 'given' that he doped -you have even implied that yourself.

This was my point in highlighting Jan, as there is far less 'evidence' against Jan as opposed to Lance.

As you are a lawyer I actually expected you to appreciate the 'injustice' of Ullrichs position.

In the Jan thread I admit I was having some fun -but actually all the reasons in my second post have been used to defend LA.

 

[Digger]

Certainly the group has paid attention to Jan Ulrich and made fun of him on the thread you mention - and I have not seen Jan fans out in mass to defend him, but the animosity is not there as it is with LA. If you actually look at the Jan thread what you see is not really much directed at Jan - the thread and Jan's activities are used as a parody to poke fun at LA and those who defend him.

In comparison to Lance, not much evidence exists against jan, yet everyone, including myself, accepts that he did dope. He even acme out with the line about 'whoever can't put two and two together about what goes on in cycling is beyond my help.' Contast that with Lance and his bullying of anyone who even hints at the doping problem, and one can get some idea of why he polarises opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

3. If somebody does turn up unannounced for out of comp test he makes them wait while he "takes a shower".
4. If the testers show up at an inconvenient time for morning blood tests they get to have coffee while the riders "prepare" for the test.

one point i would on this one, is im fairly sure, lance isnt only one who has had a shower, or the only situation where the testers have had a cup of coffee, or breakfast...

but for some reason, hes the only one the AFLD or whoever does the test, decide to publicise...

Isnt it a bit strange, out of the thousands and thousands of tests completed, that the only ones who have ever, in all that time, involved any form of delay, have been ones involving lance or astana.. BS frankly, i refuse to beleive that, im sure there must have been a rider who was bathing a baby or something and took ten minutes on the bathroom to finish that off, a rider who hasnt answered the door immediately and claimed to have been asleep, but we dont hear about it for some reason..

ive no doubt lance doesnt help himself, either through cunning or stupidity, but i do think the AFLD are also doing their best to do a hatchet job on him.

Maybe lance is corrupt, but unforunately the testing agencies, the UCI and beyond are just as bloody bad..

 

[Anonymous]

I feel like my IQ dropped 20 points just reading this slop.
No one has ever ignored the fact that Armstrong has never served a doping suspension you putz. In fact it has been explained many times why he has never done. Think back a little if you can and see if any of this rings a bell.
1. Post dated TUE for failed cortizone test which he paid $500,000 for.
2. Insufficient quantity of sample for B test of six EPO positives from 1999.
3. If somebody does turn up unannounced for out of comp test he makes them wait while he "takes a shower".
4. If the testers show up at an inconvenient time for morning blood tests they get to have coffee while the riders "prepare" for the test.
5. I could go on but by now I'm sure you have your hands over your ears and you are repeating over and over "it's not true, no it's not true".

So OK now come up with another "fact" that "we ignore". Oh, but to make it harder it can't have anything to do with weight loss or different training method or supersized heart because we have shot those down already too.

Awaiting your reply.

I'm not saying "it's not true, it's not true"... i'm certain all this is true, very valid points. But, I think you missed the point of my post, but since you are eagerly awaiting my reply, in regard to number 3 - you have ignored the fact that one guy from the lab showed up for a test, when usually it is TWO PEOPLE FROM THE ANTI-DOPING AGENCY - did you not ignore that fact?

Would you not want to ring up the UCI to ask why all of a sudden the usual protocol of two anti-doping testers from the agency has been broken? If one guy, from the lab shows up, it's a little suspect (the lab is supposed to be anonymous to the rider hmmmm i would ring the UCI) .

Also number 2 is hilarious - is that supposed to be Armstrongs fault? How convenient that they're is not enough B sample - more convenient to the haters than him - hmmmm, are you ignoring that in 2001 the courts proved that the EPO samples are, in laymens terms, very very dodgy and can't be used to PROVE armstrong doped.. perhaps you ignored that??


I'll reiterate my point, since as you've stated, your IQ is rapidly falling to dangerous levels: my point is that fans and haters all ignore different things. I'm not innocent of ignoring facts, and neither are you, we are both guilty. Of course it's useless me saying this, we have fundamentally differing opinions, and you've shown in many many threads to never give me an inch. I am unable to change your opinion, and you are unable to change mine, but all i know, is that i respect your opinion as it is as equally flawed as mine.

As i've repeatedly said, i'm not a deluded fanboy. I'm a fan of ALL cyclists, and i will defend ALL cyclists. In fact, I will defend all cyclists until they serve a doping suspension. If this is ignorant, then so be it, i've already admitted to being ignorant like everyone else in the world, but where I come from, someone is innocent until proven guilty AND when they are proven guilty, they serve time for their crime. So I will back Armstrong, Ullrich, Kloden, Valverde, Contador, Menchov, etc etc until a court of law PROVES they have broken the rules and they serve a punishment in the form of a suspension.

 

[Moondance]

As i've repeatedly said, i'm not a deluded fanboy. I'm a fan of ALL cyclists, and i will defend ALL cyclists. In fact, I will defend all cyclists until they serve a doping suspension. If this is ignorant, then so be it, i've already admitted to being ignorant like everyone else in the world, but where I come from, someone is innocent until proven guilty AND when they are proven guilty, they serve time for their crime. So I will back Armstrong, Ullrich, Kloden, Valverde, Contador, Menchov, etc etc until a court of law PROVES they have broken the rules and they serve a punishment in the form of a suspension.

Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Ariel Sharon were all never convicted of war crimes. O.J. Simpson was never convicted of murder. Ken Lay was never convicted for fraudulent business practices at Enron. All innocent men?

 

[pmcg76]

What about the Giro? Or his trip to the Bahamas? He had dinner at Uchi the other night. Did he do anything there you could add to your file? Clams are essentially alive when served as sushi. He murdered them with his teeth! Des assassins!



I consider it the distant past. No worse than what Garmin did to Hincapie this year. The legal actions involved were inconclusive. Simeoni dropped his case; why do that if it had merit? You'd have harangued him in the peloton if he'd done that to you, too. Bassons was being harangued by everyone, especially his own teammates; singling out Armstrong is ignoring the cultural aspects of the problem.



Not necessarily false, either. He's certainly among the most tested athletes in the world. But the continuing stream of negative results doesn't seem to stem the tide of claims that he's still doping from people who have made up their minds not to like him.



Again, this optimism/disappointment oscillation has been going on for a century. The sport can not be cleaned-up from the peloton. It has to be cleaned-up from the top down.



It's also human nature to protect yourself when everyone around you is fostering a culture of duplicity that threatens your success, and when people inside and outside the sport are making accusations without proof.

When the system is capable of obtaining the proof, instead of making only circumstantial cases, you'll get your gangster. Until then, you're the gangster for wanting him punished without due process. That's a bigger threat to your own rights than his alleged crimes ever were.



If people are making accusations against Ullrich without proof, I'll defend him too.

Twisted to fit a certain perception. Reminder again, Simeoni had been testifying against Ferrari in a court case that started in early 99 before there was any connection between Lance & Ferrari. The threat to sue came about because Lance called Simeoni a liar in a newspaper article. It was Lance that started the whole incident with his comment. Lance could have used him team to chase down Simeoni that day, he didnt.

Garmin v Columbia was about Cavendish shouting his mouth of about Garmin at the Giro and Garmin taking a little revenge. Not anywhere near the same level. If you consider a rider being denied the yellow jersey as equal to seeing a notorius doping doctor being run out of the sport, then that says it all really. You are taking the high road that doping can never be defeated, fine thats your opinion, maybe you dont care for a clean sport. Most others still hope for a clean sport and wish to see the problem of doping combated at least and having somebody behaving the way Lance done is definitely not helpful or to be admired.

And the system,due process, it always come back to the system. What you are saying is that the system is 100% fullproof and you 100% believe in that. Do you also believe that the poor have the same chance to defend themselves as the rich in the 'system'. There are a load of riders, Ullrich, Basso, Riis, Scarponi and countless others that have less evidence against them than Lance and they all caught plenty of flak. Go and defend Jan already.

 

[pmcg76]

I'm not saying "it's not true, it's not true"... i'm certain all this is true, very valid points. But, I think you missed the point of my post, but since you are eagerly awaiting my reply, in regard to number 3 - you have ignored the fact that one guy from the lab showed up for a test, when usually it is TWO PEOPLE FROM THE ANTI-DOPING AGENCY - did you not ignore that fact?

Would you not want to ring up the UCI to ask why all of a sudden the usual protocol of two anti-doping testers from the agency has been broken? If one guy, from the lab shows up, it's a little suspect (the lab is supposed to be anonymous to the rider hmmmm i would ring the UCI) .

Also number 2 is hilarious - is that supposed to be Armstrongs fault? How convenient that they're is not enough B sample - more convenient to the haters than him - hmmmm, are you ignoring that in 2001 the courts proved that the EPO samples are, in laymens terms, very very dodgy and can't be used to PROVE armstrong doped.. perhaps you ignored that??


I'll reiterate my point, since as you've stated, your IQ is rapidly falling to dangerous levels: my point is that fans and haters all ignore different things. I'm not innocent of ignoring facts, and neither are you, we are both guilty. Of course it's useless me saying this, we have fundamentally differing opinions, and you've shown in many many threads to never give me an inch. I am unable to change your opinion, and you are unable to change mine, but all i know, is that i respect your opinion as it is as equally flawed as mine.

As i've repeatedly said, i'm not a deluded fanboy. I'm a fan of ALL cyclists, and i will defend ALL cyclists. In fact, I will defend all cyclists until they serve a doping suspension. If this is ignorant, then so be it, i've already admitted to being ignorant like everyone else in the world, but where I come from, someone is innocent until proven guilty AND when they are proven guilty, they serve time for their crime. So I will back Armstrong, Ullrich, Kloden, Valverde, Contador, Menchov, etc etc until a court of law PROVES they have broken the rules and they serve a punishment in the form of a suspension.

In your world of innocent until proven guilty, nobody in the 98 Tour de France was doping other than Festina and everyone on this team was doping other than Neil Stephens because he was the only one who never admitted to it. Bjarne Riis never doped either or anybdoy else in the 90s because they were never caught, right. Innocent until proven guilty.

For me, a rider gets the benefit of the doubt until they are caught. This does not mean I dont think they are doping. If there is as much evidence as there was against Lance, Valverde, Basso, Scarponi, Riis, that is enoug evidence. The one thing I have always known in regard to doping is that the system does not work and when the system doesnt work, we have to make up our own minds.

 

[SpeedWay]

I question how long CN will sponsor this forum. It reflects badly on their image of the CN cycling fan. If they understand the spike in cycling interest over the past year, I hope they understand it's not their new site or this horrific forum, but the returning LA. They'll dump this forum in less than a year, if not before January.

Good intentions pave the road to hell. It's too late for a re-rack, this site is infested. If they do pull the plug I'll remember you called it first. Pity the poor ship that acts as a refuge for the hubris of the rats that flee a sinking ship.

 

[ggusta]

You're a swift one Junior...uh, yea, I was trolling you. Hey, I'll bet you figured out the girl in "The Crying Game" was a man right about the time it showed his package.

ok now THAT is funny. filing that in the sarcasm briefcase. think i'll spring it on my boss the last day on the job

 

[Hugh Januss]

I'm not saying "it's not true, it's not true"... i'm certain all this is true, very valid points. But, I think you missed the point of my post, but since you are eagerly awaiting my reply, in regard to number 3 - you have ignored the fact that one guy from the lab showed up for a test, when usually it is TWO PEOPLE FROM THE ANTI-DOPING AGENCY - did you not ignore that fact?

Would you not want to ring up the UCI to ask why all of a sudden the usual protocol of two anti-doping testers from the agency has been broken? If one guy, from the lab shows up, it's a little suspect (the lab is supposed to be anonymous to the rider hmmmm i would ring the UCI) .

Also number 2 is hilarious - is that supposed to be Armstrongs fault? How convenient that they're is not enough B sample - more convenient to the haters than him - hmmmm, are you ignoring that in 2001 the courts proved that the EPO samples are, in laymens terms, very very dodgy and can't be used to PROVE armstrong doped.. perhaps you ignored that??


I'll reiterate my point, since as you've stated, your IQ is rapidly falling to dangerous levels: my point is that fans and haters all ignore different things. I'm not innocent of ignoring facts, and neither are you, we are both guilty. Of course it's useless me saying this, we have fundamentally differing opinions, and you've shown in many many threads to never give me an inch. I am unable to change your opinion, and you are unable to change mine, but all i know, is that i respect your opinion as it is as equally flawed as mine.

As i've repeatedly said, i'm not a deluded fanboy. I'm a fan of ALL cyclists, and i will defend ALL cyclists. In fact, I will defend all cyclists until they serve a doping suspension. If this is ignorant, then so be it, i've already admitted to being ignorant like everyone else in the world, but where I come from, someone is innocent until proven guilty AND when they are proven guilty, they serve time for their crime. So I will back Armstrong, Ullrich, Kloden, Valverde, Contador, Menchov, etc etc until a court of law PROVES they have broken the rules and they serve a punishment in the form of a suspension.

I will agree that all riders who have not received a doping suspension should be allowed to race, but that does not mean I don't think that they are not doping when a large amount of evidence exists that suggests otherwise. All those guys you mention dope,I am sure of it, and because they all do along with nearly everyone else in a way that makes it sort of fair for the moment. It does not make it right, and it does not make it a sport that I would wholeheartedly encourage the super strong 14 year old on my team into pursuing.
Cycling has a drug problem and you can say well it always has but it is worse now than ever. You can beat a guy who is on amphetamines if you are stronger, but not someone on a good blood program. Ignoring the problem and telling yourself what you do will never help make the problem go away, as all true fans of cycling should want it to do.
As far as your other arguments I seem to recall the drug testers chasing Rassmussen and Beltran around. Heck the chaperone chased Tricky half way back to his hotel. Again you miss the point with the failed EPO tests. I am not saying LA should be sanctioned for them legally he can not, so he skates on that one. But what I do say is it is another piece of evidence that proves to me that LA is a doper. That does not mean that I think he is the only one, we have covered that, there exists evidence in varying degrees that suggests that most of them are doing it, from damning evidence down to the fact the if he can keep up with the others who we know are doing it then he must be too.
So go on and stick your head in the sand while those of us who really care about cycling continue to see it in the real light of something that needs help.

 

[Ferminal]

Good intentions pave the road to hell. It's too late for a re-rack, this site is infested. If they do pull the plug I'll remember you called it first. Pity the poor ship that acts as a refuge for the hubris of the rats that flee a sinking ship.

Yes, how detrimental those extra 50-100k pageviews a day are for advertising revenues.

Internet discussion is ugly, there are plenty of sewers worse than CN. Strong opposing views only proves that a forum has a healthy level of participation.

 

[Moondance]

Good intentions pave the road to hell. It's too late for a re-rack, this site is infested. If they do pull the plug I'll remember you called it first. Pity the poor ship that acts as a refuge for the hubris of the rats that flee a sinking ship.

I agree. It sucks when forums are infested with people who don't share your opinion.

 

[ggusta]

I agree. It sucks when forums are infested with people who don't share your opinion.

I think it's fabulous. I think a lot of other people think it's fabulous too, they may lie to themselves otherwise. Check the threads that get lots of replies and views versus those that do not.

It's pretty easy to tell which topics arouse passions versus those that do not.

How 'bout this? You post a Campy vs Shimano thread and I post a merino wool versus synthetic fabric thread and see who gets more page views? Within a few hours you'd have each side roasting each other, I'd be lucky if my topic got to page 2 (10+) of the replies.

Aren't these discussions fulfilling part of the promise of the internet? Freedom to discuss and disagree on any subject you care about?

...and then to see people say all they care about are people who agree with themselves....where's your mind at?

We're like a bunch of electrons in search of a proton or vice versa. I don't think we are attracted to similarly charged 'particles'.

 

[mitchman]

I question how long CN will sponsor this forum. It reflects badly on their image of the CN cycling fan. If they understand the spike in cycling interest over the past year, I hope they understand it's not their new site or this horrific forum, but the returning LA. They'll dump this forum in less than a year, if not before January.

It is like a car crash......and I just can help rubber necking!

 

[mikkemus23]

If people are making accusations against Ullrich without proof, I'll defend him too.

Oh, another one added to my ignore list. Bye bye.

 

[mitchman]

Oh, another one added to my ignore list. Bye bye.

Most accept it as a badge of honor.

 

[hfer07]

I have only been watching pro cycling for about a year or so, and only viewing these forums for about half that. I've noticed that it seems nearly every person here is willing to show their dislike of Lance Armstrong. I understand why people do (I am however surprised at the degree of which people will post things to prove why they do), but my question is: Has it always been this way?
Back in the 1999-2005 era, was Armstrong as hated of a figure as he is now? I am not a fanboy, but I am an American so Lance is in the media regardless of what the true cycling fans want.

LA has always had a polarizing image, which has no room for middle ground to settle in. back in the earlier years of his success, the nationality factor in Europe played an enormous factor, despite the admiration he caused among them for his brave return to the sport after surviving cancer.-At the time the TDF was seeking a new way out from the Festina scandal, and found a "fairy tail story" in LA to regain "hope & trust" in the sport--some people literally "swallow it" entirely and couldn't get enough of this amazing person arising from the jaws of death to conquer the toughest sport event in the world---but some people "aware of what's going on inside the cycling world" knew differently, which generated the anger & disgust around his persona, by the way he presented himself to the world as a "clean athlete" and the untruth of his motivations & success.

When the media here in USA sells the LA story to the public as "the most inspiring come back sport story in the world"-something close to a miracle-so powerful for so many hopeless people suffering from the Illness-so exiting for aspiring cyclist & a young cycling community-even the average person gets so impressed by his achievements, it's just simply "good business"-- a lot of people/companies made tons money by marketing his name/brand/charity and associating the "values" he was selling- to the point that he became this "Icon" ....
having such a success, money interests & the media put together "on LA's side" -it's obviously difficult to succeed in criticizing him "here in USA"- that's why all the European recriminations are simply interpreted/labeled as an "anti-American" propaganda - so easily use by the media to cover up serious questions and analytical thinking about what took place behind his success.
the fact that he stopped/blocked the publication of "LA confidential" back in 04 here in USA, indicates the length he's willing to go, in order to stop any form of criticism that reveals the truth & those speaking out against him.
so resuming it- you have people on both sides of the scale, weighing deeper for what they believe is the truth regarding LA.....
I myself identify a 100% with pmcg76 first post--only that by the 02 news of LA being linked to Ferrari was deep enough for me to stop believing in him at all....

 

[pmcg76]

LA has always had a polarizing image, which has no room for middle ground to settle in. back in the earlier years of his success, the nationality factor in Europe played an enormous factor, despite the admiration he caused among them for his brave return to the sport after surviving cancer.-At the time the TDF was seeking a new way out from the Festina scandal, and found a "fairy tail story" in LA to regain "hope & trust" in the sport--some people literally "swallow it" entirely and couldn't get enough of this amazing person arising from the jaws of death to conquer the toughest sport event in the world---but some people "aware of what's going on inside the cycling world" knew differently, which generated the anger & disgust around his persona, by the way he presented himself to the world as a "clean athlete" and the untruth of his motivations & success.

When the media here in USA sells the LA story to the public as "the most inspiring come back sport story in the world"-something close to a miracle-so powerful for so many hopeless people suffering from the Illness-so exiting for aspiring cyclist & a young cycling community-even the average person gets so impressed by his achievements, it's just simply "good business"-- a lot of people/companies made tons money by marketing his name/brand/charity and associating the "values" he was selling- to the point that he became this "Icon" ....
having such a success, money interests & the media put together "on LA's side" -it's obviously difficult to succeed in criticizing him "here in USA"- that's why all the European recriminations are simply interpreted/labeled as an "anti-American" propaganda - so easily use by the media to cover up serious questions and analytical thinking about what took place behind his success.
the fact that he stopped/blocked the publication of "LA confidential" back in 04 here in USA, indicates the length he's willing to go, in order to stop any form of criticism that reveals the truth & those speaking out against him.
so resuming it- you have people on both sides of the scale, weighing deeper for what they believe is the truth regarding LA.....
I myself identify a 100% with pmcg76 first post--only that by the 02 news of LA being linked to Ferrari was deep enough for me to stop believing in him at all....

+1 Excellent post.

 

[bianchigirl]

In 99 Armstrong assumed the role of patron over the Bassons situation. After the Festina Affair, the sport had one shot at recovering from the threatened exodus of sponsors and that was to have a winner above reproach - which ASO were certain they had found in the 'miracle' of Lance Armstrong.

Yes, Bassons was making waves by publishing articles as 'M. Propre' (Mr Clean). Yes, he was ****ing off some of the old school who didn't want their dirty little secrets aired in the wake of Festina. So what does the 'Miracle Man' do? Does he stand up for a new, clean cycling? Does he stand shoulder to shoulder with Basson and say 'he's right, we need to clean up our sport, I support this guy and what he says 100%'? No, he orders him off the race, he upholds Omerta and then bull****s about being 'the most tested rider' who 'never tested positive'.

Armstrong had the opportunity to say that he stood for a clean sport in 99 and he turned it down flat. That's nothing to do with the culture of cycling - Armstrong knows and cares little for the sport's history or myths or legends - and everything to do with self protection. We'd all heard the rumours about him long before, but the day he stood up for Omerta, the day he took sides against cleaning up the sport, was the day he changed the sport irreparably for the worse.

And what has he really done for the sport - not Brand Armstrong but the actual sport of cycling - on a profound level? When every article that appears mentions the suspicions that dog him at every turn? When his name is irreparably linked to the spectre of doping in the sport? When his every appearance provokes yet another scandal, story, accusation. I don't see that as a positive for the sport at all.

 

[saxe_coburg_gotha]

Lance is a great cyclist and is great for cycling. Cant wait to see him in action next year. Bert will find it harder.

 

[Anonymous]

And what has he really done for the sport - not Brand Armstrong but the actual sport of cycling - on a profound level? When every article that appears mentions the suspicions that dog him at every turn? When his name is irreparably linked to the spectre of doping in the sport? When his every appearance provokes yet another scandal, story, accusation. I don't see that as a positive for the sport at all.

actually to be fair, hes done a massive amount for the publicity of the sport, certainly in the english speaking world, the publicity the tour got in the uk between 99 and 06 was huge, bigger than ever before.. lance took cycling from a small column in the broadsheets to back pages, for the public perception of the sport he has been huge... to the americans, thank lance that you get such extensive tour coverage, got giro coverage, he sells... The fact that he now is almost bigger than the sport (or at least thinks he is) i disagree with, but there can be no doubt that he brings massive attention to the sport...

Now scandal... lance scandals, how many have their been over the last year or so, showergate, and astana along with several other teams disposing of their syringes carelessly, then of course the long running fued with contador (it takes two to tango by the way)... how big a scandal really where they, did the tarnish the image of the sport...

Now sure, they where discussed at great length here, by us cycling geeks and serious fans, and a few other forums, but how many members are here, out of how many people who like cycling, out of how many people in the world.. showergate wasnt a scandal, it was the talk of a few message boards, a few journalists, and a few cycling sites, it was barely mentioned in the british press, it certainly didnt get the same coverage that Kohl, or DiLuca got over here, both of those made sky news.. showergate didnt..

When his name is irreparably linked to the spectre of doping in the sport? When his every appearance provokes yet another scandal, story, accusation. I don't see that as a positive for the sport at all.

Again, by who.. By us, and the french.. 90% of the world when you mention lance, they think the guy who won the tour de france.. he beings no more scandal to the sport by not failing a test, than kohl does by failing one, than diluca did, than rasmussen did (that also got more coverage worldwide in the mainstream press than showergate did)..

Im no lance fanboy.. i loved watching the guy race in the early 90's.. some of the battles between him and ulrich etc where brilliant.. attacking riding, great moments, from "the look" to crosscountry riding, he gave us some great moments.. i also loved watchin rasmussen climb, basso when he was younger, Vino at his peak, and yes all dopers.. do i have much time for him now, no.. why, because i dont think an aging rider who has probably achieved all he can acheive is worth focusing on, id rather focus on the young riders, the schlecks, the wiggins, the boassen hagens...

do i think he doped in 99, yes, do i think hes doping now, well im not sure, there are those who will say i have rose tinted spectacles on, but lets face it, none of us TRULY know if he is doping or not right now..

The thing about lance, is we created lance, we built him up, and we are trying to tear down the lance that we built.. we are happy when he brings more coverage to cycling, but we are unhappy when he profits from it.. Lance doesnt actually create the scandal, the press create the scandal (and lets face it 99% of scandal is created by the french press), we analyise it and form our opinions from it.. but as i said, we are a very small insular part of the world.. there are maybe 50 active posters on this forum.. 30 or so anti lance in a big way, but the rest of the world doesnt give a ****...

we devote to much time to talking about him, too much time investigating scandals, making what we will of them.. we are so obsessed with astana and JB that we fail to see what caisse, or saxo, or anyone else is up to, we are so obsessed with the fact that lance doped in 99 that we forget about every other rider that has won a tour, or giro, or vuelta, or classic, or cat b race, whilst doping..

we are obsessed, and its our obsession that makes lance what he is.. not lance himself...

im ready to be flamed...

 

[Anonymous]

actually to be fair, hes done a massive amount for the publicity of the sport, certainly in the english speaking world, the publicity the tour got in the uk between 99 and 06 was huge, bigger than ever before.. lance took cycling from a small column in the broadsheets to back pages, for the public perception of the sport he has been huge... to the americans, thank lance that you get such extensive tour coverage, got giro coverage, he sells... The fact that he now is almost bigger than the sport (or at least thinks he is) i disagree with, but there can be no doubt that he brings massive attention to the sport...

Now scandal... lance scandals, how many have their been over the last year or so, showergate, and astana along with several other teams disposing of their syringes carelessly, then of course the long running fued with contador (it takes two to tango by the way)... how big a scandal really where they, did the tarnish the image of the sport...

Now sure, they where discussed at great length here, by us cycling geeks and serious fans, and a few other forums, but how many members are here, out of how many people who like cycling, out of how many people in the world.. showergate wasnt a scandal, it was the talk of a few message boards, a few journalists, and a few cycling sites, it was barely mentioned in the british press, it certainly didnt get the same coverage that Kohl, or DiLuca got over here, both of those made sky news.. showergate didnt..

When his name is irreparably linked to the spectre of doping in the sport? When his every appearance provokes yet another scandal, story, accusation. I don't see that as a positive for the sport at all.

Again, by who.. By us, and the french.. 90% of the world when you mention lance, they think the guy who won the tour de france.. he beings no more scandal to the sport by not failing a test, than kohl does by failing one, than diluca did, than rasmussen did (that also got more coverage worldwide in the mainstream press than showergate did)..

Im no lance fanboy.. i loved watching the guy race in the early 90's.. some of the battles between him and ulrich etc where brilliant.. attacking riding, great moments, from "the look" to crosscountry riding, he gave us some great moments.. i also loved watchin rasmussen climb, basso when he was younger, Vino at his peak, and yes all dopers.. do i have much time for him now, no.. why, because i dont think an aging rider who has probably achieved all he can acheive is worth focusing on, id rather focus on the young riders, the schlecks, the wiggins, the boassen hagens...

do i think he doped in 99, yes, do i think hes doping now, well im not sure, there are those who will say i have rose tinted spectacles on, but lets face it, none of us TRULY know if he is doping or not right now..

The thing about lance, is we created lance, we built him up, and we are trying to tear down the lance that we built.. we are happy when he brings more coverage to cycling, but we are unhappy when he profits from it.. Lance doesnt actually create the scandal, the press create the scandal (and lets face it 99% of scandal is created by the french press), we analyise it and form our opinions from it.. but as i said, we are a very small insular part of the world.. there are maybe 50 active posters on this forum.. 30 or so anti lance in a big way, but the rest of the world doesnt give a ****...

we devote to much time to talking about him, too much time investigating scandals, making what we will of them.. we are so obsessed with astana and JB that we fail to see what caisse, or saxo, or anyone else is up to, we are so obsessed with the fact that lance doped in 99 that we forget about every other rider that has won a tour, or giro, or vuelta, or classic, or cat b race, whilst doping..

we are obsessed, and its our obsession that makes lance what he is.. not lance himself...

im ready to be flamed...

^^Flames, flames, many many flames, FLAMES, FLAMES, MANY MANY FLAMES, FLAMES, FLAMES, MANY MANY FLAMES,FLAMES, FLAMES, MANY MANY FLAMES

Is that what you meant?

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Anonymous]

I mock your puny fire extinguisher!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am not trying to flame anyone here - I hope to understand all sides positions and perhaps we can take some of the heat out of expressing our different opinions.

Firstly I want to say I think this is the most interesting thread on the forum right now. It offers all sides an opportunity to see the points of view and arguments of others.

As an example - I don't agree with a lot of what Mountain Goat and Dérailleur have written - but I do appreciate and respect their openness and honesty - we may have opposite opinions but I believe we can respectfully disagree.

I am going to avoid the subject of LA and the did he/didn't he saga, as it is well covered on various threads.

What I am interested in is understanding the various opinions. I believe the biggest issue may be in the language used. I don't think either side appreciates being called a 'fanboy' or 'hater'.

Some questions for some of the posters - Mountain Goat, I have reread your second post and I am interested in your opinion on it - as using that criteria those that 'hate' LA must also hate Cav? Also in that post you make it clear that this IS what the haters use - yet PMGs post clearly articulates his reason for not liking -as opposed to hating - LA, I am interested to know why you can dismiss that?

To the OP - with a name like 'CavFan' well we know who you like - I actually like the guy even though - like LA - he is pretty arrogant, I think it is what makes them both successful athletes.