Armstrong and Lemond



K

k.papai

Guest
Steve,
"Logic. A class of objects divided into subordinate species having
certain
common attributes.

A class, group, or kind with common attributes.

Obviously, Kenny isn't a member of genus genius. He might be a member
of
genus kunichidiotus, though ... "

Why do have to be such a **** so often SS? That was a typo.
I know what genus means. As soon as I posted it I saw the 'i' left out.

Thanks for the correction, oh elementary school teacher you, and quit
being such a pompous **** too; you were nicer in the Bay Area I
suppose, though I've never heard otherwise.
Ken
 
E

Eric Hill

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Stupid Newbie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>David Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you want a "nice guy" go over to the losers lounge and
>>>hang out with Jan.

>>
>>LOL, I guess then to each his own. In 25 years:
>>
>>a) Lance will have the showcase of stuff to remind him of
>>his 7 great TdF wins;
>>
>>b) Jan will still have friends.
>>
>>:)

>
>
> Armstrong has friends and he knows who they are.
> They are not the people who left him for dead.


Yeah, and Lance never left anybody when it became inconvenient.

-eric
 
B. Lafferty wrote:

> It's going to be very interesting to see how Armstrong progresses in
> retirement. He'll no longer be on the bike generating the amount of
> publicity he does now which means people will be less likely to keep their
> mouths shut and grovel to make the dollar. Over the long haul, it's going to
> be Armstrong sticking his foot down his throat more and more.


Forget Armstrong. He's nearly history. It's going to be very -
well, not very - interesting to see what you do in Armstrong's
retirement. Are you going to keep posting to rbr about him?
Transfer your affections to another rider? Take up net-stalking
YMC again? Resume a crusade against USAC?

> I got a call
> yesterday from a non-cycling friend who had seen the Playboy interview and
> his comment was that he never realized what a jerk Armstrong is. Priceless.


Henry was wrong. He thinks you're stuck in high school.
But by high school, most people have stopped talking about
their imaginary friends.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> It's going to be very interesting to see how Armstrong progresses in
>> retirement. He'll no longer be on the bike generating the amount of
>> publicity he does now which means people will be less likely to keep
>> their
>> mouths shut and grovel to make the dollar. Over the long haul, it's going
>> to
>> be Armstrong sticking his foot down his throat more and more.

>
> Forget Armstrong. He's nearly history. It's going to be very -
> well, not very - interesting to see what you do in Armstrong's
> retirement. Are you going to keep posting to rbr about him?
> Transfer your affections to another rider? Take up net-stalking
> YMC again? Resume a crusade against USAC?


ROTFL
>
>> I got a call
>> yesterday from a non-cycling friend who had seen the Playboy interview
>> and
>> his comment was that he never realized what a jerk Armstrong is.
>> Priceless.

>
> Henry was wrong. He thinks you're stuck in high school.
> But by high school, most people have stopped talking about
> their imaginary friends.


The Playboy mags sure look real when I look at them while visiting. But if
they are imaginary, I'm quite pleased with my imagination. Now where the
hell did I leave that bunny?????

>
 
D

David Ferguson

Guest
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:40:17 +0000 (UTC), Stupid Newbie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Yes, some of Armstrong's grudges are understandable--against
>his former Cofidis team management, or Lemond. But some of
>them seem just cases where he takes a remark or gesture out
>of context to invented a 'slight' or insult, just for self-
>motivation; a form of lying to oneself, or it seems to me.
>
>


So what? It's no crime to be a skeptical and suspicious person.
Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.
There are a lot of people that way. If I count on you and you let me
down then get the hell off. He's got enough wheel suckers pretending
to be his friends that he doesn't need more. Cancer is a ***** and
people bail left and right. If you live through it and those types of
people come into your life you can recognize them and you don't put
them in your "circle".

But I guarantee you this. If you are in that circle there is nothing
he wouldn't do for you.

D
 
S

Stupid Newbie

Guest
David Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:40:17 +0000 (UTC), Stupid Newbie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, some of Armstrong's grudges are
>>understandable--against his former Cofidis team management,
>>or Lemond. But some of them seem just cases where he takes
>>a remark or gesture out of context to invented a 'slight'
>>or insult, just for self- motivation; a form of lying to
>>oneself, or it seems to me.
>>
>>

>
> So what? It's no crime to be a skeptical and suspicious
> person. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame
> on me. There are a lot of people that way. If I count on
> you and you let me down then get the hell off. He's got
> enough wheel suckers pretending to be his friends that he
> doesn't need more. Cancer is a ***** and people bail left
> and right. If you live through it and those types of people
> come into your life you can recognize them and you don't
> put them in your "circle".
>
> But I guarantee you this. If you are in that circle there
> is nothing he wouldn't do for you.


