justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index justcycling.myfastforum.org
Just Cycling
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sticky Articles
Transfers 2018
Comments and problems thread
2017 Season
Cycling on TV & Internet
The Cobblestone Fantasy Cycling League
Smarauder Trophy - Running Total 2017
Smaurauder Trophy - Calendar 2017
Popular Topics
TdF 17, Stages 16-18: The Alpine Hike
Giro 2017:Dolce,Cafe and Grappa! Stages 16-21May 23rd - 28th
Tour 2017, Stages 1-4: Not quite the Lowlands, 1st-4th Jul
TdF 17, Stages 14-15: Something for Le Weekend, monsieur?
FPs for GC etc and Week 1 of Le Tour, starts 1st July
TdF 17, Stages 19-21: We'll Always Have Paris...
TdF 17, Stages 10-13: 11th-14th July - To the Bastille
FPs for Week 2 of Le Tour, stages 8 to 14 incluxive
Top posters
HuwB 14885
Bartali 13543
kathy 12900
CapeRoadie 10191
Mrs John Murphy 8673
Biosphere 8611
Nolte 6794
Slapshot 3 6587
Fontfroide 6182
smarauder68 5365
gerry12ie 5282
SlowRower 5008
Sooty 4913
bianchigirl 4726
cardinal guzman 4659
Boogerd_Fan 4621
Ralphnorman 4323
crash48 4283
mr shifter 4117
cyclingtv 3854
berck 3768
sheeponabike 3723
last km 3593
bbnaz 3515
naspa 3505
Old thread for Reference - Lance Armstrong
Page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> BBC Old Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:38 pm    Post subject: Old thread for Reference - Lance Armstrong  Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 1 - 20 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 1 - posted by Ev_the_Dog (U2310403) , Nov 30, 2005

This is a new discussion, set up to enable all of the people who want to slag LA off to do so, thus leaving him out of the discussions that do not directly concern him.

Message 2 - posted by spenser (U1647494) , Nov 30, 2005

Blah blah, Lance killed my dog, and he never gets a round in, he scratched one of my records, and I heard he was behind the Ulster bank robbery, and a bloke in the pub said he doesn't wash.
This is a reply to this message


Message 3 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Nov 30, 2005

www.booknoise.net/ar... Lance Armstrong's war: I wasn't aware of booknoise, a lot of info at this site.

At his website or somewhere, I've seen the Lance logo associated with Armstrong, a snack manufacturer in the US. Now, I don't remember where I saw though in connection with Armstrong. See the logo here www.lance.com/html/i...
This is a reply to this message


Message 4 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Nov 30, 2005

As a chief offender - though I do always apologise for going off topic - I'll remember to post any comments here...
This is a reply to this message


Message 5 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Nov 30, 2005

It's no offence to "talk about Lance a lot!" www.edmontonsun.com/... <snicker>
This is a reply to this message


Message 6 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 1, 2005

To clarify Dan - why don't I find Armstrong's 7 Tour wins exceptional? Perhaps I should say no more exceptional than Indurain's 7 GT wins, or Hinault's 10 or Merckx's 11.

For me, winning 7 TdFs in a row without ever even attempting a double, let alone riding a full season, does not elevate that achievement over and above that of any other multi GT winner.

That's what I meant about taking the statement in the context of cycling history.
This is a reply to this message


Message 7 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 1, 2005

Lance is the greatest ever!! A god of cycling. Can the sport even survive without him?? I doubt it. It's all down hill from here.
This is a reply to this message


Message 8 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 1, 2005

Just joking, btw.
This is a reply to this message


Message 9 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 1, 2005

I hear the Queen has sent out a private invite to make him a honorary British citizen so she can knight him Sir Lance-a-lot!
This is a reply to this message


Message 10 - posted by LAfandan (U1743613) , Dec 1, 2005



To clarify Dan - why don't I find Armstrong's 7 Tour wins exceptional? Perhaps I should say no more exceptional than Indurain's 7 GT wins, or Hinault's 10 or Merckx's 11.

For me, winning 7 TdFs in a row without ever even attempting a double, let alone riding a full season, does not elevate that achievement over and above that of any other multi GT winner.

That's what I meant about taking the statement in the context of cycling history.
Quoted message from BianchiGirl





ok bianchigirl, fair point. I never tried to undermine the previous greats in anyway. I was merely trying to give the +ve spin on armstrongs achievements which i think are often neglected on these boards.

Isn't it remarkeable though that in sports like cycling, tennis, golf there appears to be a tendency for a champion to appear that completely dominates an era.
This is a reply to this message


Message 11 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 1, 2005

I don't have Lance's resume down pat, did he win the World Championship one year? Otherwise, I believe it might be more proper to say "dominating a race (TdF) in an era" versus "dominating an era."

"Isn't it remarkeable though that in sports like cycling, tennis, golf there appears to be a tendency for a champion to appear that completely dominates an era"
This is a reply to this message


Message 12 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 1, 2005

Intriguing thread though in time I suspect we'll all get down to abusing each other instead of discussing the topic, how long before we start discussing Ullrichs Giro attempt...oops there we go.

Armstrong is an enigma, a unique athlete who sacrificed probably a superb palmares that would rival Mercx, Hinualt etc etc to ensure he won the GREATEST race of them all. His decision no-one elses. I do not believe if he had tackled the amount of races Mercx had he would have won so many tours but that was his focus.

Times have changed and you cannot compare the era's of all the great champions, it's impossible. Is mercx the greatest ever, very probably however how do we compare them to find out. I don't believe we can.

Let's just say each of the great champions was the best in their era and leave it at that
This is a reply to this message


Message 13 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 1, 2005

Intriguing thread though in time I suspect we'll all get down to abusing each other instead of discussing the topic, how long before we start discussing Ullrichs Giro attempt...oops there we go.

Armstrong is an enigma, a unique athlete who sacrificed probably a superb palmares that would rival Mercx, Hinualt etc etc to ensure he won the GREATEST race of them all. His decision no-one elses. I do not believe if he had tackled the amount of races Mercx had he would have won so many tours but that was his focus.

Times have changed and you cannot compare the era's of all the great champions, it's impossible. Is mercx the greatest ever, very probably however how do we compare them to find out. I don't believe we can.

Let's just say each of the great champions was the best in their era and leave it at that
Quoted message from slapshot_3





And yes I can't spell Merckx.....apologies
This is a reply to this message


Message 14 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 1, 2005

sorry slapshot, can't follow that reasoning - Armstrong sacrificed a palmares that would rival Merckx to win one race 7 times...but his entire career wins are what, just over 50 and Merckx's are 500+ including 11 Grand Tours.

Merckx only rode the Tour de France 7 times and won it 5. Add to this his feat of winning all 3 jerseys in his first Tour and inumerable other records (mosts stage wins, most days in yellow), Armstrong's 7 wins in 13 starts are about comparable.

The point is, a lot of fuss is made about how amazing Armstrong's record is as if the cycling world has never seen the like - wild statements made without any kind of context whatsoever.

Sorry, I could argue this one all day - perhaps, Dan, it's one of the reasons why some fans aren't bowled over by Armstrong's palmares.
This is a reply to this message


Message 15 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 1, 2005

Perhaps, BianchiGirl, but a few people go over the top bashing Armstrong as well. They do it for various reasons. Some are just big fans of Merckx or some other past rider and feel the need to constantly remind people of his superiority. Some are simply anti-American and can't stand the fact that Armstrong has been so successful in the tour. Some seem irked by the fact that he made the Tour de France his sole focus the last few years.

I think the majority are in the middle, though, and take his career and achievements for what they are, without trying to build them up or tear them down.
This is a reply to this message


Message 16 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Dec 2, 2005

I must admit that I am always incredibly impressed at how Armstrong dominated two disciplines that seem so difficult to reconcile.

He could rip the legs off the best climbers in the world with explosive attacks that would make them look weak and slow and he could blow the legs off specialist time triallists.

The impression I have is that it is a rare man who can be good at both due to the one requiring immense sustainable watts (tting) and the other requiring awesome power to weight. Lance's generation of 500w for 20-30 mins at his light body weight makes him a very rare animal.

His effect is seen in the fact that so many threaders talk about Ulle, (a former TDF winner and a man that was thought to be a dead cert for at least 4 more victories)as a bit of an also ran.

Indurain and Ulle were time triallists who could live with the pace in the mountains. Armstong seems, in the modern era, to have taken it one step further and made himself invincible.

I always try to remember that the important phrase is though, 'the modern era'.


This is a reply to this message


Message 17 - posted by George808 (U2401046) , Dec 2, 2005

Great post Bike Monkey.

I believe that deep down Ullrich probably felt Armstrong was unbeatable. Here was a man who could beat him in a time trial when he had no real right to.

I think the first TT thrashing by Armstrong over Ulle this year can be discounted due to Ullrich's crash but the St Etienne one must have been a TT where the German fancied his chances.


This is a reply to this message


Message 18 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 2, 2005

Perhaps, BianchiGirl, but a few people go over the top bashing Armstrong as well. They do it for various reasons. Some are just big fans of Merckx or some other past rider and feel the need to constantly remind people of his superiority. Some are simply anti-American and can't stand the fact that Armstrong has been so successful in the tour. Some seem irked by the fact that he made the Tour de France his sole focus the last few years.

I think the majority are in the middle, though, and take his career and achievements for what they are, without trying to build them up or tear them down.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





Got to disagree there. I respect the achievements of Merckx, Hinault and Antiquel on the bike but as people I wouldnt piss on them if they were on fire.

You seem to view those who believe that Armstrong is over-rated, doped, etc as being motivated by some kind of personal animosity towards him. Not at all. I respect him coming back from cancer, but at the same time this does not make him Jesus. Nor does it make him unique or special. I do not like him as a person, but I do not like Merckx as a person. Frankly, I consider it to be Merckxs own fault that he didnt win 6 TDFs. My opinions are stated in the cake eating thread. But as a cyclist there can be no challenge to his achievements or his ability. What he managed to do on a bike I can imagine no other rider doing those things and Armstrong comes no where near to Merckx in terms of cycling achievement. Nor do I think that Armstrong ranks very highly when you look at his achievements compared to Hinault, Indurain, Antiquel, Coppi, Pellesier.

It is simplistic and an easy get out clause to label anyone who dislikes Armstrong as being anti-American. Nationality has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of riders from across the world who I admire as cyclists but dislike as people and vice versa. I dont like Mayo very much, but no one has ever said that this was motivated by anti-Basque sentiment. I have yet to understand why you feel that such criticism is so motivated. Do you actually have any evidence to support your case?

Essientially however, I think we have two debates that need to be discussed here. Armstrong as a cyclist which should focus on his racing alone and a second debate which is about Armstrong the man, which I think concerns his impact on cycling and involves his relationship with Ferrari, the doping scandals and whether or not his media popularity in the English language press will result in the creation of a new fan base for cycling that will be deeply embedded and promote the growth of interest in the sport as whole or merely transient and superficial where media & public interest will last until the last English speaking rider is out of contention? (maybe that is 3 separate debates...)

This is a reply to this message


Message 19 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 2, 2005

It is simplistic and an easy get out clause to label anyone who dislikes Armstrong as being anti-American. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
Quoted message from naspa



I only mentioned that as one of a variety of reasons that people dislike Armstrong. I actually agree that it would be simplistic to label anyone who dislikes Armstrong as being anti-American.
This is a reply to this message


Message 20 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 2, 2005

Plus, naspa, I was only talking about the fringe element who seem to focus an inordinate amount of energy bashing Armstrong. That a minor percentage already, and those motivated by anti-Americanism are only a fraction of that minor element. I'm not suggesting it is a pervasive attitude. The rabid Armstrong fans are a bit misguided, too, but as I said above, I think most people fall somewhere in between.

(Btw, it's not Antiquel.)
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 1 - 20 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 21 - 40 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 21 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 2, 2005

Some Armstrong stories are worth sharing:

Admittedly, the first piece is more of your human interest story, but the kid's birthday is Sunday. He suffers from testicular cancer and his dream is to meet Armstrong. wjz.com/topstories/l...

Tyler Hamilton has had his charity rides, I think some centered in Coloroado, but Lance may not ride in Colorado because the State Troopers limit the number to 2,500. Why does the story state in the next paragraph, something about 1,500? www.thedenverchannel...

I thought I read a forum participant in some venue say the Simeoni-Armstrong affair is over, but not so says www.dailypeloton.com... , December 14th is the date.

Above I should have written in how one might state the facts, Lance has "dominated the largest cycling event in an era." And did indeed win the Road Racing Championship www.vilacom.net/cycl...

I can not prove it, but I think, Lance once knocked on my front door and ran off.


This is a reply to this message


Message 22 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 2, 2005

==============Indurain and Ulle were time triallists who could live with the pace in the mountains. Armstong seems, in the modern era, to have taken it one step further and made himself invincible.=============================

**Indeed, Lance was not only a dominating TT, but a dominating climber as well. In fact, he gave the impression that he was usually in check, that he could explode at any time he wanted.

That brings me to another reason Lance was so dominating, his teamwork. He always gave heavy credit to the talent and hardwork of his team, and Lance used his enormous talent within the framework of the team, which included strategizing with Bruyneel, the team manager. Lance was THE gunslinger on the tour, waiting for that critical split second to explode and always holding something in reserve to protect the team for the next days showdown.

Merckx was also a dominating cyclist, but teamwork was not so important in his era, nor was training, which leads us into another reason Lance was so impressive. He competed on the much larger international stage against a stronger, better trained field of talent. Merckx didn't have to compete against Eastern Euros, Australians, N/S Americans. Merckx could never be passed a cigarette to smoke while riding against modern teams like he ofen did in his day.

Sure, Lance critics can sniff their oversized French noses and claim Lance was not as well rounded a cyclist as some all time greats, that's a fair criticism. However, Lance was also restricted by his massive contract on what he could do. There is no doubt that with his climbing and TT abilities that he could have won many other events and he actually did win many other lesser events.

It's a radically new era, and one has to keep a context of history to properly compare athletes of different eras. I would also add in Lance is the most drug tested athlete in the history of the world by a large margin. Nobody is even close to him. They never tested Merckx or Lemond, and don't fool yourselves if you think steroids and other drug enhancements weren't available to athletes back then.
This is a reply to this message


Message 23 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 2, 2005

Plus, naspa, I was only talking about the fringe element who seem to focus an inordinate amount of energy bashing Armstrong. That a minor percentage already, and those motivated by anti-Americanism are only a fraction of that minor element. I'm not suggesting it is a pervasive attitude. The rabid Armstrong fans are a bit misguided, too, but as I said above, I think most people fall somewhere in between.

(Btw, it's not Antiquel.)
Quoted message from





I am aware the spelling was wrong.

The point about anti-Americanism is that Armstrong himself has used it, claiming that the l'Equipe story was motivated by French opposition to the war in Iraq.

As I have said before the biggest Armstrong fan-boys are the media.
This is a reply to this message


Message 24 - posted by mowcopmick (U1960430) , Dec 2, 2005

Winning the TDF seven times doesn't constitute 'dominating cycling for an era' and the number of TDF wins should not be the gauge of cycling greatness. There are other great races if you look a little deeper (take note journalists)
This is a reply to this message


Message 25 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 2, 2005

Lance is the greatest ever!! A god of cycling. Can the sport even survive without him?? I doubt it. It's all down hill from here.
Quoted message from





downhill for Lance...I agree.
This is a reply to this message


Message 26 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 2, 2005

sorry slapshot, can't follow that reasoning quote>

Simple, no real reasoning, he obviously made a specific choice to do things that way, maybe it is just as simple as that.

The tour is the biggest race on the planet therefore the biggest advertising banner for his sponsors and everything around him, Cancer charities etc, so his aim was to maximise everything through that. We all make choices maybe that was his.

As to Eddy no one can question his palmares but again a different era where riders made their living through racing, I don't expect Armstrong had to do that, sponsors look after his living.

Quoted message from



This is a reply to this message


Message 27 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 2, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 28 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 2, 2005

I have to say I usually stay well out of the Armstrong debate, cos i'm still happily sitting on the fence with it. I'm not sure he's a very nice guy, i'm not sure that he's clean, i'm certainly not sure that his achievements outshine anyone elses, and i'm not sure that he's even the best cyclist to watch.

However, he has done a great service to cycling, his story itself is inspiring (I doubt i could ride one mountain stage of the tour, on drugs or not.....) and a small part of me thinks that many og the greats of many sports have had large streaks of arrogance in order to win.

I do feel, though, that i have to reply to a few comments that have been made on this thread.




Merckx was also a dominating cyclist, but teamwork was not so important in his era, nor was training, which leads us into another reason Lance was so impressive. He competed on the much larger international stage against a stronger, better trained field of talent. Merckx didn't have to compete against Eastern Euros, Australians, N/S Americans. Merckx could never be passed a cigarette to smoke while riding against modern teams like he ofen did in his day.
Quoted from this message





This argument appears a little odd to me. yes, Merckx rode in a different era - of course he did. And of course the training etc etc were different then. But comparisons between different eras are incredibly difficult to make - Merckx could not choose his opponenets, anymore than Armstrong can. And if everyone has the same training regime, how on earth does that give Armstrong such a huge advantage?


Sure, Lance critics can sniff their oversized French noses and claim Lance was not as well rounded a cyclist as some all time greats, that's a fair criticism.
Quoted from this message





Please do not assume that all the critics of Lance are French. They are not - there a plenty of critics from throughout Europe.


However, Lance was also restricted by his massive contract on what he could do. There is no doubt that with his climbing and TT abilities that he could have won many other events and he actually did win many other lesser events.
Quoted from this message





Lance Armstrong is one of the most famous cyclists of our time, if not the most famous. Explain to me why Armstrong signed contracts which prevented him from riding races, if he actually wanted to ride them. Or is it possible that Lance chose to simply concentrate on the Tour?

I think most cycling fans are simply sad that they did not get to see Armstrong challenge himself in many other races, and create rivalries in other areas of the sport ie. the classics, or the other grand tours.


It's a radically new era, and one has to keep a context of history to properly compare athletes of different eras. I would also add in Lance is the most drug tested athlete in the history of the world by a large margin. Nobody is even close to him. They never tested Merckx or Lemond, and don't fool yourselves if you think steroids and other drug enhancements weren't available to athletes back then.
Quoted from this message





I don't think anyone on this board would be so naive as to suggest that other cyclists don't or haven't taken drugs. Cycling fans have had to take a lot of stick about their sport being dirty (if you read some other threads on this board, you'll see that there are some posters who will tell you outright what a dirty sport it is.) I, for one, would never dream of suggesting that Merckx or Anquitiel (I can't spell that word either!!!) were not taking drugs.

Bearing in mind that when the TDF first started the drug of the time was cocaine, and all of the compeititors were taking coke; it then moved on to amphetamines; steroids and now EPO. No one is naive, no one is kidding themselves.
This is a reply to this message


Message 29 - posted by imacyclefan (U1768900) , Dec 3, 2005

I moved from lurking on this forum to that of C+, but its nice to see the same old tired arguments are still being discussed over and over agin.
This is a reply to this message


Message 30 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 3, 2005

=========Lance Armstrong is one of the most famous cyclists of our time, if not the most famous. Explain to me why Armstrong signed contracts which prevented him from riding races, if he actually wanted to ride them. Or is it possible that Lance chose to simply concentrate on the Tour?==================================

** My, how easily you forget how nobody was recruiting the baldish, 120 lb stick who had just completed his cancer treatment. USPostal was just a pipedream at that point in time just like it was a pipedream of Lance to compete and FINISH his first Tour. Nobody, not even Lance ever thought about winning the TDF on his comeback. At that point it was about repeating to see if it was just a fluke. After that, why on earth break up the core of good team. Lance has a strong sense of loyalty regardless of how arrogant you may think him to be. Was Babe Ruth asking to leave the Yankees because they wouldn't let him pitch anymore? Is Prince Charles going to quit the royal family because the Queen won't let him be King?

Of course not. Lance can be compared favorably to any great cyclist, ever. Ask him and he'll tell you Merckx is the best ever. Press him and he'll tell you he was the most dominating TDF rider ever. Not bad for a guy who retired at age 33 after a 2 yr life and death hiatus from the sport before he ever had a chance to establish himself.
This is a reply to this message


Message 31 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 3, 2005

Which version of cycling history are you reading from? Armstrong was already under contract before he had cancer with what became USP. As I recall he switched from Motorola to Cofidis for the 1997 season and then became ill. Cofidis looked after Armstrong extremely well (and Armstrong at the time said so). He then chose to return to USP (as Motorola had become).

Additionally, Armstrong was back riding within 6 months of his diagnosis, so this idea that he had a 'two year death hiatus' is simply not true. In fact his missed less time than Marco Pantani or Beloki missed with their injuries.

He had also finished the 1995 TDF.

If you are going to sing Armstrong's praises then you should at least get your basic facts right.
This is a reply to this message


Message 32 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 3, 2005

To correct myself. Motorola did not become USP. However, when Motorola withdrew at the end of 1996 a large number of Motorola riders switched to USP. Armstrong chose to sign a lucrative contract with Cofidis. He became ill after the contract had been signed.
This is a reply to this message


Message 33 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 3, 2005

Cycling news story from 1997 concerning Cofidis cancelling Armstrong's contract.

Cofidis drop Lance

The French Cofidis cycling team said on Friday they were not renewing the contract of American Lance Armstrong for 1998 because they felt let down after supporting him in his fight against cancer.

Former world champion Armstrong's agent pressed this week for improved terms after giving his verbal agreement to a new contract, Cofidis said.

``Faced with this about-face, in contradiction with respect for the given word, in the face of so much ingratitude and disloyalty, Cofidis have decided not to renew Lance Armstrong's contract, which we have told his agent,'' a team statement said.

Armstrong learnt he had cancer just after he signed for Cofidis as a team leader for the 1997 season in October 1996.

``Cofidis could then legitimately have withdrawn (from the contract), as Lance Armstrong was manifestly not in a state to race for months and did not even know whether he would be able to ride again one day,'' a team statement said.

It said that Cofidis decided instead to honour the contract -- which was for a year with an option for another year -- ``letting human considerations prevail over all financial considerations.''

Armstrong, who has made a remarkable recovery from his illness, has not raced for Cofidis, but the team said they had planned to keep him on next season after doctors authorised him to return to competition.

But Cofidis said that with renewal of the contract imminent they learnt that Armstrong's agent was also talking to another sponsor and the rider was on the point of signing for a different team.

Cofidis then improved Armstrong's terms and reached a verbal agreement with the agent that they would announce a new contract at a joint news conference on Tuesday.

But the agent cancelled the news conference days before it was due to be held and made further demands, Cofidis said. "

www.cyclingnews.com/...


This is a reply to this message


Message 34 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 3, 2005

He said, you said, we said..... don't suppose we'll ever know the real story with the Cofidis thing, however I do remember reading a lot of French press L'Eqipe mostly and German papers at the time, deffinately anti lance, renegeing on agreements, calling down the wrath of god of him....

On the flip side we've all read the books and lnace's side of things however what we don't know and what is crucial in this discussion is what terms he was actually offered by Cofidis, I seriously doubt they were what they were meant to be before his diagnosis. In those terms if a team is shafting you, I believe in the right to look after your own well being so talking to another sponsor seems ligitimate to me. If that's the real reason Cofidis dropped him, tailking to other sponsors, then shame on them.

As i say though, the REAL story might make more interesting reading not a spun tale from either side
This is a reply to this message


Message 35 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 3, 2005

I remember a very different press from that period.

If you go to the Cycling News website for 1997 in October then you can see whole story pan out.

Armstrong had signed a $1.2 million contract in 1996 which was for 1 year with an option for a second. Cofidis paid his salary in full for the year he was ill.

Armstrong himself said that they offered a performance related contract with a base salary of $25,000.

I certainly do not think that Cofidis behaved badly in the matter.


This is a reply to this message


Message 36 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 3, 2005

He said, she said, and the public will never know the true story because of mankind's infinite ability to lie to himself and lie about others to protect himself.

I don't make Lance into some kind of infallible god, but these tour teams are big business and Lance was of the most damaged goods possible and highly disposable.

Regardless, the point is that Lance rode in a larger and most competitive international field in history and dominated the TDF like no other.

If that chaps the royal asses who can't stand him, then let them apply lotion. He never got a single iota of credit from those naysayers from day one, so cite irreconcible differences and find another dead horse to whip or neighbor dog to kick.
This is a reply to this message


Message 37 - posted by upton_gal (U1645139) , Dec 3, 2005

i have to say, even though some of you hate lance, the only reason why i watched the TdF this year was to see if he could win it again...ive never really been into cycling (it scares me a bit to be honest) but i thought it was quite amazing...and i actually think i might start watching more of it from now on. however, this proves that lance armstrong sells! and he sells the sport well. so what will keep me hooked next year...?
This is a reply to this message


Message 38 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 3, 2005

He said, she said, and the public will never know the true story because of mankind's infinite ability to lie to himself and lie about others to protect himself.

I don't make Lance into some kind of infallible god, but these tour teams are big business and Lance was of the most damaged goods possible and highly disposable.

Regardless, the point is that Lance rode in a larger and most competitive international field in history and dominated the TDF like no other.

If that chaps the royal asses who can't stand him, then let them apply lotion. He never got a single iota of credit from those naysayers from day one, so cite irreconcible differences and find another dead horse to whip or neighbor dog to kick.
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





Sorry but that is nothing to do with anything. Basically every point you have made in Armstrong's defence has been disproved. In the autumn of 1997 he was not a 120lb bald guy to whom no one would give a chance. So either you were wrong or you are lying in order to distort history.

Your argument that the internationalisation of the peleton has somehow made cycling more competitive is simply not validated by the facts. How many Australian GT winners have their been? There have been two East European GT winners Menchov and Berzin - and Berzin won the Giro before Armstrong won his first tour.
This is a reply to this message


Message 39 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 3, 2005

so what will keep me hooked next year...?
Quoted message from upton_gal





Hopefully a TDF which is about cycling and not 'Hello' type stories.

What sells the next years race? Basso and Ullrich taking each other on for the second GT in a season. The vanguard of young riders coming through.
This is a reply to this message


Message 40 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 3, 2005


Admittedly, the first piece is more of your human interest story ... wjz.com/topstories/l...

Quoted message from Raleigh Rover





If this story is followed up, maybe the lad will receive a phone call from the yellow jerseyed one. Maybe that's a "hello" type of story, a rather excruciating one in this case.

One thing, I noted, it seems Lance is not religious at all. Atheist even? Or at least agnostic. I only read his first book, not the sequel. His religion in some ways, seems to be "Texas."

So, I've seen articles on him, proclaiming him as something like a Saint for his cause of fighting cancer, even in France. Those books themselves at times, shows him not to be that overly reverent type of individual but I am not to judge.

Maybe this is off-topic versus the usual Lance debate; but I am not as much "in the loop" as to a lot of cycling jargon and talk. Testimony that some of those talking, really are probably close to the sport.

This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 21 - 40 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 41 - 60 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 41 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 4, 2005

I'd just like to point some things out to those people who assume that all those who criticise Lance "hate" him. Firstly, hate is a very strong word, and on the basis i've never met the guy, i couldn't possibly say that i hate him.

Secondly, I don't think anyone could possible deny the magnitude of Lance's achievements - simply finishing the TDF is a massive achievement, and as anyone who has ridden an etape de Tour (whcih i think some people on this board have) - drugs or no drugs, it's still an impressive feat!

What people disagree with is those who say he was the "best ever" cyclist (I think that happens in every sport though, go on the Tennis board and check out the disagreements over players from different eras).

plus, it's the off-season for road cycling, so we may as well pick this topic up again, at least until things get interesting again next year.....

(Go Ullrich!!!)
This is a reply to this message


Message 42 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 5, 2005

==========Additionally, Armstrong was back riding within 6 months of his diagnosis, so this idea that he had a 'two year death hiatus' is simply not true. In fact his missed less time than Marco Pantani or Beloki missed with their injuries.=======================

** You couldn't be more wrong. Armstrong resumed training as part of his therapy. Yeah, he "competed" in his signature Tour of Roses celebrity benefit, but don't be disingenuous. He was not really fit to compete at the top until the 99 TDF came around which was billed as his comeback.
This is a reply to this message


Message 43 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 5, 2005

Whilst I know that you like to whitewash history you need to get your facts right.

I take it the 1998 Giro doesn't count? The point is that you claimed that Armstrong was "120lb bald guy" at the end when USP signed him. Something that we know to be a lie. Likewise your characterisation of the amount of time he missed plays fast and loose with the facts.

You ought to go to the cyclingnews website and read up on what Armstrong was doing in 1996-8.

The truth is that Armstrong was back on his bike and riding by March 1997 - he was back riding 100 km by 13 January 1997

Armstrong update

Lance trained 100 km around lille (france) yesterday (Saturday). He said "I feel good although that 100 km wasn't a real training ride, only a cycle-tour."


www.cyclingnews.com/...

Are you Sheryl Crow in disguise?


This is a reply to this message


Message 44 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 5, 2005

You have a pretty selective view of history, too, naspa. Here's a little counterbalance to your version. Of course, it was written by someone who is a friend of Lance, so it's probably all lies........ For those who don't care to follow the link, there's an excerpt of the part that discusses Lance being dropped by Cofidis.

www.active.com/story...

"Because I speak French, Lance and his agent Bill Stapleton (Stapleton still represents Lance today), asked me if I'd mind getting on the phone and translating for them so they could understand what the Cofidis people were saying. We jumped on a three-way conference call -- Stapleton at his Austin office, the Cofidis folks in Paris and Lance and I at his Austin home.

"He's never going to race again," they kept saying. "We would like to honor his contract, but we can't. He has to be in good health." It was obvious the Cofidis officials wanted out and they didn't want to listen to our talk about Lance coming back and racing again. He was damaged goods in their opinion and nothing was going to change their minds.

Truth be told, I didn't believe he'd ever race again as a professional but I also couldn't believe this French team wouldn't give him at least a year to recover. "Don't ever count this guy out," I said. "I've seen him do amazing things over the years and I know he'll race again."

They responded by telling me that, yes, while they thought there might be a chance Lance could race again, they could not see how he'd ever be a champion again. The cancer had spread through his entire body and, to put it simply, he was damaged goods."
This is a reply to this message


Message 45 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 5, 2005

I'm not gonna get involved with arguements about how Cofidis treated Lance, however i do have a few questions.

Armstrong, when still relatively ill, signs for USP. How long did he sign a contract for? And did it stipulate that he could only ride the TDF? And if so, did he not perhaps negotiate a better contract after he'd won the TDF?

All i'm trying to point out, is that you cannot say that Lance didn't ride other races or Tours because he was constrained by his contract (which i think is what someone has tried to argue, but please correct me if i'm wrong) as i can't believe that someone with the determination and out-and-out bloody mindedness of Armstrong (well, that's the impression i got from his books) would allow that to happen.
This is a reply to this message


Message 46 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 5, 2005

I think you're right, Dinky_Jo. I'm not sure what the terms of his initial contract with USP were, but he may have had to make some promises or concessions to get them to take a chance on him. I doubt that the team or sponsors were dictating his career too much, though, once he started winning multiple tours. I think there was total agreement between his team and himself on what the priority was, and if he had wanted to branch out more into different races, I'm sure he could have.
This is a reply to this message


Message 47 - posted by Soccer King (U2642773) , Dec 5, 2005

Anyone who thinks LA dopes is a nutter!
This is a reply to this message


Message 48 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 5, 2005

Thanks Nick Like i said earlier, i'm on the fence with the whole Armstrong thing, but i don't believe that anyone but him has dictated his career.
This is a reply to this message


Message 49 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 5, 2005

Anyone who thinks LA dopes is a nutter!
Quoted message from Soccer King





Why?
This is a reply to this message


Message 50 - posted by Soccer King (U2642773) , Dec 5, 2005

Anyone who thinks LA dopes is a nutter!


Why?
Quoted message from Dinky_Jo





Ah! Sarcasm; Some might recognize it as again being the famous no make that infamous words once uttered by a certain cyclist sadly caught.

www.velonews.com/new...
This is a reply to this message


Message 51 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 5, 2005

Anyone who thinks LA dopes is a nutter!


Why?


Ah! Sarcasm; Some might recognize it as again being the famous no make that infamous words once uttered by a certain cyclist sadly caught.

www.velonews.com/new...
Quoted message from Soccer King





Ooops......
This is a reply to this message


Message 52 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 6, 2005

I think you're right, Dinky_Jo. I'm not sure what the terms of his initial contract with USP were, but he may have had to make some promises or concessions to get them to take a chance on him. I doubt that the team or sponsors were dictating his career too much, though, once he started winning multiple tours. I think there was total agreement between his team and himself on what the priority was, and if he had wanted to branch out more into different races, I'm sure he could have.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





His initial contract with USP had a relatively low basic, with a "per UCI point" bonus. Armstrong took it as a vote of confidence when USP insisted on a cap to the point-related element.

His racing comeback in early 1998 was distinctly "journeyman" in nature and he nearly gave up for good in the spring. He obviously didn't and finished the season by coming 4th in the world road race and Tour of Spain.

It was his performance in the Tour of Spain that brought about the focus on the 1999 Tour De France, as he was competitive with "proper" climbers for the first time.

All the above comes from LA's autobiography, so people will doubtless believe it or not based on the usual LA prejudices!


This is a reply to this message


Message 53 - posted by pantanifan (U1668940) , Dec 6, 2005

people will doubtless believe it or not based on the usual LA prejudices!

Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover




I agree that the "Armstrong era" (in terms of TdF at least) has not been digested objectively yet by most of us, probably in 2 or 3 years time it won't seem to matter so much anyway. I know the argument goes round in circles in any case but is anyone (on either side or on the fence) able to argue with these 3 facts:
- Armstrong was an exceptionally talented rider, with a fantastic and unprecedented achievement (7 straight Tours)...
- He (along with many other leading riders over several decades) has been linked/associated with doping allegations, which although they have plenty of circumstantial evidence have yet to be proven conclusively and beyond all doubt by any governing body or court of law...
- It would have been better for the sport of cycling in general if he had branched out to concentrate on other races at some stage during his career, and not merely on the TdF?

Cue another circular argument?!
This is a reply to this message


Message 54 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 6, 2005


- It would have been better for the sport of cycling in general if he had branched out to concentrate on other races at some stage during his career, and not merely on the TdF?


Quoted message from pantanifan





I suppose this depends on the sponsors. In America, what do you think generates most publicity:

"Our rider has won the TDF 7 times" or "Our rider has won a range of classics between Town X and Town Y that you've probably never heard of"?

It certainly would have been good for cycling as a whole if LA had raced more widely, but it wouldn't have been for his sponsors based back home, which is probably why it didn't happen.
This is a reply to this message


Message 55 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 6, 2005

You have a pretty selective view of history, too, naspa. Here's a little counterbalance to your version. Of course, it was written by someone who is a friend of Lance, so it's probably all lies........ For those who don't care to follow the link, there's an excerpt of the part that discusses Lance being dropped by Cofidis.

www.active.com/story...

"Because I speak French, Lance and his agent Bill Stapleton (Stapleton still represents Lance today), asked me if I'd mind getting on the phone and translating for them so they could understand what the Cofidis people were saying. We jumped on a three-way conference call -- Stapleton at his Austin office, the Cofidis folks in Paris and Lance and I at his Austin home.

"He's never going to race again," they kept saying. "We would like to honor his contract, but we can't. He has to be in good health." It was obvious the Cofidis officials wanted out and they didn't want to listen to our talk about Lance coming back and racing again. He was damaged goods in their opinion and nothing was going to change their minds.

Truth be told, I didn't believe he'd ever race again as a professional but I also couldn't believe this French team wouldn't give him at least a year to recover. "Don't ever count this guy out," I said. "I've seen him do amazing things over the years and I know he'll race again."

They responded by telling me that, yes, while they thought there might be a chance Lance could race again, they could not see how he'd ever be a champion again. The cancer had spread through his entire body and, to put it simply, he was damaged goods."
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





And so what? Team that has had injured rider on its books for a year seeks to re-negotiate his contract. Hardly a new phenomenon. And given that Cofidis had paid him his full salary for the whole of 1997 I don't see what is so wrong about how they behaved. I don't see you writing any sob-stories about Pantani and his comeback after the car crash.

Likewise, how does this support the claim that he was somehow on the scrap heap.

Armstrong was released by Cofidis on the 11th October 1997 and by the 16th he had signed for USP. So he was unemployed for all of 5 days. And you are claiming that the Cofidis allegations that behind their backs with USP are somehow a slur?

He wasn't a 120lb bald guy as claimed and he certainly wasn't on the scrapheap going around begging teams to take him on.

Question - why had Armstrong signed for a French team if he couldn't speak French? How exactly had he negotiated his contract? As I recall his French wasn't too bad when he almost got thrown out of the tour in 1996 for having a slapping match with Gilles Bouvard.
This is a reply to this message


Message 56 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Dec 6, 2005

i do not blame the confidis for wishing to sever relations with armstrong. i do not think the confidis folk were pleased to ditch armstrong; i think it was done because racing is a business and armstrong was in no shape to uphold a contract written for a rider of the upper-echelon. who would have bet on armstrong's chances of returning to pre-cancer levels then?

i do not blame armstrong, either, for his ill will towards Confidis; he is rider with physical gifts, but the mental edge [in part pure anger] time and time again set him apart from other riders with physical gifts, like jan ullrich.

the confidis matter was just more fodder on the fire.
This is a reply to this message


Message 57 - posted by pantanifan (U1668940) , Dec 6, 2005


It certainly would have been good for cycling as a whole if LA had raced more widely, but it wouldn't have been for his sponsors based back home, which is probably why it didn't happen.
Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover




This may well be true but I think if Armstrong had wanted to branch out he could have done so (especially in the later years when his reputation was already made and he had a great degree of influence within the team)...
This is a reply to this message


Message 58 - posted by cyclingfan (U2368462) , Dec 6, 2005

You have a pretty selective view of history, too, naspa. Here's a little counterbalance to your version. Of course, it was written by someone who is a friend of Lance, so it's probably all lies........ For those who don't care to follow the link, there's an excerpt of the part that discusses Lance being dropped by Cofidis.

www.active.com/story...

"Because I speak French, Lance and his agent Bill Stapleton (Stapleton still represents Lance today), asked me if I'd mind getting on the phone and translating for them so they could understand what the Cofidis people were saying. We jumped on a three-way conference call -- Stapleton at his Austin office, the Cofidis folks in Paris and Lance and I at his Austin home.

"He's never going to race again," they kept saying. "We would like to honor his contract, but we can't. He has to be in good health." It was obvious the Cofidis officials wanted out and they didn't want to listen to our talk about Lance coming back and racing again. He was damaged goods in their opinion and nothing was going to change their minds.

Truth be told, I didn't believe he'd ever race again as a professional but I also couldn't believe this French team wouldn't give him at least a year to recover. "Don't ever count this guy out," I said. "I've seen him do amazing things over the years and I know he'll race again."

They responded by telling me that, yes, while they thought there might be a chance Lance could race again, they could not see how he'd ever be a champion again. The cancer had spread through his entire body and, to put it simply, he was damaged goods."


And so what? Team that has had injured rider on its books for a year seeks to re-negotiate his contract. Hardly a new phenomenon. And given that Cofidis had paid him his full salary for the whole of 1997 I don't see what is so wrong about how they behaved. I don't see you writing any sob-stories about Pantani and his comeback after the car crash.

Likewise, how does this support the claim that he was somehow on the scrap heap.

Armstrong was released by Cofidis on the 11th October 1997 and by the 16th he had signed for USP. So he was unemployed for all of 5 days. And you are claiming that the Cofidis allegations that behind their backs with USP are somehow a slur?

He wasn't a 120lb bald guy as claimed and he certainly wasn't on the scrapheap going around begging teams to take him on.

Question - why had Armstrong signed for a French team if he couldn't speak French? How exactly had he negotiated his contract? As I recall his French wasn't too bad when he almost got thrown out of the tour in 1996 for having a slapping match with Gilles Bouvard.
Quoted message from naspa







Recovering from serious cancer is a much harder ordeal than recovering from a car crash. Armstrong was no ordinary injured rider, his chances of recovery were less than 50:50 and what he has been through should not be underestimated, regardless of your feelings towards the guy.
This is a reply to this message


Message 59 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 6, 2005

And you are claiming that the Cofidis allegations that behind their backs with USP are somehow a slur?
Quoted from this message





Not exactly. I don't completely believe your version that Cofidis was extremely good to Armstrong, and I don't completely believe the version they gave him the shaft. The truth is usually somewhere in between the two sides. I think it's probably true that Lance felt like Cofidis didn't have much faith in his chances for recovery, and USP showed more belief in him. It's not like USP offered him any huge sums of money (at least not at the outset ).

(Oh, and if I read some biased comments about Pantani, I might defend him, too. He wasn't perfect either, but he was an awesome rider.)
This is a reply to this message


Message 60 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 6, 2005


It certainly would have been good for cycling as a whole if LA had raced more widely, but it wouldn't have been for his sponsors based back home, which is probably why it didn't happen.

This may well be true but I think if Armstrong had wanted to branch out he could have done so (especially in the later years when his reputation was already made and he had a great degree of influence within the team)...
Quoted message from pantanifan





True indeed. Maybe Lance just liked winning the TDF that much. I repeatedly go on holiday to France every June or July, despite their being numerous otehr holiday destiantions round the world and throughout the year!

After all, having won it once, you'd want to win it again to prove it wasn't a fluke, then you'd want to win it again to elevate yourself above the 2-time winners. After that, you can't help but think of equalling and then beating the all time greats.
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 41 - 60 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 61 - 80 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 61 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 7, 2005

You have a pretty selective view of history, too, naspa. Here's a little counterbalance to your version. Of course, it was written by someone who is a friend of Lance, so it's probably all lies........ For those who don't care to follow the link, there's an excerpt of the part that discusses Lance being dropped by Cofidis.

www.active.com/story...

"Because I speak French, Lance and his agent Bill Stapleton (Stapleton still represents Lance today), asked me if I'd mind getting on the phone and translating for them so they could understand what the Cofidis people were saying. We jumped on a three-way conference call -- Stapleton at his Austin office, the Cofidis folks in Paris and Lance and I at his Austin home.

"He's never going to race again," they kept saying. "We would like to honor his contract, but we can't. He has to be in good health." It was obvious the Cofidis officials wanted out and they didn't want to listen to our talk about Lance coming back and racing again. He was damaged goods in their opinion and nothing was going to change their minds.

Truth be told, I didn't believe he'd ever race again as a professional but I also couldn't believe this French team wouldn't give him at least a year to recover. "Don't ever count this guy out," I said. "I've seen him do amazing things over the years and I know he'll race again."

They responded by telling me that, yes, while they thought there might be a chance Lance could race again, they could not see how he'd ever be a champion again. The cancer had spread through his entire body and, to put it simply, he was damaged goods."


And so what? Team that has had injured rider on its books for a year seeks to re-negotiate his contract. Hardly a new phenomenon. And given that Cofidis had paid him his full salary for the whole of 1997 I don't see what is so wrong about how they behaved. I don't see you writing any sob-stories about Pantani and his comeback after the car crash.

Likewise, how does this support the claim that he was somehow on the scrap heap.

Armstrong was released by Cofidis on the 11th October 1997 and by the 16th he had signed for USP. So he was unemployed for all of 5 days. And you are claiming that the Cofidis allegations that behind their backs with USP are somehow a slur?

He wasn't a 120lb bald guy as claimed and he certainly wasn't on the scrapheap going around begging teams to take him on.

Question - why had Armstrong signed for a French team if he couldn't speak French? How exactly had he negotiated his contract? As I recall his French wasn't too bad when he almost got thrown out of the tour in 1996 for having a slapping match with Gilles Bouvard.




Recovering from serious cancer is a much harder ordeal than recovering from a car crash. Armstrong was no ordinary injured rider, his chances of recovery were less than 50:50 and what he has been through should not be underestimated, regardless of your feelings towards the guy.
Quoted message from





Maybe but let us not forget that Pantani spent almost 6 months in hospital. That as a result of it he had one leg that was considerably longer than the other. Who thought that when he turned up for his first race that he was ever going to return to the rider he had once been?

Indeed, for all this talk about Armstrong and his bad feeling towards Cofidis for giving him the shaft what about the way that Chiappucci treated Pantani when he was injured??? Far worse if you ask me.

Whilst I don't want to get into a 'my injury is worse' than your injury, my point is that Armstrong is not the first rider (or athlete) to have comeback from serious injury or cancer. He was treated no differently to any other rider who missed a year through injury. Do you think that Beloki was welcomed back on the same contract that he was one when he was so close to winning the TDF? Of course not. Do you not think that Beloki or Pantani were some how unmotivated to prove the doubters (and Chiappucci) wrong? Of course they were. To me it is a total nonsense to say 'oh Armstrong was more motivated because of what happened to him.' As if he is the only cyclist who has ever been told by a team that he was going to have to take a pay cut because he'd been injured for a whole year.
This is a reply to this message


Message 62 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 7, 2005

And you are claiming that the Cofidis allegations that behind their backs with USP are somehow a slur?


Not exactly. I don't completely believe your version that Cofidis was extremely good to Armstrong, and I don't completely believe the version they gave him the shaft. The truth is usually somewhere in between the two sides. I think it's probably true that Lance felt like Cofidis didn't have much faith in his chances for recovery, and USP showed more belief in him. It's not like USP offered him any huge sums of money (at least not at the outset ).

(Oh, and if I read some biased comments about Pantani, I might defend him, too. He wasn't perfect either, but he was an awesome rider.)
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





My point is that if Cofidis were the heartless French bastards that the Armstrong hagiographers portray then as then why did they not cut him in October 1996? It seems to me that they were behaving as almost all teams do and in fact they behaved pretty well given that they would have been well within their rights to cancel the contract there and then but they didn't.
This is a reply to this message


Message 63 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 7, 2005

Whilst I know that you like to whitewash history you need to get your facts right.

I take it the 1998 Giro doesn't count? The point is that you claimed that Armstrong was "120lb bald guy" at the end when USP signed him. Something that we know to be a lie. Likewise your characterisation of the amount of time he missed plays fast and loose with the facts.

You ought to go to the cyclingnews website and read up on what Armstrong was doing in 1996-8.

The truth is that Armstrong was back on his bike and riding by March 1997 - he was back riding 100 km by 13 January 1997

Armstrong update

Lance trained 100 km around lille (france) yesterday (Saturday). He said "I feel good although that 100 km wasn't a real training ride, only a cycle-tour."


www.cyclingnews.com/...

Are you Sheryl Crow in disguise?


Quoted message from naspa




==============================

No, I'm just here to make sure you enjoy your crow puddin'n pie.

The gist is I'm correct and you ain't. I made a minor mistake claiming that he had never completed a tour before his diagnosis. I was just recalling how bad he looked when he had to pull out the year of his diagnosis and stand corrected since he finished his first tour the year before as you noted.

You act as though he was back racing 6 months after his diagnosis. Not true. He traveled to California where he started weight training and riding to rebuild himself. He had dropped down to about 100 lbs in the middle of his treatment and was around the 120 mark when he went out to Cal.

I never mentioned the contract with Cofidis in 97. All I knew is that his contract was dropped around the time he told his agent he wanted to race again. That turns out to be 97 and was Cofidis. According one of his bios he was at 158 by then. UPS signed him approx 1 yr after his diagnosis in Oct 97 if I recall correctly. He complains bitterly how no teams recruited him and his agent had to beat the bushes just to get the UPS offer which was barely finalized. He went to Europe for the winter 98 season and fared so poorly in minor races and was so mentally fragile that he quit the team and flew home, telling his agent he was ready to announce his retirement.

His wife and agent talk him out of it, telling him that he should not make the announcement until he competes in one of the larger races so that he can get some good publicity for cancer research in with his announcement. He agrees, and goes back for the regular season where he struggles, but he mentions a tough race in the Vuelta that he managed to compete strong in and finish 4th. That's Oct of 98, 2 yrs after his diagnosis and then Bruyneel mentions the 99 TDF to him which he had not even considered.

It's at that 2 yr point where he feels like he could actually compete and again and foreswears his retirement announcement. The rest is history.

I might also add in that he had a guaranteed 1.5 million diability clause spread over 5 yrs. As soon as he raced his first race in the early 98, his disability clause was voided. Given how poorly he fared in his early efforts, causing him to quit the team and pack his bags for home, we get a glimpse into just how hard he struggled and what he gambled on the way back.

You and your naysayers disparage that making all kinds of wild assertions based on guilt by association or he didn't do this or that. Chris Carmicheal is his main trainer and has never been associated with drugs that I know off. The Ferrari doc Lance dropped as soon as he was busted. Let's keep in mind that Lance had nothing to do with all the busts in the 98 tour that disgraced cycling. If anything he was competing against known drug users like Pantini and died as a drug user.

It's possible Lance used drugs, but given that he is the most tested athlete in the world, bar none, and that various insurance and tour officials had put him on their hit list and couldn't come up with squat to DQ him, well, Lance likes Crow, so you should enjoy your crow too!
This is a reply to this message


Message 64 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 7, 2005

Armstrong was back training and riding by January 1997. Not competing but he was back on a bike 3 months after his diagnosis.

You claimed 'he was 120lb bald guy who no one would take a chance on.'

A lie.

Look at the facts. Cofidis dropped him because they believed him to be negotiating with another team and then 6 days later he signed with USP.

As for drugs - your knowledge of history seems a little weak again. You seem to have forgetton that Carmichael has been sued for doping riders. Armstrong's attempted intimidation of a witness in a criminal trial (Simeoni) and 7 positive drug tests.





This is a reply to this message


Message 65 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 7, 2005

Do you think that Beloki was welcomed back on the same contract that he was one when he was so close to winning the TDF? Of course not. Do you not think that Beloki or Pantani were some how unmotivated to prove the doubters (and Chiappucci) wrong? Of course they were. To me it is a total nonsense to say 'oh Armstrong was more motivated because of what happened to him.' As if he is the only cyclist who has ever been told by a team that he was going to have to take a pay cut because he'd been injured for a whole year.
Quoted message from naspa



You still don't seem to get it naspa. Perhaps you never will, but you seem hung up on wondering why some people are defending Armstrong, when other riders have gone through difficult times, too. That doesn't even make sense as an argument. If no one is bashing Beloki or Pantani, then there's no need to defend them. What happened with them has no real bearing on the Armstrong discussion.

If I believe that Cofidis was not particularly interesting in re-signing Armstrong during his recovery, that doesn't mean that I think all other riders who've been ill or injured were treated better. And it doesn't look like cyclingfan was implying that either; just expressing an opinion that Armstrong's situation at the time was a bit more grave than the "ordinary injured rider."
This is a reply to this message


Message 66 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 7, 2005

Look at the facts. Cofidis dropped him because they believed him to be negotiating with another team and then 6 days later he signed with USP.
Quoted message from naspa





Or if not the facts, at least that made a nicer story for them to tell than "We cut the sick guy to the ditch."
This is a reply to this message


Message 67 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 7, 2005

A lengthy article, but an interesting one - if the Andreus and Lemond have been subpoeaned then it doesn't look good for Armstrong

outside.away.com/out...
This is a reply to this message


Message 68 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 7, 2005

I would be interested to know how many people on here were cycling fans at the time of the 1998 TDF? I was very young when i started following cycling (I blame the family.......) and I absolutly adored the sport.

For the 1998 TDF we happened to be in France for at least the start of it, and definitely when Festina got kicked out I know i was in France. But for me this was a turning point; I'd always known that there was drugs use in cycling (Watching Eurosport every year and listening to DD eulogise Tom Simpson every year clued me in somewhat) but the extent of the drug use horrified me. Like I said, i was young and naive, but this tour somewhat ruined my impression of cycling.

The Armstrong came along and he was almost like a saviour for me: his story was amazing, and he someone who hadn't been in the 1998 TDF so, in my eyes, had not been tainted by it. Unfortunatly, i had been tainted by it, and as Armstrong kept winning year after year i started to question him and how clean he was. It was almost natural I guess: after having the whole cycling world blown apart a few year previously, it was obvious that I would be a little suspicious of someone who was now completely blowing the field away.

I'm not sure about others obviously, but for me, the 1998 TDF has left me suspicious of many riders, but for Armstrong to be so dominant has left me doubly suspicious.

Hence why i tend to sit on the fence, i want to believe that Armstrong is clean, i really do, but my optimism has to be somewhat negated by the fact that after the 1998 TDF it really did seem that the whole cycling world was on drugs....
This is a reply to this message


Message 69 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 7, 2005

I was at the hotel in Cholet where the Festina and Saeco teams were staying when the news came through that they'd arrested Bruno Roussell (the Festina DS) - it was mayhem...

I was living in France at the time and followed the whole Festina Affair through Equipe and the local papers. I was at the Tour in 1998 and again in 99 to see Armstrong feted as the 'saviour' of the Tour. I've been following the sport seriously since the mid 80s when C4 had their half hour coverage, but I'd always been interested after we saw a stage of the TdF when on holiday (I was 3 so can legitimately say I saw Eddy Merckx!) and so must confess to being a cynic where doping is concerned - it's part of the job, isn't it?

I just find the whole Armstrong fairy story just that - a pretty little myth that kept the sponsors on side and the race running


This is a reply to this message


Message 70 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 7, 2005

Cheers Bianchigirl - think you kinda backed up my view. It's been a difficult ride for us cycling fans i feel.

I don't wish to belittle any Armstrong defenders on the board, i'm simply explaining why i remain on the fence, and why I struggle to have faith that he hasn't taken any drugs.

Mind you, after making an attempt at riding the Alpe D'Houz a few years back (didn't make it i might add) i don't begrudge 'em their drugs
This is a reply to this message


Message 71 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 7, 2005

============Mind you, after making an attempt at riding the Alpe D'Houz a few years back (didn't make it i might add) i don't begrudge 'em their drugs===================

** Will they now accuse Sheryl Crow who rode up L'Alpe D'Huez a couple of years back in about double the time it takes Lance? She said so in an interview.
This is a reply to this message


Message 72 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 7, 2005

lol - how long does it take Lance? i think the people i know who did it, did it in about an hour 20 mins i think.....
This is a reply to this message


Message 73 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 8, 2005

Do you think that Beloki was welcomed back on the same contract that he was one when he was so close to winning the TDF? Of course not. Do you not think that Beloki or Pantani were some how unmotivated to prove the doubters (and Chiappucci) wrong? Of course they were. To me it is a total nonsense to say 'oh Armstrong was more motivated because of what happened to him.' As if he is the only cyclist who has ever been told by a team that he was going to have to take a pay cut because he'd been injured for a whole year.
You still don't seem to get it naspa. Perhaps you never will, but you seem hung up on wondering why some people are defending Armstrong, when other riders have gone through difficult times, too. That doesn't even make sense as an argument. If no one is bashing Beloki or Pantani, then there's no need to defend them. What happened with them has no real bearing on the Armstrong discussion.

If I believe that Cofidis was not particularly interesting in re-signing Armstrong during his recovery, that doesn't mean that I think all other riders who've been ill or injured were treated better. And it doesn't look like cyclingfan was implying that either; just expressing an opinion that Armstrong's situation at the time was a bit more grave than the "ordinary injured rider."
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





Nick. My point is this. The Armstrong myth makers have Armstrong down as a 120lb bald guy who hadnt ridden in two years and who the nasty old French wouldnt sign.

The point is this is not true. It doesnt really matter whether or not Armstrong was negotiating with USP whilst under contract with Cofidis or if Cofidis gave him the shaft. The truth is he was not a 120lb bald guy to whom no team would give a chance.

He was a rider coming back from a serious injury and about whom his team had concerns the same as they do about any rider. Armstrong is no more or less special than any other rider in that respect.

Armstrong hagiographers use the myth of the rider spurned as an explanation as to why a mediocre rider who used to loose 25+ minutes in mountain stages and 6+ minutes in TTs suddenly (after a winter with Carmichael and Ferrari) became the best TTer and Climber in the world. (Two skills in which he had shown minimal skills prior to). The argument put forward is that because Armstrong was so highly motivated after being given the (fictional) shaft by Cofidis that he was able channel the climbing ability of Pantani and the TTing of Indurain and to win the TDF. An argument that would work if the TDF were a Danielle Steele novel but not otherwise.

This is a reply to this message


Message 74 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 8, 2005

I would be interested to know how many people on here were cycling fans at the time of the 1998 TDF? I was very young when i started following cycling (I blame the family.......) and I absolutly adored the sport.

For the 1998 TDF we happened to be in France for at least the start of it, and definitely when Festina got kicked out I know i was in France. But for me this was a turning point; I'd always known that there was drugs use in cycling (Watching Eurosport every year and listening to DD eulogise Tom Simpson every year clued me in somewhat) but the extent of the drug use horrified me. Like I said, i was young and naive, but this tour somewhat ruined my impression of cycling.

The Armstrong came along and he was almost like a saviour for me: his story was amazing, and he someone who hadn't been in the 1998 TDF so, in my eyes, had not been tainted by it. Unfortunatly, i had been tainted by it, and as Armstrong kept winning year after year i started to question him and how clean he was. It was almost natural I guess: after having the whole cycling world blown apart a few year previously, it was obvious that I would be a little suspicious of someone who was now completely blowing the field away.

I'm not sure about others obviously, but for me, the 1998 TDF has left me suspicious of many riders, but for Armstrong to be so dominant has left me doubly suspicious.

Hence why i tend to sit on the fence, i want to believe that Armstrong is clean, i really do, but my optimism has to be somewhat negated by the fact that after the 1998 TDF it really did seem that the whole cycling world was on drugs....
Quoted message from Dinky_Jo





I started watching in the early 1990's - around the time of Boardman. I stopped following it after the Festina affair for a while. I watched the 1999 tour and realised that nothing had changed.
This is a reply to this message


Message 75 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 8, 2005

1hour 49 minutes 10 years or so ago, 49hrs 1 min now would be closer though......


lol - how long does it take Lance? i think the people i know who did it, did it in about an hour 20 mins i think.....
Quoted message from Dinky_Jo



This is a reply to this message


Message 76 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 8, 2005


Me I mean not Armstrong Obviously. 2004 TT time was 39:41


1hour 49 minutes 10 years or so ago, 49hrs 1 min now would be closer though......


lol - how long does it take Lance? i think the people i know who did it, did it in about an hour 20 mins i think.....
Quoted message from slapshot_3



This is a reply to this message


Message 77 - posted by Ev_the_Dog (U2310403) , Dec 8, 2005


my point is that Armstrong is not the first rider (or athlete) to have comeback from serious injury or cancer.



Yes. And let us all not forget Greg Lemond; who was by far in a worst state and nearer to death than LA ever was. Greg still has shotgun pellets in his body, which (according to some) affected his performance in later years. Greg had a very hard time returning to competition, finally winning his second tour and the world championship with the small budget ADR team.


Quoted message from naspa



This is a reply to this message


Message 78 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 8, 2005

=========Armstrong hagiographers use the myth of the rider spurned as an explanation as to why a mediocre rider who used to loose 25+ minutes in mountain stages and 6+ minutes in TTs suddenly (after a winter with Carmichael and Ferrari) became the best TTer and Climber in the world. (Two skills in which he had shown minimal skills prior to). The argument put forward is that because Armstrong was so highly motivated after being given the (fictional) shaft by Cofidis that he was able channel the climbing ability of Pantani and the TTing of Indurain and to win the TDF. An argument that would work if the TDF were a Danielle Steele novel but not otherwise.===========

**Johnny come latelies use mythologies as a substitute for reality. The reality is that his racing weight dropped from 175-180 to 160. He lost much of his upperbody muscle after the cancer and chose not to rebuild it since he found it easier not to have to haul an extra bike and a half on his back up the mountains as he started using his racing experience. This ain't rocket science, just elementary physics and anyone who can follow a basic timeline can figure this out.

BTW, you failed to tell us how many judgements Carmichael had go against him.
This is a reply to this message


Message 79 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 8, 2005

No judgements - but only because he (or possibly Armstrong) settled out of court with Kaiter and Strock
This is a reply to this message


Message 80 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

The truth is he was not a 120lb bald guy to whom no team would give a chance.
Quoted from this message





You seem hung up on this point, naspa. Since you seem to be all-knowing, what was his minimum weight during the depths of his illness and treatment. I don't know myself, so I can't argue whether this claim is truth or not. (Surely you're not arguing that he didn't go bald.)
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 61 - 80 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 81 - 100 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 81 - posted by donncc (U2385565) , Dec 8, 2005

you've come out with a lot of anti armstrong rubbish before, but 7 positive drug tests!
its a quite a fantasy world you live in
Armstrong was back training and riding by January 1997. Not competing but he was back on a bike 3 months after his diagnosis.

You claimed 'he was 120lb bald guy who no one would take a chance on.'

A lie.

Look at the facts. Cofidis dropped him because they believed him to be negotiating with another team and then 6 days later he signed with USP.

As for drugs - your knowledge of history seems a little weak again. You seem to have forgetton that Carmichael has been sued for doping riders. Armstrong's attempted intimidation of a witness in a criminal trial (Simeoni) and 7 positive drug tests.





Quoted message from



This is a reply to this message


Message 82 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 8, 2005

Donncc, how do you explain then - credibly - the presence of EPO in Armstrong's samples from the 99 Tour (and please no 'they spiked the samples!' even though I could use a good laugh)?
This is a reply to this message


Message 83 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

Donncc, how do you explain then - credibly - the presence of EPO in Armstrong's samples from the 99 Tour (and please no 'they spiked the samples!' even though I could use a good laugh)?
Quoted message from BianchiGirl





It certainly makes Lance look suspicious, I admit, but L'Equipe is not all that high on my credibility list either. They also broke the news earlier this year that tennis player Mariano Puerta had tested positive for a banned substance and wrecked the guy in the press. Turned out they had the wrong name.
This is a reply to this message


Message 84 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 8, 2005

Donncc, how do you explain then - credibly - the presence of EPO in Armstrong's samples from the 99 Tour (and please no 'they spiked the samples!' even though I could use a good laugh)?
Quoted message from BianchiGirl




==========================

**Good, then no doubt you laughed about an experimental and unproven test coupled with legal and ethical violations of the company in addition to not having a complete sample.

If that's the best you can condemn Armstrong for, well, you're no better than a 400 lb couch potato complaining about the star quarterback's performance in a dominant season.
This is a reply to this message


Message 85 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 8, 2005

oh good grief, LRR, stop spouting straight Disco PR and think for yourself for a minute, based on the facts.

An unproven and experimental test? Hardly - in fact a test that had been developed in the 90s and which was being refined through the testing of old samples. The fact is that the tests were being conducted to *make the test better* - this wasn't some kind of Frankenstein's lab business. But, sure, it suits the Armstrong case better to categorise any testing as 'bad science'. The testing, the reason for the testing and the credibility of the lab are simply not in doubt - and all a matter of public record if you bother to read the unspun version.

As for the 'armchair quaterback' jibe - aren't we on an English board talking about cycling? At least make a jibe about an armchair DS for god's sake - but that wouldn't be sufficiently amerocentric, would it?
This is a reply to this message


Message 86 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

The testing, the reason for the testing and the credibility of the lab are simply not in doubt</qutoe>

Well. I don't think it's objective to say that. Doesn't sound like either of you are taking a very objective stance on it.
Quoted from this message



This is a reply to this message


Message 87 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

As it was supposed to look . . . . .


The testing, the reason for the testing and the credibility of the lab are simply not in doubt
Quoted from this message





Well. I don't think it's objective to say that. Doesn't sound like either of you are taking a very objective stance on it.
This is a reply to this message


Message 88 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 8, 2005

Objectivity is a very difficult think to have Nick. You could essily argue that everything is subjective to an extent, after all, everything people write on here is filtered through their own belief system (history, culture etc etc) and in terms of cycling it will depend on how long you've been a fan, what nationality you are, how much faith you have in science, how well you cope with Armstrong's personality, who you are a fan of (look at me, and Ullrich fan!!!) etc etc.

Yes, some people show their subjectivities more, but i think most people have some sort of bias to most issues, especially, in terms of cycling, the Armstrong one.
This is a reply to this message


Message 89 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

True, Dinky_Jo. I just thought it was funny that they had such opposite and extreme views; one feeling there was zero credibility in the story and the other zero doubt.
This is a reply to this message


Message 90 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 8, 2005

I think that';s kinda how it is with the Armstrong stuff though. it's kinda like marmite, you either love it or you don't (I won't use the word hate - it's not a nice word)

But objectivity is something you're unlikely to find on these message boards i believe
This is a reply to this message


Message 91 - posted by morstar (U2411712) , Dec 8, 2005


Me I mean not Armstrong Obviously. 2004 TT time was 39:41


Quoted message from





Does anyone have the record books to hand as I believe Gert Jan Thuenisse set a record for the ascent in the late 80's/ early 90's at 46 minutes or so! (I may be wrong about the time but he definitely set a record on a timed training ride)

As this was later discredited as drug induced it shows advances in modern training techniques really are awesome.
This is a reply to this message


Message 92 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 8, 2005

I thought Pantani beat that actually?? anyone know. Nick, are you as good at cycling stats as tennis ones?
This is a reply to this message


Message 93 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

I thought Pantani beat that actually?? anyone know. Nick, are you as good at cycling stats as tennis ones?
Quoted message from Dinky_Jo



I doubt it. They actually cover tennis a bit here in the US. I have to dig for information about cycling.
This is a reply to this message


Message 94 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 8, 2005

lmao. I bet Very Happy
This is a reply to this message


Message 95 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 8, 2005

ooops......I bet Bet someone like pantani is incredibly difficult to find out about
This is a reply to this message


Message 96 - posted by morstar (U2411712) , Dec 8, 2005

I thought Pantani beat that actually?? anyone know. Nick, are you as good at cycling stats as tennis ones?
Quoted message from Dinky_Jo





Yes, I'm pretty certain Pantani did beat it and as the fianl climb of a stage rather than in isolation. I'm just amazed at what I (subject to being corrected) believe to be the time differences.
This is a reply to this message


Message 97 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

Here you go. From Wikipedia:

The 2004 Tour de France route featured an individual time trial up Alpe d'Huez, which became a chaotic scene crowded with nearly a million fans, some of whom could not resist pushing their favorite rider toward the top. Lance Armstrong won the stage, but his time was one second slower than the record set by the late, great Marco Pantani of 37 minutes, 35 seconds.

This is a reply to this message


Message 98 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 8, 2005

Wikipedia, a fount of all knowledge
This is a reply to this message


Message 99 - posted by morstar (U2411712) , Dec 8, 2005

Here you go. From Wikipedia:

The 2004 Tour de France route featured an individual time trial up Alpe d'Huez, which became a chaotic scene crowded with nearly a million fans, some of whom could not resist pushing their favorite rider toward the top. Lance Armstrong won the stage, but his time was one second slower than the record set by the late, great Marco Pantani of 37 minutes, 35 seconds.

Quoted message from Nick Havoc





I'm impressed.

What about G J Ts' time?

Oh and the lottery numbers this coming Saturday!
This is a reply to this message


Message 100 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 8, 2005

I'm impressed.

What about G J Ts' time?

Oh and the lottery numbers this coming Saturday!
Quoted message from morstar



I'm on it. I hope I can find those lottery number . . . . .
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 81 - 100 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 101 - 120 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 101 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 8, 2005

I'm not always sure, if pro-cycling is worst than most other sports.

By the way, here in the US, probably the premier cycling store (LBS as they say) for having a racing team in this metropolis had one of their star riders busted. I do add in, that it may have been that at the time, he was not racing for them and moved out to one of the more active "scenes" for the sport. But it may be either way. It still hits close to home. The guy was starting to burn up the roads too, with his performances.
This is a reply to this message


Message 102 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 9, 2005

oh good grief, LRR, stop spouting straight Disco PR and think for yourself for a minute, based on the facts.

An unproven and experimental test? Hardly - in fact a test that had been developed in the 90s and which was being refined through the testing of old samples. The fact is that the tests were being conducted to *make the test better* - this wasn't some kind of Frankenstein's lab business. But, sure, it suits the Armstrong case better to categorise any testing as 'bad science'. The testing, the reason for the testing and the credibility of the lab are simply not in doubt - and all a matter of public record if you bother to read the unspun version.

As for the 'armchair quaterback' jibe - aren't we on an English board talking about cycling? At least make a jibe about an armchair DS for god's sake - but that wouldn't be sufficiently amerocentric, would it?
Quoted message from





Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EPO test was introduced in 2000 or 2001. I remember all sorts of hoo-hah at the 2001 World Athletics Champs, when a Russian woman (Olga Yegorova) was allowed to compete after supposedly failing an EPO test.

At your suggestion, I've done some thinking, based on the facts.

The Armstrong / L'Equipe EPO test relates to a sample taken in 1999. At the time, it was impossible to test the sample for EPO, so we cannot say whether it contained EPO, or more accurately, we cannot say what the outcome of the current test would have been if applied to the sample in 1999.

Since the EPO test was introduced, LA does not appear to have slowed down very much. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that if (and should LA's lawyers be reading this, this is a very big, hypothetical "if") he was taking EPO in 1999 he was taking something with a similar impact during subsequent years.

If this was EPO then it is obvious that the current EPO test does not work. LA has been tested so often that it is inconceivable that EPO use would not have been detected at least once during the 5 or 6 years of the EPO test's existence.

Given this, it is difficult to attach any credibility to the outcome of an experimental test for EPO on frozen samples. This test was experimental in that it is focused on old, frozen samples. The current EPO test can only be applied to "live" / "real-time" samples.

Thus, LA might have been on EPO all along. Or, he might have been totally EPO-free all along. Either way, the story in L'Equipe is incredible (in the true sense of the word).

Now, suppose that LA was on EPO in 1999 (again, the usual disclaimers apply), the current EPO test does work and he hasn't been on EPO since. Given the maintenance of performance levels by LA, he must have been taking something else since.

Do you have any suggestions as to what this might be?

This is a reply to this message


Message 103 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Dec 9, 2005

Vonparkinson. I think that is a really great question.

From my understanding and from anecdotal evidence from riders and athletes from a number of sports this is an issue that needs to be investigated.

If an athlete trains at a particular level reaching a standard which he can maintain normally and then takes a performance enhancer, there is a school of thought that once they come off the performance enhancer, they return to original levels. (the crash a la body builders). It is correct this happens to bodybuilders on the gear because they take hundreds of time the normal amount in order to sustain their mass. Their own body's can never sustain that when they come off, hence the crash. Athletes tend to microdose to 1)avoid the crash 2)Not increase anything too much until they know how it effects performance. Charlie Francis, Ben Johnson's coach talks at length about this in track and field. I would imagine it is the same in cycling.

Most elite athletes who have trained at a level and reached a standard for a long time have plateaued. If they then take ergogenic substances, caffiene, creatine etc legal or illegal, they break the plateau and start to improve again. The body system as a whole improves and as long as they dont overdo the dosing and they dont over use it for too long, the body as a whole will adapt and they will, once off the performance enhancer have a higher level than the original level but lower than the level reached in the prime of the performance enhancer.

So with EPO, the athlete has a greater O2 carrying capacity meaning they can train harder for longer with more intensity so their heart, lungs, legs etc get stronger due to the harder more intense training. When off the EPO, they dont have the same 02 carrying capacity but they still have the stronger heart, lungs and legs and they then have to go through the painful process of getting the body to naturally produce to the levels to match the stronger heart, lungs and legs. That I guess, is the really painful bit.

So to go back to your question, I think it is quite conceivable that he microdosed in '99 as there was no test for EPO then. Then in 2000 once the test came in, having already broken the plateau in 99, he then needed to get back to the same level. He used altitude tents, altitude training and he may well have used some molecularly altered version which would evade detection.

I personally dont think the drugs at that stage are the issue. Drugs are great for breaking the plateau and taking the performance up a level. The performance can be held and even slightly improved upon naturally over time but that is where the excruciatingly hard work comes in.

It always makes me smile when I hear him say in Road to Paris which follows him leading up to the 2001 Tour, 'The hardest thing is just getting back to the levels and riding the speeds that I rode in the 99 Tour...If I can do that...then I know I will be competitive.'

I bet it was.
This is a reply to this message


Message 104 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 9, 2005


It always makes me smile when I hear him say in Road to Paris which follows him leading up to the 2001 Tour, 'The hardest thing is just getting back to the levels and riding the speeds that I rode in the 99 Tour...If I can do that...then I know I will be competitive.'

I bet it was.
Quoted message from bikemonkey





This can be interpreted two ways, as you imply from your knowing wink!

Hard because it's always hard re-achieving a former level of fitness after time off.

Hard because there were factors in 1999 that weren't present in 2001.

My guess is that the BBC message board will have rusted away in cyber space long before we're any closer to having definitive proof on this matter!
This is a reply to this message


Message 105 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Dec 9, 2005

Absolute Von. Agree completely. We will never know.

I dont think it is quite a double entendre, (that would be too Shakespeare and he wants Disney) but I like the idea that he would like us to think the first as that is what the whole Nike, 'I work harder than anybody else'showcase is about but it is amusing that at that time, when he didnt know there was going to be speculation about his '99 Tour, he gave a sound bit that in hindsight can leave the entirely opposite impression to the one intended.
This is a reply to this message


Message 106 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 9, 2005

========Most elite athletes who have trained at a level and reached a standard for a long time have plateaued. If they then take ergogenic substances, caffiene, creatine etc legal or illegal, they break the plateau and start to improve again. The body system as a whole improves and as long as they dont overdo the dosing and they dont over use it for too long, the body as a whole will adapt and they will, once off the performance enhancer have a higher level than the original level but lower than the level reached in the prime of the performance enhancer. ===============================

Caffeine or Creatine ain't gonna do squat for a help a tour rider. Creatine is found in ample amounts in any balanced diet and any boost one gets from taking extra dosages of creatine is 99.8 % psychological. Caffeine is a very temporary stimulant that might help you in a 100 yrd sprint, but mainly helps wake you up in the AM.

Andro is another myth although in theory it's effective in recovering from training. It and creatine are excreted almost immediately in the urine which might encourage dehydration in a tour rider. The main reason Andro is banned is because it metabolizes to a similar compound to
an anabolic steroid and is used to mask the use of steroid use, sorta like mucking up clear waters in a urine test.

It's possible that Lance was on something. It would be much more probable that his competiton was on something since they were not tested nearly as rigorously as Lance was.

Bottomline: Lance dominated his era no matter how you slice it. Read it and weep, but don't short out your computer.
This is a reply to this message


Message 107 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Dec 9, 2005

LRR, I'm sorry but I think you are entirely wrong about your view on Creatine and caffeine but that is my opinion and you are welcome to yours. From my and others experience,Creatine is not psychlogical but if you want to beg to differ that is cool. It wont change my opinion 1 iota.

It will help a Tour rider because the wattages at that level on extended climbs or TT's are high enough to deplete significantly their ATP stores 450watts+ for 20mins+ at HR 178+. You are depleting ATP anyway you look at it and creatine helps in ATP resynthesis. Caffiene as a stimulant and that will help as a stimulant.

These are only examples of ergogenics and they are not the best. The point I was making was that training with these and others when done properly can improve performance and the new performance level over time can be held naturally but takes a lot of hard work.

The ample amounts in diet thing. Ample for who? Ample for a non elite athlete who has 72 hours for his body to naturally re build stores. But on a Tour or any elite athlete training 6 times a week with half of those sessions being high intensity, your diet wont provide it hence why you supplement. Same with testosterone, GH etc.

If you are training with ample rest, yes the body will get what it needs from good food and sleep and time. But you progress more slowly. If you are ragging it day in day out like a Tour or you are training at an elite level then you dont have the time to let the body do its thing so they shorten the recovery with these methods. Then they can hit it hard again every other day or on two consecutive days rather than twice a week. Whichever way you look at it, a 3 week Tour with little rest or training for that Tour rest is compromised so there is reason to supplement.
This is a reply to this message


Message 108 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 9, 2005

=====LRR, I'm sorry but I think you are entirely wrong about your view on Creatine and caffeine but that is my opinion and you are welcome to yours. From my and others experience,Creatine is not psychlogical but if you want to beg to differ that is cool. It wont change my opinion 1 iota.===========

** My conclusions are the conclusions of the Mayo Clinic which ran some tests on Andro and creatine. A young fella where I used to work was a weightlifter and used that stuff and made himself sick and had to go to the emergency ward.

Maybe there are some majic dosages known to elite trainers that might give 0.003% edge to an elite rider which might improve his rank incrementally. Caffeine is just a stimulant that increases BP and Heartrate. Guess what? That's what any exercise or competition does!

I dunno, I'm not an elite rider in a fevered competition, but the mental aspect is the single most important factor next to base conditioning in the success of any athlete. Thus there are all kinds of things done to boost an athlete's mental strength whether it be slapping him silly before the comp or training with rocks in a backpack or yoga, praying, or anything that clicks all the little gears in place.
This is a reply to this message


Message 109 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Dec 9, 2005

LRR, your anecdotal evidence tells you it doesnt work and you have found a clinic that can back up that finding and that is cool. Mine tells me it does and there are numerous studies to prove that too. It comes down to taster choice I guess. I dont think there is any magic dose. I always like to remember that an elite athlete is one who responds above the norm to a stimulus ie training and they can continue to repond when mere mortals plateau. Hence why they are elite. The edge they get over you and I is immense, the edge between themselves in small, hence why they do a number of things and hope for a cumulative effect.

Your caffiene idea is still in my opinion wrong. Stimulants do increase HR, cause vasodilation and increase blood pressure amongst other things as does exercice but to think that means that they dont have an ergogenic effect on exercice is erroneous. Certainly, athletes testimonials say otherwise so try it for yourself and see if you get an effect. Maybe, do a session that is rockingly hard with water one week, then next week do it on redbull. See if you notice a differnce.

Mental strength is key when you are racing a guy of similar ability and there is not much separating you. But mental strength isn't worth diddly if you're riding against a guy at 380w when his maximal aerobic power is 600w and yours is 400w. He's gonna drop you like a bad habit.

Hence why the guys in the elite catagory are all training as hard as they can and taking whatever improves performance so that it doesnt have to come down to that mental point.

Ive said it a number of times but...Ulle wasnt mentally weak for losing to Armstrong, he was just beaten by a fitter athlete each and every time.
This is a reply to this message


Message 110 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 9, 2005

=====

..... anything that clicks all the little gears in place.
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





Deraillieur..... only joking

I've read the Mayo Stuff too and agree with what you say. I'm always sceptical about these things unless I can prove the results for myself. Any research will always produce different results depending on what you are looking for specifically.

Other than that we'll never prove if LA was on anything or not. No positives in lines with testing protocols mean he is officially clean, other than that well we can all hypothesise


This is a reply to this message


Message 111 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 13, 2005

Something to chew on for the Lance fans:

"LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) -- Tim Montgomery was suspended for two years for doping Tuesday, and the 100-meter world record he once held was wiped from the books.

Another U.S. sprinter implicated in the BALCO scandal, two-time Olympic relay medalist Chryste Gaines, also received a two-year ban from the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Neither runner tested positive for drugs. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency sought the bans based on evidence gathered in the criminal investigation of Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative ."...

They will get him as well.


This is a reply to this message


Message 112 - posted by morstar (U2411712) , Dec 13, 2005

It is indeed something to chew on.

I am someone who has a lot of respect for what he achieved on the bike whilst tempering that with the limitations he placed on his own career and the knowledge he is probably quite unlikeable as a person ( an accusation you could level at many driven, elite achievers ).

I half expect him to get his comeuppance but I also hope he doesn't. I would like to believe he is clean but unfortunately can't implicitly trust any of them. (apart from the brave few who speak out). Lance has some dodgy associations and in the same way Riis was one of the loudest protesters about police investigations I believe Lance has used his position in the Peloton to give a hard time to some who have spoken out against drug use. They seem like strange actions in my mind for innocent bystanders.

If he is caught out then due to the legacy in our sport his achievements are not totally discredited because we are well aware the use of synthetic performance enhancement is rife. Many/most??? of the guys on his tail were using the same enhancements but the defining difference was he was still the best in his era!

Thats the sad thing in all of this. Once everybody is using them the defining difference is ability and training and all the 'aids' are doing is wrecking peoples long term health.
This is a reply to this message


Message 113 - posted by donncc (U2385565) , Dec 13, 2005

speculation. we can all do that, but it's not honourable.
i doubt his achievmenets will ever be tarnished.we'll see. i took his triumphs in the tour for what they were. conspiracy theories don't really interest me
This is a reply to this message


Message 114 - posted by donncc (U2385565) , Dec 13, 2005

unrelated, different sports and no evidence. pretty cowardly and u aint got a leg to stand on!
Something to chew on for the Lance fans:

"LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) -- Tim Montgomery was suspended for two years for doping Tuesday, and the 100-meter world record he once held was wiped from the books.

Another U.S. sprinter implicated in the BALCO scandal, two-time Olympic relay medalist Chryste Gaines, also received a two-year ban from the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Neither runner tested positive for drugs. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency sought the bans based on evidence gathered in the criminal investigation of Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative ."...

They will get him as well.


Quoted message from Tenez



This is a reply to this message


Message 115 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 13, 2005

speculation. we can all do that, but it's not honourable.
i doubt his achievmenets will ever be tarnished.we'll see. i took his triumphs in the tour for what they were. conspiracy theories don't really interest me
Quoted message from donncc





If I felt Lance was clean, I would be the first to salute him as a champion. However there are too many hints to point he is a cheat. More than hints actually, a scientific lab proved he was.

Now, do you have an objective view on the matter? or will you consider anything against him as part of a higher conspiracy? You are simply what we call a fan....so I guess there is no point arguing.
This is a reply to this message


Message 116 - posted by donncc (U2385565) , Dec 13, 2005

i admire what he did in the tour de france , who could not? but im looking forward to 2006 tour just as much as used to in the LA era.
insult is not argument. i strongly disagree with the points you made thats all.
the equipe "tests " dont mean anything
This is a reply to this message


Message 117 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 13, 2005

However there are too many hints to point he is a cheat. More than hints actually, a scientific lab proved he was.
Quoted message from Tenez





Well, maybe, if you believe everything you read in the newspaper. A couple snippets from a BBC article on the matter are below:

**And Verbruggen told Le Figaro: "It's not wise to condemn someone who hasn't tested positive in a legal sense."

**A UCI spokesman singled out World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound for making "public statements about the likely guilt of an athlete on the basis of a newspaper article and without all the facts being known."

I'm not convinced that he is clean, but my burden of proof that he used EPO is a little higher than yours and Mr. Pound's.
This is a reply to this message


Message 118 - posted by morstar (U2411712) , Dec 13, 2005

speculation. we can all do that, but it's not honourable.
i doubt his achievmenets will ever be tarnished.we'll see. i took his triumphs in the tour for what they were. conspiracy theories don't really interest me
Quoted message from donncc





Cynical view yes. conspiracy theory? I would strongly argue otherwise.
This is a reply to this message


Message 119 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 14, 2005

This article surely has been posted before; but is so topical, germain to the conversation maybe it should be revisited.

www.velonews.com/new...

I was unawares of some content:

"In his autobiography, "It's Not About the Bike," he said he was administered EPO during his chemotherapy treatment to battle cancer.

"It was the only thing that kept me alive," he wrote. "



This is a reply to this message


Message 120 - posted by mynamesnat (U1667766) , Dec 14, 2005

how does him admitting that he was given epo during chemo prove that he was taking it to enhance his performance?




This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 101 - 120 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 121 - 140 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 121 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 14, 2005

speculation. we can all do that, but it's not honourable.
i doubt his achievmenets will ever be tarnished.we'll see. i took his triumphs in the tour for what they were. conspiracy theories don't really interest me


If I felt Lance was clean, I would be the first to salute him as a champion. However there are too many hints to point he is a cheat. More than hints actually, a scientific lab proved he was.

Now, do you have an objective view on the matter? or will you consider anything against him as part of a higher conspiracy? You are simply what we call a fan....so I guess there is no point arguing.
Quoted message from Tenez





I believe i posted a message earlier in this thread about objectivity (in a reply to Nick Havoc) It is incredibly difficult to be objective about most topics. Even myself, who is firmly on the fence about Armstrong, cannot make objective decisions because everything i read is filtered through my own belief system, and my own views on cycling.

I posted something about the shock of the 1998 tour, and this has affected my ability to view the Armstrong case objectively. Therefore, those people who like Armstrong, perhaps those who have read his books, those people who take strength from what he survived, are going to find it difficult to be thoroughly objective.

Similarly, those people who dislike Armstrong's character, who don't like his attitude to cycling ie. only focusing on the TDF, who are fans of other cyclists, and who simply don't believe that he wasn't taking something, are also going to find it difficult to be objective.

Objectivity is a difficult skill to have, especially on a subject which is actually relatively emotive. So i think we may have to come to terms with the fact that some people on this board will hear nothing against Armstrong, and some will see nothing good in him.
This is a reply to this message


Message 122 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 14, 2005

======= ==O bjectivity is a difficult skill to have, especially on a subject which is actually relatively emotive. So i think we may have to come to terms with the fact that some people on this board will hear nothing against Armstrong, and some will see nothing good in him.============

** No need to be objective to know that Lance is the most drug tested athlete in the world by a long shot. No need to be objective to know that high powered private investigators have been paid handsomely to dig dirt on him for 7 yrs now and have only been able to come up with a thimble or two of sand.

No need to be objective to know that IF there IS something smelly in Rotterdam, then the only conclusion is that every result in cycling over the past 45 yrs should be invalidated by logical default. Pray tell us how many drug tests Merckx or Lemond ever passed. All of Indurain's victories came in the wake of the most massive drug scandal in cycling's history and one of the biggest cheating scandals ever seen in any sport.

All I have is one small handfull of rocks, but I see a mighty big glass house that some smug, superior than Lance types hide in and I'm just laughin' over how easy this is gonna be!
This is a reply to this message


Message 123 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 14, 2005

Sorry, can you just tell me which drug scandal you are referring to? i was a little young when Indurain first started winning, and don't remember much talk of a drug scandal before he started to win....although there's vague recollections of a few cyclists being caught out in the late 80s?
This is a reply to this message


Message 124 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 14, 2005

I was not a big fan of Sampras but he has a great - if not greatest - record in tennis history. I respect this. This would perfectly apply for Lance if he were a true champion. I have nothing personal against him but his sport performance is very suspicious. Not his record, but all the parameters that surround him.

The USA has become the East Germany of the 80s. There is no surprise that most world records in swimming, athletism and cycling are now held by the USA.

Chambers for instance, knew that if he wanted to reach another level, he had to go to the States. I don't think the tracks are flatter or more bouncy there, but they have an excellent diet which makes good athletes into champions. No wonder that an American surrounded by so many doctors wins 7 TDF in a row.

Now you might choose to ignore this, its fine, but I think we should be entitled to have seriuous doubts without being labbeled a Lance hater or a conspirator.
This is a reply to this message


Message 125 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 14, 2005

======= ==O bjectivity is a difficult skill to have, especially on a subject which is actually relatively emotive. So i think we may have to come to terms with the fact that some people on this board will hear nothing against Armstrong, and some will see nothing good in him.============

** No need to be objective to know that Lance is the most drug tested athlete in the world by a long shot. No need to be objective to know that high powered private investigators have been paid handsomely to dig dirt on him for 7 yrs now and have only been able to come up with a thimble or two of sand.

No need to be objective to know that IF there IS something smelly in Rotterdam, then the only conclusion is that every result in cycling over the past 45 yrs should be invalidated by logical default. Pray tell us how many drug tests Merckx or Lemond ever passed. All of Indurain's victories came in the wake of the most massive drug scandal in cycling's history and one of the biggest cheating scandals ever seen in any sport.

All I have is one small handfull of rocks, but I see a mighty big glass house that some smug, superior than Lance types hide in and I'm just laughin' over how easy this is gonna be!
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.
This is a reply to this message


Message 126 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 14, 2005

I realise it's not cycling, but Dwain Chambers has admitted he took THG for 18 months before he was caught.
This is a reply to this message


Message 127 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 14, 2005

The only rider who has won the TdF after the biggest doping scandal to rock the sport (and who has won it in increasingly faster times than doped athletes) is, um, Lance Armstrong...

Come on LRR, you really, really have to either have better rocks or a better aim...
This is a reply to this message


Message 128 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 14, 2005

Cheers Bianchigirl - thought i must have missed something big that happened before i got in to cycling.

Mind you, he has a point, Indurain's victories were at a time when EPO was in existence, yet there was no test for it.......

LRR does seem to think that we're all naive about the amount of drug-taking in cycling. Sadly most of us are not.......
This is a reply to this message


Message 129 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 14, 2005


And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.
Quoted message from Tenez




==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!
This is a reply to this message


Message 130 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 14, 2005


And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.

==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!



This is a reply to this message


Message 131 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 14, 2005

how does him admitting that he was given epo during chemo prove that he was taking it to enhance his performance?
Quoted message from





It doesn't, I'm glad he survived and I support him to an extent. I was researching this story and found this. I read his book too and did not remember him saying that.
This is a reply to this message


Message 132 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 14, 2005


No need to be objective to know that IF there IS something smelly in Rotterdam, then the only conclusion is that every result in cycling over the past 45 yrs should be invalidated by logical default. Pray tell us how many drug tests Merckx or Lemond ever passed. All of Indurain's victories came in the wake of the most massive drug scandal in cycling's history and one of the biggest cheating scandals ever seen in any sport.


Quoted from this message





Can you please tell me which drug scandal you are referring to? I#'d be honestly interested to find out more about it?
This is a reply to this message


Message 133 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 14, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 134 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 14, 2005

@^%#^$

Sorry; the infamous "Festina Affair" must be what the reference is to but you're not speaking to me.

I want to check out the athletics board about this Tim Montgomery affair, however, another parallel now is that they may have used a doctor Ben Johnson used as well.

"Montgomery and Jones endured an earlier controversy in 2003 when they were widely criticised after hiring the coach who had guided a drug-assisted Ben Johnson to the Olympic gold in 1988, and who had subsequently made it clear that he felt doping was the only realistic means of attaining success - Charlie Francis." - sport.independent.co...

Reminds one about the orange juice EPO statement;
This is a reply to this message


Message 135 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 14, 2005

But Klinsi, the festina affair was after all of Indurain's victories? Unless that's what he was referring to and i'm just confused, which is also possible
This is a reply to this message


Message 136 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Dec 14, 2005

summary of armstrong topic:

did so. did not. did so. did not. did so. did not. did so. did not. did so. did not. did so. did not.

i am looking forward to the time when the bike racers race. it would be wonderful to see a new face excite the board for better or worse...
This is a reply to this message


Message 137 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 14, 2005

Objectivity - The state or quality of being objective.

I think this topic is the zenith of objectivity, everybody objects to everyone elses posts!!!

I am a fan of Lance Armstrong so find the accusations difficult to take at times because there is no definitive proof of wrong doing. I am also a scientist therefore unless I have positive categoric proof of something I have to be sceptical.

I always come back to this, Lance Armstrong has never tested positive in terms of the testing protocols demanded by UCI, WADA, the IOC and the LAW. Every bit of evidence against him is circumstancial. We cannot take the L'Equipe tests at face value simply because they were not conducted within scope of the Testing Protocols of WADA and the UCI.

Come on folks let's be rational; the I love him school will always say he is innocent the I hate him brigade will always say he's guilty.

Because of time, evolution and technical progress we'll never know whether Eddy Merckx was sky high on Amphetamines or Indurain was megadosing on the new EPO in the 80s and early 90s, we'll never know, so lets get over it.

Who was it said you cannot win the tour on bread water and choclate


This is a reply to this message


Message 138 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 14, 2005


We cannot take the L'Equipe tests at face value simply because they were not conducted within scope of the Testing Protocols of WADA and the UCI.


Quoted message from slapshot_3





Maybe I should have explained further. The test which the french rag has used to pillory Armstrong since the Tour were tests carried out in furtherance of the scientific background to EPO testing. They were not part of a drug test protocol, a post race test, and out of competition address or anything else.

A new breath test machine comes out that can retrospectivley test back ten days. on the original test then you were innocent but in the test of the new one an air sample you gave gives a positive reading.......

Because drug testing is so emotive for all concerned within a particular sport the world body for that sport has to be correct in all it's procedures, it has to be strong and have a definite set of values both scientific and moral. You cannot implicate an individual on a retrospective drugs test without telling them that their sample might be tested in 7, 10 20 or 50 years time.
This is a reply to this message


Message 139 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 14, 2005

But retrospective testing is exactly what WADA and the UCI are advocating - I believe Boardman gave samples after his hour records to be used in just such a way, as have athletes like Paula Radcliffe.

And as for the oft repeated assertion that Equipe is some kind of tabloid rag - please, please, please actually read a copy or several before making such ridiculous assertions. I appreciate your a huge fan of Armstrong but does that preclude you from forming your own opinions based on first hand evidence rather than parroting someone else's assertions?


This is a reply to this message


Message 140 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 15, 2005


And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.

==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!


???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!



Quoted message from Tenez





Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 121 - 140 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 141 - 160 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 141 - posted by donncc (U2385565) , Dec 15, 2005

indeed equipe analysing samples retospectively.kind of their own judge and jury and not exactly impartial. just cant be taken seriously!
But retrospective testing is exactly what WADA and the UCI are advocating - I believe Boardman gave samples after his hour records to be used in just such a way, as have athletes like Paula Radcliffe.

And as for the oft repeated assertion that Equipe is some kind of tabloid rag - please, please, please actually read a copy or several before making such ridiculous assertions. I appreciate your a huge fan of Armstrong but does that preclude you from forming your own opinions based on first hand evidence rather than parroting someone else's assertions?


Quoted message from BianchiGirl



This is a reply to this message


Message 142 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 15, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 143 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 15, 2005


And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.


==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!


???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!





Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.
Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





The analogy is not in who is/was faster but in your inability, like Hitler, to question the credibilty or performance of his/your racer. It is called Fanatism.

(I only mentioned Hitler because you did btw).
This is a reply to this message


Message 144 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 15, 2005

indeed equipe analysing samples retospectively.kind of their own judge and jury and not exactly impartial. just cant be taken seriously!
But retrospective testing is exactly what WADA and the UCI are advocating - I believe Boardman gave samples after his hour records to be used in just such a way, as have athletes like Paula Radcliffe.

And as for the oft repeated assertion that Equipe is some kind of tabloid rag - please, please, please actually read a copy or several before making such ridiculous assertions. I appreciate your a huge fan of Armstrong but does that preclude you from forming your own opinions based on first hand evidence rather than parroting someone else's assertions?


Quoted message from donncc





If you had read l'equipe, you would know that they did not order the back testing let alone done the testing themselves!!!!!!

They asked for results which were prompted by the Anti-doping agency. Any free paper who cares about sport should be entitled to know, right?
This is a reply to this message


Message 145 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 15, 2005


==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!

And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.










???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!





Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.


The analogy is not in who is/was faster but in your inability, like Hitler, to question the credibilty or performance of his/your racer. It is called Fanatism.

(I only mentioned Hitler because you did btw).
Quoted message from Tenez





I didn't raise Hitler's name first. It was someone else (not you).

I still don't think your analogy holds...

Jesse Owens proved unambiguously that he was faster that than Hitler's favourites. Hitler's theory of racial superiority was proved unambiguously and incontrovertibly wrong.

My theory is that Lance Armstrong is "clean" and won the TDF as often as he did because he was better than the opposition due to genetics, training, focus and teamwork.

I have considered the alternative theory, i.e. that he won because he was doped on EPO or something similar. In the absence of any evidence I have to conclude that the alternative theory is only speculative.

You have no equivalent of Jesse Owens to disprove my favoured theory, so your analogy doesn't hold.

Note that none of the above relates to any other comments that you have made; I was merely demonstrating that your analogy was invalid.


This is a reply to this message


Message 146 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 15, 2005


If you had read l'equipe, you would know that they did not order the back testing let alone done the testing themselves!!!!!!

They asked for results which were prompted by the Anti-doping agency. Any free paper who cares about sport should be entitled to know, right?
Quoted message from Tenez




=================================

Hmmmm, L'Equipe is a "free" rag, eh? And "they" "care" about sport, eh? "They" also tell me GW is "compassionate" too and boy, do I have a nice little bridge in London for you to "buy!"
This is a reply to this message


Message 147 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 15, 2005



???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!




==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!

And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.

















Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.


The analogy is not in who is/was faster but in your inability, like Hitler, to question the credibilty or performance of his/your racer. It is called Fanatism.

(I only mentioned Hitler because you did btw).


I didn't raise Hitler's name first. It was someone else (not you).

I still don't think your analogy holds...

Jesse Owens proved unambiguously that he was faster that than Hitler's favourites. Hitler's theory of racial superiority was proved unambiguously and incontrovertibly wrong.

My theory is that Lance Armstrong is "clean" and won the TDF as often as he did because he was better than the opposition due to genetics, training, focus and teamwork.

I have considered the alternative theory, i.e. that he won because he was doped on EPO or something similar. In the absence of any evidence I have to conclude that the alternative theory is only speculative.

You have no equivalent of Jesse Owens to disprove my favoured theory, so your analogy doesn't hold.

Note that none of the above relates to any other comments that you have made; I was merely demonstrating that your analogy was invalid.


Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





Ok. Fair point. And O.J Simpson is innocent.

Now, maybe it is pure arrogance, but I like to make my own judgement from the data I can gather.

Though I am not 100% sure Lance is a cheat nor OJ Simpson is guilty....I have kind of made up my mind about those two. Very much like the sceptical scientist poster above, I am also, in an opposite position, more than sceptical about Lance cleanliness. Science might very painfully sort this issue out but my gutfeel already already has.


This is a reply to this message


Message 148 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Dec 15, 2005

Did LA win because he was doped?

If the top contenders were clean, then yes.
If the top contenders were also doped then no.

Did his performance improve because of doping?

Tests re-done done on his 99 samples say yes.
He says no. The improvements came from hard work, slimmer physique, focus (both internal and external), technique improvements.

Whether his version is the truth or not, what else can he say?

He has corporate America, cycling as a whole and the cancer community all shouting out, 'Please Lance, say it ain't so'. If you were in his shoes, would you really say anything else now?

And if you were in his shoes back in 98, before the Tour can you be so certain that you would not have microdosed with EPO?
This is a reply to this message


Message 149 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 15, 2005



Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.


???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!




==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!

And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.

























The analogy is not in who is/was faster but in your inability, like Hitler, to question the credibilty or performance of his/your racer. It is called Fanatism.

(I only mentioned Hitler because you did btw).


I didn't raise Hitler's name first. It was someone else (not you).

I still don't think your analogy holds...

Jesse Owens proved unambiguously that he was faster that than Hitler's favourites. Hitler's theory of racial superiority was proved unambiguously and incontrovertibly wrong.

My theory is that Lance Armstrong is "clean" and won the TDF as often as he did because he was better than the opposition due to genetics, training, focus and teamwork.

I have considered the alternative theory, i.e. that he won because he was doped on EPO or something similar. In the absence of any evidence I have to conclude that the alternative theory is only speculative.

You have no equivalent of Jesse Owens to disprove my favoured theory, so your analogy doesn't hold.

Note that none of the above relates to any other comments that you have made; I was merely demonstrating that your analogy was invalid.




Ok. Fair point. And O.J Simpson is innocent.

Now, maybe it is pure arrogance, but I like to make my own judgement from the data I can gather.

Though I am not 100% sure Lance is a cheat nor OJ Simpson is guilty....I have kind of made up my mind about those two. Very much like the sceptical scientist poster above, I am also, in an opposite position, more than sceptical about Lance cleanliness. Science might very painfully sort this issue out but my gutfeel already already has.


Quoted message from Tenez





Don't know about OJ as I don't know the facts of the case. I was suprised when he got off, though...

You have obviously gone through the same process as me re Lance and come to a different conclusion. We shall just have to disagree (amicably, one hopes).
This is a reply to this message


Message 150 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 15, 2005

I am also, in an opposite position, more than sceptical about Lance cleanliness. Science might very painfully sort this issue out but my gutfeel already already has.

Quoted message from Tenez




================================

** We know Lance has tested clean. We also know that your gut has soiled this board with "nonsense and other nonesuch!"
This is a reply to this message


Message 151 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 15, 2005



The analogy is not in who is/was faster but in your inability, like Hitler, to question the credibilty or performance of his/your racer. It is called Fanatism.

(I only mentioned Hitler because you did btw).


Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.


???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!




==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!

And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.





























I didn't raise Hitler's name first. It was someone else (not you).

I still don't think your analogy holds...

Jesse Owens proved unambiguously that he was faster that than Hitler's favourites. Hitler's theory of racial superiority was proved unambiguously and incontrovertibly wrong.

My theory is that Lance Armstrong is "clean" and won the TDF as often as he did because he was better than the opposition due to genetics, training, focus and teamwork.

I have considered the alternative theory, i.e. that he won because he was doped on EPO or something similar. In the absence of any evidence I have to conclude that the alternative theory is only speculative.

You have no equivalent of Jesse Owens to disprove my favoured theory, so your analogy doesn't hold.

Note that none of the above relates to any other comments that you have made; I was merely demonstrating that your analogy was invalid.




Ok. Fair point. And O.J Simpson is innocent.

Now, maybe it is pure arrogance, but I like to make my own judgement from the data I can gather.

Though I am not 100% sure Lance is a cheat nor OJ Simpson is guilty....I have kind of made up my mind about those two. Very much like the sceptical scientist poster above, I am also, in an opposite position, more than sceptical about Lance cleanliness. Science might very painfully sort this issue out but my gutfeel already already has.




Don't know about OJ as I don't know the facts of the case. I was suprised when he got off, though...

You have obviously gone through the same process as me re Lance and come to a different conclusion. We shall just have to disagree (amicably, one hopes).
Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





Sure we can. Sorry about the Hitler comparaison, it was addressed to a weirdo on this board.
This is a reply to this message


Message 152 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 15, 2005



I didn't raise Hitler's name first. It was someone else (not you).

I still don't think your analogy holds...

Jesse Owens proved unambiguously that he was faster that than Hitler's favourites. Hitler's theory of racial superiority was proved unambiguously and incontrovertibly wrong.

My theory is that Lance Armstrong is "clean" and won the TDF as often as he did because he was better than the opposition due to genetics, training, focus and teamwork.

I have considered the alternative theory, i.e. that he won because he was doped on EPO or something similar. In the absence of any evidence I have to conclude that the alternative theory is only speculative.

You have no equivalent of Jesse Owens to disprove my favoured theory, so your analogy doesn't hold.

Note that none of the above relates to any other comments that you have made; I was merely demonstrating that your analogy was invalid.




The analogy is not in who is/was faster but in your inability, like Hitler, to question the credibilty or performance of his/your racer. It is called Fanatism.

(I only mentioned Hitler because you did btw).


Err...

Jesse Owens was faster than Hitler's favourites.

Who exactly has been faster than LA in the TDF recently?

I don't think your analogy is valid.


???? Why do i bother replying to you?

Talking about Hitler, your blindness over Armstrong reminds me the one Hitler had over his "superior" athletes....until Jesse Owen mad him leave the stadium as he could not face the facts!!!!!!




==================================

**And wasn't Hitler photographed 1000s of times, yet was never caught red handed killing a Jew or Gypsy?

OK, YOU're responsible for the Holocaust and should be marched before a firing squad for crimes against humanity. Case closed!

I just luv BoneHead Logic!

And wasn't T Montgomery tested a 1000s times either? yet...he was never caught red handed. so please find another argument.













































Ok. Fair point. And O.J Simpson is innocent.

Now, maybe it is pure arrogance, but I like to make my own judgement from the data I can gather.

Though I am not 100% sure Lance is a cheat nor OJ Simpson is guilty....I have kind of made up my mind about those two. Very much like the sceptical scientist poster above, I am also, in an opposite position, more than sceptical about Lance cleanliness. Science might very painfully sort this issue out but my gutfeel already already has.




Don't know about OJ as I don't know the facts of the case. I was suprised when he got off, though...

You have obviously gone through the same process as me re Lance and come to a different conclusion. We shall just have to disagree (amicably, one hopes).


Sure we can. Sorry about the Hitler comparaison, it was addressed to a weirdo on this board.
Quoted message from Tenez





No probs.
This is a reply to this message


Message 153 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 15, 2005

Hi Bianchigirl,
Lived in Europe (germany/france)for 6 years through the 90's and read L'Equipe on a very regular basis not daily but certainly twice or three times a week. I would say it's almost as good(!!) as Bild but certainly not as bad as the Sun. Le Monde is a better newspaper or even Le Figaro, in Germany the Berliner Zeitung was my daily read, newspapers are a great way of learning the language. As to sport reporting used to like the Telegraph for its sport but now as it seems to be all football I'll stick to web news for the info I need
This is a reply to this message


Message 154 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 15, 2005

Lance meets the kid!!

I figured, the publicity positives on the boy with testicular cancer were certainly in Lance's favour. I posted this story some would remember about 15 days ago, I believe the young boy's birthday was going to be December 4.

www.thewbalchannel.c...
This is a reply to this message


Message 155 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 15, 2005

Stories to keep up with, besides the Simeoni/Armstrong affair in Italy;

From the "Age" in Australia,

"Lance Armstrong remains No.1 on the Amy Gillett Foundation wishlist ahead of its upcoming official launch.


,,,,,,

Armstrong, who won a record seventh Tour this year before retiring, sent a video message of condolence from the race immediately after the July crash that killed Gillett and injured five of her Australian Institute of Sport teammates."

That crash in Germany, link was not working for me, but the full story is at www.theage.com.au




This is a reply to this message


Message 156 - posted by westloopkestrel (U2750451) , Dec 15, 2005

I've been a reader for a long time on this board, first time poster. I'm tired of the repetitiveness of the debate (I'm still undecided).

I've often read statements on this board that the increasing TDF times since 1999 are evidence of doping. As a recreational statistician, I've been doing some regression analysis on the TDF to tease out the effect of different variables. For example, what influence does course distance have?[by the way, all the distances for the TDF from 1991-1999 were shorter than 2000-2005, and course distances have been consistently shortening on average over the past 100 years so it's not a surprise that average speed is higher]. Or, seeing if variables such as the # of riders finishing influence the average winning speed, etc.

However, I can't find all the variables I've been looking for. Specifically, I can't find course information (altitude gain/loss, # category climbs, other), weather (# days with rain, average temp). Anyone know of a good source for this data (in english hopefully)?

Also, here's an interesting article on Lance's physiology to fuel the debate some more.
jap.physiology.org/c...

This is a reply to this message


Message 157 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 16, 2005

As a recreational statistician, I've been doing some regression analysis on the TDF to tease out the effect of different variables. For example, what influence does course distance have?[by the way, all the distances for the TDF from 1991-1999 were shorter than 2000-2005, and course distances have been consistently shortening on average over the past 100 years so it's not a surprise that average speed is higher]. Or, seeing if variables such as the # of riders finishing influence the average winning speed, etc.

However, I can't find all the variables I've been looking for. Specifically, I can't find course information (altitude gain/loss, # category climbs, other), weather (# days with rain, average temp). Anyone know of a good source for this data (in english hopefully)?

Quoted message from westloopkestrel




==============================

Godbless you, but I think you'll have to settle for cruder analysis. The TDF official website might be the best place to start, but I seriously doubt anyone has ever taken an interest in the detail that you are interested in.

All we know is that average speeds show a steady increase over time as would be expected with better equipment, training, and teamwork. Since the course itself changes constantly, it's like trying to compare an endless array of exotic fruit to one another.
This is a reply to this message


Message 158 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 16, 2005

Stories to keep up with, besides the Simeoni/Armstrong affair in Italy;

Quoted message from Raleigh Rover




=========================

** Reportedly Lance was indicted in Italy yesterday and charges will be brought against him for [paraphrased] "chasing down Simeoni in a bike race to intimidate him."

Geez, I'm thinkin' that this prosecuter, GJ, and Simeoni must be some weak sisters who might die of fright if they ever watched a bike race.

He said, she said, whatever. I'm gonna sue this prosecutor and the Italian criminal justice system for "chasing down Lance because of a bike race to intimidate him!
This is a reply to this message


Message 159 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 16, 2005

actually, it's the defamation case that Simeoni brought against Armstrong for calling him a liar over his testimony about Ferrari. Since the latter has been convicted of the charges in the case in which Simeoni was a witness, it seems that Armstrong may not have a leg to stand on. The court, of course, will decide.

The other story is an old one and the case was never brought.

Please fact check LRR - your much vaunted 'stones' are more like damp squibs daily....
This is a reply to this message


Message 160 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 16, 2005

The court, of course, will decide.
Quoted message from BianchiGirl





The cycling world has, of course, long since made up its mind - one way or the other!
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 141 - 160 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 161 - 180 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 161 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 16, 2005

actually, it's the defamation case that Simeoni brought against Armstrong for calling him a liar over his testimony about Ferrari. Since the latter has been convicted of the charges in the case in which Simeoni was a witness, it seems that Armstrong may not have a leg to stand on. The court, of course, will decide.

The other story is an old one and the case was never brought.

Please fact check LRR - your much vaunted 'stones' are more like damp squibs daily....
Quoted message from BianchiGirl




=============================

Sweetie, your logic is like lepruchans, much rumored but never seen.

The story was updated the other day with the indictment of Lance. As far as his guilt goes, the charges appear to be so frivilous that he may not even bother to appear in court, or if he does he may chose just to have his lawyer manuver to have the charges dropped or he might schedule an Italian vaction and do some personal PR work for the tabloids.

Generally many folk call other folk liar and worse all over the world and aren't indicted in the Italian court system regardless of what the truth of the matter is.
This is a reply to this message


Message 162 - posted by westloopkestrel (U2750451) , Dec 16, 2005

For example, what influence does course distance have?[by the way, all the distances for the TDF from 1991-1999 were shorter than 2000-2005, and course distances have been consistently shortening on average over the past 100 years so it's not a surprise that average speed is higher]. Or, seeing if variables such as the # of riders finishing influence the average winning speed, etc.

However, I can't find all the variables I've been looking for. Specifically, I can't find course information (altitude gain/loss, # category climbs, other), weather (# days with rain, average temp). Anyone know of a good source for this data (in english hopefully)?


==============================

Godbless you, but I think you'll have to settle for cruder analysis. The TDF official website might be the best place to start, but I seriously doubt anyone has ever taken an interest in the detail that you are interested in.

All we know is that average speeds show a steady increase over time as would be expected with better equipment, training, and teamwork. Since the course itself changes constantly, it's like trying to compare an endless array of exotic fruit to one another.
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





Oops. Rookie mistake. I meant to say that "all the distances for the TDF from 1991-1999 were LONGER than 2000-2005".

The official tdf site has the stage by stage topography, but just for the prior year. Even if I could get the archive each year of the site, it probably only goes back 10 years? Then I'd have to add it up stage by stage. I do have time on my hands, but not that kind of patience. May be a lost cause.
This is a reply to this message


Message 163 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 16, 2005

actually, it's the defamation case that Simeoni brought against Armstrong for calling him a liar over his testimony about Ferrari. Since the latter has been convicted of the charges in the case in which Simeoni was a witness, it seems that Armstrong may not have a leg to stand on. The court, of course, will decide.

The other story is an old one and the case was never brought.

Please fact check LRR - your much vaunted 'stones' are more like damp squibs daily....
Quoted message from BianchiGirl





BG - has LRR ever been factually correct on anything?
This is a reply to this message


Message 164 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 16, 2005

Did LA win because he was doped?

If the top contenders were clean, then yes.
If the top contenders were also doped then no.

Did his performance improve because of doping?

Tests re-done done on his 99 samples say yes.
He says no. The improvements came from hard work, slimmer physique, focus (both internal and external), technique improvements.

Whether his version is the truth or not, what else can he say?

He has corporate America, cycling as a whole and the cancer community all shouting out, 'Please Lance, say it ain't so'. If you were in his shoes, would you really say anything else now?

And if you were in his shoes back in 98, before the Tour can you be so certain that you would not have microdosed with EPO?
Quoted message from





Bikemonkey - I agree with you up to a point - but one has to consider that doping gives an advantage but it is not the same for all riders. So even if Armstrong, Basso and Ullrich are all doping, this does not mean that Armstrong did not win because he was doping. If Armstrong had been using Basso's drugs and vice versa then maybe the results might have been reverse. Not everyone uses the same drugs, not everyone has the same monitoring system. So drugs irrespective of whether or not everyone is using them skew the results in favour of the best doper rather than the best rider.
This is a reply to this message


Message 165 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 16, 2005

Trying to understand Lance's dilemma with Simeone; sometimes one has to defend themselves, at other times, one is taken advantage of; provoked but the refs catch the one reacting. Slanderous assaults or interestingly Victoria Beckham accusing one of stalking, sensitive issues are out there, one must behave honourably!
This is a reply to this message


Message 166 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 16, 2005

Just to clarify - this defamation case has to do with an interview where Armstrong called Simeoni a liar in print, and nothing to do with the TdF incident.

Naspa, do agree about the best doper having the advantage - consider, for example, that each rider starts with a different haematocrit baseline which they can then manipulate up to the magic 50%. So if rider a has a haematocrit of 42% naturally and rider b has a haematocrit of 46% naturally, rider a clearly has more room to manipulate and boost performance

This is a reply to this message


Message 167 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 16, 2005

Did LA win because he was doped?

If the top contenders were clean, then yes.
If the top contenders were also doped then no.

Did his performance improve because of doping?

Tests re-done done on his 99 samples say yes.
He says no. The improvements came from hard work, slimmer physique, focus (both internal and external), technique improvements.

Whether his version is the truth or not, what else can he say?

He has corporate America, cycling as a whole and the cancer community all shouting out, 'Please Lance, say it ain't so'. If you were in his shoes, would you really say anything else now?

And if you were in his shoes back in 98, before the Tour can you be so certain that you would not have microdosed with EPO?


Bikemonkey - I agree with you up to a point - but one has to consider that doping gives an advantage but it is not the same for all riders. So even if Armstrong, Basso and Ullrich are all doping, this does not mean that Armstrong did not win because he was doping. If Armstrong had been using Basso's drugs and vice versa then maybe the results might have been reverse. Not everyone uses the same drugs, not everyone has the same monitoring system. So drugs irrespective of whether or not everyone is using them skew the results in favour of the best doper rather than the best rider.
Quoted message from naspa





Indeed. Very true. This is why I am more annoyed at the system behind Lance than at Lance himself who is simply the fool they have chosen as "champion" (probably cause he was already stuffed with chemo drugs - a good cover up). Of course you need to show some talent as well, but it is mainly about who they will choose to set up a star system with whom corporations can cash in.

Lance is just this "lucky" turkey.

Can one think of a better marketing product than this blond, blue-eyed american winning in France 7 times in a row for the cycling industry?

Some on this board are so hooked on this "product" that they can't even consider its side effects.

This is a reply to this message


Message 168 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 16, 2005


Lance is just this "lucky" turkey.

Can one think of a better marketing product than this blond, blue-eyed american winning in France 7 times in a row for the cycling industry?

Some on this board are so hooked on this "product" that they can't even consider its side effects.

Quoted message from Tenez




=================================

You've been buying the product hook, line, and sinker since 1960 until Lance shows up.

If Lance is guilty of ANYTHING, it follows that the entire tour since 1960 is even MORE GUILTY since they were never tested and never had a army of private detectives and media digging dirt on them like Lance has endured.

Lance also had to deal with bigger more unruly crowds and more media while in competition than probably any sportsman in the world ever had to endure before.

Face it, 99x out of 100 you lose the argument. What few small points you score is sheer circumstantial tabloid speculation.
This is a reply to this message


Message 169 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 16, 2005

Lance also had to deal with bigger more unruly crowds and more media while in competition than probably any sportsman in the world ever had to endure before.
Quoted from this message





Wrong again. As you recall Merckx was attacked by an irate fan as have many other riders.

Could you try just once to get something factually correct. Just once. Is it too much to ask?
This is a reply to this message


Message 170 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 16, 2005

Lance also had to deal with bigger more unruly crowds and more media while in competition than probably any sportsman in the world ever had to endure before.


Wrong again. As you recall Merckx was attacked by an irate fan as have many other riders.

Could you try just once to get something factually correct. Just once. Is it too much to ask?
Quoted message from naspa




==================

AN irate fan. You mean ONE fan is all you can scare up for the great Merckx? Damn, I think Eddie could score a LOT better without you poppin' off all the time!
This is a reply to this message


Message 171 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 16, 2005

LOL. I'll ask you again.

Can you give me one example of Armstrong being physically attacked by fans whilst riding.

Easy enough question.
This is a reply to this message


Message 172 - posted by Dinky_Jo (U1687022) , Dec 17, 2005


Lance is just this "lucky" turkey.

Can one think of a better marketing product than this blond, blue-eyed american winning in France 7 times in a row for the cycling industry?

Some on this board are so hooked on this "product" that they can't even consider its side effects.


=================================

You've been buying the product hook, line, and sinker since 1960 until Lance shows up.

If Lance is guilty of ANYTHING, it follows that the entire tour since 1960 is even MORE GUILTY since they were never tested and never had a army of private detectives and media digging dirt on them like Lance has endured.

Lance also had to deal with bigger more unruly crowds and more media while in competition than probably any sportsman in the world ever had to endure before.

Face it, 99x out of 100 you lose the argument. What few small points you score is sheer circumstantial tabloid speculation.
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





I swear no one actually reads comments on these messageboards anymore. I have already said that most people on this board would agree entirely that competitors during the 60s and 70s were probably on more stuff than we could imagine. The cycling world has worked its way thru a range of drugs: cocaine, amphetamines, steroids and now EPO; none of us do not seriously question some of the earlier riders, and even people we are also fans of.

So the question has to be asked: if cycling has always been a dirty sport, and the majority of the winners have probably been on drugs, how can Lance Armstrong suddenly win by such a margin without drugs? Which i think is something that most of us have asked for a number of years, and have already chosen our side of the fence (apart from me, who, I believe i mentioned previously, happily sits on the fence!)
This is a reply to this message


Message 173 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 18, 2005


So the question has to be asked: if cycling has always been a dirty sport, and the majority of the winners have probably been on drugs, how can Lance Armstrong suddenly win by such a margin without drugs? Which i think is something that most of us have asked for a number of years, and have already chosen our side of the fence (apart from me, who, I believe i mentioned previously, happily sits on the fence!)
Quoted message from Dinky_Jo




=========================================

** Your question is too simplistic. Cycling has been cleaning itself up. Lance competes with his peers under similar conditions just like previous dominant TDF winners competed under the similar conditions of their peers.

During Lance's era, known dopers are suspended because all cyclists are tested vigorously. Moreover, most his victories were not by a large margin. I think Merckx won with larger margins if I recall correctly...........hmmmmm!

Because Lance immediately became this HUGE media sensation, well, his every virtue, every flaw is magnified to a global scale, and some have become fans, others become his niggling naysayers. So now we have this thread on this board where they interact like dogs and cats.
This is a reply to this message


Message 174 - posted by Ev_the_Dog (U2310403) , Dec 18, 2005






Lance also had to deal with bigger more unruly crowds and more media while in competition than probably any sportsman in the world ever had to endure before.
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





Also please do not forget the torrent of abuse and spitting that Roche had to put up with from the Visintini fans in the 1987 Giro, from the day he retook the jersey to the final stage. Would LA have put up with that or retired?
This is a reply to this message


Message 175 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 18, 2005

Also please do not forget the torrent of abuse and spitting that Roche had to put up with from the Visintini fans in the 1987 Giro, from the day he retook the jersey to the final stage. Would LA have put up with that or retired?
Quoted message from Ev_the_Dog




================================

Apparently you have never watched Lance on his climbs as he physically parts the clogged crowd while they spit, slap, and throw drinks on him and hurl other profane abuses at him. Sure, most of the crowd is cheering the race, but he doesn't know that with the others predominating. All are impeding his progress at his most vulnerable period which are the slower climbs.
This is a reply to this message


Message 176 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 18, 2005

Oh, poor little Lancey - and if you're watching the race, and not just one rider, you may have noticed that most other riders are impeded in some way by sheer crush of numbers and that many riders have water poured over them by fans (this is a gesture - however stupid - meant to help rather than hinder)

However LRR your response is a fascinating insight into the persecution complex that Armstrong fans seem to share.

As Zootemelk said 'I like to watch him race but I wouldn't want to have to talk to him' - quite sums it up
This is a reply to this message


Message 177 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 19, 2005


As Zootemelk said 'I like to watch him race but I wouldn't want to have to talk to him' - quite sums it up
Quoted message from BianchiGirl




=========================

** Indeed, you have gotten to the root of your pathological animosity towards Lance. Thank you for the public self-shrink job you have demonstrated for us.
This is a reply to this message


Message 178 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 19, 2005

I will ask you again.

Please give us an example of Armstrong being physically attacked the way that Eddie Merckx was. That is to say - being physically assulted to the point of sustaining injuries which prevented him from completing his ride.

This is a reply to this message


Message 179 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 19, 2005

I will ask you again.

Please give us an example of Armstrong being physically attacked the way that Eddie Merckx was. That is to say - being physically assulted to the point of sustaining injuries which prevented him from completing his ride.

Quoted message from naspa




====================

** Nah, you first. Prove that you are sane and then praytell us when Eddie stopped beating upon his wife.
This is a reply to this message


Message 180 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 19, 2005

Bait and switch won't work with me.

I will ask you again - when has Armstrong ever been physically attacked by fans to the point where he has sustained injuries that have effected his performance?

You appear to be accusing Eddie Merckx of domstic violence. Do you have any evidence to support your allegations?


This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 161 - 180 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 181 - 200 of 328

First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last

Message 181 - posted by dudeSmeggers (U1654037) , Dec 19, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 182 - posted by dudeSmeggers (U1654037) , Dec 19, 2005

Bait and switch won't work with me.

I will ask you again - when has Armstrong ever been physically attacked by fans to the point where he has sustained injuries that have effected his performance?

You appear to be accusing Eddie Merckx of domstic violence. Do you have any evidence to support your allegations?


Quoted message from naspa





Why do you "bait" by asking such a stupid question which is there for no other reason than to provoke?

Grow Up
This is a reply to this message


Message 183 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 19, 2005

1) I was not the one who claimed that Armstrong had been attacked by fans.

2) I was not the one who denied that Merckx had been injured by fans in 1975 - thus costing him his 6th TDF.

3) I was not the person who suggested that Merckx engaged in domestic violence.

I see nothing wrong in asking the poster who made these three claims to provide evidence to support their accusations.
This is a reply to this message


Message 184 - posted by dudeSmeggers (U1654037) , Dec 19, 2005

Yeh.. but no, but yeh, but no, but yeh but.....


This is a reply to this message


Message 185 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 19, 2005

So what is your point?
This is a reply to this message


Message 186 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 19, 2005

1) I was not the one who claimed that Armstrong had been attacked by fans.

2) I was not the one who denied that Merckx had been injured by fans in 1975 - thus costing him his 6th TDF.

3) I was not the person who suggested that Merckx engaged in domestic violence.

I see nothing wrong in asking the poster who made these three claims to provide evidence to support their accusations.
Quoted message from naspa





No. You were just the one who took one quote:


Lance also had to deal with bigger more unruly crowds and more media while in competition than probably any sportsman in the world ever had to endure before
Quoted from this message





And inferred the above (well Nos. 1 & 2, anyway) from it. Exactly how dows that comment "deny that Merckx had been injured by fans in 1975"? You have a bizarre tendency to start arguments with people about things that they never said. I know you've done so with me a couple times. (I'll give you the one about domestic abuse, because there was clearly a comment that suggested that one.)
This is a reply to this message


Message 187 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 19, 2005

The statement


AN irate fan. You mean ONE fan is all you can scare up for the great Merckx?
Quoted from this message





That seems to me to be a denial of the events of 1975. Although admittedly it is hard to follow what LRR is ever talking about.

The inference being that the fans that Armstrong has faced have been more unruly and violent than the ones that Merckx faced. The fact of the matter is that Merckx was attacked and injured by a fan in 1975. That too me is an example of fans being far more unruly than anything that Armstrong ever faced. Thus the initial claim about Armstrong is rendered untrue.
This is a reply to this message


Message 188 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 19, 2005

The statement


AN irate fan. You mean ONE fan is all you can scare up for the great Merckx?


That seems to me to be a denial of the events of 1975. Although admittedly it is hard to follow what LRR is ever talking about.
Quoted message from naspa





Doesn't sound like a denial to me. It sounds more like an acknowledgement of the incident. Of course, it's coupled with the suggestion that this was the ONLY time Merckx ever dealt with an unruly fan, which is unlikely. It's only the most highly documented incident, because of the severe consequences.
This is a reply to this message


Message 189 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 19, 2005

Merckx also claims that he was given poisoned Bidons and water on mountain stages by fans who wanted to stop him.

Armstrong has in fact had no hassle from anyone compared to previous generations. Other than people shouting 'Doper' at him and writing 'Armstrong = EPO' in the road.
This is a reply to this message


Message 190 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 19, 2005

It's probably also worth noting two things:

1. Armstrong has not made any comparisons about his experience vs. previous riders. He has merely made comments about what he faced. Whether you agree or disagree with those comments is likely to be driven by whether you are "for" or "against" the man

2. Suppose Armstrong had it worse, Merckx beat his wife up, Hinault got abducted by aliens and Sheryl Crowe's records are all dubbed. How much extra does this tell us about the main Armstrong issue, namely did he have unfair chemical assistance? I would say very little - at best.

Finally, my Dad's bigger than your Dad, so I must be right.
This is a reply to this message


Message 191 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 19, 2005

Finally, my Dad's bigger than your Dad, so I must be right.
Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





Nuh-uh!! My Dad could beat up your Dad any day!!
This is a reply to this message


Message 192 - posted by allisgood (U2271291) , Dec 19, 2005

apologies bringing in another thread but if you guys stopped moaning about each other and what you did or didn't hear, read, experience first hand and now have all knowing knowledge about and actually rode your bike, we would maybe have a few more champions.

everyone has opinions, deal with it and get on with.

This discussion is getting ridiculous.
This is a reply to this message


Message 193 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 20, 2005

Maybe Simeoni broke the unwritten law of not telling, I've heard that as being what the incident is about in part at least.

You would think if there were some smoking guns on this subject, that someone would tell on Lance with all of his contacts, former teammates and I remember reading some interview or story where Millar was described as being a close friend to Lance, speaking on the phone during the Christmas holidays, Lance is still getting on his indoor bicycle and training the time away.
This is a reply to this message


Message 194 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Another cycling story missed by the BBC... I see that Armstrong is still crying about a witch-hunt. It is funny that the man complains about the press abusing their position and yet he is quite happy to use his lackies in the media to defend himself.

If Armstrong is as innocent as he claims then why is he running scared of taking L'Equipe to court? Afterall, he has never normally shied away from suing people. Let's get it out into the open.

I also find it ironic that he is complaining about Leblanc ganging up on him - especially as Leblanc has bent over backwards for him defending him against doping allegations - right up until the l'Equipe story.

sport.guardian.co.uk...
This is a reply to this message


Message 195 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 21, 2005

But, in his own words, Armstrong is bigger than the TdF - yeah, right. However, now that he is retired, he does still have to find ways to position himself in the forefront for the media - otherwise what happens to all those oh so lucrative sponsorship deals etc.

Agree naspa that the decision not to sue is somewhat surprising - and this from the man who has how many lawsuits on the go and has previously issued writs like confetti at the merest suggestion that he might be doping...I fear the tide is turning for Armstrong - what with the Andreu's and Lemond subpoaened in the 'LA Confidentiel' trial there could be some very damaging revelations about to emerge
This is a reply to this message


Message 196 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 21, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 197 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

And of course there is the court case against his insurance company who witheld money from him because he won't release his medical records. One wonders what is in those records that Armstrong is so keen to hide - if he's clean he has nothing to hide.

Armstrong will always have his placemen in the media who will do his bidding and present it all as a French conspiracy (ignoring the fact that none of his biggest accusers: Walsh, lemond, Swart, O'Reilly, Simeoni, are from France).
This is a reply to this message


Message 198 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 21, 2005

And of course there is the court case against his insurance company who witheld money from him because he won't release his medical records. One wonders what is in those records that Armstrong is so keen to hide - if he's clean he has nothing to hide.
Quoted message from naspa





I don't disbelieve what you say, but I would think it highly unlikely that anything doping related would be in his medical records.

LA would presumably use all his powers to prevent anything dodgy entering his records in the first place.

A doctor would surely only update records of legitimate treatments (unless the doctor was happy to risk being struck off). By definition, if a treatment is legitimate, then it can't give rise to an official offence.

My guess would be that there are non-cycling related matters in his medical records that he doesn't want splashed all over the front page of L'Equipe.

This is all speculation on my behalf, but to infer that illegal doping treatments would be documented in LA's official medical records just does not seem logical to me.

This obviously doesn't cover unofficial records.
This is a reply to this message


Message 199 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 21, 2005

Once again l'equipe is not a tabloid paper. It is not the Sun. Have you read it just once?

However L'equipe, for the sake of all sports, are on a crusade against the doping problems that have bugged professional sports since vast amounts of money were at stake.

Don't expect Murdoch's empire who cashes in on large Corporations ads campaign to tell you the truth about what is going on behind the curtain.

This guy will lie and send you to war if it suits him, so praise the free press while you can.



This is a reply to this message


Message 200 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

All hail the benevolent L'Equipe!
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > | Last


Messages 181 - 200 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 201 - 220 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 201 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 21, 2005

Once again l'equipe is not a tabloid paper. It is not the Sun. Have you read it just once?

However L'equipe, for the sake of all sports, are on a crusade against the doping problems that have bugged professional sports since vast amounts of money were at stake.

Don't expect Murdoch's empire who cashes in on large Corporations ads campaign to tell you the truth about what is going on behind the curtain.

This guy will lie and send you to war if it suits him, so praise the free press while you can.



Quoted message from Tenez





L'Equipe, like all papers, is on a crusade to sell more papers.
This is a reply to this message


Message 202 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 21, 2005

Yes but you get more money by telling lovely stories about how great champions are and get double page lucrative Trek, Nike, Giant ads. If you destroy the image of champions, you also kill the golden goose that their sponsors represent.

Read this ...L'equipe were the first media to know again.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport...


This is a reply to this message


Message 203 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 21, 2005

Yes but you get more money by telling lovely stories about how great champions are and get double page lucrative Trek, Nike, Giant ads. If you destroy the image of champions, you also kill the golden goose that their sponsors represent.

Read this ...L'equipe were the first media to know again.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport...


Quoted message from Tenez





I wonder where L'Equipe get their information from?

Newspapers raise most money by selling more papers and more adverts.

Advertisers don't pay for ad-space because of the stories in the paper; they pay because of the exposure their adverts will get.

To think that L'Equipe is big on sports drug stories because they have the best interests of the world at heart is incredibly naive. L'Equipe is big in that area because they think it sells papers and have contacts / competency in the area.

That's not to say that L'Equipe's stories on the subject aren't solid journalism. The tennis player one certainly seems very solid.


This is a reply to this message


Message 204 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

And of course there is the court case against his insurance company who witheld money from him because he won't release his medical records. One wonders what is in those records that Armstrong is so keen to hide - if he's clean he has nothing to hide.


I don't disbelieve what you say, but I would think it highly unlikely that anything doping related would be in his medical records.

LA would presumably use all his powers to prevent anything dodgy entering his records in the first place.

A doctor would surely only update records of legitimate treatments (unless the doctor was happy to risk being struck off). By definition, if a treatment is legitimate, then it can't give rise to an official offence.

My guess would be that there are non-cycling related matters in his medical records that he doesn't want splashed all over the front page of L'Equipe.

This is all speculation on my behalf, but to infer that illegal doping treatments would be documented in LA's official medical records just does not seem logical to me.

This obviously doesn't cover unofficial records.
Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





So why won't he release them for his insurance company?

It is not a public release of his medical records that the company is seeking but as I understand it - the company read LA Confidential and witheld a bonus that he was due. They asked to see his medical records and Armstrong has refused - so they have refused to pay him.

But again - if he has nothing to hide then why would he object to them being held up to public scrutiny?

Unless of course those records contain information which is indicative of doping...
This is a reply to this message


Message 205 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 206 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Yes but you get more money by telling lovely stories about how great champions are and get double page lucrative Trek, Nike, Giant ads. If you destroy the image of champions, you also kill the golden goose that their sponsors represent.

Read this ...L'equipe were the first media to know again.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport...




I wonder where L'Equipe get their information from?

Newspapers raise most money by selling more papers and more adverts.

Advertisers don't pay for ad-space because of the stories in the paper; they pay because of the exposure their adverts will get.

To think that L'Equipe is big on sports drug stories because they have the best interests of the world at heart is incredibly naive. L'Equipe is big in that area because they think it sells papers and have contacts / competency in the area.

That's not to say that L'Equipe's stories on the subject aren't solid journalism. The tennis player one certainly seems very solid.


Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





And very correct as well...

Perhaps it is also a conspiracy by the French against the Argentines...
This is a reply to this message


Message 207 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 21, 2005

And of course there is the court case against his insurance company who witheld money from him because he won't release his medical records. One wonders what is in those records that Armstrong is so keen to hide - if he's clean he has nothing to hide.


I don't disbelieve what you say, but I would think it highly unlikely that anything doping related would be in his medical records.

LA would presumably use all his powers to prevent anything dodgy entering his records in the first place.

A doctor would surely only update records of legitimate treatments (unless the doctor was happy to risk being struck off). By definition, if a treatment is legitimate, then it can't give rise to an official offence.

My guess would be that there are non-cycling related matters in his medical records that he doesn't want splashed all over the front page of L'Equipe.

This is all speculation on my behalf, but to infer that illegal doping treatments would be documented in LA's official medical records just does not seem logical to me.

This obviously doesn't cover unofficial records.


So why won't he release them for his insurance company?

It is not a public release of his medical records that the company is seeking but as I understand it - the company read LA Confidential and witheld a bonus that he was due. They asked to see his medical records and Armstrong has refused - so they have refused to pay him.

But again - if he has nothing to hide then why would he object to them being held up to public scrutiny?

Unless of course those records contain information which is indicative of doping...
Quoted message from naspa





The alternative I suggested is that there are non-cycling matters in his records that he doesn't want publicising.

For example, he might have had certain embarrassing infections in his youth, he may always have been completely sterile and his kids aren't genetically his, he may not have been as ill as he makes out, thus rendering his comeback less miraculous. The potential is limitless.

I stress that this is pure hypothesis, and as such no more or less valid than your hypothesis that he has something doping related in his records.
This is a reply to this message


Message 208 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 21, 2005

Why on earth should Lance be forced to do something he is not legally obligated to do?

The Lance naysayers really don't care if Lance is guilty are not. What they are really doing is completely discrediting the past 40 yrs or so of pro cycling. Lance is just the easiest tool they have available to do that.

Why haven't these naysayers released their own private medical records to this board? How do we know they're not on steroids or other drugs, or may have a doc's prescription for pyschiatric disorders that they may not be taking? How's about releasing their full names and addresses so we can check out any criminal or civil records they may have accumulated?

C'mon, I daresay Lance has already met a much higher threshold of public disclosure by a huge margin. Surely Lance naysayers wouldn't hold Lance to a higher standard than themselves. Would they? Hmmmmm.........
This is a reply to this message


Message 209 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

I doubt that - afterall, he had admitted having had genital warts...


This is a reply to this message


Message 210 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Why on earth should Lance be forced to do something he is not legally obligated to do?

The Lance naysayers really don't care if Lance is guilty are not. What they are really doing is completely discrediting the past 40 yrs or so of pro cycling. Lance is just the easiest tool they have available to do that.

Why haven't these naysayers released their own private medical records to this board? How do we know they're not on steroids or other drugs, or may have a doc's prescription for pyschiatric disorders that they may not be taking? How's about releasing their full names and addresses so we can check out any criminal or civil records they may have accumulated?

C'mon, I daresay Lance has already met a much higher threshold of public disclosure by a huge margin. Surely Lance naysayers wouldn't hold Lance to a higher standard than themselves. Would they? Hmmmmm.........
Quoted message from LondonRingRules





Congratulations on not knowing what you are talking about.

The insurance company did not want a public release of his medical files. They wanted to examine them in the light of the allegations made in LA Confidential.

If Armstrong doesn't want to release his files then that is fine - but then he can't complain about the insurance company not giving him the money.
This is a reply to this message


Message 211 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 21, 2005

If Armstrong doesn't want to release his files then that is fine - but then he can't complain about the insurance company not giving him the money.
Quoted message from naspa





Very true.
This is a reply to this message


Message 212 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 21, 2005

Would it be safe to say that L'Equipe; while maybe not being as severe on a homegrown product such as Virenque still raked him over the coals? And perhaps something like defending the Tour de France or even French honour is somewhat what L'Equipe is doing with Armstrong in addition to selling such newspapers?

Here is an interesting page that deals in some of these topics in French! cyclisme.dopage.free...

Doppi I believe is double in Italian, one certainly sees a lot of headlines at the Gazzetta; that I always need to do a double take on.
This is a reply to this message


Message 213 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

If Armstrong doesn't want to release his files then that is fine - but then he can't complain about the insurance company not giving him the money.


Very true.
Quoted message from BoneHeadedBushLover





Why does he have no right to complain? Surely, you can't really know that, unless you've read the details of his insurance policy. If the contract contains no express or implied right of the insurance company to examine his medical records, then he shouldn't have to turn them over to get paid.
This is a reply to this message


Message 214 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Why? surely it is the job of an insurance company to make sure that it is paying out money correctly. Afterall, just as they check to make sure that you are not fiddling your no-claims bonus, or lying about a break in they also have to check that Armstrong has not cheated his way to victory - and to the money he believes owed.

If the insurance company asks to see your driving record after an accident and you refuse then you can not complain when they won't pay out on the policy.
This is a reply to this message


Message 215 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

If the insurance company asks to see your driving record after an accident and you refuse then you can not complain when they won't pay out on the policy.
Quoted message from naspa



True, because the contract I sign to obtain the insurance gives them the right to see my driving record.
This is a reply to this message


Message 216 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

The bottom line is this - the insurance company is in the right not to pay out this money if they believe that it has been achieved by fraud. They believe that examining the medical records will clarify this this. Armstrong has refused to give them the records.

If I were the holder of a policy in this company and my premium were being forced up because of a big payout to someone - I would want to make sure that the company was correct in paying out the money. Wouldn't you?
This is a reply to this message


Message 217 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

The bottom line is this - the insurance company is in the right not to pay out this money if they believe that it has been achieved by fraud. They believe that examining the medical records will clarify this this. Armstrong has refused to give them the records.

If I were the holder of a policy in this company and my premium were being forced up because of a big payout to someone - I would want to make sure that the company was correct in paying out the money. Wouldn't you?
Quoted message from naspa





I don't know. Maybe it's warranted in this case and maybe not. I hesitate to agree that an insurance company should have access to any of your personal information that they feel they need to allay their suspicions, before paying a claim.
This is a reply to this message


Message 218 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 21, 2005

That would be whatever the policy states I would suppose!?
The bottom line is this - the insurance company is in the right not to pay out this money if they believe that it has been achieved by fraud. They believe that examining the medical records will clarify this this. Armstrong has refused to give them the records.

If I were the holder of a policy in this company and my premium were being forced up because of a big payout to someone - I would want to make sure that the company was correct in paying out the money. Wouldn't you?


I don't know. Maybe it's warranted in this case and maybe not. I hesitate to agree that an insurance company should have access to any of your personal information that they feel they need to allay their suspicions, before paying a claim.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc



This is a reply to this message


Message 219 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

That would be whatever the policy states I would suppose!?
Quoted message from Raleigh Rover



That is what I expressed above in Message 213.
This is a reply to this message


Message 220 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Let me give you an example. When you sign up for a fire policy the insurance company will not necessarily check to see if you are a pyromaniac - or if your medical records indicate that you have an obsession with fire. However, if your house burns down they are likely to check to see if you are in fact a pyromaniac as a number of people claim. You may well have medical records (which the insurance company did not ask for at the time) which indicate that you like to play with fire.

This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 201 - 220 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 221 - 240 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 221 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

Let me give you an example. When you sign up for a fire policy the insurance company will not necessarily check to see if you are a pyromaniac - or if your medical records indicate that you have an obsession with fire. However, if your house burns down they are likely to check to see if you are in fact a pyromaniac as a number of people claim. You may well have medical records (which the insurance company did not ask for at the time) which indicate that you like to play with fire.

Quoted message from naspa





If an investigation by the appropriate authorities determine it to be arson, the insurance company has a right to know that. But I don't think they have a right to pour over your medical records to see if they can find a basis to deny the claim.
This is a reply to this message


Message 222 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Not really, since an investigation into whether or not it was arson might only be triggered by the revelation that you have an obsession with fires.

If Armstrong is clean then why would have be so unwilling to let the company look at his files? If nothing else it gives ammunition to those who believe that Armstrong is a doper and is hiding evidence of his drug taking.
This is a reply to this message


Message 223 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

Maybe Armstrong has something to hide in his medical file. Maybe he doesn't agree, in principle, that they have a right to see it. I don't know, but from a legal stand-point, I stand by my earlier comments. If there is something express or implied in the contract that gives them the right to review his medical file, then I they are within their rights to withhold payment. Otherwise, not.
This is a reply to this message


Message 224 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Well this is I guess the essence of the court case. Which shall no doubt prove as interesting as the other 11 he is involved in. Which brings us back to the intial point that for someone so legitous and protective of his image it is suprising that he is so unwilling to take L'Equipe to court over what are certainly the most damaging revelations.
This is a reply to this message


Message 225 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

So you admit that Lance it legit!! Woohoo
This is a reply to this message


Message 226 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

You really are reaching...
This is a reply to this message


Message 227 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 21, 2005

Let me give you an example. When you sign up for a fire policy the insurance company will not necessarily check to see if you are a pyromaniac

Quoted message from naspa




======================

** Here's an equally goofy analogy. "When you sign up for a message board, the message board company will not neccessarily check to see if you are a nutcase."

The company that Lance is suing for contract compensation is NOT an insurance company. It is more like a bonding company that specializes in sports contracts. They put up the bond guarantee that Lance would not win all those TDFs. Who knew he would when the contract was made and they agreed to post the bond that guaranteed the contract.

They forfeited their bond money to the Discovery Team who they are not suing because legally they have no case. What they are doing is desperately delaying payment to Lance in the hopes that some doping allegation will stick hard enough that they have a legal leg to stand on. My guess is that if and when they have to pay, they will have to pay much more than just what they owe Lance because his lawyers will sue for legal costs and damages on top of his contract monies due.

The fact that you always make these gigantic pratfalls of logic guarantees that you are always all over the place, not seeing the forest for all the trees, never really knowing where you are.

This is a reply to this message


Message 228 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

If they applied the nutcase rules then you would never be allowed on the internet.

Once again - the facts and yourself are strangers in the same room.


sport.guardian.co.uk...


Insurers withhold $5m Tour bonus for Armstrong

William Fotheringham
Thursday September 23, 2004
The Guardian


A Texas insurance company has asked to see Lance Armstrong's medical records before it pays the six-times Tour de France winner the $5m (2.8m) bonus which became due to him when he broke the record for victories in the bike race this July.
As a result Tailwind Sports, the parent company of Armstrong's team, and SCA Promotions Inc, based in Dallas, have become embroiled in a legal battle centred on allegations contained in the unauthorised French biography of Armstrong, LA Confidential, which was published in June. Armstrong has launched lawsuits for defamation totalling 3m against the book's publishers and authors.

The Texan has emphatically rejected allegations in the book that the circumstantial evidence gathered by the authors implies that he may have used banned drugs. Armstrong said he has never deviated from the applicable medical requirements nor detailed testing standards.

Following Armstrong's third Tour victory in 2001, Tailwind Sports paid SCA a $420,000 insurance premium, to ensure that the risk for his win bonuses in future years would be met by the insurance company. SCA's attorney John Bandy said that according to the policy the company paid Armstrong a total of $4.5m in bonuses for his first five Tour wins.

Bandy added that under the policy Armstrong was due to be paid $5m as a bonus for winning this year's event but they have refused to pay the money as yet and instead have put it into a custodial account with JP Morgan. SCA's case is they need pay the bonus only if the claim is valid. Tailwind's case is that SCA is contractually obliged to pay the 5m immediately.

"We are trying to determine the validity of the claim," said Bandy, in emphasising the company's normal practice. "Right now we are investigating allegations from the book. If we determine it [the claim] is valid we will turn over the custodial account at once."

"We have asked certain questions deriving from the book LA Confidential. We have requested some medical data." Tailwind claim that SCA is seeking information that has nothing to do with Armstrong's undisputed victories.

According to a legal claim filed recently by Tailwind, SCA have asked them to provide all Armstrong's medical data, and for his permission to examine the records and test results.

Armstrong has, however, never tested positive and has never fallen foul of any of the International Cycling Union's blood tests to detect anomalies that could point to health risks or the use of illicit practice. Tailwind said that "all this has been examined in excruciating detail by medical professionals whose duty it was to test, investigate and ensure compliance."


This is a reply to this message


Message 229 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 21, 2005

I don't buy it all necessarily that "if Lance has nothing to hide, he should let the company examine his personal medical records", maybe it would prove he's used something; but others could plausibly point out, "look, he's passed all the other tests, what more do you want."
This is a reply to this message


Message 230 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 21, 2005

Though the almighty pound, $, franc are at stake, that is some persistency as well on Armstrong's behalf, to go through seven years of this. To feel like you've got to keep your foot to the pedal for those seven years; whereas one, a handful of TdFs, etc. is enough! But risktakers are what many of these athletes are.
This is a reply to this message


Message 231 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

You really are reaching...
Quoted message from naspa



I know. I got what you were saying, but the misspelling did make me laugh.
This is a reply to this message


Message 232 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

You really are reaching...
I know. I got what you were saying, but the misspelling did make me laugh.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





Simple minds are easily amused
This is a reply to this message


Message 233 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

You really are reaching...
I know. I got what you were saying, but the misspelling did make me laugh.


Simple minds are easily amused
Quoted message from naspa



Too true.
This is a reply to this message


Message 234 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Though the almighty pound, $, franc are at stake, that is some persistency as well on Armstrong's behalf, to go through seven years of this. To feel like you've got to keep your foot to the pedal for those seven years; whereas one, a handful of TdFs, etc. is enough! But risktakers are what many of these athletes are.
Quoted message from Raleigh Rover





What exactly is your point?
This is a reply to this message


Message 235 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 21, 2005

If they applied the nutcase rules then you would never be allowed on the internet.

Once again - the facts and yourself are strangers in the same room.

sport.guardian.co.uk...

Insurers withhold $5m Tour bonus for Armstrong

William Fotheringham
Thursday September 23, 2004
The Guardian


A Texas insurance company has asked to see Lance Armstrong's medical records before it pays the six-times Tour de France winner the $5m (2.8m) bonus which became due to him when he broke the record for victories in the bike race this July.
As a result Tailwind Sports, the parent company of Armstrong's team, and SCA Promotions Inc, based in Dallas, have become embroiled in a legal battle centred on allegations contained in the unauthorised French biography of Armstrong, LA Confidential, which was published in June. Armstrong has launched lawsuits for defamation totalling 3m against the book's publishers and authors.

The Texan has emphatically rejected allegations in the book that the circumstantial evidence gathered by the authors implies that he may have used banned drugs. Armstrong said he has never deviated from the applicable medical requirements nor detailed testing standards.

Following Armstrong's third Tour victory in 2001, Tailwind Sports paid SCA a $420,000 insurance premium, to ensure that the risk for his win bonuses in future years would be met by the insurance company. SCA's attorney John Bandy said that according to the policy the company paid Armstrong a total of $4.5m in bonuses for his first five Tour wins.

Quoted message from naspa




================================
=======================================
** Here's the SCA company website description of their business. Please note how they describe their business and when they do do business with insurers, which they are obviously not. Chowderhaids tend to be in the habit of believing everything they read verbatim IF, and only IF it agrees with their preconcieved biases.

To Wit:

What We Do
SCA offers prize coverage services and creative solutions to eliminate risk in marketing programs. Have you ever wondered how companies offer the chance to win big-dollar prizes to grab consumers' attention? SCA Promotions provides prize coverage for these promotions, so when a consumer wins, we pay for the prize. Offer consumers an extraordinary prize - for example - $1 million, a brand new home, or vacations for life. SCA will cover the contest risk for a fraction of the prize amount, allowing you to rise above the marketing clutter and maintain a fixed budget.

We also cover risk in programs where skill, chance or response affects promotional costs, such as excess redemption of coupons. When response exceeds expectations, we pay the price - not you.

Specific services include:

Jumbo prize coverage for contests, games and other promotional programs, including sports contests, gaming promotions, retail contests, brand marketing programs and media promotions
Guarantees for athlete performance incentives
Over-redemption protection for coupons and premium offers
Internet and e-commerce promotions
Packaged services where we provide both the prize and materials to help you with the setup

How You Benefit
With SCA, you get a bigger, more exciting promotion that produces better results for the same or fewer dollars than you might have spent. For a fixed fee, you receive plenty of upside, including:

The ability to plan promotional expenses to the penny
Eliminating budget overruns for higher-than-expected response
Protecting against budget-busting prize payouts
A way to driving traffic, increase sales, gain publicity, and enhance goodwill
Consultation on promotion design and rules

How It Works
We'll figure the odds of a winner or the expected response, and secure the coverage for your prize or over-redemption program. SCA retains some risk while the bulk of the overall risk is placed through agreements with various commercial insurers such as Lloyd's and North American Specialty, a Swiss Re company.

Why It Works
SCA is both a pioneer and leader in the promotional risk management industry. We bring integrity, innovation, and experience to every case we service. The advantage we give clients is evident in their many success stories.

SCA was founded in 1986 by Robert D. Hamman. Bob is an eleven-time world bridge champion, and is well respected around the world for both his mastery of bridge and mathematical skill. His talents and vision not only launched an industry, but have also positioned SCA as tops in its field.

This is a reply to this message


Message 236 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

And so what?

Your post changes nothing. Once again you try to bait and switch to move the topic away from questions and issues you don't like dealing with.


Chowderhaids tend to be in the habit of believing everything they read verbatim IF, and only IF it agrees with their preconcieved biases.

Quoted from this message





Physician arise and heal thyself...
This is a reply to this message


Message 237 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

And so what?

Your post changes nothing. Once again you try to bait and switch to move the topic away from questions and issues you don't like dealing with.


Chowderhaids tend to be in the habit of believing everything they read verbatim IF, and only IF it agrees with their preconcieved biases.



Physician arise and heal thyself...
Quoted message from naspa



Oh come now, naspa. Anyone who can read can see that LRR just clarified that the group asking to see Lance's medical records was not really an insurance company, and you came back with a nide remark "Once again - the facts and yourself are strangers in the same room", quoting some article that called them a Texas insurance company.

Can't you just admit you were wrong, instead of putting up a "well, you're just changing the subject" smokescreen??
This is a reply to this message


Message 238 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 21, 2005

*snide
This is a reply to this message


Message 239 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 21, 2005

Not really.


How It Works

We'll figure the odds of a winner or the expected response, and secure the coverage for your prize or over-redemption program. SCA retains some risk while the bulk of the overall risk is placed through agreements with various commercial insurers such as Lloyd's and North American Specialty, a Swiss Re company.
Quoted from this message





I am sorry but they are an insurance company - the description was accurate. They insure competition organisers to enable them to provide prize money against them being won.

Just as a car company works out the risk of you crashing and then offers you coverage on the basis of whether or not you are likely to crash - that is what SCA does.
This is a reply to this message


Message 240 - posted by donncc (U2385565) , Dec 21, 2005

you are a total pain in the arse
Another cycling story missed by the BBC... I see that Armstrong is still crying about a witch-hunt. It is funny that the man complains about the press abusing their position and yet he is quite happy to use his lackies in the media to defend himself.

If Armstrong is as innocent as he claims then why is he running scared of taking L'Equipe to court? Afterall, he has never normally shied away from suing people. Let's get it out into the open.

I also find it ironic that he is complaining about Leblanc ganging up on him - especially as Leblanc has bent over backwards for him defending him against doping allegations - right up until the l'Equipe story.

sport.guardian.co.uk...
Quoted message from naspa



This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 221 - 240 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 241 - 260 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 241 - posted by ritchiem15 (U1828567) , Dec 22, 2005

blah blah blah blah blah Lance is guilty napsa says so it must be true, this is getting really boring and juvenile to the point of primary school kids stuff, napsa and other Lance haters will cling to anything that proves there point however misinformed, incorrect or circumstancial it is. just as Lance fans will argue there case.

if and i say if, lance is guilty of doping then i think you will find that nearly every rider in the peleton from Merckx down to the lowliest unheard of domestic is guilty of cheating at some point or other in there careers and by napsa's view that means we may as well rip up the record books as they mean nothing.

i for one am sick of hearing napsa's and others from the anti LA faction on hear as they are arrogant juvenile and sometimes plain idiotic and can only come from those who have the mentallity of the primary school play ground. this by no means put me in the LA fan club but i'm sick of reading such utter B******s.

now can people start talking about something a little more relevant to Cycling today than whether the asprin they thought they saw LA take was actually an asprin

oh yea and Merry Christmas and a Happy New year everyone, enjoy your cycling and stay safe out there on the roads
This is a reply to this message


Message 242 - posted by cherrywarrior (U2231596) , Dec 22, 2005

Lance has acheived what no other cyclist has done. He did it the way he thought best, if other cyclists had any sense and wanted it (TDF) bad enough they would do it the same way. The only real people bitching about it is the frogs which they do with regularity, probably on a par with the Aussies. They wouldnt if Lance had been french which makes it even better in my opinion and the more we remind them the more we p**s them off.
This is a reply to this message


Message 243 - posted by U1846242 (U1846242) , Dec 22, 2005


This is a reply to this message


Message 244 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Dec 22, 2005

Ritchie, you must be absolutely delighted at the quality of the postings from the Lance fan club then - factually inaccurate and now plain racist.

I've actually found some of the more informed arguments in this thread interesting and well argued and haven't been particularly aware of any playground juvenalia - *except* from posters like yourself adopting some kind of morally superior position and excoriating posters who are actually bothering to formulate their arguments - presumably because they're saying something the Armstrong supporters don't want to hear.

The very divisiveness of the 'Armstrong Affair' says something important about attitudes towards the sport in the 21st century, our perceptions of how it is and how we want it to be. We have been told the sport is making every effort to clean itself up and then 3 of the biggest names - Hamilton, Heras and Armstrong (all, coincidentally, once teammates) - who have proclaimed their cleanliness in a 'clean era', fall foul of testing procedures. Do we simply accept the apparent status quo and let the pros get on with it, do we declare the sport 'open' and allow the use of EPO etc, or do the testers continue to lag one step behind? If Armstrong becomes the catalyst for this discussion - as the self proclaimed biggest thing in the sport, bigger than the TdF - where's the problem? Surely this is a case of if you have nothing to contribute, or the discussion bore you, then stay out of the thread and start some on topics you would like to discuss? Just a suggestion...
This is a reply to this message


Message 245 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 22, 2005

BG,

Can you clarify your statement that LA has fallen foul of testing procedures, please?

LA tested positive for the steroid cream some years ago but to my knowledge has not failed any other tests.

Thanks.
This is a reply to this message


Message 246 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 22, 2005

Lance has acheived what no other cyclist has done. He did it the way he thought best, if other cyclists had any sense and wanted it (TDF) bad enough they would do it the same way. The only real people bitching about it is the frogs which they do with regularity, probably on a par with the Aussies. They wouldnt if Lance had been french which makes it even better in my opinion and the more we remind them the more we p**s them off.
Quoted message from cherrywarrior





Sorry, Excuse the frogs and their arrogance. As you belong to the superior arian race, we sincerely apologize for the trouble.

Vive le Fuhrer!




This is a reply to this message


Message 247 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 22, 2005

Lance has acheived what no other cyclist has done. He did it the way he thought best, if other cyclists had any sense and wanted it (TDF) bad enough they would do it the same way. The only real people bitching about it is the frogs which they do with regularity, probably on a par with the Aussies. They wouldnt if Lance had been french which makes it even better in my opinion and the more we remind them the more we p**s them off.


Sorry, Excuse the frogs and their arrogance. As you belong to the superior arian race, we sincerely apologize for the trouble.

Vive le Fuhrer!




Quoted message from Tenez





Lighten up - it's a huge step to make Hitler references from someone referring to the French as Frogs.

Some of my best friends are Frogs.
This is a reply to this message


Message 248 - posted by ritchiem15 (U1828567) , Dec 22, 2005

i've contributed on a few occassions to this subject on various threads and my view remains the same.

the evidence provided by a number of sources is based on hearsay or is at best circumstantial, the evidence from L'Equipe has not been verified by any official body and needs to be investigated by the proper authorities, which is apparently the case at the moment. until that investigation is complete and all the facts knowm Armstrong is innocent until proved guilty, whether you love him or hate him.

Armstrong and his army of supporters and fans haven't helped themselves by the way they have acted, but then has any other champion been pilloried so much by those against him.

when some one (official) says we now have definite proof or proof beyond reasonable doubt that he cheated then you can question his achievements.

still Merckx took PEDs and no one seems to call him a cheat
This is a reply to this message


Message 249 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 22, 2005

I have said many times, L'equipe is not making up stories, it is just telling us in advance what the labs already know.

Montgomery, Marion Jones, Puerta, Karantcha (young tennis player), Virenque (French and his case started the anti-doping crusade) and many others were uncovered afterwards.

Wait until the big sponsors and media cash in on Lance and his image fades away (2 - 3 years at best) then you will find the media going at him like vultures for further profiting.






This is a reply to this message


Message 250 - posted by VeloSaint (U1701707) , Dec 22, 2005


Wait until the big sponsors and media cash in on Lance and his image fades away (2 - 3 years at best) then you will find the media going at him like vultures for further profiting.

Quoted message from Tenez





Contradiction, if his image fades away what do the media gain by going after him? L'Equipe waited barely a month after this yrs tour before releasing their story. Now is the time to get him if they can, in a few years no one will care.
This is a reply to this message


Message 251 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 22, 2005

I have said all a long that cycling is a dirty sport - always has been and always will be. I have said that I doubt that any rider who has ever crossed the line in Paris wearing Yellow has got there by wholly legal means.

You seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to attributing my opinions to me.

I am not quite sure why you have such a problem with this thread. There are a lot of aspects of Amrstrong - both good and bad that should be discussed - and that is what this thread is for. Especially as in any other number of threads the discussion kept on being skewed towards a discussion of Armstrong. If you don't want to read the discussion of Armstrong then fine but don't whine about it.
This is a reply to this message


Message 252 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Dec 22, 2005

...then you will find the media going at him like vultures for further profiting.



Quoted message from Tenez





I thought you said that L'Equipe was doing the drugs stories as a "crusade". Are L'Equipe exempted from the accusations that you now make about the media profiteering?
This is a reply to this message


Message 253 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 22, 2005

Well they could cash in later but I am not sure this is their sole purpose as they do this for athletes no one cares of as well. So this is taking a big risk (on their reputation) with very little selling power. Who is going to buy a paper because the female French open quarter finalist took drugs?

If you are telling lies to sell papers you might as well go big...and get Federer.

Again, of those athletes they first uncovered, who happens NOT to be a cheat?

They were right every time.

It is a paper about sport only and it is only normal they care about it!

This is a reply to this message


Message 254 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 22, 2005

No It is not a contradiction. Again The Festina affair (with Virenque, the frog) happened right in th emiddle of TDF and it was a mess. It killed the atmosphere of the event, the racers and of course the enthusiasm of the public. I guess They felt they did not want to make to much trouble. They learnt a lesson.
This is a reply to this message


Message 255 - posted by VeloSaint (U1701707) , Dec 22, 2005

Er no, the contradiction Federer is in you believing that once Armstrongs image fades it will be a free for all for the media. Outside of possibly L'Equipe the media won't give a damn about Armstrong the former cyclist in a few years time. If the media want to cash in on him nows the time.
This is a reply to this message


Message 256 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 22, 2005

No as I said, selling a good story backed up by bid ads from LA sponsors makes more money at first. Especially since those sponsors invested heavily in him.

This is a reply to this message


Message 257 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 22, 2005

Thanks for the response, simply, I was saying LA has certainly been tested for such an extended amount of time; that would seem to be highly in his favour.

Too, folks, I am reading one of the other threads, people are putting a lot of effort in some of these posts, I certainly find them entertaining and they don't change my mind in regards to LA being innocent; though some are persuasive arguments in fact. That some of them are persuasive probably means that it is indeed important.

I'd rather read it here than in the letters to some cycling mag or even most cycling forums. This is a good forum for such discourse! I add that last little bit in, because I came across a letter at one of the other sites, that reads it could almost be written by a participant here.

I hope this is clearly written.


Though the almighty pound, $, franc are at stake, that is some persistency as well on Armstrong's behalf, to go through seven years of this. To feel like you've got to keep your foot to the pedal for those seven years; whereas one, a handful of TdFs, etc. is enough! But risktakers are what many of these athletes are.


What exactly is your point?
Quoted message from naspa



This is a reply to this message


Message 258 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 23, 2005

Nice bit of Xmas news...

Armstrong drug probe continues

Reuters
Friday December 23, 2005
The Guardian


Investigations into doping allegations against the seven-times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong will continue into the new year.
"It's not going to go away," said Dick Pound, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency. "We're dealing with all the spins out there right now but behind scenes there are investigations quietly proceeding."

After Armstrong's seventh Tour victory in July the French newspaper L'Equipe published a story alleging that the American had taken the banned blood booster erythropoietin (EPO) in 1999. Armstrong, 34, who retired after the race, has denied ever taking performance-enhancing drugs.

This is a reply to this message


Message 259 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 23, 2005

Quick sponsors quick.....Cash in while your can. Then as you did with Kate Moss, you will ask Lance your money back.


This is a reply to this message


Message 260 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 23, 2005

Nice bit of Xmas news...

Armstrong drug probe continues
>/quote>
===================================

** The news is more indicative of your shaky foundations. Not only have your reduced a revered religious holiday for a billion folk to a crass abbreviation, but negative news about a highly touted once in a lifetime type of sportsman is seen as good news to you. I'm sure if Lance fell off his bike and broke his leg you would no longer be able to contain yourself and would immediately announce a massive "Xmas" blowout celebration.
Quoted message from naspa



This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 241 - 260 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 261 - 280 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 261 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 23, 2005

Have no idea why this board software attributes my comments above to naspa, but everyone knows my style and should be able to seperate out our comments.
This is a reply to this message


Message 262 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 23, 2005

I would guess that along with an inability to grasp the most basic of facts, you are incapable of using the quote feature properly.


This is a reply to this message


Message 263 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Dec 23, 2005

I would guess that along with an inability to grasp the most basic of facts, you are incapable of using the quote feature properly.


Quoted message from naspa





electronic correspondence is so faceless, which is a good thing in the case of naspa. if we were all in a room with walls, i am sure by now naspa would have a flat face.
This is a reply to this message


Message 264 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 23, 2005

Not really since I would say the same things to you in person as I would via any other media. Go back over this thread and look at who started making it personal - you will find that it was not me. People shouldn't give out what they aren't willing to take.
This is a reply to this message


Message 265 - posted by Tenez (U1653885) , Dec 23, 2005

Naspa would not be alone is this virtual room.
This is a reply to this message


Message 266 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 24, 2005

Bild ( www.bild.t-online.de... ) , go to sports, it's reporting Armstrong is being "investigated" mentioning Dick Pound, head of WADA I think; from best I can tell with some basic understanding of the language.

Headline: "Gut für Jan Ullrich
Doping-Ermittlungen gegen Armstrong"

Just getting this in before the boards close.

Google does in fact, under their news, have more on this; likewise, Dick Pound, Prez. of WADA says maybe a third of NHL (National Hockey League) players use such performance enhancers. But beware and that does look like something that could be exagerrated, Canadian story is saying NHL could sue Pound ( www.cbc.ca/story/spo... ) for saying such.

This is a reply to this message


Message 267 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 28, 2005

Can't read the Bild article due to webpage exclusion this PC however know a little more about the Pound /NHL problem.

Basically, Pound went sabre-rattling to the NHL Commissioner Gary Bettmann and tarred every player with the PED brush, similar to what he said about the pro peleton and TdF riders. Don Cherry is one of the most outspoken people in hockey anywhere and he feels that Bettmann has to fight back to protect the players similar to what Lance did a couple of years back.

I think Pound must regularly pick a sport at random, accuse all it's participants of PED abuse, then sit back and wait for the fall out. It's not the most intelligent way to run what I would suggest is a major global organisation.
This is a reply to this message


Message 268 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

Pound probably under-estimated the amount of doping going on in the NHL.

The new 'tough' testing policies within American sports are frankly laughable. 2 month ban?

Don Cherry is a joke and no-one should take him seriously and his praise of Bettman shows what a joke Bettman is.

Lets look at some stats

Todd Bertuzzi - 6-3 245

Gordie Howe - 6-0 205

Cam Neely - 6-1 185

So there you have it - the current top power forward is 40lbs heavier than the greatest ever power forward and 60lbs heavier than the top power forward of 15 years ago. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the increase in bulk of players (NHL and NFL) over the last 20 years is down to 'improvements in diet and training alone'? Be serious here. The NHL has as bigger problem with doping than cycling.

Maybe you don't like Pound because he's prepared to shoot a few sacred cows.

Perhaps you'd prefer him to run his organisation more like those top quality administrators Henk Verbruggen, Sepp Blatter, or Budd Selig perhaps?
This is a reply to this message


Message 269 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 28, 2005

That's pretty poor evidence there, naspa. For a person that is 6 ft 3 in tall, 245 lbs (111 kg) is not unusually bulky. Se he's 40 lbs. heavier and 3 in. taller than Gordie Howe, and that is evidence of doping . . . . .?
This is a reply to this message


Message 270 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 28, 2005

I do believe there is likely a major issue with doping in the NHL, by the way, but not based on flimsy, anecdotal evidence like that.
This is a reply to this message


Message 271 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 28, 2005

For the edification of all readers, Dick Pound is a Canadien himself; so now he's basically talking about his own backyard.

An olympis swimmer for Canada in 1960; I don't know all of his career moves, apparently made Vice President for the IOC and is now President of WADA.
This is a reply to this message


Message 272 - posted by tigerluckyPaul (U2206602) , Dec 28, 2005

I think its about time we stopped slagging off this man and start to appreciate his achievements as an athlete.

All these French newspapers accuse Lance of taking performance enhancing drugs but he has never been caught, he was the most tested rider in the professional peloton so maybe people should put 2 and 2 together and realise this man was never a cheat. I find the French public extremely hypocritical, they love Richard Virenque who was a convicted cheat but they hate Lance who has only worked hard for his achievements.

I think we should be extremely grateful to have had Lance in our sport. He has shown hard work, commitment, determination and sacrifice are they only ingredients to success.

This is a reply to this message


Message 273 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

I do believe there is likely a major issue with doping in the NHL, by the way, but not based on flimsy, anecdotal evidence like that.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





The fundamental question is remains the same. Look at the size of NHL players from even 15 years ago and look at their size and speed now. Are you seriously trying to tell me that this is due to natural progression, better diet etc? If you have a better answer than doping then I'd like to hear it. Perhaps the reason that there is no 'evidence' is because it was only last year that they introduced testing.

Do you want to look at the Steve Moore incident as a potential example of 'roid-rage'?


This is a reply to this message


Message 274 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 28, 2005

Do you want to look at the Steve Moore incident as a potential example of 'roid-rage'?
Quoted message from naspa





No, because that has a lot more to do with the nature of the sport than anything else. It's sort of 'tradition' that if you feel like one of your team members was done wrong by another player, you give some pay-back. In this case, the pay-back resulted in a serious injury.

I'm not a big NHL fan, myself, but again, to say that a violent incident in hockey is proof of steroid use seems kind of silly.
This is a reply to this message


Message 275 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Dec 28, 2005

Yeh! oft called "Goons" guy goes to the healthclub or use to at least, was I would say an "Enforcer" to his face , part of the game and has been for as long as I know. I've never been on a personable basis with him but I've wanted to talk exactly about this stuff. I think Football-Soccer has their eforcers as well.
This is a reply to this message


Message 276 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

Do you want to look at the Steve Moore incident as a potential example of 'roid-rage'?


No, because that has a lot more to do with the nature of the sport than anything else. It's sort of 'tradition' that if you feel like one of your team members was done wrong by another player, you give some pay-back. In this case, the pay-back resulted in a serious injury.

I'm not a big NHL fan, myself, but again, to say that a violent incident in hockey is proof of steroid use seems kind of silly.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





I disagree. This was not a 'normal' meeting of two goons. It was not a gloves off fight between two 'enforcers'. Instead Bertuzzi sucker punched Moore on the back of the head.

Why did Bertuzzi attack Moore? Because of a Moore had hit Naslund late and given him concussion in a previous game. MEANWHILE the likes of Don Cherry are braying in the media about how the Canucks lack guts and advocating that they get revenge on Moore. (Further evidence of Cherry being a moron). Those self same media hacks who then called for Bertuzzi to be sent to jail. But this is a separate issue...

But back to the issue in hand - how do you explain the increase in the size and speed of NHL players over the last few years?
This is a reply to this message


Message 277 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 28, 2005

But back to the issue in hand - how do you explain the increase in the size and speed of NHL players over the last few years?
Quoted message from naspa





I don't try to, because I don't really follow the NHL that much. I was just pointing out that your argument above, based on the height and weight of three players from different periods, was flimsy. If you want to put forward an argument about the average size and speed of NHL players of the last few years, serve it up?
This is a reply to this message


Message 278 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

Are you seriously denying that there has been a huge increase in the size of athletes playing in both the NFL and NHL over the past 20 years? An abnormal increase in size?
This is a reply to this message


Message 279 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 28, 2005

Are you seriously denying that there has been a huge increase in the size of athletes playing in both the NFL and NHL over the past 20 years? An abnormal increase in size?
Quoted message from naspa





What part of "I don't try to, because I don't really follow the NHL that much." did I lose you on?
This is a reply to this message


Message 280 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

So why then are you claiming that the three players identified are unrepresentative? If you don't follow it then how can you know that they are unrepresentative?


The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, looked at the number of reported concussions in the NHL over 16 seasons, from 1986-87 to 2001-02.

During the course of the study, the average weight of an NHL player increased from 191 pounds to 200.1 pounds.
Quoted from this message





This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 261 - 280 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 281 - 300 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 281 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Dec 28, 2005

So why then are you claiming that the three players identified are unrepresentative? If you don't follow it then how can you know that they are unrepresentative?
Quoted message from naspa



So I was supposed to assume that your selections of individual players were representative of the average? How silly of me.



The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, looked at the number of reported concussions in the NHL over 16 seasons, from 1986-87 to 2001-02.

During the course of the study, the average weight of an NHL player increased from 191 pounds to 200.1 pounds.
Quoted from this message





That's interesting data. A 4 kg increase in average weight over 15 years is significant for sure. There are a number of possible factors (including drugs), however. The average height of people in general has increased over the years as well. And I'm sure you're not suggesting that steroid use is such a recent phenomenon that it was not occuring in the 80's.

This is a reply to this message


Message 282 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

Why should you assume that they are unrepresentative? I took the top three power forwards of their generations to highlight the increase in size.

You have got a 5% increase in average weight but certainly not a 5% increase in height over 15 years. Look at the NFL - within the last 20 years the average weight of linemen has gone up by 60-70lbs.

I am not saying that steroid use is new (Lyle Alzado anyone???) but what I am suggesting is that it is starting earlier (ie college) and that the drugs athletes are using are more potent - ie the difference between using speed and using EPO.
This is a reply to this message


Message 283 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Dec 28, 2005

Are you seriously denying that there has been a huge increase in the size of athletes playing in both the NFL and NHL over the past 20 years? An abnormal increase in size?
Quoted message from naspa





No, and I don't have to go to the NHL either.
Been playing Ice hockey since I was 12, when I turned senior I was the height I am now 5'9'' and played between the weights of 13st10 and 14st 7 or between 192lb and 203lb, that was 20 years ago. I now coach kids (as high as national level) aged between 14 and 16, 16 and 19 and senior teams and size changes since I last played competitive senior hockey are immense.

My 16s team (Kids born)1990/1991 average 5'9'' in height around 13st in weight. Biggest kid 14yrs old 6'4'' and 16st, No drugs, no Steroids no nothing.

Our 19 team average over 5'11'' in height, none of our senior team are less than 6'. Guy came back to play this year, lost three stone in fat quickly but has put over 2 back on with strength and aerobic training.

As to the NHL, Bertuzzi's hit on Steve Moore had more to it than just the Naslund thing, it went back after that. There are hundreds of instances in the NHL over the years of revenge hits, Roenick hit on Modano, Modano out concussed, Hatcher smashed Reonick's jaw for it, that had to wait till the next season. That's part of hockey at EVERY LEVEL there is, every association worldwide is working to stop these kind of hits.

Don Cherry is a respected man in Canada but much of what he says should be taken with a pinch of salt but he's right in this case.

My love of cycling comes from using the bike for aerobic training over the years, using it for conditioning and like everyone who tries a solid training regimen you get better, you get quicker, it's sod all to do with drugs.

We evolve as human beings, diet gets better life is better. Naspa, you make scathing accusations constantly about drugs being the reason that our sportsmen are getting bigger, faster, stronger. It's not always down to drugs, maybe it's that thing that Lance kept talking about, you know, HARD WORK, COMMITMENT, proper focused training regimen, effort. I am not saying the sport is clean but I would not accuse a whole sport's participants of relying on PEDs.


This is a reply to this message


Message 284 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , Dec 28, 2005

More likely a medicine cabinet that would make Keith Richards blush.

Maybe you ought to check out "Memoires d'Un Dur a Cuire".

Or what about the use of 'legal' stimulants like caffine and sudafed?

You can keep on burying your head in the sand.



As the state's high school governing body, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), is poised to pass new anti-steroid measures Friday, it is clear Rocklin has plenty of company. Steroid use among high school students more than doubled from 1991 to 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National surveys indicate 3% to 3.5% of high school students have used steroids. That percentage might not jump off the page. But there are nearly 700,000 California high school athletes, so sports officials estimate the number of high school steroid users in California is about 20,000.
Quoted from this message





www.usatoday.com/spo...

Taylor Hooton mean anything to you?
This is a reply to this message


Message 285 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Dec 31, 2005

Now he wants to be State governor of a Us state he has got so good at manipulating crowds of cyclists.

CNN interview 23/12/2005 Larry King live
This is a reply to this message


Message 286 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Dec 31, 2005

Now he wants to be State governor of a Us state he has got so good at manipulating crowds of cyclists.

CNN interview 23/12/2005 Larry King live
Quoted message from Sr Gar




========================
** Don't get all all goofy inside. Lance doesn't know exactly what he wants to do other than spend time with his kids and stay active in cancer research and fundraising.

Political operatives have approached him about running for Texas governor, but he has stated it would require too much travel and time away from his kids. He has no history of political involvement other than as a media darling cyclist. More likely he appears as celebrity entrant in local mountainbike comp, triathlons, ect until he figures out his next move.
This is a reply to this message


Message 287 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Jan 9, 2006

I didn't know who he was much back then, I have a video tape from 1994; I hadn't watched in years and whose on it? Lance. It's from the Tour de France, Indurain (who man, does he look skinny and almost gaunt) being in control. I say, that it is the Tour de France, Lance has the World Champion stripes on his white jersey, I am thinking, it must be a Motorola team jersey but it is not clear to see.
This is a reply to this message


Message 288 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Jan 27, 2006

Who in the world is skiing's badboy, on the cover of both Time and Newsweek I think, to say this about Lance; I don't know about Bode Miller; I was reading to, maybe he's a pro-football player; the guy who at one point, said something about skiing and being drunk together. Maybe the guy is a big bore. I don't think he has any right to say these things; but I am sure it will be a stir. I contribute to this thread like it is Lancewatch; but in this case, I wouldn't repeat what he said since it is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

sports.bostonherald....
This is a reply to this message


Message 289 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Jan 27, 2006

Finally, my Dad's bigger than your Dad, so I must be right.


Nuh-uh!! My Dad could beat up your Dad any day!!
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





Yeah and my dad is a policeman.
This is a reply to this message


Message 290 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Jan 27, 2006

Who in the world is skiing's badboy, on the cover of both Time and Newsweek I think, to say this about Lance; I don't know about Bode Miller; I was reading to, maybe he's a pro-football player; the guy who at one point, said something about skiing and being drunk together. Maybe the guy is a big bore. I don't think he has any right to say these things; but I am sure it will be a stir. I contribute to this thread like it is Lancewatch; but in this case, I wouldn't repeat what he said since it is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

sports.bostonherald....
Quoted message from Raleigh Rover





** Bode has said plenty enough that is substantiated to indicate the poor boy does seem to have a problem. I sorta like how he challenges the status quo who tend to bury their heads in the sand and wait for any problems to kick them in the rump. Bode is having fun doing just that at their expense.

However, he also sounds much like another notorius drunk, Russell Crowe, who is always getting to the swinging at maids and hotel clearks and then falling down drunk phase. Don't think the ski lodges are going to be too keen on having drunks invade their slopes more than they already have to deal with.
This is a reply to this message


Message 291 - posted by Ev_the_Dog (U2310403) , Feb 10, 2006

Lance Armstrong debates here please! Let's stop his infiltration on other non-related discussions!
This is a reply to this message


Message 292 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Feb 25, 2006

Associated Press reported:

"LOS ANGELES (Feb. 25) - Sheryl Crow says she is recovering from breast cancer surgery and doctors have assured her she should make a full recovery.

Lance Armstrong, said in a statement Friday night that he was "devastated" by her illness.

"Once again I'm reminded of just how pervasive this illness is, as it has now touched someone I love deeply,"

Here is link to a similar report: today.reuters.com/ne...
This is a reply to this message


Message 293 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Feb 25, 2006

The good news is that Crow says her prognosis is excellent and that you finally got a report correct.
This is a reply to this message


Message 294 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Feb 25, 2006

If that makes you feel good to say, do it.
The good news is that Crow says her prognosis is excellent and that you finally got a report correct.
Quoted message from LondonRingRules



This is a reply to this message


Message 295 - posted by Raleigh Rover (U2392870) , Mar 10, 2006

One of the cover stories of Bild at this time, check out the sports pagte if it does not check out; story in English here;

msnbc.msn.com/id/117...

In situations like this, Armstrong said, all you can do is say, Hey buddy, Im here if you want to go hang out, if you want to play games, whatever you want to do, Im here.

(end of excerpt)

Lance wearing his white hat.


This is a reply to this message


Message 296 - posted by englandflanker (U3471153) , Mar 13, 2006

I don't claim to have read this thread in it entirity, but i was wondering what people thought of Lance Armstrong compared to Raymond Poulidor. Just playing devils advocat(i've not made up my mind yet!), can Poulidor really be better if he's never won the TdF!?
This is a reply to this message


Message 297 - posted by mowcopmick (U1960430) , Mar 14, 2006

As I remember it at the time, when at the top of his game, Poulidor spent a lot of his career riding in the shadows of the great Eddy Merckx; but then so did the rest at that time - de Vlaeminck, Ocana, Polentier etc. I think Poulidor was generally recognised as the best of the rest. If you were around at the time, it was clear Merckx really was in another league through most of his career and we have seen nothing like him since. So yes I think Poulidor can be compared to Armstrong too.

Although Armstrong has won the TDF 7 times he is not riding in a class above in my view.
This is a reply to this message


Message 298 - posted by MAILLOT JAUNE (U1932045) , Mar 14, 2006

Maybe I've missed the point here but I would liken Poulidor to Ullrich rather than Armstrong as he was always the "eternal second" in the eras of Anquetil and Merckx. Although the French seemed to prefer Poulidor to Anquetil when they were adversaries. I don't know what the feeling of the fans between Poulidor and Merckx as I don't really consider them to be adversaries as much as when racing against Anquetil. As mowcopmick says there were several others also in the running then. But it seemed back in the Anquetil and Poulidor days that these were the only guys racing. I think the same will be thought in the future about Armstrong and Ullrich, but as we know at this moment there are many other worthy riders as well.


This is a reply to this message


Message 299 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Mar 14, 2006

I would second the comparison between Armstrong and Anquetil, and between Ullrich and Poulidor. If i am not mistaken, Anquetil always marked Poulidor as Armstrong always marked Ullrich. In the end, both Poulidor and Ullrich ended up with a void of ones on their resumes.
This is a reply to this message


Message 300 - posted by englandflanker (U3471153) , Mar 14, 2006

ok, but having read a little about opinions of both Armstrong and Poulidor as well as the facts, then who do you think is most worthy of respect both as a competititor but also in general? For instance before reading, my instict would have been that LA is better bcos he won the TdF 7times and i hadn't even heard of Poulidor, but now im unsure it was amazing that Armstrong came back from cancer,tho he did perhaps over focus on the TdF more than you have hoped and he wasnt/isnt quite as much of a "people's man" as Poulidor. And yeh, I know its a bit odd cos they are obv of different cycling eras, but humour me!
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 281 - 300 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 301 - 320 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 301 - posted by part_time_cyclist (U3151157) , Mar 14, 2006

A contructive look at "The Greatest" Cyclist is needed here.

No CONTEST...EDDY MERCKX EVERYTIME.

The Media hype that followed Lance fron his first TDF win shows the truth.
Lance followers were saying he was the Greatest after his 3rd win.

Bernard Hinault said Merckx would have won 10 TDF if he had only concentrated on the TDF.

Eddy Merckx the first man to win the TDF, the Giro & World in one year.

In a normal year Eddy would have won a stack of Classic races before he started the TDF.

Conveniently forgotten in this question is another cyclist, Fausto Coppi,Gimondi,(5 times Giro Winner)Alfredo Binda, Big Mig and Hinault.

I'd place Coppi,Anquetil,Hinault ahead of Lance.

I hope in future years Lance has the historical respect of the Cycling comunity.

To Eddy Merckx the TDF & cycling was above him.
Not the same with Lance which is a pity.






This is a reply to this message


Message 302 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Mar 14, 2006

Well the Tennis world ALL say that Federer is the All time great; all the old master have come up to say it; every one of them. NOBODY disputes for a moment that Federer is the greatest; ALL of them say it and humble me... I can see it too.... so can I see ALL TIME GREATEST written across the brow of Armstrong?

NO WAY! GAMESMANSHIP NOT SPORTING.

When all the greats say the same about a man then I am glad to respect their judgement and powers, and humility before the greatest, and I might add the humility of the greatest of the great himself.
This is a reply to this message


Message 303 - posted by bikemonkey (U1793972) , Mar 15, 2006

A contructive look at "The Greatest" Cyclist is needed here.

Bernard Hinault said Merckx would have won 10 TDF if he had only concentrated on the TDF.


Quoted message from part_time_cyclist





I guess we will have to wait for 3 more years to see if the same can be said of Armstrong. Certainly, last year as he crossed the line, there were few who would have bet against him winning an 8th if he chose not to retire.

Who wins and how they win this year will either fuel the LA fans notion of his 'Greatest ever title' or provide them with ammunition for the 'smartest ever' title because he cashed out at the right time. Either way, they they'll see it as a positive.
This is a reply to this message


Message 304 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Mar 15, 2006

I don't think the number of time s a man/woman wins is the most relevant factor. Quite a few sportspeople are aware of the importance of audience/ spectators and bow out when they are tops.
Don't quote me but I often think it is so.

I am glad you agree about Federer. He may not win at
Wimbledon any more;

However many times Armstrong wins will not convince me. What do the retired greats say about Armstrong?
Not that much I bet!

Merckx.
This is a reply to this message


Message 305 - posted by VeloSaint (U1701707) , Mar 15, 2006

The retired greats from what I've read have been glowing in their praise of Armstrong. Merckx has called him the greatest cyclist ever. One things for sure I can't see any other rider in the current peleton (or ever??) causing as much debate as Armstrong has.
This is a reply to this message


Message 306 - posted by LondonRingRules (U2628221) , Mar 15, 2006

The retired greats from what I've read have been glowing in their praise of Armstrong. Merckx has called him the greatest cyclist ever. One things for sure I can't see any other rider in the current peleton (or ever??) causing as much debate as Armstrong has.
Quoted message from VeloSaint





** Merckx and Lance became friends long before Lance became great. Trust me, both are thankful to be remembered and could care less about petty fan spats over who's number one.
This is a reply to this message


Message 307 - posted by George809 (U2883985) , Mar 15, 2006

As great a rider as Lance is I fail to see how he can be considered the best ever cyclist. Best Tour de France rider sure, but he never won the Giro or the Vuelta so can he even be considered the best Grand Tour rider ?

As for the Federer analogy - Federer wins on all surfaces and currently has a tournament winning record comparable to that of all the greats. Tennis players who specialise on one surface would never he considered the greatest if they only ever played on surface.
This is a reply to this message


Message 308 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Mar 15, 2006

If Merckx says it .... that is one. Who else? He may just have been polite.. and modest.
The retired greats from what I've read have been glowing in their praise of Armstrong. Merckx has called him the greatest cyclist ever. One things for sure I can't see any other rider in the current peleton (or ever??) causing as much debate as Armstrong has.
Quoted message from VeloSaint



This is a reply to this message


Message 309 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Mar 15, 2006

Well the Tennis world ALL say that Federer is the All time great; all the old master have come up to say it; every one of them. NOBODY disputes for a moment that Federer is the greatest; ALL of them say it
Quoted message from Sr Gar





Not quite. A few say some and many say that he may become the "greatest-ever", but most would reserve that judgement until later in his career. There is considerable debate in the "Tennis world" with names like Sampras, Connors, Borg, Laver and others often mentioned.
This is a reply to this message


Message 310 - posted by VeloSaint (U1701707) , Mar 15, 2006

If Merckx says it .... that is one. Who else? He may just have been polite.. and modest.
The retired greats from what I've read have been glowing in their praise of Armstrong. Merckx has called him the greatest cyclist ever. One things for sure I can't see any other rider in the current peleton (or ever??) causing as much debate as Armstrong has.
Quoted message from Sr Gar





If I was really interested in the pro-Armstrong argument I'd go and dig out any number of cycling mags form the last few years to find quotes from numerous 'legends' that praise Armstrong to the hilt as the greatest rider of his generation and one of the greatest ever. As it is I'm not fussed and I'll let you do that bit of research if you think I'm wrong.
This is a reply to this message


Message 311 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Mar 15, 2006

As great a rider as Lance is I fail to see how he can be considered the best ever cyclist. Best Tour de France rider sure, but he never won the Giro or the Vuelta so can he even be considered the best Grand Tour rider ?

As for the Federer analogy - Federer wins on all surfaces and currently has a tournament winning record comparable to that of all the greats. Tennis players who specialise on one surface would never he considered the greatest if they only ever played on surface.
Quoted message from George809





I should introduce you to a couple tennis board posters who have argued passionately that the number of "Grand Slam" tournament wins is THE one and only measure of who is greatest. Therefore, Sampras is the greatest ever, until someone breaks his record. And it doesn't matter whether they are all the same tournament / surface or not.

Not that I agree with that view, but the point is, there really is no clear cut criteria for who is the greatest ever. It's a matter of opinion, and different people have different opinions. If I personally had to rate the greatest ever road cyclists, Merckx would be tops, but Armstrong would be up there pretty high.
This is a reply to this message


Message 312 - posted by jackov (U3351755) , Mar 15, 2006

I'm certain I've heard Lance Armstrong praise Merckx as the greatest. Lance said that since Merckx "won everything" in contrast to Lance's concentrating only on the TdF he felt Merckx was clearly the greatest. Furthermore, Lance did NOT indicate he thought he was as high as second place all time, since many of the riders on the most TdF wins list also had a broader accomplishments. I'm big Lance fan, but even with my limited knowledge of cycling I can perceive there is more to cyclng than just the TdF. I think Lance believes he's the greatest of his time.
This is a reply to this message


Message 313 - posted by VeloSaint (U1701707) , Mar 15, 2006


Not that I agree with that view, but the point is, there really is no clear cut criteria for who is the greatest ever. It's a matter of opinion, and different people have different opinions. If I personally had to rate the greatest ever road cyclists, Merckx would be tops, but Armstrong would be up there pretty high.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc





Agree.
This is a reply to this message


Message 314 - posted by George809 (U2883985) , Mar 15, 2006

I'm no tennis expert but I'm pretty sure Sampras won every Grand Slam barring the French and won both the US and Australian more than once.
This is a reply to this message


Message 315 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Mar 15, 2006

I'm sorry Havoc there is none in the tennis world.
They have ALL said that he is the greatest. Laver certainly does!

It looks like wait and see for Armstrong. some champs I like and some I don't.
Well the Tennis world ALL say that Federer is the All time great; all the old master have come up to say it; every one of them. NOBODY disputes for a moment that Federer is the greatest; ALL of them say it


Not quite. A few say some and many say that he may become the "greatest-ever", but most would reserve that judgement until later in his career. There is considerable debate in the "Tennis world" with names like Sampras, Connors, Borg, Laver and others often mentioned.
Quoted message from Nick Havoc



This is a reply to this message


Message 316 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Mar 15, 2006

I'm sorry Havoc there is none in the tennis world.
They have ALL said that he is the greatest. Laver certainly does!
Quoted message from Sr Gar





Well, lets see. I think the "Tennis Magazine" rankings of the top 40 of the last 40 years (which they published a few months back in '05) had Federer 19th. Of course that was a combination of male and female players, but I don't think he was even in the top 10 men. Not that I agree with all of their rankings, it's again just an opinion, but it's just not true that he is universally considered the best ever.

In fact, in the context of the debate here, I think there is much more consensus on who's the best ever in cycling than in tennis. Some people with Armstrong (as with Federer) get caught up in the star of the moment, but beyond that, just about everyone else would say Merckx.

In tennis, you have players like Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Laver, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe . . . who all have certain unique claims to fame that the others can't match, and I've seen a fair amount of debate on which is most impressive. For instance, Sampras has the most singles Grand Slam titles, but Connors has almost twice as many total career titles, Laver has almost as many Grand Slam titles despite turning pro in the peak of his career and being unable to compete in the slams, which were still amateur only at the time. McEnroe has more GS titles if you include doubles, etc., etc.
This is a reply to this message


Message 317 - posted by MAILLOT JAUNE (U1932045) , Apr 4, 2006

Thought this was the best place to mention this point without corrupting any of the other threads.
Why is it that when Ullrich makes it blatently clear that he is focussing solely on the Tour de France, but when Lance did this everyone slags him off!
Also, there have never been any drug allegations (except for recreational) against Ullrich but plenty of people point the finger at Armstrong even though he hasn't tested positive and has never (as far as I'm aware) been "done" for recreational drugs.
I'm not wanting to get into the whole "did-he-or-didn't-he" take drugs and I'm not wanting to slag-off Ullrich, but I just find it interesting the difference between the public's perception of two great cyclists.
This is a reply to this message


Message 318 - posted by jackov (U3351755) , Apr 4, 2006

It comes with the territory. If Ulrich had won repeatedly and Lance was perrenial 2nd place then Ulrich would be under attack and a sentimental favorite.
This is a reply to this message


Message 319 - posted by orangecougar (U3622751) , Apr 4, 2006

I thought this was the cycling forum! I care not one jot about tennis, please have your debate elsewhere. Although the original point about how we define the greatest, using tennis as an example, was a valid and interesting post.
This is a reply to this message


Message 320 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , Apr 4, 2006

I thought this was the cycling forum! I care not one jot about tennis, please have your debate elsewhere. Although the original point about how we define the greatest, using tennis as an example, was a valid and interesting post.
Quoted message from orangecougar





I see. So it is "valid and intersting" to illustrate your point an incorrect example from tennis, but off-topic and inappropriate to challenge that example.
This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 301 - 320 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berks_stallion



Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 174


Location: Berkshire, UK. (Funnily enough!)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discussion:

Lance Armstrong
Messages 321 - 328 of 328

First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last

Message 321 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Apr 4, 2006

Since I raised the comparison, I'm sorry!

The point is that Armstrong does not yet seem to have the favour of ALL the greatest living exponents
as himself All time great.

Would it be fair to say that, if a Tour winner came a long who was obviously (to all previous champs) the greatest of all time, just by his performance in one series, would he be recognisable as such to the rank and file supporter?

I doubt it.

A comparison of one sport with another can be useful, but not if it upsets other correspondents,
who care not a jot.


This is a reply to this message


Message 322 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Apr 4, 2006

I'm certain I've heard Lance Armstrong praise Merckx as the greatest. Lance said that since Merckx "won everything" in contrast to Lance's concentrating only on the TdF he felt Merckx was clearly the greatest. Furthermore, Lance did NOT indicate he thought he was as high as second place all time, since many of the riders on the most TdF wins list also had a broader accomplishments. I'm big Lance fan, but even with my limited knowledge of cycling I can perceive there is more to cyclng than just the TdF. I think Lance believes he's the greatest of his time.
Quoted message from





Correct Jackov, in loads of inetrveiws, LA has acknowledged Eddy as the Greatest there was. I've never actually heard him talk about his position in the table or his legacy
This is a reply to this message


Message 323 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Apr 6, 2006

Rule changes may change the perception of what "all time great" constitutes, I don't know.
This is a reply to this message


Message 324 - posted by Sr Gar (U2444609) , Apr 6, 2006

Sorry ... it is also possible that "all time greats"
in other sports would influence the opinion of who an "all time great" is!

I don't think it is wise to discredit other sports merely becoz one is not interested. "All time" reders to.... "All sports".

The master himself would certainly do no such thing.

Just a thought.
This is a reply to this message


Message 325 - posted by Shippers (U2834338) , Apr 9, 2006

My opinion - a bloody good rider who won whatever he put his whole focus on, and only his whole focus on.

(Sitting looking at his pissed off face from a signed photo of him I bought for 100 in a charity auction )
This is a reply to this message


Message 326 - posted by naspa (U1648370) , 3 Weeks Ago

Found it....

OK - quick question.

Armstrong always comes out with this line 'I am the most tested athlete in the world'.

What evidence other than Armstrong's word do we actually have that this is the case?

Have details of when and where he was tested ever been released?

Who was testing him?

I would be interested to know how many times he was actually tested each year.

It seems to me that this claim of his is typical Armstrong spin.
This is a reply to this message


Message 327 - posted by Ev_the_Dog (U2310403) , 3 Weeks Ago

My post still lives!!!!!!!!!!
This is a reply to this message


Message 328 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , 3 Weeks Ago


www.youtube.com/watc...

This is a reply to this message


First | < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next > | Last


Messages 321 - 328 of 328
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mrs John Murphy



Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 8673


Location: Stepping on Cadel's dog

PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bump
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
last km



Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 3593


Location: Brinscall in't North lad

PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scuse my ignorance but what the fuck is this all about....is there any rhyme or reson for it ????
_________________
Last km a.k.a "The Brinscall Badger"!!

SMarauder Memorial Trophy Winner 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapeRoadie



Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 10191


Location: The sandy windswept peninsula

PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think bumping the old threads gets rid of the bullshit spamming that's been ruining this website.


_________________
"They are all completely gassed"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> BBC Old Threads All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum