[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
conorh wrote:
I always thought Lance was a douche after he divorced the woman who stuck with him through so much shit for so long to be with that skag he’s with now.
Didn’t he dump Crow because she has breast cancer?
No. And you shouldn’t be spreading rumors. They broke up for personal reasons before she was diagnosed. And in an interview, she stated that he was very supportive of her through her ordeal though they were not together.
I wonder if he was supportive of the wife he was cheating on with Cheryl Crow? I don’t want to judge him, he might have been.
You all sound like hens at a hair salon. And that’s the truth. You don’t know him or any of the people involved. You have no idea when the relationship started with Crow. There was zero allegations of infidelity from any of the parties involved, and that is rarely the case.
How do you know that I don’t know him? I think you are assuming because YOU don’t know him that none of us know him.
Congratulations if you know him. Then maybe you have knowledge and basis to criticize how he counducts his personal life.
My point is YOU have noright to criticize me! You are guilty of the very thing you are trying to accuse me of.
[/quote]
Well, I don’t really think it’s the same thing. Given the likelihood that no one here posting knows Lance personally and that you never said you did in your post, I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that you don’t. But, ok-if you say so.
[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
conorh wrote:
I always thought Lance was a douche after he divorced the woman who stuck with him through so much shit for so long to be with that skag he’s with now.
Didn’t he dump Crow because she has breast cancer?
No. And you shouldn’t be spreading rumors. They broke up for personal reasons before she was diagnosed. And in an interview, she stated that he was very supportive of her through her ordeal though they were not together.
I wonder if he was supportive of the wife he was cheating on with Cheryl Crow? I don’t want to judge him, he might have been.
You all sound like hens at a hair salon. And that’s the truth. You don’t know him or any of the people involved. You have no idea when the relationship started with Crow. There was zero allegations of infidelity from any of the parties involved, and that is rarely the case.
How do you know that I don’t know him? I think you are assuming because YOU don’t know him that none of us know him.
Congratulations if you know him. Then maybe you have knowledge and basis to criticize how he counducts his personal life.
My point is YOU have noright to criticize me! You are guilty of the very thing you are trying to accuse me of.
[/quote]
You say he has no right to criticize you but you say things like this? "First of all it’s not easy being a clown. It’s long hours and living in a circus environment is not all that much fun. I mean, you get up every day and paint your face bright white with a happy smile. Then you can start talking smack pal!!!
Until then shut your freaking mouth."
Im quite sure it was pretty safe assumption by JSbrook that you do not know LA.
[quote]GymGeek wrote:
Everyone talking smack about 3 hrs is an absolute joke. How many of you clowns have run 26.2 miles? I ran the marathon yesterday and not one single runner was upset about the Lance coverage. I have friends who ran sub 2:40. My time was 4:49. Don’t talk shit you don’t know anything about.[/quote]
you were running with the people who weren’t in a position to be upset about it… the joggers.
I assure you that there are many people who are plenty annoyed with Lance’s running and the attention he’s getting for it. It’s just a territory thing.
Imagine if Leonardo Dicaprio were to cut up a little bit and declare himself a bodybuilder at 150lbs. I am certain that at least 35 people from this forum would post separate threads ridiculing him… thats what’s happening here. Lance is bastardizing the discipline. He’s a “penguin” - a perjorative derived from Runner’s World magazine, which is basically the Men’s Health of running.
Again, yes 3:00 is an admirable accomplishment, from a non-runner’s perspective. So is a 300lb bench from a non-lifter’s. But it ain’t gonna get you on fucking TV
[quote]
I don’t believe it. The timing is too suspicious.[/quote]
No way the timing is off. I did the Chicago Marathon a few weeks ago and you get a timing chip (NY would be the same) for your shoe that records your time at several points on the course, plus God knows how many people were watching him. He may have tried to hit 3 hrs exactly for some reason, and may have altered his pace to get it, but the time is legit.
Michael Jordan was not a great baseball player either. Although his super-genetics and level of training allowed him to be better than average. This is not new territory.
And Lance Armstrong will be on television for going jogging around his block, nevermind running in a televised sporting event, even if he is only the Michael Jordan of baseball of running.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
GymGeek wrote:
Everyone talking smack about 3 hrs is an absolute joke. How many of you clowns have run 26.2 miles? I ran the marathon yesterday and not one single runner was upset about the Lance coverage. I have friends who ran sub 2:40. My time was 4:49. Don’t talk shit you don’t know anything about.
you were running with the people who weren’t in a position to be upset about it… the joggers.
I assure you that there are many people who are plenty annoyed with Lance’s running and the attention he’s getting for it. It’s just a territory thing.
Imagine if Leonardo Dicaprio were to cut up a little bit and declare himself a bodybuilder at 150lbs. I am certain that at least 35 people from this forum would post separate threads ridiculing him… thats what’s happening here. Lance is bastardizing the discipline. He’s a “penguin” - a perjorative derived from Runner’s World magazine, which is basically the Men’s Health of running.
Again, yes 3:00 is an admirable accomplishment, from a non-runner’s perspective. So is a 300lb bench from a non-lifter’s. But it ain’t gonna get you on fucking TV
imagine if Leonardo Dicaprio
[/quote]
this is weak. what it really means is runner’s are pissed because nobody cares what they do. why would a “real” runner give a shit ? they’re threatened ?
willie nelson showed up @ my local golf club and even though the whole town heard about it and dropped whatever they were doing and went out to the course to see him , nobody was bitching about how “willie thinks he can golf”.
lance is getting attention because he’s lance. because he’s an international star. not because he’s run a marathon.
Armstrong is definitely not the greatest cyclist of all time. Eddy Merkx is hands down.
The only thing Lance could do is win the Tour. There’s a LOT more to cycling that the Tour de France.
No way the timing is off. I did the Chicago Marathon a few weeks ago and you get a timing chip (NY would be the same) for your shoe that records your time at several points on the course, plus God knows how many people were watching him. He may have tried to hit 3 hrs exactly for some reason, and may have altered his pace to get it, but the time is legit.
[/quote]
Not the timing of the race, the timing of Crow’s cancer and his dumping her.
So to think that just because he was the greatest cyclist of all time does not automatically put him in an elite runner category.
Armstrong is definitely not the greatest cyclist of all time. Eddy Merkx is hands down.
The only thing Lance could do is win the Tour. There’s a LOT more to cycling that the Tour de France.
[/quote]
Well thats another thread and im quite sure it already exists. I’m well aware of the cycling world and I know there are other races so I think you and I should agree to disagree.
So to think that just because he was the greatest cyclist of all time does not automatically put him in an elite runner category.
Armstrong is definitely not the greatest cyclist of all time. Eddy Merkx is hands down.
The only thing Lance could do is win the Tour. There’s a LOT more to cycling that the Tour de France.
Well thats another thread and im quite sure it already exists. I’m well aware of the cycling world and I know there are other races so I think you and I should agree to disagree.
[/quote]
it’s a fruitless argument really. one thing for sure is that they are both in the same league, which is a league of 4 or 5 guys over a century. that’s pretty special.
So to think that just because he was the greatest cyclist of all time does not automatically put him in an elite runner category.
Armstrong is definitely not the greatest cyclist of all time. Eddy Merkx is hands down.
The only thing Lance could do is win the Tour. There’s a LOT more to cycling that the Tour de France.
Well thats another thread and im quite sure it already exists. I’m well aware of the cycling world and I know there are other races so I think you and I should agree to disagree.
it’s a fruitless argument really. one thing for sure is that they are both in the same league, which is a league of 4 or 5 guys over a century. that’s pretty special.[/quote]