I'm not talking about him being angry with people who've
attacked him, or questioned his integrity, or who abandoned
him during his cancer. My point is that part of his self-
motivation program seems to be taking someone else's comments
or guestures out of context, and 'spinning' them in his own
mind into a personal attack or a slight, creating a grudge
out of, well, not much. All to build up a "I'll show 'em!!"
anger which he feeds off of in his preparation.

That's not the worst personality trait in the world, but
it does get old after a while, and yes, it's a form of
dishonesty. We all say things to others, sometimes even to
compliment them, and later realize that there's another
interpretation of what we said that might not be
complimentary. Most normal people recognize this, and think,
"hey, they didn't mean it that way". But if Armstrong can
twist what you said or did into an insult or slight for him
to get angry over, that's what he'll do.

The other thing that Armstrong does which gets old is his
Horatio Alger routine. Listening to him talk, Jan Ullrich
is the one with the talent, while Armstrong has the smarts,
and hard work and preparation. Excuse me? Armstrong is
something of a genetic freak himself, and may be, all things
considered, may actually be more naturally gifted than Jan.
Certainly he outperforms Ullrich in almost every category.
 
K

Kurgan Gringioni

Guest
Stupid Newbie wrote:
>
> The other thing that Armstrong does which gets old is his
> Horatio Alger routine. Listening to him talk, Jan Ullrich
> is the one with the talent, while Armstrong has the smarts,
> and hard work and preparation. Excuse me? Armstrong is
> something of a genetic freak himself, and may be, all things
> considered, may actually be more naturally gifted than Jan.




Dumbass -

You've got your head up your ass.

Ullrich got 2nd in his first TdF, when he was 21. He won the next one
at age 22.

Armstrong's talented, very much so, but not as much as Ullrich. Jan let
himself go in the winters and it caught up with him.



thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Stupid Newbie <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:40:17 +0000 (UTC), Stupid Newbie
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Yes, some of Armstrong's grudges are
> >>understandable--against his former Cofidis team management,
> >>or Lemond. But some of them seem just cases where he takes
> >>a remark or gesture out of context to invented a 'slight'
> >>or insult, just for self- motivation; a form of lying to
> >>oneself, or it seems to me.
> >>
> >>

> >
> > So what? It's no crime to be a skeptical and suspicious
> > person. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame
> > on me. There are a lot of people that way. If I count on
> > you and you let me down then get the hell off. He's got
> > enough wheel suckers pretending to be his friends that he
> > doesn't need more. Cancer is a ***** and people bail left
> > and right. If you live through it and those types of people
> > come into your life you can recognize them and you don't
> > put them in your "circle".
> >
> > But I guarantee you this. If you are in that circle there
> > is nothing he wouldn't do for you.

>
> I'm not talking about him being angry with people who've
> attacked him, or questioned his integrity, or who abandoned
> him during his cancer. My point is that part of his self-
> motivation program seems to be taking someone else's comments
> or guestures out of context, and 'spinning' them in his own
> mind into a personal attack or a slight, creating a grudge
> out of, well, not much. All to build up a "I'll show 'em!!"
> anger which he feeds off of in his preparation.


Suppose he is not taking remarks "out of context?" Suppose he
knows that the context is the mind of a person who would suck up
to him then betray him first chance they get?

Disclaimer: I do not think I know Armstrong, nor do I identify
with him. All I have are things he says in public that he knows
will be broadcast to millions. Until this year those public
utterances have told me very little. This year he is humorous and
somewhat open in public. For instance about his 78th he said that
he does not deserve to be awarded more yellow jerseys than
Bernard Hinault. Then he thought, smiled, and said that he still
wanted to have the 79th awarded the next day.

[...]

--
Michael Press
 
D

David Ferguson

Guest
yeah, all better.

And if Terry Bradshaw said Roger was only good because he cheated I
bet he wouldn't be so nice.
 
D

David Ferguson

Guest
He's definitely on edge but I think it's just a character trait he was
born with, developed as an athlete and was reinforced by his
experiences.

If he's really edgey enough that he takes compliments and turns them
into reasons to never speak to the person then that's unfortunate.
However I don't know of any specific cases like that so maybe you
could point some out.
 
S

Stupid Newbie

Guest
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> Stupid Newbie wrote:
>>
>> The other thing that Armstrong does which gets old is his
>> Horatio Alger routine. Listening to him talk, Jan Ullrich
>> is the one with the talent, while Armstrong has the
>> smarts, and hard work and preparation. Excuse me?
>> Armstrong is something of a genetic freak himself, and may
>> be, all things considered, may actually be more naturally
>> gifted than Jan.

>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You've got your head up your ass.
>
> Ullrich got 2nd in his first TdF, when he was 21. He won
> the next one at age 22.
>
> Armstrong's talented, very much so, but not as much as
> Ullrich. Jan let himself go in the winters and it caught up
> with him.


