Please Sign the Team Astana Petition



kennf said:
That also baffles me. But wasn't The Paceline is sponsored by Trek? It's understandable for Trek to want to keep up a fan base following their bikes. But the ex-Disco fans' love of a Kazak team, that Lance has nothing to do with, is bizarre. And no one gave a damn about Levi when Lance was racing. But none of that is as bizarre as people hating Slipstream. Must be the argyle.
Tommy D. used be idolized over there. Now his name is mud. You would have expected some fans to follow Hincapie to High Road.

I wonder if the Slipstream hatred has something to do with Vaughters, since Vaughters exposed the Disco blood doping system and does not like Armstrong.
 
TheDarkLord said:
And the irony is that in their support of Bruyneel and hate of Slipstream, they come across as supporters of doping.
They are not supporting Bruyneel, they are just doping supporters as they were for the Blue Train!
They deserve that merit to be constant to support fraud.
 
Bro Deal said:
Why have the Disco supporters moved en mass to supporting Astana? They hate Slipstream and High Road over there.

It seem strange to me that they would base what team they support on Bruyneel instead of the team's riders.
Yes somehow the allegiance to LA was switched to Bruyneel, it boggles my mind. I guess they believed the PR machine when it states that 'he's the best DS ...ever'.

Also not all, I'm not even sure if it's a majority now, of the paceline posters are American so this infatuation of Bruyneel crosses country lines.

I just don't get it.
 
As TTF says, there is definitely a segment of Armstrong supportors who project their nationalistic views through Armstrong's accomplishments. I think this forms one of his more despicable wings of support. I can understand the gullible and the stupid who get sucked into the lie and either cannot see that they were wrong or refuse to admit it. But the nationalistic ones, best exemplified by CAMPYBOB on DP, are amoral.
 
Bro Deal said:
Tommy D. used be idolized over there. Now his name is mud. You would have expected some fans to follow Hincapie to High Road.

I wonder if the Slipstream hatred has something to do with Vaughters, since Vaughters exposed the Disco blood doping system and does not like Armstrong.

Oh it's all about Vaughters, and mirrors the recent comments by FLandis. They (Landis included) feel that Vaughters, by espousing a dope-free environment, is impliedly accusing all the other teams of doping. Plus, I'm sure people are still ****** about the IM exchange with Frankie (getting way off topic here). But Vaughters has been very careful with his statements, and I don't think there's a way to do what he's doing without ruffling feathers. But once again, it proves the Landis handlers are asleep at the switch when he publicly ridicules Slpstream and Highroad. I mean, why not just tattoo your forehead with the word "doper."

I think Hincapie is still liked by the Disco folks, despite the team he is on.

(Multiple edits 'cause I'm home with the flu and can't type worth a ****)
 
earth_dweller said:
Yes somehow the allegiance to LA was switched to Bruyneel, it boggles my mind. I guess they believed the PR machine when it states that 'he's the best DS ...ever'.

Also not all, I'm not even sure if it's a majority now, of the paceline posters are American so this infatuation of Bruyneel crosses country lines.

I just don't get it.
Exactly. Reading the Paceline, I found myself thinking, "WTF! Bruyneel has fans?"

It seems so much more natural that they would follow Hincapie or Tommy D., or maybe change to a rider like Tyler Farrer. Bizarre.
 
Simple association - to admit that Bruyneel was running a doping team would be to tacitly admit that Armstrong was doping and therefore the illusion (delusion, really) that Bruyneel is "the bestest, most cleanest DS evah!" must be maintained no matter what evidence comes to light.

But what's really amazing to me is just the degree of dogged determination that's spent in reinforcing their own and each other's conviction that Bruyneel is the good guy and everyone who criticizes him is bad. It's really quite impressive. Disturbing, yes, but impressive nonetheless.
 
Bro Deal said:
As TTF says, there is definitely a segment of Armstrong supportors who project their nationalistic views through Armstrong's accomplishments. I think this forms one of his more despicable wings of support. I can understand the gullible and the stupid who get sucked into the lie and either cannot see that they were wrong or refuse to admit it. But the nationalistic ones, best exemplified by CAMPYBOB on DP, are amoral.
I deleted this post because I ended up only talking about Armstrong (which isn't really on topic). I will repost for honesty's sake:

They have this vision of the US that dictates that you are not allowed to attack someone wearing a flag. That if you somehow look "All-American" ala Armstrong, and especially if you go to France and win, that you are above reproach. We have weak drug testing in sports, and only really get ****** off about athletes from other teams/countries that are our rivals. It is a mindset constructed by others and fed to the willing. Of true individuality they have little comprehension. Principles are trumped by the best looking group mentality. Bruyneel is unknown to most of that group in reality, and most don't even know what an Astana is because their knowledge of cycling was LA. I work with guys who see him, and say "that's my man." I chuckle because the last time they were on a bike, it had coaster brakes.


Those left who support Astana/Bruyneel are simply the people in that mindless set who actually know something about cycling. The Armstrong phenomenon was always about national pride even to them. It really would have been little different if Armstrong were from any country though it was exacerbated by the fact that we had gone to war in Iraq, which was unpopular around the world, and we as a nation were defensive about that.


There are thousands of other factors, but the reality is that those who love him do so with either a misguided belief that he was clean, or don't care either way.


I hate cheats irrespective of what their background is. I cannot stand Michael Jordan (and I bleed Carolina Blue) because in his '95 comeback season, the Bulls were playing the Hornets. With just a few seconds left in the final game of the series, Jordan fouled a shooter who was going for a lay-up under the basket. The refs didn’t call it. After the game, Jordan was asked about it, and he said he fouled because he knew they wouldn't call it. I never rooted for him again....of course if they had been playing the Lakers the story would be different...****; we are all pliable in terms of morals, aren't we?

I guess the difference with Armstrong (who I used to scream for) is that he is so adamant about defending his lie. That and his "I did it alone" mentality make him a real ***** in my eyes.


I guess I just don't like the guy and they do?
 
Has anyone thought of the possibility that the Paceline is a fake forum with many fake handles (that have a couple of Trek employees behind them)?
 
thoughtforfood said:
I deleted this post because I ended up only talking about Armstrong (which isn't really on topic). I will repost for honesty's sake:

They have this vision of the US that dictates that you are not allowed to attack someone wearing a flag. That if you somehow look "All-American" ala Armstrong, and especially if you go to France and win, that you are above reproach. We have weak drug testing in sports, and only really get ****** off about athletes from other teams/countries that are our rivals. It is a mindset constructed by others and fed to the willing. Of true individuality they have little comprehension. Principles are trumped by the best looking group mentality. Bruyneel is unknown to most of that group in reality, and most don't even know what an Astana is because their knowledge of cycling was LA. I work with guys who see him, and say "that's my man." I chuckle because the last time they were on a bike, it had coaster brakes.


Those left who support Astana/Bruyneel are simply the people in that mindless set who actually know something about cycling. The Armstrong phenomenon was always about national pride even to them. It really would have been little different if Armstrong were from any country though it was exacerbated by the fact that we had gone to war in Iraq, which was unpopular around the world, and we as a nation were defensive about that.


There are thousands of other factors, but the reality is that those who love him do so with either a misguided belief that he was clean, or don't care either way.


I hate cheats irrespective of what their background is. I cannot stand Michael Jordan (and I bleed Carolina Blue) because in his '95 comeback season, the Bulls were playing the Hornets. With just a few seconds left in the final game of the series, Jordan fouled a shooter who was going for a lay-up under the basket. The refs didn’t call it. After the game, Jordan was asked about it, and he said he fouled because he knew they wouldn't call it. I never rooted for him again....of course if they had been playing the Lakers the story would be different...****; we are all pliable in terms of morals, aren't we?

I guess the difference with Armstrong (who I used to scream for) is that he is so adamant about defending his lie. That and his "I did it alone" mentality make him a real ***** in my eyes.


I guess I just don't like the guy and they do?
We should be careful and not fall into the tall poppy syndrome though. You know, cut down anyone, disproportionately, who rises above the crowd.

MJ's play was smart IMHO. Basketball, football, baseball are full of professional fouls. I hate the fact that it is tolerated at all, but it seemingly is when I watch US sports. It is the referees fault/weakness that they give preferential treatment to him. He was just exploiting their prejudice.
 
Bro Deal said:
As TTF says, there is definitely a segment of Armstrong supportors who project their nationalistic views through Armstrong's accomplishments. I think this forms one of his more despicable wings of support. I can understand the gullible and the stupid who get sucked into the lie and either cannot see that they were wrong or refuse to admit it. But the nationalistic ones, best exemplified by CAMPYBOB on DP, are amoral.
House?

there are alot, who refuse to admit the facts, and hide behind specious defenses of definitions of evidence, of procedure.

We are not talking civil liberties. We are trying to get the most realistic picture.

To deny the presence of the positive samples, deny Vaughters and Andreu IM, to deny the insulin and actovegin and blood swabs in the medical waste, is to deny the facts.

The facts are the 6 positives are compromised, but they are what they are. Compromised, but they exist, they exist in that status, where you attribute enough weight according to their compromised status.

To dismiss them out of hand, is, exactly the same as suggesting Armstrong should have his 1999 win taken back because he was doped. You cannot revoke his status in the annals of history because of the compromised samples. But the samples, compromised as they are, exist.

The relationship to Ferrari exists.

You cannot dismiss them out of hand. That is the disingenuousness and insidiousness of defending Armstrong. You have to dismiss all evidence. I do not think the compromised samples existing on their own attribute to much, but the sheer cumulative weight of all information surrounding Armstrong paints the most damning reality.

House can support Armstrong, and say he cannot be sure, but that is insidious, and just as malignant as any cancer, as it allows the Commander in Chief to take you into a war, without the keen criticism, and holding powerful individuals to account.
 
Crankyfeet said:
Has anyone thought of the possibility that the Paceline is a fake forum with many fake handles (that have a couple of Trek employees behind them)?
Uh-oh, could it be? Nah, surely it's for real . . . right? :confused: People wouldn't use the net for such a deceitful purpose, surely not . . .
 
Crankyfeet said:
Has anyone thought of the possibility that the Paceline is a fake forum with many fake handles (that have a couple of Trek employees behind them)?
You are a pretty good conspiracy theorist! :p
 
thunder said:
House?

there are alot, who refuse to admit the facts, and hide behind specious defenses of definitions of evidence, of procedure.

We are not talking civil liberties. We are trying to get the most realistic picture.

To deny the presence of the positive samples, deny Vaughters and Andreu IM, to deny the insulin and actovegin and blood swabs in the medical waste, is to deny the facts.

The facts are the 6 positives are compromised, but they are what they are. Compromised, but they exist, they exist in that status, where you attribute enough weight according to their compromised status.

To dismiss them out of hand, is, exactly the same as suggesting Armstrong should have his 1999 win taken back because he was doped. You cannot revoke his status in the annals of history because of the compromised samples. But the samples, compromised as they are, exist.

The relationship to Ferrari exists.

You cannot dismiss them out of hand. That is the disingenuousness and insidiousness of defending Armstrong. You have to dismiss all evidence. I do not think the compromised samples existing on their own attribute to much, but the sheer cumulative weight of all information surrounding Armstrong paints the most damning reality.

House can support Armstrong, and say he cannot be sure, but that is insidious, and just as malignant as any cancer, as it allows the Commander in Chief to take you into a war, without the keen criticism, and holding powerful individuals to account.
Why do we keep bothering to get annoyed with these guys? We know Armstrong doped. We know why he would claim that he didn't. Trying to convince people who can't see the truth is perhaps like trying to convince people 500 years ago that the world is not flat. Except that those who still view Armstrong as having rode clean are probably in the minority now.

IMHO We need to preserve these Armstrong diehards. Lest we won't have any fun making them look silly on forums...:(
 
Crankyfeet said:
Why do we keep bothering to get annoyed with these guys? We know Armstrong doped. We know why he would claim that he didn't. Trying to convince people who can't see the truth is perhaps like trying to convince people 500 years ago that the world is not flat. Except that those who still view Armstrong as having rode clean are probably in the minority now.

IMHO We need to preserve these Armstrong diehards. Lest we won't have any fun making them look silly on forums...:(
no, my point was, they know he doped. The only ones who do not, are those who only follow in July. Everyone on messageboards know.

My point is the lie.
 
Crankyfeet said:
We should be careful and not fall into the tall poppy syndrome though. You know, cut down anyone, disproportionately, who rises above the crowd.

MJ's play was smart IMHO. Basketball, football, baseball are full of professional fouls. I hate the fact that it is tolerated at all, but it seemingly is when I watch US sports. It is the referees fault/weakness that they give preferential treatment to him. He was just exploiting their prejudice.
I think it was that he fouled the team I wanted to win that was the biggest factor. Like I said, if it had been the Lakers, I would have laughed. Of course, now that the Hornets left town I guess I shouldn't hold a grudge..of course that never stopped me.
 
TheDarkLord said:
You are a pretty good conspiracy theorist! :p
Maybe he should start a news letter. He's got the appropriate name.

Cranky's Conspiracy Chronicle. Now printed on real paper!
 
thunder said:
no, my point was, they know he doped. The only ones who do not, are those who only follow in July. Everyone on messageboards know.

My point is the lie.
The problem is that denial suspends the lie in a no man's land where it only tuggs at their conscience a little because the greatest extent of their time is spent defending the idea of life before the truth came along and threatened it. They know but they don't. The most conscious part of their belief is the old one of which they cannot let go. I am past the denial, though I once held that same denial. The stages are clear:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
4. Acceptance

Some people never get past the first or second.
 
thoughtforfood said:
The problem is that denial suspends the lie in a no man's land where it only tuggs at their conscience a little because the greatest extent of their time is spent defending the idea of life before the truth came along and threatened it. They know but they don't. The most conscious part of their belief is the old one of which they cannot let go. I am past the denial, though I once held that same denial. The stages are clear:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
4. Acceptance

Some people never get past the first or second.
correct, there are multiple levels. Subconsciously they know, it is a cognitive dissonance.
 
thunder said:
correct, there are multiple levels. Subconsciously they know, it is a cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance sounds like it could mean the feeling I have trying to understand WTF that means... :p
 

Similar threads

R
Replies
2
Views
437
Road Cycling
Rik Van Diesel
R