The most emboldened Journalist yet: from GQ?

[callac]

This piece is absolutely damning. It brings up the corticosteroid positive and the EPO positives.

Too bad the author forgot to destroy the 'most tested athlete ever' myth. Comments are still grasping that straw...

And a new very amusing straw just created: " Did you ever notice that Lance Never ever won a sprint! That's odd? How could a doper not win in a sprint? Highly unlikely."
That was just what I needed to change my mind! Indeed! He proved it again on the last Tour, he cannot sprint!!! therefore, he is totally clean

 

[BroDeal]

So when at the next few Livestrong charity dinners, as they notice less and less people coming, it will be the shift in tone from articles like this that will have been the influence. This is public opinion being changed in front of our eyes.

We should all do our part by leaving comments when we read articles. It wouldhelp combat the muppets who post the typical Armstrong lies after such articles.

 

[Benotti69]

We should all do our part by leaving comments when we read articles. It wouldhelp combat the muppets who post the typical Armstrong lies after such articles.

i was starting to wonder about that. is their a liestrong forum where they all congregate and are sent out with missions to infiltrate forums, blogs and leave comments on said articles?? it would not surprise me.

 

[krebs303]

my favorite from the comments

Rich Karlgaard, the Author from Forbes.com...explains that LA's success in 7 TdF wins was only due to doping. While he states some great science...science has proven inaccurate in many circumstances in many fields.

 

[MacRoadie]

A clean Lance could not have beaten a dirty Pantani or Ullrich.

Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[redtreviso]

Can't get much clearer than that.

A clean Lance could barely beat the broomwagon

 

[Deagol]

.... Fanboy UnderCover Trolls (FUCT). ...

Brilliant,

 

[jimmypop]

Can't get much clearer than that.

But how do you know? We need numbers, figures, reams of analysis and expert commentary before we can truly know whether or not a clean Armstrong could have beaten other true physiological specimens as they were doped beyond then-contemporary belief.

It's a bit like seeing a man jump to the moon and then asking the critics to quantify exactly how this is an impossible feat.

When you start hearing *** such as a man's heart having three times the volume of an average human's heart, then you know we've completely left the reservation.

Those who still believe that Armstrong raced clean are pure, concentrated ignorance. Those who know that he's dirty and try to rationalize it are f*ck-ups of the highest order.

 

[editedbymod]

I think the key to these articles is not so much the “did he dope or didn’t he”. That’s now become a rather small part of the picture. The fundamental shift is that its become far worse. Now its the fact the he’s now known as a unmitigated liar. He’s platform has always been that he was clean and that the French and everyone else was after him because he was a winner. He made money off the fact that he was a winner and a clean winner and that the French hated him because of this. Correction. He made a lot of money from this platform. He also sold himself to the world as a messiah of good health. The comeback from death and showed the world what can be done with hard work, dedication and inspiration – what am I on? I’m on my bike 8 hours a day he told us. He show people whom on their deathbeds and/or in times of need to look up to him as guidance of how to be brave and fight the dreadful disease they have. Oh how it must of felt to give this people a light to look at. What we know now is that he was a fraud. This was just a convenient marketing ploy to be something he clearly was not but to defraud those most he needed assistance by pretended to be something he wasn’t. Armstrong is simply a modern day con man who could ride a bike fairly well. A large part of the case will be were his actions premeditated or not. I think for the most part they were. From the Coyle report to stories of “extra long hip bones” to Nike commercials about “doing it for them” this man knew exactly what he was doing and only now the world is finding out. What a sorry sight. I honestly didn’t think I’d see the unravelling so fast and I didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I think the key to these articles is not so much the “did he dope or didn’t he”. That’s now become a rather small part of the picture. The fundamental shift is that its become far worse. Now its the fact the he’s now known as a unmitigated liar. He’s platform has always been that he was clean and that the French and everyone else was after him because he was a winner. He made money off the fact that he was a winner and a clean winner and that the French hated him because of this. Correction. He made a lot of money from this platform. He also sold himself to the world as a messiah of good health. The comeback from death and showed the world what can be done with hard work, dedication and inspiration – what am I on? I’m on my bike 8 hours a day he told us. He show people whom on their deathbeds and/or in times of need to look up to him as guidance of how to be brave and fight the dreadful disease they have. Oh how it must of felt to give this people a light to look at. What we know now is that he was a fraud. This was just a convenient marketing ploy to be something he clearly was not but to defraud those most he needed assistance by pretended to be something he wasn’t. Armstrong is simply a modern day con man who could ride a bike fairly well. A large part of the case will be were his actions premeditated or not. I think for the most part they were. From the Coyle report to stories of “extra long hip bones” to Nike commercials about “doing it for them” this man knew exactly what he was doing and only now the world is finding out. What a sorry sight. I honestly didn’t think I’d see the unravelling so fast and I didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime

Well said.

