'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

petethedrummer

No

Flandria wrote: »

1991 seems to have become generally accepted as a 'year zero' for EPO but I'm not sure that it wasnt in cycling earlier than that. I think its fair to suggest that if an undetectable wonder drug was available at trial stage then the nefarious doctors that associate with cycling might well have had access to it very early on. I'm sure I recall Stephen Rooks admitting to using it in the 1989 TDF and I think the first of the spate of 'thick blood' cyclist deaths was in 1988. IIRC the IOC discussed concerns about some performances at the 1986 winter Olympics that were comparable to EPO use. Luckily there were no outstanding superhuman performances in cycling from that period for us to concern ourselves with...;);)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin

Ah yeah, sure the US track cycling team is supposed to have experimented with transfusions around '84 as did the Norwegian runners in the 70s. HGH was available too but you had to get it from dead bodies. Nice.

blorg

No

AstraMonti wrote: »

vetinari wrote: »

A bit OTT.

His foundation has done a lot of good work. Him doping doesn't invalidate that.

Give me 5 examples of what good his foundation has done (apart from the awareness.. even my 150y old aunt knows what cancer is by now..)

This is a very good article (I think from earlier in the thread) on the charity. The summary is that it is quite well run, does some good and useful work and it is reasonable to focus on what they focus on as they are tiny compared to other charities/public bodies in the US funding research and so would only be a drop in the ocean (who fund to the tune of billions per year.)

Importantly there is no suggestion of any financial impropriety and Lance bought the jet himself, not out of charity funds.

*However*, it is also clear that the whole thing is designed to promote the brand of Lance as much as anything else. Long but well worth reading.

dave2pvd

No

blorg wrote: »

This is a very good article (I think from earlier in the thread) on the charity. The summary is that it is quite well run, does some good and useful work and it is reasonable to focus on what they focus on as they are tiny compared to other charities/public bodies in the US funding research and so would only be a drop in the ocean (who fund to the tune of billions per year.)

Importantly there is no suggestion of any financial impropriety and Lance bought the jet himself, not out of charity funds.

*However*, it is also clear that the whole thing is designed to promote the brand of Lance as much as anything else. Long but well worth reading.

Indeed, he very succinctly makes the point that others here have alluded to:

"“The issue with Lance Armstrong isn’t whether he has done good for cancer victims,” accounting professor Mark Zimbelman wrote on his blog Fraudbytes, in a post comparing Mortenson to Armstrong, “but rather, whether he first cheated to beat his opponents, then used his fraudulent titles to help promote an organization that appears to do good but also enriches a fraudster.”"

On the other hand:

Regarding 'awareness': I think people underestimate (or don't understand?) how important it is. Awareness is what compels someone to get medical attention quickly when something is amiss - often issues that are embarrassing, particularly for men. "Ah sure it will pass". Awareness is what encourages many to self check, e.g. for breast or testicular cancer. Awareness is knowing that the freckle on your arm should not have changed shape in the last month. Awareness is understanding that factor 15 sun cream is all but useless for Irish skin.

Good article here. An excerpt from that underlines the need for early detection that can come with awareness:

A good example of the importance of finding cancer early is melanoma skin cancer. It can be easy to remove if it has not grown deep into the skin. The 5-year survival rate (percentage of people who live at least 5 years after diagnosis) at this stage is nearly 100%. Once melanoma has spread to other parts of the body, the 5-year survival rate drops below 20%.

Also note the 'early Detection' links for men and women.

People very close to me have passed away that most probably would have lived longer with early detection. That's why I feel strongly that awareness is important. Awareness is just as important as the cure, IMO.

Ole Rodrigo

No

JONATHAN VAUGHTERS piece is interesting with regard to the choices facing those who dope, as much as how to deal with it.

Hermy

No

Reekwind wrote: »

I think a lot of people in this thread don't quite grasp the meaning of the term "witch-hunt"

A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching...

Regarding moral panic and mass hysteria Lance is probably the most culpable of turning this into a witch-hunt.

Reekwind

No

Capt'n Midnight put it best here. Witches don't exist; with-hunts are a frenzied reaction to an imaginary or greatly exaggerated threat

Hermy

No

So you're saying Lance isn't real!:eek:

Reekwind

No

No, I'm saying that he's very real and a doper. Hence it would be inaccurate to call this a witch-hunt

Lusk Doyle

No

Reekwind wrote: »

No, I'm saying that he's very real and a doper. Hence it would be inaccurate to call this a witch-hunt

That sounds like witch craft to me....

petethedrummer

No

Just got this from the Clinic... Phil "The Journalist" Ligget speaks his mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJz4kwm9mXc

corny

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Just got this from the Clinic... Phil "The Journalist" Ligget speaks his mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJz4kwm9mXc

Generally like to keep an open mind on everything but honestly i couldn't listen to all of that.

kumate_champ07

I pity Chris Boardman when he has to work by his side doing the track cycling commentary. Phil mentioned he did 6day racing during the olympics, but earlier that day he said that the track cyclists spend their time doing pushups and shoulder presses in the gym, he doesnt seem to have a clue.

kumate_champ07

ha! he mentioned the 500 drugs tests

and that people forget that he raised so much money for cancer...

buffalo

No

Liggett's a conspiracy theorist - "they have a reason for doing this, and it's not what they say... there's an underlying reason for all of this, and they're not saying".

brandon_flowers

No

Lost a lot of respect for Liggett recently, of course he was one of the sheep who didn't want to speak out about LA or any dopers because it has a direct influence on his job. No LA, no big viewers, less money for Phil.

However now that LA is ****ed for ever more and will not compete in a road race again he could easily change his tune.

He is a great "in the moment" commentator but a complete knob with his opinions, part of the "cancer in cycling" so to say.

petethedrummer

No

brandon_flowers wrote: »

race again he could easily change his tune.

He has been poo pooing the Landis allegations since they first emerged, unlike Harmon and Kelly who have been softly avoiding the issue. He won't change his tune. He wants another spin in the jet.

Raam

No

Phil is a paid speaker at Livestrong events.
http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.png

Clanket

Yes, but he's still great

I came onto this thread and voted "No" to the "Did Lance dope" question. I done this for the simple reason that I do not follow cycling and formed my opinion based on the fact that LA has done a serious amount of drug tests and they never showed anything.

However, after fully reading this thread and a lot of the links this morning, it's pretty obvious that he is a cheat. So I'd like to change my vote to Yes. Shame on him. It's one thing to dope, it's a whole other kettle of fish to dope, continually lie about it, seek financial gain from your lies and ruin peoples reputations/lives with your lies.

And the fact that he's still playing the game and will not admit it makes him a vile creature in my eyes.

Cienciano

No

blorg wrote: »

This is a very good article (I think from earlier in the thread) on the charity. The summary is that it is quite well run, does some good and useful work and it is reasonable to focus on what they focus on as they are tiny compared to other charities/public bodies in the US funding research and so would only be a drop in the ocean (who fund to the tune of billions per year.)

Importantly there is no suggestion of any financial impropriety and Lance bought the jet himself, not out of charity funds.

*However*, it is also clear that the whole thing is designed to promote the brand of Lance as much as anything else. Long but well worth reading.

Good article.
Ken Early mentioned on off the ball that Marion Jones biggest mistake was that she never set up a charity.

brandon_flowers

No

Raam wrote: »

Phil is a paid speaker at Livestrong events.
http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.png

The most ridiculous thing on this organogram is the connection between Amgen and Armstrong.

Vested interest in developing an undetectable EPO for both.

Joxer_S

No

From the Phil Liggett Interview, for those who couldn't stomach it past the first few minutes.

and he's actually seen people fight back and beat the disease because of he's intense way he delivers his words

Not only does Lance fight cancer, he cures it too.

Cienciano

No

Joxer_S wrote: »

From the Phil Liggett Interview, for those who couldn't stomach it past the first few minutes.



Not only does Lance fight cancer, he cures it too.

I couldn't listen to it past a minute, but if there's more stuff like that is sounds like it at least gets funny.
Is Liggett the chairman of the Lance Armstrong fan club? Although, his job is on the line, he said he'd retire if lance doped
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/liggett-on-armstrong-the-whole-investigation-was-a-waste-of-money

“He told me in a private situation, when I wasn’t working as a journalist. I was sat in the bedroom some years ago, and I asked him point blank, ‘look Lance, the way I talked you up on television, I would have to back off and resign if you one day went positive’. And he looked at me and he said ‘man I’ve seen death in the face and I don’t take drugs.’ And that’s all he said. I have no reason to disbelieve him.”

mcgratheoin

No

Joxer_S wrote: »

Not only does Lance fight cancer, he cures it too.

I hate this insinuation that you can beat cancer if you try hard enough.

He makes it out as if he just decided that he wasn't going to let the cancer kill him and that was that. There are thousands of people out there who do everything in their power to survive cancer and still succumb to the disease, but this crap from Lance and supporters like Ligget makes out as if they didn't want it enough, or try hard enough, or listen to Lance's inspirational words. Ask Jim Stynes' family about cancer and he may learn exactly what fighting a disease means. Lance underwent his operations and then received chemo for 2 months - he was diagnosed in October and had his last chemo that December.

(Note that I am not in any way trivialising the ordeal he went through, or that of cancer sufferers of any stripe)

Capt'n Midnight

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I hate this insinuation that you can beat cancer if you try hard enough.

Optimism helps people cope with cancer. It doesn't cure it.

Giving people false hope that will most likely be dashed probably isn't doing them any favours. Giving people realistic expectations means they can get on with their lives.

Steve Jobs would probably still be alive if he just got medical treatment instead of relying on optimism and willpower.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/12/1076548155849.html

"We should question whether it is valuable to encourage optimism if it results in the patient concealing his or her distress in the misguided belief that this will afford survival benefits," the study's lead author, Penelope Schofield, wrote. "If a patient feels generally pessimistic ... it is important to acknowledge these feelings as valid and acceptable."
...
A positive attitude can help lead to healthier eating habits, stopping smoking, drinking less, exercising more and learning more information about one's disease and treatment options. Cancer patients have learned to live with therapy, avoid fatigue and have even returned to work, said LaMar McGinnis, senior medical consultant for the Atlanta-based society.

"It is disappointing they don't reflect on quality of life," Dr McGinnis said. "We did not have any illusions that optimism influences therapy but we do believe that optimism and hope do influence the quality of life a patient has."

RobFowl

No

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/video-liggett-says-armstrong-witnesses-bought-usada-lacks-jurisdiction_236877

furiousox

No

RobFowl wrote: »

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/video-liggett-says-armstrong-witnesses-bought-usada-lacks-jurisdiction_236877

Interviewer is useless, didn't press Liggett at all, just nods in agreement to everything even when he says Armstrong never failed a test.

el tel

No

I reckon Ligget would happily sit and sniff the padding of Armstrongs post-Galibier shorts for hours.

Flandria

No

http://firephilliggett.tumblr.com/post/30536787541/welcome-to-fire-phil-liggett

MrCreosote

brandon_flowers wrote: »

The most ridiculous thing on this organogram is the connection between Amgen and Armstrong.

Vested interest in developing an undetectable EPO for both.

This is silly. Lance has no interest in an undetectable EPO. The blood passport means it doesn't matter if it's detectible directly or not

As for Amgen- why is it ridiculous that they have an interest in an expensive medication that has helped thousands of people worldwide? The doping aspect of EPO is the tiny tip of a pretty big iceberg.

Pisco Sour

No

Did anybody see that report on Eurosportnews of Armstrong giving a cancer conference speach in Montreal? His quote was more or less the below:

"Hi, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Lance Armstrong. I am a cancer survivor. I'm a father of 5.....[PAUSE, ARROGANT SMIRK] and that's right, I won the Tour de France 7 times".

[MASS APPLAUSE]

:mad::mad::mad: