Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
pablo said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
Indoor athletics coming up and Russian's seem to be some what tainted. No s
t.
Why I don't really go with the "Burn Armstrong" brigade is professional sport is rife with drug takers.
My sporting hero is Tom Simpson he had a choice when he got to the continent to race in 1960 be average and clean or a winner and dope. It cost him his life but I still admire and respect him.
Many people would have known of Armstrong's drug taking programme but remained silent. Some of his sponsors made a fortune from association with him.
I have never met Lance Armstrong if I did I doubt we would be friends but I dislike people being made scapegoats and blaming him for everything bad in cycling will not make cycling clean.
If you ever watched Chris Boardmans career you will have seen someone who had all the natural ability and skill's required to succeed but unlike his peers when a major mountain stage occurred in the TDF he could not replicate his performance day after day. No st he couldn't because his body could not recover quickly enough and yet this man had all the engine that his competitors had.
Its been done to death but what Lance did was way more than just take drugs, in order to facilitate his own success, he pretty much made doping a cultural norm within cycling and becuase of his actions, put pressure on other teams and riders to go down the same route, riders who previously would have had no desire or need to take PEDs were heavily encouraged to dope by their team in order to put up a reasonable challenge to US Postal/Discovery... Everyone in the peloton knew what was going on but they had nothing to gain from talking and Lance had already used his power to silence others. I agree he is a bit of a scapegoat because the likes of the UCI knew what was going on but they also knew in Lance, they had a marketing tool worth millions that was brinign huge sums of money into the sport. For me its the same as Bolt and the IAAF, if Bolt is at a Diamond League event, it will sell out, if he isnt, it will be 3/4 full, if Bolt is doping and the IAAF know about it, they are going to keep schtum...t.Why I don't really go with the "Burn Armstrong" brigade is professional sport is rife with drug takers.
My sporting hero is Tom Simpson he had a choice when he got to the continent to race in 1960 be average and clean or a winner and dope. It cost him his life but I still admire and respect him.
Many people would have known of Armstrong's drug taking programme but remained silent. Some of his sponsors made a fortune from association with him.
I have never met Lance Armstrong if I did I doubt we would be friends but I dislike people being made scapegoats and blaming him for everything bad in cycling will not make cycling clean.
If you ever watched Chris Boardmans career you will have seen someone who had all the natural ability and skill's required to succeed but unlike his peers when a major mountain stage occurred in the TDF he could not replicate his performance day after day. No s
t he couldn't because his body could not recover quickly enough and yet this man had all the engine that his competitors had.Boardman was always a track rider, he never trained to be a GT rider and thus didnt really have the same engine as the others. He had no intention of ever doing a full three weeks as his focus was always the track and then, come the tour, ride the prolopgue, get yellow and earn his sponsors some air time then plan to pull out after a few days. Sure he could ride at GT pace for a few days but was never going to challenge.
To suggest that he was the kingpin of it and invented it is absolute nonsense.
pablo said:
lol, one tiny typo and you all leap on it, I meant to say was he made doping the cultural norm in the period he cycled, as in if I have to cheat, you're coming with me... I hope you are all happy with your pitchforks.
I was joking when I said he professionalised doping but I guess that is what he did. The hap hazard way of doping in the 60's and 70's means an awful lot of cyclists died before their time.
There was a time when the peleton threatened to strike if Drug test became mandatory.
I wonder if any of the companies who sponsored him and made a lot of money from him feel any guilt or have helped the Drug testing programme.
pablo said:
lol, one tiny typo and you all leap on it, I meant to say was he made doping the cultural norm in the period he cycled, as in if I have to cheat, you're coming with me... I hope you are all happy with your pitchforks.
But that's just not the case. He was just the next man along. Science may have advanced more during his period, but if you think now he's gone that everyone is clean then I'm not sure what to say.
London424 said:
pablo said:
lol, one tiny typo and you all leap on it, I meant to say was he made doping the cultural norm in the period he cycled, as in if I have to cheat, you're coming with me... I hope you are all happy with your pitchforks.
But that's just not the case. He was just the next man along. Science may have advanced more during his period, but if you think now he's gone that everyone is clean then I'm not sure what to say.
I'll leave you to your private "I know more about pro cycling than you" pissing contest.Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 19th February 16:32
el stovey said:
I doubt he does, just go to page one of the thread.
to be fair a lot of people bought into his story. For me it was the fact he was a good rider before the cancer and with the wait loss and improved power output it seemed to add up.I will still watch the cycling this spring and the TDF without sitting there wondering who is and who isn't doping.
My idea is simple get caught life time ban end of story.
But its not that simple is it and the UCI is about as useful as a chocolate fireman when it comes to dealing with this issue.
Maybe we should just let them do what they want to do and get on with it.
pablo said:
London424 said:
pablo said:
lol, one tiny typo and you all leap on it, I meant to say was he made doping the cultural norm in the period he cycled, as in if I have to cheat, you're coming with me... I hope you are all happy with your pitchforks.
But that's just not the case. He was just the next man along. Science may have advanced more during his period, but if you think now he's gone that everyone is clean then I'm not sure what to say.
I'll leave you to your private "I know more about pro cycling than you" pissing contest.Edited by pablo on Thursday 19th February 16:32
London424 said:
I don't know much at all that's why I asked the original question. However you have said that he made doping the 'cultural norm' in cycling. I've just said that it's been around a lot longer than him and will carry on long after him.
I think it was far more the "norm" in the 1960's and 1970's particularly as the long term effects where not yet known.Hence the early death of far too many professional cyclists from that era.
The CIRC report has been released...only skimmed bits but it's not pretty reading.
Here's the Exec summary
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/03/news/circ-r...
Here's the Exec summary
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/03/news/circ-r...
So it is believed c90% of the peloton today dopes and that amateur cycling has a doping endemic.
Hmm so given LA has not been in for 4 years just who is pushing the doping? Who's the big name now driving it or was it actually never any one person driving it rather he sport itself.
Complicit tick
Unfit for purpose tick
Not properly testing tick
UCI & WADA to be dissolved ASAP frankly what an utter shambles - and very worrying that 90% of current riders still dope... How can a clean rider beat the dopers today... What's changed did winners actually dope and not get caught as testing is poor
Hmm so given LA has not been in for 4 years just who is pushing the doping? Who's the big name now driving it or was it actually never any one person driving it rather he sport itself.
Complicit tick
Unfit for purpose tick
Not properly testing tick
UCI & WADA to be dissolved ASAP frankly what an utter shambles - and very worrying that 90% of current riders still dope... How can a clean rider beat the dopers today... What's changed did winners actually dope and not get caught as testing is poor
Just had a quick read, will have a look in more detail later - no real surprises, some of the stand outs are 90% or riders don't want their blood tests re-tested at a later stage, and that testers still don't have 24 hours access to the micro dosers. Also I'd like to see the flagrant abuse of TUEs banned full stop.
mcelliott said:
Just had a quick read, will have a look in more detail later - no real surprises, some of the stand outs are 90% or riders don't want their blood tests re-tested at a later stage, and that testers still don't have 24 hours access to the micro dosers. Also I'd like to see the flagrant abuse of TUEs banned full stop.
So there are plenty of Lance Armstrongs in the field today and have been all along. Let's stop the individual witch hunt led by a now disgraced sports body clearly trying to cover up its huge failings. Really feel for the sport as the governing body has been diabolical and by being weak encouraged the doping culture shame on them and moreso for trying to deflect than hands up caught.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff