'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Kev M

hardCopy wrote: »

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

Dude, there's genetic engineering technology coming down the pipeline that will make EPO, test and the other big drugs of today look like rice krispies.

RobFowl

No

Kev M wrote: »

Dude, there's genetic engineering technology coming down the pipeline that will make EPO, test and the other big drugs of today look like rice krispies.

Too true, I know WADA believe it's being used already....

Surinam

No

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

Interesting point. Maybe if we took the ego out of it, by not worshipping winners like they're some sort of demi-gods?

Why does society love to idolise individuals? Looking at my facebook timeline over the last few days has revealed a shocking amount of 'friends' who seem emotionally invested in Lance Armstrong, desperately defending him. Why?

robs1

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.[/Quote]


maybe we don't need greats but i don't see how everyone before him is still classed as a great when they are as bad as he was. true about Evans but would he be classed as a great. yes a good cyclist but maybe not a great

Flandria

No

SWL wrote: »

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

You should check Chade.O.Gray's twitter (it may or not be Floyd, quite a few think it is) to see what he said about Watson recently. I couldn't repeat it here;)

ednwireland

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

well worth reading (and the links)

Monty Burnz

No

Kev M wrote: »

Dude, there's genetic engineering technology coming down the pipeline that will make EPO, test and the other big drugs of today look like rice krispies.

Right, and the guys who cheat with that stuff will clearly be much 'greater' than a cheat like Armstrong, as they will cream his old-technology cheating speeds.

Or am I missing something?

Kev M

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, and the guys who cheat with that stuff will clearly be much 'greater' than a cheat like Armstrong, as they will cream his old-technology cheating speeds.

Or am I missing something?

Yup, that's likely. Eventually. It will be in alot of sports, and I'm not sure how it will be tested for.

Monty Burnz

No

Kev M wrote: »

Yup, that's likely. Eventually. It will be in alot of sports, and I'm not sure how it will be tested for.

Yeah, but will you recognise cheats using the gene doping as greats too?

happytramp

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, but will you recognise cheats using the gene doping as greats too?

Can we just accept that Kev doesn't care that people cheat in sports and move on? There's no moral obligation to keep hammering away at him hoping he'll change his mind.

Kev M

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, but will you recognise cheats using the gene doping as greats too?

Well you see there's where it gets more complicated, because we're yet to witness the full extent to which performance will be improved by it. From there it will be a personal decision to say either 'yeah, this is just like marginally better drugs and this guy is awesome' or 'holy s**t this has just gotten ridiculous, how is it even sport now'.
Maybe, in the gene doping era when competitive sport is destroyed, your worst nightmare will come true and Lance will be looked back upon as the last great cyclist .

Kev M

happytramp wrote: »

Can we just accept that Kev doesn't care that people cheat in sports and move on? There's no moral obligation to keep hammering away at him hoping he'll change his mind.

Well now 'don't care' might be a bit strong, I'd rather not see PEDs in sport, however I just don't think that they negate Lance's greatness, all things considered.

petethedrummer

No

robs1 wrote: »

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.

1. They complied with the FBI unlike Armstrong who taunted the leading investigator.
2. They complied with USADA, appeared before them and received bans. Their evidence might help to clean up cycling. Unlike Armstrong who did not appear before USADA and entered into a legal battle, then conviniently gave up at the first hint that the evidence might be made public.
3. They did not trample over all those who got in their way.
4. They did not character assassinate innocent people of lesser monetary means.

Monty Burnz

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well now 'don't care' might be a bit strong, I'd rather not see PEDs in sport, however I just don't think that they negate Lance's greatness, all things considered.

But what do you think are the components of his greatness? What makes him 'great'? Is it the TDF wins?

Kieran81

No

furiousox wrote: »

Two page spread on Armstrong by David Walsh in the Sunday Times today.

any link to this please

Oryx

No

Kieran81 wrote: »

any link to this please

Its copyright. You have to buy the online issue of the paper.

wpd

No

its amazing how the majority of the cycling media continue to support Armstrong despite this latest impact to his career. The sport of pro cycling has spoken about learning its lesson after dramatic events such as Simpson death/Festina/ricco/schumacher/Puerto and now this. It is unacceptable for the UCI to stay silent on the current USada ruling.
It seems money talks at the highest level of cycling, its time for cycling journalists to look behind the carbon bikes and wheels and point fingers if they have suspicions.
It took Walsh and Kimmage to fight the anti doping message and other journalists turned on them for it.
It amazes me how little impact Armstrong's case has had on the sport, to me they (the UCI) should shut it down till they can assure the public the sport is clean. How can anyone take this sport seriously anymore and i predict a huge flight of sponsors away from it.

buffalo

No

wpd wrote: »

its amazing how the majority of the cycling media continue to support Armstrong

Apart from a couple of notable personalities (already mentioned in this thread), most of the media I've come across has been reporting the news accurately and without bias. Have you some examples of support?

petethedrummer

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Any word from the pros? Or is it the usual weasel words? How does Wiggins view one of his heros now?

At last someone acknowledges the elephant in the room

“It is quite obvious that Armstrong has doped” - Gustav Larsson

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/larsson-applauds-armstrong-decision

Kev M

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But what do you think are the components of his greatness? What makes him 'great'? Is it the TDF wins?

What he was capable of doing on a bike makes him great basically.

Another way of me maybe explaining where I'm coming from is that just like what Evander Holyfield and Shane Mosley could do in the ring made them great (and they'll be remembered as great by most people) despite their outside the rules performance enhancement, I view LA no differently. If you want to know how I can think like this I'll say some of it is probably my background in weightlifting/powerlifting (although I've cycled and followed cycling my whole life) where you get very de-sensitized to the fact that everyone at the top is on something and just sort of come to casually accept it for what it is.

Inquitus

No

Kev M wrote: »

I'll say some of it is probably my background in weightlifting/powerlifting (although I've cycled and followed cycling my whole life) where you get very de-sensitized to the fact that everyone at the top is on something and just sort of come to casually accept it for what it is.

They do it in your sport (possibly the most reprehensible in existence) so its cool for everyone to do it?

Hermy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Welcome to the top level of physical performance sports.

That's not sport - it's chemistry!

robs1

1. They complied with the FBI unlike Armstrong who taunted the leading investigator.
2. They complied with USADA, appeared before them and received bans. Their evidence might help to clean up cycling. Unlike Armstrong who did not appear before USADA and entered into a legal battle, then conviniently gave up at the first hint that the evidence might be made public.
3. They did not trample over all those who got in their way.
4. They did not character assassinate innocent people of lesser monetary means.[/Quote]

they took drugs just like he did and that's with this is all about.not if they were a###holes to people or trampling on people....they took drugs to win races and got very well paid for it.it can't be one opinion for Armstrong and one for other cheats

Monty Burnz

No

Kev M wrote: »

What he was capable of doing on a bike makes him great basically.

But now that we know how he did it, it's not that impressive any more. If you gave Marco Pantani or Jan Ulrich or 50 other guys the same doping expertise, the same doped team mates to tow them along, and the complicity of the UCI to cover it all up, then most likely any one of them could have done the same thing. Armstrong had the best set-up, that's all. It's a bit like putting a decent F1 driver in a car that's 2% faster than everyone else's - you'd have to be an idiot to lose.

Kev M wrote: »

Another way of me maybe explaining where I'm coming from is that just like what Evander Holyfield and Shane Mosley could do in the ring made them great (and they'll be remembered as great by most people) despite their outside the rules performance enhancement, I view LA no differently. If you want to know how I can think like this I'll say some of it is probably my background in weightlifting/powerlifting (although I've cycled and followed cycling my whole life) where you get very de-sensitized to the fact that everyone at the top is on something and just sort of come to casually accept it for what it is.

That's understandable, but perhaps you are guilty of transferring standards across sports. Are you old enough to remember the Ryder Cup at Kiawah Island? The behaviour of the American fans and players there would be acceptable in a soccer environment, but by golf standards it was a disgrace.

Monty Burnz

No

robs1 wrote: »

they took drugs just like he did and that's with this is all about.not if they were a###holes to people or trampling on people....they took drugs to win races and got very well paid for it.it can't be one opinion for Armstrong and one for other cheats

They are all cheats, but at least those guys aren't maintaining the pretence that they aren't. Also, it seems they aren't total assholes.

Inquitus

No

EPOman says Lance won seven.

petethedrummer

No

robs1 wrote: »

they took drugs just like he did and that's with this is all about.not if they were a###holes to people or trampling on people....they took drugs to win races and got very well paid for it.it can't be one opinion for Armstrong and one for other cheats

Nobody said they were great guys and there aren't a bunch of loonies still in denial that those guys doped. Their impact on the sport was less than Armstrongs, so you have to expect less of an interest in their fates. Also they fully complied with the body in charge of Anti-doping in the USA.

“With the exception of Mr. Armstrong, every other U. S. rider contacted by USADA regarding doping in cycling agreed to meet with USADA and to truthfully and fully describe their involvement in doping and all doping by others of which they were aware. Mr. Armstrong was likewise contacted through his legal counsel and given the opportunity to meet with USADA to fully and truthfully disclose all knowledge of anti-doping rule violations committed in the sport of cycling. However, Mr. Armstrong declined USADA’s offer.”
http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/armstrongcharging0613.pdf


Do you need it explained to you again?

Monty Burnz

No

I imagine many people are going through the same denial phase they went through when the big kids at school told them Santa wasn't real.

Hermy

No

therightstuff wrote: »

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

That is an incredibly damning report.

petethedrummer

No

robs1 wrote: »

it can't be one opinion for Armstrong and one for other cheats

Actually why don't you start a thread about them and see if you have to explain the obvious to a bunch of deluded fanboys.

You won't have to because;
a) anyone sticking the boot into Armstrong knows those guys also doped,
b) the Armstrong defenders don't know who those other cyclists are.

Edit: I'll do it for you.