LA or House---who is whom?

Flyer said:

Does house write LA's silly scripts---or is he LA?

Da!

I wish house was LA, so I could say this. Lance you rock, I'm a big fan of the discovery team, good luck this season!

bspeedy00 said:

I wish house was LA, so I could say this. Lance you rock, I'm a big fan of the discovery team, good luck this season!

I second that. I am no Lance fan (he has enough fans), but I am tired of the witchhunters trying to claim he is a cheater and then use the circular logic that everyone does it. If everyone does it, fine, he is still the best (in the Tour anyway, which is the pinnacle of professional cycling so don't turn it into a "yeah but he is only a one race man..." either). Let it go and admire those that are significantly more gifted at cycling than all of the rest of us rather than trying to tear them down for whatever your own insecurities may be.

Awww, looks like I am getting under somebodies skin.😄

By the way I love how you latch on to anything said that fits your hate agenda but discount anything that goes against it. What a joke you are!

Greg Lemond as a witchhunter? If so, he will have lots of followers.

The list just keeps growing each year. David Walsh, Emily O'Reily, Mike Anderson, Stephen Swartz, Prentice Stephen and the four National Junior teammates.

Is LA a witch or a doper?

wilmar13 said:

I second that. I am no Lance fan (he has enough fans), but I am tired of the witchhunters trying to claim he is a cheater and then use the circular logic that everyone does it. If everyone does it, fine, he is still the best (in the Tour anyway, which is the pinnacle of professional cycling so don't turn it into a "yeah but he is only a one race man..." either). Let it go and admire those that are significantly more gifted at cycling than all of the rest of us rather than trying to tear them down for whatever your own insecurities may be.

Flyer said:

Greg Lemond as a witchhunter? If so, he will have lots of followers.

The list just keeps growing each year. David Walsh, Emily O'Reily, Mike Anderson, Stephen Swartz, Prentice Stephen and the four National Junior teammates.

Is LA a witch or a doper?

What proof do you offer that Lemond is not a witchhunter????? It seems to me Greg may have a large financial gain if Lance is convicted..... Proof that I offer ????? The court case that Greg just won......The major thrust of the trial was that the vendor stopped paying him for his endorsements because they felt Greg's name was not as sellable as Lance's ...... In America, and that is where the financial stakes of American riders are based, Lance is a "mainstream" hero .... Greg was not . I wish he was, but he was not. But Greg did pave the way for the riders of today ..... Greg was as much about making money in the peloton as Lance is ..... And both of them are good at it ........
I will agree with Flyer on one thing though ..... Professional cycling is about money ..... I doubt if Greg or Lance would be cyclists if they did not recieve money in a large way ...... And now with Lance being "Lance" the TDF is almost mainstream in America.......
Why didn't Greg and Andy speak out when they were riding ????? Why now????? Because it involves others?????

This is Flyers m.o. He disregards anything he can't spin into his agenda and anything else gets spun. In his twisted mind he truly can't see any reason why LeMond (one of my personal heros) could have any reason to want Lance to fail. He is so obsessed that he can't see anything else.

Wolfix does make a valid point here.

1) Greg Lemond, Andy Hamspten and Clara Hughes too--who recently spoke out against dope in March all know far more than they already stated. Why not sooner?

I believe that they would have been fired if they spoke out--is the obvious answer.

2) Is Greg Lemond concerned with the public safety of juniors or is he furious at Armstrong re: Trek Bicycles & his distribution deal for Lemond Bikes?

Perhaps a combination of both.

The Armstrong/Lemond dispute goes back several years.

Unlike Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jeminez, and Denis Zanette, both Greg & Lance are still alive today---and are in business too. More admissions will come over time--unless these guys meet with a premature fate.

The funny thing about doping apologists---is that they insist you name, names. But when you do, they discredit the person and declare their story to be false.

eg: Filippo Simeoni is 'out to destroy cycling' ----presumably because he answered truthfully in open court---but because he is an admitted user of EPO, hGH, insulin, DHEA etc... he is somehow not credible.

Greg Lemond, is a jealous liar----or he is a greedy businessman. Pick your dagger.

No wonder doping cannot be stopped. The House, mjolnir, Beastt, the BSpeedy, etc...ofthe world want doped athletes----they need the drug enhancements. They won't watch organic sport.

Cycling not exciting enough, eh?

Instead, they enjoy the corruption and the weak testing.

