The Good that Lance has done.

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Oh, come now!!!

Give Lance a little sugah!! More people are aware of the sport of cycling now than before he became such a huge star.

He also made road bikes cool again. Which is always good!!

See! Now, that didn't hurt a bit!!
 
Proof Please

mad black said:
You can argue all you want but that LA increased the popularity of cycling worldwide is an undisputeable fact. He certainly encouraged thousands of people to get on a bike, the very least of whom bought Treks as I may add.
Proof please. In Lance's home country, my contacts in the industry were fighting over the same pie.


mad black said:
As a matter of fact he's the only celebrity cycling ever had! Understandably this makes him the prime target of envy, hate and mistrust (founded and unfounded).
There have been others before him, some of the controversial, some of them well regarded. The sport is ~100 years old. There have been a few. There will be a few more.

mad black said:
As I see it LA finds himself in the same predicament as Tiger, all everyone wants is to see the perfect image crumble and eventually being shattered. So that everyone has an excuse to say "See, I'm (morally) bettter than that guy with his millions!". - Get a life and get over it! Or even better have the tenacity to earn your own millions.
I think you misunderstand the situation. There are so many allegations regarding Lance's doping at this point, some of them are probably felonies. If you or I go out and commit felonies on the way to making our millions, is that okay? No one died this time, unlike those other times, so it's okay? Felonies are okay now? Where's the line?
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
But what about the truth.

How would the cancer patients feel if they knew that Lance may have caused his own cancer through greed to succeed ?

How many of those middle-aged American fans would still buy those expensive bikes, and gear, if Lance was outed as an American fraud ?

How many of those hyperpartisan adolescent fanboys that look up to Lance, would still be living vicariously through Lances accomplishments, if those accomplishments were exposed publicly as bogus ?

If the accomplishments are built on a lie, they are not accomplishments in my mind.
 
Oct 8, 2010
95
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
So an American cyclist is recognized in America makes him a celebrity...
From a European perspective - besides cycling publications, it has been a long time since I have read a positive piece about Armstrong.
It doesn't have to be positive publications at all to justify celebrity status. The mere fact that every newspaper and tabloid in the world will report on what the outcome of the Novitzky investigation might be elevates LA to celebrity status. That alone proves the fact that he's recognized outside of America.

By definition:
"Generally speaking, a celebrity is someone who gets media attention and in certain circumstances show an extroverted personality."

MacRoadie said:
Right, because cycling started sometime after the inception of ESPN (1980), and aside from SI and ESPN (two American media outlets), there really isn't much else going on in the world, sports-wise.

They've been handing out ESPY's since the dark ages: way back in 1993...

Piling igonorance upon ignorance..

One name? Merckx
Merckx was one of the greatest cyclist our sport has ever seen but his POPULARITY beyond the cycling world was nowhere near that of LA's or do you recall any housewives talking about Eddie dating Janis Joplin. - Me neither, because it was out of the question!
LA dated Sheryll Crow, Kate Hudson,... all of whom fit the same celebrity status. And that is what hasn't occured to any cyclist's public profile before LA.
 
Andynonomous said:
How would the cancer patients feel if they knew that Lance may have caused his own cancer through greed to succeed ?
Bingo! If it wasn't Ferrari, Carmichael was injecting teenagers with the dope without their knowledge and under duress. That is, unless I've got my dates wrong on Carmichael's reign as USAC coach with Wenzel.
 
Oct 8, 2010
95
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
If you really want me to nit-pick then its the biggest percentage increase you missed from 2007 (357,000) to 2008 (548,000).
Well than you'd also have to acknowledge that 2008 was the first time the TDU was run as a ProTour event! That would naturally draw bigger crowds don't you think?
 
mad black said:
Merckx was one of the greatest cyclist our sport has ever seen but his POPULARITY beyond the cycling world was nowhere near that of LA's or do you recall any housewives talking about Eddie dating Janis Joplin. - Me neither, because it was out of the question!
LA dated Sheryll Crow, Kate Hudson,... all of whom fit the same celebrity status. And that is what hasn't occured to any cyclist's public profile before LA.
What's the point here? You lost me.

Also, I need some clarification on what's okay to do on the way to making your first million. Felonies okay?
 
Oct 8, 2010
95
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I think you misunderstand the situation. There are so many allegations regarding Lance's doping at this point, some of them are probably felonies. If you or I go out and commit felonies on the way to making our millions, is that okay? No one died this time, unlike those other times, so it's okay? Felonies are okay now? Where's the line?
What felonies did LA "probably" commit???

Has he done anything morally questionable? - Yes, he "probably" has! Hence my comparison to Tiger.
 

runninboy

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
mad black said:
Merckx was one of the greatest cyclist our sport has ever seen but his POPULARITY beyond the cycling world was nowhere near that of LA's or do you recall any housewives talking about Eddie dating Janis Joplin. - Me neither, because it was out of the question!
LA dated Sheryll Crow, Kate Hudson,... all of whom fit the same celebrity status. And that is what hasn't occured to any cyclist's public profile before LA.
OK you got me laughing with this one
You must be friggin joking
go look up Fausto Coppi and the lady in white, then notice that no less than the POPE tried to intervene in this pre LA soap opera

the pope trumps your little people magazine celebrity scenario.
there has never been a cyclist/celebrity that could hold a candle to Coppi.
When the POPEstarts talking about Lance Armstrong then you can come back here , now, be gone and take your ignorance with you.
 
Jun 1, 2010
48
0
0
Sanitiser said:
Still can't see his name, or LieStrong or LAF or any other permutation of his ego on the list of official donors. (As at 5pm Jan 25)

Also from that quoted newspaper article:

"Armstrong, the world's most recognised cyclist, said yesterday the whole world was watching the Queensland flood disaster.

He has organised a "Twitter ride" to raise awareness."

Man, he loves that awareness. Pretty sure everyone at that Twitter ride was aware of the flooding. Got his name attached to it nonetheless.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
Who is the greater sinner? The one who uses peds to win a bike race or the one who protect pedophiles?

Also it says Armstrong, the world's most recognised cyclist wait I thought it was Coppi?
 
onefastgear said:
The scenario I talked about has happened to me, on more than one occasion. People identify with his 'fight'. They like his quotes (probably all ghostwritten). If LA went away tomorrow the mortality from cancer would not change one bit.
Here is my issue with your statement. And I've said this before, so my stance hasn't changed one bit.

There are three levels of support cancer patients count on-their oncologists, the nurses that administer or aid in the administration of treatment (in other words, the support staff at any hospital) and family and friends.


onefastgear said:
As a doctor, I have seen Lance's influence on patients confronted with a cancer diagnosis. Lying in the anaesthetic bay scared about what's going to confront them on the other side of the operation. They'll have read a Lance quote or even a book, and they hope. No way I'm taking that from them.
As a doctor (allegedly) you must realize the level of hypocrisy with this man's story is reaching unparalleled heights. You must also realize even if half the stories are true, Armstrong was one of the most prodigious dopers since the Festina gang.

When I was in treatment, my doctor quietly told me what he thought of the whole Armstrong charade. And he knew, because inside the medical profession there is gossip and talk just like there is anywhere else.

But he was professional and pragmatic about it, and I understood. Though he did not tell me outright his personal views, he did say "one day the truth will come about about that man".

If you treat cancer patients, you would know the one thing they hate is being lied to. A doctor not affiliated with this Livestrong garbage will tell you they would rather stress the importance of a patients' immediate circle of support before presenting Armstrong as someone to look up to.

There are many more instances of survivors who have lead better lives that the cancer community can look to for inspiration and hope. The medical establishment knows this, more than you realize.

In speaking the truth you do no harm to anyone unless they don't want to hear it. A cancer patient may get upset over news that their hero may not be the man he presents himself to be, but their will to live will outstrip any temporary disappointment they may feel at the time.

And there are other heroes with stories just as compelling. This is why volunteer services by survivors give patients who may not have the full support they need is much more powerful than anything Armstrong ever ghost-wrote.

Holding the hand of a cancer sufferer, looking them in the eye and just being there for them sends a much more powerful message than a yellow plastic bracelet will ever be able to duplicate.

You better believe that.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
When Lance talks about surviving cancer, facing surgery etc that is honest. It's the other bull**** post TdF wins surrounding it that is distasteful.
 
Jun 1, 2010
48
0
0
Berzin, I agree. As an (alleged) doctor, my limitation is that I don't have any continuity of care with the patients I meet. Sometimes I get 5min with them, and never see them again. That's unfortunately the nature of anaesthesia in a tertiary public hospital. As you correctly say, the mainstay of their support is their treating specialist, their nurses, and their social supports. I have a background (but important) job. The irony of being a good anaesthetist is that we're seldom remembered:D

Accordingly, I don't see it as my role to step in and give them the rundown on their hero right before their operation. That's what I was trying to say. They can believe whatever they want (Lance, Jeebus, Karma, Santa), my point is that I'm not going to deny them that in my limited interaction with them.

I can't debate you any further, as I agree with everything else you've said.

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts about the McGrath Foundation - now that's a charity to get behind. They do amazing (and real) work.

Back in the day, I was a yellow-bracelet wearer. I believed in miracles. I even gave money to LiveStrong.

I am very grateful for my Clinic education. In between the flame wars are some excellent posts that make for great reading.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
As a little boy growing up in suburban USA, the first professional cyclists I ever heard of were Greg Lemond and Laurent Fignon. On the other hand, I started biking seriously because I had no car and there was no public transport, and not because of some famous professional cyclist.
 
Oct 8, 2010
95
0
0
runninboy said:
OK you got me laughing with this one
You must be friggin joking
go look up Fausto Coppi and the lady in white, then notice that no less than the POPE tried to intervene in this pre LA soap opera

the pope trumps your little people magazine celebrity scenario.
there has never been a cyclist/celebrity that could hold a candle to Coppi.
When the POPEstarts talking about Lance Armstrong then you can come back here , now, be gone and take your ignorance with you.
My sincere apologies admittedly I'm a little unfamilar with Fausto Coppi but I just educated myself.

An interesting fact I discovered during my education is that Fausto is widely credited with introducing PED's to cycling.:eek:

Seeing that you credit LA with having had a "superior programme" than any other cyclist they may afterall be equals:rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
well this thread has been another failed attempt by the Lie$trongologists to divert the true workings of the clinic.

the fans really are zealots, in 2011 when presented with the evidence they still cant see that this guy is the greatest fraud in the history of sport.

as Colm Murhpy wisely posted last might on another thread, it is the Goebbels idea; " the Big Lie technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses."
 
Oct 8, 2010
95
0
0
Benotti69 said:
well this thread has been another failed attempt by the Lie$trongologists to divert the true workings of the clinic.

the fans really are zealots, in 2011 when presented with the evidence they still cant see that this guy is the greatest fraud in the history of sport.

as Colm Murhpy wisely posted last might on another thread, it is the Goebbels idea; " the Big Lie technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses."
Look, without opposing opinions the Clinic wouldn't exist in the first place. Think about it!
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Benotti69 said:
the [LA] fans really are zealots, in 2011 when presented with the evidence they still cant see that this guy is the greatest fraud in the history of sport.
"The" fans are not one single thing. And "the greatest fraud" is another absolute that just gets tossed in for effect, without accepting that people's criteria may vary. Sure, there are zealots amongst the LA fans. The vast majority are not. And fanatically committed posters can be found in all camps. In evidence I present you with "the Clinic", a dwelling place for some staggeringly committed posters who are here on a pretty much daily basis, ready to pounce on posts that have anything flattering to say about LA. That in itself, again, is not a bad thing either.

Some of you really are not doing your own argued posts any favours by pretending that at the end of it, you have proven that it is scientifically impossible to still like, admire, or respect, LA as a sportsman, or a cyclist. Or as a person even.

People have all kinds of criteria that (can) lead to perfectly valid positions. For them.

Anyone who thinks that their own position is the only valid pov to have, their reading of a set of data the only plausible black or white reading, and thus can dictate how LA should be seen by others, also belongs to a group that has pretty rigid blinkers on. Of a different kind, but just as "hard of hearing".

There have been countless posts by people here who argue why for them, LA is still someone they like, admire or respect. But it seems that some people have a version of the internet where these posts don't appear at their end, as despite the evidence in their face, they somehow keep claiming that these people simply can't possibly exist and be human. Or unpaid. Or something equally dismissive.

So when people write is unbelievable that people can be so dim they come to conclusions, despite the evidence in their face, that... well, it seems we all have the capacity to ignore, or don't care, or value differently, data that stares in the face, even on a daily basis.
 
BotanyBay said:
We had a similar cycling "boom" in 1984 with the combination of '84 Olympics, Greg Lemond, etc.

And that "boom" (unlike today's) actually brought juniors and women along with it.

"With Catholics like Lance, who needs Protestants?"
I have to agree with you. The Tour really took off around 83-89. That’s when it went from French/European event to world event. I remember it well. The water bottles all went to "red coca cola" ones as team issued bidons where thrown out in favour of the major sponsor - an American sponsor no less. Television rights were packaged and sold around the world. One might remember that CBS started showing highlights to the music of John Tesh. Channel 4 in the UK begin showing the race live with English commentary - the birth of Phil Liggert the voice if cycling. Australia received the American highlights reel but presented in Australian by Wide World of Sports - Mike Gibson. This was the beginning of cycling on a global level. Not Lance Armstrong.

Greg LeMond, 7-Elven, Phil Anderson started it.

Armstrong took it to another level but he was lucky for the internet - live feeds, instant photos and the ability to tell your own story allowed the creation of brand Lance. The race did not get any bigger because of Lance. Catch a glimpse of Versus today and they're still explaining what that drafting behind another rider allows you to work less. The sport hasn’t moved on in that sense. But as the internet struck weekend riders wanted to wear the obscure European brands so they ordered clothing off the internet. As traffic levels in major cities reach epidemic proportions governments turned to cycling as a way off getting people off public transport, off the roads and on to bikes. Record obesity rates also helped governments push cycling as a means of getting people healthy. The sport would have moved on in the direction regardless of Armstrong or not. If he never existed people would be riding LeMond bikes.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
onefastgear said:
Berzin, I agree. As an (alleged) doctor, my limitation is that I don't have any continuity of care with the patients I meet. Sometimes I get 5min with them, and never see them again. That's unfortunately the nature of anaesthesia in a tertiary public hospital. As you correctly say, the mainstay of their support is their treating specialist, their nurses, and their social supports. I have a background (but important) job. The irony of being a good anaesthetist is that we're seldom remembered:D

Accordingly, I don't see it as my role to step in and give them the rundown on their hero right before their operation. That's what I was trying to say. They can believe whatever they want (Lance, Jeebus, Karma, Santa), my point is that I'm not going to deny them that in my limited interaction with them.

I can't debate you any further, as I agree with everything else you've said.

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts about the McGrath Foundation - now that's a charity to get behind. They do amazing (and real) work.

Back in the day, I was a yellow-bracelet wearer. I believed in miracles. I even gave money to LiveStrong.

I am very grateful for my Clinic education. In between the flame wars are some excellent posts that make for great reading.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the challenges of your profession. You can't administer care to folks with marginal odds without taking a little faith in the unknown to get you through the next day. Your professionalism and related hard core callisnousness (the scars that allow you to work the next day) are what will help heal. In the end any real hope helps and excludes blatantly exploitive and self-aggrandizing measures. My Dad has put lung cancer into remission at his 85th birthday and loves the attentiveness of his family. That's real and he won't even begin to talk about "atheletes" that embrace their personal heroism for pay as an inspiration. He's old school (former starting QB for Michigan State) and knows the sh*t. Hopefully the current generation will seek the will to succeed where it is real. Sorry for the blatant excess but it is a fu*king great day.
 
onefastgear said:
Berzin - no crap. I am a doctor. Link to my registration here, nothing to hide.

The scenario I talked about has happened to me, on more than one occasion. People identify with his 'fight'. They like his quotes (probably all ghostwritten). If LA went away tomorrow the mortality from cancer would not change one bit.

I agree with your other comments. I think we're on the same side of the fence.
I agree with you. I've often given Armstrong's first book to those suffering with cancer and their families. Not for the story about he doped to win but the book describes the treatment process in extremely good detail. Lance Armstrong name is the "in". When I hand them any other book on treatment plans or a pamphlet they throw it back in my face!

The biggest problem I face today is I can't really do this anymore. Knowing now that his cancer could have been caused by the HgH its hard for me to pass the book on.... the question lingers in every cancer patient - "why me?" I can hardly say “Read this book about a guy who took loads of HgH got cancer, was cured and then took more of it along with a cocktail of unregistered drugs”.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY