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

[Hugh Januss]

You know, without some sort of independent verification, we really shouldn't be talking about that alleged incident as if it was a fact. UCI still denies that anyone tested positive for EPO at that race. Has anyone but Landis said otherwise?

Floyd didn't say otherwise, Floyd said Lance said otherwise.

 

[pmcg76]

You know, without some sort of independent verification, we really shouldn't be talking about that alleged incident as if it was a fact. UCI still denies that anyone tested positive for EPO at that race. Has anyone but Landis said otherwise?

Ok then, I missed 'alleged' incident but seriously, would you believe the UCI on that.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ok then, I missed 'alleged' incident but seriously, would you believe the UCI on that.

Pat "likes his credibility"

 

[VeloFidelis]

You are interested in debate, really?

Ok, simple questions really. Do you think Lance would have got such a pass by the media & public on doping in 99 if he hadnt the cancer backstory, say he just had 2 bad seasons as happens, would people have been as quick to ignore the amazing transformation.

Secondly, would the UCI have busted him for that 01 positive at Tour of Switzerland if he hadnt become such a media draw.

Of course Lance would not have gotten such a "pass" without the cancer backstory. But there is a cancer backstory. Are you making the argument that the "amazing transformation" was not impacted by stage 4 cancer and the months of Chemotherapy required to arrest it? This is, after all historical fact.

Secondly, exactly what Tour de Suisse positive are you referring to? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/sportsline/main6517851.shtml)
After watching years of press leaks around doping positives, I find it hard to believe that the UCI could so completely cover up a positive test on any high profile rider.

 

[straydog]

You are interested in debate, really?

Ok, simple questions really. Do you think Lance would have got such a pass by the media & public on doping in 99 if he hadnt the cancer backstory, say he just had 2 bad seasons as happens, would people have been as quick to ignore the amazing transformation.

Secondly, would the UCI have busted him for that 01 positive at Tour of Switzerland if he hadnt become such a media draw.

Since you asked so nicely

I think his "cancer backstory", if you want to call it that, had no bearing on the media's handling of doping allegations towards him in '99. With the exception of the french media, who due to the festina scandal and the number of their riders implicated in it, were pretty vocal in their accusations, I think the rest of the mainstream cycling media was pretty myopic on the topic. I don't think LA had any undue preferential treatment compared to any other rider. There wasn't much fuss when Pantani came back in 2000. Or Ullrich after his amphetamine run in, or many others.

And Armstrong hadn't had two "bad" seasons. And do you choose to ignore the vuelta in 98 when you make your assertion about his amazing transformation?

The only people who seem to "use" Armstrong's Cancer as a back story to a free pass on dope allegations are detractors, who seem to not notice the unsavoury and irrelevant nature of their constant use of it as some kind of stick.

On the second point, Stephens beat me to it.

 

[pmcg76]

Since you asked so nicely

I think his "cancer backstory", if you want to call it that, had no bearing on the media's handling of doping allegations towards him in '99. With the exception of the french media, who due to the festina scandal and the number of their riders implicated in it, were pretty vocal in their accusations, I think the rest of the mainstream cycling media was pretty myopic on the topic. I don't think LA had any undue preferential treatment compared to any other rider. There wasn't much fuss when Pantani came back in 2000. Or Ullrich after his amphetamine run in, or many others.

And Armstrong hadn't had two "bad" seasons. And do you choose to ignore the vuelta in 98 when you make your assertion about his amazing transformation?

The only people who seem to "use" Armstrong's Cancer as a back story to a free pass on dope allegations are detractors, who seem to not notice the unsavoury and irrelevant nature of their constant use of it as some kind of stick.

On the second point, Stephens beat me to it.

Why were the French the only ones to wonder, Festina didnt just effect French cycling. It affected all cycling. Go back and read all English language magazines at the time and not one publication wonders how he went from what he was pre-cancer to what he became. They just jumped on the cancer survivor super-hero story. Not one even criticised him for his behaviour towards Bsssons even though they were all full of doping stories for the previous year. The only guy I seen raise a question was Paul Kimmage.

You guys really love that 98 Vuelta performance, 4th place in the weakest GT with a **** poor field does not automatically make a Tour winner. Do you remember Roberto Pistore, No, he finished 6th in the Vuelta once.

I guess its hard to disagree with a guy who says "I have been close to death, I know what its like, do you honestly think I would risk my health by using drugs".

 

[stephens]

BTW, I've said before that if there is proof that there was a bribe and a coverup of a failed test in 2001, that will be the thing that really turns public opinion against Armstrong. Much more so than any positives that might come from retests (i.e. samples that were negative by that day's standards but can be proven to be positive using today's methods). Because if there is one thing Americans strongly believe, it is that you aren't really guilty until you are caught fair and square: and that when caught fair and square, you have to pay the penalty and not weasel out of it. If it can be shown that Armstrong was caught fair and square and did buy his way out of it, he will be seen not as a simple cheater, but much worse.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Hey Darryl, always and forever.

And just for you may I lob in a random quote to test your fanboyism?

"I won't hate on what you do
When you find somebody new"

???
I dont do "fan boyism" ..and try to avoid much in the way of belief..prefering to have an open mind to a good idea ..ready to be superceaded by a better idea.

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

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course Lance would not have gotten such a "pass" without the cancer backstory. But there is a cancer backstory. Are you making the argument that the "amazing transformation" was not impacted by stage 4 cancer and the months of Chemotherapy required to arrest it? This is, after all historical fact.

Secondly, exactly what Tour de Suisse positive are you referring to? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/sportsline/main6517851.shtml)
After watching years of press leaks around doping positives, I find it hard to believe that the UCI could so completely cover up a positive test on any high profile rider.

The UCI managed to keep Contadors positive A&B sample quiet for 2 months - and don't forget that Pat McQuaid stated the 'letters from the labs' would be published on the "UCI website in a sign of transparency" - which has not happened.

Back in 2001 there was no WADA to worry about. The test was done in Lausanne, any positive went to the UCI & IOC both based in Lausanne with Verbruggen involved at a top level in both.

Landis said LA & JB went to Lausanne shortly after...... quite an amazing coincidence that instead of flying back to the States straight after the Tour like he did in every year after 99 Lance rode A Travers a Lausanne right after the Tourand flew back to the States the following day.

 

[Race Radio]

After watching years of press leaks around doping positives, I find it hard to believe that the UCI could so completely cover up a positive test on any high profile rider.

The UCI has a long history of covering up dopers. They did it for Laurent Brochard when he tested positive after he won worlds in 1997, why would they not do it 4 years later?

 

[washedup]

The UCI has a long history of covering up dopers. They did it for Laurent Brochard when he tested positive after he won worlds in 1997, why would they not do it 4 years later?

The mullet was positive (I know about festina impl.)? No surprise there. Evidence?

 

[pmcg76]

The UCI managed to keep Contadors positive A&B sample quiet for 2 months - and don't forget that Pat McQuaid stated the 'letters from the labs' would be published on the "UCI website in a sign of transparency" - which has not happened.

Back in 2001 there was no WADA to worry about. The test was done in Lausanne, any positive went to the UCI & IOC both based in Lausanne with Verbruggen involved at a top level in both.

Landis said LA & JB went to Lausanne shortly after...... quite an amazing coincidence that instead of flying back to the States straight after the Tour like he did in every year after 99 Lance rode A Travers a Lausanne right after the Tourand flew back to the States the following day.

Interesting stuff Doc, its amazing how all these little things help to make sense of a bigger story. I had never heard of that before. He usually done a few crits after the Tour but Lausanne is definitely not a post Tour crit.

 

[Beech Mtn]

The UCI has a long history of covering up dopers. They did it for Laurent Brochard when he tested positive after he won worlds in 1997, why would they not do it 4 years later?

The mullet was positive (I know about festina impl.)? No surprise there. Evidence?

It's in Willy Voet's book.

 

[straydog]

....brevity

Back in 2001 there was no WADA to worry about. The test was done in Lausanne, any positive went to the UCI & IOC both based in Lausanne with Verbruggen involved at a top level in both.

Landis said LA & JB went to Lausanne shortly after...... quite an amazing coincidence that instead of flying back to the States straight after the Tour like he did in every year after 99 Lance rode A Travers a Lausanne right after the Tourand flew back to the States the following day.

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

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

 

[AngusW]

Firstly Angus, welcome to this "debate". And thanks for taking the time to respond to my post in an erudite and thoughtful manner. This is the sort of input that actually leads to interesting discussion.

Ok, my initial labelling of the "haters", and what they might try to paint me as, was a premeditated response to what I had witnessed them saying to posters who shared views similar to myself in numerous other threads. And a response to some of the more unsavoury and frankly preposterous speculation about LA's character, his impending r*ape in prison, his unsuitability as a husband and father and other such assertions of "knowledge" from certain posters.

Look, I am going to avoid seeming like I am constantly hating on kimmage, suffice it to say that I genuinely didn't find his book enjoyable or honest, and I think he is a rampant hypochrite.

As for Lemond's doctor. My question was a suggestion of research to those who might be interested. I happen to know who the Doctor was that I was referring to. And listen, here certainly shouldn't be a thread to discuss any suspicions regarding Lemond's cleanliness. However, if someone is interested in applying the same microscope to GL as he feels is necessary to apply to others, I think that is perfectly valid in this debate, as he has very much placed himself on a pedestal. Maybe in another thread we can discuss this further. Actually, something that really saddens me in all of this, is watching GL's behaviour, and the loss of respect I have had for him as a result. He was a great cyclist, one of my first heroes. Now I just find I question the motives behind almost all of what he says.

Cheers for the thoughtful post....Peace

I understand where you are coming from regarding some of the posters on this forum and I'm firmly in the anti-LA brigade (for want of a better term). However, I don't think pre-emptive strikes solve anything and they take you down to the level of the posters you're railing against. Just my opinion, though. In the anonymity of a forum like this, people type things they perhaps wouldn't if they were signing their real name.

Okay, so you didn't enjoy reading Kimmage's book. It's not everyone's cup of tea. It does make me wonder why you read it again. I do not agree with you that Kimmage is a hypocrite. By "spitting in the soup" as he did by writing that book he burned all his bridges with professional cycling and showed that he was not prepared to be part of the system that encouraged doping within the sport. He had been clean for most of his pro career and quit because he knew he wasn't good enough to be there. He hated doping, not cycling as has been claimed. He refused to continue to be part of the cosy family of cycling journalists using former teammates as contacts and turning a blind eye to what was really happening. By doing that I think he shows he is not a hypocrite. If you think he is a hypocrite to speak out against doping because he himself doped, well, I disagree there too. Admitting that he doped after trying to avoid doping for so long took balls and I think that is honest.

Maybe you know Kimmage better than I do. Perhaps he really is a hypocrite. If you have other knowledge about him in this regard, please share. I have to say that I don't think his comment about Armstrong being a cancer helped his cause. BTW, what's with all this "hating on" stuff? Don't you "hate" someone, rather than "hate on" them?

You seem to know more about Lemond's doctor than you previously let on.

...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...

I agree that this thread is not the place to cast suspicions on Lemond's cleanliness (other threads have touched on this). Yet it was you who hinted at it in your original thread. And that's not to say that GL's past should not be investigated. If you feel that strongly about it, why not start a thread yourself?

Thanks for your response.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Uh oh, Angus.

Get ready for an overly verbose monologue that circolumcutes reality and is heavy on the polysyllabics...

Gotta love the Chien Mechant...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

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

Yes so 'lucrative & prestigious' that in 2001 it attracted these great names of cycling.

1 Cadel Evans (Aus) Saeco 13.12,10
2 José Luis Rubiera Vigil (Spa) US Postal Service 0.00,47
3 Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Saeco 0.04,50
4 Daniel Schnider (Swi) La Française des Jeux 0.16,61
5 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 0.28,27
6 Wladimir Belli (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 0.31,07
7 Alexandre Moos (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.33,85
8 Daniel Atienza (Spa) Cofidis, Le Crédit par Téléphone 0.35,64
9 Steve Zampieri (Swi) Post Swiss Team 0.40,29
10 Beat Zberg (Swi) Rabobank 0.50,18
11 Aurélien Clerc (Swi) Post Swiss Team 0.50,67
12 Armin Meier (Swi) Saeco 0.51,59
13 Martin Elmiger (Swi) Post Swiss Team 0.54,15
14 Niki Aebersold (Swi) Team Coast 1.07,93
15 Lukas Zumsteg (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 1.14,97
16 Dominique Perras (Can) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.19,01
17 Marcus Zberg (Swi) Rabobank 1.29,27
18 David Chassot (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.35,75
19 Julien Girard (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.40,06
20 Davide Bramati (Ita) Mapei-Quick Step 1.41,66
21 Valentin Girard (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.43,37
22 Ludovic Fahrni (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.44,92
23 Julien Vergeres (Swi) GS Ficonseils 1.45,14
24 Stéphane Benoit (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.53,34
25 Thomas Frischknecht II (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.57,49
26 Erik Saunders (Swi) GS Ficonseils 2.03,55
27 Stéphane Gremaud (Swi) GS Ficonseils

 

[Race Radio]

Yes so 'lucrative & prestigious' that in 2001 it attracted these great names of cycling.

1 Cadel Evans (Aus) Saeco 13.12,10
2 José Luis Rubiera Vigil (Spa) US Postal Service 0.00,47
3 Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Saeco 0.04,50
4 Daniel Schnider (Swi) La Française des Jeux 0.16,61
5 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 0.28,27
6 Wladimir Belli (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 0.31,07
7 Alexandre Moos (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 0.33,85
8 Daniel Atienza (Spa) Cofidis, Le Crédit par Téléphone 0.35,64
9 Steve Zampieri (Swi) Post Swiss Team 0.40,29
10 Beat Zberg (Swi) Rabobank 0.50,18
11 Aurélien Clerc (Swi) Post Swiss Team 0.50,67
12 Armin Meier (Swi) Saeco 0.51,59
13 Martin Elmiger (Swi) Post Swiss Team 0.54,15
14 Niki Aebersold (Swi) Team Coast 1.07,93
15 Lukas Zumsteg (Swi) Phonak Hearing Systems 1.14,97
16 Dominique Perras (Can) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.19,01
17 Marcus Zberg (Swi) Rabobank 1.29,27
18 David Chassot (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.35,75
19 Julien Girard (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.40,06
20 Davide Bramati (Ita) Mapei-Quick Step 1.41,66
21 Valentin Girard (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.43,37
22 Ludovic Fahrni (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.44,92
23 Julien Vergeres (Swi) GS Ficonseils 1.45,14
24 Stéphane Benoit (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.53,34
25 Thomas Frischknecht II (Swi) Cyclophile Lausannois 1.57,49
26 Erik Saunders (Swi) GS Ficonseils 2.03,55
27 Stéphane Gremaud (Swi) GS Ficonseils

Any race that has E-Rock and the Powerhouse GS-Ficonseils team in 26th has to be stacked!

 

[SpartacusRox]

Huh? I've never said one word in defense of Armstrong's actions. I don't even like him as a cyclist or a human being. I have said I don't think he'll be crucified as much as you all think and I have objected to some of the methods of investigation and speculation, but that's quite different from defending him.

Yeah but thats all it takes to upset brodeal. You are either rabidly anti Armstrong or you are a fanboy. There is no objective middle ground for people like our Bro, bless his heart. It's easier to live in a black and white world. heck his favourite programme is Lone Ranger reruns.

 

[Ferminal]

Evens at the height of his powers there in 2001.....................

 

[BroDeal]

Yeah but thats all it takes to upset brodeal. You are either rabidly anti Armstrong or you are a fanboy. There is no objective middle ground for people like our Bro, bless his heart. It's easier to live in a black and white world. heck his favourite programme is Lone Ranger reruns.

The black and white world has not treated the DoucheBagster well. All he does is whine about how people don't like Armstrong and how all the negativity is making him limp. Don't worry, little camper, now that Contador has solid evidence of being a doper you can spend your time defending his dope use and whining about his detractors when you are not begging your boyfriend to let you call him Lance.

 

[tubularglue]

what is, by definition, the middle ground

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that any given compromise between two positions must be correct.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground


ok, now back to the argument' which is the true color gray/grey

The earliest known formulation of the principle is in the book On Interpretation by Aristotle,[3] where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false.[4] He also states it as a principle in the Metaphysics book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny,[5] and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction.[6]

 

[VeloFidelis]

The UCI has a long history of covering up dopers. They did it for Laurent Brochard when he tested positive after he won worlds in 1997, why would they not do it 4 years later?

The fact that you and I, and probably everyone else here know about Brouchard, and have for a very long time does not make a convincing case for a successful cover up.

 

[Race Radio]

The fact that you and I, and probably everyone else here know about Brouchard, and have for a very long time does not make a convincing case for a successful cover up.

How long was his suspension for his Worlds positive?

Few would have know if it wasn't for Voet, just like few knew of Armstrong's payoff until Landis. It appears you do not know the details. Verbruggen deliberately delayed the processing so it would be tossed out on a technicality. He figured that it would be not good for the sport if the World Champion tested positive. By the time Armstrong tested positive for Cortisone in 1999, or EPO in 2001, or the 6 positives in 1999 Verbruggen was well practiced in making it all go away.

 

[tubularglue]

re: suspension

i cannot remember if it was short, like the front
or long like the back