So what if Lance doped?

[velotel]

So what if some huge percentage of the others did too? Humans have been using drugs since long before the written word appeared. And long before anyone came up with the brilliant idea that he / she / they had the right to prohibit the use / ingestion of drugs by others. People have been doing drugs to ‘find’ or maybe ‘hear’ god from so far back no one knows what drugs they were doing and what the rest of the crowd thought about it.

Bike racers (and every other sort of athlete except maybe golfers who are perfectly content to stick with alcohol and insider trader information) have been ingesting one product or another since probably the second or third bike race ever organized. So what? Guaranteed not one turtle rider was ever transformed into a hare. Drugs are part of the human experience. Always has been, always will be.

For me, Lance is amazing. From everything I’ve read he’s also a real dick head but that’s not the subject here. He’s a friggin miracle. The guy was so far gone with cancer bike journalists were probably writing up rough drafts for obituaries about this young, future champion being stolen from life so early. But he didn’t die. Drugs saved him. Lots of drugs probably. Does that mean his life is of lesser value because he ‘cheated’, he used drugs to beat death instead of doing it all clean? What about all the people in the world with one illness or another that have either been saved by lots of drugs or are hoping like hell someone is going to invent / discover the drug(s) that will save them from pain, suffering, and dying. Should they face what they have like a man and do it clean instead of using drugs?

The guy not only didn’t die, he went on and won seven Tour de France races! This was a full-blown cancer victim, one that was all but sent off for the obit section of the news. Absolutely incredible! So he won on drugs, though as far as my understanding goes, that has yet to be proven beyond circumstantial evidence, a lot of apparently but still so far innocent until proven guilty. He won the fight against cancer on drugs and then drugs maybe enabled him to achieve or maybe fulfill a promise of athletic ability that is rarely seen. And I for one loved watching it all happen.

Claims are made that maybe as much as 90% of the peloton doped. Sounds to me like a remarkably level playing field. And yet despite this some riders, like Voigt, managed to achieve greatness without doping. More power to him / them. That was his / their choice, a choice I for one make zero judgment on. I asked Ned Overend recently if he was ever tempted to dope. He laughed and said no because he never needed to.

I’ve ridden a lot of the cols the TdF goes over, only one at a time. And every time I ride one of those cols I am stunned to realize how fast those riders go over them only they’re doing several in a day and riding these monster distances at stunning speeds. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that lots of riders dope just to survive. Why should they be prohibited from that choice? Their lives are their lives. Who the heck are we to decide for them what they can and cannot do? Who the hell decided that drugs were illegal and why did they decide that?

Lance is nothing less than the result of a society that is in fact a drugged culture, that places a premium on winning and is willing to reward those winners with massive sums of money. No one has ever said, at least with a straight face or his fingers, legs, toes, and balls crossed, that capitalism is fair.

There are now drugs that apparently in some manner enhance a kid’s intelligence. Is he / she cheating when a high score is achieved in a test? If such a person goes on to discover some miraculous drug that heals some disease that has resisted all attacks, will the drug be tossed out because the person cheated? One of the ultimate goals of education, physically and mentally, is expanding man’s capacity beyond anything yet achieved. I believe it might have been the Greeks who got that concept into the history books. Are drugs that help to achieve that goal to be prohibited, are results achieved by those people to be thrown out because the results were achieved through the aid of drugs? Do you refuse to listen to music created by musicians who are drugged? Do you turn the radio off when they play Jimmy Hendrix? Will you refuse to read some book because you discover that the author did drugs. Refuse to look at paintings in a museum for the same reason. If someone does a psychedelic drug and achieves some miraculous communication with the gods that can save the world, is it refused because the person was doped to the gills?

Why should Lance and every other athlete who has doped or is suspected of having doped be condemned for having pushed the limits of what man has previously accomplished? Why should baseball players who used steroids or whatever to increase their physical capability, or maybe to maximize their inherent physical capability, be punished? We’re talking pure victimless crimes here. Unless you want to consider the losers of a race victims, pitchers who saw their best pitch knocked out of the ball park victims, etc.

Why not consider such achievements like Lance’s new thresholds on what the human body is capable of achieving? Why should doing a performance enhancing drug be illegal? And who decides which one is okay and which one isn’t? And what is the rationale, assuming one exists, behind the decision?

I have great admiration for Andy Hampsten and Jens Voigt, two of many racers who rode without doping. Not because they didn’t use drugs – whether they did or didn’t is irrelevant to me – but because of who they are as people. I have great admiration for Lance not because of who he is and not because he may have doped but because of what he achieved racing. His use or not of drugs is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

Now there are voices sounding out about how they were robbed, how they could have had vastly better results racing if the others hadn’t done drugs. Maybe, maybe not. They could just as easily turned out to be duds. We’ll never know. They made their choices, choices I respect, just like the others made their choices, again choices I respect. That’s life. Some choices work out, some don’t.

I’m old now, starting to get tiny shivers of arthritis some mornings, dull aches that might start to impede me riding. A doc also suspects I have some hidden heart problem that I might want to look into, something that I can at times feel getting in my way on a hard climb in the early attack. Personally I think he’s wrong but that is neither here nor there. What I do know is that if or maybe when I find holding the handlebar difficult or when finding the force to do a good climb seems to be nigh impossible and someone comes along with some drug that will enable me to grip the handlebar with force and power up climbs again, I’ll be looking for the line to sign without even glancing at the small print. In other words I’m ready to cheat to keep riding. Actually I already do. I love to smoke a wee bit of herb before rolling off.

What’s scary to me in all that’s flowing out now on Lance and doping is that it’s starting to sound like a witch hunt, an inquisition of sorts. Where is it going to stop? How far back are people willing to go? To what extent are people willing to destroy bike racing in their race to out the druggies? Is someone going to suggest branding doped riders with a scarlet D?

There is a perfect solution, legalize drugs. Let it all come out front. Force the pharmaceutical companies to be responsible for what they’re producing. Also let them sponsor teams, brand x drug against brand y drug against brand z against the god squad team looking for help from the heavens, etc. Which will never happen. The US will admit Cuba isn’t a threat to american security long before drug use in the peloton is okayed. Too bad.

[tuscanyswe]

But he was amazing, drugs or no drugs. I agree with that.

Legalizing drugs however.. thats the worst idea ever. We would have a health epidemic of gigantic proportions in no time. If legal and the pros do drugs in the open everyone will follow in due time. You do know that drugs can eff you up pretty bad right? They are illegal not only to make the playing field fair, there are more far more important reasons to keep drugs banned.

[tuxbailey]

There is a perfect solution, legalize drugs. Let it all come out front. Force the pharmaceutical companies to be responsible for what they’re producing. Also let them sponsor teams, brand x drug against brand y drug against brand z against the god squad team looking for help from the heavens, etc. Which will never happen. The US will admit Cuba isn’t a threat to american security long before drug use in the peloton is okayed. Too bad.


So, if you have children competing in athletic event, you would not mind if they take EPO, steroid, etc to enhance their performance?

[witcombusa]

velotel...here in the USA, we are a "do as I say, not as I do" culture.

'nough said?

and yes, it is embarrasing.

oh and then there is the "do whatever it takes to win, just don't get caught" thing too.... this is more of the 'ole boys club thing.

[jr59]

So, if you have children competing in athletic event, you would not mind if they take EPO, steroid, etc to enhance their performance?

Pretty silly here. If your children are doing this I would tell you to look in the mirror, because you are a very poor Father or mother.

[Puget Pounder]

Pretty silly here. If your children are doing this I would tell you to look in the mirror, because you are a very poor Father or mother.

I think you are attacking a guy on your side here.

[BuddyB]

Velotel,

Thank you!!

I have been saying this for years....who gives a ***** whether any of them doped or not. I know I don't.

I love the long line of hypocrites in the cycling community who believe it is wrong to seek the advise of medical doctor, to use a substance that does improve performance, and use it under a doctors direction. Yet, the hypocrites feel it is okay to walk in to any cycling shop/online retailer/ fitness based supply store and purchase a product that may or may not improve performance (if not some sort of harm) that they saw advertised in the recent Velo/Bicycling/Dirt Rag magazine.

.....and just to re-iterate my point. Professional sports is done for "our" entertainment.

Buddy B

[norcalbiker]

Like I said before, most of them doped if not all. Lance just happen to be a better cyclist and a doper. :bike:

Of course this only my opinion.

[beeatnik]

Dude, where are the pretty pictures?

[FlashUNC]

Velotel,

Thank you!!

I have been saying this for years....who gives a ***** whether any of them doped or not. I know I don't.

I love the long line of hypocrites in the cycling community who believe it is wrong to seek the advise of medical doctor, to use a substance that does improve performance, and use it under a doctors direction. Yet, the hypocrites feel it is okay to walk in to any cycling shop/online retailer/ fitness based supply store and purchase a product that may or may not improve performance (if not some sort of harm) that they saw advertised in the recent Velo/Bicycling/Dirt Rag magazine.

.....and just to re-iterate my point. Professional sports is done for "our" entertainment.

Buddy B


Just to make sure I'm following your argument, skinsuit/aero helmet == EPO?

[Louis]

Dude, where are the pretty pictures?

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/blood_transfusion.jpg

[firerescuefin]

..

[RonW87]

Why should Lance and every other athlete who has doped or is suspected of having doped be condemned ...? We’re talking pure victimless crimes here.

Tell that to:

Betsy Andreu
Emma O' Reilly
Paul Kimmage
Christophe Bassons
Graeme Obree

and the many other unknown competitors (and their families) who tried to live their lives according to the written rules, not the "unwritten" rules, and paid a price for it.

[savine]

Now I'm also for the legalizing of doping and if carried out under supervision of a doctor then should be no problem but then it gets down to the issue of children racing.......it's then a bit of a grey zone.

[2LeftCleats]

A lot of angles to this.

I used to feel like you do: it was essentially a level playing field. But with the fuller picture emerging of Lance as someone who coerced his team members and shut out equally capable riders who were unwilling to dope, his deeds appear more eggregious.

You raise the point of where do we draw the line between justifiable enhancement and illegality. It's been mentioned elsewhere about using testosterone in aging men. What's normal aging and why should that be considered normal? It's apparently illegal to compete with testosterone supplement, but if the supplement only replenishes someone into the normal range is that ethical, even if illegal? What about pushing the level to high-normal values?

What about inate intelligence, VO2 max, height, and other genetic endowments? Is it fair to disallow attempts to compensate or enhance because you chose the wrong parents?

The hermaphroditic sprinter from South Africa? Pastorius with the carbon fiber blades for legs? These are thorny issues and the arbitrary line separating legal from illegal is not likely to remain fixed.

[slidey]

Eyy??

I don't think this thread has an iota of logic/morality in it. It does, however, serve an important purpose...it demonstrates that freedom of speech is intact and that the paceline forum servers are capable of handling traffic from france.

Thanks on the unit testing front, man!

[Mr Cabletwitch]

my problem with lance is less the fact that he doped and more all the peoples lives he trampled in his pursuit to keep his secret

[joev]

I've had this discussion with others...you eat right and you perform to a certain level. Then you take supplements, salt, gels, electrolytes, and you're able to ride a bit harder. Then, hmmm, caffeine seems to give you a boost. On another ride, you come across a guy who lives in the Rockies and comes down to your weekly ride and kicks everyone's butt. And he did it "naturally"!

There will never be a point where there is a level playing field unless you have clones competing against one another. All you can do is have a set of rule, make sure the competitors comply, and live with the results. I don't buy this going back and rewriting history.

I wonder what folks are currently using that is has yet to be banned...

[Rueda Tropical]

Lance is history. A cheat and a fraud who got busted, whose name has been struck from the history books and will be forgotten.

We are on to the fraud at the top of the UCI now.

[fiamme red]

Lance is history. A cheat and a fraud who got busted, whose name has been struck from the history books and will be forgotten.Who's Lance? Never heard of him. ;)

[Vientomas]

So he won on drugs, though as far as my understanding goes, that has yet to be proven beyond circumstantial evidence, a lot of apparently but still so far innocent until proven guilty.

USADA is not a criminal court, it is a civil proceeding where the presumption of innocence does not exist. The burden of proof for USADA is to establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This is far different that the standard in a criminal court in the USA where one is indeed innocent until proven guilty. Apples to oranges.

An eyewitness to Lance doping constitutes direct evidence, it is not circumstantial evidence. An admission by Lance doping constitutes direct evidence, it is not circumstantial evidence. There is plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence to support a verdict in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence that Lance doped.

In addition, Lance essential defaulted by not contesting the allegations against him. Therefore, it is presumed that the allegations are true. By his very action, or inaction, Lance admitted that the allegations against him were true.

[vav]

The US will admit Cuba isn’t a threat to american security long before drug use in the peloton is okayed. Too bad.

Speaking of Cuba, funny slang all bike related:

Bike = Chivo "goat"
Top Tube = Caballo "horse"
Saddle = Pepino "Cucumber"
Spoke(s) = Rayo(s) "Ray"
Front/Rear rack = Parrilla "Grill" Griddle"
Bearing = Balin
Crankset = Plato "Plate or dish"
Chain = Catalina


Can't think of anything else now. I'll add more IF this thread doesn't get locked. :p

[Rueda Tropical]

As far as legalizing doping goes, it solves nothing, it just moves the line that you have to cross further out on the edge of the envelope.

The doctors and labs will be more important then the lab rats on bikes.

There will still have to be rules / limits set which will get crossed to gain an advantage and riders will be subject to even more health risks as the procedures get more exotic and more experimental. Cycling pharma won't have the funding, constraints and talent of big pharma and will be riskier. Money, ego, alpha competitors and dope... what a combo! It will make WWF wrestlemania look sedate.

[Puget Pounder]

USADA is not a criminal court, it is a civil proceeding where the presumption of innocence does not exist. The burden of proof for USADA is to establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This is far different that the standard in a criminal court in the USA where one is indeed innocent until proven guilty. Apples to oranges.

An eyewitness to Lance doping constitutes direct evidence, it is not circumstantial evidence. An admission by Lance doping constitutes direct evidence, it is not circumstantial evidence. There is plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence to support a verdict in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence that Lance doped.

In addition, Lance essential defaulted by not contesting the allegations against him. Therefore, it is presumed that the allegations are true. By his very action, or inaction, Lance admitted that the allegations against him were true.

http://t.qkme.me/35wq4s.jpg

[dekindy]

Just some random thoughts.

If the field is level without doping and it is level with doping, then why dope?

Not doping is safer and healthier; especially for the immature athlete that still has a mind and body that is developing.

Doping is very expensive so the richer athletes and teams will have an advantage.

We talk about the rule of law but I wonder why we have any rules because nobody follows them. I drive the speed limit almost exclusively and everybody on the road passes me.

Lance did get a lot of people on bicycles and inspired many cancer patients so it was not all bad; not everyone can say that.

[zap]

People have been doing drugs to ‘find’ or maybe ‘hear’ god from so far back no one knows what drugs they were doing and what the rest of the crowd thought about it.



Yes, and look how well that turned out.

[jr59]

.



.....and just to re-iterate my point. Professional sports is done for "our" entertainment.

Buddy B

I think if more people thought this way, LA doping would be easier to take.

pro sports= entertainment

Doping has been a part of pro cycling for 100+ years!

[1centaur]

The first thing to ask in response to Velotel's many questions, is "what is sport?"

The answer: Sport is not life, it is an idealized attempt to revel in some of humanity's better qualities: effort, practice, courage, cunning, and the wonders of nature. Equality is at the heart of sport - it's why women don't race men, why NFL players don't play college boys, why we would not applaud Velotel getting up one of those mountains faster than a 10-year-old girl on a tricycle. We watch sport for what it reveals about character, and about nature. We are fascinated by the quest and the result. We are not fascinated by the artificial. If we had already known Ricardo Ricco was doped to the gills on CERA when he flew up a mountain in the Giro while others gasped in his wake, how many of us would have thought, "wow, how awesome is that!"? Drugs destroy the attempt at equality that sport intentionally pursues. If there was a full drugs TdF and a no drugs TdF, which one do you think fans would be more interested in? Are we seeing something worth much admiration when a doper wins? Sport is more than the Macy's Day Parade; it is not just spectacle, it's deeper than that.

Lance's doping years included great efforts and athleticism, but they were tarnished by the cheating even if he had been a nice guy. Who made the rules? The organizers made the rules because "however you want to win it's fine with us" is not what fans want. Look at any sporting event and eliminate in your mind some of the rules designed to make it even. Basketball hoop at 10 feet? Not for one team. Have to get around all four bases for a home run? No, you can have a run by getting to second. It all starts to get arbitrary and nonsensical, even if great athletes are competing.

No, drugs hurt the effort at equality, because if they did not they would not be sought. Even 100% evenly administered drugs would hurt equality because then we'd be seeking humans who were more responsive to the dosage, not people who were the best athletes. You can claim that there are other forms of inequality in sport, and I'd agree, but there is a reasonable attempt to even things out and BYOD (bring your own drugs) is not compatible with that intent.

[bikinchris]

I think that one thing that REALLY grates the Lance haters is that he has one nut and the other was irradiated to nearly oblivion and he STILL made a baby with it.

Take that, Lance haters! (snicker) ;)

What grates MY butt is most of those Lance haters put Lemond on a podium. He is just as much of a doper as Lance, yet he gets a pass.

[slidey]

And what bakes my noodle are statements like this. For the record, I have no idea if Lemond doped or not, but even if he did I can guarantee that it can't come close to the systematic doping (for details, see USADA report) the chemo-blasted Uniball carried out. Why don't you see how well Lemond's team mates performed the years he won the TdF?

What grates MY butt is most of those Lance haters put Lemond on a podium. He is just as much of a doper as Lance, yet he gets a pass.

[Rueda Tropical]

He is just as much of a doper as Lance, yet he gets a pass.

Based on what? Wishful thinking?

The fact that your pissed that Armstrong has been exposed as a fraud so you want to believe everyone is as big a douche as Armstrong?

[dancinkozmo]

Does this look like a doper to you bikinchris ??

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=119007

[mcteague]

Guess some people just can't let their heroes go, no matter what they did. LA used drugs, pushed drugs, came close to forcing teammates (employees) to get on the program or lose their jobs, threatened, sued, destroyed people's livelihoods, etc., etc., etc. He is the poster child for bullying. He deserves everything coming his way.

You really should not put people up on pedestals in the first place. And, if you want to avoid disappointment, should not meet or learn about how your heroes carry on their day to day lives. LA survived cancer, many do; many don't. He failed to finish 3 out of his first 4 tours. When he came back he won them all. He was the best alright...the best lier\cheater\drug user. What a great guy.

Me? I admire Betsy Andreau, Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Greg LeMond. These are people who spoke the truth, felt the wrath of Mr Armstrong, but never were defeated. Each has been savaged by the hordes of Lance's followers. Sadly, the truth does not always set you free, but I hope they all feel a bit of vindication.

Tim

[rain dogs]

How long did it take you to write this? I had to read it in two parts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you to yours, but sports have rules. Bike racers can't ride recumbents. Basketball players can't kick the ball. Hockey players can't throw a puck. They agree to those rules.

Cyclists can't dope. So what that Lance is a cheat and a fraud? That's a better question? Doesn't change my life... I never had his poster on the wall or bought his bracelet. He's an asshole who rode a bike fast... he ain't Gandhi.

The world would be a better place if we spent the time/words we spent on Lance on politics, or a global concern.

[Climb01742]

The first thing to ask in response to Velotel's many questions, is "what is sport?"

The answer: Sport is not life, it is an idealized attempt to revel in some of humanity's better qualities: effort, practice, courage, cunning, and the wonders of nature. Equality is at the heart of sport - it's why women don't race men, why NFL players don't play college boys, why we would not applaud Velotel getting up one of those mountains faster than a 10-year-old girl on a tricycle. We watch sport for what it reveals about character, and about nature. We are fascinated by the quest and the result. We are not fascinated by the artificial. If we had already known Ricardo Ricco was doped to the gills on CERA when he flew up a mountain in the Giro while others gasped in his wake, how many of us would have thought, "wow, how awesome is that!"? Drugs destroy the attempt at equality that sport intentionally pursues. If there was a full drugs TdF and a no drugs TdF, which one do you think fans would be more interested in? Are we seeing something worth much admiration when a doper wins? Sport is more than the Macy's Day Parade; it is not just spectacle, it's deeper than that.

Lance's doping years included great efforts and athleticism, but they were tarnished by the cheating even if he had been a nice guy. Who made the rules? The organizers made the rules because "however you want to win it's fine with us" is not what fans want. Look at any sporting event and eliminate in your mind some of the rules designed to make it even. Basketball hoop at 10 feet? Not for one team. Have to get around all four bases for a home run? No, you can have a run by getting to second. It all starts to get arbitrary and nonsensical, even if great athletes are competing.

No, drugs hurt the effort at equality, because if they did not they would not be sought. Even 100% evenly administered drugs would hurt equality because then we'd be seeking humans who were more responsive to the dosage, not people who were the best athletes. You can claim that there are other forms of inequality in sport, and I'd agree, but there is a reasonable attempt to even things out and BYOD (bring your own drugs) is not compatible with that intent.

yes. a thousand times yes.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . I admire Betsy Andreau, Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Greg LeMond. These are people who spoke the truth, felt the wrath of Mr Armstrong, but never were defeated. Each has been savaged by the hordes of Lance's followers. Sadly, the truth does not always set you free, but I hope they all feel a bit of vindication.

Tim

+1000

Well said!

BBD

[BillG]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/obree-calls-the-uci-a-chum-ocracy

I don't know why I read these threads anymore.

[thwart]

Seems the basic premise here is that perhaps all drug use should be legalized...

But drugs for recreational use (like marijuana), drugs for chemotherapy (like vincristine) and drugs for arthritis (like Celebrex) are not quite the same as drugs to enhance athletic performance and gain an edge over one's competitors (like EPO).

To mix them all together makes any intelligent discussion about the topic difficult at best.

[tuxbailey]

The first thing to ask in response to Velotel's many questions, is "what is sport?"

The answer: Sport is not life, it is an idealized attempt to revel in some of humanity's better qualities: effort, practice, courage, cunning, and the wonders of nature. Equality is at the heart of sport - it's why women don't race men, why NFL players don't play college boys, why we would not applaud Velotel getting up one of those mountains faster than a 10-year-old girl on a tricycle. We watch sport for what it reveals about character, and about nature. We are fascinated by the quest and the result. We are not fascinated by the artificial. If we had already known Ricardo Ricco was doped to the gills on CERA when he flew up a mountain in the Giro while others gasped in his wake, how many of us would have thought, "wow, how awesome is that!"? Drugs destroy the attempt at equality that sport intentionally pursues. If there was a full drugs TdF and a no drugs TdF, which one do you think fans would be more interested in? Are we seeing something worth much admiration when a doper wins? Sport is more than the Macy's Day Parade; it is not just spectacle, it's deeper than that.

Lance's doping years included great efforts and athleticism, but they were tarnished by the cheating even if he had been a nice guy. Who made the rules? The organizers made the rules because "however you want to win it's fine with us" is not what fans want. Look at any sporting event and eliminate in your mind some of the rules designed to make it even. Basketball hoop at 10 feet? Not for one team. Have to get around all four bases for a home run? No, you can have a run by getting to second. It all starts to get arbitrary and nonsensical, even if great athletes are competing.

No, drugs hurt the effort at equality, because if they did not they would not be sought. Even 100% evenly administered drugs would hurt equality because then we'd be seeking humans who were more responsive to the dosage, not people who were the best athletes. You can claim that there are other forms of inequality in sport, and I'd agree, but there is a reasonable attempt to even things out and BYOD (bring your own drugs) is not compatible with that intent.


Brilliant.

[Lionel]

It's hilarious that Velotel thinks that Voigt and Hampsten are clean. Please...

[soulspinner]

velotel...here in the USA, we are a "do as I say, not as I do" culture.

'nough said?

and yes, it is embarrasing.

oh and then there is the "do whatever it takes to win, just don't get caught" thing too.... this is more of the 'ole boys club thing.

Ive enjoyed a lot of losses............. its our win at all costs, look at the Olympic games, all they talk abut is gold medal hopefuls. Pressure, enormous pressure....................

[rugbysecondrow]

I like and agree with much of what the OP wrote.

Watching Monday Night Football last night, they had an informal poll which asked "what are the greatest problems facing sports today". PED use in sports got about 30% of the votes behind Labor Unions and Player Safety (whatever that means). I am not certain how all of this factors into cycling except to say that Lance will be alright. The turncoats in the cycling community will continue to stiff arm him with the same arm they once embraced him, but the public at large will forget, it already is not front and center.

Lance ran by my house a month ago in a local half ironman distance triathlon. He said he would come and the organizers welcomed him even though that meant losing sanctioning for the race. Spectators and crowds welcomed him, neighbors went to watch him run by. Not cheating chants, no negativity, just cheering an a famous athlete competing in our local race.

When the dust settles, he will still be the greatest American cyclist in history, arguably the greatest cyclist in history, cancer survivor, cancer advocate and fundraiser, a hero to some. Will people accept his PED use, if they believe it at all? Likely. Great athletes are not viewed in a vacuum or silo but judged against their peers, their competition, their other works. In this light, how is it not fair to accept that Lance was both the greatest cyclist and a doper?

[Rueda Tropical]

In this light, how is it not fair to accept that Lance was both the greatest cyclist and a doper?

You don't know if Armstrong could have one even one TdF without cheating. In a clean peloton he may not have even made the podium of a stage race. Where he would have been without dope is idle speculation based on zero actual data as he never raced clean against clean racers.

We will never know who would have been "the greatest" in the EPO era (which has not yet completely ended). We do know who had the best doctors and who was best at having the regulators in their pocket.

Armstrong will not be remembered for any athletic achievement as he has none. A generation or 2 from now if he is remembered at all it will be as the biggest cheat in an era of dope fueled corruption.

[rugbysecondrow]

You don't know if Armstrong could have one even one TdF without cheating. In a clean peloton he may not have even made the podium of a stage race. Where he would have been without dope is idle speculation based on zero actual data as he never raced clean against clean racers.

We will never know who would have been "the greatest" in the EPO era (which has not yet completely ended). We do know who had the best doctors and who was best at having the regulators in their pocket.

Armstrong will not be remembered for any athletic achievement as he has none. A generation or 2 from now if he is remembered at all it will be as the biggest cheat in an era of dope fueled corruption.

"You don't know if" "who would have been" "Where he would have been without"...You can create whatever what if scenarios and hypotheticals you want. The truth is that he both doped and won. He won against other dopers. He was the greatest of his time because he beat the other competition of his time. People know he won, even if the title is stripped, just like we all know Joe Paterno won the games he was stripped of and that Reggie Bush won the Heisman...it happened, even if it was later vacated. You might not like it, but it is true. It also doesn't make it right, but it makes it true.

Haters are going to hate, that is your prerogative, but you hold extreme views on the subject that most of America does not share...you are out of touch. The vitriol you espouse on the subject, although meaningful to you, is just not shared by most people. You might never forgive or forget, but believe me, most of America will.

If Richard Nixon could have a rebirth of sorts as an author, speaker and given national credence, I think Lance will be just fine. :)

[thwart]

Yikes.

This 'he won, who cares how he did it' perspective is especially troubling on election day.

Speaking of Nixon...

[William]

Yikes.


Speaking of Nixon...

That rug really tied the room together. The Dude abides...;)

.

[93legendti]

"You don't know if" "who would have been" "Where he would have been without"...You can create whatever what if scenarios and hypotheticals you want. The truth is that he both doped and won. He won against other dopers. He was the greatest of his time because he beat the other competition of his time. People know he won, even if the title is stripped, just like we all know Joe Paterno won the games he was stripped of and that Reggie Bush won the Heisman...it happened, even if it was later vacated. You might not like it, but it is true. It also doesn't make it right, but it makes it true.

Haters are going to hate, that is your prerogative, but you hold extreme views on the subject that most of America does not share...you are out of touch. The vitriol you espouse on the subject, although meaningful to you, is just not shared by most people. You might never forgive or forget, but believe me, most of America will.

If Richard Nixon could have a rebirth of sorts as an author, speaker and given national credence, I think Lance will be just fine. :)

Teddy Kennedy is a better analogy. He killed a woman and later became the saint of his party.

[Rueda Tropical]

Haters are going to hate, that is your prerogative, but you hold extreme views on the subject that most of America does not share...you are out of touch.


It's got nothing to do with hate. It's an observation on an athlete who cheated. The hater nonsense, that's you projecting.

As far as being out of touch with Americans opinions on Lance... you might want to step out of your bubble. Check Lance's Q scores -before the reasoned decision was release with all it's additional negative publicity 3 times as many Americans had a negative opinion of Armstrong as a positive one. 10% of Americans had a positive opinion and the number is shrinking.

Sure Armstrong can make a living off of 5% of the country. There are cults that generate big bucks with smaller numbers of followers. But most Americans have either no opinion of him or think he's a fraud.

[rugbysecondrow]

Yikes.

This 'he won, who cares how he did it' perspective is especially troubling on election day.

Speaking of Nixon...



It seems more correct to say he won the game which was being played at the time.

If we had our choice, we would want no cheating, purely self driven sports with no drugs, illicit substances etc. but I think that is not reality. We accept sports for what they are, not for what we want them to be or wish they were...sort of like people. I have good friends who are woefully imperfect. I don't lament their imperfections or wish them to be something they are not but enjoy them and their friendships for who they actually are and how they treat me.

This is true for elections as well, as we have a national choice over two very imperfect men who are singularly focused on one goal.

[rugbysecondrow]

It's got nothing to do with hate. It's an observation on an athlete who cheated. The hater nonsense, that's you projecting.

As far as being out of touch with Americans opinions on Lance... you might want to step out of your bubble. Check Lance's Q scores -before the reasoned decision was release with all it's additional negative publicity 3 times as many Americans had a negative opinion of Armstrong as a positive one. 10% of Americans had a positive opinion and the number is shrinking.

Sure Armstrong can make a living off of 5% of the country. There are cults that generate big bucks with smaller numbers of followers. But most Americans have either no opinion of him or think he's a fraud.

If you think what you are projecting is just an observation, then I think you need to reflect a bit. I don't begrudge your opinion, I just disagree. If you are going to espouse it, then at least own it, don't back down from it. I might not agree with the haters, but I can at least respect the fervor, the determination it must take to swallow all the articles, research and delve into the Lance topic.

My bubble is pretty solid on this subject as it contains no cyclists. :) I am not certain a marketing tool is the best way to gauge this, especially in the wake of the news. Lets look next month, 6 months, a year from now and see where he is, where ALL of cycling is. I would also look and see not where he is relative to pre-scandel Lance but rather cyclists as a whole. I suspect cycling will be taking a big hit and even a pummeled Lance might be as popular as a non-pummeled cyclist.

[PQJ]

arguably the greatest cyclist in history

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely not. Not by any measure or in anyone's estimation (not even Lance's, no matter how delusional he is). Not even close.

Greatest cyclist in history begins and ends with one name: Eddy Merckx.

[velotel]

Yikes.

This 'he won, who cares how he did it' perspective is especially troubling on election day.

Speaking of Nixon...
Especially given the history of this particular campaign and all the outright lies told and repeatedly told. Which really is what I'm saying, doping is a direct result of the culture we live in. Like the professor from CU said about the chickens coming home to roost. What he said was true. He also got sacked for what he said.

Some seem to think that I'm a fan of Lance. I'm not but I loved watching him and Ullrich and Pantini race. I also believe he truly won 7 TdFs. I also don't doubt that he doped.

I'm still waiting to read (and probably this forum isn't where an answer would be coming from due to all the aspects of a potential response) why performance enhancing drugs are banned and what are the criteria for them being banned. Why is training at altitude or in a special altitude tent okay but not a drug that achieves the same sort of result? Why is someone banned from drawing his or her own blood and then re-injecting that blood?

Believe me, that's something I'd never do; I hate needles. Actually I don't even like drugs to be honest, outside of a tiny pinch of honest herb before a ride. I don't even haul around energy drinks, just water. Nor energy bars or any kind of supplement at all. Just slices of strong bread and almond butter and dried fruit. I'm about as clean a rider as you'll ever run across. Maybe that's why I never won anything. Then again I never raced.

Which is beside the point, the point being why are performance enhancing drugs banned. Where the hell is the problem? Okay, if there are potential health risks from taking/using them, for me that's a good argument against. Otherwise what the heck. They remain performance enhancing, not performance transforming. The riders still need to train like nutcases, they have to learn how to ride, how to use the strength they have, etc. From what little I know about doping all it does is increase their capacity to do what they are already capable of doing. Like carry more oxygen in their blood I guess, or something like that. Which I wouldn't mind at times, I must admit.

I just don't see why the world is so excited about it all. It's only a sport. Too bad people didn't get so excited about the banksters robbing the public blind and them telling them screw off instead. Or even better fighting to change our living habits to save the only planet we live on. Things like that, which I didn't mention because this is after all a cycling oriented forum.

And to Lionel, actually I haven't a clue whether Voigt rode clean or not but all I've ever read is that he did. For Andy, if there is one rider I'd probably be willing to bet hard cash didn't dope, that rider would be Andy Hampsten. But in truth again I don't know and as I said, whether they did or didn't is irrelevant to me.

cheers

[rugbysecondrow]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely not. Not by any measure or in anyone's estimation (not even Lance's, no matter how delusional he is). Not even close.

Greatest cyclist in history begins and ends with one name: Eddy Merckx.

He certainly is part of the conversation with Armstrong...and wasn't Merckx a cheater, busted for doping as well?

[PQJ]

He certainly is part of the conversation with Armstrong...and wasn't Merckx a cheater, busted for doping as well?

Yes, Merckx cheated, got busted and unlike Armstrong has owned up to it.

As regards the road cycling GOAT, the conversation begins and ends with Merckx (for $hits and giggles you could throw a few others in the mix, but none of them are Armstrong).

Armstrong isn't part of the conversation, (a) because his palmares consists of 1 world championship, a few classics, a few short stage races, and possibly a bronze Olympic medal, (b) because Armstrong focused mainly on a single race, and (c) because he never won a grand tour.

We can reasonably disagree on a number of things, Paul, but the pantheon of greatest ever road cyclists isn't one of them.

[oldpotatoe]

At least the election will be over today....

this wears me out!!

[jr59]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely not. Not by any measure or in anyone's estimation (not even Lance's, no matter how delusional he is). Not even close.

Greatest cyclist in history begins and ends with one name: Eddy Merckx.


Perfect! you are correct!

That goes to prove Rugby's ideas. Merckx was a doper and a cheat as well. Also very diffcult to get along with while racing! Sounds a lot like Lance to me!

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes, Merckx cheated, got busted and unlike Armstrong has owned up to it.

As regards the road cycling GOAT, the conversation begins and ends with Merckx (for $hits and giggles you could throw a few others in the mix, but none of them are Armstrong).

Armstrong isn't part of the conversation, (a) because his palmares consists of 1 world championship, a few classics, a few short stage races, and possibly a bronze Olympic medal, (b) because Armstrong focused mainly on a single race, and (c) because he never won a grand tour.

We can reasonably disagree on a number of things, Paul, but the pantheon of greatest ever road cyclists isn't one of them.

That makes Merckx a better man, IMO, but is not cycling related. A great question would be, "if Merckx and Lance raced at the same time, would Merckx have doped the same way? Did Lance do anything that the greatest of all time wouldn't have done if he had the opportunity?

I think Armstrong is part of the conversation, he has to be acknowledged, but you are correct, I think most would rank others above him even prior to this scandal.

[PQJ]

Perfect! you are correct!

That goes to prove Rugby's ideas. Merckx was a doper and a cheat as well. Also very diffcult to get along with while racing! Sounds a lot like Lance to me!

That makes Merckx a better man, IMO, but is not cycling related. A great question would be, "if Merckx and Lance raced at the same time, would Merckx have doped the same way? Did Lance do anything that the greatest of all time wouldn't have done if he had the opportunity?

I think Armstrong is part of the conversation, he has to be acknowledged, but you are correct, I think most would rank others above him even prior to this scandal.

This has been rehashed many times so I won't go there. Doping during Merckx's error was JV compared to the 90s/00s. Also, it goes far beyond simply saying "cyclist X did Y and cyclist A did B so they're the same." I'd encourage you to read The Secret Race and USADA's reasoned decision for some context.

The answer to Paul's question is: perhaps, perhaps not.

[Gummee]

I got to thinking about this very topic on Sunday as I was reading the paper. Big-ish article on performance-enhancing tactics in the NFL.

DMSO to make you smell and your breathe stink? Sure.
Vaseline smeared on your pants and jersey to make the tacklers slip off? Sure
Pain killers to make the aches and pains go away so you can play harder?

etc etc etc

Where's the outcry? Where's the indignation? Why aren't the wins of those cheaters and their teams being stripped?

Cycling, it seems, it its own worst enemy.

M

[goonster]

I'm still waiting to read (and probably this forum isn't where an answer would be coming from due to all the aspects of a potential response) why performance enhancing drugs are banned and what are the criteria for them being banned.
OK, I'll bite.

1. They distort the competition because:
a) Not all athletes benefit equally from the substances/methods.
b) Not all athletes have equal access.

2. PED use at the elite and Pro level encourages PED use at junior and amateur levels.

3. PED use is illegal if it
a) Violates sporting fraud laws.
b) Violates laws governing the distribution and administration of prescription medication.

4. Administration of PED's for the purpose of gaining an advantage in elite sports is medically unethical.

5. Use of PED's, and methods such as autologous transfusions, introduce unnecessary risk of acute and long-term health problems.

[rugbysecondrow]

The answer to Paul's question is: perhaps, perhaps not.

And isn't this fun of sports, being able to have these conversations. Who is better, A-rod or Micky Mantle? Clemens or Bob Gibson?

:)

[gdw]

"Like the professor from CU said about the chickens coming home to roost. What he said was true. He also got sacked for what he said. "

Bringing Ward Churchill into a discussion on cheating and painting him as a victim is pretty amusing but doesn't help your credibility at all.

[54ny77]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/11/news/former-armstrong-teammate-david-george-tests-positive-for-epo_264075

Gee, why don't they say something like, "Former Gianpaolo Mondini teammate suspended for EPO?"

[firerescuefin]

"Like the professor from CU said about the chickens coming home to roost. What he said was true. He also got sacked for what he said. "

Bringing Ward Churchill into a discussion on cheating and painting him as a victim is pretty amusing but doesn't help your credibility at all.

....actually it makes him lose all credibility.

[Dave B]

Do I care...hmmmmm

I don't care what Lance did to his body. I don't care about what is happeneing to him right now.

He made the Tour fun to watch for me an American. He made my cycling interests grow from what they were.

He helped bring a greater/new awareness to Cancer and has helped a lot of people with hope or motivation to tackle their own story.


What I care more and more about is the punishment he dealt to people who tried to do it clean or wouldn't be bought by him. I think what he is experiencing now is similiar to what others have suffered through do to his ego or secrets. Lance losing millions doesn't affect my life in anyway, but if people who had their careers shortened or damaged as a direct result of Lance get some closure or retribution then I am all for it.

Do I care if people dope. Honestly I don't know. I understand why people do it, but I would hate try and rationalize it for my own family. I think sports are taken too seriously by too many people. Money is involved and careers are short and hard to come by. Like I said I understand why people do it.

[Rueda Tropical]

If you think what you are projecting is just an observation, then I think you need to reflect a bit. I don't begrudge your opinion, I just disagree. If you are going to espouse it, then at least own it, don't back down from it. I might not agree with the haters, but I can at least respect the fervor, the determination it must take to swallow all the articles, research and delve into the Lance topic.


You are conflating things that have nothing to do with each other. Hater suggests some irrattional emotional investment in the person or cause. Recognizing the evidence that someone is a cheat and a liar is just that. If I told you I didn't believe the moon was made of green cheese would I be a "hater" or just cognizant of the facts.

Yes, I well own the fact that it's obvious that Armstrong is a cheat and a fraud. That is a fact borne out by evidence. Believing he is the greatest cyclist that ever lived and he is still a hero to all America is like a religious belief based on nothing objective.

At least marketing tools like Q scores, that businesses use to make big money bets are based on some statistical science and objective sampling - they don't just pull opinions out of their buts because thats what they want to believe.

So lets just agree to disagree.

[cfox]

Teddy Kennedy is a better analogy. He killed a woman and later became the saint of his party.
100% true, but perhaps Clinton is an even better analogy; corrupt, serial liar and now the most beloved politician in the world. He did "apologize" though, and we 'mericans love our apologies. I'm convinced LA & Co. are figuring out a way for him to apologize while staying out of jail. Potential $$ liabilities could be offset via books, speeches, and renewed relevance.

[Dave B]

Why haven't we heard from or about Chris Charmichael? I feel like he is being overlooked in a lot of this.

Hasn't he has to settle some suits for alleged doping of younger kids?

[firerescuefin]

Why haven't we heard from or about Chris Charmichael? I feel like he is being overlooked in a lot of this.

Hasn't he has to settle some suits for alleged doping of younger kids?

He's hiding in the CTS fallout bunker. He's a bigger fraud than Lance IMO...at least Lance turned the pedals...Chris's contribution was as a ferrari smoke screen and set extra on the "science of lance Armstrong" Sci Fi series.

[54ny77]

he invented high cadence climbing.

Why haven't we heard from or about Chris Charmichael? I feel like he is being overlooked in a lot of this.

Hasn't he has to settle some suits for alleged doping of younger kids?

[Black Dog]

Now I'm also for the legalizing of doping and if carried out under supervision of a doctor then should be no problem but then it gets down to the issue of children racing.......it's then a bit of a grey zone.

You know that some parents would be pushing drugs into their kids to help them win and become a pro. Kids will take the drugs to please their parents. Any clean kid will not move up the ranks and will have no chance at making in the sport. Parents that do not want their kids doing EPO will keep them out of the sport. It will kill the sport's future.

[jimcav]

I got to thinking about this very topic on Sunday as I was reading the paper. Big-ish article on performance-enhancing tactics in the NFL.

DMSO to make you smell and your breathe stink? Sure.
M

weird, that seriously under-utilizes DMSO. the beauty of which is if you mix something in it, the DMSO carries it right across the skin to the area of injury--I've known runners who ran on stress fractures with DMSO and aspirin, etc crushed and mixed with it...

[cfox]

Now I'm also for the legalizing of doping and if carried out under supervision of a doctor then should be no problem but then it gets down to the issue of children racing.......it's then a bit of a grey zone.

can't we put this silly idea to bed?? Supervised, legal doping will get you...guys figuring out ways to dope the "legit" doping system. It's effectively what we have now.

[Dave B]

He's hiding in the CTS fallout bunker. He's a bigger fraud than Lance IMO...at least Lance turned the pedals...Chris's contribution was as a ferrari smoke screen and set extra on the "science of lance Armstrong" Sci Fi series.

I have two of those on tape I show my students every year as I am trying to show them all science and engineers do not wear lab coats.

It will be difficult to show them that stuff anymore. Kind of sad as there aren't those types of videos to get them interested in cycling.

i used to show them Ned Overend's how to mountain bike video. I was the only one paying attention.

[Gummee]

OK, I'll bite.

1. They distort the competition because:
a) Not all athletes benefit equally from the substances/methods.
b) Not all athletes have equal access.You can say the same thing about training methods too. Not everyone has the team physiologist developing a training plan.

2. PED use at the elite and Pro level encourages PED use at junior and amateur levels.Maybe. Maybe not. ...but there's ALWAYS someone that's gonna push the rules 'just because.'

3. PED use is illegal if it
a) Violates sporting fraud laws.
b) Violates laws governing the distribution and administration of prescription medication.

4. Administration of PED's for the purpose of gaining an advantage in elite sports is medically unethical.agreed 100%

5. Use of PED's, and methods such as autologous transfusions, introduce unnecessary risk of acute and long-term health problems.IDK about blood doping, but probably on the rest.

M

[jimcav]

. He’s a friggin miracle. The guy was so far gone with cancer bike journalists were probably writing up rough drafts for obituaries about this young, future champion being stolen from life so early. But he didn’t die. Drugs saved him. Lots of drugs probably.

His type of cancer, even with stage III metastatis had very GOOD survival rate. Testicular cancer has the highest treatment success of any solid tumor. so, NOT a miracle, but certainly lucky. I don't know his tumor markers, which help determine prognosis, but back in 1997 the lowest (poor catergory) would have been 48% surviaval, the other 2 categories (medium and high) having 80% and 92% survival. This was back in 97, it is now even higher. This is from the NCI website on testicular carcinoma

So obviously the main good regarding LA is that he raised awareness for this cancer, and all cancer. The bad is he used doping to go from an okay pro to an unstoppable champion--and by unstoppable I mean he lied, cheated, bullied, and bought his success. I got seriously into riding after 9/11--commuting seemed a natural thing to do since I believe it is oil, not opium, that funds terrorists--so until the cheating allegations, I wasn't even aware how LA's "winning" was impossible without doping.

I also am not shocked nor did I really care that he doped. Yet as the details emerged, and the full picture of his efforts as a team owner, celebrity, and "role model" to use doping on an enterprise level--that disgusts me because of how it was done and the malice to deliberately hurt and discredit those who tried to bring the truth out.

I no longer consider him a great cyclist, I understand physiology enough to understand that blood doping and EPO make results and comparisons between riders meaningless.

[BillG]

I haven't read this whole thread, but just remember Lance didn't win just because he doped. He won because his whole team was on the same systematic doping program. ITS A TEAM SPORT. And they rode like a real team, doped to the gills for the same purpose.

[zap]

I'm still waiting to read (and probably this forum isn't where an answer would be coming from due to all the aspects of a potential response) why performance enhancing drugs are banned and what are the criteria for them being banned. Why is training at altitude or in a special altitude tent okay but not a drug that achieves the same sort of result? Why is someone banned from drawing his or her own blood and then re-injecting that blood?



Death and ill health.

Training at altitude is natural and does no harm.

Tents are not ok in some sports. You know some fool is going to modify the tent to simulate ever higher elevations.

[goonster]

IDK about blood doping
Jesus Manzano does.

Even if you are doing autologous transfusions only, there is some risk that the blood has been improperly stored, improperly labeled and switched with someone else's, contaminated, etc.

[fiamme red]

Even if you are doing autologous transfusions only, there is some risk that the blood has been improperly stored, improperly labeled and switched with someone else's, contaminated, etc.In fact, Landis used to babysit Lance's blood bags in Girona (when Lance was out of town) to make sure they wouldn't go bad.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Zabriskie+David+Affidavit.pdf (paragraph 52)

[jimcav]

Death and ill health.

Training at altitude is natural and does no harm.

Tents are not ok in some sports. You know some fool is going to modify the tent to simulate ever higher elevations.

CMS (chronic mountain sickness) can occur in some individuals at altitude.
FYI it takes over 30 days at 3000m altitude to achieve the full adaptation of hematocrit increase, plus, with the other physiologic effects of being at altitude, you can't really train as hard/well--this is why athletes do the "live high, train low". Blood doping and EPO is faster, and allows the hard training--in the end it is cheaper, faster, and increases RBCs more...which is why the dopers use it.

[Grant McLean]

In this light, how is it not fair to accept that Lance was both the greatest cyclist and a doper?

Lance Armstrong: Tour de France Overall Results

1993, DNF

1994, DNF

1995, 36th

1996, DNF

Greatest? Not so much.
Lance was nobody as a stage racer without doping.
With his Vo2 and natural hematocrit, he never
wins a grand tour. It's a nice fantasy to think
that Lance was a contender without being doped
to the gills.

-g

[e-RICHIE]

Lance Armstrong: Tour de France Overall Results

1993, DNF

1994, DNF

1995, 36th

1996, DNF

Greatest? Not so much.
Lance was nobody as a stage racer without doping.
With his Vo2 and natural hematocrit, he never
wins a grand tour.

-g
He never wins one without Weisel either atmo.
PEDs cost money, and all (ab)users need a factor.

[rugbysecondrow]

Lance Armstrong: Tour de France Overall Results

1993, DNF

1994, DNF

1995, 36th

1996, DNF

Greatest? Not so much.
Lance was nobody as a stage racer without doping.
With his Vo2 and natural hematocrit, he never
wins a grand tour. It's a nice fantasy to think
that Lance was a contender without being doped
to the gills.

-g

Who's fantasy is this? Not one I have enjoyed as mine typically don't involve male cyclists. :banana:

At what level are we going to compare though? Lance doped, so did his comrades and contemporaries, as well as many historical winners of the tour in addition to many of the greatest riders of all time. So, what is the apples to apples comparison? Who is the clean rider you are going to trust as the baseline?

It is a dirty sport, with dirty winners, dirty results. Lance was dirty, he was better at being dirty. If there are the official rules, then there are the unofficial rules, which did he follow? Which did other cyclists follow?

Treat Lance as a cheater, that is fair, but it seem he is being made to bear the brunt hate people have for a totally crooked sport. I would boycott the races, the television, the webites...the whole lot of the them are guilty.

[e-RICHIE]

I reigned in my posts about this issue once USADA handed down its decision because according to my opinion, that is when the book covers closed on the saga. As far as level playing fields and they all doped chat goes, Lance won very little if you take away his TDF starts. Yeah - I know full well what his list includes, but the great riders win all season long rather than only in July atmo. He doped. They doped. Big deal. I was entertained by his story as much when he raced as when he lied about it all. I am glad he's no longer a player. And I am sure all the mirrors in his house are turned around.



Who's fantasy is this? Not one I have enjoyed as mine typically don't involve male cyclists. :banana:

At what level are we going to compare though? Lance doped, so did his comrades and contemporaries, as well as many historical winners of the tour in addition to many of the greatest riders of all time. So, what is the apples to apples comparison? Who is the clean rider you are going to trust as the baseline?

It is a dirty sport, with dirty winners, dirty results. Lance was dirty, he was better at being dirty. If there are the official rules, then there are the unofficial rules, which did he follow? Which did other cyclists follow?

Treat Lance as a cheater, that is fair, but it seem he is being made to bear the brunt hate people have for a totally crooked sport. I would boycott the races, the television, the webites...the whole lot of the them are guilty.

[Rueda Tropical]

It is a dirty sport, with dirty winners, dirty results. Lance was dirty, he was better at being dirty. If there are the official rules, then there are the unofficial rules, which did he follow? Which did other cyclists follow?




That's not sport. If you cheat - your are DQ'd in sport. You didn't win. If cheating was rampant then the races were meaningless. If one boxer is bribed to take a fall you don't say his opponent won under the "unofficial rules". The match was meaningless as a sporting competition.

The TdF's Lance participated in may have been competitions, but if the yellow jersey is awarded it should go to Ferrari and Weisel. It wasn't an athletic competition, it was a rivalry between crooked business operations. The racketeers Lance worked for and eventually became a partner with were better financed, better organized and had better pharma. They could take a donkey and turn him into a race horse and leave more talented clean riders at the back of the pack.

Fascinating spectacle, in the way the Godfather saga was sort of mesmerizing but none of the juiced up flunkies working for guys like Weisel and doped by Doctors like Ferrari won any sporting competitions. Thats why their results were stricken from the books and the top spot has been left empty in those 7 Td'F's.

[fiamme red]

Who's fantasy is this? Not one I have enjoyed as mine typically don't involve male cyclists. :banana:No, they typically involve male football players. ;) :banana:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=113981

[FlashUNC]

Jesus Manzano does.

Even if you are doing autologous transfusions only, there is some risk that the blood has been improperly stored, improperly labeled and switched with someone else's, contaminated, etc.

Add Ricardo Ricco to that list.

Blood transfusion nearly killed him.

[smead]

I steer clear of the lance talk, I really just don't care although I really enjoyed reading the OP post and share just about all the sentiments he expressed.

He sums it up pretty well here -

"Who the hell decided that drugs were illegal and why did they decide that?"

As Todd Snider puts it so succinctly in Tension - "But you know this war on drugs it's funded by the Tobacco and Alcohol Commissions It's not what drugs you're strung out on they care about as much as whose .."

Cheers all ..

[boxerboxer]

So what if some huge percentage of the others did too? blahblah<snip>

Reasons it matters:
1. He lied about it to the very end.

2. He was a horrible human being to a bunch of people simply because they told or were going to tell the truth.

3. It's not like it was a victimless crime. People were riding clean. Maybe no one that podiumed recently was clean, but who knows what the podium would have looked like in a clean sport. It's a horrible way to treat people who have poured their hopes and dreams and time and money and blood and tears into bike racing.

[velotel]

"Like the professor from CU said about the chickens coming home to roost. What he said was true. He also got sacked for what he said. "

Bringing Ward Churchill into a discussion on cheating and painting him as a victim is pretty amusing but doesn't help your credibility at all.
Well thanks, I didn't even know I had any credibility. Certainly never claimed any. Just one guy contemplating different things.

I also didn't mention Churchill by name nor did I say anything about him being a victim. He wrote what he wrote and got sacked. Those are facts.

Outside of that, the phrase about chickens coming home to roost simply means that things that happen today are the direct result of past actions. In this case, drugs and racing, drugs of one sort or another have been used by racers for a long, long time. At first they were basically accepted. Then they were just kind of ignored. Then they were looked at but with an eye that wasn't necessarily too sharp in the vision department. Then they (the taking of drugs) were looked at with an eye that was opaque much of the time with small moments of clarity with the hope that the moment of clarity would suffice and the world would move along. Then they were looked at more critically with lots of heavy breathing and sorrowful looks but not much else. Such was the progression of the usage of drugs by bike racers.

And along came Greg Lemond winning the TdF. Some french businessman who as I recall manufactured clothes for kids saw Lemond standing on the podium in Paris holding his kid in his arms and this guy practically got an erection over the marketing potential he saw standing there. And promptly signed him to a million dollar contract as I recall, a sum that was absolutely unheard of in the world of bike racing. Just like Trump deciding he could buy his way to a world championship team. The result was the same. Riders started making more money than any of them had dreamed of making on a bike. Budgets went up, sponsors were paying more money, directors were under more and more pressure to produce something for the money they received. The pressure was passed along to the racers. Race organizers
all of a sudden were pulling in more money too. In short, a perfect environment for doping.

Armstrong was the logical outcome of all these past actions. The chickens coming home to roost. He apparently took it to levels never before seen and did so in a brutally aggressive manner but for me that was again just a logical result of all that had passed before.

Really no different than what happened with the banks in the states. An environment evolved, choices were made, one step after another. Just chickens coming home to roost.

Or such is my perspective, for which I freely admit I have no creds at all. Just one guy's opinion on what he's observed.

Cheers

[bikinchris]

Lance Armstrong: Tour de France Overall Results

1993, DNF

1994, DNF

1995, 36th

1996, DNF

Greatest? Not so much.
Lance was nobody as a stage racer without doping.
With his Vo2 and natural hematocrit, he never
wins a grand tour. It's a nice fantasy to think
that Lance was a contender without being doped
to the gills.

-g

Full disclosure; Doping or no. Compare the photos before and after. Lance was a classics rider before cancer. He looked like a swimmer with thick shoulders and arms. After cancer, he looked lke he was a survivor fresh from a concentration camp. Of course the last DNF in the TdF, he left coughing up blood. he was way too heavy to contend for the Tour before cancer. He wasn't too large to win the World Championships.
I am not trying to defend him so much as set the record straight. I know that saying anything that doesn't sound like it is against Lance is punishable with the same vigor as treason on here.

Now please continue beating the **** out of that same old horse, please.

[deanster]

Its like all big money athletics...money corrupts.
Pure and simple Lance is a Fraud. Doping to help one over a rough spot...but, taking something that changes basic physiology to the point of giving those who choose not to dope no chance to compete: Hampsten, Lemond, et al is flat wrong.
Lance claimed to be the greatest but I don't see his wins in the Grio or the spring classics. Yes, he had other victories but is still a one trick pony who used team tactics, EPO, and lied, lied, lied...and is still lying to us.
What he did to the careers of those who pointed out his doping is dispicable and I am glad to see him knocked off his throne of tin.
Just hope cycling survives the current bad stretch of publicity.

In the spirit of Veterans day and sports...the Young Marine (triple amputee and high school baseball player) who laid his crutch aside and threw the first pitch in the World Series to Say Hey Mays belays all the Lance cancer stories to insignificance because of what lance did with his second chance. Sempre Fi baby!

[Tony T]

Lance claimed to be the greatest but I don't see his wins in the Grio or the spring classics.

He always said that Merckx was the greatest, and always said that his intent was to focus on the TDF.

[Grant McLean]

Lance claimed to be the greatest

To be fair, I don't ever recall Lance claiming to be the greatest.

Others may have characterized him as "the greatest Tour rider"
but I don't think those familiar with the sport of cycling would
claim Lance was the greatest rider ever.

-g

[malcolm]

Its like all big money athletics...money corrupts.
Pure and simple Lance is a Fraud. Doping to help one over a rough spot...but, taking something that changes basic physiology to the point of giving those who choose not to dope no chance to compete: Hampsten, Lemond, et al is flat wrong.
Lance claimed to be the greatest but I don't see his wins in the Grio or the spring classics. Yes, he had other victories but is still a one trick pony who used team tactics, EPO, and lied, lied, lied...and is still lying to us.
What he did to the careers of those who pointed out his doping is dispicable and I am glad to see him knocked off his throne of tin.
Just hope cycling survives the current bad stretch of publicity.

In the spirit of Veterans day and sports...the Young Marine (triple amputee and high school baseball player) who laid his crutch aside and threw the first pitch in the World Series to Say Hey Mays belays all the Lance cancer stories to insignificance because of what lance did with his second chance. Sempre Fi baby!

Doping does not change your physiology. There seems to be the idea that epo is somehow a supercharger. EPO is a hormone that stimulates the marrow to produce more red blood cells. The cells are in no way altered from your normal red blood cells the hemoglobin content is the same and it/they function in the same way. It only serves to get you close to the holy grail/cut off hematocrit of 50%. It is essentially the same as transfusing your own blood to reach that number. The oxygen carrying capacity is the same no matter if you reached a crit of 50 chemically with epo or transfused to get there. It's the elevated hemglobin/hematocrit that matters no so much how you achieved it.

[CunegoFan]

Full disclosure; Doping or no. Compare the photos before and after. Lance was a classics rider before cancer. He looked like a swimmer with thick shoulders and arms. After cancer, he looked lke he was a survivor fresh from a concentration camp. Of course the last DNF in the TdF, he left coughing up blood. he was way too heavy to contend for the Tour before cancer. He wasn't too large to win the World Championships.
I am not trying to defend him so much as set the record straight. I know that saying anything that doesn't sound like it is against Lance is punishable with the same vigor as treason on here.


After cancer Armstrong never raced the Tour at more than 2 kg less than the weight he raced it before cancer. He started the 2005 TdF at 75 kg. In his SCA deposition he admitted that there was no significant weight loss. Pre 1997 he would do steroids and weight lifting during the off season and put on weight, but by mid season his weight was essentially the same weight as it was post 1997 at the Tour. The cancer caused weight loss was a fairy tale for the rubes to explain his unbelievable increase in performance.

[fiamme red]

The cancer caused weight loss was a fairy tale for the rubes to explain his unbelievable increase in performance.That and the high-cadence thing. :)

[cfox]

After cancer Armstrong never raced the Tour at more than 2 kg less than the weight he raced it before cancer. He started the 2005 TdF at 75 kg. In his SCA deposition he admitted that there was no significant weight loss. Pre 1997 he would do steroids and weight lifting during the off season and put on weight, but by mid season his weight was essentially the same weight as it was post 1997 at the Tour. The cancer caused weight loss was a fairy tale for the rubes to explain his unbelievable increase in performance.

4.4 pounds is a lot of weight at that level, especially if it's mostly upper body 'useless' weight. At a fixed wattage, that takes you from the Ferrari magic number of 6.7 w/kg to 6.3, ie the difference between winning and losing. Ferrari, for his grand tour guys, basically starved them while keeping their bodies from breaking down by administering T and HGH. So he raced lighter, but it wasn't, like you said, because of his illness. It was because his trainer was prepping him for Gts rather than classics.

[cfox]

That and the high-cadence thing. :)

Also a Ferrari dope optimization technique; you can't effectively dope your muscles as a cyclist, but you can greatly dope your blood. Spinning puts more load on the (doped) aerobic system and less on the muscular system.