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

[Anonymous]

I agree with both points.

The members of Astana should have looked at why the hog was collecting all of these powerhouses. Did he really think he had the power to get an invite from ASO?

Second while I stated I thought it was weaker, I didn't say it was less entertaining. The years when LA was completely in control of the race from start to finish were the most boring I have ever followed.

Sure he thought he'd get an in invite. It wasn't like when the suspected Puerto doper Vino stayed on the same team, Liberty Seguros, with a new sponsor, Astana and became the confirmed doper. JB came in and cleaned house.

What was your method of following the tour before 99?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have managed to meet a lot of the top cyclists over the years and I did share some time with Lance some time ago.
I am not going to say where or when -for obvious reasons.

I would describe him as exceedingly driven and very highly motivated.
He was in control of everything - a bit like the CEO of a company. Where some other top riders just trained, rode and rested, Lance was involved in almost every aspect from training, dealing with his commercial interests to the technical. If he thought something he would pick up the phone and expect it to be done.
He was the boss and everything revolved around him although he was not a tough taskmaster - however he expected things to be done professionally and swiftly. All who worked with him had a respect for him because they had the confidence in him to deliver and they knew which side their bread was buttered. Although I found it quite amusing when they would talk in hushed tones behind his back.

On a personal level he was friendly and quite easygoing and nowhere near as brash or abrasive as I had expected. However, I would suspect that he couldn't give a hoot as to what people think of him.
While he did not make himself available to the general public as some riders do, anyone who approached got a photograph taken or a jersey signed.

I would actually go as far to say he is one of the nicest and easiest top cyclists I have had to deal with - as was Greg LeMond.

 

[pcsl11111]

source please!

velonews and various other sources

http://www.velonews.com/article/83082/the-alto-de-l´;angliru-could-decide-who-wins-this

 

[L29205]

Sure he thought he'd get an in invite. It wasn't like when the suspected Puerto doper Vino stayed on the same team, Liberty Seguros, with a new sponsor, Astana and became the confirmed doper. JB came in and cleaned house.

What was your method of following the tour before 99?

Wow an attack over this. I felt I have not attacked anyone.

Overall, I believe while all comment may have been biased towards LA and JB. If you take them in context, you make a fair amount of good points.

To get to your question, I started racing as a Junior in 82 at age 14 (anyone who race at that time can simply use my username as a validation). I was watching/reading/listening to the tour because of LeMond (not a fan think he is old and bitter but off the point). I was disappointed that during the 86 tour that Hinault attacked Lemond for the win. I felt it was a betrayal after all the years that Lemond served as a strong lieutenant. I went to the 86 Coor's Classic was at Gloden and Estes Park. Road the closed course at Estes, I could not believe that they could do the race at that altitude.

 

[kiwirider]

Just been scanning this and it got me to thinking ...

Most opinion (informed or otherwise is another question) seems to hold the Tour as "the biggest race in the world" and, from what I've read, I'd surmise that Armstrong holds to that opinion.

In general, the Giro is talked about by most people outside of Italy as a second rate and much easier race to win than the Tour. (Before I get flamed - not my opinion. I prefer the Giro, but also enjoy watching the Tour.) Again, considering he never raced it during his main part of his career and some of the comments he made about Giro winners who raced the Tour against him, I'd surmise that Armstrong also holds that opinion.

OK, so if Armstrong - and those of you who agree with his comments - think that a rider who can "only" place 5th in the Tour is a joke, what would you think he would say of a rider who can only place 12th in a second rate race behind some of the same bunch of riders who rode that joke of a second rate tour in 2008?

Not passing an opinion ... just asking ...

Oh, and before the choruses of "he's peaking for the Tour" ... don't you think that Menchov, Pellizzoti, Arroyo and Sastre were also maybe "peaking for the Tour" ... and Basso - who Armstrong was never particularly complimentary about when they were racing for the overall - was riding like a barrel of crap in his first Grand Tour after suspension, but still beat Armstrong ... So again, I wonder how Armstrong would characterise a rider who was beaten by "someone like that"?

Again just asking ...

Oh, and one last question before I leave this thread (it was interesting to read, but I already know the ending is a stalemate) - isn't there a line from a song that goes something like "whenever your point your finger there are three more fingers pointing back at you" ...?

 

[hfer07]

velonews and various other sources

http://www.velonews.com/article/83082/the-alto-de-l´;angliru-could-decide-who-wins-this

thanks.
Although I can assure you the following:
1-) Velonews translated erroneously his opinion: he's neither called Alberto an Ant(insect if you like) nor he's been insulting- the proper context is that "alberto has been working like an Ant, collecting time bonuses here and there" and his behavior looks so nervous, considering that he's the favorite. the two of them were face to face after the stage commenting on each other performances-no reference of those commentaries at all (from TV2 espanola)
2-) Is perfectly valid to make commentaries from cyclists performances "while in competition"-everybody is entitled to do so and it's part of the entire plot.
what makes the difference is how "ethic & professional you are"
3-) when LA calls Sastre's Achievement a "joke" -when he mocks his compatriot for ending top 5 and so on--when he characterized the past tour as a "slow & boring" -- he's really insulting an effort done last year to get the tour much "CLEANER WHEN HE RODE" so therefore he figured he could comeback and trash everybody for taking a "different direction"

 

[Ninety5rpm]

J
OK, so if Armstrong - and those of you who agree with his comments - think that a rider who can "only" place 5th in the Tour is a joke, ...

You somehow have seemed to miss his whole point. He didn't say that placing 5th was a joke.

It's not that CVDV "only" placing 5th was a joke - it was that if a rider like that could place as high as 5th, then the Tour was a bit of a joke.

He was simply saying that the 2008 Tour wasn't quite as difficult to win or place high as it usually is. That's why a guy like Sastre could win instead of get 2nd, 3rd or 4th, and CVDV could get 5th instead of 6, 7 or 8.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

3-) when LA calls Sastre's Achievement a "joke"

Falsehood alert.

He didn't call Sastre's Achievement a "joke" - he called the overall Tour a "bit of a joke", because the creme de la creme were not there.

when he mocks his compatriot for ending top 5

Another falsehood.

He didn't mock CVDV - he mocked the overall competitiveness of the 2008 Tour.

 

[hfer07]

Falsehood alert.

He didn't call Sastre's Achievement a "joke" - he called the overall Tour a "bit of a joke", because the creme de la creme were not there.


Another falsehood.

He didn't mock CVDV - he mocked the overall competitiveness of the 2008 Tour.

got it!! so you're a true believer of being "a little bit pregnant" right?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Falsehood alert.

He didn't call Sastre's Achievement a "joke" - he called the overall Tour a "bit of a joke", because the creme de la creme were not there.
Another falsehood.

He didn't mock CVDV - he mocked the overall competitiveness of the 2008 Tour.

Armstrong did mock CVDV, him saying the that Christian finishing 5th and then says come on. He thinks Christians acheivement was a joke and a 'clean' rider like him couldn't do that. Calling last years tour a joke is insulting to Carlos because he won the tour. In the press hopefully Phil Liggett won't jump to his defence for everything he says.

Lance needs to pull his head in.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

got it!! so you're a true believer of being "a little bit pregnant" right?

I'm not following. Pregnancy is a true dichotomy - one is either pregnant, or not.

How much of a "joke" the Tour is not a clean dichotomy like being pregnant. It is a very subjective evaluation, and arguably measured along a gradual scale... one Tour maybe more of a "joke" than another. That's just another way of saying not all Tours are equally difficult to win or place.

 

[kiwirider]

OK, so I lied about leaving the thread ... I wanted to check back to see how many people had a go at me ... only one ... am somewhat disappointed - both to only get one bite and in the quality of the response ...

Ninety5rpm - as someone said to you before, check what you want to post before submitting it ... your response to me was bad, but your response to hfer07 is terrible!

Quick bit of basic logic - for the race to be a joke, the events that make up the race must have been a joke - since after all, the race still included the usual range of the classic geography of France that makes it the challenge that it is. Those events are comprised of the actions of the various competitors in the race. Therefore, by saying that the race is a joke, one is saying that the achievements of the riders are a joke. You can attempt to slice and dice as many ways as you want, but at the end of the day criticising the race is criticising the participants ...

And on that note, I am truly leaving this thread - so save the typing cos I wont be around to read it ... Like I say, I've seen this movie before, not only does it get boring pretty quickly, but I know how it ends ...

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Armstrong did mock CVDV, him saying the that Christian finishing 5th and then says come on. He thinks Christians acheivement was a joke and a 'clean' rider like him couldn't do that. Calling last years tour a joke is insulting to Carlos because he won the tour. In the press hopefully Phil Liggett won't jump to his defence for everything he says.

Lance needs to pull his head in.

To mock is to treat with contempt or ridicule. Maybe I'm too dense to see it, but I honestly don't see any contempt or ridicule for CVDV in Armstrong's comments.

You know, I remember when LA won in 1999, and everyone said similar stuff about him, because of all the missing big names due to the Festina Fiasco. I mean, there was no Ullrich or Pantani, and Zulle and Escartin got 2nd and 3rd. Angel Casero is a nice guy, but 5th place in the Tour de France? Come on! 1999 was a bit of a joke too.

They rightly discounted the significance of Armstrong's 1999 win, because, well, it was a bit of a joke. Well, he showed them the next six years. Maybe he's wrong and Sastre and CVDV will come in 1st and 5th again this year, and for the next 5 years, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

OK, so I lied about leaving the thread ... I wanted to check back to see how many people had a go at me ... only one ... am somewhat disappointed - both to only get one bite and in the quality of the response ...

Ninety5rpm - as someone said to you before, check what you want to post before submitting it ... your response to me was bad, but your response to hfer07 is terrible!

Quick bit of basic logic - for the race to be a joke, the events that make up the race must have been a joke - since after all, the race still included the usual range of the classic geography of France that makes it the challenge that it is. Those events are comprised of the actions of the various competitors in the race. Therefore, by saying that the race is a joke, one is saying that the achievements of the riders are a joke. You can attempt to slice and dice as many ways as you want, but at the end of the day criticising the race is criticising the participants ...

And on that note, I am truly leaving this thread - so save the typing cos I wont be around to read it ... Like I say, I've seen this movie before, not only does it get boring pretty quickly, but I know how it ends ...

Logic is only as good as the premises it rests upon.

I think your premises are based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of Lance's words. As I just said in the other post, I think 1999 was also a "bit of a joke", and I suspect Lance would agree. By your logic that would be saying Armstrong's achievement in the 1999 Tour was a joke, which is not what I'm saying at all, and I'm sure Armstrong would agree with that one.

 

[auscyclefan94]

To mock is to treat with contempt or ridicule. Maybe I'm too dense to see it, but I honestly don't see any contempt or ridicule for CVDV in Armstrong's comments.

You know, I remember when LA won in 1999, and everyone said similar stuff about him, because of all the missing big names due to the Festina Fiasco. I mean, there was no Ullrich or Pantani, and Zulle and Escartin got 2nd and 3rd. Angel Casero is a nice guy, but 5th place in the Tour de France? Come on! 1999 was a bit of a joke too.

They rightly discounted the significance of Armstrong's 1999 win, because, well, it was a bit of a joke. Well, he showed them the next six years. Maybe he's wrong and Sastre and CVDV will come in 1st and 5th again this year, and for the next 5 years, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'll agree to disagree with you on CVDV. In 1999 i do personally think that it was wrong that they made conclusions about armstrong and all the missing riders. He did verse some of the best climbers in the world at that time such as Alex Zulle and Fernando Escartin.

 

[akcoach]

Lance shows his class....low.

As a former fan of Lance Armstrong, I can only say how truly disappointed I am about his trashing of his colleagues and former teammates. Lance makes Bernard Hinault at his worst sound diplomatic. He shows his trailer-trash upbring by running his mouth off like this. As the self-appointed spokesperson for the cancer survivor community, how can he expect anyone to listen to him. His smarmy face is looking at me right now, asking if I'm tired of being tired. Lance has shown repeatedly that his vindictive chase-down of Simeoni wasn't a one-off, but a sign of a true lack of character and class. In the tour, I hope he gets dropped like a bad habit, and I hope Carlos and every one else can ask: "How do you like them f'ing apples? Who's the joke now?"
Signed,
Former Lance-fan

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

How exactly are we interpreting "joke"? That's the question. Do we think LA meant "Invalid"? "Slow?" "Boring?" "Funny?!"

If Lance doesn't finish ahead of Sastre this year, will he consider this year a "joke" too?

I was watching/reading/listening to the tour because of LeMond (not a fan think he is old and bitter but off the point). I was disappointed that during the 86 tour that Hinault attacked Lemond for the win. I felt it was a betrayal after all the years that Lemond served as a strong lieutenant.

As I'm older than you (but started racing after you!) let me help clarify a little perhaps. Greg really only rode one year for Bernard, 1985. He did serve as a loyal lieutenant that year though, I agree with you. but Greg says his only regret was not attacking with Roche in the 1985 Tour. That's it.

I'm of the opinion that Bernard's attacks in 1986 should have been expected by Greg, and everyone. Anyone (including Greg) who thought a great competitor like Hinault would just roll over and gather water bottles was naive. His attacking also did two things: It demolished the competition - making the race between he and Greg. And more important, it made Greg earn the win, and a true champion. Greg won that year, and completely deserved to win. Imagine if Hinault had let up? 23 years later now many would be saying "Greg would probably only have two Tour wins", or "Bernard really should be the first six time champion, if he hadn't of rolled over for Greg", etc.

I'm still hoping at some point these two are going to bury the hatchet and get on with it. The disagreement at this point has become almost petty and pointless. They agree on so much about cycling and the sport, and were pretty good friends at one point. They need to get together, Bernard admit he went for it, and Greg admit being pushed like that made him truly earn the win, even if it wasn't expected.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

How exactly are we interpreting "joke"? That's the question. Do we think LA meant "Invalid"? "Slow?" "Boring?" "Funny?!"

If Lance doesn't finish ahead of Sastre this year, will he consider this year a "joke" too?

First of all, it's not "joke", it's "bit of a joke". HUGE difference. I don't know why everyone keeps missing that. A bit of 100% is about 1/2 of 1%. So the difference here is between being a joke, or being 1/2 of 1% of a joke.

Secondly, if he doesn't finish ahead of Sastre this year, he's more likely to consider his own performance to be a bit of a joke, than to consider this year a joke.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Oy lance, Guess who's a bit of a joke aswell? YOU!

 

[L29205]

How exactly are we interpreting "joke"? That's the question. Do we think LA meant "Invalid"? "Slow?" "Boring?" "Funny?!"

If Lance doesn't finish ahead of Sastre this year, will he consider this year a "joke" too?


As I'm older than you (but started racing after you!) let me help clarify a little perhaps. Greg really only rode one year for Bernard, 1985. He did serve as a loyal lieutenant that year though, I agree with you. but Greg says his only regret was not attacking with Roche in the 1985 Tour. That's it.

I'm of the opinion that Bernard's attacks in 1986 should have been expected by Greg, and everyone. Anyone (including Greg) who thought a great competitor like Hinault would just roll over and gather water bottles was naive. His attacking also did two things: It demolished the competition - making the race between he and Greg. And more important, it made Greg earn the win, and a true champion. Greg won that year, and completely deserved to win. Imagine if Hinault had let up? 23 years later now many would be saying "Greg would probably only have two Tour wins", or "Bernard really should be the first six time champion, if he hadn't of rolled over for Greg", etc.

I'm still hoping at some point these two are going to bury the hatchet and get on with it. The disagreement at this point has become almost petty and pointless. They agree on so much about cycling and the sport, and were pretty good friends at one point. They need to get together, Bernard admit he went for it, and Greg admit being pushed like that made him truly earn the win, even if it wasn't expected.

Your Memory maybe be better, The interesting point is a mirror of the old champion and the new up and comer. As I remember Lemond was kept out of the tour because the team manger thought he was too young to compete in a grand tour. It will be an interesting juxtaposition between the ages.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Oh, I see, it's only "a bit" of a joke.

So, does that mean "a bit invalid"? "A bit boring?" "A bit slow?" "A bit funny?"

Do you really think if he loses, he'll give a press conference and stand there with aplomb and say "well, I guess my performance was a bit of a joke?"

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Oh, I see, it's only "a bit" of a joke.

So, does that mean "a bit invalid"? "A bit boring?" "A bit slow?" "A bit funny?"

Do you really think if he loses, he'll give a press conference and stand there with aplomb and say "well, I guess my performance was a bit of a joke?"

I've already said, I think he should consider his performance to be a "bit of a joke" if he doesn't beat Sastre, and I wouldn't be surprised if he characterized as such if he doesn't beat Sastre.

 

[L29205]

How exactly are we interpreting "joke"? That's the question. Do we think LA meant "Invalid"? "Slow?" "Boring?" "Funny?!"

If Lance doesn't finish ahead of Sastre this year, will he consider this year a "joke" too?

.

Sorry Alpe,
As I review the original post. I failed to answer your question. I am sorry. I think in this forum we need to make sure we police ourselves.

I as my own opinion that last year was a weak standing. ASO did not let all of the competitors is in the race. Do I blame ASO no I don't.

I also think that LA's arrogant statements towards Sastre is trash talk and noting more. Yes I do. I don't hear much out of LA other then trash talk.

I try to be open to all opinions.

I was a weak racer, but I still was one.

Alpe, have a great prospective on the sport. Please realize I really want this list to get back to a neutral standpoint. NOT for LA but for all of the riders.\

DB

 

[klodifan]

Oh, I see, it's only "a bit" of a joke.

So, does that mean "a bit invalid"? "A bit boring?" "A bit slow?" "A bit funny?"

Do you really think if he loses, he'll give a press conference and stand there with aplomb and say "well, I guess my performance was a bit of a joke?"

I think if La starts to fade, he'll crash out to save face.

 

[rhubroma]

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

But it's not envy.

Look, I'm American, so I can say what I want about the society without being "anti-American." Lest I'd be anti-myself. It's like black man being called racist for calling another black "yooo n!ggga", etc.

I have serious odds, though, with a certain class of my countrymen and you, frankly, fit the profile.

The issue at stake isn't whether or not the Tour was a "joke," but that it was said by a man who had won it seven times from the sidelines in his recent retirement as an arrogant and belittling remark about his former collegues, because he didn't feel they were up to scratch. It was not about the course, dimwit, but them. Period. For which Armstrong is a huge pr!ck and an a$$hole. Period. Anybody that defends him on this, and not the meek and gracious Sastre, is just an idiot. Period.