Scott Lemond on Facebook - Page 2

So, what are you trying to say here? Did the immense crowd at the start of the Tour in London come because of Armstrong's fame or not? I really cannot infer what you mean by the last sentence.

As Pete said, the point is not about which company is dominating the bicycle market - it is a fact that pro-cycling as a sport enjoys a viewership in Europe that is not there in US, and this is not going to change in the immediate future; there are other sports that dominate over there.

I was in that immense crowd in London with my family and I would say that there was a proportion of the crowd who were die hard cycling fans, some enjoying the spectacle and the free day out, a lot of aussies cheering for their lads, some casual fans who knew the Tour de France and nothing else, some who were there to cheer on Cav and Wiggins - not so very different to the crowds I stood in in Brighton and Portsmouth in 1994 when Armstrong DNF so I doubt many were there because of him then either.

Armstrong might have brought one race to the attention of more fans in the US but he has done little to globalise the sport - the viewing demographic hasn't markedly changed because of his participation - and he hasn't made the sport notably more popular in Europe.

The only way in which he and Bruyneel changed the sport was to make it common practice for 8 teammates to be on the front of the peloton nearly to the top of the last climb on a hard mountain stage. This simply wasn't the norm before Armstrong post cancer. Thankfully, there have been signs in early season racing that that is no longer the norm - it certainly isn't acceptable any longer.

Since you obviously are the patriot/Armstrong is an American hero type who believes cycling would have died if it weren't for him, I have a suggested sport for you to investigate. Professional Wrestling is filled with flags and contests that the faithful believe are real athletic competitions. It is a great sport for hero worshiping types like you who blind themselves to reality. In fact, I would be surprised if you were not already intimately familiar with the personalities involved in the sport.

I also detest the manner in which you revel in the fact that he probably doped, but they didn't catch him. You make me want to vomit as does Mr. Armstrong. Cycling would have been better off without his uber doping, and his 7 Tour de France victories are one of the greatest sports farces to have ever taken place. He deserves the Barry Bonds treatment, but he raises money for cancer, so he must be a great guy, right? Well that is unless you read what the people who know him say about him.

Hey, I hear they need Bigfoot hunters too, maybe a change of career for you? (BTW, I love Bigfoot stuff because as a kid my dad took us to a movie about Bigfoot and would always tell us these scary stories about Bigfoot sightings in our area. I hope you catch one, because even though I grew out of my belief they exist, it would be kind of cool if they did.) If that doesn't suit you, I have a multi level marketing company that I would love you to get involved with. I know people will term it a "pyramid scheme" but they are just haters who don't realize that it is a trapezoid, and that if you work really hard, I will get rich. Hey, I will donate some of my..err....our money to a charity or cancer research if that will sweeten the deal.

__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein

folks, remind me to feed this guy

Plus they introduced high cadence cycling.

Nice exercise of R-E-S-T-R-A-I-N-T there TFF. Impressive.

Duplicate post. System on the fritz . . .

g'day C, how's it goin'?

I would respond, but I wouldn't want to be accused by the OP of taking his thread off track.

its my thread. feel free.

Really? Huh, I didn't realize that.

Feel free to PM me with your inquiry.

I had some agreement with you earlier when you were stating that the doping problem is much bigger than the paltry few cyclists who were caught for their crimes and a notable big fish who wasn't. But I don't know how you can earlier say words to the effect "So what, if Armstrong doped... everyone was doping", then scoff at the L'Equippe revelations on the 1999 Armstrong B samples (that were tested blind). Do you not think that that newspaper would have been a touch vulnerable to litigation from the 100 Million Dollar Man if their findings were in any way fraudulent? And if you admit he doped... why are you so sure that he wouldn't have had EPO in his blood during a time when it was available and untestable... but still illegal?

The problem with a corrupt system that allows crime is that the best criminal(s) rise to the top. Unfortunately these guys stil have huge influence (Verdruggen and his cronies... Lance and his cronies in USA Cycling and elsewhere.... Bruyneel etc.) to the continuing detriment of cycling as an ideally pure sport.

You're either against doping... or your one of those who thinks "Who cares if they dope if everyone does". Maybe when your son is forced to go on health threatening PED's to compete at a reasonable level, you might understand the downside of a doped sport. It's not just about the spectators (who arguably enjoy it more when the cyclists have to struggle in any case).

__________________

Yea, I know. I could have told him what I was thinking without filtering it.....seriously.......I really did filter what I wanted to say.

__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein

I know. I was being sincere in my compliment too. I thought positive reinforcement might encourage you to continue with the newer, friendlier TFF.

So C, you must be "glad" that we are back to discussing LA's positive tests in 1999?