# Lance Armstrong: “I Am Not Banned From Life”



## Local Hero

This is my first thread in the dopers forum. I hope you wankers like it! Here goes...

Lance Armstrong: I am not banned from life. Period.

In summary, Captain Livestrong says that he's going to keep on keeping on. His training is not as focused as it used to be. He rides with buds and hits the mountain bike trails when he feels like it. Sometimes he plays golf. He's doing the Frogman tri and some obscure half ironman that nobody cares about. He is not as focused on winning and has a "higher purpose." He wants to be the fittest 40 year old on earth and spread the message. 

Then he ends with this: 

* there has been considerable interest in a separate “stand alone” series of endurance related events benefiting LIVESTRONG so this is something we are actively exploring.* Stay tuned.



____________________________________________________



My thoughts: I've openly confessed on these boards that I was once a confused triathlete. The mass hysteria swim start has kept me away from the sport. I just hate the watery moshpit. That said, I would be interested in TT start tris. I would be even more interested in duathlons and mountain duathlons (I once won an xterra duathlon!). 

Whatever Livestrong shot into his ass or veins has little bearing on my decision to compete in an event. If he promoted a reasonably-priced MTB duathlon close to my home, I would do it. No question. When deciding whether I am going to race, the two biggest factors are cost of the race and distance from my home. Some of the last things I think about when I sign up for an event is the cause or the promoter's morality. 

I know a lot of you guys in the dopers forum retired a long time ago. But pretend that you still race. 


*Would you compete in a Livestrong Tri?

Would you race in a Livestrong Road Race/Crit/Stage Race?*


----------



## Local Hero

Easy for you to say.


----------



## The Tedinator

Looks like your first thread in the doping forum just got spammed.


----------



## moskowe

That's a pretty stupid question to ask in the doping forum.

No, and no.
There, that was easy.


----------



## Fireform

Hope you're ready to beat the dopers. Cause they'll be there.


----------



## Local Hero

I'm sure a significant percentage of 40+ men who win their age group are on the sauce, legally prescribed of course. 

It's not like triathlon age groupers are tested anyway....


----------



## trailrunner68

Local Hero said:


> I'm sure a significant percentage of 40+ men who win their age group are on the sauce, legally prescribed of course.
> 
> It's not like triathlon age groupers are tested anyway....


With Armstrong running the show it will be a green light for everyone to cheat. Doping will only be the start of it. Drafting, cutting the course, fins on the swim, throwing tacks behind you on the bike, you name it. Maybe there could be a special award for the most creative cheat and another one for the most brazen.


----------



## moskowe

Maybe they could hire volunteers to hand out white lunchbags during transitions.


----------



## Big-foot

moskowe said:


> Maybe they could hire volunteers to hand out white lunchbags during transitions.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Sure I'd do them if I was into that sort of thing at the time.

I'd also like to confess at this time that I haven't ridden a bike in months or raced a bike in over 3 years just in case anyone thinks I've been pretending to race.

I don't know why that matters but apparently someone thinks it does.


----------



## pianopiano

I think that this would be a great hobby for Lance. You know, get the old team back together again; Johan, Michele, Pedro, Luis, and don't forget Pepe. It would be just like the good old days, but with none of this crazy 'witch hunt' stuff to ruin the fun. I'm sure that the faithful would love it!


----------



## Local Hero

Dwayne Barry said:


> Sure I'd do them if I was into that sort of thing at the time.
> 
> I'd also like to confess at this time that I haven't ridden a bike in months or raced a bike in over 3 years just in case anyone thinks I've been pretending to race.
> 
> I don't know why that matters but apparently someone thinks it does.


Thanks for your answer. 

I think it matters if someone still rides and races. Here's why: I wager that a retired rider is more likely to say "No, I wouldn't even get close to that race!" than someone who has spent the last year getting up at 4:30am on Saturdays to drive out to road races. And they have done this over 25 times in the past year. 

If you're still racing, you still want to race. You still feel the need to compete, otherwise you wouldn't dedicate 15-20 hours a week training and sacrifice your sleep and Saturdays to suffer on bumpy roads in the middle of nowhere. 

Once someone retires to the ivory tower of internet message board posting it is probably much easier to say, "I would not consider that race!" as that person is not considering ANY races.

And that's not a dig at you or anyone in particular. That is just how I see it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It appears Lance is trying the "These are not the droids you are looking for" tactic......it isn't working


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> Thanks for your answer.
> 
> I think it matters if someone still rides and races. Here's why: I wager that a retired rider is more likely to say "No, I wouldn't even get close to that race!" than someone who has spent the last year getting up at 4:30am on Saturdays to drive out to road races. And they have done this over 25 times in the past year.
> 
> If you're still racing, you still want to race. You still feel the need to compete, otherwise you wouldn't dedicate 15-20 hours a week training and sacrifice your sleep and Saturdays to suffer on bumpy roads in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> Once someone retires to the ivory tower of internet message board posting it is probably much easier to say, "I would not consider that race!" as that person is not considering ANY races.
> 
> And that's not a dig at you or anyone in particular. That is just how I see it.


sacrifice sleep for training? that's one approach I guess. 
The rest of the post did not make any sense either :thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker

Chris-X said:


> I think this is where the white lunchbag comes in!
> 
> At the LA, "anything goes" events, a big part of the post race socializing will be "comparing notes."
> 
> :wink:


maybe some bath salt on ultradistance events


----------



## Local Hero

den bakker said:


> sacrifice sleep for training? that's one approach I guess.
> The rest of the post did not make any sense either :thumbsup:


Getting up at 4:30am to go race is...sacrificing sleep. 

Maybe you're so far removed from racing that you don't remember getting up at the butt crack of dawn for an 8am start two hours from your house, and that's why it did not make sense to you. Or maybe you've never even raced a bike and that's why you're saying my post doesn't make sense to you. I have no idea. I don't really care. You're just some random message board poster on the internet, den. Feel free to direct your confused angst at someone else.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> I have no idea.


about sums it up.


----------



## Local Hero

Oh yeah, you're winning the internet today.


----------



## Cableguy

den bakker said:


> sacrifice sleep for training? that's one approach I guess.
> The rest of the post did not make any sense either :thumbsup:


Me thinks you may be of the type he's talking about


----------



## den bakker

Cableguy said:


> Me thinks you may be of the type he's talking about


I'm sure you think that. 
does not mean you are right of course.


----------



## Cableguy

den bakker said:


> I'm sure you think that.
> does not mean you are right of course.


Thank you Cpt. Obvious


----------



## 88 rex

Chris-X said:


> I'm sure the parking lot or industrial park crit is fun and has some kind of meaning to participants. Good for them and the participants in the larger more organized sanctioned races. If winning their age group in a local or regional race means anything to them or makes them feel better about themselves, great!
> 
> Crazily enough, I suppose there is some doping amongst the competitors which has to be one of the wackiest things in the world This would qualify as a definition of delusional....as delusional as a pharmacologically enhanced Armstrong is????
> 
> Now you're advocating???? for a rationale to "compete" in unsanctioned races held by the greatest sporting fraud of all time? To what end?
> 
> Evidently there are people impressed by this sort of thing?
> 
> Armstrong himself is pathetic, the guy is still cheating...It's absurd...Let it go...


Do you race? There are more than one sanctioning body, and sometimes just local "groups" that act as sanctioning bodies. Not everything is USAC, USAT and UCI. In fact, a lot of races are "unsanctioned." The fact that Lance would create a series of "unsanctioned" races isn't really all that uncommon.


----------



## Local Hero

On a related note, I've always despised USAT's $45 membership fee. 

Maybe it's because triathlons are already so damn expensive. $145 to race and then a $10 one-day or $45 to join for a year... and unlike USAC where you can use your license 40-50 times in a year across four disciplines, nobody does more than a handful of tris.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Do you race? There are more than one sanctioning body, and sometimes just local "groups" that act as sanctioning bodies. Not everything is USAC, USAT and UCI. In fact, a lot of races are "unsanctioned." The fact that Lance would create a series of "unsanctioned" races isn't really all that uncommon.


And that makes it all OK:thumbsup:

Everyone wants to play "Race the doper"


----------



## Local Hero

I don't think you get it, doc false.

The majority of triathletes are not trying to win, just like the majority of people running marathons are not trying to win. For many participants, these types of events (triathlons, 5Ks, marathons, and even grand fondues) are about personal achievement, not coming in first. 

The close proximity of bike racing may create some of the competition. In a triathlon, you may not be able to identify your closest rivals. Yes, some are competitive. But most are not trying to win.


----------



## Local Hero

On second thought doc false, maybe you're right.

I'm sure there are some people who would sign up for a Livestrong fondue or tri just to sit in the same tent and Mr. Livestrong and hear him give a feel-good talk. It's not "race ther doper" per se, but hang with the guy who gave people strength to beat cancer (or whatever).

The haters in the dopers forum have to remember that not everyone hates Lance Livestrong.


----------



## MG537

Local Hero said:


> On second thought doc false, maybe you're right.
> 
> I'm sure there are some people who would sign up for a Livestrong fondue or tri just to sit in the same tent and Mr. Livestrong and hear him give a feel-good talk. It's not "race ther doper" per se, but hang with the guy who gave people strength to beat cancer (or whatever).
> 
> The haters in the dopers forum have to remember that not everyone hates Lance *Liestrong*.


There FIFY.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> On second thought doc false, maybe you're right.
> 
> I'm sure there are some people who would sign up for a Livestrong fondue or tri just to sit in the same tent and Mr. Livestrong and hear him give a feel-good talk. It's not "race ther doper" per se, but hang with the guy who gave people strength to beat cancer (or whatever).
> 
> The haters in the dopers forum have to remember that not everyone hates Lance Livestrong.


Agreed, he will continue to pander to the 10% who still believe the myth. Traveling the country like a snake oil salesman, selling hope for a small donation. Gas Money

My, how the mighty have fallen


----------



## AntiUSADA

Chris-X said:


> I'm sure the parking lot or industrial park crit is fun and has some kind of meaning to participants. Good for them and the participants in the larger more organized sanctioned races. If winning their age group in a local or regional race means anything to them or makes them feel better about themselves, great!
> 
> Crazily enough, I suppose there is some doping amongst the competitors which has to be one of the wackiest things in the world This would qualify as a definition of delusional....as delusional as a pharmacologically enhanced Armstrong is????
> 
> Now you're advocating???? for a rationale to "compete" in unsanctioned races held by the greatest sporting fraud of all time? To what end?
> 
> Evidently there are people impressed by this sort of thing?
> 
> *Armstrong himself is pathetic, the guy is still cheating...It's absurd...Let it go.*..


Bwaaaa haaa haaa haaa, Something you and your buddy Falsetti could do instead of your obsession of Armstrong. It's absurd, let it go!


----------



## AntiUSADA

Doctor Falsetti said:


> And that makes it all OK:thumbsup:
> 
> Everyone wants to play "Race the doper"


I actually feel sorry for you Falsetti, your obsession with Armstrong is not healthy. But you so much more holier then everyone else I can only surmise that you have never done anything wrong in your entire life. 

Those without sin cast the first stone. 

Think about that one Falsetti.


----------



## Cableguy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed, he will continue to pander to the 10% who still believe the myth.


I would say a large majority still look up to and respect him regardless of their views about him cheating. Worst case scenario, he's still a world class athlete and I'm sure most triathletes would be interested to hang out and hear his thoughts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> I would say a large majority still look up to and respect him regardless of their views about him cheating. Worst case scenario, he's still a world class athlete and I'm sure most triathletes would be interested to hang out and hear his thoughts.





> According to Q Scores, only 10% of people who are familiar with Armstrong view him positively,


Lance Armstrong doping Livestrong

And this was before Tyler's book. Before USADA gives their evidence. Before the Qui Tam case....it is just going to get worse


----------



## Coolhand

AntiUSADA said:


> I actually feel sorry for you Falsetti, your obsession with Armstrong is not healthy. But you so much more holier then everyone else I can only surmise that you have never done anything wrong in your entire life.
> 
> Those without sin cast the first stone.
> 
> Think about that one Falsetti.


And you're on time out. Think about that one.


----------



## trailrunner68

Coolhand said:


> And you're on time out. Think about that one.


Thank gawd (or Coolhand) for that. This place was getting unreadable.

Back to the thread. I think it is the nature of U.S. society that anyone with celebrity or even notoriety can make a pretty good buck, so the people hoping to see Armstrong in the poor house will ultimately be disappointed.


----------



## Cableguy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> According to Q Scores, only 10% of people who are familiar with Armstrong view him positively


The way you're trying to apply this metric is very sketchy. The article mentions in 2004 Armstrong's positive "Q Score" was 16%... so then while Armstrong was still winning the Tour only 16% of those who knew about him "liked" him...  This metric might be useful for advertisers, but I think trying to translate it into those who "like" or "support" him makes no sense.

The same article also shows Tiger Woods having a positive "Q Score" of 13%, which is higher than Armstrong's... and yet Woods' negative score is almost 2x higher. Would you then argue Woods is more liked than Armstrong relatively speaking, even though Woods has substantially more who disapprove?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> The way you're trying to apply this metric is very sketchy. The article mentions in 2004 Armstrong's positive "Q Score" was 16%... so then while Armstrong was still winning the Tour only 16% of those who knew about him "liked" him...  This metric might be useful for advertisers, but I think trying to translate it into those who "like" or "support" him makes no sense.
> 
> The same article also shows Tiger Woods having a positive "Q Score" of 13%, which is higher than Armstrong's... and yet Woods' negative score is almost 2x higher. Would you then argue Woods is more liked than Armstrong relatively speaking, even though Woods has substantially more who disapprove?


Those who view him negatively almost doubled. This was prior to Tyler's book, USADA presenting their evidence

And then there is this



> in case you wondered if Lance Armstrong’s marketing power could withstand the drug firestorm, the latest consumer poll by the Marketing Arm says *nope*.





> Now he’s ranked 2,192 (out of 2,500 celebrities tracked by the Dallas agency) on par with Michael Bolton.





> People trust him about as much as they do Paula Abdul.





> Matt Fleming, who oversees the agency’s celebrity data, says Lance’s plunge from grace is stunning.





> "With the USDA’s announcement, and Armstrong’s response, he’s no longer getting the benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion.”


http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/08/armstrongs-marketing-flame-extinguished.html/


----------



## Cableguy

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Those who view him negatively almost doubled. This was prior to Tyler's book, USADA presenting their evidence


The *trend* of the numbers changing after the increased negative publicity and exposure is basically just reinforcing the obvious, but how you interpret those numbers specifically is the sketchy part. 

So to go back to your original claim, you were saying that Armstrong's present day Q Score of 10% means that only 10% who are aware of him still believe his lies. So then by extension in 2004 while he was still winning the Tour and his Q Score was only 16%, you would argue still only 16% believed him? Doesn't really make sense. All I'm saying is you're twisting the meaning of the Q Scores.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Cableguy said:


> I would say a large majority still look up to and respect him regardless of their views about him cheating. Worst case scenario, he's still a world class athlete and I'm sure most triathletes would be interested to hang out and hear his thoughts.


Judging by Slowtwitch there are also a lot of them that are desperate for someone to come along a make Triathlon relevant. Lots saw Lance as that savior.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> The *trend* of the numbers changing after the increased negative publicity and exposure is basically just reinforcing the obvious, but how you interpret those numbers specifically is the sketchy part.
> 
> So to go back to your original claim, you were saying that Armstrong's present day Q Score of 10% means that only 10% who are aware of him still believe his lies. So then by extension in 2004 while he was still winning the Tour and his Q Score was only 16%, you would argue still only 16% believed him? Doesn't really make sense. All I'm saying is you're twisting the meaning of the Q Scores.


how am I twisting Michael Bolton?


----------



## Local Hero

Please. I know some of you guys are gleefully rubbing your hands together as Armstrong is getting raked over the coals. But let's keep this in perspective. The guy is still a celebrity. 

In some small circles (cycling forums and certain coffee shops on Saturday mornings) Armstrong is a pariah. Even cycling fans are divided. To average Joe...not so much. Yes, there are many detractors and haters. But for every hater there are several who have been "touched" by Armstrong and "given strength" when they were diagnosed with cancer. Good luck convincing them that he's evil!

Of course Armstrong still has star power and public appeal.


----------



## trailrunner68

Local Hero said:


> Of course Armstrong still has star power and public appeal.


Yup. Just like Michael Bolton. The next step down, Hootie and the Blowfish.


----------



## Local Hero

Zzzzzzzzz These things blow over. Mike Tyson wasn't particularly popular after his rape conviction. Or after he bit off Evander's ear. Yet to this day people argue that he was the greatest. 

People will remember Armstrong as a guy who beat cancer and won some bike races, and now cures cancer...even if he is stripped of his titles.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Zzzzzzzzz These things blow over. Mike Tyson wasn't particularly popular after his rape conviction. Or after he bit off Evander's ear. Yet to this day people argue that he was the greatest.
> 
> People will remember Armstrong as a guy who beat cancer and won some bike races, *and now cures cancer.*..even if he is stripped of his titles.


Yes, that will be part of his traveling roadshow. Laying of hands, faith healing, magic powers

You might have a point with the Tyson analogy. Bankrupt, junkie, making his living opening car dealerships and shopping malls. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fireform

Not many people remember Mike Tyson as the greatest. He's a rather sorry spectacle. 

Not merely being revealed as a deeply flawed person, ala Tiger Woods, but having your whole career and image revealed as a morass of cheating and lying, is not something that will "blow over." At least Barry Bonds played a major part of his career clean. Lance can't even say that.


----------



## 88 rex

Fireform said:


> Not many people remember Mike Tyson as the greatest. He's a rather sorry spectacle.
> 
> Not merely being revealed as a deeply flawed person, ala Tiger Woods, but having your whole career and image revealed as a morass of cheating and lying, is not something that will "blow over." At least Barry Bonds played a major part of his career clean. Lance can't even say that.


Rating the All Time Heavyweights in 10 Categories

Boxing: The 10 Greatest Heavyweights of All Time | Bleacher Report

The Ten Best Heavyweight Boxers of All Time | redskinskillcowboys's Blog | FanNation.com

My Top Ten Greatest Heavyweight Champs Of All Time! [Archive] - Boxing Forum

Ultimate Sports Rankings

10 Best Heavyweight Boxers Of All Time | Made Manual

Just a quick google search and it would appear Tyson is almost on every top 10 list. Occasionally peaking at #1. So, I would agree that Tyson is an idiot and a moreon, but he IS one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Just a quick google search and it would appear Tyson is almost on every top 10 list. Occasionally peaking at #1. So, I would agree that Tyson is an idiot and a moreon, but he IS one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time.


 those lists are for best Tatoos










Tyson still is listed as the winner of his bouts.....Lance will join Marion Jones, Ben Johnson, and Rosie Ruiz on the biggest sports fraud lists. He will easily get #1 on those


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> People will remember Armstrong as a guy who beat cancer and won some bike races, and now *cures cancer*...even if he is stripped of his titles.


Cures Cancer? Where do you get that idea? Livestrong doesn't even fund cancer research anymore.


----------



## Local Hero

You guys need perspective. Armstrong is going down as the best rider in a field of dopers during the golden age of doping -- and most believe that he never failed a test, even if he did dope. That's how most people see him. And most people don't care about cycling.


----------



## Local Hero

HikenBike said:


> Cures Cancer? Where do you get that idea? Livestrong doesn't even fund cancer research anymore.


I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles.


----------



## lspangle

*Nope.*

First off, I'm not a racer. I am not a cancer survivor either, although I have lost several family members to cancer. But here's something similar -- I did the Ride for the Roses (before it became the Livestrong Challenge) here in my home town of Austin. But I wouldn't ride it again now.

That day was such a great day -- the spirit of the people at the event totally made the event. There was this huge feeling of all of us being in this together, raising money to fight a common enemy and helping others get through it. And even though it was a day of suffering -- a hot, humid Austin day -- and it was before I had a road bike so I did 55 miles on a mountain bike with road slicks and locked suspension, ha -- and even though I had to put my brakes on going uphill because there were so many newbie riders who didn't know what "on your left" meant -- even with all of that, I felt like I had wings and I could go on forever, and totally uplifted.

This was before Lance won 5 tours, much less 7.

I can't imagine what it would be like to do that now. It just wouldn't be the same. And while I still believe in the livestrong message, I no longer believe in the messenger.

So even if the Livestrong Challenge was here in Austin, and even if I had free entry I wouldn't ride it. Nope.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Local Hero said:


> You guys need perspective. Armstrong is going down as the best rider in a field of dopers during the golden age of doping -- and most believe that he never failed a test, even if he did dope. That's how most people see him. And most people don't care about cycling.


I agree. Most people have no idea about doping in cycling and either know nothing or buy into the Armstrong PR machine.

The rhetoric of well if he did do it he was doing what everyone else was doing so he is being picked on plays very well. Lots of people appear to need heroes to believe in and Armstrong provides that for some of them.

If Armstrong can avoid getting himself charged with perjury or something and ending up in prison, he will come out of this just fine.


----------



## cyclesport45

Coolhand said:


> And you're on time out. Think about that one.


Thanks, Boss.


----------



## Fireform

Local Hero said:


> You guys need perspective. Armstrong is going down as the best rider in a field of dopers during the golden age of doping -- and most believe that he never failed a test, even if he did dope. That's how most people see him. And most people don't care about cycling.


You don't get that most people are eventually going to realize what an ugly fraud he perpetrated. Possibly even you.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Fireform said:


> You don't get that most people are eventually going to realize what an ugly fraud he perpetrated. Possibly even you.


Well I'll go on record saying I just don't see that happening the way things are panning out at the moment. Short of something like a Fed. trial where he ends in prison or something what's going to get people to realize this?

Anybody who has payed attention already knows the fraud that's been perpetrated and/or decided to stick their head so far down in the sand they're never coming up and/or decided it doesn't matter.


----------



## Fireform

Give it time. It takes a while for something like this to sink in.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> I agree. Most people have no idea about doping in cycling and either know nothing or buy into the Armstrong PR machine.
> 
> The rhetoric of well if he did do it he was doing what everyone else was doing so he is being picked on plays very well. Lots of people appear to need heroes to believe in and Armstrong provides that for some of them.
> 
> If Armstrong can avoid getting himself charged with perjury or something and ending up in prison, he will come out of this just fine.


Many people excuse the doping, say everyone was doing it......but people hate corruption they also do not bullies. It will soon be clear that the level playing field did not exist and that Armstrong took harassment of those who told the trut to another level

Armstrong's public support has taken a huge beating the last 2 years and USADA's case will supposedly be "30 times" worse that what has been out so far.


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles.


LOL! Well played.


----------



## Samadhi

Local Hero said:


> I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles.


I think he's right. Livestrong doesn't fund research per se. They do fund programs to help cancer survivors with attendant health and wellness issues - an important aspect of surviving / recovering from cancer. They offer something that oncology doesn't - a path to get _better_.

There aren't many foundations who approach cancer in that way. It's important. It helps people. It may not be a cure, but for those of us who have or had cancer, it does help. If anything it's an inspiration - LA came back from testicular cancer. Who cares what happened after that?


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong's public support has taken a huge beating the last 2 years and USADA's case will supposedly be "30 times" worse that what has been out so far.


No it hasn't and no it won't. The general public loves football (dopers), baseball (dopers), and basketball and are familiar with Livestrong. They do not really care for cycling nor do they pay attention. Most don't even know what the heck WADA, USADA, UCI, USAC, or USAT even mean. They hate the big bully known as cancer. 

Anecdotal, but I was in the operating room at work the day with docs, nurses, etc. and the topic of Lance came up. I kept my mouth shut. They are all non-cyclists, or aspiring to do their first sprint Tri. The theme of that conversation.......stop bullying Lance and let the man carry on with life. That is more in tune with the general public.


----------



## aclinjury

There is NO WAY I'd participate in anything with the name "Lance" or "Livestrong" as its endorser. NO eff'in way. This has to do with principles. People like to talk so much about principles, they love to bash the politicians... but yet they would be willing to make exception when it suits them?

For years I used to be a big Lance joker and admirers. But now I'm the complete opposite. Screw Lance. Snake oil man is what he is now.

Give it some time, the public will open the eyes. Oh yeah it will happen.


----------



## Local Hero

Right, I've also heard the Leave Lance Alone! mantra, especially from the triathletes I know. (And as I said before, triathletes are a confused bunch.)

Whether the cycling community loves or hates Armstrong doesn't matter all that much. No doubt his popularity has taken a hit and many cannot separate the messenger from the message. Still, the message continues. Livestrong will probably be around after Armstrong dies.

I think that a Livestrong Tri, adventure race, or Xterra type event would be well attended and could charge a premium. It would be interesting to see. Like I said, if it were close to my house and competitively priced, I would have no trouble doing a Livestrong MTB Duathlon.








There's something else. Many people give Armstrong a pass because he beat cancer. "Sure, he needed drugs to win the tour. But he beat cancer!" Even if all sorts of evil tales come out, people will give Armstrong a pass because he balanced it out with his foundation.


----------



## Samadhi

Local Hero said:


> Right, I've also heard the Leave Lance Alone! mantra, especially from the triathletes I know. (And as I said before, triathletes are a confused bunch.)
> 
> Whether the cycling community loves or hates Armstrong doesn't matter all that much. No doubt his popularity has taken a hit and many cannot separate the messenger from the message. Still, the message continues. Livestrong will probably be around after Armstrong dies.
> 
> I think that a Livestrong Tri, adventure race, or Xterra type event would be well attended and could charge a premium. It would be interesting to see. Like I said, if it were close to my house and competitively priced, I would have no trouble doing a Livestrong MTB Duathlon.


I too hear the same thing from people - just leave it alone - move on.

As far as Livestrong race events go, I'm not interested, but that's because I don't race. We did have a ride to benefit Livestrong (and some other orgs) not too long ago. It was called "B Strong".

I would have participated in that, but the first part of the ride was a bit more than I wanted to try with how my knee was feeling at the time. I'll ride it next year. Lookin' forward to it.


----------



## Samadhi

Local Hero said:


> There's something else. Many people give Armstrong a pass because he beat cancer. "Sure, he needed drugs to win the tour. But he beat cancer!" Even if all sorts of evil tales come out, people will give Armstrong a pass because he balanced it out with his foundation.


I think that's a fair assessment. I think a lot of people look at things the way you describe.

I find that most people think LA doped, and most don't care. 

He made a pile of money it would seem, and rather than sink it and his rep into another bike company, he leveraged that into a foundation to help cancer survivors.

It's not the first time in history where ill-gotten gains were turned to good.


----------



## aclinjury

Local Hero said:


> Right, I've also heard the Leave Lance Alone! mantra, especially from the triathletes I know. (And as I said before, triathletes are a confused bunch.)
> 
> Whether the cycling community loves or hates Armstrong doesn't matter all that much. No doubt his popularity has taken a hit and many cannot separate the messenger from the message. Still, the message continues. Livestrong will probably be around after Armstrong dies.
> 
> I think that a Livestrong Tri, adventure race, or Xterra type event would be well attended and could charge a premium. It would be interesting to see. Like I said, if it were close to my house and competitively priced, I would have no trouble doing a Livestrong MTB Duathlon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's something else. Many people give Armstrong a pass because he beat cancer. "Sure, he needed drugs to win the tour. But he beat cancer!" Even if all sorts of evil tales come out, people will give Armstrong a pass because he balanced it out with his foundation.


1) All those saying "leave Lance alone, let's move on" are diehard fanboys, and hero worshipers.

2) he beat cancer. So did many other people, women, kids, the disabled, etc.. many more at a much more disadvantaged then him. Just because he's a celebrity, we have to grandeurize his battle with cancer? And sometimes I do wonder how a healthy male could get cancer like him. Was it due to doping? I don't have proof, but whatever.

3) Sure while the myth was intact, he appeared to do society lots of good. I give his PR team great credit for creating the LA image, the wholeness living lifestyle. Look, there are lots of millionaire and a few billionaire philanthropists who actually give much more money than Lance and his Livestrong foundation, much much more. But some of these guys are also Wall Street crooks. LA, like some of these white collar crooks, play the system well, kinda like that drug kingpin Pablo Escobar... a ruthless killer.. but he donated tons of money to his community, built schools, churches, hospitals, zoos.. all using blood money. Those who know Pablo loved him, idolized him... even if they know he's a ruthless killer. I compare the LA fanboys to the Pablo fanboys.

I think the fanboys have a low standard of life. Bet these fanboys are the same ones blasting the politicians for having low morals too. If you're a man of principles, then the principles must be apply regardless of situation. Can't cherrypick when to apply your pinciples.

Me.. I don' need no stinkin hero to show me the way of life. My mother did that for me, she's my heroine. Pretty sad that a lot of Americans need a hero to guide them. Sad. and when the hero turns out to be a faux, they'll go into denial mode, go online to find other fanboys and try to rationalize their false reason why they should still accept the fallen hero.. while ever so slightly reworking their principles of life. I guess if a woman beggar broke into your house to steal your money so she could buy milk for her kids, it'd be ok to accept it too huh since the goal of the beggar was a noble one (feeding her kids) even though the method was unlawful.:idea: The principles only work if we're consistent in applying them. If we start to make exception, then we get conflicts and confusions.

To me it's clear. LA is a liar, a cheater. He fabricated an image based on the money and fame gained from his the lies used to make such image. Regadless of how noble his secondary goodie good cause is, the primary catalyst, the precusor.. of what makes Lance, Lance, the basis of his "power".. was acquired through lies.


----------



## rydbyk

den bakker said:


> about sums it up.


 Do you even attempt to comprehend what someone has written before firing off nonsensical anger driven responses?


----------



## rydbyk

Samadhi said:


> I think that's a fair assessment. I think a lot of people look at things the way you describe. I find that most people think LA doped, and most don't care. He made a pile of money it would seem, and rather than sink it and his rep into another bike company, he leveraged that into a foundation to help cancer survivors.
> It's not the first time in history where ill-gotten gains were turned to good.


As silly, stupid and crazy as this sounds, I think as time goes on it is going to be more about the WAY Lance went about doping etc vs. the simple fact that he doped.


----------



## Samadhi

aclinjury said:


> 1) All those saying "leave Lance alone, let's move on" are diehard fanboys, and hero worshipers.


No, actually they're not. Many of the people I've talked to could care less except that they'd prefer to see an end to what they see as pernicious stupidity.



> 2) he beat cancer. So did many other people, women, kids, the disabled, etc.. many more at a much more disadvantaged then him. Just because he's a celebrity, we have to grandeurize his battle with cancer?


yep, and we do that all the time. We look to people like Lance for a little inspiration.




> And sometimes I do wonder how a healthy male could get cancer like him.


I have cancer and I was pretty damned healthy when I was diagnosed. Granted I was a bit outta shape, but otherwise healthy enough. The doctors can't tell me why I have it or when it started. There's also nothing they can do for me along the lines of a permanent cure. They can beat it back, but it will return. I may not die from this cancer, but I will die with it.

It seems painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about cancer or people who survive it.



> I think the fanboys have a low standard of life.


So in other words, anyone who disagrees with you = fanboy = low living standard.

I'll have to tell my accountant about that.



> If you're a man of principles, then the principles must be apply regardless of situation. Can't cherrypick when to apply your pinciples.


Who says?


----------



## Samadhi

rydbyk said:


> As silly, stupid and crazy as this sounds, I think as time goes on it is going to be more about the WAY Lance went about doping etc vs. the simple fact that he doped.


Nope. The vast majority of people don't and won't care about it at all. They won't care if he doped, why he doped, the way he doped or who he doped with.

It simply isn't that important.


----------



## 88 rex

aclinjury said:


> 1) All those saying "leave Lance alone, let's move on" are diehard fanboys, and hero worshipers.
> 
> 2) he beat cancer. So did many other people, women, kids, the disabled, etc.. many more at a much more disadvantaged then him. Just because he's a celebrity, we have to grandeurize his battle with cancer? And sometimes I do wonder how a healthy male could get cancer like him. Was it due to doping? I don't have proof, but whatever.
> 
> 3) Sure while the myth was intact, he appeared to do society lots of good. I give his PR team great credit for creating the LA image, the wholeness living lifestyle. Look, there are lots of millionaire and a few billionaire philanthropists who actually give much more money than Lance and his Livestrong foundation, much much more. But some of these guys are also Wall Street crooks. LA, like some of these white collar crooks, play the system well, kinda like that drug kingpin Pablo Escobar... a ruthless killer.. but he donated tons of money to his community, built schools, churches, hospitals, zoos.. all using blood money. Those who know Pablo loved him, idolized him... even if they know he's a ruthless killer. I compare the LA fanboys to the Pablo fanboys.
> 
> I think the fanboys have a low standard of life. Bet these fanboys are the same ones blasting the politicians for having low morals too. If you're a man of principles, then the principles must be apply regardless of situation. Can't cherrypick when to apply your pinciples.
> 
> Me.. I don' need no stinkin hero to show me the way of life. My mother did that for me, she's my heroine. Pretty sad that a lot of Americans need a hero to guide them. Sad. and when the hero turns out to be a faux, they'll go into denial mode, go online to find other fanboys and try to rationalize their false reason why they should still accept the fallen hero.. while ever so slightly reworking their principles of life. I guess if a woman beggar broke into your house to steal your money so she could buy milk for her kids, it'd be ok to accept it too huh since the goal of the beggar was a noble one (feeding her kids) even though the method was unlawful.:idea: The principles only work if we're consistent in applying them. If we start to make exception, then we get conflicts and confusions.
> 
> To me it's clear. LA is a liar, a cheater. He fabricated an image based on the money and fame gained from his the lies used to make such image. Regadless of how noble his secondary goodie good cause is, the primary catalyst, the precusor.. of what makes Lance, Lance, the basis of his "power".. was acquired through lies.


----------



## aclinjury

You are full of emotions, and some of your emotions cloud your principles. Have it your way. I just hope if someone rob your to feed their kids, you'd understand them too, instead of just looking at that person as a thug. but that's ok. I don't mean to pick on your. Humans are emotional creatures. We act more on emotions than logic, although when you write sometthing online we're think we're writing based on login, but in reality most of us are just emotional thinkers.

And I understand cancer enough to know that the top researchers are still at a loss over what causes cancers.



Samadhi said:


> No, actually they're not. Many of the people I've talked to could care less except that they'd prefer to see an end to what they see as pernicious stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> yep, and we do that all the time. We look to people like Lance for a little inspiration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have cancer and I was pretty damned healthy when I was diagnosed. Granted I was a bit outta shape, but otherwise healthy enough. The doctors can't tell me why I have it or when it started. There's also nothing they can do for me along the lines of a permanent cure. They can beat it back, but it will return. I may not die from this cancer, but I will die with it.
> 
> It seems painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about cancer or people who survive it.
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, anyone who disagrees with you = fanboy = low living standard.
> 
> I'll have to tell my accountant about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says?


----------



## aclinjury

88 rex said:


>


200 - 250 miles/wk sir.

and nice deflection btw. Love it. Why do you even bother to reply?:idea:
man i should really try to keep my posts short due to the attention span of the internet, my bad lol


----------



## Local Hero

*ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*



aclinjury said:


> fanboys
> fanboys
> fanboys
> fanboys


Give it a rest.


----------



## den bakker

rydbyk said:


> Do you even attempt to comprehend what someone has written before firing off nonsensical anger driven responses?


of course. That's why I carefully looked for the single piece in his posts that made some sense :thumbsup:
and no, why would I get emotionally involved with local hero's posts?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> No it hasn't and no it won't. The general public loves football (dopers), baseball (dopers), and basketball and are familiar with Livestrong. They do not really care for cycling nor do they pay attention. Most don't even know what the heck WADA, USADA, UCI, USAC, or USAT even mean. They hate the big bully known as cancer.
> 
> Anecdotal, but I was in the operating room at work the day with docs, nurses, etc. and the topic of Lance came up. I kept my mouth shut. They are all non-cyclists, or aspiring to do their first sprint Tri. The theme of that conversation.......stop bullying Lance and let the man carry on with life. That is more in tune with the general public.


Cool story bro

I was with a bunch of non-cyclist the other day and Lance's name came up. They all thought he was a lying joke. 

Right now he is ranked with Michael Bolton. After USADA and the Qui Tam case he will be just above Madoff. The Public hates corrupt, lying bullies. 

It is only going to get worse


----------



## Local Hero

den bakker said:


> of course. That's why I carefully looked for the single piece in his posts that made some sense :thumbsup:
> and no, why would I get emotionally involved with local hero's posts?


You're trying too hard.


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Cool story bro
> 
> I was with a bunch of non-cyclist the other day and Lance's name came up. They all thought he was a lying joke.
> 
> Right now he is ranked with Michael Bolton. After USADA and the Qui Tam case he will be just above Madoff. The Public hates corrupt, lying bullies.
> 
> It is only going to get worse


What do you mean, "after USADA"? 


And the _cool story bro_ meme has not been cool since 2009.


----------



## Samadhi

aclinjury said:


> And I understand cancer enough to know that the top researchers are still at a loss over what causes cancers.


You may understand that much, but what you fail to understand altogether is the human part of the equation and how this affects them.

There isn't a single organization that does what Livestrong does - and that is to offer some sort of path to wellness - as well as someone with cancer can be anyway - and a sense of community to go along with it. I know a lot of cancer survivors and I have to say that about 100% of them don't give a loose **** about all the LA doping crap. What we don't get is why this is so damned important you folks like you. Don't you realize that this so so low on the scale of What's Really Important and not not merit more that a socond's consideration. So what oif he doped. So what if he cheated. He may very well be the absolute scum of the Earth. WHO CARES? Seriously. Who cares? Do you have ANY idea what a HUGE waste of time and energy it is? It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

I have cancer. I have friends, on bikes, who have cancer. Lance Armstrong has created a network that inspires many, many people - FAR more than he hurt with his doping or cheating or Being Scum Of The Earth - to have a way to feel better, to feel, to be healthier, to engage in a positive, fun activity, to get a leg up on what for many is a one-way street to the grave.

LA was a vibrant, healthy, sucessful young man with a wonderful future awaiting him. Then he was diagnosed with cancer. Testicular cancer to boot. If you want to see pain, talk to someone with TC. Cancer is a shock with anyone, but with someone like LA ...... Then he beat it. You have NO idea, dude, what that means to people. None. It's insulting that you'd even attempt to say anything about it, as it all comes off as so ......... uninformed. If LA can come back from that and excell in sport and yes, even if he doped, then what can't I do?


----------



## den bakker

Samadhi said:


> You may understand that much, but what you fail to understand altogether is the human part of the equation and how this affects them.
> 
> There isn't a single organization that does what Livestrong does - and that is to offer some sort of path to wellness - as well as someone with cancer can be anyway - and a sense of community to go along with it. I know a lot of cancer survivors and I have to say that about 100% of them don't give a loose **** about all the LA doping crap. What we don't get is why this is so damned important you folks like you. Don't you realize that this so so low on the scale of What's Really Important and not not merit more that a socond's consideration. So what oif he doped. So what if he cheated. He may very well be the absolute scum of the Earth. WHO CARES? Seriously. Who cares? Do you have ANY idea what a HUGE waste of time and energy it is? It would be funny were it not so pathetic.
> 
> I have cancer. I have friends, on bikes, who have cancer. Lance Armstrong has created a network that inspires many, many people - FAR more than he hurt with his doping or cheating or Being Scum Of The Earth - to have a way to feel better, to feel, to be healthier, to engage in a positive, fun activity, to get a leg up on what for many is a one-way street to the grave.
> 
> LA was a vibrant, healthy, sucessful young man with a wonderful future awaiting him. Then he was diagnosed with cancer. Testicular cancer to boot. If you want to see pain, talk to someone with TC. Cancer is a shock with anyone, but with someone like LA ...... Then he beat it. You have NO idea, dude, what that means to people. None. It's insulting that you'd even attempt to say anything about it, as it all comes off as so ......... uninformed. If LA can come back from that and excell in sport and yes, even if he doped, then what can't I do?


and therein is the issue. The doping case has nothing to do with cancer.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> You may understand that much, but what you fail to understand altogether is the human part of the equation and how this affects them.
> 
> There isn't a single organization that does what Livestrong does - and that is to offer some sort of path to wellness - as well as someone with cancer can be anyway - and a sense of community to go along with it. I know a lot of cancer survivors and I have to say that about 100% of them don't give a loose **** about all the LA doping crap. What we don't get is why this is so damned important you folks like you. Don't you realize that this so so low on the scale of What's Really Important and not not merit more that a socond's consideration. So what oif he doped. So what if he cheated. He may very well be the absolute scum of the Earth. WHO CARES? Seriously. Who cares? Do you have ANY idea what a HUGE waste of time and energy it is? It would be funny were it not so pathetic.
> 
> I have cancer. I have friends, on bikes, who have cancer. Lance Armstrong has created a network that inspires many, many people - FAR more than he hurt with his doping or cheating or Being Scum Of The Earth - to have a way to feel better, to feel, to be healthier, to engage in a positive, fun activity, to get a leg up on what for many is a one-way street to the grave.
> 
> LA was a vibrant, healthy, sucessful young man with a wonderful future awaiting him. Then he was diagnosed with cancer. Testicular cancer to boot. If you want to see pain, talk to someone with TC. Cancer is a shock with anyone, but with someone like LA ...... Then he beat it. You have NO idea, dude, what that means to people. None. It's insulting that you'd even attempt to say anything about it, as it all comes off as so ......... uninformed. If LA can come back from that and excell in sport and yes, even if he doped, then what can't I do?


do you also find spending $6,000,000 on a party inspiring? How is using donor funds to lobby key congressmen to cut funding for USADA inspiring? Spending millions that donors thought was going to cancer research and instead using it to advertising an promote a myth....that does what exactly? When people fund out it was not all because he out worked everyone but because he had the best doping program and paid off the cops......what will they think? 

Since when is corruption, lying, and bullying inspiring?


----------



## Local Hero

Just imagine the cocktail party: Lance Armstrong is brought up. Someone says that he was banned and lost the tdf titles. 

Another doesn't understand how that happened since Armstrong never failed a drug test even though he was tested over 500 times, more than any other athlete. 

A third person says that Armstrong beat cancer so who cares if he took drugs, they all did anyway; he's being persecuted and we should move on. 

Finally someone says that they survived cancer and the Livestrong foundation has been supportive and helpful throughout the ordeal. 

For a moment everyone is silent. 


Then aclinjury jumps in with all 5'7, 127lbs of his fury to call them all fanboys, hero worshipers with low standards of life. He says they are being too emotional with their attachment to Armstrong, they are in denial. aclinjury doesn't need a hero because he loves his mother.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Just imagine the cocktail party: Lance Armstrong is brought up. Someone says that he was banned and lost the tdf titles.
> 
> Another doesn't understand how that happened since Armstrong never failed a drug test even though he was tested over 500 times, more than any other athlete.
> 
> A third person says that Armstrong beat cancer so who cares if he took drugs, they all did anyway; he's being persecuted and we should move on.
> 
> Finally someone says that they survived cancer and the Livestrong foundation has been supportive and helpful throughout the ordeal.
> 
> For a moment everyone is silent.
> 
> 
> Then aclinjury jumps in with all 5'7, 127lbs of his fury to call them all fanboys, hero worshipers with low standards of life. He says they are being too emotional with their attachment to Armstrong, they are in denial. aclinjury doesn't need a hero because he loves his mother.


Cool story bro

sounds like you are upset you did not get an invite......if you hadn't vomited in the potted plant at the last one maybe you would have been invited back


----------



## Local Hero

Again with the_ cool story bro_?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

aclinjury said:


> And I understand cancer enough to know that the top researchers are still at a loss over what causes cancers.


I don't think that's accurate. In a general sense we know what causes cancer, it's mutations to key genes that either promote cell division and growth (i.e. proto-oncogenes) and genes that normally restrain cell growth and division (i.e. tumor suppressor genes) and genes that are involved in DNA repair of mistakes during DNA replication. Then you have various cancers that are caused by bacterial or viral infections probably in conjunction with the above.

We know that multiple mutations need to occur in the right genes of a given cell line for cancer to emerge.

Curing cancer is the hard part and it's in part because any given cancer (e.g. prostate cancer) is somewhat unique. That is, different mutations characterize any given cancer although there are often key mutations that occur in most cases of a given cancer.

Mukherjee author of The Emperor of All Maladies, which won all kinds of awards a couple of years ago, does a good job of covering this as well as treatments.

This talk covers the basics:

Siddhartha Mukherjee: The Cancer Puzzle - YouTube

We're a long way from curing cancer and the simple fact is the relative uniqueness of each cancer means it might be nigh on impossible to "cure cancer" but at least we are starting to understand it reasonably well.


----------



## rydbyk

Samadhi said:


> Nope. The vast majority of people don't and won't care about it at all. They won't care if he doped, why he doped, the way he doped or who he doped with.
> 
> It simply isn't that important.


I essentially just told you "2 + 2 = 4" and you responded "Nope. 1000 X 6 = 6000" 

Great. 

Thanks.

Given that they were all doping during LA's reign, I was suggesting that those who actually are interested or end up becoming interested will learn that it was MORE about the WAY LA went about "his" cheating that is most disturbing.


----------



## rydbyk

Local Hero said:


> Again with the_ cool story bro_?


Cool story bro


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Again with the_ cool story bro_?


.........again with the veiled insults and baiting other users. Very 7th grade


----------



## sir duke

Samadhi said:


> LA was a vibrant, healthy, sucessful young man with a wonderful future awaiting him. Then he was diagnosed with cancer. Testicular cancer to boot. If you want to see pain, talk to someone with TC. Cancer is a shock with anyone, but with someone like LA ...... Then he beat it. You have NO idea, dude, what that means to people. None. It's insulting that you'd even attempt to say anything about it, as it all comes off as so ......... uninformed. If LA can come back from that and excell in sport and yes, even if he doped, then what can't I do?


Cancer shield up, phasers on stun...


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> .........again with the veiled insults and baiting other users. Very 7th grade




I get it! This is irony right?


----------



## trailrunner68

Samadhi said:


> YIf LA can come back from that and *cheat* in sport...then what can't I do?


FIFY

People should aspire to a bit more after cancer then cheating at sports.


----------



## moskowe

I have this to say about Livestrong - even if the motives for its creation are very questionable, and so is the way the organization is managed, the volunteers that make the base of the organization actually believe in what they are doing, and, all-around, are great people. It may be that the organization was created, and maintained, for the wrong reasons, but a lot of people working for them have also done good things for cancer patients.

Granted, they would have joined any other cancer support charity, they would have done just as good of a job, but not everyone who works or support Livestrong is bad.
About a year ago I was at a race where we were doing bottle-feeds for our Cat 1 riders, and Livestrong were also there to support some of theirs. It was really, really hot and we hadn't brought enough water, they had a huge cooler and ended up giving us some. We had a small discussion with the volunteers and they ended up giving us Livestrong bracelets, telling us that regardless of our convictions, we should wear them, because it was more about the message to cancer patients than anything else.

// I can't wear the bracelet, because that would be hypocritical, but I kept it. Good people work for bad causes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

moskowe said:


> I have this to say about Livestrong - even if the motives for its creation are very questionable, and so is the way the organization is managed, the volunteers that make the base of the organization actually believe in what they are doing, and, all-around, are great people. It may be that the organization was created, and maintained, for the wrong reasons, but a lot of people working for them have also done good things for cancer patients.
> 
> Granted, they would have joined any other cancer support charity, they would have done just as good of a job, but not everyone who works or support Livestrong is bad.
> About a year ago I was at a race where we were doing bottle-feeds for our Cat 1 riders, and Livestrong were also there to support some of theirs. It was really, really hot and we hadn't brought enough water, they had a huge cooler and ended up giving us some. We had a small discussion with the volunteers and they ended up giving us Livestrong bracelets, telling us that regardless of our convictions, we should wear them, because it was more about the message to cancer patients than anything else.
> 
> // I can't wear the bracelet, because that would be hypocritical, but I kept it. Good people work for bad causes.


Agreed, they have some good people. 

For the first 10 years they were a mess. Largely focused on promoting lance they wasted hundreds of millions of $$. The Federal investigation changed all that. They were investigated by the IRS, the Media focused on them. They cleaned up big time. Now they do some really good work. No more $6,000,000 parties and advertising that is all about Lance. Lot of money to good programs. Yes, they still use Foundation funds to lobby to kill USADA but overall they do a lot of good work.


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed, they have some good people.
> 
> For the first 10 years they were a mess. Largely focused on promoting lance they wasted hundreds of millions of $$. The Federal investigation changed all that. They were investigated by the IRS, the Media focused on them. They cleaned up big time. Now they do some really good work. No more $6,000,000 parties and advertising that is all about Lance. Lot of money to good programs. Yes, they still use Foundation funds to lobby to kill USADA but overall they do a lot of good work.


Your post reminds me of that old song:

A-ccentuate the positive..... E-liminate the negative.... 

Accentuate the Positive - Bette Midler & Bing Crosby - YouTube


----------



## sir duke

Chris-X said:


> Because you have a serious illness you get to tell people what's important in life? We're all on a one way street to the grave. With that in mind, many, it does seem to be fewer and fewer these days, believe the way you live your life is very important. That survival, while important, isn't the only consideration.
> 
> BTW, how do you know what others are going through to tell them they "have no idea?"[/QUOTE
> 
> Spot on! I'm getting weary of some of the drivel written in this thread excusing Armstrong because he suffered from cancer. Cancer is horrible, it has taken members of my family and I've had to sit by hospital beds like millions of others and watch loved ones die. But here's the thing, people die from other ailments and often suffer horribly too. Yet there seems to be this exclusivity that the media and the public bestow on cancer victims. That they, and their attendant suffering are somehow special and thus more deserving of our sympathy. Sorry, that's bullsh!t. Like every disease, cancer doesn't choose it's victims based on race, socio/economic background or personality. Babies, eskimos and jerks all have the same potential to be cancer victims, or kidney disease victims etc (excluding, of course, factors such as environment, diet, genetics, lifestyle choices that raise or lower the chances of contracting such an illness.)
> We naturally think someone survives cancer because they 'deserve' to survive, just as those who die don't 'deserve' to die. Why is this? 'Deserving' has as much to do with oncology as 'cancer survivor' has to do with 'sports doper'. I accept that LA has helped people because people helped him. Let's not kid ourselves this is about altruism or that Lance 'cancer victim' trumps Lance 'sports fraud'.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Armstrong sidesteps doping ban at Coronado triathlon | UTSanDiego.com



> “It’s not how I see the sport,” said Paulo Sousa, a San Diego-based pro triathlon coach originally from Portugal. *“I don’t want triathlon to turn into a refuge for dopers, a fringe sport where you end up when you’re banned from other sports.* I feel clean sport is a duty for every stakeholder in the sport.
> 
> “These race directors are just like: ‘I don’t care about the bigger picture of the sport. I want Lance here. I want the celebrity and the exposure.’ Superfrog is the oldest Half Ironman in the world. This race is a like a symbol for triathlon, and the symbol is that we want Lance here when* the rest of the (sports) world doesn’t want him*.”


----------



## Local Hero

_I don’t want triathlon to turn into a refuge for dopers, a *fringe* sport where you end up when you’re banned from other sports. _
-some dude

Triathlons is already a fringe sport where people go when they are not good at any one sport. Either that or they are retired from their primary sport.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Local Hero said:


> _I don’t want triathlon to turn into a refuge for dopers, a *fringe* sport where you end up when you’re banned from other sports. _
> -some dude
> 
> Triathlons is already a fringe sport where people go when they are not good at any one sport. Either that or they are retired from their primary sport.


Or as I imagine is the case for the vast majority of triathletes it's just the sport they've decided to participate in and it has little to do with what they are good at.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> do you also find spending $6,000,000 on a party inspiring?


Show us the receipts.



> How is using donor funds to lobby key congressmen to cut funding for USADA inspiring?


Show us the receipts.



> Spending millions that donors thought was going to cancer research and instead using it to advertising an promote a myth....that does what exactly?


Show us the receipts.



> When people fund out it was not all because he out worked everyone but because he had the best doping program and paid off the cops......what will they think?


When it's proved that all that happened, we'll see.



> Since when is corruption, lying, and bullying inspiring?


It isn't, but prove that it happened.

You offer us nothing but purest speculation, hearsay, what-ifs and blue sky and present it as if it were fact.


----------



## Local Hero

Dwayne Barry said:


> Or as I imagine is the case for the vast majority of triathletes it's just the sport they've decided to participate in and it has little to do with what they are good at.


Of course it _has little to do with what they are good at_. 

If a triathlete were really good at swimming, cycling, or running, they might focus on that one sport. Or maybe they were really good at that one sport in college and they_ retired_ to triathlons.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Triathlons is already a fringe sport where people go when they are not good at any one sport. Either that or they are retired from their primary sport.


Agreed....and now it is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want.


----------



## rydbyk

According to some of the logic in this thread, OJ Simpson is innocent...afterall, they never proved anything...

Nobody witnessed OJ do what he was accused of that lead to the murder trial, but...

On the other hand, we have a fair amount of credible witnesses stating that they saw Lance dope etc etc. 

At a certain point, I changed my mind about Lance. No shame there...

I am guessing that most of us were Lance fans at one point or another.....perhaps back when he was 18 and giving the top tri pros a run for their money...


----------



## Local Hero

While _innocent until proven guilty_ is a common theme in the US, I don't know if it is the theme of this particular thread. 

I was really hoping to talk about whether people would do Livestrong events despite Armstrong's guilt. 

My position is that I'll do a race if it is close and reasonably priced. I would like to see more adventure races and multisport event, even though I poke fun at triathlons. I'd really like some local duathlons and MTB duathlons. I don't care if events are promoted by Livestrong, Komen Race for the Cure, or the Church of Scientology. I wouldn't boycott a Livestrong event and sacrifice my own fun because Armstrong is mean.


----------



## spade2you

Fanboy!


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed....and now it is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want.


Yes, I read that some random coach said that in the article. And I read that same quote when you posted it in this thread. Now I am reading it again now that you are parroting it again. Do you actually believe it? 

Do you think Armstrong is ruining triathlons? Most are held under USAT. USAT's rules are unaffected by the Frogman triathlon. But you believe that _now it is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want._

You can't actually believe that. You're just parroting it, right? 



Did you make it to page 2 of the article you posted? 

_“The Lance Effect,” he calls it. “The same thing that happened with the Tour has happened to triathlon. It’s really blown us up.”

The race benefits the Navy SEAL Foundation, and Armstrong will host an informal question-and-answer session Sunday night at 7 at the Hotel del Coronado to benefit the SEALs as well as his Livestrong Foundation. Unreserved tickets start at $107; a seat at a VIP table costs $1,000.

“On our Facebook page and from the emails I’ve gotten, I’m going to say it’s running 20-to-1 with positive comments,” Hall said. “I think this week I’ve gotten two emails with these rants about what are you doing? But everything else has been positive.

"It would almost be idiotic not to do it.”_


----------



## JoelS

I will not do any events that benefit Livestrong. That charity sells hope. This is an interesting read: Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Yes, I read that some random coach said that in the article. And I read that same quote when you posted it in this thread. Now I am reading it again now that you are parroting it again. Do you actually believe it?
> 
> Do you think Armstrong is ruining triathlons? Most are held under USAT. USAT's rules are unaffected by the Frogman triathlon. But you believe that _now it is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want._
> 
> You can't actually believe that. You're just parroting it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you make it to page 2 of the article you posted?
> 
> _“The Lance Effect,” he calls it. “The same thing that happened with the Tour has happened to triathlon. It’s really blown us up.”
> 
> The race benefits the Navy SEAL Foundation, and Armstrong will host an informal question-and-answer session Sunday night at 7 at the Hotel del Coronado to benefit the SEALs as well as his Livestrong Foundation. Unreserved tickets start at $107; a seat at a VIP table costs $1,000.
> 
> “On our Facebook page and from the emails I’ve gotten, I’m going to say it’s running 20-to-1 with positive comments,” Hall said. “I think this week I’ve gotten two emails with these rants about what are you doing? But everything else has been positive.
> 
> "It would almost be idiotic not to do it.”_


It is not surprising that the race director is trying to justify his actions, what do you expect him to say?

As we have seen here Armstrong's groupies are a vocal, deluded, bunch. No surprise they flood the comments, that is their job. 

As we have seen over and over in cycling ignoring the issue of doping in pursuit of short term monetary gain sounds like a good idea at the time.....and always ends up as a mistake


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

JoelS said:


> I will not do any events that benefit Livestrong. That charity sells hope. This is an interesting read: Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


Must have been quite a party



> "ate up close to 20 percent of the foundation’s $30 million in program spending that year"





> “You wonder,” AIP’s Borochoff says. “If they just gave the money to cancer research, would it generate as much great publicity for Lance Armstrong?”


three different Armstrong teammates have said Armstrong bragged about owning the UCI and being able to cover up tests. Just what Tri needs. They are not a real sport until they have dopers and corruption


----------



## Local Hero

So you think Armstrong is going to bring doping to what has so far been a clean sport...Do you think things through before you say them? 

LOL

As if there are no triathletes on PEDs! 

Actually, I wonder if masters triathletes are any more clean than masters cyclists. It might even be worse. 

There's probably less of a stigma attached to amateur doping (legally prescribed by a urologist) among masters in the triathlon world than there is in cycling. But nobody talks about it because triathlons are such an individual sport and it is prescribed by doctors. 

What percentage of 40+ triathlete males are on testosterone replacement therapy? Nobody knows because they don't test. Nobody really cares, certainly not the race directors who charge $100-$225 for entry. 

With $50 socks, $400 wetsuits, $1200 disc wheels, and a $1500 travel costs to Ironman Hawaii, we know many triathletes have cash to burn. Paying for androgel is nothing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> So you think Armstrong is going to bring doping to what has so far been a clean sport...Do you think things through before you say them?
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if there are no triathletes on PEDs!
> 
> Actually, I wonder if masters triathletes are any more clean than masters cyclists. It might even be worse.
> 
> There's probably less of a stigma attached to amateur doping (legally prescribed by a urologist) among masters in the triathlon world than there is in cycling. But nobody talks about it because triathlons are such an individual sport and it is prescribed by doctors.
> 
> What percentage of 40+ triathlete males are on testosterone replacement therapy? Nobody knows because they don't test. Nobody really cares, certainly not the race directors who charge $100-$225 for entry.
> 
> With $50 socks, $400 wetsuits, $1200 disc wheels, and a $1500 travel costs to Ironman Hawaii, we know many triathletes have cash to burn. Paying for androgel is nothing.


Nice strawman.....never said anything like this. I agree, Masters is likely as dirty as masters bike racing. As cycling has learned, ignoring the issue and embracing the high profile doper is the worst thing to do.

Any news of a Triathlete paying off their Fed?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> never said anything like this. I agree, Masters is likely as dirty as masters bike racing.


You said:


_Just what Tri needs. They are not a real sport until they have dopers_

_now [Triathlon] is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want._

If you think that triathletes are already dirty, why would you say either of these statements?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> _Just what Tri needs. They are not a real sport until they have *famous* dopers_
> 
> _now [Triathlon] is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want._
> 
> If you think that triathletes are already dirty, why would you say either of these statements?


Feel better? 

As I have said over, and over, ignoring the obvious and embracing dopers the majority of the sports world wants nothing to do with is not a good long term strategy. A few race promoters may chase short term gain but it does nothing for the sport. Cycling ignored the issue, embraced the superstar dopers. It didn't work for them, it just made the problem worse


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Feel better?


Not really. It feels like you said something, denied saying anything like it, and then admitted to saying it, only you meant to add a slight variation. What's the point of even talking to you?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Not really. It feels like you said something, denied saying anything like it, and then admitted to saying it, only you meant to add a slight variation. What's the point of even talking to you?


I am sorry to hear of your comprehension issues. If they persist I suggest seeking professional attention. It could be a sign of something serious


----------



## Local Hero

again with the insults...


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators note*

Enough. No more infractions or warnings. Any further personal attacks by any one is a posting vacation.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Local Hero said:


> Of course it _has little to do with what they are good at_.
> 
> If a triathlete were really good at swimming, cycling, or running, they might focus on that one sport. Or maybe they were really good at that one sport in college and they_ retired_ to triathlons.


So what's your explanation for why most cyclists and runners are no good at their chosen sport? Probably swimmers too, but swimming doesn't seem to be much of sport that adults chose to compete at.


----------



## spade2you

Dwayne Barry said:


> So what's your explanation for why most cyclists and runners are no good at their chosen sport? Probably swimmers too, but swimming doesn't seem to be much of sport that adults chose to compete at.


I don't think there are any adult swimming competitions in my area, not that I'm looking. I swam when I was a kid, but I don't think I've ever heard of anything for adults.


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed....and now it is a fringe sport for dopers the rest of the sporting world does not want.



Wow.... That's a VERY harsh assessment of triathlon...... Not cool, and not fair to the many who enjoy the sport.


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is not surprising that the race director is trying to justify his actions, what do you expect him to say?
> 
> As we have seen here Armstrong's groupies are a vocal, deluded, bunch. No surprise they flood the comments, that is their job.
> 
> As we have seen over and over in cycling ignoring the issue of doping in pursuit of short term monetary gain sounds like a good idea at the time.....and always ends up as a mistake


You raise the issue of the race promoters. A ban needs to be a ban. Period. Unfortunately many race promoters are in it to make money, not in it for the long term benefit of the sport. If they can make more money by running open, unsanctioned events that attract big names, and in turn attract more competitors.... Well, that's a big incentive..... I agree, probably not good for the long term, but how do you stop it from happening? Make insurance coverage legal only to sanctioned events?


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, that will be part of his traveling roadshow. Laying of hands, faith healing, magic powers
> 
> You might have a point with the Tyson analogy. Bankrupt, junkie, making his living opening car dealerships and shopping malls. :thumbsup:


Why not contribute something positive? There is enough negativity surrounding cycling that we don't need to add to it.

You are passionate, and knowledgeable on the subject......

I don't know, and my apologies if you already do, but have you ever considered volunteering for an Anti-doping agency or cause? From what I understand most don't have very significant budgets and could use the help......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slegros said:


> You raise the issue of the race promoters. A ban needs to be a ban. Period. Unfortunately many race promoters are in it to make money, not in it for the long term benefit of the sport. If they can make more money by running open, unsanctioned events that attract big names, and in turn attract more competitors.... Well, that's a big incentive..... I agree, probably not good for the long term, but how do you stop it from happening? Make insurance coverage legal only to sanctioned events?


It is a short term thing. So far there is little to indicate that Armstrong's appearance results in a significant increase in entries. Only 300 people showed up at the Colorado race. 

While I am sure there will be a few promoters that ignore the obvious after USADA releases their evidence it will become harder to justify. Tri Pro's are increasingly vocal about not wanting dopers like Armstrong to get a free pass. The honeymoon is over


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a short term thing. So far there is little to indicate that Armstrong's appearance results in a significant increase in entries. Only 300 people showed up at the Colorado race.
> 
> While I am sure there will be a few promoters that ignore the obvious after USADA releases their evidence it will become harder to justify. Tri Pro's are increasingly vocal about not wanting dopers like Armstrong to get a free pass. The honeymoon is over


Not entirely related to this post, but....

I hope you don't mind me making this observation, but it seems that you are focused solely on the downfall of LA as opposed to the greater issue of doping in cycling. Its fairly obvious that doping was going on before LA, and will continue after he's gone.

Anytime anyone here even suggests that there may be other issues at play or tries to shift the focus you accuse them of being LA supporters or apologists.

For example:

-I believe he's guilty
-I believe he should be sanctioned
-I have never been a fan
-He did a lot of harm to a lot of people

But I also believe:

-Livestrong isn't 100% bad... 
-I enjoyed watching the TDF in the LA years
-That questions need to be answered regarding USADAs timing
-That questions need to be answered regarding why the FDA was a prime motivator

Now you, and I have been through our differences on those final 2 points ad-nauseum. I believe those questions need to be addressed for the betterment of cycling. You seem to take my questioning of these issues as a crusade to clear LA, which I'm clearly not on... 

Anyone who raises any concerns over how this case is proceeding, or suggests that good people working for good causes may suffer is IMO just a case of people looking at the issue with compassion, and a sense of fairness and not necessarily with the aim of justifying LA's doping violations, as you often suggest.

It seems to be a pattern, that anyone whose opinion differs slightly from yours, you approach them in a manner that comes across as sarcastic, insulting, and badgering. Often to the point where it seems to be your aim to either force anyone into conforming to your viewpoint, or to give up discussing the issue completely.

Do you have a personal bias and prejudice against LA? If not, it would certainly appear as if you do....

Do you believe that personal bias and prejudice have any place in sorting him or any other criminal out? I don't, I think we should do so fairly and objectively. Its what separates a fair and just society from a lynch mob. (And no, that's not proof I'm an LA apologist claiming the USADA and FDA are lynch mobs simply because I used that term.)

In my opinion we can use open debate. Doping in cycling is an issue that NEEDS to be seen from as many angles as possible to be fully understood, so that the changes can be lasting. Why discourage that? 

Please continue to inform- you do a great job! But why not do so with a more positive tone, and colored with less personal bias?

Now, please feel free to pick away at the semantics of my post as you like, and turn around what I have put here, and make it about me, how I'm a bad guy out to save my buddy LA or whatever... Its nothing new, and nothing I haven't seen here before. I won't bother responding. I think the sentiments I have conveyed here are perfectly clear.


----------



## spade2you

Chris-X said:


> what you're not recognizing is that people who have mountains of evidence against them love to have "open debate." What do they have to lose?
> 
> I do question your motivation for this "open debate."
> 
> I really could shred a lot of your post but don't have time to waste...


You do realize that right next to that mountain of evidence is another mountain of the UCI looking the other way and/or being paid to allow him to skate by, right? 

While I'm not defending what happened, I think the only ones who will get punished are current teams and riders when sponsors pull out. Even the mighty High Road could secure sponsors despite so many wins.


----------



## slegros

Chris-X said:


> what you're not recognizing is that people who have mountains of evidence against them love to have "open debate." What do they have to lose?
> 
> I do question your motivation for this "open debate."
> 
> I really could shred a lot of your post but don't have time to waste...


For your benefit Chris, I'll break what I put about not responding to the above just this once to cut and paste the part I added, which you missed:

Now, please feel free to pick away at the semantics of my post as you like, and turn around what I have put here, and make it about me, how I'm a bad guy out to save my buddy LA or whatever... Its nothing new, and nothing I haven't seen here before. I won't bother responding. I think the sentiments I have conveyed here are perfectly clear.


----------



## den bakker

slegros said:


> Not entirely related to this post, but....
> 
> I hope you don't mind me making this observation, but it seems that you are focused solely on the downfall of LA as opposed to the greater issue of doping in cycling. Its fairly obvious that doping was going on before LA, and will continue after he's gone.
> 
> Anytime anyone here even suggests that there may be other issues at play or tries to shift the focus you accuse them of being LA supporters or apologists.
> 
> For example:
> 
> -I believe he's guilty
> -I believe he should be sanctioned
> -I have never been a fan
> -He did a lot of harm to a lot of people
> 
> But I also believe:
> 
> -Livestrong isn't 100% bad...
> -I enjoyed watching the TDF in the LA years
> -That questions need to be answered regarding USADAs timing
> -That questions need to be answered regarding why the FDA was a prime motivator
> 
> Now you, and I have been through our differences on those final 2 points ad-nauseum. I believe those questions need to be addressed for the betterment of cycling. You seem to take my questioning of these issues as a crusade to clear LA, which I'm clearly not on...
> 
> Anyone who raises any concerns over how this case is proceeding, or suggests that good people working for good causes may suffer is IMO just a case of people looking at the issue with compassion, and a sense of fairness and not necessarily with the aim of justifying LA's doping violations, as you often suggest.
> 
> It seems to be a pattern, that anyone whose opinion differs slightly from yours, you approach them in a manner that comes across as sarcastic, insulting, and badgering. Often to the point where it seems to be your aim to either force anyone into conforming to your viewpoint, or to give up discussing the issue completely.
> 
> Do you have a personal bias and prejudice against LA? If not, it would certainly appear as if you do....
> 
> Do you believe that personal bias and prejudice have any place in sorting him or any other criminal out? I don't, I think we should do so fairly and objectively. Its what separates a fair and just society from a lynch mob. (And no, that's not proof I'm an LA apologist claiming the USADA and FDA are lynch mobs simply because I used that term.)
> 
> In my opinion we can use open debate. Doping in cycling is an issue that NEEDS to be seen from as many angles as possible to be fully understood, so that the changes can be lasting. Why discourage that?
> 
> Please continue to inform- you do a great job! But why not do so with a more positive tone, and colored with less personal bias?
> 
> Now, please feel free to pick away at the semantics of my post as you like, and turn around what I have put here, and make it about me, how I'm a bad guy out to save my buddy LA or whatever... Its nothing new, and nothing I haven't seen here before. I won't bother responding. I think the sentiments I have conveyed here are perfectly clear.


well you could sum up the previous days response to you, how you feel they failed to address your opinions and we could take it from there. 
Or you can repeat the same again tomorrow just re-written a bit.


----------



## asgelle

slegros said:


> -That questions need to be answered regarding why the FDA was a prime motivator


Since all it takes for you to find a causal connection is temporal coincidence, I would submit you're misinterpreting the evidence. It was not the FDA that was a motivator for USADA, it was the Super Bowl. The USADA investigators were consumed with football (as fans) and especially with the Super Bowl. Once the Super Bowl was over, they had time to get serious about the U. S. Postal investigation.

It became about you when you failed to recognize your questions had been answered repeatedly, and persisted in repeating them over and over.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It is good to see the sport starting to stand up to the Armstrong media machine. Jodie Swallow, Richie Cunningham, May Beth Ellis and Mirinda Carfrae all have spoken out about not wanting a disgraced doper like Lance in the sport


----------



## slegros

den bakker said:


> well you could sum up the previous days response to you, how you feel they failed to address your opinions and we could take it from there.
> Or you can repeat the same again tomorrow just re-written a bit.


I will sum it up:

Please continue to inform- you do a great job! But why not do so with a more positive tone, and colored with less personal bias?


----------



## rydbyk

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is good to see the sport starting to stand up to the Armstrong media machine. Jodie Swallow, Richie Cunningham, May Beth Ellis and Mirinda Carfrae all have spoken out about not wanting a disgraced doper like Lance in the sport


1. disgraced...well, maybe yeh

2. if they are truly against dopers, then it really is not about banning lance....also, it is just a matter of time that pro triathletes start getting popped just like in cycling. this is a fact and i am assuming you agree.

we can start with this one: chrissie wellington. oh wait, she spent time in nepal at high elevation, so she is all good then..


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> And that makes it all OK:thumbsup:
> 
> Everyone wants to play "Race the doper"


This is exactly the type of comment that seems to be typical from many here. 

Where in the post you commented on are you led to believe that 88rex is condoning this? 

He was pointing out a valid issue of enforcement to which you responded sarcastically, contributing nothing to the solution of the problem, discouraging someone from making further positive contributions.....

Why?

From some here I expect nothing less. But I can't help think that a doctor (I hope I'm assuming correctly here) who is as obviously well versed in these issues as you are, could take a slightly more enlightened approach.


----------



## Local Hero

One pro triathlete thinks that all cycling is dirty. The other said that they are athletes and their job is to race, not comment on what USADA, WADA, and the UCI are doing. 
Pro Triathletes react to Lance Armstrong's lifetime cycling ban - YouTube


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slegros said:


> This is exactly the type of comment that seems to be typical from many here.
> 
> Where in the post you commented on are you led to believe that 88rex is condoning this?
> 
> He was pointing out a valid issue of enforcement to which you responded sarcastically, contributing nothing to the solution of the problem, discouraging someone from making further positive contributions.....
> 
> Why?
> 
> From some here I expect nothing less. But I can't help think that a doctor (I hope I'm assuming correctly here) who is as obviously well versed in these issues as you are, could take a slightly more enlightened approach.


It is comments like this that seem to be typical from many here. Instead of actually reading the series of posts some jump to muddle the discussion. 

It is simple. Armstrong is exploiting a loophole. Chris was right to point out there is nothing positive about this exploitation.....it just draws a few people to see the freak show


----------



## Local Hero

What does it take to be a "pro" triathlete? 

It's not the same as being a professional cyclist. The majority of "pro" triathletes are not sponsored by professional teams (though they may have a local club sponsorship). 

It is rather simple to get your pro card: 

CRITERIA A:
Finish within 8% of the winning elite time (on same course as elites) in three USAT sanctioned events that offer an elite/ pro prize purse.

CRITERIA B:
Finish top-10 overall and within 8% of the winner's time at ITU Age Group World Championships.

CRITERIA C:
Finish top-10 overall in the amateur field at Ironman World Championship.

CRITERIA D:
Finish top-5 overall and within 8% of the winner's time at the USAT Age Group National Championships.

CRITERIA E:
Finish top-5 overall and within 8% of the winner's time at USAT Collegiate National Championships.

CRITERIA F:
Finish top-3 overall in the amateur field at an Elite Qualifying Race. 


I reckon that's the equivalent of getting Cat 1 or Cat 2 on the road. 

There are only a few dozen pro triathletes who actually make a living being triathletes. Most pro triathletes who don't have real jobs augment their income coaching or selling shoes. 





slegros said:


> But I can't help think that a doctor (I hope I'm assuming correctly here) who is as obviously well versed in these issues as you are, could take a slightly more enlightened approach.


I'm pretty sure that doctor falsetti is not a real doctor. He's just a guy on the internet who reposts from other message boards and retweets. He obviously spends a lot of energy and time on the topic. He probably knows some former professional cyclists. But if you look closely or challenge him on the facts, it's clear that the majority of what he posts is copypasta.


----------



## mariomal99

Local Hero said:


> What does it take to be a "pro" triathlete?
> 
> It's not the same as being a professional cyclist. The majority of "pro" triathletes are not sponsored by professional teams (though they may have a local club sponsorship).
> 
> It is rather simple to get your pro card:
> 
> CRITERIA A:
> Finish within 8% of the winning elite time (on same course as elites) in three USAT sanctioned events that offer an elite/ pro prize purse.
> 
> CRITERIA B:
> Finish top-10 overall and within 8% of the winner's time at ITU Age Group World Championships.
> 
> CRITERIA C:
> Finish top-10 overall in the amateur field at Ironman World Championship.
> 
> CRITERIA D:
> Finish top-5 overall and within 8% of the winner's time at the USAT Age Group National Championships.
> 
> CRITERIA E:
> Finish top-5 overall and within 8% of the winner's time at USAT Collegiate National Championships.
> 
> CRITERIA F:
> Finish top-3 overall in the amateur field at an Elite Qualifying Race.
> 
> 
> I reckon that's the equivalent of getting Cat 1 or Cat 2 on the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that doctor falsetti is not a real doctor. He's just a guy on the internet who reposts from other message boards and retweets. He obviously spends a lot of energy and time on the topic. He probably knows some former professional cyclists. But if you look closely or challenge him on the facts, it's clear that the majority of what he posts is copypasta.


I'm gonna go make some copypasta with pesto......mmmmmmm good:thumbsup:


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is comments like this that seem to be typical from many here. Instead of actually reading the series of posts some jump to muddle the discussion.
> 
> It is simple. Armstrong is exploiting a loophole. Chris was right to point out there is nothing positive about this exploitation.....it just draws a few people to see the freak show


I did read the whole thread.

And I agree with both what you and Chris have said:

It is simple. Armstrong is exploiting a loophole. Chris was right to point out there is nothing positive about this exploitation.....it just draws a few people to see the freak show.

I agree.

Clear enough? Or am I 'muddling the discussion'?

The point I take from 88rex's post is that unsanctioned events are not uncommon, and LA is seeking to take advantage of an existing loophole as opposed to creating a new one. My take is that he was pointing out the distinction. I fail to see how 88rex in any way attempted to justify LAs actions.

Even if 88rex was trying to justify LAs actions, would that have somehow prevented you from responding to him in a better fashion?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slegros said:


> I did read the whole thread.
> 
> And I agree with both what you and Chris have said:
> 
> It is simple. Armstrong is exploiting a loophole. Chris was right to point out there is nothing positive about this exploitation.....it just draws a few people to see the freak show.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Clear enough? Or am I 'muddling the discussion'?
> 
> The point I take from 88rex's post is that unsanctioned events are not uncommon, and LA is seeking to take advantage of an existing loophole as opposed to creating a new one. My take is that he was pointing out the distinction. I fail to see how 88rex in any way attempted to justify LAs actions.
> 
> Even if 88rex was trying to justify LAs actions, would that have somehow prevented you from responding to him in a better fashion?


I suggest hitting that ignore button instead of further clogging an already clogged thread


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> I'm pretty sure that doctor falsetti is not a real doctor. He's just a guy on the internet who reposts from other message boards and retweets. He obviously spends a lot of energy and time on the topic. He probably knows some former professional cyclists. But if you look closely or challenge him on the facts, it's clear that the majority of what he posts is copypasta.


Always with the insults. 

When I wrote this 3 months ago where did I cut and paste it from? 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> He wasn't the only USPS rider who had trouble at customs. George was caught with EPO coming into the US in the late 90's and all they did was seize it. He was more concerned with all the wasted money then anything


Or this 4 months ago



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You need a different picture. The moto used by Philippe, the guy from Nice Lance hired to deliver the blood on the motorcycle with refrigerated panniers, was far less obvious.
> 
> No need to try to find another picture, USADA already has one



19 months ago



Doctor Falsetti said:


> George, Tyler, (And Kristen) are talking and confirming there was organized doping on the team. Baby Carriage? Expect multiple other riders to confirm that they were pressured to dope. Popo was busted with dope and is working with the Italian police....Ferrari is also done, he will end up in prison. I also think, but do not know, that Floyd's Qui Tam case will gain some serious traction. USADA will open a non-analytical positive case against Lance.


I could go on but it would only result in more insults and baiting.


----------



## Local Hero

Pointing out that you're not a doctor isn't an insult. It's nothing to be ashamed of. 

Some of my best friends are not doctors.


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> One pro triathlete thinks that all cycling is dirty. The other said that they are athletes and their job is to race, not comment on what USADA, WADA, and the UCI are doing.
> Pro Triathletes react to Lance Armstrong's lifetime cycling ban - YouTube



I saw this video a couple of weeks back. The two responses broadly represent the opposing camps in the Lance/USADA/USPS doping debate. The slightly older guy with the more cynical/realist 'seen it all' attitude who has no illusions as to the prevalence of doping in the sport.
Then you have the the kid from Austin who has enjoyed one or two runs in a group with Big Man (not even one-to-one, mind) and trotted out the 'omerta' 'USADA/WADA/UCI are not our concern, we're here to race'. He comes across as a denier. He's thinking of his future. As for the future of the sport, who gives a fvck?

I can't imagine this clip will sway opinions either way, and it's insufficient on it's own to give much insight into the attitudes of triathletes to Lance and/or doping.
So why did you post it?


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Always with the insults.
> 
> When I wrote this 3 months ago where did I cut and paste it from?
> 
> 
> 
> Or this 4 months ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19 months ago
> 
> 
> 
> I could go on but it would only result in more insults and baiting.


I for one think you are very knowledgeable, and appreciate the effort you take to compile and share the information you do. Honestly!

And, we can all make efforts to be more polite to one another here. Myself included.

Maybe we can try to show a bit more compassion, and understanding. Failing both of those maybe we can all show a little patience?


What am I thinking!!! Thats just CRAZY TALK!!! LOL!!


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> I saw this video a couple of weeks back. The two responses broadly represent the opposing camps in the Lance/USADA/USPS doping debate. The slightly older guy with the more cynical/realist 'seen it all' attitude who has no illusions as to the prevalence of doping in the sport.
> Then you have the the kid from Austin who has enjoyed one or two runs in a group with Big Man (not even one-to-one, mind) and trotted out the 'omerta' 'USADA/WADA/UCI are not our concern, we're here to race'. He comes across as a denier. He's thinking of his future. As for the future of the sport, who gives a fvck?


Truth be told, when I heard the second guy speak it sounded like he had something to hide. 


> I can't imagine this clip will sway opinions either way, and it's insufficient on it's own to give much insight into the attitudes of triathletes to Lance and/or doping.
> So why did you post it?


Jodie Swallow, Richie Cunningham, May Beth Ellis and Mirinda Carfrae have spoken out against Armstrong. But you're right. What difference does it make that any pro triathlete feels one way or another? They have opinions just like everyone else.


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> how am I twisting Michael Bolton?


Michael Bolton!!! Oh man..... You just can't twist that one... I'm with you there! :thumbsup:

Any way we can ban Michael Bolton for life?


----------



## sir duke

> Truth be told, when I heard the second guy speak it sounded like he had something to hide.


I wouldn't rush to judgement on the second guy, he probably said what he did in part because of where he's from and possibly because he may see some future advantage to himself from showing Lance some loyalty. He did himself no favours with the anti-doping crowd by coming across as trite and formulaic with his replies; it was a rehearsed non-response. Towards the end he seemed to want to give himself an 'out' by mumbling that he saw the news and read the reports and was at least _aware_ of USADA's case. Kind of feeble, but I can't and won't label him a 'doper' based solely on his answer here. (Not that I'm suggesting you called him a doper either).



> Jodie Swallow, Richie Cunningham, May Beth Ellis and Mirinda Carfrae have spoken out against Armstrong. But you're right. What difference does it make that any pro triathlete feels one way or another? They have opinions just like everyone else.


They should join the fun here..


----------



## 88 rex

slegros said:


> The point I take from 88rex's post is that unsanctioned events are not uncommon, and LA is seeking to take advantage of an existing loophole as opposed to creating a new one. My take is that he was pointing out the distinction. I fail to see how 88rex in any way attempted to justify LAs actions.
> 
> Even if 88rex was trying to justify LAs actions, would that have somehow prevented you from responding to him in a better fashion?


Pretty much this. "Unsanctioned" races aren't uncommon at all. Nobody needs the blessing of USAC and UCI to put on a race. Nobody should be surprised at all that Lance would put on a race, or series of races, that do not fall under USAT, USAC, or UCI bodies. It's not a loophole and it's not against any laws. You can't prevent someone from organizing a race. Half of my races this year have been "unsanctioned".....although I do have a USAC license for road/mtb/cx JIC.

If Lance created a legitimate race that was of interest to me and it was local, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.


----------



## Coolhand

If you think Pro Cycling has a doping issue, just take a look at the current "Pro" Tri scene.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

88 rex said:


> Pretty much this. "Unsanctioned" races aren't uncommon at all. Nobody needs the blessing of USAC and UCI to put on a race. Nobody should be surprised at all that Lance would put on a race, or series of races, that do not fall under USAT, USAC, or UCI bodies. It's not a loophole and it's not against any laws. You can't prevent someone from organizing a race. Half of my races this year have been "unsanctioned".....although I do have a USAC license for road/mtb/cx JIC.
> 
> If Lance created a legitimate race that was of interest to me and it was local, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.


If I was Armstrong and intent on maintaining the charade and obsessive about keeping my name out there in the public as he appears to be, I'd start a whole series of running and triathlon races built around Livestrong. As those two appear to have the lowest barriers to entry. Maybe mountain bike racing too.


----------



## Local Hero

Coolhand said:


> If you think Pro Cycling has a doping issue, just take a look at the current "Pro" Tri scene.


Agreed.

This acknowledgement--and the acceptance that doping is likely equal among 40+ tri guys and masters cyclists--completely disarms the argument that Armstrong will bring doping to triathlons. 

I understand that people like to demonize Armstrong, I get it. He has haters. But to pretend that the guy invented doping is absurd. We can't blame Armstrong for all doping in sports. It's a nonsequitor to argue that if Armstrong competes in a few unsanctioned tris it will alter the sport, making it a safe haven for disgraced dopers that the rest of the sporting world does not want.

Even if Armstrong died tomorrow we would still have dirty amateurs and dirty pros.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Always with the insults.


That wasn'tan insult.

He was responding to another's question and making fair comment on your posts in general.

This is something you doyourself on a regular basis.



> When I wrote this 3 months ago where did I cut and paste it from?


Ok, I'll play that game. I give up. I don't know where you copypasta'd it from. You gonna tell us, now?

But, kidding aside, I can see that you're trying to defend yourself. You're doing this by offering obscure references to several posts going back over a year, BUT, you offer them without any support for you implied assertion that these were NOT copypasta - an asser6tion without supporting evidence. IOW, you expect that we all believe that the posts you offered are original compositions




> I could go on but it would only result in more insults and baiting.


You're not being insulted or baited. The post in question wasn't even addressed to you.

BTW, are you a real doctor?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> If I was Armstrong and intent on maintaining the charade and obsessive about keeping my name out there in the public as he appears to be, I'd start a whole series of running and triathlon races built around Livestrong. As those two appear to have the lowest barriers to entry. Maybe mountain bike racing too.


He has indicated this is the direction he will be going. Likely his only option as even independent promoters will not be returning his calls soon. 

The question is where does the money to fund these events come from? The current Livestrong events are struggling, gross revenue from events is down by 50%. Net revenue is minimal. It would be an odd use of foundation resources if they provided the start up funds so their boy can pretend he still matters


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> But to pretend that the guy invented doping is absurd.


Agreed, but who has said this? Strawman. :thumbsup:


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He has indicated this is the direction he will be going. Likely his only option as even independent promoters will not be returning his calls soon.
> 
> The question is where does the money to fund these events come from? The current Livestrong events are struggling, gross revenue from events is down by 50%. Net revenue is minimal. It would be an odd use of foundation resources if they provided the start up funds so their boy can pretend he still matters


I don't know man.... He just played to a packed house in Montreal and announced a rather sizable donation. To quote the article:

Armstrong also used his speech to announce his foundation would donate an additional $500,000 to a joint initiative aimed at increasing access to cancer care around the world.

Hundreds show support for defiant Armstrong in Montreal - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The current Livestrong events are struggling, gross revenue from events is down by 50%.


Interesting. I can't find anything online to support that number. Care to cite your source?



> Net revenue is minimal.


Compared to what, exactly? I'd like citation for that, too.




> It would be an odd use of foundation resources if they provided the start up funds so their boy can pretend he still matters


Yes, it would, but what "start up funds" would those be.

I would imagine that NPOs of all types are having a tough go of this economy, plus there are a lot of them out there with their hands out asking for our money. With the down economy and a saturated market, It wouldn't surprise me to hear that times were tough at the LAF. Thiongs are tough all over. Just the same, I'd like to see citation rather than speculation.


----------



## Local Hero

"Doctor" falsetti does make countless predictions on the board. The majority of them are vague. Other predictions are that "the sky is falling" a la chicken little, some are forever unverifiable, and some are simply false. Of course, some do turn out to be correct -- if you scan through the dozens of predictions falsetti made over the past few years it is clear that in a few instances he said things that were later verified. If only there were a way for the guy to limit his predictions to things that are verifiable. His batting average isn't that great.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> Interesting. I can't find anything online to support that number. Care to cite your source?


http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all



> The rides raised only $6.3 million in 2011, before expenses, versus more than $11 million the previous year,


2012 has been even worse. 

What are start up costs? Insurance is one, but they can get reduced insurance from their Federation.....oh, maybe not


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slegros said:


> I don't know man.... He just played to a packed house in Montreal and announced a rather sizable donation. To quote the article:
> 
> Armstrong also used his speech to announce his foundation would donate an additional $500,000 to a joint initiative aimed at increasing access to cancer care around the world.
> 
> Hundreds show support for defiant Armstrong in Montreal - The Globe and Mail


That packed house was there for one of worlds largest cancer conferences, not Lance. 

Smart move, use Livestrong funds to bolster his public image.


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> That packed house was there for one of worlds largest cancer conferences, not Lance.
> 
> Smart move, use Livestrong funds to bolster his public image.


Again I don't know... The article would seem to suggest that many were there in fact for LA:

Quote:

Later, hundreds of people joined Armstrong on a training run as a way to show support for the controversial cyclist.
A stampede of runners stormed up the Mont Royal alongside Armstrong in a fast-paced, hour-long run.

Also you should maybe state that: You believe he used Livestrong funds to bolster his public image. As opposed to stating it as fact that he did.

We can all assume what his motives were, but none of us can really say for certain. 100% an image booster? Probably a big consideration, but I don't think 100%. Either way I think any money donated to a worthy cause is better than none.....


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 2012 has been even worse.
> 
> What are start up costs? Insurance is one, but they can get reduced insurance from their Federation.....oh, maybe not


I promoted a couple of non-USAC cyclocross races and it was no more expensive to get insurance independently for them than it was to use USA cycling.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


Link doesn't work.

Your numbers don't add up to 50%. Its more like "down" 43% .

Are you delibereately inflating numbers in an attempt to strengthen your case?



> What are start up costs? Insurance is one, but they can get reduced insurance from their Federation.....oh, maybe not


Ok insurance. Anything else? 

And are you a real doctor?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> I promoted a couple of non-USAC cyclocross races and it was no more expensive to get insurance independently for them than it was to use USA cycling.


true. MTB races as well. The big challenge comes when you have a mass participation event on public roads.


----------



## Coolhand

Getting access to good officials is the biggest plus to USA Cycling race licensing.


----------



## Local Hero

Do people here think that a fractionally higher insurance rate will deter Livestrong from promoting triathlons?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Do people here think that a fractionally higher insurance rate will deter Livestrong from promoting triathlons?


No.

The question is who funds the start up costs? Advertising, permits, insurance, supplies, etc. Livestrong has paid millions of $$ to Medalist sports to run their events. This does not come free. 

If Livestrong funds Lance's events is this the best use of foundation funds? Would these events be for raising awareness of cancer or helping Lance pretend everything is OK?


----------



## slegros

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If Livestrong funds Lance's events is this the best use of foundation funds?


I don't believe it would be.


----------



## slegros

wrong spot.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No.
> 
> The question is who funds the start up costs? Advertising, permits, insurance, supplies, etc. Livestrong has paid millions of $$ to Medalist sports to run their events. This does not come free.
> 
> If Livestrong funds Lance's events is this the best use of foundation funds? Would these events be for raising awareness of cancer or helping Lance pretend everything is OK?


1) Livestrong would fund the Livestrong event start up costs. Why not? 

2) Is it the best use of funds? Is it legitimate? I don't know. I'm not too familiar (obsessed?) with Livestrong's charter. 

I would guess that promoting an event would fall within legitimate use, as the event is getting the name out. Registration would be through the Livestrong page, spreading the message, etc. Also, the events would be good to go if they turn a profit and that profit is used by Livestrong for its primary purpose (spreading awareness?). I would also surmise that since Livestrong wrote their own charter, the language is broad and gives them a great deal of freedom while still maintaining their non-profit status. 

It sounds like you are truly against it. Would you still care if Armstrong died tomorrow and Livestrong put on non-USAT triathlons in the future?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slegros said:


> I don't believe it would be.


Agreed. It would be hard to rationalized such a speculative use of foundation funds, but I am sure some will try. 

Livestrong has made huge efforts to change in the last couple years. It would be sad to see them slide backwards into being a promotion engine for Lance again


----------



## Samadhi

Local Hero said:


> 1) Livestrong would fund the Livestrong event start up costs. Why not?
> 
> 2) Is it the best use of funds? Is it legitimate? I don't know. I'm not too familiar (obsessed?) with Livestrong's charter.


What constitutes "proper use of funds" has more to do with the BOD than anything else. They would have the ultimate say on how funding is applied.



> I would guess that promoting an event would fall within legitimate use, as the event is getting the name out.


That's totally legit - a part of legitimate operating expense.



> Registration would be through the Livestrong page, spreading the message, etc. Also, the events would be good to go if they turn a profit and that profit is used by Livestrong for its primary purpose (spreading awareness?). I would also surmise that since Livestrong wrote their own charter, the language is broad and gives them a great deal of freedom while still maintaining their non-profit status.


You can bet on that! All NPOs operate similarly. Many offer support for events by maintaining a web presence that is used to assist participants in fund-raising and communication with donors. Such applications cost a lot of money to produce and maintain. It's legitimate expense.



> It sounds like you are truly against it.


Sounds like he's against Livestrong doing it at any rate.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No.
> 
> The question is who funds the start up costs? Advertising, permits, insurance, supplies, etc. Livestrong has paid millions of $$ to Medalist sports to run their events. This does not come free.
> 
> If Livestrong funds Lance's events is this the best use of foundation funds? Would these events be for raising awareness of cancer or helping Lance pretend everything is OK?




I am under the assumption that Lance was considering a local series of tri's. To what scale are we talking about? Advertising? For local tri's? Not really all that necessary. Minimal cost. Permits? Sure. Insurance? No problem. Supplies? He probably already has access to the supplies. He doesn't need to do anything on a national scale and it relatively wouldn't cost that much. It could be revenue neutral for him, or minimal gain and still be advantageous to him. 

If small clubs can put on local races, then I'm pretty sure Lance could do it with no problem.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Superfrog had 52 more finishers this year. 

Wow, the "Lance effect" is huge


----------



## Local Hero

Superfrog surely benefited from the increased coverage. And their numbers will probably be up even more next year. The promoter said it helped. Who knows though? 

I just checked the results, which were interesting. Armstrong came out of the water in fifth place. 

Griffen (who placed second overall) was just 17 seconds slower than Armstrong on the bike. Griffen was in the lead by about 15 seconds at the start of the run. 

Armstrong crushed the run with a blistering 6:06/mi pace. He won by 4 minutes, 18 seconds. 

SuperFrog XXXIV (September 30, 2012) (Eternal Timing)


I would have assumed that Armstrong would dominate the bike and try to mitigate losses on the run. But I suspect his strategy is to bike at a pace that keeps his legs freshest for the run. Doping or not, this is interesting. 

This is different than Ferrari's advice to Armstrong for a full Ironman which was to go hard on the bike and run conservatively.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Superfrog had 52 more finishers this year.
> 
> Wow, the "Lance effect" is huge


2012: 474 individual racers and 45 teams

2011: 422 individual racers and 43 teams

Lance Wasn

This says around 800 entrants, a record. Considering the commitment required for such an event, I would say 52 is significant. If you were a promoter, would you be upset with those numbers?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> 2012: 474 individual racers and 45 teams
> 
> 2011: 422 individual racers and 43 teams
> 
> Lance Wasn
> 
> This says around 800 entrants, a record. Considering the commitment required for such an event, I would say 52 is significant. If you were a promoter, would you be upset with those numbers?


Thanks for proving my point. 

If I was a promoter I would not allow a banned for life doper to compete in my race.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> If I was a promoter I would not allow a banned for life doper to compete in my race.


IF you were a promoter, you'd be very foolish to not allow Lance.

IF whe was responsible for the 50+ additional entries for 2012, that means he brought in over $10,000 over 2011 entries. Those aren't inflated numbers - they're actually conservative. Individual entry fees for the Superfrog were up to $275. Multiply that by 50 and you're talking serious green. 

That covers the prize purse.



And are you a real doctor or do you just use that as a handle? I have an muscian friend who used the name "Doctor Proctor" (named after our home town in MN) on stage, but he wasn't a real doctor. In a homage to the late Frank Zappa he'd refer to himself as a "Sears Doctor".


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> If I was a promoter I would not allow a banned for life doper to compete in my race.


I didn't prove any point other than provide real numbers. You can interpret them how you wish. You obviously don't think the numbers are significant. I don't really know what significant would be, but I know I would not be disappointed with those numbers.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> IF you were a promoter, you'd be very foolish to not allow Lance.
> 
> IF whe was responsible for the 50+ additional entries for 2012, that means he brought in over $10,000 over 2011 entries. Those aren't inflated numbers - they're actually conservative. Individual entry fees for the Superfrog were up to $275. Multiply that by 50 and you're talking serious green.
> 
> That covers the prize purse.
> 
> And are you a real doctor or do you just use that as a handle? I have an muscian friend who used the name "Doctor Proctor" (named after our home town in MN) on stage, but he wasn't a real doctor. In a homage to the late Frank Zappa he'd refer to himself as a "Sears Doctor".


You are under the misguided assumption that every entry is pure profit, it isn't. 

You are willing to sell the integrity of your event for a small amount. I would not.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are under the misguided assumption that every entry is pure profit, it isn't.
> 
> You are willing to sell the integrity of your event for a small amount. I would not.


For most "promoters" profitability of an endeavor is the overriding concern. Profitability is purely a matter of the number of entrants at a certain fee and the costs accrued by the enterprise.

So, if having someone like LA in my event can bring in that kind of money, I'd take a LONG look at letting him race. For that kind of money I'd comp his entry ask him if he had any friends he could bring along. I'd even invite a rat like Hamilton if it meant pushing my event into profitability.

Bankruptcy courts are full of those with "integrity".


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Superfrog had 52 more finishers this year.


How many more starters? 


> Wow, the "Lance effect" is huge


And here we are, all talking about Superfrog. 

Superfrog, Superfrog, Superfrog -- Just like Leadville. No doubt entry will be up again next year.


----------



## goloso

Samadhi said:


> And are you a real doctor or do you just use that as a handle?


You lecture people about doping and you don’t know the significance of that name?



Mile wide, inch deep.


----------



## Samadhi

goloso said:


> You lecture people about doping and you don’t know the significance of that name?


Why, no, should it?


----------



## goloso

Samadhi said:


> Why, no, should it?


Someone who trolls doping related issues ought to be familiar with the name.

But hey, let me google that for you...


----------



## Local Hero

I, for one, am ashamed that I was unable to spot an obscure cycling reference to individuals who doped while I was in preschool.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderator's Note*

Two infractions and a posting vacation issued. I am serious no more personal nonsense at all. If you can't post on this topic without going personal-- then stop. Vacations and perm bans going forward *with no further warnings*.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderator's Note*



Chris-X said:


> This sentence made me LMAO with some posters continually attempting to disparage our Doctor by just using his last name.
> 
> _Falsetti was himself a competitive cyclist._


What part of my post was confusing? Take some time off and work on that.


----------

