The Armstrong Lie
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I answered the last time you started trolling, and the time before that, and the time before that.....
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
2 people have voted no 
So the courtesy of answering other posters you now consider trolling?
All I can say really is that you genuinely believe this bizarre claim then you need to act upon it
You either need to back up your claim and report this thread to the moderators
Edited:
Don't bother with an apology, let your failure to report to the moderators speak for itself
[QUOTE 3176238, member: 30090"]Cunobelin, look at this differently, what did Simpson do off the bike and what did Armstrong do off the bike?
The answer to this is why Armstrong is hated by almost everyone and Simpson is not despite both off them doping.[/QUOTE]
The point that was raised (and replied to) was whether at some point in the future Armstrong's image would be "cleansed" and some recognition given (The Armstrong Lie)
This is what happened with Simpson.. he is now venerated despite being a cheat, and that is the point that seems so unwelcome in some quarters.....
Equally take the post The Armstrong Lie where Simpson is excused as being "of his time"
Given the increased financial gain, pressure to increasingly perform, the corporate corruption and other driving factors, in 15 - 20 years will today's doper's simply be seen as "of their time"
Will Virenque, Landis, Ullrich and others be "forgiven" in the same way Simpson has been?
Armstrong is different in that he may (arguably) in the early days a "victim" of the process, but any justification or sympathy has been stripped away when he became one of the organisers and principal perpetrators. That does separate him out, but what we must not do is to let the Armstrong saga overshadow the real problems of the dopers in the peloton
As above, ALL cheating and ALL use of performance enhancing drugs should be unacceptable.
The answer to this is why Armstrong is hated by almost everyone and Simpson is not despite both off them doping.[/QUOTE]
The point that was raised (and replied to) was whether at some point in the future Armstrong's image would be "cleansed" and some recognition given (The Armstrong Lie)
This is what happened with Simpson.. he is now venerated despite being a cheat, and that is the point that seems so unwelcome in some quarters.....
Equally take the post The Armstrong Lie where Simpson is excused as being "of his time"
Given the increased financial gain, pressure to increasingly perform, the corporate corruption and other driving factors, in 15 - 20 years will today's doper's simply be seen as "of their time"
Will Virenque, Landis, Ullrich and others be "forgiven" in the same way Simpson has been?
Armstrong is different in that he may (arguably) in the early days a "victim" of the process, but any justification or sympathy has been stripped away when he became one of the organisers and principal perpetrators. That does separate him out, but what we must not do is to let the Armstrong saga overshadow the real problems of the dopers in the peloton
As above, ALL cheating and ALL use of performance enhancing drugs should be unacceptable.
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
I think you'll find many threads in this section giving a fairly clear view that doping is not accepted nor forgiven.
I don't know why you think otherwise.
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
I don't think the memorial was funded and erected as a result of the actions of anyone on CycleChat
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
Indeed.
Your point about Simpson isn't unwelcome it's simply wrong. When Simpson started on drugs they weren't even banned or tested for. You can go all the way back to the Greeks for 'preparation'. Over the hundred years of the Tour you'd have a pretty long list on your one man placard. Adrian already said what I was going to say and it's perfectly possible to hold several different views of someone without them being contradictory. If I ever cycle up Ventoux I may just stop at the Simpson memorial for my own reasons.
Armstrong's history is not yet complete. It may well be that people find some positives from it, I doubt very much he'll be venerated in some way and I note you ignored the more complex issue of Pantani.
Or at the moment… . If I ever cycle… ..
I think you will find that this is an error, and that I am not wrong.
Simpson died in 1967, and the ban on the use of amphetamines was brought in two years previously in 1June 1965
Formal testing was introduced in 1966 and IIRC Raymond Poulidor gained the distinction of undergoing the first drugs test.
So far from not being banned, or tested for, at the time of Simpson's death the adverse effects were fully known, the decision had been made to ban, the ban had been brought into efffect and tests were in place.
He was unequivocally using banned substances to enhance his performance.
I said when he started and you won't find the answer on Wiki.
