Public altercation between Tyler Hamilton and Lance Armstrong.

I never said Lance was bad, my argument at point is that when it came to the Tour de France he was not someone the GC leaders were too worried about. He was a GOOD American cyclist, after Cancer he became one of the BEST cyclists of all time. Maybe I should have worded my point a little better, and by GOOD American cyclist I did not mean only good in the USA. I meant that he was a good cyclist from America who produced results in Europe but not nearly to the scale of his results post 1999. Yes, he is the youngest rider to ever win the World Championships and yes that is a large feat. But the argument at point is that he was good, then when he started doping he became the BEST.

Floyd Landis wrote:

I never said Lance was bad, my argument at point is that when it came to the Tour de France he was not someone the GC leaders were too worried about. He was a GOOD American cyclist, after Cancer he became one of the BEST cyclists of all time. Maybe I should have worded my point a little better, and by GOOD American cyclist I did not mean only good in the USA. I meant that he was a good cyclist from America who produced results in Europe but not nearly to the scale of his results post 1999. Yes, he is the youngest rider to ever win the World Championships and yes that is a large feat. But the argument at point is that he was good, then when he started doping he became the BEST.

Then you obviously don't know much about cycling.

Being a GC rider is a specialized role. You DO NOT have to be a GC rider to be a world-class cycling star. You don't have to be a GC rider to be a cycling great.

You should really figure that out before talking about such things.

It's still quite obvious that you're a bit ignorant of the sport.

Uh, No, Ummm, no!

You are missing the point the poster made.

And, it's really quite simple: Lance was good, then he became legendary. He had a Flo Jo like transformation post-cancer. That's all. We don't need to parse what it means to be a known professional rider. We got it, yes, he was good, turned in some good performances, but if you go back to that time, the words legendary and great are not applied to Lance during that period, that's all. You people are so literal in your arguments you miss the point. Over, and over, and over...again

Un No NO wrote:

Uh, No, Ummm, no!

You are missing the point the poster made.

And, it's really quite simple: Lance was good, then he became legendary. He had a Flo Jo like transformation post-cancer. That's all. We don't need to parse what it means to be a known professional rider. We got it, yes, he was good, turned in some good performances, but if you go back to that time, the words legendary and great are not applied to Lance during that period, that's all. You people are so literal in your arguments you miss the point. Over, and over, and over...again

Nah, bud. YOU are creating a strawman.

Floyd said Lance was a good American rider pre-cancer but did nothing internationally. I and another poster have repeatedly pointed out that Lance was already an international star pre-cancer.

That's THE point.

This nonsense about having to be a GC winner to be a star is both irrelevant and rubbish. Is Boonen not an international star? Hushovd? Was Bettini not a star? Museeuw?

Come on. You guys obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Try again.

Then you obviously dont know much about cycling.

Being a GC rider is a specialized role. You DO NOT have to be a GC rider to be a world-class cycling star. You don't have to be a GC rider to be a cycling great.

You should really figure that out before talking about such things.

It's still quite obvious that you're a bit ignorant of the sport.[/quote]

Right I'm ignorant. Because I just called someone out and was completely wrong again. GC means General classification of their placement.

You're off base girlfriend. You don't really understand SamL's point... keep trying though!

floyd landis wrote:

Right I'm ignorant. Because I just called someone out and was completely wrong again. GC means General classification of their placement.

That was a bit incoherent.

Did you just figure out what GC meant?

I'm done arguing wth you and it's not the point of my thread. GC stands for the General Classifaction of where the rider stands in the overall placing in the race. GC is not a certain type of rider or however you put it. Know what you are talking about before you call someone out and call them ignorant.

He was good. You say he became legendary post brain surgery, post cancerous tumors in the brain, lung, testicle, and wherever else. Then he became legendary.

What that says to me is that you have no idea how good he was at an early age. He was the triathlon nat'l champion in high school. That victory took an enormous effort to beat two top 5 tri-athletes in the world. And he won by a lot. In high-school. This was while he was focusing on riding, not doing the triathlon.

If you think that rebuilding from scratch- a 100 lb framed body on a nutritional scale where every meal is weighed- to turn a world champion into a legend.... well, what more do you need to turn a champion into a legend? Because someone's a champion, they have to have cheated? Because you're poor, you hate rich people? Because you're fat and will never have a girlfriend, probably like to put your butt in the air, that mean's that things you don't like are "gay"?????

You f'ing jealous hyprocrites. I've never been to a website with as many pathetic jealous self-absorbed wanna-be athletes as this one... You slam your own stars and heroes, you trash any athlete that doesn't put out a performance in a championship meet that will slate themselves in the recordbooks... And not only that, but considerably more than half of you losers are gay, wish to be, wear short shorts when you run, and shave your legs.

And you weigh less than any girl you wish you would've asked out, but didn't, because you're gay.

On top of that, you guys create thread after thread saying that the american record holder is done for. Apparently you unhappy individuals have such a poor memory that you don't remember saying the same exact things about alan webb at michigan that you are saying now. To reword that, you said the american record holder in the mile was "done for" before he set the american record. If this website wasn't the only one to have immediate race results, I would literally care less for it than I do the waste that gets put in the trash can once a week. Pathetic.

youdontgetit wrote:

If this website wasn't the only one to have immediate race results, I would literally care less for it than I do the waste that gets put in the trash can once a week. Pathetic.

Sure, big guy. Why such a long response on the message boards if you're only interested in race results?

Lance was/is a very talented athlete, but he was a big doper too. Get over it, time to take off the yellow wristband.

floyd landis wrote:

I'm done arguing wth you and it's not the point of my thread. GC stands for the General Classifaction of where the rider stands in the overall placing in the race. GC is not a certain type of rider or however you put it. Know what you are talking about before you call someone out and call them ignorant.

GC rider is a very common term and is used ALL THE TIME.

You don't have to continue showcasing your ignorance, but I sure do find it amusing.

So, to reiterate:

Lance Armstrong was an international star and had a number of important international victories pre-cancer including a world championship in which he beat the number one TdF rider of the time. In addition, the term 'GC rider' is a common term used to describe a rider competing for a high placing in the General Classification.

You've learned a lot today.

You're welcome.

uh, no wrote:

Lance was already an international star pre-cancer.

Uh, no. He was starting to build an impressive resume, but he was NOT an international star pre-cancer.

I literally just read through floyds and Uh no's argument. Uh no makes good points but overall I feel like Floyd is right, but i feel like the only way this can be settled is through links to best pr.

yo someone came forward with a phone video of the "altercation"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drk4emkXC3A

Uh, no. He was starting to build an impressive resume, but he was NOT an international star pre-cancer.

Alright, if you want to contend that he wasn't a star, then that's fine. Winning a national championship, the Thrift triple crown million dollar challenge, a world championship, a classic, a semi-classic, two stages of the TdF, a few second places in races like Liege-Bastogne-Liege along with a host of other victories and a 6th place in the Olympic RR, then your definition of the word obviously differs from mine.

In any case, the original point of contention centered around this erroneous statement:

Floyd Landis says:

Sure he was a GOOD American cyclist but on the world scene he was no one.

Obviously that statement is a farce.

uh no needs to go wrote:

I literally just read through floyds and Uh no's argument. Uh no makes good points but overall I feel like Floyd is right,

Then you're as ignorant as he is.

Anyone making this statement:

Floyd Landis says:

Sure he was a GOOD American cyclist but on the world scene he was no one.

doesn't know what he's talking about.

Looks like you're the newest member of that club. Congrats.

Where's the pr link uh no?

uh no??? wrote:

Where's the pr link uh no?

Where's the relevancy, troll?

So what did Armstrong do wrong? He cheated? Wow! So prosecute every soccer player who takes a dive or a baseball player who acts like he was hit by a pitch, ....

And how about Landis and Hamilton, why are they prosecuted? Because this prosecutor has political aspirations and is trying to make a name for himself.