Question about anti-armstrong fanboys

[Anonymous]

I mock your puny fire extinguisher!

take this....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

im ready to be flamed...

Intersting post - I wont flame - but I have some observations and clarifications, there are over 7000 registered names on this site and while only a minority of those post regularly (much more than 50 imo but....) what I find is that perhaps it is the tone of the arguements and the Lance Centric threads that keeps many who could contribute to the different subjects from posting - which is a shame.

I don't really see what Lance has done for the sport in any major way - in fact I would argue his return has taken us back to pre 2006. After 06 we saw an effort to try and clean up the sport. But since last year we have seen a return to Omerta and sloppy standards from the UCI - while the blame for that imo lies squarely at the feet of the top tier of the UCI - it was done to facilitate the return of Lance.

Certainly there has been increased publicity in the Sport, but I believe that the UCI have 'papered over the cracks', a police investigation could seriously expose what I believe is still a serious issue within the sport. There have been 52 riders sanctioned this year, this shows the practices have not changed to any large degree.

Technology has evolved - I can now watch most races on my PC, this has nothing to do with LA. I know the figures for Versus were up this year, but I would be interested to know what figures they had in 2005 and 2006, I would say there was a drop off and the current figures will drop off when he retires again.

 

[guilder]

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.

Is Hugh Januss your real name cuz you must a been teased when it said quickly like "huge anus".

 

[BikeCentric]

I will add another reason that I dislike Armstrong that has not been mentioned in this thread (and I agree with PCMG's "Lance History Lesson" as I also used to be a Lance fan who turned against him through his own actions over the years). The event I speak of here was Armstrong's victory speech after I believe the 2005 Tour. This is the speech where he basically insulted anyone who was suspicious of drugs in the sport when he said "I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles and I'm sorry you don't believe in these riders." That for me was the ultimate turning point because he was basically saying to me that if you have any suspicion of PED usage in this sport then you have my contempt. And I took that as just insulting to the intelligence of the average fan. I mean we have even huge Lance fans admitting in this thread that cycling has always had a PED problem but Lance says even to them, his own fans, that he "feels sorry for them" and they should just stop thinking and "start believing." It's just pathetic really.

 

[Anonymous]

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?

Obviously, I was talking about cycling when I said that...

 

[pmcg76]

Intersting post - I wont flame - but I have some observations and clarifications, there are over 7000 registered names on this site and while only a minority of those post regularly (much more than 50 imo but....) what I find is that perhaps it is the tone of the arguements and the Lance Centric threads that keeps many who could contribute to the different subjects from posting - which is a shame.

I don't really see what Lance has done for the sport in any major way - in fact I would argue his return has taken us back to pre 2006. After 06 we saw an effort to try and clean up the sport. But since last year we have seen a return to Omerta and sloppy standards from the UCI - while the blame for that imo lies squarely at the feet of the top tier of the UCI - it was done to facilitate the return of Lance.

Certainly there has been increased publicity in the Sport, but I believe that the UCI have 'papered over the cracks', a police investigation could seriously expose what I believe is still a serious issue within the sport. There have been 52 riders sanctioned this year, this shows the practices have not changed to any large degree.

QUOTE]


Dr, we have speculated before on those two missing days from the Tour of Ireland. I dont know if you get Cycle sport magazine but in their most recent issue, they ran an article on the Tour of Ireland which focused on Lances participation(Typical) During the course of article, it is mentioned that the organiser Andrew McQuaid said that they paid the equivilant of thousands of pints of Guinness to secure Lances participation. You were not far of as usual and another reason to dislike Lance and he didnt even finish. VFM, I dont think so.

 

[Anonymous]

take this....

Ok, that ship is clearly using performance enhancing fire suppression.

 

[Moondance]

Obviously, I was talking about cycling when I said that...

I understand that. But it serves to illustrate the point that being 'convicted' by some kind of quasi-judicial institution is not the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. I believe that if the preponderance of the evidence shows doping, than he's a doper, regardless of what anyone else says; just as I believe most people will agree Adolf Hitler committed war crimes, although never convicted for anything. Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with anything in this matter.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree with your point, especially the underlined part.

But, i'm not trying to prove to anyone that he is innocent, like you, I make up my mind whether I like the guy or not. Clearly, we have different views on this and that's fine. I accept i'm the minority view in the Clinic, but someone has to challenge the status quo (the status quo being - lance doped, obviously on the outside world, the status quo is lance is clean, and i respect that people like yourself are challenging that status quo.

As for the bold, c'mon, man, why do you always insult me? I've told you in numerous threads that despite the fact we disagree, i can respect that, but you always add in an insult like that - it doesnt help your argument, to be honest

I'm not sticking me head in the sand, I know the evidence, I know the allegations, it would disrespectful of me, to come in hear and make an argument about LA without having the facts on hand. I'm fully aware of the flaws in my argument, but I just cannot accept the fact that the guy hasn't served a doping suspension, and as a result, i will support and defend him until this arises. This is not sticking my head in the sand. I care about cycling, I love cycling, and there is a system in place to ensure that no-one gets punished for cheating until they are absolutely proven to be guilty.

Can you accept my point, despite the fact that I am aware of the flaws? Can you see my angle of reasoning here? I will never try and force someone to believe something they don't about anyone, but I just can't assume someone is guilty especially when the onus is on them to prove innocence. It just doesn't seem right to me, that's just the way I am. If the evidence is so circumstantial, he should have served a suspension by now. So please, enough with the insults, this is a good discussion. I apoligise if I somehow made a similar insult, but if I did, it was not intended. Your argument is a lot stronger when you don't finish with a petty insult, and as such, I will look back at my posts to see if I have accidently done the same thing to set you off

 

[Anonymous]

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.

hey Doc,

Understandable that you don't agree with most of what I'm saying, that's fine. Thanks for considering my arguments, despite not agreeing, I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

About the fanboy-hater words being used. I agree they do imply the extremes.

E.g. the implications are (these are not my definitions):
Fanboy = delluded LA fan that cannot accept evidence showing guilty
Hater = disgruntled LA non-fan that cannot accept evidence showing innocence

I apologise if by calling someone a hater seemed a little over the top, but I guess when people are constantly accusing me of fanboy status (which I repeatedly deny - I just a fan with an opinion) I get sucked in by calling them a hater.

When I say hater, i do not mean the definition I said early, i basically mean "someone who thinks Lance is guilty, and dislikes his antics". But it's hard to sum that up in one word to keep the posts (relatively) short.

About my second post - I have to admit I'm a bit lost, the one I looked back on did not mention Cav, could you re-post it so I know which one you're talking about. Also, about the PMG disliking vs hater, again, I assume this is just a use of the word. I.e I am a fan - but dismissed as a fanboy (which I think are very different) just like I probably dismissed PMG as a hater, when in fact, he just disliked the guy...

Again, the use of words in this thread has caught on I assume.. Maybe we should make a better name. Perhaps, the people that defend LA, can be called LA defenders. And the people that think he's guilty, maybe LA realists ?? I doubt that will catch on hahaha

Again, apoligies for the use of words. When I get accused of fanboy status (it is frustrating becoz it implyies i'm stupid and delluded - i doubt which is true), unfortunately I will respond by calling someone a hater. Clearly, I have said I'm not a fanboy - but a fan - but the petty child in me says that if everyone will continue dismiss me as a delluded fanboy every time I defend LA then perhaps I must be responding by calling them a hater. Childish, but hey, forums tend to do that to you

 

[Anonymous]

I understand that. But it serves to illustrate the point that being 'convicted' by some kind of quasi-judicial institution is not the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. I believe that if the preponderance of the evidence shows doping, than he's a doper, regardless of what anyone else says; just as I believe most people will agree Adolf Hitler committed war crimes, although never convicted for anything. Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with anything in this matter.

I agree, my innocent until proven guilty does not hold up to all examples. Especially Hitler, considering the guy killed himself before he could even face trial. But we are talking about cycling here, and my point is not that Lance is guilty or innocent, all i'm saying is that something inside of me says that i personally cannot assume the guy is guilty until a reasonable organisation such as the UCI officially suspends him and unconditionally proves he took PEDs. I know this is a flawed argument

This is a silly example to make, I probably should let it go, but just imagine for one second that you are sportstar being accused of doping, and just imagine that you ARE innocent. The only thing saving you right now is that no-one can prove in a court that you are guilty, right? People can lie (the accusers - and of course so can the accused), people can set you up, people can blow things out of proportion to make you look bad, and i'm not sticking my head in the sand here, but if you were this guy, and you knew you were innocent, the only thing saving grace is that in the court of law, you dont need to PROVE innocence, the onus is on someone else to prove guily. So i think in that sense, presumption of innocence has EVERYTHING to do with this matter.

Again, every post I make about LA I will reiterate that i'm not a delluded fanboy - just a fan. I know the facts, and the allegations and the evidence, but everything inside of me says its not right to assume guilt when a court cannot prove it. It's just the way I was raised, and the way I view the courts. Sure, plenty of guilty people get through the courts, but everything said in this thread to convict Lance is good solid evidence, and since it hasn't proven guilt to a court, I cannot accept that. I understand that people think he is guilty, and they have every right, and they make a good argument, but, I respectfully disagree after carefully considering their evidence.

 

[Moondance]

I agree, my innocent until proven guilty does not hold up to all examples. Especially Hitler, considering the guy killed himself before he could even face trial. But we are talking about cycling here, and my point is not that Lance is guilty or innocent, all i'm saying is that something inside of me says that i personally cannot assume the guy is guilty until a reasonable organisation such as the UCI officially suspends him and unconditionally proves he took PEDs. I know this is a flawed argument

This is a silly example to make, I probably should let it go, but just imagine for one second that you are sportstar being accused of doping, and just imagine that you ARE innocent. The only thing saving you right now is that no-one can prove in a court that you are guilty, right? People can lie (the accusers - and of course so can the accused), people can set you up, people can blow things out of proportion to make you look bad, and i'm not sticking my head in the sand here, but if you were this guy, and you knew you were innocent, the only thing saving grace is that in the court of law, you dont need to PROVE innocence, the onus is on someone else to prove guily. So i think in that sense, presumption of innocence has EVERYTHING to do with this matter.

Again, every post I make about LA I will reiterate that i'm not a delluded fanboy - just a fan. I know the facts, and the allegations and the evidence, but everything inside of me says its not right to assume guilt when a court cannot prove it. It's just the way I was raised, and the way I view the courts. Sure, plenty of guilty people get through the courts, but everything said in this thread to convict Lance is good solid evidence, and since it hasn't proven guilt to a court, I cannot accept that. I understand that people think he is guilty, and they have every right, and they make a good argument, but, I respectfully disagree after carefully considering their evidence.

The main problem I have with your reasoning is that the cycling equivalent of a 'courts system' is horribly flawed. You can see this clearly in the whole Valverde situation. If I actually believed that cycling had an effective systems of doping controls, and doping sanctioning bodies, rather than some giant formless mess, perhaps I might be able to adopt the idealism that you seem to have in this respect. Also, in matters of doping, innocence itself is a highly subjective concept.

By a lie a man throws away and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man. A man who himself does not believe what he tells another, has even less worth than if he were a mere thing. [...] makes himself a mere deceptive appearance of man, not man himself. - Immanuel Kant

 

[Race Radio]

This hater term gets confusing.

If a poster questions one of Armstrong's many lies they are called a hater, as if all of his actions are unquestionable.

Often the same posters screaming hater is also writing vitriol directed at Frankie, Betsy, Lemond, Emma O'Reily, Walsh, Basson, Simeoni, Balester, Anderson.....for telling the truth.

Seems like a skewed set of values.

 

[BroDeal]

I agree, my innocent until proven guilty does not hold up to all examples. Especially Hitler, considering the guy killed himself before he could even face trial. But we are talking about cycling here, and my point is not that Lance is guilty or innocent, all i'm saying is that something inside of me says that i personally cannot assume the guy is guilty until a reasonable organisation such as the UCI officially suspends him and unconditionally proves he took PEDs. I know this is a flawed argument

This is a silly example to make, I probably should let it go, but just imagine for one second that you are sportstar being accused of doping, and just imagine that you ARE innocent. The only thing saving you right now is that no-one can prove in a court that you are guilty, right? People can lie (the accusers - and of course so can the accused), people can set you up, people can blow things out of proportion to make you look bad, and i'm not sticking my head in the sand here, but if you were this guy, and you knew you were innocent, the only thing saving grace is that in the court of law, you dont need to PROVE innocence, the onus is on someone else to prove guily. So i think in that sense, presumption of innocence has EVERYTHING to do with this matter.

Again, every post I make about LA I will reiterate that i'm not a delluded fanboy - just a fan. I know the facts, and the allegations and the evidence, but everything inside of me says its not right to assume guilt when a court cannot prove it. It's just the way I was raised, and the way I view the courts. Sure, plenty of guilty people get through the courts, but everything said in this thread to convict Lance is good solid evidence, and since it hasn't proven guilt to a court, I cannot accept that. I understand that people think he is guilty, and they have every right, and they make a good argument, but, I respectfully disagree after carefully considering their evidence.

You are just looking for a rationale for not accepting the truth. Your argument basically boils down to you cannot think for yourself; you require someone else to tell you what to believe.

You have also set an impossible standard so you will never have to accept the truth that Armstrong doped. The latest cop-out by the true believers is that they require an official finding of guilt. This is nothing more than a way to sidestep every bit of evidence that is brought up. The UCI has accepted a $500K under the table payment from Armstrong. The UCI is about as likely to go after Armstrong as Fidel Castro is likely to lose an election in Cuba. US Cycling is run by friends of Armstrong who have been involved with him on a personal and business level for twenty years.

People's opinions are not a court. This forum is not a court. Everyone makes decisions every day based on available evidence. They do not require a judge and jury to do so. Those decisions often have real consequences for the decision maker, consequences way beyond pointing out a fraud like Armstrong. Did you require a court to tell you what car to buy or which woman to marry?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

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...

No flaming here.

 

[Moondance]

This hater term gets confusing.

If a poster questions one of Armstrong's many lies they are called a hater, as if all of his actions are unquestionable.

Often the same posters screaming hater is also writing vitriol directed at Frankie, Betsy, Lemond, Emma O'Reily, Walsh, Basson, Simeoni, Balester, Anderson.....for telling the truth.

Seems like a skewed set of values.

This is what Francis Bacon wrote, nearly 400 years ago, in the Novus Organum:

XLVI
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate. And therefore it was a good answer that was made by one who, when they showed him hanging in a temple a picture of those who had paid their vows as having escaped shipwreck, and would have him say whether he did not now acknowledge the power of the gods — "Aye," asked he again, "but where are they painted that were drowned after their vows?" And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happen much oftener, neglect and pass them by.

BTW, is it obvious that I'm preparing for a philosophy exam on Tuesday?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

My main issue with the whole hater vs fanboy/troll/*** thing is when someone less familiar with the background info starts reading a thread in the middle of it.

Then it just looks like two sides of equally clueless muppets trading vicious insults, with one side attacking famous personalities without factual justification. It's incredibly polarizing........Note I said LOOKS LIKE, not IS!

If the ad homiem and flame wars were only used on the real trolls, we could have less heated discussions. It just depends what people want.

 

[BroDeal]

"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." -- Buddha

 

[Dr. Maserati]

hey Doc,

Understandable that you don't agree with most of what I'm saying, that's fine. Thanks for considering my arguments, despite not agreeing, I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

About the fanboy-hater words being used. I agree they do imply the extremes.

E.g. the implications are (these are not my definitions):
Fanboy = delluded LA fan that cannot accept evidence showing guilty
Hater = disgruntled LA non-fan that cannot accept evidence showing innocence

I apologise if by calling someone a hater seemed a little over the top, but I guess when people are constantly accusing me of fanboy status (which I repeatedly deny - I just a fan with an opinion) I get sucked in by calling them a hater.

When I say hater, i do not mean the definition I said early, i basically mean "someone who thinks Lance is guilty, and dislikes his antics". But it's hard to sum that up in one word to keep the posts (relatively) short.

About my second post - I have to admit I'm a bit lost, the one I looked back on did not mention Cav, could you re-post it so I know which one you're talking about. Also, about the PMG disliking vs hater, again, I assume this is just a use of the word. I.e I am a fan - but dismissed as a fanboy (which I think are very different) just like I probably dismissed PMG as a hater, when in fact, he just disliked the guy...

Again, the use of words in this thread has caught on I assume.. Maybe we should make a better name. Perhaps, the people that defend LA, can be called LA defenders. And the people that think he's guilty, maybe LA realists ?? I doubt that will catch on hahaha

Again, apoligies for the use of words. When I get accused of fanboy status (it is frustrating becoz it implyies i'm stupid and delluded - i doubt which is true), unfortunately I will respond by calling someone a hater. Clearly, I have said I'm not a fanboy - but a fan - but the petty child in me says that if everyone will continue dismiss me as a delluded fanboy every time I defend LA then perhaps I must be responding by calling them a hater. Childish, but hey, forums tend to do that to you

Thanks again for your honesty - as I have said I find this topic inter sting.

As I suspected, you object to being called a 'fanboy', as I object to being called a hater. I believe our positions are actually not that different - we just come to a different criteria to form our opinions and it has nothing to do with love or hate of the individual athlete.

It is why I argue that there are not just two sides to the Lance debate and why I found your
original post. on this thread somewhat objectionable. But I can also understand your position that you object to being implacably called 'delusional' or 'stupid'. I actually have always avoided the use of the term - for the reasons you list but almost moreso because to name-call devalues my argument.

One point I am curious about in your points is the evidence and innocence part.
You have put Rabobank as your 'dirtiest team', does that not imply that you share the same skepticism of the doping controls that I do? If so does that not mean that when an argument is made about the 'innocence' of an athlete because they have not been sanctioned makes it irrelevant to whether they have or have not taken PEDs?

That is why I use other criteria to establish whether I believe in a rider or not.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My main issue with the whole hater vs fanboy/troll/*** thing is when someone less familiar with the background info starts reading a thread in the middle of it.

Then it just looks like two sides of equally clueless muppets trading vicious insults, with one side attacking famous personalities without factual justification. It's incredibly polarizing........Note I said LOOKS LIKE, not IS!

If the ad homiem and flame wars were only used on the real trolls, we could have less heated discussions. It just depends what people want.

I actually believe that is the real issue going on behind many of the posts.

Reading Mountain Goats and PMG76s posts to me shows frustration - and I think it is not so much the subject matter but the implications of being associated to being either one side or the other.

Identifying a problem is one thing - resolving it is another and I would certainly be open to any suggestions on how to take some of the 'heat' that often comes around certain topics that does not impinge on the debate.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

As I suspected, you object to being called a 'fanboy', as I object to being called a hater. I believe our positions are actually not that different - we just come to a different criteria to form our opinions and it has nothing to do with love or hate of the individual athlete.

For what it is worth, I do not consider you to be a hater after reviewing a fair number of your posts. Sometimes you spend an extra amount of time attacking LA (the Jan thread) when it was not necessarily the object of the thread in my opinion, but it generally is done with some style, intelligence and humor. If have found that you generally do not attack other posters by calling them names or suggesting they are from the bottom of the DNA cesspool.

The terms Fanboy and Hater alike are somewhat childish (again in my opinion) but seem to imply someone who will attack another poster on a personal level just because they have a differing opinion.

 

[Sprocket01]

I don't really see what Lance has done for the sport in any major way - in fact I would argue his return has taken us back to pre 2006. After 06 we saw an effort to try and clean up the sport. But since last year we have seen a return to Omerta and sloppy standards from the UCI - while the blame for that imo lies squarely at the feet of the top tier of the UCI - it was done to facilitate the return of Lance.

I think that is the type of conspiracy theory that people resent. The three tours that took place whilst LA was retired were not cleaner in anyway. We obviously had the Landis thing in 06, the Rasmussen and Vino scandals in 07, and in 2008 the cera scandals. Apart from one test during this tour where inspectors were apparently asked to wait a little while due the the early timing, how can you justify the statement that suddenly all the standards have gone to pot just because LA came back? We've now got blood bio passports! It really is silly to pretend LA's come back has effected the whole nature of the sport.

The fact is, love him or hate him, the tour is always more exciting when Armstrong is involved.

 

[luckyboy]

The fact is, love him or hate him, the tour is always more exciting when Armstrong is involved.

You did watch the Tour this year right?

06, 07 and 08 were all more exciting than this year.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For what it is worth, I do not consider you to be a hater after reviewing a fair number of your posts. Sometimes you spend an extra amount of time attacking LA (the Jan thread) when it was not necessarily the object of the thread in my opinion, but it generally is done with some style, intelligence and humor. If have found that you generally do not attack other posters by calling them names or suggesting they are from the bottom of the DNA cesspool.

The terms Fanboy and Hater alike are somewhat childish (again in my opinion) but seem to imply someone who will attack another poster on a personal level just because they have a differing opinion.

My personal viewpoint is that there are many different opinions - but unfortunately it is easy to just categorize opinions in to two groups that are at complete opposites. I don't believe that is a fair representation of the majority of posters on this forum.

Certainly there are those who have admitted to hating Lance and there are certainly those who follow him with unquestioning loyalty.

My points on the Ullrich thread were to highlight the 'double standards' used to defend Lance.

To me the whole Lance talk clouds the real issues facing Pro Cycling in 2009.
As an example - there was the thread on the AFLD querying the professionalism of the UCI. Unfortunately the headline had LA & Astana in it and there was a rush to defend/attack that. I queried at the time would there have been so many posters defending the UCI if it had been Euskaltel Euskadi.

 

[Anonymous]

You are just looking for a rational for not accepting the truth. Your argument basically boils down to you cannot think for yourself; you require someone else to tell you what to believe.

C'mon, you're kidding right? You have misread all my posts if you believe i cannot think for myself. I'm not a robot, i've repeatedly stated my reasons for believing why I believe in, and the rationale for doing so. You're just being silly saying that I don't think for myself

In regard to not accepting the truth. This is also a misjudgment on your part. Again, I've repeatedly said that I completely understand all sides of the argument, which is why i've always said my objective in this forum is to 'defend' armstrong. I am not saying 100% he is innocent. And I certainly don't believe everything he says. I am not saying 100% that I am right. All I'm saying is that there is two sides to the story. When someone posts something about Armstrong, and I feel that this accuses him of something that I personally do not think is entirely correct, I will offer my opinion as to why I think this.

If you think that I cannot think for myself, then all this shows to me is that you've ignored almost everything I have written in this thread. One fundamental thing that I think you have missed is that I have repeatedly said there are flaws in my arguments. I'm not believing what someone has told me, and i'm not a fan boy - just a fan that will defend cyclists when I feel the desire too (that's probably the 8th time I've said this)