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

[andy1234]

Sorry but I can't, Doc. That's the whole problem with these threads, whatever each of us think about the issues. Not singling out anyone here but none of us should need to be having frustrated rants and upsetting each other.

If we cut out all the flaming, insults and the backlash from misunderstandings, these threads would be half the length and a lot more interesting.

Totally agree. Sorry.
For the first time, I was responding directly to critical remarks from other posters and I got it wrong.

 

[L'arriviste]

Totally agree. Sorry.
For the first time, I was responding directly to critical remarks from other posters and I got it wrong.

Like I said, I'm not singling anybody out. I personally do not want to put anyone on my "ignore list", I want to read what they have to say.

If someone else's viewpoint doesn't convince you, then that's fine and you've heard the arguments, that's what this forum should be all about. You certainly shouldn't have to feel bad about it, should you?

 

[VeloCity]

as often as you like, if your seeming complete inabilty to comprehend anything that you don't agree with leaves you with no other form of attack.

ok, how 'bout this:

I don't like Armstrong because he's a doper, a liar, a cheat, a scumbag, an a**hole, a prima donna, a whiner, and I hope he not only gets exposed to the world as a doper but I also hope his entire fraudulent empire comes crumbling down around him and the cycling world never hears from him again.

Is that what you're looking for?

Oh, and btw, judging from the nature of your posts, I'm not in the least bit surprised that that's the sort of person you admire.

 

[The Valley]

and thank god you are all mature enough not to resort to name calling,

Again something i thought i would never say....but until you offer something coherent....anything....for me to respond to....i am going to completely ignore your incessant wittering....honestly i have heard more sense from six year olds.

Great call.

With the exception of one point (which i will address later) absolutely nothing anything any of you who are members of the "I hate LA" club, have said has in anyway provided even the slightest credible, coherent or logical explanation of why he fills you all with such vitriol.

I thought plenty of people had covered that - the lies, the cheating, the relentless anger, the bullying, the arrogance etc...I'm not sure this fills anyone with vitriol as such, but it certainly explains why some people don't like or admire him. I tend not to admire people like that. Others, yourself included, either don't see him that way or chose to ignore those traits because he's used them to achieve success. Whatever. Some people like him, some people don't. Makes no odds to me.

And to the guy who used murder as an example to prove a moral point....you didn't do it very well....that was why I rightly mentioned it.....the point being that committing murder and committing doping offences are not in any way on the same moral spectrum....it's like saying "when I was at school I stole from the local sweet shop....or cheated an exam....so does that make me as bad as a murderer?"....if you need it explaining again...I am sorry I can't help you.

Sigh. Once again, I was not equating being a doping cheat with murder. I was using the point to illustrate the idea that just because lots of people are doing something that most people would consider immoral, unethical or illegal, or against the rules of a particular sport, it does not lessen the fact that those acts are immoral, unethical or illegal. This was in response to your view that everyone else in the peloton at the time was doping, therefore it was okay for Armstrong to dope.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to achieve here. You chose to make a post in support of your hero, telling us how you feel about him, yet you excoriate others for daring to post their own opinions on the subject. You hint that you're sorry for the "haters" yet you seem hugely stressed, disparaging and angry about any comments which run counter to your passion for Armstrong. This is a forum. People are entitled to post differing opinions.

Anyway, the call of the handlebars beckons - I'm off for a ride!

 

[Ferminal]

Let me start this post by saying that I am really looking forward to see what amusing and deluded lengths the anti Armstrong brigade will go to paint me as either:

1. A "troll" - like it actually hurts someones feelings who doesn't depend on their reputation in an internet forum for their self esteem.

2. In the employ of Lxxxstrong/ Nxke/ the Taleban

3. Lance Armstrong himself

Ok....so here goes:

I have intermittently read posts in this forum for about a year or so, and frankly have never been even slightly inclined to post or get into any kind of debate with the self styled moral arbiters or doping experts who seem to have an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands. But I have to admit that some of the complete nonsense spouted has gotten the better of me.

Now once you have had a little lie down and recovered from the shock I will continue...

But the haters say "without dope he was just average"....

The thing I hate is cycling fans and some "commentators" seemingly trying to tear the sport apart by having meaningless imflammtory debates on the ethics of the past.

If you wanted a reasonable debate (rather than a reaction) you shouldn't have painted yourself as the villain in your very first post.

 

[straydog]

Great call.



I thought plenty of people had covered that - the lies, the cheating, the relentless anger, the bullying, the arrogance etc...I'm not sure this fills anyone with vitriol as such, but it certainly explains why some people don't like or admire him. I tend not to admire people like that. Others, yourself included, either don't see him that way or chose to ignore those traits because he's used them to achieve success. Whatever. Some people like him, some people don't. Makes no odds to me.




Sigh. Once again, I was not equating being a doping cheat with murder. I was using the point to illustrate the idea that just because lots of people are doing something that most people would consider immoral, unethical or illegal, or against the rules of a particular sport, it does not lessen the fact that those acts are immoral, unethical or illegal. This was in response to your view that everyone else in the peloton at the time was doping, therefore it was okay for Armstrong to dope.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to achieve here. You chose to make a post in support of your hero, telling us how you feel about him, yet you excoriate others for daring to post their own opinions on the subject. You hint that you're sorry for the "haters" yet you seem hugely stressed, disparaging and angry about any comments which run counter to your passion for Armstrong. This is a forum. People are entitled to post differing opinions.

Anyway, the call of the handlebars beckons - I'm off for a ride!

Firstly...I hope you enjoyed your ride

Ok....you said...."I was using the point to illustrate the idea that just because lots of people are doing something that most people would consider immoral, unethical or illegal, or against the rules of a particular sport, it does not lessen the fact that those acts are immoral, unethical or illegal."

Well for a second let me ignore the legality question...as it is the only thing in your list that isn't subjective....and actually the one thing LA has never been "proved" to have violated....

morals and ethics are entirely in the eye of the beholder....and does "most people" include most of the guys in the peleton at that time who didn't have a problem with their ethics and morals?

"you excoriate others for daring to post their own opinions on the subject. You hint that you're sorry for the "haters" yet you seem hugely stressed, disparaging and angry about any comments which run counter to your passion for Armstrong. This is a forum. People are entitled to post differing opinions."

Hey...I welcome others opinions....but as you said....this is a forum and if I think their opinion, or indeed, their "hate" is irrational or misguided, then i feel entitled to challenge that "hate"....If feeling frustrated whilst doing that has come across as excoriation....well....I apologise....you are right that shouldn't be what this forum is for and it hasn't helped my point....but saying I hate someone cos he is an "a**hole" isn't really an arguement to me...it is just emotive....and as such I am not going to give it much credence.

L'Arriviste: "If someone else's viewpoint doesn't convince you, then that's fine and you've heard the arguments, that's what this forum should be all about."

I couldn't agree more

Ok....finally....really finally....

I don't wish to sound repetitive....just adding some flesh to what i have already said and why....

I admire the guy....enormously....despite of his flaws....and despite of doping in cycling....just as I admired Senna....despite him driving other drivers off tracks....just as i admired Mcenroe....despite his tantrums and his headband....and Ali....despite of his baiting of opponents and cockiness and his dubious beliefs....and I enjoyed watching every single one of them. I enjoyed watching their determination....their drive....their audacity...their brilliance....and the drama they brought to what they did. I don't need to watch my sports in black and white ....I just demand that they are exciting to watch.

And i loved watching Lemond, Hinault, Fignon, Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and I don't choose to judge any of them on how they achieved what they did.

I don't love dope....I just happen not to believe in magic wands.

Armstrong gave people false hope? I am sorry, he didn't give me false hope....he gave me hope. The way he fought Cancer gave millions hope. The way he advocates for Cancer awareness still gives millions hope. Count the bracelets. Count the twitter followers.

Armstrong's biggest battle was cancer, not Novitzky.

Is he an icon of cycling? Well, take his name off this forum and let's see how quiet it goes....

 

[Ferminal]

A lot of people either like or enjoy watching some known dopers. Thus it would be double standards if people detested Armstrong for the sole reason that he used PEDs.

 

[straydog]

A lot of people either like or enjoy watching some known dopers. Thus it would be double standards if people detested Armstrong for the sole reason that he used PEDs.

you are correct....just as it would be double standards if they detested him only for his other "flaws"....are the respondents of their admiration without any?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hi Coca Cola....congrats on your impending confirmation pm that you have been accepted for junior membership of the hate cult....a few more posts, preferably with some more arbitary received "wisdoms", and they will promote you to senior. Have such fun!

That's right, we're all part of a big haters club here. Except you, we voted and nobody wants you in it.

 

[Polish]

The Lance FanBoy Club is ALWAYS open to new members.

Just like "Jerry's Kids" or the "Jehovah's Witnesses".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM

 

[VeloFidelis]

That's right, we're all part of a big haters club here. Except you, we voted and nobody wants you in it.

What's this WE sh!t Comrade?

 

[Hugh Januss]

The Lance FanBoy Club is ALWAYS open to new members.

Just like "Jerry's Kids" or the "Jehovah's Witnesses".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM

I am sure the new members are just pouring in right now. Because everybody loves a crook.

