# In other news Lance Armstrong is "alive and well in Hawaii"



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Per twitter and facebook.

https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong

I've been trying to stay level and keep it to a few fun jokes, but this evasive bull **** he pulls on the public is pretty disgraceful. And the utterly delusional homers on the facebook comments are incredible, all happy he's alive how he's still their "hero".


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

What do you think should happen to Armstrong? What would make you happy?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> What do you think should happen to Armstrong? What would make you happy?


I hope a corgi poops on his lawn and doesn't eat it.


----------



## grandprix (Jul 8, 2012)

Maybe he is in Hawaii pushing a boulder up a hill over and over.

Regardless I think he should be obligated to keep us all continuously updated as to his whereabouts. At least do a better job of it than he did with the doping authorities. That or give me $100k to stop complaining about it on the internet.

And it should be illegal to post anything other than derision to his facebook page.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

I hope his remaining ball gets removed by a vicious sea turtle off Maui.


----------



## jarbiker (Sep 29, 2009)

*I have to wonder*



robdamanii said:


> I hope his remaining ball gets removed by a vicious sea turtle off Maui.




why you have any concern over his testicle at all? That seems somewhat creepy.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Ventruck said:


> Per twitter and facebook.
> 
> https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong
> 
> I've been trying to stay level and keep it to a few fun jokes, but this evasive bull **** he pulls on the public is pretty disgraceful. And the utterly delusional homers on the facebook comments are incredible, all happy he's alive how he's still their "hero".


Liars lie. Nothing new.



I genuinely wonder if they should put a suicide watch on him. If he's of sound mind and body, there's a good chance sometime somewhere all of his problems may come down on him all at once. I'm W.A.G.'ing that some form of stressor will trigger it. :shrugs:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> I genuinely wonder if they should put a suicide watch on him.


Shouldn't this forum be stocking up on party hats and champagne?


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Fascinating reading all the anti-Lance spew on this thread. Grown men rejoicing like Munchkins when news breaks that the Wicked Witch of the East dies.

_Once there was a wicked witch, in the lovely land of Oz.
And the wicked old, wicked old, wicked old witch that never, ever was.
She filled the folks in Munchkin Land with terror, and with dread!
'Til one fine day from Kansas, a house fell on her head.
And the coroner pronounced her...dead.
And through the town, the joyous news went runnin'.
The joyous news that the wicked old witch was finally done-er.
Ding Dong the witch is dead,
Which old witch?
Well uh, the wicked witch!
Oh!
Ding Dong the witch is dead (Oh we made, a happy day)_


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm looking outside my window; it's a typical Canadian fall, all the leaves are turning colours. 

There's one tree in front of my widow completely bare of any leaves; except one. 

I think to myself; that's gotta be Lance ;-).


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> I hope his remaining ball gets removed by a vicious sea turtle off Maui.


No poor sea turtle deserves this.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> What do you think should happen to Armstrong? What would make you happy?


It's one thing to just stay silent for the time being - in fact I though it was wise for him to do so - but to reappear with a totally irrelevant and random declaration is just making him look worse imo. 

He's continuing his evasive measures, even after he's seemingly done for this doping case. He could do it all he wants while decisions were pending, but what is there for him to appropriately say now, other than address the boldfaced news? 

Stalling is out of the question as far I know, unless he's unraveled some unlikely evidence that all his teammates had guns to their head to say he's guilty.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

To me, his behavior is predictable given his past behavior. His past MO was to create an alternate reality, star in that reality and repeat it endlessly "500 negative tests." 

He's unlikely to apologize. He's likely to try and keep his legal woes quiet - negotiate settlements. He's likely to reach out to venues that will still accept him, such as unlicensed races. He's likely to state how wonderful it all is. 

The way he doped - being so brazen, leaving such a large number of witnesses, the comeback, was not like a guy focus on logical self preservation. Why would he turn into someone logical now?


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> What do you think should happen to Armstrong? What would make you happy?


Say sorry, give back all the money, then go to jail. Sure as hell not living it up in Hawaii.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Ventruck said:


> It's one thing to just stay silent for the time being - in fact I though it was wise for him to do so - but to reappear with a totally irrelevant and random declaration is just making him look worse imo.
> 
> He's continuing his evasive measures, even after he's seemingly done for this doping case. He could do it all he wants while decisions were pending, but what is there for him to appropriately say now, other than address the boldfaced news?
> 
> Stalling is out of the question as far I know, unless he's unraveled some unlikely evidence that all his teammates had guns to their head to say he's guilty.


Apparently, now that most of his sponsorship has dried up I wonder how long he could go if companies and people go after him. 



Either in an attempt to collect bonus money he had falsely won or sue for defamation of character, etc. 

Of course, if he files bankruptcy that could complicate things further.


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

I'm guessing he's looking to spend some time here:

Pu

"Park located on the west coast of the island of Hawaiʻi in the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. The historical park preserves the site where, up until the early 19th century, Hawaiians who broke a kapu (one of the ancient laws) could avoid certain death by fleeing to this place of refuge or puʻuhonua."


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Ventruck said:


> It's one thing to just stay silent for the time being - in fact I though it was wise for him to do so - but to reappear with a totally irrelevant and random declaration is just making him look worse imo.
> 
> He's continuing his evasive measures, even after he's seemingly done for this doping case. He could do it all he wants while decisions were pending, but what is there for him to appropriately say now, other than address the boldfaced news?
> 
> Stalling is out of the question as far I know, unless he's unraveled some unlikely evidence that all his teammates had guns to their head to say he's guilty.


What are his evasive measures?


----------



## tnvol123 (Sep 11, 2012)

He doesn't owe me any explanations. I didn't stalk him before, I'm not going to start now.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Meh, who cares.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

YamaDan said:


> Meh, who cares.


WHAT

How can you *not* care, especially since the utterly delusional homers on facebook leave Armstrong incredible comments, all happy he's alive how he's still their "hero"?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> WHAT
> 
> How can you *not* care, especially since the utterly delusional homers on facebook leave Armstrong incredible comments, all happy he's alive how he's still their "hero"?


What about the people here who wish he were dead (who won't even admit that)?


----------



## Unkown (Jul 17, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> What do you think should happen to Armstrong? What would make you happy?


Jail for lying under oath multiple times.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> WHAT
> 
> How can you *not* care, especially since the utterly delusional homers on facebook leave Armstrong incredible comments, all happy he's alive how he's still their "hero"?


The number of people 'who care' and wish him plenty of ill will far out weight the Facebook giblet heads. But all the negative posts on all the forums will never stop those who hang on his every comment. Those people will not be deterred.

Some of my training partners recently made favorable comments about him. 
"I know he is a doper and has done a lot of bad things but I would gladly donate money to his cause to go on a ride with him". I was stunned. I was so shocked I couldn't even find words. Once I realized who these people really were I knew there was nothing I could say to sway their opinions.

These are licensed amateur racers. I suppose I had always assumed I knew what their position would be on Lance. They dropped that bomb shell and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I am now in search of a new group. 

I'm looking forward to the day when his name has completely disappeared. And the day when doping forums have NO posts because my sport has become dope free.
Ya I know, dream on.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I have friends who support him, most are ambivalent. Why would I quit riding with them? It isn't like Armstrong stole my birthday or anything.


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

The system allowed him to do what he wanted and he got away with it for so long until now ... Is it his fault? True he is an @##hole, but I think if any one of us was a professional cyclist during that period, then we would have doped as well. Maybe not 2 out of 10 of us then ... 

But I think most of us would not have done it the way he did.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

I just replied to his tweet and called him a coward.

Today is going to be a good day.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*And you think you know someone!*



metoou2 said:


> Some of my training partners recently made favorable comments about him.
> "I know he is a doper and has done a lot of bad things but I would gladly donate money to his cause to go on a ride with him". I was stunned. I was so shocked I couldn't even find words. Once I realized who these people really were I knew there was nothing I could say to sway their opinions.
> 
> These are licensed amateur racers. I suppose I had always assumed I knew what their position would be on Lance. They dropped that bomb shell and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I am now in search of a new group.


Wow. This is getting serious. 

How long have you been riding with these training partners?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Interesting what twitter suggests as "similar to Lance Armstrong"


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Shouldn't this forum be stocking up on party hats and champagne?


Wishing he were dead and wishing he would meet justice are two very different things. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction. I doubt anyone anywhere wishes Lance were dead--it seems like even the people he's been the nastiest to just feel sorry for his soulless self.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Just yesterday I saw a guy on the bikepath riding a hybrid, wearing a yellow Livestrong t-shirt. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was wrong but I was at a loss for words. I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.


----------



## LandShark'n (Jan 10, 2011)

c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n said:


> The system allowed him to do what he wanted and he got away with it for so long until now ... Is it his fault? True he is an @##hole, but I think if any one of us was a professional cyclist during that period, then we would have doped as well. Maybe not 2 out of 10 of us then ...
> 
> But I think most of us would not have done it the way he did.


Not me. I don't like needles.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

@ Local Hero,

it's a mid-week recovery ride. I can find plenty more or just do it on my own. None of them are long term training buddies.

My Sat / Sun rides are different people. There's no chit chat on my weekend fast rides. 
Mostly just heads down and trying to not loose the wheel in front.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> I have friends who support him, most are ambivalent. Why would I quit riding with them? It isn't like Armstrong stole my birthday or anything.


I wouldn't call them 'friends'. Just a group doing a mid-week recovery ride. Would I dump a friend for having a favorable view of a doper? It would be a hard decision.

My opinions aren't about Lance and Lance only. I have a strong dislike for dopers like most all on this forum. Lance didn't steal my birthday either but the training techniques he engaged in and obviously supported has found its way to my local races. And those guys definitely have stolen my chances and better placings and the ability to participate in a clean sport. 

Never thought I would face it locally, but it is in our midst. Some have been caught, others still race dirty. So when I hear a local guy speaking in an understanding tone about Lance it changes my opinion of that person. I can't support or relate to what they are saying and I have chosen to not associate with that group any longer.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spend it while he can?


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> Just yesterday I saw a guy on the bikepath riding a hybrid, wearing a yellow Livestrong t-shirt. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was wrong but I was at a loss for words. I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.


Hilarious


----------



## siclmn (Feb 7, 2004)

As others have said he lied under oath many times. The legal system is going to take care of that.
If his 100 + million dollar fortune saves him from being punished he and his family must always live in the shadow of what happened and his kids will always know the money came from doping. Hell, they probably won't even care.
There are still many people who will tell you that the Holocaust never happened.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

bikerjohn64 said:


> I'm looking outside my window; it's a typical Canadian fall, all the leaves are turning colours.
> 
> There's one tree in front of my widow completely bare of any leaves; except one.
> 
> I think to myself; that's gotta be Lance ;-).


You spelled colors wrong. That's un-'Merican.

:thumbsup:


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

tnvol123 said:


> He doesn't owe me any explanations. I didn't stalk him before, I'm not going to start now.





YamaDan said:


> Meh, who cares.


Two best answers. I ride cause I enjoy it, not because Lance told me to.

He did not defraud me, take my money, did me harm.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

MaddSkillz said:


> I just replied to his tweet and called him a coward.
> 
> Today is going to be a good day.


It takes a real man of courage to call someone a coward online.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

You should have set his shirt on fire afterwards. He had some nerve. 



Local Hero said:


> Just yesterday I saw a guy on the bikepath riding a hybrid, wearing a yellow Livestrong t-shirt. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was wrong but I was at a loss for words. I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

I'm sure that he made a business trip to the Cayman Islands right before he vacationed in the Hawaiian Islands.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> What do you think should happen to Armstrong? What would make you happy?




Please answer your own question.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

adimiro said:


> Please answer your own question.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I went to the gym tonight. 

Someone doughy middle-aged guy was on the elliptical. Normally I wouldn't have noticed such an innocuous fellow but once I saw the yellow LIVEStrong wrist band on his arm I almost threw up. I don't normally use an elliptical but I took the one next to him and glared from time to time.

I checked out his level (6) and RPMs (80-85) and set my machine to level 7 and turned 100 RPMs. I looked over a lot to make sure he knew that I was beating him. 

He gave up about 17 minutes later and went to the locker room. Even though my bag was in a cubby in the cardio room I followed. When he went to the shower I entered the shower room too, fully clothed. He looked back at me a few times but I said nothing. As soon as he took one of the shower stalls I stole his towel.


----------



## fschris (Jul 21, 2010)

if lance had his entire team doping... did he need to dope ? seems like from a young guy (19) he could beat most professional triathletes so the guy is gifted. if his entire team was doping how hard would it be for him to draft 90% of the time then put in a hard 10% to finish off the rest of the peloton. its not like he ever pulled a landis type breakaway for 80 miles then test positive for testosterone the next day. ?

Just some random thoughts. Maybe lance was is clean since he never did test positive and almost everyone else did... landis, Hamilton etc...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

All joking aside...


fschris said:


> if lance had his entire team doping... did he need to dope ? seems like from a young guy (19) he could beat most professional triathletes so the guy is gifted. if his entire team was doping how hard would it be for him to draft 90% of the time then put in a hard 10% to finish off the rest of the peloton. its not like he ever pulled a landis type breakaway for 80 miles then test positive for testosterone the next day. ?
> 
> Just some random thoughts. Maybe lance was is clean since he never did test positive and almost everyone else did... landis, Hamilton etc...


I asked this about Cavendish. 

First off, I think the guy is clean. There are several reason, not the least is that Cav is one of the most outspoken doping critics in the peloton. 

But what of his teammates? His leadout train? He attributed several of his wins to the guys who took him to the line. I'm not saying they that the HTC train was on the sauce, but some of them are admitted dopers. So we have the hypothetical: 

Should a sprinter be credited for wins if his support crew is doped to the gills?


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

He was _*never my hero*_. I always thought something was absolutely fishy about a cancer survivor, winning an unprecedented amount of Tour de France victories....


----------



## tnvol123 (Sep 11, 2012)

I'd really like to think he is clean. My man crush would suffer a huge blow if he was exposed. 



Local Hero said:


> All joking aside...I asked this about Cavendish.
> 
> *First off, I think the guy is clean. There are several reason, not the least is that Cav is one of the most outspoken doping critics in the peloton.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

tnvol123 said:


> I'd really like to think he is clean. My man crush would suffer a huge blow if he was exposed.


If Cav gets busted I wont know whose chammy to sniff.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

fschris said:


> if lance had his entire team doping... did he need to dope ? seems like from a young guy (19) he could beat most professional triathletes so the guy is gifted. if his entire team was doping how hard would it be for him to draft 90% of the time then put in a hard 10% to finish off the rest of the peloton. its not like he ever pulled a landis type breakaway for 80 miles then test positive for testosterone the next day. ?
> 
> Just some random thoughts. Maybe lance was is clean since he never did test positive and almost everyone else did... landis, Hamilton etc...



You're in a forum that will answer your questions.



But you need to read the threads in order have said questions answers.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

fschris said:


> if lance had his entire team doping... did he need to dope ? seems like from a young guy (19) he could beat most professional triathletes so the guy is gifted.


Armstrong was doping when he was 19. He was using coach Crawford before he made the jump to cycling. He then went on to be doped by Chris Carmichael and Rene Wenzel on the national team. This is a guy who has been juiced his entire adult life as well as some of his teen years. It is impossible to say how gifted he is.


----------



## Corsaire (Jun 2, 2006)

c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n said:


> The system allowed him to do what he wanted and he got away with it for so long until now ... Is it his fault? True he is an @##hole, but I think if any one of us was a professional cyclist during that period, then we would have doped as well. Maybe not 2 out of 10 of us then ...
> 
> But I think most of us would not have done it the way he did.



In the final analysis, it is a system problem. Sure, LA deserves whatever is coming to him for his abhorrent behavior, but his behavior is a product of this corrupt society where what we see in pro cycling and think is a big deal is just a micro cosmos of our bigger corrupt society. This endemic corruption is just a symptom.

LA's main excuse is his Live Strong charity. In reality, his charity, one he profits from ($ 11 million dollar jet, first class flights, hotels, meals, etc, etc) big time is just a cover for him to live a high life style, and in the end it doesn't do anything significant to help cure cancer. In fact it helps perpetuate the multi billion dollar cancer industry which it has vested interest in not finding cure at all, because it wouldn't be profitable. They are in cahoots with the FDA, Cancer Institute, and they benefit from it all, it's all corrupt. If someone finds a cure they try to destroy them, so many documented cases like this one.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

fschris said:


> if lance had his entire team doping... did he need to dope ? seems like from a young guy (19) he could beat most professional triathletes so the guy is gifted. if his entire team was doping how hard would it be for him to draft 90% of the time then put in a hard 10% to finish off the rest of the peloton. its not like he ever pulled a landis type breakaway for 80 miles then test positive for testosterone the next day. ?
> 
> Just some random thoughts. Maybe lance was is clean since he never did test positive and almost everyone else did... landis, Hamilton etc...


Armstrong tested positive for Testosterone 3 times in the 90's, Cortisone in 99, EPO 6 times in 99, EPO in 01 and 02.


----------



## Rip Van Cycle (Jun 11, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> I have friends who support him, most are ambivalent. Why would I quit riding with them? It isn't like Armstrong stole my birthday or anything.


All right then. At least there are a small handful of us who think "How do you feel about Lance Armstrong?" is a litmus test for one's riding group is kinda weird.:crazy:


metoou2 said:


> Never thought I would face it locally, but it is in our midst. Some have been caught, others still race dirty. So when I hear a local guy speaking in an understanding tone about Lance it changes my opinion of that person. I can't support or relate to what they are saying and I have chosen to not associate with that group any longer.


In fairness, I should know more about your cycling level before I can comment saliently on your statements. If you're a professional or semi-professional racer who's lost significant, lifestyle-altering amounts of money in losses to people you strongly suspect of doping, you have my sympathy. If not, then a little perspective is in order, I think...


Local Hero said:


> If Cav gets busted I won't know whose chammy to sniff.


You're goin' in the wrong direction (IMO). If I've learned one thing since I've re-awakened, it's that chammies, like wine, tend to be more highly valued with age. Me? I'm looking for a vintage Gino Bartali '36. I also hear good things about the Poulidor '64- but I'm also told that product doesn't travel well---


----------



## EpicX (Mar 11, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> Just yesterday I saw a guy on the bikepath riding a hybrid, wearing a yellow Livestrong t-shirt. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was wrong but I was at a loss for words. I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.


a few days after the USADA report, I saw a guy at the state fair of Texas walking around in a livestrong wifebeater, livestrong sunvisor, livestrong shorts, livestrong socks, livestrong bracelet carrying a livestrong water bottle and a livestrong backpack. Only thing not sporting the brand was his shoes...

I just shook my head and walked on by.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Just yesterday I saw a guy on the bikepath riding a hybrid, wearing a yellow Livestrong t-shirt. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was wrong but I was at a loss for words. I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.


Look, I think that is very uncool and just beyond the pale. What you're pissed at Armstrong for being a doper and a bully and you respond by ... Being a bully?

I'm angry at Armstrong for doping, for threatening the credibility and for treating people horribly. 

But, people are entitled to have different opinions then mine and I don't run around hitting them. Most recreational cyclist I know (including my sister) don't know that much about it all and are just like "oh yeah, wasn't he in the news lately, what happened, I didn't really read it."

Like it or not, Livestrong had become a brand and a slogan. People support it even if they don't support Lance. I mean, Nike still sponsors that dog murderer. People separate him from Nike.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Bluenote said:


> Look, I think that is very uncool and just beyond the pale. What you're pissed at Armstrong for being a doper and a bully and you respond by ... Being a bully?
> 
> I


Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you'd be wise to invest in some satire-recognition software. :wink:

Pretty soon you'll know the cast of characters. One rule of thumb is don't assume that every post by a Lownger is serious.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Just yesterday I saw a guy on the bikepath riding a hybrid, wearing a yellow Livestrong t-shirt. I wanted to tell him that what he was doing was wrong but I was at a loss for words. I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.


That was you.. gawd, my shoulder still hurts... and you tore my shirt!:cryin:


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

Yeah, I cut up my yellow LIVEWRONG bracelet....


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Corsaire said:


> In the final analysis, it is a system problem. Sure, LA deserves whatever is coming to him for his abhorrent behavior, but his behavior is a product of this corrupt society where what we see in pro cycling and think is a big deal is just a micro cosmos of our bigger corrupt society. This endemic corruption is just a symptom.
> 
> LA's main excuse is his Live Strong charity. In reality, his charity, one he profits from ($ 11 million dollar jet, first class flights, hotels, meals, etc, etc) big time is just a cover for him to live a high life style, and in the end it doesn't do anything significant to help cure cancer. In fact it helps perpetuate the multi billion dollar cancer industry which it has vested interest in not finding cure at all, because it wouldn't be profitable. They are in cahoots with the FDA, Cancer Institute, and they benefit from it all, it's all corrupt. If someone finds a cure they try to destroy them, so many documented cases like this one.


Talk about an absolute negative-view-of-the-world poast :eek6: .



Going by your poast, are you admitting you are corrupt? That you are part of the corruption you speak of? Or have you removed yourself from society? Being that you are a member here poasting I find that hard to believe that you have removed yourself.


----------



## shermes (Jul 26, 2008)




----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

Actually - the Ancient Chinese had a natural cure for cancer, almost 2000 years ago - during one of the earliest Dynasties. The paranoid, corrupt, greedy and cruel ruler at that time(sound vaguely familiar?), murdered the herbalist who developed it, and burned all his documents, citing homeopathic medicine was a method of, "population control." Ask any China-born Asian - they all know this historical fact existed.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Zachariah said:


> Actually - the Ancient Chinese had a natural cure for cancer, almost 2000 years ago - during one of the earliest Dynasties. The paranoid, corrupt, greedy and cruel ruler at that time(sound vaguely familiar?), murdered the herbalist who developed it, and burned all his documents, citing homeopathic medicine was a method of, "population control." Ask any China-born Asian - they all know this historical fact existed.


I don't believe this.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Zachariah said:


> Actually - the Ancient Chinese had a natural cure for cancer, almost 2000 years ago - during one of the earliest Dynasties. The paranoid, corrupt, greedy and cruel ruler at that time(sound vaguely familiar?), murdered the herbalist who developed it, and burned all his documents, citing homeopathic medicine was a method of, "population control." Ask any China-born Asian - they all know this historical fact existed.


How does anyone know it worked if the documents don't exist? 



Let alone be a historical fact that it worked  ?


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> How does anyone know it worked if the documents don't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Let alone be a historical fact that it worked  ?


My mother was a school teacher, in Shanghai from 1957-1961. They taught this to all grade-school kids. According to my mother - there exists historical inscriptions and stone tablets unearthed in the 1930s of what happened. Believe me...I was skeptical myself. 

I'll get more details from her...


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> How does anyone know it worked if the documents don't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Let alone be a historical fact that it worked  ?


My mother was a school teacher, in Shanghai from 1957-1961. They taught this to all grade-school kids. According to my mother - there exists historical inscriptions and stone tablets unearthed in the 1930s of what happened. Believe me...I was skeptical myself. 

I'll get more details from her.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

A billion people believing something and passing it from generation to generation does not make it true. Stone tablets don't make something true.


Due to the the very nature of DNA and cell division--and the nature of cancer itself--a possible cure for all cancer is highly unlikely. We'll be able to diagnose it and treat it more effectively, greatly lowering its mortality, but it's not going away.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

mpre53 said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you'd be wise to invest in some satire-recognition software. :wink:
> 
> Pretty soon you'll know the cast of characters. One rule of thumb is don't assume that every post by a Lownger is serious.


*grumble grumble*

Well....well...Michael Vick is still a dog murderer...

*grumble....grumble*


----------



## ocean-ro (Nov 23, 2009)

When I read the tweet it says: Alive and well in Hawaii,suckers!
But maibe I need prescription glasses.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Lance Armstrong Effigt To Burn In Edenbridge | digtriad.com


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*I have a tree like that too*



bikerjohn64 said:


> I'm looking outside my window; it's a typical Canadian fall, all the leaves are turning colours.
> 
> There's one tree in front of my widow completely bare of any leaves; except one.
> 
> I think to myself; that's gotta be Lance ;-).


After Hurricane Sandy passed by, one tree in my backyard still has half of its leaves...we call it El Pistolero


----------



## the_doctor (Dec 27, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> All joking aside...I asked this about Cavendish.
> 
> First off, I think the guy is clean. There are several reason, not the least is that Cav is one of the most outspoken doping critics in the peloton.
> 
> ...


I wonder, too.

Watch the documentary called Road to Paris. George Hincapie was not there most of the time. He almost acted like the TEAM CAPTAIN when he was there. Lance is hardly even with the team.

Even the "Inside the Postal Bus" says that LANCE was not really with the team. 

Floyd's book talks about how his contact with Lance was limited.

Why believe people that are selling books and gran fondos. Ever think that these guys did a lot? The guy did not win 2 grand tours in the same season. You have people that basically say on the science side that the fellow doped because he didn't win a grand tour when he made a come-back.

To be honest I don't know how anyone gives admitted movie selling dopers credit. Did anyone catch the allusion that Levi would have been the best American rider if it were not for Lance?

It sounds like a lot of sore losers. Horner seems to be the guy that should have done better. He probably ran afoul of the dopers and he came back to America. Horner was the denied guy. What happened to Horner after he won the TdC? 

Bill


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Lance Armstrong Effigt To Burn In Edenbridge | digtriad.com


Maybe they will make tall statues of thier futbol heroes who dope in the future and burn those too.

I am in no way an LA fan, but this whole burning thing is lame.

Also, nice orange jersey on that Lance statue you moreons... I was completely unaware that Lance raced for Euskaltel

Perhaps they should make a statue of Joseph Kony and burn that one instead?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

cmdrpiffle said:


> You spelled colors wrong. That's un-'Merican.
> 
> :thumbsup:


But very Canadian, ay? :thumbsup:


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> I was so angry...so I chopped his wheel and sent him careening into a ditch.





Local Hero said:


> I went to the gym tonight.
> 
> When he went to the shower I entered the shower room too, fully clothed. He looked back at me a few times but I said nothing. As soon as he took one of the shower stalls I stole his towel.


*(chopped his front wheel) *this is ASSAULT. cost; approx $5K for attorney's and court fees

*(stole his towel)* this is stalking. If he serves you with a restraining order and you violate it, cost; $2K again for attorney's and court fees

(The fact that I took the bait and began to believe for more than (2) or (3) nanoseconds);
FRICKIN PRICELESS!


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*eh?*



LostViking said:


> But very Canadian, ay? :thumbsup:


good one :thumbsup:


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

I was never a fanatic about Lance but he did a lot for the sport in a positive way as well as the negativity we hear so much now. I remember racing in the 80's and early 90's. In fact, I raced Juniors around the same time he did. You didn't see people riding bikes as much as they do now. I remember training and I was lucky to see five bikes along the course that I would take. That same course is invaded by people on bicycles. Lance is the reason for this. Love him or hate him, he is the reason for the resurgence here in the US. Think of how many people you know that started riding because of you. I can think of many. some are even racing. Lance just did it on a larger scale. His reign is over but he still made a huge impact in cycling and cancer research. Can't fault him for that.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

terbennett said:


> I was never a fanatic about Lance but he did a lot for the sport in a positive way as well as the negativity we hear so much now. I remember racing in the 80's and early 90's. In fact, I raced Juniors around the same time he did. You didn't see people riding bikes as much as they do now. I remember training and I was lucky to see five bikes along the course that I would take. That same course is invaded by people on bicycles. Lance is the reason for this. Love him or hate him, he is the reason for the resurgence here in the US. Think of how many people you know that started riding because of you. I can think of many. some are even racing. Lance just did it on a larger scale. His reign is over but he still made a huge impact in cycling and cancer research. Can't fault him for that.


B.S. Road bikes were on the upsurge before Armstrong lost the Tour in 1999. The upswing consists of middle aged yuppies, who don't race, needing a non-impact sport to keep in shape. The MTB fad had cooled off and people changed to the road because it is easier and much more convenient. Armstrong and racing have nothing to do with cycling becoming the new golf.

BTW. Livestrong does not give anything to cancer research.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> B.S. Road bikes were on the upsurge before Armstrong lost the Tour in 1999. The upswing consists of middle aged yuppies, who don't race, needing a non-impact sport to keep in shape. The MTB fad had cooled off and people changed to the road because it is easier and much more convenient. Armstrong and racing have nothing to do with cycling becoming the new golf.


That's a fringe opinion. Most accept that Armstrong had a lot to do with the popularity of cycling in the US.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> That's a fringe opinion. Most accept that Armstrong had a lot to do with the popularity of cycling in the US.


Yeah, except he didn't. Most of those bikes bought in the heat of "Pharmstrong Fever" ended up collecting dust in people's garages.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> B.S. Road bikes were on the upsurge before Armstrong lost the Tour in 1999. The upswing consists of middle aged yuppies, who don't race, needing a non-impact sport to keep in shape. The MTB fad had cooled off and people changed to the road because it is easier and much more convenient. Armstrong and racing have nothing to do with cycling becoming the new golf.
> 
> BTW. Livestrong does not give anything to cancer research.


I don't know if that's all true. The fact that OLN was advertising the "Tour de Lance" might have been an indicator.

I raced MTB well into 2002 and saw it's rise and decline, it was either 98 or 99 Mount Snow Finals, Lance showed up and the cycling crowds tripled on a rainy day to watch him race in the rain.

Like it or not, Lance had a huge impact on our sport for the better part of a decade. He did bring in riders that never would have thought about throwing a leg over a bike were it not for the media that he brought in. And, if you think MTB's were a fad... you're a bit off base.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> That's a fringe opinion. Most accept that Armstrong had a lot to do with the popularity of cycling in the US.


No, just beccause fanboy still believe in the phony legend of Armstrong putting people on bikes does not make it true for more than a few Postal kitted lemmings. The MS150, charity rides, and centuries are what deserve credit. Those events are stuffed with riders and finding one who has ever raced at them is like finding a needle in a haystack. The increase in cycling comes from non-competitive people riding for fitness. They are barely aware of racing, and Armstrong has nothing to do with whatever they get out of the sport. Cycling coverage is on a crappy cable channel and has to battle for its survival against professional bull riding.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

YamaDan said:


> And, if you think MTB's were a fad... you're a bit off base.


Mountain bike racing in the U.S. is dead compared to what it was in the late 80s and early 90s.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> Mountain bike racing in the U.S. is dead compared to what it was in the late 80s and early 90s.


Indeed, however, there are more riders purchasing MTB's than road bikes. Racing is only one aspect of the industry. To say that an entire segment, that employees thousands of people is a fad, is a bit off the mark..

But, back to Lance in Hawaii.. Who cares? And if you do, why?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Yeah, except he didn't. Most of those bikes bought in the heat of "Pharmstrong Fever" ended up collecting dust in people's garages.


How do you know this? (And can't it be said about the majority of exercise equipment?!) 

What you said directly contradicts the millions in endorsements. Nike, Trek, Oakley, and so on believe that Armstrong was good for marketing. 

Regardless, I'm happy that you acknowledged Armstrong had some positive effect on the sport. At the very least he drove up sales (which in turn drove the industry, R&D, advertising, et cetera). 



trailrunner68 said:


> No, just beccause fanboy


Ah yes, "fanboy"



> still believe in the phony legend of Armstrong putting people on bikes does not make it true for more than a few Postal kitted lemmings. The MS150, charity rides, and centuries are what deserve credit. Those events are stuffed with riders and finding one who has ever raced at them is like finding a needle in a haystack. The increase in cycling comes from non-competitive people riding for fitness. They are barely aware of racing, and Armstrong has nothing to do with whatever they get out of the sport. Cycling coverage is on a crappy cable channel and has to battle for its survival against professional bull riding.


Again, this fringe opinion is contradicted by Armstrong's past sponsorship. 

Also, differentiating between charity rides and real fans/racers works against you. The detest towards Armstrong often comes from "serious" cycling fans, many of whom actually watch the "crappy cable channel" or race. 

On the other hand, those doing "their first century" have not been steeped in cycling's doping sagas. The guy who never watches cycling on TV apart from le tour and knows nothing except for what Ligget spews may have been initially interested in cycling because of Armstrong.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Take a random poll, anywhere.. ask anyone on the street to name a professional cyclist... I'd be willing to bet Armstrong comes up more than any other name.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> What you said directly contradicts the millions in endorsements. Nike, Trek, Oakley, and so on believe that Armstrong was good for marketing.


Companies wanting to sell to pudgy yuppies need spokesmen. Armstrong came along at the right time. Armstrong's celebrity was built by those companies. It did not happen by accident. Americans do not give a crap about the Tour de France. It is no different than record companies creating stars like Brittany Spears. Armstrong was no different than the Geico gecko or the Budweiser frogs. If it was not him then it would have been someone else or a CGI animal. The market was there. The companies opened it, not Armstrong. It was marketing at its most manipulative and cynical. It's all about the Benjamins.

I cannot do much for your fringe view that people are out there suffering through eight hour centuries because they saw Armstrong on TV. It's ludicrous.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

YamaDan said:


> Take a random poll, anywhere.. ask anyone on the street to name a professional cyclist... I'd be willing to bet Armstrong comes up more than any other name.


So what? Take a random poll, anywhere.. ask anyone on the street to name a professional triathlete... I'd be willing to bet that people would not be able to name a single one. Yet triathlon is growing like mad.

Triathlon taps into the endurance sport growth that has been going on. It is true for endurance mountain bike racing and for ultradistance trailrunning and for road cycling and for 5K/10K/hald marathons/marathons. All this stuff has been growing for the last fifteen years, and especially the last ten. It came out of the extreme sports fad of the 90s. The sustainable alternative that does not involve injuries and can be done by average schmoes with little athletic talent is going long. It is a way for people approaching the top of the hill or on the way down the other side to prove they still got it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Companies wanting to sell to pudgy yuppies need spokesmen. Armstrong came along at the right time. Armstrong's celebrity was built by those companies. It did not happen by accident. Americans do not give a crap about the Tour de France. It is no different than record companies creating stars like Brittany Spears. Armstrong was no different than the Geico gecko or the Budweiser frogs. If it was not him then it would have been someone else or a CGI animal. The market was there. The companies opened it, not Armstrong. It was marketing at its most manipulative and cynical. It's all about the Benjamins.


Now you have changed your argument from saying that Armstrong had nothing to do with the popularity of cycling to accepting that Armstrong had a lot to do with the popularity of cycling, but it could have been any celebrity. 


> I cannot do much for your fringe view that people are out there suffering through eight hour centuries because they saw Armstrong on TV. It's ludicrous.


Nobody here has claimed that people are still entering centuries because of Armstrong's popularity. This is about Armstrong's past influence, especially at the height of his popularity, say from 2001-2005. Of course Armstrong spurred popularity of cycling in the US during this time. To deny this is to be blinded by hatred. 

You've already accepted that Armstrong came along at the right time, was a celebrity for cycling. You've said just about everything I'm saying short of accepting the conclusion: Armstrong is responsible for some of the popularity of cycling in the US.

On a personal note, I feel sorry for these eight-hour century people unless it's over a few mountains.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> How do you know this? (And can't it be said about the majority of exercise equipment?!)
> 
> What you said directly contradicts the millions in endorsements. Nike, Trek, Oakley, and so on believe that Armstrong was good for marketing.
> 
> ...


And Michael Vick is good for selling football jerseys. Jordan was good for selling basketball. But guess what, they didn't "make" their sports. Bonds didn't "make" baseball.

The players come and go. They sport remains. No athlete is bigger than their sport, Armstrong included. That includes his "impact" on the sport, short of turning it into a three ring circus.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Now you have changed your argument from saying that Armstrong had nothing to do with the popularity of cycling to accepting that Armstrong had a lot to do with the popularity of cycling, but it could have been any celebrity.


He was just the face of a few companies' marketing campaigns to grow their own sales in a growing market. Maybe you can credit the Budweiser frogs for growing beer sales.

Extreme fanboyism prevents people from accepting that road cycling, triathlon, road running, trail running, and lots of other aerobic endurance sports have all expanded dramatically. It is just the spirit of the times. It is not attributable to anyone. Just because Armstrong was the spokesman for Nike does not make him responsible for millions of people deciding they want to run a marathon or or ride a century or do a triathlon or get together with their bros and do a 24 hour race.


----------



## timmon (Aug 1, 2011)

What about the coerced witnesses? Bans for them in 2013? The whole rendered decision is at steephill.tv. It's like going through somebody's dirty laundry.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Ask Trek who doubled their bottom line in a span of (5) or so years............it weren't no frogs or geckos.

I detest the schmuck just like most here, but there is no denying his influence.

In the era of 'Lance just beat cancer and is back on the bike', he began his winning ways again. Remember he had already been a world champion pre-cancer. I was working in a small shop. The owner wants to narrow down his product line. He asks the staff what to carry. We strongly suggested he make Trek his main line. We had noticed a big surge in all types of riders getting on Treks. They would travel out of our town to buy them. Then when they needed service they were coming to us. The staff were all racers and we noticed that Lance's star was rising fast. It was easy to see what was going on.

Fast forward to 2004, 2005 time frame; I'm out of the shop and still an avid cyclist. I began to get inquiries from pudgy in laws about road cycling. This one brother-in-law is a good guy. Not particularly athletic. Makes a significant amount of money. Lives in a McMansion and follows the latest 'cool, trending things'. He asked for and I gave him a great deal of help. I discovered very quickly which pro cyclist had sparked his attention. And once my brother-in-law 'gets into something', he's all in. Lance drew him in and he became a very avid follower of cycling and particularly pro road racing. He knows more about it than I would ever care to learn.

The present; 
the brother-in-law is (40)lbs lighter and has done more centuries and charity rides than I can list. He may never buy a license and race, but then again........ and my sister is right there with him on her bike. It's one guy, one story, but Lance and all his 'cool' sponsors started the spark. Him knowing that I race or any of the local MS 150's never once stirred his interest. It was one 'cool, trending' guy that did it.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

fschris said:


> if lance had his entire team doping... did he need to dope ? *seems like from a young guy (19) he could beat most professional triathletes so the guy is gifted*. if his entire team was doping how hard would it be for him to draft 90% of the time then put in a hard 10% to finish off the rest of the peloton. its not like he ever pulled a landis type breakaway for 80 miles then test positive for testosterone the next day. ?
> 
> Just some random thoughts. Maybe lance was is clean since he never did test positive and almost everyone else did... landis, Hamilton etc...


He was winning Sprint events, where the field was soft. Most professionals were racing Olympic events so he didn't meet them, let alone beat them.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

LostViking said:


> But very Canadian, ay? :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> That's a fringe opinion. Most accept that Armstrong had a lot to do with the popularity of cycling in the US.


Nope. 

Lance had a lot to do with the popularity of Lance. He did little to develop fans of the sport, many turned the channel as soon as he retired. 

He, and his buddies, have done an excellent job of damaging the sports reputation.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

MaddSkillz said:


> I just replied to his tweet and called him a coward.
> 
> Today is going to be a good day.


Yes, calling him a coward on twitter was a real act of bravery on your part. Will my day be better if I act like a passive aggressive pansy also?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Chaz955i said:


> Yes, calling him a coward on twitter was a real act of bravery on your part. Will my day be better if I act like a passive aggressive pansy also?


Try again in a week.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He, and his buddies, have done an excellent job of damaging the sports reputation.


Sadly, very very true.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope.
> 
> Lance had a lot to do with the popularity of Lance. He did little to develop fans of the sport,


That may be a fact, I don't know, but I think a lot of people think he was very influential when it comes to cycle sport in the US



> many turned the channel as soon as he retired.


it would seem many did not.



> He, and his buddies, have done an excellent job of damaging the sports reputation.


Oh, I think we all had our roles.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I find it utterly unbelievable that people here argue that Armstrong did not help popularize cycling in the US. It's just absurd. 

How Lance Armstrong transformed North American culture - World - CBC News


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> I find it utterly *unbelievable* that people here argue that Armstrong did not help popularize cycling in the US. It's just absurd.



Not really, there are still people out there that argue that he never doped. Belief has never needed commonsense, facts or logic . It's usually founded by emotion and people are emotional about this fella.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> I find it utterly unbelievable that people here argue that Armstrong did not help popularize cycling in the US. It's just absurd.
> 
> How Lance Armstrong transformed North American culture - World - CBC News


It sounds like the Lance rehabilitation movement is in full swing. Now not only should he get credit for growing road cycling, he also should get credit for the growth in triathlon, bike cummuting, playing "a huge rule in launching the now ubiquitous charity bike-a-thon," and maybe sunspots too. Someone needs to tell the author that charity walks, rides, and runs go back to the 70's.

That whole article is filled with dubious conclusions, like Wall Streeters taking up cycling because Armstront is "a type A [personality], so a lot of those guys identified with him."


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> I find it utterly unbelievable that people here argue that Armstrong did not help popularize cycling in the US. It's just absurd.
> 
> How Lance Armstrong transformed North American culture - World - CBC News


I'd wager there are budding, young, social scientists having a field day with the whole, sordid affair.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

I find it unusual that some here do not see the damage that Armstrong, and his buddies, did to the sport. Many see the sport as a crazy science experiment. Professional wrestling on wheels. How many years will it take to change that image?

He created lots of Armstrong fans, but few cycling fans. Ratings dropped 49% the year he retired. Ratings for the classics were lower then reruns of bull riding. less then .05% of the US population watched the Tour

Bike sales? 11.1 million bikes were sold in 1998. 11 million were sold in 2011.

He did do a good job of of selling $10,000 bikes to groupies but lets not pretend every fixie riding hipster/cross racer/commuter rides because of lance.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Wall street guys and LA have a lot more in common then most here even realize.



Local Hero said:


> I find it utterly unbelievable that people here argue that Armstrong did not help popularize cycling in the US. It's just absurd.
> 
> How Lance Armstrong transformed North American culture - World - CBC News


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Asserting that Lance did good things for the sports and/or increased its popularity just waters down the fact that he harmed it so much more. Prior to the fall of Lance, most of my co-workers thought cycling was a joke of a sport riddled with doping. Most of them think much less of the sport now. Lance did more harm than good and isn't that the measurement by which he should be judged.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Watching Greg Lemond inspired me to start racing bikes.

I am not so sure why it is hard to comprehend that younger folks where inspired year after year by Lance....leading many to start racing.

Watching an American dominate was pretty fun for a lot of us.

Note: Not a fanboi


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

So, a bunch of people started watching baseball, or sort of watching, a few years ago because of, and only because of, home runs and record chasing by Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, etc. Some of those watchers bailed as soon as those guys retired or were determined to be doping. But some home run watchers actually became baseball fans, and have learned there's lots to the game beyond home runs. As a lifelong baseball fan, can't stand it that those guys doped, and as far as I'm concerned Hank Aaron and Roger Maris still hold the home run records. But, glad those new fans are still around. Does not in any way make what the doping ballplayers did right or acceptable, but life is complex, and bad things sometimes produce complex results. No matter how much we want things black or white, well, they're often not.

Some folks in the US paid some attention to bike racing, and more started riding bikes, because after cancer LA won the only cycling race they'd heard of. Because of him and the "story" and the hero worship and associated over the top media coverage of him. (Remember when OLN - Outdoor Life Network - was being called Only Lance Network by those of us who'd long been interested in more about bicycle racing than Lance and the TDF?) And, of course, many started riding for a lot of other reasons; back-to-kid fun, exercise, Baby Boomer weekend warriors wanting to avoid titanium knees, etc., etc. But doubt if many, if any, stayed all the way to now because of Armstrong. They stayed because they decided they enjoy it, Armstrong or no Armstrong. If they bailed from riding, or bail now, they were gonna bail anyway. 

Same thing's happened to other sports that are bigger in participation than in viewing fans in the US. Running boom - helped along early by Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers, what they did as American marathoners. But lots of us who started running back in the early boom years also quit pretty soon, while Shorter and Rodgers were still big deals - like me, I just didn't like running at all. More recently, doping revelations, particularly sprinters, have made people quite cynical about highest level running competition and likely has hurt TV viewing - in a sport that never consistently drew big TV audiences except during Olympics. But, 35 or so years after the running boom took off, and despite doping messes years later, there sure are a lot of runners out there, a fair number of racers even if they never watch racing on TV, and they sure buy a helluva lot of shoes.

Absolutely wrong that LA (and the others) doped, even more that he did the things he did to essentially anyone who even hinted at getting in his way. Personally, want him to go away, stay away, be an "asterisk" in racing history - same thing I think about Bonds in baseball. Does this stuff hurt the sport - at least pro racing in US? Sure - has to hurt something that's never been solid in the US and has always struggled for consistent venues and funding. But it's not driving people off their bikes who came in past few years and LIKE riding and maybe even tried local racing. Don't think it'll make much difference at all at the Nationwide Every Thursday Night World Championship Office Park Crashfest Criterium Series. So did the fact that LA "happened" - right or wrong - in some ways also help the sport in the US? Yes. Sorry, it's not either/or, it's both.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

I shouldn't speak for the people on one side of this discussion, but here goes;

I am saying and pretty sure that the others are saying that an up tick in road bike sales is attributable to Lance. The shop owner where I worked that went 'all in' with Trek and Lance laughed all the way to the bank. He paid off the mortgage on his building and is a very successful local bike shop. 

But that is all we are saying..............that's it, nothing more. If all those Lance wanna be's dumped their bikes as soon as Golden Boy retired, who cares? They probably did dump their Treks (hung them in the garage). No one is saying that this up surge in sales created a meteoric rise that has continued to the present. People in the business know that the Lance Effect wasn't lasting. In fact the common refrain became, "when Lance is on the bike were making a lot of money".

On the flip side, it is my opinion that Lance has single handedly caused more damage to this sport than any other doper since the beginning of cycling. As a member of a race of higher life forms (still very much in question though) I am able to have this mixed opinion. I am able to parse out the good and the bad of it all.

Someone posted that awesome cartoon of Lance in a free fall blazing past that Red Bull guy who jumped from (60) miles up or whatever it was. While I don't think the next free fall participant will be local bike shops and the industry, but what has transpired in the last few weeks sure isn't going to help any.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It would be interesting to compare the number of new 2012 USAC licenses with 2013. Same for renewals.


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> It would be interesting to compare the number of new 2012 USAC licenses with 2013. Same for renewals.


I'd like to see what happens with sponsorship money. I'll bet there would be fewer US companies willing to sponsor cycling teams - pro or amateur - than say a year or so ago.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> It would be interesting to compare the number of new 2012 USAC licenses with 2013. Same for renewals.


Perhaps the least important measurement. There were 45,000 license road racers in the US last year, a small fraction of cyclists. 

Like much of the world the growth of the sport is coming outside of the historic licensed races. Cycling has grown outward. Cross, endurance MTB, Fondo's and Sportif's, Amateur stage races. Every weekend in Italy, France, Austria, Spain, etc there are GF's in Italy that draw 10's of thousands. 

Parking lot crits do little to grow the sport. Good way to develop skills but there are other avenues that grow the sport.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Perhaps the least important measurement. There were 45,000 license road racers in the US last year, a small fraction of cyclists.
> 
> Like much of the world the growth of the sport is coming outside of the historic licensed races. Cycling has grown outward. Cross, endurance MTB, Fondo's and Sportif's, Amateur stage races. Every weekend in Italy, France, Austria, Spain, etc there are GF's in Italy that draw 10's of thousands.
> 
> Parking lot crits do little to grow the sport. Good way to develop skills but there are other avenues that grow the sport.


What you wrote is odd and twisted.

You think that USAC licenses are the "least important"? Please stop with the hyperbole. The least important measurement of cycling's popularity might be sales of handlebar streamers. 

Put aside your emotional response and accept rationality. The number of USAC licenses/new USAC licenses is a metric in the popularity of cycling. Whether it's representative in the same way that bicycle sales is representative is another story. 

Downplaying the importance of USAC licenses contradicts Greg Lemond's insistence to not buy a license. And that confused bit you said about amateur stage races...do you think USAC licenses are required for amateur stage races? 

Next, for those discussing the negative impact that Armstrong has had on the image of cycling, do you think that impact is bigger among those doing gran fondos or those doing road races on the weekend? 

Surely the more "serious" one becomes about cycling the more they know of the saga, and the more likely they are to dislike Armstrong.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm inclined to believe that the licensed racer formed their opinions of Mr. Strong years ago. I encountered him for the first time ever at a local mtn. bike race about (12) years back. For some reason he just showed up. The general consensus, "what an A _ _"! 
I switched to road racing shortly there after. The Lance appearance had nothing to do with my switch.

I don't know that the rally riding, Versus watching, rec rider ever looked hard enough to peel back the layers of Mr. Strong's multi-layered personas. Lance can spread it on pretty thick when he has to. We all know he mingles with some Hollywood types. And why not, he's as big an actor as any of them. 

The flashes of his temper and ultra controlling nature only slipped out a few times. Someone who is a racer or avid cycling fan and was seriously following racing news and interviews was able to see these outbursts. 
Again, I don't know if the casual rider ever picked up on his darker side.

Increase / decrease in USAC licenses...............? That's a difficult question. 

The ugliness that has surfaced recently won't (in my opinion), have any effect at all on current, licensed racers. 
Serious, rec riders who are racking up tons of miles and considering racing for the first time..........I don't think all this noise will stop them.
Newbs who just got into the sport, or were considering getting into it, the current news stories may turn them away. 
Younger Newbs may be the most affected. It's my opinion that a younger person may be more heavily influenced by what their peer group is doing. If cycling's popularity trends downward, the young crowd may deem it un-cool. And that's about all it takes for them to turn their backs on it. 

So, yes, over the long term we may see the number of licensed racers go down because the pool of riders feeding into the sport may diminish. And let's not forget the U.S. based sponsers, if they leave cycling in mass, the exposure for our sport in N. America will certainly drop off.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

metoou2 said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the licensed racer formed their opinions of Mr. Strong years ago. I encountered him for the first time ever at a local mtn. bike race about (12) years back. For some reason he just showed up._* The general consensus, "what an A _ _"!*_
> I switched to road racing shortly there after. The Lance appearance had nothing to do with my switch.


It's so interesting.


I know several pro continental riders and people in the cycling industry who know/met Pharmstrong. They say the _same_ thing. 

One pro rider I know told me he met Pharmstrong when he was in civilian clothes (No kit) and thought he was cool. Then he met up him again in full kit (They were going on the same ride) and was surprised by the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde change in Pharmstrong. Apparently, he turned into a real jerk once he found out that he was a fellow pro.


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> One pro rider I know told me he met Pharmstrong when he was in civilian clothes (No kit) and thought he was cool. Then he met up him again in full kit (They were going on the same ride) and was surprised by the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde change in Pharmstrong. Apparently, he turned into a real jerk once he found out that he was a fellow pro.


Hmmmm; Sociopath? )


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> What you wrote is odd and twisted.
> 
> You think that USAC licenses are the "least important"? Please stop with the hyperbole. The least important measurement of cycling's popularity might be sales of handlebar streamers.
> 
> ...


It is not twisted, not hyperbole. I am discussing were growth in the sport is coming from. You may not be aware of the rest of the cycling world

For the past 15 years the growth of the sport in Europe has been outside of the traditional events. 15 years ago the Maratona was just a bunch of old guys riding, now they get 50,000 entries for 10,000 spots. The Marmotte is the same weekend and also has a lottery for their 10,000 spots. Every weekend there are multiple GF's to chose from with 3-5,000 entrants. Transalp, Haute Route, etc all sell out in days. These events barely existed 15 years ago. 

Here in North America Leadville is lottery, Levi's GF draws 7,000 people, Whistler sells out 7,000 spots. High School MTB leagues are growing rapidly in the California..... Meanwhile 25 years ago there were 30,000 licensed road racers in the US. Today there 45,000, slightly more then population growth. 

The growth in the sport is not coming from a bunch of old, angry guys racing parking lot crits.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The growth in the sport is not coming from a bunch of old, angry guys racing parking lot crits.


Your statement is very telling. Very telling indeed.
No one has suggested that the growth in cycling has been the result of middle aged racer types. 

This discussion has centered around whether or not one guy from Plano Texas who sometimes resides in Austin and sometimes in Colorado had any appreciable affect on the growth of cycling in the U.S.

Maybe there's something you would like to get off your chest?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

IMO, Armstrong is yesterday's news. I for one have moved on to Fat Pat, Verdruggen, Riis, Johan B, Tinkoff, and the guys who are still racing despite links to Ferrari, etc.

I am glad he was revealed as the cheat he is; but some here won't rest until he has a stake driven thru his heart and then burned on a funeral pyre of yellow jerseys. Just my opinion, YMMV.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> IMO, Armstrong is yesterday's news. I for one have moved on to Fat Pat, Verdruggen, Riis, Johan B, Tinkoff, and the guys who are still racing despite links to Ferrari, etc.
> 
> I am glad he was revealed as the cheat he is; *but some here won't rest until he has a stake driven thru his heart and then burned on a funeral pyre of yellow jerseys.* Just my opinion, YMMV.


Then they'll be praying his soul goes to hell. ...er wait, they did in this exact thread!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

metoou2 said:


> Your statement is very telling. Very telling indeed.
> No one has suggested that the growth in cycling has been the result of middle aged racer types.
> 
> This discussion has centered around whether or not one guy from Plano Texas who sometimes resides in Austin and sometimes in Colorado had any appreciable affect on the growth of cycling in the U.S.
> ...


Nope, nothing to get off my chest, but nice attempt to personalize it. 

If you follow the thread you would realize that my point is the number of licensed road racers is not a good indicator of the growth, or weakness, of the sport. I gave multiple examples of where the growth in the sport is coming from, I can give more if you like. We could have a drop in the number of licensed roadies this year and the sport can still be strong. 

Of course Armstrong had an effect on the sport, positive and negative.......but it is hard to attribute the broad based, varied, global growth of the sport to one guy. 

Before you try to spin my views into some personal vendetta. I have been involved the sport for 30 years, since I was 13. Been involved in every aspect, from racing, to support, to working for a sponsor of a Pro Tour team. Seen every Grand Tour live, often from a team car. Raced hundreds of races in over a dozen countries. I am very optimistic. The sport has expanded dramatically with a huge variety of events that draw a wider variety of participants into the sport. I am also optimistic about sponsorship. It appears that the sport is finally addressing some of it's demons. Painful now but long term it will make it a safer investment


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> IMO, Armstrong is yesterday's news. I for one have moved on to Fat Pat, Verdruggen, Riis, Johan B, Tinkoff, and the guys who are still racing .


Bingo :thumbsup:

Driving these people from the sport are critical to changing it. Add Lefevre, Martinelli, Biver, Rominger to the list.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Are there REALLY any dedicated amateur racers out there that will NOT be buying their USAC license this year because of this whole mess?

Some sort of protest? 

We are supposed to punish ourselves and stop racing?

I don't get it...clearly.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

> *The growth in the sport is not coming from a bunch of old, angry guys racing parking lot crits.*


Mr. Falsetti, not trying to call you out, smoke you out or give you a shout out. Simply trying to gain some insight as to why you chose such divisive, inflammatory labels. It smacks of the same tone used by some members referring to groups as Crash 5's or Crash 4's and other such derogatory verbiage. Referring to a cycling sub set as "a bunch of old angry guys", sounds very much like you were offended by this group and you are now seeking some form of retribution. And name calling is as personal as it gets. You sound a bit like a bully. Anybody know anyone else with that personality issue? 



> *but nice attempt to personalize it*


Yes, I'm trying to personalize it. Trying to understand why you want to use such hate filled language. And by the way, your autobiography put a personal face on it. So I guess I can call it 'mission accomplished'. After all, you presenting your personal view is what the Forum is all about, right? We are a collective of individuals expressing our personal stories and talking points. Nothing wrong with that. 
There is the off chance that you are the media officer for some N.G.O., maybe a cycling coalition or possibly you were hired by some 3rd party to speak on their behalf. But I doubt that. So that makes you (1) person, with (1) opinion to express. The rest of us have the same right.
Remember, on this day in particular, steeped in Democratic beliefs, we're all entitled to our opinion.



> *If you follow the thread you would realize that my point is*


I thank you for that admonition. I will strive to improve my reading comprehension skills in the future. And I thank you for having my best interest at heart.



> *Before you try to spin my views into some personal vendetta*


Mr. Falsetti, you gotta 'walk it back from the edge man'.............you're really reachin on this one. I make (1) post directed at you and I have launched myself into a personal vendetta? Really, really? You're making me blush. I'm honored that you're assuming that I follow your every comment, that I have the energy and desire to care enough about what you say to 'go after you'. 
Well..............I don't



To end on a positive note;
from what I have read of your contributions to this Forum you come off as a guy who keeps his ear to the ground. You appear to have some sources of insider knowledge and you seem to genuinely care about the well being of our sport and for cyclists in general. 

So here's to hoping for future informative posts minus the inflammatory labels.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I know Falsetti can usually speak for himself, but I have a feeling that his comment about angry crit racers was piggybacking off my claim that amateur racers care more about the Armstrong saga than grand fondu participants.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

metoou2 said:


> Snipped for brevity


Sorry if the word angry offends you. Perhaps it was a bit harsh to use such a blanket description. It is a big country, some regions have a positive vibe at races....others not so much. 

Old though is accurate. The sport is top heavy and has done a poor job of growing the Juniors. Of course there are regions were this is not the case but on the whole USAC is dominated by masters....which leads back to my point. Unless something changes the growth of the sport will come from other avenues.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I know Falsetti can usually speak for himself, but I have a feeling that his comment about angry crit racers was piggybacking off my claim that amateur racers care more about the Armstrong saga than grand fondu participants.


It was more focused on if USCF licenses are a good indicator of the health of the sport. I have seen the growth of the sport in Europe come largely from non-traditional avenues and I see the same happening here.

As for who cares more, certainly for many years the licensed racers cared more....but I think most moved on years ago. I doubt many of the events of the last year came as a shock to those who have been around the sport for a while.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

Your quote of me got "snipped for brevity".............never seen that before. Not sure what it means. Maybe a moderator did some editing. We may be getting a little too close to the fire.

Dr. Falsetti, for the most part my opinions trend with yours and I'm not looking to create any bad blood. 

I lean toward the Gran Fondo crowd as being the real drivers for the growth of cycling. I mean think about it;
1) It is a much larger group than the racing crowd will ever be
2) It is way more diverse than the racing crowd will ever be
3) No facts to quote here, but I would think the GF cyclist has more disposable income than the racer types. Again, no facts.

The diversity of the GF crowd is an incubator for all the different forms of cycling. Some of them become racers, some don't. But every single one of them are on a bike................right? 

Regarding the racing crowd to which I belong; they, we are hands down, an odd bunch. The competitive nature of what we do skews our approach to newbie cyclists. I personally go out of my way to help people in every demographic of cycling. (have yet to help a 'fixie' guy or gal get more into the sport.......I just don't know any). 
But I have not witnessed my racing brethren extending an olive branch to someone who they deem to be a Fred. Just the opposite in fact. On more than one occasion I have seen first hand, a racer type head hook a cyclist who didn't quite fit in with our hammer fest training ride and send them to the curb. It was flat out assault and I was in shock.

This debate is unbelievably simple;
Which of these (2) trajectories are more likely to happen?

1) 10 people buy bikes, 8 actually ride it, 6 find a local group, 5 go on to ride GF's and rallies, 1 or maybe 2 buy a license to race

2) 10 people buy bikes, 8 actually ride it, 5 or 6 skip the GF and rally phase and dive right into racing.........
............nahhh, it just doesn't happen that way. 

I believe this Thread has suffered from a diluted focus and parallel debate creating competing opinions that really weren't speaking to each other.
I thought it was a debate about Lance's influence on the growth of cycling while it appears that a parallel debate exists that is discussing which cycling sub group has most influenced the growth of our sport.

Is it really a SPORT if it's full of dopers??!!!!!
Just kidding, that is indeed an inflammatory remark on my part.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

metoou2 said:


> Your quote of me got "snipped for brevity".............never seen that before. Not sure what it means. Maybe a moderator did some editing. We may be getting a little too close to the fire.
> 
> Dr. Falsetti, for the most part my opinions trend with yours and I'm not looking to create any bad blood.
> 
> ...


I shortened your post only for brevity, otherwise with my input it would be a huge post. 

The GF stuff here in the states is in it's infancy. In Italy there is huge cross over. Juniors use it as a way to race longer events, Endurance MTB race them, Former Pro's ride to win. The competition level would shock you. 

My point comes back to what is driving the growth of the sport. I see High School MTB leagues, Cross, Endurance MTB, Semi-Competitive GF "races" as the key drivers for the sport, not USAC. Even if licenses drop this year the sport is so much more diverse

It will be interesting to watch how USCF responds. The UCI and the Italians freaked out a bit when an area of the sport started growing that they did not have as much control over


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I really am not qualified to say with authority that Armstrong had a positive effect on cycling here in North America or not. I know that I got back on the bike after decades off because of his 1999-2001 rides. I also thought at the time that the 2003 TdF was epic.

I also know that I am still on the bike now that "Big Brother" has erased him from our collective memory!

But for those of you who think he had no financial impact, how would you explain his bedmates; Fat Pat and Hein, being joined at the hip with him? Financial aggrandizement is the only explanation I can come up with as to why these three thugs would be so cozy. A huge growing North American market was putting serious benjamins in everyone's pocket.


----------

