ruben wrote:
Was a huge fan until july 2009..... Now not so much, although i hope he can prove he can come back clean on the same level he had in 2007/2008 (although i doubt it)
The avatar/signature is more of an inside joke on this forum
Oh, okay. I thought it might be something like that.
Aquarius wrote:
Still, being a cheater and a liar might not do good to his cause on the long term, plus it's likely he's doing that as a first job before going into politics. It would be a mean for him, before being a purpose on its own, which is or would be regrettable.
I hope he does not go into politics. I would rather the last two years not have happened and he would just be a household name but would not make many headlines other than that as a Lance fan. His coming back has just opened up whole new discussions about how he did what he did. It is sad that since I have started following the Tour (and now cycling in general) the entire sport is quesitonable.
Crommy wrote:
Wonder whether Gadret got one
Giving away watches seems to be the somewhat-subtle way of saying "screw you" this year.
Lorkan wrote:
Oh and as I see, he prevents us from that... it's true, we all have spoken only of him during 3 weeks...
Wait... was I on the same forum than you?
Hey listen, it wasn't me who started the crap about Armstrong. I just react to the discussion that evolved here.
And I tell you, did he really prevent you from talking about race? I don't think so...
I read plenty of topics about TdF these last 3 weeks, and Armstrong wasn't for sure the main subject....
But you're all right, as soon as someone talks about Armstrong, react like that: "Oh my God! He said "Armst... Arm..." oh I can't say it or I'm gonna burn in hell. Bring a gun! He must also love Hitler, Ben Laden and Dark Vador!!".
Edited by Lorkan on 26-07-2010 16:47
fightinchicken26 wrote:
His coming back has just opened up whole new discussions about how he did what he did. It is sad that since I have started following the Tour (and now cycling in general) the entire sport is quesitonable.
Well, let me tell you a short story :
I remember we were already questioning his performances back in 1999 when he didn't seem to need a lot of breathing to climb mountains.
Actually, cycling has always been questionable, but we used to hide our heads in the sand, like that ostrich on the previous page. Any insider (anyone riding at decent amateur level, anyone involved in a pro team, etc.) knew the pros were almost all on heavy dope since the beginning of the 90's, and that many of them had been messing with corticoids throughout the 70's and 80's. Anyone who was "in" at that time and would be claiming the opposite now would be a hypocrite. And that goes for all the UCI board, among others.
I wonder if the worst thing about it is not to be a young cyclist at the time. 1998, 1999, etc. In Spring 1998, and earlier, you'd be considered a top sportsman in your school, cycling was a sport for tough people, you got admiration, etc. Then in the late Summer, people on the side of the road would start shouting "dopehead" at you just as you'd ride by them. And in your school you'd get questions like :
"you're a cyclist, right ?
- Yes
- So, do you dope ? Have you ever doped ?
- No
- You know people who do ?
- No. But you're annoying me now, stop it."
That's what we became, actually. From admired amateur kids sportsmen we had become weirdos doing a junkies sport. Yet I always had the naive idea that I'd manage to do it clean.
What kind of feelings was/am I supposed to have towards actual dopeheads or people hypocrites about doping ?
Then there was a "Tour of the renewal" ("Tour du Renouveau" in 1999. "Lance Armstrong, the first clean winner of the TDF in years", wonderful. It was blatant to anyone that if things had started changing, the top riders were still on heavy doping, including Armstrong. But the UCI covered him for years. Corticoids, EPO (2x), etc. He never was seriously put in serious trouble because of doping, despite many "things" or stories about him, as he had to remain their champion of the new clean era of cycling.
All I can feel is despise for him, and people covering his doings (UCI, press, etc.). The whole story was a blatant fluke to any one aware of cycling's habits, and Lance Armstrong is the very symbol of that swindle. That's why he's so despised around here.
Positive:
1. Livestrong.
(Obviously fighting cancer is a noble cause)
Negative:
1. LA has doped. With a little insight into the sport, it's pretty obvious. (Doesn't make him a bad person, just unethical as a cyclist)
2. He (seemingly) uses his foundation and illness to promote himself.
(He raises awareness which is good, but if he focused a little more on the foundation, rather than himself, it'd be even better. Slightly egotistical)
3. He tries to cover it up along with his compatriots at the UCI.
(This is the worst. Shows him to be manipulate and dishonest)
Now, this is what I can gather from the public persona Armstrong. Whether there are more positive sides to him, I couldn't possibly know, so I will always lean towards disliking him. But I respect Livestrong, and the negativities shouldn't have an influence on that, as that's a totally separate issue.
Positive:
1. Livestrong.
(Obviously fighting cancer is a noble cause)
Negative:
1. LA has doped. With a little insight into the sport, it's pretty obvious. (Doesn't make him a bad person, just unethical as a cyclist)
2. He (seemingly) uses his foundation and illness to promote himself.
(He raises awareness which is good, but if he focused a little more on the foundation, rather than himself, it'd be even better. Slightly egotistical)
3. He tries to cover it up along with his compatriots at the UCI.
(This is the worst. Shows him to be manipulate and dishonest)
Now, this is what I can gather from the public persona Armstrong. Whether there are more positive sides to him, I couldn't possibly know, so I will always lean towards disliking him. But I respect Livestrong, and the negativities shouldn't have an influence on that, as that's a totally separate issue.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that neutral tone... if everyone could imitate, it would be nice.
(Reuters) - Lance Armstrong and his team RadioShack will face disciplinary proceedings for breaching riders' clothing regulations during the Tour de France, the International Cycling Union (UCI) said in a statement on Monday.
The American, who was diagnosed with cancer before going on to win seven successive Tours from 1999-2005 and returning to the sport in 2009, was riding the famous race for the last time and attempted to wear a black Livestrong shirt instead of his team's red and grey strip during the final day on Sunday.
The 38-year-old was halted from publicizing his Livestrong foundation by wearing the new jerseys with the number 28 -- a reference to the estimated 28 million people living with cancer -- which delayed the start of the race, though he did wear it on the podium at the end.
"RadioShack's incorrect behavior led to a 20-minute delay to the start of the final stage, which could have disrupted the televised coverage of the race, placing the Commissaires under the obligation to impose a fine on each rider and the team managers," the statement read.
"The UCI regrets that an initiative for a cause as worthy as the fight against cancer was not coordinated beforehand with the Commissaires and organizers of the event. This could have been done whilst remaining within the rules."
RadioShack's Belgian boss Johan Bruyneel, a former rider, was unhappy about the decision and is also in trouble with the UCI for the following comments posted on his Twitter site: "To be a race commissaire you don't need brains, but only know the rules."
"The UCI also deplores the declarations made by Mr Johan Bruyneel who gravely offended all the Commissaires working in cycling. His remarks are utterly unacceptable, and Mr Bruyneel will be called upon to answer for his comments before the UCI Disciplinary Commission," the statement added.
The UCI added that any fines levied as a result of this matter would be donated to the LSC (Ligue suisse contre le cancer -- Swiss Cancer League).
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
The UCI also announced that as RadioShack’s black jersey were worn in an attempt to raise awareness of the global flight against cancer, any fines levied in the matter will be donated to the Swiss cancer charity Ligue suisse contre le cancer.
I'm sorry, but which d#ckh#ad watching the Tour de France, or seeing the coverage of the Tour, of photos of the podiums, or anything to do with cycling wouldn't be aware of Cancer?
Promoting the awareness of the global fight against cancer (not flight as CyclingNews puts it) isn't truely a worthy cause within the world that is watching the Tour. Maybe actually fighting against cancer by finding yet more cures might be more worthwhile of the time and money that was used to produce a set of kit in black. That was probably taken from Livestrongs bank account rather than Team Radioshack.
Or promoting cancer awareness in Africa, or other 3rd world parts of the World would be more appropriate. That is, of course, if the people who lived there lived long enough to develop cancer. Chances are they won't. They'll die of something simple. Like cholera. Or malnutrition.
That's my two cents on Lance's attention seeking actions.
The UCI also announced that as RadioShack’s black jersey were worn in an attempt to raise awareness of the global flight against cancer, any fines levied in the matter will be donated to the Swiss cancer charity Ligue suisse contre le cancer.
I'm sorry, but which d#ckh#ad watching the Tour de France, or seeing the coverage of the Tour, of photos of the podiums, or anything to do with cycling wouldn't be aware of Cancer?
Promoting the awareness of the global fight against cancer (not flight as CyclingNews puts it) isn't truely a worthy cause within the world that is watching the Tour. Maybe actually fighting against cancer by finding yet more cures might be more worthwhile of the time and money that was used to produce a set of kit in black. That was probably taken from Livestrongs bank account rather than Team Radioshack.
Or promoting cancer awareness in Africa, or other 3rd world parts of the World would be more appropriate. That is, of course, if the people who lived there lived long enough to develop cancer. Chances are they won't. They'll die of something simple. Like cholera. Or malnutrition.
That's my two cents on Lance's attention seeking actions.
they were promoting livestrong? so follow my thoughts: Livestrong promo leads to livestrong profit. livestrong stands for help to find a cure to cancer, so the profit goes to... tatarataaaaa... the search of the cure?
PM-me for feedback on first user bar, please
"i don't care about what you say, really don't care. don't wanna bring this any further. even when his business collapse, i'll wear a livestrong wristband."
The UCI also announced that as RadioShack’s black jersey were worn in an attempt to raise awareness of the global flight against cancer, any fines levied in the matter will be donated to the Swiss cancer charity Ligue suisse contre le cancer.
I'm sorry, but which d#ckh#ad watching the Tour de France, or seeing the coverage of the Tour, of photos of the podiums, or anything to do with cycling wouldn't be aware of Cancer?
Promoting the awareness of the global fight against cancer (not flight as CyclingNews puts it) isn't truely a worthy cause within the world that is watching the Tour. Maybe actually fighting against cancer by finding yet more cures might be more worthwhile of the time and money that was used to produce a set of kit in black. That was probably taken from Livestrongs bank account rather than Team Radioshack.
Or promoting cancer awareness in Africa, or other 3rd world parts of the World would be more appropriate. That is, of course, if the people who lived there lived long enough to develop cancer. Chances are they won't. They'll die of something simple. Like cholera. Or malnutrition.
That's my two cents on Lance's attention seeking actions.
they were promoting livestrong? so follow my thoughts: Livestrong promo leads to livestrong profit. livestrong stands for help to find a cure to cancer, so the profit goes to... tatarataaaaa... the search of the cure?
They were promoting the "awareness of cancer". Not the awareness of their charity. Their words, not mine.
Plus, how many times have you said now that "this conversation is over".
oh, i just reached another conclusion! if armstrong dopes, UCI does nothing. but if he wears a promoting jersey during tour, UCI punishes him. thats all right, does it makes
Spoiler
sense?
PM-me for feedback on first user bar, please
"i don't care about what you say, really don't care. don't wanna bring this any further. even when his business collapse, i'll wear a livestrong wristband."
The UCI also announced that as RadioShack’s black jersey were worn in an attempt to raise awareness of the global flight against cancer, any fines levied in the matter will be donated to the Swiss cancer charity Ligue suisse contre le cancer.
I'm sorry, but which d#ckh#ad watching the Tour de France, or seeing the coverage of the Tour, of photos of the podiums, or anything to do with cycling wouldn't be aware of Cancer?
Promoting the awareness of the global fight against cancer (not flight as CyclingNews puts it) isn't truely a worthy cause within the world that is watching the Tour. Maybe actually fighting against cancer by finding yet more cures might be more worthwhile of the time and money that was used to produce a set of kit in black. That was probably taken from Livestrongs bank account rather than Team Radioshack.
Or promoting cancer awareness in Africa, or other 3rd world parts of the World would be more appropriate. That is, of course, if the people who lived there lived long enough to develop cancer. Chances are they won't. They'll die of something simple. Like cholera. Or malnutrition.
That's my two cents on Lance's attention seeking actions.
they were promoting livestrong? so follow my thoughts: Livestrong promo leads to livestrong profit. livestrong stands for help to find a cure to cancer, so the profit goes to... tatarataaaaa... the search of the cure?
Look Jay, you're not exactly persuading us. We know it's for a good cause, and next time I'm out shopping I'll buy a Livestrong Band, I even have a Livestrong band on my Twitter, but that doesn't mean that I like Armstrong.
So please, can you stop trying to prove us wrong, because, to be honest, I'm sick of your posts.
JayTheKid wrote:
oh, i just reached another conclusion! if armstrong dopes, UCI does nothing. but if he wears a promoting jersey during tour, UCI punishes him. thats all right, does it makes
Spoiler
sense?
Look, this is the UCI, they make as much sense as a Chocolate Fireguard.
