Thor's book

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
hektoren said:
Lot of noise, but the facts are this: Hushovd should've told norwegian antidoping authorities about LA's admission.
What exactly would have happened? Nothing. The NADO has no authority. The novel approach used by USADA was not possible. The information would have vanished inside the UCI (the only group with authority) with Thor's time in the WT ending because he fell off the UCI's popularity list.

I agree the guy is at epic levels of all kinds of unpleasant human attributes. But imagining what little he claims to have known (yeah, right) would have made a difference somehow is nice, but not realistic.
 
Aug 15, 2012
1,065
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
A man who rushes into a burning building to rescue a crying baby is brave. Are all who stood on the sidewalk watching to be cast as cowards in Walsh's world?
Sure, if they say there is no fire and no baby.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I agree the guy is at epic levels of all kinds of unpleasant human attributes. But imagining what little he claims to have known (yeah, right) would have made a difference somehow is nice, but not realistic.
i know you are asserting a perception and not claiming omniscience.

but even tho i was critical of this public Thor, the devils advocate is we only know the public simulcra of a Thor, and this is not Thor.

He might be the *** to his wife and the criticised simulcra version Thor might be the very same guy in his private life.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ok, by now i read several really thoughtful posts (as well as one pseudo thoughtful poster)...reluctantly, i decided to post my opinion b/c not everything seems right.

while i dont particularly care for thor, meaning, i dont dislike him nor is he a role model, the quoted passages from his book deserve my comment.

lets get to the point - rr and all who heard him are absolutely correct in considering thor a royal hypocrite.

the facts are as clear as day. thor gave the armstrong doping, to put it mildly, a defensive treatment when compared to the facts of the sport and the texas incinerating attitude toward ANYONE daring to doubt his royal doping. to see otherwise means thor was/is a cerebral midget if he did not figure before the 2011 'indirect admission' that texas was doping to his eye balls.

or - which is prolly the case - thor is a classic omerta boy who thinks of himself too highly in terms of being able to project a role above the common sense suspicion.

...and btw, welcome to the torebear defense of his compatriots. i'll let you reach your own conclusions... but for those of us who actively post in the x-c skiing threads he's known as a consistent denier of even a faint SUSPICION that the norges could blood dope in the 90's whiles dominating the sport. he's also on record calling the recently departed, word famous swedish antidoping scientist bengt saltin...a MENTALLY DERANGED OLD MAN...for raising suspicions against the norwegians in the 90's. and, most curiously, to boot i all, i was compared to a child abuser (a P-word) after daring to call the line of argument as a classic fanboy logic dfending his compatriots...

that's about all.
 
Aug 15, 2012
1,065
0
0
python said:
ok, by now i read several really thoughtful posts (as well as one pseudo thoughtful poster)...reluctantly, i decided to post my opinion b/c not everything seems right.

while i dont particularly care for thor, meaning, i dont dislike him nor is he a role model, the quoted passages from his book deserve my comment.

lets get to the point - rr and all who heard him are absolutely correct in considering thor a royal hypocrite.

the facts are as clear as day. thor gave the armstrong doping, to put it mildly, a defensive treatment when compared to the facts of the sport and the texas incinerating attitude toward ANYONE daring to doubt his royal doping. to see otherwise means thor was/is a cerebral midget if he did not figure before the 2011 'indirect admission' that texas was doping to his eye balls.

or - which is prolly the case - thor is a classic omerta boy who thinks of himself too highly in terms of being able to project a role above the common sense suspicion.

...and btw, welcome to the torebear defense of his compatriots. i'll let you reach your own conclusions... but for those of us who actively post in the x-c skiing threads he's known as a consistent denier of even a faint SUSPICION that the norges could blood dope in the 90's whiles dominating the sport. he's also on record calling the recently departed, word famous swedish antidoping scientist bengt saltin...a MENTALLY DERANGED OLD MAN...for raising suspicions against the norwegians in the 90's. and, most curiously, to boot i all, i was compared to a child abuser (a P-word) after daring to call the line of argument as a classic fanboy logic dfending his compatriots...

that's about all.
I think most of us get the nationalist bent of his arguments, but it's good to know it isn't an isolated incident.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
What exactly would have happened? Nothing. The NADO has no authority. The novel approach used by USADA was not possible. The information would have vanished inside the UCI (the only group with authority) with Thor's time in the WT ending because he fell off the UCI's popularity list.

I agree the guy is at epic levels of all kinds of unpleasant human attributes. But imagining what little he claims to have known (yeah, right) would have made a difference somehow is nice, but not realistic.
I don't think anyone thinks Thor was going to fix it all by himself, or even make a huge impact. The issue is more the hypocrisy.

Here is a guy who promoted himself as a clean rider but kept the omerta. He went after lots of dopers, but made excuses for Lance. He stood by as lance tried to bankrupt USADA.

Add in the nonsense about tactics, bonuses, Riis, etc. and it appears Thor has little interest in anything but Thor. Perhaps that was the smart thing to do......he has made over 20,000,000 Euros from cycling.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
python said:
or - which is prolly the case - thor is a classic omerta boy who thinks of himself too highly in terms of being able to project a role above the common sense suspicion.
he is attempting to define his legacy. All champions, and it would be fair to call Thor a champion, not because of the rainbow, but because of his ~7 TdF stages and 2? maillot vert.

Thor was a champion cyclist, and wishes to crown the legacy in print.

do we really believe that most biography, either ghosted, or self written, tell the whole transparent truth? ofcourse not, so we need to read Thor thru this lens
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
blackcat said:
he is attempting to define his legacy. All champions, and it would be fair to call Thor a champion, not because of the rainbow, but because of his ~7 TdF stages and 2? maillot vert.

Thor was a champion cyclist, and wishes to crown the legacy in print.

do we really believe that most biography, either ghosted, or self written, tell the whole transparent truth? ofcourse not, so we need to read Thor thru this lens
10 stages actually, + 2 TTT, and 3 Vuelta with the points jersey, and a stage in the Giro.

definite champion status. but no Kevin Pietersen genius.

another meta question is, can a cyclist in this post pot belge doping epoch, that is, the blood O2 vector and more evolved doping, can a champion exist? Is any champion valid?

And everyone knows that champions have an exclusive Type A personality make-up,even Lemond as an individual could be the handful, so The Patron of the peloton, was not seen as the most magnanimous individual. But this is not exclusive to this sport.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
heartening to see that Benson has been refining his stenography technique on the main page of CN
Hushovd: I'm proof that riders could win clean in Lance Armstrong era

By:
Daniel Benson
Published:
October 16, 2014
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hushovd-im-proof-that-riders-could-win-clean-in-lance-armstrong-era [SIZE="2"] Former rider questions Bassons' talent and commitment[/SIZE]

hope Thor is getting a good deal on the advertising rates.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
roundabout said:
Holy ****. I suppose I can see him getting 10 million between 2009-2014, but I don't really see where he was able to get the other 10.

Must have made a lot of commercials that I didn't watch.
Thor made 15,000,000 + from his team salary's alone. He made 7,500,000 in the 3 years he was at BMC. 1,200,000 per year at Cervelo/Garmin. Was making over 500,000 at CA. The Green jersey is worth huge money at Post Tour crits, he can race every day for a month. Add in prize money, Image rights, other sponsorship, and the guy is in the 20,000,000 club
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Race Radio said:
Thor made 15,000,000 + from his team salary's alone. He made 7,500,000 in the 3 years he was at BMC. 1,200,000 per year at Cervelo/Garmin. Was making over 500,000 at CA. The Green jersey is worth huge money at Post Tour crits, he can race every day for a month. Add in prize money, Image rights, other sponsorship, and the guy is in the 20,000,000 club
tax neutralised by growing the collateral and compounded investment?

or UBS in Zurich with Och or Gorski?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
blackcat said:
tax neutralised by growing the collateral and compounded investment?

or UBS in Zurich with Och or Gorski?
He has lived in Monaco for most of his career so no Norwegian taxes
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Race Radio said:
He has lived in Monaco for most of his career so no Norwegian taxes
ok, so no need to squirrel it away like Lance in Zurich with Och/Gorski and Wiesel's bankers.

Even with 2008, he prolly never took much of a hit, and then his big contract the BMC one was more recent and Rihs prolly found him some cushy opportunities. so ~US20m might be conservative, might be more euro20m.

Puts into context why he is whinging about his salary with JV. It is like Oprah and the 60million or 40million dollar day. These people have no concept of regular folk.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
oh, and Monaco reference. hive of anti-doping cough cough there.

They must have quite a few preparatores of note in Monaco.
 
ToreBear said:
Ehm, perhaps it's time to R.E.L.A.X. a little bit. Especially RaceRadio.;)

- The media will quote the juicy bits and leave out the context. That is perfect for creating misunderstandings that have to be cleared up in another article.

- They will confront actors in the book and get them to comment based on quotes often without context. This is likely to create misunderstandings and more articles.

