I hate Lance Armstrong.

Well, Edster was rumoured to be taking doping. ;-)) Yes, I realize he was cleared but the rumour persisted (here anyway). I loathe both guys. But I guess this has more to do with me: I just don't like smug arrogant self-obsessed winners.

In North America, we only hear about Armstrong the gutsy hero who recovered from cancer and became a better rider than he had ever been before.

Armstrong really is the Barry Bonds of cycling ... the doping allegations that are regularly leveled against them are spectacularly similar ... and neither guy hesitates to spit venom when speaking to the media. The Tour coverage here never goes beyond "Lance is still in yellow, and some other guy won the stage today", so most people never get to hear actual interviews with Lance where he rips into other riders -- sometimes those on his own team. As for Armstrong's smug arrogance, look no further than him chasing down Fillipo Simeoni in last year's Tour de France for completely personal reasons.

Doping accusations aside, this is easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Get one understanding of competition.

On a good day, I can get even dumber.

This was the key sign of Andy's retardation...

in his books he presents himself as a really nice all-american guy with all these people against him, but that aforementioned smugness and self-importance is totally apparent nonetheless.

what's wrong with him knowing that he's good in an event and deciding to concentrate on that? He obviously has passion for the Tour, even if it is just an ego driven one. He's participating in a sport, a very competative one, and he's doing what practically every other cyclist would do in his position.

To be honest I don't think he cares whether people loathe him or not, but it seems to be odd that so many people loathe him for wanting to win the Tour and being good at it.

Best possible result in sport? A draw at the end of a five day test (cricket, to those who don't understand). Discuss.

It is not enough for me to succeed, others must fail. Discuss

They are all on drugs.

Get one more understanding of competitive sports.

perpetual winners are boring. i like athletes who know how to lose with style, and who occasionally win, also with great style.

it's nice to read about people who overcome illnesses and actually are inspiring--but this guy is just an arrogant fuck, one more person who pretends to be inspirational just to make a spectacle of himself and try to gain admirers.

Juliaaa, why don't you tell us the story about how you or a loved went about facing metastatic cancer? I hope you have not had to do so, but if you have, then you know how impossible it can feel, and how important it is to feel hope, and have courage to just keep going.

Millions of people who have cancer, who have beaten cancer, or have friends and loved ones who have suffered with the disease ARE ACTUALLY INSPIRED by Lance Armstrong's experience. And Armstrong ACTUALLY HAD REAL LIVE CANCER THAT HAD METASTASIZED TO HIS BRAIN AND LUNGS. So when you say that Armstrong "pretends to be inspirational," are you saying that he faked cancer? That you, "juliaaa, Arbiter of Righteousness," are NOT inspired is YOUR personal reaction, and many share it. You may chalk Armstrong's celebrity (and in some corners, veneration) up to a PR machine, but it really is beyond that. His recovery from cancer and his victories in TdF are very real, and are proof of a very, very exceptional person.

And a guy that in so many ways is a smug, petty, egotistical jerk.

I also possess a sensitive BS detector, and it makes me allergic to the type of fanboy Lance-worship so nauseatingly present in the July media. But, step back from your emotional reaction to the machine and the hype to consider what Armstrong actually delivers, beyond his obvious, near extra-terrestrial physiology: extreme competence, extreme determination, extreme focus, and extreme courage and perseverance.

If you wish to discuss dopage, it's certainly a huge issue for cycling and an element of Armstrong's story. I don't know if he's doping now or not, but I do know that even if he is, he is not alone by any means. An exercise phsiology PhD friend of mine (and racing teammate) wonders if Armstrong has experimented with gene-doping. This is not to excuse doping by any means, but I will tell you this, his level of success at the TdF, even with doping, is extra-fucking-ordinary. The type of planning, consistency, focus and even good fortune, required to win six Tours is huge. The best physiology and/or the best dope in the world will not accomplish it, and you may ask Jan Ullrich about it. I do not allege Ullrich has doped here, but he is obviously an amazing specimen. Are Ullrich's "failures" because he is too spoiled? Dunno, but he has pretty much been coddled in the wake of his success in the 96 TdF, and his victory in 97. He has his own management team that is semi-detached from his actual team (and the arrangement is acrimonious). Yet, I think Ullrich's problem is that he is a normal man, a good man, in all-time great cycling body. And he may be a better person than Armstrong, with a far better "EQ," but that doesn't win the TdF six times consecutively in mostly dominating fashion.

Confession time: I am kind of a bitter hater by personality type. I don't care for people like Armstrong--vindictive and self-obsessed. As I contemplate Armstrong's move into the political sphere, I feel the fear. But I will say that Armstrong is the Texan that George W. Bush wishes he were. They share the chip on the shoulder, they both demand total loyalty, and like to punish their enemies, and take everything reaaaal personal. But there is a big difference. Armstrong knows adversity, he micro-manages everything, making the decisions himself, and he is fucking awesome at it.

I won't apologize for the bastard, and I won't give him a free pass, but I am impressed by what I see.

xpost

xp i'll respond to that in a minute

I hope he wins.

King Asshole.

i never claimed to be an arbiter of righteousness, and resent the tone of your post, hunter. yeah, damn straight i'm not much inspired by lance. i may not have cancer but i can certainly relate far too well to what you said here for my own health-related reasons:

then you know how impossible it can feel, and how important it is to feel hope, and have courage to just keep going.

to me (and obv this is ONLY MY OPINION) lance talks about his cancer in his books as if it were not really that big of a deal. to me, he comes across as oh-i'm-such-a-hero, rather than truly portraying the suffering and terrifying feelings of helplessness that can come with a serious illness. he makes it look easy, and that seems to trivialize what a lot of people go through in facing similar challenges. maybe i'm just a bitter, jaded bitch, but that's my opinion.

in terms of doping, they've tested him like mad, and found nothing. maybe he just has a physiology that disposes him to a level of athleticism that most can't achieve, as well as training like mad to maximize what he can do athletically.

with a clear intent to humiliate others in order to make themselves look good

Armstrong lives to enforce his dominance against those he takes as his enemies. He does not need to do it to look good. His treatment of Simeoni only made him look like a villain, I was appalled. His assertion that he let Pantani win atop the Ventoux was also not classy (and to the proud Pantani, a grave offense), but I don't think it was beyond-the-pale. I also think it was true, though, and Lance wanted his generosity recognized in the way that 12 year old boys do.

Further, I regret wasting anyone's emotional energy on something so inconsequential as sports or bike racing.

Pantani was a shameless cheat, even if he had a funny face.

I quite like Armstrong myself, though he's certainly been lucky over the years as his rivals have fallen at convenient times (Ullrich, Beloki). He can't be blamed for beating whoever is out there, even if it means he'll enter cycling lore as a Larry Holmes rather than an Ali. As for his politics, he doesn't come across as a Bush fan to me, though I understand the comparison. Dubya is just the sort of prick he's been kicking against all these years.

And of course there's an obvious fault in the logic here; that is whoever was the first "great" to get 5 wins must not have been a "decent guy," because he didn't stop where others had stopped. Come now, this definitely makes no sense.

maaaaasive xpost

???

Merckx was more versatile, but apples and oranges.

I'd cut his balls off and tell mama I beat cancer. Corny face.

There is. There are UCI rankings (International Cycling Union)(er, Union Cycliste Internationale) based on how well riders do in major races. The thing is, most casual fans don't know this because they don't hear about any races other than the TdF. It matters to the riders and to serious cycling fans, though.

I think Lance is great, and have a harder time understanding the hate, for me, the reason I can't stand, say Manyoo is that mainly it's the fans that bleat on that get on my nerves (ILX is a pretty manyoo-bore free zone compared to much of the internet - the fans here are mainly reasoned and not text talking idiots) with Lance you don't get that (although maybe in the states with the media on Lance-alert creates that feeling) you just see a cold-hearted cycling assasin, but one with a bit of a character, not a faceless machine such as big Mig.

This is one of the most rambly posts I've ever made, I'm really tired, sorry.

I've got no problem with Lance Armstrong. To suggest he should have quit after his fifth win is ridiculous. At least he is an attacking rider. Yesterday he destroyed everyone in the mountains. When Indurain used to win every year that WAS boring as he'd just play it safe in the mountains and grind everyone down in the time trials. Merckx (sp?) was a better all-rounder, but Armstrong knows what he's good at and concentrates on that - what's the problem? Also, talking about Merckx and doping is missing the point a bit as it's pretty much accepted that at least 95% of professional riders were (are?) on drugs.

WE SHALL UTILIZE THIS ARMSTRONG BY REVERSE ENGINEERING AND CREATING OUR OWN. GENTLEMAN, WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

theres pre- and post- cancer eras to take into account here. he was certainly a great road racer, a real one day dude, prior to cancer. i saw him win the texas state championships for fun when the rest of his team was at corestates (which he couldn't do 'cause he was still amateur) in like '91 i think. he was already a regional legend in TX then. triathlete. whatever happened to chann macrae actually?

It seems consistent with his mentality to support those who supported him. Nike was also the company that gave the start money for the LIVESTRONG bracelets, which has provided millions to cancer research.

He only remains loyal if you do what *he* wishes. The amount of enemies he has far outnumbers his friends.

If Armstrong was "decent" guy, he'd have retired after his fifth win

If Lance Armstrong was a TRUE INDIE ROCKER he wouldn't sell out and do Nike commercials and would currently be dating Karen Osomeone so cool we haven't even heard of her yet, not Sheryl Crow.

Kind of ridiculous to demand that Lance retire, but Eddy Merckx did not participate in the '73 tour because of criticism that he won all the time. I think it's not about decency. It's about a wish that there's more competition (for first place). If Lance participates, he'd need to fall flat on his face to see him lose. So yeah I hope he retires.

Yes, he is an exacting individual, undoubtedly one of the MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY sorts. The point I had tried to make was that he is backing Nike's marketing, likely as a response to the support they have given him when was being treated, and afterwards with the livestrong racelets, among others.

Leblanc - Armstrong fooled us all

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 Posted: 1623 GMT (0023 HKT)

Leblanc (right) congratulates Armstrong after his seventh Tour win
PARIS, France -- Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc claims Lance Armstrong has "fooled" the sports world, over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

Leblanc's comments come a day after L'Equipe reported that six urine samples, provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour, tested positive for EPO.

"For the first time -- and these are no longer rumors these are proven scientific facts -- someone has shown me that in 1999 Armstrong had EPO in his body," said Leblanc.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denies the allegations, calling the article "tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," said Armstrong.

Armstrong, who retired from professional cycling after winning the Tour a month ago, was not immediately available for comment regarding Leblanc's latest remarks.

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tour's, but there was no effective test then to detect it.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year -- when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing.

The national anti-doping laboratory said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests.

"That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."

L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

"I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."

The UCI did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, although the drug was banned in 1990.

For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

"There will always be a place on the team for him if he decides to come back. Anyway, he's still under contract with us till the end of 2006."

Also because he knows how much I hate him. :-)))))

Armstrong, Crow announce they're breaking up
Associated Press
Cycling News Wire

AUSTIN, Texas -- Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow have split, the couple announced in a joint statement Friday night.

The seven-time Tour de France champion and the rock star announced their engagement in September. It would have been her first marriage and his second. He has three children from a previous marriage.

"After much thought and consideration we have made a very tough decision to split up. We both have a deep love and respect for each other and we ask that everyone respect our privacy during this very difficult time," the statement said.

I saw Lance in that Dodgeball film. It almost ruined the film for me. ;-)

The only real champion the world has seen was Marco Pantani "the pirate"...hadn't he been persecuted by italian justice Armstrong would have won no Tours! Just remember Courchevel 2000 at the Tour...

FUCK LANCE!!!!

OH MY GOD he's coming back...IN ADELAIDE??

And apparently (according to Mike Rann), it's the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!

I don't like him for the simple reason that I used to supertext-caption the news, and every year the Tour de France and Tour Down Under were a nightmare of demented names and esoteric terms poured out by deranged commentators at nightmare speeds. (Though to be fair, I could at least spell 'Lance Armstrong' correctly, so he should have been one of those I hated least)

the brett favre of cycling

or roger clemens

And apparently (according to Mike Rann), it's the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!

Oh, don't tell me you're writing into The Advertiser now. Those people are the reason why I left Adelaide.

I don't think many people realise that Lance is coming back for Astana, so he'll be racing in the glorious colours of KAZAKHSTAN!!

Oh, don't tell me you're writing into The Advertiser now. Those people are the reason why I left Adelaide.

Er, what?

cant believe i ever wasted time opining about this and so annoyingly

This is a very rare case of accomplishment completely supplanting douchiness.

another ex-teammate just came out of the woodwork and fired some accusations in lance's direction.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=dw-wetzel_lance_armstrong_faces_new_allegations_051911

as far as this guy managing his public reputation, he fucked up by not coming clean years ago when he still had tons of positive cache -- his redemption tour would've come full circle by now, but at this point I think he's generally seen as a massive fraud

I don't think so... he cured cancer and won 7 tours with one ball, he still is a hero in the eye of the typical american sports fan (ie, has no clue about cycling).

My favorite MSM defense piece of Lance came early this year when referring to Armstrong as retired... yet Lance was racing a stage race in Australia at the time.

Let me try to find it, it was pretty funny.

i think that the "defiant" reaction to accusations like this is actually kind of revealing. i would think people who were being accused of something absolutely untrue over and over again by some of their closest compatriots would actually react with more palpable hurt and shock rather than some kind of "haters gonna hate" defiance.

Sports Illustrated 1/18/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-20028841-10391697.html

by Joshua Norman

Doping allegations have followed Lance Armstrong into retirement. (Credit: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Lance Armstrong has tested negative for performance enhancing drugs on countless occasions. He counts among his friends and supporters former presidents and some of the world's biggest celebrities. He is also among the most prominent spokespeople for eradicating cancer and helping those suffering with it.

Regardless, journalists and federal prosecutors just won't let the now-retired legendary cyclist be.

A federal investigator experienced at probing performance enhancing drug use in U.S. sports who already nabbed track star Marion Jones and baseball great Barry Bonds has barely concealed his continued investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of PEDs.

Now, Sports Illustrated magazine has sent two of its investigative journalists on the trail to uncover evidence of Armstrong's alleged use of PEDs. They will report the full findings in the magazine on newsstands on Wednesday, but in the meantime, they have leaked evidence that they believe may link Armstrong to "the saddest deception in sports history."

None of SI's leaked evidence is particularly strong, however.

Included in their key findings are:

- Armstrong had "access" to a drug that boosts the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity in the 1990s called "HemAssist." He has since denied every taking it and never publicly tested positive for it.

- "Lance had a bag of drugs and s---," said former teammate and admitted doper Floyd Landis, when talking about being stopped by customs in St. Moritz in 2003. Agents allegedly found syringes and drugs with labels written in Spanish. Landis claims Armstrong then asked a member of his traveling crew to convince customs "agents that the drugs were vitamins and that the syringes were for vitamin injections." Armstrong has since denied this happened.

- Armstrong's testosterone-epitestosterone ratio was reported to be higher than normal on three occasions between 1993 and 1996, although the evidence for this is spurious. The lab that reported the higher levels has long since dismissed the tests, and all attempts at unearthing them have fallen flat.

- Another former teammate who has admitted taking PEDs said Armstrong was "the instigator" in 1995 when it came to his cycling team using the banned blood booster EPO. Again, Armstrong denies the accusation and has not tested positive for EPO during his career.

Meanwhile while this article was published he was in the middle of a 7 day Tour Down Under stage race (1/16-1/23/11), earning to a 67th place finish in the biggest race south of the equator:
http://www.tourdownunder.com.au/race/results-2011

the latest accuser from the wayback machine- were we still old ilx in 03?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2003/tour03/stage15/20.jpg

Professional cycling is NAGL

it could be worse. i could be floyd landis