Why I will always be a "fanboy" and proud of it

[Angliru]

Bassons WAS treated very badly....he spat in the soup as the french say....and was very brave to do so. As did Kimmage....and as you say this doesn't prove either of them were ever going to amount to much as a cyclist...but as you said that isn't your point...and I suppose my point isn't that cheating should be admired but rather this....why is such vitriol reserved for Armstrong and not the countless others?....because he was more succesful?

Bassons also said "I'm not the only clean rider but there aren't many who can say 'I don't take drugs'. For most riders, their health is the last of their concerns."

From what I've read there is much "vitriol" aimed at riders like Valverde, Ricco, Kohl (initially), Millar, Hamilton, Vino (initially), Landis.... the list goes on. Armstrong gets an amount proportional to the size of his media personna.
The fact that he chases the spotlight only makes him more of a target. You win 7 consecutive Tours, with that event being the highest profile event in cycling then its only logical that you're name is going to be mentioned a bit more often (more than a bit) than others.

The fact that you feel the need to use such an overused and broad term as "haters" to describe those that aren't on the same side of the Armstrong fence as yourself doesn't add credibility to your....is this an argument or a monologue? I ask because I'm not sure as to why exactly that you felt the need to bare your sole on this matter.

 

[Angliru]

So why are you guys feeding the trolls again? Someone whose first line accused anybody who disagrees with him of being deluded, probably isn't interested in a reasonable exchange of views.

I'm bored at work and the cycling season (road) is over. You're probably right though.

 

[Angliru]

"So why are you guys feeding the trolls again? Someone whose first line accused anybody who disagrees with him of being deluded, probably isn't interested in a reasonable exchange of views."

ha ha....and thank you to both of you for illustrating what I meant....honestly if you had just read it before you posted....


Resorting to meaningless name calling doesn't actually make me feel bad or anyone who is trying to have a debate suddenly change their opinion....it just confirms to them that you are incapable of actually having a debate...if you disagree with what i have said....fine....then reason it out....otherwise you just kind of make me think a ten year old has got onto their dad's laptop

...and you calling those that aren't in agreement with you "deluded haters" isn't name calling?

 

[Maxiton]

there is a difference between spontaneity, joy and enjoyment. No need to feel sorry for me Sparty you fanboys have given plenty of hours of enjoyment with your postings.

you can't compare Anquetil and his rivals choice of PEDs compared to what has been taken since the 90s.

My user name, "Maxiton," was a brand of amphetamines popular in the peloton in the early-to-mid sixties. I agree that you can't compare such drugs to what is used today.

Back in the sixties, drug companies (via their sales reps) had team doctors convinced of the necessity of amphetamines and other drugs for racing. The doctors in turn had their employers (the team owners) convinced. And together, they all had the riders convinced. (Despite the occasional heart attack (Simpson) or cancer (Anquetil) death.)

I wonder what the result would be today if you took a secret poll of riders? ("Would you prefer to ride without an illicit medical program if such a thing were possible?") My guess is that most of them would prefer to ride on diet and nutrition if at all possible.

 

[Angliru]

Listen....I have respect for Bassons and the way he said what he said....not simeoni....he testfifed against ferrari to get a shortened ban not because of a change of heart. But what Bassons did must have been very difficult for him, especially as he had been on the festina team in 1998. But the idea that he went into pro cycling thinking that it must have been clean I don't buy. It doesn't justify the way he was treated or feeling like he had to retire, but the majority of the ill treatment came from his own team not Armstrong. There was an incident he reports from '99. Again not Armstrongs finest hour but in a way I understand why he was trying to tell someone not to rock the boat.

??????Your credibility rating is dropping with each additional post you make. You constantly support Armstrong's undisputably dispicable unsportsmanlike behaviour and yet speak condescendingly of those that don't share your hero worship.

 

[pmcg76]

I don't doubt that conversations about such things are going on.
I just say that your effort was bad and perhaps compatible with a perfect dream in a little hater world. Really bad effort. Dreaming. You were even so bold to speak of "not far away".

Dream on or try it again. I didn't even mention the disgusting dreams you lay into Johan's brain. Thats for free.

Another example (to help you)
How do you handle this in your dream: Lance was 4. of the Vuelta Espana in 1998
Thats quiet good, without a "conversation" with Johan - and for sure good enough not to "fly below the radar" at the start of LeTour 99.

So you think that they never discussed doping or Ferrari when they were planning to win the Tour. Why was Ferrari a secret then, they never discussed that!!!

Do you really think they didnt think ahead to what would happen if he then won. Cmon, they would have been stupid not to plan ahead. How do you explain going from a non-contender cancer survivor to winner in the first year post Festina.

Where they thinking, yeah nobody will ask about doping or nobody will really notice that an American cancer survivor won the Tour, life will continue as normal. Even you cannot be that stupid. I know if I had been his DS or agent, I would have been discussing all these possibities.

4th in the 98 Vuelta(weakest of the 3 GTs) hardly screams Tour champ, actually I would imagine 4th in the Vuelta was a reflection of Armstrongs true talent.

To finish with a simple question, do you think Lance would have had such an easy ride in 99(media wise) if he hadnt the cancer backstory.

 

[Angliru]

Well said.....finally someone can disagree with me in a coherent fashion ...rather than (and I really don't mean to sound uncharitable) foaming at the mouth with indignation that someone actually likes Armstrong

His Star will fade....as his accomplishments are matched or bettered....I honestly don't think he will end up in the hot water many would like to see...time will tell....and I think the perceived arrogance goes with the territory...Cavendish...Even Contador...That's what makes ths sport so compelling....as someone said before...it is a circus and a new ringmaster will be along soon

You can't really say that arrogance goes with the territory when you have soft spoken champions like Freire, Indurain, Zabel, Menchov, and others who win without the supposed requisite attitude. To be a champion doesn't give one a license to be an a55. Some can win with grace, humility and class and others.....

 

[Angliru]

I just read this thread top to bottom and I have to say it is f@*#ing brilliant!! Thank you Straydog for giving me the most entertaining read in more than a year. I am only sorry that didn't find it sooner and help throw some gas on the fire, but you obviously didn't need any help. It was a masterful display. And the beauty is that those who were most egregiously exposed don't even get it.

You know that you're doing something especially right when they both label you a FanBoy, and insult your children. Bravo! Come back again soon. It gets a little dim in here.

No need to label him a FanBoy when he proudly admits to being one in his opening post.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Just to point out to the OP "always" is a very long time!

 

[straydog]

No need to label him a FanBoy when he proudly admits to being one in his opening post.

Angiliru, to save myself and others on both sides of this argument from going over a lot of the ground we have already covered fairly thoroughly in this thread, I am going to respectfully decline to answer your brilliant and original queries until you have caught up with a thread that is at around the 380 post mark. I give you credit for starting at the beginning, but maybe once you get a bit further than page 3 you can ask me something relevant to where this discussion has led.

Just a tiny point, I don't label anyone who disagrees with me a "hater". I know it might suit your cosy world view of good versus evil if I did, but unfortunately it isn't based in fact. I called anyone who appears to be motivated by and consumed with " hate", a "hater". And time and again in this thread, the most egregious examples of "haters" have been happy to unveil themselves.

Also, just a quick favor to ask; Can you resist the urge to write a new post for every single little thought you have in response to each new part of this thread you read as you play catch up? Perhaps consider formulating a group of thoughts together at once? It just saves us all a bit of time, and stops it appearing as if you are trying to purposefully derail this thread.

 

[straydog]

But you see, my esteemed colleague, the things you speak of--ethics, morals, and one's conscience--are what the aforementioned athletes are bound by. Their contracts stipulate free and fair competition. And the UCI--pretends to be the arbiter of the rules and regulations. Therein lies the conflict.
Are those of us who object to such behavior moralistic?
And for the record, it would be a better use of energy for humanity to rid itself of crimes being committed in places like Darfur or Baghdad.
But this is a lowly cycling forum where we argue passionately about things so seemingly meaningless as sport.
I use "witch hunt" in the most sarcastic manner possible, for I feel it has been co-opted by the talking points PR douchebags whose livelihoods are based on filling the airwaves with garbage and outright lies.

Of course not Tex. But if you expect everyone to feel as angry as you do about it, then yes, you are being moralistic.

And yes, getting very angry about the events in darfur or baghdad is far more understandable than some of the bile directed towards sportsmen on these pages.

Of course this is "just" a lowly cycling forum. To co-opt someone else's erudite assertion; how about a little perspective?

 

[Race Radio]

It appears the fanboys have a special language and world that only they understand.

Largely made up of high word count and minimal content it allows them post often, without actually saying anything. It allows them to ignore their multiple errors and pretend they great philosophers...and claiming victory out of defeat.

It is a beautiful world of Unicorns, Cool-aide, and miracles that we can only hope to share.

 

[Benotti69]

I wonder what the result would be today if you took a secret poll of riders? ("Would you prefer to ride without an illicit medical program if such a thing were possible?") My guess is that most of them would prefer to ride on diet and nutrition if at all possible.

again this is possible if the riders neutralise the first half of the race but PED'd up means that some guys go from the drop of the flag. They cant complain about the distances as Hinualt used to dictate when to start the racing in some tours, which again comes back to the riders taking control...

 

[straydog]

Just to point out to the OP "always" is a very long time!

Hey Darryl, always and forever.

And just for you may I lob in a random quote to test your fanboyism?

"I won't hate on what you do
When you find somebody new"

 

[Benotti69]

"I know the reason that you reachin' out
Cuz the secret on the street's been leakin' out
Heard different people speakin' 'bout LA
And you seemin' to be left out.."

 

[straydog]

Did you read what he wrote. He said that I was right and you again were wrong.....but as you are a troll you will somehow try to spin this into a "Victory"

oooh....I forgot you were here RR. Hi sweetie. Hug?

Yes, I did read what he wrote, and maybe you missed the bit where he said you and I seemed to be agreeing. Listen, it came as a shock to me too. So maybe my shock did cause me to miss him saying I was wrong. So, just for you, I have gone back and re read what he wrote, and I can confirm he definitely didn't say that.

Hey if you want to believe that's what he said, and write it here as often as you want....be my guest. Fortunately those who might be vaguely interested as to rightness or wrongness are capable of reading and comprehending his post themselves.

 

[straydog]

It appears the fanboys have a special language and world that only they understand.

Largely made up of high word count and minimal content it allows them post often, without actually saying anything. It allows them to ignore their multiple errors and pretend they great philosophers...and claiming victory out of defeat.

It is a beautiful world of Unicorns, Cool-aide, and miracles that we can only hope to share.

lol....do you really lack so little insight RR, that you wrote this without any hint of irony?

You're right though. Mine and my fellow fanboys' world is a beautiful one. All are welcome. Even you. But you gonna have to take that nasty frown off your ickle face first buddy

 

[straydog]

"I know the reason that you reachin' out
Cuz the secret on the street's been leakin' out
Heard different people speakin' 'bout LA
And you seemin' to be left out.."

Benoit...nice try

You could have made it work better if you had thought about it scanning and rhyming as per the original

maybe:

"heard different people speakin 'bout LA
And you seem to be left out, well oh hey!"

 

[Race Radio]

babble

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[washedup]

It is a beautiful world of Unicorns, Cool-aide, and miracles that we can only hope to share.

I do believe this is what Phil Liggett said helped Lance make his comeback.

 

[AngusW]

Response to the OP

Originally Posted by straydog
Let me start this post by saying that I am really looking forward to see what amusing and deluded lengths...

<snipped for brevity>

...Let's talk about the future of cycling....whatever that may be. And frankly until someone shows me a photo of Armstrong or Bruyneel sacrificing babies on the postal bus before the ITT at the 2004 tour, I will, without reservation, love my memories of the past.

Peace

Congratulations on your post and the number of replies it has provoked. I think it's great that you have found a cyclist that you can be a fan of. For myself, I've stopped being a fan of any cyclist as all of the ones I've been a fan of have tested positive for PEDs. Something about cycling still keeps me following the sport, although this is limited to websites and the occasional TV viewing.

I think that the credibility of your arguments is undermined by your attack on people like Paul Kimmage and Greg LeMond. Also your opening post labels the "anti Armstrong brigade" as deluded and intimates that they will automatically label you as a troll, a Livestrong employee or Lance Armstrong himself.

You go further, saying that as well as having an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands, they are haters, believe in Father Christmas and have a fevered imagination - imagining things which I had not heard until you mentioned them (the Floyd Landis allegation aside - which came not from this forum, but from Landis). This insulting approach is likely to get people riled up. Was that your intention?

If you love cycling, hopefully you love clean cycling, and that is what Paul Kimmage is on about. Yes, he took PEDs - he's been quite open about that. You have read his book twice so I don't need to tell you the context in which his doping occurred. I agree with you that Kimmage is not a great writer compared to Hemmingway, Shakespeare et al, but as a first book Rough Ride was at least readable and very honest. The system that he talks about that leads cyclists to dope is alive and well today. His book was a call to try to end doping in cycling and unfortunately has been largely ignored by the UCI and others who are responsible for cycling. Finally, you say that Kimmage was an average cyclist. I'd say that becoming a pro cyclist for four years, riding and finishing the Tour and Giro clean takes something well above average in cycling.

Greg LeMond. I'm not a big fan of his, but he is one of the few top cyclists of whom I've never heard a single doping rumour. He has been outspoken on doping for a long time. If you'd love to know who his Doctor was in the '80s then why don't you ask him yourself?

Perhaps also you need to rethink your argument that if all the top cyclists were doping, the playing field was level. That argument takes no account of the cyclists who weren't doped, as others here have pointed out.

It's great that you love cycling and that it's changed your life. I also love cycling and it's changed my life also. By the way the two great cyclists you mention are actually named Eddy Merckx and Jacques Anquetil.

Peace to you, too.

 

[straydog]

Congratulations on your post....also snipped for brevity.... Peace to you, too.

Firstly Angus, welcome to this "debate". And thanks for taking the time to respond to my post in an erudite and thoughtful manner. This is the sort of input that actually leads to interesting discussion.

Ok, my initial labelling of the "haters", and what they might try to paint me as, was a premeditated response to what I had witnessed them saying to posters who shared views similar to myself in numerous other threads. And a response to some of the more unsavoury and frankly preposterous speculation about LA's character, his impending r*ape in prison, his unsuitability as a husband and father and other such assertions of "knowledge" from certain posters.

Look, I am going to avoid seeming like I am constantly hating on kimmage, suffice it to say that I genuinely didn't find his book enjoyable or honest, and I think he is a rampant hypochrite.

As for Lemond's doctor. My question was a suggestion of research to those who might be interested. I happen to know who the Doctor was that I was referring to. And listen, here certainly shouldn't be a thread to discuss any suspicions regarding Lemond's cleanliness. However, if someone is interested in applying the same microscope to GL as he feels is necessary to apply to others, I think that is perfectly valid in this debate, as he has very much placed himself on a pedestal. Maybe in another thread we can discuss this further. Actually, something that really saddens me in all of this, is watching GL's behaviour, and the loss of respect I have had for him as a result. He was a great cyclist, one of my first heroes. Now I just find I question the motives behind almost all of what he says.

Cheers for the thoughtful post....Peace

 

[pmcg76]

Firstly Angus, welcome to this "debate". And thanks for taking the time to respond to my post in an erudite and thoughtful manner. This is the sort of input that actually leads to interesting discussion.

Ok, my initial labelling of the "haters", and what they might try to paint me as, was a premeditated response to what I had witnessed them saying to posters who shared views similar to myself in numerous other threads. And a response to some of the more unsavoury and frankly preposterous speculation about LA's character, his impending r*ape in prison, his unsuitability as a husband and father and other such assertions of "knowledge" from certain posters.

Look, I am going to avoid seeming like I am constantly hating on kimmage, suffice it to say that I genuinely didn't find his book enjoyable or honest, and I think he is a rampant hypochrite.

As for Lemond's doctor. My question was a suggestion of research to those who might be interested. I happen to know who the Doctor was that I was referring to. And listen, here certainly shouldn't be a thread to discuss any suspicions regarding Lemond's cleanliness. However, if someone is interested in applying the same microscope to GL as he feels is necessary to apply to others, I think that is perfectly valid in this debate, as he has very much placed himself on a pedestal. Maybe in another thread we can discuss this further. Actually, something that really saddens me in all of this, is watching GL's behaviour, and the loss of respect I have had for him as a result. He was a great cyclist, one of my first heroes. Now I just find I question the motives behind almost all of what he says.

Cheers for the thoughtful post....Peace

You are interested in debate, really?

Ok, simple questions really. Do you think Lance would have got such a pass by the media & public on doping in 99 if he hadnt the cancer backstory, say he just had 2 bad seasons as happens, would people have been as quick to ignore the amazing transformation.

Secondly, would the UCI have busted him for that 01 positive at Tour of Switzerland if he hadnt become such a media draw.

 

[flicker]

Greg LeMond. I'm not a big fan of his, but he is one of the few top cyclists of whom I've never heard a single doping rumour. He has been outspoken on doping for a long time. If you'd love to know who his Doctor was in the '80s then why don't you ask him yourself?
AngusW

You could speak with Eddy B. and Jackie Simes about that topic.
Me there is no money in dealing with anything LeMond therefore I am not interested.

 

[stephens]

Secondly, would the UCI have busted him for that 01 positive at Tour of Switzerland if he hadnt become such a media draw.

You know, without some sort of independent verification, we really shouldn't be talking about that alleged incident as if it was a fact. UCI still denies that anyone tested positive for EPO at that race. Has anyone but Landis said otherwise?