Armstrong on doping past: 'I wouldn't change a thing'

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Everyone loves Big Mig as well, but ...

....but Big Mig never built a career on lying to cancer patients and using those same patients as a shield against any accusations that he was doing literally what all of his competitors were doing. Or go out of his way to ruin the lives of people close to him who could, in fact, refute the notion that he won the Tour clean.

Big Mig just wanted to, like, go back to his farm and chill out.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

....but Big Mig never built a career on lying to cancer patients and using those same patients as a shield against any accusations that he was doing literally what all of his competitors were doing. Or go out of his way to ruin the lives of people close to him who could, in fact, refute the notion that he won the Tour clean.

Big Mig just wanted to, like, go back to his farm and chill out.

True. Big Mig was not a sociopath.

[fiamme red]

I don't think that Pantani or Indurain ever denied their doping under oath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klz86uQMrVg.

[cash05458]

starts out with: gosh, I hope no young guy ever asks me if he should dope...please dont let that happen...clearly, his honest new lance stuff would say "**** it...worked for me...."...but just dont let it be MY son luke....in a nutshell right there...thats lance...but others fathers kids? sure Lance, just couldnt say don't do it right? yep, Lance wouldn't change a thing as he has grown so much via the things he had to deal with getting caught and losing his perch...it's just made him a better and more caring thoughtful man about life...glad Oprah did him that favor... uh huh...regular Soren Kierkegaard is Lance...so damn deep of him...

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

I don't think that Pantani or Indurain ever denied their doping under oath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klz86uQMrVg.

...and there ya go. Pantani and some of the other dopers of the era get a pass just like that.

What happened to 'all dopers suck?' Just because you like the guy (that I'm betting you've never met IRL) vs another guy that you don't like (and likely haven't met IRL either for that matter) shouldn't matter. Doping is doping.

M

[grateful]

Who is this Lance Armstrong guy that you all know personally? I try not to cast stones based on the media as much as possible.

Edit: I just looked him up. He is a bike racer from 10 to 15 years ago that helped a lot of people suffering from cancer by raising an enormous amount of research dollars.

It looks like he took drugs as well. And may have been unsavory to some.

Brad

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by grateful

Who is this Lance Armstrong guy that you all know personally? I try not to cast stones based on the media as much as possible.

Edit: I just looked him up. He is a bike racer from 10 to 15 years ago that helped a lot of people suffering from cancer by raising an enormous amount of research dollars.

It looks like he took drugs as well. And may have been unsavory to some.

Brad

He raised very few research dollars. He raised lots of money for awareness and survivorship programs through Livestrong. But very little for research.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by grateful

Who is this Lance Armstrong guy that you all know personally? I try not to cast stones based on the media as much as possible.

Edit: I just looked him up. He is a bike racer from 10 to 15 years ago that helped a lot of people suffering from cancer by raising an enormous amount of research dollars.

It looks like he took drugs as well. And may have been unsavory to some.

Brad

I'm sure Armstrong is acutely aware of his brand.

[woodworker]

"...and there ya go. Pantani and some of the other dopers of the era get a pass just like that."

Yep, that's how it was for Pantani:

This from the Guardian immediately following his death, in an article entitled, "Pantani dies broken and alone":

Marco Pantani's death on Saturday in a rented apartment in Rimini was a pathetic, lonely end for one of the sport's larger-than-life heroes, but there was an implacable logic about his final descent that was redolent of Greek tragedy.

Initially it was thought that Pantani had died from an overdose of anti-depressants: "There were medicines of a tranquilliser nature [found with Pantani] that could have had a role in the cause of death," said the state prosecutor Paolo Gengarelli, adding: "No one has mentioned suicide and I am excluding it."

However, late yesterday the news agency Ansa suggested that the cause was a heart attack. Citing investigative sources, Ansa said the coroner who examined Pantani had concluded he had died of a "cardio-circulatory arrest", but that the cause was not known. An autopsy is scheduled for today. It is believed that he died at about 4pm on Saturday.

...

Pantani checked into the Roses apartment-hotel, 20 miles down the Adriatic coast from his Cesenatico home, on February 9 and spent his last five days alone, making no phone calls, with meals being delivered to his room.

He was apparently engaged in writing his reflections on cycling, but the pages he left behind did not offer any indications of suicide. Apparently Pantani, who was unmarried, had become estranged from his family, having lost contact with his father, his most passionate supporter, and the last person he spoke to appears to have been the hotel porter.

Staff apparently found him "strange and vacant", and when he did not order dinner on Saturday night they checked his room and found him half-naked near the bed, with an empty box of anti-depressants nearby. Other boxes, some empty, were found elsewhere in the room containing four different kinds of anti-depressant.

[CunegoFan]

Originally Posted by sitzmark

He didn't act in a vacuum - the UCI was at least complicit (or totally inept/both) in what transpired. LA chose a path that was cutthroat and had no alternative to protect the house of cards ... his own and the UCI's. The people seeking to illuminate the truth were in effect set out to destroy him, his accomplishments, and his livelihood. He was ruthless in defending all of those things. Doesn't make it right or absolve him of responsibility for his abhorrent actions, but as "The Don" of a compromised pro peloton/UCI it was important for him to "prove" his innocence. No doubt his primary concern was for his own hide, but I suspect he felt some responsibility to his fellow competitors who were also compromised.

The one "honorable thing" about Lance's behavior is that he never (to my knowledge) provided information to take down a fellow competitor. Even today. He spoke about the play-the-game-or-go-home environment of the peloton, but never speaks specifically about another rider's choices. Well maybe Mr. Landis is an exception.

I think we have to remember that those who say they set out to "illuminate" the truth were seeking to destroy Armstrong for their own personal reasons.

David Walsh profited from dopers. He wrote autobiographies for Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, and Paula Radcliffe. He is the one who made excuses to the public for Kelly when Kelly was popped. After Armstrong, Walsh acted as the chief propaganda minister for Team Sky, Wiggins, and Froome. He wrote columns vilifying those who doubted. This is hardly a man who was seeking truth, and it certainly is not a man who cares one whit about athletes doping.

Betsy Andreu carried on a decade plus feud with Armstrong. At any time she could have stopped poking the bear and moved on with her life. She promotes a self-serving lie about being an ex-Catholic schoolgirl who had to crusade for the truth. The real truth is her feud with Armstrong was driven by her scheme to hike Frankie's salary by faking offers from other teams. It backfired and Frankie's contract was not extended. Her antics so pissed off Bruyneel that he withheld Frankie's end of season bonus. It has always been about money with her, which is why she had Kathy LeMond suggest to Armstrong that Betsy would accept money to stop the feud.

Was any of them more self-serving than LeMond? He went after Armstrong because his star had faded and no one was paying attention to him anymore. LeMond is still telling the ridiculous fairy tale about how he figured out Armstrong was doping using VO2Max, as if he was unaware that the sport was rife with doping and every star--except LeMond himself, of course--was doping. The way LeMond has steadfastly upheld omerta really says it all. He never mentions the doping of any of those he raced against, doped riders who took victories off him as opposed to Armstrong, who was winning long after LeMond retired. What is more, he has spent more than thirty years talking about beating Hinault, portraying himself as a hero doing battle with untrustworthy, duplicitous teammates and staff. He has whinged about anything and everything that happened in 1985 and 1986, including most of the team siding with Hinault, putting him at a disadvantage. But in all this time he has never mentioned the huge disadvantage he was at--being the only clean Tour winner in history, of course--from Hinault, his other teammates, and the rest of the field being on drugs. It does not take a rocket surgeon to figure out what is going on there--glass houses and all.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

I think we have to remember that those who say they set out to "illuminate" the truth were seeking to destroy Armstrong for their own personal reasons.

David Walsh profited from dopers. He wrote autobiographies for Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, and Paula Radcliffe. He is the one who made excuses to the public for Kelly when Kelly was popped. After Armstrong, Walsh acted as the chief propaganda minister for Team Sky, Wiggins, and Froome. He wrote columns vilifying those who doubted. This is hardly a man who was seeking truth, and it certainly is not a man who cares one whit about athletes doping.

Betsy Andreu carried on a decade plus feud with Armstrong. At any time she could have stopped poking the bear and moved on with her life. She promotes a self-serving lie about being an ex-Catholic schoolgirl who had to crusade for the truth. The real truth is her feud with Armstrong was driven by her scheme to hike Frankie's salary by faking offers from other teams. It backfired and Frankie's contract was not extended. Her antics so pissed off Bruyneel that he withheld Frankie's end of season bonus. It has always been about money with her, which is why she had Kathy LeMond suggest to Armstrong that Betsy would accept money to stop the feud.

Was any of them more self-serving than LeMond? He went after Armstrong because his star had faded and no one was paying attention to him anymore. LeMond is still telling the ridiculous fairy tale about how he figured out Armstrong was doping using VO2Max, as if he was unaware that the sport was rife with doping and every star--except LeMond himself, of course--was doping. The way LeMond has steadfastly upheld omerta really says it all. He never mentions the doping of any of those he raced against, doped riders who took victories off him as opposed to Armstrong, who was winning long after LeMond retired. What is more, he has spent more than thirty years talking about beating Hinault, portraying himself as a hero doing battle with untrustworthy, duplicitous teammates and staff. He has whinged about anything and everything that happened in 1985 and 1986, including most of the team siding with Hinault, putting him at a disadvantage. But in all this time he has never mentioned the huge disadvantage he was at--being the only clean Tour winner in history, of course--from Hinault, his other teammates, and the rest of the field being on drugs. It does not take a rocket surgeon to figure out what is going on there--glass houses and all.

Good read. That was interesting. Didn't have to sell me on Lance. It was dope or go home to Plano. He doped. Can't fault him there. Being an asshole is a completely different matter.

Might've moved the needle on Lemond a bit. This is an interesting perspective.
As for Betsy Andreu, I'm a big fan, so I skipped over that section 😉

[pbarry]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Good read. That was interesting. Didn't have to sell me on Lance. It was dope or go home to Plano. He doped. Can't fault him there. Being an asshole is a completely different matter.

Might've moved the needle on Lemond a bit. This is an interesting perspective.
As for Betsy Andreu, I'm a big fan, so I skipped over that section 😉

Don't worry, the above rant, or one very similar, will be posted next time this subject comes up.

[woodworker]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

I think we have to remember that those who say they set out to "illuminate" the truth were seeking to destroy Armstrong for their own personal reasons.

David Walsh profited from dopers. He wrote autobiographies for Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, and Paula Radcliffe. He is the one who made excuses to the public for Kelly when Kelly was popped. After Armstrong, Walsh acted as the chief propaganda minister for Team Sky, Wiggins, and Froome. He wrote columns vilifying those who doubted. This is hardly a man who was seeking truth, and it certainly is not a man who cares one whit about athletes doping.

Betsy Andreu carried on a decade plus feud with Armstrong. At any time she could have stopped poking the bear and moved on with her life. She promotes a self-serving lie about being an ex-Catholic schoolgirl who had to crusade for the truth. The real truth is her feud with Armstrong was driven by her scheme to hike Frankie's salary by faking offers from other teams. It backfired and Frankie's contract was not extended. Her antics so pissed off Bruyneel that he withheld Frankie's end of season bonus. It has always been about money with her, which is why she had Kathy LeMond suggest to Armstrong that Betsy would accept money to stop the feud.

Was any of them more self-serving than LeMond? He went after Armstrong because his star had faded and no one was paying attention to him anymore. LeMond is still telling the ridiculous fairy tale about how he figured out Armstrong was doping using VO2Max, as if he was unaware that the sport was rife with doping and every star--except LeMond himself, of course--was doping. The way LeMond has steadfastly upheld omerta really says it all. He never mentions the doping of any of those he raced against, doped riders who took victories off him as opposed to Armstrong, who was winning long after LeMond retired. What is more, he has spent more than thirty years talking about beating Hinault, portraying himself as a hero doing battle with untrustworthy, duplicitous teammates and staff. He has whinged about anything and everything that happened in 1985 and 1986, including most of the team siding with Hinault, putting him at a disadvantage. But in all this time he has never mentioned the huge disadvantage he was at--being the only clean Tour winner in history, of course--from Hinault, his other teammates, and the rest of the field being on drugs. It does not take a rocket surgeon to figure out what is going on there--glass houses and all.

Well, perhaps you should consult a "rocket surgeon" (or at least Wikipedia) before addressing some of these issues. LeMond was a phenom long before the type of doping that really made a difference (EPO)--what Armstrong admitted using and what Indurain etal likely did use--came into use, and LeMond won all of his races before then.

Here's LeMond's history, sourced from Wikipedia:

"In 1977, while still only 15, LeMond finished second in the Tour of Fresno to John Howard, then the United States's top road cyclist and the 1971 Pan American Games champion.[22] LeMond caught the attention of Eddie Borysewicz, the US Cycling Federation's national team coach, who described LeMond as "a diamond, a clear diamond."[23] LeMond represented the United States at the 1978 Junior World Championships in Washington, D.C., where he finished ninth in the road race,[24] and again in the 1979 Junior World Championships in Argentina,[25] where he won gold, silver and bronze medals—the highlight being his victory in the road race.[21] At age 18, LeMond was selected for the 1980 U.S. Olympic cycling team, the youngest ever to make the U.S. team."

LeMond won the elite men's World Championship Road Race in 1983 at age 21.
He was so good, in fact, that Bernard Hinault made a trip out to the United States with his coach to recruit LeMond. He went on to place third in his first TDF in 1984, second in his second TDF in 1985, and first in his third TDF in 1986.

The point is that LeMond was truly exceptional long before EPO was in use. We know that because you can look at the victories above and then look at the EPO timeline below (also from Wikipedia):

Synthetic EPO was first successfully used to correct anemia in 1987.[27] In 1985, Lin et al isolated the human erythropoietin gene from a genomic phage library and used it to produce EPO.[28] In 1989, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the hormone Epogen for use in certain anemias.

Ok, so Lemond had three podiums in the junior world championships, including a win at the road race, a number of other victories, and had placed on the podium at the TDF (in each of his first three years) before EPO had been isolated and several years before it began in medical use on humans.

What the timeline would seem to indicate is that the inflection point in elite road racing, was at around the time in the early 90's when LeMond could no longer keep up. That would seem to support the argument that LeMond did not need to dope to keep up when he was winning and the racing was going on without EPO, and that any real performance advantages had not yet made its way to the peloton while he was at his peak.

As to the argument that there had been doping before, it was largely amphetemines and other drugs with limited performance advantages, if any at all. Check the literature.

[harlond]

Originally Posted by pbarry

Don't worry, the above rant, or one very similar, will be posted next time this subject comes up.

Yes, right next to the new and unique perspectives on Armstrong.

[pbarry]

Originally Posted by harlond

Yes, right next to the new and unique perspectives on Armstrong.

People can change.