's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

More fuel...Lemond is an a-hole(17 posts)

More fuel...Lemond is an a-holeColnagoFE
Aug 6, 2001 9:10 AM

check this out...lance responds to lemond's accusations and even calls lemond...would have loved to hear that conversation! guess lemond didn't apologize.
Lance is the a-holeNOGOD
Aug 6, 2001 9:52 AM
nothing new here
Who wasn't disappointed to hear of LA's connection to Ferrari?AlexR
Aug 6, 2001 10:08 AM
Lemond is speaking out for the health of the sport. It takes cojones to do the right thing when it goes against the grain of popular belief (as evidenced by your response).

Yeah, LeMond's the Anti-Christmike mcmahon
Aug 6, 2001 10:13 AM
Come on, people. Everyone's ready to string LeMond up over one statement? It's amazing all the people who have come out of the wordwork to take potshots at the guy who singlehandly put U.S. cycling on the international map. Even if what he said was spiteful, even if he refused to apologize, don't you think you guys are carrying this a bit far?
Right. In addition...ET
Aug 6, 2001 10:17 AM
if it ever came out that Lance doped, is everyone going to give Lemond an apology? And will it make up for his roasting?
Right. In addition...peloton
Aug 6, 2001 12:54 PM
And if Lance is a NEVER caught doping, and no proof ever comes along that he was associated with doping the trash talk the Lemond spewed will still follow Lance. Lemond should keep his insinuations to himself unless he has some hard evidence. An accusation is a horrible thing that can follow around an innocent person forever. Lemond should know better.
And, if a tree...Mel Erickson
Aug 6, 2001 2:11 PM
falls in the woods but no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? Does LeMond even know he's being roasted by this group? I think we're pretty far down on his list of people to be concerned about. Besides, when it comes to public figures making controversial public statements shouldn't he expect some roasting? I think LeMond was prepared for a negative reaction. I wouldn't worry too much, he can take it. He's been roasted by the best of them, the French!
the problem I have with itColnagoFE
Aug 7, 2001 7:18 AM
is that Lemond was off fishing and then had the nerve to insinuate that Lance was dirty by association. Guilty until proven innocent.
As usual, they both have faultCRM
Aug 6, 2001 10:25 AM
It's rare that any one side of an argument is entirely right and the other side is entirely wrong. Here, I believe it is wrong for Lemond or anyone else to impugn Armstrong's integrity or demean his accomplishments on the basis of nothing more than rumor and innuendo. Lance has never tested postive for banned substances nor does any other hard evidence exist to suggest that he has cheated in any form. And that's saying something considering the amount of scrutiny under which he lives.

However, I also believe that Armstrong should recognize his vital role in the sport of cycling both in this country and abroad and must also recognize the very shaky ground upon which cycling's public reputation rests. The effect of the continuing drug scandals cannot be understated and Lance, as cycling's most recognizable and public figure, cannot pretend that the crisis does not exist. His relationship with Dr. Ferrari, whether wholesome or not, casts further doubt and suspicion on him and the sport. For his own good and that of the sport, he should be congnizant of the public perception and distance himself from that doubt.

My .02.
How dare you apply a level-headed argument to this debate.(NM)Len J
Aug 6, 2001 10:47 AM
an alternative view is that he's *doubly* provocative :-) nmET
Aug 6, 2001 10:54 AM
Sour grapes. Definitely.Old Guy
Aug 6, 2001 11:50 AM
Item: LeMond says, "It's not sour grapes, but I don't respect Lance."

Item: LeMond talks to the press the same day Lance gets back and begins his week-long media extravaganza.

Item: Ferrari does a lot more than administer EPO. Do a little research on the guy. Just because Lance knows him and his work doesn't instantly mean he's doping.

Conclusion: LeMond is jealous.
Here Here!Ti
Aug 6, 2001 1:51 PM
I agree. If you were the king of American Bicycling and some guy easily displaces you, would you be bitter? Of course! I hope Lance turns out to be the greatest biker of all time. Two more Tour wins and he will be in the eyes of the world. He is already in the eyes on me.
Aug 6, 2001 3:50 PM
his relationship with Dr. Ferrari at this point in time. If you had a 5 year relationship with someone and lets say you genuinely grew to like that person and then this person got into trouble or just accussed of wrong doing. Would you immediately abandon them???? Hell, I wish I don't have friends like you then. Lance should reevaluate his relationship when and if the doctor is convicted. You people keep passing judgement on Lance's connection to this doctor. This guy may be guilty as sin, but it doesn't mean every cyclist he comes in contact with is doping. Total flaws in logical thinking. Lance may just be acting loyal to someone who he has consulted with on topic other than doping. Dr. Ferrari probably knows more about cycling than just doping. That is why Lenond's statements are so obviously bitter and jealous as they are purely speculation. Pure pissing on Lance's parade for the sake of his own ego. STOP DEFENDING LEMOND AS HE HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS WITHOUT FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE. Lance said on Jim Rome's show today what we all know, he has too much to lose as a cyclist and AS A CANCER SURVIVOR to risk doping. That is a key element into everyone's anger is that Lance is a cancer survivor and if he were to risk his health after being so close to death, it would diminish the value of life as he would be willing to jeapordize his intentionally. Do you think Lance would want the cancer community to think he was taking his second chance for granted when so many aren't afforded a first chance?????? Answer me this intelligently and maybe then I can accept Lemond's statements.
Dude, you're gonna get a heart attackmike mcmahon
Aug 6, 2001 4:25 PM
A couple of points: First, you chide others here for a lack of logic, yet yell at them to stop "DEFENDING LEMOND." Do you really think that barking out orders is the way to get your point across? Second, you appear to be posting messages in the same thread using different names. Are you going by Lazyrider and Slothlike? Both sign off with "Regards GLG." Their writing style seems very similar. Is this coincidence? Here's one example:

If you're posting under different names in the same thread, this is also a strange way to make an argument. In a recent thread, Lazyrider even thanked Slothlike for being the voice of reason. Maybe I'm off base. Just curious.
Sorry, wrong linkmike mcmahon
Aug 6, 2001 4:49 PM
Later tonight when I've got a few minutes, I'll post the link to the thread in which "Lazyrider" is responding to a "Slothlike" post.
Here we gomike mcmahon
Aug 6, 2001 9:08 PM
Notice Lazyrider's response about half-way down:

Slothlike "Just got the July issue of Cycle Sport" 7/16/01 8:07am

And for comparison's sake, here's a recent post by Lazyrider to compare to the post in this thread by Slothlike:

Lazyrider "My letter to Greg Lemond" 8/5/01 2:59pm

Also, I've noticed that both of these posters like to use the term "douche," which hasn't been popular since I was in junior high school. I guess there's no "rule" against posting under two names. It just seems a little odd, especially when one person appears to be responding to himself.