No Grand fondo for Lance

[Jgrooms]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/usada-usa-cycling-conferring-armstrong-ban-hincapie-fondo_350166

Where it was once the wild west and the bumpkin deputy (usac) followed the big sheriff's (uci) lead, now the deputy is laying down the law and by golly we can't have the mastermind of the greatest sporting conspiracy EVER riding a fondo. Of course we shall overlook the guy putting it on & his role with a development squad. Some stuff you cant make up...

[bicycletricycle]

···

[Waldo]

A doper not allowed to participate in an event organized by another doper is the ultimate irony.

[Mark McM]

I don't see any reason why the organizers would need a USAC permit for a Grand Fondo. About the only thing that a USAC permit gets you for a "fun ride" is insurance coverage - but there's other places to get that. The organizers should simply get their insurance (and whatever services USAC might provide) from somewhere else and then anyone can participate.

[1centaur]

What I thought was interesting was that the sanction for non-compliance would be against the rider and not the event organizer.

The bureaucrats must be pretty bored if they have to wring their hands over a fun ride.

[oddsaabs]

If LA is unavailable, perhaps George can get the Iglinski brothers to attend. I hear they aren't doing much these days.

[Dead Man]

I'm sometimes struck by how much more the general non-cycling public despises Lance than we do.

Does anyone here give 2 poops about Lance Armstrong? I don't. Let the guy ride, for all I care; or don't.

But not the general public. OH HELL NO. The guy is a CHEAT, a national SHAME, a complete piece of crap. Don't let him ride anywhere in any organized event ever again! He should be in prison!

We see it as a symptom of the condition of the professional subculture as a whole, not a collective wound to our national pride. Perhaps we're (cyclists) are just less nationalistic in general.

[fa63]

I think the general public cares less than you do. In this case, it sounds like the folks are USAC are just trying to wield their power, just because they can.

[LegendRider]

Who exactly said "no?" USADA or USA Cycling?

[Hawker]

A doper not allowed to participate in an event organized by another doper is the ultimate irony.

Plus 1

The ride is just ninety minutes from me, but not riding. Both guys let me down too much.

[OtayBW]

I'm sometimes struck by how much more the general non-cycling public despises Lance than we do.

Does anyone here give 2 poops about Lance Armstrong? I don't. Let the guy ride, for all I care; or don't.

But not the general public. OH HELL NO. The guy is a CHEAT, a national SHAME, a complete piece of crap. Don't let him ride anywhere in any organized event ever again! He should be in prison!

We see it as a symptom of the condition of the professional subculture as a whole, not a collective wound to our national pride. Perhaps we're (cyclists) are just less nationalistic in general.
I'm not sure you're reading some of the same threads that I've seen.

[CunegoFan]

Cycling Tips' article about it.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/10/armstrongs-participation-in-hincapie-gran-fondo-under-scrutiny-by-usada/

Aside from the utter stupidity of trying to ban people from riding glorified centuries, what strikes me odd is how Betsy Andreu is involved in about every article that comes out about Armstrong. Does she spend twenty-four hours a day following Armstrong's every step? She really seems determined to prove that Armstrong was right about her being a crazy axe grinder.

[FlashUNC]

You won't find a bigger supporter of Lance's lifetime ban than me, but even I think this is ridiculous. Let him ride the cookie ride. I hope some folks throw rotten vegetables and fruit at the introduction.

Is Betsy going a bit overboard? Probably. But after a decade of someone calling you every name in the book publicly only to then be vindicated, a little turnabout is fair play I think.

[rain dogs]

While preventing Lance (in isolation) from riding a recreational Fondo in absolute terms seems petty, I will say that in relative terms, when I read it I didn't like it. He does have a life ban from the professional sport.

In fact, I don't like much of the cheery gang of USPS guys hanging around the younger active pros that are there. There are quotes about TJVG training with Lance etc.

It comes down to role models. Literally, role.... models.... if I'm a pro, to me it looks like Mr. Hincapie did everything right. He's winning at life. He had a long and successful professional career. He's got a healthy business. He's got his events. Why not follow his role? Why doesn't a young pro model his life after that? He's done pretty well, no?

I also agree that these sanctioned older riders can and should be able to move on. That's fair. But do so away from the professional world of cycling and the younger pros. I actually find it hard to understand how guys (like TJVG) who are so vocal in the media about "doping cheats" want to go and do this ride anyway?

(sorry for being so verbose)

[rustychisel]

Cycling Tips' article about it.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/10/armstrongs-participation-in-hincapie-gran-fondo-under-scrutiny-by-usada/

Aside from the utter stupidity of trying to ban people from riding glorified centuries, what strikes me odd is how Betsy Andreu is involved in about every article that comes out about Armstrong. Does she spend twenty-four hours a day following Armstrong's every step? She really seems determined to prove that Armstrong was right about her being a crazy axe grinder.



No, she was right and you're in danger of shooting the messenger.

If you were to analyse the article a little more closely you'd realise that it first paraphrases years old news to introduce her name, and that either her 'comment' is based on a tweet or a very very short phone call, almost certainly initiated by the journalist.

If she is involved in comment on every article you've read it may be because her story and message has been unswervingly on point. It's called attribution, and sometimes is more like inference.

Even if a subject says 'no comment' it can be inferred as 'has reservations' or 'is scared of the consequences and will not be publicly quoted'. What happened in this case is not clear, but you are wrong to consider she might be crazy, or an axe grinder.

Betsy Andreu was right, correct, and deserves to be recognised as such. Somewhere I have the full transcript of her evidence from back then, not to mention a couple of those interesting mp3 phone recordings which made their way in to the public domain at some point (if you were interested in reviewing the evidence).

[shovelhd]

I don't see any reason why the organizers would need a USAC permit for a Grand Fondo. About the only thing that a USAC permit gets you for a "fun ride" is insurance coverage - but there's other places to get that. The organizers should simply get their insurance (and whatever services USAC might provide) from somewhere else and then anyone can participate.

As you say, you can get event insurance from an independent agent, however by sanctioning with USAC it makes things easier. USAC can also offer registration services, but this event isn;t using them.

A few years ago, UCI Masters Road Worlds qualifying was via USAC sanctioned Gran Fondos.

[CunegoFan]

While preventing Lance (in isolation) from riding a recreational Fondo in absolute terms seems petty, I will say that in relative terms, when I read it I didn't like it. He does have a life ban from the professional sport.

In fact, I don't like much of the cheery gang of USPS guys hanging around the younger active pros that are there. There are quotes about TJVG training with Lance etc.

It comes down to role models. Literally, role.... models.... if I'm a pro, to me it looks like Mr. Hincapie did everything right. He's winning at life. He had a long and successful professional career. He's got a healthy business. He's got his events. Why not follow his role? Why doesn't a young pro model his life after that? He's done pretty well, no?

I also agree that these guys can and should be able to move on. That's fair. But do so away from the professional world of cycling. I actually find it hard to understand how guys who are so vocal in the media about "doping cheats" want to go and do this ride anyway.

(sorry for being so verbose)

TJ rides for a team managed by Ochowicz and owned by Andy Rihs. Doing a recreational ride for charity that includes a few retired cyclists is insignificant compared to that.

Personally I think trying to shame the young guys into upholding the scapegoating of a few riders is corrosive to the sport. They would be better off being honest about the past.

[rustychisel]

TJ rides for a team managed by Ochowicz and owned by Andy Rihs. Doing a recreational ride for charity that includes a few retired cyclists is insignificant compared to that.

Personally I think trying to shame the young guys into upholding the scapegoating of a few riders is corrosive to the sport. They would be better off being honest about the past.

Good points. But who is 'they' and the evidence seems to suggest 'the past' is still very much with us (as you infer in mentioning Ochowicz and Rihs).

[velomonkey]

what strikes me odd is how Betsy Andreu is involved in about every article that comes out about Armstrong. Does she spend twenty-four hours a day following Armstrong's every step? She really seems determined to prove that Armstrong was right about her being a crazy axe grinder.


I think this is a bit unfair assumption. Her life was radically changed and her name was completely dragged through the mud - her only crime was telling the truth and doing it under oath after being subpoenaed. She didn't go out publicly against LA until his smear campaign after the testimony.

She is driven just like LA, but she is driven to ensure he gets what he has coming.

If it were me, I'd do much of the same. So I think the lady has earned the right.

[rain dogs]

TJ rides for a team managed by Ochowicz and owned by Andy Rihs. Doing a recreational ride for charity that includes a few retired cyclists is insignificant compared to that.

Personally I think trying to shame the young guys into upholding the scapegoating of a few riders is corrosive to the sport. They would be better off being honest about the past.

There are a lot of people who think Och and Andy Rihs aren't a positive influence either.

It's an active sanction. You know Michele Ferrari legally can't even train amateurs, nevermind pros? Can't even train his fat out of shape cycling buddies or he risks jail time in Italy. He's actively sanctioned for life.

He can still buy a nice place in the Carribean or on the Med., take up golf or scuba diving, live a nice upper-class, free-as-a-bird life. He just has to leave the sport of cycling alone where he's out of the influence. Not so bad.

[CunegoFan]

If you were to analyse the article a little more closely you'd realise that it first paraphrases years old news to introduce her name, and that either her 'comment' is based on a tweet or a very very short phone call, almost certainly initiated by the journalist.

If she is involved in comment on every article you've read it may be because her story and message has been unswervingly on point. It's called attribution, and sometimes is more like inference.

This is not a one time thing. In article after article after article she finds a way to get involved. That is not an accident. She has become a professional victim. The way she and her cohort of Internet bullies went after Emma O'Reilly when O'Reilly made up with Armstrong was very telling. Now she wants to prevent Armstrong from doing a charity ride. Really? She needs to get a grip and move on.


Betsy Andreu was right, correct, and deserves to be recognised as such. Somewhere I have the full transcript of her evidence from back then, not to mention a couple of those interesting mp3 phone recordings which made their way in to the public domain at some point (if you were interested in reviewing the evidence).

I have read the SCA transcripts. The funny thing is that she was as evasive as Armstrong. I recall the questions where she tried to play down how for years she was badgering journalists with constant phone calls to the point they were sick of hearing from her. It is a good assumption that the same hounding of journalists is going on today.

[CunegoFan]

I think this is a bit unfair assumption. Her life was radically changed and her name was completely dragged through the mud - her only crime was telling the truth and doing it under oath after being subpoenaed. She didn't go out publicly against LA until his smear campaign after the testimony.

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.

[shovelhd]

This is not a one time thing. In article after article after article she finds a way to get involved. That is not an accident. She has become a professional victim.

This is not a one time thing. In Lance forum post after Lance forum post after Lance forum post you find a way to get involved. That is not an accident. You have become a professional fanboi. :banana::banana::banana::)

[fuzzalow]

I like Betsy. It is a free country and she does not need to justify or be reticent about anything she does concerning LA. She is out there doin' her thing and not through some shill, corporate attorney or a paid lackey as was sic on her during the time of the machine. If she is thorn in the backside for the rest of their respective days, more power to her.

This is what happens when you mess with the wrong woman.

[weisan]

So I was just out riding trying to catch the last light and you know how it is when you are riding, your brain releasing endorphins, and your body pumping adrenalin, the mind gets fired up, the creative juice starts flowing....i began to ponder over the what-if scenarios. To my attorney pals, i wish to apologize in advance if this exposes my complete ignorance of how our legal system works.

I mean, really, what if Lance ignored the curfew, sneaked out and rode the fondo whether in broad daylight or incognito...what happen then, is his parole officer really going to come after him and if they do, what else can they do to him? What? Add another 300 years to his lifetime ban? Call in child protection services to go after his kids by somehow linking his total disregard for the rules laid down by the governing body to future propensity for parental negligence? Or his creditors placing a lien on the future millions he's going to make from pulling more outrageous publicity stunts? What, seriously?

Sorry...I am probably not riding hard enough, just shooting the breeze.:p

[velomonkey]

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.


One: please show me something/anywhere where Frankie or Betsy said anything public about doping or Lance doping prior to the SCA hearing. Anything that's no hearsay.

Two: it's a well known and accepted fact that Lance never, ever wages war. Can you hear the sarcasm. :banana:

Let's pretend this is true, which it isn't, LA had a far, far, far greater, bigger and more powerful 'myth.' So excuse me if I still think the guy has got miles to go before comeuppance is met.

[Dead Man]

So I was just out riding trying to catch the last light and you know how it is when you are riding, your brain releasing endorphins, and your body pumping adrenalin, the mind gets fired up, the creative juice starts flowing....i began to ponder over the what-if scenarios. To my attorney pals, i wish to apologize in advance if this exposes my complete ignorance of how our legal system works.

I mean, really, what if Lance ignored the curfew, sneaked out and rode the fondo whether in broad daylight or incognito...what happen then, is his parole officer really going to come after him and if they do, what else can they do to him? What? Add another 300 years to his lifetime ban? Call in child protection services to go after his kids by somehow linking his total disregard for the rules laid down by the governing body to future propensity for parental negligence? Or his creditors placing a lien on the future millions he's going to make from pulling more outrageous publicity stunts? What, seriously?

Sorry...I am probably not riding hard enough, just shooting the breeze.:p

I'm sure he'd love to put on a fake mustache and enter under an alias. But what happens when he's the first across the line of any competitive event? The other guys who wanted to be first aren't gonna just elbow nudge him, wink, and give him the attaboy!

[weisan]

I'm sure he'd love to put on a fake mustache and enter under an alias. But what happens when he's the first across the line of any competitive event? The other guys who wanted to be first aren't gonna just elbow nudge him, wink, and give him the attaboy!

Then, in that case, we are in for a treat. I am a sucker for drama and threatrics.

[don compton]

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.
You are on the payroll:no:

[indyrider]

But after a decade of someone calling you every name in the book publicly only to then be vindicated, a little turnabout is fair play I think.

Hear Hear

[PQJ]

Uh, no. The myth is, "I was minding my own business but refused to lie when subpoenaed." The reality is that she was waging a campaign against Armstrong and her husband's friends for years before the SCA arbitration. It had nothing to do with a quest to expose the "truth." There was a vendetta between her and Armstrong going back to at least 2000.

Whose "reality"?

[jr59]

yawn....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Lovetoclimb]

Plus 1

The ride is just ninety minutes from me, but not riding. Both guys let me down too much.

IMO a better route can be made starting in North Carolina (Black Mountain cough cough . . . ) and heading south to the "meat" of the fondo aka the 3 big climbs. From my door it shakes out to be about 115 miles with anywhere from 10-12k feet elevation gain and some incredible scenery. Happy to lead a ride sometime.

[Mark McM]

This is not a one time thing. In article after article after article she finds a way to get involved. That is not an accident. She has become a professional victim. The way she and her cohort of Internet bullies went after Emma O'Reilly when O'Reilly made up with Armstrong was very telling. Now she wants to prevent Armstrong from doing a charity ride. Really? She needs to get a grip and move on.

I'm not aware of Betsy Andreu running any media outlets. If articles by or about Betsy Andreu keep appearing, then some media outlet must think there is interest in what she has to say.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that CunegoFan isn't just a Lance Fan Boy, but may even be Lance himself posting under a pseudonym.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm not aware of Betsy Andreu running any media outlets. If articles by or about Betsy Andreu keep appearing, then some media outlet must think there is interest in what she has to say.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that CunegoFan isn't just a Lance Fan Boy, but may even be Lance himself posting under a pseudonym.

Has anybody seen cunegofan and tonyT in the same room together?

Hmmmmmm

[oldpotatoe]

A doper not allowed to participate in an event organized by another doper is the ultimate irony.

Tee hee, I wonder if Limpheimer is gonna be there.

[Waldo]

I'm sure he'd love to put on a fake mustache and enter under an alias. But what happens when he's the first across the line of any competitive event? The other guys who wanted to be first aren't gonna just elbow nudge him, wink, and give him the attaboy!


He can always enter as Juan Pelota...

[paredown]

A doper not allowed to participate in an event organized by another doper is the ultimate irony.

Not just one, but several are participating:
Four former members of Armstrong’s U.S Postal Service and Discovery Channel team who testified to USADA about drug use within the team will be participating — George Hincapie, Christian Vande Velde, Michael Barry and Tom Danielson.

Former USPS riders Kevin Livingston and Dylan Casey are also participating.

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/usada-usa-cycling-conferring-armstrong-ban-hincapie-fondo_350166#pJ8khDB0Hj9r2fsm.99

[Mr. Pink]

I like Betsy. It is a free country and she does not need to justify or be reticent about anything she does concerning LA. She is out there doin' her thing and not through some shill, corporate attorney or a paid lackey as was sic on her during the time of the machine. If she is thorn in the backside for the rest of their respective days, more power to her.

This is what happens when you mess with the wrong woman.


The final comment is precisely why I let the ex have my half of the house. It was worth it, to this day, even if the value tripled.

He must acted like a real ass to her. Payback is a female dog.

[FlashUNC]

The final comment is precisely why I let the ex have my half of the house. It was worth it, to this day, even if the value tripled.

He must acted like a real ass to her. Payback is a female dog.

There's enough of his vitriol in the press about Betsy over the last decade. Quick Google search can surface most of it.

Let's not forget this is the guy who sued Emma O'Reilly, his former soigneur, when she spoke about doping, and publicly called her an "alcoholic prostitute."

Or the manager in Austin that didn't even talk about doping, but Lance made the guy's life so miserable he moved to New Zealand to get away from it all.

I'm glad Betsy's out there putting the screws to him now.

[bluesea]

This is not a one time thing. In article after article after article she finds a way to get involved. That is not an accident. She has become a professional victim. The way she and her cohort of Internet bullies went after Emma O'Reilly when O'Reilly made up with Armstrong was very telling. Now she wants to prevent Armstrong from doing a charity ride. Really? She needs to get a grip and move on.



I have read the SCA transcripts. The funny thing is that she was as evasive as Armstrong. I recall the questions where she tried to play down how for years she was badgering journalists with constant phone calls to the point they were sick of hearing from her. It is a good assumption that the same hounding of journalists is going on today.



If what you're saying is they were *all* bad, even the Andreu, I agree 100%. Supporting the Andreu, is like supporting a mafioso informant.

[Spdntrxi]

Tee hee, I wonder if Limpheimer is gonna be there.


Nope.. Cycling tips link mentions that.. Barry bonds showed up at Levi's .. And got a half hearted reception.. Maybe even a boo or two

[Mark McM]

Not just one, but several are participating:

But only one currently under sanction.

[Dead Man]

All of these disgraced cyclists should just start their own league. Hell... might even take over, at least on this side of the pond

[Jgrooms]

The hammer has dropped. No fondo for LA. Big George is blue & a 'statement' has been made.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/usa-cycling-wada-code-armstrong-ride-hincapie-fondo_350330

[CunegoFan]

Absurd. Has USAC ever considered centuries and recreational rides as "officially sanctioned"? This is USAC making up rules as they go to satisty the call of a vocal minority.

This is the whole problem with doping, not just by riders but by all parties involved in cycling: The rules are ignored, made up on the spot, or selectively enforced based on whatever is expedient at the moment. It is one big corrupt mess.

[Mark McM]

If the event applies for (and is granted) a USAC permit, than it is a USAC sanctioned event. USAC sanctions not only races, but also training rides and camps, club rides, and yes, even centuries.

The vast majority of centuries, fun rides and charity events are run outside of the USAC system. But for some reason, the Grand Fondo in question decided to apply for a USAC permit, so it is a sanctioned USAC event, and USAC rules apply.

This current debacle is largely of the making of the Grand Fondo organizers, who apparently didn't think ahead when they decided to make it a USAC event.

[Anarchist]

Why does everyone keep referring to the "Grand" Fondo.

Gran.

Gran Fondo.

[Jgrooms]

Why does everyone keep referring to the "Grand" Fondo.



Gran.



Gran Fondo.


So you can get your panties in a twist & then correct everyone...

[shovelhd]

if the event applies for (and is granted) a usac permit, than it is a usac sanctioned event. Usac sanctions not only races, but also training rides and camps, club rides, and yes, even centuries.

The vast majority of centuries, fun rides and charity events are run outside of the usac system. But for some reason, the grand fondo in question decided to apply for a usac permit, so it is a sanctioned usac event, and usac rules apply.

This current debacle is largely of the making of the grand fondo organizers, who apparently didn't think ahead when they decided to make it a usac event.

+1

[Anarchist]

So you can get your panties in a twist & then correct everyone...

Great, thanks all.

[r_mutt]

So you can get your panties in a twist & then correct everyone...


nice Jgoons

[thirdgenbird]

In this case, there would be no one to stop Armstrong, or anyone else, from riding. USA Cycling’s statement went on to address what might happen in the event that Armstrong should disregard the rules and choose to ride in the fondo.

“The World Anti-Doping Code vests jurisdiction in UCI and in USADA to determine whether an athlete has violated the terms of any suspension, as well as to assess any sanctions that might accompany an adverse determination.”

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/usa-cycling-wada-code-armstrong-ride-hincapie-fondo_350330#Ate3ic9GkljopmXt.99

So how do they punish him further? Two lifetime bans?

[Dead Man]

Yea... once you throw a lifetime ban at someone, you kind of lose teeth for any further action. It's not like they have any legal teeth- these aren't government agencies, though the "US Anti-doping Agency" wants you to think it is.

[pbarry]

So how do they punish him further? Two lifetime bans?

Not getting to ride with former teammates/sychophants over reaching the bounds of "probation" is going too far to punish?

Outside of pro sports, the egregious nature of LA's intimidation and cover-up tactics would have him in max or med security prison. He's getting off easy. You make your bed and life is hard.

[thirdgenbird]

Not getting to ride with former teammates/sychophants over reaching the bounds of "probation" is going too far to punish?

Not what I said at all. I am asking what else they can do beyond a lifetime ban if he shows up and rides. Like mentioned, they have no legal power.

[pbarry]

Got it. Shunning has worked for millennia. Particularly hard on those who seek acclaim. Heckling and fruit throwing might be in order if he shows up..

[mtechnica]

Seems to me that USAC and USADA have done more to tarnish the reputation of American cycling than Armstrong himself. I think it's time to let it go.

[Mark McM]

Not what I said at all. I am asking what else they can do beyond a lifetime ban if he shows up and rides. Like mentioned, they have no legal power.

Clearly, they can't do anything to Armstrong if he participates. But somebody else is going to be in trouble.

The event has a USAC permit. USAC only grants permits to licensed clubs and/or licensed race directors, so the organizer must be a USAC member. Since it is against the rules to allow banned athletes to participate in sanctioned events, the organizer would be subject to punishment if they allow Armstrong to participate. The organizer could themselves end up getting banned.

[FlashUNC]

Looks like they shouldn't have sought USAC insurance...

[thirdgenbird]

Clearly, they can't do anything to Armstrong if he participates. But somebody else is going to be in trouble.

The event has a USAC permit. USAC only grants permits to licensed clubs and/or licensed race directors, so the organizer must be a USAC member. Since it is against the rules to allow banned athletes to participate in sanctioned events, the organizer would be subject to punishment if they allow Armstrong to participate. The organizer could themselves end up getting banned.

And the USAC expects the organizers to watch for him and do what when they find him? If it is on public roads, they really can't keep him from riding the route.

Seems to me that USAC and USADA have done more to tarnish the reputation of American cycling than Armstrong himself. I think it's time to let it go.

It might get that way.

[pbarry]

And the USAC expects the organizers to watch for him and do what when they find him? If it is on public roads, they really can't keep him from riding the route.



It might get that way.

^^ Fanboy who can't quite admit it.

[abalone]

Armstrong doesn't need any more publicity. He did enough terrible things to others for him to get much sympathy from me.

[thirdgenbird]

^^ Fanboy who can't quite admit it.

Negative. I grew up a fan of Jan.

I'm a lance fanboy because I stated he has the legal right to ride a bike on public roads? You are reading way too far into my posts. As far as lances reputation vs USAC? Lances rep has bottomed out, they can't make it worse. They can effect their own reputation.

I never said lance should do this ride and I never said I want him to. I only said there is really nothing they can do to prevent the guy from pedaling on a public road. If lance were to show up and slip into the crowd without permission, the USAC has nothing more they can do to him, and it would be hard for them to punish the organizers unless they can prove they supported it. An event official has no legal right to remove lance from his bike. They could ask him to go home, but that is about it.

I don't think I have ever questioned that lance got what he had coming. I think it is the other guys that got off easy.

[Vientomas]

If Lance had any semblance of character and grace he would simply not attempt to participate in any sanctioned cycling events.

However, he clearly lacks the humility to do so and thereby brings the negative attention upon himself and American cycling.

[don compton]

I hate the fact that his name keeps coming up. He helped create a great market in cycling, but it was like the Nazis in the '30's in Germany. It was fake and he destroyed anyone that could expose the myth. Cycling needs to rid itself of this asshole.

[Elefantino]

Who?

[harlond]

If Lance had any semblance of character and grace he would simply not attempt to participate in any sanctioned cycling events.

However, he clearly lacks the humility to do so and thereby brings the negative attention upon himself and American cycling.He was invited to participate by the organizer, who presumably invited LA to further the charitable goals of the event. And LA accepted because the organizer, Hincapie, is his friend and LA felt an obligation to him.

[Rada]

I hate the fact that his name keeps coming up. He helped create a great market in cycling, but it was like the Nazis in the '30's in Germany. It was fake and he destroyed anyone that could expose the myth. Cycling needs to rid itself of this asshole.

Godwin's Law in just 5 pages.

[kramnnim]

Who?

I think the rest stops of this ride will be stocked with these crackers or something.

http://www.forthemommas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Lance-Crackers1.jpg

[Vientomas]

He was invited to participate by the organizer, who presumably invited LA to further the charitable goals of the event. And LA accepted because the organizer, Hincapie, is his friend and LA felt an obligation to him.

Obviously Lance lacks the self awareness to realize that he is a polarizing figure that generates controversy wherever he goes. Had he the capacity to understand that, his response to the invitation would have been: "No thank you. Is there another way that I can assist your cause?"

[Mark McM]

I never said lance should do this ride and I never said I want him to. I only said there is really nothing they can do to prevent the guy from pedaling on a public road. If lance were to show up and slip into the crowd without permission, the USAC has nothing more they can do to him, and it would be hard for them to punish the organizers unless they can prove they supported it. An event official has no legal right to remove lance from his bike. They could ask him to go home, but that is about it.

You're right, the event officials can do little to keep Armstrong from riding on public roads, and about all they can do is ask him to leave if he tried to mix in. But according to USAC rules, the organizers (and any other participating USAC member) have an obligation to ask him to leave, and if they do not, they could face action against them for rules violations. Again, they can't physically expel Armstrong, but it could create some very uncomfortable situations.

(Similar situations happen all the time. For example, many events require riders to sign a waiver to participate in rides on public roads. What if a rider doesn't want to sign a waiver? All the organizers can do is ask the non-signing riders not to ride with the event. What would happen if the organizers don't ask a non-signing rider to not participate, and the non-signing rider causes an accident? Who is liable, and will the event insurance cover damages?)

[endosch2]

Betsy Andreau does seem to be a bit of a bunny boiler.

I would like to see Armstrong start banditing some races and rides, riding a old bike, cutoff jean shorts, flip flops, etc....

[peanutgallery]

It's not this at all, -7 doesn't care one bit if he rides - this was merely an opportunity to control the narrative...again. -7 is first and foremost a sociopath, I think we can all agree on that. This whole fondue thing has been nothing but a gambit to stir up positive sentiment, take a look at Facebook and you will see the Fanboi's are back and they are loud/angry/obnoxious/insulting. This was all just another PR gambit from his handlers. Now people are talking again, coming soon to a Michelob commercial near you. Dude has to pay the bills

Good on Betsy and others for calling him out. In the end, George his a dummy for letting his platform get hijacked. He'll be the one to pay in the long run

Obviously Lance lacks the self awareness to realize that he is a polarizing figure that generates controversy wherever he goes. Had he the capacity to understand that, his response to the invitation would have been: "No thank you. Is there another way that I can assist your cause?"

[PQJ]

It's not this at all, -7 doesn't care one bit if he rides - this was merely an opportunity to control the narrative...again. -7 is first and foremost a sociopath, I think we can all agree on that. This whole fondue thing has been nothing but a gambit to stir up positive sentiment, take a look at Facebook and you will see the Fanboi's are back and they are loud/angry/obnoxious/insulting. This was all just another PR gambit from his handlers. Now people are talking again, coming soon to a Michelob commercial near you. Dude has to pay the bills

Good on Betsy and others for calling him out. In the end, George his a dummy for letting his platform get hijacked. He'll be the one to pay in the long run

Well said. And George is a dummy. He always has been. At one point it was cute. But now he is just -7's pal.

[thirdgenbird]

You're right, the event officials can do little to keep Armstrong from riding on public roads, and about all they can do is ask him to leave if he tried to mix in. But according to USAC rules, the organizers (and any other participating USAC member) have an obligation to ask him to leave, and if they do not, they could face action against them for rules violations. Again, they can't physically expel Armstrong, but it could create some very uncomfortable situations.

(Similar situations happen all the time. For example, many events require riders to sign a waiver to participate in rides on public roads. What if a rider doesn't want to sign a waiver? All the organizers can do is ask the non-signing riders not to ride with the event. What would happen if the organizers don't ask a non-signing rider to not participate, and the non-signing rider causes an accident? Who is liable, and will the event insurance cover damages?)


Thanks for the insight

[velomonkey]

. . . .presumably invited LA to further the charitable goals of the event. And LA accepted because the organizer, Hincapie, is his friend and LA felt an obligation to him.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you believe this then back in the day you really did think that "hope rides" and the guy was doing it all for cancer.

Hiding behind charity is a few steps short of hiding behind cancer. Same story, different day.

This is all about George - it's called gran fondo hincapie - not gran fondo for charity. Come on, bro . . . do you even lift?

[pbarry]

Negative. I grew up a fan of Jan.

I'm a lance fanboy because I stated he has the legal right to ride a bike on public roads? You are reading way too far into my posts. As far as lances reputation vs USAC? Lances rep has bottomed out, they can't make it worse. They can effect their own reputation.

I never said lance should do this ride and I never said I want him to. I only said there is really nothing they can do to prevent the guy from pedaling on a public road. If lance were to show up and slip into the crowd without permission, the USAC has nothing more they can do to him, and it would be hard for them to punish the organizers unless they can prove they supported it. An event official has no legal right to remove lance from his bike. They could ask him to go home, but that is about it.

I don't think I have ever questioned that lance got what he had coming. I think it is the other guys that got off easy.

IF, you would explain your comments more fully, (the first time around), then there would be little need of interpretation, which you quickly rise to challenge. Your after-comments are more enlightening. Still, your defense of LA reeks of legalize, so I still wonder.. :rolleyes:

[thirdgenbird]

IF, you would explain your comments more fully, (the first time around), then there would be little need of interpretation, which you quickly rise to challenge. Your after-comments are more enlightening. Still, your defense of LA reeks of legalize, so I still wonder.. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how my comments were misread. I also don't understand why you feel anyone that doesn't call for a stoning is a fanboy. Where did I defend him? I only said USAC has run out of options with LA. That is an indisputable fact, he has the max sentence they can dish out.

[oldpotatoe]

How is it that any cycling governing body 'endorses' a ride by hincapie, who is also an admitted cheat and doper??

mixed messages, but so what else is new. why anybody supports hincapie by buying his crap is beyond me.

[rain dogs]

How is it that any cycling governing body 'endorses' a ride by hincapie, who is also an admitted cheat and doper??

mixed messages, but so what else is new. why anybody supports hincapie by buying his crap is beyond me.

Hincapie 'served' his sanction and resumed racing in theory the same way someone like Ivan Basso did. So, in the eyes of the UCI etc. he's back to a zero point. Violation made, sanction served.

But as critical thinkers... I can't say I disagree with your sentiment.

[unterhausen]

It's not this at all, -7 doesn't care one bit if he rides - this was merely an opportunity to control the narrative...again. -7 is first and foremost a sociopath, ...
certainly seems to be true. Shouldn't his abbreviation be 0 instead of -7? Or maybe 7-7

I always wanted the same number of tour wins as Armstrong, and now I do :banana:

[velomonkey]

Here is the deal - anyone who brings forth the arguement "well who cares about a fondo and he can ride roads, what is USADA gonna do" - you sound like a child. Any parent can attest to this - what Lance is doing is what children do when they are told NOT to do something. As a parent, or as USADA, you can't let that get away - you do and then it just gets worse.

The event is part of USA Cycling as such it's sanctioned - the guy can't partake in sanctioned events. Period. Done. That's the punishment - not he can't partake in 'races' - you are making a distinction that's not there.

Lance is acting like a child like the universe revolves around him and USADA did the right thing by saying "NO." I have zero sympathy for Lance, zero for George, zero for the other ex dopers who are lining up and ZERO for any dope that paid to be a part of this event.

You want to somehow defend that - go for it. The sooner Lance recognizes that he "lost" and Travis "won" the better off this sport will be - it's game over, he will never, ever recover from this. The only question at this point is how much is gonna lose financially. At this point, showing up to Fondos - doing media interviews - he is losing the PR war even more. STFU, Lance, go away and stay out of site out of mind - here is a tip - show up unannounced at various cancer wards - if the patients embrace you - embrace back - if they yell at you - be the punching bag. Do this every week and don't look at retweets of your visits - do it cause you care. Oh wait - I need to come back to reality: that was NEVER part of Lance, it was all part of the game about Lance - so, please. Go home - Hincapie too.

[thirdgenbird]

Is that directed at me? I'm only saying he can act like a child and ride if he wants. I am in no way supporting it. I don't see how making that statement makes me sound like a child.

As far as "what are they going to do?" That is an honest question. I agree they did the right thing by saying no, the problem is that it really doesn't mean anything if lance chooses to break the rules.

[velomonkey]

Is that directed at me? I'm only saying he can act like a child and ride if he wants. I am in no way supporting it. I don't see how making that statement makes me sound like a child.

As far as "what are they going to do?" That is an honest question. I agree they did the right thing by saying no, the problem is that it really doesn't mean anything.

Well, I guess this is directed at you. First, by your logic - Lance can go murder someone. Against the rules, like partaking in a sanctioned event, but he CAN do it. (I'm saying this to demonstrate how silly this logic is).

Second, it matters not what they do, the mere fact that Lance even thought he could do the sanctioned event shows the type of person he really is - someone who thinks the rules do not apply to him. It's just more fodder for USADA and while Lance might get his quick hit of fame appearing or partaking in a fondo - Travis is playing and has played the long game and the result is Lance loses even more.

An adult can understand those consequences a child can't.

[Vientomas]

As far as "what are they going to do?" That is an honest question. I agree they did the right thing by saying no, the problem is that it really doesn't mean anything if lance chooses to break the rules.

I am sure they will think of something.

[thirdgenbird]

I understand the consequences. I'm not saying anything different than you. Lance has shown he is a rule breaker and could ride if he wants to act like a child.

Your murder referance is meaningless and wrong. If lance commited murder he would be arrested and go to jail. Not the case if he desires to slip into a ride. One is a law with punishments. The other is a rule that he has already received the max punishment for. It would be more like someone on death row killing a second victim. They might make the paper and they stay on death row.

[velomonkey]

Your murder referance is meaningless and wrong. If lance commited murder he would be arrested and go to jail. Not the case if he desires to slip into a ride.

If any rider is found to have used performance enhancing drugs at the time of competition then their results are negated and removed. If a rider does not cooperate with an investigation by the agency tasked with investigating the use of performance enhancing drugs, and that rider is found guilty, said rider can receive up to a lifetime ban from sanctioned events.

Somehow this is hard to understand?

The murder reference is totally relevant, I used murder only to demonstrate the silly logic of "well he can do it if he wants to."

Actions have consequences.

[thirdgenbird]

I completely understand that. He can't participate. He shouldn't, I agree. The rules are the rules.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no further punishments if he breaks the rules again. There are further punishments if he murders.

I'm sorry I ever made the "childish" assumption that lance armstong might break another rule.

[velomonkey]

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no further punishments if he breaks the rules again. There are further punishments if he murders.

I do understand that, what you fail to grasp, and for sure Lance can't grasp, is that there are other ways that Lance loses. It's lose - lose - do you want to lose or do you want lose even more? That's the only question left.

Did USADA make him say "Betsy, I never called you fat." Yea, that played out well for him.

Did USADA make him go under oath on video and say "I do it all for cancer and if you think I would dope and betray the cancer community" (I'm paraphrasing) Yea, that worked well.

Did USADA make him chew out Kimmage at a press conference (another time he hid behind cancer). Yup, really played out well there.

I can go on and on and on. My point is, Travis is playing chess, Lance is playing checkers. Travis is letting this play out to his betterment even though he is, basically, done. Lance still has a long, long way to go - there is after all the small matter of the US government going after some hundreds of millions of dollars - but go on Lance, what can USADA do to you if you show up for a sanctioned event? Rock solid logic there genius - well played.

Just more proof. Now, is this somehow obtuse?

[thirdgenbird]

Of course there are other ways lance loses but you are giving him more credit than me if you think he cares.

As fars as the legal cas goes, this nonsense doesn't have anything to do with it other than maybe a little PR but is the really any helping that anymore?

[velomonkey]

Of course there are other ways lance looses but you are giving him more credit than me if you think he cares.

Please, please, please tell me you didn't mean that?

There is only one thing that dude lives for - to feed his ego. If you don't think, for a second, that the guy longs for the days when he roamed this earth like Captain freaking America riding on a unicorn then you, sir, simply don't get it.

The guy practically only showed emotion once: when he talked about losing money.

It's not credit I am giving him, it's perception of the picture he creates - and that's one of an egomaniac (and I'm being nice).

Um, so, yea - he does care. He cares a ton.

[thirdgenbird]

What I mean is that I don't think he cares what this tiny event has done to his already tarnished reputation.

I fully believe he cares about the big picture. That is exactly how the egomaniac got so high before he fell.

[harlond]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you believe this then back in the day you really did think that "hope rides" and the guy was doing it all for cancer.

Hiding behind charity is a few steps short of hiding behind cancer. Same story, different day.

This is all about George - it's called gran fondo hincapie - not gran fondo for charity. Come on, bro . . . do you even lift?
Back in the day I thought he was doping. Are you really not trying?

[93legendti]

Are there any other TdF winners who were busted for doping?

[velomonkey]

Back in the day I thought he was doping. Are you really not trying?

Confused :help: so did you think it was "hope & dope" were riding - or just "dope" rides?

[Mark McM]

Are there any other TdF winners who were busted for doping?

Are you seriously asking? There are quite a few. Some have been sanctioned and served bans (and two have had their TdF wins taken away). But Armstrong is the only one currently serving a ban.

[velomonkey]

Are you seriously asking? There are quite a few. Some have been sanctioned and served bans (and two have had their TdF wins taken away). But Armstrong is the only one currently serving a ban.

Completely true statement. 100% true. He's also the only 1 to win 7 tours and then come back and try to win more tours. . . .

jut saying :bike:

[pbarry]

LA's quote in the VN piece says everything about his inner progress since the reasoned decision:
]
Lance Armstrong (via email): I’m going because George is a good friend and he asked me to come. He’s been awfully supportive of Anna and mine’s work with Wapiyapi [a small private fundraising dinner and ride], so I wanted to return the favor. Regarding the others, I’m ambivalent. (Emphasis added.)

[93legendti]

Are you seriously asking? There are quite a few. Some have been sanctioned and served bans (and two have had their TdF wins taken away). But Armstrong is the only one currently serving a ban.

No, I was making a point about the "outrage"...I know even the great Eddie was busted for doping. So was Coppi.

Some here refuse to wear Hincapie products, but they will ride a Coppi or Merckx bike. Fascinating...

If you're against dopers, be against dopers. Don't dust off your outrage just for the riders you don't like.

[FlashUNC]

No, I was making a point about the "outrage"...I know even the great Eddie was busted for doping. So was Coppi.

Some here refuse to wear Hincapie products, but they will ride a Coppi or Merckx bike. Fascinating...

If you're against dopers, be against dopers. Don't dust off your outrage just for the riders you don't like.

La Bomba was positively Stone Age compared to the rocketship fuel blood doping programs Lance and Co were on. The vast bulk of Pharmstrong's doping happened after the Festina Affair when all this was thrust into the spotlight, and lasted until at least Operation Puerto.

Even putting all that aside and let's say all doping is the same and wrong. What Lance did to his critics was inexcusable and abhorrent, and anyone who was complicit in that (Hincapie, Bruyneel, et al) deserve being tarred with the same brush. Last I checked, Coppi and Merckx didn't try to sue their doping critics into oblivion, or ride down guys who broke the omertà, or or call their former soigneurs an "alcoholic prostitute" for speaking out, or accuse critics of essentially being against people with cancer.

[fuzzalow]

Some here refuse to wear Hincapie products, but they will ride a Coppi or Merckx bike. Fascinating...

If you're against dopers, be against dopers. Don't dust off your outrage just for the riders you don't like.

Selective outrage and not supporting products at the whim of what is convenient and suited to one's own consumer desires. Very true and I'd guess a reflection as to the strength of the underlying convictions of what one might say they want no part of. Great to talk about as long as it doesn't get in the way of one's own satisfaction. And in a consumer culture many define themselves by their purchases & possessions so let nothing interfere.

In fairness, much of these boycotts are symbolic gestures (i.e not enough numbers). And based on how tightly coupled the products are to the disliked persona non grata, not buying a product might not hurt them anyway. For example not likely in the case of Coppi or Merckx bikes because one them is dead and one of them sold the business, respectively. But if GH still has a majority stake in the self-titled sportswear company, then yeah, I'd say avoid his stuff.

[cmg]

Did Lance ride? Can't find any photos on facebook.

[93legendti]

La Bomba was positively Stone Age compared to the rocketship fuel blood doping programs Lance and Co were on. The vast bulk of Pharmstrong's doping happened after the Festina Affair when all this was thrust into the spotlight, and lasted until at least Operation Puerto.

Even putting all that aside and let's say all doping is the same and wrong. What Lance did to his critics was inexcusable and abhorrent, and anyone who was complicit in that (Hincapie, Bruyneel, et al) deserve being tarred with the same brush. Last I checked, Coppi and Merckx didn't try to sue their doping critics into oblivion, or ride down guys who broke the omertà, or or call their former soigneurs an "alcoholic prostitute" for speaking out, or accuse critics of essentially being against people with cancer.

Isn't all doping the same and wrong?

So Merckx doped, but riding a Merckx is ok, but wearing a Hincapie jersey isn't?

The SoL ends when the doper dies or sells the company?

So your objection is to Armstrong, not necessarily doping?

Was Floyd's blackmail of LA and then $2 million mail fraud against his fans worse than LA's actions?

Are there good dopers?

How about other forms of cheating? Johan Museeuw grabbing Sean Yates' jersey, so his teammate could get a bonus sprint and take the Yellow Jersey from Yates. Forgivable because Johan was a good guy?

If George Hincapie lent his name to a charity where 100% of the proceeds were verified to go to fighting a disease you cared about would you donate?

When your outrage is arbitrary/selective you open yourself up to hard questions.

[professerr]

Someday, a psychology grad student is going to do a thesis correlating personal honesty with what one publicly states about fallen sports figures like Lance Armstrong. Do dishonest people tend to support him because they can empathize with him? Or do dishonest people trash him because they want to appear more honest themselves? Or is it the honest people who trash him the most because he violates their personal code?

I have my own idea on how such a study would turn out, based on the intellectual honesty of the arguments here pro and con Lance. Of course my data set is probably skewed by bored folks who just post about Lance to yank people's chains, so there's that.

[sitzmark]

Someday, a psychology grad student is going to do a thesis correlating personal honesty with what one publicly states about fallen sports figures like Lance Armstrong. ....
????? Huh?

I thought all the Nobel Laureate psycho-scientists had already weighed in here on The PLF. :)

[velomonkey]

Isn't all doping the same and wrong?

So Merckx doped, but riding a Merckx is ok, but wearing a Hincapie jersey isn't?

The SoL ends when the doper dies or sells the company?

So your objection is to Armstrong, not necessarily doping?


All dopers suck - dopers who sue people for telling the truth and are generally jerk as people suck a little more. Nice dopers suck a little less.

Not hard to get, but I digress. What's the saying - the coverup is worse than the crime.

[FlashUNC]

Isn't all doping the same and wrong?

So Merckx doped, but riding a Merckx is ok, but wearing a Hincapie jersey isn't?

The SoL ends when the doper dies or sells the company?

So your objection is to Armstrong, not necessarily doping?

Was Floyd's blackmail of LA and then $2 million mail fraud against his fans worse than LA's actions?

Are there good dopers?

How about other forms of cheating? Johan Museeuw grabbing Sean Yates' jersey, so his teammate could get a bonus sprint and take the Yellow Jersey from Yates. Forgivable because Johan was a good guy?

If George Hincapie lent his name to a charity where 100% of the proceeds were verified to go to fighting a disease you cared about would you donate?

When your outrage is arbitrary/selective you open yourself up to hard questions.

1) All doping isn't the same. You can't look at the haphazard use of amphetamines and other stimulants by riders from the 1940s on and say its anywhere near the blood doping programs of the 80s and 90s. Against the rules? Sure. Lethal in some instances? Absolutely. But to say Coppi's use of La Bomba was the same as Bjarne Riis Operation Blood Ketchup program is a false equivalency.

2) George stood by while his team captain decided to rip anyone who didn't support him to shreds. He was a coward and a collaborator and should be treated as such.

3) Anyone with a pair of eyes can see doping has been around as long as the sport has existed. I'm not naive enough to think that will ever really change. It absolutely should be against the rules and punished appropriately. But there's a special circle of Hell dedicated to the kind of douchery that Lance exhibited for nigh on a decade.

4) Floyd sucks too, but at least he didn't sue people into oblivion. His violation of fans' trust wasn't any less severe than Armstrongs, but at least he had enough sense to cop to it when the jig was up and, most importantly, move on to something else.

5) Yeah. I think there's good dopers. You look at the enormous pressure these guys faced -- many cases still young adults in their own right -- who are basically told this is the only way to get to the dream they've worked their entire lives for. I commend the fortitude of those who walked away rather than dope, but I understand the mindset of a lot of those who did. Doping doesn't make you a horrible person. You just made a bad choice. Its how you handle the consequences of that bad choice that really show you true character, imo.

6) I think we can agree that cheating isn't cool. But pulling on a guy's jersey or buying a win are far different than the long-lasting, systemic effects of blood doping. It cost guys careers.

7) That charity would get a note from me that I object to their use of George as spokesperson, and I'd find another charity that supports the cause to give my dollars to, simple as that.


And none of those are particularly hard questions. As others have mentioned, in my mind the cover-up is always worse than the crime. What Lance did was despicable and those who fell in line with his omertà deserve the same scorn he gets imo.

[cfox]

1) All doping isn't the same. You can't look at the haphazard use of amphetamines and other stimulants by riders from the 1940s on and say its anywhere near the blood doping programs of the 80s and 90s. Against the rules? Sure. Lethal in some instances? Absolutely. But to say Coppi's use of La Bomba was the same as Bjarne Riis Operation Blood Ketchup program is a false equivalency.



It is absolutely equivalent. The point is doping/cheating is about intent, not effectiveness. What if you cheated on a math test but used the wrong answer key? What Coppi and Merckx did was the best junk available at the time. To think they wouldn't have used epo is laughable. Atilla the Hun killed lots of people, but could have killed more if he had nuclear weapons.

[jr59]

1) All doping isn't the same. You can't look at the haphazard use of amphetamines and other stimulants by riders from the 1940s on and say its anywhere near the blood doping programs of the 80s and 90s. Against the rules? Sure. Lethal in some instances? Absolutely. But to say Coppi's use of La Bomba was the same as Bjarne Riis Operation Blood Ketchup program is a false equivalency.




.


Are you kidding? Do you really think this?

Are you trying to say that when the riders of he past doped, they didn't do the best they knew of at the time? REALLY?

Of course the dope is better now, but if they knew of the dope of today, the riders of days gone by would have done the dope that gave them the greatest advantage to win. That's what dope is about! Why dope at all, if it doesn't give you an advantage?

Pro cycling is a DIRTY sport and has been for over 100 years. Over the years, the dope has changed. But not the reason for doing dope. They do dope to give them an advantage, the greatest advantage they can get.

[unterhausen]

1) All doping isn't the same. You can't look at the haphazard use of amphetamines and other stimulants by riders from the 1940s on and say its anywhere near the blood doping programs of the 80s and 90s. I have always forgiven these guys because they didn't have anything that was very effective. The truth is that the heroes from prior to the effective doping regime would have taken the good stuff if it was available to them.


4) Floyd sucks too, but at least he didn't sue people into oblivion. His violation of fans' trust wasn't any less severe than Armstrongs, but at least he had enough sense to cop to it when the jig was up and, most importantly, move on to something else. I think it's hilarious that Landis got this whole thing started because he was trying to blackmail Armstrong into giving him a ride. If there was anyone that was more reckless with his doping than Landis, I can't think of anyone. Because he was so obviously self-serving, I didn't think anything would come of it, but I was really happy the whole sham fell apart. What a perfectly unethical start to an amazing story.