I hate Lance Armstrong.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (164 of them)
I think Jannyboy secretly wants to have 8 million of LAnce Armstrong's babies.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 15 July 2005 03:30 (eighteen years ago) link

i will rape Lance Armstong!!!!!!!

Mel Ester, Sunday, 17 July 2005 00:42 (eighteen years ago) link

There seems to be some strange hate here.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 17 July 2005 04:01 (eighteen years ago) link

He's teh man.

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Sunday, 17 July 2005 15:37 (eighteen years ago) link

i will rape Lance Armstong!!!!!!!

BUt do you HATE him?

nathalie's body's designed for two (stevie nixed), Sunday, 17 July 2005 16:47 (eighteen years ago) link

This is a sick message board and was probably conjoured up by someone who really has nothing in their life. Feels nothing has nothing to say and gives nothing. Do something with yourself you failure.Perhaps you might get something out of your life. Ps Hope you never have to suffer cancer.

pissoffyouwinging losers, Monday, 18 July 2005 08:54 (eighteen years ago) link

I am a big admirer of Miguel Indurain, but I have to hand it to Lance.

Peter Stringbender (PJ Miller), Monday, 18 July 2005 08:56 (eighteen years ago) link

What many of you might not know, or haven't figured out is that Lance most probably developed cancer from his use of dangerous performance enhancing substances, starting when he was 15-16 years old (that's when he turned pro as a triathlete). The odds of a super-healthy super-fit guy with a heart 33% bigger than the average human getting a bizarre form of testicular, pancreatic, lung, and brain cancer in their early twenties is phenomenally high.

He beats cancer, and becomes one of its biggest spokespersons and fundraisers, but he continues to dope in more and more sophisticated manners and with better and better drugs. As he amasses more loot, he can employ the services of the world's best medical experts on safely doping (and covering up the evidence) so that the woefully inadequate tests currently in use can't detect his cheating abuse.

Following the scandal of the 1998 Tour (Festina nabbed attempting to smuggle massive quantities of drugs into France in a team car, etc.), France (who had just won the World Cup) was in horrible disarray because of the damage done to its most well-known, popular -- and most profitable -- sporting event. The French Ministry Of Youth And Sport spent millions upon millions of dollars on the current post-race urine test for use of EPO.

However, it is currently widely acknowledged amongst doping experts that the test is useless in detecting the practice of "topping off" -- mini doses of EPO (1/5 the normal) administered the night before a big race or a big stage. (The serious EPO doping occurs 1-2 weeks before a stage race). The reason is that the amount of water circulation and blood circulation in the body during a long and hot or mountainous stage of The Tour is quite sufficient to wash away the evidence.

Additionally, drugs far superior to EPO are now on the (black) market including Oxyglobin, SERS, and others.

Lance publically disavowed (in a sympathetic manner) his and USPS/Discovery's relationship with Dr. Michele Ferrari when Ferrari was found guilty in Italy for illegally and inappropriately prescribing and supplying dangerous drugs (Ferrari's the guy who said "taking EPO is like drinking orange juice" ... but guess what?

A few months after this supposed parting-of-ways occurred, Ferrari was seen in Girona (Lance's training base) at a time Lance was there, and rumour has it that Lance has continued to be heavily dependent on Ferrari for his "training methods" -- has been for the last 10 years (at least) and so it makes little sense that he would suddenly stop now and be able continue his superhuman domination of the peloton (many of whom also are doping).

The tragedy of this is two-fold:

1. Lance is perhaps the biggest hypocrite in the world. He gets cancer from doing very dangerous things to his body so that he can cheat at professional sports, and then he uses the disease to his advantage to build an image of a God-like saviour of the terminally ill. EPO and the other drugs Lance used/uses to cheat at sport are specifically developed to treat the terminally ill. It's despicable.

2. Scores of young, poor, and naiive riders continue to literally instantly drop dead from doping, most notably Jose Maria Jiminez in March of this year. This is because incorrect use of EPO and similar drugs thickens the blood and during exercise the heart becomes overworked pumping the thick blood. It gradually is weakened and damaged and there comes a point where massive heart failure occurs.

These riders do not have the money to employ the services of Ferrari or other top "doping doctors". A lot of them are uneducated. They obtain the drugs and advice on how to use them from other riders and then self-administer. Additionally, many of the lesser teams are known to not only be dirty but also not care for their riders, and -- as hard as it may seem to belive -- don't really mind if a few guys drop dead along the way, as long as it keeps the business profitable.

It's one thing to be poor, have a family, and been in desperate need of a paycheck and to turn to doping to enable oneself to compete with others who are doping.

It's quite another thing to engage in this behaviour when you are a multi-multi-millionaire (Lance's fortune is reportedly in the neighborhood of $26 million, and that does not include the huge bonus Discovery will pay him for completing his contract to ride 2005 Tour).

The journalists who wrote the book "La Confidentiel" which exposes Lance's doping are not hacks looking for a quick payout. They are long established cycling journalists. Unfortunately, the only evidence they could obtain and which their publisher was willing to take the legal risk of printing is circumstantial evidence -- but that's expected: if there was any evidence that could hold up in court, the UCI or other authorities or the courts/police would take action.

The journalists are not both French as is commonly believed -- it's not a "French hate Americans" dynamic. The lead writer, David Walsh, is Irish, and he has a long and respected career as a cycling journalist -- until Lance started applying pressure to various teams and riders and other journalists to not talk to him any more. Luckily, Rupert Murdoch (worth billions) is backing up Walsh, and so Lance's bullying has finally encountered a bigger bully.

Lance attempted to have this book banned in France. When that failed he attempted to have a disclaimer page written by himself inserted in every copy: the French courts dismissed his claims and fined him for filing a frivolous lawsuit. However, Lance's attorneys were successful in effectively preventing publishing of the book in America. This is not only because of legal threats, but because of American publishers and American arms of foreign publishers reluctance to publish the book due to the massive popularity of Lance in America -- due to his involvement with cancer, and primarily because of the mindless "America kicks the rest of the world's ass" mentality that unfortunately is so pervasive and powerful in this country.

Lance got ahead of the doping game early on, before doping well-known and before tests were deployed, and even before many of the substances were illegal. He's been able to consistently stay ahead of the game because he is one of the smartest and most savvy guys to ever play the game -- any game. And his monetary fortune was amassed ahead of the curve -- he was becoming a bigger and better paid star faster than the anti-doping forces could work to effectively combat the problem.

Finally, Lance has massively abused his money and power (both legal power, and the power of influence within the peloton) to attempt to destroy the careers of any rider, journalist, or other person who would dare say anything against him: this includes David Walsh, Pierre Ballister, Filippo Simeoni (following The Tour, Lance will face a defamation lawsuit filed by Simeoni in the French courts), and many, many others.

Many are not aware that Lance is hated by a great many in the peloton. He is not a leader like Merckx who was respected by nearly all. Almost every other American cyclist in The Tour hates him (perhaps all except his friend and current teammate George Hincapie) and this includes ex-teammates such as Floyd Landis. One of the world's greatest sprinters, Australian Robbie McEwen hates Lance for his bullying and threats against lesser riders.

Lance is perhaps the greatest sporting fraud of the last 100 years. What is especially sickening is that reportedly he has targeted politics as his second career.

Do you really think that Greg LeMond (rich, famous, and long-since retired) would publically accuse Lance of doping and suffer enormous damage to his popular image amongst Americans (not to mention his friends, comrades, and business relationships within the cycling world) if he hadn't heard the real scoop on matters? Word gets around, and Greg did the right thing -- attempting to stop.

Unfortunately for Greg, America is currently obsessed with Lance kicking the world's ass, just like we were obsessed with the NBA superstars team kicking the world's ass at the Olympics. Nothing apparently will stop this steam-train of nationalistic egomania.

Tyler Hamilton's recent 2-year ban from cycling for homologous blood doping on two occassions is more proof that top (and already rich) American cyclists are abusing our superiour science and medical knowledge to cheat at sports in a dangerous manner motivated by egoism and lust for fame, power, and more money -- or when they are in a rough spot in their careers.

Forget about Lance. He's not hero. The man is bullshit.

baltostar, Monday, 18 July 2005 14:20 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm not sure I hate Lance Armstrong exactly, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to root for him these days, after he's already won the Tour multiple times and proven himself beyond expectations. I don't get what's exciting about him at all.

jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 18 July 2005 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link

It's like being a Yankees fan or something.

jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 18 July 2005 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link

I have no idea how you're drawing a connection between doping and suceptibility to cancer. Otherwise, I agree with many of your points -- just a few more reasons why Lance is the Barry Bonds of cycling.

Australian Robbie McEwen hates Lance for his bullying and threats against lesser riders.

This made me laugh.

Lance would be the Barry Bonds of cycling if:

A) Barry was winning World Series after World Series;
B) Everyone else in baseball was Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and dude who wrote the whiny tell-all book.

Unfortunately for Greg, America is currently obsessed with Lance kicking the world's ass, just like we were obsessed with the NBA superstars team kicking the world's ass at the Olympics. Nothing apparently will stop this steam-train of nationalistic egomania.

Hahahahaha did you forget about what happpened at the last Olympics???

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 18 July 2005 15:06 (eighteen years ago) link

but they're all on drugs

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:03 (eighteen years ago) link

Ejected rider Frigo's dad agrees with you HoBB: "No, ladies and gentlemen, it’s impossible to go that fast."

Part of Lance's team once livened up the culture, cos he was deadly as a vulture.

Hunter (Hunter), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:08 (eighteen years ago) link

A) Barry was winning World Series after World Series

If Barry didn't bother playing in the regular season (except for a few games here and there so he could get used to the daily rigours of competition), and spent his whole year training in anticipation of his special invite to join the roster of one of the teams playing in the World Series, then he'd have several championships too.

But really, winning grand Tours in cycling vs winning WS titles in baseball really aren't comparable.
As a generalisation, I'm getting the idea that most of you don't like Lance Armstrong. I'm from a country about 10,000 miles south west of the US of A, and I thought we had a problem with "tall poppy syndrome", however nothing compared to this. Despite my distance from Austin, Texas, I am strangely only 2 degrees seperated from Lance. The 2 degrees in between are connected through his medical and physical testing, and I can confirm with much certainty that, yes, as most of you Lance-haters say, he is definitely taking performance enhancing drugs. Sure, it's not right, and he probably is blatently lying when he says he isn't taking anything, but as we all know, so is the competition.

In spite of this, I think we all miss one important point about Lance. You can see it in any documentary, or his books, he sees only what he wants and will step over anything to get it. He often doesn't see reason or common sense when it steps in the path of what he is after. Most thherefore label him as a selfish egomaniac, which might not be far from the truth, but if he has no sense or thought of the fact that he is screwing others over, then maybe he's not so selfish. Anyway, the traits that make him so difficult to get along with are obviously what enables him to be so successful. Take Jan for example, physiologically better than Lance, and a nice guy to boot. Unfortunately he is not so driven or self-centric to get as far as Lance does every July. Just look at how his marriage broke up. You can tell from reading his book that he would be a pain in the ass to live with.

In spite of being a doped up, lying, impossible-to-live-with egomaniac, I kind of like him, and would love to see him win the TdeF one last time. In years to come, it won't quite be the same without so many people cheering for an all conquering hero, or the rest hoping there is someone else out there who can match him. The fact is he is an inspiration to so many, and needs to be the way he is to do so. And it cannot be denied that he simply is a cut above the rest of us who dreamed of achieving similar feats. One final thought however; we know all top level pro cyclists take drugs, just so they can get to where they want to get, and seemingly take a vow of secrecy when they do, so spare a thought for those like Scotsman David Millar (former TdeF prologue winner), who, unlike Lance, when asked straight up by the press whether he took Epo, his reply was, "well, yeah, sorry, I did"......... It's sad that honesty might not always be the best policy.

rpvh, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 03:14 (eighteen years ago) link

one more thing, baltostar said all the drugs early in Lance's career caused him to get cancer. Rubbish.

rpvh, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 03:20 (eighteen years ago) link

i was this close to getting like 45 LIVESTRONG bands to wear on my arm at my then-office job earlier this year. at one point does sincere agreement turn into ironic parody?

kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 04:41 (eighteen years ago) link

rpvh ....

You don't think that abuse of drugs meant for specifically terminal medical illnesses can lead to cancer ?

I suggest you visit your personal doctor tomorrow and ask him about that one.

It is very well known in medical science that drug abuse (of many and varied kinds) catalyzes and assists in the development of cancer.

Cancer is a disease where the genetics of the cells are altered so that that they reproduce excessively -- extremely excessively. This genetic modification is often due to the cells' reaction to foreign substances. Have you ever heard of skin cancer? That's caused by too much UV radiation destroying the natural genetics of the epidermus cells.

baltostar, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 05:26 (eighteen years ago) link

also rpvh ...

When it comes to having the courage to attempt to put a stop to an out-of-control spiral that is causing scores of otherwise super-healthy and super-fit young men in their early twenties to instantly drop dead from massive heart attacks, I would say that honesty is the only policy.

Paul Kimmage and David Millar are heros. Lance is not.

Dominating the competition and amassing impressive victories, fame and fortune does not constitute heroic behaviour in my view of the world.

What is heroic is those who have the courage to step back from living a lie, who have the courage to disclose the truth, and to stop the poor, ignorant, and desperate from being used as expendable (expendable in the worst sense of that word) pawns in a game of giant profits for corporations.

This isn't like baseball in the US. This isn't Barry Bonds. The deaths from abuse of EPO, HGF, etc. in pro cycling are up in the hundreds.

It's basically young kids who are dying. Cycling is a sport where you either make it or you don't by your very early twenties. Actually, 21 is about the average age where you either get a contract or give it up.

These young guys give it all to the sport ... it's completely exhausting and all-consuming to become a pro cyclist ... you have to train continually almost year round (maybe one month semi-off around Christmas) ... and so these guys are only rolling only one set of dice in life.

It's not like in American sports where you can grab a college degree or a second career in the off-season. In cycling, there is no off-season. And you're dead tired -- exhausted in an armchair, or in bed-- when you're not on your bike.

Finally, I don't believe that all top cyclists are on drugs. Especially in France. The police and the courts are so on top of it these days that it's very difficult to be doping on a French team and not be caught. The French teams themselves have done a 180 from the late 80s.

It's a matter of national image, saving their most treasured and valuable sporting institution. The government got involved and applied serious pressure to the sponsors -- mainly French corporations. This is what has to happen to stop the trend. But first the truth needs to be told.

And many French riders are saying that this year it is "a race at two speeds". The French just can't keep up. No Frenchman is high in the GC. Considering France's long history of producing perhaps the highest percentage of great cyclists of any country, a believable explanation for their lack of success in this year's tour is that the French teams are generally clean, and other teams are not.

I don't know who you are, what you do ... myself, I'm not a professional athlete, so it's not my war to fight. But if something that is incredibly wrong is occurring in my profession then I would take steps to put a stop to it if I could. Not figure out a way to profit from it.

baltostar, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 06:00 (eighteen years ago) link

You seem weirdly sure about all this, balto- aren't you exaggerating a (genuine) problem somewhat? ('hundreds' of deaths in pro cycling- really? Surely other endurance athletes like runners and triatheletes would be dropping like flies too? EPO and HGF aren't cheap either). Offer some evidence rather than wild speculation.
The lack of a French GC contender has more to do with the increasing globalisation of the sport and consequent wider talent pool. Laurent Jalabert was world number one quite recently, and Richard Virenque wasn't bad, at least when he was on drugs (something the French publique don't seem to hold against him).
Kimmage was a reasonable platoon rider who realised that he wasn't prepared to risk his long term health to make twenty grand a year as a domestique. Fair enough, but not exactly heroic. He knew he wasn't turning his back on glory.
But if you believe that self serving guff about Millar only taking EPO once and saving the capsules to remind him never to be naughty again, you really will believe anything. I love your assertion that cycling is a game generating 'giant profits for corporations' too. Is there another sport called 'cycling' that I know nothing about, because this one seems to promote hearing aids, wooden flooring and the odd supermarche?
Cycling never was clean and chivalrous. Riders have been self-medicating for a hundred years now, yet talent, even drug aided talent, will always rise to the top. Coppi and Anquetil were no cleaner and if Armstrong inspires cancer sufferers, then good on him. He's mad, but as I don't have to live with him so what. As the old movie had it, 'If in doubt print the legend'.

snotty moore, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 11:03 (eighteen years ago) link

Yes. Everything you've said is right.

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 22:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Balto, you know what, I won't argue with you, simply because for all intensive purposes you are correct (I still disagree about the cancer business, Lance could just as likely have got it without drugs, we'll never know, but again, correct, it may have played a part). I am as disgruntled about the drug culture as you, I also really, really wish honesty was the policy for these guys, and I probably should opt for better judgement when cheering Lance on.

As you say, there are clean cyclists, but my comment was "top level pro cyclists", ie the top 10, 20, 50, whatever in the Tour. I doubt the honest guys will find themselves in there.

rpvh, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 23:39 (eighteen years ago) link

Unfortunately, the only evidence they could obtain and which their publisher was willing to take the legal risk of printing is circumstantial evidence -- but that's expected: if there was any evidence that could hold up in court, the UCI or other authorities or the courts/police would take action.

What a pesky little detail we have here. I like how we're supposed to accept circumstantial evidence as outright fact, let alone the widescale conspiracy required to sustain the accusations.

The case against Armstrong has always been founded on his assholic personality and fueled by jealousy and rumors. Until there is legitimate proof that he is or was (or more relevatory, one of few) doping, nobody is going to give a shit.

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 00:09 (eighteen years ago) link

My uncle's been a competitive cyclist for over a decade now, and says that Armstrong was a complete asshat before he got cancer, but he's a genuinely nice guy now.

He learned his lesson, re-evaluated his priorities, and is a much better person because of it. I don't see where the hate is coming from...no one's online making a hate filled post about you because you were an asshole ten years ago, why do you feel the need to do so?

Matt P., Wednesday, 20 July 2005 01:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I didn't start this thread. I didn't say Armstrong is an asshole. You need to re-read what I've written.

I said that Armstrong is a fraud in many ways and, overall, he has not been good for the health of cycling as a professional sport, and he has indirectly contributed to the abuse and killing of poor and desperate young men by powerful corporate-backed entities.

The guy who said that cycling is sponsored by a bunch of Mom 'n Pop operations obviously just doesn't have a single clue about modern cycling. Who do you think T-Mobile is? Who do think Motorola is? Who do you think Liquigas is? Who do you think Credit Agricole is? Who do you think Benneton is? Who do you think Phonak is? The list is endless. These are huge corporations with billions in revenue. Just go to a website that covers pro cycling (like velonews.com or procycling.com) and look up the sponsors for yourself. Do some research. Many giant corporations are involved in cycling sponsorship.

What is most interesting about all of this to me is that some people dismiss the whole subject just because their is not definitive proof that would stand up in court. But this really is kind of a "it takes 30 years for the truth to come out" type of thing -- like Watergate and Deep Throat's identity. Because the numerous journalists who know what's going on can't speak about it.

Years, or decades from now we'll probably learn the truth, with definitive proof provided -- if we're still alive to hear it. Myself, I have a number of sources, and I don't feel that I need to hear anymore. I'm convinced. You should do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Here's a point some of you may not realize: sport drug abuse, in certain respects, is very similar to street drug abuse. The addicts need reliable "on call" dealers they can depended upon to provide them the "good stuff" and not snitch them to the authorities. And there just aren't very many really good drug dealers -- it's a very difficult "profession".

So ... word gets around pretty quick ... the dealers doing a lot of the talking. Another guy who is rumoured to be dirty amongst the professional cycling press corps is Chris Horner. If you make a real effort to befriend (even if only through e-mail) some pro cycling journalists, a few of them will share some tidbits with you. It's relly tough for someone like Lance to nail them for what they discuss in a private e-mail (as opposed to a widely read print or web publication).

As far as hundreds of amateur or pro cyclists dying from EPO abuse ... I'm am fairly certain that that number in fact is not speculation if you extrapolate the number of widely reported profesional deaths out into the amateur ranks. Do some digging on Google. Especially in the late 90s. I believe about 50% of a certain Euro pro team died one year in the 90s -- not all at once, but spread over a few months. I really don't have time right now to dig up all my notes on this, I have to leave for work.


baltostar, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 15:08 (eighteen years ago) link

I know very well who Credit Agricole and T-Mobile are, schoolboy, and I don't need to 'research' it. (Phonak does not have billions in revenue by the way, nothing like it, though it spends big on its team). But a mediocre Formula One driver who's never won a race like, say, Jenson Button earns more in a year than the entire annual budget of a Tour qualified team. In modern sporting terms cycling is very small business indeed and only a handful of major corporations are involved, putting in, for them, tiny numbers. Clearly you don't have a single clue about modern sports finance and modern sponsorship arrangements. When Ullrich retires, just watch- T-Mobile will instantly restructure or even end their deal. Though if cycling was cleaner perhaps it might attract some serious money.

All hacks in all fields know the unprintable, but this does not necessarily mean that abuse is any more or less prevalent than it ever was. Your complaints about 'poor and desperate young men' are as old as organised sport. As for Chris Horner, wooah! Stop the presses! We caught a big fish here! A cyclist taking drugs!

'I am fairly certain that number is fact not speculation' sounds a hell of a lot like speculation to me and anyone else reading. And although I don't doubt the sincerity of your concern and even agree with much of what you say (the difference being I'm not surprised in the slightest by any of it), insulting people who perhaps take cycling rather less seriously than you do makes you sound hysterical, especially when you back track when challenged.

I agree that sport drug abuse is very like street drug abuse though, only the greed is on both sides of the deal. But until 'sporting fraud' becomes a criminal offence, nothing will be done. And ultimately too few care enough about this fascinating minority pastime to change it.

snotty moore, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 18:54 (eighteen years ago) link

The real story, that will probabily never be revealed, is how LA got cancer to begin with.. Do some research on what the risks of teen-age steroid use in males are ... lets see.... testicular cancer?

Tom Terrific, Friday, 22 July 2005 13:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Wow, Snotty, you chose the perfect name for yourself. I am rather impressed.

Now then ... instead of two men of our age exchanging idiotic insults, let's think logically. I am not an F1 expert by any means, but my understanding is that currently each F1 team has 2 principal drivers, 1 or 2 back-up drivers, and some test drivers. So, let's say 3 big $ earners per F1 team. As there are only 10 F1 teams in the entire world, that only adds up to 30 big money stars in the sport.

Top-level cycling has quite a few more teams involved across the entire season, and quite a few more riders per team. What is it? About 12 or so? So, perhaps 300 riders, and their salaries all add up.

But this is not really relevant ... why is the relative amount of money sponsors spend your metric of choice?

Cars cost a lot much more than bikes, there is more need for cars than for bikes, and so cars generate much the greater profits for their manufacturers than do bikes, and so the F1 sponsors spend a great deal more to promote their products on an absolute basis -- but probably not on a relative basis.

What is relevant is that big money (compared to an average person's salary, or net worth, or the worth of a small business, etc) is in fact spent on both cycling and motosports -- which are two of the world's most popular sports in terms of fan-bases and related consumer purchases of machines and gear.

Have you noticed that both Ronaldo and Lance wear Nike caps? Nike isn't stupid.

And if you think that just because a problem has been around for ages that nothing should be done about it ... I really don't know what to say to you. Terrorism has been around for ages, but now it is spiralling upwards and out-of-control. The safety and ability of civilized society to function is at stake. So, something must be done now.

Similarly, cycling is the worst sport in terms of killing people off with performance-enhancing drug use. Can you name a sport that kills off more people due to drug use?

Clearly, something must be done.

baltostar, Saturday, 23 July 2005 04:27 (eighteen years ago) link

Agreed. Any sport which damages (and even kills) its participants is damaging itself. Such overlooked cynicism is ruining sports as varied as rugby and running, but cycling is still out ahead, perhaps because such a culture is seen as ineradicable and even historically justifiable. (Nonetheless even the mechanics in F1 are paid more than some domestiques.)

Well done to Cadel Evans for cheeking the headmaster three days before his retirement, in case we'd all forgotten about L.A.

snotty moore, Saturday, 23 July 2005 17:30 (eighteen years ago) link

There's several reasons why I dislike Lance Armstrong. Drug abuse, blatant disrespect for his team mates (for example shouting at team mates for being idiots, riding up to team mates ordering them to slow down, shutting out team mates because they competed/wanted a better place,...),... What I think some (Americans) don't understand is how he brought an American spirit in a European sport, it's something a lot of Europeans dislike. Remember that Merckx didn't participate in the 1973 because of criticism from the French for winning all the time. Would Lance do this? Nope, it wouldn't even cross his mind. You can call it dumb, but I think it shows a clear difference in mentality. I only hope he stops this year, because it's just a sad race now: you know he's going to win (and not on fair terms, because of his drug abuse). I wonder if he'll do a *Flo-Jo* and how the public will react. I don't wish it upon him, he hope he can live off his 26 million with Sheryl but just not cycle anymore.

nathalie's body's designed for two (stevie nixed), Saturday, 23 July 2005 18:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Everyone is so jaded and negative.

roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Saturday, 23 July 2005 18:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Steroids? Man if they are using steroids they should get their money back.
You ever seen these guys close up?
I mean, geeeeez, Rasmussen, all 135 punds sopping wet, should start taking SOMETHING LOL or at least eat better.
Heck, Hincapie is 6-3 and 180, and he is considered huge. EPO and similar drugs in the tour.... sure. Steroids, I doubt it. Steroids in football and baseball where large muscle mass is essential for success: I can see that.
Here is a link to a scientific article, in a highly regarded peer reviewed journal, on the physiology of a TDF racer.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191

Are there any other physicians around this place?

Ok, let the flames begin. I suppose some people out thre are really working their panties into a bunch right now.

and if my typos offend somebody's ubermensch mentality, too bad.

frodo baggins, Sunday, 24 July 2005 08:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Meanwhile, turns out my parents went biking last week with Sheryl Crow's tour manager or something, as he is a friend of a friend. Strange world.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 24 July 2005 08:17 (eighteen years ago) link

Did they take drugs?

Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 24 July 2005 08:21 (eighteen years ago) link

Not at the time, I presume.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 24 July 2005 08:25 (eighteen years ago) link

The author very much appreciates the respectful cooperation and positive attitude of Lance Armstrong over the years and through it all.

I didn't really need to read more. ;-)

nathalie's body's designed for two (stevie nixed), Sunday, 24 July 2005 08:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Personally I could just do without those arm bands.

Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Sunday, 24 July 2005 14:59 (eighteen years ago) link

LIVESTRONG!11!!1

Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 24 July 2005 15:12 (eighteen years ago) link

Speaking from the podium after his farewell triumph, Armstrong paid tribute to his closest rivals and his team.

"I couldn't have done this without the team behind me - I owe them everything," said the American.

"Ullrich is a special rival and a special person and Basso is almost too good of a friend to race - he may be the future of the Tour."

Armstrong ended with an appeal to cycling's critics in an era dogged by drugs controversies.

"You should believe in these people [the cyclists]. There are no secrets.

"This is a hard Tour and hard work wins it. Vive Le Tour."

Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 24 July 2005 16:39 (eighteen years ago) link

Hasn't we won this yet, my preciousssssssssss?

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Sunday, 24 July 2005 18:37 (eighteen years ago) link

i hate this guy. not because he wins all the time or anythign like that, i think that's great. but the fact that he left his wife and kids, after they stood by him through his whole cancer thing- thats shady and makes him an a** in my opinion. he left his wife and kids , and is with freakin sheryl crow. what a jerk

shannon, Sunday, 24 July 2005 19:41 (eighteen years ago) link

You asterisk ass?

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Sunday, 24 July 2005 20:14 (eighteen years ago) link

but the fact that he left his wife and kids, after they stood by him through his whole cancer thing

Um, didn't they meet after he finished his chemo in '97? Weren't the kids born after they met (you'd think)?

what a jerk

-- shannon
Indeed

Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 24 July 2005 20:21 (eighteen years ago) link

Ind**d

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Sunday, 24 July 2005 20:23 (eighteen years ago) link

h*h*

Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 24 July 2005 20:26 (eighteen years ago) link

Assteris*

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Sunday, 24 July 2005 20:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Hataz, drink deep from your bitter cup.

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Sunday, 24 July 2005 21:07 (eighteen years ago) link

The problem I think is not Lance Armstrong himself, but the media treatment of him. I mean if Lance Armstrong was just another strong guy who thought he was great, who cares? But as Julia points out, parents are giving their kids his books and saying 'be like him' or 'learn from him'. Just because you are strong and can ride really fast on a bike -- that's a pretty moderate accomplishment. Not that I'm putting L. Armstrong down personally, I'm just saying, sport has become far too important. Sport should be amateur, friendly and something everyone engages in with pleasure. Idols could maybe possess qualities that anyone can aspire to, such as kindness or generosity, things that benefit society in general, not just things that, for instance, only very strong men are capable of. So it's annoying that Lance Armstrong is seen as a 'role model'.

I don't agree with those above who are saying that Lance-haters are stupid for saying things like, 'it would have been good if he stepped down after five races' or 'he shouldn't be so competitive'. It's okay that he didn't do those things, but it's exactly right that if he'd behaved in an unusally noble fashion, that would have made him a good role model. Those are the qualities that could be applied to society at large and would probably improve it or whatever.

Another thing, this is pure speculation of course, but if it's true that everyone at the top level of these sports is engaged in steroid-related doping and so on, those drugs effect your psychology as well as your physiology. Like, even when drug users aren't on drugs, their personality seems less subtle.

sps, Monday, 25 July 2005 01:22 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.