• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
November 28, 1998: The results of the analysis of the samples taken from the nine Festina riders are known and are subsequently released and revealed evidence of Human Growth Hormone, amphetamines, steroids, corticoids and Erythropoietin (EPO). What A Mixture :D - In eight of the nine riders test positive for synthetic EPO. The results of the ninth rider (Christophe Moreau) were indeterminate but Moreau had already admitted use of EPO. Traces of amphetamines were found in the samples of Moreau, Pascal Hervé, Laurent Brochard and Didier Rous. Four riders had hematocrit levels below the legal limit of 50%, establish in February 1997 [31]. These included Virenque, Armin Meier, Moreau who had a level of 49.3 and Laurent Dufaux who had a level of 47.2%. Five riders were above the limit. Brochard had 50.3%, Neil Stephens 50.3%, Hervé 52.6%, Rous 51% and Alex Zülle 52.3%.[citation needed]

December 15, 1998: Laurent Brochard, Christophe Moreau and Didier Rous are suspended by the French Cycling Federation for six months and cannot ride until April 30, 1999


And, I was a fan before, during and after. go figure
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
tubularglue said:
The earliest known formulation of the principle is in the book On Interpretation by Aristotle,[3] where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false.[4] He also states it as a principle in the Metaphysics book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny,[5] and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction.[6]


Sure. But then came the 20th century. And now the search for Truth with a capital T is dead, abandoned, having ended in total, devastating failure. What matters now is not whether something is true or not, but what the consequences of behaving as if it is true are. If those consequences for society are better believing it to be true than they'd be believing it to be false, then we should proceed as if it is true.

This sucks, i know, for those who prefer to go through life believing they know the one true way and everyone else is wrong. But these folks are on the wrong side of history and though they dig in their heels, they are doomed to extinction nonetheless.
 
Jul 2, 2009
1,079
0
0
Visit site
True:D
False:mad:

let's call the whole thing off

"If those consequences for society are better believing it to be true than they'd be believing it to be false, then we should proceed as if it is true."


Truth is in the eye of the beholder

but then,

Perception is in the eye of the beholder, but truth is not.

Truth is just that: truth. No one can fudge it. I can view it through a specific lense, but that is perception.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
stephens said:
Sure. But then came the 20th century. And now the search for Truth with a capital T is dead, abandoned, having ended in total, devastating failure. What matters now is not whether something is true or not, but what the consequences of behaving as if it is true are. If those consequences for society are better believing it to be true than they'd be believing it to be false, then we should proceed as if it is true.

This sucks, i know, for those who prefer to go through life believing they know the one true way and everyone else is wrong. But these folks are on the wrong side of history and though they dig in their heels, they are doomed to extinction nonetheless.

I'm afraid I'll have to come down on the side of truth, rather than its frankly bourgeois and, if you don't mind my saying so, sophomoric rejection. I know Hegel often takes the rap for totalitarianism and authoritarianism, but he is just the ladder nihilists sometimes use, or misappropriate, to reach their Hitler Youth uniforms. Nihilism is the doctrine adopted on behalf of those who are desperate to escape the logic of their own social demise: if the truth is that my death is inevitable, then there is no truth! Keep telling yourself that and click your heels together.


tubularglue said:
November 28, 1998: The results of the analysis of the samples taken from the nine Festina riders are known and are subsequently released and revealed evidence of Human Growth Hormone, amphetamines, steroids, corticoids and Erythropoietin (EPO). What A Mixture :D - In eight of the nine riders test positive for synthetic EPO. The results of the ninth rider (Christophe Moreau) were indeterminate but Moreau had already admitted use of EPO. Traces of amphetamines were found in the samples of Moreau, Pascal Hervé, Laurent Brochard and Didier Rous. Four riders had hematocrit levels below the legal limit of 50%, establish in February 1997 [31]. These included Virenque, Armin Meier, Moreau who had a level of 49.3 and Laurent Dufaux who had a level of 47.2%. Five riders were above the limit. Brochard had 50.3%, Neil Stephens 50.3%, Hervé 52.6%, Rous 51% and Alex Zülle 52.3%.[citation needed]

Can I get that on ice? :D
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Well, if one isn't persuaded by 20th century history to abandon the quest for and belief in absolute Truth, surely 20th century science, particularly physics, ought to do the job? Surely one cannot make the case that it is sophomoric!
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Visit site
stephens said:
Well, if one isn't persuaded by 20th century history to abandon the quest for and belief in absolute Truth, surely 20th century science, particularly physics, ought to do the job? Surely one cannot make the case that it is sophomoric!

It's not sophomoric. This is the 21st century. And my position on physics and/or history does not affect whether or not Armstrong is guilty. The End.

Oh, and I don't believe your basic premise from a few pages back. If Armstrong's samples are retested and the results are positive Americans will throw him under the bus.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Rabiddog said:
...and I would love someone to ask him who his Doctor was in the 80's and if any of the medical help he received then has since become a banned practice...


Another a delicious fanboy statement. If LeMond was doing something in the 80's that is now banned do you not think there are former riders, DS and et all who would be out there making a few $$$$s selling the story to some media outlet etc....god knows Armstrong has enough fans that would love to hear about it and he has been offering money looking for someone to tarnish LeMond with a doping story but again the silence from former pros, DS, masseurs etc is deafening....
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Another a delicious fanboy statement. If LeMond was doing something in the 80's that is now banned do you not think there are former riders, DS and et all who would be out there making a few $$$$s selling the story to some media outlet etc....god knows Armstrong has enough fans that would love to hear about it and he has been offering money looking for someone to tarnish LeMond with a doping story but again the silence from former pros, DS, masseurs etc is deafening....

...now admittedly I dont know much about crime but I do watch cop shows on TV...and one of the things I've gleaned from that activity is that to get away with a crime you have to keep your mouth, and the mouths of your co-conspirators shut even more tightly...so if your inner circle is tight enough you are as good as gold...and who is to say that an inner circle has to include a DS, or masseurs, or fellow riders...your assumption that it should, plays nicely into your idea of what the story should be and not much more...and your assumption of the the ways things were, could just well be simply back-filling....so maybe there were actually doctors (as in plural ) some of which were not directly involved in cycling...working within a parallel group outside of the cycling community...who really knows, but that scenario is not unknown in cycling history...in fact it has been played out that way at least once to my knowledge....

...and by the way my intensive study of crime also shows that crimes have other shadows that give away their presence, such as motive and opportunity...an example of this means to solving crime is embodied in the line, follow the money...

...just a thought from an acknowledged contrarian (sp?) who can sling unsubstantiated tar with the best of them...I've learned at the feet of masters in the art...and I guess I should take this opportunity to thank youse guys...youse know who youse are...youse is my inspiration....honest, on the real side..

Cheers

blutto

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...he's close...reeal close...
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
blutto said:
...now admittedly I dont know much about crime but I do watch cop shows on TV...and one of the things Ive gleaned from that activity is that to get away with a crime you have to keep your mouth, and the mouths of your co-conspirators shut even more tightly...so if your inner circle is tight enough you are as good as gold...and who is to say that an inner circle has to include a DS, or masseurs, or fellow riders...your assumption that it should, plays nicely into your idea of what the story should be and not much more...and your assumption of the the ways things were, could just well be simply back-filling....so maybe there were actually doctors (as in plural ) some of which were not directly involved in cycling...working within a parallel group outside of the cycling community...who really knows, but that scenario is not unknown in cycling history...in fact it has been played out that way at least once to my knowledge....


Back in the 80s taking substances was not the sin it is today, so it would not be such a tight circle and as he suggested that LeMond was taking substances that were not banned then but are now why would a rider hide that from the DS, Masseur and other riders, shít they all pretty much know nowadays whose on what in the team so why would LeMond be so secretive if he was using anything to enhance his performance....

it does not add up that LeMond who has stood on top of the parapet since discovering Armstrong's 'fraud' and shouted to the high heavans for nearly 10 years about doping, doped. I imagine someone out there in the world of the cycling omerta who wanted to protect the omerta could take him down if they knew something but they haven't. Why? because they cant. Simple the guy was clean.

so the myths from the fanboys continue that LA did it on his own, a miracle cure after cancer which caused his body to change, lactate better, huge Vo2Max etc etc etc.....oh and anyway LeMond doped too they all did....yawn.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Visit site
Elagabalus said:
It's not sophomoric. This is the 21st century. And my position on physics and/or history does not affect whether or not Armstrong is guilty. The End.

He surely cheated. But the point I was getting to was that that, "Did X cheat or not," is not really all that interesting of a question to ask. The much more important questions are, "Is it better for society to believe he did," "What action now will produce the best result for society," and so on.


Oh, and I don't believe your basic premise from a few pages back. If Armstrong's samples are retested and the results are positive Americans will throw him under the bus.

We'll see. You just have to realize that Americans, because of their constitution and judicial system, don't really believe one is guilty until proven to be so in a fair manner (and there will be lots of excuses as to why backtesting of old samples is not a fair manner or 100% certain and all that). Until the proof is in and in a fully above board manner, it's like nothing ever happened. So what Americans agree to, as citizens, isn't so much to follow the rules as it is to agree to pay the penalty if caught breaking those rules. To violate that second part - by bribing one's way out of it for example - is the much more heinous violation to the American frame of mind.
 
Darryl Webster said:
???
I dont do "fan boyism" ..and try to avoid much in the way of belief..prefering to have an open mind to a good idea ..ready to be superceaded by a better idea.

And what I`ve never seen is a single one of the "believers" ever address is the physiological implausability of a clean rider beeting a EPO`d up rider when EPO gives a 5..15% advantage.
Of course there are those who choose to ignore science just as there are those who are creationists and believe in paranormal activities...despite absalutly NO possitive evidence of such notions. NONE.
It`s said man creates his own reality...it`s aslo said that the soundest minds are those were that reality ties in closest to the imperical science of the measured and observable universe.
Then again some peeps find such ideas just an irritant to the trap they`ve made for themselves by believing.
Believe away dude.;)

Hi Darryl,
Are you suggesting that races can't be won by clean riders against EPO doped riders?

Do you not belive that Boardman was riding clean when he was beating the EPO generation in the TDF prologues and GCs in the shorter stage races etc?
 
andy1234 said:
Hi Darryl,
Are you suggesting that races can't be won by clean riders against EPO doped riders?

Do you not belive that Boardman was riding clean when he was beating the EPO generation in the TDF prologues and GCs in the shorter stage races etc?


...or it could be said that mountain climbers and long distance cyclists were getting in a few hundredths of second of an Olympic pursuit champion. Go figure on those power outputs.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
Yeah but thats all it takes to upset brodeal. You are either rabidly anti Armstrong or you are a fanboy. There is no objective middle ground for people like our Bro, bless his heart. It's easier to live in a black and white world. heck his favourite programme is Lone Ranger reruns.;)

Thank you. Brilliant ! :D
No grey tones here.

But don't blame them. Same happened in Germany during the Ullrichwars. :)
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Visit site
Maxiton said:
I'm afraid I'll have to come down on the side of truth, rather than its frankly bourgeois and, if you don't mind my saying so, sophomoric rejection. I know Hegel often takes the rap for totalitarianism and authoritarianism, but he is just the ladder nihilists sometimes use, or misappropriate, to reach their Hitler Youth uniforms. Nihilism is the doctrine adopted on behalf of those who are desperate to escape the logic of their own social demise: if the truth is that my death is inevitable, then there is no truth! Keep telling yourself that and click your heels together.




Can I get that on ice? :D

...sorry dude but I'm going to have to throw my hat in with Mr. Stephens...the 20th Century is as much as anything defined by an Einsteinian relativistic world-view which very neatly put the absolutism of the Newtonian world-view into the back corner for use on only the most simple of tasks ( like economic theory and driving nails ...props here to Maslow...)...relativism by its nature denies absolute positions...and Hegel?...an interesting transitional figure in the change from the one world view to the next...and totalitarianism?...a 19th Century response to a 19th Century problem using 20th Century tools ...as in a misguided search for absolutes...and the reason that it is so clearly an abomination is that is does not deal with the idea that truth is relative...as in there are has numerous ways to perceive truth...none perfect...but given the human condition and its inherent foibles that is as good as it ever is going to get ( our intrinsically flawed way of perceiving truth not totalitarianism )...or put another way...broadly speaking Plato good Artistotle bad...the map is not the territory damn it!...

...sorry, got to go, blutto's head hurts...too much thinking big stuff..

Cheers

blutto
 
straydog said:
Well, every year after 99 except 2001 obviously. And never mind the fact that 2001 was the last time A Travers Lausanne was run.

Hey, don't let that get in the way of your conspiracy theory, or the fact that it was a prestigous and lucrative two stage race won by amongst others Coppi, Merckx, Zoetemelk, Pantani and (oddly) Evans, that would be perfectly reasonable for Armstrong to want to win.

Thats hardly a conspiracy, that called investigative research. I dont know where Doc came across the connection but thats worthy of being in a 'Lance to Landis' book or something.

Linear thinking, Landis alleges Armstrong tested positive at 2001 Tour of Switzerland and that Bruyneel and Armstrong went to Lausanne to pay of the UCI to cover up.

Just by pure coincidence Lances only post Tour race appearence in 2001 is A Travers Lausanne. A rcae that is not one of the traditional crits that Tour winners usually appear at but some minor race in Switzerland that Lance hadnt raced in 99/00 but for some reason chose to do in 2001.

That is one mighty big coincidence. Straydog says the haters are irrational. Tell you what I will explain this situation to some non-cycling friends tonight to see what they think. Coincidence or Connection.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Back in the 80s taking substances was not the sin it is today, so it would not be such a tight circle and as the rabiddog suggested that LeMond was taking substances that were not banned then but are now why would a rider hide that from the DS, Masseur and other riders, shít they all pretty much know nowadays whose on what in the team so why would LeMond be so secretive if he was using anything to enhance his performance....

it does not add up that LeMond who has stood on top of the parapet since discovering Armstrong's 'fraud' and shouted to the high heavans for nearly 10 years about doping, doped. I imagine someone out there in the world of the cycling omerta who wanted to protect the omerta could take him down if they knew something but they haven't. Why? because they cant. Simple the guy was clean.

so the myths from the fanboys continue that LA did it on his own, a miracle cure after cancer which caused his body to change, lactate better, huge Vo2Max etc etc etc.....oh and anyway LeMond doped too they all did....yawn.

Is your "Greg -weedsmoker- Lemond won them all clean, always clean" a kind of defiance, or do you really believe in that miracle ?
As I told you earlier, after all we know (perhaps you too) about cycling, only a kid believes in a clean Greg
 
thehog said:
...or it could be said that mountain climbers and long distance cyclists were getting in a few hundredths of second of an Olympic pursuit champion. Go figure on those power outputs.

Agreed.
On the same note, take a look at this result from a mountain stage of the 1996 tour (arguably one of the last unregulated EPO tours)
How many riders around Boardman would you say were clean!!!
BTW I think this shows that some clean riders can compete against doped riders, if only for limited periods.


Stage 13, Le Puy-En-Velay - Superbesse-Sancy, 177km
1. Rolf Sorensen (Den) Rabobank 4.03.56
2. Orlando Rodrigues (Por) Banesto
3. Richard Virenque (Fra) Festina all s.t.
4. Luc Leblanc (Fra) Polti 0.02
5. Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Roslotto 0.11
6. Miguel Indurain (Spa) Banesto 0.23
7. Chris Boardman (Gbr) GAN
8. Laurent Brochard (Fra) Festina
9. Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Festina
10. Abraham Olano (Spa) Mapei
11. Bjarne Riis (Den) Telekom
12. Peter Luttenberger (Aut) Carrera
13. Patrick Jonker (Aus) ONCE
14. Leonardo Piepoli (Ita) Refin all s.t.
15. Michele Bartoli (Ita) MG-Technogym 0.35
16. Bo Hamburger (Den) TVM 0.51
17. Jan Ullrich (Ger) Telekom
18. Udo Bolts (Ger) Telekom
19. Tony Rominger (Swi) Mapei
20. Fernando Escartin (Spa) Kelme
21. Claudio Chiappucci (Ita) Carrera
22. Yevgeny Berzin (Rus) Gewiss all s.t.
 
andy1234 said:
Agreed.
On the same note, take a look at this result from a mountain stage of the 1996 tour (arguably one of the last unregulated EPO tours)
How many riders around Boardman would you say were clean!!!
BTW I think this shows that some clean riders can compete against doped riders, if only for limited periods.


