Sastre blasts Armstrong ! "He has no respect and no point"!!

[Ninety5rpm]

I don't think this bit of pop-psychology makes sense Ninety5. By extension you are saying that every one of us must subconsciously envy the riders we are not fans of and that just doesn't make any sense. I'm sure that all of us respect (and perhaps envy, but I doubt all of us actually want to be pro bike riders) the riding abilities of even the lowliest pros, but to say we envy the riders we aren't fans of more than the riders we are fans of is ridiculous.

I see your point, but I think there is a special envious resentment for a seven-time winner. To the extent that people often naturally favor the underdog, this is the opposite. If you take his behavior and statements in context, it's really not that bad. People are looking for reasons to dislike him, and there must be an emotional reason for it, since there is no rational one. That anti-underdog envy theory is the only one I can fathom.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Armstrong and Sastre are such a study in opposites that I actually look forward to watching this little rivalry unfold.

Obviously, their personalities are different; but they will also have to employ very different strategies to do well in this year's race. Whatever his former prowess, Armstrong probably won't be able to hang with the climbers at this Tour, whereas Sastre will likely be outclassed in the TTs. So Armstrong may come out on top in the first week, but then Sastre will have a shot in the mountains.

It's great that these two guys whose personalities and abilities are so different are being put up as rivals. The whole issue may be a bit inflated, but who cares? I think it's fun.

Armstrong likely has several goals. Among them are likely to beat Sastre as well as win on Ventoux.

Who will get to the top of Ventoux first - Armstrong or Sastre? Can't wait!!!

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I saw an interview today where Armstrong suggested that Sastre would be the man to beat. Anyone else see that one? Depends what you want to focus on I guess...

Yes, I saw it. That's why one really has to go out of his way to distort the meaning of Armstrong's "bit of a joke" comment to see it as disrespect for his competitors.

But there is no limit to a human's ability to find "reasons" (that seem really convincing to the self) to dislike someone once those subconscious circuits are lit up by emotion.

I just wish we could all recognize this flaw in our wiring and rise above it more often.

 

[Andre.J]

For crying out loud, what a bunch of envious ***. The man is an entertaining athlete, and part of his persona is, let's face, some pretty subdued chest thumping. "The Tour was a bit of a joke". BFD.

What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the "disrespect" conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali.

Folks, this is pure envy. Every teeny tiny excuse you can use to justify the immense envy you feel for this man, you do. Grow some spines. Sheesh.

You may be mistaking the telling of the truth with envy.

 

[bianchigirl]

So the fact that he's an arrogant prat and that rubs some people up the wrong way never crossed your mind? You really don't have to look far to find perfectly rational reasons for disliking Armstrong.

Contrast the trash talk with what Sastre said the other day: 'Mon seul rival est le Tour. Les autres coureurs sont des collègues de travail qui se sacrifient comme moi pour atteindre leur objectif.' That's the kind of comment a champion makes - respectful to his team, his rivals and the race. The stuff Armstrong spouts might delight those with the mindset of a testosterone filled 14 year old but just comes across as embarassing, 'ugly American' guff to others.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Too funny. I wrote,

But there is no limit to a human's ability to find "reasons" (that seem really convincing to the self) to dislike someone once those subconscious circuits are lit up by emotion.

I just wish we could all recognize this flaw in our wiring and rise above it more often.

Which was immediately followed by:

You may be mistaking the telling of the truth with envy.

LOL.

Saying last year's Tour was a "bit of a joke" is "a slap in the face to the guys who were ripping it last year", shows that Armstrong is "an A$$", "disrespects his competitors", and "is not a great champion". Yeah, that's "the truth".

 

[Mellow Velo]

So, if I'm reading this right, the Tour was a joke before 1999 was also a joke in the mid 2000's and will be again, after 2010?

Glad I prefer the Giro, then.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

So, if I'm reading this right, the Tour was a joke before 1999 was also a joke in the mid 2000's and will be again, after 2010?

Glad I prefer the Giro, then.

Do you think he said or even implied that the Tour was a joke in any other year?

Do you Lance haters even try to come up with a plausible reason to justify your irrational resentment, or will anything you pull out of thin air do just as well?

 

[uphillstruggle]

The problem is that the LA lovers ignore any kind of rational argument and pick up on any flippant remarks.

 

[Parrot23]

Not taking sides here, but my feeling why Lance dissed last year's Tour was the quality of the Alpe d'Huez chase, which let Sastre win. Convinced Lance watched that and thought, "Man, that wouldn't have happened if I were there".

Of course, the Schlecks disrupted the chase, but Cadel left it far too late as is his wont (just as he did this year in with Valverde on Ventoux in the Dauphine), or he goes too early (re Liege this year on the Mur de Huy). He can't quite get the timing right.

What took the cake on Alpe d'Huez was when the French teams took the burden of chasing (serious looking losers huffing and puffing). Can't remember the teams. But knew asap when they took the burden at one point it was over: Sastre was gone.

I suspect Lance is more dissing the quality of the OPPOSITION to Sastre last year than the latter. And he likes to play with opponents' minds, of course.

 

[Irish2009]

Ok I may be one of the few who can say I disliked Armstrong from the first day I met him, and this was way before he ever made it big(riding the Nissan Classic for Motorola). He hadn't done anything in cycling at the time, he was a talent granted, but arrogant as f**k. Sadly fame,fortune and the trials of surviving cancer seem to have not mellowed this pompus arrogant person, I also look back at the last 25years in cycling at the guys I admired, and find the cyclists most admired were not always the ones who won the most but those that appealed on a personal level, it's not (always)about the bike, but how you come across as a person that appeals.

 

[rhubroma]

For crying out loud, what a bunch of envious ***. The man is an entertaining athlete, and part of his persona is, let's face, some pretty subdued chest thumping. "The Tour was a bit of a joke". BFD.

What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the "disrespect" conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali.

Folks, this is pure envy. Every teeny tiny excuse you can use to justify the immense envy you feel for this man, you do. Grow some spines. Sheesh.

Man you are pathetic! Sastre has more class as a man in his little finger, than Lance and all his fanboys will ever have put together.

And that's just it, the Americans don't understand the difference between what is real and what is fake. It's too late for them.

 

[Anonymous]

LOL, no I am not at all envious of people who are jerks! But yes of course I'm envious of his riding skills.

You have to understand, ninety is a kindred spirit of Mr Armstrong.

To compere him to Ali is ignorant of both history and context, but I have come to expect that from him.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ok I may be one of the few who can say I disliked Armstrong from the first day I met him, and this was way before he ever made it big(riding the Nissan Classic for Motorola). He hadn't done anything in cycling at the time, he was a talent granted, but arrogant as f**k. Sadly fame,fortune and the trials of surviving cancer seem to have not mellowed this pompus arrogant person, I also look back at the last 25years in cycling at the guys I admired, and find the cyclists most admired were not always the ones who won the most but those that appealed on a personal level, it's not (always)about the bike, but how you come across as a person that appeals.

That's the other thing I don't get. Thankfully, personalities come from a very broad range, and one of the variable characteristics is arrogance. Some people have very humble personalities, and others have very arrogant personalities... most are probably somewhere in between. I don't know whether its nature or nurture that determines this, or (most likely) some intertwined combination, but I don't see why one would like or dislike another human being (a stranger no less), based on something so superficial. It's not that different from liking or disliking someone based on hair color, skin color or how they laugh.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Man you are pathetic! Sastre has more class as a man in his little finger, than Lance and all his fanboys will ever have put together.

And that's just it, the Americans don't understand the difference between what is real and what is fake. It's too late for them.

Oh, so it's anti-Americanism that is that the root of all this.

But it's not envy.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You have to understand, ninety is a kindred spirit of Mr Armstrong.

To compere him to Ali is ignorant of both history and context, but I have come to expect that from him.

I did not compare Armstrong to Ali. What I wrote was: "What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the 'disrespect' conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali."

I was talking about statements Armstrong made to statements Ali made, and how they compare in terms of supposedly expressing disrespect. That's all. It was a simple example to illustrate a point. Please don't increase the scope of my meaning by taking it out of context.

 

[ploglet]

Hate to say it but 2008 Tour seemed to be lower attacking quality than the previous years. To more or less win the Tour with one attack from Sastre seemed a little odd? My opinion is that Sastre will again be in 4th or 5th spot now that the usual suspects are back in action. But of course Sastre might prove me wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

I see your point, but I think there is a special envious resentment for a seven-time winner. To the extent that people often naturally favor the underdog, this is the opposite. If you take his behavior and statements in context, it's really not that bad. People are looking for reasons to dislike him, and there must be an emotional reason for it, since there is no rational one. That anti-underdog envy theory is the only one I can fathom.

Again, Mr Armstrong has tried to destroy people's lives because of his need to manage the content of the doping discussion in regards to him. I only need to name one name to justify my dislike for the man. I envy being someone such as you or Mr Armstrong as much as I envy the children who work in Nike factories.

Its funny, you talk about posting and flaming out of emotion and never recognize the irony of the tone of your first post on this thread. Again, I am not surprised, but you should be embarrassed.

BTW, the name is Betsy Andreau.

 

[Anonymous]

I did not compare Armstrong to Ali. What I wrote was: "What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the 'disrespect' conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali."

I was talking about statements Armstrong made to statements Ali made, and how they compare in terms of supposedly expressing disrespect. That's all. It was a simple example to illustrate a point. Please don't increase the scope of my meaning by taking it out of context.

Do you actually read what you post?

 

[uphillstruggle]

the cyclists most admired were not always the ones who won the most but those that appealed on a personal level, it's not (always)about the bike, but how you come across as a person that appeals.

This is why everybody loved indurain when essentially (forgive me for this) he was a much much much better version of evans in his riding style.

Ninety5 to say that to judge someone on personality is similar to judging them on their colour is frankly absurd. What else do you judge a human being by, your character and your actions are pretty much the only thing you have control over in this world everything else is circumstance and genetics. Lance was lucky to have a good body to ride a bike with he chose to be a d1ck.

 

[Lion of Flanders]

What are you talking about rasmussen was thrown out after that Contador took over the top two weren't thrown out.

Top riders (not place-holders) refers to Rasmussen and Vinokourov.

There's a common idea (expressed earlier in this thread) that many lead changes in a Tour=great race. I just don't think this is the case. If you have multiple lead changes between the two top riders (Lemond/Fignon 1989) that most definately = Great Race. However, when you have 8+ lead changes among a whole bunch of different guys, a voice in your head starts to whisper "nobody's any better than anyone else and eventualy somebody has to win this thing" ....big deal.

Those of us on this thread could hold a 3 week Tour and I guarantee that one of us would win. But that wouldn't make that person great.

As for the poster who got all exited that I was implying that all of the "Lanceless" Tours were "jokes", well, settle down Francis. There were plenty of great races with worthy champions before Lance came along and there will be plenty more after he's gone. I think you have to go back to 1987 to find a Tour that was a bit suspect, in that (IIRC) one great champion had just retired (Hinault), and two others were injured (Lemond & Fignon), leaving a pack of podium hopefuls battling for the win. The winner (Roche) was clearly the top rider that year (doing the Merckx triple of Giro + Tour + Worlds), so I think that saved the race to some degree.

Meanwhile, a Johan Brunyeel team is back at the Tour, Lance is there to make things interesting, Contador currently looks like the best stage racer in the world right now (and he's still a youngster, lets not forget), there are American teams that really have good chances for success (Go T. Farrar!) and there are plenty of other good riders in the mix to make a really great race (for a most welcome change).

I can't wait.

p.s. If Lance is a jerk, who cares? He's an athlete, not your brother in law or your boss.

 

[Jacques Tati]

For crying out loud, what a bunch of envious ***. The man is an entertaining athlete, and part of his persona is, let's face, some pretty subdued chest thumping. "The Tour was a bit of a joke". BFD.

What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the "disrespect" conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali.

Folks, this is pure envy. Every teeny tiny excuse you can use to justify the immense envy you feel for this man, you do. Grow some spines. Sheesh.

Lance Armstrong entertaining?.....you need to broaden your horizons mate, try watching paint dry!

 

[uphillstruggle]

Hate to say it but 2008 Tour seemed to be lower attacking quality than the previous years. To more or less win the Tour with one attack from Sastre seemed a little odd? My opinion is that Sastre will again be in 4th or 5th spot now that the usual suspects are back in action. But of course Sastre might prove me wrong.

I agree that Sastre will be around 4th or 5th maybe lower but I think last year was a result of CSC having a three GC hevey weight working together and Evans cocking it up a bit. Sastre will be worse off due to not having the schlecks to work with and AC, LA and LL in the mix and the course

 

[mr. tibbs]

That's the other thing I don't get. Thankfully, personalities come from a very broad range, and one of the variable characteristics is arrogance. Some people have very humble personalities, and others have very arrogant personalities... most are probably somewhere in between. I don't know whether its nature or nurture that determines this, or (most likely) some intertwined combination, but I don't see why one would like or dislike another human being (a stranger no less), based on something so superficial. It's not that different from liking or disliking someone based on hair color, skin color or how they laugh.

I know, right? How shallow to not like someone based on their personality. I personally choose which people I like/dislike based on how pretty the are.

 

[Anonymous]

Lance Armstrong entertaining?.....you need to broaden your horizons mate, try watching paint dry!

Yea, watching 8 other doped up cyclists string out the entire peloton over mountain after mountain only to deliver their leader at the bottom of the last climb to go off on his own little motor bike and leave everyone else behind was just THRILLING to watch. Why it was the most scintillating of strategies ever devised.......