• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
pmcg76 said:
What is really funny is Arbiter is taking his cycling info from Wikipedia and even then does not actually seem capable of reading or comprehending it correctly. He thinks Paul Kimmage wrote a book in which he says he seen Stephen Roche doping, what a joke, what an absolute joke. This is what we are arguing against, people who read something on wikipedia and throw it against us as an argument. Maybe Arbiter should also look at the Lance wikipedia page and look at the allegations/doping sections, its pretty long.

The Lance fans version of the Simeoni affair is also hilarious. Thankfully I live in the real world.

The thing is that he didn't even manage to read the Wikipedia article correctly!!! Or else he simply made things up....actually yeah that's what happened.
 
Jul 11, 2009
791
0
0
Visit site
elapid because of people like you I dont get to write anything and have to limit all my comments to insulting the British! You said it all, well done Sir, well done.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Eventually more of the truth about Lance has to come out. too many people know too much for it to ever be truly kept secret. If Lance ever goes into politics the big money interests will be able to uncover dirt and pay people to talk etc.

But hell, we've seen with the "Birthers" that in Idiot America a "lunatic fringe" idea can quickly become mainstream if enough idiots want to believe it, and if there are slick PR machines pushing ideas in the media.

Like other controversies such as evolution vs creationism, was Saddam behind 9/11 the following rule seems to emerge:

Something is "fact" if enough people believe it.

How "true" something is depends on how strongly people believe it.

The Lance legend is not really any different.

In the same way that a christian can argue "the bible says so" in a debate on evolution, a Lance admirer can say "it's all a French conspiracy" or "never tested positive" etc etc.

It gets pointless.

sadly, you are correct, sir :(
and yes, I am American, and Yes, I race bikes (although not very well), and as a cyclist I am a target of angry rednecks on the county roads that want to kill me because I may cause them to have to swerve or .. god-forbid.. slow down a little bit when they come up on me.

I am also evolving. I started out in cycling as a kid on a BMX. Saw the Coors Classic in person and was hooked. Davis Phinney & Andy Hampsten were heroes back in those days. Lance was coming up the pro ranks when I raced in college. We were all big fans back then. I have called myself neutral on Lance since I was able to see certain things for myself (going from pro-LA in 2005 to LA-neutral in 2009). I did not dogmatically hold my pro-LA position, but rather got more realistic. I am still somewhere in the middle, but his own behavior, especially since his comeback, has pushed me a little more in the other direction. I thought he was cool at the Leadville 100 last year, but now things are changing. I see him as not being able to accept his position at Astana as second-best and acting like a vindictive junior-high kid via the media, twitter, etc. And I see the "reason" for his comeback being, as he has said, to "kick their a$$es" and not really to raise cancer awareness. And this is personal to me since I have a family member with cancer. I see that (cancer fundraising) as a fringe-benefit to the comeback at best, but the ego of LA being the primary reason. And he has proven that he can come back and kick MOST of their a$$es. That being said, I don't hate him, not necessarily even dislike him yet. But jeez, the more that comes out, the less I am sure. Stay tuned ……..
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
You've said it before, as have 53 x 11, pmcg76, Dr. Maserati, Cobber, Digger, Alpe and I don't know how many other posters. We don't hate Lance, most of us appreciate his cycling achievements, and I am sure most of us were inspired after "It's Not About The Bike". Few of us are so-called Lance haters because that would imply we are irrationally dogmatic about our opinions despite evidence to the contrary. But we also recognize his faults. For me, and many others posting on this thread, these faults demean his achievements because IMO they are major flaws in his character and his right to be called a legend.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
elapid said:
You've said it before, as have 53 x 11, pmcg76, Dr. Maserati, Cobber, Digger, Alpe and I don't know how many other posters. We don't hate Lance, most of us appreciate his cycling achievements, and I am sure most of us were inspired after "It's Not About The Bike". Few of us are so-called Lance haters because that would imply we are irrationally dogmatic about our opinions despite evidence to the contrary. But we also recognize his faults. For me, and many others posting on this thread, these faults demean his achievements because IMO they are major flaws in his character and his right to be called a legend.

Very true, although I have to admit I have not read his books.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Deagol said:
Very true, although I have to admit I have not read his books.

I have, and I find little about the man to admire. He can ride a bike really well, and that is the nicest thing I can say about him. Past that, I hold no esteem for any of his other efforts honestly. I also hold him in very low regard as a human. Bone crushing juggernaut's just don't inspire me I guess.
 
Jul 6, 2009
27
0
0
Visit site
Again with this legend stuff. See - whether or not he deserves to be called a Legend, whether or not any of US believe he is a legend or deserves to be called a legend .....he WILL and IS a legend whether we like it or not. WE are not the general population, WE are cycling fans and as we know, we are few and far between and all that most people know is that he survived cancer and went on to win a really hard bike race - 7 times, and made a respectable come back at 37 years old.

What is laughable is that you think he is a legend because the general populace, who have swallowed the Lance PR machine hook, line and sinker, think he is a legend. I am sure you feel comfortable that you have the same opinion as the general population, as I feel equally saddened that you cannot think for yourself

Don't put words in MY mouth please. I am only pointing out what I see to be the actual reaction from others not connected to the cycling community. I acknowledge that you might be right - that his PR efforts and twittering are bought by people who don't know more about cycling and the politics that surround it. He will end up being a legend DESPITE all he has done to tarnish his own image. Some people like/admire his cocky/f*everybody else attitude. He obviously does not care at all what other people think of him.
 
UTFan2 said:
He obviously does not care at all what other people think of him.


He sure does. He is obsessed wit his media image. One of the reasons he blacklists journalists who have been in any way negative. It was so bad at one stage that if your seen talking to a journalist who had been negative, this was a blackmark against you.
Secondly, he says himself that how he is being portrayed in the media, and how mis children will see him portrayed, was a factor in the comeback. Essentially he'd seen how public opinion was swaying against him due to drugs etc.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
He sure does. He is obsessed wit his media image. One of the reasons he blacklists journalists who have been in any way negative. It was so bad at one stage that if your seen talking to a journalist who had been negative, this was a blackmark against you.
Secondly, he says himself that how he is being portrayed in the media, and how mis children will see him portrayed, was a factor in the comeback. Essentially he'd seen how public opinion was swaying against him due to drugs etc.
This is very true. The truth about Lance will eventually come out too. He's F-d over far to many. He wont be able to hold it off forever. Its like that Tokyo Real-Estate guy in Scary Movie trying to unclog the goblin jammed in the toilet with a plunger while selling the haunted house.

Landis will eventually come out about how Lance DUMPED his 800cc+ rest day blood refill down the toilet in 2004! And Contradoper should tell everybody how Lance had all the team vehicles drive off so Contadoper had no car to drive him to the final TT! His brother had to drive him to the tt for F sakes. :(
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
This is very true. The truth about Lance will eventually come out too. He's F-d over far to many. He wont be able to hold it off forever. Its like that Tokyo Real-Estate guy in Scary Movie trying to unclog the goblin jammed in the toilet with a plunger while selling the haunted house.

Landis will eventually come out about how Lance DUMPED his 800cc+ rest day blood refill down the toilet in 2004! And Contradoper should tell everybody how Lance had all the team vehicles drive off so Contadoper had no car to drive him to the final TT! His brother had to drive him to the tt for F sakes. :(

His brother is robably brining in the blood bags. They should make a movie about lance's doping over his career. It would be a long movie with all the evidence against him.
 
Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Visit site
53 x 11 said:
The key word here is 'Americans'.

No, the key word is seven. He simply won too many, and in too dominating of a fashion to keep the conspiracy theory clowns from nipping at his heels.

The Europeans had never imagined a team could come up with such dominating, progressive tactics and control the tour in the mountains the way Lance and his crew did year after year after year. Think about it, all those tours, and nobody ever thought to try something different the way Lance's teams did...he really was groundbreaking....in a similar way Lemond was in using aero technology to win a tour. And yeah, the fact that he is an American certainly didn't help.
 
ProTour said:
No, the key word is seven. He simply won too many, and in too dominating of a fashion to keep the conspiracy theory clowns from nipping at his heels.

The Europeans had never imagined a team could come up with such dominating, progressive tactics and control the tour in the mountains the way Lance and his crew did year after year after year. Think about it, all those tours, and nobody ever thought to try something different the way Lance's teams did...he really was groundbreaking....in a similar way Lemond was in using aero technology to win a tour. And yeah, the fact that he is an American certainly didn't help.

I am sure the fact that Armstrong was using EPO (as proved by retrospective testing) and later the team was using blood doping (as revealed by Vaughters-Andreu conversation) had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Much like no one ever thought of using a cadnece of more than 90 RPM.
 
Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
I am sure the fact that Armstrong was using EPO (as proved by retrospective testing) and later the team was using blood doping (as revealed by Vaughters-Andreu conversation) had nothing to do with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But it's nice to know that I have the UCI, WADA, and the official records and results of drug test on my side of the debate, and not the conspiracy-theorist side that you represent.
 
ProTour said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But it's nice to know that I have the UCI, WADA, and the official records and results of drug test on my side of the debate, and not the conspiracy-theorist side that you represent.

Yeah, it's all a French conspiracy. Nazi frogmen must have done it, or maybe the artificial EPO just appeared in Amrstrong's urine by magic from the EPO fairy who flitters around testing labs, tapping sample bottles with her magic wand. That the EPO fairy was able to pick out Armstrong's anonymous samples from all the other anonymous samples was pure luck.

The WADA documents clearly call out the UCI for a bogus and disgraceful investigation of Armstrong's positives. We should all trust a corrupt snake like Pat McQuaid rather than the scientists who developed the test for EPO, both of whom have said that the positives cleary show that Armstrong doped.

Yup, much better to fall back on the bankrupt argument that since a corrupt organization that accepted a $500K under the table payoff from Armstrong did not prosecute then Armstrong must be clean.
 
Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Yup, much better to fall back on the bankrupt argument that since a corrupt organization that accepted a $500K under the table payoff from Armstrong did not prosecute then Armstrong must be clean.

Why stop there, why not just claim that Armstrong paid off all the other teams participating in all of the tours he won? I mean, if you are going to tell an outright lie on the internet, why not come up with an even bigger one?
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
ProTour said:
Why stop there, why not just claim that Armstrong paid off all the other teams participating in all of the tours he won?
I believe some of that has gone on as well. Lance certainly could have tried to pay Contradoper this yr, and Contadoper decided he wanted none of it. Look at the way Lance announced his new team and immediately dumped Contador while the Tour was still going on.

It certainly would not happen on a team to team basis. Not with competing sponsors.
 
ProTour said:
Why stop there, why not just claim that Armstrong paid off all the other teams participating in all of the tours he won? I mean, if you are going to tell an outright lie on the internet, why not come up with an even bigger one?

http://velonews.com/article/7914

After his cortisone TUE, which he postdated in 1999, Lance gave a sizeable donation to the UCI. A whistleblower in the UCI was about to expose this 'conflict of interest', when the UCI and Lance went on the offensive and came up wit this story. Lance to this day denies how much he gave, saying he doesn't remeber. Believe that you want to believe, Lance fans will anyway.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
ProTour said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But it's nice to know that I have the UCI, WADA, and the official records and results of drug test on my side of the debate, and not the conspiracy-theorist side that you represent.
WADA is not on your side, neither logical and nor circumstancial evidences.

Lance never sued L'Equipe for the allegations of EPO use in a country where strong laws libels exist for such case. Why did he not sue? Was he afraid to win easy money? ;)
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
ProTour said:
Why stop there, why not just claim that Armstrong paid off all the other teams participating in all of the tours he won? I mean, if you are going to tell an outright lie on the internet, why not come up with an even bigger one?

The $500,000 is not an outright lie, it is a fact.

Sylvia Schenk, ex-President of the Bund Deutsche Radfahrer, member of the UCI management committee and the UCI Ethics Commission.

'Everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong'

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3
 
It is factual, yet it is of course a "donation". There's obviously a conflict of interest there. The story is from Sept.2005. Either he gave it while he was riding, or just after his retirement and all that happened at that time. Saying it's an outright corruption fee is making quite a jump though.

Otherwise France hasn't won a Tour since almost 25 years, and conspiring to take Armstrong down wouldn't have changed that fact. Armstrong being there or not, no French had a shot of winning it.
If we wanted to win by proxy, it's Ullrich we would frame for 97. :)

Or maybe it's because he's just a multi-american Tour Winner... but wasn't there one before? Man we should have spiked his samples, Hinault and Fignon would have one more line on that palmares.
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
ThisFrenchGuy said:
It is factual, yet it is of course a "donation". There's obviously a conflict of interest there. The story is from Sept.2005. Either he gave it while he was riding, or just after his retirement and all that happened at that time. Saying it's an outright corruption fee is making quite a jump though.

He gave it in late 1999, not long after his positive for cortisone was ignored. It remained a secret until it was about to be in the press years later. Armstrong then made a preemptive strike and talked about it in an interview. He pretended it was a recent donation for a recent piece of equipment, when it wasn't.
 
Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Visit site
ThisFrenchGuy said:
It is factual, yet it is of course a "donation". There's obviously a conflict of interest there. The story is from Sept.2005. Either he gave it while he was riding, or just after his retirement and all that happened at that time. Saying it's an outright corruption fee is making quite a jump though.

Of course it's a jump, but conspiracy theorists love to jump, and are prone to make tremendous erroneous leaps of faith when it comes to a certain 7 time winner of the TdF.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
ProTour said:
Of course it's a jump, but conspiracy theorists love to jump, and are prone to make tremendous erroneous leaps of faith when it comes to a certain 7 time winner of the TdF.

It doesn't matter if this was Lance or any other rider, this donation was a conflict of interest and should not have been accepted by the UCI. Lance is not the bad guy here, it is the UCI. By accepting this donation, it implies anything from a favour to a bribe. The UCI are not a charity organization and should not have accepted this donation because of its obvious conflict of interest.