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

[Hugh Januss]

The singular event which led to the great downfall of the legendary Ninja Warrior Cats was their inability to appreciate the lack of protection afforded by their world-renowned, hand-crafted melon helmets; helmets which symbolized their humble agrarian beginnings and that had stood the test of time and served them faithfully over the millenia, but which proved sorely deficient upon the advent of steel...

Uh oh..........

 

[clearhop]

A lot? Sounds like a strawman....

Sorry to have diverted the discussion away from your anti-hero, but I'm not supporting Armstrong or trying to divert the discussion really - I'm sure you'll agree, that's a little different on a thread named as it is.

All I'm saying is, I don't understand why people who don't like LA for the reasons mentioned in the previous post, do like Vino. Apologies if you think I needed to start a new thread about Vino to discuss that one. It was more an observation than anything else. Some people get riled up about doping but cheer for Vino - I know he's crazy, but I don't get it.

Anyway. Back to Lance.

 

[Anonymous]

The singular event which led to the great downfall of the legendary Ninja Warrior Cats was their inability to appreciate the lack of protection afforded by their world-renowned, hand-crafted melon helmets: helmets which symbolized their humble agrarian beginnings and that had stood the test of time and served them faithfully over the millenia, but which proved sorely deficient upon the advent of steel...

Yea, just wait until they put hooks through their skin that have ropes tied to a poll, and then dance around that poll staring at the sun for days, and then envision a "ghost shirt" that they can wear that will protect their warriors from lead. It is sad to see what total degradation of a society leads to.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Sorry to have diverted the discussion away from your anti-hero, but I'm not supporting Armstrong or trying to divert the discussion really - I'm sure you'll agree, that's a little different on a thread named as it is.

All I'm saying is, I don't understand why people who don't like LA for the reasons mentioned in the previous post, do like Vino. Apologies if you think I needed to start a new thread about Vino to discuss that one. It was more an observation than anything else. Some people get riled up about doping but cheer for Vino - I know he's crazy, but I don't get it.

Anyway. Back to Lance.

Vino seems to harness any sociopathic instincts into attacking like a madman, and barely says a word either on or off the bike.

Lance prostitutes his cancer and the suffering of millions as a way to defend his public integrity, and uses his profile and influence to attempt to destroy those whose honesty might harm his interests. He also lies openly and repeatedly.

 

[Deagol]

Sorry to have diverted the discussion away from your anti-hero, but I'm not supporting Armstrong or trying to divert the discussion really - I'm sure you'll agree, that's a little different on a thread named as it is.

All I'm saying is, I don't understand why people who don't like LA for the reasons mentioned in the previous post, do like Vino. Apologies if you think I needed to start a new thread about Vino to discuss that one. It was more an observation than anything else. Some people get riled up about doping but cheer for Vino - I know he's crazy, but I don't get it.

Anyway. Back to Lance.

OK, I’ll take a stab at this. I am no fan of Vino or Lance. They both appear as cheaters. I suspected Vino from way back (first time I remember thinking this was the Sydney Olympics when Jan won). In retrospect, it’s quite funny I suspected Vino way before Lance, but what can I say, I was caught up in the “story” like so many others. So fast forward to the present: Vino may come across as an unrepentant doper, but so does LA. In addition LA has several more layers of being a total &*^%$#@! piled ontop of the cheating stuff. Every time I read a new account from someone who had inside info on him, I am blown away.

So to sum up: not a fan of either of them, although I know a lot of posters here are Vino fans..

And people like the OP have a selective conscience. After reading this type of stuff for over a year on this forum, I would not be surprised if Lance went around kicking puppies and slapping babies and they would still defend him. It’s a cult.

 

[Benotti69]

The singular event which led to the great downfall of the legendary Ninja Warrior Cats was their inability to appreciate the lack of protection afforded by their world-renowned, hand-crafted melon helmets: helmets which symbolized their humble agrarian beginnings and that had stood the test of time and served them faithfully over the millenia, but which proved sorely deficient upon the advent of steel...

yeah but VeloFidelis is firing blanks

 

[Elagabalus]

OK, I’ll take a stab at this. I am no fan of Vino or Lance. They both appear as cheaters. I suspected Vino from way back (first time I remember thinking this was the Sydney Olympics when Jan won). In retrospect, it’s quite funny I suspected Vino way before Lance, but what can I say, I was caught up in the “story” like so many others. So fast forward to the present: Vino may come across as an unrepentant doper, but so does LA. In addition LA has several more layers of being a total &*^%$#@! piled ontop of the cheating stuff. Every time I read a new account from someone who had inside info on him, I am blown away.

So to sum up: not a fan of either of them, although I know a lot of posters here are Vino fans..

And people like the OP have a selective conscience. After reading this type of stuff for over a year on this forum, I would not be surprised if Lance went around kicking puppies and slapping babies and they would still defend him. It’s a cult.

heh!

I came across this the other day*:

http://bikezilla.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/lance-armstrong-hes-earned-more-than-bad-press/

while searching (in vain!) to find some one somewhere who has the "Lance and Johan chat after stage 8" animation that was on youtube. Start about halfway down the page. I must admit it does sound rather strange ....


*normal disclaimer applies. Don't believe everything you read on the internet etc. etc.

 

[alexanderplatz]

No one was cheated
What about the guys who were as talented as the dopers but didnt want to stick a needle in their arm? The guys who worked hard and were then cheated out of their just rewards? You really dont think things through properly do you? A pro cycling career for many cyclists pays for the bills but wont cover you for the retirement years, ie from about 35-38 until death, you re going to need another job right? All you know is cycling (in most cases) seeing as your whole life was dedicated to becoming a pro. You cant get a job in pro cycling cause either there arent that many DS jobs, you arent qualified to be a trainer, or you werent a big enough rider during your time to be able to call in favours from others. Or work on the PR side of things like hinault. All this can come from the decision not to dope. There are plenty of guys who could have made a name for themselves but didnt cause they were cheated out of a living.

Paul Kimmage is a great writer and along with David Walsh does a hell of a lot to bring doping to light. If you read his book you would see that he held out for years before finally doping. He said it was his story and no one elses, but he highlighted what was going on in a way that no one had before. 'Rough Ride' is a big reason there is a lot of investigative journalism into doping in cycling today. You say he isnt qualified to talk about doping cause he doped himself, I think that is exactly why he is qualified to talk about it. He pressurises cyclists because he wants to get rid of the scourge of doping so other riders dont have to be forced into doping. Anyone who contributes to a clean age is to be respected, without them you wouldnt have had champions in gilbert or a wiggins, they would have been labelled as crap riders.

So you can remain deluded, a 'fan boy' as you say, you probably contributed to the floyd fairness fund in the past, maintained that tyler hamilton was innocent and believed basso when he said he only attempted doping.
It is people like you who are the problem, you don't care, despite the fact that it brings the sport you profess to love to its knees, draining sponsor money and denying young riders opportunities. It is no coincidence that we've had some of the closest grand tours ever in recent years and that young riders win races a lot earlier than they used to. I hope it lasts this time

 

[Oldman]

All this can come from the decision not to dope. There are plenty of guys who could have made a name for themselves but didnt cause they were cheated out of a living.
It is no coincidence that we've had some of the closest grand tours ever in recent years and that young riders win races a lot earlier than they used to. I hope it lasts this time[/QUOTE]

Good sentiments from a newer poster in the face of a serial denial team.

 

[The Valley]

It's interesting to plot the path of denial of the Armstrong fans. It started out with "Armstrong is totally clean! He would NEVER dope!" then moved through "Armstrong would never cheat - he's got too much to lose" then "There's no way Armstrong would cheat - he'd be letting all those cancer sufferers down" to "Well, lots of people who worked with Armstrong are saying he doped...but they're all lying!" then "Well, it's possible that Armstrong cheated in the early Tours, but he's still a phenomenal athlete" and now "Well okay, maybe he DID dope, but then so did everyone else so it's okay and he still makes me wet."

It's a similar route taken by climate change denialists. Global warming's not happening. Okay, global warming is happening but it's part of a natural cycle. Okay, the earth is warming up quicker than ever before but it's not man made. Erm, global warming is happening and it might be man made, but lots of carbon dioxide and pollutants are actually good for us. And I don't care. Etc.

 

[buckwheat]

It's interesting to plot the path of denial of the Armstrong fans. It started out with "Armstrong is totally clean! He would NEVER dope!" then moved through "Armstrong would never cheat - he's got too much to lose" then "There's no way Armstrong would cheat - he'd be letting all those cancer sufferers down" to "Well, lots of people who worked with Armstrong are saying he doped...but they're all lying!" then "Well, it's possible that Armstrong cheated in the early Tours, but he's still a phenomenal athlete" and now "Well okay, maybe he DID dope, but then so did everyone else so it's okay and he still makes me wet."

It's a similar route taken by climate change denialists. Global warming's not happening. Okay, global warming is happening but it's part of a natural cycle. Okay, the earth is warming up quicker than ever before but it's not man made. Erm, global warming is happening and it might be man made, but lots of carbon dioxide and pollutants are actually good for us. And I don't care. Etc.

It's apparent that you love cancer and hate America.

 

[Benotti69]

i see the 'dog' has not been sniffing around, must be busy in the UCI these days

 

[Oldman]

i see the 'dog' has not been sniffing around, must be busy in the UCI these days

Most dogs eventually discover how limber they are and what-all they can lick. He's probably self-satisfied and nobody's hitting his nose with a rolled up newspaper (take your pick: WSJ, DN, NYT, Austin Picayune...).

 

[flicker]

No one was cheated
What about the guys who were as talented as the dopers but didnt want to stick a needle in their arm? The guys who worked hard and were then cheated out of their just rewards? You really dont think things through properly do you? A pro cycling career for many cyclists pays for the bills but wont cover you for the retirement years, ie from about 35-38 until death, you re going to need another job right? All you know is cycling (in most cases) seeing as your whole life was dedicated to becoming a pro. You cant get a job in pro cycling cause either there arent that many DS jobs, you arent qualified to be a trainer, or you werent a big enough rider during your time to be able to call in favours from others. Or work on the PR side of things like hinault. All this can come from the decision not to dope. There are plenty of guys who could have made a name for themselves but didnt cause they were cheated out of a living.

Paul Kimmage is a great writer and along with David Walsh does a hell of a lot to bring doping to light. If you read his book you would see that he held out for years before finally doping. He said it was his story and no one elses, but he highlighted what was going on in a way that no one had before. 'Rough Ride' is a big reason there is a lot of investigative journalism into doping in cycling today. You say he isnt qualified to talk about doping cause he doped himself, I think that is exactly why he is qualified to talk about it. He pressurises cyclists because he wants to get rid of the scourge of doping so other riders dont have to be forced into doping. Anyone who contributes to a clean age is to be respected, without them you wouldnt have had champions in gilbert or a wiggins, they would have been labelled as crap riders.

So you can remain deluded, a 'fan boy' as you say, you probably contributed to the floyd fairness fund in the past, maintained that tyler hamilton was innocent and believed basso when he said he only attempted doping.
It is people like you who are the problem, you don't care, despite the fact that it brings the sport you profess to love to its knees, draining sponsor money and denying young riders opportunities. It is no coincidence that we've had some of the closest grand tours ever in recent years and that young riders win races a lot earlier than they used to. I hope it lasts this time

I agree David Walsh and Paul Kimmage are valiant and coregous in their fight for clean sport. They are however threatening the tradition of doping in cycling. It would be curious to see clean cycling. Never seen it in pro cycling myself. What would it look like?

 

[straydog]

No one was cheated
What about the guys who were as talented as the dopers but didnt want to stick a needle in their arm? The guys who worked hard and were then cheated out of their just rewards? You really dont think things through properly do you? A pro cycling career for many cyclists pays for the bills but wont cover you for the retirement years, ie from about 35-38 until death, you re going to need another job right? All you know is cycling (in most cases) seeing as your whole life was dedicated to becoming a pro. You cant get a job in pro cycling cause either there arent that many DS jobs, you arent qualified to be a trainer, or you werent a big enough rider during your time to be able to call in favours from others. Or work on the PR side of things like hinault. All this can come from the decision not to dope. There are plenty of guys who could have made a name for themselves but didnt cause they were cheated out of a living.

Paul Kimmage is a great writer and along with David Walsh does a hell of a lot to bring doping to light. If you read his book you would see that he held out for years before finally doping. He said it was his story and no one elses, but he highlighted what was going on in a way that no one had before. 'Rough Ride' is a big reason there is a lot of investigative journalism into doping in cycling today. You say he isnt qualified to talk about doping cause he doped himself, I think that is exactly why he is qualified to talk about it. He pressurises cyclists because he wants to get rid of the scourge of doping so other riders dont have to be forced into doping. Anyone who contributes to a clean age is to be respected, without them you wouldnt have had champions in gilbert or a wiggins, they would have been labelled as crap riders.

So you can remain deluded, a 'fan boy' as you say, you probably contributed to the floyd fairness fund in the past, maintained that tyler hamilton was innocent and believed basso when he said he only attempted doping.
It is people like you who are the problem, you don't care, despite the fact that it brings the sport you profess to love to its knees, draining sponsor money and denying young riders opportunities. It is no coincidence that we've had some of the closest grand tours ever in recent years and that young riders win races a lot earlier than they used to. I hope it lasts this time

Hello all, I am still here....just been in "hibernation" for a bit

It's a pity that the above poster seems to have absented himself from further discussion after his impassioned reasoning of why it is that people like me are the "problem". My favourite part of his post is when he accuses me of not having thought "things" through, despite clearly not having bothered to read the rest of the thread....hmmm

As for saying Kimmage isn't "qualified" to talk about doping....I would love him to show me where I said that.

As for the Floyd and Tyler bit....did he even read my original post before the rabid lather of indignation starting frothing? When did I ever suggest I thought either they or LA hadn't doped.

Finally....cycling is on it's knees....really?....So this forum has around 15,000 members. A percentage of whom, like him, are in a bit of a tissy about doping. How many hundreds of thousands lined the roads at this years tour? the Worlds? Paris Roubaix? Tour of Flanders? How many millions have cycling's latest super sponsor Sky been "driven" from spending on "our" sport? What about Radioshack? How many follow LA on twitter?

I'd say our sport is in a pretty healthy financial state, given the present economic climate, and to think otherwise would suggest that....well....that you hadn't thought "things" through very well.

I understand that for some me admiring and respecting Armstrong really gets you excited, but honestly I really hope that watching cycling makes you much more excited.

Peace

 

[straydog]

Paul Kimmage is a great writer....

Really? You really think that? Have you read Hemingway? Hitchens? Mamet? Miller? Shakespeare?

That's almost as laughable as saying he was a great cyclist.

 

[BroDeal]

Really? You really think that? Have you read Hemingway? Hitchens? Mamet? Miller? Shakespeare?

That's almost as laughable as saying he was a great cyclist.

Not as laughable as putting Mamet and Hitchens in the same category as Hemingway and Shakespeare.

 

[straydog]

Not as laughable as putting Mamet and Hitchens in the same category as Hemingway and Shakespeare.

Philistine!

 

[HoustonHammer]

Thanks. I feel better getting it out and you did all the thinking and typing. It'd be great if the one's not on a payroll did the same. Then the guys on LA's staff would finally go away.

Is this sarcasm, or do you really believe that someone could be paid to post here? I mean, I get a kick out of this place, but really, it an obscure forum that has maybe a couple hundred regular readers. What does that cost/benefit analysis look like?

 

[scribe]

Is this sarcasm, or do you really believe that someone could be paid to post here? I mean, I get a kick out of this place, but really, it an obscure forum that has maybe a couple hundred regular readers. What does that cost/benefit analysis look like?

I like the little extra cash to buy lottery tickets and ciggies.

 

[HoustonHammer]

I like the little extra cash to buy lottery tickets and ciggies.

Really? I use mine for PEDs. Sorry, did I say PEDs? I meant PEZ...

But seriously, I always assumed that the 'paid poster' thing was just a taunt. Recently, I'm starting to think there might be people who believe it.

 

[Spank226]

I have to respect the original poster for echoing much of what I've thought / felt with regards to Armstrong, this situation, and I respect him for posting. I also have to applaud / admire the OP for using "bereft". Wish I could bring those succinct words to mind when they are needed.

I think, aside from all of the "blah blah" antagonistic posts and the name-calling on all sides, there were some worthwhile, thoughtful comments. A shame to have to drudge through the rabble (from both sides), though.

However, one part of this whole thing that is tough for me to digest is the "past is the past" type stuff. On one hand, we can't live in the past so why bother dredging it up? On the other, we must learn from it so that the present is how we would prefer. And how can we learn from it until we investigate? Dichotomy. I have no suggestions on how to reconcile this, but this may be one of the pillars or this whole argument.

It's probably the root of all political arguments and certainly won't be resolved in a cycling forum.

There are too many subtleties to draw a razor line; While I don't like bullies, I am a fan.

 

[thehog]

I have to respect the original poster for echoing much of what I've thought / felt with regards to Armstrong, this situation, and I respect him for posting. I also have to applaud / admire the OP for using "bereft". Wish I could bring those succinct words to mind when they are needed.

I think, aside from all of the "blah blah" antagonistic posts and the name-calling on all sides, there were some worthwhile, thoughtful comments. A shame to have to drudge through the rabble (from both sides), though.

However, one part of this whole thing that is tough for me to digest is the "past is the past" type stuff. On one hand, we can't live in the past so why bother dredging it up? On the other, we must learn from it so that the present is how we would prefer. And how can we learn from it until we investigate? Dichotomy. I have no suggestions on how to reconcile this, but this may be one of the pillars or this whole argument.

It's probably the root of all political arguments and certainly won't be resolved in a cycling forum.

There are too many subtleties to draw a razor line; While I don't like bullies, I am a fan.

For the most part your post is correct. The OP is also correct that everyone was on it. If Armstrong didn't win then someone who was also doping would have. But it certainly wasn't a level playing field. Armstrong has done much worse than doping. He bribed with cash for his wins. He paid off sports officials. He made sure his team had advanced warnings on tests. There was no way Armstrong or his team was ever going to test positive. And if he did? A donation sorted that. No other cyclist had this advantaged or the cash reserves to do so. No other team had this advantage. So whilst the 90% of the peloton was doping it certainly wasn't a level playing field.

I understand why people are fanboys. It's fantasy. We like fantasy. The Armstrong story makes great reading. People don't want the truth to get in the way of a good story. I'm ok with you being a fan. If it makes you feel good then good - I just can't respect you.*

 

[laziali]

and it's called sarcasm....

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

Man, you use a LOT of dots. Just sayin.

Also, what is this "real" world you speak of so often? Tell me, how can I too explore it's mysteries?

Amateur.

 

[pmcg76]

I agree David Walsh and Paul Kimmage are valiant and coregous in their fight for clean sport. They are however threatening the tradition of doping in cycling. It would be curious to see clean cycling. Never seen it in pro cycling myself. What would it look like?

Charly Mottet, Giles Delion, Helvetia/LaSuisse, Greg LeMond, Steve Bauer, Christophe Bassons, Nicolas Aubier, Chris Boardman, Eric Caritoux, Vuelta 84 etc, etc.