armstrong about the bike read

redddraggon

colint wrote:

if you win less that means you dope less ??

Sinkewitz didn't win much, did he? Nothing important at least. It just shows that some riders need to dope just to keep up.

andyp

redddraggon wrote:

Now Cipo is a real hero, when the going got tough he didn't dope, he gave up and got in the team car.

Please tell me that's irony? If you really believe that then ask yourself who Cipo's sports doctor was... why, one Dr Michele Ferrari. The man Virenque wouldn't use because doing so was tantamount to admitting you doped in his view.

ellieb

You can choose to believe in Father Christmas but that doesn't mean to say that he exists. * The only way you will get drugs out of the sport is when the cheats are exposed & it becomes less profitable to cheat than not to. & the only way you can begin to do that is by facing up to the truth.
*Note to any children reading: I mean of course he exists, otherwise where would all the presents come from?

stueyc

Andyp...i feel for you i really do

redddraggon

andyp wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Now Cipo is a real hero, when the going got tough he didn't dope, he gave up and got in the team car.

Please tell me that's irony? If you really believe that then ask yourself who Cipo's sports doctor was... why, one Dr Michele Ferrari. The man Virenque wouldn't use because doing so was tantamount to admitting you doped in his view.

Cipo is more than just a cyclist. He's everything Euro. He was definitely a rule breaker, so perhaps he did take something to help him along - but he's still the coolest cyclist ever (so far).

colint

If we can forgive the tiger print suit we can forgive Cipo anything

andyp

redddraggon wrote:

Cipo is more than just a cyclist. He's everything Euro. He was definitely a rule breaker, so perhaps he did take something to help him along - but he's still the coolest cyclist ever (so far).

Cooler than Roger de Vlaeminck? No way.

andyp

stueyc wrote:

Andyp...i feel for you i really do

Get over yourself. :roll:

Or follow the lead of the CSC riders at last year's Tour and harden the fuck up!

aracer

stueyc wrote:

Andyp...i feel for you i really do

stuey just gets funnier and funnier

I'm actually now convinced he is trolling.

stueyc

pair of f****** idiots

ChrisLS

...Zooom, I am really sorry your thread turned into this character assination of a great cyclist...hope you enjoy the book

aracer

colint wrote:

Do we assume every winner must have been doped ?

Sadly that's not an unreasonable assumption (certainly if we're talking about TdF winners). I certainly can't think of a single winner who I'm sure didn't, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting most of the recent winners did.

aracer

If we must get back to the book, I read it and enjoyed it. The second one, despite being more about cycling is nowhere near so good.

redddraggon

To be fair to LA, after what he went through and still to be alive, and end up winning even one TdF is a massive achievement.

We know all his close rivals doped, so his doping isn't the end of the world.

The reason why most people don't like Lance is because he's a bit of kn*b, and not a likeable character.

alfablue

Its about the book!

I read it when I was dangerously ill, it inspired me big time, made me believe I could get through. It is an interesting read too, you won't get bored. Not brilliantly written, but entertaining enough.

As for the Lance doping / not doping, if he did and got away with it, who knows, but unless and until there is confirmed evidence I believe I have no option than to accept his wins at face value (and others may do as they choose). He underwent a witch hunt in some quarters after his illness, based in my view on prejudice against the fact that someone so ill should not be able to recover and actually excel in the sport. Call me naive or whatever, I don't care.

aracer

alfablue wrote:

He underwent a witch hunt in some quarters after his illness, based in my view on prejudice against the fact that someone so ill should not be able to recover and actually excel in the sport.

...and because he wasn't French / Italian / Spanish.

Of course just because there was a witch hunt, doesn't mean he's not guilty!

alfablue

aracer wrote:

alfablue wrote:

He underwent a witch hunt in some quarters after his illness, based in my view on prejudice against the fact that someone so ill should not be able to recover and actually excel in the sport.

...and because he wasn't French / Italian / Spanish.

Of course just because there was a witch hunt, doesn't mean he's not guilty!

Of course not, but he also underwent a great deal of scrutiny the more success he had.

wildmoustache

redddraggon wrote:

To be fair to LA, after what he went through and still to be alive, and end up winning even one TdF is a massive achievement.

We know all his close rivals doped, so his doping isn't the end of the world.

The reason why most people don't like Lance is because he's a bit of kn*b, and not a likeable character.

well put. if he doped ... yeah, he lied, but he was competing against other lying dopers. It still took unbelievable dedication and talent to do what he did

if he didn't dope ... then what he did is the most amazing athletic feat of all time IMHO.

daniel_b

But back on topic.........

I read the book 18 months ago, just getting back into cycling at the time, and only had my mountain bike I had recently purchased.

Read it whilst on holiday in Burgundy, and couldn't put it down, read it in less than 2 days, with the help of a bit of wine, and it's a very good read, inspirational indeed.

Dan

sloboy

I've read both and enjoyed them both - Not About the Bike is probably the better, but both are interesting.

But personally, I didn't find them inspirational. Insightful, but not inspirational.

thenumber8

I've read both and one thing that's pretty clear is that LA is not a particularly nice guy. Respect for what he did, but never a hero figure to me. I don't agree that it's particularly insightful though. Another decent read about LA is Chasing Lance by Martin Dugard which is about 2005 victory but has some insightful stuff about LA's training and his 2005 victory.

