# Should we rename this forum?



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

It seems like all it has been about for a long time is the "Hate Lance Armstrong and hope he burns into nothingness" forum. Why not just name it what it is? There are a few individuals who are so hateful of the man that they refuse to listen to any discussion. Rather it is a pound anyone who is on the fence into shame. I could care less what happens to the man. I ride my bike, watch the races, and go about my life. Having him stripped won't bring any sense of justice to me. Were the assets used on the top ten of all of his victories that have been expended on his case over the last fifteen years, I doubt anyone would come away a winner. Luckily for them, the hate is at Lance. Could any pro rider from that time have survived the scrutiny he faced? Especially since physical evidnence isn't even required to convinct? Word of mouth is sufficient. Probably not. Did he cheat...maybe, but it doesn't posses my being to prove he did. It's a freaking sport people...nothing more. If his cheating affects you that deeply, perhaps you should look at your real life a little closer. Sort of like the replacement refs. I got a good chuckle at NFL fans who were beside themselves with fury at bad calls. This is the same deal. It is a game adults are playing that doesn't affect you, your income, or your family.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

If your were genuinely unbiased, you would conclude that both sides (maybe more) of the Armstrong camp defend their viewpoint with equal fervor.

And before you advise the participants of this forum to inspect their 'real' lives, perhaps you should look at your own need to start a thread and the many responses you have posted. 

But let me also give you my advice...stop reading and posting on RBR or the Doping Forum if you believe this is unworthy of your time and let everyone else make their own decisions.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

adimiro said:


> But let me also give you my advice...stop reading and posting on RBR or the Doping Forum if you believe this is unworthy of your time and let everyone else make their own decisions.


It is beyond hilarious how many RBR Doping regulars can dish it, but can't take it. Even worse than guitarists, which I didn't think was possible. 

Smooches.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

adimiro said:


> And before you advise the participants of this forum to inspect their 'real' lives, perhaps you should look at your own need to start a thread and the many responses you have posted.
> 
> But let me also give you my advice...stop reading and posting on RBR or the Doping Forum if you believe this is unworthy of your time and let everyone else make their own decisions.


You missed my point. Well done sir. :thumbsup:


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

spade2you said:


> It is beyond hilarious how many RBR Doping regulars can dish it, but can't take it. Even worse than guitarists, which I didn't think was possible.
> 
> Smooches.


Very well said. Beware of different opinions! This site is Ad Hom Attack Central. :thumbsup:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

In another thread I called out a law prof who made some erroneous statements. And I question continued public interest in the tired saga. For that, I was called a fanboy. 

I will say this though. I exchanged some private messages with falsetti and believe we have reached detente. I hope that others who are passionate about bringing down Armstrong can keep their resentment aimed away from me, even if they think I am being unreasonable in my lack of hate. In return, I'm going to do what I can to keep things more civil on my end. (But I will keep Chris X on ignore, that guy frightens me and I would rather not be the target of his obsession.)


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

You make many good points.

IMO we need to focus on where cycling goes from here, and on providing solutions to the problems as opposed to continually waving a big sign that points to the car wreck....

We need to be FOR CYCLING. Not for or against LA. No matter what happens here, cycling is in a no win situation. It either loses one of its biggest names due to scandal, or loses credibility for not prosecuting a case where there is overwhelming evidence.

Losing one of its biggest names to scandal is NOT something anyone who truly cares about the sport would celebrate.

Many here have also raised similar concerns to yours about the process LA was subjected to. IMO those concerns are valid, but for many there is a personal bias against LA which prohibits them from viewing this issue objectively, and from a viewpoint of both whats fair, and whats best for cycling as a sport.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

This site is Armstrong Resentment Central; I do not see it changing. I can't figure it out - there is a lot of emotional investment going nowhere, in my view. Like running a tongue over a bad tooth constantly. Entertainment that turns tiresome.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

David Loving said:


> This site is Armstrong Resentment Central; I do not see it changing. I can't figure it out - there is a lot of emotional investment going nowhere, in my view. Like running a tongue over a bad tooth constantly. Entertainment that turns tiresome.


You missed the part about it also being full of WWE-like personalities.....


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

We should rename it #1 Forum.

Then we can logically argue it be moved to the top of the page, out of the dark pit it sits now.

Then things will become beautiful for the users wide teary ears will finally begin to open; and they wept.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

I think we should call it The Dungeon.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

spookyload said:


> You missed my point. Well done sir. :thumbsup:



You had an opinion, not a point 

BTW, it's madame, not sir...more assumptions, well done.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

adimiro said:


> You had an opinion, not a point
> 
> BTW, it's madame, not sir...more assumptions, well done.


It's all starting to make sense.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> It's all starting to make sense.



Happy to have helped you understand


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

adimiro said:


> You had an opinion, not a point
> 
> BTW, it's madame, not sir...more assumptions, well done.


OK,OK...I will play your game. I know there is no way I am right, so please illustrate the difference between me trying to make a point and stating an opinion. I am getting my masters in Aviation Safety, not Law, so obviously you are going to pound me with legal rhetoric here.
:mad2:


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I'm sorry, but there already is a forum named " I Hate Lance Armstrong and hope he burns in Hell forever, and ever, and ever, and ever." , over at Cyclingnews.com.
.
.
This forum is polite compared to that one.......This forum could be renamed..." Armstrong is a very bad man ".
.
.
.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

spookyload said:


> OK,OK...I will play your game. I know there is no way I am right, so please illustrate the difference between me trying to make a point and stating an opinion. I am getting my masters in Aviation Safety, not Law, so obviously you are going to pound me with legal rhetoric here.
> :mad2:


Not into games
Not a lawyer
No intention of pounding you or anyone with any rhetoric


For me the Lance saga is more about human principles than about sport or law.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Is there anyone with ' I Hate Scumbag Lance' as a username? We had the illustrious 'AntiUsada' grace us with his presence recently. The chamois sniffers here are just as vehement as the Anti Lance faction. Or else why would this thread even exist?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Is there anyone with ' I Hate Scumbag Lance' as a username? We had the illustrious 'AntiUsada' grace us with his presence recently. The chamois sniffers here are just as vehement as the Anti Lance faction. Or else why would this thread even exist?


I'm not sure....


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

I believe that the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat) McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi!


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

This should be re-named "The Pro Cycling Forum". 8 )


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

spookyload said:


> the "Hate Lance Armstrong and hope he burns into nothingness" forum.


LMFAO! You nailed it.

Repped.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> I will say this though. I exchanged some private messages with falsetti and believe we have reached detente.


well, you just made my boring days at work a little more boring, thanks :mad2:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

slegros said:


> Many here have also raised similar concerns to yours about the process LA was subjected to. IMO those concerns are valid, but for many there is a personal bias against LA which prohibits them from viewing this issue objectively, and from a viewpoint of both whats fair, and whats best for cycling as a sport.


It's sad how being skeptical of dubious facts and statistics, questioning flawed processes, or god forbid, disagreeing with someone's opinion gets you labeled as a fanboy and defender of the myth. Even if you manage to get into a reasonable back and forth discussion, it will inevitably end with someone being called a fanboy. As if only two kinds of people exist: Lance haters and Lance lovers. The posters I most enjoy reading here are the ones can look at things objectively.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Let me see if I understand correctly

If I write about Armstrong paying off the UCI I am obsessed?

If I think it is wrong to use a lab to test the tolerances levels of testing and new products.....I am a hater? 

If I do not think it is unethical to use foundation funds to lobby congress to cut USADA's funding I should say anything?

If I point out the harassment of those who tell the truth I am the bad guy?

If I point out any of the overwhelming evidence of Armstrong doping I am just a bitter hater?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spookyload said:


> It seems like all it has been about for a long time is the "Hate Lance Armstrong and hope he burns into nothingness" forum. Why not just name it what it is? There are a few individuals who are so hateful of the man that they refuse to listen to any discussion. Rather it is a pound anyone who is on the fence into shame. I could care less what happens to the man. I ride my bike, watch the races, and go about my life. Having him stripped won't bring any sense of justice to me. Were the assets used on the top ten of all of his victories that have been expended on his case over the last fifteen years, I doubt anyone would come away a winner. Luckily for them, the hate is at Lance. Could any pro rider from that time have survived the scrutiny he faced? Especially since physical evidnence isn't even required to convinct? Word of mouth is sufficient. Probably not. Did he cheat...maybe, but it doesn't posses my being to prove he did. It's a freaking sport people...nothing more. If his cheating affects you that deeply, perhaps you should look at your real life a little closer. Sort of like the replacement refs. I got a good chuckle at NFL fans who were beside themselves with fury at bad calls. This is the same deal. It is a game adults are playing that doesn't affect you, your income, or your family.


1. It is interesting
2. People talk about interesting stuff
3. People disagree on interesting stuff
4. Debates occur
5. Egos get hurt
6. Must. prove. interwebby. user. wrong.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

6. = this


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Let me see if I understand correctly
> 
> If I write about Armstrong paying off the UCI I am obsessed?
> 
> ...


Your therapist would agree that you're just a little obsessed with Lance. Trust me.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

RkFast said:


> I believe that the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat) McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi!


I like you.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Coolio..you would be out of a job if we were all warm and fuzzy types. I am guessing that NASA/math type forums might have the same percentage of type A personalities found here on RBR...haha

Yes, I am guilty


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Let me see if I understand correctly
> 
> If I write about Armstrong paying off the UCI I am obsessed?
> 
> ...


The truth has to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Omitting the inconvenient truths is something that really rankles me, and I'll call anyone and everyone on it. The truth is the truth, warts and all. Don't be afraid of it. And don't ever be afraid to question it. Am I the bad guy because sometimes I do?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*



spade2you said:


> Your therapist would agree that you're just a little obsessed with Lance. Trust me.


Seriously? Why do you hate your poor Mod. Now I have the sad face.  Now think about what you have done.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> The truth has to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Omitting the inconvenient truths is something that really rankles me, and I'll call anyone and everyone on it. The truth is the truth, warts and all. Don't be afraid of it. And don't ever be afraid to question it. Am I the bad guy because sometimes I do?


I like truth. I must have missed your truth post. Feel free to post it here if you feel it was ignored or not properly addressed.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

People should be happy that Armstrong is still doing his job, increasing discussion about cycling. Only this time his role a little different.

I take this thread as a sign that the "can't we all move on" talking point has been sent to the minions.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

I'd be surprised if there were very many type A here. I can see why Coolhand is a moderator - he has things in perspective. "What we have here is a failure to communicate"


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Here's how I look at it.

DrFalsetti, ChrisX, and a few regulars in here have been around in this subforum talking about Lance, UCI, USADA. WADA, CAS... for quite some time now. They have been extremely consistent and patient in their evidence and manners, especially DrFalsetti. When asked to provide a link, they usually do. When asked why, their answers are usuaslly in depth. And until recently, a lot of the LA fanboys (oops, there's that word again) would label these guys as quack haters. But now, everything is beginning to be clear. LA & Livestrong are becoming to look like one big lie; Bernie Madoff comes to mind.

On the other hand, the pro-LA guys are usuaslly "hit-n-run" posters, guys like AntiUSADA. Just watch, I'll bet most of you pro-LA posters will eventually get the hell outta here too, while guys like Falsetti and ChrisX will still be around. See, you pro Lance boys are not passionate enough about cycling, you guys like to worship hero rather than see that cycling is clean. 

Most of the pro Lance guys usually say things like "It's not important to me or my life what Lance does, cheat or no cheat... but I'd like to see him left alone". This is a very weak princicple. It tells me that you are willing to turn cheeks if that's what it means to keep you happy, not much like the current UCI eh. Well I'm glad that there are guys like Falestti (and Lemond) around to shed light on the whole issue with doping.. without them.. I'd probably be still rocking my Livestrong kit!! Yes, I did have that kit, but glad to have sold it for a few bucks on Ebay.:thumbsup:


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

So by your logic, Chris-X and Dr Falsetti are more correct because they hang around longer. Interesting logic.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> People should be happy that Armstrong is still doing his job, increasing discussion about cycling. Only this time his role a little different.
> 
> I take this thread as a sign that the "can't we all move on" talking point has been sent to the minions.


Lance is staying "on message."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-my-conscience-is-clear

At least he's dropped the bullshit about never doping.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> Here's how I look at it.
> 
> DrFalsetti, ChrisX, and a few regulars in here have been around in this subforum talking about Lance, UCI, USADA. WADA, CAS... for quite some time now. They have been extremely consistent and patient in their evidence and manners, especially DrFalsetti. When asked to provide a link, they usually do. When asked why, their answers are usuaslly in depth. And until recently, a lot of the LA fanboys (oops, there's that word again) would label these guys as quack haters. But now, everything is beginning to be clear. LA & Livestrong are becoming to look like one big lie; Bernie Madoff comes to mind.
> 
> ...


I think my irony meter just exploded.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

spookyload said:


> So by your logic, Chris-X and Dr Falsetti are more correct because they hang around longer. Interesting logic.


and you have chosen to ignore my other points about Falsetti and ChrisX, et al. 
But let me repeat myself, not only are guys like Falsetti and X hang around longer, but they are also consistent in their presentations. They give evidence, links to their evidence, and follow up with some soft of in-depth discussion. For this reason, they have my ears over the go-go fanboys.

All the hit-n-run posters will do their best to questions the evidence... throw out some weak sauce attempt at debating, and when the evidence is become overwhelming, they will switch tone to "let's leave Lance alone"... which is exactly what this thread is all about. I wasn't born yesterday ya know.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

David Loving said:


> I'd be surprised if there were very many type A here. I can see why Coolhand is a moderator - he has things in perspective. "What we have here is a failure to communicate"


Real type A personalities would be busy on the front lines (and winning), not focusing their existence on winning teh interw3bs.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Let me see if I understand correctly
> 
> If I write about Armstrong paying off the UCI I am obsessed?
> 
> ...


When the above is done constantly, then yes that might be considered "obsessed," a "hater", and "bitter".


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Let me see if I understand correctly
> 
> If I write about Armstrong paying off the UCI I am obsessed?
> 
> ...


Doc. you weren't mentioned by name in Mohair's post...... But you seem to think he was referring to you? 

No Dr. IMO You're not a bitter hater, but you seem to be able to see only one side of the coin.

Lance is everything you say he is and probably more, but IMO you choose to selectively look at the facts, rather than the big picture, which is cycling finds itself in a no-win situation here. It either loses one of its biggest names due to scandal, or loses credibility for not prosecuting an obvious criminal.

LA was also a prolific athlete who raised the profile of cycling, raised the profile of cancer awareness, and did much to promote living a healthier lifestyle. A cancer survivor who many still respect and look up to. It will be a shame for cycling if he's convicted.

That view and yours are both sides of the same coin we call cycling, and are not mutually exclusive.

Losing one of its biggest names to scandal IMO is not something anyone who truly loves the sport would celebrate. From where I stand you don't seem tinged with even the slightest bit of concern as it happens, but instead seem to be cheering it on, giving a free pass to any organization or individual that may not be doing their jobs properly as long as they are currently against LA. Simultaneously you seem to show an amazing lack of compassion for anyone concerned with the downfall of the sport, and a total lack of sensitivity to anyone who once admired LA and is having difficulty adjusting to what's going on. You also don't seem to be concerned with doping issues which aren't related to LA. I think the above is a result of that one-sided view, and not a result of bitterness or hate.

That saddens me and confuses me in your case because I believe at some level you actually love this sport.

I hope the mods understand here I'm trying to answer the questions in the above post, and not just stating my personal opinion here. The two are hard to separate given the questions asked, and I've tried my best to answer in an honest and polite manner...


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I like truth. I must have missed your truth post. Feel free to post it here if you feel it was ignored or not properly addressed.


OK.

The truth:

LA was also a prolific athlete who raised the profile of cycling, raised the profile of cancer awareness, and did much to promote living a healthier lifestyle. Even if you disagree with how he did it, he certainly put the spotlight on those issues! And that was a good thing! 

The truth:

LA is a cancer survivor who many still respect and look up to, and some find it difficult to accept the current situation. Those people are worthy of our compassion, respect, and understanding.

The truth:

For cycling to lose its biggest name in scandal is bad for the sport. It affects cycling's credibility, and image negatively.


Let's start with these... Then I have a few more if you'll indulge me.....


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Coolhand said:


> Seriously? Why do you hate your poor Mod. Now I have the sad face.  Now think about what you have done.


I agree, he was way off.... It came out as sarcastic, when I'm sure he was just concerned for the good Dr.. He more appropriately should have stated it as a conscientious suggestion....

For example:

You seem to have some serious concerns, perhaps you should consult a therapist in order to help you determine whether or not you may have an obsession with Lance Armstrong that is unhealthy.

I'm sure that's what he meant to say......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Losing one of its biggest names to scandal IMO is not something anyone who truly loves the sport would celebrate.


You are under the impression this is all about Lance. It is not. Lance does generate a huge amount of disinformation here but he is not the only target. Bruyneel, Marti, del Moral, Ferrari, and Celya, have doped hundreds of riders. Getting them out of the sport is a positive thing. The UCI, especially Verbruggen, have done great damage to the sport with their corruption and incompetence. Exposing this is a very positive thing. 

Most real fans of the sport celebrate that some of the sports key issues are finally being addressed. Some Armstrong fans may move on and take up Rollerbladeing or golf but cycling fans will remain regards of how much Lance embarrasses himself.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are under the impression this is all about Lance. It is not. Lance does generate a huge amount of disinformation here but he is not the only target. Bruyneel, Marti, del Moral, Ferrari, and Celya, have doped hundreds of riders. Getting them out of the sport is a positive thing. The UCI, especially Verbruggen, have done great damage to the sport with their corruption and incompetence. Exposing this is a very positive thing.
> 
> Most real fans of the sport celebrate that some of the sports key issues are finally being addressed. Some Armstrong fans may move on and take up Rollerbladeing or golf but cycling fans will remain regards of how much Lance embarrasses himself.


Oh I agree!! With every point above!!

But I still think you are seeing only half of the equation...... 

As I have said before: LA should have been nailed in '99 or at least in '01 for a positive test. Actually probably before then... And multiple times!!! It didn't happen, it should have, and that pisses me off!!! It should be clear I'm no LA fan.

But:

USADA took way too long to get its ass in gear, and probably wouldn't have unless the FDA kicked it!! But because they are now anti-LA? Lets give their past & present screwups a free pass because you know...Thats good for cycling! They're GREAT!!! 

The FDA process was bad for sport! It was a legally and ethically questionable process that wasted millions selectively targeting a big fish that got through the net rather than fixing the net. WAY after the fact, and partly so Novitzky could solidify his rep as the 'Elliot Ness' of sport. Great you got him! (sort of...) But there are other dopers... This isn't the fix cycling needs!!! But because the FDA is anti-LA? They're GREAT!! 

Landis and Tyler? Because they cheated and lied for years, and in Floyd's case defrauded on a grand scale, but are now Anti-LA? Free pass... They're GREAT! 

This is hypocritical nonsense from simple minds who are following the crowd to jump on the hate LA bandwagon in the mistaken belief that this is the position the 'well-informed' cyclist should take. You selectively choose not to call anyone on this hypocrisy, and in some cases encourage it!


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

slegros said:


> OK.
> 
> The truth:
> 
> ...


I don't agree with most of your logic at all.. but I do agree with the cancer survivors who look up to LA derserve our compassion as they learn the truth about the "image" that they thought was a hero. 

And since you brought up 'truth'.... The REAL truth needs to come out... it is NOT just about LA but imo exposing the UCI for the fraud they are.. not to mention Johan Bruynal needs to exit the sport. 

The biggest scandal in the sport is keeping up the LIE.. 

And.. I guess many just don't care to much about right and wrong anymore, some just want this to go away and pretend it didn't happen, many people that broke the law have this similar view. I guess I'm just old fashion. One of the biggest frauds in sport does need to come out imo.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

pedalruns said:


> I don't agree with most of your logic at all.. but I do agree with the cancer survivors who look up to LA derserve our compassion as they learn the truth about the "image" that they thought was a hero.
> 
> And since you brought up 'truth'.... The REAL truth needs to come out... it is NOT just about LA but imo exposing the UCI for the fraud they are.. not to mention Johan Bruynal needs to exit the sport.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you say!! Wholeheartedly!!!

What in my 3 statements above is untruthful, or in any way at odds with anything you say below it?

Does believing in those 3 statements somehow automatically preclude or prohibit me or anyone else from also sharing your point of view?

Seldom is life black and white......


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> and you have chosen to ignore my other points about Falsetti and ChrisX, et al.
> But let me repeat myself, not only are guys like Falsetti and X hang around longer, but they are also consistent in their presentations. They give evidence, links to their evidence, and follow up with some soft of in-depth discussion. For this reason, they have my ears over the go-go fanboys.
> 
> All the hit-n-run posters will do their best to questions the evidence... throw out some weak sauce attempt at debating, and when the evidence is become overwhelming, they will switch tone to "let's leave Lance alone"... which is exactly what this thread is all about. I wasn't born yesterday ya know.


I would do some more research before you make a claim about providing links or sources so others can develop their own opinions on statements made by DF. In my experience getting clear links of sources for DF's statements has been far from easy.
Fanboy does not only apply to LA or Star Wars.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

So, if this forum is truly about doping in general and not just a LA witch hunt, howz come several riders getting popped in the last 6 months didn't even get mentioned?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

spade2you said:


> So, if this forum is truly about doping in general and not just a LA witch hunt, howz come several riders getting popped in the last 6 months didn't even get mentioned?


like all things in life, most things of interested to us (whether good or bad) is dictated by the time scarcity factor. Unfortunately you, me, and 99% of the population on earth, tend to find news that deal with high profile people more interesting. This is not without warrant either, because part of the reason things/events interest us is also due to the elaborated nature of the events that had happened. 

Do you admit that the LA saga has much more elaboration, intricacies, and complexities.. than a typical doping story?

You are welcome to bring up those other dopers, but the fact is you are not interested in them because I'm guessing that perhaps you have no time, no motivation, too lazy, don't care about doping in cycling.. whatever the reason is.. you are also a participant of this forum, yet you did not bother to bring it up, but are asking others why they didn't bring it up as a way to defend LA. Let's not forget that LA was the face of cycling for the time he was competing, so it only stands to make sense that he is the face of doping now that the evidence is starting to come out. Is this not how things normally work in real life.. i.e., a great lie usuaslly leads to a great fall eventually? You will go at length to defend LA, then can we assume defending LA has a higher priority to you than bringing up the other dopers within the last 6 months?

It's a free forum. Feel free.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> like all things in life, most things of interested to us (whether good or bad) is dictated by the time scarcity factor. Unfortunately you, me, and 99% of the population on earth, tend to find news that deal with high profile people more interesting. This is not without warrant either, because part of the reason things/events interest us is also due to the elaborated nature of the events that had happened.
> 
> Do you admit that the LA saga has much more elaboration, intricacies, and complexities.. than a typical doping story?
> 
> ...


I read Cyclingnews.com every day, just as everyone else. I mean, is it not fair that what was posted on the 9th simply gets ignored? 

However, thanks for proving with most of the non-regulars already know. :thumbsup:


----------

