10 reasons to hate lance

[limerickman]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
Why don't you get some evidence then? Look up the average speed of flat stages then and now, and the average speed of mountain stages then and now. It wouldn't be perfect evidence but it would be better than just thinking about it. I think maybe you're afraid of real evidence. The profile differences you mention actually bolster my theory because the flat stages would be much faster and the mountain stages would only be a little bit faster.

2003 TDF contained more mountain stages than the 1989 TDF.
The profile of the climbs in the 1989 were shoter and less difficult than the 2003.
(2003 version contained the Tourmalet for example).
I have no data on the flat stages as of now.
But let me see can I generate some data for same.

Then why don't you respond to it? The average speed of EVERY SINGLE RIDER has gone up by essentially the same amount. How can you possibly twist this statistic into saying that only Armstrong is cheating?

The question/thought that I posed didn't concern the peleton in general.
I specified Armstrong's metamorphisis from one day rider (1992-1996) to stage race winner (1998-present).
The assertion that whole peleton is therefore 3.1 kilometres faster than the 1989 peleton is a general observation on your part.
It doesn't explain away Armstrong's transformation between 1996-1998 from one day specialist (and I have to say here that I have never questioned his ability as a cyclist - I do question his ability to dominate stage racing since 1998).


I've been watching this sport for many years as well. One thing I've learned: it's PELOTON - one "e" two "o"s - it means platoon in French.

As a teenager, Armstrong scored the highest VO2 max anyone had ever seen and even before his first year as a pro he was identified as someone with supreme athletic ability.

Armstrong may well have a had highest VO2 max ever seen.
If he had this great engine in 1991/1992 when he was a neopro,
how come he never won any of the great stage races up to '96?
The fact that he had this capacity (if indeed he did have this capacity), would suggest that he should have been more successful in stage races than he was between 1992-1996
(OK he did win the Tour DuPont but forgive me here but the Tour DuPont is some way short of a Paris Nice or Tour of Lombardy : never mind a TDF).

Armstrong won a Tour stage and the rainbow jersey before his cancer, that's nothing to you?
Yes, these were great victories but like I stated early these are one days races and stage race race vitories such as the Maillot Jeune in the TDF.
Also I re-iterate here, I never questioned Armstrong's cycling ability, as a one day winner.
What I question is how a one day cyclist, became, after a life threatening illness, a totally dominant TDF cyclist.
That's the issue, for me.

Jalabert made the switch from sprinter to GC rider - not quite as dramatic of a change but the same kind of transformation.
Jalabert is an interesting example.
Laurent turned pro in 1989 and I agree he was initally a sprinter.
However in 1992, he won the gree points jersey in the TDF.
In three years, he delivered on his potential.
From sprint specialist (your view) to GC candidate shows demonstrable progression.
His success from 1992 onwards was a progression.
Laurent went on to win great stage races throughout his career
(look at his record in 1995 alone).
Laurent's pedigree was never, ever in question.
Compare and contrast this to Lance Armstrong : at best he was a very good one day cyclist.
Between 1992-1996, there is no indication of progression to substantiate what we have seen from him since 1998.

No, you want to believe that he's cheating and you're turning a blind eye to the real evidence: hundreds of controls all passed while others fail.

I can only say once again that I do want to believe because Arnmstrong's story is great - it gives hope to people with terminal illness.
It also gives our sport a great profile.
What I am afraid of is that if his record is due to something other than hardwork, ability, self sacrfice, that this would be a tragedy.
I care deeply about our sport : I want it and it competitors to be beyond any inference or possible blemish from the use of performance enhancing drugs.
Armstrong is the current flag bearer of our sport and too many doubts have been expressed by the media about his performances.
In trying to be objective, I have sought to look at the empirical evidence to back up what we've seen since 1998 from Armstrong.
Sadly the evidence is lacking - and on that basis-only, do I question what we've seen since 1998.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that indeed, Armtrong's
record since 1998 is due to hardwork, ability, self sacrfice.

 

[birdman23]

Originally posted by limerickman
The profile of the 1989 TDf was a lot more flat than the 2003 TDF :
the mountain stages in the 2003 TDf were steeper and there were more mountains in the profile.
I would agree with you that certainly the flat stages could be quicker however I think it would be stretching it to say that it could account for the 3.1 km per hour rate.
It is a valid point that you make the the whole peleton has become quicker : therefore the average speed in general has gone up.
But being specific to Armstrong, the empirical evidence is that between 1992-1996, he could not have acheived what he has achieved since 1998.

Throw in the fact that he had a life threatening illness as well, it seems to me that what we have seen since 1998, is at the very least the greatest aberration in sports performance ever.
I don't buy that he 3.1kms per hour faster than Greg LeMond.
I would genuinely like to think that his comeback is the result of hardwork etc.
But I am not convinced.
I have watched this sport for many years and a champion has a pedigree from day 1.
Pantani/Ullrich were class acts from day 1.
Armstrong wasn't.
Now, we're expected to accept that Armstrong had this ability all along.
No ! He didn't have this ability. He couldn't climb, he couldn't perform at a high level between 1992-1996.
I want to believe that what we see is genuine - but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Pedigree??? If I recall he was one of the youngest riders to ever win the Worlds. And as far as being able to ride faster then his predecessors...it's called progressive evolution. We (humans) as a species are progressively getting faster and stronger. Let's make a comparison with another sport, basketball. Michael Jordan totally changed the game of basketball. Before he entered the game you didn't see people jumping from the free throw line to dunk the ball and not many people were scoring 40 points per game on a consistent basis. However, the game has changed and we see players jumping over 7'2" players (Vince Carter in the SYdney Olympics) and there are a dozen players in the NBA that can score 40+ points per game at any given time. The NBA as a whole has gotten better because they had to. Golf is the same. Tiger Woods dominated the tour for several years but because of that domination it forced other players to work harder so they could become competitive once again.
Cycling is no different. To assume that Lance is doping merely because he is faster than LeMond as absolutely absurd. Let's not forget all of the technological advances that make riders stronger, heart rate and power meter training are relatively new but they have changed modern sports training.

Food for thought.

 

[birdman23]

You also mention Ullrich and Pantani had pedigree from day one. How many years had they been racing before either one of them one the tour? It takes years of training and racing to build up the endurance and stamina to become a true Tour GC contender. Oh and if Pantani had such great pedigree why did he need to use drugs? You might want to think about your arguments a little more before you post them for the whole world to see.

 

[tomdavis80]

Originally posted by birdman23
You also mention Ullrich and Pantani had pedigree from day one. How many years had they been racing before either one of them one the tour? It takes years of training and racing to build up the endurance and stamina to become a true Tour GC contender. Oh and if Pantani had such great pedigree why did he need to use drugs? You might want to think about your arguments a little more before you post them for the whole world to see.

Another thing to consider in addition to your argument is the definition of pedigree. Pedigree implies genetics and born ability and there is not a whole lot of evidence that a strong genetic heritage means that a boy will be a great cyclist much less win a Tour De France. Lance and the rest of the world's great cyclists except for those freak prodigies that bloom late, (IE, Scottie Pippen) have been training for endurance sports since they were preteens. Lance in particular focused on endurance sports and his first endurance sport that he started focusing on seriously was swimming and he was cycling at that time but it was more of a means to get around. Add onto the fact that he picked up triathlons as a means to earn money at 16 years old says that his cardiovascular development was much more advanced than the average 16 years old due to his focus on endurance sports at his young age. We have no way of knowing whether what Lance or Eddy Merckx for that matter are a result of pure genetics or a breakneck work ethic.

Case in point regarding genetics, Eddy Merckx's son, a good friend of Lance's is a cyclist as well, why haven't we heard about him too much in the world cycling scene? The fact that someone may have great genetics related to cycling may not necessarily mean that they will be great like their forebears.

Thomas Davis

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by birdman23






Pedigree??? If I recall he was one of the youngest riders to ever win the Worlds. And as far as being able to ride faster then his predecessors...it's called progressive evolution. We (humans) as a species are progressively getting faster and stronger. Let's make a comparison with another sport, basketball. Michael Jordan totally changed the game of basketball. Before he entered the game you didn't see people jumping from the free throw line to dunk the ball and not many people were scoring 40 points per game on a consistent basis. However, the game has changed and we see players jumping over 7'2" players (Vince Carter in the SYdney Olympics) and there are a dozen players in the NBA that can score 40+ points per game at any given time. The NBA as a whole has gotten better because they had to. Golf is the same. Tiger Woods dominated the tour for several years but because of that domination it forced other players to work harder so they could become competitive once again.
Cycling is no different. To assume that Lance is doping merely because he is faster than LeMond as absolutely absurd. Let's not forget all of the technological advances that make riders stronger, heart rate and power meter training are relatively new but they have changed modern sports training.

Food for thought.

I can't speak about Basketball because I don't know much about the sport or Michael Jordan.
However, I have some knowledge of Golf and yes Tiger Woods
for a couple of seasons appeared to be re-writing the game of Golf.
For a couple of seasons - this is the point.
Tiger Woods doesn't dominate the game of golf - have you heard of Ernie Els ??????
And if you compare Woods record to Nicklaus for example - I believe that young Tiger has some way to go before his fans can begin to make claims that he is the greatest.

I am fully familiar with the evolutionary process : however your
argument that evolution (within the space of 14 years !!!!!) can account for the 3.1 increase in pace for each and every kilometre
of the TDF, does adequately explain Mr.Armstrong's performance
is opaque to say the least.
3.1 kilometres faster for every kilometre of the TDF is a quantum
leap in acceleration.
(If you do cycle - try cycling 3.1 kilometres faster for each kilometre of your usual route and then you'll begin to get the picture).
Let's move the discussion along - our Texan friend manages to cycle faster than the so-called EPO/HGH fuelled peleton of the
1990's as well.
And he (Armstrong) maintains that he's clean as well !!!!!!!!!!
And on top of that he never won a major stage race prior
to his having a life threatening disease which forced him out of the sport for two years as well !!!!!

Indeed he was W/C and I acknowledge that Armstrong was a one day cycling specialist between 1992-1996.
I never questioned his pedigree as a one day cyclist.
I do question his performances since 1998 because he didn't have
a pedigree as a stage racer.
If there was one scintilla of evidence that between 1992-1996
that he would achieve what he has achieved since 1998, I would
have no difficulty with what he achieved since his recovery.
Objectively, you have got to see why I (and many others) have
very serious doubts about the authenticity of his performances.
As I said before I want to believe but logic and history tell me that
what we have seen - and given his lack of stage race pedigree -
is highly questionable.
Plenty of Food for thought !

 

[whitejersey007]

burn in hell lance

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by birdman23
You also mention Ullrich and Pantani had pedigree from day one. How many years had they been racing before either one of them one the tour? It takes years of training and racing to build up the endurance and stamina to become a true Tour GC contender. Oh and if Pantani had such great pedigree why did he need to use drugs? You might want to think about your arguments a little more before you post them for the whole world to see.

I'm glad that you pointed out the pedigree of Ullrich and Pantani.
I get the strong impression that a lot of people who appear to differ with the arguments that I have put here concerning Lance Armstrong are either new to the sport or are die-hard fans who chose to ignore the facts.
Pedigree : well let's look at Ullrich's pedigree : he turned professional in 1995/1996 after a stellar careeer as an amateur.
In his first season, Jan cycled and finished his first TDF.
A massive achievement - but not only did he finish his first TDF,
he finished runner up in the his first TDF !
That level of pedigree leaves Armstrong in the halfpenny place !
That level of class is up there with Merckx (one his first TDF) and
Hinault (won his first TDF).
Won the TDF in his second season as a professional in 1997.
You see Ullrich's career, unlike the Texan, is documented and proven beyond any scintilla of doubt.
Class from day 1 !
How did Mr.Armstrong perform when he turned pro in his first season at 22 - me thinks he couldn't complete his first TDF.
Did he ever threaten the podium between 1992-1996, me thinks not - in fact I think he only managed to finish one TDF in all that time.
A bit of a gap in pedigree here - don't you think ???

Marco Pantani : well let's look at his career :
Turned pro in 1992 when cycling with Stephen Roche's Carrera team after a stellar amateur career.
Within two years he had finished third in his second TDF in 1994
(also managed to win stages in the TDF in 1993/94).
Consistent performer as a stage racer in the Giro and TDF.
Again finished third in the 1997 TDF behind Jan and then went to win the 1998 TDF.
I think that Marco Pantani's career pedigree is clearly outlined here and is far more authentic than our Texan friend.
Again a bit of gap here between Marco's pedigree and Armstrongs.

I cannot defend why Pantani used drugs - perhaps he couldn't
cope with the fact that his performance level was dropping ?

Finally, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to patronise me
in your message when you suggest that I should think my arguments through before letting the world see them.
I have thought this through - and I believe that I have, in totality,
dissected your argument concerning pedigrees !

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by tomdavis80
Another thing to consider in addition to your argument is the definition of pedigree. Pedigree implies genetics and born ability and there is not a whole lot of evidence that a strong genetic heritage means that a boy will be a great cyclist much less win a Tour De France. Lance and the rest of the world's great cyclists except for those freak prodigies that bloom late, (IE, Scottie Pippen) have been training for endurance sports since they were preteens. Lance in particular focused on endurance sports and his first endurance sport that he started focusing on seriously was swimming and he was cycling at that time but it was more of a means to get around. Add onto the fact that he picked up triathlons as a means to earn money at 16 years old says that his cardiovascular development was much more advanced than the average 16 years old due to his focus on endurance sports at his young age. We have no way of knowing whether what Lance or Eddy Merckx for that matter are a result of pure genetics or a breakneck work ethic.

Case in point regarding genetics, Eddy Merckx's son, a good friend of Lance's is a cyclist as well, why haven't we heard about him too much in the world cycling scene? The fact that someone may have great genetics related to cycling may not necessarily mean that they will be great like their forebears.

Thomas Davis

Again, I don't know who or what is Scottie Pippen ??

Let me define what I mean by pedigree.
I define pedigree as a cyclists record that shows clear demonstrable ability for day 1.
It can be called Class - it can be called palmares.

I do agree that progeny may inherit the ability of the forebearers
to perform (or outperform) their parents but this line is straying in to genetics and I am not qualified enough to discuss this.
What I can discuss though is Armstrong's cycling performances.
You make the point about his cardiovascular readings at 16 etc.
Yes, Armstrong may have won events as a triathlete but what has this got to do with his lack of stage racing wins between
1992-1996 ?
If he had this cardiovascular gift - how come he never won any of the great stage races between 1992-1996 ?
(yes, he won the Tour DuPont but the Tour DuPont hardly qualifies
as evidence for what has ahppened since 1998).

Cardiovascular readings at 16 - Triathlete success etc.
It's a long way from his career since 1998 to now.

Come on Lance fans- give me something, anything, to
convince me that what we have seen since 1998 is authentic ?

 

[whitejersey007]

scottie pippens a basketball player

 

[birdman23]

5 consecutive tour wins doesn't count for something or authenticate his success?
Let me propose a question to you...I suspect you are British so please take this with a grain of salt. What if Armstrong was British? What if Armstrong was any nationality other than American? Would you still need to seek out validation ar would you readily say "Now there is a great cyclist!"
Truth be know Armstrong was cocky and arrogant when he was younger and that probably undermined his ability to succeed. He always had the physical ability to do well but he lacked the mental toughness. Cancer changed that for him. Cancer changes people in ways that (unless you have had it or gone through it with someone) you can't understand.

Also, of course I have heard of Ernie Els. True, Tiger doesn't dominate the tour the way he did because the competition has improved. Even during his two "bad" years he was still ranked #1 in the world.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by birdman23
5 consecutive tour wins doesn't count for something or authenticate his success?
Let me propose a question to you...I suspect you are British so please take this with a grain of salt. What if Armstrong was British? What if Armstrong was any nationality other than American? Would you still need to seek out validation ar would you readily say "Now there is a great cyclist!"
Truth be know Armstrong was cocky and arrogant when he was younger and that probably undermined his ability to succeed. He always had the physical ability to do well but he lacked the mental toughness. Cancer changed that for him. Cancer changes people in ways that (unless you have had it or gone through it with someone) you can't understand.

Also, of course I have heard of Ernie Els. True, Tiger doesn't dominate the tour the way he did because the competition has improved. Even during his two "bad" years he was still ranked #1 in the world.

First of all, I'm not British, I'm in fact Irish !

And I want to re-iterate it that I am in no way being anti-American when I'm criticising Lance Armstrong.
In fact, because there were so few irish/british/Austrailian/American riders in the European peleton,
us "english-speaking fans" would watch the progress of any of
riders from these countries.
I watched Lance - I really loved watching him win all those sprints/one day races when he had a chunky powerful build in the 1990's.
I was shocked and saddened when, on Stage 6 at Aix Les Bain,
Lance Armstrong got off his bike complaining of a sore throat.
in the 1996 TDF.
Little did I realise that four months later Lance would address a
press conference to tell the world that he had cancer.
I was sad for him - sad for me, as a fan.
I rejoiced when, in the 1998 Vuelta, Lance came back from his illness and finished 4th in a great, great tour.
It was great to see him back.
But then, he began to win and to win without any indication of
stress or fatigue.
He started to climb better than the greatest climbers, he TT'd
better than the greatest TT'ists, he made a q uantum leap from what we'd seen before his illness.
And it made me wonder.
What were we seeing ?
And I came to the conclusion what we've seen since 1998
is diametrically opposed to what had happened before he got
ill.

I have some knowledge of cancer and I have some knowledge of
how tough our sport is.
This is the difficulty that I have concerning Armstrong's performances since 1998, given 1992-1996 and his illness.

 

[bktx1]

Sure, Lance is big in the TDF. But he plans to do that - he peaks for that.

The guy is amazingly competitive and confident in his abilities, can't take that away from him.

The sad thing is that his bout with cancer did not teach him basic values. He threw away his marriage and family for the tour. That is sad for him.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by bktx1
Sure, Lance is big in the TDF. But he plans to do that - he peaks for that.

The guy is amazingly competitive and confident in his abilities, can't take that away from him.

The sad thing is that his bout with cancer did not teach him basic values. He threw away his marriage and family for the tour. That is sad for him.

I agree he is very competitve and don't get me wrong, he's a great cyclist too.
But I'm not sure that his recent results are a true reflection of his ability.

And perhaps he is a bit rough round the edges but I think it's not
perhaps right for us to comment about his marriage breakup
(although I can see where you're coming from)

 

[DiabloScott]

First of all - whoever first brought up Tiger Woods is way off base - golf isn't even an athletic activity.

And the Pantani - Ullrich pedigree issue is a red herring. Jokes about elephant ears and gluttony are just jokes; anyone who follows cycling at even the most superficial level recognizes the magnificence of both these two riders no matter what he may think of them on a personal level.

But Limerickman you aren't telling jokes you're smearing a champion with innuendo, and you haven't answered a SINGLE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS!

How is it that Jan is riding at almost exactly the same average speed as Lance if he's not juicing as well?

How is it that the entire peloton is riding at 3 kph faster than the average pace in 1990 if they're all not doped up?

How is it that Lance has never been caught if he's doing what you claim?

No, forget answering those questions - what I really want to know is why you ignore the obvious answers.

No forget that too, I know why… you hate Lance for some reason and you can't stand his success. That's OK, it doesn't matter why. Maybe you don't like his haircut or his personality - whatever, you don't have to tell us your reasons. But everyone here knows that you didn't conclude anything from the evidence, because the evidence isn't there.

Originally posted by limerickman
Come on Lance fans- give me something, anything, to
convince me that what we have seen since 1998 is authentic ?

Hundreds and hundreds of blood samples, urine samples, and hotel room raids. That's on top of his integrity which I believe to be substantial.

I look forward to an exciting season and a thrilling Tour played out by two champions who respect each other, some very worthy challengers, and some hungry dark horses. I only wish we could all experience it together in admiration rather than the distasteful puerile sleaze I see in this thread.

 

[birdman23]

First let me preface this reply with a compliment. Your knowledge of the sport is truly remarkable. I consider myself an avid fan of our sport but the facts you produce and the knowledge you possess is far superior to my own.

I would also like to applaud you for your diplomacy. I figured you were Irish seeing as how your username is Limerickman. I assume you are from Limerick? I inferred you were British to provoke a reaction as I know the relationship between the British and Irish is sketchy at best. You responded with a lot of class.

I see so many anti-American posts that I made the incorrect assumption about your sentiments to us Yanks and therefore implied you were British.

I just don't understand why so many people have so many issues with Lance and his comeback. His physiology changed because of the cancer which allowed him to ride differently and he became a stronger willed person. I fully believe that the mind is far more powerful than the physical body and if we have the right attitude we can accomplish things that are beyond the "normal" capabilities of our bodies.

Case in point, my wife had non-hodgkins lymphoma. The prognosis was terminal. She is the most positive person I have ever met and because of that she is still with me. After the surgeries, chemo, and radiation treatments they told her she would never be able to have children. The doctors suggested we adopt or we could try different drugs to increase her chances of becoming pregnant. She never liked either one of these options. She determined that she would be able to bear children and that was final. We are now the proud parents of 7 year old twins, a three year old, and another baby on the way, all without drugs or other treatments. I mention this only because people, Dr.'s included, said it was not possible. Why is it impossible to believe that Lance's performance is completely legitimate?

He is probably the most drug tested person on the planet and nothing has ever showed up and never will, in my opinion.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
First of all - whoever first brought up Tiger Woods is way off base - golf isn't even an athletic activity.

And the Pantani - Ullrich pedigree issue is a red herring. Jokes about elephant ears and gluttony are just jokes; anyone who follows cycling at even the most superficial level recognizes the magnificence of both these two riders no matter what he may think of them on a personal level.

But Limerickman you aren't telling jokes you're smearing a champion with innuendo, and you haven't answered a SINGLE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS!

How is it that Jan is riding at almost exactly the same average speed as Lance if he's not juicing as well?

How is it that the entire peloton is riding at 3 kph faster than the average pace in 1990 if they're all not doped up?

How is it that Lance has never been caught if he's doing what you claim?

No, forget answering those questions - what I really want to know is why you ignore the obvious answers.

No forget that too, I know why… you hate Lance for some reason and you can't stand his success. That's OK, it doesn't matter why. Maybe you don't like his haircut or his personality - whatever, you don't have to tell us your reasons. But everyone here knows that you didn't conclude anything from the evidence, because the evidence isn't there.




Hundreds and hundreds of blood samples, urine samples, and hotel room raids. That's on top of his integrity which I believe to be substantial.

I look forward to an exciting season and a thrilling Tour played out by two champions who respect each other, some very worthy challengers, and some hungry dark horses. I only wish we could all experience it together in admiration rather than the distasteful puerile sleaze I see in this thread.

First of all, I respect the fact that you disagree with my viewpoint and I respect your right to hold a diametrically opposed viewpoint.

With respect to the conclusions that I have drawn, you have never been able to substantiate Armstrong's 'improvement' either.

This discussion could go on for years.

We're both fans of this sport.
None of us can be completely sure about how any cyclist prepares.
I offer one view here - you offer another view.

In offering a view - I don't personalise my criticism of those who oppose my viewpoint.
I would respectfully ask you to withdraw the charge that I hate
Lance Armstrong.
I don't hate anyone and if you care to read Page 5 of this thread
I clearly state that I don't hate Lance Armstrong nor am I being
anti-American etc.
Any criticism that i offer is, I hope, objective, and even if you don't consider it to be objective, it is downright wrong to assume that
because someone criticises someone else, it because they hate
them.

 

[birdman23]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
First of all - whoever first brought up Tiger Woods is way off base - golf isn't even an athletic activity.

And the Pantani - Ullrich pedigree issue is a red herring. Jokes about elephant ears and gluttony are just jokes; anyone who follows cycling at even the most superficial level recognizes the magnificence of both these two riders no matter what he may think of them on a personal level.

But Limerickman you aren't telling jokes you're smearing a champion with innuendo, and you haven't answered a SINGLE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS!

How is it that Jan is riding at almost exactly the same average speed as Lance if he's not juicing as well?

How is it that the entire peloton is riding at 3 kph faster than the average pace in 1990 if they're all not doped up?

How is it that Lance has never been caught if he's doing what you claim?

No, forget answering those questions - what I really want to know is why you ignore the obvious answers.

No forget that too, I know why… you hate Lance for some reason and you can't stand his success. That's OK, it doesn't matter why. Maybe you don't like his haircut or his personality - whatever, you don't have to tell us your reasons. But everyone here knows that you didn't conclude anything from the evidence, because the evidence isn't there.




Hundreds and hundreds of blood samples, urine samples, and hotel room raids. That's on top of his integrity which I believe to be substantial.

I look forward to an exciting season and a thrilling Tour played out by two champions who respect each other, some very worthy challengers, and some hungry dark horses. I only wish we could all experience it together in admiration rather than the distasteful puerile sleaze I see in this thread.

I only brought up Tiger Woods because he represented a paradigm shift for the sport of golf. There were many great golfers before him but he came in and blew them all away. Did that mean he was taking drugs to be the best golfer? No it just means he's damn good. He made the game better better because he forced other players to be better in order to compete. Limerickman was saying it was basically impossible for Lance to ride 3 km/h faster than LeMond and I was implying that it's not. Lance is an uber-determined person.

By the way Diablo I agree with you 100%. How is it that the ENTIRE peloton is riding 3 km/h faster? Are they all doping? I think not.

 

[DiabloScott]

Originally posted by limerickman

I would respectfully ask you to withdraw the charge that I hate
Lance Armstrong.
I don't hate anyone and if you care to read Page 5 of this thread
I clearly state that I don't hate Lance Armstrong nor am I being
anti-American etc.

Any criticism that i offer is, I hope, objective, and even if you don't consider it to be objective, it is downright wrong to assume that
because someone criticises someone else, it because they hate
them.

I shall rephrase - I contend (strike "know") that you dislike (strike "hate") Lance Armstrong, despite your statement to the contrary.

Others on this board have conjectured your anti-Americanism, not I. Just making that clear.

Your criticism is not objective, it's demagoguery and ignores the overwhelming body of exculpatory evidence. This is not a personal attack on you but an attack on your rhetoric and logic which are pathetic.

I call on you to admit your prejudice.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by birdman23
First let me preface this reply with a compliment. Your knowledge of the sport is truly remarkable. I consider myself an avid fan of our sport but the facts you produce and the knowledge you possess is far superior to my own.

I would also like to applaud you for your diplomacy. I figured you were Irish seeing as how your username is Limerickman. I assume you are from Limerick? I inferred you were British to provoke a reaction as I know the relationship between the British and Irish is sketchy at best. You responded with a lot of class.

I see so many anti-American posts that I made the incorrect assumption about your sentiments to us Yanks and therefore implied you were British.

I just don't understand why so many people have so many issues with Lance and his comeback. His physiology changed because of the cancer which allowed him to ride differently and he became a stronger willed person. I fully believe that the mind is far more powerful than the physical body and if we have the right attitude we can accomplish things that are beyond the "normal" capabilities of our bodies.

Case in point, my wife had non-hodgkins lymphoma. The prognosis was terminal. She is the most positive person I have ever met and because of that she is still with me. After the surgeries, chemo, and radiation treatments they told her she would never be able to have children. The doctors suggested we adopt or we could try different drugs to increase her chances of becoming pregnant. She never liked either one of these options. She determined that she would be able to bear children and that was final. We are now the proud parents of 7 year old twins, a three year old, and another baby on the way, all without drugs or other treatments. I mention this only because people, Dr.'s included, said it was not possible. Why is it impossible to believe that Lance's performance is completely legitimate?

He is probably the most drug tested person on the planet and nothing has ever showed up and never will, in my opinion.

Thanks for the compliment and it's only because I've followed the sport for years that I have this information at hand !

I gathered from our exchange of messages that you had some knowledge of very serious illnesses and I am very glad to hear that you and your family are well, after all your difficulties.

Believe me when I say that I do want to believe, but I can't !

 

[birdman23]

Originally posted by limerickman
Thanks for the compliment and it's only because I've followed the sport for years that I have this information at hand !

I gathered from our exchange of messages that you had some knowledge of very serious illnesses and I am very glad to hear that you and your family are well, after all your difficulties.

Believe me when I say that I do want to believe, but I can't !

You're welcome. I pay compliments when compliments are due. So you say you want to believe but you can't...
...what will make it believable for you?