On the whole did he / didn't he dope issue, its interesting to see that there are so many out there who follow the David Walsh theory that as LA beat others who doped, he must have been doping.

thenumber8

I've read both and one thing that's pretty clear is that LA is not a particularly nice guy. Respect for what he did, but never a hero figure to me. I don't agree that it's particularly insightful though. Another decent read about LA is Chasing Lance by Martin Dugard which is about 2005 victory but has some insightful stuff about LA's training and his 2005 victory.

On the whole did he / didn't he dope issue, its interesting to see that there are so many out there who follow the David Walsh theory that as LA beat others who doped, he must have been doping.

geoff_ss

I read the book at a sitting when a cycling friend of mine was fighting cancer himself. It gave me a little hope but unfortunately my friend eventually succumbed.

Armstrong is probably not a very pleasant human being. I think anyone so dedicated and single minded as to become supreme in any branch of human endeavour (particularly sport) has to be very self centred which inevitably makes them unattractive in some ways. As a near neighbour and one time sailor myself, Ellen McArhur is one of my heroes but I would imagine she's very difficult to live with.

Drugged or not 7 Tour victories take a lot of mental toughness.

Geoff

aracer

Geoff_SS wrote:

Armstrong is probably not a very pleasant human being. I think anyone so dedicated and single minded as to become supreme in any branch of human endeavour (particularly sport) has to be very self centred which inevitably makes them unattractive in some ways. As a near neighbour and one time sailor myself, Ellen McArhur is one of my heroes but I would imagine she's very difficult to live with.

I'd not dream of putting Ellen Mcarthur into the same category as Lance - she comes across as far, far nicer than him (though her sport isn't as head-to-head competitive as pro cycling).

Yorkiand

We have to believe that LA was clean because he never tested positive and, to believe otherwise would ruin the sports credibility. Regardless of his personality etc, his record of seven wins is an inspiration to many considering the cancer he fought.

Someone higher up the thread mentioned "Rough Ride" by Paul Kimmage. I read this book recently and it was very difficult to put down. It really does make you wonder. A very good read.

andy_wrx

wildmoustache wrote:

well put. if he doped ... yeah, he lied, but he was competing against other lying dopers. It still took unbelievable dedication and talent to do what he did

if he didn't dope ... then what he did is the most amazing athletic feat of all time IMHO.

This is what Greg LeMond said, causing LA to get half a dozen of the biggest movers-and-shakers in US cycling to put the threateners on Greg, including the CEO of Trek threatening to stop manufacturing LeMond bikes.

Yeah, a really nice man.

Read some more of these books, like Tour de Force/Lance Armstrong's War, and you'll see that LA is certainly not a nice man.

But then to get to that level, to dominate and control a sport, requires a particular midset.
What separates those who win from those who don't, having equal talent.

I wouldn't contrast him with Ellen Macarthur, wouldn't compare single-handed ocean racing with cycling, they're different sorts of sports. Ocean racing could compare to mountaineering perhaps, but not cycling.

More appropriate perhaps would be motor racing, a one-on-one competition against your opponents rather than the elements.
So I'd compare LA to Michael Schumacher, another who dominated and controlled his sport, another very successful but very controversial winner, another who won at all costs
- another who wouldn't be described as a nice man.

Except in motor racing the car's the technology and where the cheating is.
In cycling, a bike's a bike by contrast and there really isn't any difference between the bikes ridden by any of the teams.
The rider is where the the technology and cheating is...

As others have said, read From Lance to Landis and get a different perspective on whether LA doped than what you'll get from Lance's ghostwritten autobiogs

aarw

redddraggon wrote:

To be fair to LA, after what he went through and still to be alive, and end up winning even one TdF is a massive achievement.

We know all his close rivals doped, so his doping isn't the end of the world.

The reason why most people don't like Lance is because he's a bit of kn*b, and not a likeable character.

All very true, apart from "bit of".

It is worth a ready and as someone else mentioned, 'rough ride' by paul kimmage is a book worth reading. I know he has created a lot of enemies with his writing but it makes interesting reading.

colint

I couldn't stand the Kimmage book, some interesting stuff but I just got sick of his whining. I'm convinced that if he'd have turned into a world beater when he doped he'd have stuck with it.

aarw

colint wrote:

I'm convinced that if he'd have turned into a world beater when he doped he'd have stuck with it.

LOL. I think you may be correct!

pjh

No doping has ever been proved with regard to LA ... that's it ... period!

The rest is simply speculation and a heck of a lot of 'penis-envy'.

Even if we assume he was doping;

None of the top cyclists of the time (let's assume most of them were all doped up too) could beat him in the TdF over a seven year period.

So he isn't a nice guy ... ho hum ... most people who rise to the very top in sport aren't nice guys! Rising to the top requires a combination of determination (neh selfishness), ambition, dedication, ruthlessness etc which most of us simply aren't capable of ... not a great combination to make a nice human being! None of this is new news!

The books are great (they got me back on a bike after 20 years!)