Some fans they are.

wolfix said:

What proof do you offer that Lemond is not a witchhunter????? It seems to me Greg may have a large financial gain if Lance is convicted..... Proof that I offer ????? The court case that Greg just won......The major thrust of the trial was that the vendor stopped paying him for his endorsements because they felt Greg's name was not as sellable as Lance's ...... In America, and that is where the financial stakes of American riders are based, Lance is a "mainstream" hero .... Greg was not . I wish he was, but he was not. But Greg did pave the way for the riders of today ..... Greg was as much about making money in the peloton as Lance is ..... And both of them are good at it ........
I will agree with Flyer on one thing though ..... Professional cycling is about money ..... I doubt if Greg or Lance would be cyclists if they did not recieve money in a large way ...... And now with Lance being "Lance" the TDF is almost mainstream in America.......
Why didn't Greg and Andy speak out when they were riding ????? Why now????? Because it involves others?????

Twisted mind?

You might want to spell your 'personal hero's' name correctly.

Is your m.o to know a little as possible about cycling? If so, please read the posts, do not type them.

House said:

This is Flyers m.o. He disregards anything he can't spin into his agenda and anything else gets spun. In his twisted mind he truly can't see any reason why LeMond (one of my personal heros) could have any reason to want Lance to fail. He is so obsessed that he can't see anything else.

House said:

This is Flyers m.o. He disregards anything he can't spin into his agenda and anything else gets spun. In his twisted mind he truly can't see any reason why LeMond (one of my personal heros) could have any reason to want Lance to fail. He is so obsessed that he can't see anything else.

I must say that prior to a around a week ago I really was able to give both sides of the story (re:doping) an open mind. After reading a few of the posts dominated by Flyer(and others) and their pathological need to convince everyone that cycling is nothing but dopers and everyone is guilty until proven innocent (oh wait it is impossible to prove your innocence...), it has had the totally opposite effect on me. It is kind of like those in your face Christians who do more damage to the message so that it actually turns people away. Fanatics of any subject have that effect I suppose. (Geesh out of the 700+ replies on the LA doper thread, 131 are from Flyer)

This has caused me to really think about someone's motivation to accuse someone else of doping, and I don't think there is a whistleblower martyr aspect to it at all. A whistleblower is generally someone who highlights something for altruistic reasons with personal cost. All these people "blowing the whistle on the dopers" are risking nothing, have no altruistic reason to do so, and have something to gain (not talking about money).

If you fail the drug test, well there isn't much you can say (except to question the test aka Tyler), but "I saw androstenine in Lances medicine cabinet" (after he fired me and is suing me), and has-beens (Lemond & Hamptsteins) giving more and more conjecture does nothing to strengthen your case, by using it as evidence in your argument only makes your argument seem weaker than it already was. Until there is a positive test you are wasting everyone's time. It would make much more sense to be talking about Tyler's case and the technical aspects of his test, but then that would require talking about facts, and forming opinions based on those facts. "Just say Lance is guilty, it is easier than thinking"

Doesn't this stuff belong in the bike cafe or the soap box anyway?

Can we talk about road racing in the road racing forum again?

I suggest that the best thing to do is for each side to agree - to disagree.

Neither side will convert the other side.

limerickman said:

I suggest that the best thing to do is for each side to agree - to disagree.

Neither side will convert the other side.

I can agree in that it needs to be let go, or at least use another forum to discuss all this (or create one to discuss doping, and Flyer can Moderate).

Lets talk about road racing in the road racing forum, and leave BSing and personal politics/agendas about doping to the other forumns designed for BSing(at least use the Health/Supplements forum if not the Cafe or soapbox). It takes many people to create a great forum, but it only takes a few to ruin one.

That said, I could be one of the ones ruining it since all the posts that have to do with road racing have less than 1000 views and the LA doping forum has 30K hits 😕

wilmar13 said:

I must say that prior to a around a week ago I really was able to give both sides of the story (re:doping) an open mind. After reading a few of the posts dominated by Flyer(and others) and their pathological need to convince everyone that cycling is nothing but dopers and everyone is guilty until proven innocent (oh wait it is impossible to prove your innocence...), it has had the totally opposite effect on me. It is kind of like those in your face Christians who do more damage to the message so that it actually turns people away. Fanatics of any subject have that effect I suppose. (Geesh out of the 700+ replies on the LA doper thread, 131 are from Flyer)

This has caused me to really think about someone's motivation to accuse someone else of doping, and I don't think there is a whistleblower martyr aspect to it at all. A whistleblower is generally someone who highlights something for altruistic reasons with personal cost. All these people "blowing the whistle on the dopers" are risking nothing, have no altruistic reason to do so, and have something to gain (not talking about money).

If you fail the drug test, well there isn't much you can say (except to question the test aka Tyler), but "I saw androstenine in Lances medicine cabinet" (after he fired me and is suing me), and has-beens (Lemond & Hamptsteins) giving more and more conjecture does nothing to strengthen your case, by using it as evidence in your argument only makes your argument seem weaker than it already was. Until there is a positive test you are wasting everyone's time. It would make much more sense to be talking about Tyler's case and the technical aspects of his test, but then that would require talking about facts, and forming opinions based on those facts. "Just say Lance is guilty, it is easier than thinking"

Doesn't this stuff belong in the bike cafe or the soap box anyway?

Can we talk about road racing in the road racing forum again?

Excellent post I was thinking these very same things.

Flyer said:

Twisted mind?

You might want to spell your 'personal hero's' name correctly.

Is your m.o to know a little as possible about cycling? If so, please read the posts, do not type them.

Once again we see Flyer being unable to come up with a real response so he latches on to a typing error. Keep making yourself look like a bigger fool!

Please children, put your plastic swords down. I cannot see how either of you will gain anything, except a lack of respect, from your petty feud. Do we really want to fill the forum with squabble between members? No

Who won last weekend? Laurent Brochard?
He was a Festina rider in 1998---yeah, along with Alex Zulle & tricky [censored] Virenque.

Nothing has changed in six years--except to add Lance instead of Pantani.

Did Pantani go positive for drugs in the TDF?

Who said LA is tested for the drugs he uses?

Who said he is tested at all?

Do TDF Champs get free passes in order to guarantee participation?

Is this corruption possible in a commercial world?

Greg Lemond & Andy Hampsten has-beens? Does this disqualify them as credible witnesses?

You may assume LA is not using illegal and legal drugs. But that is all you can do---because the entire field is doped. That's a fact.

If you want to follow road racing---go amateur and local. Nothing valuable can be learned from the pros.

Thanks again

wilmar13 said:

I must say that prior to a around a week ago I really was able to give both sides of the story (re:doping) an open mind. After reading a few of the posts dominated by Flyer(and others) and their pathological need to convince everyone that cycling is nothing but dopers and everyone is guilty until proven innocent (oh wait it is impossible to prove your innocence...), it has had the totally opposite effect on me. It is kind of like those in your face Christians who do more damage to the message so that it actually turns people away. Fanatics of any subject have that effect I suppose. (Geesh out of the 700+ replies on the LA doper thread, 131 are from Flyer)

This has caused me to really think about someone's motivation to accuse someone else of doping, and I don't think there is a whistleblower martyr aspect to it at all. A whistleblower is generally someone who highlights something for altruistic reasons with personal cost. All these people "blowing the whistle on the dopers" are risking nothing, have no altruistic reason to do so, and have something to gain (not talking about money).

If you fail the drug test, well there isn't much you can say (except to question the test aka Tyler), but "I saw androstenine in Lances medicine cabinet" (after he fired me and is suing me), and has-beens (Lemond & Hamptsteins) giving more and more conjecture does nothing to strengthen your case, by using it as evidence in your argument only makes your argument seem weaker than it already was. Until there is a positive test you are wasting everyone's time. It would make much more sense to be talking about Tyler's case and the technical aspects of his test, but then that would require talking about facts, and forming opinions based on those facts. "Just say Lance is guilty, it is easier than thinking"

Doesn't this stuff belong in the bike cafe or the soap box anyway?

Can we talk about road racing in the road racing forum again?

I want to see this concrete evidence you have that the entire field is doped. I am not talking about the little list you keep showing I want real PROOF that would be admissable in a court of law that shows EVERYONE in the pro peloton is doping.

Just remember you are going to look like a fool no matter what you do. If you try you'll fail, if you don't then it's obvious you are just hot air.

Just because I like wasting my time...

OK everyone is a doper, LA is also a doper, but is no better no worse in that respect, he is still one of the best cyclists ever (maybe not that likeable, but performance-wise I mean).

Now that we have closed this issue let me reiterate the only statement of consequence on this entire thread:

Can we talk about road racing in the road racing forum again?

I promise I will stop feeding the trolls from now on...

QUOTE=House]I want to see this concrete evidence you have that the entire field is doped. I am not talking about the little list you keep showing I want real PROOF that would be admissable in a court of law that shows EVERYONE in the pro peloton is doping.

Court of law? Which nation?

Italy convicted Michele Ferrari.

Insofar as cyclist are concerened---courts are not involved with doping matters.

That is reserved for political sporting federations.

Therein lies the root cause of the problem.

The federation are under pressure from the promoter not to DQ the big fish.

Delighted to help with your education. You will need years of work.

Flyer said:

QUOTE=House]I want to see this concrete evidence you have that the entire field is doped. I am not talking about the little list you keep showing I want real PROOF that would be admissable in a court of law that shows EVERYONE in the pro peloton is doping.

Court of law? Which nation?

Italy convicted Michele Ferrari.

Insofar as cyclist are concerened---courts are not involved with doping matters.

That is reserved for political sporting federations.

Therein lies the root cause of the problem.

The federation are under pressure from the promoter not to DQ the big fish.

Delighted to help with your education. You will need years of work.

In other words you can't do it because there is no proof. You are a liar, an obsessive and someone who merely hates professional cycling. You are like a mosquito, and annoying little pest. Thanks for playing you made a fool out of yourself...again!😄