Lance , i should be should be forgiven

[Silver940]

graememac said:

Level playing field!?! Absolute B*llocks. Some riders benefited more from using EPO depending on their natural level of haemocrit.

I'm sure I read somewhere they hired riders based on their natural levels too knowing they would get the most gain from EPO.

Agree pretty much with what MadDad says above.

Of the books I have read I found The Secret Race the easiest read, it changed my perception a bit about the doping from that era but not about Armstrong and the lives he ruined.

[scherzkeks]

graememac said:

Level playing field!?! Absolute B*llocks. Some riders benefited more from using EPO depending on their natural level of haemocrit.

Agreed. Also the USPS doping program was arguably the most comprehensive and successful in the history of the sport; there is quite an advantage there.

That said, his doping bothers me less than the bullst he spewed about everytime he opened his mouth, the careers he tried to ruin, and the way he used livestrong as a front to deflect all criticism. Would love to know how much of their proceeds actually went to fighting cancer...

I'll admit, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing him brought down.

[Vocal Minority]

graememac said:

Level playing field!?! Absolute B*llocks. Some riders benefited more from using EPO depending on their natural level of haemocrit.

This is apparently why the whole thing, which had been bubbling along under the surface happily for years, exploded in the mid 90s.

I can't remember where I read this, probably one of David Walsh's or Tyler Hamilton's book

With all the various amphetemines and so on that riders were using, it didn't REALLY matter, as the right guys -those who were the best cyclist - still won.

EPO was turning donkeys into racehorses. Lance Armstrong was a case in point - he was always a fairly good one day rider (he was world champion after all), but pretty average in multi-stage events. All of a sudden he comes back as an untouchable tour rider - now I know he messed about with the juice at Motorola (a Betsy Andreau has said) but with US Postal they started doing it properly.

I am not saying its right, I am just saying that this is why it has all gone 'bang' (metaphorically speaking) with the advent of EPO when there has been drug use in cycling since year dot

[Herman Toothrot]

They used haematcrit of 50% as acceptable level, you can bet almost everyone's was 49%, same level of RBC's in each riders body. Same Oxygen carrying capacity = level field. Of course one rider may benefit more competitively to other if his was lower to start but once doped to the eyes with EPO they were equal. Should riders with 'naturally' high levels have been excluded as well. Natural being subjective i.e. Sleeping in a hypobaric chamber or training at altitude.

Bedsides what sort of excuse is 'his drugs worked better than mine?!'' They were all doping, if the drugs worked better in some than others then tough they were all trying for the biggest advantage they could get. Jan Ulrich whining about Pantini abnormal climbing ability he must be a cheat when Jans historic samples were tested they were full of EPO as well. Pathetic school kid whinging by the cheating losers.

[WestyCarl]

But the ban is for doping, not being an a*** hole.
Looking at the facts, you can't help but come to the conclusion he was made a scapegoat for the doping era.

[bakerstreet]

Skyedriver said:

Yes he cheated, he ruined the sport as far as many casual spectators (inc TV spectators) the only thing I can say in his defence is that it was apparently rife throughout the upper eschelons of the sport. Pantani, Reis, Ulrich etc Some died, some never returned, some became team managers.
Unfortunatley, sport is FULL of cheats from the guy in club mototsport with the 1500cc car in the 1400 class, Maradona and his hand of god, the guy who deliberately holds back the attacker in football, the guy who deliberately crashes into his opponent so that he can win the F1 title...

I personally think what Lance did was on a much bigger scale than the list above, but as others have said, people forget that he wasn't the only one. Does anyone know what ever happened the with civil lawsuit that was being threatened by US Post?

[TKF]

MadDad said:

He still seems totally oblivious that it's not the doping that pi@@es everyone off - it's his attitude and flat refusal to show any real regret or remorse!

Exactly right.

Even in yesterday's interview he refuses to acknowledge the bullying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30955902
DR: The critics would say you were the ringleader. It wasn't just the doping, it was the bullying, the intimidation, the lying, betraying friends.
LA: "And some of that's true; some of that's not true. There was certainly a dishonesty there that I think is totally regrettable and inexcusable. The ringleading, the bullying: not totally true."

Throughout the entire interview he also keeps talking in the third person. The doping I can handle but he needs a ban for that alone!

[scherzkeks]

WestyCarl said:

But the ban is for doping, not being an a*** hole.
Looking at the facts, you can't help but come to the conclusion he was made a scapegoat for the doping era.

Yes, but part of what made him an asshole were his efforts to destroy anyone who might have shed light on USPS's massive doping program.

[WestyCarl]

scherzkeks said:

WestyCarl said:

But the ban is for doping, not being an a*** hole.
Looking at the facts, you can't help but come to the conclusion he was made a scapegoat for the doping era.

Yes, but part of what made him an asshole were his efforts to destroy anyone who might have shed light on USPS's massive doping program.

Completely agree, however the ban is for the doping offence, not being an asshole.
It would sit "easier" with me if he had 2 yrs for doping and a lifetime ban for bringing the sport into disrepute through some of his actions
EDIT: or even better, if everyone got a lifetime ban for doping (but that horse bolted a long time ago)

[scherzkeks]

WestyCarl said:

Completely agree, however the ban is for the doping offence, not being an asshole.
It would sit "easier" with me if he had 2 yrs for doping and a lifetime ban for bringing the sport into disrepute through some of his actions
EDIT: or even better, if everyone got a lifetime ban for doping (but that horse bolted a long time ago)

Yes, well said.

[anonymous-user]

Herman Toothrot said:

I think he should still keep the tour titles, he won those races on a level playing field - everyone was doping. If people have not seen the Pantini film they should, in those days if you signed up to be with a pro team you were employed to try and win and the team Dr was there to help. Does it not demonstrate how prevalent doping was that none of his titles were re appropriated? The year Pantini won the double 87 TDF riders tested positive.

Have you read Tyler Hamilton's book 'A Secret Race' it is absolutely the best thing to understand the era and Lance Armstrong. You're right, there was lots of doping, but, the scale, complexity and anonymity that Lance enjoyed has to be understood. Not everyone had a private jet on standby to drop them to Teide, not everyone had an oxygen chamber and blood runner 24/7, 365 days a year, it was never, ever a level (druggie) playing field, far from it. Even equipment, he had the pick of everything whist his team were forced to train with all manner of crap. The Girona appt's for riders were clean and nice, Lance had the entire middle floor, a personal set of mechanics, trainers along with all the sponsors delivering kit directly to Lance.

The power he had was beyond any mortal like Pantini, Pantini was just a rider with a bit of a screw loose. Lance Armstrong controlled the sport at a high level and came 'this' close to buying the TDF and creating a new federation. He spoke to Presidents, world leaders and high ranking officials in the sport as if they worked for him and used his connections to utterly ruin anyone who he saw as a threat.

His obsessive nature was described IIRC like this;

If Lance was mayor of a town he would have to own everything. If you, I or anyone else had just a paper stall on a side street it would drive him crazy, he would stop at nothing to take that paper stall off of you.

He's basically a piece of crap. Any sympathy I had fell away after reading the book. Yes it's Tyler's POV but there is a ton of detail as it unfolds from the various sources which leaves you dumbstruck how he grew this impossibly complex lie over the years. He's as arrogant and self absorbed as he ever was, this latest press release will no doubt be part of a greater scheme that the guy has in the back of his mind.

[Eddh]

WestyCarl said:

scherzkeks said:

WestyCarl said:

But the ban is for doping, not being an a*** hole.
Looking at the facts, you can't help but come to the conclusion he was made a scapegoat for the doping era.

Yes, but part of what made him an asshole were his efforts to destroy anyone who might have shed light on USPS's massive doping program.

Completely agree, however the ban is for the doping offence, not being an asshole.
It would sit "easier" with me if he had 2 yrs for doping and a lifetime ban for bringing the sport into disrepute through some of his actions
EDIT: or even better, if everyone got a lifetime ban for doping (but that horse bolted a long time ago)

I agree with you on this and I think you summed it up nicely by seperating the doping offence from him being an arse.

Do I dislike him for cheating and using EPO to win 7 tours? No, everyone was doing it at the time, he was just the best at cheating when cycling as a sport was going through some rather dark times.

Do I dislike him for being an arsehat and ruining lives of those that tried to expose his cheating? Possibly, that I think is more of a reason to dislike him. The cover-ups, the lying and hiding behind the charity.

If I were in his situation would I do it? Yes, I wouldn't be as much of an arse about it though...

[neilr]

The one thing LA and most of the others seem to be unable (or unwilling) to accept is the fact they cheated. MOst of them, especailly LA don't see it as cheating. NO, you are banned because you broke the rules of your sport and are a cheat. Just because everyone else did it doesn't make it right. They don't realise that others breaking the rules doesn't make their own rule breaking mean less.

Clearly most riders were faced with an impossible choice, but i think if LA and others stood up and said " I cheated, i broke the rules and it was wrong and I'm sorry" it would be a good start. I think many people might lessen their hate for LA if he did that.

Its convenient for cycling today and every other sport on the planet that the media are still fixated with what went on 15 years ago though eh. After all, its a clean sport today and there are no drugs cheats in other sports are there. No, wait....

[scherzkeks]

neilr said:

The one thing LA and most of the others seem to be unable (or unwilling) to accept is the fact they cheated. MOst of them, especailly LA don't see it as cheating. NO, you are banned because you broke the rules of your sport and are a cheat. Just because everyone else did it doesn't make it right. They don't realise that others breaking the rules doesn't make their own rule breaking mean less.

Clearly most riders were faced with an impossible choice, but i think if LA and others stood up and said " I cheated, i broke the rules and it was wrong and I'm sorry" it would be a good start. I think many people might lessen their hate for LA if he did that.

Its convenient for cycling today and every other sport on the planet that the media are still fixated with what went on 15 years ago though eh. After all, its a clean sport today and there are no drugs cheats in other sports are there. No, wait....

To me he appears to be a classic malignant narcissist. Will do whatever it takes to get his fame and fortune, and adopts a "with-me-or-against-me mentality." People of this type do not apologize, put up false fronts (see livestrong), and play the role of victim when outed.

Also, the offense cuts to his core, since he was a mediocre rider before partaking in the greatest and most comprehensive systematic doping program in history. Without that program, he'd have been a nobody, and he knows it.

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 27th January 12:11

[WestyCarl]

scherzkeks said:

Also, the offense cuts to his core, since he was a mediocre rider before partaking in the greatest and most comprehensive systematic doping program in history. Without that program, he'd have been a nobody, and he knows it.

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 27th January 12:11

I thought he was a World Champ early on in his career.

[anonymous-user]

WestyCarl said:

scherzkeks said:

Also, the offense cuts to his core, since he was a mediocre rider before partaking in the greatest and most comprehensive systematic doping program in history. Without that program, he'd have been a nobody, and he knows it.

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 27th January 12:11

I thought he was a World Champ early on in his career.

1993 but its hard to say if even this was clean as there is a wealth of evidence that proves US cyclist teams were doping as far back as the mid 080s but whether Lance was artifically enhanced pre-cancer i have no idea.

As it was a one day race and in very bad conditions, he already had some pedigree in triathlons, a few big riders were at the end of their careers.... I'd say he won clean in 1993.

[Watchman]

The fact that he says he would cheat if faced with that choice/time again just means the sanctions/punishments AREN'T heavy enough. His message to me in that interview was that cheating pays.

Edited by Watchman on Tuesday 27th January 13:13

[graememac]

pablo said:

1993 but its hard to say if even this was clean as there is a wealth of evidence that proves US cyclist teams were doping as far back as the mid 080s but whether Lance was artifically enhanced pre-cancer i have no idea.

As it was a one day race and in very bad conditions, he already had some pedigree in triathlons, a few big riders were at the end of their careers.... I'd say he won clean in 1993.

Might be wrong but wasn't it whilst in hospital with cancer that Betsy Adreau heard him tell doctors that he had previously used EPO along with other substances??

[Herman Toothrot]

Epogen didn't go to market until 1989 so doubt anyone was doping with EPO before then and it would have only been manufactured for clinical trials.

[scherzkeks]

pablo said:

1993 but its hard to say if even this was clean as there is a wealth of evidence that proves US cyclist teams were doping as far back as the mid 080s but whether Lance was artifically enhanced pre-cancer i have no idea.

As it was a one day race and in very bad conditions, he already had some pedigree in triathlons, a few big riders were at the end of their careers.... I'd say he won clean in 1993.

Its also been rumored for ages that his PED activities during this time played a role in his diagnosis, but no idea if any actual evidence has ever surfaced for this.