# Greg Lemond riding with dopers??? What the F....?



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

LeMond and Gaimon headline Everyone Rides fundraiser in Florida - VeloNews.com

It seems that Greg Lemond doesn't mind riding with dopers, as long as it's for a good cause.
.
.
Tom Danielson and Frankie Andreu are nice clean boys.
I wonder if Greg would ride with Lance........(for a good cause?)
.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

If I'm not already committed I might head over for that. I'd love to meet Greg and Phil.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

wouldn't be anything new for him.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Phil is a sweetheart, met him once.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

What the hell, he began his pro career riding with Fignon.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Any of those guys launch a media campaign designed to destroy him and his business?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Sh!t like that happens in the business world all the time. (or politics).

SOP.

(think of it as "swift boating" the opposition)
.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Sh!t like that happens in the business world all the time. (or politics).
> 
> SOP.
> 
> ...


Maybe in fantasy-land in but in the real world it is called Tortious Interference. 

Most can see there is a difference between a guy who tried to ruin Greg and a nice guy like Frankie.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Sh!t like that happens in the business world all the time. (or politics).
> 
> SOP.
> 
> ...


Then there are scumbags who use the 'good cause' to camoflage their doping. The ones who were affronted that they had to compete against _clean_ riders. Yeah, happens all the time in the business world.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Did Lemond ever say he wouldn't ride with dopers? 

This 'Greg Lemond is a Saint,' seems to be a strawman argument used, mostly to act as though Armstrong has somehow gotten a raw deal. 

Would Lemond ride with Armstrong for charity? I don't know. But for it to happen, I'm guessing some things would have to happen, like Armstrong to publicly apoligize to Lemond, write a check for wrecking Lemond's bike business, etc...

No one forced Armstrong to smear Lemond, destroy his business, refuse the USADA's offer of a deal, etc... He acted like a giant D-bag. Armstrong made his bed, I don't feel all bad that he gets to sleep in it.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

"Would Lemond ride with Armstrong for charity? I don't know. But for it to happen, I'm guessing some things would have to happen, like Armstrong to publicly apoligize to Lemond, write a check for wrecking Lemond's bike business, etc..."

Shouldn't Lemond talk to Trek about this? Did Armstrong ever tell Trek that unless they dump Lemond bikes, he's outta here, or did Trek decide that Lemond was hurting their top dollar attraction, and business is business, so he's gotta go?
First rule of business....Never bite the hand that feeds you....
If you believe otherwise, your living in fantasy-land.


Explain why Lemond hasn't sued Trek for this outrage?????

Most people who get fired because they complain about their company to much, don't cry about it. Most people who have a problem with the company who pays them, quit, and get a different job, with people who think like them.
.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> "Would Lemond ride with Armstrong for charity? I don't know. But for it to happen, I'm guessing some things would have to happen, like Armstrong to publicly apoligize to Lemond, write a check for wrecking Lemond's bike business, etc..."
> 
> Shouldn't Lemond talk to Trek about this? Did Armstrong ever tell Trek that unless they dump Lemond bikes, he's outta here, or did Trek decide that Lemond was hurting their top dollar attraction, and business is business, so he's gotta go?
> First rule of business....Never bite the hand that feeds you....
> ...


Talk out your ass much? There was a rather protracted breach of contract lawsuit between LeMond and Trek that was settled in 2010. It was in all the internets, but maybe not the one under your rock.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> "Would Lemond ride with Armstrong for charity? I don't know. But for it to happen, I'm guessing some things would have to happen, like Armstrong to publicly apoligize to Lemond, write a check for wrecking Lemond's bike business, etc..."
> 
> Shouldn't Lemond talk to Trek about this? Did Armstrong ever tell Trek that unless they dump Lemond bikes, he's outta here, or did Trek decide that Lemond was hurting their top dollar attraction, and business is business, so he's gotta go?
> First rule of business....Never bite the hand that feeds you....
> ...


Yer kidding, right? 

Yes, Armstrong pushed Trek to dump Lemond.
Yes, Lemond sued Trek. They settled on terms favorable to Lemond, but that didn't 100% compensate him for the loss of his business. 

Maybe understand the facts a bit, before you post? 

You're entitled to your own opinions about business, but I find them sophomoric. 

Lemond was not an "employee" of Trek, they had a business contract. Armstrong got mad at Lemond and pushed Trek to try and weasel out of the contract. Businesses (and people) can't just decide they don't like a contract and tear it up. 

So which "hand" fed Lemond? Trek? The sport of cycling in general? Lemond's own reputation? Staying quiet about things can be profitable short term. But long term, the truth will come out and you'll be stained as one of the guys who enabled. 

Oh. And look. The truth has now come out and it hasn't turned out so good for guys who pushed the myth. 

Lemond had to pick which "hand" was going to be his master. He played the long game, which is looking like a good choice.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most can see there is a difference


Most? 



Most don't use weasel words.




lol


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Most?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, speaking of weasel words- you never did finish explaining which cancers are "real cancers" and which are "not real cancers." I mean, I really want to make sure I don't support someone who has a "not real cancer." Maybe you could do a power point presentation?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Most?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Weasel words? What are you babbling about?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

What would the result be, if you started complaining about the CEO of a company that you had a contract with, because he was a wife beater. Let's say that everything you say is true. Let's say that you took it to the press, and TV.
How do you think that the company would react? Would they say that they are so sorry, or would they try to crush you?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> What would the result be, if you started complaining about the CEO of a company that you had a contract with, because he was a wife beater. Let's say that everything you say is true. Let's say that you took it to the press, and TV.
> How do you think that the company would react? Would they say that they are so sorry, or would they try to crush you?


Cool story bro

You are welcome to spin it however you like but the fact is that Greg express his disappointment in Lance using Ferrari. He said



> Greg LeMond, a triple winner of the Tour, *summed up the feelings of many on this Tour in saying*: "When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."


Lance Armstrong's involvement with the dubious Michele Ferrari clouds his Tour victory. | Sport | The Guardian

What was he supposed to say? That he was glad Lance was using Ferrari?

Greg said what most in the sport were thinking/saying and the response from Armstrong was to declare to a dinner table filled with people that he was going to destroy him. It was not until after Lance declared he would ruin Greg, that he would find 10 people to say Greg took EPO, that Greg talked in a more negative manner. Even then he largely remained silent on the topic for 5 years.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> What would the result be, if you started complaining about the CEO of a company that you had a contract with, because he was a wife beater. Let's say that everything you say is true. Let's say that you took it to the press, and TV.
> How do you think that the company would react? Would they say that they are so sorry, or would they try to crush you?


I think if the company tried to "crush me," - breaking their contract, defaming me, etc... they'd wind up in court. In some states, people / businesses who break contracts risk damages and penalties. There are also various laws that protect whistleblowers. 

I do not see the NFL trying to "crush" any player who speaks out about Ray Rice, to use your "wifebeater" example. 

Again, I find your example sophomoric. It's not as simple as 'all companies would try and crush you.'
-some would oust the CEO
-some would obey the law and honor their contracts
-some would try and terminate the contract, but not go after you with a smear campaign
-some would try to 'crush' you

Armstrong's behavior, trying to 'crush,' anyone who criticized him, is not normal behavior. That is part of why he is facing such a tough time post reasoned decision. 

I know it's tempting to normalize Armstrong's behavior "oh, that's just how it's done in the business world." But no, its actually not how "everyone" does it in the business world. It is certainly not legal for businesses to behave that way in many states.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> What would the result be, if you started complaining about the CEO of a company that you had a contract with, because he was a wife beater. Let's say that everything you say is true. Let's say that you took it to the press, and TV.
> *How do you think that the company would react? Would they say that they are so sorry, or would they try to crush you*?


Who cares how they would react?

So the standard of morals and ethical behavior is this "company" of your imagining?

Because a lot of pushy sociopaths succeed in the business world and genuflect to lunatics like Armstrong, others like LeMond have to follow suit?

What kind of "reasoning" is this?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> Hey, speaking of weasel words- you never did finish explaining which cancers are "real cancers" and which are "not real cancers." I mean, I really want to make sure I don't support someone who has a "not real cancer." Maybe you could do a power point presentation?


harsh. Even the dear Armstrong would respond to Kimmage. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> Hey, speaking of weasel words- you never did finish explaining which cancers are "real cancers" and which are "not real cancers." I mean, I really want to make sure I don't support someone who has a "not real cancer." Maybe you could do a power point presentation?


No schitt??

Yeah, I really hope he finishes that classifying of those. My wife and I are both cancer survivors, I really want to see what happens if I walk in the house and inform her, "Honey, as it turns out .... you didn't have *real* cancer..."


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Weasel words? What are you babbling about?


It only seems like babble to you because you did not understand what I said. 

google: "Weasel Words" 










Maybe next time you see unfamiliar phrases you can try googling first, before asking me for an explanation?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

JustTooBig said:


> No schitt??
> 
> Yeah, I really hope he finishes that classifying of those. My wife and I are both cancer survivors, I really want to see what happens if I walk in the house and inform her, "Honey, as it turns out .... you didn't have *real* cancer..."


The fact is that some cancers are worse than others. For example, cervical cancer is more easily treated than pancreatic cancer. 

15% of men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. And on a long enough time line, almost all men *would* get prostate cancer. It is a fact of life, something that happens as men get older. Yet the 5-year mortality rate for prostate cancer is .8% 

"My dad has liver cancer!" is saying that the dad has a 84% chance of being dead in 5 years. 
vs. 
"My dad has Thyroid cancer!" - a 2.3% mortality rate. Still terrible, but not the death sentence of other forms of cancer. 

When someone posts a story in here about a family member being diagnosed with cancer (and later admits it was for sympathy and reaction), it is fair game to challenge them and ask what kind of cancer. My challenge was crass and impolite, but I was correct in my assumption that the poster was fluffing. 

Disagree with what I have said and you're supporting the Armstrong cancer-Jesus myth.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Maybe next time you see unfamiliar phrases you can try googling first, before asking me for an explanation?


Telling someone to "Just Google it" is a very weaselly response.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> When someone posts a story in here about a family member being diagnosed with cancer (and later admits it was for sympathy and reaction), it is fair game to challenge them and ask what kind of cancer.


He very clearly did not admit that it was "for sympathy and reaction." In fact, here is what he said:



sir duke said:


> ...For someone who microdoses on sarcasm you really are clueless when others use it. I don't give a fvck about Lance's little yellow bracelet, and *I'm not asking for sympathy from you or anyone else.* My Dad doesn't need to read uplifting stories from some phony bastard who got lucky and survived his cancer.
> *Many of us have a cancer story. That's my point, 'so fvcking what'? I don't want a reaction.* My Dad, your Dad, someone's Dad. What the hell does it have to do with any special pleading for a sports cheat? If Livestrong are useful, then great. All that jetting around and hob-nobbing with presidents and Hollywood types bore fruit. For every dollar spent on cancer awareness, a dollar ended up being spent on Lance awareness. If the people who run that charity can't give an honest answer about how much finds it's way into grass roots support then that doesn't weigh too well in the court of credibility...
> 
> I suppose you forget who used the cancer ploy as part of his mock outrage when Paul Kimmage wanted to ask questions at his press conference. *Maybe that's all our father's suffering means to him, a convenient way to dodge a bullet.* That was a cynical and cowardly abuse of the goodwill of all cancer sufferers. If you want to go looking for endgames, start with Lance.


Lance Armstrong in Purgatory - Page 7

So why have you lied and made up a "confession" out of whole cloth, particularly when it is so easy to go back and check the quotes? 



Local Hero said:


> My challenge was crass and impolite, but I was correct in my assumption that the poster was fluffing.


Yes, your challenge was crass and impolite. It also turned out to be wrong. Maybe that is why you now feel the need to make up a confession for him. 



Local Hero said:


> The fact is that some cancers are worse than others. For example, cervical cancer is more easily treated than pancreatic cancer.
> 
> 15% of men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. And on a long enough time line, almost all men *would* get prostate cancer. It is a fact of life, something that happens as men get older. Yet the 5-year mortality rate for prostate cancer is .8%
> 
> ...


Yes, some cancers have a higher mortality rate than others. As a matter of fact, testicular cancer has one of the highest survival rates of all cancers. - 1% mortality rate. 

Survival rates for testicular cancer

So by your logic, Armstrong's testicular cancer isn't "real cancer," and he is not a "real cancer survivor." Interesting. 

Of course, there is more to cancer than statistics and mortality. Individuals may face longer odds than what statistics say. (Particularly aggressive strains of cancer, complications from age, unable to afford good care, etc...). 

And, of course, there are the short term and long term impacts of cancer and the treatment. Hysterectomies, removal of testicles, removing parts of the colon, impotence from prostate surgery, chemo, radiation, permanently weakened immune systems, heart damage, brain damage, stunted growth (in child survivors). The list goes on and on. After all, Armstrong shopped around for a chemo cocktail that wouldn't leave his health permanently impaired. But not all cancers have an "easy" cure. 

I'm sure a woman who survived cancer, but can't have kids thinks she had "real cancer." I'm guessing a man left with a weakened immune system from his treatment feels like his cancer was "real." (I have a neighbor like that, he's alive, but no longer able to work, he is constantly sick). And on and on. 



Local Hero said:


> Disagree with what I have said and you're supporting the Armstrong cancer-Jesus myth.


I don't see how telling other poster's that their dad's cancer "isn't real," debunks Armstrong myths. I mean, if you want to talk about Armstrong, then talk about Armstrong and don't go dragging some guy's dad into it. 

I think that Armstrong had a very "real cancer." My objection is what he did _after_. Like using his cancer as a shield against doping accusations, endlessly marketing himself as a cancer crusader while taking dangerous PEDs, his foundation allegedly hiring lobbyists to try and defund USADA, etc...

If you want to debunk the Armstrong cancer Jesus myth, I think posts like this are a nice way to do it:



sir duke said:


> I've recently learned my Dad has cancer. I haven't the heart to tell him I threw my Livestrong bracelet away years ago. I guess there's no hope for him..


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Telling someone to "Just Google it" is a very weaselly response.


You're right. I'm sorry I used a combination of words that you did not understand. And I'm sorry that I told you to google things prior to demonstrating your ignorance. 

Can we be friends again now?


Bluenote said:


> He very clearly did not admit that it was "for sympathy and reaction." In fact, here is what he said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tldr



Can you rewrite that using 100 words or less?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> You're right. I'm sorry I used a combination of words that you did not understand. And I'm sorry that I told you to google things prior to demonstrating your ignorance.
> 
> Can we be friends again now? tldr
> 
> ...


Nah, I think I'm gonna leave my post as is.

Telling that you are not trying to offer any defense for yourself. 

Readers can read it, see your attacks that SD's Dad doesn't have "real" cancer, see your fiction that SD confessed to looking for sympathy, see what SD actually said in his OPost and judge for themselves.

IMO, I think it's pretty low to go after someone that their family member doesn't have "real" cancer. 

But I think making up some BS confession that they 'admitted to just using the cancer for sympathy,' is really beyond the pale.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

JustTooBig said:


> No schitt??
> 
> Yeah, I really hope he finishes that classifying of those. My wife and I are both cancer survivors, I really want to see what happens if I walk in the house and inform her, "Honey, as it turns out .... you didn't have *real* cancer..."


Glad you guys are both _survivors._ Cheers to your continued good health.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*how will I ever recover from this?*



Bluenote said:


> Nah, I think I'm gonna leave my post as is.
> 
> Telling that you are not trying to offer any defense for yourself.
> 
> ...


You sure told it to me this time!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> The fact is that some cancers are worse than others. For example, cervical cancer is more easily treated than pancreatic cancer.
> 
> 15% of men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. And on a long enough time line, almost all men *would* get prostate cancer. It is a fact of life, something that happens as men get older. Yet the 5-year mortality rate for prostate cancer is .8%
> 
> ...


Fluffing, bluffing or lying?? I don't recall doing any of those things. I think you've dug a pretty deep hole for yourself here pal. Shame on you.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

sir duke said:


> Fluffing, bluffing or lying?? I don't recall doing any of those things. I think you've dug a pretty deep hole for yourself here pal. Shame on you.


Some people just don't know when they're getting pasted. Like the black knight in Monty Python.


----------



## t-wood (Feb 28, 2005)

*Flawed*



Local Hero said:


> The fact is that some cancers are worse than others. For example, cervical cancer is more easily treated than pancreatic cancer.
> 
> 15% of men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. And on a long enough time line, almost all men *would* get prostate cancer. It is a fact of life, something that happens as men get older. Yet the 5-year mortality rate for prostate cancer is .8%
> 
> ...


I think your logic might be a little flawed. A quick search tells me that the 5-year relative survival rate for anaplastic thyroid cancer is 7% so it's not as black and white as you seem to believe. Cancer sucks and staging tells more about the survival rate than just the type of cancer. Ok back to Mr. Lemond....


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

t-wood said:


> I think your logic might be a little flawed. A quick search tells me that the 5-year relative survival rate for anaplastic thyroid cancer is 7% so it's not as black and white as you seem to believe. Cancer sucks and staging tells more about the survival rate than just the type of cancer. Ok back to Mr. Lemond....


My point was that some cancers are worse than others. 

The strangest part is that I made these comments how long ago? We can all agree to disagree on this but how long must we keep bringing it up? It's stalker status to keep following me around in threads and posting about this.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> My point was that some cancers are worse than others.
> 
> The strangest part is that I made these comments how long ago? We can all agree to disagree on this but how long must we keep bringing it up? It's stalker status to keep following me around in threads and posting about this.


Cool story, bro.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

It looks like it's going to keep coming up until you admit how manipulative and offensive your remarks were. Forever, iow.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

Leaving Lance out of this, Greg has commented against a number of dopers and how they ruined the sport. So with that in mind I find it odd that he wouldn't at least explain why this association is ok.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

CabDoctor said:


> Leaving Lance out of this, Greg has commented against a number of dopers and how they ruined the sport. So with that in mind I find it odd that he wouldn't at least explain why this association is ok.


Maybe he was riding for the charity and not because of who the other pros were that were riding it too.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Cool story, bro.





Fireform said:


> It looks like it's going to keep coming up until you admit how manipulative and offensive your remarks were. Forever, iow.


Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings!

I should show more sympathy to people who argue with me the internet and then post personal sob stories for sympathy. Perhaps the moderators create a new "Support Group" subforum for those who want share personal tragedies with strangers? 

lol


----------



## mapeiboy (Oct 31, 2007)

love4himies said:


> Maybe he was riding for the charity and not because of who the other pros were that were riding it too.


If this is true than he should not have any problem ride with Lance for a good cause .


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

mapeiboy said:


> If this is true than he should not have any problem ride with Lance for a good cause .


It's obviously very personal for LeMond. Armstrong has that effect on people.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> It's obviously very personal for LeMond. Armstrong has that effect on people.


probably lying aholes in general that has that effect.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings!
> 
> I should show more sympathy to people who argue with me the internet and then post personal sob stories for sympathy. Perhaps the moderators create a new "Support Group" subforum for those who want share personal tragedies with strangers?
> 
> lol


Apologies with "if" are classless, feckless and reveal a lot about the character of the person trying to weasel out of a predicament(usually a politician or celebrity). That hole just keeps getting bigger for you doesn't it. It's the internet man, no one knows you personally, grow a pair and just say "I'm sorry". Didn't you learn morals or common sense growing up?


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

mapeiboy said:


> If this is true than he should not have any problem ride with Lance for a good cause .


I think you still need to have some semblance of respect for them in order to do that. Given LA's scum bag tactics using his proxies and business partners to personally attack GL and his business interests I don't think that is going to happen. Easier to just choose another charity event.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> "
> Explain why Lemond hasn't sued Trek for this outrage?????
> 
> Most people who get fired because they complain about their company to much, don't cry about it. Most people who have a problem with the company who pays them, quit, and get a different job, with people who think like them.
> .


Out of court settlement. LeMond, Trek reach out-of-court settlement - NY Daily News

Want to try again Gramps? 

Jeez Grumpy you sure have a hard on for Lance. What happened? Did you buy one of his posters, a yellow bracelet, oh no...don't tell me.... you bought a Trek.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

kiwisimon said:


> Apologies with "if" are classless, feckless and reveal a lot about the character of the person trying to weasel out of a predicament(usually a politician or celebrity). That hole just keeps getting bigger for you doesn't it. It's the internet man, no one knows you personally, grow a pair and just say "I'm sorry". Didn't you learn morals or common sense growing up?


Go on...let it all out

lol


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

kiwisimon said:


> Apologies with "if" are classless, feckless and reveal a lot about the character of the person trying to weasel out of a predicament(usually a politician or celebrity). That hole just keeps getting bigger for you doesn't it. It's the internet man, no one knows you personally, grow a pair and just say "I'm sorry". Didn't you learn morals or common sense growing up?


Some people are not merely internet dbags, but wear that status proudly. 

It's something, I guess.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> Some people are not merely internet @@@@, but wear that status proudly.
> 
> It's something, I guess.


And they pretend not to care about criticizm, while trying to avoid criticizm with lies and spin. 

Now that makes ya lol.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Fireform said:


> Some people are not merely internet dbags, but wear that status proudly.
> 
> It's something, I guess.


You may call them internet dbags but Lance calls them his base.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

I stopped in to say - OMG, not this again!!!

While we are re-litigating the past, maybe I should bring up the old UCI "investigation" into the 1999 TdF samples - that was a fun thread.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

I still want a Della Santa


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

mapeiboy said:


> If this is true than he should not have any problem ride with Lance for a good cause .


I agree. He doesn't have to like who he is riding with if he feels his contribution is for a worthy cause. He just seems like that kind of guy.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

kiwisimon said:


> you sure have a hard on for Lance. What happened? Did you buy one of his posters, a yellow bracelet, oh no...don't tell me.... you bought a Trek.





Fireform said:


> Some people are not merely internet dbags, but wear that status proudly.
> 
> It's something, I guess.





Bluenote said:


> And they pretend not to care about criticizm, while trying to avoid criticizm with lies and spin.
> 
> Now that makes ya lol.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may call them internet dbags but Lance calls them his base.



http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/personal-attacks-hijacks-need-end-now-296386.html



lol


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/personal-attacks-hijacks-need-end-now-296386.html
> 
> 
> 
> lol


Grumpy can take it. He's a lounja!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

atpjunkie said:


> I still want a Della Santa


You won't be sorry if you get one. 

I got mine early last year and I'm sorry I didn't get it 30 yrs ago. It ain't nothin' fancy, but, man, do I enjoy riding it.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

velodog said:


> You won't be sorry if you get one.
> 
> I got mine early last year and I'm sorry I didn't get it 30 yrs ago. It ain't nothin' fancy, but, man, do I enjoy riding it.


Great vid, thanks! I do miss the ride quality of a steel bike. Part of that, I imagine, was the longer wheelbase, which also added some stability.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

kiwisimon said:


> Grumpy can take it. He's a lounja!


That, and Grumpy isn't quite human - or so it would seem at times :smilewinkgrin:


----------

