Big Mig is shooting his mouth off about something he admits he hasn’t even bothered to look into:
From Cyclingnews:
Another doofus happy to regard Lance Armstrong as the most reliable source concerning allegations against Lance Armstrong.
For what? By whom? What damages have been incurred? If essentially everyone was doping at the time, then everyone is responsible just as much as LA. If LA hadn’t won, then someone else would have who was also doping and we’d be talking about them now instead of him.
This also goes to LA ‘forcing’ team members to dope. Every other team was as well according to what I’ve read in this thread. Would his team members have been on other teams where they couldn’t have doped? Would they have even been in the race?
By SCA, for defrauding them out of $7.5 million?
By the Sunday Times, for lying his ass of during his libel suit against them for publishing LA Confidential?
Honestly, you seem to have pretty a pretty strong opinion about this case when you also appear to be rather poorly informed about it.
Man, this is a messageboard devoted to fighting ignorance. But holy shit, your particular level of ignorance on this subject is almost insurmountable.
The penny will drop for you - maybe in a week. Maybe in a year. You’ll keep reading about lawsuits coming back to haunt Armstrong. For years yet. And you’ll be asking yourself why? Eventually, you’ll read something and the penny will drop, and you’ll get it.
But for now, you’re just not on the page. You think you are, but you’re not.
It’s irrelevant if other teams doped. If even one clean rider was beaten by Armstrong, that’s immoral. And then there was the infamous 2005 Champs Elysees speech where he told the world how he felt sorry for anyone who couldn’t believe in miracles. Who couldn’t believe he did it clean. In front of a global audience of a billion. Even then he was thinking of Livestrong.
Armstrong is the most cunning, calculating, manipulative, self absorbed sports person in history - hiding behind a veil of saintliness built entirely on 10 years of sporting fraud.
You’ll get it - sooner or later.
My time spent on another message board today has finally hit home that no, he and a lot of others probably won’t get it. I’ve finally been beaten into submission on this one.
That’s fine though as most of his supporters are, at best, fans for two weeks a year, but what is really depressing is how Sammy, Valverde, and Mig have all come out in support of Lance over the last few days.
The Mig link has been provided. The sooner that the old guard fades away, the better. It really irks me that a lot (Vino, Riis) are still able to run teams. They all need to be drummed out of the sport.
An article from yesterday and one from 11 days ago. I didn’t know there was such a stringent requirement that I had to meet before I get to ask a question. Thanks for the update on proper etiquette at the SD: ‘Don’t ask questions unless you are an expert on the subject or already know the answer’. Got it.
[QUOTE=Boo Boo Foo]
Armstrong is the most cunning, calculating, manipulative, self absorbed sports person in history - hiding behind a veil of saintliness built entirely on 10 years of sporting fraud.
[/QUOTE]
And this is relevant to what I’ve been saying how? Maybe you’ll eventually get it that I don’t give a shit if you hold him down and remove his last testicle. I don’t care about Lance Armstrong. I am not a fan. I don’t watch the sport.
What interests me in this obsessive desire to keep going over the outcomes of sports events that have happened far in the past and why people feel the need to worry about it after a winner is declared as if they have a personal stake in it.
And if this thread hadn’t been in another forum to start out with, I would probably have never have bothered to post - which may indicate how much interest it actually does hold for me. In other words, marginal (and I’ve been sitting here for a minute or so deciding if I should even bother to post this).
Last time I checked mate, each of us, all of us are entitled to choose what we find interesting and or boring. You would do well to remember that before you project your own choices onto others.
In my experience, people who keep coming back to a thread and posting - especially AFTER they protest they have no interest in the thread’s subject? They’re usually energy pirates.
Heh, Uzi your participation follows a cyclic pattern. You post a few (increasingly silly) comments, the level of ass spanking you get as a result gets too much, then you give us the “well so what, I don’t care anyway!” line. At which point we point out that you clearly care enough to keep participating, same as us. At which point you drop out for a day or two and then it all starts again.
A few hours ago you chose to comment on something BBF said in this thread. BBF’s statement wasn’t even directed at you. Your decision to renew your participation was 100% voluntary. No one was holding a gun to your head, dude.
There isn’t a single person here (well OK, there’s one guy I’m not sure about) who doesn’t understand that actions speak louder than words. For as long as *you *keep bothering to come in here discussing this stuff, you aren’t going to come across as anything but hypocritical for trying to tell us *we *shouldn’t bother to do so.
You are like someone who keeps batting away a ball which then rebounds and hits them in the face. How many times are you going to do it before you learn?
What part of this statement don’t people understand? What is hypocritical about it?
I’m sorry for interfering with your wank fest on how LA is evil (when it is quite clear that he was only doing what everyone else was doing only more successfully) and that it actually matters.
…the thread is about Lance Armstrong. You want to talk about the people talking about Lance Armstrong. Maybe the pit would be a better place to post your observations?
Like I said… an energy pirate.
Not much more to say really now with regards to Armstrong, apart from learning some pertinent lessons I guess. If it seems too good to be true, it usually is. People love to buy into a fairytale. Corporations and the media love to sell a fairytale. Narcissists like Armstrong love to provide one. And no one likes to be conned.
To be fair however, he’s not the anti-Christ or anything. I get that. There’ll be other sportsmen and sportswomen in the future who do really rotten things. But very few will attain the giddy heights of scandal that Armstrong has climbed.
This is easy. By making it known that your win is never secure if you have broken the rules attaining it, today’s cyclists will be discouraged from using the same tactics.
Right back at you. If it isn’t worth us talking about, it is doubly not worth you worrying about us doing so.
Both those stories have been around for years. The particular articles were just the first hits I got off google. These legal liabilities have been being discussed in many news articles since Lance opted out of arbitration.
Earlier this year I attended a corporate conference for a hundred or so top sale people worldwide, and they had a motivation speech by the former manager of Micheal Schumacher’s team. Let’s do the impossible, go go go. I’d be surprised if the 90 minutes of his time was worth less than $20 grand and he’s just a bit player. Motivation speaking is a serious business and LA did well at it.
I read through the interview with Michael Ashenden, and can see why LA walked away. That’s some pretty damning evidence, and goes a lot ways to smash the pedestal.
Yes, I agree. In my internet travels this past week I saw a USADA graph which showed Armstrong’s hematocrit and reticulyte values in the 8 months before June of 2009, compared to the 2 months from June to July 2009. They went off the map, and they diverged wildly in comparison to where they’d been in the previous 10 months. That was the “one in a million chance” (apparently) that he wasn’t still doing autologous transfusions. My understanding is Dr Michael Ashenden is responsible for some breakthrough research into that particular aspect of blood science.
Personally? I can’t think of anything more dangerous than shooting up my own blood ater having it withdrawn a month or more ago. The risk of aneurysm is pretty high I’m told.
Why would that increase your risk of an aneurysm? Or do you mean an embolism?
CNN is airing “The World According to Lance Armstrong” starting right now. (Eastern)
ETA: It will air again at midnight, 3am, and 5am. (Eastern)
I suspect so.
I doubt this. If a young cyclist is faced with the choice of attaining some level of success and the possibility of being caught vs. no chance at attaining any success, I’m guessing a significant number will chose the former. It is probably why doping is so prevalent. If you don’t dope, you can’t compete at all. As Lance Armstrong is quick to point out, passing drug tests is probably not all that difficult if you are intelligent about it. And as others are pointing out, several years after the fact, when testing catches up to the cheating, a lot of people will shrug their shoulders.