The Official Lance Loving thread...

[mherm79]

lol @ Melo Velo =)

 

[nobody]

Difficult to compare Armstrong with Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Lemond who have showed great abilities in their first TDF or GT.
Lance was just like a "unknown" rider in his four first TDF, finishing with an 1 hour and more ! What would say people if Danielson or Gadret were beginning to win 7 TDF in a row that year?

 

[elapid]

Difficult to compare Armstrong with Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Lemond who have showed great abilities in their first TDF or GT.
Lance was just like a "unknown" rider in his four first TDF, finishing with an 1 hour and more ! What would say people if Danielson or Gadret were beginning to win 7 TDF in a row that year?

While I will not argue that his ascension to TdF stardom was (too?) amazing, he was not exactly a nobody coming into his first TdFs. He was actually known as a very good one day rider with the ability to ride the classics and obviously win the world championship (as well as TdF stages). Walsh also argues how far down he was from the GC in his early TdFs as proof of doping, but very few riders start their TdF campaigns as team leaders - they are expected to fulfill the role of domestiques and work for the team leader. Hence, I am sure Lance would have blown himself up a fair few times for his team leaders back then and not been close to the leaders. One telling difference between the early and later TdFs is his TT results, a stage where he did not have to work for race leaders and hence should have put in more respectable times in his first TdFs.

 

[Anonymous]

he was also a damn good triathlete

 

[nobody]

While I will not argue that his ascension to TdF stardom was (too?) amazing, he was not exactly a nobody coming into his first TdFs. He was actually known as a very good one day rider with the ability to ride the classics and obviously win the world championship (as well as TdF stages). Walsh also argues how far down he was from the GC in his early TdFs as proof of doping, but very few riders start their TdF campaigns as team leaders - they are expected to fulfill the role of domestiques and work for the team leader. Hence, I am sure Lance would have blown himself up a fair few times for his team leaders back then and not been close to the leaders. One telling difference between the early and later TdFs is his TT results, a stage where he did not have to work for race leaders and hence should have put in more respectable times in his first TdFs.

I am not sure that Hinault, Anquetil , Merckx or Ullrich who won their first GT around 23yo were leader at the start of their first GT.

 

[benpounder]

Seems to me that what really animates the Lance-hating crowd is that others do not share their abject and visceral hatred of the guy.

Conversely, what animates those of us not in the Lance-hating crowd is the incessant and gratuitous Lance slamming comments such as this:

Whilst I appreciate the fact that Armstrong barely scrapes into their all time top 20, a little more transparency about their system would be appreciated as the 2009 rankings seem unfathomable and more based on whim than reality.

Please note, I am not singling out bianchigirl, merely using her comment as representative example – there are plenty of folks that do the same thing. It is not that I don’t appreciate another’s hatred of and disgust for Lance Armstrong, or Johan Bruyneel, nor their reasons (passions?) therefore. I just grow tired of it always being interjected into all conversations.

 

[Merckx]

If it was not for Dr. Ferrari Lance would have never been top 35 in a single Tour, he would not even be discussed on the forum and he would never have "come back" after age 35.

You keep saying this in almost every thread, yet you fail to explain how LA benefited exponentially from EPO compared to the other top riders?

After all, as you said:

Upon the advent of EPO in the Tour (1991) it became impossible for anyone to win the Tour without EPO and by the time the whole Tour field did it (1992) any clean rider no matter how talented would have been dropped or outside top 50. maybe, MAYBE it would be possible for a clean rider at their very very peak to sneak in top 50-75 places.

So you are saying that everyone in the top 75 is doped out of their face. (As a side note: I don't buy into that at all.)

And as much as I dislike using it as an excuse (but I will so I can try to understand things in your terms), wouldn't you say then, that all these riders were thus on a (more or less) equal playing field? Perhaps a clean Armstrong would not have beaten a doped peloton, but then again are there any other riders who would have been able to? If everyone was doped, what made the EPO so much more beneficial to LA? (If he was - as you say, an "above average rider" at best.)

My knowledge on doping is extremely limited so perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

[BigBoat]

So you are saying that everyone in the top 75 is doped out of their face. (As a side note: I don't buy into that at all.)

If everyone was doped, what made the EPO so much more beneficial to LA? (If he was - as you say, an "above average rider" at best.)

My knowledge on doping is extremely limited so perhaps you could enlighten me.

ALL are somewhat doped now but not all fully doped and not all have the same drugs. And some teams cannot autologous blood dope with their own blood (many!!) and so they now loose huge ground on autologous blood transfusion teams.

IN 1996 Lance admitted to using, "HGH, epo, testosterone, cortizone, steroids". This is very important because it showed how doped he was to 'finish' his first Tours as DNF, DNF, 36th, DNF.

Something post 95' changed with Lances doping with Ferrari but wasnt given a chance to manifest itsef until post-cancer. Doping never means a level field because doping is anything but equal. There are 02 carriers like Actovegin which postal was caught with in 2000. Actovegin (Free protein extract of calf blood) This is from the online pharmacy > "activates metabolism in tissues. It also decreases tissue's hypoxia , improves trophicity and stimulates the process of regeneration. Actovegin increases not only the intracellular content of glucose, but also improves oxidizing metabolism, therefore the energy of the cell is improved, the blood circulation in brain is also improved.?"

Do you have any idea how much the stuff cost in 2000 when it was brand new?! There is now gene doping too, and many other 02 carriers than the top overall riders being "trained" by Italian doctors have had. Like HemAssist, Oxyglobin, hemopure, etc, etc. Do you think some "mule" getting paid nothing or $30,000-50,000 to slave away on the front for hundreds of miles is on this heavy ****?

Why didint Floyd Landis get to work with Ferrari 99-2005? He was talented than Lance.

 

[marinoni]

Over on the LA hating thread I've been one of the more shall we say, scathing posters. I dont know why, but it bugs me that some posters (fellow Canadian Merckx for example) seem to think I'm consumed and obsessed with my hatred for LA. So, in the interest of fairness I'd like to say there are a couple things I like about the guy. One, he has an excellent, wide-ranging taste in music. Two, I do appreciate what he's done with the cancer foundation. He could have walked out of that hospital room without so much as a thank you and still would have won 7 Tours and be a multi-millionaire. No one forced him to set up a foundation and I don't buy the idea he did it purely out of ego. And if his book gives cancer patients some hope or inspiration how is that a bad thing? Even if his wins were a lie, so what, the book gives people facing a nightmare some comfort so I'm fine with it. Three, he has, to my knowledge, never suggested that his Tour wins made him the greatest cyclist ever. I've seen/read interviews where he clearly says that he concentrated only on the Tour and doesnt belong up there with Merckx, Hinault etc. Finally, he's taken a fair bit of nasty, sarcastic abuse from other posters about his post-retirement days of starlet-dating and partying. I say have at it man. If it had been me suddenly released from the monastic lifestyle of a pro cyclist, the National Enquirer would have had to release a whole other tabloid just to cover my hell-raising. I mean, I would just lay waste! Anyway that's it, I'm going for a ride.

 

[Condorman]

One, he has an excellent, wide-ranging taste in music.

Rather than have me visit Twitter you wouldn't be a good chap and give me a quick list if you have it in RAM would you please?

In the unlikely event that LA and I have any musical tastes in common I can quickly unload mine on ebay, along with my black Assos socks.

Thank you in anticipation.

 

[bianchigirl]

problem with this, as with all forums, is that there are no sarcasm tags.

My point was actually a serious one - one of the great defences of Armstrong is that he brings people to the sport. If he does, and if a fan doesn't understand why he isn't ranked on a particular site higher than he is, then they may start looking deeper into the sport and become aware of the history and traditions of the most beautiful of sports.

Alas, too many will arrive with Armstrong and leave with him again, too

 

[benpounder]

Alas, too many will arrive with Armstrong and leave with him again, too

No doubt. People follow sports where they can embrace their heros. Bode Millar brought people with him, as did Tiger Woods and Chrissy Everett. And even if temporary, I still think it is a net good. Sure those of us who marvel in the esoterics, tend to look down our collective noses when neophytes dont comprehend the difference between a SG and GS, or a volley and ground stroke. But then, that attitude lends itself to an offputting arrogance. And when devotees of any sport focus their ire exclusively on one person, or one race/game, or one tactic, sarcasm is not what comes across.

(BTW, there is a sarcasm tag - it is amongst those smiles immediately to your right when posting)

 

[bianchigirl]

I only ever quick post and also get sick and tired with the fact that, dare you criticise Armstrong, you're a 'hater' 'obsessional' 'have problems' blah blah blah.

I'm a follower of the sport, I'd love all the Lance lovers to stick around and find out more - discover new riders and races, the history and traditions and myths and tall tales of the sport - but it's not a sport that attracts them, simply a personality, a winner - he really is the Manchester United of cycling. As a lover of the sport rather than a follower of teams or individuals I always think it's a shame that the devotion to Armstrong never seems to spill over - and that's nothing to do with an elitist or exclusive attitude. I'd love to bore any Armstrong fan into submission with tales from the old days but, wnenever I've tried, have been met with a blank look and then an 'anyway, Lance is the first person ever to win 7 GTs'. For every 'arrogant' fan of the sport there's an 'ignorant' neophyte

 

[phessler]

LA was a big part of me getting interested in this fantastic sport. I started riding for exercise and then a co-worker started explaining what LA had been doing and his success post cancer. That got me watching and more importantly learning about the sport of cycling.

When LA decided to retire I was bummed, but I understood. Plus it was too late, I was already hooked on the sport and continued to follow the various exploits of the various riders and the beauty of all the grand tours.

So LA helped lure me in and I thank him for that, but the sport itself got me hooked.

 

[BigBoat]

Bode Millar brought people with him, as did Tiger Woods and Chrissy Everett.

Bode is a somewhat cool guy but his cousin shot and then ran over a cop.

Warning (un-edited vid.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF-BtESLEsU

 

[benpounder]

I ... also get sick and tired with the fact that, dare you criticise Armstrong, you're a 'hater' 'obsessional' 'have problems' blah blah blah.

Plenty of people criticize LA. Myself included:

I think one of the "problems" with a Lance-Loving thread is that cyclists in the know (eg people who comment here) are well aware of Lance's character flaws. I learned of them back in the early 90's from a friend who raced with/against him in the Jr Triathalon leagues in Texas. Thus while we can acknowledge and applaud what he accompliched on a bicycle, we still think the guy is a pr__k.(Bold added)

I’ll repeat what I said upthread, and bold the important part:

It is not that I don’t appreciate another’s hatred of and disgust for Lance Armstrong, or Johan Bruyneel, nor their reasons (passions?) therefore. I just grow tired of it always being interjected into all conversations.

I'm a follower of the sport, I'd love all the Lance lovers to stick around and find out more - discover new riders and races, the history and traditions and myths and tall tales of the sport - but it's not a sport that attracts them, simply a personality, a winner - he really is the Manchester United of cycling.

Who is Manchester United? An English IndyCar driver?

As a lover of the sport rather than a follower of teams or individuals I always think it's a shame that the devotion to Armstrong never seems to spill over - and that's nothing to do with an elitist or exclusive attitude. I'd love to bore any Armstrong fan into submission with tales from the old days but, wnenever I've tried, have been met with a blank look and then an 'anyway, Lance is the first person ever to win 7 GTs'. For every 'arrogant' fan of the sport there's an 'ignorant' neophyte

I’ve seen it spill over, but I know what you are talking about. Earlier this season I was explaining to a friend why I was so tired - watching Paris-Nice/Tirreno-Adriatico real-time - started talking about the races, the riders, etc, and her only comment was “is Lance in that race?”

 

[indurain666]

hehehe its hilarious, Lance lovers gets 24 post while haters get 224, you do the analysis...also, even the Lance loving thread turns into Lance hate stuff!!

 

[benpounder]

Said in post # 42:

hehehe its hilarious, Lance lovers gets 24 post while haters get 224...

 

[Anonymous]

hehehe its hilarious, Lance lovers gets 24 post while haters get 224, you do the analysis...also, even the Lance loving thread turns into Lance hate stuff!!

to be fair about 100 of those where me

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Something post 95' changed with Lances doping with Ferrari but wasnt given a chance to manifest itsef until post-cancer..."

Don't you think the cancer itself had something to do with that BB? I mean, let's say Lance headed to Ferrari in 1995 and by 1996 started to respond to Ferrari's "treatment". But by that time his cancer had spread from his nuts into his abdomen, chest, and even into his brain. This had to have been taking a large toll on anyone. Once the cancer was radiated out of his system and he recovered, he had to have been healthier overall. Then responded better to whatever treatment he got from Ferrari. No??? Plus he weighed a touch less, spun more, focused singularly on the Tour, rode for the most powerful team, etc. etc. etc.

 

[benpounder]

...

Now THAT was good sarcasm!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sorry. Did my post not belong here in this thread?

How about this one:

I'm hoping Lance sucks this year, and next year rides for a UCI Continental domestic team in the US. It would do wonders for cycling to have him at all the events like the ToC, Missouri, Gila, Cascade Classic, and probably make certain the Tour of Georgia comes back.

Is that still too sarcastic sounding?

 

[benpounder]

It belongs. If we can not mock our monuments with grace and intelligent sarcasm...

 

[pmcg76]

Sorry, but I am bringing back this thread and the other one, following the latest round of nonsense in the circus plus a lot of new group of posters, I feel there will be another round of Lance threads. Lets try to keep them on these 2 threads please.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Thanks but who is Lance?

Can someone direct me to the Linus Gerdemann Super Fan Zone?