The Official Lance Hating Thread

[Alpe d'Huez]

that's funny but not a good image of our sport.

The sport, and specifically Lance, created this guy.

I'm done with you rapist. Someone else can respond to your drivel. Or just post on the "Lance Worship" thread. I'm sure you'll be welcomed there.

 

[Returnofthewolf]

its aliiiive...

The sport, and specifically Lance, created this guy.

like a Frankenstein!

 

[rapistwit]

The sport, and specifically Lance, created this guy.

I'm done with you rapist. Someone else can respond to your drivel. Or just post on the "Lance Worship" thread. I'm sure you'll be welcomed there.

"Drivel"?

"Lance worship"?


nice

 

[franciep10]

The sport, and specifically Lance, created this guy.

I'm done with you rapist. Someone else can respond to your drivel. Or just post on the "Lance Worship" thread. I'm sure you'll be welcomed there.

Hey listen I think your over reacting I am neutral in all this I neither hate nor like him i dislike now about the picture I said it's funny but not a great image for the sport yes the sport created this guy and lance created him but still if he was doing it to any other rider I would say the same thing it's not a good image for the sport you see this picture on espn as somebody that has never seen the sport and the first image you see is that picture thats not good for our sport, if you don't want to respond to my comments then fine I don't care but don't try to group me with the fanboys

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sorry Franciep10. My apologies. Didn't mean to clump you to anything.

Doperman could have chased Floyd, Tyler or even Basso in the TOC and I'd probably have said the same thing though. It is kind of sad.

 

[rapistwit]

How would Armstrong have known that? He didn't even look back to see. Belocki went down, and Lance rode right on by. Singular focus on winning, as usual.

Watch 2003 again, Jan was indeed gaining on Lance time and went out at a blistering pace.

BTW, rewatch the TT. Jan wasn't gaining any significant time on Armstrong.
It's funny how you're blinded by your Armstrong hatred.

 

[Seth Bullock]

And yet, when Beloki crashed on stage 12 (pictured), Lance didn't even glance over his shoulder to see what had happened, let alone wait to see if Beloki was okay. He just took that short cut. Not that anyone else waited, they didn't, that's cycling.

The way I remember it was that Vino was off the front very closely threatening the yellow jersey and the main contenders (Armstrong, Ullrich, Beloki etc.) were chasing to limit their losses – specifically Armstrong who was in yellow. The day was very warm with the tarmac as a result being slippery. Beloki went down on the back side of the mountain (horrific crash – looked bl@@dy painfull) on a right hander while going damn quick. Armstrong was right behind Beloki, slammed on his brakes and his only way out to avoid Beloki was to the left and as a result through a paddock going steeply down and at speed. I ride MTB quite a bit and there’s no way I’m looking behind me under those circumstances to see what’s going on – I want to stay on my bike. And again, as Vino was looming as a serious threat to the jersey…..

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It's funny how you're blinded by your Armstrong hatred.

It's funny how you're blinded by your Armstrong love.

The guy is an egotistical *** and an unrepentant doper who would do, and did, anything necessary to win one specific race. Why people like yourself continue to defend him is beyond me.

 

[rapistwit]

It's funny how you're blinded by your Armstrong love.

The guy is an egotistical *** and an unrepentant doper who would do, and did, anything necessary to win one specific race. Why people like yourself continue to defend him is beyond me.

Your problem is that you seem to think that I am a huge Amstrong fan, I'm not. I don't dislike him either though (he brings much needed attention to cycling). I get tired of people getting their undies in a bunch over his alleged doping yet ignoring others. My guess is there hasn't been a clean Tour winner in over thirty years. Call me cynical but I don't really care if he doped because nearly podium finisher in the Armstrong era has been snaggeed in one doping scandal or another.

And when you talk about Lemond I roll my eyes. He is a world class baby.
All he does is whine.

 

[BikeCentric]

Your problem is that you seem to think that I am a huge Amstrong fan, I'm not. I don't dislike him either though (he brings much needed attention to cycling). I get tired of people getting their undies in a bunch over his alleged doping yet ignoring others. My guess is there hasn't been a clean Tour winner in over thirty years. Call me cynical but I don't really care if he doped because nearly podium finisher in the Armstrong era has been snaggeed in one doping scandal or another.

And when you talk about Lemond I roll my eyes. He is a world class baby.
All he does is whine.

I agree with most of what you say except that I do not think it is fair to label LeMond's advocacy for clean sport as "whining." Also, I would wager that most people's problem with Armstrong is that, as you stated, nearly every other major contender of his era has now been busted yet he still maintains not only his own innocence but that the sport in general does not have a drug problem. That is annoying.

 

[BikeCentric]

Your problem is that you seem to think that I am a huge Amstrong fan, I'm not. I don't dislike him either though (he brings much needed attention to cycling). I get tired of people getting their undies in a bunch over his alleged doping yet ignoring others. My guess is there hasn't been a clean Tour winner in over thirty years. Call me cynical but I don't really care if he doped because nearly podium finisher in the Armstrong era has been snaggeed in one doping scandal or another.

And when you talk about Lemond I roll my eyes. He is a world class baby.
All he does is whine.

And I agree that the upside of Armstrong is that he brings attention to the sport not to mention cancer. Ooops, wrong thread for that sentence.

 

[BroDeal]

It must be a sad time for Lance lovers when even they have to admit that he must have doped in order to preserve some semblance of credibility. Just a couple of years ago they would get hopping mad at the suggestion that Armstrong might have even thought about doping. Now they claim not to care.

It has been fun to watch the trend. A great way to get a laugh is to dredge up old posts on cycling forums. The earnestness and unintentional hilarity is a gold mine of yucks. If treated as sarcasm, the posts are quite brilliant.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It has been fun to watch the trend.

+1

(This text here is mandatory to fill the 10 character minimum)

 

[rhubroma]

It must be a sad time for Lance lovers when even they have to admit that he must have doped in order to preserve some semblance of credibility. Just a couple of years ago they would get hopping mad at the suggestion that Armstrong might have even thought about doping. Now they claim not to care.

It has been fun to watch the trend. A great way to get a laugh is to dredge up old posts on cycling forums. The earnestness and unintentional hilarity is a gold mine of yucks. If treated as sarcasm, the posts are quite brilliant.

The thing about it is BroDeal, is that I've always been under the impression that there are two diametrically opposing views of the situation: one European and the other American. The euros being much more cynical, because they know what's up in their sport, have never even pondered the question. It's just taken for granted that any Tour winner (let alone 7 straight) has to be doped. Case closed. No proofs necessary. By contrast the yanks need the proofs before any final judgement can be passed. And even when faced with all the smoke and the most suggestive circumstantial evidence, especially when it comes to one of their athletes, are much more inclined to accept as truth the lies of the one under scrutiny. Because the so called American ethic can't contemplate that one would actually, and with such insulent insitence, not tell the truth. Then there is the patriotic thing...

In any case, the evolution is quite hilarious as you say.

PS: For any American, like myself, who doesn't fit into the above mentioned generalization. Please accept my heart felt apologies. Thank you.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Your problem is that you seem to think that I am a huge Amstrong fan, I'm not. I don't dislike him either though (he brings much needed attention to cycling). I get tired of people getting their undies in a bunch over his alleged doping yet ignoring others. My guess is there hasn't been a clean Tour winner in over thirty years. Call me cynical but I don't really care if he doped because nearly podium finisher in the Armstrong era has been snaggeed in one doping scandal or another.

And when you talk about Lemond I roll my eyes. He is a world class baby.
All he does is whine.

Funny, because you share much of the FB philosophy.


rhubroma:
You are probably correct, when talking in generalisations, especially about the extreme ends of both groups. Possibly the most rabid do fit into your catagories.
Yet, I know a number of Euros who remain staunchly pro Lance, while it is pretty evident, even here, that there are a large number of US cititzens who don't worship at the alter of St Lance.

 

[BroDeal]

The thing about it is BroDeal, is that I've always been under the impression that there are two diametrically opposing views of the situation: one European and the other American. The euros being much more cynical, because they know what's up in their sport, have never even pondered the question. It's just taken for granted that any Tour winner (let alone 7 straight) has to be doped. Case closed. No proofs necessary. By contrast the yanks need the proofs before any final judgement can be passed. And even when faced with all the smoke and the most suggestive circumstantial evidence, especially when it comes to one of their athletes, are much more inclined to accept as truth the lies of the one under scrutiny. Because the so called American ethic can't contemplate that one would actually, and with such insulent insitence, not tell the truth. Then there is the patriotic thing...

Although, as yousay, there is certainly a nationalistic component. For some people that seems to be a big component. I think time following the sport may be the thing that separates the two camps. The most rapid american LA lovers appear to be those that only started following the sport after Armstrong won in 1999. The most cynical seem to be those that have been following since Lemond or before. The former camp also appears to be populated by people who, to put it nicely, have serious problems drawing conclusions from available evidence.

 

[rhubroma]

Funny, because you share much of the FB philosophy.


rhubroma:
You are probably correct, when talking in generalisations, especially about the extreme ends of both groups. Possibly the most rabid do fit into your catagories.
Yet, I know a number of Euros who remain staunchly pro Lance, while it is pretty evident, even here, that there are a large number of US cititzens who don't worship at the alter of St Lance.

Agreed. The only difference being that the Euro Lance Lovers don't, at the same time, believe the guy's clean....

 

[rhubroma]

The most rapid american LA lovers appear to be those that only started following the sport after Armstrong won in 1999.

The most cynical seem to be those that have been following since Lemond or before.

The former camp also appears to be populated by people who, to put it nicely, have serious problems drawing conclusions from available evidence.

Indeed...

That's me...

It think is called patriotic induced blindness...

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed. The only difference being that the Euro Lance Lovers don't, at the same time, believe the guy's clean....

i like lance.. do i know he doped in 99 yes.. do i think he may have in other years, quite possibly..

but ignoring the drugs and looking at just the racing.. do i think he had some amazing tussles with pantani that i enjoyed, yes, do i think he whupped fat ullrichs ***.. yes.. do i think moto/disco at full strength climbing mountains was one of the most impressive things ive seen in cycling, yes, (and it was nice to see shades of that the other day from liquigas, however bad an idea it was.. there is nothing like one team, taking control and leading from the front)

im just always confused why a doped american is more unpopular than a fat doped german.. maybe we are letting our european, anti-american feelings cloud our judgement.. bush and blair for instance, i hate them both equally, i dont let the fact that bush was an egotistical, cheating, money laundering, war mongering american cloud my judgement.. i treat him and blair just the same..

 

[pmcg76]

i like lance.. do i know he doped in 99 yes.. do i think he may have in other years, quite possibly..

but ignoring the drugs and looking at just the racing.. do i think he had some amazing tussles with pantani that i enjoyed, yes, do i think he whupped fat ullrichs ***.. yes.. do i think moto/disco at full strength climbing mountains was one of the most impressive things ive seen in cycling, yes,

im just always confused why a doped american is more unpopular than a fat doped german.. maybe we are letting our european, anti-american feelings cloud our judgement.

Without doubt, Dimspace is the most realistic, knowing person who likes Lance. But perhaps by looking at the flipside of his arguments might help explain why we are all not just anti-Americans who dont like Lance.

I dont like Lance, do I think he doped in 99 or other years, yes, do I think others doped, yes. Did he have some amazing tussles with Pantani, only once on Ventoux. Did he whip Ullrichs ***, yes but he made the Tour one dimensional and boring. Do I think the way Postal/Disco rode in the mountains was impressives, yes but again very boring.

Now for my own points, do I think Lance could have done a lot in the fight against doping because of his profile, yes but if only he had been clean. He didnt do anything.

Do I think Lance done the single most unbelievable and vindictave thing in the Tour by chasing down Simeoni, yes, this in particular is a big issue for me.

Is lance an egomaniac who uses people around him for his own purposes and then discards them when he feels like it. Think F.Andreu, F.Landis.

Does Lance consistenly abuse anti-French feeling in the US for his own purposes, yes.

Now tell me what other cyclist have done anything similar to these last few points and maybe you will realise it has nothing to do with anti-American feeling and that Lance is just an unlikeable character who uses the pro-Lance media to potray himself as a great man of character.

 

[Delicato]

I think discussions of Lance on http://www.cyclingforums.net are much more hilarious...

Still, funny thread.

 

[Anonymous]

Now tell me what other cyclist have done anything similar to these last few points and maybe you will realise it has nothing to do with anti-American feeling and that Lance is just an unlikeable character who uses the pro-Lance media to potray himself as a great man of character.

give cavvy a few years there will be a mark cavendish hating thread on here..

 

[SpeedWay]

im just always confused why a doped american is more unpopular than a fat doped german..

That's easy, four letters - H A T E.

 

[BroDeal]

That's easy, four letters - H A T E.

Maybe you could add something valuable to the discussion, like why you idolize a doper.

 

[BigBoat]

Ullrich was busted... His sponsors did not stay with him, he has no cancer foundation and he is not an American.

100% of the Grand Tour field is doped, top 20-100 are blood doping with their own blood too.

Do you REALLY hate Lance? Then read these great links >>>>

http://welcome2urf.blogspot.com/2008/10/things-that-disgust-me-lance-armstrong.html



http://bareknucks.com/lance-armstrong-returns-to-cycling-still-not-a-superior-athlete