Armstrong considering admission

[christian]

No wai!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?hp&_r=0

[MattTuck]

Only reason he's doing it so he can continue his athletic career. More self serving decision making....

[christian]

Dude, world needs more self-centered age group triathletes. For serious.

[Elefantino]

Good lord ...

[veggieburger]

Last week I re-read It's not about the Bike while sitting on the trainer. The first time i read it i was so inspired. Now it just makes me angry...a piece of fiction, little more. Frig. Nothing shocks me any more.

[Louis]

More self serving decision making....

I'm hardly a Lance apologist, but after all, aren't most of our decisions made on that basis? He's been a liar and a cheat for a very long time - there's really no reason we should suddenly expect him to become the cycling's Mother Teresa.

[ultraman6970]

Don't understand one thing, how a confession could trigger (quick read the article ok so maybe i missed something) that he could come back to do a sport? I mean... dont see the logic on that, he knows something about the other guys that could trigger that or something? we have a lot of guys who lost their careers after their confesion and now they arent going to even get close to a scooter and the article is talking about kind'a a trade for his confession? That's sick man... either way the article is true or not?

Wonder if this will save JB somehow? Either way is a situation too weird to me.

[Rueda Tropical]

Tygart had offered him a deal same as everyone else. Maybe it's not to late.

If he doesn't just admit to doping, if he gives up everyone from Ferrari to Weisel... then they should cut him some slack.

[CunegoFan]

Don't understand one thing, how a confession could trigger (quick read the article ok so maybe i missed something) that he could come back to do a sport? I mean... dont see the logic on that, he knows something about the other guys that could trigger that or something? we have a lot of guys who lost their careers after their confesion and now they arent going to even get close to a scooter and the article is talking about kind'a a trade for his confession? That's sick man... either way the article is true or not?

Wonder if this will save JB somehow? Either way is a situation too weird to me.

The WADA rules allow a lifetime ban to be reduced to a minimum of eight years. I don't see how he can return to competition. It sounds like spin that complements the new talking point that he only doped because he was a voracious competitor.

[tuxbailey]

http://news.yahoo.com/if-lance-armstrong-is-coming-clean--he-owes-hundreds-of-apologies-to-those-he-bullied-on-the-way-to-those-tour-de-france-titles-051119475.html

I like the message in this article, in that if he is going to confess, that he should apologize to everyone he has threatened and bullied because they were trying to speak the truth. It is one thing to deny, but another when you are out ruining other people's lives.

[Shortsocks]

I just want all of this crap to end so cycling can go back to normal.
Fed up with non-cyclists asking me how I feel. Or if I dope.

[ultraman6970]

Lance is that you?

[ultraman6970]

Somebody needs to get an interview with phill.

[texbike]

No wai!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?hp&_r=0

I think he's doing it to set up his ability to write and sell a tell-all biography along with the associated guest-appearances, public speaking engagements, and movie rights to his story. The guy stands to make millions from it!

Texbike

[texbike]

Last week I re-read It's not about the Bike while sitting on the trainer. The first time i read it i was so inspired. Now it just makes me angry...a piece of fiction, little more.e.

I was given a couple of cool cycling books for Christmas this year. Unfortunately there wasn't room for them in the cycling section of our bookshelf. Guess which two books were pulled from the shelf and donated to Goodwill to make room for the new ones?

Texbike

[Louis]

Guess which two books were pulled from the shelf and donated to Goodwill to make room for the new ones?

I bet one was your autographed copy of this:

('cause he too was ...)

http://inrng.com/medias/images/eddymerckxthecannibalbook.jpg

[jpw]

If he doesn't just admit to doping, if he gives up everyone from Ferrari to Weisel... then they should cut him some slack.

yes.

[Ray]

http://news.yahoo.com/if-lance-armstrong-is-coming-clean--he-owes-hundreds-of-apologies-to-those-he-bullied-on-the-way-to-those-tour-de-france-titles-051119475.html

I like the message in this article, in that if he is going to confess, that he should apologize to everyone he has threatened and bullied because they were trying to speak the truth. It is one thing to deny, but another when you are out ruining other people's lives.
Yup, well said in that link. The difference between Lance and many of the other deniers and the nod and a wink guys is that he was such an insufferably cruel prick to so many who crossed him that it makes it a lot tougher to forgive. The doping is easy to forgive or to not even care about for a lot of us. But he set a pretty high bar for being a prick and that's a LOT harder to erase...

-Ray

[victoryfactory]

LA:
The Bernie Madoff of sports
What a saga!

[Rueda Tropical]

I think he's doing it to set up his ability to write and sell a tell-all biography along with the associated guest-appearances, public speaking engagements, and movie rights to his story. The guy stands to make millions from it!

Texbike

This sounds plausible. As he can't make a nickel peddling his old totally discredited BS he needs a new income stream and a new story. Maybe corporate endorsements and a new anti-doping foundation to go with it.

[merlincustom1]

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

Scroll to WADA 10.5.3. LA's only hope is to completely spill his guts, name names and methods, and even then the slack is to 8 years. He's likely to find hindsight is 20-20. His best chance for a sanction that would have allowed him to salvage some kind of tri or running career was with Tygart before the boom was lowered. Now he'll have to wait till he's 49 to bop around in sanctioned underpants events.

[Rueda Tropical]

Maybe Bruyneel has been threatening to spill the beans if he doesn't get a fat retirement package in exchange for accepting his ban and canceling his hearing.

Maybe Armstrong decided to do a little blackmail of his own. Funds are running low and his old financial backers are loaded and could be prosecuted/sued and who knows what else if Lance ratted them out with full details of the money operation. He could pre-empt Bruyneel's leverage.

[gemship]

Yup, well said in that link. The difference between Lance and many of the other deniers and the nod and a wink guys is that he was such an insufferably cruel prick to so many who crossed him that it makes it a lot tougher to forgive. The doping is easy to forgive or to not even care about for a lot of us. But he set a pretty high bar for being a prick and that's a LOT harder to erase...

-Ray

right on and you know since I never met LA who am I to hate him? Now that I have the definition of hearsay understood, it would be petty of me to hate him based on all the hearsay I read here on this forum. I also read he was a pretty caring guy to some who started a charity.

[Ray]

right on and you know since I never met LA who am I to hate him? Now that I have the definition of hearsay understood, it would be petty of me to hate him based on all the hearsay I read here on this forum. I also read he was a pretty caring guy to some who started a charity.

Yeah, if it was just based on what I read in this forum, I think I'd agree with you. But there's waaaay more than enough first person info out there, including a few small pieces I heard directly from folks who had delt with him personally, which gives it all that much more credence to me. Which wouldn't mean squat in a courtroom, because hearsay isn't admissible there. But it fully admissible out here in the public court and that's all we're talking about. He did some great things and he did some good things, but he treated those who dared to cross him incredibly badly and treating those closest to you the worst is a pretty good definition of a bad guy in my moral dictionary.

He's trying to somehow repair his public reputation - his legal standing is another matter entirely. As a single member of that judging public, I don't think he's gonna have much luck winning my respect back. And not because of doping or lying about doping.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . absolutely classic. Fingerprints of his PR sharks are all over it.

He will admit only if he sees it as serving HIS interests, and if you believe the only consideration is that he wants to be able to compete again, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Almost all the scenarios I've seen in this thread are plausible . . . he wants to pre-empt anything Bruyneel might reveal about him . . . he wants to get a commitment from feds to avoid criminal charges . . . he wants to get all the civil suits settled. But for me it's way, way too late for a simple admission to make everything OK.

I think Bruyneel tried to shake him down, threatening to reveal all, and Lance is trying to yank the rug out from under him because he perceives the overall damage from admission as being less than the damage JB's revelations would cause. So many criminals have "found religion" after being convicted and this is just the same ploy. I'm certain it has nothing to do with honor, integrity, or doing the right thing in general.

Cut him slack to 8 years IF he gives up all, including suppliers, Ferrari, all info about Weisel and every other shady character in the rich boys club. But if Tygart grabs him by his only you-know-what and drives that hard a deal, then Lance is messing with some very powerful forces that could legitimately lead him or his family into concrete boot territory.

He's desperate and in full CYA mode or you wouldn't be seeing this story in the NYT.

BBD

[Rueda Tropical]

He will admit only if he sees it as serving HIS interests, and if you believe the only consideration is that he wants to be able to compete again, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

That's true of all doping confessions, so I have no problem with it. Intentions (which are impossible to know anyway) don't matter, actions and results do.

I'd be all for giving him the same 2 year suspension as his team mates got who talked, as well as arranging with the Feds to get him immunity (if it involved criminal behavior as well as cheating). I get the feeling Armstrong hasn't admitted what everybody already knows because he can't. To much potential exposure to all sorts of legal problems. But any deal would have to be for a full and detailed accounting of everything.

That would finally put a bullet in the head of the infrastructure and system that has perpetuated the system that has made doping not just a sideshow but a prerequisite to a pro career.

[FlashUNC]

If I'm Tygart, the only way I cut him any slack is if he delivers McQuaid and Verbruggen.

Those are the real big fish. Ferrari and Bruyneel are already dead in the water.

But if he becomes the change agent for getting McQuaid and the Verbruggen cronies out of the UCI, I'd be in favor of a more lenient sentence.

He'd have to confirm Tyler's Tour de Suisse story.

[BumbleBeeDave]

If I'm Tygart, the only way I cut him any slack is if he delivers McQuaid and Verbruggen.

Those are the real big fish. Ferrari and Bruyneel are already dead in the water.

But if he becomes the change agent for getting McQuaid and the Verbruggen cronies out of the UCI, I'd be in favor of a more lenient sentence.

He'd have to confirm Tyler's Tour de Suisse story.

That should definitely be part of the bargain.

BBD

[Neves]

I bet one was your autographed copy of this:

('cause he too was ...)

http://inrng.com/medias/images/eddymerckxthecannibalbook.jpg

We need a like button on here.

[goonster]

he wants to get a commitment from feds to avoid criminal charges . . . he wants to get all the civil suits settled

This.

[flydhest]

I bet one was your autographed copy of this:

('cause he too was ...)

http://inrng.com/medias/images/eddymerckxthecannibalbook.jpg

A fine point. I am curious about others views on Eddy, whom I consider the greatest cyclist ever ( yeah, real original). Clearly was a doper as well, to the standards of his day. I still think he is great. I still think LA is great and am baffled by the desire to see him forgotten. Then again, I never believed he was clean.

[1centaur]

I don't see how admission leads to settlement, except maybe with USADA. Settlement terms are up to the plaintiffs and will vary, but admission is unlikely to be a requirement for civil cases. The logical sequence is settlement first, then admission second

[Rueda Tropical]

A fine point. I am curious about others views on Eddy, whom I consider the greatest cyclist ever ( yeah, real original). Clearly was a doper as well, to the standards of his day. I still think he is great. I still think LA is great and am baffled by the desire to see him forgotten. Then again, I never believed he was clean.

Pre blood doping, you had to have the athletic ability to be at the level of a Merckx or Coppi. Doping couldn't take you from the middle of the peloton to the top of the seasons standings in Merckx's era.

Once blood doping dominated it was a contest of, bribes, money, doctors and labs. We know who the best cheats, who was best adapted to EPO, who had the UCI in their pocket and who had the best doctors. Who was the best athlete? No way to know. In Merckx's era some of the top riders of the EPO generation may have been nothing more then pack fodder.

[Ray]

A fine point. I am curious about others views on Eddy, whom I consider the greatest cyclist ever ( yeah, real original). Clearly was a doper as well, to the standards of his day. I still think he is great. I still think LA is great and am baffled by the desire to see him forgotten. Then again, I never believed he was clean.

Never thought Eddy or Lance or Lemond or Indurain or ANY of the great ones were completely clean. Or that even because the modern era of doping (early '90s forward) was by far the most effective, that the modern guys were any dirtier than any other era. I've just assumed dope was always involved and never much cared. With Lance either. And I always thought Lance was an amazing cyclist and still do. I don't see him as a big cheat any more than any of these other guys just because his guys were a bit better at doping sooner than the other guys. He was the best grand tour cyclist of his era, period, and as great as any, ever.

But there are good people who do "bad" things and "bad" people who do the same bad things but also attempt to destroy everybody that even thinks about crossing them. That's Lance's biggest sin in my book. I don't think he should be forgotten as a cyclist, but I think he's getting the public scorn he deserves after all of the praise and love he got through an illusion he created. And while I don't take any pleasure in seeing people like him fall, I do think he's getting his just deserts and don't see any reason he should be spared that.

As for the dopers, I always preferred the wink and a nod guys to the sanctimonious guys who always claimed to be cleaner than a virgin powder dump in Telluride. I always saw Eddy that way - he said what he needed to say but didn't create a huge PR juggernaut based on his virtue - and never lost respect for the guy.

-Ray

[Hawker]

That should definitely be part of the bargain.

BBD

If I'm Tygart, the only way I cut him any slack is if he delivers McQuaid and Verbruggen.

Those are the real big fish. Ferrari and Bruyneel are already dead in the water.

But if he becomes the change agent for getting McQuaid and the Verbruggen cronies out of the UCI, I'd be in favor of a more lenient sentence.

He'd have to confirm Tyler's Tour de Suisse story.

Amen to that. And txtbike I know how you feel. I just gave three LA books away to a library book sale, although I'm not sure who would want them. I was a huge LA fan (and GH) and seeing your hero's clay feet is never easy. The only Lance book I still have is the one written by Sally Jenkins who's recent quote I ran across this week;

"First of all, Lance Armstrong is a good man. There’s nothing that I can learn about him short of murder that would alter my opinion on that."

Sounds like this journalist has morphed into a fan.

[texbike]

I bet one was your autographed copy of this:

('cause he too was ...)

http://inrng.com/medias/images/eddymerckxthecannibalbook.jpg

Haha! That's funny Louis! Point taken... :rolleyes: The Armstrong books were the only "personality" books in my collection - the others are focused on the machinery, races, and training as opposed to specific personalities.

Texbike

[Climb01742]

For me, the thing I hold most against lance is all of his behavior that surrounded his doping. He tried to destroy many people to defend his lie. An admission of doping on his part would be small potatoes for me. An admission of his human scorched earth policy and a sincere attempt to make amends to them would mean more, and would be the true sign of whether his next move is more self-serving BS or true remorse and contrition. I wouldn't bet on the latter.

[Mr Cabletwitch]

Dude, world needs more self-centered age group triathletes. For serious.

This is so true. What is it about triathletes, I can't figure it out and I'm married to one!

[Rueda Tropical]

the true sign of whether his next move is more self-serving BS or true remorse and contrition. I wouldn't bet on the latter.

Retribution or true remorse should not be the goal of any individual athlete -this isn't a religion, it's a sport. Fixing the sport should be the goal. Of course anything Armstrong or any other doper or doping enabler does is going to be self serving. Thats why you offer concessions and immunity for cooperation. So it will be in their best interests to cooperate.

For Armstrong's team mates the price of continuing the lie was greater then coming clean. Evidently that has not been the case for Armstrong. So far the interests of a cleaner sport and LA's personal interests do not in any way coincide.

[azrider]

isn't contemplating a confession, a confession in and of itself?

[Climb01742]

Retribution or true remorse should not be the goal of any individual athlete -this isn't a religion, it's a sport. Fixing the sport should be the goal.

i used the word 'contrition', not retribution. and no, this isn't a religion. never said it was. my point is that what lance did went beyond doping and what happens on the road in the sport. with his bullying and legal and PR tactics, lance did a lot of human damage. for me, any sincere admission/confession would need to address both the sporting and the human consequences of his actions.

to flydhest's point above...i do cut eddy slack because, to my knowledge, he didn't try to destroy any whistleblowers.

[deanster]

Lance needs to appologize to everyone including the guy dressed up like a hypodermic needle he shoved into the snow at the Tour of California a few years ago...now if he does that I might believe he is being sincere. Once a dirt bag always a dirt bag.
BTW: speaking about doping and lies...anyone see the recent photos of Barry Bonds (mister* for HR title)...after starting cycling and stopping the regimen of steriods...even his head is back to normal size.
Everyone should read "The Secret Race" by Coyle and Hamilton...now that is coming clean!!!!!

[indyrider]

Hey wheres our friend Tony T??? I'd really like his insight here :beer:

[martinrjensen]

Interesting. Can you please name some names of "middle of the peloton " guys who made it to the top as you describe?Pre blood doping, you had to have the athletic ability to be at the level of a Merckx or Coppi. Doping couldn't take you from the middle of the peloton to the top of the seasons standings in Merckx's era.

Once blood doping dominated it was a contest of, bribes, money, doctors and labs. We know who the best cheats, who was best adapted to EPO, who had the UCI in their pocket and who had the best doctors. Who was the best athlete? No way to know. In Merckx's era some of the top riders of the EPO generation may have been nothing more then pack fodder.

[flydhest]

Pre blood doping, you had to have the athletic ability to be at the level of a Merckx or Coppi. Doping couldn't take you from the middle of the peloton to the top of the seasons standings in Merckx's era.

Once blood doping dominated it was a contest of, bribes, money, doctors and labs. We know who the best cheats, who was best adapted to EPO, who had the UCI in their pocket and who had the best doctors. Who was the best athlete? No way to know. In Merckx's era some of the top riders of the EPO generation may have been nothing more then pack fodder.

I don't buy that, I guess, becausein the EPO era all the good to greatriders were / are doping. I don't think a pack fodder rider on epo beats a great rider on epo.

I think that in addition to a program, LA really wasone of the hardest workingguys in the sport. What am I on??? (Besdides PEDs) I am on my bike 6 hours a day. Ithink that commercial just needs to have a slighttweak and the punchline is still right

[Joachim]

What am I on??? (Besdides PEDs) I am on my bike 6 hours a day. Ithink that commercial just needs to have a slighttweak and the punchline is still right

Yes, pretty much, I don't think anyone would say he didn't work hard. It could change to "I'm all I can be"..."Sponsored by Amgen".

[FlashUNC]

Yes, pretty much, I don't think anyone would say he didn't work hard. It could change to "I'm all I can be"..."Sponsored by Amgen".

But what pro cyclist doesn't work hard? Following some of these guys on Strava alone shows they're riding their butts off.

[Joachim]

But what pro cyclist doesn't work hard? Following some of these guys on Strava alone shows they're riding their butts off.

Yes, so we pretty much agree :). In the end it was just how much drugs you could get into your body without dying (seems like it is quite a bit).

[akelman]

I don't buy that, I guess, becausein the EPO era all the good to greatriders were / are doping. I don't think a pack fodder rider on epo beats a great rider on epo.

I think that in addition to a program, LA really wasone of the hardest workingguys in the sport. What am I on??? (Besdides PEDs) I am on my bike 6 hours a day. Ithink that commercial just needs to have a slighttweak and the punchline is still right

I think I've noted this before, but it seems possible to me that the EPO era became, at least in some significant part, a test of which cyclist's body chemistry was best suited to harnessing the performance-enhancing qualities of EPO. It's also possible, and I believe I've seen this contention made obliquely, that the sophistication of the doping regimens during the EPO era meant that the test became who had the best doctors. In other words, victory went not to the finest cyclist but to the cyclist with the best body chemistry or the best pharmacological support team or probably both.

Honestly, I have no idea if the above is true or not, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable theory to me.

[csm]

Ah..who really cares? It's an interesting saga but at the end of day I just don't care.

[cfox]

Interesting. Can you please name some names of "middle of the peloton " guys who made it to the top as you describe?

Bjarne Riis. nobody/domestique one year, world conquering stage racer the next. Lemond cites Riis as his example of exactly what you describe.

[cash05458]

Ah..who really cares? It's an interesting saga but at the end of day I just don't care.

that's the spirit...:banana:

[cmg]

He'll never admit. that would leave him open to all kinds of lawsuits, federal prosecussion. He was only investigated, not prosecuted because of the lack of physical evidence, admittance would alleviate the need for physical evidence. He'll never admit. Currently he's a disgraced RICH athlete. that's free, after admission he won't be free, probably won't be rich.

[54ny77]

The NY Times should just cut & paste an article from '96, retitle it, "Lance Downsizes Himself, Looks for New Team."

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/13/sports/13iht-sam.t_3.html

Most paragraphs still just as fitting today:

"OK, this is what I would say: I can be competitive in classic races, hard classic races," meaning one-day races. "I can be competitive in seven-to-10-day stage races. I can't guarantee you that I can win the Tour de France, I can't guarantee you that I can win field sprints, I can't guarantee you that win the climb to Alpe d'Huez, but I can certainly be a contender.

"I just hope it continues, I really do. It would be a shame if it didn't. The thing I'm most scared about is that this would have to end, that there wouldn't be a big-time American presence in Europe, in the classics, in the Tour de France.

"The sport needs that and I think American cycling needs that. That's my biggest concern."

:p

[bostondrunk]

Time to give credit.....these guys called it 2 years i advance!!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-wants-to-tell-nation-something-but,17973/

[Frankwurst]

Time to give credit.....these guys called it 2 years i advance!!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-wants-to-tell-nation-something-but,17973/

Anybody that knows anything about journalism knows you always turn to the Onion for the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.:beer:

[martinrjensen]

thank you, but after a little reading on Barnes, he doesn't sound like a middle of the roader to me....Bjarne Riis. nobody/domestique one year, world conquering stage racer the next. Lemond cites Riis as his example of exactly what you describe.

[OtayBW]

Wait a minute. Is it at all possible that he's considering all this because he's really a sensitive soul at heart, filled with contrition after this time of personal reflection and soul searching???
Naaaaahhhhhh. Probably just tired of being on everyone's Dookey List. :eek:

[Rueda Tropical]

Interesting. Can you please name some names of "middle of the peloton " guys who made it to the top as you describe?

I don't buy that, I guess, becausein the EPO era all the good to greatriders were / are doping. I don't think a pack fodder rider on epo beats a great rider on epo.


Take a guy who would have been unbeatable in a clean race but has a naturally high hematocrit level. He can't benefit much from EPO without triggering a positive test since 50 is the limit. Maybe he can get a 3% boost without testing positive. Now put him against a pro who can't shine his shoes in any clean race but has just got an EPO boost from 40 to 48. That's 20%. More then enough to put the mediocre guy miles ahead of the more talented rider.

Take a rider who has Fuentes as his doctor and one who has Ferrari. The guy who has Ferrari has a huge advantage. The guy who has the UCI paid off and the guy who's screwed if he's caught or ratted out by the guy who has the in. That's a contest of labs and doctors and crooks not athletes.

Thats not to mention the guys we never heard of or were quickly forgot because they refused to dope and so didn't have a shot at a career. The top ten riders of the last 20 years may or may not have contained any of the names we are familiar with in a clean peloton. Anyone who is a pro right down to the Lanterne Rouge has extraordinary talent and works their ass off. But would an Armstrong, Pantani, Basso, Contador, etc., have been head and shoulders above the rest without dope? No way to know. It does not effect all riders equally. It's not we just add 10% to everyones performance. For some it's 15% for some it's nothing.

[earlfoss]

I read the news about him contemplating an admission and had to look at a calendar to be sure it wasn't April Fool's Day. :bike:

[67-59]

I love this. A while back, people were ripping Lance for continuing to deny doping instead of confessing like Floyd and Tyler. You remember - those "good" guys who denied and denied and denied...until they decided it'd be better for them to confess. Sure helped Tyler sell some books. Now, people hear that Lance might be thinking of making a confession...and they're ripping him for waiting to confess until he decides that it's in his best interest. That's what EVERYBODY has done.

I'll be looking forward to all the Lance love....

[Ray]

Take a guy who would have been unbeatable in a clean race but has a naturally high hematocrit level. He can't benefit much from EPO without triggering a positive test since 50 is the limit. Maybe he can get a 3% boost without testing positive. Now put him against a pro who can't shine his shoes in any clean race but has just got an EPO boost from 40 to 48. That's 20%. More then enough to put the mediocre guy miles ahead of the more talented rider.

Take a rider who has Fuentes as his doctor and one who has Ferrari. The guy who has Ferrari has a huge advantage. The guy who has the UCI paid off and the guy who's screwed if he's caught or ratted out by the guy who has the in. That's a contest of labs and doctors and crooks not athletes.

Thats not to mention the guys we never heard of or were quickly forgot because they refused to dope and so didn't have a shot at a career. The top ten riders of the last 20 years may or may not have contained any of the names we are familiar with in a clean peloton. Anyone who is a pro right down to the Lanterne Rouge has extraordinary talent and works their ass off. But would an Armstrong, Pantani, Basso, Contador, etc., have been head and shoulders above the rest without dope? No way to know. It does not effect all riders equally. It's not we just add 10% to everyones performance. For some it's 15% for some it's nothing.
Really nice explanation. I got the same from some of the stuff I've read but couldn't have explained it this well in short post. I used to think it was a level playing field too but don't now. I'm still not all that bothered by doping and thinks its inevitable regardless of regs, but its not a one-size fits all proposition. Lance was the best grand tour rider of his era but simply no way to know whether he still would have been if everyone had been riding clean or not.

The other point that's been made before but I think is worth repeating is that in the days before the O2 types of doping, people were still using speed and other lesser drugs but there were as many downsides as upsides to them, so they were sort of self-regulating and not all that effective. According to most of the guys who've talked about it, it could give you a bit of an edge some days and cost you other days, but guys who were clean could compete against guys who weren't. So it simply didn't give as much of an advantage and the "cheating" was less of a scale tipper. Whereas once the EPO and blood doping got going, the whole game changed completely and there was no longer really a choice about whether to use or not if you wanted to be competitive. For sure, some were helped more than others, but not even supremely talented clean riders would be able to compete with typically talented pro riders who were doping. So it wasn't a question of trade-offs anymore - it was dope or go home. Some went home, but the one's we saw on TV had pretty nearly all made the decision to dope.

The only really elite rider of the past 20 years or so who I really still think might have ridden clean was Cadel, because everyone else seems to think so, he's never been mentioned AFAIK in any of the scandals or had a test to have to clean up or even respond to, and because he ALWAYS had bad days, ALWAYS looked like he was riding on pure guts (never flew up mountains, but just ground it out), and only broke through in the year after all of this stuff came to light and most of the top riders were either out or seemed to be struggling with riding clean (Contador, for example, who rode like a mortal that year). I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out he was doping too, but he's about the only guy at that level who I think might have stayed clean. Which, if true, is an amazing testament to the guy.

Its not as simple as "everyone was doing it, so it was OK", but everyone or damn near everyone WAS doing it and its gonna take a lot to get me to believe they've stopped...

-Ray

[malcolm]

Really nice explanation. I got the same from some of the stuff I've read but couldn't have explained it this well in short post. I used to think it was a level playing field too but don't now. I'm still not all that bothered by doping and thinks its inevitable regardless of regs, but its not a one-size fits all proposition. Lance was the best grand tour rider of his era but simply no way to know whether he still would have been if everyone had been riding clean or not.

The other point that's been made before but I think is worth repeating is that in the days before the O2 types of doping, people were still using speed and other lesser drugs but there were as many downsides as upsides to them, so they were sort of self-regulating and not all that effective. According to most of the guys who've talked about it, it could give you a bit of an edge some days and cost you other days, but guys who were clean could compete against guys who weren't. So it simply didn't give as much of an advantage and the "cheating" was less of a scale tipper. Whereas once the EPO and blood doping got going, the whole game changed completely and there was no longer really a choice about whether to use or not if you wanted to be competitive. For sure, some were helped more than others, but not even supremely talented clean riders would be able to compete with typically talented pro riders who were doping. So it wasn't a question of trade-offs anymore - it was dope or go home. Some went home, but the one's we saw on TV had pretty nearly all made the decision to dope.

The only really elite rider of the past 20 years or so who I really still think might have ridden clean was Cadel, because everyone else seems to think so, he's never been mentioned AFAIK in any of the scandals or had a test to have to clean up or even respond to, and because he ALWAYS had bad days, ALWAYS looked like he was riding on pure guts (never flew up mountains, but just ground it out), and only broke through in the year after all of this stuff came to light and most of the top riders were either out or seemed to be struggling with riding clean (Contador, for example, who rode like a mortal that year). I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out he was doping too, but he's about the only guy at that level who I think might have stayed clean. Which, if true, is an amazing testament to the guy.

Its not as simple as "everyone was doing it, so it was OK", but everyone or damn near everyone WAS doing it and its gonna take a lot to get me to believe they've stopped...

-Ray

Hematocrit is huge it's what carries O2, but it's VO2max that determines what your body does with that O2. Changing crit does not change VO2max and while its debatable VO2 max does not change very much with training especially among elite athletes. Once you've reached a threshold where you are highly trained, whatever that is, you can't train your VO2 max very much at all. Many believe that your VO2 max is mostly genetically set.

Crit is huge and maximizing it will improve your aeorbics, but like all things it isn't as simeple as transfusing yourself up to 50% and being an elite aerobic athlete. It just doesn't work that way, it's way more complex.

[shovelhd]

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

Scroll to WADA 10.5.3. LA's only hope is to completely spill his guts, name names and methods, and even then the slack is to 8 years. He's likely to find hindsight is 20-20. His best chance for a sanction that would have allowed him to salvage some kind of tri or running career was with Tygart before the boom was lowered. Now he'll have to wait till he's 49 to bop around in sanctioned underpants events.

Does anyone think Lance will come forward under the same conditions as any other rider who doped and confessed? Come on. He is trying to cut himself a special deal, like all the other special deals he's had in his career.

From the OP's article:

“He’s doing O.K. for a guy that has had his livelihood and his life torn from him, but he’s very strong,” Herman said.

Boo friggin hoo.

[William]

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/05/168680222/armstrong-weighs-admitting-to-doping-new-york-times-reports


Lance Armstrong's Lawyer Denies Confession Rumors

...Yet Armstrong attorney Tim Herman denied that Armstrong has reached out to USADA chief executive Travis Tygart and David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Herman told The Associated Press he had no knowledge of Armstrong considering a confession and said: "When, and if, Lance has something to say, there won't be any secret about it."...

Apologies if this was posted previously.




William

[shovelhd]

Hematocrit is huge it's what carries O2, but it's VO2max that determines what your body does with that O2. Changing crit does not change VO2max and while its debatable VO2 max does not change very much with training especially among elite athletes. Once you've reached a threshold where you are highly trained, whatever that is, you can't train your VO2 max very much at all. Many believe that your VO2 max is mostly genetically set.

Crit is huge and maximizing it will improve your aeorbics, but like all things it isn't as simeple as transfusing yourself up to 50% and being an elite aerobic athlete. It just doesn't work that way, it's way more complex.

True, if you think that VO2Max is the limiter that decides a race like the Tour de France. It's not. It is the ability to recover and race hard day after day after day with very little rest, and that is where a consistent, high hematocrit via blood doping, and recovery drugs, like EPO, come into play.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Apologies if this was posted previously.

William

. . . as Herman and PR flacks floated this balloon to test the waters. They did it via NYT because of that outlet's size and reach, likely giving them an "exclusive."

Apparently now they have seen the reaction and it was not quite what they and Lance wanted. So now they are knocking it down with other outlets, likely also giving them "exclusives." It's all a big game.

During his cycling career Armstrong had a reputation for being a cunning tactician, doing whatever it took to win--and doing it to whoever he had to do it to in order to get there. This latest is just another tactic, nothing more.

Can he get away with cutting a deal that will serve his interests--cutting his financial losses and mitigating possible criminal liability--without having to give up too much?

He could walk off and settle all the lawsuits and still have plenty left over to live on for the rest of his life. I'm sure of that. But that leaves his reputation and ego shot to hell--and I think by this time we have all seen how important his ego is to him. Can he deal with having to hide out all the time to avoid the chance that somebody in a public place will recognize him and either point and laugh or just spit? He says he doesn't care and puts on a big show, but I'm sure Floyd was right when he said this ridicule does matter to him. It matters a lot.

But any deal to compete again would likely involve him having to tell all, and I mean ALL about dealings with Heinie and Phat Pat, AND the structure behind the Postal team doping program, including Bruynell, Weisel, and all the rest of the rich boys club. That would likely end up involving some very unsavory characters, some we have probably never heard of and some who would have no compunctions about squashing Lancey-poo like a bug and putting him in some concrete overshoes.

Is it all worth it in order to be able to compete and stoke his ego again? That's what this is all about.

BBD

[malcolm]

True, if you think that VO2Max is the limiter that decides a race like the Tour de France. It's not. It is the ability to recover and race hard day after day after day with very little rest, and that is where a consistent, high hematocrit via blood doping, and recovery drugs, like EPO, come into play.

Never said that but if you think it doesn' t come into play in the mountains you are mistaken. No one wins the tour with an average VO2 max. It's not one factor. If you think a crit of 50% makes an elite athlete, well it just doesn't. EPO is a hormonal transfusion other than keeping you crit from dropping with strenous exercise not a recovery drug. Anabolics are recovery drugs.

[Elefantino]

Was just digging through old things while packing and came across his SI Sportsman of the Year issue.

Will trade for Campy 10-speed ergos.

[CunegoFan]

Take a guy who would have been unbeatable in a clean race but has a naturally high hematocrit level. He can't benefit much from EPO without triggering a positive test since 50 is the limit. Maybe he can get a 3% boost without testing positive. Now put him against a pro who can't shine his shoes in any clean race but has just got an EPO boost from 40 to 48. That's 20%. More then enough to put the mediocre guy miles ahead of the more talented rider.

Take a rider who has Fuentes as his doctor and one who has Ferrari. The guy who has Ferrari has a huge advantage. The guy who has the UCI paid off and the guy who's screwed if he's caught or ratted out by the guy who has the in. That's a contest of labs and doctors and crooks not athletes.

Thats not to mention the guys we never heard of or were quickly forgot because they refused to dope and so didn't have a shot at a career. The top ten riders of the last 20 years may or may not have contained any of the names we are familiar with in a clean peloton. Anyone who is a pro right down to the Lanterne Rouge has extraordinary talent and works their ass off. But would an Armstrong, Pantani, Basso, Contador, etc., have been head and shoulders above the rest without dope? No way to know. It does not effect all riders equally. It's not we just add 10% to everyones performance. For some it's 15% for some it's nothing.

There are numerous stories of teams in the 90s testing the hematocrits of prospective neo-pros to see how much they might benefit from EPO use. When Vaughters signed for CA, he showed his contract to Bruyneel, whose response was that Vaughters naturally high hematocrit would prevent him from being worth the amount of money that CA was going to pay him.

[Wilkinson4]

Was just digging through old things while packing and came across his SI Sportsman of the Year issue.

Will trade for Campy 10-speed ergos.

I got that same issue. Had it displayed at Veloswap free to anybody who could convince me he was clean:)

mIKE

[Rueda Tropical]

For all the doping apologists who say if almost everyone was doing it it's OK.

If you have a kid with serious athletic talent. When do you start training them how to cheat? In little league? His first soap box derby? High School sports?

After all if he plans on competing in sports were cheating is "tacitly approved". Just focusing on athletic training is naive. Having them believe that sports is a meritocracy where the best athlete wins is only going to set them up to fail. He or she needs to learn how to be a better cheater, liar, money launderer and briber then the competition.

What age is good to start?

[shovelhd]

Never said that but if you think it doesn' t come into play in the mountains you are mistaken. No one wins the tour with an average VO2 max. It's not one factor. If you think a crit of 50% makes an elite athlete, well it just doesn't. EPO is a hormonal transfusion other than keeping you crit from dropping with strenous exercise not a recovery drug. Anabolics are recovery drugs.

Read Tyler's book.

[Rada]

For all the doping apologists who say if almost everyone was doing it it's OK.

If you have a kid with serious athletic talent. When do you start training them how to cheat? In little league? His first soap box derby? High School sports?

After all if he plans on competing in sports were cheating is "tacitly approved". Just focusing on athletic training is naive. Having them believe that sports is a meritocracy where the best athlete wins is only going to set them up to fail. He or she needs to learn how to be a better cheater, liar, money launderer and briber then the competition.

What age is good to start?

Hypocrite. You make excuses for Merckx and Coppi cheating because their drugs weren't as good and with with lines like they still needed athletic ability. Cheating is just that cheating, it involves lying, and stealing from others.

[Rueda Tropical]

isn't as simeple as transfusing yourself up to 50% and being an elite aerobic athlete. It just doesn't work that way, it's way more complex.

Yes it is way more complex but the end result is that modern doping can make a 15% difference for athletes who are well adapted to the currently available doping techniques and can get the maximum benefit under the current rules. Athletes who don't fit that profile will not get any or little benefit.

15% is less the the difference between first and 50th place in a stage race. So it's not a level playing field, it completely distorts the standings, selecting for completely different set of criteria then who is the best athlete.

[Rueda Tropical]

Hypocrite. You make excuses for Merckx and Coppi cheating because their drugs weren't as good and with with lines like they still needed athletic ability. Cheating is just that cheating, it involves lying, and stealing from others.

Nonsense. I made no excuses for Merckx or Coppi. I just made the point that the dope available at the time could not skew results. In their era you could tell your kid compete clean and you can win. Doping did not determine the winner, athletic ability did. When that stopped being the case you did not have a sport anymore.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Hypocrite. You make excuses for Merckx and Coppi cheating because their drugs weren't as good and with with lines like they still needed athletic ability. Cheating is just that cheating, it involves lying, and stealing from others.

. . . then by all means do so. But let's please keep this from going downhill . . .

BBD

[malcolm]

Read Tyler's book.


I have read Tyler's book and he doesn't understand how many of the things he did work. Hemoglobin only carries 02 if you don't use it efficiently a guy with the same amount that does will be faster and have greater endurance. A crit of 50% is huge but it's far from the whole story. EPO stimulates the marrow to produce red cells and that is all it does for performance. It is essentially the same as a transfusion except the cells probably last longer and may be a bit more efficient because they were produced in situ and not exposed to preservatives etc and are younger.

I'm not saying it doesn't aid performance it most certainly does, but a crit of 50% does not by itself make an elite athlete you have to have the ability to metabolize that increased 02 carrying capacity efficiently and that is where V02 max comes into play.

To expect Tyler to understand the physiology of EPO and all the drugs he was using is the equivalent of expecting your plumber to understand Bernoulli's principle.

[jimcav]

Hematocrit is huge it's what carries O2, but it's VO2max that determines what your body does with that O2. Changing crit does not change VO2max and while its debatable VO2 max does not change very much with training especially among elite athletes. Once you've reached a threshold where you are highly trained, whatever that is, you can't train your VO2 max very much at all. Many believe that your VO2 max is mostly genetically set.

Crit is huge and maximizing it will improve your aeorbics, but like all things it isn't as simeple as transfusing yourself up to 50% and being an elite aerobic athlete. It just doesn't work that way, it's way more complex.

EPO does increase VO2 max
it is going to vary individually how much, because as you point out, delivering O2 to the factories is just step one, step 2-x is how it is utilized, but increasing step 1 IS going to increase the end output:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14551773
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086137

[malcolm]

Only in so much as it increases the oxygen carrrying capacity by increasing the total hemaglobin therefore you have more 02 going into the engine the mechanics of the system is the same.

EPO is a hormone like substance secreted by the I think cortex of the kidney it acts on the bone marrow to increase red cell production.

V02 max stays the same, you just have more substrate (02) to process, EPO didn't change the V02max it just delivered more 02 to the engine

[goonster]

Hematocrit is huge it's what carries O2, but it's VO2max that determines what your body does with that O2.
The two are not independent. Hematocrit is a physiogical assay, and VO2max is a performance measurement, but boosting the former will almost invariably increase the latter.

To expect Tyler to understand the physiology of EPO and all the drugs he was using is the equivalent of expecting your plumber to understand Bernoulli's principle.
I believe Tyler understands the physiological mechanisms well enough, even if the book he co-wrote is targeted toward a general audience.

The plumbers and pipefitters I work with understand Bernoulli's principle, for the same reason electricians understand Thevenin's theorem. Don't underestimate tradesmen.

[BumbleBeeDave]

The plumbers and pipefitters I work with understand Bernoulli's principle, for the same reason electrician's understand Thevenin's theorem. Don't underestimate tradesmen.

. . . in the 1959 Tour? :rolleyes:

BBD

[goonster]

V02 max stays the same, you just have more substrate (02) to process, EPO didn't change the V02max it just delivered more 02 to the engine
I'm sorry, but this study proves otherwise (http://jap.physiology.org/content/105/2/581).

In trained athletes, O2 supply to muscle cells is almost invariably the limiting factor.

[54ny77]

The plumber I am currently working with only understands Ben Franklin.

:p


The plumbers and pipefitters I work with understand Bernoulli's principle, for the same reason electricians understand Thevenin's theorem. Don't underestimate tradesmen.

[malcolm]

The two are not independent. Hematocrit is a physiogical assay, and VO2max is a performance measurement, but boosting the former will almost invariably increase the latter.


I believe Tyler understands the physiological mechanisms well enough, even if the book he co-wrote is targeted toward a general audience.

The plumbers and pipefitters I work with understand Bernoulli's principle, for the same reason electricians understand Thevenin's theorem. Don't underestimate tradesmen.

I'm not underestimating anyone. At one time I was a fitter/welder local 1098. tyler clearly doesn't understand epo form reading his book, I'm more than sure he understands the outcome. Hgb/hct (it's actually the hemaglobin that matters) really does not change vo2 max that much, it just adds more substrate to the engine, like increasing the fuel into an internal combustion engine. It does increase performance and may alter measurment of vo2 max a bit but according to my understanding not much. I'll give you I've not read or studied it for a decade or longer and I'm sure some thinking has changed but I studied it extensively at one point.

I'm sure we can agree that altering the the system with exogenous drugs or chemicals designed to enhance performance isn't fair and in the end that is what matters. And again I didn't mean to disparage tradsmen that is from whence I arose and I have the deepest respect for them

[William]

. . . as Herman and PR flacks floated this balloon to test the waters. They did it via NYT because of that outlet's size and reach, likely giving them an "exclusive."

Apparently now they have seen the reaction and it was not quite what they and Lance wanted. So now they are knocking it down with other outlets, likely also giving them "exclusives." It's all a big game.

During his cycling career Armstrong had a reputation for being a cunning tactician, doing whatever it took to win--and doing it to whoever he had to do it to in order to get there. This latest is just another tactic, nothing more.

Can he get away with cutting a deal that will serve his interests--cutting his financial losses and mitigating possible criminal liability--without having to give up too much?

He could walk off and settle all the lawsuits and still have plenty left over to live on for the rest of his life. I'm sure of that. But that leaves his reputation and ego shot to hell--and I think by this time we have all seen how important his ego is to him. Can he deal with having to hide out all the time to avoid the chance that somebody in a public place will recognize him and either point and laugh or just spit? He says he doesn't care and puts on a big show, but I'm sure Floyd was right when he said this ridicule does matter to him. It matters a lot.

But any deal to compete again would likely involve him having to tell all, and I mean ALL about dealings with Heinie and Phat Pat, AND the structure behind the Postal team doping program, including Bruynell, Weisel, and all the rest of the rich boys club. That would likely end up involving some very unsavory characters, some we have probably never heard of and some who would have no compunctions about squashing Lancey-poo like a bug and putting him in some concrete overshoes.

Is it all worth it in order to be able to compete and stoke his ego again? That's what this is all about.

BBD

There's that "Trial Balloon" phrase again....
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2013/01/06/rs-lance-armstrong-lied-to-me.cnn






William

[malcolm]

I'm sorry, but this study proves otherwise (http://jap.physiology.org/content/105/2/581).

In trained athletes, O2 supply to muscle cells is almost invariably the limiting factor.

I just skimmed the article and it states it increases the maximal oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, maybe producing more efficiency at the level of hemaglobin. I didn't see where it suggested it increased VO2max. Oxygen delivery is increased to working muscle because you have increased hemaglobin, that enhances performance doesn't need to increase VO2 max.

The human body produces EPO in the kidney and maybe a bit in the liver. The kind the drug companies sell is produced via recombinant DNA and is virtually identical to what you already have. It can be detected because of slight post translational protein differences. It's not magic it's just added hormone to incrrease red cell mass.

[bcm119]

For all the doping apologists who say if almost everyone was doing it it's OK.

If you have a kid with serious athletic talent. When do you start training them how to cheat? In little league? His first soap box derby? High School sports?

After all if he plans on competing in sports were cheating is "tacitly approved". Just focusing on athletic training is naive. Having them believe that sports is a meritocracy where the best athlete wins is only going to set them up to fail. He or she needs to learn how to be a better cheater, liar, money launderer and briber then the competition.

What age is good to start?
If your kid was born with more athletic talent than the other kids, it's already not fair. How about the first time your kid gets the flu right before a championship competition he trained all season for? There's nothing fair about sports. That's the best lesson to teach your kid.

[Hawker]

Wait...now Bernoulli's involved? You cannot trust those Eye-talians!

[zennmotion]

If your kid was born with more athletic talent than the other kids, it's already not fair. How about the first time your kid gets the flu right before a championship competition he trained all season for? There's nothing fair about sports. That's the best lesson to teach your kid.

Some are born with parenting skills and some aren't. It's not fair!

[bcm119]

Some are born with parenting skills and some aren't. It's not fair!
I was born with a stupid amount of natural talent as a swimmer. I worked hard enough to realize some real success, but I wasn't all that determined. A teammate of mine worked far harder and had much more determination than I, but could never quite compete with me. It nearly ruined him; he was angry, confused, felt helpless, etc., because his parents drove him to think it was his fault. They told him his success was in his own hands, he just had to work harder. But he just didn't have the talent. Athletic performance is a result of a huge nexus of factors, some within our control, others not so much, such as genetics, social class, family environment, etc. I don't think it's fair to allow a kid to believe his athletic performance and how it compares to others' is all his or her own doing. It either breeds self loathing or arrogance, depending on the level of success.

[ultraman6970]

+1 on this 100%

The interesting of bcm's comment is that this can be applied in almost everything from sports to arts. or you have the talent or you don't. Parents and environment somehow help to create a halo of false expectatives in people. A clear example, here in the area many racers are very arogant and you can feel somehow how the environment is, the funny thing is that many times happens with guys maybe my age or people when they ask them they are in their 25's and are only cat3. And makes me wonder ***?? I mean... is clear you did not make it in the sport, why the arrogance?? And here is when we hear stories about old guys getting juiced to win or get mad at full time employees during the week end :)

IMO is hard to accept somehow how good you are or how good you could get and that creates just lala land expectatives in people... The interesting thing is that many of the super riders are just nice people. I have talked to jenny longo and the woman is just normal... the same with pavel tonkov for example. I thought longo was going to just send me to hell but she was just super nice, the same with tonkov... then as i pictured before you have a guy that is clear did not make already that is full or arrogance... non sense at all...

[merlincustom1]

If your kid was born with more athletic talent than the other kids, it's already not fair. How about the first time your kid gets the flu right before a championship competition he trained all season for? There's nothing fair about sports. That's the best lesson to teach your kid.

I don't think you mean to equate the unfairness that results from cheating with the "unfairness" that results from natural differences in ability. When your kid ges sick before the championship, that's just the breaks. That's life. There's nothing "unfair" about it. There are many things that are fair about sport when cheating is removed. You're doing your child a disservice if you teach him that it's not "fair" that someone else might be more talented than him. I don't suppose you subscribe to the notion that every kid should get a trophy for just showing up?

[zennmotion]

I was born with a stupid amount of natural talent as a swimmer. I worked hard enough to realize some real success, but I wasn't all that determined. A teammate of mine worked far harder and had much more determination than I, but could never quite compete with me. It nearly ruined him; he was angry, confused, felt helpless, etc., because his parents drove him to think it was his fault. They told him his success was in his own hands, he just had to work harder. But he just didn't have the talent. Athletic performance is a result of a huge nexus of factors, some within our control, others not so much, such as genetics, social class, family environment, etc. I don't think it's fair to allow a kid to believe his athletic performance and how it compares to others' is all his or her own doing. It either breeds self loathing or arrogance, depending on the level of success.

Fairness and unequal talent are not the same thing at all and kids know the difference. I was (I hope incorrectly) interpreting your point that "nothing in sports is fair" = PEDs are OK if everybody has access and therefore acceptable. Not a message I'd want to give a kid. I was the smallest, skinniest kid all through school with no recognizable athletic talent at all, and it was occasionally frustrating. But I got into soccer back when small towns didn't yet have soccer teams and found one thing I could do well- get on the ball as a bulldog defense, I'm sure it was totally hilarious to watch. I otherwise sucked, but I often got put out on the field to basically mess with an opposing star player- and with a very cool and encouraging coach, that was more than enough to make it worth going to practice every week. Kids aren't stupid, they know well that talent gets handed out unequally. But the message- PEDs are part of sports, so accept it (and by extension go ahead and see what they do for you)- seems like a pretty sorry way to look at life.

[zennmotion]

+1 on this 100%

The interesting of bcm's comment is that this can be applied in almost everything from sports to arts. or you have the talent or you don't. Parents and environment somehow help to create a halo of false expectatives in people. A clear example, here in the area many racers are very arogant and you can feel somehow how the environment is, the funny thing is that many times happens with guys maybe my age or people when they ask them they are in their 25's and are only cat3. And makes me wonder ***?? I mean... is clear you did not make it in the sport, why the arrogance?? And here is when we hear stories about old guys getting juiced to win or get mad at full time employees during the week end :)

IMO is hard to accept somehow how good you are or how good you could get and that creates just lala land expectatives in people... The interesting thing is that many of the super riders are just nice people. I have talked to jenny longo and the woman is just normal... the same with pavel tonkov for example. I thought longo was going to just send me to hell but she was just super nice, the same with tonkov... then as i pictured before you have a guy that is clear did not make already that is full or arrogance... non sense at all...

I don't get your point. I know arrogant riders with "talent" and arrogant riders who have been a cat 4 for years. Likewise approachable friendly folks with and without recognizable natural ability to pedal fast. So what? Only the most talented and hardest working should be encouraged to pursue sport, that's your point? Sport has no other value other than Olympic medals or ESPN entertainment? You've only "made it" when you've got rainbow stripes on your kit? Maybe we can agree that the problem is the attitude of winning uber alles, where nothing else matters. BTW, I wouldn't pick either Jeannie Longo who retired with a doping shadow (husband arrested for illegal possession of EPO and her multiple location citations) or Pavel Tonkov who was one of Ferrari's clients as your examples of success. These doping threads get weirder and weirder.

[bcm119]

I don't think you mean to equate the unfairness that results from cheating with the "unfairness" that results from natural differences in ability. When your kid ges sick before the championship, that's just the breaks. That's life. There's nothing "unfair" about it. There are many things that are fair about sport when cheating is removed. You're doing your child a disservice if you teach him that it's not "fair" that someone else might be more talented than him. I don't suppose you subscribe to the notion that every kid should get a trophy for just showing up?

Getting high on your horse about the unfairness of PEDs simply propagates the myth that sports are an even playing field and PEDs are the only factor that disturbs that balance. PEDs are simply part of a huge complex of factors that determine competitive outcome. Focusing on "fairness" in sports is silly because they aren't fair to begin with, and the American tendency to prop up sports as an honorable activity for children wherein everyone has a shot to be a star if they work hard and follow the rules is stupid and often harmful in my opinion. PED use and getting sick before a race are absolutely the same sort of unfairness; both fall under the "**** happens" category-- germs and unscrupulous people exist in this world, that's just life. It's best to learn that at an early age. I am not excusing PED use as okay in any way; I'm saying that the obsession with fairness is misplaced. What's most unfair about PEDs is that some people think it's okay to use them.

And no, I'm not in favor of giving out trophies just for showing up. I'm in favor of getting rid of trophies and ribbons altogether because they're stupid pieces of plastic crap, and they reinforce the idea that kids sports are about beating other people rather than achieving personal goals.

[Rueda Tropical]

Getting high on your horse about the unfairness of PEDs simply propagates the myth that sports are an even playing field and PEDs are the only factor that disturbs that balance. PEDs are simply part of a huge complex of factors that determine competitive outcome.

No one in the history of time has ever thought that fairness had anything to do with everyone on the field being of equal talent or ability. Sports assumes varying degrees of talent, commitment and mental game. Training harder, being smarter or being stronger is different from cheating to be first.

Hiding a set of brass knuckles in your glove is not the same thing as having a stronger jab in a boxing match.

Generally talent, heart and smarts in any human endeavor is admired, not begrudged. Cheating is not.

[bcm119]

No one in the history of time has ever thought that fairness had anything to do with everyone on the field being of equal talent or ability. Sports assumes varying degrees of talent, commitment and mental game. Training harder, being smarter or being stronger is different from cheating to be first.

Hiding a set of brass knuckles in your glove is not the same thing as having a stronger jab in a boxing match.

Generally talent, heart and smarts in any human endeavor is admired, not begrudged. Cheating is not.

What you wrote is insultingly obvious. I have failed to make my point, but that's okay. These debates are pointless anyway.

[Rueda Tropical]

What you wrote is insultingly obvious. I have failed to make my point, but that's okay. These debates are pointless anyway.

Sorry for the insult but I'm totally missing the point of your posts.

Taking PEDs is a choice, getting sick or getting hit by car while training is not.

Any parent who tells thier kid that if they just work harder they can be as smart as Einstien or play at the level of LeBron is an idiot. That has nothing to do with sport as I have ever understood it.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . but how about everybody take a big, deep breath and count to 100 and let the steam die down?

Just keep repeating to yourself, "It's only an internet forum . . . It's only an internet forum . . . "

I'd hate to have to lock this up.

Thanks.

BBD

[Rueda Tropical]

I was taught that someone who goes down fighting is not a 'loser'. That humility in victory and graciousness in defeat are what you should aspire to. Thats how sports were supposed to build character in young people. It's the opposite of win at any cost.

[1/2 Wheeler]

Getting high on your horse about the unfairness of PEDs simply propagates the myth that sports are an even playing field and PEDs are the only factor that disturbs that balance. PEDs are simply part of a huge complex of factors that determine competitive outcome. Focusing on "fairness" in sports is silly because they aren't fair to begin with, and the American tendency to prop up sports as an honorable activity for children wherein everyone has a shot to be a star if they work hard and follow the rules is stupid and often harmful in my opinion. PED use and getting sick before a race are absolutely the same sort of unfairness; both fall under the "**** happens" category-- germs and unscrupulous people exist in this world, that's just life. It's best to learn that at an early age. I am not excusing PED use as okay in any way; I'm saying that the obsession with fairness is misplaced. What's most unfair about PEDs is that some people think it's okay to use them.

And no, I'm not in favor of giving out trophies just for showing up. I'm in favor of getting rid of trophies and ribbons altogether because they're stupid pieces of plastic crap, and they reinforce the idea that kids sports are about beating other people rather than achieving personal goals.

Your Pissing in the wind.

Haters hate because that is what they do.

[malcolm]

I was taught that someone who goes down fighting is not a 'loser'. That humility in victory and graciousness in defeat are what you should aspire to. Thats how sports were supposed to build character in young people. It's the opposite of win at any cost.

couldn't agree more. I still remember as a kid the worst football team I ever played on probably taught me the most. I think we won 2-3 games all year and it was a testimony to our coaches that they were able to keep us motivated and trying.

I recently had the opposite with my daughter when her lacrosse team was undefeated and won a state championship. It was hard for her to keep it in perspective and not be arrogant.

I think competition is important for kids team or otherwise. Rewards are also important but not the point. Everybody is a winner is even more counter productive.

[ultraman6970]

Zen maybe i used the wrong word... i always do tho... maybe you are right the right word is friendly, nice??? helpfull? not an ass?? :D

[merlincustom1]

Haters hate because that is what they do.

What does this mean in the context of the quote you reference?

[54ny77]

and here i thought this thread was going to be about armstrong admitting, finally, that he likes to wear women's cycling clothing.

[William]

and here i thought this thread was going to be about armstrong admitting, finally, that he likes to wear women's cycling clothing.

....Not that there's anything wrong with that.;)





William