monosierra
11-11-09, 05:26 PM
I really think some posters here have some personal/professional beef with Armstrong, such is the dedication to see the man struck down!
Professional Cycling For the Fans - Greg LeMond-Trek Dispute
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.meanwhile
11-12-09, 05:39 AM
Notably in hanging out with doctors who are experts in doping, harassing cyclists who speak out about doping, stalling blood tests, and in getting VERY odd blood test results. Doping is still doping if you get away with it. And if Armstrong hasn't been doping and getting away with it then he's done some bloody odd things - I can't think how he could look more like a dope cheat other than by wearing a T-shirt saying "I win on dope! Ask me how!"
Of course you don't because you haven't got a clue. At age 37, LA came in 3rd in the TdF this year after being out of competitive cycling for 2 years and coming off a collar bone fracture which limited his training.
Then he went to Leadville and kicked butt after just competing in the TdF. You think he cheated this year? Unbelieveable. Lance Armstrong is great.
I'm sorry - your argument doesn't seem to contain any intelligent content. As far as I can tell it consists of "Armstrong can't be doping, he rides too fast!".
You do understand what the point of taking dope is, don't you???
Well, obviously not. I'll help you:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/paul-kimmage
Paul Kimmage has caused a lot of controversey recently and there has been a lot of people who have been quick to dismiss him as a bitter failed cyclist who didnt train properly. I would just like to highlight a comparison between Kimmage and another ex-pro whom turned pro the same year as Kimmage, Bjarne Riis.
Kimmage turned pro in 1986, Riis turned pro in 1986. By 1989 both riders were still both unsuccessful pro cyclists. Both rode the Giro in 1989 in which Kimmage actually finished two places in front of Bjarne Riis. Kimmage 84th, Riis 86th. Kimmage quit the sport that year to become a sports journalist. Riis went on to take EPO and win the Tour de France, becoming rich and famous of the back of his success.
Dope makes that big a difference to performance. Having a body that responds well to dope and access to the best doping specialists are now arguably THE decisive factors in professional racing.
But again my point isn't that Armstrong takes dope, but that you should give LeMond the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives. Doping is ubiquitous, it's almost impossible to compete without it, people are dying, and Armstrong, according to Kimmage - now famous for his anti doping work as a journalist, same link, says of Armstrong:
I hold Armstrong in particular disregard because in 1998, when the full extent of doping in cycling was exposed for the first time in the Festina affair, was blown wide open, this sport had a chance to move on. And yet, if you pick up It's Not About the Bike, his very conveniently titled autobiography, you look at what he says about doping in his book, it's not the slightest bit convincing at all. He glosses over, "yeah, cycling has always had a doping problem, blah blah blah".
Ok, to answer your question. Cycling had a chance to move on in 1998. Who was the first champion of the new era? It was Lance Armstrong, and Lance Armstrong did not move on, with his ties to Ferrari, his enforcement of the omerta, he dragged the sport, at a time when it really had a chance to kick on, he dragged it back to the old ways in pretty much everything he did and in particular what he said. So that's why I hold him, for sure, absolutely for sure, he isn't the only one to have done this, but because, for me, of the timing of it, 1998, after what happened, I really believed this was a chance for the sport to move on, unfortunately you look at who came along next. That's my big problem with Lance.
So again I don't think it is reasonable to say that LeMond has to be motivated by jealousy - especially as he seems to have been extraordinarily supportive of Armstrong up until the revelation that he had been working with Ferrari, a doctor who openly defends the use of EPO. Now, we don't know if LA is taking dope or not - but anyone who says that it is obviously impossible that he is, and therefore LeMond can only be motivated by jealousy, is utterly insane.
Of course you don't because you haven't got a clue. At age 37, LA came in 3rd in the TdF this year after being out of competitive cycling for 2 years and coming off a collar bone fracture which limited his training.
Then he went to Leadville and kicked butt after just competing in the TdF. You think he cheated this year? Unbelieveable. Lance Armstrong is great.
I'm sorry - your argument doesn't seem to contain any intelligent content. As far as I can tell it consists of "Armstrong can't be doping, he rides too fast!".
You do understand what the point of taking dope is, don't you???
Well, obviously not. I'll help you:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/paul-kimmage
Paul Kimmage has caused a lot of controversey recently and there has been a lot of people who have been quick to dismiss him as a bitter failed cyclist who didnt train properly. I would just like to highlight a comparison between Kimmage and another ex-pro whom turned pro the same year as Kimmage, Bjarne Riis.
Kimmage turned pro in 1986, Riis turned pro in 1986. By 1989 both riders were still both unsuccessful pro cyclists. Both rode the Giro in 1989 in which Kimmage actually finished two places in front of Bjarne Riis. Kimmage 84th, Riis 86th. Kimmage quit the sport that year to become a sports journalist. Riis went on to take EPO and win the Tour de France, becoming rich and famous of the back of his success.
Dope makes that big a difference to performance. Having a body that responds well to dope and access to the best doping specialists are now arguably THE decisive factors in professional racing.
But again my point isn't that Armstrong takes dope, but that you should give LeMond the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives. Doping is ubiquitous, it's almost impossible to compete without it, people are dying, and Armstrong, according to Kimmage - now famous for his anti doping work as a journalist, same link, says of Armstrong:
I hold Armstrong in particular disregard because in 1998, when the full extent of doping in cycling was exposed for the first time in the Festina affair, was blown wide open, this sport had a chance to move on. And yet, if you pick up It's Not About the Bike, his very conveniently titled autobiography, you look at what he says about doping in his book, it's not the slightest bit convincing at all. He glosses over, "yeah, cycling has always had a doping problem, blah blah blah".
Ok, to answer your question. Cycling had a chance to move on in 1998. Who was the first champion of the new era? It was Lance Armstrong, and Lance Armstrong did not move on, with his ties to Ferrari, his enforcement of the omerta, he dragged the sport, at a time when it really had a chance to kick on, he dragged it back to the old ways in pretty much everything he did and in particular what he said. So that's why I hold him, for sure, absolutely for sure, he isn't the only one to have done this, but because, for me, of the timing of it, 1998, after what happened, I really believed this was a chance for the sport to move on, unfortunately you look at who came along next. That's my big problem with Lance.
So again I don't think it is reasonable to say that LeMond has to be motivated by jealousy - especially as he seems to have been extraordinarily supportive of Armstrong up until the revelation that he had been working with Ferrari, a doctor who openly defends the use of EPO. Now, we don't know if LA is taking dope or not - but anyone who says that it is obviously impossible that he is, and therefore LeMond can only be motivated by jealousy, is utterly insane.
Cateye
11-12-09, 08:34 AM
who's greg lemond?
:innocent:
+1
+1
:innocent:
+1
+1
jimmyjack
11-12-09, 02:52 PM
I'm sorry - your argument doesn't seem to contain any intelligent content. As far as I can tell it consists of "Armstrong can't be doping, he rides too fast!".
You do understand what the point of taking dope is, don't you???
Well, obviously not. Seeing you're not too bright I'll help you:
Dope makes that big a difference to performance. Having a body that responds well to dope and access to the best doping specialists are now arguably THE decisive factors in professional racing.
But again my point isn't that Armstrong takes dope, but that you should give LeMond the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives. Doping is ubiquitous, it's almost impossible to compete without it, people are dying, and Armstrong, according to Kimmage - now famous for his anti doping work as a journalist, same link, says of Armstrong:
So again I don't think it is reasonable to say that LeMond has to be motivated by jealousy - especially as he seems to have been extraordinarily supportive of Armstrong up until the revelation that he had been working with Ferrari, a doctor who openly defends the use of EPO. Now, we don't know if LA is taking dope or not - but anyone who says that it is obviously impossible that he is, and therefore LeMond can only be motivated by jealousy, is utterly insane.
Jeez, a voice of reason. Good luck with rational argument on these forums.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I state that Armstrong is the greatest fraud and cheat in sports history. Nice legacy!
You do understand what the point of taking dope is, don't you???
Well, obviously not. Seeing you're not too bright I'll help you:
Dope makes that big a difference to performance. Having a body that responds well to dope and access to the best doping specialists are now arguably THE decisive factors in professional racing.
But again my point isn't that Armstrong takes dope, but that you should give LeMond the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives. Doping is ubiquitous, it's almost impossible to compete without it, people are dying, and Armstrong, according to Kimmage - now famous for his anti doping work as a journalist, same link, says of Armstrong:
So again I don't think it is reasonable to say that LeMond has to be motivated by jealousy - especially as he seems to have been extraordinarily supportive of Armstrong up until the revelation that he had been working with Ferrari, a doctor who openly defends the use of EPO. Now, we don't know if LA is taking dope or not - but anyone who says that it is obviously impossible that he is, and therefore LeMond can only be motivated by jealousy, is utterly insane.
Jeez, a voice of reason. Good luck with rational argument on these forums.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I state that Armstrong is the greatest fraud and cheat in sports history. Nice legacy!
Gr8Scott
11-12-09, 06:47 PM
"laser"...
sharks with laser beams on top of their heads?
i started reading this thread and it was painful - flipped to the last page and in walks a dr. evil reference...much better. :D
sharks with laser beams on top of their heads?
i started reading this thread and it was painful - flipped to the last page and in walks a dr. evil reference...much better. :D
gear
11-16-09, 06:55 AM
sharks with laser beams on top of their heads?
I believe you mean: "sharks with frickin laser beams on top of their heads".
I believe you mean: "sharks with frickin laser beams on top of their heads".
bellweatherman
11-20-09, 06:11 PM
That is so right. Armstrong is a d0uchebag and a half. He'll get what he deserves.
bikeride
11-25-09, 05:26 PM
Lance is the Devil.
jaxgtr
11-25-09, 08:52 PM
:deadhorse: :rolleyes: