Radio Shack joins forces with Livestrong - Page 2

LOL, the key word in your post that makes it BS is rumored. Why do you post this crap?

Well, here's the thing: I happen to know this as fact. When Armstrong and Brunny Brun were searching for a sponsor during the last go-round, one large corporation simply decided that cycling is too hot to touch. Doping scandals or something like that.

Now why would a large sponsor care about that if Armstrong's team is clean as a whistle? Maybe the lawyer's thought any involvement in such a dirty sport opened them up to too much liability, or maybe word is getting around that Armstrong isn't so squeaky clean.

or perhaps they meant exactly what they said.. that CYCLING is too hot to touch.

What was said involved more than a general cycling discussion. This was after the L'Equipe story and the first of Walsh's books, and around the time of the SCA trial.

You may very well be right.. I don't know personally. I've already expressed my own opinion on whether LA doped or not so there is no need to re-visit that.

What I find bothersome however, is the number of people that basically start with the premise of:

"I can't stand/hate/dislike Lance Armstrong"

That's fine enough in itself, we're all free to like or dislike people as it suits us. Having said that, it seems to be the primary foundation of making him the target of why cycling has such an issue.

"He's the biggest doper ever". Yeah right, riders have been doping since the sport started with whatever they had available.

"He only won because of doping". Sure, along side all the other dopers he was racing (many of them officially sanctioned).

"It's a conspiracy, he's paid the "world" off to keep his cheating a secret". I don't think so.. he's big, but he's not that big.

"JB is the doping program king". Welll... what about all the other ds's that have actually had people caught????

"LA doesn't have enough integrity to admit it". As opposed to those that did AFTER they had been officially caught, or retired and decided to tell about it later? What about their integrity?

"Astana should not be in the tour". Because of Vino? Well Vino isn't there.. if the implication is that you can't have a team there that's had someone test positive, you might as well call the race off.

"He's an arrogant A**hole". I actually agree with that one.. which puts him in the same club as Cavendish, McEwen.. and I'm sure many others (in my opinion).

My most recent favorite was an almost instaneous (apparently) research of Radio Shack.. in which it was discovered that a CEO of that corporation committed a crime. LOL.. I'm sure all the other sponsors are completely clean in this respect (no I haven't looked).

It's just ridiculous the lengths that people will go to because they don't "like" someone. There are apparently a few people with an obsession problem regarding Lance Armstrong (both positive and negative I realize), and apparently have nothing more constructive to do than try to spread it.

What happened to objectivity. Whether he's good or bad, the only thing that seperates Lance from the vast majority of other riders is that he actually accomplished what he set out to do. Is that the basis for the dislike of him? I wonder (actually I don't... I think it has a lot to do with it).


None of this is directed specifically at you.

If this transitions into a civil discussion I'll immediately revoke my own forum membership.

Aside from giving false hope to cancer patients (wouldn't a simple comeback to professional cycling have been enough?), Armstrong returned to the sport after cycling received a very public and very tumultuous shaming. Instead of playing by the rules, he paid for the exclusive services of Ferrari, and aided by pharmacy began a trouncing of the competition in the most-watched cycling race. Sure, doping existed before, and the sort of doping Armstrong used existed before as well. But the sport was ready for sea change, and instead of going it clean he flaunted his combination of talent and high-tech doping to the point where his handlers were forced to explain his victories with lies about heart size, VO2 Max, dedication to training and weighing his cereal in the morning.

There's no question Armstrong had talent at a young age. But he was quickly gobbled up by opportunists, and it's silly to think that he hadn't been using PEDs prior to cancer (although under less formal supervision).

What rubs many of us the wrong way is that Armstrong has somehow internalized the notion that he deserves to dope, for whatever reason (no daddy? constant rationalization by his handlers? because he had cancer? because he's using his wealth to fund cancer research?). It makes him a very small person at the end of the day, and the pile of money he sits on now is due almost solely to the fact that he doesn't know how to perform his chosen profession without cheating.

Armstrong is not a well-grounded person who can be proud of his victories. He's unsettled and lonely, though he unlikely has any shame whatsoever. After all, he's been rationalizing stealing money from the competition and soliciting donations on false pretenses for over a decade. Much like Hamilton, he'll never admit to cheating.

Many of us have been touched in one way or another by cancer. Armstrong's "miracle" speech proves that he's willing to treat cycling fans like morons to further his cause. However noble that cause, it will never excuse the lies and the cheating.

I hear you.

It may very well have been enough, but I can't see how the "hope" he's given people with cancer is false. In my opinion he's shown that it is at least "possible" to get through it and accomplish something in life. I'm sure his demonstration of that possibility has indeed helped many people get through cancer. I've never had cancer, and I don't know many people that have in reality..so it's hard for me to speculate what they think when they consider LA



Certainly doesn't help his image any, I agree

While that may be true, it would also be true of anyone else that trounced the competition. JU for instance, who could possibly have done what LA did had LA not been there. Would the same level of "hate" then be directed toward JU if that had been the case? While we'll never know for sure.. I'm of the opinion that it would not (since I don't see many "I hate JU" threads around here)

I understand your point here, but I don't see how he's done that to any larger extent than other riders. From what I know (and I admittedly don't spend my days perusing interviews) most of them come across as if they deserved to dope. It may be shrouded in "everyone does/did" or "it's the only way because the race is too hard" or whatever.. but there always seems to be a justification in the rider's eyes. So again.. why is he singled out so specifically?

I think they've all pretty much treated us as morons, although I think most fans are no longer morons... we pretty much know what's going on if we pay attention at all. I agree, whatever you do charitably doesn't excuse cheating.. but it does change the perception when you look at everything as a whole (when compared to someone that cheated and did nothing charitable).

jimmypop is a parody or something. He has to be. He knows full well that Lance Armstrong is an incredible inspiration to millions of people around the world, who either have cancer or got into cycling because of his great succession of wins. He is one of the greatest sporting stories of all time. We all know that he probably did not dope from 2000 onwards, but even if he did, by your logic all of his opponents were doping as well, so it made no difference. He deserved every single one of those wins and the praise. He truly is one of the greats.

And to come back now at this age is again an amazing inspiration to people. You know that. And look at the higher profile the Tour has been given this year, with almost twice as many fans on the streets. On every level the man is good news.

Lastly on the sponsor. It's a better sponsor than most for the Tour de France these days - i don't see anything odd about it at all.

I know you see this as a bit of fun, and yes it is fun - it's only cycling - but you don't half take a lot of bollocks. You're one bitter and twisted individual. Most of what you say is simply assertion. Nobody with a brain is buying it.

Is this the comedy hour?

Mansmind, thanks very much for the reply. I think we're on the same page in some respects, but maybe I'm just too cynical these days.

It's the truth, pal. I'm sick and tired of the deluded nonsense from you and the other Armstrong haters who just spout this nonsense endlessly. You're all becoming the same person to me so don't feel you are being singled out in particular.

You know full well he is one of the greatest cyclists of all time and has an amazing inspirational story. Yes the greats are always fun to poke at - it happens in every sport - but you've got to learn when enough is enough and it gets past a joke. A lot of people who read this forums have been watching the Tour and seeing this amazing comeback. They don't want this site to be a haven for trolls and spiteful nut jobs. Go to some hollywood celebrity site and slag them off instead.

To those nay sayers, please explain the "problem" with Radio Shack being a title sponsor? I'm not a RS fanatic but I have purchased from them at various times. By no means a great electronic retailer, but they do come handy when you need the odd part. They are as good a sponsor for a Pro Tour cycling team as any other corporation. It's not like every other team sponsors out there are at the top of their business or industry. If RS is willing to dish out millions and join forces with LA, more power to both parties involved.

Give it a rest Bro, Pou, et al.

__________________
Live long, Ride far.

Agreed. Glad you finally found a way to categorize the behavior of the Armstrong sycophants.

Is Radioshack anything like Caddyshack?

Why do you love paedophiles?

Why is it that your mind can only come up with a implied ridiculous personal attack? Are you really that narrow? I never said anything about loving pedophiles, what I said was...well I don't need to say it again it was clear enough. Get real.

...and you should spend some time learning to spell.