# Why I'm Not Angry at Lance



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Long time apologists Sally Jenkins explains why she's not mad at Armstrong. And her article does a fine job of trolling up the haters 


Why I’m not angry at Lance Armstrong - The Washington Post

It's full of "Maybe I'm not angry at him because..." 

Let's start with this one: 

_Maybe I’m not angry at him because after reading the USADA report and the affidavits of the riders who spoke with USADA, I have some common-sense questions that preclude anger. Such as: Shouldn’t an organization with the initials U.S. in front of it have to follow due process? And: According to the affidavits, the U.S. Postal Team had a highly organized “doping” system in place long before Lance became a member of it, so why is he the target of this report? Or: The affidavits taken by USADA make it clear that while Lance refused to use HGH, Floyd Landis introduced it to younger riders, so why is the federal government considering giving Landis whistle-blower protection?_

Discuss...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Sally Jenkins and who?

Anyhow..sounds like she will do just about anything for attention. This is a move on par with Brittney Spears shaving her own head.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Long time apologists Sally Jenkins explains why she's not mad at Armstrong. And her article does a fine job of trolling up the haters
> 
> 
> Why I’m not angry at Lance Armstrong - The Washington Post
> ...


Discuss what? She's parroting the same crap that's already been debunked numerous times. 

She's just another idiot talking head paid to try and salvage Lance-doosh's reputation.

Stop trolling the forum. You've been doing it for months now.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Let it go. She's coming to terms with it in her own way. 

Put it this way- she had a big role in spreading the myth, and a good deal of her professional credentials are tied up in those two books. She likely believed every word that came out of his mouth, just like Loren Mooney believed Floyd or any number of other biographers believed in the personalities they were covering. She is far from alone.

I don't believe she had any great access into Lance's world, and was more or less there to put Lance's thoughts into a readable format. She did her job in that regard. That she would be asked or felt compelled to write about her thoughts on the matter is understandable, given her role. Should she have known better? I don't know her or her expertise in the world of cycling, but Lance fooled a whole lot of people during that era that should have known better.

It's time to let the fanboys off the hook. Saying "I told you so" really doesn't do anything to advance the sport. They need time to come to grips with the information, and the longer this strident argument goes on, the more polarized they will become.


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Discuss what? She's parroting the same crap that's already been debunked numerous times.
> 
> She's just another idiot talking head paid to try and salvage Lance-doosh's reputation.
> 
> Stop trolling the forum. You've been doing it for months now.


Yeah, well, you know that's just like your opinion man...

It was mostly an emotionally and morally based article, there's not really anything to call 'debunked'. For those who cry about morals and 'cheating' with regards to Lance Armstrong taking PEDs (even though that's been the norm in professional sports), they show a remarkable lack of it in regards to what he's done for cancer victims. 

Armstrong did what all the other champions do, people tried to destroy him - and he retaliated. Call it dooshy but to me it's human. Hopefully he does get around to apologizing to a couple of people... but - I'd never in a million years have any sympathy for Betsie Andreu and her attention + money seeking ilk.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Discuss what? She's parroting the same crap that's already been debunked numerous times.
> 
> She's just another idiot talking head paid to try and salvage Lance-doosh's reputation.
> 
> *Stop trolling the forum. You've been doing it for months now.*


Nice personal attack!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Rob, try again on that quote (maybe you can do it this time without the personal attack?)

Everyone else, next quote: 

_Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because more informative than the USADA report was an ESPN interview with his former teammate Jonathan Vaughters, who observed: “There is the huge misconception, though, that this is about Lance. This is about a culture that Lance was a part of, and that he participated in . . . If you want people to be truthful and want to know what actually happened, as opposed to chasing ghosts for the next 10 years, then you have to let them know that we won’t chop your head off.”_

Why I’m not angry at Lance Armstrong - The Washington Post


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Here's David Walsh's thoughts on Jenkins' article:

Walsh on Jenkins


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

It's the same old argument, "cancer survivor," "witch hunt;" she's obviously 2 months late. No one cares anymore, Lance is toast. 
Cool to see her lose all credibility as a journalist though. That'll go nicely for the rest of her career.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Tomahawk said:


> Yeah, well, you know that's just like your opinion man...
> 
> It was mostly an emotionally and morally based article, there's not really anything to call 'debunked'. For those who cry about morals and 'cheating' with regards to Lance Armstrong taking PEDs (even though that's been the norm in professional sports), they show a remarkable lack of it in regards to what he's done for cancer victims.
> 
> Armstrong did what all the other champions do, people tried to destroy him - and he retaliated. Call it dooshy but to me it's human. Hopefully he does get around to apologizing to a couple of people... but - I'd never in a million years have any sympathy for Betsie Andreu and her attention + money seeking ilk.


