Why it DOES matter that Lance goes down.

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
gree0232 said:
So you are accussing me of lying, wven though the second post clearly ends with someone calling Lance a sociopath - in a forum filled with a herd of trolls who attacks anyone who dares to defend Lance ....

Please notice the use of the term 'we' not 'you' in the original.

Rather than state why, after a failed federal investigation (based on what SI is writing apparently) we should continue to dig on this one?

Why? Why do YOU and the other Lance magnets NEED to be right? Why does Lance positively HAVE TO HAVE doped?

Why is that the 'truth'? Rather than what evidence can resonably support?


When is enough, enough?

When do we start looking at the accussations and the failure to convict and start treating those continuing to dig as sky is falling accussations?
actually I think you are on to something. Not about my man Doc.

But in general if you add a little objectivity to your thought here there is something to it

no offense to anyone
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Polish said:
The cancer survivors in that commercial were inspiring.

Are you guys angry because Lance and Nike raised money for Cancer Survivorship instead of "doing it for you"?

There are some healthy anger management tips and links here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/81642-angermanagement-therapy-techniques/
.
.
..
Any person who survives cancer is inspiring. You don't need NIKE to show you that. And, Cancer survivors don't need to be inspired by liars.

You are sad Polish. You are like graffiti on the front of a place of worship: destructive, annoying, misguided and immature.

NW
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Sanitiser said:
I guess when he hit the Protour or whatever it was called then he must of had his ego smashed into thousands of little pieces.
nope. he was racing with Eddie B trying to hurt people as much as he could at the Ziggurat (Laguna Niguel) and a couple years later he was world champ..
 

runninboy

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
fatandfast said:
nope. he was racing with Eddie B trying to hurt people as much as he could at the Ziggurat (Laguna Niguel) and a couple years later he was world champ..
Ha Ha the Ziggurat! I never remember seeing Lance there. Not exactly a monster course, here's a tip if you can sprint up the hill in a 53x12 its not exactly challenging.
ALSO how did Lance do in the Olympics? 14th against amateurs? And not the smartest tactics i might add. Glad he got to stand on the podium at the worlds, what was it once?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
 
Jan 20, 2011
352
0
0
Reading between the lines from his early days such as in Motorola, his first TdF etc I got the impression he wasn't used to getting his *** handed to him on a regular basis.
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Sanitiser said:
Well Bjarne and Indurain seem to shirk mainstream media exposure and not being anglophone helps. Also Pantani has a lot of sympathy due to the manner in which he died.

I think the mainstream exposure of Comeback 2.0 ****ed him. If he came back quietly maybe it would of been different.
Does he every do ANYTHING quietly . . . he is a media *****, and Nike has been there every step of the way? Have you every read the drivel that he posts up on his T account (of course, that is another conservation and the whole point of T; it gives Joe Blow a soapbox and 15 seconds of fame.) , yet he has almost 3M followers; pretty amazing.
 
Mar 18, 2009
8
0
0
BikeCentric said:
What is cool is that if you read the comments to that article you can see that the vast majority of the CBS forum people are not buying Doyel's argument.
For what it's worth, this was my comment on Doyel's article, which they failed to post -- too long and thoughtful, I suppose, and now too late to matter:


Just what was swishing around Mr. Doyle’s brain when his sat down to write this column?

Oh, I suppose it was inevitable that someone would seek to absolve Mr. Armstrong using the warped logic that his efforts to fight cancer justify his alleged means; after all, this line of reasoning is but an echo of Armstrong’s own declaration that “I’ve done too much good for too many people” to be subject to prosecution.

There are just a few problems with such a viewpoint:

1. If Armstrong is a dope cheat, as Mr. Doyel seems willing to concede, then he is also a bold-faced liar, for he has vociferously protested his innocence on countless occasions, and portrayed himself as a ‘clean’ athlete unequivocally opposed to doping – always with the same posturing, defiant, self-righteous indignation.

2. He is also a fraud, for he has exploited his ill-gotten success and carefully-orchestrated image not merely to raise money for his foundation, but for his own enrichment, namely the millions of dollars in endorsement fees he has collected from Nike, Bristol-Myers, American Century Funds, Subaru, Nissan, Trek Bicycles, Michelob Ultra, Radio Shack, FRS, and still others I can’t recall offhand. Indeed, his personal gains most likely rival, and may even exceed what he has raised for cancer research.

3. Armstrong isn’t accused of merely “cutting corners” or the occasional bending of a minor rule, but of participating in a systematic, wide-ranging program of illegal drug usage (not just steroids, as Doyel seems to think) that went on for years, while acting as an instigator for wider drug use within his team, thereby inducing others to cheat as well, and then lie for him (or face his wrath if they chose to tell the truth). For the direct victims of his cheating – i.e., the rest of the peloton – I wonder if they, having been cheated of the acclaim and monetary awards they might have otherwise won, are sanguine about his cheating as Mr. Doyel is (and don’t argue here that “they all cheat.” His fellow competitors who have tested clean should receive the same benefit of the doubt that Armstrong has always asserted – shouldn’t they?)

4., What of the damage Armstrong will have done to the spirit of good sportsmanship and honest athletic competition? What of the public cynicism toward professional athletes (cyclists especially) that he will have made immeasurably worse? (Remember, this is a man who actually had the gall to sell his story in at least a dozen children’s books, allowing himself to be held up as an example to young people.) What of the spotless legacy – handed to him by Greg LeMond and the first generation of American pro cyclists – that Armstrong will have so thoroughly soiled and trashed? What of every aspiring young rider wanting to succeed the right way, who will have to face the deepened perception of cyclists as lying, cheating bullies, that Armstrong (as de facto leader of the sport) will be responsible for? What of cycling promoters throughout the country who will have to face the same stigma as they try to recruit sponsorship for their events? Remember, cycling is much more fragile here than in Europe; it is nowhere near as deeply rooted in our culture as other sports.

5. If Mr. Armstrong truly regards his anti-cancer crusade as being as being “noble” (his own description), then why would demean it by using it to justify (or absolve himself of blame for) his dope cheating, like a personal “get out of jail for free card”? Why would he jeopardize his “noble” cause by engaging in risky, illegal behavior, which could have a catastrophic effect on the belief and confidence his supporters have placed in him? After all, if he has lied and cheated on such a vast scale, he should not be trusted with so much as a single dollar. Even more significantly, such fraud may damage not just his own cancer-fighting activities, but anti-cancer fundraising in general, and charitable work by athletes as a whole – people who acquire a reputation for habitually cheating, lying, and threatening others should not be in a position to represent charitable institutions and ask for donations.

6. Finally, Livestrong is hardly sui generis; there are other anti-cancer organizations in this world, Mr. Doyel (for instance, the American Cancer Society raises in a month than Livestrong’s entire annual budget, a fact [1] that you apparently failed to “swish around” your own brain, Mr. Doyel – but perhaps deeper research would have been too “exhaustive and exhausting”). Should they too be allowed to cheat, lie, and break federal laws if it helps them raise funds to fight cancer? Where would it stop?

Oh and while I’m at it, Livestrong has not always been as efficient as Mr. Doyle would have everyone believe in claiming that “roughly 85.8 percent of the money raised goes directly to the cancer fight.” That figure, in fact, is for a single year. In at least one other year [2], the percentage was only 55% – below the guideline of 65% set by the American Institute of Philanthropy.

At best – by the most favorable assessment – Armstrong is a deeply conflicted figure, with very mixed motives. At worst, he is a notorious cheat, a towering liar, a thug who threatens and inflicts economic harm on others – a new-millennium version of the Ugly American, a demagogue par excellence willing to cynically exploit the public sympathy and confidence extended toward him.

Neither of these two alternatives is any sort of legitimate hero or ‘symbol of hope’. Neither is fit to be soliciting monetary contributions, or leading any kind of charitable organization, large or small.

Charles Howe

1. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/can-livestrong-survive-lance.html
2. http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
You are sad Polish. You are like graffiti on the front of a place of worship: destructive, annoying, misguided and immature.

Chaupaue Polish, you are mainstreaming now, next stop private island in the south seas and a gulf-stream to take you there.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
runninboy said:
Ha Ha the Ziggurat! I never remember seeing Lance there. Not exactly a monster course, here's a tip if you can sprint up the hill in a 53x12 its not exactly challenging.
ALSO how did Lance do in the Olympics? 14th against amateurs? And not the smartest tactics i might add. Glad he got to stand on the podium at the worlds, what was it once?
He prospered then when all it took was 'roids and a team. His revelation at Indurain's sustained power was the turning point, for sure.
As for his Olympics debacle; his teammates were embarrassed.
 
Oct 31, 2010
35
0
0
I think by the end of the 80's they stopped using the Ziggurat and moved up to that lovely industrail park in Long Beach. Armstrong was freakishly strong from the begining. T. Rogers made the coment that he hadn't seen a rider with that kinda horsepower since LeMond. And that was when he was still a junior. LA was a heavy favorite to medal in the 92 games. He had won some early season Pro/Am races in Italy that year. He rode that race like a complete jack *** just like he did the Junior worlds in 90. I would bet he was clean in his amatuer days and early days as a pro but that all changed when he really started getting his *** handed to him. I'm sure he was on the gear when he won the Worlds and form then on.

He needs to go down. He has built himself up on lies and become very rich.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
Personally, the only way anyone still believes in Lance is if they have a vested financial interest, are completely clueless of the evidence against him, are just really dumb, or just cannot handle the cognitive dissonance associated with accepting reality after so many years of being a fanboy.

I can't see any other way anyone could believe Armstrong is anything other than a fraud. I really can't.
Do you think the sport is a complete fraud too? I tend to say yes. I would think that there are more dopers than non-dopers in professional cycling. It's a sad statement but I believe correct.

No team. No country. No discipline is free of it. Wow, that sucks.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
It matters because of the CLICHE.

It matters because so many people on this forum crave a dramatic resolution to the Lance saga. So many people have to see Lance go down because they need to see fulfillment of the cliche. They need to see this cheap tragedy played out.

It isn't about justice. It is about a spectator sport. These people want Lance to "go down" because of their own need for a dramatic resolution.

The drama is as old as the first Greek theater.

But hey! It's fun to watch all the people screaming "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

Isn't it now . . .?
 
Nov 24, 2010
263
1
0
MarkvW said:
It matters because so many people on this forum crave a dramatic resolution to the Lance saga. So many people have to see Lance go down because they need to see fulfillment of the cliche. They need to see this cheap tragedy played out.

But hey! It's fun to watch all the people screaming "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

Isn't it now . . .?
Mark, you talk of miracle boy being crucified here. I view the situation differently

In my opinion, Novitzky will provide the evidence he doped, leading to USADA being obligated to sanction him for 2 years. In other words, he is getting what he deserves.
There is a ton of evidence, both real and circumstantial out there. And to the fan boys who asks the question, show me the evidence? If they choose to ignore the evidence and be delusional at the same time, so be it. Alejandro was pinged 4 years after Puerto.

Now if Novitzky pings miracle boy for a crime or crimes, as I believe he will, then so be it! BTW bonus
To repeat myself, there is an old saying: If you are not prepared to do the time, don't do the crime.
Again no crucifixion here - just pure and simple justice.

And another saying similar to "Do unto others, as you would expect them to do unto you". If he had been a 'nice' person, would he be in this predicament now?
As an aside, using cancer to deflect doping questions during interviews is sick.

The removal of 'The Kancer' will actually be beneficial to cycling both short and long termed.

Do I crave a dramatic resolution to the Lance saga? -> sure do. This whole saga is sad, yet at the same time intriguing.

cheers
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Chaupaue Polish, you are mainstreaming now, next stop private island in the south seas and a gulf-stream to take you there.[/QUOTE]
 
The reason it matters isn't personal. This is basically cycling's biggest chance to affect some badly needed change in how the sport governs and monitors itself.

If it's proven that these guys did what many suspect, then we will finally get to the bottom of it all. The director sportif, the doctors, the steroid trafficking-it's all included.

Sending one individual rider at a time packing and leaving the doping apparatus intact will do nothing.

Cycling, like any other sporting, government or private entity, will do what it can get away with. The more insulated said institution is from outside scrutiny, the more arrogant it becomes and the more it feels it can do what it likes regardless of how antithetical it is to the very rules they are sworn to uphold.

People are always going on about how all this negative publicity is bad this is for the sport and how we should all move forward and forget about the past. Well, this doesn't happen unless the past is cleaned up.

The recycling of doped riders into management positions is what has created the toxic environment cycling finds itself in. Also the non-punishment of a team's medical staff when a rider gets caught. When will this stop? It won't.

Like Ayn Rand once said, "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me. ". That has been cycling's mantra, from the amateur ranks all the way to the top, for far too long.

So unlike the Festina scandal, where doping actually become more sophisticated and entrenched after the fact, maybe the taking down of Armstrong and his whole crew will have a lasting effect this time around.

All we can do is hope that the exposing of the US Postal doping ring can lead cycling out of the cynical, dark cloud it's been riding under for far too long.
 
Feb 25, 2010
86
0
0
I'd like this to happen (truth about LA doping coming out), because:

1. so many talented riders were banned for the same and served their bans coming back humiliated, disgraced, booed and labeled "dopers" (some ending their careers and lives)

2. his "sacred" record of winning 7 tour titles is fake and is strictly protected by his "friends" at UCI

that's why I wish Novitzky good luck finding evidence, so that at least some tour titles are stripped off his palmares
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
For me and I think quite a few others, LA going down is not necessarily the most important thing that might come from this investigation. LA going down is just a part of it and hopefully it will mean that he will come forward and tell the truth about what happens. More importantly out of this investigation is that it is an independent investigation that might show how far the corruption and such went and perhaps still goes and due to this might inspire some change for the good. Although I know this is probably a pipe-dream I do hope something like this will come from it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
LA getting sentenced or sanctioned sends out a very strong message to present day riders that if the biggest patron of the last 20 years cant get away even with all his uci connections it will make others think twice.
 
Benotti69 said:
LA getting sentenced or sanctioned sends out a very strong message to present day riders that if the biggest patron of the last 20 years cant get away even with all his uci connections it will make others think twice.
For cycling as a whole, this would be the major benefit of Armstrong getting whacked. I don't see how people in the sport who are pushing for change--or at least claim they are--can convince people to ride clean when those riders can look at Armstrong, his fame, and his wealth, knowing full well that he doped to achieve that. For most doping has to be pretty rational decision. The risks are low. The rewards are high. And achieving just a small fraction of what Armstrong will set the rider up for life. Not many people in their twenties would resist that opportunity. Take Armstrong out and the perceived risks increase.

I do not think it will change the mangement of the sport at all. The groundwork is already being laid to deflect the damage. Vaughters is dismissing everything that Landis has to say with (paraphrased), "He has not ridden for five years. Everything has changed." Even McQuaid is getting in on the act by pointing to the decline in blood values over the last ten years. If Armstrong is indicted then we should prepare to endure a full press public relations campaign about how much cycling has changed since the Armstrong years.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
BroDeal said:
For cycling as a whole, this would be the major benefit of Armstrong getting whacked. I don't see how people in the sport who are pushing for change--or at least claim they are--can convince people to ride clean when those riders can look at Armstrong, his fame, and his wealth, knowing full well that he doped to achieve that. For most doping has to be pretty rational decision. The risks are low. The rewards are high. And achieving just a small fraction of what Armstrong will set the rider up for life. Not many people in their twenties would resist that opportunity. Take Armstrong out and the perceived risks increase.

I do not think it will change the mangement of the sport at all. The groundwork is already being laid to deflect the damage. Vaughters is dismissing everything that Landis has to say with (paraphrased), "He has not ridden for five years. Everything has changed." Even McQuaid is getting in on the act by pointing to the decline in blood values over the last ten years. If Armstrong is indicted then we should prepare to endure a full press public relations campaign about how much cycling has changed since the Armstrong years.
yeah, but then we have Contador and his positive ;)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ok, I’ll bite though i typically would not …

why armstrong should be indicted ? simple. because it’s the right thing considering his actions.

i can’t be bothered to regurgitate the dozens upon dozens of reasons cited elsewhere by people much more eloquent and knowledgeable than me...

his wrongdoings span life itself - sporting, ethical, human, commercial, spousal, legal, contractual…

it would be just and reasonable to get what he deserved so richly…
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
When they say it doesn´t matter. They really say: We forever want our hero to be seen by the masses as the good guy....
Those are selfish fanboys who pretend to be neutral. Another reason LA has to fall.
 
Dec 14, 2010
154
0
0
Polish said:
.

Lance IS an inspirational survivor btw.
And a wealthy businessman and a doper omg waawaa.
Okay, if some ****off, contrarian, snot-nosed, fan boi statement like that is coming from one of the biggest "Lance Lovers" on this forum, then I realize I have no reason to post on this website any long.

Congrats Polish, you've convinced this 'uninspiring (3x) cancer survivor' to abandon this account.

BTW Polish, go **** yourself.

'So long and thanks for all the fish.'

- jb_in_co
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY