• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Armstrong Detractor's Talking Points

Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
Recently there has been a flood of negative Armstrong stories. It can be entertaining to see that as soon as a story is on the internet the CN Clinic is flooded with the same Anti-Armstrong talking points.


"6 positive samples in 1999"
'Go read the Ashenden Report"
"Backdated TUE"
'Lance is a donkey"
"EPO transformed Lance"
"Lance could not TT before EPO"
"Lance could not climb before EPO"
'Exclusive deal with Ferrarri"
"Biggest fraud in the History of Sport"
"Common knowledge - you must be confused"
"You're Ignorant"

"You must love Cancer"
'Lance is a Cancer on the Sport"
"Cancer Patients will be crushed by Fraud lance'
Livestrong.com is a scam"
'Hypocrisy Massive OMG Head Explosion"
"You must be a Public Strategy Intern"
"Twitter Stalker of young people"

"Fanboy troll"
"salad tosser"
"Hookers"
"Blow"
"Jet Fuel"
"Lances mom"
"Olsen Twins"
"Matthew McM..."
"LapDance"
"Tittie Bars"
"Private Jet"

"Lance must go down for the sake of our children"
"Lance must go down for the sake of Pro Cycling"
"Lance must go down or our heads will explode"
"Lance is a Sociopath"
'Lance is a bad bad man"


Ok, thats a start. There are so many more lol.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Hahah, good one. He does have stalkers on twitter who manage to mention hookers and blow in almost every sentence, without sourcing the claim. I sometimes wonder if they get paid.
yep by the pimps and dealers;)
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Hahah, good one. He does have stalkers on twitter who manage to mention hookers and blow in almost every sentence, without sourcing the claim. I sometimes wonder if they get paid.
It's from a little-known article in that Rupert Murdoch-owned supermarket tabloid, Wall Street Journal. You may not have seen it or heard about it as it generated little talk:

Blood Brothers.

The journey ended at the Yellow Rose, a strip club on the north side of town. Don King, the club's general manager, said Mr. Armstrong and other cyclists on his teams have been coming to the club for about a decade. The riders were ushered into a booth. They ordered drinks and mingled with the dancers.

Later that night, some of the cyclists drove downtown to the offices of the agency that represents Mr. Armstrong. There, the party accelerated, according to Mr. Landis. Four strippers arrived at the offices with two bouncers and began performing a private show for the cyclists and others, he said. Mr. Landis and another young rider who attended, Walker Ferguson, said some people were snorting what appeared to be cocaine.
Of course, even though two other sources corroborated the parties, it all boils down to Floyd.

Right?
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Paraphernalia said:
Hahah, good one. He does have stalkers on twitter who manage to mention hookers and blow in almost every sentence, without sourcing the claim. I sometimes wonder if they get paid.
No, celebs often get them for free. The blow too.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Polish said:
Recently there has been a flood of negative Armstrong stories. It can be entertaining to see that as soon as a story is on the internet the CN Clinic is flooded with the same Anti-Armstrong talking points.


"6 positive samples in 1999"
'Go read the Ashenden Report"
"Backdated TUE"
'Lance is a donkey"
"EPO transformed Lance"
"Lance could not TT before EPO"
"Lance could not climb before EPO"
'Exclusive deal with Ferrarri"
"Biggest fraud in the History of Sport"
"Common knowledge - you must be confused"
"You're Ignorant"

"You must love Cancer"
'Lance is a Cancer on the Sport"
"Cancer Patients will be crushed by Fraud lance'
Livestrong.com is a scam"
'Hypocrisy Massive OMG Head Explosion"
"You must be a Public Strategy Intern"
"Twitter Stalker of young people"

"Fanboy troll"
"salad tosser"
"Hookers"
"Blow"
"Jet Fuel"
"Lances mom"
"Olsen Twins"
"Matthew McM..."
"LapDance"
"Tittie Bars"
"Private Jet"

"Lance must go down for the sake of our children"
"Lance must go down for the sake of Pro Cycling"
"Lance must go down or our heads will explode"
"Lance is a Sociopath"
'Lance is a bad bad man"

Ok, thats a start. There are so many more lol.
Also..
Lance eats babies
Lances EPO was made from extinct baby seals
Lance killed Princess Diana
Lance is screwing McQaids mum
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
But wasn't that a lap dancing club? Who hasn't been to one of them? It's not quite hookers and blow. Nevertheless I do not care for people who attack Armstrong's private life repeatedly but choose to remain anonymous. It's cowardly to me.
I post here using my name.

Do you?

I have formed my opinion that Lance, and his henchmen, are criminals on par with any common gang of thugs. I base this on the totality of the information that is available and rational speculation, akin to the cliche "where there's smoke there's fire" and "walks like a duck...", you get the picture.

You've shown up, on the heels of a revelation that the Lance domain has quietly diversified its viral campaign to uphold his myth and shift the burden on this forum to "prove it", "not attack his private life", etc. etc.

