'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

hardCopy

No

walshb wrote: »

I believe Armstrong did dope. But, he won them races. He didn't have a jet engine attached to his bike. He still went through the pain and he still came out on top. I do no condone cheating, but the man never ever tested positive for illegal drugs in sport/cycling!

Also, someone should tell Bradley Wiggins that there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence.

No jet engine but he had a massive blue train to drag him around.

He can claim all the wins he wants but the record will show that he didn't win a single Tour.

Guybrush T

No

walshb wrote: »

I believe Armstrong did dope. But, he won them races. He didn't have a jet engine attached to his bike. He still went through the pain and he still came out on top. I do no condone cheating, but the man never ever tested positive for illegal drugs in sport/cycling!

marienbad wrote: »

I find this kind of post just so depressing .

Why do you find it depressing? Apart from the idiosyncratic grammar?

ThisRegard wrote: »

Not going anywhere near the reasoned decision report, but with the various posts in this thread alone descirbing how even if everyone was doping it's still not a level playing field you're still going down this road ?

I don't understand the level playing field argument. Sport isn't a level playing field, if you win the genetic lottery you can be a world class athlete if you work hard. Either because you have a vast amount of natural ability like LeMond, or you have a body that responds well to EPO/Blood doping like Armstrong. The only difference is natural ability is within the rules and EPO isn't, but if you are going to be a moral absolutist about it and say:

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

He didn't. He cheated. And his support cheated. He's a cheating cheater, and he won nothing. Tried to steal plenty though.

Then over the last thirty odd years of the TdF you've maybe got LeMond, Sastre? and Evans to admire. Is that enough? Why would you still watch professional cycling?

I'm don't like Armstrong because he's a narcissistic, bullying, blackmailing egomaniac and hypocrite. The fact he used PEDs to come first like a great many other pro cyclists isn't that big a deal to me.

petethedrummer

No

walshb wrote: »

He still went through the pain

Yes, but slightly less pain than the guy with the 40% hematocrit and the normal levels of testosterone.

Does your failed logic apply to Ben Johnson or Shane Mosley also?

Kav0777

No

Guybrush T wrote: »

Then over the last thirty odd years of the TdF you've maybe got LeMond, Sastre? and Evans to admire. Is that enough? Why would you still watch professional cycling?

Why do you assume you can only admire winners?

marienbad

No

Guybrush T wrote: »

Why do you find it depressing? Apart from the idiosyncratic grammar?



I don't understand the level playing field argument. Sport isn't a level playing field, if you win the genetic lottery you can be a world class athlete if you work hard. Either because you have a vast amount of natural ability like LeMond, or you have a body that responds well to EPO/Blood doping like Armstrong. The only difference is natural ability is within the rules and EPO isn't, but if you are going to be a moral absolutist about it and say:




Then over the last thirty odd years of the TdF you've maybe got LeMond, Sastre? and Evans to admire. Is that enough? Why would you still watch professional cycling?

I'm don't like Armstrong because he's a narcissistic, bullying, blackmailing egomaniac and hypocrite. The fact he used PEDs to come first like a great many other pro cyclists isn't that big a deal to me.

I can't understand this argument - sport is meant to be a level playing field purely bases on our own abilities. The fact that we are all gifted with different levels of ability is secondary. It is to find those of us who use those abiliies as best they can to get to to top. Very rarely do those with the best ''natural '' talent dominate. It is the guys ( and girls) with hard work ,savy ,ruthlessness that can make it .

For every Federer there is a Courier making a limited ability go a long way and that is part of the greatness of sport. Of watching great athlethes in decline prolong their years through sheer guts intelligence and bloodmindedness - Ali and Zidane for example.

Then along comes a guy like LA and he can't make it one way so it makes it another and you condone it ?

He reduced the ''sport'' to whoever has the bests chemists doctors and money. I might as well watch Formula 1 if I want to watch science at work .

Undercover Elephant

Guybrush T wrote: »

I don't understand the level playing field argument. Sport isn't a level playing field, if you win the genetic lottery you can be a world class athlete if you work hard. Either because you have a vast amount of natural ability like LeMond, or you have a body that responds well to EPO/Blood doping like Armstrong. The only difference is natural ability is within the rules and EPO isn't

That's a significant difference, though.

You can make an argument for EPO to be allowed and just have a max haemocrit level instead. Then it's much more about bravery than natural physiology. I'm not convinced I would agree with this, because of the potential health problems, but it's at least tenable.

But if it's against the rules, then part of the competition becomes who's best at avoiding detection. This will tend to favour money over both bravery and physiology, so it's self-defeating.

fran oconnor

No

can Emma O'Reilly counter claim Lance now that he's a filthy known doper, anybody that has paid compo to that dirty cheat should get there money back.

Dermot Illogical

No

Guybrush T wrote: »

Why would you still watch professional cycling?

I watch it as I might watch pro wrestling. Believing it's real is out of the question.

ThisRegard

No

Dick Pound will be on Off the Ball later.

Lusk Doyle

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

Dick Pound will be on Off the Ball later.

That name would be much funnier with an "er" tagged on at the end! Then they could say "LA slammed by dick pounder" :P

Funkyzeit

No

hardCopy wrote: »

I wouldn't put the blame on individual testers, they're presumably just following protocols.
.

Not all them though. In Hamiltons book he mentions 1 tester who used to ring the day before just to check they (the cyclists) were going to be around for testing so he wouldn't have a wasted trip !!:eek:

Granolite

marienbad wrote: »

I can't understand this argument - sport is meant to be a level playing field purely bases on our own abilities. The fact that we are all gifted with different levels of ability is secondary. It is to find those of us who use those abiliies as best they can to get to to top. Very rarely do those with the best ''natural '' talent dominate. It is the guys ( and girls) with hard work ,savy ,ruthlessness that can make it .

For every Federer there is a Courier making a limited ability go a long way and that is part of the greatness of sport. Of watching great athlethes in decline prolong their years through sheer guts intelligence and bloodmindedness - Ali and Zidane for example.

Then along comes a guy like LA and he can't make it one way so it makes it another and you condone it ?

He reduced the ''sport'' to whoever has the bests chemists doctors and money. I might as well watch Formula 1 if I want to watch science at work .

Very well put.

a148pro

No

marienbad wrote: »

Then along comes a guy like LA and he can't make it one way so it makes it another and you condone it ?

I just read from Lance to Landis and I think its important to note that, at least as described by Walsh then, Lance came to the Tour at a time when other teams were killing it because they were on EPO. He was pissed at this and, again as characterised by Walsh, decided that something had to be done (i.e., get better at doping themselves).

So much as I enjoy the vitriol of this thread directed at Lance, who I think is about as objectionable a person as can be imagined, I think people shouldn't lose sight of the fact that cycling was sick long long long before Lance got involved, remained sick afterwards and, most likely, is still very sick indeed now.

Hermy

No

Guybrush T wrote: »

The fact he used PEDs to come first like a great many other pro cyclists isn't that big a deal to me.

The fact that Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs means he didn't come first.

ThisRegard

No

You only have to go back to posts made this afternoon to see comments made about drug use in the late 80s, most people here would be aware that it's being going on long before Armstrong came along.

marienbad

No

a148pro wrote: »

I just read from Lance to Landis and I think its important to note that, at least as described by Walsh then, Lance came to the Tour at a time when other teams were killing it because they were on EPO. He was pissed at this and, again as characterised by Walsh, decided that something had to be done (i.e., get better at doping themselves).

So much as I enjoy the vitriol of this thread directed at Lance, who I think is about as objectionable a person as can be imagined, I think people shouldn't lose sight of the fact that cycling was sick long long long before Lance got involved, remained sick afterwards and, most likely, is still very sick indeed now.

Indeed it was and still is (imho) , but LA brought it to a level of sophistication and specialisation that utterly destroyed it possibly beyond recovery. And no amount of yellow bracelets will justify that.

fran oconnor

No

I hope that bullying bastard Lance rots, pure and utter scum.

marienbad

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

You only have to go back to posts made this afternoon to see comments made about drug use in the late 80s, most people here would be aware that it's being going on long before Armstrong came along.

So what are you saying ? That the makes it ok so ? LA is guiltier than most - not just because he is the best liar and cheat sport has ever seen. Not even because he slandered any decent person to cross his path. Not even because he bullied clean cyclists out of the sport.

But because there was a window of opportunity post the Festina affair and he could have been the poster boy for that renaissance and used all that charm and drive to rescue his sport - imagine that story !

But no when push came to shove he lacked the courage to back his own cycling ability and choose ''the road more travelled'' as Hamilton called it.

And what is his legacy ? A sport beyond redemption ?

corny

No

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed it was and still is (imho) , but LA brought it to a level of sophistication and specialisation that utterly destroyed it possibly beyond recovery. And no amount of yellow bracelets will justify that.

He didn't really. Ferrari did. Armstrong just had the good sense (for him anyway) to ally himself to Ferrari along the way. Given the opportunity Ullrich, Zulle, Riis, Pantani, etc they'd all have bitten your hand off to take it to that level. Thats the point i think was being made.

You can't single out a man just because he succeeds in something everyone is trying to do.

ThisRegard

No

marienbad wrote: »

So what are you saying ? That the makes it ok so ?

It was a reply to the post 2 before mine reminding people that cycling was sick long before the Armstrong era and I was saying yes, there was a discussion on it only this afternoon on this very same thread.

drogdub

No

marienbad wrote: »

So what are you saying ?
But because there was a window of opportunity post the Festina affair and he could have been the poster boy for that renaissance and used all that charm and drive to rescue his sport - imagine that story !


And what is his legacy ? A sport beyond redemption ?

Agree about after Festina. Both Hamilton and Ullrichs coach have said that in 1999 the peloton were mostly clean because according to Ullrichs coach they were scared s****ess, but when they saw Armstrong on Seistreire they knew it was back to doping.

On the legacy, up to today I thought there actually seemed to be a a positive fallout riders willing to come clean and admitting dodgy pasts, unlike after operation puerto. But with Levi's sacking, it is sending a message that if you do admit to a past, you will get fired. This will only drive the problem back underground where it will fester again, like the cancer it is.

Hermy

No

drogdub wrote: »

But with Levi's sacking, it is sending a message that if you do admit to a past, you will get fired.

Surely those who decide to admit their past will have to accept whatever punishment comes their way. Just because you fess up doesn't mean you should be immune from penalty.

drogdub

No

Hermy wrote: »

Surely those who decide to admit their past will have to accept whatever punishment comes their way. Just because you fess up doesn't mean you should be immune from penalty.

Yes they should be punished, but by the authorities (admititidly with the ICI involved the theory is alot more convincing than in practise). But if a team believe a rider hasn't doped with them then maybe the Garmin approach is better, acknowledge the past but ride clean in the present and future.

Ole Rodrigo

No

corny wrote: »

You can't single out a man just because he succeeds in something everyone is trying to do.

It's extent to which he lied and bullied thats really grinding peoples gears, more so than the doping itself. The report has shown how widespread - even normalized - it was, and probably still is across all Athletic sports . Even Micheal Ashenden has said he doesn't watch the Olympics because he knows whats going on. That is sobering. The guy who masterminds much of the anti doping programs concedes it is largely ineffective. LA, rotten and all that he is, is just part of something bigger and worse.

Malcolm Gladwell made some interesting points on a recent US sports show with Bill Simmons ( itunes podcast, worth a listen on the broader issue of Athletics doping, he discusses LA towards the end ), he said that doping techniques will always by their nature remain at least one step ahead of the testers, so therefore there will always be dopers. He also questions the definition of doping, taking testosterone as an example, by saying that a mans natural testosterone levels will start to fall at a certain age..usually 28 or 30. So by taking it later he is essentially restoring what he once had, and arguably not creating an undue advantage. On one hand he does everything to maximize advantage, plenty of sleep, the right diet, optimized training..but replacing his declining hormone is not allowed. He also said that sports fans have an unrealistic desire to see their sporting heroes as pure in their courage, their commitment, talent and competitiveness..but history has shown that this is for the most part a naive fantasy.He says the only logical way to give people what they want from Athletics is controlled doping, let cyclists be like F1 racing..the product of the complete application of science. Otherwise it will most likely be history repeating itself in another 10/ 12 years, Festina Mk 3, with genetic doping being the new EPO.

MPFG

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

This whole show is going to make a great movie.

Who will play Kimmage?
Who will play Armstrong?
Who will play Hamilton?
Who will play Big George's wife??
But what I really want to know is: who will play Shane Stokes???

Kimmage - Gabriel Byrne
Armstrong - Russell Crowe but after 9 months method acting/cycling on Alp d'Huez
Hamilton - Ryan Gosling in a wig ( he doesn't sound like Sean Penn...its a cowboy actor)
Big George - Steven Segal ...After being on a severe diet
Big Georges's wife ......Merly Streep in a wig
Shane Stokes ......Justin Beiber

Hermy

No

ror_74 wrote: »

...taking testosterone as an example, by saying that a mans natural testosterone levels will start to fall at a certain age..usually 28 or 30. So by taking it later he is essentially restoring what he once had, and arguably not creating an undue advantage...

But he is cheating. And doing so while all the time insisting that he is not cheating. If you are going to compete in a sanctioned event you must obey the rules of the sport - otherwise there's no point in keeping score.

petethedrummer

No

corny wrote: »

He didn't really. Ferrari did. Armstrong just had the good sense (for him anyway) to ally himself to Ferrari along the way. Given the opportunity Ullrich, Zulle, Riis, Pantani, etc they'd all have bitten your hand off to take it to that level. Thats the point i think was being made.

You can't single out a man just because he succeeds in something everyone is trying to do.

As far as we know; None of those guys bought off the testers. None of those guys tried to destroy the reputations of people who spoke the truth. None of those guys sued people who couldn't afford to fight back. None of them intimidated a witness. None of them took it upon themselves to overtly bully Simeoni or Bassons. Ullrich, Zulle, Riis all admitted to doping in the end, Armstrong still hasn't.

There ARE different levels of cheating and classless behaviour. In this world of cheats, Armstrong was the absolute King. And you CAN single him out for his unrelenting need to corrupt the entire system and destroy everyone who stood in his way.

Hermy

No

MPFG wrote: »

Kimmage - Gabriel Byrne

+1:cool:

How about Aaron Eckhart as Armstrong?

Ole Rodrigo

No

Hermy wrote: »

But he is cheating. And doing so while all the time insisting that he is not cheating. If you are going to compete in a sanctioned event you must obey the rules of the sport - otherwise there's no point in keeping score.

I dont think he was questioning what was cheating and what wasn't..but more how realistic or fair the rules where in the first place.

Hermy

No

ror_74 wrote: »

I dont think he was questioning what was cheating and what wasn't..but more how realistic or fair the rules where in the first place.

The cyclists mentioned in the USADA report didn't give a damn about rules or fairness. They cared only about crossing the line first.