tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post2580177042023237281..comments2024-03-21T03:15:06.288-04:00Comments on Cozy Beehive: The Church Of Lance ArmstrongRon Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-15130214616120135382012-06-16T12:58:06.702-04:002012-06-16T12:58:06.702-04:00Ron,
You start out ridiculing the efforts people p...Ron,<br />You start out ridiculing the efforts people put into forums. But you've got a wild one going here, yourself included. Then you go into religious dogma - no time in my day for such rubbish. As a mechanical engineer, how can you go on about such nonsense and ignore data. As an ME myself, I've always lived by the motto "In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data.<br />CraigTheProFromDoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02850047092156067141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-62804531303461156042010-09-11T21:22:09.534-04:002010-09-11T21:22:09.534-04:00Defend this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS...Defend this:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY3jIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-5071369999556078602009-12-10T20:18:32.993-05:002009-12-10T20:18:32.993-05:00Thank you @Mtbikernate. Comments are valued here f...Thank you @Mtbikernate. Comments are valued here from either spectrum - whether you support Lance Armstrong or not. I'm ready to live with your outlook on him. What sort of cancer did you have to deal with btw?Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-36277591899637699652009-12-09T18:23:34.091-05:002009-12-09T18:23:34.091-05:00I really don't see Armstrong all that differen...I really don't see Armstrong all that differently from the way I see other professional athletes. Like other folks, he's got his positive qualities and his negative qualities. I really don't see the big deal. There are lots of allegations out there, but so far nobody has proof of anything except his personality.<br /><br />How can someone be a professional athlete and not be a little bit cocky, anyway?<br /><br />As far as the PR he gets, most of that is not from him. Most of it comes from the companies who want to make a few bucks off his success as an athlete. Again, no different from any other professional athlete.<br /><br />As for the whole Contador thing, the guys don't get along. Neither one has made that a secret. I don't hold anything against either guy with respect to that. They have an awful lot in common, which probably has a lot to do with why they don't get along. But Contador's not 'local' so I (and many others) don't follow him. Furthermore, he doesn't speak my native language well, so it's not easy to follow the guy. But I respect his accomplishments. I would have liked to see him and Lance on different teams so they could really compete instead of having the team officials holding them back. And sure, the margin would have been greater in Contador's favor. But such is sports. Older athletes fade until they retire and new guys take over.<br /><br />All that said, I am also a cancer survivor. I beat leukemia this year. I feel the need to give back to cancer research and other patients. I've bought some LiveStrong gear since recovering. I helped raise $1,000 for men's cancers last month with Movember, and I've donated directly to a family with a little boy who has the same cancer I just survived.<br /><br />Regardless of what Lance does during bike races, I will support LiveStrong for its cancer research/support message (right now they're working for global acceptance of cancer as an illness in many countries where cancer patients are ostracized). But I will also support other initiatives and charities like cancer research for young adults and leukemia research.mtbikernatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12476062117977697047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-81693222282146832012009-12-07T01:22:47.547-05:002009-12-07T01:22:47.547-05:00However I find the "haters" much more pa...<b>However I find the "haters" much more pathetic. Wherever you go, whether it's a forum on Cyclingnews, or Velonews, or even a blog like this, the tone of the "anti-Armstrong" comments is always the same--that of a junior high school girl upset that she is not part of the "popular" group. <br /><br />It goes way beyond dislike of Armstrong's unrelenting PR efforts and questionable comments/actions; it even goes beyond the histrionic allegations of his alleged doping. It is more like the neurotic whining of someone who still can't get over the fact that the cheerleaders back in high school preferred the football players.<br /><br />What I find frustrating is that, even people I respect in the media are absolutely clueless and so any interview with Armstrong (example: his recent appearance with Jon Stewart) never goes beyond banal platitudes. And those in the "cycling media" (Walsh, Kimmage, et al), the ones who could ask some tough, insightful questions, are so caught up in gossip, conspiracy, or their own personal "crusades" that they are virtually incoherent. </b><br /><br />Dear..nameless,<br /><br />This blog seeks to bring to the forefront a rational discussion of Armstrong's huge corruption scheme and other illogical attitudes in sport. That's not the blog's speciality but whenever I do get absolutely sick of something, I do write about it. I keep the comment section open to anyone from anywhere in the world to participate in, so it's equally open to haters and saddle sniffers. Which is why you have the liberty to express your feelings.<br /><br />Now, the tone of anti-Armstrong comments is directly proportional to the amount of corruption going on in cycling. Armstrong is one of the ring leaders of this affair and if it frustrating for you to just sit there and watch these people complain against him, I don't feel it is any less frustrating for them to watch Armstrong behave the way he does - lie, covering up huge mistakes, advance an over-inflated ego through PR campaigns, and make mega fortunes while doing the same (not to mention shamelessly beating down other people in the media). If you call that "success" or good fortune or good leadership, this must be a pathetically twisted world we live in. We're equally frustrated as you are, and if there is a solution to this, it is to unite and voice a call for justice together. You must either with them or with the people who can think rationally. If you are the latter, join us and debate, exchange ideas, ask the right questions. Your opinions are needed in <a href="http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html" rel="nofollow">articles such as this,</a> and ignore the "hater's" comments. Come tell us what you feel.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256394060474969622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-80047884264416950222009-12-07T00:55:48.593-05:002009-12-07T00:55:48.593-05:00Yes, the comments of the Armstrong fanboys are sil...Yes, the comments of the Armstrong fanboys are silly and shallow. To me, they are not worth the bother to respond. I can excuse them somewhat because the average Armstrong fan has little knowledge of professional cycling and what little they do have is filtered through the hagiograpy of Versus and a media that is equally ignorant. <br /><br />However I find the "haters" much more pathetic. Wherever you go, whether it's a forum on Cyclingnews, or Velonews, or even a blog like this, the tone of the "anti-Armstrong" comments is always the same--that of a junior high school girl upset that she is not part of the "popular" group. <br /><br />It goes way beyond dislike of Armstrong's unrelenting PR efforts and questionable comments/actions; it even goes beyond the histrionic allegations of his alleged doping. It is more like the neurotic whining of someone who still can't get over the fact that the cheerleaders back in high school preferred the football players. <br /><br />What I find frustrating is that, even people I respect in the media are absolutely clueless and so any interview with Armstrong (example: his recent appearance with Jon Stewart) never goes beyond banal platitudes. And those in the "cycling media" (Walsh, Kimmage, et al), the ones who could ask some tough, insightful questions, are so caught up in gossip, conspiracy, or their own personal "crusades" that they are virtually incoherent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-63075102320064870452009-12-05T22:07:43.254-05:002009-12-05T22:07:43.254-05:00REPLY TO ANON ABOVE :
So what about the other hu...REPLY TO ANON ABOVE : <br /><br /><b>So what about the other hundreds of athletes out there lying about doping? When are you going to tear them down?<br /><br />The simple fact is, it's up to the cycling organization to test for doping. End of story. </b><br /><br />The post is about Lance fans using illogical statements to attack others who present them with doping evidence for Lance Armstrong. Not sure what your rant is about.<br /><br /><b>Has Lance tested positive? No. And his back samples don't count (and I shouldn't have to explain to you nitwits why).</b><br /><br />Same old argument, this has failed plenty of times and addressed many times by others. <br /><br /><b>With hundreds and thousands of dollars at stake, you can't blame people for doping. Because some idiot is always going to dope. If one person dopes, EVERYBODY has to dope. The blame rests on the failure of the detection methods.<br /><br />Most of you don't even know what "doping" is. </b><br /><br />We know what lying about doping is. You must know a great deal about doping. Please educate us. This must be valuable information we wouldn't know.<br /><br /><b>And the way you talk, you sound like you think Lance Armstrong has no skill on the bike and won strictly because of dope. FAIL.</b><br /><br />This convincingly proves to me, that you did not read the post, to which you are commenting. No mention of his skill on the bike has been mentioned. Please revert back to the drawing board and address the issues relavant to the article above. Thank you and good luck.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256394060474969622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-49533323400819511892009-12-05T21:59:31.884-05:002009-12-05T21:59:31.884-05:00So what about the other hundreds of athletes out t...So what about the other hundreds of athletes out there lying about doping? When are you going to tear them down?<br /><br />The simple fact is, it's up to the cycling organization to test for doping. End of story.<br /><br />Has Lance tested positive? No. And his back samples don't count (and I shouldn't have to explain to you nitwits why).<br /><br />With hundreds and thousands of dollars at stake, you can't blame people for doping. Because some idiot is always going to dope. If one person dopes, EVERYBODY has to dope. The blame rests on the failure of the detection methods.<br /><br />Most of you don't even know what "doping" is.<br /><br />And the way you talk, you sound like you think Lance Armstrong has no skill on the bike and won strictly because of dope. FAIL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-7709454393387455912009-11-10T19:43:03.942-05:002009-11-10T19:43:03.942-05:00ah the church of tearing down achievements is in p...ah the church of tearing down achievements is in permanent session. It's so true, we nash our teeth in glee at the opportunity to tear another down for daring to achieve what we can't. how sadUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002855325829614834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-54578999646135821632009-08-06T22:08:04.081-04:002009-08-06T22:08:04.081-04:00What Would Lance Do? LOLWhat Would Lance Do? LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-18730314614152759362009-08-03T09:21:29.655-04:002009-08-03T09:21:29.655-04:00If Lance didn't have an ego, he wouldn't h...If Lance didn't have an ego, he wouldn't have done any of this, he just found the cause to hitch his ego to.<br /><br />If Lance was worthy of adoration, where is his wife? Where is his family? And where are the personal appearance fees he got for race starts this year in the name of furthering the cancer cause in this comeback of his? <br /><br />Lance is a user for personal gain, when the Aids Ride returned more to charity than Livestrong did, people rebelled and set up rival rides seeking to get more of the money raised into the hands of the charities it was raised for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-22412979876134652642009-08-03T08:31:33.546-04:002009-08-03T08:31:33.546-04:00Humorous and literate piece thanks for the analysi...Humorous and literate piece thanks for the analysis and wit! It seems to be a phenomena among humans to canonise exceptional people despite evidence of their obvious failings outside their "area of talent" In LA's case recently..ie send astana cars to airport while AC tries to get to the start of TT......or split field and put teammate in gutter to gain 40 secs (Tom Boonens observations)[no I in team :) just the rude finger]<br /><br />I guess the final irony is look how many comments including mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-91345077473675357122009-08-02T21:37:40.326-04:002009-08-02T21:37:40.326-04:00There's one more sad thing about this cult. It...There's one more sad thing about this cult. It occurs when people escape it. When these trusting people are finally convinced that their hero is nothing of the sort, they decide that every other cyclist must also be bad. For these people there's no gray area - if Lance took drugs every cyclist took drugs - and therefore Lance is kind of resurrected because he sinned no more than the others.GKKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05112284509616304355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-44344724860417872782009-07-31T12:12:59.716-04:002009-07-31T12:12:59.716-04:00Amongst my cycling friends, it is acknowledged tha...Amongst my cycling friends, it is acknowledged that Lance is bent on self promotion and self aggrandizement and perhaps not so good for cycling while also acknowledging his contributions to cancer research. in short, with LA, there are many shades of grey.<br /><br />With my non cycling friends (or acquaintances who are newer to cycling), acknowledging that LA is not the best thing since sliced bread is the fastest way to cool a conversation or induce a rapid change of subject.<br /><br />I feel like blind LA worship is a newbie and an outsider's phenomenon.RMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02586927082756267932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-47191401926498986262009-07-31T09:27:02.587-04:002009-07-31T09:27:02.587-04:00Ron wrote:
"By your argument of 'equal o...Ron wrote:<br /><br /><i>"By your argument of 'equal objectionability', it then seems these people should all have choosen the path of rationality .. i.e, to sit still with their mouths taped up and endure the actions of the man high on the throne. This is not rationality."</i><br /><br />Notwithstanding that the above quote labels "to sit still with their mouths taped up" as rational and irrational at the same time, I have never stated that Armstrong's faults should not be pointed out. I have even referred to some of his behaviour as boorish in previous comments here. I do not see how my argument about "equal objectionability" applies. <br /><br /><br />With respect to Walsh's book. I have never read it therefore cannot make any conclusion about it. I have read some short excerpts from it and have read some reviews of it. Based on those I have some suspicions, but again, without having read it, it is not possible for me to (logically) conclude anything about it. I am certain that there are many who dismiss it outright solely based on their unconditional support for Armstrong, just as I am certain that there are many who accept it outright based on their unconditional dislike for Armstrong. Neither the dismal or acceptance (in these cases) is a measure of merit of the book itself.<br /><br />One interesting thing about the Walsh book anecdote though is:<br /><br /><i>"do you think respected Sunday Times Sports Journalist David Walsh was irrational? All the people who testified in this serious book (with no fancy pictures) were irrational then, I suppose, and the entire work was innuendo?"</i><br /><br />On a much smaller scale this quote exhibits much the same flawed logic as "Armstrong won Le deTouR fRance seven times and survived cancer therefore his behaviour is beyond reproach". With respect to the Walsh book, the idea presented is Walsh is respected and the book has no "fancy pictures" therefore the book is beyond reproach. Now, I really do not think that is the intent of the statement made, but that is certainly how it reads. Just as Armstrong's cycling successes are not a measure of the merits of his behaviour off the bike, Walsh's respect and lack of use of "fancy pictures" is not a measure of the merit of a specific book that he has authored. There is no question that the use of this flawed logic is far more egregious in the Armstrong example than in the Walsh example. <br /><br />To the final part of the quote "I suppose, and the entire work was innuendo?", I suspect (based on much of the critisism of Armstrong that I have read - which I stress again is both a small sample and not random) that there is demonisation of Armstrong expressed by the some of the people who "testified" to Walsh. If my suspicion is correct (which stands as wild speculation at this point) it still could not be concluded that "the entire work was innuendo". Maybe a small part of it, but not the entire work. But of course, that also does not mean that the entire work was not innuendo either. That would need to be the result with much more analysis.<br /><br /><br />Ron wrote:<br /><br /><i>"I guess the son's of Bernard Madoff were then really out demonize their father by reporting to the FBI that he was running the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history."</i><br /><br />The Madoff example is a quite good one. I have no idea if his sons were out to do any such thing. If they have made broad conclusions about him solely based on the Ponzi scheme, then I would say yes. But elsewhere others certainly have. Here is another example of taking the faults of a person and extrapolating it to the person as a whole. This is precisely my point and is the similar thing that many (not all) of the critics of Armstrong do. Which is really no different and no less scary than the criticism (which I claim is equally characterised as the demonisation of him as the support is characterised as the deification of him) of all aspects of Armstrong based on examples of boorish behaviour.<br /><br /><br />Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-62850481182948745282009-07-31T06:39:36.515-04:002009-07-31T06:39:36.515-04:00What is interesting to see is how Lance has basica...What is interesting to see is how Lance has basically closed himself to any sort of scrutinizing media but is using Twitter and his own websites to broadcast what HE WANTS to show. This I think is a way of brainwashing the people who watch HIS SHOW into thinking "wow, this is a great person, look at his lifestyle,look at his money, look at what he's doing for people, I better FOLLOW him WOW..." <br /><br />Another fallacy for you, since you brought up the issue of fallacies :) <br /><br />Take care.Smudgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-72044531016904076242009-07-31T05:25:09.836-04:002009-07-31T05:25:09.836-04:00It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understa...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there is no law of physics that tells you that you can treat someone poorly because you have a few trophies sitting in your cupboard at home.Chris Valvanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-17479626181533577292009-07-31T03:24:28.951-04:002009-07-31T03:24:28.951-04:00Who's Lance Armstrong? Was he really dead?Who's Lance Armstrong? Was he really dead?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-14135706120124738962009-07-31T01:28:23.399-04:002009-07-31T01:28:23.399-04:00W.r.t the above comment from Marrock, I would like...W.r.t the above comment from Marrock, I would like to add that if you don't like the sick jerk, you dont have to give to his Foundation (if giving to LS reminds you of him, duh). There are plenty of others around, they're doing plenty of good work also. Thankfully, Livestrong does not run a one-man monopoly show. I'd kill myself than see that happen.Smudgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-38600095528264832492009-07-31T01:15:00.466-04:002009-07-31T01:15:00.466-04:00So long as all the money raised winds up going whe...So long as all the money raised winds up going where the donors intended, that's great, but as far as the one-ball wonder himself... it's just a great big steaming pile of meh.Marrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02218310435580473679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-43046751364056323602009-07-30T22:48:32.424-04:002009-07-30T22:48:32.424-04:00I wrote this for another site but I think it might...I wrote this for another site but I think it might fit here;<br /><br />I know many people like Armstrong. How? Because I stand up for my self. I don't come across as hard, thereby inviting these vultures in for what they assume in their ego to be easy pickings, the resulting melee is always quite hilarious and they always try to get revenge, always without revealing themselves but never really able to cover up, the same scenario being played out during(hidden) and post(revealed) tour and when you really understand what lenghts Armstrong will go to to stop his sworn enemy from stealing his success, remember that everything Armstrong supposedly stands for is based on an original lie which has to be reinforced constantly to hold back the flood of truth that threatens to overwhelm his Empiric lie, that being that he stands for good and honesty. Liggett is an apologist for him in every way that he can be, we must wonder why, I know why and I believe more will be revealed on that aspect of the tragedy(1) sooner rather than later.<br /><br />(1)tragedy: n) a dramatic poem representing an important event or series of events in the life of some person or persons, in which the diction is elevated and the catastrophe melancholy; that kind of drama in which some fatal or mournful event is the main theme; a fatal or mournful event; any event in which human lives are sacrificed; an even causing great suffering or stress.<br /><br />When I, as I sometimes do, to get a better grip on a word, checked the dictionary Anglais(Bloombury reference Dictionary) for this word I had no idea that it would describe the TdeF so accurately, it's astoundingly accurate.It's tragic.Genies titshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09636874124577188758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-66241115501410629822009-07-30T21:51:00.325-04:002009-07-30T21:51:00.325-04:00Anon said : Agreed. But a similar fallacy comes ou...<b>Anon said : Agreed. But a similar fallacy comes out of a bias and out of a demonization and irrationality. Both are equally objectionable. </b><br /><br />Greetings.<br /><br />Reading that statement makes me want to ask you... do you think respected Sunday Times Sports Journalist David Walsh was irrational? All the people who testified in this serious book (with no fancy pictures) were irrational then, I suppose, and the entire work was innuendo? By your argument of 'equal objectionability', it then seems these people should all have choosen the path of rationality .. i.e, to sit still with their mouths taped up and endure the actions of the man high on the throne. This is not rationality. It is a complete failure to act. If your reasoning were true, I guess the son's of Bernard Madoff were then really out demonize their father by reporting to the FBI that he was running the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history. Would you call their actions objectionable? Just my two cents...<br /><br />Like Phil said at 1:23, one thing seems to be somewhat clear when we talk about the personality of Lance Armstrong. The argument will be endless, and those on both sides are wasting their time engaging in exchanging barbs and remarks. I agree to that. My post is however, trying to explore why Mr. Armstrong cannot be debated in an open fashion. It is because of a belief system that runs deeper than just wearing a Livestrong band. It scares me for sure.Ron Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394865788996482667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-20206426427265913422009-07-30T21:07:21.442-04:002009-07-30T21:07:21.442-04:00Ron wrote:
"Greetings again. You're clev...Ron wrote:<br /><br /><i>"Greetings again. You're clever. There is a phenomenon in argument theory called burden of proof (its a fallacy). Yours is called burden of question, that is, shifting the weight of the question in a circular manner back to the first speaker. If we continued this all day, both speakers would never get anywhere."</i><br /><br /><br />Hmm... I am not sure I follow in that I agree with the idea that the deification of Armstrong is a negative phenomena (as it is with anyone). I agree completely. The dismissing of Armstrong's faults based on his accomplishments is and/or his recovery from cancer is irrational. I think we agree completely about this. As such I would say that I cannot possibly be "shifting the weight of the question in a circular manner back to the first speaker".<br /><br />Ron wrote:<br /><br />"The point is, no one is dismissing LA's podium position". <br /><br />Now I should be clear that I am not stating that you have made dissmissal. But I have read many who have on many forums. Even here in these comments one finds:<br /><br />"...to land a podium spot in the Tour. Don't even get me started on how he got the podium."<br /><br />..which reads like a dismissal to me in the context of a discussion on Armstrong's behaviour. This particular dismissal is very mild compared to similar dismissals that I have read elsewhere.<br /><br /><br />I agree that Armstrong exhibits boorish behaviour. Although I find the criticisms of his behaviour as hyperbolic as the adulation of him based on his success as a cyclist and/or cancer survivor.<br /><br />Ron wrote:<br /><br /><i>"However, the question put in the opposite direction, the topic of dismissing his podium positions and wins based on his faults, can be debated in a healthy and sound manner without "roadblocks". Do you get what I'm saying?"</i><br /><br />I get what you wrote. I agree that it <i>can</i> be, but I find that it rarely is. I suppose it all depends on what debate you end up in. I have witnessed many debates where "the topic of dismissing his podium positions and wins based on his faults" is not debated in a "healthy and sound manner" and has many roadblocks. I have witnesses many such discussions where positive opinion expressed about Armstrong's cycling successes is simply dismissed as blind hero worship or that one is expressing a positive opinion about Armstrong's cycling specific success just because he is a cancer survivor. An automatic dismissal of his fault can be accurately identified as hero worship, but an identification of his cycling specific successes, not necessarily.<br /><br />Again, to be clear, I am not stating that you (Ron) are doing this. But I am stating that this is very common. From my experience on the topic (which is clearly as small sample size and definitely not a random sample), the dismissal of Armstrong's cycling successes based on non cycling issues surrounding him is as common as the dismissal of criticism of non cycling issues or Armstrong based on his cycling successes.<br /><br /> <br />Ron wrote:<br /><br /><i>"This is the gist of the post. This fallacy comes out of bias and out of control hero worship and irrationality."</i><br /><br />Agreed. But a similar fallacy comes out of a bias and out of a demonization and irrationality. Both are equally objectionable.<br /><br />As such one could replace Armstrong with just about any notable public figure and the phenomena is the same. The supporters (not all) and detractors (not all) each accuse the other of bias, bashing and red herrings while exhibiting these themselves (again, not all of them). <br /><br /><br />Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-44661817515025036022009-07-30T20:35:15.820-04:002009-07-30T20:35:15.820-04:00I almost puked when I heard that Lancelot the grea...I almost puked when I heard that Lancelot the great posted a response on twitter. It would be okay if it was anyone else, but this two-faced schmuck out of all people? Please...Jennynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13887692.post-86428923467104873752009-07-30T20:08:15.175-04:002009-07-30T20:08:15.175-04:00Lance is touted as a super bike racer, and there&#...Lance is touted as a super bike racer, and there's no doubt but that he has skill and talent. But compare him to the racers of Eddy Mercx's generation, and to Eddy himself. Eddy raced just about every European race there was and won them over and over, or placed very well up. Lance for a long time simply raced the Tour de France. He's a one act play.<br /><br />I've often wondered how Lance would measure up against Eddy and some of the other winners of a previous generation in a stage race without radios and combat maneuver-like control from following cars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com