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

[hrotha]

The incentive....at last someone actually talking sense....I agree...but it wasn't like Armstrong invented doping....or winning....and he certainly didn't start the omerta either....even kimmage played along with that in the 80's.

I agree that Armstrong enforced and endorsed the omerta and I think the reason he and so many others did so was because they were protecting their interests at the time....and I agree it was not his finest hour...the Bassons incident....not the simeoni one....

If you agree, what the hell is your point?

Armstrong didn't invent those things, but by all accounts he was a particularly egregious example of all those things. He took them all one further step ahead. He could be credited with undoing any progress that was made due to the Festina affair. He gave omerta a whole new meaning with what he did to Simeoni and others. There's also the UCI donations. Armstrong is not the same as any previous doped winners.

And many people supported omerta because they were protecting their interests at the time? Gee, you don't say.

 

[Benotti69]

....


I tend to agree with your comments on Paul Kimmage though - I kind of admire him for going after Armstrong, knowing what he knows about him (I recall his comment about the stories he heard about the behaviour on Armstrong's/Bruyneel's team, which he said were "shocking, absolutely shocking"), but yeah, he's a doping cheat too so he can hardly sling mud.

Have you read Kimmage's book, 'a rough ride' or are you going by hearsay.

Kimmage took PEDs but very few and it was not in important races. he succumbed to peer pressure but it was not extensive and he covers it is his book very well. Kimmage wrote about his personal experience of his time in the pro cycling peloton and gave an insight better than any journalist at the time. He was before the EPO generation and was ostracised by most of the peloton for his honesty.

He has only gone after Armstrong recently, and that was at a press conference. He has not written huge amounts about Armstrong and his doping compared to others.

David Walsh and Pierre Ballester are the 2 that went after Armstrong with the books 'LA Confidential' and 'From Lance to Landis'.

I think your comment about he's a doping cheat is well wide of the mark. Of course he can sling mud, better than most, he never won anything on dope, not the least 7 TdF's convincing the world it was a miracle return from cancer that gave him the power to ride better than anyone else in the world and therein getting massivley rich of it.

Kimmage is a very good journalist and not a bull****ter like most of the journalism in cycling today and the rest of the world.

As for the comments from other posters about doping levelling the field. Not true. EPO helped those will a low hemocrit level more than those with a naturally high level. This was extremely beneficial as taking your level from a natural 38% to 48% meant a huge jump in your performance, ie racing up mountains compared to someone with a natural 45% taking it to 48%, a slight increase, and this where the peloton changed overnight. Those who were naturally gifted got shafted by dopers.

 

[straydog]

That refrain is pretty tiresome. If that were the case, wouldn't everyone be up in Indurain's grill about doping? He was pretty successful, too. 7 Grand Tours, Olympic Medal, World Champion, etc.

Why aren't people jealous of him? Maybe it's something else? For me, the Simeoni incident was a huge turning point in my opinion of LA. It's one thing to dope. It's another attack those who aren't giving into your myth. Also, the vitriol he has for any/everyone who questions the myth simply makes him a pretty despicable character in my book. If he followed Indurain's approach of just keeping his head down, there probably wouldn't be nearly the level vitriol for him.

I agree with you that Armstrong is underrated by many of his detractors, and in a way I blame the system which allowed and even encouraged his behavior more than I blame him. He made the best out of a bad situation, and in the process made a bad situation worse. Personally, I respect the guys like Danny Pate, Svein Tuft, Mark Scanlon and Bassons a lot more. Guys who just said "no thanks", raced clean and kept their heads up. This "level playing field" is a big justification for cheating, in my book at least.

Wow...someone who actually wants to discuss it...it seems there are people who can disagree without becoming four years old....

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.

 

[oldschoolnik]

For me, the Simeoni incident was a huge turning point in my opinion of LA. It's one thing to dope. It's another attack those who aren't giving into your myth. Also, the vitriol he has for any/everyone who questions the myth simply makes him a pretty despicable character in my book. If he followed Indurain's approach of just keeping his head down, there probably wouldn't be nearly the level vitriol for him.

+1 This is it right here. You acknowledge that Bassons incident was not "LA finest hour" but you seem to think what he did to Simeoni was ok? You say in the thread title you are "proud" of him for doing this? Intimidating and bullying and enforcing omerta of the doping culture in cycling? - and you can't understand why people have virtrol for LA? What if your one of your children behaved in this manner? Would you say "son I am proud of you for threatening the kid who told the principal about the drug dealers at school!"

 

[VeloCity]

why is such vitriol reserved for Armstrong and not the countless others?....

Maybe you should take the Armstrong blinders off and read the countless threads on this forum about Vinokorouv, Basso, Ullrich, Ricco, Contador, Rasmussen, Hamilton, Cancellara, Schumacher, etc etc.

But even so, Armstrong is the Big Fish That (So Far) Has Gotten Away With It - is it really such a surprise that he'd be a primary focus of attention? If it had been Jan Ullrich who won 7 Tours while working with Ferrari and acting like an *** etc etc, he'd be getting the same attention.

 

[straydog]

Have you read Kimmage's book, 'a rough ride' or are you going by hearsay.

Kimmage took PEDs but very few and it was not in important races. he succumbed to peer pressure but it was not extensive and he covers it is his book very well. Kimmage wrote about his personal experience of his time in the pro cycling peloton and gave an insight better than any journalist at the time. He was before the EPO generation and was ostracised by most of the peloton for his honesty.

He has only gone after Armstrong recently, and that was at a press conference. He has not written huge amounts about Armstrong and his doping compared to others.

David Walsh and Pierre Ballester are the 2 that went after Armstrong with the books 'LA Confidential' and 'From Lance to Landis'.

I think your comment about he's a doping cheat is well wide of the mark. Of course he can sling mud, better than most, he never won anything on dope, not the least 7 TdF's convincing the world it was a miracle return from cancer that gave him the power to ride better than anyone else in the world and therein getting massivley rich of it.

Kimmage is a very good journalist and not a bull****ter like most of the journalism in cycling today and the rest of the world.

As for the comments from other posters about doping levelling the field. Not true. EPO helped those will a low hemocrit level more than those with a naturally high level. This was extremely beneficial as taking your level from a natural 38% to 48% meant a huge jump in your performance, ie racing up mountains compared to someone with a natural 45% taking it to 48%, a slight increase, and this where the peloton changed overnight. Those who were naturally gifted got shafted by dopers.

unfortunately I have read it...yes....truely a depressing read....an average cyclist who seemed to hate cycling and then tried a few drugs....in not very important races...didn't get any better....then quit and "lifted the lid" on what was really going on...without naming names....especially of his two heroes

 

[Benotti69]

winning....and he certainly didn't start the omerta either....even kimmage played along with that in the 80's.

..

Kimmage was not some kind of full time cycling doper, he did it a few times. Read his book!

If you are self obsessed fanboy. then take yourself of to a fully fledged fanboy site where you and other fanboys can while away the hours together in fanboy harmony, not on here with your mis information trying to confuse matters with lots of postings.

We are all fully aware of the history of cycling and pretty much up to date with what has been published about professional cycling and its failings, ie doping.

The biggest court case and investigation in regards to cycling is about to start and it is being discussed at length on here. to start posting your fanboy stuff is trolling and trying to be an apologist for LA as he did not start it..blah blah, omerta already there blah blah....dont excuse it. Like the nazi guards at the camps. No excuse. LA knew what he was doing and no explaination can justify it. Now away with you.

 

[Benotti69]

unfortunately I have read it...yes....truely a depressing read....an average cyclist who seemed to hate cycling and then tried a few drugs....in not very important races...didn't get any better....then quit and "lifted the lid" on what was really going on...without naming names....especially of his two heroes

Book won awards and was recently reprinted.

Take your trolling elsewhere you truly are a sad little fanboy.

 

[straydog]

Kimmage was not some kind of full time cycling doper, he did it a few times. Read his book!

If you are self obsessed fanboy. then take yourself of to a fully fledged fanboy site where you and other fanboys can while away the hours together in fanboy harmony, not on here with your mis information trying to confuse matters with lots of postings.

We are all fully aware of the history of cycling and pretty much up to date with what has been published about professional cycling and its failings, ie doping.

The biggest court case and investigation in regards to cycling is about to start and it is being discussed at length on here. to start posting your fanboy stuff is trolling and trying to be an apologist for LA as he did not start it..blah blah, omerta already there blah blah....dont excuse it. Like the nazi guards at the camps. No excuse. LA knew what he was doing and no explaination can justify it. Now away with you.

honestly....I can barely type I am laughing so much.....nazi guards....oh god was he responsbile for the final solution now aswell?...ok now I do hate him

 

[sars1981]

It was an analogy you dimwit.

 

[L'arriviste]

unfortunately I have read it...yes....truely a depressing read....an average cyclist who seemed to hate cycling and then tried a few drugs....in not very important races...didn't get any better....then quit and "lifted the lid" on what was really going on...without naming names....especially of his two heroes

A Rough Ride was a watershed for cycling books, arguably for sports books in general, written with a candour unseen until then.

If it seems depressing, that is because the truth of pro road cycling was/is depressing. But I think it is wrong to say that Kimmage hated cycling. He just found out that all his ideals, his dreams and his expectations were wrong.

Imagine discovering all that so far from home, so far from what you know and love. If you were expecting glory, hi-jinks and sunshine you bought the wrong book.

 

[straydog]

Book won awards and was recently reprinted.

Take your trolling elsewhere you truly are a sad little fanboy.

It won awards????....my god that means I can't possibly have thought it was depressing and crxp then doesn't it....and it was REPRINTED????....oh my god...what a fool i have been....they REPRINTED it????


two glaring omissions from that book....names of Irish riders that he rode with who were doping...Omerta...Scmerta

 

[Cordon Bleu]

Straydog, are you cool with LA lying to his cancer-striken faithful?

 

[straydog]

It was an analogy you dimwit.

and it's called sarcasm....

dimwit?

are you sure it's not past your bedtime?


One last thing before spending some time in the real world....

The Cancer Stricken faithful as you call them....I wouldn't be so arrogant as to speak for them if I were you....and the lies he told them....what were they?....that he survived cancer?....that you can too?....that it is worth fighting?....and do you know what....he is pretty honest in that not everyone makes it....but that everyone should be remembered....


on that note I take my leave....enjoy the Mass Debate my friends

 

[Benotti69]

It won awards????...... REPRINTED????....oh my what a fool i have been....they REPRINTED it????

11 posts only and you are already ranting and shouting. Not good form!

Think livestrong, rub your yellow bracelet.....

 

[straydog]

11 posts only and you are already ranting and shouting. Not good form!

Think livestrong, rub your yellow bracelet.....

ha ha...at least you intentionally made me laugh

 

[cyclestationgiuseppe]

ha ha...at least you intentionally made me laugh

@Straydog
I sure as hell hope you do not have children. If you do, they must be the ones cheating at hopscotch and checkers.

All dopers are a detriment to their sport.

 

[straydog]

@Straydog
I sure as hell hope you do not have children. If you do, they must be the ones cheating at hopscotch and checkers.

All dopers are a detriment to their sport.

Actually EPO and 'roids aren't on the banned list for hopscotch or checkers....so it's not really cheating

 

[gillan1969]

all armstrong was was the patron of the peleton...
most professions have either formal or informal methods of ensuring that they earn more than those who are not members...armstrong enforced the will of the collective peleton...everyone erned more as both a result of doping and as a rsult of armstrong's media profile which raised the stakes for everyone

procycling is a circus...a great circus...but still a circus

That refrain is pretty tiresome. If that were the case, wouldn't everyone be up in Indurain's grill about doping? He was pretty successful, too. 7 Grand Tours, Olympic Medal, World Champion, etc.

Why aren't people jealous of him? Maybe it's something else? For me, the Simeoni incident was a huge turning point in my opinion of LA. It's one thing to dope. It's another attack those who aren't giving into your myth. Also, the vitriol he has for any/everyone who questions the myth simply makes him a pretty despicable character in my book. If he followed Indurain's approach of just keeping his head down, there probably wouldn't be nearly the level vitriol for him.

I agree with you that Armstrong is underrated by many of his detractors, and in a way I blame the system which allowed and even encouraged his behavior more than I blame him. He made the best out of a bad situation, and in the process made a bad situation worse. Personally, I respect the guys like Danny Pate, Svein Tuft, Mark Scanlon and Bassons a lot more. Guys who just said "no thanks", raced clean and kept their heads up. This "level playing field" is a big justification for cheating, in my book at least.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is the bit I like....when opinion becomes fact in the hands of the deluded...

who were the scores? The scores of proven clean cyclists who were empirically proven to be physically superior? You have convinced me.....such brilliant reasoning is impossible to argue with....and by any chance as you fall asleep at night do you believe that you were one of them?

As for the cadence comment...well I know the post was long and had some long words in it....but try reading that bit again...then do a bit of research on conconi, cecchini and ferrari and cadence....with among others Indurain


Do I have a problem with cheaters? I am a realist...it happens and does it fill me with moral outrage? No I have a life...and there are far more things to get really angry about....but the bit I really like is when people seem to say it was ok to dope but to say you didn't makes you a hypocrite....well show me one doper who during his career was going to put his hands up.

This is kind of fun though....before I know it i will be putting up a wacky little picture of myself....maybe with a "greif" mask on it

The above is a reply to my post - where did I ever mention anything about "cadence"?

If you wish to debate, then debate there is no need to make up something that I did not say. You called me deluded - yet did not put forth a different opinion - or is that you can't come up with one?

Nor indeed is my position a 'moralistic' one - if you want to know then ask, do not assume - it makes your position questionable - not mine/.

You admire dopers - so what?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

unfortunately I have read it...yes....truely a depressing read....an average cyclist who seemed to hate cycling and then tried a few drugs....in not very important races...didn't get any better....then quit and "lifted the lid" on what was really going on...without naming names....especially of his two heroes

You must not have read it too well.

In the early part of the book Kimmage quite clearly states that in exposing doping during that time it was to show how the system was flawed, not the individual riders.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Wow...someone who actually wants to discuss it...it seems there are people who can disagree without becoming four years old....

Anytime anyone wants to "discuss it" are you planning on opening with the same condesending first line? Retorical question, no need to answer.
The reason many people here don't need to rehash this junk anymore is because there are 1210 threads with 61057 posts in this clinic alone, many of them discussing to death this very topic. There is also a very good search function available. If you really wanted to learn what people here think about the points (?) that you have raised, you would easily find hours of reading on them.
If however you really want to lob e-bombs and pick fights, carry on, you are doing that well.

 

[andy1234]

I think the poster has managed to formulate his beliefs about cycling into a rational and coherent message, yet he still gets the Troll BS that anyone with an unpopular view seems to receive.

There are plenty of posters on here with no other aim than to get a good fight going, but you cant complain too hard when someone comes up with an intelligent statement to counter your arguments.

FWIW, If you take Armstrong in particular out of the equation, I think many cyclists have some similar views on the sport.

Andy.

 

[sliceofpy]

I dislike the fact that he wraps himself in the "cancer" flag whenever someone questions his words, message, or actions. I also dislike the ambiguity between LS.org (cancer) and LS.com ($ for LA).

All of this reminds me of US politicians wrapping themselves in the flag in order to spread fear and justify actions which benefit only themselves.

Since it's rumored that he is looking to go into politics at some point, I think that the knowledge that he is one of the biggest frauds in sport has merit.

 

[badboygolf16v]

There can be no debate.. This is more like a sectarian dispute.