albion
Guest
I might also genuinely ask whether 'pro cycling' is some sort of closed shop .
edit - Interestingly I first copied those two quotes sections without realising it was from the one source. Their juxtaposition was mentally stimulating.
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
edit - Interestingly I first copied those two quotes sections without realising it was from the one source. Their juxtaposition was mentally stimulating.
Noodley
Guest
I had also tried to add "is pro cycling not welcoming" or similar in an edit to my question but got bumped in my edit.
It might be. What would make it more inclusive?
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
I don't think it's unwelcoming or not inclusive, I just don't think many pro-cycling fans frequent Cycle Chat. And by fans, I mean people who follow the sport all year and all races, not just the Grand Tours or only the TdF or one particular rider or team. You only have to look at who is interested in talking about up and coming riders or women's pro-cycling, or those (for me) interesting races outside the top levels like Langkawi or Colombia and so on, and it's really not more than five to ten people here. I'll admit it's it's pretty trainspottery, so it's hardly surprising...
stoatsngroats
Legendary Member
- Location
- South East
To answer the other Q you asked, I don't know enough to really comment often in the pro race forum, so perhaps I shouldn't have made my original post here - but, like I said, LA, and doping are so well known, it can' t be any surprise that many people have an opinion, and many others feel aggrieved that people who know nothing about the sport, and perhaps don't know the detail or history, make their thoughts known, and don't value that input.
Noodley, I seem to remember from a few years ago, that you were one of the many friendly, and involving CC'ers to me when I started posting here - thanks for that!
albion
Guest
Being a fan does often mean 'of very passionate views'.
Armstrong though is quite fascinating. One side of the argument could be that cancer treatment taught him everything he knew about cheating.
The other that the end product of all that body changing cancer treatment was a 100% focussed 'bionic like' man.
Armstrong though is quite fascinating. One side of the argument could be that cancer treatment taught him everything he knew about cheating.
The other that the end product of all that body changing cancer treatment was a 100% focussed 'bionic like' man.
Or it could actually be neither of those things. The second one is a myth propagated by Armstrong.. I've heard it said that the Cancer was masked or accelerated by the drugs he was taking. I can't say I've read anything that substantiates that.
I used to be a fan of Armstrong, it took a little while and some reading to get behind the smokescreen.
lukesdad
Guest
Anyone who thinks LA is being wronged can always go and sign this White House petition
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/stop-investigation-usada-lance-armstrong/FX0pVTLL
(I wonder who instigated it?)
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/stop-investigation-usada-lance-armstrong/FX0pVTLL
(I wonder who instigated it?)
For me, that's to the nub of it. I don't see it necessary to have a great knowledge of pro-cycling to have a well-formed opinion on Armstrong and/or doping. Of course, in acquiring the latter you will pick up some of the former.
So when I read Noodley's question, I immediately liked it and was keen to read any answers offered. I wish I'd thought of the question in honesty. Not because I wanted to ask it but because in thinking of it, it would have reminded me that all of us come to this subject via a different path.
I do find it difficult to see how the 'fanboy' can keep their faith. The word 'faith' is sometimes proceeded by the word 'blind', and that's the only way I can explain it. As Crackle alludes, I can't help but feel that if they'd read up on the subject then they'd see 'the truth'.
BUT I'm being unfair there. As I said, we all come at it from different angles. I can understand why people see Armstrong in a certain way, why they damn near idolise him. Because the story IS a remarkable one. So perhaps it matters not a toss (in that context) whether he doped or not. Perhaps it is actually more important to keep the dream alive whatever the costs. That question is not for me alone to answer on the sole basis of what I think.
Because for me, it matters. Matters BIG TIME. I can't see Armstrong any other way than a huge deception, a cheat, a self-serving manipulator. Not just a false god but the devil incarnate... but it is only what I think. I've got no greater or lesser right to judge than anyone else. Perhaps there is a context more important than the one I use.... as much as it galls me to say!
Got to admit, to get back on track and at the risk of offending some, I do find this subject way more interesting than pro-racing itself!
Here's a neat summary of the case as it stands...
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...art-series-events-strip-tour-de-france-titles
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...art-series-events-strip-tour-de-france-titles
- Status
