We love graphs!
With all that’s going on in Lance’s world right now, it’s easy to get confused, so we’ve condensed all the players and their motives into one easy to read graph. Enjoy!
The Lance Graph
40 Comments
Comments are closed.
Z’s erratic performances should put him closer to Hincapie.
Not bad, but I’d leave the infographics to Cosmo over at cyclocosm.com.
I love graphs too much to just let it go.
lance had lunch with bono last week who is on some serious stuff post back surgery
I like that Johan is on the Jealous side…but I think he should have been closer to the making a buck side….Also liked that Floyd is off the chart.
Cosmso does make awesome images- but this one rivals his best.
this is confusing… the dopers/non-dopers distinction isn’t relevant – we basically “know” that all the cyclists were dopers at one point, at least, and the non-cyclists. is gerlach really a non-doper? you should chart friendliness with lance (or compliance with omerta) against personal net worth, and years spent in pro cycling or in the armstrong inner circle against psychological stability.
that should say “the non-cyclists don’t matter”
The doper criteria is either convicted or admitted.
what’s the clinger/LA connection?
what’s the real story behind the music on the shack’s vuelta snub? surely somethin’s-a-cookin’, and it ain’t paella.
The FDA hat is an awesome touch, by the way.
Clinger and Lance raced on Postal. There was some falling out between them- otherwise Clinger would have had a spot on the team.
Chad was on Mapei- I have a really hard time believing anyone telling me that there was no PROgram in place at Mapei…you would only have to look at the players at the time and the list reads long and dirty.
Clinger was on Postal in 2002
This graph needs to become a t-shirt.
Hmmm, OK my .02 cents.
Johan should be moved, for two reasons. A) He absolutely makes $$$ off of the Lance Pharm$trong name. So, I’d move him into the Dopers section. B) Look at his TdF stage win for reference. (NOTE: He set record avg speed of 49.417 km/h in TdF stage win in a solo break.)
Dave Z, George H, Mike B, and several others on list are all “clean” but we all know to read between the lines. So, I’d suggest maybe a 3rd section of “clean” riders with outstanding performances. (NOTE: Are their performances too good to be true? Maybe, maybe not. I dunno, I’ve never seen a 6 ft-plus classics rider blow the roof off of a TdF queen mountain stages like one of the mentioned riders above. Was it exciting and entertaining TV to watch, you bet. Was it all done on Accelerade and Clif Bars? Hmmm… ya think?)
Verbruggen and McQuaid also absolutely made or currently make $$$ off of the Lance name. So, I’d consider moving them either to the Dopers section or start a 4th section for dirty bureaucrats.
Nonetheless great chart Dan. Thanks for the diversion I needed something fun to focus on for a few minutes besides work. Now back to reality….
So the Dope vs non-Dope line seems to mess up the Disgruntled vs Making a buck baseline. Need more clarity there I think.
Then Hincapie is definitely making money off the Lance name, otherwise would anyone of bought a Hincapie jersey had he never been Lance’s domestique? Nope.
Johnny V needs to move up a bit more for the IM with Frankie.
Where’s Bassons? Livingston (off the chart to the bottom)?
West Coaster, good points about Bassons and Livingston, I will have to add them. The bottom axis is a bit of a compromise because the graph is divided into doping and non-doping sections, so I basically configured it as from loving cancer to making a buck within each of the two sections, for instance Hein/McQuaid’s position indicates that they are making a buck as far as they can w/o doping.
Does that make sense?
Move the doper/non-doper from an attribute of the graph to an attribute of the name. Instead of a dot a doper gets a syringe.
You lose the cool yellow/black contrast, but the data is more meaningful – people can be moved to a place on the X axis that makes intuitive sense.
Also, making a buck and jealousy aren’t mutually exclusive like yappin/keeping it shut. Instead of making money it could be “on the bus”. But then you’d have to move the making money to each person somehow.
Anyway, blah, blah, blah – love the Radar-esque idea. Keep up the great work!
If the world were fair you disgruntled, non-doping yappers would make a mint off his name.
Good points, but this graph is done, but I am open to new data ideas.
female acquaintances
Are we going mom and non-mom resemblance?
… Meatloaf! Yes, of course; mom-resemblance, mom-avatar, ersatz mommy, and others ought to be there. No?
Great, you have to do this graph, now Prance will have the powers that be issue ANOTHER lifetime ban to Kohl! Quit pickin on the little spud head!
This plot tells me that the variable representing Lance’s feelings about a person has little correlation with that person’s talkativeness. So what does this mean?
To be accurate, we would have to adjust for the artificial placement of individuals so that the dopers/non-dopers split makes sense.
Ok, once again, no one loves cancer. You are not funny. People die from cancer.
Yes Sacha. Very good. No one *actually* loves cancer, because – as you have realized – people die from cancer. That is what makes this line – arguably the bst to ever emanate from the Toto series – satirical, and very funny to many of us.
However, if you feel strongly on such matters, I advise you to read “A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public,” and then write a strong letter to condemnation to Swift.
Because, once again, no one loves cannibalism*. It’s not funny. People die from canniablism.
.
.
.
* Except maybe cannibals. Or Eddy Merckx.
Comparing Scmaltz to Swift- fraid not. This is not even close to similar. They insult Lance because they feel he uses cancer to his advantage. Then they do the same for “humor”. This is hypocrisy at its best.
To give anyone on this board the credit of deep enough thought to write an ironic missive is a joke. You are just rationalizing your insensitivity to people with cancer.
Yeah, did Swift ever take his pants off on the Belt parkway? I think not!
“To give anyone on this board the credit of deep enough thought to write an ironic missive is a joke.”
You are mistaken. -1 Sacha:
https://nyvelocity.com/content/2007/periodized-training-spring-bear-mountain
“They insult Lance because they feel he uses cancer to his advantage. Then they do the same for “humor”. This is hypocrisy at its best.”
No. They are using humour, sarcasm, and hyperbole* to express their opinion on a public figure misdirecting criticism. To think that they are using “cancer” to the same extent is disingenuousness at its best.
.
.
.
* And sometimes flatulence jokes.
“a public figure misdirecting criticism”
That is your/their impression of the situation. And the point is that if you believe that, then you are concerned that “cancer” is being misued. Therefore, for you to do the same is hypocrisy. While (supposed) humour, sarcasm, and hyperbole have place in the world, its use here is inappropriate in the face of the topic of a deadly disease.
You, of course, are free to disagree but I believe it is just rationalization, and that this is not a clever or thoughtful use of these types of writing.
Lance does resemble a Gulliver in a land of Lilliputians
“That is your/their impression of the situation.”
No. Their impression – as I already wrote.
“And the point is that if you believe that, then you are concerned that “cancer” is being misued. Therefore, for you to do the same is hypocrisy.”
No. This is your logical misstep. The authors’ oeuvre implies that their primary concern is the reason for the misdirection. The means of misdirection is tertiary.
“(supposed) humour”
No. It’s humour, nothing ‘supposed’ about it. Your opinion of whether a joke is funny does not mean it isn’t a joke.
“this is not a clever or thoughtful use of these types of writing.’
I disagree. It’s both – that’s why I come here. Not sure why you come here. Unless you just like arguing anonymously with anonymous people, but what cretin would do that?*
By the way, you’re a Lance shill, correct? That’s really very funny. You realize your entire argument emboldens the author’s premise, right?
.
.
.
* That’s irony, two.
who knew that Jonathan Swift was such a douche?
I can’t wait until Schopenauer weighs in. Voltaire too.
Ok. You win. You are too smart for me!
How is that for irony, hyperbole and humor.
who knew jswift could teach you how to spell douche?
is consuming absinthe considered doping?
@ Noah Nipple: I believe Swift was a contemporary of Lord and Lady Douchebag. They probably ran in the same circles.
Love it — JV is straddling the line between Doper and non, and Landis is off the “yappin'” chart. Bravo.
Where’s John Wilcockson? He’s ball deep with Armstrong. I say put him in the yellow portion of the chart next to McQuaid.