LANCE ARMSTRONG: Opinions Poll

Home:Ballyhoura

Hi guys, the purpose of this poll is simple. I want to see the opinions and feelings ye have on Lance Armstrong. I am one of the few people undecided, so maybe the results of this may help me make that decision. I know I may get some abuse for such a silly poll...e.g. Of course he is...etc! Feel free to comment. I want to get as many voters as possible so I can get a good perspective. Cheers

xz

Um, what options are we voting on? or are we making our own up?

Home:Ballyhoura

xz wrote: »

Um, what options are we voting on? or are we making our own up?

The 3 options are at the top, they may have been in the process of being made when you looked at the page. Please vote!

xz

Now I see, says the blind man:rolleyes:

Planet X

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

I think he's class.

xz

Undecided, not liking the amount of publicity he's getting on his ahem, comeback trail, which as far as I can see is serving the purpose he wants.Is he serious about racing or just advertising the Livestrong Foundation, because my opinion on that, is that he should ride the same Team bikes as the rest of his Astana teammates and not the black/yellow ones that he is riding.

As regards the drug taking allegations, my opinion is, that while he has never failed a drug test, I believe that he may have been taking something, or having essential testosterone and minerals lost through exertion topped up, by the, controversial Dr.Ferrari, thus, not coming up on a drug test,as they were not being sought. But as he has not admitted it, nor been found to have done drugs, I have to give the benefit of the doubt, also EPO was in use before it was made illegal and testing to show it was developed, so there's another question mark.

ednwireland

completely undecided loved watching the train in the tdf wipe everyone out on the final climbs, got bored of watching him win all the time (bit like F1 and schumacher)
didnt like the fact that he was only competitive for about 2 races a year
can't believe hes not done any PED's whilst cycling

blorg

Found this photo of Lance, riding his bike, without a helmet. That's all I am going to say on this thread.

Raam

blorg wrote: »

Found this photo of Lance, riding his bike, without a helmet. That's all I am going to say on this thread.

At least he has white socks on.

Eoin D

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

I voted that he is clean. Whether he always was clean is another matter but at the moment he's clean. Apart from that I'm undecided but taking the cancer thing on a seperate note I think that he's doing some good there

shelleymar1

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

helmets were not compulsory back then anyway back to the dicussion, he has never falled a drug test where all his main rivals have.as the crowds have shown in australia and california he is well supported and respected in the cycling world as well as doing more than any sports star has ever done for a cause he believes in.if his comebck saves just one person from cancer it ll be worth it.

Chips Lovell

I think there's plenty of information out there, both in books and on the web (including countless threads here), for people to make an informed decision on whether they believe him or not.

petethedrummer

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

shelleymar1 wrote: »

where all his main rivals have.

No they haven't.

zzzzzzzz

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong

Throughout his career, Lance Armstrong has continually denied using performance-enhancing drugs, an obvious indication that he has.

shelleymar1

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

pantani,ullrich.basso.landis.hamilton there have been a few. maybe not all of them but a good few.

ROK ON

I think that it is highly improbable that any top ranked cyclist in the past few decades (at least) have rode clean all the time.

A lot of cyclist that are suspected to have cheated deny it (some of
these are prominent irish cyclists).

I am ambivalent about his alleged cheating, I dont condone it, I dont like it but I will not expect him to win major tours against a cheating peleton if he is clean. It is a sad fact of the sport.

What I dislike about him is (1) his arrogance, (2) his bullying (particulalry of those in the peleton who are clean or who have spoken out about drug taking and (3) the cancer thing.

All that said, I think that it will be great for cycling in Ireland that he is to compete in the TOI. It will put us as a nation on the map for a lot of major sporting events.

I expect there to be some "unpleasantness" (as HJ Simpson might say), but all in all I would hope that he and all the peleton get a good welcome.
If he has cheated, he wont be the only one in the peleton how has. What he puts in his body, is not my business.

Chips Lovell

shelleymar1 wrote: »

pantani,ullrich.basso.landis.hamilton there have been a few. maybe not all of them but a good few.

Pantani, Ullrich and Basso never failed drugs tests.

Caroline_ie

I don't really want to give my opinion on the poll, I don't think 'we' can know for sure. And I haven't read and seen everything yet.

As tonto says there are loads of info out there for people to make up their mind, however for people to deny the fact that he 'might' have taken drugs when others like Millar have admitted it, and we all know it's a very common practice, is undeniable, whether we like it or not. People choose who and what they want to believe, at the end of the day ...
What drives me mad is the whole 'he's a god' attitude that a lot of people have, and his arrogance.

I have a heard people say, they love to hate him and the fact that he is back is great for the sport, gives it a little bit of excitement that we had been missing for the past few years. I too share that view.

Bring him on :P

shelleymar1

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

my mistake el tonto ullrich only failed a recreational drug test.pantani was asked to leave the 1999 giro because of adnormal blood count and well ivan basso is just a chancer.

LowOdour

Wasnt impressed with his attitude to Paul Kimmage at a press conferance last week....made Kimage out to look like he was been derogatory to cancer suffers. Armstrong must think he is owed something from a sport that has served HIM well aswell as his own contribution to it.


And he was crap in Dodgeball.

E@gle.

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

yes i believe he took drugs, but i still like what he is doing with the livestrong foundation

shelleymar1

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

kimmage used the words "cancer" and "remission" knowing well the reaction he would get.maybe he has a new book coming out and needs the publicity.

Diarmuid

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

Caroline_ie wrote: »

I have a heard people say, they love to hate him and the fact that he is back is great for the sport, gives it a little bit of excitement that we had been missing for the past few years. I too share that view.

I think it's terrible for the sport. Kills any credibility of "cleaning the sport up" to have guys like Basso, Landis and Armstrong back in the peleton. We shouldn't confuse good for the sport and good for Lance's publicity.

Caroline_ie

Diarmuid wrote: »

I think it's terrible for the sport. Kills any credibility of "cleaning the sport up" to have guys like Basso, Landis and Armstrong back in the peleton. We shouldn't confuse good for the sport and good for Lance's publicity.

Oh, absolutely.

These guys are bad for the sport: yes - however, lots of them never failed a test as we mentioned before.

These guys KNOW how to get pass the test. It was proven in ice hockey a few years ago when they strated using hair growth drugs to mask the effect of banned substances.

I don't know enough to say anymore ... all I know is that I enjoy watching cycling on TV, and I enjoy practicing cycling as a sport ...

daroadlescycled

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

Does anyone know for sure. there will always be debate.People are right to seek the truth, let the facts give you the answer, not the answer give you the facts. My gut instinct tells me he is genuine about cancer awarness. I think he is a huge talent and is Mr suffer when it comes to cycling, any amount of pain wont get in the way of maximum effort. His achievements are enormous. I d'ont spend alot of time wondering whether he did or did not use enhancing drugs, time has a way of revealing what should be known. (just look at the Banks scandal) So I trust the future and enjoy cycling and await any further clarity. I gave Lance the thumbs up, He is welcome to Ireland and I'm looking forward to watching him cycle in Ireland.

Diarmuid

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

daroadlescycled wrote: »

So I trust the future and enjoy cycling and await any further clarity.

Once bitten, twice shy

daroadlescycled

He is a druggy, an absolute disgrace to the sport of cycling and a lying cheat.

Diarmuid wrote: »

Once bitten, twice shy

Being bitten can be rough, How we choose to relate to it is up to us .

Being shy is one option.

Jesus1222

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

This is just my opinion but I agree with Paul Kimmage 100%. He's more juiced as Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds and OJ combined imo. Some might say he's still the best, better than the other dopers (almost anybody who is successful is a doper), that's true and that's cycling but it doesn't make it right. It's not right for the health of the riders, the long term commercial endorsement of the sports or the future of the sport generally, it's also fraudulent if you become as rich as a King falsely saying you're winning clean. It's a dirty, cynical business and Armstrong's praise or lack of for certain individuals depending on a certain issue says 10,000 words. Not to mention his "shhhh" action to somebody in the peloton.

His self-serving answer responding to Kimmage's cancer jibe was typical of him.

petethedrummer

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

Jesus1222 wrote: »

His self-serving answer responding to Kimmage's cancer jibe was typical of him.

In fairness, what else was he supposed to say? Assuming(as I do) that he has doped, the only option was to launch a personal attack on Kimmage. He does seem to get an unfair amount of criticism for alleged doping whereas Indurain(of whom I used to be a massive fan) seems to have gotten off very lightly.

Have a read of these two links
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Tour_de_France_19992008_article_267949.html
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/vuelta_a_espana_19982007_article_267986.html?aff=rss

and I'll leave the final word to Lance.

"But finally the last thing I'll say to the people who don't believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it."

* Lance Armstrong, Podium farewell speech, Tour de France, July 24, 2005

Jesus1222

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

petethedrummer wrote: »

In fairness, what else was he supposed to say? Assuming(as I do) that he has doped, the only option was to launch a personal attack on Kimmage. He does seem to get an unfair amount of criticism for alleged doping whereas Indurain(of whom I used to be a massive fan) seems to have gotten off very lightly[/quit]

It was self serving because it made it sound like Kimmage was attacking cancer sufferers generally.

Chips Lovell

petethedrummer wrote: »

He does seem to get an unfair amount of criticism for alleged doping whereas Indurain(of whom I used to be a massive fan) seems to have gotten off very lightly.

I think there's a number of reasons for this and one of the chief ones is that he tends to bring it on himself. Unlike most other big name riders, who do a fine line in avoiding the question or paying lukewarm lip service to a clean sport, he can't seem to resist confrontation, even with people who haven't made accusations against him personally.

Take the Simeoni thing as a case in point. Simeoni never said a thing about Armstrong, he just testified against Ferrari. Now I presume Lance wasn't the only rider being treated by Ferrari, but he was the one to come out publicly and call Simeoni a liar, which caused Simeoni to sue him for libel and led Lance to extract his revenge on that infamous stage of the 2004 Tour.

We should also bear in mind that we're part of the anglophone world and the media tends to focus more on anglophone riders. Virenque was pilloried in France for years. The German media has been outraged about doping and has really gone after suspect riders. You have to bear in mind that the coverage of Lance in the English language press is almost always positive with a few notable dissenters like Kimmage. I'd say Ullrich would take that any day.

Chips Lovell

You could also argue that Armstrong actually gets an easier ride than most other riders. I can think of a good number of riders who never tested positive, but do have a good amount of circumstantial evidence floating around them, whom people automatically assume are dopers and openly refer to them as such. Take Rasmussen. The guy lied about where he was training and missed some out of competition tests. Then an old acquaintence said he'd once got him to bring blood products to Europe for him. Why is this the standard of proof in the public eye for Rasmussen when evidence about Armstrong's activities is largely ignored or discounted?

TinyExplosions

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people.

And who were these people he directly told us to believe in? Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich... that tell you anything?

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

Why is this the standard of proof in the public eye for Rasmussen when evidence about Armstrong's activities is largely ignored or discounted?

In fairness Rasmussen is a different case, he went through the full judicial procedure, was banned by his national federation and had the ban upheld by the CAS. It is necessary that deliberately avoiding a doping control is treated the same way as a positive.

Jawgap

Pity you can only tick one!!

On the drug use thing - I'm not sure. If he used then he's obviously been the best at it because when a lot of people were being caught he wasn't. Secondly, if he was using (along with a lot of other riders) and still winning then that would probably show he was the best in his peers - if the majority of them were using. I'm open to be convinced he was using but I remain to be so.

On the cancer thing, I think he's done loads of good there by bringing attention to an area of male health that was neglected for years - so unequivocally whether he's a good boy or a bad boy, I'd say he's been good for heightening cancer awareness in males and particularly young males.

He also demonstrated that there is life after cancer.

Finally, I wouldn't mind a go on his bike:-

http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/article/mps/uan/3800/v/1/SP/?source=weeklyemail&attr=editorial5

I wonder if he'd give me a crosser!!

Hermy

I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)

Caroline_ie wrote: »

...the fact that he is back is great for the sport, gives it a little bit of excitement that we had been missing for the past few years.

I thought there was very little to get excited about during Armstrongs dominance of the Tour because winning it was his sole objective each year, unlike his rivals who competed year round, and the outcome of the race was almost inevitable.
As to whether he was a doper, the fact that he left so many known cheats in his wake leaves me in little doubt as to what he was at.

petethedrummer wrote: »

and I'll leave the final word to Lance.

"This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it."

The Tour de France is a fantastic spectacle but I don't believe there is anything sporting about it anymore, if indeed there ever was.

MCOS

Do the same poll on Michael Jackson (whether he did it or didn't do it) just to guage the levels of subjectivity :rolleyes:

TinyExplosions

MCOS wrote: »

Do the same poll on Michael Jackson (whether he did it or didn't do it) just to guage the levels of subjectivity :rolleyes:

I don't think Michael is a very good athlete, and don't think he's taken EPO for performance enhancing reasons

niceonetom

TinyExplosions

niceonetom, you truly are a photoshopping legend!

cantalach

niceonetom wrote: »

I'm glad my "at least Lance isn't a paedo" type comment yesterday continues to be such a rich source of inspiration!

cantalach

I've voted 'undecided' in this poll. Given all that we know I can't imagine how anyone could be completely confident that he's clean.

That said, I'd be interested to see the different results you'd get for a poll question asking about his participation in the Tour of Ireland. I don't know how to set one up but the question would be simply:

All things considered, do you welcome Lance Armstrong's participation in the Tour of Ireland?

With 'Yes', 'No', 'Undecided' and 'Don't Care' as the options.