Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
Silver993tt said:
So, what about Ellie Simmonds who beat the 400m by 5 seconds? She must be on something to create such a large gap in time based on the suspicion of others who've 'excelled' siginficantly compared to their sporting colleagues.
Who's seen her doping? Have any of her team mates and friends said it? Has her doctor just been banned for doping? I haven't read WADA investigating her. Has anyone at all accused her of doping? That's what's worst about cheats like Armstrong, they make people assume all top athletes must be up to something.
el stovey said:
Who's seen her doping? Have any of her team mates and friends said it? Has her doctor just been banned for doping? I haven't read WADA investigating her. Has anyone at all accused her of doping?
That's what's worst about cheats like Armstrong, they make people assume all top athletes must be up to something.
Who knows in the years to come what scandals will appear about who 'saw' her doing this/that? No results from any atheletes can be trusted for years after they 'achieve' those results since all of their samples should be kept and tested 10-15 years in the future since technology will have moved on and what can't be detected now will possibly be detected then. That's what's worst about cheats like Armstrong, they make people assume all top athletes must be up to something.
Halb said:
Had a chat with a former pro cyclist in my gym a few weeks back. He said it's like the worst kept secret. Doping is widespread and close to universal. Everyone knows save the public.
The public knows it. It's not like pro cycling hasn't widely been linked to doping for decades is it? The tour de France has always been linked to cheating, there are great stories about whacky races type scenarios going on over the years. In the early years riders were banned for taking trains and getting lifts in cars, others were banned for getting tows or getting their fans to block other riders. In the 70's amongst the many riders banned one was caught cheating a urine test by having a condom of someone else's urine hidden in his armpit.
I'm sure I read once about a rider getting a tow using string from behind a car tied to a cork held in his mouth but it might not be true.
Silver993tt said:
el stovey said:
Who's seen her doping? Have any of her team mates and friends said it? Has her doctor just been banned for doping? I haven't read WADA investigating her. Has anyone at all accused her of doping?
That's what's worst about cheats like Armstrong, they make people assume all top athletes must be up to something.
Who knows in the years to come what scandals will appear about who 'saw' her doing this/that? No results from any atheletes can be trusted for years after they 'achieve' those results since all of their samples should be kept and tested 10-15 years in the future since technology will have moved on and what can't be detected now will possibly be detected then. That's what's worst about cheats like Armstrong, they make people assume all top athletes must be up to something.
el stovey said:
These stories about LA have been around for many years . . .
I fell for the hype. I found his story inspirational. What could be better than coming back from the dead.Of course he was clean. Didn't he have all those blood tests? Didn't he pass them all? Wasn't the TdF now much cleaner than in the 80s and before?
It took a lot to convince me that the answer to all the above was No!
There are a number like me as well, taken in by someone who told lies convincingly.
I'm not so much anti LA, although I feel that he needs to come clean, in more ways than one, but sorry for the sport. Will any of the Tours be worth watching in the future?
I never thought of myself as gullible but once hit with overwhelming evidence that I am, perhaps was, then I've got to accept it.
We should move on from LA now. He's yesterday. His reputation is gone and the best hope is that the sport can clean itself up.
Derek Smith said:
el stovey said:
These stories about LA have been around for many years . . .
I fell for the hype. I found his story inspirational. What could be better than coming back from the dead.Of course he was clean. Didn't he have all those blood tests? Didn't he pass them all? Wasn't the TdF now much cleaner than in the 80s and before?
It took a lot to convince me that the answer to all the above was No!
There are a number like me as well, taken in by someone who told lies convincingly.
I'm not so much anti LA, although I feel that he needs to come clean, in more ways than one, but sorry for the sport. Will any of the Tours be worth watching in the future?
I never thought of myself as gullible but once hit with overwhelming evidence that I am, perhaps was, then I've got to accept it.
We should move on from LA now. He's yesterday. His reputation is gone and the best hope is that the sport can clean itself up.
It was perhaps easy for Armstrong to discredit Floyd llandis but I was never quite sure, after Hamilton and Hincapie got involved then for me there was no doubt.
el stovey said:
I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly.Some interesting insights on to this thread. I've only a passing interest in cycling and LA, but I've read a few books including Kimmage and Millar and as a result always had doubts about LA.
What has always struck me is the way he denies it though. He says words to the effect of no positive results from hundreds of tests but doesn't positively deny doping, i.e he doesn't say I was clean.
What has always struck me is the way he denies it though. He says words to the effect of no positive results from hundreds of tests but doesn't positively deny doping, i.e he doesn't say I was clean.
Bedazzled said:
Rollcage said:
If we are to believe that Blake is doping, what on earth is Bolt doing then? 
I have my doubts about any athlete running under 9.9 but in my simplistic view, looking at Bolt he is quite obviously physically different to all the others, so he may benefit from a natural advantage from his stride etc, whereas Blake looks the same as all the rest so why is he so much faster?I see two possibilities - either sprinting has been cleaned up in the last decade or so and as a result the balance of power has moved from America and the Eastern Bloc back to where it belongs, with Jamaican athletes enjoying some sort of natural advantage; or there's something fishy going on with the coaching of the Jamaican athletes. I don't believe they are better because it's their national sport (football is ours, ffs!) but there may be some physical difference in their muscle tissue or something?
I'd like to think Bolt is just a freakish exception and the rest of the Jamaican team are riding on his coattails, as he's done so much for the sport, but time will tell... it's fun to watch anyhow!
I'm very sure he's just built differently from the rest of them. He seems to be able to win at will, and looking at how slow his starts usually are, it truly is a wonder to watch.
el stovey said:
I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
Exactly the same for me too. And all the shizzle about him having a 1 in ten million physiology etc. Then I read his first book and thought to myself this guy is a completely unlikable knob jockey who would do anything to get ahead.What bugs me is none of these top riders admit it even after getting caught and everyone knows they're guilty. Contador and his dodgy steak, Armstrong and all the other riders lying except him, Schleck and his poisoning.
It's amazing all these freak acts leading to people who are innocent looking very guilty. Bunch of f
king liars.
It's amazing all these freak acts leading to people who are innocent looking very guilty. Bunch of f
king liars.Derek Smith said:
el stovey said:
I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly.In fairness to Derek he did say he knew it was silly.
Personally I fail to see the point of going after Armstrong - if you want to 'clean up cycling' then it might be an idea to look at those who are at least still competing and build a dope-proof set of rules for them to comply with.
You don.t get a fresh start by tearing-up results from ten years ago.
Personally I fail to see the point of going after Armstrong - if you want to 'clean up cycling' then it might be an idea to look at those who are at least still competing and build a dope-proof set of rules for them to comply with.
You don.t get a fresh start by tearing-up results from ten years ago.
IroningMan said:
In fairness to Derek he did say he knew it was silly.
Personally I fail to see the point of going after Armstrong - if you want to 'clean up cycling' then it might be an idea to look at those who are at least still competing and build a dope-proof set of rules for them to comply with.
You don.t get a fresh start by tearing-up results from ten years ago.
That is exactly what they are doing. It isn't all about Armstrong. His co-charged are all still in the game...Personally I fail to see the point of going after Armstrong - if you want to 'clean up cycling' then it might be an idea to look at those who are at least still competing and build a dope-proof set of rules for them to comply with.
You don.t get a fresh start by tearing-up results from ten years ago.
DJRC said:
Really? Htf do you feel betrayed? Its just a sporting event, no more, no less. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle.
They are selling something. It is not 'just a sporting event'. I assume by that comment you have never seen the TdF in action. Of course 'I'm' important. I'm the one they are selling to.If I am of absolutely of no consequence to LA then why did he tell lies to me, not to mention him still doing so. The answer - to the rhetorical question - is that the fans, en masse at least - are vital. Of course I (and all the fans) am important to him. I am the market for the sponsors.
I go to rugby every weekend in the season. I support the players by cheering them on and just by being there. The fact that there are millions more fans for the TdF does not in any way lower the essential nature of those who stand and stare.
If someone tells you they are straight and you believe it, when it turns out that you were cheering a make-beleive of course you feel hard done by. He lied to increase his income. He wants sponsors: sponsors want me. I am important. I've emailed Nike. One email doesn't make any difference but if enough of the fans do so we all become important. We are all customers.
Of course I feel cheated. I spend almost every day of three weeks following the TdFs he was in, cheering on LA because he's beaten cancer. And, as someone with a kid in a competative sport where drugs are easy to come by and checks are infrequent, the 'fact' that he'd done it cleanly was a lesson I could put over to my lad.
That's why Nike is there, to earn their cut of those who cheer him on.
I'm not sure what the nasty death scene was all about. I'll let it go.
DJRC said:
Derek Smith said:
el stovey said:
I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly.With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling.
If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you?
So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you?
Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him?
DJRC said:
frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death
Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me.dangerousB said:
DJRC said:
Derek Smith said:
el stovey said:
I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly.With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling.
If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you?
So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you?
Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him?
DJRC said:
frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death
Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me.Derek Smith said:
DJRC said:
Really? Htf do you feel betrayed? Its just a sporting event, no more, no less. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle.
They are selling something. It is not 'just a sporting event'. I assume by that comment you have never seen the TdF in action. Of course 'I'm' important. I'm the one they are selling to.They arent selling anything. This is something I think every *fan* or *enthusiast* should have hammered into their skull time and time again until they realise they either die from the hammer blows or they wise up.
You
Are
Irrelevent
The race will happen with or without you. The blokes will race and want to race whether you watch or not. You viewing them is a consequence of them doing what they want to do, they do not do what they do because you want to watch them.
I can quite easily state here and now without a shadow of any doubt that the sport could get banned from the Olympics tomorrow, WADA could declare it dead and buried as a viable public spectacle interest sport, doping was too intrinsic, 95% of its sponsor dropped away and it would make not stop anything. The races would still be run. The spectators would still come out to watch and nobody would care. Even if public interest was so low that nobody did, the race would still be run and after the initial scepticism of the first week, by the end of week 3 the streets of Paris would be packed for the race again. The moralising tones of the Anglo-Saxon world could trumpet loud and clear both sides of the Atlantic and try to ban whoever and strip whoever of titles and declare the race and results null and void and exhort ppl not to go and watch it.
It would have minimal impact.
The TdF isnt some playing fields of Eton British invention, its a French institution and as such frankly its as close as you can get to something pretty f
king invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff