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

[straydog]

As for my sig, it was written by an ACTUAL pro...you know, someone who does what you only pretend to do.

Really....Adam is a pro? I didn't know that....oh wait...I have just googled him....amazing what you can "learn" when you do that

And when I race....i don't pretend to be a pro....I am an old amateur....and as for my past....well, believe what you will if it helps your state of mind.

now can we get this sort of back on track....and away from the my dad's c*ck is bigger stuff....cos actually thoughtforgood....despite finding you signature ridiculous....I thought you had started to say something sensible

 

[straydog]

I wouldn't pay Chris Carmichael to clean the chamois cream out of my shorts. No, I have a good friend who is an accomplished coach/cyclist/triathlete/ultra endurance runner who I consult when I want to get serious about something. Its free, and there is no scummy residue unlike Mr Carmichael.

ok....we agree on something else....well maybe i would let him clean the chamois cream....I don't think I'd pay for it though

my point was....if I was going to dope now....I would damn well go to the best coach aswell....and if he was a Doctor.... all the better.

As you so rightly pointed out PEDs plus sitting on the sofa supping and downing the burgers....well....that doesn't make you win the TDF....(but it could make you Ullrich)

And actually, PEDs if you are not already at a pretty significant level of performance would not be recommended by anyone worth listening to.

 

[Race Radio]

That is a hell of a big and, might I add somewhat naive, assumption to make....I will quietly chuckle at it rather than refute your suggestion about what choices faced me....

----------------Random troll babble----------------------------------


.please don't ever go near even a Cat 4 criterium....let alone a pro peloton....cos honestly....they might hurt your feelings

Philippe is far from naive. He is also too modest to respond to your babble so I will do it for him

He has been living and racing in Europe for over 20 years. He saw his first Tour before you were born and even with his advanced age (Sorry dude) he still races at a high level a complete season of Cross, Road, and the occasional sportif in France and Belgium. in addition to racing he coaches Espoirs, drives the team car, and racks up thousands of Frequent flyer miles. The guy has ridden and raced his bike in more countries then you can name.

The internet is a great place. Those charity rides you did suddenly become Pro Tour races, Those Tri's become Grand Tours, Group rides become the World Champions. Unlike yourself Philippe is the real deal.

 

[Anonymous]

ok....we agree on something else....well maybe i would let him clean the chamois cream....I don't think I'd pay for it though

my point was....if I was going to dope now....I would damn well go to the best coach aswell....and if he was a Doctor.... all the better.

As you so rightly pointed out PEDs plus sitting on the sofa supping and downing the burgers....well....that doesn't make you win the TDF....(but it could make you Ullrich)

And actually, PEDs if you are not already at a pretty significant level of performance would not be recommended by anyone worth listening to.

I don't dislike Mr Armstrong because of doping or because he went to see Ferrari. I do sincerely wish that doping was not the norm in professional cycling, and do believe that Mr Landis' revelations will alter the course of cycling to an extent. I am also smart enough to know that once genetic improvement begins to be used widely, the modern idea of "clean" becomes a quaint notion reserved for old guys.

Okay, so lets move on to an area where we disagree then. You suggestion that his bullying behavior is not exceptional would cause me to ask you this: Find for me another rider who is as vocal about his cleanliness who has also bullied people in the manner he has in an effort to hide it.

Going past that, I am also offended at the lies and deceit he has used in regards to his cancer efforts. He uses other people's cancer to deflect doping accusations.

In short, he is a disgusting fraud of a man who SET HIMSELF UP as the biggest name in the sport. Everyone on this thread is talking about him.

 

[Oldman]

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....you're right...it would be incorrect to only limit it to the TDF....but much easier to ignore his win at the worlds in 93 (age 21)...or his US amateur title at 19...or his 92 olympics result at 20....and second at liege in 94...and san sebastian....and fleche....and the fact that up until 95....he wasn't a GC team leader or actually even want to be.....

And one last thing....LA was a bully....ok if that is your criteria for hate....please don't ever go near even a Cat 4 criterium....let alone a pro peloton....cos honestly....they might hurt your feelings[/QUOTE]

Thought you might want to embrace the possibility that Lance started doping at a young age. Many of the talented riders I know refused to do it at the National team with him, refused to do it on USPS and Motorola. I know these riders to be honest and they may be some of the guys Novitsky will be having discussions with.

As for Lance being a bully...of course not physically. He threatens with his money or his mouth.

 

[blunder]

Wow...
The fan boys were telling me Lance always rode clean.
Now they say he is the greatest ever rider because he had a superior doping regime...

I guess that makes Tom Simpson one of the worst riders ever (his doping regime couldn't get him to the top of the Mont Ventoux, let alone onto the podium in Paris)

Straydog... me thinks you may have 'issues'

edit: *waits for the Tom Simpson fanboys to arrive - double standards - meh*

 

[Polish]

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).

Hey philippe, Lance was a neopro in 1993.
Should NOT have been racing in the TdF his first year.
Against conventional wisdom.

But heck - he won a stage as a neo-pro anyway.
Before being pulled out of the race by his DS.

Did you know that EVERY pro that has won a stage as a neopro has gone on to win the TdF sometime in their career?

1994 as a second year pro wearing the RAINBOW JERSEY - the curse got him bad.

13 tour starts
7 wins
9 podiums in Paris

 

[redtreviso]

fanboy theme to go with their Annie Liebovitz poster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS3Fa63qjhE

 

[rhubroma]

Yeah it was the Bassons / Simeonni (sorry I probably butchered the spelling) incidents that really turned me against Armstrong too. I genuinely dislike him and happily admit that makes me wanna see him go down. He's a bully. I dont like bullys.

Yes, that about sums it up for me.

Thus the usual ridiculous accusations from the fanboys that if one doesn't worship him, let alone even like him, they must be either: a.) anti-American b.) anti-winner and c.) pro-cancer, refuse to consider the simple reality that it's just Lance the bully, Lance the hypocrite, Lance the mafioso boss (in his behavior toward Bassons / Simeoni / Landis, etc.) and has absolutely nothing at all to do with his nationality, winning record or cancer background (although his foundation, to me, is a great slap in the face of those who believe in his story).

End of story.

 

[straydog]

.... I do sincerely wish that doping was not the norm in professional cycling, and do believe that Mr Landis' revelations will alter the course of cycling to an extent. I am also smart enough to know that once genetic improvement begins to be used widely, the modern idea of "clean" becomes a quaint notion reserved for old guys.
.

Your first paragraph....I agree....a point well made.

Find for me another rider....Landis...remember the late night calls to Greg?....Roche very vocal in his "cleanliness", and in his reaction and threatened litigation to Kimmage....The entire Festina team (and a significant proportion of the then peloton) with Bassons....I could go on and use plenty of examples of those who reacted in a "bullying" manner to people who had "spat in the soup"....so yes....I certainly do not single LA out.

I am also offended at the lies and deceit he has used in regards to his cancer efforts.....how exactly do you think he has used lies and deceit in his effort to raise cancer awareness?....and surely the salient point is that he is raising cancer awareness....An admirable endeavour surely?.

He uses other people's cancer to deflect doping accusations....He reacted to kimmage calling him a "cancer" to cycling....do you really think anyone with any direct experience of cancer would not react to that expert piece of "trolling"? That deliberately insulting use of the word "cancer"? i don't think that is deflection....I think it is called being genuinely p*ssed off.

....who SET HIMSELF UP as the biggest name in the sport....who hasn't gone into competitive sports and not hoped to make a name for themselves?

And RR...Phillippe is too modest to respond to my babble....

I am sure he is very grateful for your wise contribution and defence....His CV sounds mightily impressive....I am especially jealous of the frequent flyer points....that must make him very knowledgeable and worthy of your adoration....and he even does the occasional sportif in France and Belgium? Until you mentioned them I had never heard of those countries, let alone taken the three hour trip from my home in london to visit them.

He saw his first road race before i was born?....that dude must be very very old....his posts make more sense now that you have put them in context....i will try to be more patient with him in future

And after saying all that RR....I apologise, but i am going to have to add you to my ever growing ignore list....not because your "babble" about the things you know about me, has upset me....or even been risible....cos at least then i would have been laughing....but simply, because I find your input into any discussion genuinely tedious to read.

 

[blunder]

....how exactly do you think he has used lies and deceit in his effort to raise cancer awareness?....and surely the salient point is that he is raising cancer awareness....An admirable endeavour surely?

an admirable endeavour?
raising cancer awareness... http://www.livestrong.org
or brand awareness... http://www.livestrong.com

he is feeding off cancer victims in my view... disgusting!

 

[straydog]

an admirable endeavour?
raising cancer awareness... http://www.livestrong.org
or brand awareness... http://www.livestrong.com

he is feeding off cancer victims in my view... disgusting!

did you really think I needed help knowing that the Livestrong foundation and the Livestrong brand were separate enterprises?

Or help knowing that increased awareness of one will positively impact on the other and vice versa?

Do you really think that there aren't other brands that don't also have foundations that do good?

Other businesses who don't contribute to charity and receive some reflected positive impact on their business as a result?

feeding...a very emotive and might i say unimaginative use of that word.

 

[blunder]

you really are a true believer....

just curious... are you being paid by the word? or by the post?

 

[straydog]

you really are a true believer....

just curious... are you being paid by the word? or by the post?

....and another one nooses up the rope i offered....read the OP....then blunder away dude.

 

[blunder]

ahhh... so your a trainee troll... okies

may I suggest you practice your troll skills on the 'farmville' or 'mousehunt' forums for a while?

cheers

 

[andy1234]

....and another one nooses up the rope i offered....read the OP....then blunder away dude.

Straydog, I agree with some of your points, not so sure on some of the others...

I think you are making a mistake engaging with some of these guys. They are commenting on something that may as well be taking place on Mars, given the actual contact they have had with the subject matter.

This obviously does not apply to all the posters on the thread, but for those it does, leave them to it.

......I'm just going to find myself a baseball forum to crash. A couple of DVDs and wikipedia should be all I need to get myself up to speed.....

 

[Benotti69]

you really are a true believer....

just curious... are you being paid by the word? or by the post?

it would be be nice to think the mutt is getting paid, as it explains a rationale to defend the indefensible, but i think this puppy is just another troll who dislikes those who can see through the myth, his arguments are aggressive towards the anti without explaining the whys? and justifications to dope, best leave him chew his bone...

 

[Hugh Januss]

......I'm just going to find myself a baseball forum to crash. A couple of DVDs and wikipedia should be all I need to get myself up to speed.....

That is probably an excellent idea. You could have fun over there defending Clemens and Bonds etal, and posting wild rambling posts about what a piece of crap jealous snitch Canseco is.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

did you really think I needed help knowing that the Livestrong foundation and the Livestrong brand were separate enterprises?

Or help knowing that increased awareness of one will positively impact on the other and vice versa?

Do you really think that there aren't other brands that don't also have foundations that do good?

Other businesses who don't contribute to charity and receive some reflected positive impact on their business as a result?

feeding...a very emotive and might i say unimaginative use of that word.

Straydog, what do you think is Armstrong's primary motivation for Livestrong, self-enrichment (egoism) or public benefactor (altruism)?

Why does Livestrong.com even exist if not for self-interest? Doesn't it compete with its own sister organisation for funds that could be given over completely for cancer research? It's Livestrong.com that has the gift shop. Or is it OK to skim a healthy portion for oneself as long as you do a bit of good for others?

If corporations do a bit of good, does that mitigate the selfish things they do?

The 'deceit' that everyone talks about with relation to Armstrong and his 'charity' (the arm of it that is altruistic) can be reduced to virtue ethics: the ends don't justify the means. People who respect others as well as themselves like to do things properly and transparently when working towards an appropriate goal. This isn't my idea - cf. the fathers of western philosophy.

This 'raising cancer awareness' shtick is rather thin also: who in the world hasn't been touched by cancer in their lives? We all have parents, relatives, friends and colleagues who've battled and sometimes won, sometimes not. That raises one's awareness of the disease a heck of a lot more than a square-jawed bike rider cum self-styled cancer messiah.

The real reason for fanboyism is the love of story: until lately Lance's was a tale of such purity and beauty people had a need to believe in it. Many still still do it seems. For many of us, though, being an obvious douche made his myth far less than perfect.

Like the man himself, his fall when complete will be ugly and unedifying. Then we might see the real Lance Armstrong. I hope he can be a good guy and build up the .org side of his thing.

 

[andy1234]

That is probably an excellent idea. You could have fun over there defending Clemens and Bonds etal, and posting wild rambling posts about what a piece of crap jealous snitch Canseco is.

Didn't understand a word you said there.

Oh and I haven't defended anybody here.

 

[Race Radio]

Straydog, what do you think is Armstrong's primary motivation for Livestrong, self-enrichment (egoism) or public benefactor (altruism)?

Why does Livestrong.com even exist if not for self-interest? Doesn't it compete with its own sister organisation for funds that could be given over completely for cancer research? It's Livestrong.com that has the gift shop. Or is it OK to skim a healthy portion for oneself as long as you do a bit of good for others?

The .com is there for personal enrichment. The .org is to pay for jet fuel and raise awareness of the Armstrong brand.

In the combined audit report of the livestrong family of charities the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised on the most recent tax form only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses.

 

[Race Radio]

Straydog, what do you think is Armstrong's primary motivation for Livestrong, self-enrichment (egoism) or public benefactor (altruism)?

Why does Livestrong.com even exist if not for self-interest? Doesn't it compete with its own sister organisation for funds that could be given over completely for cancer research? It's Livestrong.com that has the gift shop. Or is it OK to skim a healthy portion for oneself as long as you do a bit of good for others?

The .com is for personal enrichment. The .org is for raising awareness of the Armstrong myth and paying for jet fuel.

In the combined audit report of the livestrong family of charities the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised on the most recent tax form, only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses

 

[stephens]

Lots is being made of this .org vs. .com livestrong stuff, but FWIW, I've never heard of anyone who thought that by buying a nike branded "livestrong" product they were supporting cancer research or anything, so I fail to see any confusion. Peopley buy those products either a) to associate themselves with Lance like they would by buying a shirt with their favorite sport teams logo on it, or b) to show some connection to a personal/family fight against cancer - not a financial fight, but just support the concept of "living strong against cancer" in their lives.

I personally think even the for profit livestrong brand has been tremendously valuable in raising awareness about cancer, lessing the disease stigma, improving people's lifestyles in hopes of them not getting cancer in the first place, increasing conversation about cancer (that increases people's donations to cancer organizations overall) and getting politicians to act as well ("lots of my constituents are wearing that livestrong crap so maybe i can score points by voting for a cancer initiative...).

But all of this really should be separate from anything Lance has done as a cyclist/doper. Unless it can be shown that he used his cancer activities in order to get the authorities to overlook positive doping tests or something like that. Otherwise, it's just stuff he does off the bike and shouldn't really be part of the discussion.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Lots is being made of this .org vs. .com livestrong stuff, but FWIW, I've never heard of anyone who thought that by buying a nike branded "livestrong" product they were supporting cancer research or anything, so I fail to see any confusion. Peopley buy those products either a) to associate themselves with Lance like they would by buying a shirt with their favorite sport teams logo on it, or b) to show some connection to a personal/family fight against cancer - not a financial fight, but just support the concept of "living strong against cancer" in their lives.

I personally think even the for profit livestrong brand has been tremendously valuable in raising awareness about cancer, lessing the disease stigma, improving people's lifestyles in hopes of them not getting cancer in the first place, increasing conversation about cancer (that increases people's donations to cancer organizations overall) and getting politicians to act as well ("lots of my constituents are wearing that livestrong crap so maybe i can score points by voting for a cancer initiative...).

But all of this really should be separate from anything Lance has done as a cyclist/doper. Unless it can be shown that he used his cancer activities in order to get the authorities to overlook positive doping tests or something like that. Otherwise, it's just stuff he does off the bike and shouldn't really be part of the discussion.

Now that I know what you think, I just want someone to gimme some truth.

 

[straydog]

Straydog, what do you think is Armstrong's primary motivation for Livestrong, self-enrichment (egoism) or public benefactor (altruism)?

Why does Livestrong.com even exist if not for self-interest? Doesn't it compete with its own sister organisation for funds that could be given over completely for cancer research? It's Livestrong.com that has the gift shop. Or is it OK to skim a healthy portion for oneself as long as you do a bit of good for others?

If corporations do a bit of good, does that mitigate the selfish things they do?

The 'deceit' that everyone talks about with relation to Armstrong and his 'charity' (the arm of it that is altruistic) can be reduced to virtue ethics: the ends don't justify the means. People who respect others as well as themselves like to do things properly and transparently when working towards an appropriate goal. This isn't my idea - cf. the fathers of western philosophy.

This 'raising cancer awareness' shtick is rather thin also: who in the world hasn't been touched by cancer in their lives? We all have parents, relatives, friends and colleagues who've battled and sometimes won, sometimes not. That raises one's awareness of the disease a heck of a lot more than a square-jawed bike rider cum self-styled cancer messiah.

The real reason for fanboyism is the love of story: until lately Lance's was a tale of such purity and beauty people had a need to believe in it. Many still still do it seems. For many of us, though, being an obvious douche made his myth far less than perfect.

Like the man himself, his fall when complete will be ugly and unedifying. Then we might see the real Lance Armstrong. I hope he can be a good guy and build up the .org side of his thing.

Cyclo, firstly....I give you a lot of credit for the general tone of your post....you are at least discussing this topic, and attempting to justify the reasons you think and feel what you do....and i welcome your comments and thank you for your input.

But i do think the post's feeling, rather than thinking, shines through brightest:

"a square-jawed bike rider cum self-styled cancer messiah....Like the man himself, his fall when complete will be ugly and unedifying....being an obvious douche"

I actually think that stephens' response has very ably and eruditely reasoned against many of your opinions about the Cancer Awareness track of this debate....so i won't add to it at present.

Later in your post you said...."The real reason for fanboyism is the love of story"....and on this I actually agree with you to some extent....just as it is the motivation for the people I have sometimes labelled "haters"....they need a villain....just as the fanboys need a heroe...to enjoy the read.

I just happen to think that my admiration for the "heroe' can be three dimensional, and the "heroe" can be flawed.

I don't wish to presume anything about anyone so i apologise for being generic here...but just as any woman or women that you have loved in your life, Cylco, will have had their flaws....and hopefully you loved them despite of and with those flaws, and were perfectly aware of them....I am sure you will have also respected other peoples right not to feel the same way as you did/ do....but if someone had attacked those women or their flaws....in a way you felt was unjustified....I am sure you would have defended them