Armstrong to return, ride in '09 Tour

Chips Lovell

liamtinney wrote: »

I know one of the reasons that he is coming back is, that he see that there is less drugs in the sport and he want to try now on even terms (yes I do believe he is drug free )

You still have to wonder why though. I mean, he managed to beat a doped up peloton seven times. What does he have to prove by beating a (perceived) clean peloton?

The thing is that while the peloton is undoubtedly cleaner, there's little to suggest that everyone has given up their old ways. We had enough positive tests this year to prove that there is a substantial proportion of riders still willing to dope.

In addition to this, I think there's reason to believe that some people are still successfully circumventing beefed up controls. Apparently the latest thing is to use autologus blood transfusions to top up your hematocrit. These transfusions are detectable in testing because they leave a preponderance of mature red blood cells. You counteract this with microdoses of EPO, which bring back up the level of immature red blood cells, but the dosage is so low that its virtually undetectable when you're being tested.

Of course, with the blood passports programme, it means that the days of whacking your hematocrit up to 49 per cent are over. You've got to keep your blood profile looking relatively normal. However, it does mean that guys will try and keep themselves near the maximum of what is considered normal, giving them an advantage over those whose blood values will fall as the result of hard competition. Indeed, there's a cynical school of thought that suggest that the internal blood testing profiles run by some teams are merely there to make sure that riders blood values don't stray too far off the reserveration.

Chips Lovell

Oh, and Flandis will be back next year too. Can't see Health Net getting too many European race invites though.

petethedrummer

el tonto wrote: »

You still have to wonder why though. I mean, he managed to beat a doped up peloton seven times. What does he have to prove by beating a (perceived) clean peloton?

I suppose there's a few ways too look at it.

1. If he has always been clean, he may just be hankering after another ride. Like a boxer who can't quit.

2. If he has always been clean, he way use this occasion to silence the many doubters. If he rides well and does well in a tightly controlled TDF. He can say the rest of his tour victories were clean.

3. If he doped in his 7 victories, he can ride the next one clean(or clean enough not to fail a test) put in a creditible performance and blame not winning on age and the break from the sport.

4. If he doped in his 7 victories to maintain a level playing field and he really is the best natural athlete, maybe he feels the 09 TDF is a chance to win on a level playing field.

5. The worst thing for him would be that he gets doped up to the gills and destroys the opposition or fails a test.

Raam

Whatever about his reasons for coming back, I reckon this is the way Lance is going to do next years tour.

petethedrummer

I like it, but for some reason I think it will be more like this.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bx2f9Ze3CA

theprizelamb

Was listening to Off the ball on newstalk this evening - they has Paul Kimmage on and he wasnt holding back on why Lance Armstrong coming back is the worst possible news for a sport trying to get itself clean, also berating Pat McQuaid for not taking a tougher stance with him.

I dont follow cycling awfully close - but I always thought that Armstrong was well regarded by most - has Kimmage some agenda? He was outright in labelling Armstrong a doper - specifically mentioning his 1999 win(?).

Outside the world of cycling Armstrong is an inspiration to most - but are those within the world of cycling generally more sceptical?

Orizio

Well he generally excelled at a time of rampant doping, when most of his main opponents were themselves doping, and Lance was basically destroying them, plus more then a few of his domestiques were doping and so on.

So yeah scepticism is understandable, and he isn't a particurly likeable character. Moreover, we have other dopers like Basso, Landis etc coming back into the sport, and a whole ****load of cyclists who simply can't be trusted like Valverde, Kloden etc still happily racing. Even the person seen as the Tour favourite, Contador, was seemingly implicated in a major Spanish doping scandal a few years back.

All this after what I taught was the cleanest Tour for years. The sight of the likes of Basso riding happily in next years Tour makes me sick frankly.

Chips Lovell

theprizelamb wrote: »

He was outright in labelling Armstrong a doper - specifically mentioning his 1999 win(?).

Retrospective testing on his samples from 1999 found EPO in them. A test hadn't been developed for the the drug at the time.

Raam

From the latest issue of Roadbikerider, they always sum things up nicely...

Lance on a Mission

If you haven't heard Lance Armstrong's comeback statement, click http://www.livestrong.com/lance2009 and have a listen. It's short and he promises full details at a Clinton Global Initiative forum in New York City on Sept. 24.

So after 3 years of retirement but certainly not inactivity, the most famous cyclist in U.S. history says he will try to win the Tour de France for an 8th time in 2009.

The chief reason, he says, is to renew attention on the "global cancer burden," citing the killer of 8 million people annually. As a survivor and the world's most visible campaigner against the disease, Armstrong wants to increase awareness, money and research efforts.

Reaction to Lance's return seems mostly positive since the shock has worn off. For 2 days rumors were rife following a velonews.com report that he was un-retiring. The website did not name sources other than an upcoming article in Vanity Fair magazine. All of the usual suspects said they knew nothing about any comeback plans.

With the cat out of the bag, Vanity Fair released the article, which you can read at http://tinyurl.com/5zwnns. The best follow-up we've seen is on ESPN.com at http://tinyurl.com/6zcshg

In a nutshell, Armstrong is already in training, emphasizing strength and core work until January when road workouts will take precedence. He's bought a house in downtown Aspen, Colorado, to use as a high-altitude base. Other training will take place at home in Austin, Texas, and in Solvang, California. When not living at altitude he'll sleep in a hypoxic tent, where lower oxygen levels mimic high-mountain conditions.

Uncharacteristically, Armstrong says he'll make his life transparent to the media between now and the '09 Tour. He's hired a film crew to document his daily activities, including drug testing.

He admitted to Vanity Fair that he's been "combative," "unavailable" and "arrogant" with the media in the past (especially in France) and vowed to resist a repetition. "I won't do that this time," he says. "I mean, these daily or weekly [phone conferences]? Everyone's invited. From the bitterest of rivals I've ever had in the pressroom: Get on call. If you've got a question, ask it. They'll realize that I'm not messing around."

The difference this time, he says, is that he won't be flaunting his Americanism: "The constituency that I represent is now cancer survivors."

He has signed up for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's out-of-competition testing and pro cycling's biological passport program. Rules say there must be 6 months of testing before a retired athlete can re-enter competition. Armstrong's probationary period will end 2 weeks before mid-February's Amgen Tour of California, one of the 4 additional events said to be in his plans (along with Paris-Nice, the Tour de Georgia -- if it happens -- and the Dauphine Libere).

Addressing the doping issue, he told Vanity Fair, "There's this perception in cycling that [the current] generation is now the cleanest generation we've had in decades, if not forever. And the generation that I raced with was the dirty generation.

"I'll be totally honest with you, the year that I won the Tour [1999], many of the guys that got 2nd through 10th, a lot of them are gone. Out. Caught. Positive Tests. Suspended. . . And so I can understand why people look at that and go, Well, [they] were caught -- and you weren't? So there is a nice element here where I can come with really a completely comprehensive program and there will be no way to cheat."

Next, Armstrong needs to be on a team the Tour will accept. He last rode for Discovery Channel, which morphed into Astana and is still run by close friend Johan Bruyneel. Astana was barred from the Tour this year because of doping infractions involving former members. Tour director Christian Prudhomme says Armstrong will be welcome to race as long as he meets all requirements, but it hasn't been announced if Astana will be allowed back.

Another question: Will Astana have a place for Armstrong when it already has a trio of Tour podium finishers in Andreas Kloden, Levi Leipheimer and Alberto Contador, the 2006 winner? It's hard to imagine Lance being turned away, and equally difficult to envision him riding for any other team. The key to every one of his 7 victories was selfless teamwork and a simple strategy devised by Bruyneel: Go nuts in an early mountain stage to establish physical and mental superiority as well as time gaps, then control the front. Would Astana's Big 3 give up their own chances in order to work for Armstrong?

Contador is quoted as saying, "Will I have problems being his teammate? No, if he returns I will open the door. I have always had the highest regard for him and would be delighted to be in the same team."

Whether it's with Astana or another team, Armstrong's return won't be a budget-buster. "I am essentially racing for free," he told Vanity Fair. "No salary. No bonus. Nothing on the line -- this one's on the house. And you know what? At the end of the day, I don't need money. Not only will I be fine, my kids will be fine, my grandkids will be fine."

Above all else, one thing is certain: Armstrong will be just 2 months shy of 38 during the 2009 Tour. Only one rider older than 34 has ever won cycling's toughest race -- 36-year-old Firmin Lambot in 1922.

"Ask serious sports physiologists," says Armstrong, "and they'll tell you age is a wives' tale."

The next 10 months will make as interesting a tale as can be.

petethedrummer

theprizelamb wrote: »

I dont follow cycling awfully close - but I always thought that Armstrong was well regarded by most - has Kimmage some agenda? He was outright in labelling Armstrong a doper - specifically mentioning his 1999 win(?).

In brief

91-95 winner Indurain never caught doping, but his emergence as a winner coincides with the introduction of EPO.

96 Bjarne Riis won the tour, he was referred to as Mr 60% because his haematocrit level was around 60% think a normal human is 38-43%. Before this he was good team rider, not tour winning material. He has since confessed and asked his win to be scrubbed from the books.

97 winner Jan Ullrich(though very naturally talented) was later suspended for doping offences.

98 winner Marco Pantani was later suspended later for doping offences. (He was Ricardo Riccos hero, who was caught doping this year). Festina Scandal was also this year.

99 was promised to the the clean up year.....Lance armstrong back from the cancer. Reckoned to be a good classics rider. wins tour de france faster than anyone previously. wins mountain stages and TT's. Which earlier in his career he didn't particularly shine at.

but the best explanations are here in these interviews........

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055363140

Mr. Presentable

liamtinney wrote: »

I know one of the reasons that he is coming back is, that he see that there is less drugs in the sport and he want to try now on even terms (yes I do believe he is drug free )

Ironic or not, one of the apparent side effects of steroid abuse is testicular cancer.

Maybe he did his doping before he got sick.

In any case, I think he is as dirty a sportsman as there ever has been. Just good enough at doping not to get caught.

Limestone1

el tonto wrote: »

Retrospective testing on his samples from 1999 found EPO in them. A test hadn't been developed for the the drug at the time.

I've never seen that publicised but I do believe in the long run all these guys can be caught retrospectively - the testing has always taken a few years to catch up with the dopers so holding samples and retesting every 5 years would show the dopers that no matter how clever they are in a particular year, there is a good chance of them being outed later on.

Gavin

Limestone1 wrote: »

I've never seen that publicised but I do believe in the long run all these guys can be caught retrospectively - the testing has always taken a few years to catch up with the dopers so holding samples and retesting every 5 years would show the dopers that no matter how clever they are in a particular year, there is a good chance of them being outed later on.

If this is the case, why was Armstrong not stripped of his '99 win ?

TinyExplosions

Limestone1 wrote: »

I've never seen that publicised but I do believe in the long run all these guys can be caught retrospectively - the testing has always taken a few years to catch up with the dopers so holding samples and retesting every 5 years would show the dopers that no matter how clever they are in a particular year, there is a good chance of them being outed later on.

There's a certain amount of that, but iirc it runs out after 10 years. Riis came clean just after the limit was over, which I feel was a very cynical move, as he can't be stripped of his title, which would have been the case had he admitted it earlier. His talk of wanting the history books changed is just hot air to my view, as he knows full well that the result can't be changed (although an asterix now appears beside his name)

Chips Lovell

Limestone1 wrote: »

I've never seen that publicised ...

It was fairly widely reported on at the time, late 2005 as best as I can recall. L'Equipe orginally broke it and a lot of other papers picked it up. There's a good account of it in David Walsh's book "From Lance to Landis".

Verb wrote: »

If this is the case, why was Armstrong not stripped of his '99 win ?

Because they weren't official tests.

E@gle.

Maybe armstrong may start his own team, Clicky

scottreynolds

E@gle. wrote: »

Maybe armstrong may start his own team, Clicky

I have a feeling Livestrong will be its own team.,, after all they are already in Texas.......

Quigs Snr

If he is really doing it for Cancer awareness then setting up a Livestrong team is the logical way to do it. Him being in that team in its first year would attract the required riders, sponsorship etc... no doubt it would appeal to his vanity also ! Perhaps Johan will come across with him........... We will find out soon enough, no doubt it was all decided before the announcement.

E@gle.

yes the livestrong team makes the most sense, and sponsors would jump at the idea of being part of it.

I think he may also be pointing out that he does not intend in winning the tour.

blorg

Contador has now changed his inital reaction and is hinting he will leave Astana if Armstrong is hired. Can't say I'd blame him either, Contador wants to defend his title and this is a bit of a kick in the butt having just completed his triple with the Giro and Vuelta. There ends my analysis, I could go further but I'd embarrass myself.

Chips Lovell

Well, we should know tomorrow with the press conference, but it was always hard to imagine Berto agreeing to play second fiddle to Lance. Either Armstrong goes to another team or he agrees that Contador is top dog at Astana and gives up the idea of chasing an eighth Tour.

DirkVoodoo

I thought Contador said he would welcome Armstrong? Or was that just he would welcome him back into the tour?

SetOverSet

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought Contador said he would welcome Armstrong? Or was that just he would welcome him back into the tour?

I did read that he originally said that he would welcome riding with Lance at Astana, but he seems to have changed his tune...
CONTADOR SAYS RIDING WITH LANCE COULD BE DIFFICULT

Chips Lovell

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought Contador said he would welcome Armstrong?

He did. But that was his "I better say something until I figure out what the f**k is going on response".

blorg

I thought Trek were a bit slow to get something up about Contador on their site after he won the Vuelta, but it is up there now.

blorg

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought Contador said he would welcome Armstrong? Or was that just he would welcome him back into the tour?

As Tonto says, he was sort of in the middle of the Vuelta then and had other things to worry about. He has since won it, completing a bit of a grand tour triple. I can understand why he wouldn't exactly be thrilled about the idea of Lance joining Astana.

Diarmuid

Would Contador have a "team leader" clause in his contract or would that be decided on a year-to-year basis? I read a translation of the Spanish interview and he also took a huge swipe at Leiphimer too saying if a teammate is working for you that he shouldn't finish less than a minute after you and that he was as big a wheel sucker as Evans (in so many words).

blorg

Jesus, he really lays into Leipheimer in a way that's not healthy for them on the same team. Liked this little dig at the end:

As for his own plans for the coming year, Contador intends to ride only the Tour de France next year. It is "very complicated" to contest more than one grand tour in a year, he said. He rates Andy Schleck, Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans, and perhaps also Robert Gesink as his future rivals. He described Igor Anton as "a pure climber." Laughing, Contador said that he could not discount Leipheimer either, as he "has experience in disputing the grand tours."

Chips Lovell

Saw that alright. It was hilarious the way they asked him who the bigger wheelsucker was.

penexpers

It's Astana

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7632837.stm