The Official Lance Hating Thread

[Alpe d'Huez]

As this is the lance hating thread I will add some more illogical hating of the fellow. I was disappointed with his antics today, why does he feel the need to be the first over the line for astana he made an effort to make sure he was.

Ego, publicity. Obviously this was by either order or design. They wanted to get him in that jersey so he could give interviews in it, and show he's back on top, and that the team is worth putting millions in from a new sponsor. He knows he won't have another chance to get it, this was it. He'll get dropped on Stage 4, and unless there are some serious crashes between now and then... But I'm sure this was planned. There are two kings that share the crown on this team: Lance and Johan. They rule the roost. What they say, goes. Kazak riders are only there for ballast, and because the ownership compels it, nothing more.

 

[Leopejo]

Ego, publicity. Obviously this was by either order or design. They wanted to get him in that jersey so he could give interviews in it, and show he's back on top, and that the team is worth putting millions in from a new sponsor.

Actually I was a bit disappointed after the stage, when the cameras indulged for long minutes on Armstrong in his post-race cooldown and chat with teammates, instead of focusing on the winners.

 

[BigBoat]

Actually I was a bit disappointed after the stage, when the cameras indulged for long minutes on Armstrong in his post-race cooldown and chat with teammates, instead of focusing on the winners.

Yeah... The american ratings are determined by americans tuning in to watch Lance, nobody else. They dont care about the sport and nobody is interested in cycling, they want to see Lance.

Lance can do whatever the hell he wants as long as he has control over TV ad spend/ how much money the racing can generate.

 

[BigBoat]

I will say this though: in Europe the sport has a large following as a whole, and Lance does not have more than a slice of it even if its the largest slice.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Strange, because I thought we were mostly watching the live feed. I would like to know if the US has it's own technical director, which would seem strange to me. Either way, there is no way the man should get that much coverage. At least not unless he wins a stage, or gets the Maglia Rosa.

There are 10 times the posts in this thread as the Lance Worship thread. But the sad part is that while it has creeped into peoples minds that Lance probably doped, most people in the US still are more interested in him than the sport. Our work has only begun.

 

[Leopejo]

Strange, because I thought we were mostly watching the live feed. I would like to know if the US has it's own technical director, which would seem strange to me. Either way, there is no way the man should get that much coverage. At least not unless he wins a stage, or gets the Maglia Rosa.

When I was "complaining" yesterday, it was about Italian TV coverage. I guess you get the same in the US.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

One of the most difficult things for those of us trying to expose the real Lance has nothing to do with the truth. We almost entirely have the truth and facts on our "side". The Michael Ashenden interview really cements it, beyond the damning case David Walsh put forth in L to L from all that culled information. Pay close enough attention and you'll realize the guy is undoubtedly a doper, not to mention an egotistical ***.

But one of the most difficult things is when Lance worshipers get information from printed material that isn't objective, and run with it. For example, Joe Lindsey is an author who has written for several magazines. I wouldn't say he's an outright Lance fan, nor that his writing is poor, but whenever I read his work, he writes like Fox News reports. Ignoring obvious facts in order to be "balanced" in coverage. Read this article by him in Outside magazine. It's fairly well written, and reading it one who isn't as knowledgeable about Lance's situation, UCI rules, LNDD testing, EPO, or especially the Ashenden investigation and interview, would think this is an objective article, looking at both sides of the issue. But anyone following this thread would read the article and after a pause and thoughtful moment perhaps, pick it apart. I bring all this up, and the article, for another reason beyond the lack of journalistic and popular objectivity regarding the man, it's a comment by Lance when he was considering coming back after the EPO results from 1999 were announced:

"There's a setup here. . . . I absolutely do not trust that laboratory (LNDD)." "There is no way I would get a fair shake," he declared, "either on the roadside, in the doping control, or in the lab, or in the hotel, or in the food."

What made him change his mind? Well, of course, he didn't. He was trying to manipulate the situation. Lindsey bit on it, and helped sell it to I wouldn't say a gullible audience, but one that isn't as erudite as we here are.

Journalist Greg Palast rails against poor journalism, and often focuses on one point: Instead of looking into facts of a situation, cheap journalists will often just contact the sources, and lists counter arguments, which is exactly what goes on with Lance. And that's a real shame, because as much as any other rider in the last quarter century, he's defrauded the sport.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

When I was "complaining" yesterday, it was about Italian TV coverage. I guess you get the same in the US.

Yes, it is the same line feed then. It seemed impossible that the US would have it's own TD. Why in the world Italian broadcasting would concentrate so much time on Lance is beyond me.

 

[Anonymous]

Ego, publicity. Obviously this was by either order or design. They wanted to get him in that jersey so he could give interviews in it, and show he's back on top, and that the team is worth putting millions in from a new sponsor. He knows he won't have another chance to get it, this was it. He'll get dropped on Stage 4, and unless there are some serious crashes between now and then... But I'm sure this was planned. There are two kings that share the crown on this team: Lance and Johan. They rule the roost. What they say, goes. Kazak riders are only there for ballast, and because the ownership compels it, nothing more.

its fairly obvious the team plan was to put him across first.. lance in pink gets more column inches than anybody else on astana in pink.. simple..

pretty much the same reason columbia put cavvy across first (and also cos he had the best chance of holding onto it for a few days)

 

[TrapperJohn]

There are 10 times the posts in this thread as the Lance Worship thread. But the sad part is that while it has creeped into peoples minds that Lance probably doped, most people in the US still are more interested in him than the sport. Our work has only begun.

It's not that those of us in the US aren't against doping, it's more that we didn't start with the idea that we hated Armstrong for other reasons, and doping is a convenient outlet. He probably did dope, but if you look at the list of top riders caught, everyone else probably was, too. He didn't get caught, at least not officially, but quite a few Euro pro riders probably got away with it, too. If Ullrich hadn't ridden that last year, he would have gotten away with it. Basso offered the most half-assed of excuses. Virenque was just plain pitiful with his teary show. He wasn't crying because he was doping, he was crying because he got caught.

Can't say I blame you for hating him - this obnoxious Texan (we don't like them, either) takes a sport known for beauty, grace, and suffering, and pursues it with all the soul and feeling normally found in a corporate boardroom. Did he ever give credit to those that supported him? Hardly, he'd cast them aside and get someone else. Ever ride in support of the other riders in a GT? Never, just a couple of warmup races. It wouldn't have killed him to have supported another rider in the Vuelta or Giro, and would have spoken volumes for character, but he never did. Under all of this is the uncomfortable feeling that it worked - being a self centered, robotic jerk worked. All the things that cycling, that graceful, subtle, traditional sport, is supposed to eschew. If you want to hate Armstrong, hate him for the right reasons. He is the antithesis of what cycling is all about.

I will add that most of this could be applied to another 5 time Tour winner with equal force - Hinaut.

As far as people in the US tolerating doping, I need only to remind one and all of the football and tennis players that escaped Puerto. Their fans don't care about doping, either. They just want to see a good show.

 

[Black Dog]

Forget the alleged drug use, forget the bad behaviour, I hate lance because he is wears black socks that go up to his knees. And because of this all the Lance worshipers are sporting the same business man in shorts look. All in all it is a crime against humanity that makes me throw up in my mouth.

 

[pmcg76]

There are a lot of people who constantly point out thst lots of other riders doped so why pick on Lance. For me, Lance is a different case, not even about whether he doped or not.

In 98, the Festina affair happened, the genie was out of the bottle, what had long had been suspected was true. Some athletes, admittedly not many, were now prepared to speak out against doping whilst in the past they would have been ridiculed, now they were believed. Into 99, some teams stopped doping, others continued as normal. I remember Jean Cyril Robin saying it was about 15% of the peloton doping at Paris-Nice.

The 1999 Tour was labelled The Tour of Redepmtion, a new era for cycling, Lance won at a canter. I believe Lances early career suffered as a result of others EPO use 92-95, if he was clean he had plenty of justification for feeling bitter, he had witnesses the Festina affair from the outside, had been away from the sport for a few years, not very popular with fellow riders, non-european, fantastic back story. He was the perfect candidate to break the 'ometra' that existed, just imagine, the Tour winner speaking out against doping, what an example that would have set. Who would have disagreed with Lance.

What did we get, Lance saying he had never experienced anything connected with doping and saying the Festina affair was a huge surprise to him. End result, 'Ometra' reinforced , the sport goes backwards rather than forwards. At the crosswards, the sport takes the wrong direction and the main man at the time? Lance Armstrong. He continued in cycling, making millions, huge media profile, global star, all the while reinforcing thr law of silence and putting it where it has been for the last decade, in the gutter.

If anybody out there can justify the affair with Simeoni in 2004, please try to explain it to me. I have never seen or heard of nything like it, that is why Lance stands below anyone else in my estimates.

 

[BigBoat]

So15% of the peloton doping at Paris-Nice.

The 1999 Tour was labelled The Tour of Redepmtion, a new era for cycling, Lance won at a canter. I believe Lances early career suffered as a result of others EPO use 92-95,

If anybody out there can justify the affair with Simeoni in 2004, please try to explain it to me. I have never seen or heard of nything like it, that is why Lance stands below anyone else in my estimates.

MAYBY 15% of them were NOT doping originally, and then it immediately switched back to 0.1% when the clean riders realized they had no chance in hell.... so almost all were jacked and those who did not struggled. There was not "2 speeds" bro, over 70 samples collected before the Dauphine in 99' showed all of them with jacked iron stores, except Christophe Bassons >> the only rider with normal iron levels. The evidence is that EVERY rider was jacked except Bassons.

Clean riders >>> NO MATTER HOW TALENTED would DNF a Grand Tour or be outside the top 50 depending on how jacked the field is. Lance was not clean 1990 onwards... He never would have won the 3rd EPO world Championships without epo... And he admitted in his hosptial room conversation 1996 he doped with HGH, epo, cortisone, steroids, previously.

Bro, Lance improved so much post cancer but it had nothing to do with his weight loss or hard work, or the fact that he HAD been jacked previously. Something with Lance changed with Dr. Ferrari, and it all peaked for the first time in 1999. You see with training and hard work a totally clean elite rider cant improve by more than 2 or 3%.... Lance made a startling 40-50 watts gain at FTP (all out 1-hour power) post cancer. Overall it was 120 watts or more. By my estimates, he is atleast 35% higher than he would be clean, which is incredible.

Most guys on EPO would be lucky to see a 15-20% gain going all the way to 55-59% hematocrit.

 

[BikeCentric]

One of the most difficult things for those of us trying to expose the real Lance has nothing to do with the truth. We almost entirely have the truth and facts on our "side". The Michael Ashenden interview really cements it, beyond the damning case David Walsh put forth in L to L from all that culled information. Pay close enough attention and you'll realize the guy is undoubtedly a doper, not to mention an egotistical ***.

But one of the most difficult things is when Lance worshipers get information from printed material that isn't objective, and run with it. For example, Joe Lindsey is an author who has written for several magazines. I wouldn't say he's an outright Lance fan, nor that his writing is poor, but whenever I read his work, he writes like Fox News reports. Ignoring obvious facts in order to be "balanced" in coverage. Read this article by him in Outside magazine. It's fairly well written, and reading it one who isn't as knowledgeable about Lance's situation, UCI rules, LNDD testing, EPO, or especially the Ashenden investigation and interview, would think this is an objective article, looking at both sides of the issue. But anyone following this thread would read the article and after a pause and thoughtful moment perhaps, pick it apart. I bring all this up, and the article, for another reason beyond the lack of journalistic and popular objectivity regarding the man, it's a comment by Lance when he was considering coming back after the EPO results from 1999 were announced:



What made him change his mind? Well, of course, he didn't. He was trying to manipulate the situation. Lindsey bit on it, and helped sell it to I wouldn't say a gullible audience, but one that isn't as erudite as we here are.

Journalist Greg Palast rails against poor journalism, and often focuses on one point: Instead of looking into facts of a situation, cheap journalists will often just contact the sources, and lists counter arguments, which is exactly what goes on with Lance. And that's a real shame, because as much as any other rider in the last quarter century, he's defrauded the sport.

Good article. Most telling to me is this quote from the intro:

"In the face of persistent allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs, Lance says he's had enough—and over the coming months he will confront his shadowy accusers in courtrooms and legal proceedings in the U.S., England, and France."

What happenned to all of those lawsuits? Armstrong dropped them all because he knew that he had no legal ground to stand on. Just another reason to hate that lying sack of ****. He attempts to enforce Omerta through the threat of frivolous legal action. Yet another classic example of the sterotypical hyperlitigous American *** who will sue you for any reason that can possbily benefit him.

 

[franciep10]

One of the most difficult things for those of us trying to expose the real Lance has nothing to do with the truth. We almost entirely have the truth and facts on our "side". The Michael Ashenden interview really cements it, beyond the damning case David Walsh put forth in L to L from all that culled information. Pay close enough attention and you'll realize the guy is undoubtedly a doper, not to mention an egotistical ***.

But one of the most difficult things is when Lance worshipers get information from printed material that isn't objective, and run with it. For example, Joe Lindsey is an author who has written for several magazines. I wouldn't say he's an outright Lance fan, nor that his writing is poor, but whenever I read his work, he writes like Fox News reports. Ignoring obvious facts in order to be "balanced" in coverage. Read this article by him in Outside magazine. It's fairly well written, and reading it one who isn't as knowledgeable about Lance's situation, UCI rules, LNDD testing, EPO, or especially the Ashenden investigation and interview, would think this is an objective article, looking at both sides of the issue. But anyone following this thread would read the article and after a pause and thoughtful moment perhaps, pick it apart. I bring all this up, and the article, for another reason beyond the lack of journalistic and popular objectivity regarding the man, it's a comment by Lance when he was considering coming back after the EPO results from 1999 were announced:



What made him change his mind? Well, of course, he didn't. He was trying to manipulate the situation. Lindsey bit on it, and helped sell it to I wouldn't say a gullible audience, but one that isn't as erudite as we here are.

Journalist Greg Palast rails against poor journalism, and often focuses on one point: Instead of looking into facts of a situation, cheap journalists will often just contact the sources, and lists counter arguments, which is exactly what goes on with Lance. And that's a real shame, because as much as any other rider in the last quarter century, he's defrauded the sport.

We get it he's a doper and a smug ******* and he defrauded the sport but so much superstars have done so people seem to forget that there's been doping in the sport from the so called golden years sure they weren't using epo but are you saying that if epo was around in that time Merckx wouldn't have taken it the fact is it's not because he's smug he's a rich athlete if I was I'd be smug. so it's not that and the doping has something to do with it but it's not that, so he probably doped but why do we hate him more than anyother doper you guys tell me because I don't know. but don't BS me about he doped only a couple didn't and not because he's an ***.

 

[Belokki]

Whine all you wan't ****ing retards!! Ha..! You'll NEVER prove anything on Lance! LANCE IS THE KING! YOU'RE LOOOOSERS! GET A LIFE!

 

[BroDeal]

Wine all you wan't ****ing retards!! Ha..! You'll NEVER prove anything on Lance! LANCE IS THE KING! YOU'RE LOOSERS! GET A LIFE!

I'm not impressed.
You might want to learn basic English before attempting a troll.
Wine is something you drink.
Your clothes are loose not lose.

 

[Escarabajo]

Wine all you wan't ****ing retards!! Ha..! You'll NEVER prove anything on Lance! LANCE IS THE KING! YOU'RE LOOSERS! GET A LIFE!

Be careful what you wish for, because it might come true.

 

[Belokki]

I'm not impressed.
You might want to learn basic English before attempting a troll.
Wine is something you drink.
Your clothes are loose not lose.

who the **** cares about english?! I don't!
LOOOOOSER!!!

 

[franciep10]

MAYBY 15% of them were NOT doping originally, and then it immediately switched back to 0.1% when the clean riders realized they had no chance in hell.... so almost all were jacked and those who did not struggled. There was not "2 speeds" bro, over 70 samples collected before the Dauphine in 99' showed all of them with jacked iron stores, except Christophe Bassons >> the only rider with normal iron levels. The evidence is that EVERY rider was jacked except Bassons.

Clean riders >>> NO MATTER HOW TALENTED would DNF a Grand Tour or be outside the top 50 depending on how jacked the field is. Lance was not clean 1990 onwards... He never would have won the 3rd EPO world Championships without epo... And he admitted in his hosptial room conversation 1996 he doped with HGH, epo, cortisone, steroids, previously.

Bro, Lance improved so much post cancer but it had nothing to do with his weight loss or hard work, or the fact that he HAD been jacked previously. Something with Lance changed with Dr. Ferrari, and it all peaked for the first time in 1999. You see with training and hard work a totally clean elite rider cant improve by more than 2 or 3%.... Lance made a startling 40-50 watts gain at FTP (all out 1-hour power) post cancer. Overall it was 120 watts or more. By my estimates, he is atleast 35% higher than he would be clean, which is incredible.

Most guys on EPO would be lucky to see a 15-20% gain going all the way to 55-59% hematocrit.

then what was so different with him if he skyrocketed to a 35% gain then what caused that, If Dr. Ferrari changed something to make those gains then he would've done it with every rider, I think it is more physiological+ the doping that caused those gains. and again how do you know all of these things are you copy and paste scientist or someone that studies doping.

 

[franciep10]

who the **** cares about english?! I don't!
LOOOOOSER!!!

are you trying to do a Jim Carey impersonation

 

[Belokki]

are you trying to do a Jim Carey impersonation

Nope! Just showing some hate on the hating thread

 

[Mellow Velo]

Nope! Just showing some hate on the hating thread

Better than trying to display some knowledge of cycling on a cycling forum, eh?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

A couple of other things to keep in mind:

Giles Delion was another clean rider in the early 90's whose results dropped off. Willy Voet said had everyone been clean, Delion would have won the Tour, probably more than once. In 1992, right in his prime, he finished 2 hours behind.

In 1999 the re-test for EPO showed a fairly low amount of riders on EPO. Not to say this means a clean peloton, and it appears at least Olano and Zulle were on it at the start, but it was a fairly clean Tour, except Lance was doped the whole time. Imagine what would have happened if Pantani had not been kicked out of the Giro that year?

 

[BigBoat]

A couple of other things to keep in mind:

Giles Delion was another clean rider in the early 90's whose results dropped off. Willy Voet said had everyone been clean, Delion would have won the Tour, probably more than once. In 1992, right in his prime, he finished 2 hours behind.

In 1999 the re-test for EPO showed a fairly low amount of riders on EPO. Not to say this means a clean peloton, and it appears at least Olano and Zulle were on it at the start, but it was a fairly clean Tour, except Lance was doped the whole time. Imagine what would have happened if Pantani had not been kicked out of the Giro that year?

Zulle was actually better than Pantani... Overall, Pantani needed to make time on steep climbs. He weighed 124 pounds or so in good shape, in flat TTs he'd get destroyed.

The epo test of 2005 was NOT sensitive like it is now by the way. Atleast thats the observation I've made based on last year's Tour. lol

Voet could be right on Delion, clean riders no matter HOW TALENTED would not ever be top 50. But you know, if Lemond would have done epo just to a 50% crit I think he would have won for sure... Lemond was such an arrogant dude he thought he could actually race the epo users in the Tour without epo. which is a joke...

If he had won 5 more Tour jacked on epo and HGH, testosterone program his viewpoint and ideas today would be embrassed by the cycling industry... Instead of being shut out. You see sports fans look at records and history of games and races... They dont look at drugs or influencial factors that make 95% of the result.