You're ignoring two key Armstrong advantages, both of which
are likely biomechanical and/or genetic and therefore he can
take no credit for:

1) He, and Basso, are better climbers than Jan; specifically,
they can accelerate better due to their quicker cadences.
Even if Ullrich's not out of gas, his big-gear climbing style
doesn't lend itself to quick accelerations, so he can be
bested within the final kilometer of a climb if Armstrong or
Basso still have gas. Ullrich has to win climbs by dropping
the competition before the end with a steady fast pace; if
they are still with him at the end, he's potentially in
trouble.

2) Armstrong has *phenomenal* recovery after hard efforts.
This is not only a HUGE advantage in racing, it's also a HUGE
training advantage. Armstrong can train at a level that would
be overtraining, even leading to injury, for others.

Maybe Ullrich training harder in the offseason would make him
a better cyclist. Then again, maybe it wouldn't. Kloeden's
early season poor performances this year, in fact, have
been ascribed to him *overtraining*, not undertraining. Some
people are better by off taking time off.
 
D

David Ferguson

Guest
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:03:22 +0000 (UTC), Stupid Newbie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> Stupid Newbie wrote:
>>>
>>> The other thing that Armstrong does which gets old is his
>>> Horatio Alger routine. Listening to him talk, Jan Ullrich
>>> is the one with the talent, while Armstrong has the
>>> smarts, and hard work and preparation. Excuse me?
>>> Armstrong is something of a genetic freak himself, and may
>>> be, all things considered, may actually be more naturally
>>> gifted than Jan.

>>
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> You've got your head up your ass.
>>
>> Ullrich got 2nd in his first TdF, when he was 21. He won
>> the next one at age 22.
>>
>> Armstrong's talented, very much so, but not as much as
>> Ullrich. Jan let himself go in the winters and it caught up
>> with him.

>
>You're ignoring two key Armstrong advantages, both of which
>are likely biomechanical and/or genetic and therefore he can
>take no credit for:
>
>1) He, and Basso, are better climbers than Jan; specifically,
>they can accelerate better due to their quicker cadences.
>Even if Ullrich's not out of gas, his big-gear climbing style
>doesn't lend itself to quick accelerations, so he can be
>bested within the final kilometer of a climb if Armstrong or
>Basso still have gas. Ullrich has to win climbs by dropping
>the competition before the end with a steady fast pace; if
>they are still with him at the end, he's potentially in
>trouble.
>
>2) Armstrong has *phenomenal* recovery after hard efforts.
>This is not only a HUGE advantage in racing, it's also a HUGE
>training advantage. Armstrong can train at a level that would
>be overtraining, even leading to injury, for others.
>
>Maybe Ullrich training harder in the offseason would make him
>a better cyclist. Then again, maybe it wouldn't. Kloeden's
>early season poor performances this year, in fact, have
>been ascribed to him *overtraining*, not undertraining. Some
>people are better by off taking time off.
>



Please do not do this. Chang is going to chew you up and spit you out.

1) Being a better climber doesn't make you more "gifted" overall as a
cyclist and therefore doesn't negate Armstrong's assertions. If
Ullrich has gas his big gear style will actually make him faster in
the last kilometer. With the same amount of "gas" he's probably
considered a better sprinter by most.

2) Armstrong's "phenomenal" recovery after hard efforts has come
through training. Not being "gifted". What their respective natural
abilities in that area are, comparitively, nobody could know for sure
but I think Armstrong might be in a position to comment.

Overtraining, undertaining, blah blah, you have to find what's right.
That takes smarts, not being gifted. So again, Ullrich might be more
naturally gifted but Armstrong might be smarter about training.

And as you said, Armstrong "MAY be more naturally gifted" which means
you agree that he may not be. So it's not necessarily a "Horatio Alger
routine" for him to assert that Ullrich is more naturally talented.

Hopefully Chang will read that and either agree or disagree to a point
that some of his wrath will fall my way, saving you a few stitches.

D
 
S

Steven L. Sheffield

Guest
On 07/20/2005 10:45 AM, in article
[email protected], "k.papai"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve,
> "Logic. A class of objects divided into subordinate species having
> certain
> common attributes.
>
> A class, group, or kind with common attributes.
>
> Obviously, Kenny isn't a member of genus genius. He might be a member
> of
> genus kunichidiotus, though ... "
>
> Why do have to be such a **** so often SS? That was a typo.
> I know what genus means. As soon as I posted it I saw the 'i' left out.
>
> Thanks for the correction, oh elementary school teacher you, and quit
> being such a pompous **** too; you were nicer in the Bay Area I
> suppose, though I've never heard otherwise.
> Ken



"Lighten up, Francis" ...


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
 
M

Mad Dog

Guest
David Ferguson says...

>And as you said, Armstrong "MAY be more naturally gifted" which means
>you agree that he may not be.


Lance's key gift is the ability to give total commitment to winning. That's one
that Jan appears to be less in tune with.
 
K

Kyle Legate

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Stupid Newbie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>David Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:40:17 +0000 (UTC), Stupid Newbie
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, some of Armstrong's grudges are
>>>>understandable--against his former Cofidis team management,
>>>>or Lemond. But some of them seem just cases where he takes
>>>>a remark or gesture out of context to invented a 'slight'
>>>>or insult, just for self- motivation; a form of lying to
>>>>oneself, or it seems to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what? It's no crime to be a skeptical and suspicious
>>>person. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame
>>>on me. There are a lot of people that way. If I count on
>>>you and you let me down then get the hell off. He's got
>>>enough wheel suckers pretending to be his friends that he
>>>doesn't need more. Cancer is a ***** and people bail left
>>>and right. If you live through it and those types of people
>>>come into your life you can recognize them and you don't
>>>put them in your "circle".
>>>
>>>But I guarantee you this. If you are in that circle there
>>>is nothing he wouldn't do for you.

>>
>>I'm not talking about him being angry with people who've
>>attacked him, or questioned his integrity, or who abandoned
>>him during his cancer. My point is that part of his self-
>>motivation program seems to be taking someone else's comments
>>or guestures out of context, and 'spinning' them in his own
>>mind into a personal attack or a slight, creating a grudge
>>out of, well, not much. All to build up a "I'll show 'em!!"
>>anger which he feeds off of in his preparation.

>
>
> Suppose he is not taking remarks "out of context?" Suppose he
> knows that the context is the mind of a person who would suck up
> to him then betray him first chance they get?
>

Would Floyd Landis fall into this group? Lance seems to have done some
mean spin on Floyd's comments to L'Equipe in his head.
 
S

Stewart Fleming

Guest
Mad Dog wrote:
> Lance's key gift is the ability to give total commitment to winning. That's one
> that Jan appears to be less in tune with.


On the other hand, given today's stage, Jan IS well suited to the
battles for the 2nd and 3rd spots of the podium.
>
 
G

gym.gravity

Guest
David Ferguson wrote:

> >2) Armstrong has *phenomenal* recovery after hard efforts.
> >This is not only a HUGE advantage in racing, it's also a HUGE
> >training advantage. Armstrong can train at a level that would
> >be overtraining, even leading to injury, for others.


> 2) Armstrong's "phenomenal" recovery after hard efforts has come
> through training. Not being "gifted". What their respective natural
> abilities in that area are, comparitively, nobody could know for sure
> but I think Armstrong might be in a position to comment.
>
> Overtraining, undertaining, blah blah, you have to find what's right.
> That takes smarts, not being gifted. So again, Ullrich might be more
> naturally gifted but Armstrong might be smarter about training.
>


Among all the talk about Hincappie possibly riding for GC, Bruyneel
commented that at training camps, there are guys that get stronger
after each successive day and guys that get weaker and that is what
makes a GC rider. There's definitely a gift to being able to recover
quickly.
 
G

gym.gravity

Guest
Stupid Newbie wrote:
> I'd hate to think that Lance *really*
> believes that Landis's remarks were directed by malice.
> That's almost paranoia.


Yes, that's what it is. I think Landis said Lance was paranoid in
Coyle's book or something.

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html
 
D

David Ferguson

Guest
On 21 Jul 2005 13:35:31 -0700, "gym.gravity" <[email protected]>
>
>Among all the talk about Hincappie possibly riding for GC, Bruyneel
>commented that at training camps, there are guys that get stronger
>after each successive day and guys that get weaker and that is what
>makes a GC rider. There's definitely a gift to being able to recover
>quickly.




But I think it has to do with the long history of tough training.
Which is why it's so hard for young riders, no matter how strong they
are on a one day basis, to do well in the Tour.

It takes years of training to build the ability to recover fast.

Or maybe not.

D
 
G

gym.gravity

Guest
David Ferguson wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 13:35:31 -0700, "gym.gravity" <[email protected]>
> >
> >Among all the talk about Hincappie possibly riding for GC, Bruyneel
> >commented that at training camps, there are guys that get stronger
> >after each successive day and guys that get weaker and that is what
> >makes a GC rider. There's definitely a gift to being able to recover
> >quickly.

>
>
>
> But I think it has to do with the long history of tough training.
> Which is why it's so hard for young riders, no matter how strong they
> are on a one day basis, to do well in the Tour.
>
> It takes years of training to build the ability to recover fast.


Oh, I get it, George hasn't trained as hard as Lance and that's the
difference.

?