So we should forgive his transgressions because he started a foundation?

Fvck no. 

You're playing the same idiotic "cancer crusader" card that he's hoping will save him.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Nice personal attack!


It's not a personal attack when it's simply pointing out the obvious, now is it?

Obviously if you're offended, it's because you've been called out for your behavior. So just stop doing it and you'll stop being offended.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Rob, try again on that quote (maybe you can do it this time without the personal attack?)
> 
> Everyone else, next quote:
> 
> ...


And yet again:

It's all been debunked: the "lack of due process" being the big one that he actively tried to block the investigation with.

Thankfully, Sam Sparks has more brains than Sally or Lance's fanboys.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Alaska Mike said:


> Let it go. She's coming to terms with it in her own way.
> 
> Put it this way- she had a big role in spreading the myth, and a good deal of her professional credentials are tied up in those two books. She likely believed every word that came out of his mouth, just like Loren Mooney believed Floyd or any number of other biographers believed in the personalities they were covering. She is far from alone.
> 
> ...


Here's my problem with the fanboys:

They don't advance the sport any more than us saying "I told you so." Generally, they continue to damage the sport by claiming of the corruption involved in the "persecution" of their hero.

They don't WANT to be part of the solution, they want to be part of perpetuating a myth formed during one of the darkest times in the sport.

The best thing FOR the sport would be for every one of those fanboys to sell their bikes and take up water polo.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

View attachment 272080


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Here's my problem with the fanboys:
> 
> They don't advance the sport any more than us saying "I told you so." Generally, they continue to damage the sport by claiming of the corruption involved in the "persecution" of their hero.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of those fanboys that actively ride, and are productive contributors to the sport. I have ridden with a lot of them. They just got wrapped up in idolizing the wrong guy. Once they work through however many stages of whatever they need to go through, they'll likely move on and just ride their bikes. The sooner Lance fades from the public eye, the sooner they can get on with it.

Why does this have to be so black and white? Isn't that the Lance approach (skewed to fit his own perceptions)?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I don't think this thread is trolling. If you're over talking about LA's doping, (which would be fair) then don't read the thread.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I don't care if Sally Jenkins is mad at Lance or not. 

First, this is about rules, not likability, cancer charities or the like. Doping was against the rules and he blatantly broke them over and over. You don't have to feel some huge moral outrage to fairly enforce rules. 

Which leads to my second point. The USADA report alleges corruption by the UCI. Corruption undermines cycling, fair play and the spirit if competition. You don't need to be angry about it, but there is not much point to cycling if the outcome is predetermined.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Quaalude said:


> Aren't her "professional credentials" what are in question here? Isn't she supposed to be a journalist.


Even the most strident anti-doping journalists admit to being a "fan with a typewriter" at one time. 

She co-authored two best-sellers. While they were pretty much a load of crap, they were readable if you could suspend disbelief. In that regard, she did her job as an author. As a journalist, she should be faulted (along with a lot of others).


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> It's not a personal attack when it's simply pointing out the obvious, now is it?
> 
> Obviously if you're offended, it's because you've been called out for your behavior. So just stop doing it and you'll stop being offended.


_
trolling the forum 

called out for your behavior

you you you_

LOL





OK, let's try this--for the third time--with another quote. Maybe this time we can reply on the merits instead of attacking the person presenting the quote!

_Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because I’ve decided that the smoldering wreckage of the bonfire that burned down Big Tex was wildly out of proportion to the offense. And because, much as I would have liked a personal or public confession from him, I suspect that he understood what the price of it would be, and found the stakes too high to call up his friend at The Washington Post and bring it all down on his head.
_

It sounds like Sally Jenkins is not mad at Armstrong because she sees him as human being. 


Discuss...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

and it turns out that robdomanii was so hurt by this thread that he negatively added to my reputation. 

LMAO


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> _
> trolling the forum
> 
> called out for your behavior
> ...


Let's try practicing what you preach:

View attachment 272090




Local Hero said:


> and it turns out that robdomanii was so hurt by this thread that he negatively added to my reputation.
> 
> LMAO


Keep laughing, tough guy. It's funny to watch you melt down over someone calling out your champion of cancer.

Let's try this for the third time, since you're not paying attention: Everything this fool has said, and that you blindly repeat in defense of Pharmstrong the Epic Liar has been proven to be garbage. Everything in that article is her trying to justify why he's "a good guy" and "didn't deserve this." Walsh suitably tears her down.

She, along with anyone else in the media still defending this lying tool should just be laughed out of the profession.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The douchy behavior in this forum is why I'm an equal opportunity offender. Seriously, cry babies all around. Ride your effin' bikes and move on. 

There are Lance fanboys and those who want him to slowly be digested in hell. Anyone without an agenda can see that the skewed opinions are pretty much WRONG.

I know....REPORTED.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Ride your effin' bikes and move on.


Pot? I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Quaalude said:


> Yeah but we're talking about now and she's still defending the indefensible and using discredited bs. She's also not recognizing that LA went far beyond the average doper and in spite of this he still wasn't singled out by USADA.
> 
> You seem to want the sport to move on but LA and his nonsense is a big reason the sport can't move on.


You see, I draw the distinction between Lance and most of his followers. The vast majority of his fans didn't dope, and a great deal of them were completely ignorant of doping. All they saw was this great, shining beacon of hope to pin all of their admiration on. After so many years to have that discredited... well, it takes a while to digest. At first they'll look for excuses, but eventually they'll just accept it and move on. Some may never ride again, and that would be a shame, because the fun of riding a bike should only be dictated by the rider, not some overblown hero.

She'll get there. She's just even more tied up in the myth than the average fanboy. If she doesn't, no big loss, because in that case the only ones that will be listening are the ever dwindling number of people still faithful to Lance. Not a great way to continue a journalism career.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> Pot? I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.


I actually don't give 2 shits about the whole thing. I'm just here to taunt the extremists, which tends to be almost everyone in this forum. I know racers get a bad rap for being "mean", but the douchy behavior in this forum isn't how racers act. 

Notice that this kind of behavior doesn't happen in the other forums, other than the morons in the Poly ticks forum. 

As for riding my bike, I have been, Mr. Kettle. It's going quite well. I know, REPORTED.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

So you admit you're trolling. The honesty is refreshing. 

I'm just mystified that anyone would come to a forum designated for discussion of doping in cycling and rail against talking about doping in cycling. Isn't that what it's for? Isn't it set aside specifically so that one may read the pro cycling forum without reading about doping? 

I don't get it. That's OK.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> So you admit you're trolling. The honesty is refreshing.
> 
> I'm just mystified that anyone would come to a forum designated for discussion of doping in cycling and rail against talking about doping in cycling. Isn't that what it's for? Isn't it set aside specifically so that one may read the pro cycling forum without reading about doping?
> 
> I don't get it. That's OK.


This forum hardly discusses doping outside of Lance. There was someone popped last week. No discussion. Yet, I'm the troll. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Skillet and Professor Spatula.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Btw, in case you haven't noticed, the people you're "taunting" have been on the correct side of the argument just about 100% of the time. 

Also BTW, I also don't get the constant references to being reported. I would never bother to report you. Maybe it's time to HTFU.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> Btw, in case you haven't noticed, the people you're "taunting" have been on the correct side of the argument just about 100% of the time.
> 
> Also BTW, I also don't get the constant references to being reported. I would never bother to report you. Maybe it's time to HTFU.


I never said that you reported me, not that I'd care to check who did. I just think it's hilarious how much people can dish it but can't take it. The doping forum has surpassed guitarists in that respect. Never thought I'd say that. Other than the actice racers, I really don't value anyone's opinion in this forum. Even then, some of y'all need to HTFU, especially the ones who always say HTFU.

The "correct" side? Please. Lance may be the big fish, but he's not the first, last, mastermind, etc. Much like Barry Bonds, busting him gives us this idea that we've fixed things. Couldn't be further from the truth. Hell, Jens, Tommy V, and plenty of other nice guys have probably doped, but they're still dreamy, right?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> This forum hardly discusses doping outside of Lance. There was someone popped last week. No discussion. Yet, I'm the troll. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Skillet and Professor Spatula.


That's nonsense. A glance at the fist dozen or so threads turns up discussions of Conti, Michael Rogers, Landis, the Linda McCartney Team and others. 

Lance is evergreen in this forum because the diehard fanboys keep defending him or insisting that if he did cheat it was no big deal. If you want to talk about other dopers, as far as I can tell you're free to do so.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> That's nonsense. A glance at the fist dozen or so threads turns up discussions of Conti, Michael Rogers, Landis, the Linda McCartney Team and others.
> 
> Lance is evergreen in this forum because the diehard fanboys keep defending him or insisting that if he did cheat it was no big deal. If you want to talk about other dopers, as far as I can tell you're free to do so.


Nonsense? There have been at least a dozen no-name riders and nary a single thread or post.

For every LA fanboy (who are typically pretty sad and very naive) there are about 10 people who want the deamons of hell to skin him alive. It's about as bad as the neo political dwellers. 

By some of the standards that this forum hates Lance, Pantani never admitted doping. Contador was basically cut from the same cloth and never admitted it, yet continues to dominate and likely still on some sort of doping routine. As much as this forum used to hate Contador, it's sure quiet on that front. 

Hell, Ryder was ex-Discovery and hasn't admitted to anything. That's wrong, right? Most of the guys who confessed are serving a sort sentence and should be conveniently back in action when it counts.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I don't think this thread is all about Lance. I think there are legit question - are sports journalists critical enough of athletes? 

We expect sport to be free of corruption. We look to journalists to ask hard questions and uncover difficult truths. 

Did people sell the Armstrong story over and over without asking hard questions? 

What did the UCI know and when? Did Bruneeyl really have advanced notice of testers? How far will the Ferrari case go? What's going on with Operation Puerto? Will the Independent Commission do a fair investigation of the UCI? 

I would like to know the answers to these. I hope the cycling press covers them and doesn't just retreat into parroting 'inspirational' stories.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Did people sell the Armstrong story over and over without asking hard questions?
> 
> What did the UCI know and when? Did Bruneeyl really have advanced notice of testers? How far will the Ferrari case go? What's going on with Operation Puerto? Will the Independent Commission do a fair investigation of the UCI?


Refreshing that you've been objective about it, rather than fanboy vs. hater. 

I think it's very likely that the UCI was involved and looked the other way with JB/LA bribing them. No doubt that it has been a fairly corrupt system.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

I'm not mad at Sally. I'm not mad at Lance. I'm mad at Local Hero though. He done got himself ban-hammered.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

88 rex said:


> I'm mad at Local Hero though. He done got himself ban-hammered.


Come on, guys (you can read in Randy's voice from Christmas Story). Do we really need to be turds to each other? 

While I admit to trolling trolls and dishing it back to those who obviously can't take it, do we really need this? Again, we don't act like this in the racer sub forum.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*

Enough of the dissertations on other posters motives and similar nonsense. Also "trolling trolls" stops now. This is from a racer too if that helps. If not its from someone with access to Moderator functions.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think a good number of cyclists roughly share my opinion- LA would never have gotten so far without larger issues. 

Banning individual riders is like cutting the head off the hydra. 

You can talk about George, Contador, Schleck - but it quickly hits a dead end. 

The LA case set off a lot of dominos. We're going to be talking about those dominos, asking questions for a long time. Or at least we should if we are serious about anti- doping.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> First, this is about rules, not likability, cancer charities or the like.


Bingo. Cancer is a red herring.

He cheated, not once or twice, but in a cold calculated manner for years and years.

Livestrong is irrelevant.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

and if Lance's other ball falls off due to cancer regression, she will be the first in line to swallow it before any fanboy in here!!


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

I personally am not serious about anti-doping because I don't think things will ever really change. The doping and corruption will continue. Having said that, I will continue to be a fan. 

I am not angry at Armstrong. His doping scandal is like watching a giant blockbuster movie starring the biggest actor in the industry. The other cyclists' scandals are akin to going to an independent film. Many more people will go to the blockbuster. It is just the way it is.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

:biggrin5:


Local Hero said:


> and it turns out that robdomanii was so hurt by this thread that he negatively added to my reputation.
> 
> LMAO


Now there's a shocker ... notice my red. It's what happens if you don't see things the same way certain people on this forum do. Him included


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> and if Lance's other ball falls off due to cancer regression, she will be the first in line to swallow it before any fanboy in here!!


It's a good think you're bashing the stupid LA fanboys, otherwise something like this would be considered tasteless.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Rokh On said:


> :biggrin5:
> 
> Now there's a shocker ... notice my red. It's what happens if you don't see things the same way certain people on this forum do. Him included


Hmph, apparently he neg repped me, too. 

Seriously, this crap needs to stop.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Rokh On said:


> :biggrin5:
> 
> Now there's a shocker ... notice my red. It's what happens if you don't see things the same way certain people on this forum do. Him included


Neg repping someone seems kind of pointless. It says, "I got my ass handed to me, but I can still get even". At least the way I look at it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Neg repping someone seems kind of pointless. It says, "I got my ass handed to me, but I can still get even". At least the way I look at it.


Nothing says that someone take something too seriously than that. :thumbsup:
Actually, you can neg rep them back. Considering that they were offended enough by the initial comment, I'd think that seeing that they got a neg rep would also really bother them, too.


----------

