'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

alexanderomahon

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

You said "rather it's that the drug cheats were the top riders? "

I simply put a number on it. What number would you use to describe your phrase of "top riders?"

If we are agreeing that drug use was rampant throughout professional cycling at this time then grand that we agree.

Monty Burnz

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

You said "rather it's that the drug cheats were the top riders? "

I simply put a number on it. What number would you use to describe your phrase of "top riders?"

If we are agreeing that drug use was rampant throughout professional cycling at this time then grand that we agree.

I'd be slow to put a number on it, but I'd be amazed if it was only 20. Let's look at it another way - is your position that there wasn't a single clean rider out there?

alexanderomahon

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd be slow to put a number on it, but I'd be amazed if it was only 20. Let's look at it another way - is your position that there wasn't a single clean rider out there?

Certainly were/probably were/maybe were, but problem is that there is no way of knowing who they were. This is because of what was going on amongst the riders, within teams, medical developments etc and how the sport was being run from above.

Great pity for any clean cyclist, but nobody can prove they were clean at this time because of the mess the sport was in. Just hope/believe this is changing.

elguapo

No

I never believed in Lance Armstrong's achievements, have read everything I could get my hands on to do with this case and been more apalled and outraged with each article I read, but I never believed he would be brought to justice.

I also never believed I would have so many friends, whose opinions I generally respect, whose first reaction was "Yeah, but they were all doped, and sure didn't he do great work for charity".

So on this forum, where we can set aside his extra-curricular activities, and focus on the sport of cycling, I just want to say:

Lance Armstrong is a drug-taking, cheating, lying, bullying, sorry excuse of a sportsperson, and I hope every one of his fraudulent "achievements" is expunged from the record books, because he is a stain on his sport.

<Exhale> Much better.

RobFowl

No

I'm not surprised but what a waster !

Graham Watson ‏@grahamwatson10 Not sure which planet Tygart lives on, but someone should tell him Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France - there's no changing that fact

Monty Burnz

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Certainly were/probably were/maybe were, but problem is that there is no way of knowing who they were. This is because of what was going on amongst the riders, within teams, medical developments etc and how the sport was being run from above.

Great pity for any clean cyclist, but nobody can prove they were clean at this time because of the mess the sport was in. Just hope/believe this is changing.

It's a great pity indeed. But what I would emphasise is that there surely were clean guys out there who were working their balls off to compete with drug-fuelled teams and individuals and got f*ck-all thanks for it, or more likely abuse, threats and bullying from Armstrong and his ilk. I wonder how many of them would be household names had they not been competing with Armstrong and the other cheats.

dave2pvd

No

On a level playing field, I think Armstrong could have been one of the greats.

Why do I think that?

He had an advantage: an appreciation for life that can only come after life is close to being taken. I don't think that can be underestimated. It was fuel for his drive. Say what you want about the guy, his motivation was remarkable.

A second advantage: he became an American icon. Could he have done this without cheating? I don't know - we don't know. His celebrity made raising unprecedented amounts of sponsorship money possible. There's a lot of money on this side of the pond. He could afford to build a team that was very hard to beat.

I'm no fan of his. Even if he was a clean rider, I would not be a fan - the guy is a jerk, IMO.

OK, fanboi moment over. You won't hear another word from me.

Monty Burnz

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

A second advantage: he became an American icon

I think you may find that you are mixing up carts and horses on this point.

therightstuff

No

The dogs in the street knew, I wonder why the UCI were trying to discredit them....

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

petethedrummer

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?

There are a number of reasons for this.

1. EPO favours a strong rider with a low hematocrit. Anyone with a naturally high hematocrit does not get the same jump in oxygen carrying capabilities.

2. It favours more muscular riders as they can now deliver massive amounts of oxygen to larger muscles. Big lads could compete with skinny climbers in the mountains. There are reports that his teammates said that Armstrong used to come back from the winter looking like a linebacker (obviously in cycling terms, thats still pretty slim but relative to the others).

3. Armstrong and his teams had exclusive access to the best doping doctor in the world. Doping is not just a matter of an occasional injection. You go through cycles and have to work out drug combinations that suit each rider.

4. They reportedly had advanced warning of ooc tests. I don't know if his rivals were afforded the same privilege.

5. The UCI are not entirely happy with seeing him go down.

6. The UCI accepted donations from him........for a Sysmex machine! LOL

7. Rules were bent for him in the acceptance of a back dated TUE in 99. And also for his return to cycling he had not been tested for the full 6 months leading up to his first race.

That's off the top of my head.

corny

No

Kev M wrote: »

I think that's speculative at best but you're entitled to your opinion and that's fine.

By all accounts he was juiced to the gills before ever getting cancer, so it's more likely that the weight loss is what had a significant impact on his climbing ability.

Nothing speculative at all about what i said. He was 25 when he was diagnosed with cancer and up until that point he'd shown no great ability in the high mountains. None. He gets cancer, changes team, changes doctors and wins the Tour de Luxembourg and finishes 4th in Vuelta. The next year, he's 26 now btw, he wins the toughest stage race of them all in convincing fashion and we're lead to believe he did it all through chemotherapy and by losing a bit weight. Seriously?

Like i said decent classics rider in rolling hills with a decent sprint on him but ffs how can you not see through the bull**** man?

therightstuff

No

I will say it again- he never lost weight. It's one of the myths he developed himself to explain his new-found climbing ability

Look at the pictures- he is exactly the same shape before and after the cancer

Monty Burnz

No

therightstuff wrote: »

I will say it again- he never lost weight. It's one of the myths he developed himself to explain his new-found climbing ability

Look at the pictures- he is exactly the same shape before and after the cancer

How much does a testicle weigh?

hardCopy

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

On a level playing field, I think Armstrong could have been one of the greats.

Why do I think that?

He had an advantage: an appreciation for life that can only come after life is close to being taken. I don't think that can be underestimated. It was fuel for his drive. Say what you want about the guy, his motivation was remarkable.

A second advantage: he became an American icon. Could he have done this without cheating? I don't know - we don't know. His celebrity made raising unprecedented amounts of sponsorship money possible. There's a lot of money on this side of the pond. He could afford to build a team that was very hard to beat.

I'm no fan of his. Even if he was a clean rider, I would not be a fan - the guy is a jerk, IMO.

OK, fanboi moment over. You won't hear another word from me.

He could have done a lot of things but we can't presume that he would have been great clean, we'll just never know.

He had ample opportunity to fess up years ago, take a ban and come back clean to show the world what he was really made of, but he didn't have it in him to do that.

alexanderomahon

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's a great pity indeed. But what I would emphasise is that there surely were clean guys out there who were working their balls off to compete with drug-fuelled teams and individuals and got f*ck-all thanks for it, or more likely abuse, threats and bullying from Armstrong and his ilk. I wonder how many of them would be household names had they not been competing with Armstrong and the other cheats.

No argument with you there. We just will never know who these guys were.

breezy1985

No

people always forget his biggest crimes.

He hardly ever wore his WC rainbow armbands and his complete disrespect for the classics

hardCopy

No

breezy1985 wrote: »

people always forget his biggest crimes.

He hardly ever wore his WC rainbow armbands and his complete disrespect for the classics

Black socks

Oldlegs

No

A few posters still referring to LA's charitable work.

Might be worth revisiting this outsideonline article to see some of the less attractive sides to his role within/outside of the Livestrong foundation.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html

Kev M

corny wrote: »

Nothing speculative at all about what i said. He was 25 when he was diagnosed with cancer and up until that point he'd shown no great ability in the high mountains. None. He gets cancer, changes team, changes doctors and wins the Tour de Luxembourg and finishes 4th in Vuelta. The next year, he's 26 now btw, he wins the toughest stage race of them all in convincing fashion and we're lead to believe he did it all through chemotherapy and by losing a bit weight. Seriously?

Like i said decent classics rider in rolling hills with a decent sprint on him but ffs how can you not see through the bull**** man?

Alot of riders improve after their mid twenties. And as I said from the start I never believed he was clean. I think drugs played a big part in his success. But what he did takes far more than drugs. Lets say drugs brought him one tdf victory, fair enough, but he won 7! You think you can pull an average rider out of the bunch and get them to win 7 tdf titles just by giving them drugs? What the guy did, honourably or not, was incredible.

morana

No

Kev M wrote: »

Alot of riders improve after their mid twenties. And as I said from the start I never believed he was clean. I think drugs played a big part in his success. But what he did takes far more than drugs. Lets say drugs brought him one tdf victory, fair enough, but he won 7! You think you can pull an average rider out of the bunch and get them to win 7 tdf titles just by giving them drugs? What the guy did, honourably or not, was incredible.

Its not incredible it was cheating. Whats incredible is the manipulation of the bodies that should have known better.

Kev M

morana wrote: »

Its not incredible it was cheating. QUOTE]


Welcome to the top level of physical performance sports.

Inquitus

No

Kev M wrote: »

Welcome to the top level of physical performance sports.

If you are willing to accept that sport is just about doping then you might as well stop watching surely?

robs1

i think he is still so admired because of what he went through(cancer) and still came back to professional cycling. to me there is no doubt he doped and i think there are alot of people that are keeping there heads down.why is no one knocking levi ,George hincapie or vande velde. these guys were part of the team all the way through and made a very good living off what they done with us postal and discovery.to me they are as bad as Armstrong.as for someone saying in a post about Armstrong not being like the greats....well i hate to burst there bubble but at this stage are there any real GREATS .they all doped so how are they classed as GREATS and Armstrong isn't. on a lighter note who can i idolise now, a guy passed me at the back of the naul last night and i convinced myself he must be doping because they are all at it.

corny

No

Kev M wrote: »

Alot of riders improve after their mid twenties. And as I said from the start I never believed he was clean. I think drugs played a big part in his success. But what he did takes far more than drugs. Lets say drugs brought him one tdf victory, fair enough, but he won 7! You think you can pull an average rider out of the bunch and get them to win 7 tdf titles just by giving them drugs? What the guy did, honourably or not, was incredible.

Ehhh yeah did you not read my last post? Thats exactly what happened.

Kev M

Inquitus wrote: »

If you are willing to accept that sport is just about doping then you might as well stop watching surely?

No I enjoy it nonetheless. Enjoyed the Olympics greatly despite the fact that several athletes who've in the past been caught were medalling. It's not a great situation but as I said that's just the way it is.

edit: and I never said it's just about doping... doping is the cherry on top so to speak.

Kev M

corny wrote: »

Ehhh yeah did you not read my last post? Thats exactly what happened.

I was respectfully disagreeing with it

Kev M

What are peoples' opinions on what this guy is saying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfEcBHmnND0

Flandria

No

Kev M wrote: »

What are peoples' opinions on what this guy is saying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfEcBHmnND0

Honestly? Another apologist tosser.

hardCopy

No

robs1 wrote: »

i think he is still so admired because of what he went through(cancer) and still came back to professional cycling. to me there is no doubt he doped and i think there are alot of people that are keeping there heads down.why is no one knocking levi ,George hincapie or vande velde. these guys were part of the team all the way through and made a very good living off what they done with us postal and discovery.to me they are as bad as Armstrong.as for someone saying in a post about Armstrong not being like the greats....well i hate to burst there bubble but at this stage are there any real GREATS .they all doped so how are they classed as GREATS and Armstrong isn't. on a lighter note who can i idolise now, a guy passed me at the back of the naul last night and i convinced myself he must be doping because they are all at it.

Does it matter if we don't have any greats?

Why not keep at it until the sport is clean? Then we can witness true greatness.

Anyway, we still have Lemond and I'm not aware of any scandal surrounding Cadel Evans, who finished 8th in 2005 and was the only top 10 finisher that year with no doping allegations against him.

SWL

RobFowl wrote: »

I'm not surprised but what a waster !

Graham Watson ‏@grahamwatson10 Not sure which planet Tygart lives on, but someone should tell him Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France - there's no changing that fact

Another head in the trough, with friends and me feiners like Watson,Armstrong doesn't need enemies.