Why do you dislike Armstrong?

[MacRoadie]

Your second guessing yourself so many times you dont know which way is up.

Give yourself a break and either ignore the post or contribute something meaningful. Polite enough for you?

Yep, BPC.

Ignore

 

[andy1234]

warm welcome to a forum member guys..

I dislike armstrong because he is an arrogant peice of crap that thinks he is more important than cycling. I dislike armstrong because he lied about how he got cancer. I dislike armstrong because he attempted to dominate us cycling governing bodies for his own benefits (ie. covering up his own doping), i dislike armstrong because he goes over the top claiming he is clean, i dislike armstrong for using his kids, and even his unborn baby (who has a twitter account) as media tools, i dislike armstrong because he is a womanizing peice of crap, do i need to go on?

Cheers. That definately hits the nail on the head.
Honestly, I never looked into it on much more than a sporting level.

FWIW the next time I make a first post on a forum, I wil start with a subject less emotive

 

[andy1234]

Yep, BPC.

Ignore

Hilarious.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Ullrich deserves no kudos either, but he hasn't attempted to build an empire based on lies and intimidation of others. By all accounts he's a fairly likable, humble guy. Virenque is a POS mummy's-boy who at least had the sense to get out of everyone's face when his time was up. And as for Pantani, well he's a reason why Texarse needs to be brought down: Armstrong prospers, Pantani's dead.

It is unfair to make some suffer for their sins whilst others get away with it. It's a psychological fact of humans - we like fairness. If the biggest fish can be brought down, alog with the corrupt organisation that protects him, then it's a clear message that no one is safe to dope.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep, BPC.

Ignore

so bpc has been sitting on an unused account since april.. Not everyone who says something you dont agree with or think is stupid is BPC

You guys are idiots sometimes. He asked a question, if you cant be bothered to answer then dont even bother clicking reply.

Pack mentality in action again

 

[andy1234]

Ullrich deserves no kudos either, but he hasn't attempted to build an empire based on lies and intimidation of others. By all accounts he's a fairly likable, humble guy. Virenque is a POS mummy's-boy who at least had the sense to get out of everyone's face when his time was up. And as for Pantani, well he's a reason why Texarse needs to be brought down: Armstrong prospers, Pantani's dead.

It is unfair to make some suffer for their sins whilst others get away with it. It's a psychological fact of humans - we like fairness. If the biggest fish can be brought down, alog with the corrupt organisation that protects him, then it's a clear message that no one is safe to dope.

I would argue that sport is inherintly unfair. The strongest, most dominant, most aggressive individual is most often the winner.

I think that the sport as a whole is definately cleaner, riders are riding clean and more importantly winning clean. Bringing down Armstrong may do more to undermine the sport than to help it though. Would it not alienate so many interested parties that it may never recover?

 

[MacRoadie]

so bpc has been sitting on an unused account since april.. Not everyone who says something you dont agree with or think is stupid is BPC

You guys are idiots sometimes. He asked a question, if you cant be bothered to answer then dont even bother clicking reply.

Pack mentality in action again

Yeah, you're right. My bad.

Bringing down Armstrong may do more to undermine the sport than to help it though. Would it not alienate so many interested parties that it may never recover?

A dozen posts in on a single thread, and he's already reached a curiously familiar conclusion....

 

[andy1234]

so bpc has been sitting on an unused account since april.. Not everyone who says something you dont agree with or think is stupid is BPC

You guys are idiots sometimes. He asked a question, if you cant be bothered to answer then dont even bother clicking reply.

Pack mentality in action again

I appreciate the voice of reason.
I'm not sure I originally even said something that could be disagreed with!
Still, the people who actually read my (admittedly poorly worded) post, have given me the response I was looking for.

 

[Quickfix]

I just made a youtube video to answer your question. This is my coming out party for the forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIyHtPW96aQ&feature=related

*** edited by mod ***

 

[ThaiPanda]

I would argue that sport is inherintly unfair. The strongest, most dominant, most aggressive individual is most often the winner.

I think that the sport as a whole is definately cleaner, riders are riding clean and more importantly winning clean. Bringing down Armstrong may do more to undermine the sport than to help it though. Would it not alienate so many interested parties that it may never recover?

I've avoided this whack thread but this is too much.

"Inherently unfair", because the "strongest, most dominant, most aggressive individual is most often the winner"? Yes, it sux a Mr. Rogers character putting out 200 watts max. can't be competive in bike racing. It is inherently unfair the blind academy team can't win the world cup as well I bet.

This is the problem. We need to do away with stronger aggressive competitors in sport and we can all just hold hands and sing songs. PEDs would have no effect on that so problem solved.

But, I don't follow. How can bringing down LA, who I assume has the characteristics that make things "inherently" unfair, hurt the sport? We want a fair sport. Replace LA with PeeWee Herman and it is all good, sans public displays of inherently aggressive behavior.

 

[flicker]

warm welcome to a forum member guys..

I dislike armstrong because he is an arrogant peice of crap that thinks he is more important than cycling. I dislike armstrong because he lied about how he got cancer. I dislike armstrong because he attempted to dominate us cycling governing bodies for his own benefits (ie. covering up his own doping), i dislike armstrong because he goes over the top claiming he is clean, i dislike armstrong for using his kids, and even his unborn baby (who has a twitter account) as media tools, i dislike armstrong because he is a womanizing peice of crap, do i need to go on?

Let me add, Lance has more energy than me is richer and has dated and married more beautiful women then me. Also he has 5 kids and I have only 1.+ He is a rock star and I am only a carpenter. GRRR! PS Lance doesn't smoke Marlboros like me. PSS He won 7 tours and I have 0 victories.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I would argue that sport is inherintly unfair. The strongest, most dominant, most aggressive individual is most often the winner.

I think that the sport as a whole is definately cleaner, riders are riding clean and more importantly winning clean. Bringing down Armstrong may do more to undermine the sport than to help it though. Would it not alienate so many interested parties that it may never recover?

To your list you may add the most masochistic and genetically gifted athlete is most often the winner. Nature is unfair, but using drugs to transform your body and maintain your advantage by acquiring more money and institutional protection is distinctly unfairer to the competiton than the accidents of nature.

We don't really know if the riders are any cleaner. The fact most of them seem OK with the likes of Basso, Armstrong, Vino and Ricco - all of them unrepentant doping deniers - remaining among them seems to suggest otherwise.

I disagree that bringing down Armstrong would be bad for the sport. Cycling is bigger than one rider. It's far too beautiful and engaging a sport to be terminally wounded by the exposure of the ephemeral star of the day, a star that is already fading in a sporting sense and one day won't exist. As long as there are roads there will be cycling.

 

[Darryl Webster]

I dislike him for offering false hope of a "cure" for cancer.
Cell mutations will always be a step ahead and be unpredictable.
The best "cure" for cancer already exists as there are societies around the globe were cancer is as rare as the proverbial Hens teath. Why?

Cancer is endemic in most Western societies. Why?

The answers to those questions are the answers to cancer reduction and realy shouldnt be difficult to figure out.
Perhaps by "cure " whats realy meant is big profits for pharmacutical companies for whom a genuine cure, if it were ever possible would be a disaster!
My Grandmother @ Father are dead from cancer, sister and aunt both in remission so my thoughts on the subject are not insensitive ramblings of somone not effected.
I dislike him for courting association with George Bush , war criminal and lieing scumbag.
I dislike him for the stranglehold he held over cycling for so long both in the manner of his racing tactics and use of and beniffiting from the performance of now proven dopers. For the obviousness of his fraud..simple to understand blood value figures, the known % gains of EPO now known to be used by his competitors means the figurs just dont add up. Superman was fiction.
I dislike him for the bullying and sheer abject brazenness of it all.

I pitty him cus he`s a sociapath and as such he doesnt realy have self awareness and concience the way those without a pathology do.
Its important to remember a pathology doesnt mean stupid and that the world is by and large ran by people who can be very easily identified with the use of DSM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
However to be formally diagnosed theres realy only a few ways, murder or extreem violence , very obvious disability, voluntry admission and seeking of diagnossis being the main ones.
Most go undiagnosed and most remain pretty harmless.
But if they gain power, in business , politics, media , sport etc well were all the loser for that ..oh ******...they have

 

[andy1234]

I've avoided this whack thread but this is too much.

"Inherently unfair", because the "strongest, most dominant, most aggressive individual is most often the winner"? Yes, it sux a Mr. Rogers character putting out 200 watts max. can't be competive in bike racing. It is inherently unfair the blind academy team can't win the world cup as well I bet.

This is the problem. We need to do away with stronger aggressive competitors in sport and we can all just hold hands and sing songs. PEDs would have no effect on that so problem solved.

But, I don't follow. How can bringing down LA, who I assume has the characteristics that make things "inherently" unfair, hurt the sport? We want a fair sport. Replace LA with PeeWee Herman and it is all good, sans public displays of inherently aggressive behavior.

I take it you didnt really understand I was merely stating a fact? and not representing a wish to change human nature?
Thought not.

 

[Deagol]

so bpc has been sitting on an unused account since april.. Not everyone who says something you dont agree with or think is stupid is BPC
......

No, it's more than that....
Granted, I could be wrong, but like I said, I don't buy it.

For example, there are several people out there who might say things we think are "stupid". Most of the time, we say nothing. Everyone deserves a certain base-level of respect. But the question seems so disingenuous considering the claim of lurking here "for years" and not getting any sense at all over something that has been discussed ad nauseam in at least 80% of the threads here.

And as far as sitting on an unused account, that was his brag. But more to the point, considering his history, would that really suprise anyone?

EDIT: and here is another thing many of us have noticed. New users coming in with this disclaimer along the lines of "I'm not a fan of rider X, but..... (and go on to ridiculous lengths to defend him or discredit those who speak against him)"

 

[brianf7]

Just because he is so far up himself

 

[andy1234]

I dislike him for offering false hope of a "cure" for cancer.
Cell mutations will always be a step ahead and be unpredictable.
The best "cure" for cancer already exists as there are societies around the globe were cancer is as rare as the proverbial Hens teath. Why?

Cancer is endemic in most Western societies. Why?

The answers to those questions are the answers to cancer reduction and realy shouldnt be difficult to figure out.
Perhaps by "cure " whats realy meant is big profits for pharmacutical companies for whom a genuine cure, if it were ever possible would be a disaster!
My Grandmother @ Father are dead from cancer, sister and aunt both in remission so my thoughts on the subject are not insensitive ramblings of somone not effected.
I dislike him for courting association with George Bush , war criminal and lieing scumbag.
I dislike him for the stranglehold he held over cycling for so long both in the manner of his racing tactics and use of and beniffiting from the performance of now proven dopers. For the obviousness of his fraud..simple to understand blood value figures, the known % gains of EPO now known to be used by his competitors means the figurs just dont add up. Superman was fiction.
I dislike him for the bullying and sheer abject brazenness of it all.

I pitty him cus he`s a sociapath and as such he doesnt realy have self awareness and concience the way those without a pathology do.
Its important to remember a pathology doesnt mean stupid and that the world is by and large ran by people who can be very easily identified with the use of DSM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
However to be formally diagnosed theres realy only a few ways, murder or extreem violence , very obvious disability, voluntry admission and seeking of diagnossis being the main ones.
Most go undiagnosed and most remain pretty harmless.
But if they gain power, in business , politics, media , sport etc well were all the loser for that ..oh ******...they have

Now this is why I started this thread! It still surprises me that Armstrong brings out such a response (even though I agree with your diagnosis).

BTW Im surprised nobody has accused you of "pretending" to be Darryl Webster

 

[Apolitical]

Well, it's not Armstrong per say. What I dislike is how he uses his "stardom" and just as badly, how people treat him because of his stardom. Unfortunately, this seems to be an ongoing problem within our society.

For instance, why was RS allowed to start the TdF? When Op. Puerto came the the front, there wasn't a smoking gun yet or any positives. Yet the TdF didn't let the implicated start. I'm sure RS starting had nothing to do with having LA, how intertwined he is to the TdF, which brings in money from people who really have no interest in the sport.

It seems movie stars and star athletes get away with stuff that the rest of us can't.

Plus, he comes off as a pompous arrogant..... He's a poor loser (though, his PR people got him to quell down a bit in the later years) and always has an excuse and he's definitely not a team player.

Finally, when he came back I was hoping it was because he loved the sport and wanted to build a team for the future. Instead, it was all about him, that's it. I keep wondering if RS will pull the plug at the end of the year? Conversely, check out Shaq. He's playing for the love of the sport. He doesn't expect a team to be built around him.

I do give him some Kudos for the Livestrong campaign regardless of why he started it. A room mate of mine died of testicular cancer (one of the most curable) at 24. He was a cat III going to grad school and obviously not one of the lucky ones. However, going back to my first point, I'm saddened that people need a "star" and someone to follow to get involved.

Well either I said too much or not enough...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

'Andy let me help you with your introduction here......... you said 'possible wrong doings of the guy".... and you have lurked,for longer than the existence of the forum? ...... "Possible"?

Genuine question...
I'm interested in why people are soooo anti Armstrong. It seems like some people spend a huge amount of time thinking about, posting about and arguing about the possible wrong doings of the guy.

Now we all know that many other riders have been practicing the same methods and denials but no one attracts the same sort of venom as Armstrong.

I personally believe that most of the stories about Armstrong and others are true, but it doesn't bring me to hate the guy.

If he directly affected the quality of my life, I would probably feel a lot stronger, If I was a "clean" pro riding against him, I would probably feel different also, but I'm not, and neither are the people who post so much about him.

So whats YOUR reasoning behind the time and energy spent posting about him?

If you can name other riders who have:

Suggested to clean riders to leave the peloton
Has made numerous (or any) 'donations' to the UCI
Chased down a non threatening rider who vaguely implicated him
Uses Dr Ferrari as a 'trainer'.
Writes books proclaiming how clean they are
On the podium of the TdF talks about 'Im sorry you can't believe in miracles"
Or make adverts like this.
Or avoids questions like this.

These may be reasons why Mr Armstrong enjoys extra negative attention from those that love this sport.

 

[sars1981]

Genuine question...
I'm interested in why people are soooo anti Armstrong. It seems like some people spend a huge amount of time thinking about, posting about and arguing about the possible wrong doings of the guy.

Now we all know that many other riders have been practicing the same methods and denials but no one attracts the same sort of venom as Armstrong.

I personally believe that most of the stories about Armstrong and others are true, but it doesnt bring me to hate the guy.

If he directly affected the quality of my life, I would probably feel a lot stronger, If I was a "clean" pro riding against him, I would probabaly feel different also, but I'm not, and neither are the people who post so much about him.

So whats YOUR reasoning behind the time and energy spent posting about him?

I hate excellence.

 

[Old School]

I can't stand him because he's an arrogant punk. He has acted like he's God gift to cycling, and in general, he's gotten too much credit by the American media than deserved.

I don't hate, but STRONGLY dislike. If he had ridden into the sunset and not tried to come back and blow up Astana, then he could earn some respect. But, he showed his true colors and deserves all the arrows shot at him.

Plus, to act like he NEVER cheated, hates those who have (Landis), takes the cake. He'll get his, like Barry Bonds did...

Cheater.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Now this is why I started this thread! It still surprises me that Armstrong brings out such a response (even though I agree with your diagnosis).

BTW Im surprised nobody has accused you of "pretending" to be Darryl Webster

Yeh, thats happened elswhere But ya never know!

 

[Big GMaC]

There is so much fail in this thread it may be win.

That answer to Kimmage is looking pretty funny now, esp the Floyd stuff.

Also Seven Straight = BPC.

Calling it in one. (Publicus style) Troll Hunting Team

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is so much fail in this thread it may be win.

That answer to Kimmage is looking pretty funny now, esp the Floyd stuff.

Also Seven Straight = BPC.
Calling it in one. (Publicus style) Troll Hunting Team

Correct - which is why I am not bothering to respond to his drivel.

 

[Big GMaC]

Correct - which is why I am not bothering to respond to his drivel.

How do you think Armstrong feels about that answer he gave about Floyd now? Pretty aggravated really, although it probably isn't his biggest concern, just another example of the web of lies and mistruths.