Who thinks Lance could win at Kona?

[jonovision_man]

Be careful Dave. I'm pretty sure Greg knows what it's like for someone close to him to have cancer.

Sadly, almost everyone does.

USADA's decision and information has nothing to do with cancer, why does it keep getting brought up? Nobody should get a pass to cheat in a sport (and arrange for / encourage others to do the same) just because they do other stuff that is good.

jono

[Ironboy]

Have you ever posted in a thread and wished you hadn't?

This nonsense keeps popping up at the to of my "View your posts" and I was done with it 10 pages ago.

How starting a new thread, with a meaningful title and I won't post in it? That would be great.

[Wu wei]

Be careful Dave. I'm pretty sure Greg knows what it's like for someone close to him to have cancer.

It's too easy to play the cancer card to play on sympathy in an argument. Alluded to it once... won't go there again.

I have no problem with Lance coming clean and continuing to raise funds for Livestrong. (BUT NOT RESEARCH.. Livestrong does NOT FUND RESEARCH.)

However the public Lance hero cancer fighter is at complete odds with the private Lance the doper, lawyered up douchebag who destroys the lives of anyone who gets in his way.

It's ironic that Lance inspired ME to take up triathlon, but now I fight hard to not see him enter our sport and turn it into the disgusting mess that is professional cycling. Already I can name several big name triathletes who most insiders knew were dope cheats. I even had a pro tell me this morning about a specific doper ex-athlete who now holds a prominent position in the sport... disgusting.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8487169/usada-report-lance-armstrong-end-debate-whether-doped

[Beave]

Maybe he will eventually admit like Pete Rose.....maybe..... when the timing is right for his own personal gain

[Dstew]

Be careful Dave. I'm pretty sure Greg knows what it's like for someone close to him to have cancer.

It's too easy to play the cancer card to play on sympathy in an argument. Alluded to it once... won't go there again.

I have no problem with Lance coming clean and continuing to raise funds for Livestrong. (BUT NOT RESEARCH.. Livestrong does NOT FUND RESEARCH.)

However the public Lance hero cancer fighter is at complete odds with the private Lance the doper, lawyered up douchebag who destroys the lives of anyone who gets in his way.

It's ironic that Lance inspired ME to take up triathlon, but now I fight hard to not see him enter our sport and turn it into the disgusting mess that is professional cycling. Already I can name several big name triathletes who most insiders knew were dope cheats. I even had a pro tell me this morning about a specific doper ex-athlete who now holds a prominent position in the sport... disgusting.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8487169/usada-report-lance-armstrong-end-debate-whether-doped

Just to be clear, it would seem very obvious Lance cheated and that he deserves every sanction that has been imposed with regards to professional events. His role in the fight against cancer does to excuse or justify what he did. He may be a scum bag but my only argument was that he could still be a useful scum bag if limited to fund raising roles in future events. One way is allow him to compete but do not record his time?

This was all from the question of why would anyone look up to a cheater such as Lance. Again, does not excuse or justify the cheating but some can separate Lance the Cyclist from Lance the Livestrong guy. I have had an opportunity to see Lance and I instead gave that money directly to the cancer society. So I agree, rip Lance the professional and impose whatever bans one wants but "baby with bath water" argument with regards to the fund raising.

[bnn]

I think the fact that Lance did "good" makes it even more heart breaking that he was lying and cheating behind it. If he were the average pro-cyclist who wasn't so "inspirational" and wasn't putting his name behind research involving a very emotional and well known disease this wouldn't be as upsetting - would it? But that's the argument that his fans and he himself use for almost justifying his bad behaviours. Doesn't that sting twice as much? I was never really a fan, but if I had been I would be hurting, angry, and upset yet justifying his behaviours with the cancer fundraising could never sit well with me.

[jonovision_man]

I think the fact that Lance did "good" makes it even more heart breaking that he was lying and cheating behind it. If he were the average pro-cyclist who wasn't so "inspirational" and wasn't putting his name behind research involving a very emotional and well known disease this wouldn't be as upsetting - would it? But that's the argument that his fans and he himself use for almost justifying his bad behaviours. Doesn't that sting twice as much? I was never really a fan, but if I had been I would be hurting, angry, and upset yet justifying his behaviours with the cancer fundraising could never sit well with me.

I was really a fan. I'm not sure I would have ever started watching pro cycling if not for Lance. I still admire the guy's skill and talent - he cheated, but doped he beat those other doped guys. Not just with his legs, but with the way that team worked together, the strategy, everything. US Postal wasn't just a really good group of cyclists, they were brilliantly cunning and made the right moves at the right times, consistently. And that American swagger while he was handing to those Europeans - all veeeery enjoyable!

It was amazing to watch at the time, and frankly all that's happened now makes it sad but I could still watch any one of those stages right now with a big grin on my face.

Of course there's the charity (putting aside any personal gain he might have pulled out of it for a moment...)

There's the awesomeness of taking on Leadville, and Ironman, and marathons.

... but... then there's the other side of the guy.

I'm not even talking about using drugs, you can almost understand that given the European peloton at the time.

No, it's really the way he's treated anyone who has dared talk about doping in sport. Filippo Simeoni. Tyler Hamilton. Arneau. Landis. Etc, etc, etc. You opened your mouth, you were destroyed, and he took no prisoners. You can google any of those guys and you'll find Lance or his people trashing their character, lawsuits trying to silence them, threats, intimidation... it's all out there, and it's ugly.

jono

[TheBman]

Bman.., never questioned the ethics of your fundraising, but the ethics of supporting doping in sport.

I did question the motivation of your fundraising. You identify yourself so strongly as a cancer victim... it's a bit frightening really.

Motivation??? Frightening??? How so? And by the way Wuweee....show me one place where I use the word "VICTIM" to describe me???
You asked back in another LA thread "How much did you raise for the London marathon"...I answered and you never explained why you asked that question.....(Let's be honest folks....he/she never replied the first time I called him out on his insults, he/she wont answer this time....I just had to ask)
Bman

[Ironboy]

Just put him on your ignore list.

I did ages ago, I have no time for his worthless rhetoric, neither, I suspect, do you.

You're just wasting energy on him.

[Wu wei]

Just put him on your ignore list.

I did ages ago, I have no time for his worthless rhetoric, neither, I suspect, do you.

You're just wasting energy on him.

HA! My "worthless rhetoric" has in fact.. turned out to be all true.
Lance doped, sanctioned. The witch hunt found witches.
Exposed to be a greater liar and fraud than the much vilified Landis or Hamilton.
The real vendetta was Lance's against the truth and anyone who fought to expose it.

Hate me for speaking the truth when few others would. I don't mind.

And BMan, my memory if a bit fuzzy why I asked that... I could care less now. Go cling to your dying hero...

[jamix]

All of this has been a big revelation for me!

Though I always thought Lance "might've" been guilty, the real turning point for me was when George Hincapie publicly announced that he doped. Of course that's only one piece of news that has come out, but for me that was one of the bigger sticking points.

My view of Lance's "character" hasn't changed yet. USADA calls him a bully and an enforcer of PED use, but has any cyclist on US Postal ever been kicked off the team because they refused doping??? It doesn't look like he ever actually booted anyone off the team for not using PEDs.....

FYI; I'm kinda hoping that he admits to doping now. Before one could make the argument that there was a lot to lose by admitting guilt, but I'm not sure he can salvage anything now. If he doesn't admit it in the coming weeks/months, I might lose a bit of respect for him (and I have a lot for the guy).

[Mark.AU]

HA! My "worthless rhetoric" has in fact.. turned out to be all true...
Hate me for speaking the truth when few others would. I don't mind

Yes, you were indeed right. There's different ways to make an argument and state a case though.

For example, I could say that you are a passionate advocate of drug-free sport and are relentless in your pursuit of those athletes you believe to be cheating, or have cheated, and by their doing so have deprived clean racers of a fair opportunity to make an honest living in their chosen sport. Bravo!

Or, I could say that you're a vindictive, vitriolic, bigoted, arrogant, small minded little man who has no real idea of common courtesy and reasoned discourse; indeed, someone who has poisoned what could have been an adult debate with an overbearing demeanour and classic internet-tough-guy approach that you'd never have the balls to pursue with anyone in real life.

In both the above cases I'd be right, but one of them is a bit more conducive to adult debate and, well, just nicer. You should try it.

Now, don't forget, you have that super-awesome signiture line that says you can't be insulted by this, and quite conveniently lets you off the hook too.

[Dstew]

HA! My "worthless rhetoric" has in fact.. turned out to be all true...
Hate me for speaking the truth when few others would. I don't mind

Yes, you were indeed right. There's different ways to make an argument and state a case though.

For example, I could say that you are a passionate advocate of drug-free sport and are relentless in your pursuit of those athletes you believe to be cheating, or have cheated, and by their doing so have deprived clean racers of a fair opportunity to make an honest living in their chosen sport. Bravo!

Or, I could say that you're a vindictive, vitriolic, bigoted, arrogant, small minded little man who has no real idea of common courtesy and reasoned discourse; indeed, someone who has poisoned what could have been an adult debate with an overbearing demeanour and classic internet-tough-guy approach that you'd never have the balls to pursue with anyone in real life.

In both the above cases I'd be right, but one of them is a bit more conducive to adult debate and, well, just nicer. You should try it.

+ 1

Plus I love how the other cheats are now called "heroes" and are "brave" for testifying and the Lance Haters agree. They cheated, they lied and only when the Dominoes started to fall did they all cave. And some these "heroes' and "courageous" men are whining and complaining that they were victims and forced to take drugs. I wish one of the reporters would ask them why did they not say no and get a real job if that was so horrible. Be able to sit on a bike for several hours, ride really fast, take some drugs, get pampered and paid, lie about taking the drugs and when the code of silence is broken, then confuse but add in you were forced to do it, maybe I have a different definition of hero. They all seem to be second rate riders and second rate human beings that deserve as much contempt as Lance has earned. And to clarify, this does not excuse or justify what Lance did. Lance may be a scum bag on many different levels but at least he is a scum bag raising money for charity and what are the scum bags doing where they virtually get a free pass. Minor suspensions and as noted, they are hailed a some weird and twisted definition of the word hero.

[RobAllen]

+ 1

Plus I love how the other cheats are now called "heroes" and are "brave" for testifying and the Lance Haters agree. They cheated, they lied and only when the Dominoes started to fall did they all cave. And some these "heroes' and "courageous" men are whining and complaining that they were victims and forced to take drugs. I wish one of the reporters would ask them why did they not say no and get a real job if that was so horrible. Be able to sit on a bike for several hours, ride really fast, take some drugs, get pampered and paid, lie about taking the drugs and when the code of silence is broken, then confuse but add in you were forced to do it, maybe I have a different definition of hero. They all seem to be second rate riders and second rate human beings that deserve as much contempt as Lance has earned. And to clarify, this does not excuse or justify what Lance did. Lance may be a scum bag on many different levels but at least he is a scum bag raising money for charity and what are the scum bags doing where they virtually get a free pass. Minor suspensions and as noted, they are hailed a some weird and twisted definition of the word hero.

To a certain amount I agree with your point. The PR releases from Barry, Hincapie, etc. were total BS. Each of those riders should have come totally clean. All stopped doping in 2006?, not very likely. And in fact they did receive more than just a 6 month ban. Each has a period of time when their results are now null and void and they have to re-pay any winnings during that time. The only thing is I don't think there is much in the line in regards to winnings, their prime source of income is their contracts with their teams and individual sponsors. They got lenient sanctions for helping with the case against all 6 individuals, not only Armstrong. They got lighter sanctions because they came forward to help the case and were only implicated with doping, not the possession, trafficking, administration and complicity of doping that Armstrong, Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, Celeya and del Moral were charged with.

Now I am sure you would classify myself as a Lance hater. I don't hate Lance. I don't admire him either. When I first watched cycling I had my doubts he was clean (2004) and each and every story that came out afterwards confirmed my suspicions. I would have hoped he would have come forward and helped get rid of doping in cycling instead of continuing to deny. This has nothing to do with his charity work. His association with Livestrong is fantastic but it does not make him any less of a cheat in sport and life. I hope the charity contniues to thrive. It has taken a huge kick this week. Will I give money to Livestrong? No, but I never have - my charity of choice is Easter Seals for many of the same reasons people choose Livestrong.

Now that this has happened, what next. I would love to see a huge shake up at the UCI. I would love to see tighter controls of what the blood passport level values are that are considered clean but 99.9% of the population can only get there if they dope. The UCI lauds the blood passport levels as the beginning of clean cycling. How many riders have been suspended for blood passport levels that are not within range. 0. The evidence of doping is there *IF* they want to see it. Also, on some positive tests, depending on the drug or blood violation, suspend the rider for life with no ability to work in pro cycling again. You need a deterrent that is strong enough to stop the rider from starting in the first place.

[dgrant]

HA! My "worthless rhetoric" has in fact.. turned out to be all true...
Hate me for speaking the truth when few others would. I don't mind

Yes, you were indeed right. There's different ways to make an argument and state a case though.

For example, I could say that you are a passionate advocate of drug-free sport and are relentless in your pursuit of those athletes you believe to be cheating, or have cheated, and by their doing so have deprived clean racers of a fair opportunity to make an honest living in their chosen sport. Bravo!

Or, I could say that you're a vindictive, vitriolic, bigoted, arrogant, small minded little man who has no real idea of common courtesy and reasoned discourse; indeed, someone who has poisoned what could have been an adult debate with an overbearing demeanour and classic internet-tough-guy approach that you'd never have the balls to pursue with anyone in real life.

In both the above cases I'd be right, but one of them is a bit more conducive to adult debate and, well, just nicer. You should try it.

Now, don't forget, you have that super-awesome signiture line that says you can't be insulted by this, and quite conveniently lets you off the hook too.

Man alive, you've really got to take a few minutes to review your posts in this thread and elsewhere before going off on anyone else's tone of common courtesy and reasoned discourse. Come on. "I hope you use a higher standard of evidence to make decisions in your professional life than you used here." Find the common courtesy and reasoned discourse in making an implication about someone's totally unrelated job performance and her opinion on Lance Armstrong. That was one of the all-time troll comments, and this is probably one of those times when there's nothing to do but eat humble pie.

The situation is what it is. For well over ten years many sports fans have looked at the Lance Armstrong cultural phenomenon, said "Ummm, guys..." and pointed to various things that were widely known then and are now accepted as a matter of accepted fact. Past positives tests, the Andreu testimony, test-ducking... none of this is new, yet as recently as a few weeks ago people who mentioned these things were subject to withering ad hominem attacks by both the man himself and his fans (including several on this site). To question Armstrong was to be a hater, and to piece together an opinion based on a strong pattern of observations was ignorant and grasping at straws. So of course people are going to turn around today and say "How you like me know?" It's human nature. Maybe not the very best part of human nature, but there nonetheless.

[Mark.AU]

Come on. "I hope you use a higher standard of evidence to make decisions in your professional life than you used here." Find the common courtesy and reasoned discourse in making an implication about someone's totally unrelated job performance and her opinion on Lance Armstrong. That was one of the all-time troll comments, and this is probably one of those times when there's nothing to do but eat humble pie.

Ha! I've made much worse comments than that one on this board over the past five or six years (all of which was before Dec 4, 2011) - as have you - very many of which I'd like to take back.

But, it's interesting you even choose that example as there's no implication in it at all, certainly none intended; read the comment again, I'd suggest you have misinterpreted the comment based on an assumed - on your part - intent, something all too common in this form of interaction. For the record, and not because I owe you any kind of explanation but rather to make clear to Spirit the actual intent was to simply question how the decision was made as described in that post. Certainly Laura, with whom I've had a great deal of friendly PM and off-board communication over the years (probably more than with any other board member actually), did not express any concern with that post. If she had I would have withdrawn it immediately as I have a lot of respect for her and as I said, the intent was very far from that which you are implying, and the last thing I'd want to do would be upset Laura.

So, no humble pie to eat here - though I'm sure Greg will gain some succor from your own ad hominen attack herein.

[jonovision_man]

Seems like we need a separate thread for debating what constitutes an insult on a forum...

I personally don't feel all that insulted, I know people say things with a bit more punch than normal with the emotions of this topic. Lance had his fans and inspired a lot of passion in them... and he has his detractors who feel about as strongly that he's undeserving. Adds up to a lot of gusto.

The only shame is that we're too geographically dispersed to settle this all over some beers.

jono

[jonovision_man]

Bruyneel sacked by Radioshack...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/radiosh ... h-bruyneel

jono

[Jo-Jo]

Seems like we need a separate thread for debating what constitutes an insult on a forum...

I personally don't feel all that insulted, I know people say things with a bit more punch than normal with the emotions of this topic. Lance had his fans and inspired a lot of passion in them... and he has his detractors who feel about as strongly that he's undeserving. Adds up to a lot of gusto.

The only shame is that we're too geographically dispersed to settle this all over some beers.

jono

I for one would love a beer infused M&G to settle this matter...and it would be extra cool if we could throw in a public flogging or two at the event

[ultraslacker]

The problem is they wouldn't settle it... They would come back here and keep beating the dead horse into the ground.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums

[drghfx]

Seems like we need a separate thread for debating what constitutes an insult on a forum...

I personally don't feel all that insulted, I know people say things with a bit more punch than normal with the emotions of this topic. Lance had his fans and inspired a lot of passion in them... and he has his detractors who feel about as strongly that he's undeserving. Adds up to a lot of gusto.

The only shame is that we're too geographically dispersed to settle this all over some beers.

jono

I for one would love a beer infused M&G to settle this matter...and it would be extra cool if we could throw in a public flogging or two at the event

Jo-Jo, you did watch WWE wrestling!

[Spirit Unleashed]

Come on. "I hope you use a higher standard of evidence to make decisions in your professional life than you used here." Find the common courtesy and reasoned discourse in making an implication about someone's totally unrelated job performance and her opinion on Lance Armstrong. That was one of the all-time troll comments, and this is probably one of those times when there's nothing to do but eat humble pie.

Ha! I've made much worse comments than that one on this board over the past five or six years (all of which was before Dec 4, 2011) - as have you - very many of which I'd like to take back.

But, it's interesting you even choose that example as there's no implication in it at all, certainly none intended; read the comment again, I'd suggest you have misinterpreted the comment based on an assumed - on your part - intent, something all too common in this form of interaction. For the record, and not because I owe you any kind of explanation but rather to make clear to Spirit the actual intent was to simply question how the decision was made as described in that post. Certainly Laura, with whom I've had a great deal of friendly PM and off-board communication over the years (probably more than with any other board member actually), did not express any concern with that post. If she had I would have withdrawn it immediately as I have a lot of respect for her and as I said, the intent was very far from that which you are implying, and the last thing I'd want to do would be upset Laura.

So, no humble pie to eat here - though I'm sure Greg will gain some succor from your own ad hominen attack herein.

Interesting....

I am too busy putting in junk miles and lifting weights and doing sit-ups to study Lance. And I do my home work about work at work where I get paid.

[jonovision_man]

Did anyone catch the documentary "9.79"? It was on TSN the other day, one of their "30" documentaries.

Excellent show. At least with cycling there is some hope, track & field... not so much. And Carl Lewis is a turd.

jono

[Dstew]

The problem is they wouldn't settle it... They would come back here and keep beating the dead horse into the ground.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums

And that horse is nothing more than pulp and mush, we may even have to kill one so we can beat it.

[dgrant]

So, no humble pie to eat here - though I'm sure Greg will gain some succor from your own ad hominen attack herein.

Errmm... Directly quoting and commenting on a specific argument is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack goes something like "you're a vindictive, vitriolic, bigoted, arrogant, small minded little man"... belittling the person to discredit the opinion. It's just not really effective, and surely doesn't convince anyone in a debate. Nobody wins with that stuff.

With things having come to a definitive conclusion, I'm sure the Lance Armstrong discussions will fade away into obscurity. New topics will arise to be discussed, and with all of your athletic experiences of the past few years it could be interesting to hear your thoughts. But if you can't eat humble pie when you made dozens of posts attacking ultimately correct opinions, it'll be hard to assign gravity to future posts. An argument without some measure of accountability is just noise.