Tour de Pharmacy

[GraftPunk]

Re: Re:

Yeah we are; for her, for Emma O'Reilly, Walsh, Lemond,..... for all that cross path with this sociopath that you are defending.

LeMond? The guy who attacks those who doped a decade after he retired while he maintains omerta for those who supposedly stole wins from him during his career. That LeMond? Let's hear LeMond say a single word about doped riders who competed against him instead of doing public appearances with them. The only thing that concerns LeMond is those who take the public spotlight off him.

And Walsh: The man who wrote the autobiographies of dopers like Kelly, Roche, and Radcliffe, which he still defends, and has been the chief propagandist for Sky, Wiggins, and Froome? The Walsh that spent years attacking all who questioned the ridiculous performances of Sky? That Walsh? It appears LA's big mistake was not paying him to write a book.

O'Reilly charged money to sell out a friend. 'Null said.

Null said indeed. You might want to do a bit more research.

 

[carton]

Re:

Ah, the Clinic doing what the Clinic does so well: having the same conversation for the millionth time.

- LA is the epitome of evil!
- Others were worse.
- No!
- Yes
- No!
- Yes
- No!
- Yes

...continues for another 75 pages...

What an unexpectedly glib diss. I'm shocked. Though I can't really deny the point. Touché.

Anyway, I'm not claiming he's the epitome of evil (I nominate Joe Stalin for that title -controversial, I know). He's just seemingly inalienably and irredeemably evil and is thus best ignored. And then we wouldn't have to relitigate something that is so clearly for the rest of the world res judicata again. Everyone wins! But YMMV.

 

[King Boonen]

Hi all,

*moderator hat on*

This is not the place to discuss all things Lance. If you want to do that please do it in the correct thread. You can obviously discuss his up-coming role in this movie here, but not how much of a horrible person he is/isn't.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re:

Hi all,

*moderator hat on*

This is not the place to discuss all things Lance. If you want to do that please do it in the correct thread. You can obviously discuss his up-coming role in this movie here, but not how much of a horrible person he is/isn't.

Thanks for cutting off conversation. We would not want any of that in this forum.

 

[King Boonen]

Glad I could be of assistance!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks King. I was going to post the same.

As to the movie, it looks pretty stupid, though hopefully it will give some scope to doping in all sports, and the history of cycling in perspective.

I don't quite get the 1982 Tour reference the film makes. As noted, Hinault won that Tour going away, and it was during an era when doping was at a fairly low lull, with some riders probably on cortisone, maybe training or racing in cooler weather on amphetamines, or possibly minimal steroid use (considered to build too much muscle back then), blood doping was rare, and considered very risky to one's health. Hinault wasn't clean his whole career, but he very likely was for some of it, perhaps during the '82 Tour as well, as he was so dominant at that time to begin with (including winning the final sprint on the Champs-Élysées). Did they mean 1992? By then EPO was pretty much ubiquitous in cycling.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

I don't quite get the 1982 Tour reference the film makes. As noted, Hinault won that Tour going away, and it was during an era when doping was at a fairly low lull, with some riders probably on cortisone, maybe training or racing in cooler weather on amphetamines, or possibly minimal steroid use (considered to build too much muscle back then), blood doping was rare, and considered very risky to one's health. Hinault wasn't clean his whole career, but he very likely was for some of it, perhaps during the '82 Tour as well, as he was so dominant at that time to begin with (including winning the final sprint on the Champs-Élysées).

First of all, the claim that in 1982 blood doping was rare and considered very risky to one's health: do come and join the party and share your knowledge, I'd love evidence for that.

Second, the notion that doping was at some sort of fairly low lull at this stage: for French cycling this was the era of François Bellocq while in Italy there is clear evidence that things were actually gearing up with Francesco Conconi playing a larger and larger role. Hinault's year out - 1983 - was believed by many (as would Laurent Fignon's later year out) to have been caused by too much doping. As for the 1982 Tour itself: FFS, Joop Zoetemelk finished second, despite having been busted for doping and docked ten minutes. As for that final sprint...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks fmk_Rol - I wonder if the movie is actually going to go into this much detail though?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Thanks fmk_Rol - I wonder if the movie is actually going to go into this much detail though?

It's a 40-45 minute TV programme, a sophomoric satire, a mockumentary - why the bloody hell do so many think it's going to be a doctoral dissertation? Do you expect The Office to have detail on the ethical sourcing of paper products and the correct application of health and safety laws? Talk about fun-sucking killjoys...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re:

No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

It is just silly, madcap humor. Nothing deep, I doubt anything to read into. Think Bill Murray or Mel Brooks.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

It is just silly, madcap humor. Nothing deep, I doubt anything to read into. Think Bill Murray or Mel Brooks.

I would bet it's about the threads. And the hair.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

You know, you're sounding remarkably like one of those "I'm not [insert noun here] but" types who are what they say they're not: you say you're not looking for a doctoral thesis but you're expecting it to play to that level of analysis. One more time: it's a 40-45 comedy, a mockumentary. Are you going to tell me you can't laugh at a Woody Allen baseball joke because it isn't also pointing to football and basketball and ice hockey for its humour? Really?

WRT " unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned": the only things I'm dissecting are the lack of a sense of humour in several round here and your own inaccuracy in saying that there was some sort of doping ceasefire in 1982.

Maybe if you stopped seeking significance everywhere you could appreciate the humour.

 

[hrotha]

The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

Yes, Carry On... Don't Lose Your Head was *such* a let down after I read all those books about the French Revolution. Where was all the commentary on the international struggle for hegemony and the reform of the tax system? All they did was wag their moral finger at it being a sissy revolution filled with French people. Tch!

 

[carton]

Re:

The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

This. I remember a few years ago someone made fun of Colombian Nascar driver JP Montoya, who was late getting to his car. The narrator went with "maybe he's having a burrito". To which his the colour guy could've been the other way around, TBH) laughed.

And I was, just befuddled. Why is this funny? Is there something I'm missing? It took me a while before I realized he must think that Colombian food and Mexican food are the same thing. I mean, I don't think that's bigoted or anything, it's just I was completely lost there. The other guy was laughing at the joke. I just didn't get it. I took me a while, and by the time I got there it clanged flatter than a basketball off the underside of a rim.

So yeah, I mean, ignorance is bliss. If you can compartmentalize and see the humour in it, good for you. As it stars HWMNBN, who I stridently believe is an evil, petty, attention starved-person who should best be ignored I probably won't ever give it a chance. Maybe if it's 2AM and there's nothing else on. But I could find it funny, then, I've enjoyed the Lonely Islands skits and Brooklyn 9-9.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re: Re:

The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

This. I remember a few years ago someone made fun of Colombian Nascar driver JP Montoya, who was late getting to his car. The narrator went with "maybe he's having a burrito". To which his the colour guy could've been the other way around, TBH) laughed.

I prefer to think they were just making fun of Montoya's propensity for being overweight and disregarding teams' indications on diet

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

So yeah, I mean, ignorance is bliss.

This I just love: "So yeah, I mean, anyone who laughs at this is just a moron."

Said while totally not getting a burrito joke. LOL!

And you really think a brief scene equates to "starring" - FFS did LA "star" in Dodgeball? Did he "star" in You, Me and Dupree? You really think he's eligible for a Best Actor gong, even a Best Supporting Actor?

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

This I just love: "So yeah, I mean, anyone who laughs at this is just a moron."

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Everyone who can compartmentalize must be a moron. Or something.

And you really think a brief scene equates to "starring" - FFS did LA "star" in Dodgeball? Did he "star" in You, Me and Dupree? You really think he's eligible for a Best Actor gong, even a Best Supporting Actor?

You do realize you're both pestering us for taking things too seriously and pestering me for using an unreasonably generous definition of the neologism "star"? And all of this as you continue to chide us for engaging in overly frivolous debate?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

Yes, Carry On... Don't Lose Your Head was *such* a let down after I read all those books about the French Revolution. Where was all the commentary on the international struggle for hegemony and the reform of the tax system? All they did was wag their moral finger at it being a sissy revolution filled with French people. Tch!

I think you may be wasting your time arguing about this one.

If anyone wants to know what this film will be like, go and watch a film called 'Seven Days in Hell' (dodgy versions available on Youtube). It's about tennis. Same director, same writer, same star, same mockumentary style.

If you want an average dumb comedy with a few genuine laughs, you're in luck. If you want an incisive satire on pro cycling with lots of in-jokes for fans, think again. I doubt the makers could name more than half a dozen pro cyclists.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Time to poke the beast and see if it's possible to make someone's head explode with apoplexy (I say it's not, but let's see) - new trailer

 

[ToreBear]

Hmm, I chuckled, still it irks me that the scenery looks nothing like France.

 

[Dr. Watson]

"hundreds of dollars on the line, dozens of fans" :lol: it looks crazy, definitely gonna watch it

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

It looks bad, but why or how would anybody get it banned.

Wonder if it's someone from Wonderboys camp?

 

[Irondan]

Looks hilarious!

Can't wait to see it but only when it comes out on Netflix or some other media that compares with Netflix. I just can't bring myself to pay to watch an Andy Samberg movie, this or any other one. They're all bad movies but good for a laugh or two but mostly just bad...