French offer Armstrong a re-test of his 1999 Tour sample

[limerickman]

So which is it then? As a group - do we hate LA because he dopes or do we not care whether he does, did or wanted to?

One minute we hate him because he doped and he is a cheat. He is bringing the sport into disrepute. The sport of cycling is going through a reniessance and the likes of Lance are yesterday's villain. The next it doesn't bother us one way or the other - after all they all dope so what's the difference?

If the assumption is that all the top finishers are using PED of some variety, why is there so much dislike for one man? Envy is a curse.

You're taking the **** here.
Or you're confused.

The dislike - if there is any dislike on this forum - ain't directed at Armstrong.
Any dislike, such that there may be, is directed at the apologists of Armstrong.

Bottom line is that once you filter out all the BS you're left with a PERSONAL dislike for another human being. In Australia we call it the 'tall poppy' syndrome. In simple terms, it's much easier to bring a champion down than it is to bring one's self up to champion level.

If it's as simple as you suggest it is, take the PED's (if you aren't already doing so) and become a pro cyclist and beat LA at his own game. Actually, is there anyone on this forum that actually cycles for a living?....and then it dawns on me.....! LA symbolises every shortcoming that has prevented you from being on the cover of Sports Illustated yourselves. I know now why you hate him so much. You spend hours/days/months/years putting in miles and miles of training and yet you're not good enough. Maybe ok, but not good enough to wear the Yellow/Pink (etc) Jersey. After all, by doctorspoc's own admission, there are no hero's in pro cycling any more. Just a bunch of doped up cheats that stop the rest of us from getting to the top.

Now I know you're taking the ****.

 

[doctorSpoc]

1) i speak for myself and not anyone else..

2) anyone finishing in the top 1/2 of a grand tour... is a great rider and would eat most other riders in the world for breakfast... even off dope. i think you missed in my previous post where i said the Lance Armstrong was doped like all the other riders he rode against and rose to the top... there's just no way around it Lance Armstrong is one of the greatest athletes in cycling history.. dope doesn't make these riders great, they are already great physical specimens... dope is just like the icing on the cake... it takes riders to that next level and allows them to keep up with those other great physical specimens who are also taking dope.. i.e. you can't take some club racer off the street, dope him or her up and get him to ride like a grand tour winner... you need to start with someone with great genetics, great training regime, and great motivation and drive... dope can't give you any of that.. dope can't get you out on the road doing 30 hrs a week, rain or shine... dope is no magic bullet... like i said it's icing on a cake... if you're a cup cake, no amount of icing is going to make you into a cake and no amount of dope is going to turn an ordinary cyclist into a grand tour winner.

3) I... and that's just ME.. think that the supposed reasons for the rules against dope actually don't make any sense... too dangerous... like riding 100 km down a curvy mountain pass is not dangerous, like riding inches away from your competitors at 70 km/h, rubbing shoulders, throwing elbows etc, etc in a sprint is not dangerous... cycling is a dangerous sport.

unfair advantage... if everyone is doing it.. imho it's a level playing field... yeah, yeah some people respond better to dope that other, some people have better dope... well some people respond to training better than other, some people have better training than others (if you look at a guy like Michele Ferrari dope is only a small part of what he provides riders.. his training plans are what really differentiate him from others), some people have better direction than others, better equipment than other, better team than others etc.. etc... life's not fair.. if dope is an integral part of pro cycling then it's just another thing on a long list of things that may or may not go in your favour.. it's a wash...

it forces people to dope... well being a pro cyclist means making sacrifices people to do a lot of really weird stuff.. like be ride their bike 6 hrs a day, 30 hrs a week.. like be away from their families for months at a time, alienate themselves from their freinds and family etc, etc.. you need to make a lot of sacrifices as a pro cyclist.. no one is forcing anyone to do anything... it's bs... if you want to be a pro bike racer you need to make sacrifices.. no one NEEDS to be a pro cyclist. BUT all that being said.. the press is reporting on it and it's driving sponsors away so it needs to stop or the sport will die.

doping is against the rules, so no way around it it's cheating but i don't think riders get an unfair advantage from taking dope...

 

[QikSmurf]

1) i speak for myself and not anyone else..

2) anyone finishing in the top 1/2 of a grand tour... is a great rider and would eat most other riders in the world for breakfast... even off dope. i think you missed in my previous post where i said the Lance Armstrong was doped like all the other riders he rode against and rose to the top... there's just no way around it Lance Armstrong is one of the greatest athletes in cycling history.. dope doesn't make these riders great, they are already great physical specimens... dope is just like the icing on the cake... it takes riders to that next level and allows them to keep up with those other great physical specimens who are also taking dope.. i.e. you can't take some club racer off the street, dope him or her up and get him to ride like a grand tour winner... you need to start with someone with great genetics, great training regime, and great motivation and drive... dope can't give you any of that.. dope can't get you out on the road doing 30 hrs a week, rain or shine... dope is no magic bullet... like i said it's icing on a cake... if you're a cup cake, no amount of

icing is going to make you into a cake and no amount of dope is going to turn an ordinary cyclist into a grand tour winner.

3) I... and that's just ME.. think that the supposed reasons for the rules against dope actually don't make any sense... too dangerous... like riding 100 km down a curvy mountain pass is not dangerous, like riding inches away from your competitors at 70 km/h, rubbing shoulders, throwing elbows etc, etc in a sprint is not dangerous... cycling is a dangerous sport.

unfair advantage... if everyone is doing it.. imho it's a level playing field... yeah, yeah some people respond better to dope that other, some people have better dope... well some people respond to training better than other, some people have better training than others (if you look at a guy like Michele Ferrari dope is only a small part of what he provides riders.. his training plans are what really differentiate him from others), some people have better direction than others, better equipment than other, better team than others etc.. etc... life's not fair.. if dope is an integral part of pro cycling then it's just another thing on a long list of things that may or may not go in your favour.. it's a wash...

it forces people to dope... well being a pro cyclist means making sacrifices people to do a lot of really weird stuff.. like be ride their bike 6 hrs a day, 30 hrs a week.. like be away from their families for months at a time, alienate themselves from their freinds and family etc, etc.. you need to make a lot of sacrifices as a pro cyclist.. no one is forcing anyone to do anything... it's bs... if you want to be a pro bike racer you need to make sacrifices.. no one NEEDS to be a pro cyclist. BUT all that being said.. the press is reporting on it and it's driving sponsors away so it needs to stop or the sport will die.

doping is against the rules, so no way around it it's cheating but i don't think riders get an unfair advantage from taking dope...

Ok, now you're making sense angain. My previous post was obviously very tongue in cheek.

I see your point very clearly. I still feel that their is a lot of assumption being made regarding the LA comeback. For one, the REAL motivation behind it???2/. Is he CURRENTLY doping??? (lets not rehash the EPO tests from '99 sample). On this point I am undecided. Logically, if he was doping at his peak he wouldn't dare come back witout a good PED now. If we assume one we must assume the other - this is a scenaio I can't see as possible.You say he has a new undetectable potion but that just reeks of conspiracy theory. He wouldn't dare base his comeback on CERA or other well known new PED's that will be detectable before next TDF. I'm sure LA reads the paper too.

 

[poulidor]

I see your point very clearly. I still feel that their is a lot of assumption being made regarding the LA comeback. For one, the REAL motivation behind it???2/. Is he CURRENTLY doping??? (lets not rehash the EPO tests from '99 sample). On this point I am undecided. Logically, if he was doping at his peak he wouldn't dare come back witout a good PED now. If we assume one we must assume the other - this is a scenaio I can't see as possible.You say he has a new undetectable potion but that just reeks of conspiracy theory. He wouldn't dare base his comeback on CERA or other well known new PED's that will be detectable before next TDF. I'm sure LA reads the paper too.

Even that year it was still not possible to win a GT without strong doping, I mean blood manipulation.
When LA said I comeback to win or because I can beat them, we automatically understand that he will not come clean! Especially before the blood CERA testing.

 

[RdBiker]

dope is just like the icing on the cake... it takes riders to that next level and allows them to keep up with those other great physical specimens who are also taking dope.. i.e. you can't take some club racer off the street, dope him or her up and get him to ride like a grand tour winner... you need to start with someone with great genetics, great training regime, and great motivation and drive... dope can't give you any of that.. dope can't get you out on the road doing 30 hrs a week, rain or shine... dope is no magic bullet... like i said it's icing on a cake... if you're a cup cake, no amount of icing is going to make you into a cake and no amount of dope is going to turn an ordinary cyclist into a grand tour winner.
- -
unfair advantage... if everyone is doing it.. imho it's a level playing field... yeah, yeah some people respond better to dope that other, some people have better dope... well some people respond to training better than other, some people have better training than others (if you look at a guy like Michele Ferrari dope is only a small part of what he provides riders.. his training plans are what really differentiate him from others), some people have better direction than others, better equipment than other, better team than others etc.. etc... life's not fair.. if dope is an integral part of pro cycling then it's just another thing on a long list of things that may or may not go in your favour.. it's a wash...
- -
it forces people to dope... well being a pro cyclist means making sacrifices people to do a lot of really weird stuff.. like be ride their bike 6 hrs a day, 30 hrs a week.. like be away from their families for months at a time, alienate themselves from their freinds and family etc, etc.. you need to make a lot of sacrifices as a pro cyclist.. no one is forcing anyone to do anything... it's bs... if you want to be a pro bike racer you need to make sacrifices.. no one NEEDS to be a pro cyclist. BUT all that being said.. the press is reporting on it and it's driving sponsors away so it needs to stop or the sport will die.

doping is against the rules, so no way around it it's cheating but i don't think riders get an unfair advantage from taking dope...

- Right you are: dope isn't a magic potion that makes you from a couch potato to a pro cyclists. Training is needed. Actually what I have heard, dope doesn't make a cyclist's life any easier. For example testosterone enables more frequent training but that means you have to train MORE. Then you have EPO which basically gives you the same benefit allowing you to train less, but will the riders train less? No, they train the same or even more because that's what everyone else does.

- I think the main reason why PEDs are banned is because if the riders could use as much as they wanted we'd end up dead pretty quickly. Or they would die at 40 or 50. Besides if you believe the likes of Zabel who said their bodies don't tolerate for example EPO, PEDs do give some riders an unfair advantage.

- Yes riders HAVE to dope if the peloton dopes. Think of a talented 19-year-old who has dominated his country's races getting a contract at a professional team. He races a few races and surprise surprise he gets dropped when the pace picks up. He trains and he trains but he can't train as much as his fellow riders and he still can't bring any results. His manager starts pressuring him to bring results if he want's to stay and tells him to start taking this and that PED. You take the PEDs or you give up cycling. Quite a hard choice.
You might say that he doesn't HAVE to ride a bike, but maybe he does. He might have been so talented that he gave everything else, including school, up because of cycling and he has nothing else besides cycling...

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

More than Barack Hussein Obama.

Why do you use his middle name? Are you a racist? Thats it. You are a racist. Archie Bunker. Yeah. Pretty dumb. Just keep waiving the flag and hating people that are different from you. All you prove to the rest of the world is that you are a simpleton.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

So which is it then? As a group - do we hate LA because he dopes or do we not care whether he does, did or wanted to?


One minute we hate him because he doped and he is a cheat. He is bringing the sport into disrepute. The sport of cycling is going through a reniessance and the likes of Lance are yesterday's villain. The next it doesn't bother us one way or the other - after all they all dope so what's the difference?

If the assumption is that all the top finishers are using PED of some variety, why is there so much dislike for one man? Envy is a curse.

Now logic is logic and the last post by doctorspoc is flawed. If docspoc is the voice of reason for the LA haters in this forum, you all need to get a different spokesman. 1/. you don't care one way or the other about the use of PED in pro cycling - this flies in the face of virtually every MORAL argument in this (and a hundred other) threads about LA. 2/. you assume the top cyclist in the sport are ALL using PED - this too seems to contradict the moral ethos that gets flung around these forums like ******** 3/. negative PED testing has no real bearing on whether the cyclist is using or not - now if you pick the stick up from one end you pick it up from the other ....you can't say that applies to LA and a small list of others and not have that logic apply to everyone.

Bottom line is that once you filter out all the BS you're left with a PERSONAL dislike for another human being. In Australia we call it the 'tall poppy' syndrome. In simple terms, it's much easier to bring a champion down than it is to bring one's self up to champion level.

If it's as simple as you suggest it is, take the PED's (if you aren't already doing so) and become a pro cyclist and beat LA at his own game. Actually, is there anyone on this forum that actually cycles for a living?....and then it dawns on me.....! LA symbolises every shortcoming that has prevented you from being on the cover of Sports Illustated yourselves. I know now why you hate him so much. You spend hours/days/months/years putting in miles and miles of training and yet you're not good enough. Maybe ok, but not good enough to wear the Yellow/Pink (etc) Jersey. After all, by doctorspoc's own admission, there are no hero's in pro cycling any more. Just a bunch of doped up cheats that stop the rest of us from getting to the top.

Ok. I first saw Armstrong race in 1987 or 1988. I saw him win the national championship in 1993. I was upset when I heard he had cancer. I was thrilled when he survived. In fact, I stood next to his wife for four hours during his comeback race in 1998. I followed every second of the 1998 Vuelta on the internet and cheered every time he finished a mountain stage amoung the leaders. I was, gasp, a fan of the guy.

Problem is it wasn't real. I know about the six positives. I know about Mike Ferrari. I know about Emma O'Reilly and Steven Swart. In my opinion, he is guilty. The problem with that is he is cheating the public. He is cheating the sport and he is cheating the few competitors that are clean. Bassons can't compete. Simeoni gets chased down for opening his mouth. LeMond gets blackballed.

And, at the end of the day, Armstrong stands there self-righteously proclaiming his greatness. Just like Sara Palin being relieved that the report cleared her of all wrongdoing.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I can't wait until Lance runs in politics as a Democrat candidate. It's going to fark up and confuse some of these right wing Lancophiles.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

I can't wait until Lance runs in politics as a Democrat candidate. It's going to fark up and confuse some of these right wing Lancophiles.

Its going to confuse us proper thinking leftists too. You betcha.

 

[No_Positives]

Why do you use his middle name? Are you a racist? Thats it. You are a racist. Archie Bunker. Yeah. Pretty dumb. Just keep waiving the flag and hating people that are different from you. All you prove to the rest of the world is that you are a simpleton.

Since when does using a potential President's middle name imply racism? It's done all the time. William Jefferson Clinton. George W (Washington) Bush. Ronald Wilson Reagan. Are you saying there is something different about Obama's middle name? If so, then you will have to let me know.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

Since when does using a potential President's middle name imply racism? It's done all the time. William Jefferson Clinton. George W (Washington) Bush. Ronald Wilson Reagan. Are you saying there is something different about Obama's middle name? If so, then you will have to let me know.

You know why you used his middle name. When you look deep into your soul, you know you didn't use his middle name just to use his full name. So, tell us. Why did you really use it? You know that people will judge your honesty by the answer.

 

[wolfix]

So which is it then? As a group - do we hate LA because he dopes or do we not care whether he does, did or wanted to?