 

[Benotti69]

I think the key to these articles is not so much the “did he dope or didn’t he”. That’s now become a rather small part of the picture. The fundamental shift is that its become far worse. Now its the fact the he’s now known as a unmitigated liar. ......

it is interesting that he has yet to start 1 single case of litigation for defamatory against any of the articles appearing, whether he would see it through or not is another thing, but not 1 single case, where as before he would announce that they were gonna sue X paper for an article and then it would never get to court, but he would have had his big press release and PR do and it would fizzle out...

A large part of the case will be were his actions premeditated or not. I think for the most part they were. From the Coyle report to stories of “extra long hip bones” to Nike commercials about “doing it for them” this man knew exactly what he was doing and only now the world is finding out. What a sorry sight. I honestly didn’t think I’d see the unravelling so fast and I didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime

I don't think he did this on his own, i think there are other minds working (milking) the LA myth for all its worth and that may be an important factor in the investigation, which when LA sees he was getting milked by others and they got more, lots more than him, it may change things......greed brings lots people down. LA wont be the first nor the last.

 

[Big GMaC]

Lance Armstrong's Tragedy? Being a huge LA fan...I read this article and I get sick to my stomach. Rich Karlgaard, the Author from Forbes.com...explains that LA's success in 7 TdF wins was only due to doping. While he states some great science...science has proven inaccurate in many circumstances in many fields. Mr. Karlgaard even presents 2 inaccuracies in the testing of LA in his story oddly enough in defense of the accusations that LA is a doper?

Mr. Karlgaard states that it was impossible for Lance to be 5% better than his opponents? That his over sized heart and very high threshold for pain has no bearing on his success.

Wait...didn't Lance Armstrong, the most drug tested athlete in history...again, the most drug tested athlete in history...win 7 Tours' de France only after recovering from cancer? A cancer that brought Lance to "deaths door step"?

Mr. Karlgaard also states that Lance couldn't be 5% better than his competitors. He wasn't. Mario Pantani, rest his soul, beat Lance on many occasions. Jan Ullrich beat Lance on more than 1 occasion...dominating the expertise of time trialing. Lance only started beating both of these dopers after spending hours and hours of documented and drug tested "off season" training in the mountains. Lance spent millions of dollars in technology and wind tunnel training to perfect his time trialing capabilities. These hours and hours of training paid off in dividends. Only after this type of intense training did he start beating these rivals...again only after hard work and concentrated effort did he begin beating his competitors in the 2 areas of expertise that is required to win in the TdF... Mountain climbing and Time Trialing. Did you ever notice that Lance Never ever won a sprint! That's odd? How could a doper not win in a sprint? Highly unlikely.


Another reason Lance was so dominant in the TdF was that the TdF was his only focus! He trained all year to be at his peak in fitness during July! Wouldn't a doper win all year long? Wouldn't a doper win in January and win in October? Lance very rarely competed in any other races other than the TdF.

Lances training is being emulated by today’s TdF winners. Alberto Contador, the winner of this year’s TdF admittedly follows Lance's training regimen. Why? Because it's proven, unlike the drug testing!

Mr. Karlgaard, I understand you need to find fault with man! It does make good reading... however; your analysis is weak on so many platforms that your "facts" become more of an anomaly than Lance Armstrong’s dominance in the world of cycling and The Tour De France.

Is Lance an anomaly... absolutely!

He is the hero of millions and the purveyor of one of the greatest and most successful non-profit foundations to assist and help fellow human beings fighting cancer.

Mr. Karlgaard, Forbes has gifted you a platform from which to be heard. Use it correctly. Use it for expressing well thought out arguments, not "hear say and speculation".

The Myth is strong with this one.

I especially love the last paragraph. Karlgaard is the publisher!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The Myth is strong with this one.

I especially love the last paragraph. Karlgaard is the publisher!

Armstrong did win a sprint at the 2005 Tour de Georgia. Lots of eyebrows raised when that occurred.

 

[powerste]

The Myth is strong with this one.

I especially love the last paragraph. Karlgaard is the publisher!

Some people will believe and repeat anything. I actually feel kind of sorry for some of them, though - assuming they are real comments from real people - since they make themselves out to be such utter fawning idiots:

He is the hero of millions and the purveyor of one of the greatest and most successful non-profit foundations to assist and help fellow human beings fighting cancer.

I mean, come on, it's fine with me if you like the guy and I don't, but show some effing self-respect for God's sake.

 

[Benotti69]

The Myth is strong with this one.

I especially love the last paragraph. Karlgaard is the publisher!

has a pubic stratalies lackey written all over that one, an out of date press release almost

 

[Big GMaC]

Some people will believe and repeat anything. I actually feel kind of sorry for some of them, though - assuming they are real comments from real people - since they make themselves out to be such utter fawning idiots:

He is the hero of millions and the purveyor of one of the greatest and most successful non-profit foundations to assist and help fellow human beings fighting cancer.

I mean, come on, it's fine with me if you like the guy and I don't, but show some effing self-respect for God's sake.

Greatest?

Most Successful?

Non-Profit?

 

[MacRoadie]

But how do you know? We need numbers, figures, reams of analysis and expert commentary before we can truly know whether or not a clean Armstrong could have beaten other true physiological specimens as they were doped beyond then-contemporary belief.

It's a bit like seeing a man jump to the moon and then asking the critics to quantify exactly how this is an impossible feat.

When you start hearing *** such as a man's heart having three times the volume of an average human's heart, then you know we've completely left the reservation.

Those who still believe that Armstrong raced clean are pure, concentrated ignorance. Those who know that he's dirty and try to rationalize it are f*ck-ups of the highest order.

Since I quoted the author's editorial comment, I assumed it was clear that I meant the author's opionion couldn't be any clearer.

The thread title is "The most emboldened Journalist yet"

 

[oldschoolnik]

My favorite comment on the FORBES piece:

Karlgaard...You clearly don't understand or follow cycling. The WSJ should stick to what it knows, or hire someone to write about those things about which it has no expertise.
Maybe these muppets are being dispatched from some central clearing house to make comments - this one can't even keep track of who he is telling that they know nothing about cycling.

 

[Neworld]

I think the key to these articles is not so much the “did he dope or didn’t he”. That’s now become a rather small part of the picture. The fundamental shift is that its become far worse. Now its the fact the he’s now known as a unmitigated liar. He’s platform has always been that he was clean and that the French and everyone else was after him because he was a winner. He made money off the fact that he was a winner and a clean winner and that the French hated him because of this. Correction. He made a lot of money from this platform. He also sold himself to the world as a messiah of good health. The comeback from death and showed the world what can be done with hard work, dedication and inspiration – what am I on? I’m on my bike 8 hours a day he told us. He show people whom on their deathbeds and/or in times of need to look up to him as guidance of how to be brave and fight the dreadful disease they have. Oh how it must of felt to give this people a light to look at. What we know now is that he was a fraud. This was just a convenient marketing ploy to be something he clearly was not but to defraud those most he needed assistance by pretended to be something he wasn’t. Armstrong is simply a modern day con man who could ride a bike fairly well. A large part of the case will be were his actions premeditated or not. I think for the most part they were. From the Coyle report to stories of “extra long hip bones” to Nike commercials about “doing it for them” this man knew exactly what he was doing and only now the world is finding out. What a sorry sight. I honestly didn’t think I’d see the unravelling so fast and I didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime

Bravo!

NW

 

[metaCYCLE]

this Corsello guy is a TRIPLEBALLER. i loughed hard reading the article.

 

[jimmypop]

Since I quoted the author's editorial comment, I assumed it was clear that I meant the author's opionion couldn't be any clearer.

The thread title is "The most emboldened Journalist yet"

My sarcasm wasn't directed at you...

 

[amp300]

Fantastic....

.....and that the vast majority of your admirers can't name another pro bike racer?

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[tofino]

Forbes article

Written by;

Rich Karlgaard is the publisher of Forbes

Enough said.