Radioshack out of Tour rumours

[Deagol]

I'm just thinking it might be a fun game for a Lance fan like Strickland to tweet (twit, twat, whatever it's called) something like this and then tune in to a known Cancer Lovers hangout like CN forum and watch the message board fill up. We did 69 posts in less than 3 hours based on pure speculation. I can see someone who touched that off being quite entertained.

See, this is one of the problems with watching something like Twitter.

Seems like a good place for kids with ADD to hang out

http://www.despair.com/somevedi.html

 

[eleven]

We did 69 posts in less than 3 hours based on pure speculation. I can see someone who touched that off being quite entertained.

I think the Greatest coined a name for that.

 

[Nearly]

He's never tested positive for Catholic, and he's the most tested pope ever so unless you have some real evidence...

He may be Ratzinger but are there any rats or singers in the Catholic church?

 

[altark123]

Yeah, LA has tweeted about doping controls and pave' recon today so I was going to say this had to be false unless someone had yet to tell LA himself....

 

[forty four]

I don't want to see his junkie a$$ riding anything but a chair at the table for the defense.

but the other dopers your cool with lol. your personal hatred for la is very transparent. why does his doping anger you more than all the others who dope and lie about it. im neither a fan nor a hater and will never understand either there all equally delusional to me. seems people cannot look at something subjectively without emotion driving there intellect along.

 

[MacRoadie]

Yeah, LA has tweeted about doping controls and pave' recon today so I was going to say this had to be false unless someone had yet to tell LA himself....

You're kidding, right?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

This thread is sinking fast.

 

[King Of Molehill]

This is very true, and further highlighted by Basso's published results (as much as I hate to use a former cheat as an example) from this year's Giro where his Haemeticrit level dropped steadily throughout the 3 week race (started at 44 and ended at 39 I think) and was held up by a number of sports scientists as the perfect example of how the (un-doped) human body would react to the rigors of a 3 week stage race

I'm not suggesting that Basso didn't win clean but it would be naive to think that blood values couldn't be manipulated to suggest anything these days.

 

[Anonymous]

but the other dopers your cool with lol. your personal hatred for la is very transparent. why does his doping anger you more than all the others who dope and lie about it. im neither a fan nor a hater and will never understand either there all equally delusional to me. seems people cannot look at something subjectively without emotion driving there intellect along.

It isn't about the doping. It is about the things he has done to others to hide it, and his prostitution of people with cancer to place himself above questioning. I suggest you read your last sentence, then go back and read posts I have made on the subject on many occasions. I think you will find that a mirror is useful in your life.

But he has given me one good idea. I am going to tell my boss at my next yearly evaluation that he needs to know that I am working each day for a different cancer patient, and that I tape a piece of paper with their name on my computer every day. That way, if he questions anything about what I am doing, I can ask him why he loves cancer so much.

 

[Obeeone]

Thanks joined the clinic

 

[velosopher54]

I know the rumor is not true, but I would like it to be true just so I can watch the tour without listening to Phil, Paul, and Bob go on and on and on about a certain Mr. Armstrong. I'm either going to be nauseous or simply watching the tour with the sound OFF.

 

[patricknd]

I'm just thinking it might be a fun game for a Lance fan like Strickland to tweet (twit, twat, whatever it's called) something like this and then tune in to a known Cancer Lovers hangout like CN forum and watch the message board fill up. We did 69 posts in less than 3 hours based on pure speculation. I can see someone who touched that off being quite entertained.

it would be pretty funny.

 

[eleven]

I know the rumor is not true, but I would like it to be true just so I can watch the tour without listening to Phil, Paul, and Bob go on and on and on about a certain Mr. Armstrong.

That we can agree on! Listening to Phil and Paul, you'd think there are only two people in the race: The guy in the front and Armstrong. Slow day? Let's talk Lance. Sprinters day? More lance talk. Mountains? "There's an attack, but let's get back to that Lance guy. Do you know he had cancer?

 

[Anonymous]

That we can agree on! Listening to Phil and Paul, you'd think there are only two people in the race: The guy in the front and Armstrong. Slow day? Let's talk Lance. Sprinters day? More lance talk. Mountains? "There's an attack, but let's get back to that Lance guy. Do you know he had cancer?

Last year during the Giro, the Universal Sports announcers were just as bad. They were seriously discussing how Armstrong could win an obviously sprinters stage.

As for P and P, I will be watching Eurosport coverage on the computer every day. You get more of the stage, and it is somewhat better.

 

[squampton]

Yea, trolls seem to enjoy this place and grocery lines. Its much better when people come to add content. That makes them a member and not just a "member."

Just looking for credible content. I enjoy reading cycling updates as much as the next person. Most of the comments make me think of another "member" associated with the porn industry.
I try to use the "ignore" feature but I find myself shocked at the pure speculation people write in here. Sorry.. I'm not really contributing anything other than frustration.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

another 9 page circle jerk?????????????????


who got the cookie?

 

[Anonymous]

Just looking for credible content. I enjoy reading cycling updates as much as the next person. Most of the comments make me think of another "member" associated with the porn industry.
I try to use the "ignore" feature but I find myself shocked at the pure speculation people write in here. Sorry.. I'm not really contributing anything other than frustration.

I guess I don't understand the continued insistence that speculation should not be part of a forum. This is a forum, not Wikipedia, we don't compile fact for publication, we don't put out a newsletter with information, we don't do anything but to discuss things. Speculation is merely a natural part of a discussion on a forum or anywhere else. Why some treat it like heresy is beyond me? It also seems readily apparent that those who favor Mr Armstrong are the ones who continually rail against "speculation." What I would suggest is for you to listen to yourself tomorrow, and count the number of times you speculate. I am betting you do it quite frequently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok - sorry I am late - I assume RS are gone, oh well....
What did the WSJ article say

another 9 page circle jerk?????????????????


who got the cookie?

I believe her name is Anna.

 

[goober]

I guess I don't understand the continued insistence that speculation should not be part of a forum. This is a forum, not Wikipedia, we don't compile fact for publication, we don't put out a newsletter with information, we don't do anything but to discuss things. Speculation is merely a natural part of a discussion on a forum or anywhere else. Why some treat it like heresy is beyond me? It also seems readily apparent that those who favor Mr Armstrong are the ones who continually rail against "speculation." What I would suggest is for you to listen to yourself tomorrow, and count the number of times you speculate. I am betting you do it quite frequently.

The wheels on the bus go round and round. The problem is that some are not speculating and are instead making statements with subsequent speculative theories. When someone makes the inverse statement as a true speculation they get flamed, accused of trolling, or claims of trying to derail the thread. I do not find your observation that the Lance Fanboys continually rail against "speculation" readily apparent. All that is readily apparent is that you do not like anyone who opposes your views even if the opposition is speculation...

 

[eleven]

Last year during the Giro, the Universal Sports announcers were just as bad. They were seriously discussing how Armstrong could win an obviously sprinters stage.

As for P and P, I will be watching Eurosport coverage on the computer every day. You get more of the stage, and it is somewhat better.

Do you know if you can get an English-language Eurosport feed for each stage? I've always upgraded my TV package to watch the Tour on Versus in the past, but I just can't get myself listen to it anymore.

The funniest part of Versus coverage is when they do a synopsis of, for example, a Classic that LA isn't even riding. The most popular topic of discussion? Still LA.

 

[squampton]

I guess I don't understand the continued insistence that speculation should not be part of a forum. This is a forum, not Wikipedia, we don't compile fact for publication, we don't put out a newsletter with information, we don't do anything but to discuss things. Speculation is merely a natural part of a discussion on a forum or anywhere else. Why some treat it like heresy is beyond me? It also seems readily apparent that those who favor Mr Armstrong are the ones who continually rail against "speculation." What I would suggest is for you to listen to yourself tomorrow, and count the number of times you speculate. I am betting you do it quite frequently.

Valid points !
It's damning speculation without evidence that is the issue for me.. I could not care less about Mr Armstrong..Much of the early info was stuff I alway's suspected.. Dopers beating dopers, ( with the odd clean ride thrown in ) my head has not been in the sand.
I realize speculation brings discussion and everyone has their own version of what is acceptable but from my stance it appears many posters simply stir the rumor pot, by the time we get to page 5 in these threads information is twisted..
And I'm labeled a "Troll" on my 1st post in this thread...

 

[Cal_Joe]

I guess I don't understand the continued insistence that speculation should not be part of a forum. This is a forum, not Wikipedia, we don't compile fact for publication, we don't put out a newsletter with information, we don't do anything but to discuss things. Speculation is merely a natural part of a discussion on a forum or anywhere else. Why some treat it like heresy is beyond me? It also seems readily apparent that those who favor Mr Armstrong are the ones who continually rail against "speculation." What I would suggest is for you to listen to yourself tomorrow, and count the number of times you speculate. I am betting you do it quite frequently.

One of the issues here is that in some posts by some posters, speculation is either represented as fact (when that may not be the case) or the posters do not make the effort to note in their posts that it is indeed speculation and not based on fact. Nothing wrong with speculation. Hell, I speculate all day.

re your comment - "those who favor Mr Armstrong are the ones who continually rail against "speculation" - I call BS. There are many posters here (obviously including myself) who ask for a link to sources or think that extensive speculation based on rumor and/or a lack of facts is open to challenge.

Such a challenge is too often interpreted as "favoring" LA. The response to that challenge often contains a subtle context - "if someone is not bashing LA and does not post that they dislike LA as much or even more than I do, then they must be an apologist for LA."

That context, which is pervasive here (and I would appreciate some non flaming comments with semi-intelligent rebuttal on that point of pervasiveness) stifles discussion.

To quote your post "What I would suggest is for you to listen to yourself tomorrow" and ask yourself if any of your responses to a post could ever possibly be based on "someone is not bashing LA and does not post that they dislike LA as much or even more than I do, then they must be an apologist for LA."

Usual disclaimer - I am not a fan of LA. I feel that his presence/influence has been a detriment to cycling. I do tend to like facts.

 

[patricknd]

another 9 page circle jerk?????????????????


who got the cookie?

got something against competition?

 

[Anonymous]

The wheels on the bus go round and round. The problem is that some are not speculating and are instead making statements with subsequent speculative theories. When someone makes the inverse statement as a true speculation they get flamed, accused of trolling, or claims of trying to derail the thread. I do not find your observation that the Lance Fanboys continually rail against "speculation" readily apparent. All that is readily apparent is that you do not like anyone who opposes your views even if the opposition is speculation...

I swear that none of you fanboys owns a mirror.

 

[squampton]

[quote Usual disclaimer - I am not a fan of LA. I feel that his presence/influence has been a detriment to cycling. I do tend to like facts.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps to informed cyclists.. Difficult to argue he did not inspire a resurgence to road biking and it's Euro coverage in North America !