View Single Post
08-26-2012, 01:56 PM
Epsilon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 59,992
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ChChChChimo View Post
Yet people like you continually say we already have evidence that completely proves Armstrong doped. So which is it, do we have it already or do we have a lot of hearsay, rumors, etc?

Perhaps you should keep a low profile instead of posting things that are false (i.e. claiming you have actual proof) and posting excrement like the bit here where you take a point being made and turn it into something it was not.

The sad part is that people like you are so emotionally invested in seeing Armstrong burn that you choose to give a free pass to the people that are the real issue. Who, allegedly was giving riders/teams warning? Who, allegedly hid doping positives? Who is claiming there tests are so good that they do not need to be tested for validity(yes that was actually proffered by WADA at one point) yet they, according to you, are easily beaten. If anything Armstrong is a product of an environment created by pro sport (yes other sports are as bad, if not worse, then cycling), WADA and the national ADA's, and the UCI. Unfortunately some people, you included prefer to see Armstrong as the Antichrist and the biggest thing wrong with cycling. It's a naive and unintelligent viewpoint.
This seems like a bit of a straw man to me and also makes a lot of assumptions about what he does or doesn't think, such as assuming he's giving everyone else a free pass but wants to "see Armstrong burn". If there's more discussion about Armstrong (especially on a non-speciality board such as this), it's for a few reasons:

1. He was the most successful cyclist of his era, so of course he's going to be discussed more than some domestique or also-ran would.

2. He's the biggest name in cycling among the English-language media, in North America, and of the last 20 years in the sport as a whole.

3. (to some degree this goes with #2) He has a lot of fans, admirers, media followers, etc. who do not really follow the sport of cycling outside of him; i.e. they are Lance Armstrong fans and not cycling fans.

It's obviously a huge story for the hardcore cycling fans too, but they don't necessarily display the characteristics you are describing. Say what you want about the people who post on The Clinic, but one could never claim they are fixated on Armstrong at the expense of all others. I mean, there's a 5000 post thread on Team Sky along with tons of other threads about their riders, thousands of posts about Contador, etc.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote