From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France (H



Status
Not open for further replies.

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
ad9898 said:
ok ok...you guys have a set train of thought, i'm not here to convince anyone of my way of thinking.......most people here think most of the peloton was doped.....proof or not.....
Are you saying that you don't think most of the peloton was doped???
 

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
helmutRoole2 said:
Look, I don't mean to cap on you, but it's telling of your intellect when you don't know the difference between their and there. You've done it couple times on this thread.

Anyway, if you understand physiology you'll understand that's it's not possible for a clean athlete to beat a doped athlete if all other things are equal. Now, I don't agree with Bro at all about Armstrong's pedigree. I think he was a rare talent. I mean, he won the Tour seven times. But I don't for a second believe that he did that as a clean athlete, towering 15+ percent over his opponents who were doping.

I am a Lance hater, though. I'll freely admit that. I guess my evolution in thought on this topic was brought about when he seemed to seriously entertain the possibility of running for president. What kind of egomaniacal a-hole could possibly believe that his experiences racing bicycles has prepared him to run a super power? He's like our current leader, a made for tv idiot.

Anyone else out there agree with me on that point?


As i have said before on these forums attacking someones so called intellect for making a grammer mistake is pathetic and you sir unless you have a PhD in English Language and have never made a grammer mistake are a ***** and a hypocrite..... I must be getting under peoples skin here because stooping as low as this asshole shows very low IQ indeed...i didn't know that "big grammer brother" was watching.

Moving on to one of your points.....you say you don't believe he was clean being 15+ % better than doped riders.....ok where is the evidence.... there is none...only that you "believe".....well with you having a "towering intellect" you should know "believing" just isn't good enough. You say your a "Lance hater"....oh god this gets better....grow up, "hate" is a very strong word....i'm done here...think i will go and post under some "youtube vids", at least there you know you will get bigoted views.

Guess what, if this thread goes another 20-30 pages, Lance will have still won 7 TdF's (sigh how many more times and its me who is supposed to intellectually challenged). I'll post on here in a few months time and see if the same bulls*it is still going on. Like i say for the last time....WHEN LANCE ARMSTRONG GETS CONVICTED OF DOPING OFFENCES I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SAY "YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG"
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
ad9898 said:
As i have said before on these forums attacking someones so called intellect for making a grammer mistake is pathetic and you sir unless you have a PhD in English Language and have never made a grammer mistake are a ***** and a hypocrite..... I must be getting under peoples skin here because stooping as low as this asshole shows very low IQ indeed...i didn't know that "big grammer brother" was watching.
To use a WBT expression, "The knife cuts deep."

In addition, the above paragraph contains at least five grammatical errors and two cases of poor or misguided word choice.

This is a written forum. Spelling and grammar count.

ok where is the evidence.... there is none...only that you "believe"...

Is this your way addressing the six positives?

WHEN LANCE ARMSTRONG GETS CONVICTED OF DOPING OFFENCES I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SAY "YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG"

I bet you won't.
 

IH8LANCE

New Member
Nov 10, 2006
200
0
0
Bro Deal said:
This is not a court of law. It's a court of public opinion, and courts of public opinion don't let people off on technicalities.
Very true. Typically, they convict without evidence. A much better system of justice, if you're a sanctimonious *****, which describes most of you.
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
IH8LANCE said:
Very true. Typically, they convict without evidence. A much better system of justice, if you're a sanctimonious *****, which describes most of you.
True. Those blind Armstrong supporters... sanctimonious pricks one and all.
 

Wayne666

New Member
Jun 4, 2007
454
0
0
limerickman said:
And remember Armstrong's "wins" are tied in to insurance deals/bonus payments.
If he was ever to admit his guilt, those insurance companies would seek redress for, is wirefraud the correct terminology.
I guess it may not be the case for all of them, but I believe the one that the Andreau's testified for was decided in Armstrong's favor because there was no clause in the contract that stated that doping was a reason to not pay up.
 

Wayne666

New Member
Jun 4, 2007
454
0
0
ad9898 said:
WHEN LANCE ARMSTRONG GETS CONVICTED OF DOPING OFFENCES I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SAY "YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG"
It's hard to imagine a context in which that would happen. He's retired so what court would be interested in having a trial that would "convict" him no matter what information comes to light?

Even Riis and most of the other Telekom riders are unlikely to be convicted of anything and they've confessed.

A confession by Armstrong would seem to be the only thing that could convince the dead-enders that he doped and that isn't going to happen. So most reasonably informed cycling fans will continue to believe that the most likely scenario is that he doped like the rest. Those who have a distorted sense of when "innocent until proven guilty" is a reasonable standard and those who have an emotional attachment to Armstrong being clean will believe he didn't dope.

Almost any new information that comes along will likely be OP-like or more likely testimonials and therefore easily dismissed by those who don't want to believe Armstrong doped.
 

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
helmutRoole2 said:
To use a WBT expression, "The knife cuts deep."

In addition, the above paragraph contains at least five grammatical errors and two cases of poor or misguided word choice.

This is a written forum. Spelling and grammar count.



Is this your way addressing the six positives?



I bet you won't.

ok i couldn't resist just one more go, i don't post much on any forums of any kind i just generally read, however i do notice on most...the more posts people have the, the sadder and more narrow minded they become, they think their opinion is the only one that matters and the only one that is right, believe it or not helMUTT, WBT or any other sad opinianated people who sit and post on forums all day, I won't lose sleep over someone attacking me I don't even know.....couldn't care less, i have far more important things in my life, you guys are obsessed about pissing on someone you don't even know.. i stand to be corrected if anyone here does know Lance, as for me well i just presume someone is innocent until proven guilty, its obvious most people don't believe in that.

Oh and helMUTT, make sure you don't make any grammer mistakes, i may end up being a sad ******* and sitting next to the computer all day waiting to pull you up. NOT. see you guys in a few hundred more posts when........low and behold nothing will have changed :rolleyes: , do yourself a favour get a life.......now where is that knife thats cutting so deep in me i think if i don't get it out i will slip into clinical depression.....or maybe not :D
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
helmutRoole2 said:
Anyway, if you understand physiology you'll understand that's it's not possible for a clean athlete to beat a doped athlete if all other things are equal. Now, I don't agree with Bro at all about Armstrong's pedigree. I think he was a rare talent. I mean, he won the Tour seven times. But I don't for a second believe that he did that as a clean athlete, towering 15+ percent over his opponents who were doping.
I don't think Armstrong was a total chump. I think he would have developed into a decent one day racer. Maybe he would have done better than that and developed into a great one day racer with a lot of classics wins and some small stage race wins. I just don't think he ever would have come close to winning the TdF without dope.

helmutRoole2 said:
I am a Lance hater, though. I'll freely admit that. I guess my evolution in thought on this topic was brought about when he seemed to seriously entertain the possibility of running for president. What kind of egomaniacal a-hole could possibly believe that his experiences racing bicycles has prepared him to run a super power? He's like our current leader, a made for tv idiot.

Anyone else out there agree with me on that point?
I'll second that. It's rather disturbing that the presidency has become a plaything for people seeking celebrity. I have thought for some time that what drove Clinton to be president was the same reason people run for president of their high school: to feed their ego with public adulation. Dubya, don't get me started. What can you say about a "leader" who does not read books, does not read newspapers, does not even watch the crappy excuse for news on TV, and whose favorite show is "Walker: Texas Ranger"? It's just scary to think that this is the guy in control.
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
Don't go, ad9898. You really are lots of fun to toy with. Please stay and continue to make an ass of yourself.
 

Leafer

New Member
Apr 11, 2006
317
0
0
ad9898 said:
as for me well i just presume someone is innocent until proven guilty, its obvious most people don't believe in that.
What was it about the last, oh, two pages or so that you didn't understand?
 

Gregers

New Member
Feb 1, 2007
534
0
0
65
Can anybody expand on this, as Lance's bum crawlers invariably site their martyr's court triumph as proof that he has legally seen off his detactors.


QUOTE=Wayne666]I guess it may not be the case for all of them, but I believe the one that the Andreau's testified for was decided in Armstrong's favor because there was no clause in the contract that stated that doping was a reason to not pay up.[/QUOTE]
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Wayne666 said:
I guess it may not be the case for all of them, but I believe the one that the Andreau's testified for was decided in Armstrong's favor because there was no clause in the contract that stated that doping was a reason to not pay up.

Gregers said:
Can anybody expand on this, as Lance's bum crawlers invariably site their martyr's court triumph as proof that he has legally seen off his detactors.

Yeah, it's a standard response from the apologists.
It seems that win bonus's accruing to Armstrong were indemnified by several insurance companies.

I would suggest that if cheating was proven against Armstrong that those indemnities would be invalidated and that money paid under the indemnity
would be pursued by the insurance companies involved.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
ad9898 said:
Deny, deny, deny
-Six positive tests for Epo (1999)
-One positive test for corticosteroids (1999)
-Team hotel room with empty vials of insulin and actovegin (2000)
-Worked since about 1995 with Dr Ferrari
-Spanked the rest of the doped up field
-Numerous team-mates and team staff testifying that he doped (obviously all disgruntled former employees)
-Numerous former team-mates caught for doping or admitting doping
-One bad day in 7 tours (and that is also notable! The ITT in 2003 where he lost 8 kg in fluid. Right, Mr Perfect Preparation, who weighs every chicken fillet or serve of pasta just forgot to drink 8 litres of fluid. Right. You can only lose that amount of fluid that quickly with diuretics, which incidentally are masking agents...)
-Threatened legally anyone that wanted to talk about the problem of doping in cycling (Simeoni, Bassons, Manzano...)

In case you haven't worked it out, everyone's doing it. And in any sport where there is big $$$. This doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it fair. It makes it about who can afford the best drugs/doctors. This is not how I want sport to be.
 

fscyclist

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
753
0
0
helmutRoole2 said:
I am a Lance hater, though. I'll freely admit that. I guess my evolution in thought on this topic was brought about when he seemed to seriously entertain the possibility of running for president. What kind of egomaniacal a-hole could possibly believe that his experiences racing bicycles has prepared him to run a super power? He's like our current leader, a made for tv idiot.

Anyone else out there agree with me on that point?
Since we are all confessing, I'll throw my hat in as well. I dislike Armstrong, not because of doping but because of his gross narcissism. I never liked him prior to cancer (he was just an outright *****), but after cancer he was portrayed as someone who changed. So I picked up a copy of his book and could barely stomach it. They should issue it to Psych 101 students as the textbook case of a narcissist.

But that's just the beginning, and I know I'll take a lot of heat from some for what I'm about to say. What really got me about his book and his statements afterwards was his true belief that he 'beat' cancer. He thinks that through his mental and physical ability or desire, he was able to defeat cancer. This of course implies that those who don't survive cancer are somehow less strong than those who survive. I've seen and known a lot of people with cancer and there is no rhyme or reason to who survives. We can give some predictions, but some of the best, hardest fighting people die and some who don't give a **** about anything, including their own life, survive. For Armstrong to believe he could defeat cancer out of his own willpower is the ultimate in hubris, and to imply that those who can't defeat it are weak is the ultimate insult. Apparently he has offered hope to some, and for that I am grateful. However, to me, I find his pontificating nauseating.

The other issue that I found disgusting was the way he used his family as a prop to develop his PR image and make lots of money, then cast them aside. Remeber all those commercials with Kirsten and the kids. Those things are what sold him and created the multi million dollar asset he is. To toss them aside for Crow was disgusting. Now I know some people will bring out the old mantra of "it's his personal life and not relevant", but it is. It's relevant because Armstrong brought them into the limelight, made money off them, and put his family in a public forum. If he never mentioned them and didn't play himself up as the ultimate family man who would never be like his derelict father, then I wouldn't say anything about it.

I'm sure there's more, but those are the two big issues from me. Of course these two issues all stem from his narcissism, which of course leads me back to your original point that the guy thinks he can be president. Laughable....
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
I don't think Lance ever talked of becoming President in a serious sense. Others may have talked of it, but it was not Lance that was doing it. There was talk of him running for govenor of Texas.....

There is a reason I defend LA. I don;t know him, only being in his company once for conversation for a few minutes,, There is no doubt I dislike Lemond. I have been around him and I think he is a butthead...... Wait, it's not nice of me to use butt and Lemond in the same sentence after the latest revelations. I thought he was a butthead [damn it..there I go again. I blame helmutRoole2 for my homosexual ramblings and postings] before he went to Europe. On the bike Lemond was great, off the bike he is a greedy little butthead...... {I can't help it]

Wait........this is a anti-LA thread, not a thread discussing Lemonds problems.

I get so sick of everyone glorifying riders who were dopers, but that was acceptable because they were forced to...... And yet LA, if he is a doper, he is a fraud......
The next reason to defend LA is that some posters think dope is bad, and yet they follow the sport. Why are they following this sport if they think all riders are doping and they are against doping? Truth is, I don't care if they dope, as long as everyone in the peloton knows what is going on. I wish it were different, but it isn't, and hasn't been......

LA doped or not showed class in the TDF. And unlike Lemond who demands money from everyone he sees, LA is committed to doing some good with his celebrity.
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
So here we are again another Lance bashing thread. After the 8+ years since my first Tour win, nothing has changed. Lets look at the past winners since LeMond since he is so perfect in many peoples mind as the "know way he could have doped" man.

1989 - 1990 LeMond
1991 - 1995 Indurain
1996 Riis
1997 Ullrich
1998 Pantani
1999 - 2005 Armstrong

Did Indurain dope, probable but no evidence, other than he also worked with Ferrari (side note: this seems to be enough in some people's eyes to convict Armstrong. Indurain also uses the high cadence change as part of his transformation from a rider who couldn't finish the Tour <to> a rider who dominated for 5 years. Does any of this sound familiar?). Did Riis dope, yes. Did Ullrich dope, yes. Did Pantani dope, yes. Did Armstrong Dope, probable and some evidence strongly suggest so.

My question is why the hypocrisy? Why over the past X years has Armstrong been the focus of such an obsessive crusade to bring him down as a doper, while all these previous winners who are obvious dopers as well get a free ride?

There are no threads bashing Indurain, even though he used the same Dr Ferrari as Armstrong. No threads bashing Ullrich even though he rode on one of the dirtiest doper teams of the 1990s and has nine blood bags in Fuentes' office. No threads bashing Riis, although admitedly he does get some negative posts. No threads bashing Pantani, in fact the opposite as he is seen as this poor missunderstand doper???

So while all this energy has been expended at this obsession against Armstrong, all these other riders go free, with no persecution, idolized for their God given cycling abilities. So just who is it that has their heads in the sand?
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
Bro Deal said:
Armstrong reveals himself. :D It was davidbod all along.

In this month's Ride magazine in Australia there is an interview with former Tour de France chief Jean-Marie LeBlanc.... he makes some interesting observations about Armstrong and again all circumspect but interesting all the same: "Armstrong came along when we really needed him. 1999 was great and he was a true champion along with his recovery from cancer. Although when it got to the 3rd win and then 4th, then 5th then finally seven something didn't add up. I have no proof but he was always so secretive at the Tour along with his team. We could never see or speak to him when we needed and it always took 30 minutes for the team to answer calls or a scheduled knock on the team hotel door. I have been around the Tour camp long enough to know how this adds up and I'm the only one who would know. Armstrong liked to blame everyone including ourselves for the accusations but when you see this behaviour you would be very suspicious included."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Replies
6
Views
184
Road Cycling
Fred Fredburger
F