'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Chips Lovell

No

joker77 wrote: »

One small point though about your post - 'force them to make choices'. Would you class it as force? There is a choice there, but free will was exercised.

I'd say it can depend on the choice. Some people can leave and move into another well paying job that doesn't involve ethical dilemmas. Some people's alternatives may be far less palatable.

I'm sure not everyone would agree with me. I'm convinced Paul Kimmage would call those guys cowards for example. But having seen more than a few people stuck in jobs where they aren't comfortable doing some of the stuff asked of them, I'd be reluctant to take the moral high ground.

Surinam

No

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm not sure what it was called, pretty sure Ger Gilroy was presenting. The interview started at 3pm and was about half an hour long.

Found it - great interview, Lance truly is a scumbag :eek: How he treated his Irish masseuse when she raised concerns, says it all.
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/47224/saturday/1/popup

Click on part 2 and you'll find it in there for anyone else interested.

Monty Burnz

No

Surinam wrote: »

Found it - great interview, Lance truly is a scumbag :eek: How he treated his Irish masseuse when she raised concerns, says it all.
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/47224/saturday/1/popup

Click on part 2 and you'll find it in there for anyone else interested.

Just listening to how he publicly declared Emily O'Reilly an alcoholic and a prostitute to try to get her evidence dismissed. He does sound like a pyschopath alright.

Now listening to how he drove one of the clean cyclists out of the sport.

RedTexan

No

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls
Think it says it all

Waitsian

No

RedTexan wrote: »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls
Think it says it all

Quote: "Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

alfalad

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'd say it can depend on the choice. Some people can leave and move into another well paying job that doesn't involve ethical dilemmas. Some people's alternatives may be far less palatable.

I'm sure not everyone would agree with me. I'm convinced Paul Kimmage would call those guys cowards for example. But having seen more than a few people stuck in jobs where they aren't comfortable doing some of the stuff asked of them, I'd be reluctant to take the moral high ground.

Think most people would see both sides of the argument, and looking back journalists may feel bad about the choices they made, but at the time they were trying to make a living and create their career, not getting a story for your paper that you were meant to get I'm sure wouldn't help that career, or put bread in the table.

corny

No

mod9maple wrote: »

Quote: "Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

Well its either true or Sky really have brought cycling to a new level with only a couple of years experience in the game.

alfalad

No

corny wrote: »

Well its either true or Sky really have brought cycling to a new level with only a couple of years experience in the game.

Think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that this and last's years tour were the slowest in a number of years.

alfalad

No

furiousox wrote: »

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

Times website doesn't want my money, and would love to know what it says. Hopefully they get it fixed later so i can buy a copy.

aca101

Don't suppose anyone could post up the article if they can get it? Meant to be a fantastic piece..

Beasty

No

mod9maple wrote: »

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

You could argue that no-one is free from suspicion given the way the sport has behaved in the past. However speculation about specific riders is not allowed on Boards

aca101 wrote: »

Don't suppose anyone could post up the article if they can get it? Meant to be a fantastic piece..

No - it's a premium service for a reason. If anyone wants to read it they need to subscribe or get hold of a copy of the paper. Boards rules do not allow the posting of such copyrighted material

brandon_flowers

No

I would like to ask one question to why does that believe USADA is undertaking a witch hunt against L.A.

Under what circumstances are they not allowed investigate him?

Inquitus

No

mod9maple wrote: »

Quote: "Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

That's simply not true, Wiggins and Froome are alot slower than the 90's riders and cannot put out anything like the same sustained power over a long tour climb.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

Have a read of that for some analysis.

Hungrycol

Yes, but he's still great

alfalad wrote: »

Think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that this and last's years tour were the slowest in a number of years.

This is probably also partly due to the fact the Sky dominated the peloton and enforced it's own pace from the front, i.e. a pace that suited them.

FrankGrimes

No

Hungrycol wrote: »

This is probably also partly due to the fact the Sky dominated the peloton and enforced it's own pace from the front, i.e. a pace that suited them.

Not sure if that post is intended to support what corny is implying, but it would seem contradictory if so - i.e. implying on the one hand that Sky's dominance is due to something untoward while on the other hand implying that the quantifiable evidence (in the Sports Scientist link above) which clearly depicts that the current performance as being far below those of the 2000s is only lower as Sky dominated the pacing to make it slower. Perhaps Sky are just dominating slower peletons?

There is no comparison, say, between Froome's attempted injections of pace towards the end of the Vuelta stage on Saturday and Armstrong's when Pantani won that infamous stage on Mont Ventoux (linked in this thread). One looked very human, the other looked super-human.

Again, I'm not sure if Hungrycol was trying to imply the above, but I'm sure there are those that would try to convince themselves that it's a valid argument, bizarre as it may seem.

I think it was niceonetom who posted above about the level of stupid arguments and failures of basic reasoning shown in so many peoples' views (generally poor informed) on Lance - pity I could only thank that post the once. It's reassuring to know though that if I ever find myself with a case to answer to a court or authorities that I can just refuse to contest the charge, tell everyone I'm innocent, and there's a decent proportion of people out there that will probably buy it.

Kev M

FrankGrimes wrote: »

It's reassuring to know though that if I ever find myself with a case to answer to a court or authorities that I can just refuse to contest the charge, tell everyone I'm innocent, and there's a decent proportion of people out there that will probably buy it.

Not necessarily buy it, but choose to support you anyway regardless of it!

Nobody knows the intricacies of what the top riders at the time (Lance's peak) were doing... apart from they were all doing whatever they could (inside and outside the rules) to compete and win. Sports scientists, physios, doctors, training programming, wind tunnels, equipment, nutrition, supplements, drugs etc. all falls under the same banner to me and many others - performance enhancement... but of course, some are allowed and others aren't. Morality, legality, it's a loaded topic and you can go round in circles all day and people will still disagree.

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view, even though I believe he used everything under the sun to enhance his performance. I feel sorry for the very honest few who might have had a chance at competing with him on a level playing field (if such a thing even exists!), but 'don't hate the player, hate the game' - pro cycling has needed to take measures to clean itself up for years (since way before big bad Lance came along ) and is finally appearing to do that now.

Hermy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view...

Greatest ever what?

Kev M

Hermy wrote: »

Greatest ever what?

Do you wanna say "no, for the greatest ever must have been clean"? That's the argument and you could go round in circles with it all day.

Hermy

No

I want to know what you think is great about Lance Armstrong.

Kev M

Hermy wrote: »

I want to know what you think is great about Lance Armstrong.

His ability to ride a bike over long distances fast.

corny

No

Kev M wrote: »

His ability to ride a bike over long distances fast.

Without EPO he'd have been an average maybe slightly above average cyclist.

Maybe a decent classics rider but we're lead to believe getting cancer transformed him into the most powerful climber cycling had seen. Absolute fairy tale stuff if you ask me.

hardCopy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Not necessarily buy it, but choose to support you anyway regardless of it!

Nobody knows the intricacies of what the top riders at the time (Lance's peak) were doing... apart from they were all doing whatever they could (inside and outside the rules) to compete and win. Sports scientists, physios, doctors, training programming, wind tunnels, equipment, nutrition, supplements, drugs etc. all falls under the same banner to me and many others - performance enhancement... but of course, some are allowed and others aren't. Morality, legality, it's a loaded topic and you can go round in circles all day and people will still disagree.

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view, even though I believe he used everything under the sun to enhance his performance. I feel sorry for the very honest few who might have had a chance at competing with him on a level playing field (if such a thing even exists!), but 'don't hate the player, hate the game' - pro cycling has needed to take measures to clean itself up for years (since way before big bad Lance came along ) and is finally appearing to do that now.

The big problem is that he didn't just play the game, he went to great lengths to protect the game and bully anybody who ever tried to change it, see Bassons, Simeoni, O'Reilly, Kimmage, Walsh, Andreu et al.

Kev M wrote: »

His ability to ride a bike over long distances fast.

Which came from a syringe.

RobFowl

No

Kev M wrote: »

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view.

Enjoy

alexanderomahon

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Kev M

corny wrote: »

Without EPO he'd have been an average maybe slightly above average cyclist.

Maybe a decent classics rider but we're lead to believe getting cancer transformed him into the most powerful climber cycling had seen. Absolute fairy tale stuff if you ask me.

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.

furiousox

No

Kev M

RobFowl wrote: »

Enjoy

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

Liamo08

corny wrote: »

Without EPO he'd have been an average maybe slightly above average cyclist.

Maybe a decent classics rider but we're lead to believe getting cancer transformed him into the most powerful climber cycling had seen. Absolute fairy tale stuff if you ask me.

To be fair he was World Champion at 21 over 3 years before he ever had cancer so I think it's safe to say that he was a pretty talented guy.

hardCopy

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Basically yes.

He had the best drug doctor on the circuit, he had private jets and helicopters to bring drugs across borders and he had enough money to drug his entire team.

Good drugs are expensive, drugs that can beat the tests are even more expensive, bribing the sports governing body to cover up tests and tip you off ahead of tests costs even more again. Lance had the money to pay for all that and more.

Monty Burnz

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Does it occur to you that it's not that the top riders were drug cheats, rather it's that the drug cheats were the top riders? And does this not make sense seeing as the whole point of doping is give you an advantage over more talented riders who aren't doping?

hardCopy

No

Liamo08 wrote: »

To be fair he was World Champion at 21 over 3 years before he ever had cancer so I think it's safe to say that he was a pretty talented guy.

But according to Frankie and Betsy Andreu he was already on drugs before he ever got cancer.

Reekwind

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Not necessarily, he was a good cyclist with a good team. But both he and his team-mates were doping, otherwise success would have been impossible

Doping isn't a magic wand that automatically produces a medal. A good cyclist who dopes will always be better than a decent cyclist who dopes (assuming the same treatment of drugs). But a good cyclist who's clean will seriously struggle to beat a decent cyclist who dopes. Which is one of the blackest marks against LA: so long as he was doping, and winning, everybody else had to dope just to keep up

Inquitus

No

EPO gives such a ridiculous performance boost it is not possible for an extremely talented pro to compete with a distincly average pro who's juiced on it.

Russman

No

This weight loss thing has always bugged/confused me about LA. I fully understand the "lose weight, climb faster" thing, it makes perfect sense.

However when you read LA's books, he made such a big thing of losing weight but when you see pre and post cancer photos, am I the only one who thinks he looks more or less the same weight/build/body shape ?? Certainly IMO there doesn't look to be a huge transformation, I wonder was this part of the ruse ? Or am I just blind to the obvious differences ?

I'm not doubting he had cancer or anything like that and I do think he doped, the weight thing has just always bugged me :-)

alexanderomahon

Reekwind wrote: »

Not necessarily, he was a good cyclist with a good team. But both he and his team-mates were doping, otherwise success would have been impossible

Doping isn't a magic wand that automatically produces a medal. A good cyclist who dopes will always be better than a decent cyclist who dopes (assuming the same treatment of drugs). But a good cyclist who's clean will seriously struggle to beat a decent cyclist who dopes. Which is one of the blackest marks against LA: so long as he was doping, and winning, everybody else had to dope just to keep up

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?

Liamo08

Russman wrote: »

This weight loss thing has always bugged/confused me about LA. I fully understand the "lose weight, climb faster" thing, it makes perfect sense.

However when you read LA's books, he made such a big thing of losing weight but when you see pre and post cancer photos, am I the only one who thinks he looks more or less the same weight/build/body shape ?? Certainly IMO there doesn't look to be a huge transformation, I wonder was this part of the ruse ? Or am I just blind to the obvious differences ?

I'm not doubting he had cancer or anything like that and I do think he doped, the weight thing has just always bugged me :-)

Hard to prove exactly what his weight loss was - or if he even lost any weight at all. But it's a very convenient explanation of massive improvement in climbing ability.

furiousox

No

Velonation interview with Paul Kimmage here

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12721/Paul-Kimmage-Interview-Armstrong-the-UCI-and-the-true-winners-of-those-Tours.aspx

therightstuff

No

Liamo08 wrote: »

Hard to prove exactly what his weight loss was - or if he even lost any weight at all. But it's a very convenient explanation of massive improvement in climbing ability.

Good point. He actually was the same weight when he won the World Championship. Best ask Doctor Ferrari on why his climbing improved so much....

Monty Burnz

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?

Good cyclist + best drugs regime + good team supporting him (all on drugs) = unbeatable.

Brilliant cyclist - drugs + any other combo = good luck buddy

Balmed Out

Russman wrote: »

This weight loss thing has always bugged/confused me about LA. I fully understand the "lose weight, climb faster" thing, it makes perfect sense.

However when you read LA's books, he made such a big thing of losing weight but when you see pre and post cancer photos, am I the only one who thinks he looks more or less the same weight/build/body shape ?? Certainly IMO there doesn't look to be a huge transformation, I wonder was this part of the ruse ? Or am I just blind to the obvious differences ?

I'm not doubting he had cancer or anything like that and I do think he doped, the weight thing has just always bugged me :-)

I think its that he grew up being a swimmer (a very good one) and so he would have overly developed muscles that were just dead weight when cycling.

Hermy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

I find it insulting that you describe a doper, a cheat, a liar and a bully as the greatest. And even ignoring all of that he wasn't the greatest cyclist as he never competed through a full season as all the greats did.

Inquitus

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?

What they were doing was very dangerous. There are stories of pros of the era sleeping with heart rate alarms next to exercise bikes, so they could wake up and get the blood flowing if needed. The sort of Hematocrits we were seeing meant the blood was dangerously thickened, the higher the Hematocrit the higher the risks, but also the higher the Hematocrit the faster up the mountains you can go. Risk of stroke or heart failure were high and indeed a number of pro and amateur cyclists died due to EPO abuse.

Some individuals and their doctors were pushing this to the absolute limits, some were trying to keep it safer. At the end of the day the team with the best resources and the best doctors were able to push the envelope furthest and gain the most advantage, and that was Armstrongs team.

Reekwind

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?

Probably. That and US Postal were always a very strong team: Hamilton, Heras and Landis were all strong riders (who were also cheats)

Not everyone who dopes tends towards the same baseline in performance. There are a multitude of other factors that determine the podium: condition, teamwork, quality of the drugs, etc, and, yes, innate talent. No one is denying that Armstrong trained like a demon or was exceptionally driven; the problem is that we'll never know just how good he was. And that is because he deliberately introduced that artificial factor (ie, drugs) that completely skewed the field

Was Armstrong the best of a dirty bunch? Probably, I've got no problem accepting that and always admired US Postal. But, now, what's the point in even noting that?

Hermy

No

Balmed Out wrote: »

I think its that he grew up being a swimmer (a very good one) and so he would have overly developed muscles that were just dead weight when cycling.

But surely when he stopped swimming those muscles naturally atrophied?

brandon_flowers

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Good cyclist + best drugs regime + good team supporting him (all on drugs) = unbeatable.

Brilliant cyclist - drugs + any other combo = good luck buddy

This is exactly it, that US Postal team had some very good riders who were also very well juiced. They towed Armstrong all over France and then when he needed to produce he had plenty of juice also.

Pantani never had a team-mate within an asses roar of him and he didn't stand a chance even when he was juiced.

I was trying to think of a brilliant cyclist sans dope of that era to fulfill the last part of your post but I failed. Unfortunately the brilliant guys were hidden down in 25th place of the GC's so nobody ever knew who they were.

RobFowl

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

I'm not posting as a moderator (and amn't one in Cycling anyway). I am completely gobsmacked that there are still people out there who support and stand up for that drug fueled bully, but you are entitled to your opinion.

So yes I am slagging/mocking your claim that LA is the "greatest" and make no apologies for doing so.

hardCopy

No

Inquitus wrote: »

What they were doing was very dangerous. There are stories of pros of the era sleeping with heart rate alarms next to exercise bikes, so they could wake up and get the blood flowing if needed. The sort of Hematocrits we were seeing meant the blood was dangerously thickened, the higher the Hematocrit the higher the risks, but also the higher the Hematocrit the faster up the mountains you can go. Risk of stroke or heart failure were high and indeed a number of pro and amateur cyclists died due to EPO abuse.

Some individuals and their doctors were pushing this to the absolute limits, some were trying to keep it safer. At the end of the day the team with the best resources and the best doctors were able to push the envelope furthest and gain the most advantage, and that was Armstrongs team.

COUGH

bad2dabone

No

Reekwind wrote: »

Was Armstrong the best of a dirty bunch? Probably, I've got no problem accepting that and always admired US Postal. But, now, what's the point in even noting that?

bingo. I'll admit i was a huge fan of armstrong back in the days when i thought he was clean, I took a month off work in 2004 and followed the Tour, I remember being on the alpe d'huez and being awestruck when he passed.
But we all know now that he was a dirty rotten cheat and a bully. So what's the point in even saying "yeah but he was the best of a bad lot".

I think he's done well to raise so much money for the charity, regardless.

But he's done terrible damage to pro cycling, and to the Tour.
And he's ruined Dodgeball the Movie too.

Waitsian

No

Beasty wrote: »

However speculation about specific riders is not allowed on Boards

Sorry. Won't happen again.

Inquitus wrote: »

Have a read of that for some analysis.

Thanks, will do.

Beasty

No

Kev M wrote: »

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

If you have a problem with a post, report it, don't respond in-thread

As RobFowl has already pointed out he was posting as an ordinary user