 

[VeloFidelis]

A lot of people either like or enjoy watching some known dopers. Thus it would be double standards if people detested Armstrong for the sole reason that he used PEDs.

Wow, is that another voice of reason? Yes, every rider we've cheered to victory in the last decade has been doped. So... we don't like this particular guy because... he doped? Hmmm...

 

[ManInFull]

Let me start this post by saying that I am really looking forward to see what amusing and deluded lengths the anti Armstrong brigade will go to paint me as either:

1. A "troll" - like it actually hurts someones feelings who doesn't depend on their reputation in an internet forum for their self esteem.

2. In the employ of Lxxxstrong/ Nxke/ the Taleban

3. Lance Armstrong himself

Ok....so here goes:

I have intermittently read posts in this forum for about a year or so, and frankly have never been even slightly inclined to post or get into any kind of debate with the self styled moral arbiters or doping experts who seem to have an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands. But I have to admit that some of the complete nonsense spouted has gotten the better of me.

So the first question. Do I think Lance doped?

Answer: Yes.

Do I care?

Answer: No

Who was cheated here? Ullrich? Pantani? Basso? Hamilton? Landis? Menchov? Vino? Kloeden? Beloki?

The playing field was level. Anyone who believes otherwise....I have some more bad news for you....Father Christmas doesn't exist either....honestly you can google it if you don't believe me.

Now once you have had a little lie down and recovered from the shock I will continue...

But the haters say "without dope he was just average"....well the evidence doesn't in anyway support your wish/ theory. The rules of the game were the same for everybody. "But it was just his doping programme that was better" they whine...."everyone knows it was sponsored by selling bikes on ebay or children into forced labour or dirty bombs to Al Qaeda"...or whatever the latest conspiracy it is that their fevered little minds can come up with. Well frankly, if his programme was better....good for him. I am sorry if this seems cynical....but if I saw Andy Schleck trying to take on Contador over the tourmalet on a brompton with a shopping basket on the front and toe straps, I wouldn't be whining about Contadors advantage....I'd be suggesting that Schleck find himself a new sponsor.

I admire Armstrong as a professional athlete. I admire his 7 tour wins. I admire the new audience he brought to cycling. I loved watching him....just as I loved watching Pantani....and Ullrich...and Indurain... I admire his comeback from serious illness. And I admire hugely the enormous good he has done in the continuing fight on Cancer and Cancer awareness. And you may hate that he made money while doing so....and that is your perogative, but i don't...You may hate the ubiquitous yellow wrist bands but they are a very simple reflection and barometer of the magnitude of his legacy. A lot of People love him. And always will.


And yes, some people hate him because or despite of everything I have said. And i don't wish to change your minds if you do. Just as I don't wish to change peoples minds if they believe Lady Di was killed by MI6....I will just continue thinking they are full of s..t.

And finally a few quick thoughts on a few related points;

1. Paul Kimmage....why oh why anyone uses him as the barometer of clean cycling I will never know.....himself a confessed doper who has never had the balls to name anyone of substance who doped with him...and yet has consistently criticised Millar, Kohl etc for also not naming names

2. Greg Lemond...ok I don't want to start any crazy conspiracy theories without any substance....but I think his "he said ....she said" rhetoric is pretty irresponsible to say the least....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...cos frankly Fignon...Bernard " I never tested positive" Hinault and Delgado don't put him in exactly angelic company.

3. Landis...all the haters love him now....even Adam Myerson would shake his hand....why?....what is there to admire? I feel genuinely sorry for the guy....I am afraid the one thing history may remember from this is his name and reputation being totally shot. And honestly that would be sad. I really hope someone looks out for him. It seems the most futile gesture. I don't think anyone will serve time or be "brought down" by anything he has said....he hasn't said anything new....other than name some names that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure might have been involved....the only concrete thing he has provided is an admission of perjury.

4. Ferrari....trying to undermine his credentials as a coach, despite whether you agree with any of his supposed ethics is nonsense. Baby and bathwater springs to mind. Kilos/watts....VAM....high revolution pedalling techniques....all commonly accepted in todays cycling parlance and all developed in part by his work. And actually his hill climbing interval training is brilliant....genuinely brilliant....don't believe me....just join his site and get them.

Ok....finally...let me say this.....i love cycling....I really do. It changed my life. I am not trying to be an apologist for any kind of untoward behaviour. I am just being a realist. The thing I hate is cycling fans and some "commentators" seemingly trying to tear the sport apart by having meaningless imflammtory debates on the ethics of the past. Let the past be the past....dark or otherwise....no matter what anybody says, I won't stop admiring Tom Simpson....or Eddy Mercxx....or Jacgues Antequill.

I actually think as a sport it has done more to try and clean itself up than all other sports. But will it ever go completely away? Of course not. Even Lemond has said that the way forward may be to try and "control" doping. In an ideal world everyone would be clean. Great. But unfortunately that isn't the case....so let's have a reasoned debate. If any of us were offered a pill that enabled us to stay up for 18 hours a day with no side effects and that improved our looks /IQ's / brilliance in the sack, would we take it? Would we consider it cheating life? Really?

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


Oh....and P.S. without wishing to seem more imflammatory....does anyone else think that anyone who puts a supposedly brilliant quote as their signature might as well be wearing a T shirt that says "Sex instructor...first lesson free"?

Who cares? The only thing I want the entire world to know is that Lance doped.

 

[Benotti69]

Wow, is that another voice of reason? Yes, every rider we've cheered to victory in the last decade has been doped. So... we don't like this particular guy because... he doped? Hmmm...

somebody has not been reading much of this forum..

 

[Barrus]

Wow, is that another voice of reason? Yes, every rider we've cheered to victory in the last decade has been doped. So... we don't like this particular guy because... he doped? Hmmm...

I think very few here hate him solely due to his PED use

 

[Oldman]

I think very few here hate him solely due to his PED use

Hate is such an active and strong word anyway. We could say his shameless self promotion, profiteering, bullying and general false personality are reasons to qualify his place in history. That sounds really reasonable, doesn't it? Those are all proven qualities and his PED use becomes a secondary attribute.
If someone can respect anyone with those qualities they need a good look in the mirror.

 

[straydog]

Hate is such an active and strong word anyway. We could say his shameless self promotion, profiteering, bullying and general false personality are reasons to qualify his place in history. That sounds really reasonable, doesn't it? Those are all proven qualities and his PED use becomes a secondary attribute.
If someone can respect anyone with those qualities they need a good look in the mirror.

We could say his shameless self promotion, profiteering, bullying and general false personality....those are all proven qualities

And if anyone respects those proven facts, or believes it, or said it....they need a little lie down

There is a very subtle difference between fact and opinion....and indeed fiction

But thanks for making me laugh....really

 

[buckwheat]

We could say his shameless self promotion, profiteering, bullying and general false personality....those are all proven qualities

And if anyone respects those proven facts, or believes it, or said it....they need a little lie down

There is a very subtle difference between fact and opinion....and indeed fiction

But thanks for making me laugh....really

He exhibited all those things in the 2009 Tour alone.

BTW, Pharmstrong is as subtle as a baseball bat to the skull.

 

[ultimobici]

We could say his shameless self promotion, profiteering, bullying and general false personality....those are all proven qualities

And if anyone respects those proven facts, or believes it, or said it....they need a little lie down

There is a very subtle difference between fact and opinion....and indeed fiction

But thanks for making me laugh....really

Two things
1. Kimmage chose not to name names when questioned. Had he mentioned Kelly and Roche do you think he'd have been welcome in Ireland then?
2. Lemond's comments in 2001 were entirely reasonable but you quoted his comment from 2004:
"If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud."
What he said in 2001 was:
"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is"
The response from Armstrong was what escalated the matter.

 

[Oldman]

We could say his shameless self promotion, profiteering, bullying and general false personality....those are all proven qualities

And if anyone respects those proven facts, or believes it, or said it....they need a little lie down

There is a very subtle difference between fact and opinion....and indeed fiction

But thanks for making me laugh....really

You have a career in politics when you can re-write the behavior he's displayed for a decade. It's good you can laugh about it; just don't do it in public or people not reading your posts will think you are nuts.

 

[ludwig]

Let me start this post by saying that I am really looking forward to see what amusing and deluded lengths the anti Armstrong brigade will go to paint me as either:

1. A "troll" - like it actually hurts someones feelings who doesn't depend on their reputation in an internet forum for their self esteem.

2. In the employ of Lxxxstrong/ Nxke/ the Taleban

3. Lance Armstrong himself

Ok....so here goes:

I have intermittently read posts in this forum for about a year or so, and frankly have never been even slightly inclined to post or get into any kind of debate with the self styled moral arbiters or doping experts who seem to have an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands. But I have to admit that some of the complete nonsense spouted has gotten the better of me.

So the first question. Do I think Lance doped?

Answer: Yes.

Do I care?

Answer: No

Who was cheated here? Ullrich? Pantani? Basso? Hamilton? Landis? Menchov? Vino? Kloeden? Beloki?

The playing field was level. Anyone who believes otherwise....I have some more bad news for you....Father Christmas doesn't exist either....honestly you can google it if you don't believe me. ........"?

Well, first off, not much seperates you from the so-called "haters"....think of what you have in common
1) you both believe the peloton is doped
2) you both love cycling...to an unhealthy degree. Face it, few are more passionate about pro cycling then the peeps who post here.
3) you both tend to be cynical/skeptical about the prevailing omerta
4) you both consider Pharmstrong a fraud (cause face it, anyone who thinks Lance dopes agrees he's a fraud on some level).

As for your contention that "the playing field was level"...well....I think that's where your fanboy instincts (eg wishful thinking) is setting in. The truth is that we have no idea if the playing field is level. Hell I'd like to believe it, but the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

The truth is there is a wide discrepancy in how much cyclists pay for their doping services, and (surprise) the most successful cyclists tend to pay out the most for their dope. There is also a ton of testing even though few argue that doping isn't ubiquitous. That tells you that there is a lot of inequality in doping programs, and that some cyclists feel they are being cheated, even if they are unwilling to say so publicly.

 

[philippec]

who were the scores? The scores of proven clean cyclists who were empirically proven to be physically superior?

Though it would be incorrrect to only limit the refutal of your statement only on results from the TDF (there are other races), let's start there....

Let's see -- in 1993 there were 136 riders who finished ahead of Lance (abandoned) and in 1994 that number was 117 (Lance abandoned again). I am positive (no pun intended!) that among that number there were a number of non-dopers -- not least of which was Andy Hampsten ('93).

in 1995, there were 35 cyclists who finished better than him in the TDF, at least three of whom I am 99.9% sure never doped in their career since I raced with (against?) them and have stayed in touch since... and there may be others as well.

In 1996, everyone finished ahead of Armstrong, though, admittedly, there are were extenuating circumstances...

I also know of several promising riders whose test scores were on par with those of Armstrong (when he was younger) but who dropped out of racing explicitely because they did not want to dope to remain "competitive".

So, no, not all riders that Armstrong faced were doped and several would have had a chance to compete on par with him had the field not been "gamed".

I suspect that if you have "no problem" with doping in the pro peleton, it is because you have never raced in the pro peleton. I suggest your point of view might be different had you been faced with the choice to race undoped, race doped or change jobs.

 

[kukiniloa]

Though it would be incorrrect to only limit the refutal of your statement only on results from the TDF (there are other races), let's start there....

Let's see -- in 1993 there were 136 riders who finished ahead of Lance (abandoned) and in 1994 that number was 117 (Lance abandoned again). I am positive (no pun intended!) that among that number there were a number of non-dopers -- not least of which was Andy Hampsten ('93).

in 1995, there were 35 cyclists who finished better than him in the TDF, at least three of whom I am 99.9% sure never doped in their career since I raced with (against?) them and have stayed in touch since... and there may be others as well.

In 1996, everyone finished ahead of Armstrong, though, admittedly, there are were extenuating circumstances...

I also know of several promising riders whose test scores were on par with those of Armstrong (when he was younger) but who dropped out of racing explicitely because they did not want to dope to remain "competitive".

So, no, not all riders that Armstrong faced were doped and several would have had a chance to compete on par with him had the field not been "gamed".

I suspect that if you have "no problem" with doping in the pro peleton, it is because you have never raced in the pro peleton. I suggest your point of view might be different had you been faced with the choice to race undoped, race doped or change jobs.

But philippepc, they don't want the truth. They can't handle the truth.

 

[Race Radio]

Though it would be incorrrect to only limit the refutal of your statement only on results from the TDF (there are other races), let's start there....

Let's see -- in 1993 there were 136 riders who finished ahead of Lance (abandoned) and in 1994 that number was 117 (Lance abandoned again). I am positive (no pun intended!) that among that number there were a number of non-dopers -- not least of which was Andy Hampsten ('93).

in 1995, there were 35 cyclists who finished better than him in the TDF, at least three of whom I am 99.9% sure never doped in their career since I raced with (against?) them and have stayed in touch since... and there may be others as well.

In 1996, everyone finished ahead of Armstrong, though, admittedly, there are were extenuating circumstances...

I also know of several promising riders whose test scores were on par with those of Armstrong (when he was younger) but who dropped out of racing explicitely because they did not want to dope to remain "competitive".

So, no, not all riders that Armstrong faced were doped and several would have had a chance to compete on par with him had the field not been "gamed".

I suspect that if you have "no problem" with doping in the pro peleton, it is because you have never raced in the pro peleton. I suggest your point of view might be different had you been faced with the choice to race undoped, race doped or change jobs.

Hey, Phillipec is here! Did you bring any pork products?