Do you want to have dialogue or simply be mocked and ridiculed?

You decide, but you'll have to deal with the outcome.
 
Jan 22, 2011
26
0
0
This must have seemed like a crackerjack idea to counter the "Armstrong talking points" thread, but the fact that you come up with, at first go, 33 points rather weakens the concept. Race Radio mentioned just 4 themes stressed by the Armstrong-supporting comments on damaging articles, and then provided a specific theory (the use of BazaarVoice) for how floods of comments repeating those few points came about. No doubt you have a similarly specific and plausible explanation for why Armstrong detractors repeat the, er, 33 "talking points" you refer to? (By the way, you've got "You must love Cancer" as an Armstrong detractor talking point. Shurely shome mishtake?)
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
But wasn't that a lap dancing club? Who hasn't been to one of them? It's not quite hookers and blow. Nevertheless I do not care for people who attack Armstrong's private life repeatedly but choose to remain anonymous. It's cowardly to me.
Most of the people that even question Lance's honesty have ended up in court. That's a pretty heavy price to pay at the Bully's hands for posting commentary, commentary that's been backed up by very local knowledge and experience.
Exactly how do you think this investigation started? Maybe Big Phil from Nike was concerned he was backing a juiced horse and called Mr. Novitsky? Minor details, opennly discussed about the governance and performances in the sport openned this can of worms a long time ago.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
But wasn't that a lap dancing club? Who hasn't been to one of them? It's not quite hookers and blow. Nevertheless I do not care for people who attack Armstrong's private life repeatedly but choose to remain anonymous. It's cowardly to me.
As cowardly as those who pretend they are fans but are paid shills?
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
L'Etranger said:
This must have seemed like a crackerjack idea to counter the "Armstrong talking points" thread, but the fact that you come up with, at first go, 33 points rather weakens the concept. Race Radio mentioned just 4 themes stressed by the Armstrong-supporting comments on damaging articles, and then provided a specific theory (the use of BazaarVoice) for how floods of comments repeating those few points came about. No doubt you have a similarly specific and plausible explanation for why Armstrong detractors repeat the, er, 33 "talking points" you refer to? (By the way, you've got "You must love Cancer" as an Armstrong detractor talking point. Shurely shome mishtake?)
From another post:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Herman Goebbels
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
I was refering to people on twitter who remain anonymous whilst repeated attacking his private life.
Twitter is perhaps the least likely medium for people to utilize their real names. There is a basis for anon's to hammer him for his personal choices and behavior. It is not fiction.

Paraphernalia said:
The other point I was going to make is, with any political issue the problem politicians have is the extremists care the most. They're the ones who shout the loudest and hog the debate. I think your terming Armstrong and his associates as thugs is quite an extreme position. He aggressively defends his reputation, but that's not uncommon.
The big army calls the little army terrorists. If you don't like "thugs" how about "racketeers"? Sound much more sophisticated, eh? So would the charges associated with that term.

Paraphernalia said:
Now you're just making stuff up. I haven't said you need to prove Armstrong doped. I said I objected to people attacking his private life repeatedly as propaganda, not based on evidence.
You may have me here. I have not read every post you've made, so I cannot be certain you are requiring anyone to prove he doped. As to attacks based on propaganda, Lance is well versed in attacking individuals for all sorts of things absent hard evidence. Whose standard are we working form here?


Paraphernalia said:
Do you often threaten people you don't agree with? And you're the person calling Armstrong a thug? Get some self awareness for preaching about others.
Not in the least. In fact, I feel so comfortable that I exist in the world as I do online, using my real name, etc. How about you?
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
I was refering to people on twitter who remain anonymous whilst repeatedly attacking his private life. I don't like that. If you're going to make claims about someone's private life then at least have the guts to say who you are.



The other point I was going to make is, with any political issue the problem politicians have is the extremists care the most. They're the ones who shout the loudest and hog the debate. That's why the clinic is full of people passionately against doping, but in real life most cycling fans don't quite have the religious furor about it. I think your terming Armstrong and his associates as thugs is quite an extreme position. He aggressively defends his reputation, yes, but that's not uncommon.



Now you're just making stuff up. I haven't said you need to prove Armstrong doped. I said I objected to people attacking his private life repeatedly as propaganda, not based on evidence.



Do you often threaten people you don't agree with? And you're the person calling Armstrong a thug? Get some self awareness for preaching about others.
Oldman said:
There is no cowardice in piracy. You just get paid to get the job done.
I have met some real Merc's (mercenaries) in my day and time in Africa. In this fight, the Merc's turn out to be from Public Strategies and Bazaarvoice, clicking, cutting and pasting all to salt away the legacy of an immense criminal. However, the one who wins the battle writes the history.
 
Aug 1, 2009
328
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
I haven't said you need to prove Armstrong doped. I said I objected to people attacking his private life repeatedly as propaganda, not based on evidence.
Which observations on his private life do you consider attacks not based on evidence? "Hookers and blow" is at a point where you can argue about the quality of the evidence, but you can't say there isn't any.

Let me put it this way: how much of an champion and cheapskate do you need to be for the manager at a strip club to spill the beans on you? That's evidence in itself.

-dB
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
But of the two groups, there is definitely one group that exists. .
There certainly is, and they work for a company that is funded by a Livestrong board member.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,592
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
You've shown up, on the heels of a revelation that the Lance domain has quietly diversified its viral campaign to uphold his myth and shift the burden on this forum to "prove it", "not attack his private life", etc. etc.

Do you want to have dialogue or simply be mocked and ridiculed?

You decide, but you'll have to deal with the outcome.
[and others]

New posters can show up at any time they chose. Having read several of his posts, it actually sounds to me he very much wants to have that dialogue, but it's the regulars here who want to portray him as a paid shill, insinuate that he can't possible have those opinions and hold them honestly, etc.

The poster is free to post his opinion here. No-one is to be treated like a troll simply for having a different opinion that appears genuinely held. heck, they don't even have to be right to post here, as long as it is their genuine opinion, they, like you, are free to share it here, and engage in the debate.

If you suspect someone of being a troll, report them to us, we will look into it. Start to treat people like a troll and don't be surprised if that blows up in your face, when one of the mods deemed that the one doing that is the thread disruptor.

Anyone who thinks that mocking and ridiculing of posters is the way to behave here, especially against new posters who appear to have a valid, but different pov from the more common one here, will be treated as the real troll in that tussle, by me.

If you have the better arguments, make them. It's that simple.

Post opinions, counter on substance. Insinuating that someone must be paid for having his pov is a joke. Start the mocking and you will have me to deal with. I don't like trolling behaviour, no matter who it comes from.

Forum bullies even less.

Post not poster.

You want to see the quality of the debate raised? Start behaving like you can deal with different povs in a mature way.

We will look into someone's posts with tools and info you guys have no access to, if we feel we have cause to or when we get reports that give us reason to look closer. If new posters come here to troll, they won't stay around for long. Old trolls will expose themselves too. But we are making that call, not individual forum users who are, in the end, guessing, to various degrees.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
[and others]

New posters can show up at any time they chose. Having read several of his posts, it actually sounds to me he very much wants to have that dialogue, but it's the regulars here who want to portray him as a paid shill, insinuate that he can't possible have those opinions and hold them honestly, etc.

The poster is free to post his opinion here. No-one is to be treated like a troll simply for having a different opinion that appears genuinely held. heck, they don't even have to be right to post here, as long as it is their genuine opinion, they, like you, are free to share it here, and engage in the debate.

If you suspect someone of being a troll, report them to us, we will look into it. Start to treat people like a troll and don't be surprised if that blows up in your face, when one of the mods deemed that the one doing that is the thread disruptor.

Anyone who thinks that mocking and ridiculing of posters is the way to behave here, especially against new posters who appear to have a valid, but different pov from the more common one here, will be treated as the real troll in that tussle, by me.

If you have the better arguments, make them. It's that simple.

Post opinions, counter on substance. Insinuating that someone must be paid for having his pov is a joke. Start the mocking and you will have me to deal with. I don't like trolling behaviour, no matter who it comes from.

Forum bullies even less.

Post not poster.

You want to see the quality of the debate raised? Start behaving like you can deal with different povs in a mature way.

We will look into someone's posts with tools and info you guys have no access to, if we feel we have cause to or when we get reports that give us reason to look closer. If new posters come here to troll, they won't stay around for long. Old trolls will expose themselves too. But we are making that call, not individual forum users who are, in the end, guessing, to various degrees.
Point taken.
 
Paraphernalia said:
But of the two groups, there is definitely one group that exists. The other group is just your assertion. It's a very hard thing to disprove which is perhaps why you use it as propaganda against him. But I think it's unlikely. Armstrong does have millions of fans around the world and by definition they all pretty much have the same views on him.
Seriously?

Millions of people with identical views about anything is a null set.

Dave.
 
Aug 11, 2009
722
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Do you often threaten people you don't agree with? And you're the person calling Armstrong a thug? Get some self awareness for preaching about others.
Okay, I agree completely with the recent administrator's post and your sentiment that abusing another forum poster is undignified (though I'm not suggesting that is what happened to you in this thread).

However, I really don't think uncivil internet forum discourse can be fairly compared to the sort of "thug tactics" I suspect Colm.Murphy had in mind regarding the Armstrong camp. Tactics like an Oakley exec tampering with a federal court witness or Armstrong having team staff fired when they seemed uncomfortable with team doping.
 
May 25, 2010
41
0
0
Polish
I'd heard he kept the EPO in Sheryl Crow's wooden leg because no one would ever look in there. You may want to add that to the talking points.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts