Jean wrote: It was brilliant then, but it just seems grotesque now.
And really sad.
open topic, for anything cycling related.
Isn't that a doper vs another doper? May the best dope win! Yes, very exciting for the spectators, the unsaid driver of money, sponsorship and drive to win at all cost.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
1. Don't really care - never followed Lance Armstrong.
2. No - that's sacred and the bike was expensive, I don't have loads of disposable income
3. Never owned that.
Giant TCR SL1 / Cervelo P5 Six / Specialized Langster Pro
Well, I've made my decision.
No more dating skinny blondes for me...and that's final!
My bike blog. Long on rumination, rambling and opinion. Why let facts ruin everything?
Many people with good intentions have been dudded. My daughter has a Livestrong jacket and has worn
it proudly before today, and had bought it plus wrist bands in the mistaken belief it was supporting cancer
I'm thinking we should go buy some fabric paint so we can strike-out the "st" and put "W" in its place. Or
should we just cut it up for rags ?
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.p ... tcount=124
Some real conspiracy theorists on here and hilarious to read the endless discussions re what live strong does. Cycling has been for a long time such a snobbish sport, and I'm talking the recreational side eg. This site
Every second thread is about bagging someone out not as fashionable or knowledgeable. It seems that people thrive on the self imposed elitist feeling and the LA saga just helps people feel better about themselves against someone none of us using all drugs known to man could get close to beating.
LA was still, months ago, at the pointy end of triathlons and there is no doubting he is still an amazingly talented athlete.
It's almost laughable that people would now not wear live strong gear etc because of what others would think.
Tbh this is getting stupid. If live strong helps 1 person then <language> it, they've done more than people whinging on the net like spoiled children.
LA, the ultimate evil, for all his wrong doings etc and regardless of motivations which can be debated all day has still done more to help others than Any of us ever will.
Hate on haters, if that makes you feel superior.. Knock yourselves out.
I couldn't help but wonder if you are an LA fan?
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
Yeah, I'm still wearing my Bernie Maddof signature jacket too.
Well said Evo6point5.
I have avoided weighing in on the Lance debate this far but man, this kind of balderdash gets me. This is not meant to be personal, this kind of stuff gets rehashed on forums all the time. I'm no hater but you can now see the man for what he is. There are a number of things about these kind of posts that really get to me.
The first is that the man hides behind his "charity" and foundation work.
This can happen 'cause people still, in 2012, get all worked up about cancer. Its a disease and a very common one in all its various forms. Hey, there are a hell of a lot worse diseases out there by a long mile. Diseases that folk just dont seem to get so prickly about. So ease up on the "you cant talk like that cause my insert friend/family member had X and so I know what I'm talking about".
I would wager there is not a single member on this forum who has not known someone affected by a cancer. Let alone a lot who's work is in some way connected.
Next the charity pie is only so big. Remember Aceh, the local charities were strapped for a year afterwards on account of the money that went to the tsunami fund. They just got a bigger slice of the pie that year. Armstrong just collecting more of the pie while he could for his own outfit. Now that is not to say there are no people in his organisation who do good work, I'm sure there are. But the way he went about it, the cheating, lying, bullying and intimidation.....
The evidence is out there if you care to look. Defending him on account of his cancer charity is lame.
God only knows what drove him but I would hate to think any kids look to him as a role model knowing now what the man really is.
Can I have some of these?
Good points and im bot trying to "win" the discussion, was just sharing my views. I'm not defending him at all. None of us know the "truth" but regardless...
The point I was making is that to become engrossed with attempting to discredit a charity because of his involvement with it serves no gainful purpose and that, using the worst estimates of overhead expenditure etc, that they have provided huge amounts of assistance to individuals. To preach venom about a charity because of his association seems rather spiteful to me but each to their own
I'm also not sure you can say one terminal disease is "worse" than another but that's another whole discussion.
And to the extremely witty response thinking I must be an LA fan? Is that what it is these days? I'm either with you or against you? I've never followed him as a fan per se but it's clearly obvious that he had been and is extremely physically fit and I respect that in any athlete. Drugs aside, I wish I was half as fit as he still is today. If being an LA fan is the latest insult that's fine. I've never found it healthy to be consumed with jealousy and hate which tbh suffocates the cycling culture to a large degree.
I wont argue the point about the present, however I can assure you that this was not the case "a long time" ago. Cycling was a sport for blue collar workers, regarded as "strong in the legs, and weak in the head. Cyclists were pitied, and kind people motoring would offer the poor beggars a lift. Riding a bike to work was a certain sign of lack of achievement. Far, far from "snobbish".
Fair point. Probably different perceptions of "a long time"
Hazmat5765 appears to be aged around 56, while I am 64, so a "long time" back to our childhood is not vastly different, however he might be thinking back to the time he started his current cycling habit, and we might have a vast difference in that measurement.
I agree; Fair point
I was thinking back to my first competitive cycling experience around 1958, and I dont think much changed until the early 80's. One slow but constant change was the improvement in cars and roads, which resulted in us travelling further afield for competition.
The "snobby" bit might have started to creep in during the late 80's/early 90's. During that period the top of line bikes began to appear outside coffee shops. In fact, coffee shops attracted better (I mean, more expensive) bikes than local cycling club events did.
Spotted a rider in Mellow Johnny knicks today, guess it caught my attention more than it normally would but hey, they're just a pair of knicks.
The way to get this PED issue taken seriously is to boycott the sponsors. If only for a short while. If we all refused to buy equipment and clothing for three or six months where was clear evidence (or well founded suspicion) of a sponsored rider using PEDs then the sponsors would have some serious 'skin in the game' -and a strong imperative to be a lot stronger in their policies and practices to sponsoring (and more strenuous about the contracts that they sign).
If we don't do this then there will be another Lance just around the corner. So lets not buy Oakley, or trek, or Nike, etc for a while. Sponsors are a central part of the machinery they sustains both the sport (a good thing) but also a part of the machinery that rewards its culture and behaviour. Even if their sponsoring of the guilty is honestly inadvertent (as opposed to them professing ignorance in the face of compelling evidence) they should be forced to take notice and act. They do after all make a bucket load of money from PED related misbehaviour ( as well as the acts of 'clean' athletes). And this money comes from us, the recreational riders.
So whilst I am in the market for a new bike and equipment there are some brands that I will not be spending my $10k on. A small but important gesture. Join me.
You will struggle to spend your 10k on a K-mart Huffy Fylystyne1, since that will be your only choice when you go shopping.
Well, maybe you'll be happy on 10k (and 30kg) of Surly LHT or something. Seriously, the vast majority of cycling companies are run by spivs of one sort or another - I'm pretty sure Trek (for example) are not directly responsible for cheating in pro cycling in the same way Gray Nicolls aren't responsible for our wonderful cricket team and their various betting activities. There is no way to avoid spivs and no way to sensibly boycott them in any way that'll hurt their business in any meaningful way. Business is spivvery of one sort or another, to avoid it you'd pretty much have to stop buying anything.
So we get the leaders we deserve and we elect, we get the companies and the products that we ask for, right? And we have to ask for different things. – Paul Gilding
but really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.
Why are people so unkind? Just a wee bit of an exaggeration there drubie? More like 12 or 13Kg. You must be thinking of Velomobiles, which incidentally you can spend 10K on.
Who's going to lay down chalk this year??? CleanBottleChalkbot? NissanLeafBot?
They certainly created a brand around "fighting cancer" and "beating the odds".....
Just need to change their name to SellStrong or TalkStrong and they'll be right
Or are you guilty of the aforementioned snobbery, Drubie?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]