CycleSport--The Endgame Begins

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...ndgame-begins/

On May 21, 11:32*am, "
wrote:
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...strong-the-end...

Armstrong Tweeted: “Congratulations to @eki_ekimov on his 3rd Olympic
Gold Medal!!” That was a reference to his former US Postal Service
team-mate, Vjatcheslav Ekimov, who was second to Hamilton in that
Athens time trial. It appears Armstrong has no problem with titles
being retrospectively stripped in such circumstances. Good to know.

( Great to know. Anton )

wrote in message
...
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...ndgame-begins/

"And together we all allowed one man to dominate the sport, to its
detriment."

What detriment? The sport grew tremendously while Lance was winning his 7
TdFs. The detriment of scandal? Something in any way unusual for bicycle
racing from an historical context? The detriment of having an American
beating the Euros at their own game? The detriment, if true, of learning
from the Festina scandal and finding a better way to cheat?

What was it "we" allowed? What were "we" supposed to do? If Lance doped, he
didn't win 7 TdFs because he doped. He won because he had a system in place
that other teams lacked. Other teams that most certainly were doping at the
time (as proven by those who were caught). To the extent we gave him
sainthood, sure, guilty on that one. But it's absurd to suggest that cycling
suffered greatly due to Lance, or that any one thing Lance did caused that
to happen.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On May 21, 3:45*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...strong-the-end...

"And together we all allowed one man to dominate the sport, to its
detriment."

What detriment? The sport grew tremendously while Lance was winning his 7
TdFs. The detriment of scandal? Something in any way unusual for bicycle
racing from an historical context? The detriment of having an American
beating the Euros at their own game? The detriment, if true, of learning
from the Festina scandal and finding a better way to cheat?

What was it "we" allowed? What were "we" supposed to do? If Lance doped, he
didn't win 7 TdFs because he doped. He won because he had a system in place
that other teams lacked. Other teams that most certainly were doping at the
time (as proven by those who were caught). To the extent we gave him
sainthood, sure, guilty on that one. But it's absurd to suggest that cycling
suffered greatly due to Lance, or that any one thing Lance did caused that
to happen.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Thanks for sharing your utterly vapid, amoral position on what
Armstrong and Co. did, Mike. How many Treks and how much profit did
you make off Trek/Lance product during the lying years?

wrote in message
...
On May 21, 3:45 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...strong-the-end...

"And together we all allowed one man to dominate the sport, to its
detriment."

What detriment? The sport grew tremendously while Lance was winning
his 7
TdFs. The detriment of scandal? Something in any way unusual for
bicycle
racing from an historical context? The detriment of having an American
beating the Euros at their own game? The detriment, if true, of
learning
from the Festina scandal and finding a better way to cheat?

What was it "we" allowed? What were "we" supposed to do? If Lance
doped, he
didn't win 7 TdFs because he doped. He won because he had a system in
place
that other teams lacked. Other teams that most certainly were doping
at the
time (as proven by those who were caught). To the extent we gave him
sainthood, sure, guilty on that one. But it's absurd to suggest that
cycling
suffered greatly due to Lance, or that any one thing Lance did caused
that
to happen.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Thanks for sharing your utterly vapid, amoral position on what
Armstrong and Co. did, Mike. How many Treks and how much profit did
you make off Trek/Lance product during the lying years?

Nothing gets past you, does it? Other than addressing the conversation
at hand that is. That's twice today. Why is it more important on rbr to
score insults than intelligence?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On May 21, 1:52*pm, "
wrote:

Thanks for sharing your utterly vapid, amoral position on what
Armstrong and Co. did, Mike.

Actually, regardless of whether or not you think it's vapid or amoral,
it's a pretty accurate position. LA's doping program was most likely
the equivalent of everyone else who was taking a shot at the top of
the podium (and we know this, because the majority of them were nailed
for doping). Yet he still beat them - why? - because, as Mike said, he
most likely trained harder, had a better mental attitude, and prepared
better. What's ironic about this is that these attributes are EXACTLY
what we're supposed to celebrate in a top athlete. Only difference
here is that he had to dope to even have a remote shot at being a
winner.

And, fact is, you know this, just like all the other LA haters. You
all know that any dimwit, even yourselves, perhaps, put in the same
situation, with the talent to win, would probably do the same thing.
You all also know, that if LA had the morals you pompously imagine
yourselves to have, and didn't dope, that he'd have gotten his ass
kicked - AND THAT ALL OF YOU'D BE AT THE HEAD OF THE PACK CALLING HIM
A DOUCHEBAG AND A LOSER. Please, don't embarrass yourselves further by
claiming some kind of potential victory, as the convicted dopers and
so-called "clean" guys come forth to chew on LA's carcass - just admit
you hate LA's guts, but that the only thing he did differently than
any other doping pro was to do it well enough to win 7 TdF's without
getting caught for doping.

BTW, nothing's really changed. I only have to cite the Contador "dope
steak" as evidence. As long as effective dope and doping methods
exist, guys at the sharp end of the group will use dope to
differentiate themselves. If you can't take that, find a new sport.

On May 21, 10:11*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On May 21, 3:45 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:





wrote in message

....

