The Truth Is Out There Atmo

[atmo]

not your father's swimsuit issue atmo (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/09/12/armstrong/index.html)

[Big Dan]

***????????

[Chris]

I have ZERO respect for Armstrong. I think he doped and all of his victories are tainted in my eyes. His career is over though and if he did dope, he got away with it. Uncovering it now, when he is no longer competing only causes harm to the sport, and to the goal of cancer research. I am completely disenchanted with professional cycling now and that feeling sucks. These guys have been my heroes since I watched the 30 minute coverage of the Tour in 85 and had the beauty and raw emotion of the sport just overwhelm me. The way that bike racing has become so mechanical and without emotion just kills me. Doping has ruined it for me. However, if Armstrong gets discovered now when there are no consequences to his career as an athlete, what's the point? Those people who are in his corner and believe that he is this miracle man, are the people who generate an enormous amount of energy behind the new focus on cancer research. If it becomes more clear that there is someone behind the curtain running the Wizard, then what good can that do? I say let it go. Find the current cheats.

[J.Greene]

not your father's swimsuit issue atmo (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/09/12/armstrong/index.html)

It's begun. My local politician says don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the truck load, cause the fight will look just like that article.

JG

[Ginger]

Is there an english translation of Voet's book mentioned in the article?
Chain Massacre: Revelations of 30 Years of Cheating.

[amg]

I have ZERO respect for Armstrong. I think he doped and all of his victories are tainted in my eyes. His career is over though and if he did dope, he got away with it. Uncovering it now, when he is no longer competing only causes harm to the sport, and to the goal of cancer research. I am completely disenchanted with professional cycling now and that feeling sucks. These guys have been my heroes since I watched the 30 minute coverage of the Tour in 85 and had the beauty and raw emotion of the sport just overwhelm me. The way that bike racing has become so mechanical and without emotion just kills me. Doping has ruined it for me. However, if Armstrong gets discovered now when there are no consequences to his career as an athlete, what's the point? Those people who are in his corner and believe that he is this miracle man, are the people who generate an enormous amount of energy behind the new focus on cancer research. If it becomes more clear that there is someone behind the curtain running the Wizard, then what good can that do? I say let it go. Find the current cheats.

I agree with Chris completely. I've lost a lot of respect for Armstrong and sadly cycling has lost a lot of its credibility for me. If Armstrong were to be caught now with having cheated throughout his TdF victories, it would only harm the cancer community and cancer research. I say let Armstrong go and focus on the current riders and cleaning up the sport.

Antonio

[J.Greene]

Chris,

sometimes I feel exactly like you say below. Recently I started serious riding again with the goal of being competitive again after almost 15 years away from racing myself. I have been training some with a racing team. It's been a blast. My new motto is think global, act local.

JG

I have ZERO respect for Armstrong. I think he doped and all of his victories are tainted in my eyes. His career is over though and if he did dope, he got away with it. Uncovering it now, when he is no longer competing only causes harm to the sport, and to the goal of cancer research. I am completely disenchanted with professional cycling now and that feeling sucks. These guys have been my heroes since I watched the 30 minute coverage of the Tour in 85 and had the beauty and raw emotion of the sport just overwhelm me. The way that bike racing has become so mechanical and without emotion just kills me. Doping has ruined it for me. However, if Armstrong gets discovered now when there are no consequences to his career as an athlete, what's the point? Those people who are in his corner and believe that he is this miracle man, are the people who generate an enormous amount of energy behind the new focus on cancer research. If it becomes more clear that there is someone behind the curtain running the Wizard, then what good can that do? I say let it go. Find the current cheats.

[catulle]

I think his career is tainted because he's lied so damn much. :butt:

[bigdeal]

I have ZERO respect for Armstrong. I think he doped and all of his victories are tainted in my eyes. His career is over though and if he did dope, he got away with it. Uncovering it now, when he is no longer competing only causes harm to the sport, and to the goal of cancer research. I am completely disenchanted with professional cycling now and that feeling sucks. These guys have been my heroes since I watched the 30 minute coverage of the Tour in 85 and had the beauty and raw emotion of the sport just overwhelm me. The way that bike racing has become so mechanical and without emotion just kills me. Doping has ruined it for me. However, if Armstrong gets discovered now when there are no consequences to his career as an athlete, what's the point? Those people who are in his corner and believe that he is this miracle man, are the people who generate an enormous amount of energy behind the new focus on cancer research. If it becomes more clear that there is someone behind the curtain running the Wizard, then what good can that do? I say let it go. Find the current cheats.


now if only someone would just tell this to the sensationalist-bullsh*t "journalists" we might get somewhere.

[bostondrunk]

Is there an english translation of Voet's book mentioned in the article?
Chain Massacre: Revelations of 30 Years of Cheating.

His book 'breaking the chain' is available from some of the cycling mailorder houses in the US

[zeroking17]

Is there an english translation of Voet's book mentioned in the article?
Chain Massacre: Revelations of 30 Years of Cheating.

Here's a source:

http://tinyurl.com/h8exw


.

[Johny]

Cancer research is much bigger than the LA Empire. So is cycling.

[Ginger]

His book 'breaking the chain' is available from some of the cycling mailorder houses in the US
Thanks...I wasn't making the connection...

[Mud]

America goes nuts over football. The NFL is the 800 pound gorilla literally and figuratively. You cannot make me believe that people get that big eating Wheaties.

I love baseball-where are we going with it now with Bud as the Pied Piper? Tennis says it is clean but all sports suffer from the inability to test for certain "performance enhancers".

But in the great scheme of things I never played football or much organized baseball. The idea of sliding into third base at this point in my life is as appealing as base jumping. My days as a ranked tennis player in the 35s, 45s, etc are long over and private clubs with soft courts are way beyond my financial reach.

So I blaze along around hilly Boonton NJ with my wife-burning up the pavement at 14-15mph. I enjoy my Serotta, my tubular tires, my trick wheelsets, asking dumb questions on the Serotta board, pestering TT, eating my veggie burgers and ocassionally buying a new piece of Assos clothing to make me happy and you know--I just don't care about Frankie, Floyd, Lance, et al.

But every ride I am able to make is an absolute pleasure, I enjoy every second of it: the pain and the pleasure knowing that tomorrow is another day and I can do it all over again. :banana:

[Archibald]

I think his career is tainted because he's lied so damn much. :butt:
Again, where has he lied? Last time I think you put up some comment he made at the TdF podium. Is that your only example of him lying, how he worded that sentence?

What if it was reworded just a bit, does it make a difference in how you interepret it? I can't remember the sentence and its structure, but it was along the lines of "There's are no secrets to winning the TdF, it takes hard work and perseverence." You think that is basically untrue?

To those interested, I have no stake in Armstrong's game. My objections to his treatment on this board is more about the golden rule than anything else. If you have ever been accused of something you didn't do and have had to defend yourself, you will have a better understanding. It becomes a matter of principle, otherwise, if you don't defend yourself, what are you really? Have we become so cynical that we twist every word and believe that if he defends his innocence he's guilty and if he remains silent he's guilty? Is truth now determined by the media and how its spun, facts be damned; circumstance is all you need?

How many of us have sat in a classroom and knew of, or witnessed, cheating? Does being in the same classroom make you a cheater? Because your peers cheated, does that make you a cheater? Is guilt by association all that matters? I think these are important questions for all of us to consider. If I defend Armstrong, there is a howling. If I criticize Lemond using the same tactic as used against Armstrong, nothing but opinion or conception, there is a howling. In my opinion, people are not basing their judgement on Armstrongs guilt or innocence based on "facts" because the "facts", time and time again, say he never did, they basing it on his personality. It has gone beyond wanting to "clean up the sport" and simply becomes wanting to see Armstrong go down and again, in my opinion, that's a poor reason for the level of character assassination that takes place.

Innocent until proven guilty is not a right on the world stage, but it is in the courts of this land. I personally believe strongly in the importance of that right. He can be crucified on these boards or in the media or in public opionion in general, but none of that proves he cheated.

Flame on, my brothers!

[atmo]

To those interested, I have no stake in Armstrong's game. My objections to his treatment on this board is more about the golden rule than anything else.

atmo overheard in jane austen texas-
“well, well, my dear, what are we but
fodder for our neighbors’ amusement?"

[Big Dan]

Love Hurts
Nazareth

Love hurts, Love scars, Love wounds and mars
Any heart not tough or strong enough
To take a lot of pain, take a lot of pain
Love is like a cloud, it holds a lot of rain
Love hurts, Ooo-oo Love hurts

I'm young, I know, But even so
I know a thing or two - I learned from you
I really learned a lot, really learned a lot
Love is like a flame It burns you when it's hot
Love hurts, Ooo-oo Love hurts

Some fools think of happiness, blissfulness, togetherness
Some fools fool themselves, I guess
They're not foolin' me
I know it isn't true I know it isn't true
Love is just a lie made to make you blue
Love hurts, Ooo-oo Love hurts

Solo

I know it isn't true I know it isn't true
Love is just a lie made to make you blue
Love hurts, Ooo-oo Love hurts
Ooo-oo, Love hurts Ooo-oo

[Tom]

Not that he's doing it or anything, no, nope, not that.

"I've never tested positive."

And I've never been caught DWI.

[Archibald]

atmo overheard in jane austen texas-
“well, well, my dear, what are we but
fodder for our neighbors’ amusement?"
Louis, my friend, were some group to crucify you on any public stage as a pretense and without fact or honor, I would defend you. If I even overheard one person telling untruths about you to a group intent on listening, I would, at a minimum, attempt to put a stop to it and you know that is true.

Here, have a :banana: pretend it's been baked in brown sugar and lime juice.

[atmo]

Louis, my friend, were some group to crucify you on any public stage as a pretense and without fact or honor, I would defend you. If I even overheard one person telling untruths about you to a group intent on listening, I would, at a minimum, attempt to put a stop to it and you know that is true.

Here, have a :banana: pretend it's been baked in brown sugar and lime juice.
but you know me.
and i know you.
and we have propped and even defended
each other atmo. sports heros that we've
never met are not a fair analogy iirc.

[catulle]

[QUOTE=Archibald]/QUOTE]


1- I have only read the first few words of your post
2- I have not quoted anything from your boss, not ever
3- Which golden rule...? My, my, my, don't tell no lies...?
4- You're now cordially welcome to talk to the hand, baby...

[davids]

Who's Louis?

p.s. "jane austen texas" Good one!

[atmo]

Who's Louis?

p.s. "jane austen texas" Good one!
louis shimmy atmo.

[Archibald]

[QUOTE=Archibald]/QUOTE]


1- I have only read the first few words of your post
2- I have not quoted anything from your boss, not ever
3- Which golden rule...? My, my, my, don't tell no lies...?
4- You're now cordially welcome to talk to the hand, baby...
My apologies Catulle, you're right, I confused you with another, however the question still stands: how has he lied?

[93legendti]

...I enjoy my Serotta...my trick wheelsets, asking dumb questions on the Serotta board...every ride I am able to make is an absolute pleasure, I enjoy every second of it: the pain and the pleasure knowing that tomorrow is another day and I can do it all over again. :banana:

word.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=catulle]
My apologies Catulle, you're right, I confused you with another, however the question still stands: how has he lied?

Read back six posts.


Oops. Should have said 'read my last post'. That 93 guy messed everything up!

[Archibald]

but you know me.
and i know you.
and we have propped and even defended
each other atmo. sports heros that we've
never met are not a fair analogy iirc.
I disagree. Being a sports hero I've never met doesn't make them any less human and if you were to read what you feel are untruths (real or not) about yourself in the manner displayed here, I'd say they'd feel the same as you or I would. I can't imagine reading ****, especially what may be untrue ****, about yourself is something you ever really become conditioned to, can you? You may become resigned to it, but what if you're not the resigning type? Trouble in f'n paradise, eh?

You'd have to a :banana: or two and maybe some :beer: to deal with that kind of angst.

[atmo]

I disagree. Being a sports hero I've never met doesn't make them any less human and if you were to read what you feel are untruths (real or not) about yourself in the manner displayed here, I'd say they'd feel the same as you or I would. I can't imagine reading ****, especially what may be untrue ****, about yourself is something you ever really become conditioned to, can you? You may become resigned to it, but what if you're not the resigning type? Trouble in f'n paradise, eh?

You'd have to a :banana: or two and maybe some :beer: to deal with that kind of angst.
but that's the issue here atmo -
lance, or barry bonds, or marion jones, and their ilk
are not here, and i'd wager they are detached from
gossip and innuendo that surrounds their stories in
in the news. otoh, if they were here, it'd be a different
conversation, yet i would still be interested in seeing
it play out more than a "...i never got caught, therefore
i never took drugs". it's just human nature to want to
know what goes on in the shadows atmo.

[Serpico]

America goes nuts over football. The NFL is the 800 pound gorilla literally and figuratively. You cannot make me believe that people get that big eating Wheaties.

I love baseball-where are we going with it now with Bud as the Pied Piper? Tennis says it is clean but all sports suffer from the inability to test for certain "performance enhancers".

But in the great scheme of things I never played football or much organized baseball. The idea of sliding into third base at this point in my life is as appealing as base jumping. My days as a ranked tennis player in the 35s, 45s, etc are long over and private clubs with soft courts are way beyond my financial reach.

So I blaze along around hilly Boonton NJ with my wife-burning up the pavement at 14-15mph. I enjoy my Serotta, my tubular tires, my trick wheelsets, asking dumb questions on the Serotta board, pestering TT, eating my veggie burgers and ocassionally buying a new piece of Assos clothing to make me happy and you know--I just don't care about Frankie, Floyd, Lance, et al.

But every ride I am able to make is an absolute pleasure, I enjoy every second of it: the pain and the pleasure knowing that tomorrow is another day and I can do it all over again. :banana:

great post :)

[tch]

say it again. No matter what kind of person LA is, I can't really phrase it that he "cheated" if he, in fact, doped. Cheating implies unfair advantage not available to other competitors. I tend to believe that the whole system is tilted and that many, if not most, of the top racers in recent years have been "assisted" in some way or another. I'm not saying it's right or moral or appropriate. But if that is the case, then a person who dopes is merely keeping up with the competition.

If a race specifies that everyone compete on a 40-lb bike and everyone does, then the person who competes on a 18-lb bike is cheating. But if most of the real competitors similarly modify their bikes to weigh 18-lbs, is the first one really gaining an unfair advantage over and above those people?

I understand that this line of argument is open to charges of moral relativism and lack of concern for the few who DON'T avail themselves of the same advantage. Fair enough. And I understand that such behavior is not moral or worthy of veneration. ...And that it puts people in significant personal risk.

But is it the reality of bike racing in the last couple of decades?

[vaxn8r]

To those interested, I have no stake in Armstrong's game. My objections to his treatment on this board is more about the golden rule than anything else. If you have ever been accused of something you didn't do and have had to defend yourself, you will have a better understanding. It becomes a matter of principle, otherwise, if you don't defend yourself, what are you really? Have we become so cynical that we twist every word and believe that if he defends his innocence he's guilty and if he remains silent he's guilty? Is truth now determined by the media and how its spun, facts be damned; circumstance is all you need?

How many of us have sat in a classroom and knew of, or witnessed, cheating? Does being in the same classroom make you a cheater? Because your peers cheated, does that make you a cheater? Is guilt by association all that matters? I think these are important questions for all of us to consider. If I defend Armstrong, there is a howling. If I criticize Lemond using the same tactic as used against Armstrong, nothing but opinion or conception, there is a howling. In my opinion, people are not basing their judgement on Armstrongs guilt or innocence based on "facts" because the "facts", time and time again, say he never did, they basing it on his personality. It has gone beyond wanting to "clean up the sport" and simply becomes wanting to see Armstrong go down and again, in my opinion, that's a poor reason for the level of character assassination that takes place.

Innocent until proven guilty is not a right on the world stage, but it is in the courts of this land. I personally believe strongly in the importance of that right. He can be crucified on these boards or in the media or in public opionion in general, but none of that proves he cheated.

Flame on, my brothers!


Golden rule? What about:

Greg Lemond: The only clean rider to ever win the Tour de France. Sarcasm duly noted.

Or how about:
Easy. It's just like all opinions on who dopes and who doesn't. It's preconceived.

With who dopes and who doesn't, we form opinion in the absence of hard evidence. With Greg, I based my opinion on what I've heard him say before. It's like the Pres. I don't need to hear another of his speeches to form an opinion on him; that has been established long ago.

I didn't witness a resurrection. He's not saying anything I haven't heard before, well except maybe for the Indurain part, and it's always the same, "everybody cheated but me." Just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

So Archibald, which is it? Don't prejudge LA until you have all the facts or is it go ahead and judge (in the case of GL), because after all, you have a right to your opinion?

I'm gettin' lost in your logic.

[Zard]

I am not trying to convict Lance Armstrong of anything. No one I know is calling for the stripping of his wins.

What we have here is a huge problem that is damaging the sport. Lance Armstrong is the most visible and influential member of that sport. But he never says or does anything to address the issue of doping.

He says there are "no secrets" in cycling. Jim Ochowicz says there are "no secrets" or widespread doping in cycling. Let's talk in code, wink, nod and look the other way. The code of silence.

What gets me is why, if you are racing for a living and the honor of a victory, you don't get mad when a fellow competitor is busted for cheating. LA more often than not, issues some kind of statement that sounds more like empathy for the busted rider.

He should be at the forefront of this thing. In every statement he issues he always states how much he loves cycling and that he cares about the athletes. If so, do something about it.

Why is he not leading the charge to fix this drug issue? Is he too busy? Will no one listen to him? Not enough financial resources to hold a press conference? It's not his job? etc. etc. etc.

Ask yourself why this guy and his friends pretend there is not a real problem.

I don't think LA loves really loves cycling or for that matter the majority of the riders who get used up and spit out by this hard profession. No, he is so far beyond that and them.

I think he loves the money, the fame and the hollywood persona that cycling brought him and in the course of his career would do anything or use anyone that he had to in order to acheive and sustain those things.

[Archibald]

Golden rule? What about:

Sarcasm duly noted.

Or how about:


So Archibald, which is it? Don't prejudge LA until you have all the facts or is it go ahead and judge (in the case of GL), because after all, you have a right to your opinion?

I'm gettin' lost in your logic.Either one. Seriously Vax, if you're intereted in the answer to your question, re-read what I wrote, first above, and then about GL in the other thread. I probably need to use more emoticons to communicate the proper irony and sarcasm in my posts, but I think you'll get the jist of it.

[vaxn8r]

Either one. Seriously Vax, if you're intereted in the answer to your question, re-read what I wrote, first above, and then about GL in the other thread. I probably need to use more emoticons to communicate the proper irony and sarcasm in my posts, but I think you'll get the jist of it.
I did read what you wrote. Shouldn't have wasted my time but I did. You're being hypocritical.

[GoJavs]

Archie - I don't know whether Lance is guilty or anything or not. But, I do know that you are guilty of doing a LOT of wordplay on this site over the last couple of months...

One of your favorite tactics (one that I took to imitating on my replies to you!) was to finish every post by having the person whom you were addressing 'think' about their motives or their 'probable personal problems' that might be influencing their opinions....Nice...

So, please, Archie, don't play both sides of the fence. We are all well-educated people on this board. Psy 101 don't work around here.

Flame on, bro.

Javier 'Certified Inner Child-problem free' Gonzalez

[Archibald]

I did read what you wrote. Shouldn't have wasted my time but I did. You're being hypocritical.OK.

[Archibald]

I am not trying to convict Lance Armstrong of anything. No one I know is calling for the stripping of his wins.

What we have here is a huge problem that is damaging the sport. Lance Armstrong is the most visible and influential member of that sport. But he never says or does anything to address the issue of doping.

He says there are "no secrets" in cycling. Jim Ochowicz says there are "no secrets" or widespread doping in cycling. Let's talk in code, wink, nod and look the other way. The code of silence.

What gets me is why, if you are racing for a living and the honor of a victory, you don't get mad when a fellow competitor is busted for cheating. LA more often than not, issues some kind of statement that sounds more like empathy for the busted rider.

He should be at the forefront of this thing. In every statement he issues he always states how much he loves cycling and that he cares about the athletes. If so, do something about it.

Why is he not leading the charge to fix this drug issue? Is he too busy? Will no one listen to him? Not enough financial resources to hold a press conference? It's not his job? etc. etc. etc.

Ask yourself why this guy and his friends pretend there is not a real problem.

I don't think LA loves really loves cycling or for that matter the majority of the riders who get used up and spit out by this hard profession. No, he is so far beyond that and them.

I think he loves the money, the fame and the hollywood persona that cycling brought him and in the course of his career would do anything or use anyone that he had to in order to acheive and sustain those things.
I don't know, if you read about LA as a young man and compare it LA today, I don't think you're going to see any great change in his persona. He is still cocky, driven, and aggressive.

As far as what he says about other cyclists accused of doping, I'm not the one to ask about every soundbite or statement he's ever made, but the jist of what I get is that he is respectful of those accused until the case is closed. Seriously, what do you want him to say about Floyd case, lash out at Floyd? The responsible thing would be to maintain calm until the facts are known.

About the drug issue in cycling as a whole, maybe it's ubiquitous, maybe its not, but it's no secret that there are drugs in cycling. You have to look no further than the fact they conduct drug tests at all or that they catch people at regular intervals. What gets me is why there is any reason to think the governing bodies think it's in their interest to maintain or promote a drug culture, as it can only lead to bad. Perhaps those who don't want to make a media circus out of drug use in cycling is so the image of the sport isn't tarnished any further than what it is. There are ways to get things done and make effecitive change without dragging it throught the dirt.

I don't have any better answers that anyone else on this board, I just try to keep an open mind. I guess in the end I keep coming back to what more can be done? Say that all the big time pro's come out and say they did drugs. What's next? More testing? Don't they already test with the latest & greatest techniques available. Are they going to reduce the intensity of the race? How is that going to change anything, least of all, human nature? Shut down the contests all together? Take the money out of the sport and turn it into the old Olympics where everyone is an amatuer? People dope for fame and glory, isn't doping an issue at the Olympics? Lifetime ban for those caught? LA would of still won all those TdF's. Seriously, I'd be really interested in reading any practical plan on how to eliminate drugs in cycling and ensure the winner is absolutely clean, because I'm having a hard time conceiving it.

[swoop]

we are the world
we are the children
we are the ones that make a brighter day
so let's fess up to doping

there's a choice we're making
we're afraid of being sued
he has the best lawyers, so we're not singing

we are the world
we are the children
we take epo, testostrone and anything we can get
for the racing

sing with me...

i took testoserone
when i was a youngster
and my nuts got really big
and i got cancer

we are the world
we are the children
i'm living a lie
yet i'm still singing

i scared simeoni into compliance
while i was still riding
there's a choice you're making
becoming a pro
you've got to live the dream
so let's start doping

[Grant McLean]

If I defend Armstrong, there is a howling.

This is news to you?

If I say shimano sucks, there is a howling. There is a "point - counterpoint"
dynamic that exsits around any difference of opinion. It makes the world go around.

g

[stevep]

This is news to you?

If I say shimano sucks, there is a howling. There is a "point - counterpoint"
dynamic that exsits around any difference of opinion. It makes the world go around.

g

campy sucks more!

[Archibald]

This is news to you?

If I say shimano sucks, there is a howling. There is a "point - counterpoint"
dynamic that exsits around any difference of opinion. It makes the world go around.

g
Not at all news to me, but not the point either.

[catulle]

campy sucks more!


What...???!!!!! :fight:

[slowgoing]

If Armstrong were to be caught now with having cheated throughout his TdF victories, it would only harm the cancer community and cancer research. I say let Armstrong go and focus on the current riders and cleaning up the sport. Antonio

I disagree completely. If he won seven tours because he doped, everyone should know about it. And nothing else he does afterwards entitles him to a free pass to cheat his way into the record books. Cancer patients and survivors will be fine even though one of their heros wasn't as heroic as he purported to be.

[Zard]

Seriously, what do you want him to say about Floyd case, lash out at Floyd? The responsible thing would be to maintain calm until the facts are known.

No. But he could come out and say that we have a problem with drugs and with the culture / industry behind it that forces some riders into PED use.

About the drug issue in cycling as a whole, maybe it's ubiquitous, maybe its not, but it's no secret that there are drugs in cycling.

How come you and I and everyone here on this board understand that but Lance "there are no secrets" Armstrong and the head of the USA Cyling Board Jim "there are no secrets in cycling and no widespread drug use" Ochowicz haven't figured that out yet? I mean, those are their statements in black and white.

What gets me is why there is any reason to think the governing bodies think it's in their interest to maintain or promote a drug culture, as it can only lead to bad

Just guessing, but I bet a lot of these guys are former racers and coaches and as such adhere to the culture of silence and/or do not want their past exploits or involvement to come back against them.

I don't have any better answers that anyone else on this board, I just try to keep an open mind. I guess in the end I keep coming back to what more can be done?

OK what are we supposed to be keeping an open mind about?

I think utlimately there are two issues here. The first is drug use in cycling. I bet the majority of the riders are interested in a clean competition. Most of the cyclists and I am including some pro Ironman athletes in this category that I have met genuinely seem to be very sincere, hardworking, health conscious guys who have no interest or desire to have anything foreign put into their body. At some point, riders have apparently been pressured by the "system" to do the very thing they never thought they would do.

What is the system? The teams, the owners, the managers, the doctors - those in the know who have the resources and can procure and administer the doping protocol. Those are the guys that set the tone. Those are the guys to go after.

The second issue here is Lance Armstrong. I think people are getting tired of the hypocrisy and the bullying going on by him. This guy Frankie Andreau seems, by all accounts, to be a solid midwesterner. The type of athlete I described above who seemed to be very sincere, hardworking and health conscious but at some point was pressured to go down the drug route. When he comes clean - and by the way never points any fingers at anyone else, he is jumped all over and branded a liar, untrustworthy, a publicity hound, etc. Something is very wrong with that.

You say you are trying to keep an open mind. Maybe you should open your mind to the increasing probability that LA is not what his image and press releases make him out to be. And maybe, he is actually a very big part of the problem...

[inGobwetrust]

From the SI article:

"Which testimony is more credible? The Andreus' or Armstrong's? Ask yourself which party had the most to gain by lying. And why is that particular testimony significant? Because one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer. It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus testified to under oath is true, than Lance Armstrong, role model and hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs. Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the case."



It had to happen eventually. Lance has been accused of so many things, doping, lying, cheating..... Now someone (the author of the article) is coming real close to accusing him of causing cancer! I think that was him on the grassy knoll too. Did you know that Lance Armstrong fixed the 1919 World Series?


By the way, I had testicular cancer but I never doped.......really.

[atmo]

By the way, I had testicular cancer but I never doped.......really.
but did you get to see paris atmo?!

[Frankwurst]

Mud, Legendti, Serpico....I'm in. :beer:

[swoop]

you know... really who cares who won the tour? it's just the bikegame.
it's not like it does anything. it's a tv show. or a vacation spot. it ain't life. it's one of them metaphors for life.

it's cool.

[inGobwetrust]

but did you get to see paris atmo?!

I saw the Paris Hilton video. Does that count?

Swoop, to answer your question, which seems to have disappeared:

Yes, I was in my late twenties and was a competitive athlete. Not at the level of LA but pretty good. No family history of cancer. Testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer in men between the ages of 15-40. Whether LA doped or not most likely had nothing to do with getting cancer. That comes straight from my oncologist and my surgeon, both Harvard Med professors.

[atmo]

I saw the Paris Hilton video. Does that count?
only if you threw in the towel when you were done atmo.

[Frankwurst]

only if you threw in the towel when you were done atmo.
You don't throw in the towel because of one video. :beer:

[chrisroph]

Lots of people go down in court based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Frankie and Betsy had no reason to not tell the truth re what happened in the hospital.

Frankie used epo in 99.

Lance's 99 urine was tested. No there was no B sample test so the evidence cannot be used to retroactively strip the title.

Ferrari. Orange juice.

Why would somebody on the top of his game retire. Wasn't schumacher asked to leave ferrari. Nobody asked lance to leave.

I believe frankie. I believe lemond.

[swoop]

I saw the Paris Hilton video. Does that count?

Swoop, to answer your question, which seems to have disappeared:

Yes, I was in my late twenties and was a competitive athlete. Not at the level of LA but pretty good. No family history of cancer. Testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer in men between the ages of 15-40. Whether LA doped or not most likely had nothing to do with getting cancer. That comes straight from my oncologist and my surgeon, both Harvard Med professors.

well, i for one and happy you made it through. i can't imagine the things you endured. and i also get that all this is for any of us.. is fodder for infotainment. nothing lance does, has done, might do, could have done has any real force in my life. we are all playing with names and places and ideas of people that have no meaningful connection to our internal lives. all it is is infotainment. they live in their private reality and i live in mine. and i use their names to work out my own demons. it's nothing to get hung about. in my reality, lance is pixels on a screen or a guy i've seen from 300' away. it just ain't about me. it is mighty info-feela-taining.

[Grant McLean]

you know... really who cares who won the tour? it's just the bikegame.
it's not like it does anything. it's a tv show. or a vacation spot. it ain't life. it's one of them metaphors for life.

it's cool.


I can see that point.

That's why I think Lance gets some grief. The die hard fans want to see the show,
the uncertainty and the complexity of the "race" to win, just like this year.
The first couple of times Lance won, the Texan seemed like the perfect
gracious winner, I found him easy to like, to cheer for, and take joy in his
new success.

All through the first Tour he was all "well, lets see, it's still early, I'm happy
to be here, doing well"... and all that. He thanked his team profusely, and
it seemed like he had been to the nascar media charm school, gone was the
brash "bring it on" attitude. When he repeated for his second win, it was
a great confirmation that he was the real deal, and not just a fluke in '99
when some of the top guys were not there.

The 3rd win put Lance in some pretty rarified company, and this is where
some people start to jump ship. All this focus only on the Tour, his singluar
team ambitions that prevented others on the team from peaking for other
big races, and his dominating race tactics blow the other teams to pieces,
leaving some fans a little sleepy after key stages.

I think the Lance chronicals turned another corner at number 6. Passing the
King Eddy brought the records out for analysis, and for many new fans now,
they knew no other race winner, so dominant had the Lance reign become.
Stage wins were ripped from the grasp of others, or gifted on platters to
those whose story enhanced the narrative of the patron of the race.
Like Michael Schumacher in F1, enough already. Yes, you're the Boss,
but we have grown tired of you, it's time for you to go. Just how many
times do you have to win before you've overstayed your invitation into
our homes?

This year's race was so exciting because there was no predicting the outcome,
it was just so refreshing. Personally, I hadn't looked so forward to seeing each
major stage unfold since before the Indurain era. It was captivating.

I don't know or care if Lance cheated or not. If it's possible for riders in
the future to stop taking drugs, I wish them well in their quest. It's quite
likely that virtiually all the top riders of the last 15 or 20 years have done
it, so passing around the trophies after the fact solves very little if you believe
that doping is cheating. Don't get caught, that's all I offer as advice.

g

[inGobwetrust]

well, i for one and happy you made it through. i can't imagine the things you endured. and i also get that all this is for any of us.. is fodder for infotainment. nothing lance does, has done, might do, could have done has any real force in my life. we are all playing with names and places and ideas of people that have no meaningful connection to our internal lives. all it is is infotainment. they live in their private reality and i live in mine. and i use their names to work out my own demons. it's nothing to get hung about. in my reality, lance is pixels on a screen or a guy i've seen from 300' away. it just ain't about me. it is mighty info-feela-taining.


Thanks. I agree, it's just entertainment now. I enjoyed it more when I knew less about it.

[swoop]

ingob.. how's the qoute go: "ignorance is bliss where knowledge is folly"?

for me it's almost a relief knowing that the chaos in my life is not atypical, that unfairness happens, and that in adulthood.. if you are open.. there are opportunities to come to terms, humanize things and grow.
this being the reason i like frankie, millar.... or anyone that digs in and becomes accountable once they are at a place in life where they unerstand what they've done.

unless they have a book deal coinciding withthe announcement.

meritocracy is a bit of a myth, coming to terrms with flaws and desire is all reality.

if i were a kid trying to make it in europe.. being the good person that i know i am.. i'd have done EPO without question. i'd also like to think that i'd have come to terms with it by the time i was 42.


we are the world.

atmo.

[Elefantino]

Will Jake Gyllenhaal dope?

Honestly, this matters .... how, exactly?

Hero worship?

[crf]

...maybe there should be a parallel race to the TdF for cyclists who refuse to dope (all three of 'em).

'roids have been around since the 60s, I'm pretty sure, so it's possible all the heroes of yesteryear -may- have had access to them. It kinda hurts just thinking about it.

I suppose the routes of the TdF change once in a while, so that the times posted ten, twenty years ago, can't be compared to those of today (probably too many variables) -- at least baseball has the home run as the measurement.

I think it's obvious that PEDs reach every corner of sport (save Curling?). John McEnroe admitted to taking steriods back when all them graphite babies (Agassi, etc.) took over the sport -- Mac just couldn't keep up with the insane power that entered the game in the late eighties. But you don't think that power was simply from the switch from wood to graphite, do you?

I don't know if Armstrong did this and that, but it's almost a certainty that he had the most expert people surrounding him, even if part of their expertise was concealment from the authorities.

[atmo]

not your father's swimsuit issue atmo (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/09/12/armstrong/index.html)


not your father's swimsuit issue atmo redux. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html)

[Archibald]

not your father's swimsuit issue atmo redux. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html)
I love the smell of napalm in the morning....it smells like, like,...victory.

[Serpico]

not your father's swimsuit issue atmo redux. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html)


I'm no Lance fanboy but I'm glad that someone put Swift's comment under the microscope. That's a highly reckless comment to make (and as we're seeing an unfounded one).

[Kines]

From Malloy's FoxNews Article on Swift...

"In the meantime, he ought to stay focused on the facts rather than fueling the creation of sensational, but junk science-based myths."

Who is he trying to kid?!?!? This is what journalists do for a LIVING!

[Grant McLean]

I'm no Lance fanboy but I'm glad that someone put Swift's comment under the microscope. That's a highly reckless comment to make (and as we're seeing an unfounded one).

Swift did not make "a reckless comment". He made no comment, he asked a
freakin' question, what's the big deal about that?

QUOTE:
"Because one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer. It's impossible to prove, but if what the Andreus testified to under oath is true, than Lance Armstrong, role model and hero to so many cancer survivors, may very well have helped bring about his own cancer through his use of performance-enhancing drugs. Young athletes tempted to go down that road need to know if that's the case."

g

[Serpico]

Swift did not make "a reckless comment". He made no comment, he asked a
freakin' question, what's the big deal about that?

QUOTE
Swift: "Because one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer..."
/QUOTE

That's not a question. That's like me going on prime time television and saying "President Bush has a tendency to mispronounce things--is he retarded?" and then justifying the comment with "Hey, it was just a question. What's the big deal?!?"

Swift's comment is a detestable thing to say about another person, especially when you consider it isn't true. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html)

You gotta be able to say "Yeah, Lance is a ****--but damn, that's low."

Surely if someone said, about a family member/friend/coworker/spouse "Yeah, Sally got cervical cancer--but she's probably a whore. One of the possible side effects of being a whore is cervical cancer." you'd be thoroughly upset (not only because it's ABSURDLY false, but because it's offensive in its own right).

Blaming a cancer victim for what they went through would be despicable, even if it were true--but what this guy said is patently false. You should see what Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps) has to say about HIV.

Lance is a tool, but he's not worth stooping to the level of comments like Swift's.

[GoJavs]

You are right, Serpico, you are right.....Lance is a tool. :beer:

[Grant McLean]

QUOTE
Swift: "Because one of the possible side effects of prolonged steroid use is testicular cancer..."
/QUOTE

That's not a question. That's like me going on prime time television and saying "President Bush has a tendency to mispronounce things--is he retarded?" and then justifying the comment with "Hey, it was just a question. What's the big deal?!?"

Swift's comment is a detestable thing to say about another person, especially when you consider it isn't true. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213881,00.html)

You gotta be able to say "Yeah, Lance is a ****--but damn, that's low."

Surely if someone said, about a family member/friend/coworker/spouse "Yeah, Sally got cervical cancer--but she's probably a whore. One of the possible side effects of being a whore is cervical cancer." you'd be thoroughly upset (not only because it's ABSURDLY false, but because it's offensive in its own right).

Blaming a cancer victim for what they went through would be despicable, even if it were true--but what this guy said is patently false. You should see what Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps) has to say about HIV.

Lance is a tool, but he's not worth stooping to the level of comments like Swift's.

I just don't know, man. I'm fine with the SI story. My reading of it is
much more of a "what if...." fantasy, about "possible side effects",
about somthing we'll never know the anwer to. Something like if
50 years ago, someone wrote "imagine if smoking caused cancer?",
all those smokers would be contributing to their ill health.

The fox headline that Swift is in any way "suggesting" it's actually true is
bullcrap, in my reading, much worse that the SI story.

Swift suggests nothing of the sort, and out right says it's impossible
to prove.

Instead of quoting Phelps, why not link me to a story that says that
taking hormones doesn't cause cancer?

g

[Serpico]

...

Swift suggests nothing of the sort, and out right says it's impossible
to prove.

Which is a common tactic of such rhetoric, because the flipside of course is... it's impossible to disprove.

Instead of quoting Phelps, why not link me to a story that says that taking hormones doesn't cause cancer?

Because I don't care enough to spend the time looking for such research, and it's WAY outside of my "specialty"--I'm not going to try and discuss medical issues. Plus, I value you too much as a forum bro to get into an internet squabble over a disagreement like this. I guess it's just something I feel strongly about--I'm not sure why, but that's okay.

My point is this: Lance has retired, and the only people who haven't realized it and/or aren't comfortable with it, are 1) Lance Armstrong 2) Folks who are obsessed with hating him (no, not you--or any of the cats here). I'm pretty convinced that historians will write this quite differently than the public sees Lance today (Maurice Garin, anyone?). Why can't we be patient. It will all come out in due time. Two guys from the '99 team admitted to epo use the other day, that's 25% of the eight-man team--give it some time, this will all come out.

As far as I'm concerned everything with this guy is fair game, except his illness. I'm not one of the millions of people who have had cancer, nor has it touched my life directly, but I'm not naive enough to think it won't someday. I can't even begin to understand the reality of having a terminal illness at such a young age. They can take his reputation, his titles, his historical legacy, his money--whatever, none of that bugs me, but questioning his illness is beyond the pale.

This guy has so many negatives, why focus on the only pure thing he can rightfully claim.
.
.

[Grant McLean]

Which is a common tactic of such rhetoric, because the flipside of course is... it's impossible to disprove.



Because I don't care enough to spend the time looking for such research, and it's WAY outside of my "specialty"--I'm not going to try and discuss medical issues. Plus, I value you too much as a forum bro to get into an internet squabble over a disagreement like this. I guess it's just something I feel strongly about--I'm not sure why, but that's okay.

My point is this: Lance has retired, and the only people who haven't realized it and/or aren't comfortable with it, are 1) Lance Armstrong 2) Folks who are obsessed with hating him (no, not you--or any of the cats here). I'm pretty convinced that historians will write this quite differently than the public sees Lance today (Maurice Garin, anyone?). Why can't we be patient. It will all come out in due time. Two guys from the '99 team admitted to epo use the other day, that's 25% of the eight-man team--give it some time, this will all come out.

As far as I'm concerned everything with this guy is fair game, except his illness. I'm not one of the millions of people who have had cancer, nor has it touched my life directly, but I'm not naive enough to think it won't someday. I can't even begin to understand the reality of having a terminal illness at such a young age. They can take his reputation, his titles, his historical legacy, his money--whatever, none of that bugs me, but questioning his illness is beyond the pale.

This guy has so many negatives, why focus on the only pure thing he can rightfully claim.

----okay, it's friday :cool:

word. I can see your point. This whole media story - counter story is
not what the situation needs. We need more real info, not stories about
stories, so i think we're in agreement with that. I have no real problem
with Lance. He's a big boy, he can take care of himself.

g

[J.Greene]

My point is this: Lance has retired, and the only people who haven't realized it and/or aren't comfortable with it, are 1) Lance Armstrong .
.

I disagree with this small part serpico. He isn't retired. He's got a clothing line and a movie all on the way. He didn't get the nickname lance inc becuase he was a bike racer. It's because he was and still is a brand. Lance raced as little as possible to make his name since 99. It is all about the brand atmo.

JG

[Serpico]

Yeah, and that's a good point--but why do we care?

I can understand why young kids might care, cancer survivors, or the "cycling is the new golf" folks--but why should anyone here care about his clothing line or media appearances? Again, people are focusing on stuff that is just noise/static.

People here caring about Lance now, after he's retired--it's like if fans of the film Terminator started following California politics and arguing about zoning laws in Sacremento--because Conan is the guv'ner. Lance is in a different world now--and fans/dissenters of his exploits in the previous world need to realize he's over.

Lance is gone to Hollywood. He isn't the next Merckx (serious gravitas, imo), he's the new Danny Bonaduce or Adam West etc. He might not realize it, but he's Whitesnake in 2006 doing 8$ cover shows at the 100 max capacity bar downtown. The arena days are over, Tawny Kitaen has grey hair and Reagan isn't preznit anymore.

He's not racing, therefore I don't care what he's doing. He's retired as far as I'm concerned.
.
.

[J.Greene]

Yeah, and that's a good point--but why do we care?
.
.

Respectfully, because it's central to the discussion. We're posting about this on a friday night so there is some importance to it all :) If lance retired from the bike and went to live on the farm this whole story would last about 2 seconds. Instead the train keeps chugging down the track.

JG

[atmo]

Yeah, and that's a good point--but why do we care?




austin. austen (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=224326&postcount=7). atmo.

[oracle]

austin. austen (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=224326&postcount=7). atmo.


it is more likely achilles rather than austen; after all he sort of got this whole "demi-god-hero-using-performance-enhancers-and-then-having-massive-weaknesses-exposed-as-a-device-to-explore-and-probe-the-depths-of-the-human-fascination/obsession-with-the-'psychology-of-the-fragile-and-all-too-human-hero-routine'-that-has-been-an-on-going-subtext to-"western"-culture-ever-since.."

the athenians knew more about what lance was/is all about, and why he is 'important' to 'us' as a society than probably 'we' do.

oracle

reubens take... (http://mythology.tonyarn.com/heroes/achilles.jpg)

[atmo]

it is more likely achilles rather than austen; after all he
sort of got this whole "demi-god-hero-using-performance-enhancers-and-
then-having-massive-weaknesses-exposed-as-a-device-to-explore-
and-probe-the-depths-of-the-human-fascination/obsession-with-
the-'psychology-of-the-fragile-and-all-too-human-hero-routine'-
that-has-been-an-on-going-subtext to-"western"-culture-ever-since.."

the athenians knew more about what lance was/is all about, and why
he is 'important' to 'us' as a society than probably 'we' do.

oracle
that's what i meant atmo.

[oracle]

that's what i meant atmo.


i know

[atmo]

i know
potm atmo

[keno]

plese.

1. According to the SI piece, Frankie admitted to using EPO in a few races. In my opinion he's hardly worthy of the label of a faithful doping domestique. Why would Frankie dope in just a few races. Because he's from the midwest? More likely because he sells real estate.

2. As I read the SI piece, Ms. Andreu's testimony was countered not only by Lance's, but more importantly by one of his doctors. The author conveniently left it at that, getting on to the who had more to lose theory. I have to believe that some hospital or doctor's record of the what drugs have you used answer exists somewhere. I assume that LA allowed his doc to testify, as that information would ordinarily be protected by privilege. That would then open LA's doc to produce the written record. Before you tell me LA owned the doc, remember that this relates to a time when LA was la, and any self-respecting doc, way back then, would most likely accurately write down what he was told. And LA would want whatever chemo cocktail he was about to take be well constructed so he would tell his doc the truth. This opens a whole nother avenue of intrigue to gnaw on.

4. Grant, your it's just a question idea is Swiss cheese. Ask any courtroom lawyer the power of a what if question, particularly one objected to by the opposition and sustained by the judge. Start with Tom Byrne, a courtroom lawyer and faithful participant in this forum (and a fine guy, I might add having spent time with him at Nottrott).

You may notice that there is no 3. It's implied.

This is more fun than a fast paceline on a sunny day with the Radio City Rockettes.

keno

[toaster]

Dope spelled backwards=

EPO'D

[CNY rider]

plese.


2. As I read the SI piece, Ms. Andreu's testimony was countered not only by Lance's, but more importantly by one of his doctors. The author conveniently left it at that, getting on to the who had more to lose theory. I have to believe that some hospital or doctor's record of the what drugs have you used answer exists somewhere. I assume that LA allowed his doc to testify, as that information would ordinarily be protected by privilege. That would then open LA's doc to produce the written record. Before you tell me LA owned the doc, remember that this relates to a time when LA was la, and any self-respecting doc, way back then, would most likely accurately write down what he was told. And LA would want whatever chemo cocktail he was about to take be well constructed so he would tell his doc the truth. This opens a whole nother avenue of intrigue to gnaw on.

keno


Sadly, not the case. I'd estimate that more than half of patients do not disclose personally "embarassing" facts about themselves, especially at the time of first meeting with their Doc. They may come out later, but often times go unsaid but understood by both parties.
Additionally, we don't put everything in the medical record, because we know they're not secure, official protests to the contrary. Many times patients, especially those with knowledge of "the system" confide things with the understanding that the info is not to be recorded anywhere other than in my mental register.