So what is it about Lance?

Dettol

BANNED
Nov 10, 2010
98
0
0
It's clear that most posters believe Lance is guilty (for the record I do to). But the hatred that's comes his way is beyond the normal 'because he's a cheater'. There are many other athletes and cyclists that do not get the vittriol he does.

Is it the 'blatant' lies?
Is it the self grandising?
Is it the 'win at all costs' mentality off and on the bike?
Is it his Oedipal complex?
Is it because summing up everything together he is really a sociopath?

For me it's the 'win at all costs' mentalilty.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Dettol said:
It's clear that most posters believe Lance is guilty (for the record I do to). But the hatred that's comes his way is beyond the normal 'because he's a cheater'. There are many other athletes and cyclists that do not get the vittriol he does.

Is it the 'blatant' lies?
Is it the self grandising?
Is it the 'win at all costs' mentality off and on the bike?
Is it his Oedipal complex?
Is it because summing up everything together he is really a sociopath?

For me it's the 'win at all costs' mentalilty.
Attitude, lazerlike focus, extremely handsome, cancercuring. An unbeatable combo, what is not to like? (Like one of my other heroes Clint Eastwood, Lance is extremely handsome and masculine. I like that in a man!)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Dettol said:
It's clear that most posters believe Lance is guilty (for the record I do to). But the hatred that's comes his way is beyond the normal 'because he's a cheater'. There are many other athletes and cyclists that do not get the vittriol he does.

Is it the 'blatant' lies?
Is it the self grandising?
Is it the 'win at all costs' mentality off and on the bike?
Is it his Oedipal complex?
Is it because summing up everything together he is really a sociopath?

For me it's the 'win at all costs' mentalilty.
Nice baiting thread - I noticed how you didn't ask why is there such fawning for the same rider.

This topic was discussed on many occassions with this being a recent one.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8832
 
Feb 18, 2010
18
0
0
Dettol said:
It's clear that most posters believe Lance is guilty (for the record I do to). But the hatred that's comes his way is beyond the normal 'because he's a cheater'. There are many other athletes and cyclists that do not get the vittriol he does.

Is it the 'blatant' lies?
Is it the self grandising?
Is it the 'win at all costs' mentality off and on the bike?
Is it his Oedipal complex?
Is it because summing up everything together he is really a sociopath?

For me it's the 'win at all costs' mentalilty.
I think the main reason is that he has created an image of himself being a saint, cancer survivor, most tested athlete etc. Thats why people hate him, because his achievements was in large part to dope. When it comes to his "win at all costs" mentality i don't think he is the worst. I dont think he ever would have attacked Ullrich like Contador attacked Schleck when his chain jumped off. Contador has also stated that he attacked due to Schlecks chain dropping, saying it was "about winning the Tour". But Contador doesnt seem to get any hatred....
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
flicker said:
Attitude, lazerlike focus, extremely handsome, cancercuring. An unbeatable combo, what is not to like? (Like one of my other heroes Clint Eastwood, Lance is extremely handsome and masculine. I like that in a man!)
Lance is similar to another one of my favorite actors Rock Hudson, who also likes show tunes and has the scrap book bug like me.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
Dettol said:
It's clear that most posters believe Lance is guilty (for the record I do to). But the hatred that's comes his way is beyond the normal 'because he's a cheater'. There are many other athletes and cyclists that do not get the vittriol he does.

Is it the 'blatant' lies?
Is it the self grandising?
Is it the 'win at all costs' mentality off and on the bike?
Is it his Oedipal complex?
Is it because summing up everything together he is really a sociopath?

For me it's the 'win at all costs' mentalilty.
One more option:

Is it the flaunting?

My impression on the whole is that he doped, and the informed public knows it, we in the clinic know it, and he knows that we know it. He seems to be taunting, to dare us (by proxy of the public strategy 'fans') to prove it while at the same time trying to keep up appearance with the general public.

I really stopped playing and haven't taken the bait for a long time (except now, apparently).
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Nice baiting thread - I noticed how you didn't ask why is there such fawning for the same rider.
There's not exactly much fawning done in the Clinic section though, is there? It would be like going to an Athiests Convention and asking them what they loved most about Jesus.
 
For the record, it would be perfectly fine to hate Armstrong exclusively for being a cheater. Everybody doped in the 90s, but not everybody doped so much their soigneurs said in court they would have died if they had been given everything they asked for. There's your normal doper, and then there's Riis, the 94-95 Gewiss squad, the 97-98 Festina squad with a special mention for Hervé, the 97-98 Casino squad... and, according to most people here, Armstrong. Some cheated, while others made a farce out of cycling.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Dettol said:
Oh okay close it then.

This thread wasn't to bait anyway.
You assume that anyone who has anything negative to say about Lance must "hate" him or comment is "vitriol".
Also - you ask a (loaded) question - and provide the answers.

Well if the thread wasn't to bait - then what was it for? As you have already provided the answers to the question.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
I'd have to say I most dislike the bossism. The chasing-down of Simeoni was probably the turning point for me. On the day it happened, I thought he was just being a cocky, high school-like kid. Then I eventually realized that the chase-down was not a message for Simeoni, but rather for everyone else.

But perhaps even more so is the totality of the fraud, the bossism, the using people, the carefully crafted PR to help build his image, the thuggish way he goes behind the scenes to punish critics. Etc.

I don't have time to hate this guy, but I do hate the fact that THIS guy got all of the marbles.
 

Dettol

BANNED
Nov 10, 2010
98
0
0
When I play Dr Phil, a lot of his behaviour seems to be fed from his mother. The win at all costs, if they're not with they're against you etc. It seems to me when he got cancer and then recovered it was sort of like the last straw to hold back his inhibitions since he really felt that the world was out to get him. But then again it's all Dr Phil talk.
 

Dettol

BANNED
Nov 10, 2010
98
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You assume that anyone who has anything negative to say about Lance must "hate" him or comment is "vitriol".
Also - you ask a (loaded) question - and provide the answers.

Well if the thread wasn't to bait - then what was it for? As you have already provided the answers to the question.
It's hate and it's vitriol. You can substitute them for a number of words but the meaning is the same.

I provide the answers because that's what I've seen on this forum in passing as a comment. But nobody goes into the reasons why they think he is what he is.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
You assume that anyone who has anything negative to say about Lance must "hate" him or comment is "vitriol".
Also - you ask a (loaded) question - and provide the answers.

Well if the thread wasn't to bait - then what was it for? As you have already provided the answers to the question.
I don't get it Mas - usually you're a pretty even keel poster, what's with the attitude towards this guy? I may have missed some interactions you guys have had recently or something, but this emphatic a response seems uncalled for, from my perspective. I do agree that this topic has been discussed ad infinitum, but that doesn't seem to be your main point.

It didn't seem to me like a baiting thread. Sure he provides some options, but he's observing a trend in the way people talk here (and definitely summarizing it with a bit of hyperbole) and asking why people might feel that way. Do you mean he's baiting Lance fans? Because if that's the case, this seems pretty tame compared to what a lot of people say about Armstrong. I don't see how asking questions like this is much different than offering a poll on, say, 'what teams do you think are doping?' and then providing answers for people to discuss.

I could see why you might say 'this has been discussed here' with a link, or even 'hey this seems like baiting' (even if I don't think it is), but after that first response, why would you respond again instead of either sending a PM or reporting to a mod if you think he's baiting (ie. breaking forum rules)?

Anyway, in answer to the OP, I feel like the reason he gets more flak, in terms of volume of dislike as well as intensity from individuals, might have to do with the fact that he got so famous from it. I mean, he's one of the most famous athletes on Earth. Before his TdF reign, what cyclist could say that? Cipo was the most famous cyclist of the late 90s I'd say, but wasn't a household name in non-cycling markets. I'm sure people knew who Indurain was, and Lemond, Hinault, and yes Merckx, but none of them have gained the fame and fortune of Armstrong. Even before I really knew about doping I disliked him enough for the fact that he was so famous and powerful but seemed to have no respect for anyone else. From a doping standpoint, I could see how people would be upset that he attained that level of fame while doping, and even moreso when given the facts that a) the sport was possibly in a moment of real change after Festina (debatable) and he set it back, and b) he repeatedly lied, spun to the press, acted the bully to others, launched lawsuits, ruined lives.

Anyway, I think that covers the major factors.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
skidmark said:
I don't get it Mas - usually you're a pretty even keel poster, what's with the attitude towards this guy? I may have missed some interactions you guys have had recently or something, but this emphatic a response seems uncalled for, from my perspective. I do agree that this topic has been discussed ad infinitum, but that doesn't seem to be your main point.

It didn't seem to me like a baiting thread. Sure he provides some options, but he's observing a trend in the way people talk here (and definitely summarizing it with a bit of hyperbole) and asking why people might feel that way. Do you mean he's baiting Lance fans? Because if that's the case, this seems pretty tame compared to what a lot of people say about Armstrong. I don't see how asking questions like this is much different than offering a poll on, say, 'what teams do you think are doping?' and then providing answers for people to discuss.

I could see why you might say 'this has been discussed here' with a link, or even 'hey this seems like baiting' (even if I don't think it is), but after that first response, why would you respond again instead of either sending a PM or reporting to a mod if you think he's baiting (ie. breaking forum rules)?

Anyway, in answer to the OP, I feel like the reason he gets more flak, in terms of volume of dislike as well as intensity from individuals, might have to do with the fact that he got so famous from it. I mean, he's one of the most famous athletes on Earth. Before his TdF reign, what cyclist could say that? Cipo was the most famous cyclist of the late 90s I'd say, but wasn't a household name in non-cycling markets. I'm sure people knew who Indurain was, and Lemond, Hinault, and yes Merckx, but none of them have gained the fame and fortune of Armstrong. Even before I really knew about doping I disliked him enough for the fact that he was so famous and powerful but seemed to have no respect for anyone else. From a doping standpoint, I could see how people would be upset that he attained that level of fame while doping, and even moreso when given the facts that a) the sport was possibly in a moment of real change after Festina (debatable) and he set it back, and b) he repeatedly lied, spun to the press, acted the bully to others, launched lawsuits, ruined lives.

Anyway, I think that covers the major factors.
If someone wants to know my opinion they can ask - but they should not assume the answer or that anyone who has a negative comment on LA is a "hater" - which is what this thread does.

My overall view is simple - you do the crime, you do the time.
I think that goes for most here, when asked before who "hated" LA only one or two said they did.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
If someone wants to know my opinion they can ask - but they should not assume the answer or that anyone who has a negative comment on LA is a "hater" - which is what this thread does.

My overall view is simple - you do the crime, you do the time.
I think that goes for most here, when asked before who "hated" LA only one or two said they did.
+1.

I don't hate the guy. I actually believe that he's gotten to where he is through a childhood that kids should not have to endure.

I greatly dislike what he has done. And my fervor for catching him and holding him accountable should not be confused with hatred.
 
Jan 29, 2010
3
0
0
I don't get it. Last time I checked cycling is a competitive sport and being competitive you win races. Is it the way he wins these races you have a problem with? I admit the way he chased down Simoni wasn't one of his best moments but do you remember he gifted the 'pirate' and was critised? Do you also remember he waited for Jan when he fell off his bike? AC didn't wait for Andy when his chain came off and yet people didn't seem to mind the way he won.

You say he cheated and doped, has he been tested positive? All these people say 'know he cheated'. How? Did they work in the lab where they do the tests? How do you know? How do you know Cadel is clean, for examples? He never tested positive either but we seem to think he's clean. I'm not suggesting that he's not by the way.

I just want to know where these people get these 'fact' from? How can they be so sure? If it's just a personality thing then I think it's a little unjust.
 
Mar 12, 2009
553
0
0
outlaws10 said:
I just want to know where these people get these 'fact' from? How can they be so sure? If it's just a personality thing then I think it's a little unjust.
You must be new here outlaws, didn't you know that the collective might of the internet forum experts have long since replaced due process. By mere cognitive power, the irrefutable evidence of internet material allows for certain deduction and a slew of accusations, nay, verdicts that are beyond reasonable doubt.


I personally put faith in trained investigators and accountable processes before judgement is passed. Of which none post on internet forums.
 
outlaws10 said:
I don't get it. Last time I checked cycling is a competitive sport and being competitive you win races. Is it the way he wins these races you have a problem with? I admit the way he chased down Simoni wasn't one of his best moments but do you remember he gifted the 'pirate' and was critised? Do you also remember he waited for Jan when he fell off his bike? AC didn't wait for Andy when his chain came off and yet people didn't seem to mind the way he won.

You say he cheated and doped, has he been tested positive? All these people say 'know he cheated'. How? Did they work in the lab where they do the tests? How do you know? How do you know Cadel is clean, for examples? He never tested positive either but we seem to think he's clean. I'm not suggesting that he's not by the way.

I just want to know where these people get these 'fact' from? How can they be so sure? If it's just a personality thing then I think it's a little unjust.
Since you give fair questions, I will try to address some of these points in a fair way.

1 No one knows Cadel Evans is clean. In fact many of us suspect he is dirty.
2 I too, like yourself, and like many others thought Lance was clean and ignored all the hype about his doping. Then I saw the Ashenden interview.

That convinced me. Then theres all the other evidence like, the Landis allegations, the number of his teammates caught, the Betty Andrews thing, the donations to the UCI, his links with Ferrari, the fact that Ullrich, Basso were doping and doping gives huge advantages etc.

I dont hate Lance, and frankly i dont really care too much what happens in the trial (as in im paying attention, i just dont have any personal emotion in it). In fact, as a fan of cycling (versus other sports) i like the profile which Lance inadvertintly has given to the sport.

But as far as the did he dope question goes, the Ashenden interview is pretty damning, Ashenden has no reason or motive to lie and doesnt give much wiggle room to Lance for explanation ( the idea that the samples were poisoned afterwards is pretty weak, and Ashenden easily dispatches with it in the interview)

I dont have the Ashenden interview link, but knowing this forum, someone here will no doubt oblige you in this pretty soon.

As for the Simeoni thing i feel it was nasty. It was nasty because he had no personal gain from doing what he did, and Simeoni was 100% in the right.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
It's not Lance, it is the idiot groupies who parrot his every press release as if it was the divine word.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Dettol said:
It's hate and it's vitriol. You can substitute them for a number of words but the meaning is the same.

I provide the answers because that's what I've seen on this forum in passing as a comment. But nobody goes into the reasons why they think he is what he is.

hey dettol,

you ever had cancer ? You ever been around people who have survived ?

Why did i survive. no answer. why people around me died. no answer

so what is wrong with questioning what i believe as truth against that which I believe as false. Is this called hate. Are you not generalizing, in a sense, a group?

As to your last question, I will let facts, under investigation, lead me down the road to my conclusions. I am OK with whatever the outcome. Little by slowly this knot will get untied.

Lots of facts out there.

A dangerous game when facts are spun as lies, and lies spun as facts. Do not you think so?

Where do you stand ? Eye of the hurricane - safest place, IMO

So, if you please, "tell me the reasons why they(us) think he is what he is."

"I provide the answers" -dettol

I like questions - tubularglue'
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
outlaws10 said:
I don't get it. Last time I checked cycling is a competitive sport and being competitive you win races. Is it the way he wins these races you have a problem with? I admit the way he chased down Simoni wasn't one of his best moments but do you remember he gifted the 'pirate' and was critised? Do you also remember he waited for Jan when he fell off his bike? AC didn't wait for Andy when his chain came off and yet people didn't seem to mind the way he won.

You say he cheated and doped, has he been tested positive? All these people say 'know he cheated'. How? Did they work in the lab where they do the tests? How do you know? How do you know Cadel is clean, for examples? He never tested positive either but we seem to think he's clean. I'm not suggesting that he's not by the way.

I just want to know where these people get these 'fact' from? How can they be so sure? If it's just a personality thing then I think it's a little unjust.
Your post indicates that you are aware you are on a public internet forum - not a Court of Law.

Innocent until proven guilty - that's for a Court, not a Forum where we can offer an opinion.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
0
0
outlaws10 said:
I don't get it. Last time I checked cycling is a competitive sport and being competitive you win races. Is it the way he wins these races you have a problem with? I admit the way he chased down Simoni wasn't one of his best moments but do you remember he gifted the 'pirate' and was critised? Do you also remember he waited for Jan when he fell off his bike? AC didn't wait for Andy when his chain came off and yet people didn't seem to mind the way he won.

You say he cheated and doped, has he been tested positive? All these people say 'know he cheated'. How? Did they work in the lab where they do the tests? How do you know? How do you know Cadel is clean, for examples? He never tested positive either but we seem to think he's clean. I'm not suggesting that he's not by the way.

I just want to know where these people get these 'fact' from? How can they be so sure? If it's just a personality thing then I think it's a little unjust.
You sound very much like me when I started on this forum. You sound just as naive as my self.

In theory he could be clean, and in a legal sense he is. But the Ashenden report really is a eye opener.

Ashenden Interview

But it's also the sum of everything. why did the cleanest rider in the peloton team up with Ferrari?

The thing that really converted me was the way he defended Landis.
Ask your self this question: If Lance and Landis indeed were partners in crime, how would Armstrong behave?

The answer: exactly the way he has acted ever since that famouse day back in 2006.

Remember Armstrong's reply to Landis allegations during this years ToC. he looked every inch guilty. Why? because he talked like a lawyer. If you are 100 % innocent you would be like furious anger...
 
Its pretty clear to me that he has doped. And to be honest, I wouldnt 'hate' him for that - everyone else did it and I dont 'hate' them.

I love the fact that he had cancer and through the wonders of medical science could recover from that and be well enough and strong enough to win the worlds toughest bike race 7 times in a row. That he can do that (even with drugs) gives hope and inspiration to all cancer sufferers. Hope that one day I will be well enough to be able to ride that far ... much less match it with the best in the world.

BUT ... its the other things that make me dislike him for what he has done

Its pretty clear that he :

- cheated in such a way as to take the absolute p1ss .... while shouting from the rooftops 'I am the cleanest cyclist ever'

- pushed drugs onto other cyclists in his team

- bribed (an admittedly already corrupt) UCI to sustain his cheating

- bullied anyone who got in his way in such a public and demeaning manner (Simeoni is an example, LeMond, Landis ... the list goes on)

- uses his cancer foundation and charity for his own personal gain. I used to be a big fan of his foundation and overlooked the somewhat poor performance of the foundation and focussed on his altruism and good intentions ..... but have come to the realisation recently (after a lot of reading) that actually he has used the charity blatantly and purely for his own financial gain.

These things make me sad that it is THIS guy who is the one who triumphed over cancer. Makes me wish it was someone else - someone more worthy.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS