'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

hardCopy

No

Liamo08 wrote: »

To be fair he was World Champion at 21 over 3 years before he ever had cancer so I think it's safe to say that he was a pretty talented guy.

But according to Frankie and Betsy Andreu he was already on drugs before he ever got cancer.

Reekwind

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Not necessarily, he was a good cyclist with a good team. But both he and his team-mates were doping, otherwise success would have been impossible

Doping isn't a magic wand that automatically produces a medal. A good cyclist who dopes will always be better than a decent cyclist who dopes (assuming the same treatment of drugs). But a good cyclist who's clean will seriously struggle to beat a decent cyclist who dopes. Which is one of the blackest marks against LA: so long as he was doping, and winning, everybody else had to dope just to keep up

Inquitus

No

EPO gives such a ridiculous performance boost it is not possible for an extremely talented pro to compete with a distincly average pro who's juiced on it.

Russman

No

This weight loss thing has always bugged/confused me about LA. I fully understand the "lose weight, climb faster" thing, it makes perfect sense.

However when you read LA's books, he made such a big thing of losing weight but when you see pre and post cancer photos, am I the only one who thinks he looks more or less the same weight/build/body shape ?? Certainly IMO there doesn't look to be a huge transformation, I wonder was this part of the ruse ? Or am I just blind to the obvious differences ?

I'm not doubting he had cancer or anything like that and I do think he doped, the weight thing has just always bugged me :-)

alexanderomahon

Reekwind wrote: »

Not necessarily, he was a good cyclist with a good team. But both he and his team-mates were doping, otherwise success would have been impossible

Doping isn't a magic wand that automatically produces a medal. A good cyclist who dopes will always be better than a decent cyclist who dopes (assuming the same treatment of drugs). But a good cyclist who's clean will seriously struggle to beat a decent cyclist who dopes. Which is one of the blackest marks against LA: so long as he was doping, and winning, everybody else had to dope just to keep up

But why was he better than the large number of other drug cheats out there at the time. Was he simply the best cyclist of all the vast number of cyclists who cheated?

Liamo08

Russman wrote: »

This weight loss thing has always bugged/confused me about LA. I fully understand the "lose weight, climb faster" thing, it makes perfect sense.

However when you read LA's books, he made such a big thing of losing weight but when you see pre and post cancer photos, am I the only one who thinks he looks more or less the same weight/build/body shape ?? Certainly IMO there doesn't look to be a huge transformation, I wonder was this part of the ruse ? Or am I just blind to the obvious differences ?

I'm not doubting he had cancer or anything like that and I do think he doped, the weight thing has just always bugged me :-)

Hard to prove exactly what his weight loss was - or if he even lost any weight at all. But it's a very convenient explanation of massive improvement in climbing ability.

furiousox

No

Velonation interview with Paul Kimmage here

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12721/Paul-Kimmage-Interview-Armstrong-the-UCI-and-the-true-winners-of-those-Tours.aspx

therightstuff

No

Liamo08 wrote: »

Hard to prove exactly what his weight loss was - or if he even lost any weight at all. But it's a very convenient explanation of massive improvement in climbing ability.

Good point. He actually was the same weight when he won the World Championship. Best ask Doctor Ferrari on why his climbing improved so much....

Monty Burnz

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

But why was he better than the large number of other drug cheats out there at the time. Was he simply the best cyclist of all the vast number of cyclists who cheated?

Good cyclist + best drugs regime + good team supporting him (all on drugs) = unbeatable.

Brilliant cyclist - drugs + any other combo = good luck buddy

Balmed Out

Russman wrote: »

This weight loss thing has always bugged/confused me about LA. I fully understand the "lose weight, climb faster" thing, it makes perfect sense.

However when you read LA's books, he made such a big thing of losing weight but when you see pre and post cancer photos, am I the only one who thinks he looks more or less the same weight/build/body shape ?? Certainly IMO there doesn't look to be a huge transformation, I wonder was this part of the ruse ? Or am I just blind to the obvious differences ?

I'm not doubting he had cancer or anything like that and I do think he doped, the weight thing has just always bugged me :-)

I think its that he grew up being a swimmer (a very good one) and so he would have overly developed muscles that were just dead weight when cycling.

Hermy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

I find it insulting that you describe a doper, a cheat, a liar and a bully as the greatest. And even ignoring all of that he wasn't the greatest cyclist as he never competed through a full season as all the greats did.

Inquitus

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

But why was he better than the large number of other drug cheats out there at the time. Was he simply the best cyclist of all the vast number of cyclists who cheated?

What they were doing was very dangerous. There are stories of pros of the era sleeping with heart rate alarms next to exercise bikes, so they could wake up and get the blood flowing if needed. The sort of Hematocrits we were seeing meant the blood was dangerously thickened, the higher the Hematocrit the higher the risks, but also the higher the Hematocrit the faster up the mountains you can go. Risk of stroke or heart failure were high and indeed a number of pro and amateur cyclists died due to EPO abuse.

Some individuals and their doctors were pushing this to the absolute limits, some were trying to keep it safer. At the end of the day the team with the best resources and the best doctors were able to push the envelope furthest and gain the most advantage, and that was Armstrongs team.

Reekwind

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

But why was he better than the large number of other drug cheats out there at the time. Was he simply the best cyclist of all the vast number of cyclists who cheated?

Probably. That and US Postal were always a very strong team: Hamilton, Heras and Landis were all strong riders (who were also cheats)

Not everyone who dopes tends towards the same baseline in performance. There are a multitude of other factors that determine the podium: condition, teamwork, quality of the drugs, etc, and, yes, innate talent. No one is denying that Armstrong trained like a demon or was exceptionally driven; the problem is that we'll never know just how good he was. And that is because he deliberately introduced that artificial factor (ie, drugs) that completely skewed the field

Was Armstrong the best of a dirty bunch? Probably, I've got no problem accepting that and always admired US Postal. But, now, what's the point in even noting that?

Hermy

No

Balmed Out wrote: »

I think its that he grew up being a swimmer (a very good one) and so he would have overly developed muscles that were just dead weight when cycling.

But surely when he stopped swimming those muscles naturally atrophied?

brandon_flowers

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Good cyclist + best drugs regime + good team supporting him (all on drugs) = unbeatable.

Brilliant cyclist - drugs + any other combo = good luck buddy

This is exactly it, that US Postal team had some very good riders who were also very well juiced. They towed Armstrong all over France and then when he needed to produce he had plenty of juice also.

Pantani never had a team-mate within an asses roar of him and he didn't stand a chance even when he was juiced.

I was trying to think of a brilliant cyclist sans dope of that era to fulfill the last part of your post but I failed. Unfortunately the brilliant guys were hidden down in 25th place of the GC's so nobody ever knew who they were.

RobFowl

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

I'm not posting as a moderator (and amn't one in Cycling anyway). I am completely gobsmacked that there are still people out there who support and stand up for that drug fueled bully, but you are entitled to your opinion.

So yes I am slagging/mocking your claim that LA is the "greatest" and make no apologies for doing so.

hardCopy

No

Inquitus wrote: »

What they were doing was very dangerous. There are stories of pros of the era sleeping with heart rate alarms next to exercise bikes, so they could wake up and get the blood flowing if needed. The sort of Hematocrits we were seeing meant the blood was dangerously thickened, the higher the Hematocrit the higher the risks, but also the higher the Hematocrit the faster up the mountains you can go. Risk of stroke or heart failure were high and indeed a number of pro and amateur cyclists died due to EPO abuse.

Some individuals and their doctors were pushing this to the absolute limits, some were trying to keep it safer. At the end of the day the team with the best resources and the best doctors were able to push the envelope furthest and gain the most advantage, and that was Armstrongs team.

COUGH

bad2dabone

No

Reekwind wrote: »

Was Armstrong the best of a dirty bunch? Probably, I've got no problem accepting that and always admired US Postal. But, now, what's the point in even noting that?

bingo. I'll admit i was a huge fan of armstrong back in the days when i thought he was clean, I took a month off work in 2004 and followed the Tour, I remember being on the alpe d'huez and being awestruck when he passed.
But we all know now that he was a dirty rotten cheat and a bully. So what's the point in even saying "yeah but he was the best of a bad lot".

I think he's done well to raise so much money for the charity, regardless.

But he's done terrible damage to pro cycling, and to the Tour.
And he's ruined Dodgeball the Movie too.

Waitsian

No

Beasty wrote: »

However speculation about specific riders is not allowed on Boards

Sorry. Won't happen again.

Inquitus wrote: »

Have a read of that for some analysis.

Thanks, will do.

Beasty

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

If you have a problem with a post, report it, don't respond in-thread

As RobFowl has already pointed out he was posting as an ordinary user

Hermy

No

RobFowl wrote: »

I'm not posting as a moderator (and amn't one in Cycling anyway). I am completely gobsmacked that there are still people out there who support and stand up for that drug fueled bully, but you are entitled to your opinion.

So yes I am slagging/mocking your claim that LA is the "greatest" and make no apologies for doing so.

This is why I asked the question '...greatest what?' I want to know what it is that you [Kev M] admire about such a despicable individual.

brandon_flowers

No

bad2dabone wrote: »

bingo. I'll admit i was a huge fan of armstrong back in the days when i thought he was clean, I took a month off work in 2004 and followed the Tour, I remember being on the alpe d'huez and being awestruck when he passed.
But we all know now that he was a dirty rotten cheat and a bully. So what's the point in even saying "yeah but he was the best of a bad lot".

I think he's done well to raise so much money for the charity, regardless.

But he's done terrible damage to pro cycling, and to the Tour.
And he's ruined Dodgeball the Movie too.

Inversely can we say he was the worst of a bad lot? I would.

Raam

No

At the time of posting, five people have voted that they think he didn't dope. Are they for real?

fat bloke

No

RobFowl wrote: »

I'm not posting as a moderator (and amn't one in Cycling anyway). I am completely gobsmacked that there are still people out there who support and stand up for that drug fueled bully, but you are entitled to your opinion.

So yes I am slagging/mocking your claim that LA is the "greatest" and make no apologies for doing so.

I demand that you do apologise.

Mod or no mod, there's simply no excuse for it. Not even Lance Armstrong would deliberately type "amn't" :pac:

Beasty

No

Raam wrote: »

At the time of posting, five people have voted that they think he didn't dope. Are they for real?

Well you can ask one of them next time you race him up Ardgillan ...;)

Raam

No

Beasty wrote: »

Well you can ask one of them next time you race him up Ardgillan ...;)

Indeed. That's the perfect time to get someone's opinion on topical debates.

funnights74

No

As a guy commented to me yesterday on the SkT "I woke up this morning and realized I'ld won the same number of Tours de France as lance Armstrong" "oh i laughed so have i"

alexanderomahon

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Does it occur to you that it's not that the top riders were drug cheats, rather it's that the drug cheats were the top riders? And does this not make sense seeing as the whole point of doping is give you an advantage over more talented riders who aren't doping?

What occurs to me is that nobody knows for sure who did and didn't cheat. From my understanding drug taking was rampant at all levels in professional cycling. Some riders took drugs in the hope they could win races, some to perform as well as possible to get a decent contract, some to hold on to a contract in professional cycling.

I have read no book that says it was only the top 20 or so cyclists who took drugs.

Beasty

No

Raam wrote: »

Indeed. That's the perfect time to get someone's opinion on topical debates.

You may have good reason to discuss this particular topic when he leaves you for dead on that hill though...


... anyway, Lance has turned 40, which makes him eligible for the IVCA (who, AFAIK, are not affiliated to the UCI) - maybe I should put a proposal to the AGM that we invite him to come and race with us next year

Monty Burnz

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

I have read no book that says it was only the top 20 or so cyclists who took drugs.

I don't think anyone made that claim...