Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lance Armstrong cheated per ex teammate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
    I forget. Which of the competitors who accused LA were clean themselves?
    No one was clean, I bet. They all cheated. Lance was still the champ. I don't condone what they likely ALL did but I still view Lance to be the greatest rider in history.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Surfah View Post
      Everyone was doping so in my mind it was a level playing field. Lance is still king.
      Originally posted by Viking View Post
      They all likely cheated. Lance was still the best among the pharmaceutically enhanced cyclists.

      Long live Lance.
      Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
      I forget. Which of the competitors who accused LA were clean themselves?
      I read in a magazine article some years ago - for what that's worth - that professional cyclists almost have to dope just to stay at the top level with the other dopers. The cheater isn't the exception; he's the norm. It's a violation of the rules, but, as Surfah says, the playing field is level.
      "What are you prepared to do?" - Jimmy Malone

      "What choice?" - Abe Petrovsky

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Viking View Post
        No one was clean, I bet. They all cheated. Lance was still the champ. I don't condone what they likely ALL did but I still view Lance to be the greatest rider in history.
        Eddie Merckx is the greatest rider in history. He won the Tour 5 times, the Giro 5 times, the Vuelta once, one-day races such as Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and a bunch of other races. He was much more versatile than Armstrong, who basically focused on the Tour.

        I'm disappointed about doping in any sport. I have heard that Armstrong is not a very nice guy, so i respect the race wins, but don't exactly idolize the person.

        As for Bonds, yes, he put the ball on the bat, but I don't respect any of his records. Armstrong may have doped, but it sounds like he was on a relatively level playing field against his competitors. Was Bonds? Were McGuire or Sosa or many others? How many athletes seem to get better as they get into their upper 30's? Only those who have an artificial edge.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
          I forget. Which of the competitors who accused LA were clean themselves?
          Great point. I guess this will all go away now. Lance should keep all his records and be excused for lying to everyone over the last decade.
          Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #35
            It is very easy to assert the playing field was level and leave it at that. I am not so sure it is that simple.

            Do you recall the French Festina scandal in 1998? Richard Virenque was caught doping along with several others. It was a national scandal in France. Evidence was uncovered that doping (and this was the EPO era) was widespread and systematic. He was ostracized and the country wondered aloud about the wisdom of supporting such a filthy sport. Those Americans who followed the sport were quick to criticize Virenque. I don’t recall anyone saying "well, they are all doing it; it must be a level field." Instead, most people, even the French, refused to support Virenque. Here, I think we are much more willing to look the other way because it is an American who was caught. Perhaps we should be more consistent.

            [As an aside, Virenque served his time and returned to the peloton a different rider. He made a living by pipping climbing points in stage races and earned a few king of the mountain jerseys even though he was never the best climber in any race. The French, always loving a story of redemption, ate it up and made him a national hero all over again.]

            OTOH, it is not really that simple, especially in this sport. Merckx was, in my mind, the greatest cyclist ever to ride a bike. As mentioned in this thread already, he won everything and most of them more than once. His nickname was the cannibal, because he devoured the field every time. Guess what? He doped. Back in the day they used stimulants. In fact, Tommy Simpson died on the slopes of Mt. Ventoux in 1967 because he was doped to the gills on amphetamines (although it was not against the rules to use amphetamines in 1967). So there is a long history of doping in this sport, and the lines are a bit blurry.

            Was the field on which LA dominated level? Probably not, but I am not sure this is the right question. Is the field ever level? Compare the facilities available to American Olympic athletes in Colorado Springs to those available to any third world country. Is that field level? If he did it (and I think we can safely assume he did), LA doped with the best. He didn’t buy drugs from some Mexican diploma mill physician; he worked with Dr. Michel Ferrari, who is world renowned as the premier expert on the use of drugs to enhance performance in endurance events. Ferrari is behind some of the more notorious doping cases in MULTIPLE sports. LA worked with him throughout his TdF run and refused to stop even after he was widely criticized for it. LA claimed he only worked with Ferrari for advice on training, and that was possible, but it seems almost certain that the training included drug regimes.

            When I consider if the field was level, I keep thinking about the team time trials. I recall the one in about 2004 or 2003 when the posties absolutely motored through the field and dominated like they were on motorcycles. It was unbelievable. It was also probably drug enhanced. Were all teams doing this? Possibly, but it seems unlikely to me that they were all doing it systematically, for the entire team, which is what was apparently happening on the Posties.

            I also think of a guy like Roberto Heras who was a very solid climber but not a real grand tour threat until he joined the posties and suddenly he was a revelation, second possibly only to LA himself in his ability to absorb punishment in the mountains. He even won the vuelta, but was then caught doping after leaving the Posties. His best performances were with the Posties, but then he is later caught doping. How likely is it he was not doping when he was riding the strongest? How likely is it he doped and LA didn’t know? Did he just get dumber and so he was caught? Or was his program not as sophisticated after he left the posties? I am not sure the field was level; I think it tilted a bit so that LA was riding downhill.

            MBN mentions LA's penchant for dominating the peloton. He was Le Patron, and he was entitled to be. But he ruled with an iron fist, not a velvet glove. Filipe Simeoni, a talented rider who won a bit but then admitted to doping under Ferrari’s tutelage, was mistreated by LA. And LA made sure he would have no more glory in the TdF when he essentially prevented him from getting into any break. Simeoni was a witness against Ferrari in a court proceeding and it seems LA didn’t care for his willingness to turn and talk. Because fo LA’s edict, Simeoni was literally spat upon by other riders. LA is not a nice guy. And he never has been. OTOH, he has been a champion to cancer patients around the world. He has raised many millions of dollars for cancer research. These are acts of a good guy. Like most things in life, he defies easy categorization as evil or good.

            I have spent a lot of time making fun of the French during the tour. But it may be that one of the reasons they perform so poorly is that they are one of the cleanest nations. Following the Festina Scandal they cleaned up their national program and probably have not doped as much as other nations have. Their performance shows it. They are human. They are inconsistent. They have great performances followed by great collapses. This is how people, non-doped people, usually ride. Only a very few have ever dominated like Merckx or Hinault or Anquetil, and no one, NO ONE, has EVER dominated the tour like LA. This is why the French have been deeply suspicious of LA's success, and deeply resentful of it. They were certain he doped. And yet the world loved him anyway. That would be hard to take, I think.

            The Bonds comparison is apt, in some ways. Sure Bonds had to put the bat on the ball, but it looks like those drugs gave him the extra distance to get more of those balls over the fence. Bonds was a hall of famer without the drugs. With the drugs, he was the greatest power hitter of all time. But no one celebrates him, not even much in the Bay Area. And it will be hard to celebrate LA’s performances now, at least for me.

            Like Bonds was built to play baseball, so LA was built to ride the bike. Literally; his legs are the perfect geometry, his aerobic exchange rate is phenomenal (and that is pretty much genetically limited) and his riding position (with the slight exception of a weird bump in his back) was naturally good. At the age of fifteen, he was riding ironman tris with adults and winning. He won a tour stage pre-cancer, back when he was still built like a linebacker. But, without the cancer (which reshaped his body due to loss of upper body muscle mass) and without the epo and other drugs he likely used, he almost certainly would not have won seven tours, let alone seven in a row. Heck, as a young man, he could barely get through the mountains on consecutive days. He was too heavy! He was expected to be a classics rider, but not a likely grand tour winner.

            So what are we left with? Is there anything to admire in LA the bike racer? Sure, there were exciting days and weeks in July. Sure he brought cycling to daily coverage on TV in America. Sure, he caused American flags to show up in force on Alpe d'Huez, the Champs Elysee and other famous European stages. But, in the end, he cheated, and then he lied about it. In the end, he is no better than Marco Pantani or Jan Ullrich or Richard Virenque or even Michael Rasmussen. In the end he merits no more praise than any cheater and liar in any other sport. The best I can manage is to say he was the best among cheaters. The best in a time when the sport was sullied by widespread cheating. The one talented rider who exploited the drug cheating possibilities better than anyone else. While true, it is a tainted and hollow legacy in which I can take no pleasure.

            Whenever I think of LA I will think of both the good and exciting things he brought, but also the disappointment he left us with. I am not left with admiration for LA. I am only left with hope. Hope that the sport can deal with this problem. That it can treat its riders humanely. That it can reform itself. That it can recover to again become the beautiful sport that it has been. I love bike riding. I love bike racing. It will survive this mess. But it will never be as innocent or as pure as it once seemed. Maybe that was all illusion and so it is just as well. But it still smarts to see this. And it will hurt for a while.

            BTW, sorry for the ramble. But I started typing and it all sort of spilled out. I know, I could use an editor. Sorry.
            PLesa excuse the tpyos.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by creekster View Post
              It is very easy to assert the playing field was level and leave it at that. I am not so sure it is that simple.

              Do you recall the French Festina scandal in 1998? Richard Virenque was caught doping along with several others. It was a national scandal in France. Evidence was uncovered that doping (and this was the EPO era) was widespread and systematic. He was ostracized and the country wondered aloud about the wisdom of supporting such a filthy sport. Those Americans who followed the sport were quick to criticize Virenque. I don’t recall anyone saying "well, they are all doing it; it must be a level field." Instead, most people, even the French, refused to support Virenque. Here, I think we are much more willing to look the other way because it is an American who was caught. Perhaps we should be more consistent.

              [As an aside, Virenque served his time and returned to the peloton a different rider. He made a living by pipping climbing points in stage races and earned a few king of the mountain jerseys even though he was never the best climber in any race. The French, always loving a story of redemption, ate it up and made him a national hero all over again.]

              OTOH, it is not really that simple, especially in this sport. Merckx was, in my mind, the greatest cyclist ever to ride a bike. As mentioned in this thread already, he won everything and most of them more than once. His nickname was the cannibal, because he devoured the field every time. Guess what? He doped. Back in the day they used stimulants. In fact, Tommy Simpson died on the slopes of Mt. Ventoux in 1967 because he was doped to the gills on amphetamines (although it was not against the rules to use amphetamines in 1967). So there is a long history of doping in this sport, and the lines are a bit blurry.

              Was the field on which LA dominated level? Probably not, but I am not sure this is the right question. Is the field ever level? Compare the facilities available to American Olympic athletes in Colorado Springs to those available to any third world country. Is that field level? If he did it (and I think we can safely assume he did), LA doped with the best. He didn’t buy drugs from some Mexican diploma mill physician; he worked with Dr. Michel Ferrari, who is world renowned as the premier expert on the use of drugs to enhance performance in endurance events. Ferrari is behind some of the more notorious doping cases in MULTIPLE sports. LA worked with him throughout his TdF run and refused to stop even after he was widely criticized for it. LA claimed he only worked with Ferrari for advice on training, and that was possible, but it seems almost certain that the training included drug regimes.

              When I consider if the field was level, I keep thinking about the team time trials. I recall the one in about 2004 or 2003 when the posties absolutely motored through the field and dominated like they were on motorcycles. It was unbelievable. It was also probably drug enhanced. Were all teams doing this? Possibly, but it seems unlikely to me that they were all doing it systematically, for the entire team, which is what was apparently happening on the Posties.

              I also think of a guy like Roberto Heras who was a very solid climber but not a real grand tour threat until he joined the posties and suddenly he was a revelation, second possibly only to LA himself in his ability to absorb punishment in the mountains. He even won the vuelta, but was then caught doping after leaving the Posties. His best performances were with the Posties, but then he is later caught doping. How likely is it he was not doping when he was riding the strongest? How likely is it he doped and LA didn’t know? Did he just get dumber and so he was caught? Or was his program not as sophisticated after he left the posties? I am not sure the field was level; I think it tilted a bit so that LA was riding downhill.

              MBN mentions LA's penchant for dominating the peloton. He was Le Patron, and he was entitled to be. But he ruled with an iron fist, not a velvet glove. Filipe Simeoni, a talented rider who won a bit but then admitted to doping under Ferrari’s tutelage, was mistreated by LA. And LA made sure he would have no more glory in the TdF when he essentially prevented him from getting into any break. Simeoni was a witness against Ferrari in a court proceeding and it seems LA didn’t care for his willingness to turn and talk. Because fo LA’s edict, Simeoni was literally spat upon by other riders. LA is not a nice guy. And he never has been. OTOH, he has been a champion to cancer patients around the world. He has raised many millions of dollars for cancer research. These are acts of a good guy. Like most things in life, he defies easy categorization as evil or good.

              I have spent a lot of time making fun of the French during the tour. But it may be that one of the reasons they perform so poorly is that they are one of the cleanest nations. Following the Festina Scandal they cleaned up their national program and probably have not doped as much as other nations have. Their performance shows it. They are human. They are inconsistent. They have great performances followed by great collapses. This is how people, non-doped people, usually ride. Only a very few have ever dominated like Merckx or Hinault or Anquetil, and no one, NO ONE, has EVER dominated the tour like LA. This is why the French have been deeply suspicious of LA's success, and deeply resentful of it. They were certain he doped. And yet the world loved him anyway. That would be hard to take, I think.

              The Bonds comparison is apt, in some ways. Sure Bonds had to put the bat on the ball, but it looks like those drugs gave him the extra distance to get more of those balls over the fence. Bonds was a hall of famer without the drugs. With the drugs, he was the greatest power hitter of all time. But no one celebrates him, not even much in the Bay Area. And it will be hard to celebrate LA’s performances now, at least for me.

              Like Bonds was built to play baseball, so LA was built to ride the bike. Literally; his legs are the perfect geometry, his aerobic exchange rate is phenomenal (and that is pretty much genetically limited) and his riding position (with the slight exception of a weird bump in his back) was naturally good. At the age of fifteen, he was riding ironman tris with adults and winning. He won a tour stage pre-cancer, back when he was still built like a linebacker. But, without the cancer (which reshaped his body due to loss of upper body muscle mass) and without the epo and other drugs he likely used, he almost certainly would not have won seven tours, let alone seven in a row. Heck, as a young man, he could barely get through the mountains on consecutive days. He was too heavy! He was expected to be a classics rider, but not a likely grand tour winner.

              So what are we left with? Is there anything to admire in LA the bike racer? Sure, there were exciting days and weeks in July. Sure he brought cycling to daily coverage on TV in America. Sure, he caused American flags to show up in force on Alpe d'Huez, the Champs Elysee and other famous European stages. But, in the end, he cheated, and then he lied about it. In the end, he is no better than Marco Pantani or Jan Ullrich or Richard Virenque or even Michael Rasmussen. In the end he merits no more praise than any cheater and liar in any other sport. The best I can manage is to say he was the best among cheaters. The best in a time when the sport was sullied by widespread cheating. The one talented rider who exploited the drug cheating possibilities better than anyone else. While true, it is a tainted and hollow legacy in which I can take no pleasure.

              Whenever I think of LA I will think of both the good and exciting things he brought, but also the disappointment he left us with. I am not left with admiration for LA. I am only left with hope. Hope that the sport can deal with this problem. That it can treat its riders humanely. That it can reform itself. That it can recover to again become the beautiful sport that it has been. I love bike riding. I love bike racing. It will survive this mess. But it will never be as innocent or as pure as it once seemed. Maybe that was all illusion and so it is just as well. But it still smarts to see this. And it will hurt for a while.


              BTW, sorry for the ramble. But I started typing and it all sort of spilled out. I know, I could use an editor. Sorry.
              Don't be sorry, cr33k, that summed this up perfectly, especially the bolded part. Thank you for putting this all into context; you are the master.
              Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

              For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

              Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by creekster View Post
                It is very easy to assert the playing field was level and leave it at that. I am not so sure it is that simple.



                BTW, sorry for the ramble. But I started typing and it all sort of spilled out. I know, I could use an editor. Sorry.
                Is anyone here really surprised? Dating back to the legendary tours in 2001-2003??

                I was in peak performance shape and have good endurance genes (Doccoug a pretty strong distance runner before he got fat)...I could not average more than 13.5mph up Diablo (10.7 mile version) at 155 lbs and putting over 100 miles per week into my legs EVERY week. I rode to and from work every day and was up Diablo at least one time a week, often two times. This is my Uncle Rico moment, but I was unstoppable on a bike for about 24 months of my life.

                And yet, I would watch Lance tear up the d'Huez at 15-17 mph after riding 100+ miles before getting there and was supposed to believe it was natural performance? I mean, you gotta be kidding me if you ever thought the "most tested athlete" defense was really a defense. You, as a cyclist, should have known that what they (I assume most, if not all were doing it) were doped. Le Mond did. It was OBVIOUS

                I wish they wouldn't dope, but I think that's their own stupidity.

                Long Live Lance.
                Last edited by Viking; 05-22-2011, 03:36 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                  Ha...that is funny.

                  Looks like you're right about 50 being the cutoff. That's reasonable, I guess, although still pretty high. I live at altitude and am in decent shape and not even close (nor do I really see anyone who's not either a smoker, has a blood disorder, or severely dehydrated who is close), although I suppose it's not completely out of the question. I think I first read about these cutoffs during the winter Olympics with cross country skiers and remember being surprised at how many were pushing the limit.
                  My neighbor who I ride with and is ironically a pharmacist has a hematocrit count of over 50. I keep thinking he should be better than he is.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Viking View Post
                    Is anyone here really surprised? Dating back to the legendary tours in 2001-2003??

                    I was in peak performance shape and have good endurance genes (Doccoug a pretty strong distance runner before he got fat)...I could not average more than 13.5mph up Diablo (10.7 mile version) at 155 lbs and putting over 100 miles per week into my legs EVERY week. I rode to and from work every day and was up Diablo at least one time a week, often two times. This is my Uncle Rico moment, but I was unstoppable on a bike for about 24 months of my life.

                    And yet, I would watch Lance tear up the d'Huez at 15-17 mph after riding 100+ miles before getting there and was supposed to believe it was natural performance? I mean, you gotta be kidding me if you ever thought the "most tested athlete" defense was really a defense. You, as a cyclist, should have known that what they (I assume most, if not all were doing it) were doped. Le Mond did. It was OBVIOUS

                    I wish they wouldn't dope, but I think that's their own stupidity.

                    Long Live Lance.
                    If you have spent much time reading my posts here (and there is no reason why you should) you would know I was acutely aware of the possibilities of doping. I have followed this sport very closely for years. I realize and acknowledge the drug issues and I think I understand them pretty well. But it is one thing to speculate about them and quite another to have to face the reality of it. I readily admit, however, that I am very much a fan of bike racing. It is more to me than just a headline, so I dont really expect most people to react to it like I do.

                    With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, that you find evidence for doping in the comparison of the pro peloton to your rides up Diablo may speak more to your hubris than to the drug use issue at hand.
                    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by creekster View Post
                      If you have spent much time reading my posts here (and there is no reason why you should) you would know I was acutely aware of the possibilities of doping. I have followed this sport very closely for years. I realize and acknowledge the drug issues and I think I understand them pretty well. But it is one thing to speculate about them and quite another to have to face the reality of it. I readily admit, however, that I am very much a fan of bike racing. It is more to me than just a headline, so I dont really expect most people to react to it like I do.

                      With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, that you find evidence for doping in the comparison of the pro peloton to your rides up Diablo may speak more to your hubris than to the drug use issue at hand.
                      I understand the hubris comment though I now push 180 and could probably not last twenty miles at twenty if I wanted to. I suck at cycling now.

                      My point is that from the trained person's perspective, those feats were impossible.

                      In 2007 a friend showed me the monthly returns of a hedge fund that had been in biz for a long, long time and had never posted a negative month. My immediate reaction: " no f---ing way." not bc of hubris but bc as a practitioner, I know that the statistical probability of doing what that fund alleged was damn near impossible.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hamilton seems weak in this interview.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Viking View Post
                          My point is that from the trained person's perspective, those feats were impossible.
                          Maybe. But I think you are displaying the certainty of hindsight. I have talked to a couple of cat 1 guys and a guy who was on the US Olympic team some years back about the issue and as the events about which we are speaking were unfolding (meaning in 1999, 2001, etc.) they weren't so sure. In hindsight, as the evidence builds, the case for drug use becomes quite clear. But as it was happening, it was not so clear.
                          PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Viking View Post
                            Hamilton seems weak in this interview.
                            I have a hard time believing the cycling union would cover up a positive test from Armstrong. I"m convinced that Armstrong used EPO or testosterone or both before his cancer and perhaps I"m being a bit naive here but I still hold out hope that he won his 7 TDF clean. I hope it was because of him dropping weight, cutting edge training methods, being a super athlete and having an unmatched will to win were the reasons for his victories.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              OK, I am going to be the first one to state the obvious. No way in hell Michael Jordan beats the Jazz with the flu unless he was doping.
                              "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                              "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                              "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                                OK, I am going to be the first one to state the obvious. No way in hell Michael Jordan beats the Jazz with the flu unless he was doping.
                                and an obvious push-off.
                                Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

                                For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

                                Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X