One minute we hate him because he doped and he is a cheat. He is bringing the sport into disrepute. The sport of cycling is going through a reniessance and the likes of Lance are yesterday's villain. The next it doesn't bother us one way or the other - after all they all dope so what's the difference?

If the assumption is that all the top finishers are using PED of some variety, why is there so much dislike for one man? Envy is a curse.

Now logic is logic and the last post by doctorspoc is flawed. If docspoc is the voice of reason for the LA haters in this forum, you all need to get a different spokesman. 1/. you don't care one way or the other about the use of PED in pro cycling - this flies in the face of virtually every MORAL argument in this (and a hundred other) threads about LA. 2/. you assume the top cyclist in the sport are ALL using PED - this too seems to contradict the moral ethos that gets flung around these forums like ******** 3/. negative PED testing has no real bearing on whether the cyclist is using or not - now if you pick the stick up from one end you pick it up from the other ....you can't say that applies to LA and a small list of others and not have that logic apply to everyone.

Bottom line is that once you filter out all the BS you're left with a PERSONAL dislike for another human being. In Australia we call it the 'tall poppy' syndrome. In simple terms, it's much easier to bring a champion down than it is to bring one's self up to champion level.

If it's as simple as you suggest it is, take the PED's (if you aren't already doing so) and become a pro cyclist and beat LA at his own game. Actually, is there anyone on this forum that actually cycles for a living?....and then it dawns on me.....! LA symbolises every shortcoming that has prevented you from being on the cover of Sports Illustated yourselves. I know now why you hate him so much. You spend hours/days/months/years putting in miles and miles of training and yet you're not good enough. Maybe ok, but not good enough to wear the Yellow/Pink (etc) Jersey. After all, by doctorspoc's own admission, there are no hero's in pro cycling any more. Just a bunch of doped up cheats that stop the rest of us from getting to the top.

I like Armstrong as a cyclist. I do not know him personally, even though the few times I met him, he was a decent guy.
I never met Eddy. { I would like too } I knew he was a doper. I like Eddy.

Doping is not a issue for me because since the time I have followed the sport, dope was part of cycling. [early 70's]

When a person states he hates doping in cycling, I question what attracted him to the sport of dopers in the first place. If he did not like the doping aspect of the sport, he should have stayed watching bigwheel races at the local park.

In a perfect world, doping would not be part of the sport. But it is, and the sport is not perfect. But it is all you have ...........

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

You know the problem with big wheel racing? The front wheels slips to easy when you accellerate. It should be made out of rubber and not plastic.

 

[doctorSpoc]

I like Armstrong as a cyclist. I do not know him personally, even though the few times I met him, he was a decent guy.
I never met Eddy. { I would like too } I knew he was a doper. I like Eddy.

Doping is not a issue for me because since the time I have followed the sport, dope was part of cycling. [early 70's]

When a person states he hates doping in cycling, I question what attracted him to the sport of dopers in the first place. If he did not like the doping aspect of the sport, he should have stayed watching bigwheel races at the local park.

In a perfect world, doping would not be part of the sport. But it is, and the sport is not perfect. But it is all you have ...........

+1... i can't understand this either... doping is and has been an integral part of pro cycling since i started watching pro cycling and started racing too (late 70's)... and well, well before that too... so when i hear people are shocked and dismayed that there are dopers in cycling.. i'm like WAH!?!... do you have any sort of clue what you've been watching... it's the equivalent of those people who still thing that pro wrestling is real and not staged (the easter bunny, santa... etc)... it's like... c'mon.. you've got to be kidding me... no one can be that ignorant of what they are watching. Lance Armstrong nut huggers are the worst of these people... maybe part of it is that most are not cycling aficionados per se.. don't know any of the ins and outs of the sport, the history of the sport and many have not raced themselves and come to the sport because of the cancer angle... you know the whole human story thing. and they think that the tour is basically the only race on the planet that means anything. i think it just comes down to ignorance of the sport... they don't understand that it's actually physically impossible for Armstrong to have achieve what he has clean. if you know cycling you know this... and that goes for the other top riders as well... it's not a "Lance" thing that makes people who know the sport know that he doped.. it's just about knowing the sport and knowing what it takes to ride at a certain level. at that highest level dope is an essential element.

basically it comes down to this.. if you don't like watching doped riders... don't watch professional cycling.. that's what it is and has been...

 

[No_Positives]

You know why you used his middle name. When you look deep into your soul, you know you didn't use his middle name just to use his full name. So, tell us. Why did you really use it? You know that people will judge your honesty by the answer.

A lot of people, myself included, often refer to the President as George W. Bush, than simply George Bush. I have never been called a racist for calling him George W. Bush. I am not sure why I am a racist for saying Barack Hussein Obama. In my eyes, there is no difference. But apparently you think it's racist. So please tell the forum why saying Barack Hussein Obama is racist.

 

[earth_dweller]

A lot of people, myself included, often refer to the President as George W. Bush, than simply George Bush. I have never been called a racist for calling him George W. Bush. I am not sure why I am a racist for saying Barack Hussein Obama. In my eyes, there is no difference. But apparently you think it's racist. So please tell the forum why saying Barack Hussein Obama is racist.

damn you're such an idiot.

 

[rob of the og]

Since when does using a potential President's middle name imply racism? It's done all the time. William Jefferson Clinton. George W (Washington) Bush. Ronald Wilson Reagan. Are you saying there is something different about Obama's middle name? If so, then you will have to let me know.

Walker.

 

[limerickman]

Walker.

Swap L for N.

 

[limerickman]

A lot of people, myself included, often refer to the President as George W. Bush, than simply George Bush. .

That's a generalisation - with no foundation.
Nice try.
How do YOU know how many people refer to Bush as George W. Bush?

Commonly the middle letter or the middle name of a person, is usually used in a sentence to make a distinction between two people with the same name.

Given that there is no need to make a distinction when referring to Bush, the use of his middle letter/name appears to serve no function.

Other than to try to bluff your way out of your latest gaffe, of course.

I am not sure why I am a racist for saying Barack Hussein Obama. In my eyes, there is no difference. But apparently you think it's racist. So please tell the forum why saying Barack Hussein Obama is racist.

The use of a persons middle letter and/or middle name is usually used to draw a clear distinction between the identity of two people with similar names.

Given that there is no other Presidential candidate with the name Barack Obama, your use of Obama's middle name is perplexing.

So in your own time, tell the forum why you choose to the middle letter and/or middle name of a person where no distinction, in terms of the persons name, is required.


And now that I have your full attention...........I will be monitoring the content of your posts from here on in.
Understood?

 

[No_Positives]

That's a generalisation - with no foundation.
Nice try.
How do YOU know how many people refer to Bush as George W. Bush?

Commonly the middle letter or the middle name of a person, is usually used in a sentence to make a distinction between two people with the same name.

Given that there is no need to make a distinction when referring to Bush, the use of his middle letter/name appears to serve no function.

Other than to try to bluff your way out of your latest gaffe, of course.





The use of a persons middle letter and/or middle name is usually used to draw a clear distinction between the identity of two people with similar names.

Given that there is no other Presidential candidate with the name Barack Obama, your use of Obama's middle name is perplexing.

So in your own time, tell the forum why you choose to the middle letter and/or middle name of a person where no distinction, in terms of the persons name, is required.


And now that I have your full attention...........I will be monitoring the content of your posts from here on in.
Understood?

Stop avoiding the question!! The silence is deafening. I want someone to tell me why saying Barack Hussein Obama is racist, and saying William Jefferson Clinton is not. What thoughts are in your head to trigger this call of racism? Is it ok to say BHO, like FDR, JFK, and LBJ?