Scott Lemond on Facebook - Page 3

Crankyfeet · #31 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

I know. I was being sincere in my compliment too.

I thought positive reinforcement might encourage you to continue with the newer, friendlier TFF.

Hey...none of that girlie kissy kissy talk in here please. TFF is the GT forum weapon of mass destruction...

We need him to blow off occasionally to keep him in top condition for July, when we get infested by the people that think that pro cycling only has one race, and that LA has cured cancer.

TheDarkLord · #32 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Hey...none of that girlie kissy kissy talk in here please. TFF is the GT forum weapon of mass destruction...

We need him to blow off occasionally to keep him in top condition for July, when we get infested by the people that think that pro cycling only has one race, and that LA has cured cancer.

How many of them do you think will show up now that Astana is banned from the Tour? Unless there are a few characters like tambourlain who come just to fight about how lame the race is... although considering that LA apologists are already here (

), maybe there will be a few.

plectrum · #33 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

Since you obviously are the patriot/Armstrong is an American hero type who believes cycling would have died. if it weren't for him .......... types like you who blind themselves to reality.

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.

TFF,

1. I'm British, so really have limited interest in Armstrong or USA, also if you would read my posts you would have noticed that I was a supporter of Ullrich rather than Armstrong during those epics.

2. Please don't let me stop you vomiting.

3. Whatever ........... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Crankyfeet · #34 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by plectrum

TFF,

1. I'm British, so really have limited interest in Armstrong or USA, also if you would read my posts you would have noticed that I was a supporter of Ullrich rather than Armstrong during those epics.

2. Please don't let me stop you vomiting.

3. Whatever ........... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Can't you just play the role of a Lance supporter and help to make this forum more interesting?...

plectrum · #35 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

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).

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.

Crankyfeet

I find this really boring, that kinda was my point initially concerning Dweeby Lemond's facebook group.

i don't care that Armstrong doped, I don't care who dopes I either like someone or I don't. Rasmussen doped Contador doped, I liked Ras, I disliked Cont. Armstrong doped, Ullrich doped, I liked Armstrong, I supported Ullrich, I disliked neither. Virenque doped I liked him, Pantani doped, he amused me but I didn't particularly support him.

My point is that it is a bit hard to hate a rider becuase he took PED's when everyone did. Also I'm amazed that few people here can admit that Lance won because he was incredible rather than becuase he was on some uber juice.

Look at this year's Tour de France, if Vino hadn't fallen and mashed up his knees then he would have obliterated the field. Was he on some uber juice when Discovery, Rabobank or CSC etc weren't no it was just becuase he was the best rider in terms of preparation for the race.

In concerns to my son (if I had kids) I would be rightfully concerned but heh it is also a known risk & hazard of the job.

Personally I think the biggest problem cycling has is that you cannot compete clean against a doped field where as other sports it is possible to win clean such as golf or even tennis.

Oh and the reason I scoffed at the Equipe article is becuase it was complete unsubstantiated crap. It may well be true but equally it may well be false and becuase of that it should be seen for what it is tabloid tripe.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to make the monkeys angry and if doping is really being reigned in then hallelujah.

plectrum · #36 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Can't you just play the role of a Lance supporter and help to make this forum more interesting?...

I wish I was, supporting that OAF Ullrich all these years eventually became a little tiring.

fscyclist · #37 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by plectrum

Crankyfeet

I find this really boring, that kinda was my point initially concerning Dweeby Lemond's facebook group.

i don't care that Armstrong doped, I don't care who dopes I either like someone or I don't. Rasmussen doped Contador doped, I liked Ras, I disliked Cont. Armstrong doped, Ullrich doped, I liked Armstrong, I supported Ullrich, I disliked neither. Virenque doped I liked him, Pantani doped, he amused me but I didn't particularly support him.

My point is that it is a bit hard to hate a rider becuase he took PED's when everyone did. Also I'm amazed that few people here can admit that Lance won because he was incredible rather than becuase he was on some uber juice.

Look at this year's Tour de France, if Vino hadn't fallen and mashed up his knees then he would have obliterated the field. Was he on some uber juice when Discovery, Rabobank or CSC etc weren't no it was just becuase he was the best rider in terms of preparation for the race.

In concerns to my son (if I had kids) I would be rightfully concerned but heh it is also a known risk & hazard of the job.

Personally I think the biggest problem cycling has is that you cannot compete clean against a doped field where as other sports it is possible to win clean such as golf or even tennis.

Oh and the reason I scoffed at the Equipe article is becuase it was complete unsubstantiated crap. It may well be true but equally it may well be false and becuase of that it should be seen for what it is tabloid tripe.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to make the monkeys angry and if doping is really being reigned in then hallelujah.

Plectrum, I appreciate you honesty. I also think they all dope (or at least 99%) so it's hard to base who you like on who you think is clean (unless you're Wiggins and have god-like insight). I disagree on a couple points though:
1. I don't think the Lequipe article was crap. I didn't read the article (don't read french), but read secondhand reports. More importantly I read the Vrijman report and the WADA response in their entirety. I think the WADA rebuttal was spot on and the Vrijman report was one of the best spin jobs I've seeen.
2. I don't think Armstrong was 'incredible'. He dominated ONE race for 7 years. A race custom made for major dopage. Yes he beat his competition (fellow dopers) but in that race dope can have a major effect. One could argue (i think very reasonably) that dope was part of the 'engineering' behind the riders during his reign. And if he won by doping 'better' than the others, well...more credit to him. It's not like his competition wasn't doping, and if they weren't able to dope as well....well that was part of the game and tough luck. Put it this way - I don't feel bad for Ullrich because Armstrong beat him when Ullrich was doping. Ullrich should've doped better or maybe shoved himself away from the table a little earlier. I think the worst legacy Armstrong left for cycling was not participating in the classics or other GT's. This has seriously hurt the sport. What happened to the hard men of the sport like Kelly (my all time favorite)?!
3. Right now, having to dope is a risk of the job. I just hope it isn't always this way. There will always be dopers, but if someone can at least make them the small minority than future generations have a chance.

coneofsilence · #38 04-01.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

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.

LOL..... Lance Armstrong is the Greatest Cyclist of all Time....... Discuss.

thoughtforfood · #39 04-02.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by plectrum

TFF,

1. I'm British, so really have limited interest in Armstrong or USA, also if you would read my posts you would have noticed that I was a supporter of Ullrich rather than Armstrong during those epics.

2. Please don't let me stop you vomiting.

3. Whatever ........... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh cool, you are British. Well, here you go: http://www.accelerator3359.com/Wrest...s/bulldog.html
Hey, he was on juice too, so you now have a new hero.

thoughtforfood · #40 04-02.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by plectrum

Crankyfeet

I find this really boring, that kinda was my point initially concerning Dweeby Lemond's facebook group.

i don't care that Armstrong doped, I don't care who dopes I either like someone or I don't. Rasmussen doped Contador doped, I liked Ras, I disliked Cont. Armstrong doped, Ullrich doped, I liked Armstrong, I supported Ullrich, I disliked neither. Virenque doped I liked him, Pantani doped, he amused me but I didn't particularly support him.

My point is that it is a bit hard to hate a rider becuase he took PED's when everyone did. Also I'm amazed that few people here can admit that Lance won because he was incredible rather than becuase he was on some uber juice.

Look at this year's Tour de France, if Vino hadn't fallen and mashed up his knees then he would have obliterated the field. Was he on some uber juice when Discovery, Rabobank or CSC etc weren't no it was just becuase he was the best rider in terms of preparation for the race.

In concerns to my son (if I had kids) I would be rightfully concerned but heh it is also a known risk & hazard of the job.

Personally I think the biggest problem cycling has is that you cannot compete clean against a doped field where as other sports it is possible to win clean such as golf or even tennis.

Oh and the reason I scoffed at the Equipe article is becuase it was complete unsubstantiated crap. It may well be true but equally it may well be false and becuase of that it should be seen for what it is tabloid tripe.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to make the monkeys angry and if doping is really being reigned in then hallelujah.

Way to take a stand there noodle boy. Hey, were you running the UN when all the genocide was going on in Rwanda?

The funny thing is that this type of response makes me want to vomit even more. History is filled with sheep who stood by and did nothing, grow a spine and stand for something.

Sounds like you enjoy a pukefest (are you into weird German porn or something?) since you wish me to keep vomiting, so I will take pictures and PM them over.

thoughtforfood · #41 04-02.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by fscyclist

Plectrum, I appreciate you honesty. I also think they all dope (or at least 99%) so it's hard to base who you like on who you think is clean (unless you're Wiggins and have god-like insight). I disagree on a couple points though:
1. I don't think the Lequipe article was crap. I didn't read the article (don't read french), but read secondhand reports. More importantly I read the Vrijman report and the WADA response in their entirety. I think the WADA rebuttal was spot on and the Vrijman report was one of the best spin jobs I've seeen.
2. I don't think Armstrong was 'incredible'. He dominated ONE race for 7 years. A race custom made for major dopage. Yes he beat his competition (fellow dopers) but in that race dope can have a major effect. One could argue (i think very reasonably) that dope was part of the 'engineering' behind the riders during his reign. And if he won by doping 'better' than the others, well...more credit to him. It's not like his competition wasn't doping, and if they weren't able to dope as well....well that was part of the game and tough luck. Put it this way - I don't feel bad for Ullrich because Armstrong beat him when Ullrich was doping. Ullrich should've doped better or maybe shoved himself away from the table a little earlier. I think the worst legacy Armstrong left for cycling was not participating in the classics or other GT's. This has seriously hurt the sport. What happened to the hard men of the sport like Kelly (my all time favorite)?!
3. Right now, having to dope is a risk of the job. I just hope it isn't always this way. There will always be dopers, but if someone can at least make them the small minority than future generations have a chance.

Now that is a reasonable response, thank you. I would try to be that nice to him/her, but it goes against that whole angry gestalt thing I have going on.

thoughtforfood · #42 04-02.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Hey...none of that girlie kissy kissy talk in here please. TFF is the GT forum weapon of mass destruction...

We need him to blow off occasionally to keep him in top condition for July, when we get infested by the people that think that pro cycling only has one race, and that LA has cured cancer.

Yea, I sharpen the 'ole knife from time to time just to be ready when a genius like No_Positives or Saluki roll around. Man I miss those guys...I really do actually. Just like with golf, you have to practice the tee-off consistently to be able hit straight and true. I am throwing out the metaphors like an old man on Viagra throws out his back.

TheDarkLord · #43 04-02.-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

Yea, I sharpen the 'ole knife from time to time just to be ready when a genius like No_Positives or Saluki roll around. Man I miss those guys...I really do actually. Just like with golf, you have to practice the tee-off consistently to be able hit straight and true. I am throwing out the metaphors like an old man on Viagra throws out his back.

I don't think Saluki will be coming back, but there is a very high chance that someone like tambourlain will come. So, don't despair yet TFF.

sbwirtz · #44 04-02.-2008

Who REALLY cares? Go out and ride...or drink beer, smoke and watch the spring classics with your friends.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode