Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[Derek Smith]

IroningMan said:

Masking symptoms is not quite the same thing as a causative link with a specific - testicular - cancer, though, is it.

I did not suggest that testicular cancer is caused by cancer, merely that it was instrumental in nearly killing LA.

[Foggy748]

I think Armstrong is being used as a huge scapegoat here. I don't doubt at all that he and the rest of the peleton were taking drugs. That was the way it was; to be competitive at that level, sadly that's what you had to do. It goes back way before Armstrong's era, way, way back. So it was nothing new for Armstrong to be doing what he did. So he never failed a drugs test? He wasn't the only one. The ones that got caught were the ones not being careful enough.

Drugs don't turn you into a superman overnight. They don't make you a 7 times winner of the TdF. Armstrong was bloody minded in his approach to winning; his training regime was epic. He would climb mountains, go back and do them all over again in the same training session. His will to win, to push his limits was outstanding. Drugs didn't do all that. Strength of character did. Sure, drugs were the icing on the cake but to be a winner like he was takes a physically gifted individual to want to do it, to persevere and be determined and to do it over 7 hard years is truly remarkable.

No matter what anyone says, I will always respect the man. He did a hell of a lot for cycling. To read today that the director of the TdF says he should be stripped of his 7 Tour wins makes for unbelievable reading. The Tour has known for decades that it's competitors were taking drugs. To get through this monster event, they either had to be superhuman, on something, or both. And now, everyone is behaving as if they are holier than thou, as if Armstrong has outraged and embarassed the cycling fraternity. They put him on a pedestal and they've been desperate to knock him off it ever since.

So what about Merckx, Indurain, Anquetil, Hinault etc etc....innocent? Do we have a go at them as well?

fk em all Lance. You were the best for 7 years - drugs or no drugs, you were the best.

[JuniorD]

^ Astounding, but somehow not surprising. There's almost too much ignorance in there to even begin to counter that.

[Foggy748]

Glad you're not going to then.

[Derek Smith]

Foggy748 said:

You were the best for 7 years - drugs or no drugs, you were the best.

And can you explain how you know how good he was without drugs.

[Foggy748]

The cream will always rise to the top

[JuniorD]

Foggy748 said:

The cream will always rise to the top

So does scum

[hornetrider]

Foggy748 said:

The cream will always rise to the top

[Sway]

Foggy748 said:

The cream will always rise to the top

There's a superb article earlier in the thread which details exactly why this isn't true.

General gist is that the only test of the time wass haematocrit levels. Someone with low haematocrit levels could use more epo than someone with high. This had a bigger effect than equalising their ability.

Cancer survivors typically have a very low haematocrit level due to chemo, so Armstrong would have been able to dose more than others. This would have given him a greater advantage.

[zac510]

I can't condone Armstrong's taking of performance enhancing drugs but that was a great post by Foggy. There was no ignorance on his part, only recognition that there's so much more to any successful individual than one single characteristic.

[Dare2Fail]

I think anyone who says that Armstrong didn't have a spectacular will to win and incredible work ethic is deluding themself. Almost as much as those who say that because everyone was doping it makes it an even playing field.

He's a cheat. Much in the same way as a fraudster is a cheat. They both want to win so much they stack the deck in their favour. He shouldn't be respected for that.

[anonymous-user]

Foggy748 said:

fk em all Lance. You were the best for 7 years - drugs or no drugs, you were the best.

Best at doping and bulying and lying.

[DJRC]

London424 said:

When DJRC says it would be a blood bath if it went to court is you'll have lots of these witnesses being introduced. (DJRC, please correct me if I've misunderstood your point)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/van-den-broeck-and...

Former teammates that saw nothing, were encouraged by the team, respected his work ethic etc etc.

So then you have the word of ex-temamates who have doped and lied for the last 15 years against others who didn't.

To be clear, I think he's as guilty as it comes, just that it would be awfully messy. Hornetrider posted that the criminal stuff might get reopened so we might just see it anyway!

Pretty much. It will be incredible messy and nobody will come out of it with their reputations intant and that includes the USDA...which was always my point.

For the drama of it Id love to see it go criminal. It would be complete car crash lawyer action! If anyone uncovers anything dodgy with Livestrong then it will absolutely turn criminal and then it will become a complete brawl.

[mcelliott]

Foggy748 said:

fk em all Lance. You were the best for 7 years - drugs or no drugs, you were the best.

Can't knock your fervent support of Lance - one thing's for sure, and you're absolutely right, his will to win and pure singlemindedness was truly astonishing - and the physical demands of winning 7 tours, after coming back from cancer, was a remarkable achievement. Unfortunately it wasn't quite what we all wanted to believe. Will cycling learn from this? I have my doubts.

[cotney]

mcelliott said:

Foggy748 said:

fk em all Lance. You were the best for 7 years - drugs or no drugs, you were the best.

Can't knock your fervent support of Lance - one thing's for sure, and you're absolutely right, his will to win and pure singlemindedness was truly astonishing - and the physical demands of winning 7 tours, after coming back from cancer, was a remarkable achievement. Unfortunately it wasn't quite what we all wanted to believe. Will cycling learn from this? I have my doubts.

Is anyone else of the opinion that even though he was doping his way through, so was everyone else at the time, so in effect it was a level playing field and he was the best?

[maturin23]

There seem to be a few people blindly saying this.

He created and nurtured an environment where you either joined in the doping or you were driven out of the sport.

What if there was someone who was capable of beating him if no drugs were taken? If this person refused to take drugs he'd never be able to beat a 'doped' Lance Armstrong.

It was NOT a level playing field and it's idiocy to suggest it was.

[Andy Zarse]

zac510 said:

I can't condone Armstrong's taking of performance enhancing drugs but that was a great post by Foggy. There was no ignorance on his part, only recognition that there's so much more to any successful individual than one single characteristic.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I found his opinions quite loathsome.

[JuniorD]

Anyone who thinks Lance Armstrong is a legend and a force for good should read this, the statement of Simeoni who was humiliated and ruined by Armstrong during a race in 2004 . The further link in the story details the incident. Armstrong is an utterly despicable person.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-armstrong-...

[Derek Smith]

JuniorD said:

Anyone who thinks Lance Armstrong is a legend and a force for good should read this, the statement of Simeoni who was humiliated and ruined by Armstrong during a race in 2004 . The further link in the story details the incident. Armstrong is an utterly despicable person.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-armstrong-...

I was ill at the time and missed it. I've heard it refered to a number of times. There wasn't an awful lot online about it (until fairly recently) and it has been difficult to 'catch up'. However, if it was as blatent as I am now reading, it would appear to be an indictment of the specialist cycling media (including TV) that it was ignored.

Is that a fair comment?

[aspender]

cotney said:

Is anyone else of the opinion that even though he was doping his way through, so was everyone else at the time, so in effect it was a level playing field and he was the best?

This is an easy conclusion to reach, but not actually true. Much like people have different levels of reaction to use of recreational drugs, so athletes are affected to a different level by use of PEDS, especially EPO. It is simply not the case that it gives a uniform x% increase in performance.

EPO increases the red blood cell count, allowing the body to transport more oxygen to the muscles. To race you had to have a Hematocrit level (a measure of the number of red blood cells) of 50 or less. This was monitored by the UCI using blood tests.

If your natural Hematocrit level was, say, 42 then you could use EPO to get it up to 50 and see a 19% increase in your oxygen carrying capacity. If your natural level is 47 you can't achieve that same level of increased performance.

So if everybody can dope to get to 50 then in one respect that could be considered a 'level' playing field, but in reality those with a better physiological starting point have been 'unfairly' disadvantaged.