Will Armstrong beat Sastre this year?

[Anonymous]

Are you as thick as two planks. You should take this sh!t to the doping forum. Just as I suggested before. In fact we don't even need to post anything new there because you can read the responses made to the other two thickies, byu123 and jackhammer111, which go over these exact same lines of reasoning.

I see that it was you, Bro Blow Bag, that brought drugs into the thread when you said he couldn't win without the help of a doctor and then EPO this an EPO that.

He didn't win because he outdoped the dopers. It's not a VO2 max contest or a crit contest, it's a very long bike race.

And to the point of the thread, if he can't win on his team it won't matter if he finishes behind Sastre. It will mean nothing, zip, nada, bumpkus, because if you are not the team leader, it doesn't matter where you finish as long as you've done what was necessary for your team leader to win.

The only contest between that might matter would be the time trails, which Lance leads 1-0 at this point.

 

[BroDeal]

I see that it was you, Bro Blow Bag, that brought drugs into the thread when you said he couldn't win without the help of a doctor and then EPO this an EPO that.

He didn't win because he outdoped the dopers. It's not a VO2 max contest or a crit contest, it's a very long bike race.

And to the point of the thread, if he can't win on his team it won't matter if he finishes behind Sastre. It will mean nothing, zip, nada, bumpkus, because if you are not the team leader, it doesn't matter where you finish as long as you've done what was necessary for your team leader to win.

The only contest between that might matter would be the time trails, which Lance leads 1-0 at this point.

There will always be allusions to doping as long as doping is a huge problem in the sport. It is completely different to attempt to argue about doping in the non-doping forum. Clearly, you are too dense to understand the difference.

Looks like Simple Jack is already making excuses for his boy. Pathetic. Especially since they won't be needed as Sastre is a second rate rider.

 

[Anonymous]

There will always be allusions to doping as long as doping is a huge problem in the sport. It is completely different to attempt to argue about doping in the non-doping forum.

You said; "Merckx, Hinault, and Antequeil were true champions who did not need a special doctor to help them win."

That was as direct a reference to dope as it gets and deserved a response. I think for for too long people here acted as though this was their private Lance hating playground and were used to being able to say things like that and have it accepted like they're members of the same club.

Nothing wrong with people coming here and telling the other side of the story.

 

[DavidT]

This was a reference to the exclusive services of Dr Ferrari

 

[BroDeal]

That was as direct a reference to dope as it gets and deserved a response. I think for for too long people here acted as though this was their private Lance hating playground and were used to being able to say things like that and have it accepted like they're members of the same club.

Nothing wrong with people coming here and telling the other side of the story.

If the naive (BYU) and the stupid (Jack) want to push their ridiculous stories about there being no difference between Armstrong and Merckx or Armstrong training harder than anyone else or whatever laughable excuse they cling to to explain Amstrong's wins then they should expect to be called on it--even if it is in an oblique manner. If they want to discuss it in detail then they should go to the doping forum.

 

[singlspeeder]

If other things don't get in the way...

Though I would love to see Andy win, and Cancellara is aways a treat to watch, I can't see Contador going down if Armstrong works for him along with the rest of the strong Astana team. And I think Lance will, though Alberto may have to take time from him again first. Once that happens, though, I think Armstrong will bury himself for the team, and his position relative to Sastre will be secondary to Contador's needs.

 

[frizzlefry]

You said;
I think for for too long people here acted as though this was their private Lance hating playground and were used to being able to say things like that and have it accepted like they're members of the same club.
.

They get it from that joke of a forum cyclingforums.com. They lick each othes sack over there with the moderator. One big circle jerk over there.

 

[Anonymous]

If the naive (BYU) and the stupid (Jack) want to push their ridiculous stories about there being no difference between Armstrong and Merckx or Armstrong training harder than anyone else or whatever laughable excuse they cling to to explain Amstrong's wins then they should expect to be called on it--even if it is in an oblique manner. If they want to discuss it in detail then they should go to the doping forum.

I'll discuss it wherever you bring it up.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

People wonder why I'm tired of Lance? Well, it's because he's ubiquitous and the only story in the sport, regardless of where he finishes, or how he performs, to so many people.

USA Today headline covering the Tour? "Armstrong places 10th in Stage 1 of Tour de France"

Associated Press headline covering the Tour? "Armstrong Solid; Cancellara Wins Tour's 1st Stage"

ESPN headline? "Solid as a Rock" referring to Astana and Lance's photo headlining.

Even Eurosport, which did show a photo and headline of Cancellara, had a section on Lance and his return "felt good".

Little info on Contador. Or the fact that AC, Klodi, and Levi all finished ahead of Lance.

 

[Anonymous]

They get it from that joke of a forum cyclingforums.com. They lick each othes sack over there with the moderator. One big circle jerk over there.

You're an expert on circle jerks then?.............

 

[BroDeal]

You're an expert on circle jerks then?.............

He sounds like one of those sad sacks who was driven out of CF when his BS was questioned and he found himself unable to post a rational defense.

In other news, Hombre/bobke actually admitted that if Armstrong lost more than twenty seconds to Contador then Armstrong would not be a contender. I guess all hope is now offically lost...unless you are a douche who is not a cyclist and goes by the name of ChrisH.

 

[Anonymous]

He sounds like one of those sad sacks who was driven out of CF when his BS was questioned and he found himself unable to post a rational defense.

In other news, Hombre/bobke actually admitted that if Armstrong lost more than twenty seconds to Contador then Armstrong would not be a contender. I guess all hope is now offically lost...unless you are a douche who is not a
cyclist and goes by the name of ChrisH.

Yea, I read that too. I think he back peddled a little bit after that. You know fanboys everywhere are watching Rocky tonight and saying out loud, "He's not getting killed, he's getting mad!" with tears in their eyes.

 

[Anonymous]

People wonder why I'm tired of Lance? Well, it's because he's ubiquitous and the only story in the sport, regardless of where he finishes, or how he performs, to so many people.

USA Today headline covering the Tour? "Armstrong places 10th in Stage 1 of Tour de France"

Associated Press headline covering the Tour? "Armstrong Solid; Cancellara Wins Tour's 1st Stage"

ESPN headline? "Solid as a Rock" referring to Astana and Lance's photo headlining.

Even Eurosport, which did show a photo and headline of Cancellara, had a section on Lance and his return "felt good".

Little info on Contador. Or the fact that AC, Klodi, and Levi all finished ahead of Lance.

You know the drill. The news folks know you and I will dig down to get the news we need but what they care about is their potential new eballs so they go with the michael jordan/tigerwoods/lance armstrong returns story.

I don't need to see Lance everywhere either.

I know you didn't say so but it's hardly his fault.

 

[Bagster]

I'll discuss it wherever you bring it up.

Iv'e been to the doping forum. It's a scary place full of guys who spend their lives memorising LA Confidential and are all card carrying members of the David Walsh and Dicky Pound fan clubs.

Don't go there Jack, they will overload you with 'evidence' The discussion will go something like this:


Q. Wow! With all that damming evidence you guys have it's no wonder that dastardly Armstrong guy is banned for life from cycling!
Q. Oh Wait!...He isn't? What! But how can that be? With so much damming evidence surely he must have been banned.
A. Umm no ,he hasn't, because even though everyone in WADA Land hates him they are too frightened to do anything about it.
Q. But they are more than happy to prosecute every other athlete who tests positive, Why not Lance?
A. Well because he frightens everyone with lawsuits.
Q. What, everyone who would testify against him?
A. Thats right.
Q. Even WADA and the UCI?
A. Ah, well, the UCI are in on the LA conspiracy you see.
Q. Ahh, I see, so the governing bodies are in on it too?
A. Thats right.
Q. Well now that his secret is out he won't be competitive will he? I mean he is 37 years old now and has been tested 34 times since coming back.
A. Well we actually don't believe the results of those tests.
Q. Oh, you don't? Why not?
A. Well because, actually he is doing pretty well since his comback so he is obviously doping, because if he wasn't doping everyone would be beating him therefore the tests must be false. We now think that WADA has been infiltrated by Armstrong acolytes and they have falsified the test results.
Q. Wow that is amazing!
A. Yes isn't it......

 

[Anonymous]

Iv'e been to the doping forum. It's a scary place full of guys who spend their lives memorising LA Confidential and are all card carrying members of the David Walsh and Dicky Pound fan clubs.

Don't go there Jack, they will overload you with 'evidence' The discussion will go something like this:


Q. Wow! With all that damming evidence you guys have it's no wonder that dastardly Armstrong guy is banned for life from cycling!
Q. Oh Wait!...He isn't? What! But how can that be? With so much damming evidence surely he must have been banned.
A. Umm no ,he hasn't, because even though everyone in WADA Land hates him they are too frightened to do anything about it.
Q. But they are more than happy to prosecute every other athlete who tests positive, Why not Lance?
A. Well because he frightens everyone with lawsuits.
Q. What, everyone who would testify against him?
A. Thats right.
Q. Even WADA and the UCI?
A. Ah, well, the UCI are in on the LA conspiracy you see.
Q. Ahh, I see, so the governing bodies are in on it too?
A. Thats right.
Q. Well now that his secret is out he won't be competitive will he? I mean he is 37 years old now and has been tested 34 times since coming back.
A. Well we actually don't believe the results of those tests.
Q. Oh, you don't? Why not?
A. Well because, actually he is doing pretty well since his comback so he is obviously doping, because if he wasn't doping everyone would be beating him therefore the tests must be false. We now think that WADA has been infiltrated by Armstrong acolytes and they have falsified the test results.
Q. Wow that is amazing!
A. Yes isn't it......

Hey, why don't you guys exchange phone numbers? Jack wants someone to come to Ohio, and who better than a love connection?

 

[Bagster]

Hey, why don't you guys exchange phone numbers? Jack wants someone to come to Ohio, and who better than a love connection?

I could do but you, Bigboat and Brodeal already have that love triangle thing going on and we wouldn't want to intrude on your space.

 

[BroDeal]

Hey, why don't you guys exchange phone numbers? Jack wants someone to come to Ohio, and who better than a love connection?

Gotta love how he refuses to go to the doping forum because the members there know the facts.

 

[rhubroma]

People wonder why I'm tired of Lance? Well, it's because he's ubiquitous and the only story in the sport, regardless of where he finishes, or how he performs, to so many people.

USA Today headline covering the Tour? "Armstrong places 10th in Stage 1 of Tour de France"

Associated Press headline covering the Tour? "Armstrong Solid; Cancellara Wins Tour's 1st Stage"

ESPN headline? "Solid as a Rock" referring to Astana and Lance's photo headlining.

Even Eurosport, which did show a photo and headline of Cancellara, had a section on Lance and his return "felt good".

Little info on Contador. Or the fact that AC, Klodi, and Levi all finished ahead of Lance.

Well probably the majority of Americans have only heard of Lance, and the US media, when it comes to these things, is typically patriotic. This, of course, doesn't help the general population become more worldly.

In any case, if you want good coverage then you have to even leave the Anglo-Saxon world in general and move to the Mediterranean region. Even so, Lance is unavoidable.

It was mentioned on the Italian live coverage of the Tour yesterday by Auro Bauborelli and Davide Cassani that the Tour owner, ASO, has been hit by hard times over the last few years because of the doping scandals. That ASO consequently wasn't bringing in a good profit and that it's owner had recently passed away. So his wife has taken over, of whom the French have been most critical for how she has been managing things, even if she has been called the "Lion" for some unspecified reason. She, they said, had pushed really hard for Lance to come back and race the Tour, believing that his ability to transcend the mere cycling enthusiasts, would help ASO bring back in the bucks. And that it appears that Lance is even being paid to ride! But I can't confirm this.

Naturally I found this distasteful, for the simple conflict of issues this brings up in regards to the Tour and its anti doping program. For how can the Tour be unbiased in its testing with a rider that it has hired to up the profits?

Like I have allways said, it's all about money.

Of course I will admit to a misinterpretation here if Lance isn't being paid to ride. Is he or isn't he?

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, why don't you guys exchange phone numbers? Jack wants someone to come to Ohio, and who better than a love connection?

I have a better idea... why don't we exchange addresses?

I want to send you a Christmas card...yea, that's it, a christmas card...

 

[Anonymous]

Gotta love how he refuses to go to the doping forum because the members there know the facts.

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

[Bagster]

Gotta love how he refuses to go to the doping forum because the members there know the facts.

Yawn, Not facts Blowdeal, allegations. Facts in this context are those things that can be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. None of your "facts" have been which leaves them simply as allegations. If I am incorrect on this point can you please point me to where I can read where any of the allegations against LA have been proven and a sentence handed down that is commensurate with the offence alleged.

Obviously you can't, which is why your doping forum is not worth the space it is given from any evidential point of view.

On the other hand I seem to recall LA winning substantial damages in defending himself against a number of unsubstantiated allegations. One must assume from this that they were either untrue or at least lacked the required evidential rigor to be proven.

 

[rhubroma]

Yawn, Not facts Blowdeal, allegations. Facts in this context are those things that can be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. None of your "facts" have been which leaves them simply as allegations. If I am incorrect on this point can you please point me to where I can read where any of the allegations against LA have been proven and a sentence handed down that is commensurate with the offence alleged.

Obviously you can't, which is why your doping forum is not worth the space it is given from any evidential point of view.

On the other hand I seem to recall LA winning substantial damages in defending himself against a number of unsubstantiated allegations. One must assume from this that they were either untrue or at least lacked the required evidential rigor to be proven.

Another idiot.

 

[Bagster]

Another idiot.

Hey good response Bro's ma, that really advances your case! May not work quite that well in a court of arbitration, but hey you have to start somewhere and you have obviously put a lot of thought into your reply.

 

[rhubroma]

Hey good response, that really advances your case! May not work quite that well in a court of arbitration, but hey you have to start somewhere.

Well I'm not in a court. And your response makes you an even bigger idiot than I had previously supposed.

Allways the same from the dimwits.

 

[BroDeal]

On the other hand I seem to recall LA winning substantial damages in defending himself against a number of unsubstantiated allegations. One must assume from this that they were either untrue or at least lacked the required evidential rigor to be proven.

Care to name any of those cases? Wait...wait...crickets...wait. I thought so. If you went over to the doping forum you could find out what you don't know... Of course it is easier to remain ignorant and spew BS.