'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

aloyisious

No

Beasty wrote: »

Wonder where this puts me - working in finance and cycling in my spare time ...

Probably in the "good" camp, working and cycling

TheBlaaMan

No

I have to say that I really enjoyed that. There were quite a few nice insights into stuff that we had heard before (eg the friction in the 2009 Astana squad) but we saw in detail from a different angle. Also I was surprised to see on-bike footage of the TdF - I thought UCI specifically forbid this? In any case, it whetted the appetite for more footage of this kind.

It was also strange to see the Armstrong mask apparently slip occasionally and show a more vulnerable side to him. He's still a dick, mind you.

Cyclewizard

Beasty wrote: »

Wonder where this puts me - working in finance and cycling in my spare time ...

Depends which you prefer!

.ak

Beasty wrote: »

Wonder where this puts me - working in finance and cycling in my spare time ...

Depends on how much drugs you take to work in finance.

LennoxR

No

The only real question left about the Armstrong era is whether, as Frankie Andreu surprisingly says in the film, 'he won the tour by the rules of the road at the time', implying that he just did the same amount of drugs as everyone else; or as Greg Lemond argues, his intensive chemical preparation elevated an average rider into the best (if only for one event).

According to Lemond, if everyone had ridden clean Armstrong would have been beaten by his teammates Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis. I'd lean towards Lemond because, if you read Daniel Coyle's book on the 2004 Tour, you see that his 'numbers' (wattage per weight etc) were lower than Landis in early season training and it was only after solitary 'preparation' with Ferrari in Majorca or somewhere that they rose above his teammates'.

The way I see it Armstrong prepared meticulously, including chemical preparation and blood transfusions, to prepare his body to win one particular event. He had more money and better protection from testing (via contacts with the UCI) so that he could do this. Had he not had these special factors he couldn't have won one Tour. Were these really the rules of the road? Could you say the same about riders like Ullrich? Maybe you could, I don't know.

But if Armstrong was such a great rider then how come post 1999 he didn't win, and hardly even challenged for a single other major race? (Possible exception the Tour de Suisse in 2001) It seems more likely that without special preparation he was not up there with teh highest elite of cyclists.

gordongekko

LennoxR wrote: »

But if Armstrong was such a great rider then how come post 1999 he didn't win, and hardly even challenged for a single other major race? (Possible exception the Tour de Suisse in 2001) It seems more likely that without special preparation he was not up there with teh highest elite of cyclists.

you could say the same about a lot of the current generation of cyclists as well. However it seems to be that they just target one big race a year.

Raam

No

mitosis

No

Interesting excerpt in NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sports/cycling/end-of-the-ride-for-lance-armstrong.html?_r=0

furiousox

No

Amazon link to the book in question.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycle-Lies-Fall-Lance-Armstrong-ebook/dp/B00AXPJQI4/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393947414&sr=1-3&keywords=lance+armstrong

ZiabR

mitosis wrote: »

Interesting excerpt in NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sports/cycling/end-of-the-ride-for-lance-armstrong.html?_r=0

Good read alright!

G2ECE

No

mitosis wrote: »

Interesting excerpt in NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sports/cycling/end-of-the-ride-for-lance-armstrong.html?_r=0

...... honestly.... who do Trek think they are???? Lance took all those drugs so they could sell loadza bikes.

Leroy42

But LA does have a point, which he also makes in the doc. A lot of people made a lot of money from him, and had a deep interest in the whole story continuing.

It seems like we are supposed to believe that none of these companies, who were investing millions in LA never questioned, never raised the issue? It gave Nike a buy into the sport, Trek sales went through the roof, not to mention all the other equipment and clothing etc.

That;s fine, and I understand the whole endoresment thing, but they dropped him as if they had nothing to do with it and sailed off leaving him to pick up the pieces (for which I have no sympathy btw).

mcgratheoin

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

That;s fine, and I understand the whole endoresment thing, but they dropped him as if they had nothing to do with it and sailed off leaving him to pick up the pieces (for which I have no sympathy btw).

Good point - for example I'd be very interested in knowing exactly what went on at Oakley regarding the Stephanie McIlvain testimony.

The tax man

No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QfmKivPwjI

buffalo

No

Just when you thought it was safe... "The US Anti-Doping Agency is prepared to reveal the list of 37 redacted names included in its investigation of Lance Armstrong to the independent commission created to look into the sport's tarnished past."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/were-running-out-of-time-to-clean-up-dirty-system-30112184.html

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-to-supply-circ-with-an-unredacted-reasoned-decision

Capt'n Midnight

No

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26636371

US researchers have developed a new way to detect performance-enhancing drugs that they say is 1,000 times more sensitive than current tests.

In the laboratory, the new screen detected stimulants and steroids in minute concentrations.

The method is inexpensive and works with existing equipment, the scientists claim.

...
"With steroids, it's about two orders of magnitude, about 100 times more sensitive. We may be able to detect a steroid or something that's long-lived a couple of years after it was taken," said Dr Armstrong.

Dr Armstrong :pac:

Of course the test can't pickup on blood swapping or human hormones but it would be interesting to run it on old samples, even anonymously just to get a feel for the levels of cheating in the past.

pelevin

Tobh I know he passed all the tests but I still have my doubts about Armstrong.

Slo_Rida

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26636371Dr Armstrong :pac:

Of course the test can't pickup on blood swapping or human hormones but it would be interesting to run it on old samples, even anonymously just to get a feel for the levels of cheating in the past.

But the lack of sensitivity isn't the problem with cheaters not being caught.

Jawgap

Armstrong’s whistleblower reveals all

From the paper of record.....

The day Emma O’Reilly was hired as a soigneur with the US Postal Service cycling team she rang home in Tallaght to tell her family.

“A swan what?” she was asked.

“A swan-your,” she replied. “It’s French for looking after people. I’ll be looking after the riders.”

It was January 1996 and O’Reilly was 25-years-old, but before long one of the riders she would look after was Lance Armstrong. Except O’Reilly would not be just massaging his legs or refilling his drinks; soon, she would be crossing the French border into Spain to collect doping products on his behalf. Or, on the eve of Armstrong’s first of seven successive Tour de France victories in 1999, using her make-up to help conceal puncture marks on his arm.

fat bloke

No

Great article. Jaysus she felt right hard done by by David Walsh! I'd never have thought that!

evilivor

No

More Armstrong this weekend - BBC Four this Sunday night at 9pm.

The Lance Armstrong Story - Stop at Nothing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b048wq0z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S4A52JFUOY

And Channel 4 are showing The Armstrong Lie the following night.

Eamonnator

No

Emma O'Reilly was on the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio 1, this morning.

godtabh

Eamonnator wrote: »

Emma O'Reilly was on the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio 1, this morning.

Indo have quoted her here

Link

paddyh117

No

Eamonnator wrote: »

Emma O'Reilly was on the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio 1, this morning.

Interview is here

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20609924%3A0%3A%3A

Jawgap

She's due to be on Matt Cooper this evening

SWL

If Armstrong spoke about my character in the same manner he did about about Emma O' Reilly, he would be the last person I would ask to contribute to my book, of course he happily obliged to begin his PR reinvention, but its disappointing to see O'Reilly go so low especially when a big deal was made about Armstrong comments in the first place.

But it appears everybody has a price, as Armstrong has made a contribution to the book I won't be buying it.

Tombo2001

SWL wrote: »

But it appears everybody has a price, as Armstrong has made a contribution to the book I won't be buying it.

Are you saying she sold out?

SWL

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Are you saying she sold out?

Having Armstrong contribute to the book ,yes I think see did,I think it was a bad move, its turning into a pantomime and I think Emma lacks some creditability as a result, if Betsy Andreu had done it I would say the same

Brian?

No

SWL wrote: »

Having Armstrong contribute to the book ,yes I think see did,I think it was a bad move, its turning into a pantomime and I think Emma lacks some creditability as a result, if Betsy Andreu had done it I would say the same

I can't agree at all. She deserves every success with the book after what she went through, if Lance throwing in a forward helps then so be it. He's in no way benefiting from it.

Germancarfan

Now, in the foreword to her book, he describes her as someone he admires deeply: “I honestly don’t know if I’d have the courage and character to do what Emma did,” writes Armstrong. “This won’t come as a shock to anyone but this woman is a much better person than I am or ever will be.”

He's going for a psychological benefit IMO. With the foreword he's saying " she's better than me for doing what she did , therefore I've been a bad man , therefore i'm acknowledging I've done wrong , therefore please rest assured i'm not evil anymore " - beginning of a crawl back to a positive public eye ?

the danger for Emma would be a perception that's she's giving him a platform to martyr himself on.

Maybe i'm taking to much from it. I still struggle to understand my personal anger at him.