Agreed: LeMond was the greatest

On Feb 29, 3:23*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.

I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he
said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication
to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all
night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the
look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete
disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an
incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted?

Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
more.

Or if he had travelled with the team and left wifey at home to mind
the store like she was supposed to do, so he could train and race
properly...

Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
their potential victories), but so what?

Lance paid attention and won seven in a row.

"Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
more, both reputationally and financially.

Well, the point there is that he decided to take on Lance and Trek and
he lost. Then go to the motivation for taking on Lance and Trek, his
being eclipsed as "the best American Tour rider". And that, whether
Lance cheated or not.

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time?

He can be "right" but he fit the doper profile, himself. Remember what
his father-in-law did for a living?

Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

My point has always been that he should, and could, have kept his
mouth shut and bided his time.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.

I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

Another: "Pick your fights carefully".
--D-y

In article
,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time?

I know he is not fundamentally right most of the time.

--
Old Fritz

In article
,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

On Feb 27, 8:34Â*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:52Â*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:47Â*pm, --D-y wrote:

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y- Hide quoted text -

He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
accomplished.

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
more.

DUH!

Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
their potential victories), but so what?

"Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
more, both reputationally and financially.

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

**rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.

Many accusations here. Even though you
acknowledge lulz, most of the time you
do not get the joke. You can always tell
a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

--
Old Fritz

Frederick the Great wrote:

You can always tell a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

rof,l - hadn't heard that one before.

Could we have a new thread in this forum, please?

-S-

On Mar 1, 3:03*am, Frederick the Great wrote:
In article
,
*Ryan Cousineau wrote:









On Feb 27, 8:34*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:52*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y wrote:

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y- Hide quoted text -

He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
accomplished.

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
more.

DUH!

Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
their potential victories), but so what?

"Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
more, both reputationally and financially.

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

**rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.

Many accusations here. Even though you
acknowledge lulz, most of the time you
do not get the joke. You can always tell
a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

One last try???
"Admire the deeds, not the person".

And another (I'm a sucker for our Friends to the North):
As a friend who used to be on a "team" and had a "record" (and has a
IMHO healthy perspective) once said: "They're just people who happen
to be able to ride a bike fast".
--D-y

Lemond doped

On 3/1/2012 6:13 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
Lemond doped

This entire thread really begs the obvious question, who was the
greatest doper in cycling? Assuming that doping of one sort or another
has been around since the beginning of the sport, which cyclist used
PEDs to the best advantage? And how do you measure that? Most negative
tests? Fastest Alpe d'Huez time? Most wins? Hour record?

Strangely, except for the first, all of the measures you might use are
basically the same one would use to answer the question of who is the
best cyclist of all time. In that case, all this talk of doping is
pointless and we really should get back to something more racing-like.

- dave a

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:23:41 PM UTC-7, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

Greg is right the way Lafferty is right. They are
all in fact dopers. However, both Greg and Lafferty
make accusations without evidence, or with ridiculous
evidence. An argument that uses fallacious or unprincipled
logic (or no logic) to reach a conclusion that happens to
be true is not "right."

It's the old "Even a guilty man can be framed" principle.

Also, Greg's become a huge irritating nut who thinks
the world is out to get him for his position as beacon
of truth. I honestly couldn't really care. I'm just
tapping his telephone to be mean.

Fredmaster Ben

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
I'm just tapping his telephone to be mean.

Ah, so rbr has its own Dept. of Homeland Security.

On 02/03/2012 04:47, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
I'm just tapping his telephone

Eeew.