Stage 13, Le Puy-En-Velay - Superbesse-Sancy, 177km
1. Rolf Sorensen (Den) Rabobank 4.03.56
2. Orlando Rodrigues (Por) Banesto
3. Richard Virenque (Fra) Festina all s.t.
4. Luc Leblanc (Fra) Polti 0.02
5. Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Roslotto 0.11
6. Miguel Indurain (Spa) Banesto 0.23
7. Chris Boardman (Gbr) GAN
8. Laurent Brochard (Fra) Festina
9. Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Festina
10. Abraham Olano (Spa) Mapei
11. Bjarne Riis (Den) Telekom
12. Peter Luttenberger (Aut) Carrera
13. Patrick Jonker (Aus) ONCE
14. Leonardo Piepoli (Ita) Refin all s.t.
15. Michele Bartoli (Ita) MG-Technogym 0.35
16. Bo Hamburger (Den) TVM 0.51
17. Jan Ullrich (Ger) Telekom
18. Udo Bolts (Ger) Telekom
19. Tony Rominger (Swi) Mapei
20. Fernando Escartin (Spa) Kelme
21. Claudio Chiappucci (Ita) Carrera
22. Yevgeny Berzin (Rus) Gewiss all s.t.

That was hardly a mountain stage, more like a middle mountain stage, just look how closely together everyone finished together.

On a given day, Boardman on absolutely top form could be up there but rarely won outside of TTs in smaller races. The sad thing is, I think Boardman could have been a top winner in a clean field.

I used to dislike Boardman when he competed and mocked his attmepts to compete in the Tour. Now that I know more, I have a lot of respect for what Boardman was trying to do.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
Is your "Greg -weedsmoker- Lemond won them all clean, always clean" a kind of defiance, or do you really believe in that miracle ?
As I told you earlier, after all we know (perhaps you too) about cycling, only a kid believes in a clean Gregr.
No point in asking you to back up your comments as I remember asking before and was greeted with silence.

Lots of ad hominems there to make our point - which probably cuts to your real intention.

But I will say, LeMond aside, I find the highlighted above an insult to any riders who did manage to ride clean throughout their careers.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
Is your "Greg -weedsmoker- Lemond won them all clean, always clean" a kind of defiance, or do you really believe in that miracle ?

As I told you earlier, after all we know (perhaps you too) about cycling, only a kid believes in a clean Greg

...ooh that is going to leave a mark...

...or to conflate Darryl's view of the effect of EPO with a weighted look at the LeMond and Indurain wattage graphs introduced earlier...if EPO absolutely trumps clean riding how is it that LeMond's output is higher than Indurain's( who the chamois sniffers have demonized as absolutely positively being on the sauce)...is it because LeMond is just a cycling God among mere mortals or do I detect the acrid smell of a miracle...

Cheers

blutto
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
Is your "Greg -weedsmoker- Lemond won them all clean, always clean" a kind of defiance, or do you really believe in that miracle ?

As I told you earlier, after all we know (perhaps you too) about cycling, only a kid believes in a clean Greg

Create any kind of time line where LeMond was taking drugs. I'll even allow innuendo as evidence. Come up with anything before the guy was 27 years old.

Names, rumors, speculation as to when it started, what he was taking....ANYTHING......can't do it.....:(



Nothing, nada
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
No point in asking you to back up your comments as I remember asking before and was greeted with silence.

Lots of ad hominems there to make our point - which probably cuts to your real intention.

But I will say, LeMond aside, I find the highlighted above an insult to any riders who did manage to ride clean throughout their careers.

Yes, I remember. Stuck situation, hmmm ?
When you didn't serve me, why should I have served you ? Thats where it ended.

about insult:
Well, I don't put Greg aside. I was talking about a 3 time GT winner - not some unnoticed helpers who rode possibly clean.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
Yes, I remember. Stuck situation, hmmm ?
When you didn't serve me, why should I have served you ? Thats where it ended.

about insult:
Well, I don't put Greg aside. I was talking about a 3 time GT winner - not some unnoticed helpers who rode possibly clean.

What did you ever ask me that I did not produce?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
blutto said:
...ooh that is going to leave a mark...

...or to conflate Darryl's view of the effect of EPO with a weighted look at the LeMond and Indurain wattage graphs introduced earlier...if EPO absolutely trumps clean riding how is it that LeMond's output is higher than Indurain's( who the chamois sniffers have demonized as absolutely positively being on the sauce)...is it because LeMond is just a cycling God among mere mortals or do I detect the acrid smell of a miracle...

Cheers

blutto


Heaven sent Greg - to win 3 Tours clean. But his actual task is to protect the humanity against Lance -Gozer- Armstrong, who was officially sent from hell.

Ghostbuster Greg.