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...strong-the-end....

"And together we all allowed one man to dominate the sport, to its
detriment."

What detriment? The sport grew tremendously while Lance was winning
his 7
TdFs. The detriment of scandal? Something in any way unusual for
bicycle
racing from an historical context? The detriment of having an American
beating the Euros at their own game? The detriment, if true, of
learning
from the Festina scandal and finding a better way to cheat?

What was it "we" allowed? What were "we" supposed to do? If Lance
doped, he
didn't win 7 TdFs because he doped. He won because he had a system in
place
that other teams lacked. Other teams that most certainly were doping
at the
time (as proven by those who were caught). To the extent we gave him
sainthood, sure, guilty on that one. But it's absurd to suggest that
cycling
suffered greatly due to Lance, or that any one thing Lance did caused
that
to happen.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Thanks for sharing your utterly vapid, amoral position on what
Armstrong and Co. did, Mike. How many Treks and how much profit did
you make off Trek/Lance product during the lying years?

Nothing gets past you, does it? Other than addressing the conversation
at hand that is. That's twice today. Why is it more important on rbr to
score insults than intelligence?

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why won't you accept that you are a doping profiteer? None of the
Lance apologists ever asked any questions while he was winning and
growing the sport. You benefitted tremendously if you sold Treks
during that era - which it appears you did. What you need to realize
is that he grew the sport ONLY because he cheated his ass off - better
than anyone else in his era. But those gains were all artificial. Just
like the housing bubble. All the assholes selling and taking out
adjustable mortgages just wanted to ride the train and didn't want to
ask any questions when property values were rising. You are one of
those assholes. Face it and repent.

On May 22, 1:31*pm, Trey wrote:
On May 21, 10:11*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:





wrote in message

...
On May 21, 3:45 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

wrote in message

....

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-an...strong-the-end...

"And together we all allowed one man to dominate the sport, to its
detriment."

What detriment? The sport grew tremendously while Lance was winning
his 7
TdFs. The detriment of scandal? Something in any way unusual for
bicycle
racing from an historical context? The detriment of having an American
beating the Euros at their own game? The detriment, if true, of
learning
from the Festina scandal and finding a better way to cheat?

What was it "we" allowed? What were "we" supposed to do? If Lance
doped, he
didn't win 7 TdFs because he doped. He won because he had a system in
place
that other teams lacked. Other teams that most certainly were doping
at the
time (as proven by those who were caught). To the extent we gave him
sainthood, sure, guilty on that one. But it's absurd to suggest that
cycling
suffered greatly due to Lance, or that any one thing Lance did caused
that
to happen.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Thanks for sharing your utterly vapid, amoral position on what
Armstrong and Co. did, Mike. How many Treks and how much profit did
you make off Trek/Lance product during the lying years?

Nothing gets past you, does it? Other than addressing the conversation
at hand that is. That's twice today. Why is it more important on rbr to
score insults than intelligence?

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why won't you accept that you are a doping profiteer? None of the
Lance apologists ever asked any questions while he was winning and
growing the sport. You benefitted tremendously if you sold Treks
during that era - which it appears you did. What you need to realize
is that he grew the sport ONLY because he cheated his ass off - better
than anyone else in his era. But those gains were all artificial. Just
like the housing bubble. All the assholes selling and taking out
adjustable mortgages just wanted to ride the train and didn't want to
ask any questions when property values were rising. You are one of
those assholes. Face it and repent.

That's a crock. At the time Mike sold those bikes, Lance and doping
were nothing more than speculative rumors. Anyone who wants to
retroactively grill his ass is an idiot or an ex lawyer or both.
Talking about ex lawyers, isn't it a bit hypocritical to accuse
someone of profitting from the misdeeds of others. Isn't that the
definition of a lawyer? Maybe you can explain the "winning" mentality
of the profession rather than the "truth seeking". Save your
delusional moral judgement for those comparatively more deserving,
child molesters, murderers and rapists.
Phil H

Trey wrote in
:

Why won't you accept that you are a doping profiteer? None of the
Lance apologists ever asked any questions while he was winning and
growing the sport. You benefitted tremendously if you sold Treks
during that era - which it appears you did. What you need to realize
is that he grew the sport ONLY because he cheated his ass off - better
than anyone else in his era. But those gains were all artificial. Just
like the housing bubble. All the assholes selling and taking out
adjustable mortgages just wanted to ride the train and didn't want to
ask any questions when property values were rising. You are one of
those assholes. Face it and repent.

Just like the housing bubble, where the people riding the train sold
$600,000 homes to people making $80,000/yr, there were a lot more stupid
people who bought rides on the train. Mike sold bicycles to people who
wanted them. That doesn't sound particularly immoral to me. Anyway, you
sound like you're mad that you bought a Madone and now are ashamed to
ride it. It's still a nice bike, maybe you could get it repainted or
just tell people it was one of the models built to Hincapie's specs? But
then, I can afford to be calm about this since I never bought a Madone or
really got emotionally invested one way or the other in Armstrong.

--
Bill Fred

I am OK with Mike selling bikes.

Please someone give Mike some water when he regains consciousness.