What is it with Greg LeMond?
Pat
it's just to keep his name in the news. To me, he's a bit strange with this
fixation of always popping up and accusing cyclists of cheating.
In this latest one, he says that Contador couldn't possibly have done that
well on the climb where he outpaced everyone. I think it would be fair to
assume that Contador's urine was collected post-race and tested. And yet,
here is Greg LeMond trying to upstage Alberto and get all the attention on
himself instead.
When he follows Lance around making comments, people just say there's bad
blood between them. So, what does LeMond use for a reason when he attacks
other riders?
Pat in TX
--D-y
Since this is rbtech, I'll suggest that Lemond has failed to factor in
16lb bikes with low spoke count wheels.
While reminding any/all that Greg Lemond fits the doper profile IRT
vastly divergent race results (can't ride in June at the Giro, wins
the TdF in July) while having a convenient "medical excuse", a
miraculous recovery from "lead poisoning" from the pellets his idiot
BIL shot him with while turkey (you said it, brother-- gobble gobble)
hunting. Which one doc I know said does not happen from having bullets
or lead in you.
I wouldn't care except he is such a whiney whiner. --D-y
RonSonic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTh61OxoC0
To be fair, let's see what he has to say to the English speaking press. There we
can get an actual quote. But if that French piece is at all accurate, damn. I'd
suspect that the man simply cannot cope with the concept that guys are faster
and stronger than him.
Mom, he's still blogging: http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Dan O
I like Merckx.
Tim McNamara
"Pat" <newi...@home.com> wrote:
Lemond was a very scientific rider in his training, working with Guimard
and then Koechli, etc. He knows his stuff pretty well, especially the
uses of power measurement in training. He was also genetically blessed
with a phenomenal VO2 max reported at 92.5 ml/kg/min. By comparison,
Indurain's published VO2 max was 88 ml/kg/min and Lance Armstrong's 85
ml/kg/min.
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
http://revelsports.com/Articles/VO2_Max.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/weekinreview/24kola.html
Like many anti-dopers, Lemond tends to come across as a bit naive.
Doping is rampant in professional and high-level amateur sports in
general (heck, there's even doping for golfers and billiards players).
Lemond knows this, certainly had to deal with it as a pro and it would
not surprise me if he also doped. His career ended at the same time as
the rise of EPO and IMHO he's a bit bitter about that. Lemond also
fixates on the numbers (watts, VO2, etc.) and overlooks the psychology
of the individual at times- Armstrong won 7 Tours because of his intense
drive and competitive personality traits, not because his numbers were
better than the rest of the riders. Ditto Merckx after the accident at
Blois- it was his drive and his personality rather than sheer physical
ability that created his unparalleled palmares.
And clearly Lemond believes Lance doped. He's hardly alone in that- it
seems that most European fans (who are generally more tolerant about
doping than us Americans) think that all professional riders dope,
including Lance. How else could Lance beat the cream of doped riders
year after year if he was not himself doped? We American fans seem to
need to believe in the purity of athletes (even though pro football
players, baseball players, basketball players, etc. are doped to the
gills and have governing bodies that don't want to do testing. That
would end the elaborate and highly profitable fantasy). Lemond among
others has been willing to break the wall of silence and, like most of
those others, has been excoriated for it by people who want to keep the
fantasies about their heroes. It's no accident that one of Lance's
fiercest critics- Dick Pound- is from North America.
I think that there is also some resentment towards Lemond specifically
that he is popping the bubble of the Lance fantasy and the Lance fans
are upset by this. I suspect- but don't know- that many of those fans
were not paying attention to bike racing during Lemond's heyday and
maybe weren't even around. Lemond's achievements were every bit as
exciting as Lance's, maybe more so because Lemond's personality was more
vulnerable and more human than Lance often appears. Lemond seemed less
self-contained and to need approval whereas Lance did not.
The chief problem for Lemond is that his "proof" is all circumstantial
and requires a fair amount of education to understand- and even then may
not hold up. He ends up sounding like he is just throwing mud at the
hero.
Lou Holtman
What is been questioned is Contadors sudden improvement in power weight
quotient. On Dutch TV the asked Adrie van Diemen )one of the trainers of
Garmin' to comment on Greg Lemonds statement. He said that that sudden
improvement is very very rare. He didn�t said it was impossible but he
never saw in in his carreer as a trainings coach.
For me one is innocent before it is proved but boy am I often fooled. I
enjoyed the �battle� between Menchov and Di Luca last Giro but
afterwards yet again I�m fooled. Well...
Lou
D'ohBoy
Indeed!
D'ohBoy
Kinky Cowboy
> I think
>it's just to keep his name in the news
Asked and answered
Kinky Cowboy*
*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
RonSonic
Merckx will be remembered as a great champion - he has been one off the bike as
well.
Bill Sornson
Yup.
Bill "looked up sourpuss and there was Lemond's mug" S.
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> We American fans seem to
> need to believe in the purity of athletes
Speak for yourself.
--
Michael Press
--D-y
> In article <7d1t9uF280rc...@mid.individual.net>,
He sounds like someone who is angry at having his rightful place in
history taken over by someone who has a better comeback story and more
wins in the only bike race USAians know much of anything about
(ironically because of Lemond hisself).
This IMHO is rooted in his VO2 measurement, the unfair advantage he
had over his rivals, which he has always seen as an entitlement: "this
is who I am, get out of the way!".
(An attitude seen at all levels of racing. It's really, really fun to
beat those guys and send them back to the parking lot muttering and
maybe even yelling and looking for someone to "fight", which usually
means "bully". Can I get a witness?)
The shine started coming off of Lemond when he drove all night to the
start of the Tour (arriving exhausted) so he could have his "beautiful
wife" Kathy with him during the Tour. The star has his woman with him,
the rest of the team can go without... Duclos LaSalle, you could see
"TRAITOR!!" in his eyes...
Compare/contrast with Lance, who OCD's all and everything, and wins
seven in a row, and even came back to snag a podium (next year, God
willing, will be a bloodbath. Last man standing.).
Which do you admire, really? The goofball who relies on his gift to
pull his irons out of the fire, or the guy who "works harder than
anybody else" and shows up ready to race?
--D-y
VieuxGateux
is the only one saying these kinds of things.
We can all hide our heads in the sand, or we can be a little skeptical
about the extent to which the human body can be improved so quickly,
so suddenly, after thousands of years of evolution.
I've been on EPO, legally, as a medical treatment. I was on it for 4
years, a shot every week. It can produce some pretty dramatic
improvements in exercise capacity, in medical cases anyway... at least
until they started to realize it wasn't a good idea to increase
hemoglobin too much.
Pat
We have to assume that Contador was tested immediately following the stage.
LeMond may be "saying these kind of things" but we here in the US rely on
the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption. Is that so bad? Is that
hiding our heads in the sand? Would you want to live under some other type
of proof?
Pat in TX
Lou Holtman
In the past in cycling it has been proven that this is sticking your
head in the sand. Sudden changes in bloddvalues is a reason to presume
there is something going on even if they can't prove it (yet).
Lou
--D-y
Problem is, even the guilty can be framed.
Make a list of specific forbiddens, test for them on the day, catch
whom you catch and on to the next rodeo.
"Retro-testing" only allowed with totally anonymous samples, for their
purported "research" value, not to tag someone one or ten years down
the road, for the love of God.
Why? Because maybe (ha ha in a couple of different directions) Greg
Lemond (who fits the Doper Profile himself) is right, and the
performances in this year's TdF are indeed "otherworldly". But, no
positives reported, and the event is history.
Let's let it stay that way, and go on with life and racing. Take the
labels off the sample bottles (better yet, throw them all away) and
proceed to the next event. Hallelujah! --D-y
Lou Holtman
I agree. I enjoy the race, but as soon as it is over the result has no
meaning to me. I go for a ride myself and wait for the next race to
watch. It a show you know. Anyone care about the dope rockstars use or
moviestars? I don't.
Lou
RonSonic
wrote:
>If you follow TdF commentary outside of the US, I don't think LeMond
>is the only one saying these kinds of things.
>
>We can all hide our heads in the sand, or we can be a little skeptical
>about the extent to which the human body can be improved so quickly,
>so suddenly, after thousands of years of evolution.
We aren't talking about thousands of years of human evolution. We are talking
about a sport that is about 100 years old and a full fifth of that since Lemond
was a contender. It is no more amazing that Contador can better Lemond's old
standards than that Lemond could beat hell out of Jacque Anquetil's.
Do I recall Anquetil, Merckx or Jansenn shitting on the riders of Lemond's era.
Uhhh, no. It didn't happen.
What's most grating is his suspicion based on performance. Here's a guy who came
up in the era of blood doping who outrode others claiming that there is a
presumption of guilt for those who excel today.
Pat
> What's most grating is his suspicion based on performance. Here's a
> guy who came up in the era of blood doping who outrode others
> claiming that there is a presumption of guilt for those who excel
> today.
I agree. What gets me about LeMond is that he is demanding (!) that Contador
prove himself to...Greg LeMond.
The nerve of the guy!
Pat in TX
z
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "Pat" <newi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree. What gets me about LeMond is that he is demanding (!) that Contador
>> prove himself to...Greg LeMond.
>> The nerve of the guy!
>>
>> Pat in TX
>
> driver in Talledega Nights (I know he's not French, but he seems to
> have the same attitude).
I thought Contador kept his mouth shut and talked with his legs quite well.
z
Armstrong rode a remarkable race. I think Contador rode a more
remarkable race due to all the adverse publicity that was said about him
from within the team during the race as well as unspoken hostility and
mistrust that was obviously part of the off the bike team environment
for at least the three weeks of the stage race.
Despite Armstrong's bluster, I have not heard Contador say anything
adverse about the remainder of the team. You know, those guys who
actually showed up at the post race TEAM party. And it certainly seems
like Armstrong is determined to have the last word, either verbally or
as "patron" of the peloton.
And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from Armstrong,
Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden couldn't stay on, if
Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would have been on the podium in
Paris, not Armstrong.
All that said, I /do/ think that Contador could do well to learn another
language and probably hire a PR firm.
Pat
> Armstrong rode a remarkable race. I think Contador rode a more
> remarkable race due to all the adverse publicity that was said about
> him from within the team during the race as well as unspoken
> hostility and mistrust that was obviously part of the off the bike
> team environment for at least the three weeks of the stage race.
>
> Despite Armstrong's bluster, I have not heard Contador say anything
> adverse about the remainder of the team. You know, those guys who
> actually showed up at the post race TEAM party. And it certainly seems
> like Armstrong is determined to have the last word, either verbally or
> as "patron" of the peloton.
>
> And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from
> Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden
> couldn't stay on, if Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would have
> been on the podium in Paris, not Armstrong.
>
> All that said, I /do/ think that Contador could do well to learn
> another language and probably hire a PR firm.
Hmmmm, a champion rider who is not well-liked by everyone. I guess it's time
for the people who hate this sort of dichotomy to come out of the woodwork
with the "I realize he's an excellent rider, but since he's not a perfect
person, I just have to hate him" comments.
Pat in TX
Sandy
Small scope, I guess, like almost all South America, plenty of Europe,
parts of Africa and a few Pacific islands. It's important to cater to
places where there's a vibrant and vast cycle sport community, like the
USA, where no one speaks Spanish, of course. Maybe he needs to learn
the language of the country where he hopes to make a mark - must be that
Tour of Georgia [snicker] country, not the little and insignificant
hexagon where he just spent 3 weeks at work.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
Mobilit� et stabilit� ne sont pas antinomiques :
un cycliste n'est stable sur sa bicyclette
qu'en avan�ant.
- Chirac, J (who must have read Einstein)
Barry
Surely, you jest.
Lou Holtman
> And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from Armstrong,
> Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden couldn't stay on, if
> Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would have been on the podium in
> Paris, not Armstrong.
Yeah, Kloden lost 2 minuten just because Contador accelerated for just
100 meters. Was it that windy that day?
Lou
Sandy
>> like the USA, where no one speaks Spanish, of course
>>
>
> Surely, you jest.
>
>
>
public, OK?
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
S'endormir � v�lo, c'est tr�s rare.
S'endormir � pied, c'est tr�s con.
- Geluck, P.
AMuzi
Barry wrote:
> Surely, you jest.
Que?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tim McNamara
Lou Holtman <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
And Lance just bitched about Contador's "bad" tactics- not noticing that
Contador soundly won the Tour in part because of those tactics (which
were reminiscent of Lance himself).
With Lance's prima donna BS, why aren't we asking "what is it with Lance
Armstrong?"
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> like the USA, where no one speaks Spanish, of course
>
> Barry wrote:
> > Surely, you jest.
>
> Que?
Comment?
Pat
No, you mean Contador's prima donna BS. In this case, Lance was standing up
for his teammate just as he did for George Hincapie earlier. It was
Contador who shrugged and showed no regret for dropping Kloden. Are you so
anti-Lance that you have tunnel vision? It seems so.
Pat in TX
z
Contador won the 2007 Tour. No accusation of prima donna BS. He won the
2008 Giro. No accusation of prima donna BS. He won the 2008 Vuelta. No
accusation of prima donna BS.
What changed?
z
z
AMuzi
>>>>> And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from
>>>>> Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden
>>>>> couldn't stay on, if Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would
>>>>> have been on the podium in Paris, not Armstrong.
>>> Lou Holtman <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, Kloden lost 2 minuten just because Contador accelerated for
>>>> just 100 meters. Was it that windy that day?
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> And Lance just bitched about Contador's "bad" tactics- not noticing
>>> that Contador soundly won the Tour in part because of those tactics
>>> (which were reminiscent of Lance himself).
>>> With Lance's prima donna BS, why aren't we asking "what is it with
>>> Lance Armstrong?"
> Pat wrote:
>> No, you mean Contador's prima donna BS. In this case, Lance was
>> standing up for his teammate just as he did for George Hincapie
>> earlier. It was Contador who shrugged and showed no regret for
>> dropping Kloden. Are you so anti-Lance that you have tunnel vision?
>> It seems so.
z wrote:
> I think they mean this BS:
> http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong
That's funny!
Whether one would enjoy an evening's conversation with Mr
Armstrong or not, whether or not anyone else approves of his
social life, I think he's due well-earned respect in his field.
Bill Sornson
Anyone who saw that stage knows that Contador blew up his team for
absolutely no good reason. Next day Leipheimer said as much
(diplomatically) live on Versus. (Armstrong was asked and said, "I'll have
to bite my lip on that one.") Only explanation I can think of is he wanted
two other guys to be on podium with him, not Armstrong and Kloden.
Armstrong foiled his plot by being able to hang on Ventoux. If Contador
hadn't attacked a few days earlier (taking Schleck with him), then it very
likely would have been All-Astana on the podium in Paris.
Bill "he's great, but not a great guy" S.
Simon Lewis
The same Lance who praised Contador only to be rebuffed?
Give us a break.
Simon Lewis
z
AMuzi
>>> I think they mean this BS:
>>> http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> That's funny!
>> Whether one would enjoy an evening's conversation with Mr
>> Armstrong or not, whether or not anyone else approves of his
>> social life, I think he's due well-earned respect in his field.
Still Just Me - wrote:
> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
What would you say about a potty mouth pitcher of a
no-hitter? Being coarse or impolitic doesn't change his
achievements. One might discuss all of Lance's foibles and
trash talk, then speculate on drug/blood/hormone levels and
yet still respect his skill and discipline for what it is.
Otherworldly.
(I did find that piece humorous anyway)
z
I don't know what you were watching, but the only thing holding Andy
Schleck was trying to help his brother on both stage 17 as well as stage
20. And if you didn't notice, Armstrong could only beat the previously
described as lousy TTer Andy by 15 seconds.
Simply put, Andy Schleck was going to get second, no matter what
Armstrong said or did.
z
Well said.
Bill Sornson
You might be right, but the point is that Contador did Andy Schleck a favor
and dropped Kloden for no reason. If Andy had attacked and Contador was the
only one who could go with him (as it APPEARED on Ventoux but no one knows
for sure; Armstrong's job/concern was Frank Schleck), then that would be
that. But he (Contador) attacked and all he did was blow up Kloden for
good.
Don't forget he did it earlier in the tour, too. I think he resented
Armstrong for the "side wind break" a few days earlier when he picked up a
few measly secs on the GC contenders. Contador was embarrassed, and took it
out on his teammate(s)...
BS
Simon Lewis
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:45:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>z wrote:
>>> I think they mean this BS:
>>> http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong
>>
>>That's funny!
>>
>>Whether one would enjoy an evening's conversation with Mr
>>Armstrong or not, whether or not anyone else approves of his
>>social life, I think he's due well-earned respect in his field.
>
> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
Oh do fuck off. Lance is one of if not the most accomplished cyclist of
all times. I have never seen him anything other than polite, dedicated
and considerate. Just to remind you : it was Contador who threw his
panties on the flow and stamped after he won. He did himself no favours.
Sandy
>
> Still Just Me - wrote:
>> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
>> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>
> What would you say about a potty mouth pitcher of a no-hitter? Being
> coarse or impolitic doesn't change his achievements. One might discuss
> all of Lance's foibles and trash talk, then speculate on
> drug/blood/hormone levels and yet still respect his skill and
> discipline for what it is. Otherworldly
acknowledge Armstrong's accomplishments without being obligated to
respect the person. But I am not his biggest fan.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
--
�lectrons recycl�s. En cons�quence, il est possible que des fautes
d'orthographes s'y soient malencontreusement gliss�es.
AMuzi
>>> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
>>> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
> AMuzi a bien r�fl�chi et puis a d�clar�:
>> What would you say about a potty mouth pitcher of a no-hitter? Being
>> coarse or impolitic doesn't change his achievements. One might discuss
>> all of Lance's foibles and trash talk, then speculate on
>> drug/blood/hormone levels and yet still respect his skill and
>> discipline for what it is. Otherworldly
Sandy wrote:
> While it may be a fine semantic difference, I find that one can
> acknowledge Armstrong's accomplishments without being obligated to
> respect the person. But I am not his biggest fan.
Yes, I think we're close here.
Superlative cyclist.
Just maybe not someone you'd like to meet personally.
If I might shade that a bit, his ability to focus intensely
and bring immense self discipline, to such telling effect,
deserves some respect. That's all.
RonSonic
At first I didn't click that thinking you'd just typed it up, but no, the
internets comes through again.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
RonSonic
At some level, it comes down to the fact that we're talking about a bunch of
jocks. Chamois-lined, but jocks nonetheless. They, like all the other humans am
what they am.
Don't get along all that well with firemen, either.
Michael Press
An inherent contradiction in confronting pissy with pissy.
--
Michael Press
Simon Lewis
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:36:07 +0200, Simon Lewis
> <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
>>> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>>
>>Oh do fuck off. Lance is one of if not the most accomplished cyclist of
>>all times. I have never seen him anything other than polite, dedicated
>>and considerate. Just to remind you : it was Contador who threw his
>>panties on the flow and stamped after he won. He did himself no favours.
>
> If you say so. I say he's a dick.
"Takes one to know one"
Simon Lewis
I would be intrigued as to what aspects of his personality you seem to
abhor so much? That he is his own man? What. You sound like a bunch of
self righteous whingers who detest other peoples success to me.
Helmut Springer
> Whether one would enjoy an evening's conversation with Mr
> Armstrong or not, whether or not anyone else approves of his
> social life, I think he's due well-earned respect in his field.
...if one happens to respect his specific field.
But that's OT in r.b.tech,
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
Dan O
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:12:17 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Still Just Me - wrote:
> >>>> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
> >>>> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>
> >>> What would you say about a potty mouth pitcher of a no-hitter? Being
> >>> coarse or impolitic doesn't change his achievements. One might discuss
> >>> all of Lance's foibles and trash talk, then speculate on
> >>> drug/blood/hormone levels and yet still respect his skill and
> >>> discipline for what it is. Otherworldly
>
> >Sandy wrote:
> >> While it may be a fine semantic difference, I find that one can
> >> acknowledge Armstrong's accomplishments without being obligated to
> >> respect the person. But I am not his biggest fan.
>
> >Yes, I think we're close here.
> >Superlative cyclist.
> >Just maybe not someone you'd like to meet personally.
>
> >If I might shade that a bit, his ability to focus intensely
> >and bring immense self discipline, to such telling effect,
> >deserves some respect. That's all.
>
> At some level, it comes down to the fact that we're talking about a bunch of
> jocks. Chamois-lined, but jocks nonetheless. They, like all the other humans am
> what they am.
>
> Don't get along all that well with firemen, either.
>
What about volunteers? (We're still *real* firemen, BTW - have to
be. Many of us are also certified medical responders or EMT's.) Some
are gung-ho, sure, but some of us are just doing what we can when it
needs doing.
Lou Holtman
Astana wasn't a team from the beginning. Kloden, Leipheimer or Armstrong
didn''t have a change to win the Tour except if there was a tactical
game/plan and the windbreak was a beginning of that. Contador choosed
not to get involved in that tactical play. So he pissed Amstrong off
after his first attack on the Arcalis. The plan was not to attack in
that stage to Andorra. WTF is that as a plan if you know you are the
strongest uphill? If you want to call someone a dick, Bruyneel is the
one. I heard several interviews with him on Dutch television. It became
clear to me that he was not running the team...
If I was Contador I would have done the same on the Arcalis stage but I
would not said anything afterwards. I will be an interesting TOUR next
year.
Amstrong and Contador not in the same team. Then we will know who is the
dick.
Lou
RonSonic
<stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:08:17 -0400, RonSonic
><rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>At some level, it comes down to the fact that we're talking about a bunch of
>>jocks. Chamois-lined, but jocks nonetheless. They, like all the other humans am
>>what they am.
>
>Bicyclists always seem to be less jock than other sports. But, they do
>mostly all have egos and attitudes.
>
>>Don't get along all that well with firemen, either.
>
>Actually, I know a few fireman who are downright nice guys. A few cops
>too who are nice guys. But, my experience with many others gives me
>the same feel, especially the cops - egos and attitudes.
Retired firemen are fine, and they're all good guys, make no mistake. But the
firehouse has its locker-room element and living in that affects the attitude.
Of course, I was surely just as bad in my own way as a punk youth.
RonSonic
>On Jul 30, 12:08�ｿｽam, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:12:17 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>> Still Just Me - wrote:
>> >>>> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
>> >>>> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>>
>> >> �ｿｽAMuzi a bien r�ｿｽfl�ｿｽchi et puis a d�ｿｽclar�ｿｽ:
>> >>> What would you say about a potty mouth pitcher of a no-hitter? Being
>> >>> coarse or impolitic doesn't change his achievements. One might discuss
>> >>> all of Lance's foibles and trash talk, then speculate on
>> >>> drug/blood/hormone levels and yet still respect his skill and
>> >>> discipline for what it is. Otherworldly
>>
>> >Sandy wrote:
>> >> While it may be a fine semantic difference, I find that one can
>> >> acknowledge Armstrong's accomplishments without being obligated to
>> >> respect the person. �ｿｽBut I am not his biggest fan.
>>
>> >Yes, I think we're close here.
>> >Superlative cyclist.
>> >Just maybe not someone you'd like to meet personally.
>>
>> >If I might shade that a bit, his ability to focus intensely
>> >and bring immense self discipline, to such telling effect,
>> >deserves some respect. That's all.
>>
>> At some level, it comes down to the fact that we're talking about a bunch of
>> jocks. Chamois-lined, but jocks nonetheless. They, like all the other humans am
>> what they am. �ｿｽ
>>
>> Don't get along all that well with firemen, either.
>>
>
>What about volunteers? (We're still *real* firemen, BTW - have to
>be. Many of us are also certified medical responders or EMT's.) Some
>are gung-ho, sure, but some of us are just doing what we can when it
>needs doing.
You don't spend half your life living with other guys in an overgrown locker
room. That'd be the difference between firemen and normal people. Well aside
from the blunt instrument aspect of thinking it's perfectly normal to tear down
and knock holes in anything that obstructs you.
Good guys all. Just a little rough on the scenery.
Clive George
news:4a71e40e$1...@news4us.nl...
> Astana wasn't a team from the beginning. Kloden, Leipheimer or Armstrong
> didn''t have a change to win the Tour except if there was a tactical
> game/plan and the windbreak was a beginning of that. Contador choosed not
> to get involved in that tactical play. So he pissed Amstrong off after his
> first attack on the Arcalis. The plan was not to attack in that stage to
> Andorra. WTF is that as a plan if you know you are the strongest uphill?
Indeed. Mountain top finish = great place to gain time. If Astana weren't
planning on doing something there, they're pretty darn stupid.
Tim McNamara
"Pat" <newi...@home.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <4a707dc6$1...@news4us.nl>, Lou Holtman
> > <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> z schreef:
> >>
> >>> And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from
> >>> Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden
> >>> couldn't stay on, if Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would
> >>> have been on the podium in Paris, not Armstrong.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Kloden lost 2 minuten just because Contador accelerated for
> >> just 100 meters. Was it that windy that day?
> >
> > And Lance just bitched about Contador's "bad" tactics- not noticing
> > that Contador soundly won the Tour in part because of those tactics
> > (which were reminiscent of Lance himself).
> >
> > With Lance's prima donna BS, why aren't we asking "what is it with
> > Lance Armstrong?"
>
> No, you mean Contador's prima donna BS. In this case, Lance was
> standing up for his teammate just as he did for George Hincapie
> earlier. It was Contador who shrugged and showed no regret for
> dropping Kloden.
Lance didn't like being dropped, just as much as he liked being able to
crow about his superior tactics compared to Contador's on the windy
stage. IMHO sauce, goose, gander. Contador's tactics were excellent
throughout the Tour and showed he was clearly the strongest rider. That
he had to overcome a lack of support in his own team in order to win the
Tour- since clearly Bruyneel appeared more allied with Lance than with
Contador- made it necessary for Contador to drop Lance whenever
possible.
Lance created this problem, not Contador, by coming back into racing to
keep his name in the headlines every bit as much and IMHO more as was
Lemond accused of doing in this thread. Lemond's "media seeking" is at
least trying to improve the state of pro cycling, whereas Lance is just
trying to improve the state of Lance.
> Are you so anti-Lance that you have tunnel vision? It seems so.
LOL. I love how any criticism of Lance immediately results in the
"you're anti-Lance" crapola. He's a divisive character within his sport
and conversations like this play that out clearly. The hero-worshippers
go on the attack very quickly.
Professional athletes at the very highest end of their sports are often
not "nice" people- the attributes that make them the competitors they
are also make them difficulty dinner companions. There are of course
exceptions to this (Sean Kelly, for example, is a very nice guy from the
few conversations I was able to be part of with him when he was touring
the US a few years back; I've met Lemond a couple of times and he is
also a nice guy. Heck, Lance might be a very nice guy in person and
away from the pressures of racing, but I haven't met him). In general
athletes like Lance are extremely driven people and you have to take
them as they are.
Ben C
> In article <4a707dc6$1...@news4us.nl>,
> Lou Holtman <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>> z schreef:
>>
>> > And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from
>> > Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden
>> > couldn't stay on, if Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would
>> > have been on the podium in Paris, not Armstrong.
>>
>> Yeah, Kloden lost 2 minuten just because Contador accelerated for
>> just 100 meters. Was it that windy that day?
>
> And Lance just bitched about Contador's "bad" tactics- not noticing that
> Contador soundly won the Tour in part because of those tactics (which
> were reminiscent of Lance himself).
>
> With Lance's prima donna BS, why aren't we asking "what is it with Lance
> Armstrong?"
Well, you're the shrink, but my theory is that he is incapable of not
being the leader.
It turned out Contador was stronger but Lance wasn't able to turn around
and ride his heart out for him the way e.g. Vande Velde did for Wiggo
because it just isn't in his nature.
You can't blame him for it. That personality is part of why he won 7
tours. It's not prima donna BS-- he's one of the few people in life who
deserve to be an arrogant bastard. Chapeau to him.
I do feel sorry for Contador having to put up with that, but, hey he
still won.
Tim McNamara
> z wrote:
> > Pat wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <4a707dc6$1...@news4us.nl>, Lou Holtman
> >>> <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> z schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from
> >>>>> Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden
> >>>>> couldn't stay on, if Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he
> >>>>> would have been on the podium in Paris, not Armstrong.
> >>>> Yeah, Kloden lost 2 minuten just because Contador accelerated
> >>>> for just 100 meters. Was it that windy that day?
> >>> And Lance just bitched about Contador's "bad" tactics- not
> >>> noticing that Contador soundly won the Tour in part because of
> >>> those tactics (which were reminiscent of Lance himself).
> >>>
> >>> With Lance's prima donna BS, why aren't we asking "what is it
> >>> with Lance Armstrong?"
> >>
> >> No, you mean Contador's prima donna BS. In this case, Lance was
> >> standing up for his teammate just as he did for George Hincapie
> >> earlier. It was Contador who shrugged and showed no regret for
> >> dropping Kloden. Are you so anti-Lance that you have tunnel
> >> vision? It seems so.
> >>
> >> Pat in TX
> >>
> >
> > Contador won the 2007 Tour. No accusation of prima donna BS. He won
> > the 2008 Giro. No accusation of prima donna BS. He won the 2008
> > Vuelta. No accusation of prima donna BS.
> >
> > What changed?
>
> http://www.steephill.tv/2009/entries/contador-post-tdf-news-conference
So? Lance has been taking cheap shots at Contador for a couple of years
with backhanded compliments and outright criticism- including in the
middle of this Tour and then didn't even bother to show up to the
victory party to support his teammate. And it's *Contador* who's the
prima donna? No surprise that Contador spoke his mind andd had the
class to wait until after the race ended to do it. Too bad Lance has
never had that class.
Ben C
[...]
> Anyone who saw that stage knows that Contador blew up his team for
> absolutely no good reason. Next day Leipheimer said as much
> (diplomatically) live on Versus. (Armstrong was asked and said, "I'll have
> to bite my lip on that one.") Only explanation I can think of is he wanted
> two other guys to be on podium with him, not Armstrong and Kloden.
You race for the win. Only when absolutely certain of the win does it
even enter your head to think about where Kloeden will finish and who
will be on the podium.
Tim McNamara
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
> Anyone who saw that stage knows that Contador blew up his team for
> absolutely no good reason. Next day Leipheimer said as much
> (diplomatically) live on Versus. (Armstrong was asked and said,
> "I'll have to bite my lip on that one.") Only explanation I can
> think of is he wanted two other guys to be on podium with him, not
> Armstrong and Kloden.
My read is that Contador knew that he was not supported by either
Armstrong or Bruyneel, and needed to deal with his biggest threat to
winning the Tour: Armstrong. Kloden was just a bystander in that. Had
he dropped the Schlecks and Kloden, it would have been hailed as a great
move- but because it was Lance the evaluation is different. Had the
move been made by Lance and he had dropped Kloden and Contador, that
would also have been hailed as a great move. So IMHO it's pretty
hypocritical to denigrate Contador from doing exactly what he is paid to
do: to win the damn Tour.
The point of professional competition is to win. Contador did so
decisively, as he should have. Had he not taken time when he could-
something Lance himself said is necessary in racing just a few stages
earlier- then the later race would have been in jeopardy when the
Schleck brothers got after it. In the long run, Contador raced smart
when Bruyneel and Lance wanted him to race dumb.
> Armstrong foiled his plot by being able to hang on Ventoux. If
> Contador hadn't attacked a few days earlier (taking Schleck with
> him), then it very likely would have been All-Astana on the podium in
> Paris.
Or two Luxemburgers and a Spaniard in 3rd. Contador made the right
call. If Kloden couldn't hold on then, he wouldn't have held on when
the Schlecks tightened the screws in the following days.
Bill Sornson
The win was assured as long as he stayed with Andy Schleck. All he
succeeded in doing was hurting his teammates' positions. Armstrong was able
to overcome it; Kloden wasn't.
Tim McNamara
Lou Holtman <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
Well, Lance was taking it out on Contador, using psychological warfare
against his own teammate. Contador frankly put Lance in his place.
> Astana wasn't a team from the beginning.
Well, Astana was not a unified team behind Contador. Its loyalties were
split with the team manager seeming to side mostly with Lance rather
than the defending champion. Bruyneel's usual tactical savvy was
impaired by having Lance in the squad- in part because he could not or
would not decide who the lead rider was, and in part because it was
suddenly not good enough to just win the Tour. The expectation was on
to sweep the Tour.
> Kloden, Leipheimer or Armstrong didn''t have a change to win the Tour
> except if there was a tactical game/plan and the windbreak was a
> beginning of that. Contador choosed not to get involved in that
> tactical play. So he pissed Amstrong off after his first attack on
> the Arcalis. The plan was not to attack in that stage to Andorra. WTF
> is that as a plan if you know you are the strongest uphill?
You win the Tour by playing to your strengths and compensating for your
weaknesses. Contador had the sense to know that, knew that the team was
not actually behind him, and did what he had to do.
> If you want to call someone a dick, Bruyneel is the one. I heard
> several interviews with him on Dutch television. It became clear to
> me that he was not running the team... If I was Contador I would have
> done the same on the Arcalis stage but I would not said anything
> afterwards. I will be an interesting TOUR next year. Amstrong and
> Contador not in the same team. Then we will know who is the dick.
Assuming that Armstrong, who will then be 39, is able to be competitive.
That's a long shot, although based on the psychology of the man if
anyone can do it'd be him. With the Vinikourov fiasco looming in a few
weeks, since has has said that it's his team and Lance and Bruyneel can
kowtow to him or get the hell out, Bruyneel will be out of Astana by the
end of the year and free to go to Radio Shack.
Hmmm. I think that answers the question. The real dick is Vinikourov!
;-)
Ben C
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2009-07-30, Bill Sornson <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Anyone who saw that stage knows that Contador blew up his team for
>>> absolutely no good reason. Next day Leipheimer said as much
>>> (diplomatically) live on Versus. (Armstrong was asked and said,
>>> "I'll have to bite my lip on that one.") Only explanation I can
>>> think of is he wanted two other guys to be on podium with him, not
>>> Armstrong and Kloden.
>>
>> You race for the win. Only when absolutely certain of the win does it
>> even enter your head to think about where Kloeden will finish and who
>> will be on the podium.
>
> The win was assured as long as he stayed with Andy Schleck.
You never know what's going to happen. I think he was attacking Schleck
and it wasn't working, but even so, might as well increase the distance
to Wiggo, because you never know, he might pull an amazing time trial
out and anyone can have a bad day.
> All he succeeded in doing was hurting his teammates' positions.
That's just Armstrong mind games. It's perverse to blame Contador for
romping away up a mountain and winning the TdF. That's what the man
does.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> z wrote:
> >>> I think they mean this BS:
> >>> http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong
>
> > AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> That's funny! Whether one would enjoy an evening's conversation
> >> with Mr Armstrong or not, whether or not anyone else approves of
> >> his social life, I think he's due well-earned respect in his
> >> field.
>
> Still Just Me - wrote:
> > He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
> > offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>
> What would you say about a potty mouth pitcher of a no-hitter? Being
> coarse or impolitic doesn't change his achievements. One might
> discuss all of Lance's foibles and trash talk, then speculate on
> drug/blood/hormone levels and yet still respect his skill and
> discipline for what it is. Otherworldly.
Well, "thisworldly" but unusually well-focused. You make a good point,
his cycling achievements are unique and place him among the top pro
cyclists of all time (one can debate where in relation to the likes of
Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Kelly, Anquetil, etc. 'till the cows come home).
And the human interest aspect of Lance's career is very nearly
unsurpassed in any sport. Among modern cyclists, only Lemond's is
similar in drama.
Bill Sornson
I guess you know more about than Levi Leipheimer does. He was back home
with a broken wrist, being interviewed live on Versus, and asked about the
previous day's developments. When the subject of Contador came up, Levi
said he was baffled by what Alberto had done. Simply couldn't understand or
explain it. Does that sound "perverse"?
No one was super dicky about it; everyone who paid attention saw that
Contador was just a lousy teammate. No big deal considering Astana's
situation; obvious it would dissolve once the tour ended.
Again, it wasn't just that one move; he did it early on, as well.
Bill "so, like, whatever" S.
Tim McNamara
Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:08:17 -0400, RonSonic
> <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >At some level, it comes down to the fact that we're talking about a
> >bunch of jocks. Chamois-lined, but jocks nonetheless. They, like all
> >the other humans am what they am.
>
> Bicyclists always seem to be less jock than other sports. But, they
> do mostly all have egos and attitudes.
Without which they could not do what they do.
Tim McNamara
Simon Lewis <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Precisely the sort of accusations leveled at Contador in this thread.
Tim McNamara
Simon Lewis <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:45:09 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>z wrote:
> >>> I think they mean this BS:
> >>> http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong
> >>
> >>That's funny!
> >>
> >>Whether one would enjoy an evening's conversation with Mr Armstrong
> >>or not, whether or not anyone else approves of his social life, I
> >>think he's due well-earned respect in his field.
> >
> > He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
> > offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>
> Oh do fuck off. Lance is one of if not the most accomplished cyclist
> of all times.
"One of" but certainly not "the." While Lance's success at the Tour de
France is head and shoulders above the rest, there is much more to bike
racing than that after all.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/veloarchive/
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/veloarchive/riders/top12.htm
Eddy Merckx is "the." No way around it. And there are a bunch more who
arguably come before Lance in the achievement sweepstakes, unless you
rate the Tour as the be-all and end-all. I don't but many do.
> I have never seen him anything other than polite, dedicated and
> considerate. Just to remind you : it was Contador who threw his
> panties on the flow and stamped after he won. He did himself no
> favours.
You must be late to the party.
Tim McNamara
Simon Lewis <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, Simon, you're certainly establishing yourself in the newsgroup.
z
Regarding human interest, you must mean that cancer is more popular than
cerebral cavernoma, which afflicted Contador. Not that you would know
anything about that by watching Versus.
Michael Press
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
In Barcelona - Andorra Arcalis, the earlier stage, I saw
nothing wrong and everything right with Contador putting
21 seconds into the GC favorites. Armstrong said it was
not the team plan, but did not say what was the plan.
Until the plan and the plan's purpose are clear, Contador
was entirely in the right getting that time; even if he
had to change the plan on the fly. Opportunity arose, in
exactly the way one might hypothetically position oneself
to jump into the front echelon of a wind break.
--
Michael Press
Spike
> In article <h4r1ca$ft...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
> Simon Lewis <simonlewis2...@gmail.com> wrote:
The list you link to of the twelve greatest (cyclists, not dicks) is
from 2001 or earlier – too early for Armstrong to be in full
consideration. So where would he rank today after his seven Tour de
France wins? Certainly not ahead of third place Bernard Hinault but
possibly ahead of twelfth place Magni?
.....
Spike
Tim McNamara
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
The win was assured by distancing as many riders as possible. That's
how racing works. Keeping your enemies close just makes it more
convenient for them to attack.
Tim McNamara
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
Contador was the defending Tour champion, not a "teammate." The team
should have been there to serve his campaign to win the Tour again, but
due to the presence of Lance that focus was blurred and the team's
attention, energies and loyalties were divided. Contador did what he
had to do in an untenable situation. What do you think he should be
have done- let Lance stay close enough to beat Contador if Lance was
able to find his old legs? Or go slow enough to allow the Schlecks to
have a better chance at winning? Do you think that Contador somehow
owed Lance some kind of allegiance and deference?
Tim McNamara
If I knew that, I had forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder.
Tim McNamara
<62187db0-08ab-472b...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Spike <spiken...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Interesting question in part because of the difficulties in comparing
different types of riders- e.g, "Tour" riders versus "Classics" riders.
Hinault was the last who could dominate both types of racing.
I would rank Lance certainly behind Merckx, Anquetil and Hinault. Van
Looy was arguably the greatest Classics rider of all time (being the
only one to win all of the monuments), but does he rank ahead or behind
Lance? Or Sean Kelly and Lance? Those are hard questions to answer
because it's not quite apples and apples, especially with the changes in
racing in the past 20 years.
In terms of Tour de France riders, though, Lance is at the top of the
heap, followed by Merckx (who won 5 Tours and 5 Giros 1 Vuelta; ergo
Merckx was a more successful Grand Tours rider while Lance was a more
successful Tour de France rider) and an elite of few other riders.
I also think that Lemond could have won at least six Tours- 1985 which
he basically surrendered under team orders and 1987-88 because I don't
think either Delgado or Roche would have bested Lemond. But we'll never
know and all that matters is what did happen, not what could have.
I would highly doubt that anyone will win seven Tours in a row again.
Tim McNamara
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-07-29, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <4a707dc6$1...@news4us.nl>,
> > Lou Holtman <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> z schreef:
> >>
> >> > And don't forget that despite the insults Contador took from
> >> > Armstrong, Leipheimer, and Bruyneel after stage 17 when Kloden
> >> > couldn't stay on, if Kloden hadn't lost those 2 minutes he would
> >> > have been on the podium in Paris, not Armstrong.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Kloden lost 2 minuten just because Contador accelerated for
> >> just 100 meters. Was it that windy that day?
> >
> > And Lance just bitched about Contador's "bad" tactics- not noticing
> > that Contador soundly won the Tour in part because of those tactics
> > (which were reminiscent of Lance himself).
> >
> > With Lance's prima donna BS, why aren't we asking "what is it with
> > Lance Armstrong?"
>
> Well, you're the shrink, but my theory is that he is incapable of not
> being the leader.
At least in the Tour, which he considers "his" race. In other races,
such as spring Classics, he tended to race for training purposes and let
other riders be the leaders.
> It turned out Contador was stronger but Lance wasn't able to turn
> around and ride his heart out for him the way e.g. Vande Velde did
> for Wiggo because it just isn't in his nature.
Yes, I agree.
> You can't blame him for it. That personality is part of why he won 7
> tours.
I agree with that too. "Blame" is a difficult thing because one is not
who one is purely on the basis of choice.
> It's not prima donna BS-- he's one of the few people in life
> who deserve to be an arrogant bastard. Chapeau to him.
I'm not sure that I can agree he- or anyone- deserves to be an arrogant
bastard. The prima donna stuff is not new with Lance, though. He's
done it time and again throughout his career from the earliest days of
his pro career. He did it multiple times during his career, and then
did it again during his retirement (e.g., his comments about Sastre's
win and about Contador's riding). His artful antagonism towards the
"biased" cycling media. Etc.
> I do feel sorry for Contador having to put up with that, but, hey he
> still won.
And won convincingly.
z
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:22:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>> Bicyclists always seem to be less jock than other sports. But, they
>>> do mostly all have egos and attitudes.
>> Without which they could not do what they do.
>
> humble.
In the world of sport, think Pete Sampras.
z
Response 1) It's a bike race; nothing more than entertainment to you and
me. Nobody is entitled to be an arrogant bastard.
Response 2) Jim Beam is another. Just ask him.
Ben C
>> That's just Armstrong mind games. It's perverse to blame Contador for
>> romping away up a mountain and winning the TdF. That's what the man
>> does.
>
> I guess you know more about than Levi Leipheimer does. He was back home
> with a broken wrist, being interviewed live on Versus, and asked about the
> previous day's developments. When the subject of Contador came up, Levi
> said he was baffled by what Alberto had done. Simply couldn't understand or
> explain it. Does that sound "perverse"?
I still think it's perverse.
> No one was super dicky about it; everyone who paid attention saw that
> Contador was just a lousy teammate.
Maybe a lousy teammate but a great team leader. Isn't that what
Armstrong used to do-- get pulled by as many teammates as could hang in
there, and then launch off at the end with whoever could stay with him?
The selection would be filtered down to Armstrong and Ullrich, or
Armstrong and Pantani, or more often just Armstrong. Nobody shed any
tears for his teammates left behind on the mountain with their legs on
fire.
Ryan Cousineau
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Lance's position in the Grand Peloton relative to Merckx is not subject
to debate. 1) Merckx. Debate the rest as long as you like, no equal to
Merckx has yet arrived.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Michael Press
Really? Phil and Paul went into detail.
Did they hammer it? No; that is your point.
Interesting is that Contador crashed
and the medicos diagnosed an aneurism,
ascribing its presence to the crash.
Eventually they revised the diagnosis.
He only crashed after losing consciousness.
Next time you here about somebody falling
and breaking their hip, stop for a moment.
Often enough they step off the curb, and
the osteoporosis afflicted bone gives way;
_then_ the person falls. Feeble does not imply spastic.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:07:59 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> >> All he succeeded in doing was hurting his teammates' positions.
> >
> >That's just Armstrong mind games. It's perverse to blame Contador for
> >romping away up a mountain and winning the TdF. That's what the man
> >does.
>
> Scenario for not being a dick, before and/or during the race:
>
> Contador: "Well, Armstrong is a great rider, an incredible seven time
> winner. I wish him well, but I intend to win.".
>
> Armstrong: "Contador is a strong rider and he will be a strong
> challenger. But, I plan on winning my eighth tour.".
>
>
> Scenario for not being a dick, after the race:
>
> Contador: "I am proud to have won. Armstrong made a strong showing.
> Competition makes us all better riders. I look forward to competing
> with him again.".
>
> Armstrong: "My congratulations to Contador! He rode a spectacular
> race. But I'm not letting up, I'll come back stronger, and he'll be
> getting a run for his money next time.".
>
>
> See, now that's not so hard.
Just so. With a soupçon of irony they can be gracious
_and_ hammering each other.
--
Michael Press
Davo
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:15:14 +0200, Simon Lewis
> <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:36:07 +0200, Simon Lewis
>>>
>>>>> He's the rough personality equivalent of Contador. That tends to
>>>>> offset any positive aspects of his accomplishments.
>>>> and considerate. Just to remind you : it was Contador who threw his
>>>> panties on the flow and stamped after he won. He did himself no favours.
>> "Takes one to know one"
>
> real world. But you go with it if you want. Whatever makes you happy
> and rationalizes your worship of a dick.
Calling someone a dick doesn't work in the real world either. You're
going to have to explain why you think he's a dick, otherwise you're
only giving an unsubstantiated opinion, which you're entitled to have,
but it's not worth much to anyone.
Bill Sornson
> On 2009-07-30, Bill Sornson <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> That's just Armstrong mind games. It's perverse to blame Contador
>>> for romping away up a mountain and winning the TdF. That's what the
>>> man does.
>>
>> I guess you know more about than Levi Leipheimer does. He was back
>> home with a broken wrist, being interviewed live on Versus, and
>> asked about the previous day's developments. When the subject of
>> Contador came up, Levi said he was baffled by what Alberto had done.
>> Simply couldn't understand or explain it. Does that sound
>> "perverse"?
>
> I still think it's perverse.
>
>> No one was super dicky about it; everyone who paid attention saw that
>> Contador was just a lousy teammate.
>
> Maybe a lousy teammate but a great team leader. Isn't that what
> Armstrong used to do-- get pulled by as many teammates as could hang
> in there, and then launch off at the end with whoever could stay with
> him?
Those guys gave their guts to Armstrong. Didn't see that with Contador.
(Granted, having 4 guys with legit GC aspirations doesn't lend itself to
"selflessness".)
>
> The selection would be filtered down to Armstrong and Ullrich, or
> Armstrong and Pantani, or more often just Armstrong. Nobody shed any
> tears for his teammates left behind on the mountain with their legs on
> fire.
Of course not. But they weren't podium hopefuls, either. I'm just saying
it could have been really special to have 1-2-3 go to the same team (with
Contador assured of #1); instead he helped the Schlecks and even Wiggins
separate from his own teammate. Leipheimer said as much, as did some
announcers/analysts, so I don't think it's an unreasonable opinion.
Perverse BS
RonSonic
Agreed. Contador's job was to put time between rivals and himself. If Lance is
among those rivals, then yeah. Why let that old dog become tempted.
Of course there's the "getting Lance angry" factor. But next season will be
settled next season, this year, hell yeah take the opportunity to drop him along
with second place.
Even for the guys whining about how Lance was put out of 2nd place. After all
those yellows the difference between second and third isn't shit. Besides that
was between Schleck and Armstrong, not Contador. And it's Contador's business to
see that it stays that way. Sure help the team-mate if you can, but I wouldn't
let Lance get any closer to _my_ jersey than absolutely necessary for the
purpose of securing it from other teams.
Think of it as a sign of respect. Distrust, but respect.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
RonSonic
<stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:07:59 -0500, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>>> All he succeeded in doing was hurting his teammates' positions.
>>
>>That's just Armstrong mind games. It's perverse to blame Contador for
>>romping away up a mountain and winning the TdF. That's what the man
>>does.
>
>Scenario for not being a dick, before and/or during the race:
>
>Contador: "Well, Armstrong is a great rider, an incredible seven time
>winner. I wish him well, but I intend to win.".
>
>Armstrong: "Contador is a strong rider and he will be a strong
>challenger. But, I plan on winning my eighth tour.".
>
>
>Scenario for not being a dick, after the race:
>
>Contador: "I am proud to have won. Armstrong made a strong showing.
>Competition makes us all better riders. I look forward to competing
>with him again.".
>
>Armstrong: "My congratulations to Contador! He rode a spectacular
>race. But I'm not letting up, I'll come back stronger, and he'll be
>getting a run for his money next time.".
>
>
>See, now that's not so hard.
See, this is why in team sports* they give the players that short list of things
they're allowed to say in public. It's so much easier from the outside.
RonSonic
The beauty part is that anyone who truly deserves to be called a dick has
exactly the personality type to cope. "Uh, yeah? Now quit whining like a bitch
and get back to work."