- Journalists when journalizing do not do context or humor. They only do quotes. Quotes don't convey meaning, they convene words. Words need to be understood. To understand requires context.

So please don't go overboard using quotes to argue over quotes.

Aditionally: Language is real. Words carry different meanings in different languages, even though they can be translated verbatim.

This book is AFAIK only out in stores today in Norwegian. I'm not sure when or if it will be available in English. So please take quotes translated from another language without context with a grain of salt.

Hopefully there is enough interest in the book for it to be translated to English so everyone can understand the context.

I just saw most of the Press conference, and the journalists(Norwegian) wanted to know a lot about Armstrong. This might indicate there is a market in English for this book since Lance Armstrong = reading interests.

Until then R E L A X, and don't be so sure about what you read really means.

Right now there are several Norwegian media looking for Juicy bits in the book they can quote. I think I'm going to try to ignore them so I can read the book without a preconceived bias.

Why must people read a liar's and fraud's book to be able to fully condemn quotes in which he is clearly lying?

If Ricco for example writes a book tomorrow and in it says he never doped and never saw doping do I have to buy the book before condeming what he says?
 
Aug 9, 2012
2,223
0
0
python said:
--snip---
Instead of posting the same thing in the threads I take part in, perhaps you could take it up with me on PM?

The Hitch said:
Why must people read a liar's and fraud's book to be able to fully condemn quotes in which he is clearly lying?

If Ricco for example writes a book tomorrow and in it says he never doped and never saw doping do I have to buy the book before condeming what he says?
It's usually a good idea to be sure about what they really mean before assessing whether it is a lie or not. Of course if you assume everyone is lying, you will catch all the liars, but also all those who tell the truth.

As for Ricco. I kind of don't see the relevance. But yes I would try to make sure I know what he means. Though I think everyone can agree that what he is saying is likely not truthful since a quick check shows quite a record.

http://www.dopeology.org/people/Riccardo_Riccò/

I would perhaps be interested to know why someone that has several clear cut doping cases would deny doping. Perhaps a visit to a psychiatric institution would do him some good.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
python said:
ok, by now i read several really thoughtful posts (as well as one pseudo thoughtful poster)...reluctantly, i decided to post my opinion b/c not everything seems right.

while i dont particularly care for thor, meaning, i dont dislike him nor is he a role model, the quoted passages from his book deserve my comment.

lets get to the point - rr and all who heard him are absolutely correct in considering thor a royal hypocrite.

the facts are as clear as day. thor gave the armstrong doping, to put it mildly, a defensive treatment when compared to the facts of the sport and the texas incinerating attitude toward ANYONE daring to doubt his royal doping. to see otherwise means thor was/is a cerebral midget if he did not figure before the 2011 'indirect admission' that texas was doping to his eye balls.

or - which is prolly the case - thor is a classic omerta boy who thinks of himself too highly in terms of being able to project a role above the common sense suspicion.

...and btw, welcome to the torebear defense of his compatriots. i'll let you reach your own conclusions... but for those of us who actively post in the x-c skiing threads he's known as a consistent denier of even a faint SUSPICION that the norges could blood dope in the 90's whiles dominating the sport. he's also on record calling the recently departed, word famous swedish antidoping scientist bengt saltin...a MENTALLY DERANGED OLD MAN...for raising suspicions against the norwegians in the 90's. and, most curiously, to boot i all, i was compared to a child abuser (a P-word) after daring to call the line of argument as a classic fanboy logic dfending his compatriots...

that's about all.

It appears ToreBear is the classic nationalistic fanboy fighting cerebral minisculity and trolls anyone who dares use logic!

Thor upholder of omerta and most definitely a doper.
 
May 19, 2010
1,901
0
0
ToreBear said:
It's usually a good idea to be sure about what they really mean before assessing whether it is a lie or not. Of course if you assume everyone is lying, you will catch all the liars, but also all those who tell the truth.
You quickly made up your mind about Mads Dranges book without reading it.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
ToreBear said:
It's usually a good idea to be sure about what they really mean before assessing whether it is a lie or not. Of course if you assume everyone is lying, you will catch all the liars, but also all those who tell the truth.
give over

let's quote Hushovd in june 2011 - which is AFTER Lance Armstrong himself CONFESSED to him:

"I choose to trust him after all he's been through. He was on his deathbed and I do not think he would've played with his own health after that"


why the fûck would you believe a word that liar says? What good would reading the full book do when you can't trust him to tell the truth?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY