Lance decribed as a cancer

[Panter]

It's probably been posted on here before but I found this pretty disgusting

Say what you like about the man, but to liken him to a cancer is just sick.

 

[yenrod]

Quite true - if your tuned to his twitters he's straight as a die.

 

[yello]

It has been posted before and whilst it is a strong metaphor, and offensive to many, it is a point of view. It's a shame Kimmage's concerns are over shadowed by a poor choice of analogy.

 

[stoatsngroats]

I must add my disgust too, it's more than unfortunate imo; it was calculated, and shows the contempt which kimmage holds Lance in - it's unacceptable for a 'journo' to display such language.

 

[Chuffy]

Taken as a straight analogy it's pretty much spot on. Unfortunately there are obvious connotations which can't be ignored. On balance it was a poor choice of words for a very valid point.

 

[Chuffy]

I must add my disgust too, it's more than unfortunate imo; it was calculated, and shows the contempt which kimmage holds Lance in - it's unacceptable for a 'journo' to display such language.

Contempt for Lance? Well deserved and why not? Incidentally, Andyfromotley posted this earlier

I like the way he deals with the press, treat em how you wish. Being nice to em isnt compulsory.

I'd take Kimmage's contempt as being what Team LA's attitude deserves.

Oh and in case you think that Team LA is hard done by, check out the latest bit of media control-freakery from Bruyneel.

 

[Panter]

I'm very new to cycling and only know of Lance what I've read in his books.

What really came over in his writing, for me, was his fear of cancer. He appears to live in permanent terror of its reappearnace which is why I found the journalists comments so shocking.

Anyway, sorry it's been posted before, I suspected it may have been.

 

[Chuffy]

I'm very new to cycling and only know of Lance what I've read in his books.

Then you need to read a lot, lot more. Seriously. He's a nasty piece of work.

 

[Panter]

Then you need to read a lot, lot more. Seriously. He's a nasty piece of work.

Do you have any links or anything?

Seriously, I'm not having a pop, he's just a bit of a hero of mine and I'd like a balanced view.

So far, all I've seen is that he wqs a brilliant cyclist (and still seems to be on this Years Tour performance so far) and that he's done a huge amount to enrich other peoples lives.

 

[Panter]

Taken as a straight analogy it's pretty much spot on. Unfortunately there are obvious connotations which can't be ignored. On balance it was a poor choice of words for a very valid point.

He described Lance as a life wrecking disease, you must really harbour some hate for the man.

 

[girofan]

Contempt for Lance? Well deserved and why not? Incidentally, Andyfromotley posted this earlier I'd take Kimmage's contempt as being what Team LA's attitude deserves.

Oh and in case you think that Team LA is hard done by, check out the latest bit of media control-freakery from Bruyneel.

Well, they're all pals together in Astana except for Contador, because when Astana goes it's own way next season Lepheimer, Kloden et al will be trying to get a berth on the new Armstrong/Bruyneel team!
This is why apart from another Spaniard on the team Bertie is on his own during this TDF.
Bruyneel wants LA to win so as to attract a big sponsor for his covert plans for next season and will go to any lengths to prevent a Contador victory.
Watch your back Bertie!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stoatsngroats]

Seriously. He's a nasty piece of work.

You know much more than me about LA/Bruyneel, and the rest - I know not much; that shouldn't mean that my views are worthless, surely?

On one point, you link to Bruyneel, and his media control, and add that LA is a nasty piece of work, is it all part of a 'plan', in your opinion, and more to the point - sinister?

Is there anything more here than riding the Tour, and wanting to win...?

 

[Paul_L]

quite a shocking thing to say from Kimmage, who i always had a bit of time for.

I can't make out what he's (PK) saying at the end when he replies to Lance's statement.

Anyone?

 

[Chuffy]

Do you have any links or anything?

Seriously, I'm not having a pop, he's just a bit of a hero of mine and I'd like a balanced view.

So far, all I've seen is that he wqs a brilliant cyclist (and still seems to be on this Years Tour performance so far) and that he's done a huge amount to enrich other peoples lives.

He was never a hero of mine. I came to the Tour in 2003 and decided that I didn't like him much. No reasons, just a gut reaction the same as the one that made me like David Millar from the off. The more I've read, the less I like him.

Try:-

Bad Blood - Jeremy Whittle
Various references in Blazing Saddles - Matt Rendell
From Lance to Landis - David Walsh (and ignore the fanboys)
Lance Armstrong: Tour de Force - Dan Coyle

Google for Christophe Bassons and the way LA treated him. Also check out Filippo Simeoni ditto.

That's just a start. Then you can look for Frankie Andreu, Greg Lemond, the retro-positive '99 dope test and LA's continual siding with proven dopers (so many of them from his old team) against the anti-doping authorities and go from there.

The more you learn, the harder you have to try to block out what you've learned. For the true believers, the fanboys, it's easy. They have a mantra, oft repeated, 'all you haterz r jus jelus' which magics away any of the substantive evidence against him.

Ultimately there are two issues:
1) How you feel about him as a person
2) How you feel about the plethora of evidence supporting the conclusion that Team LA doped to win

All we can go on is gut instinct and what we can glean by reading and researching. He could be clean as a whistle and I still wouldn't like him, add in the doping stuff and I *really* don't like him. Take the fanatical (and utterly blinkered) level of adulation that he receives into account and it becomes a bit of a mission to offer a counter argument. Such powerful public figures should be challenged.

Make your own mind up, but please don't just join the fanboys.

 

[Chuffy]

You know much more than me about LA/Bruyneel, and the rest - I know not much; that shouldn't mean that my views are worthless, surely?

It just means that you need to read a bit more. All of this stuff has a historical context.

On one point, you link to Bruyneel, and his media control, and add that LA is a nasty piece of work, is it all part of a 'plan', in your opinion, and more to the point - sinister?

Case in point. Team LA (and that includes Bruyneel) have a long history of blocking, blacklisting and avoiding journos who don't toe their line. Consider the position of a journalist covering the Tour. If you dare to upset Team LA (and god knows there's enough stuff out there to upset them with) you have your access to the top rider and the top team withdrawn. This cripples your ability to cover the race effectively and your editor may well have harsh words to say. So you are forced into a position of toeing the Postal/Disco/Astana line or having your job threatened. Some might call this bullying and intimidation....