armstrong about the bike read
Comments
-
you know, i couldn't care less. maybe la did dope, but when in rome... i believe that now the focus is on ridding many sports of dopers the "level" playing field will be a clean level field. catch people who persist, ban them, let them serve their time and then see how they perform when they return. many brits aren't chastising millar, cause he owned up after being caught. thats easy to do and campaigning against doping is a good way to get people back on side. look at dwain chambers, hes a leper in the press and in his field. is that because he isn't campaigning anti doping?
are we judging, aldag, zabel, riis, ullrich et al? no, because they didn't win consistently. lance did, so if he doped like they did to make that "level" playing field, he was still the best athlete, if he didn't, was he superhuman?
the book is good btw and i found it inspired me to ride harder to lose some lard!0 -
Yes - we're just not discussing them because they don't have books out. Personally at least I'd be dissing them just as much as we're dissing Lance if we were discussing them (probably more, as there's a lot more evidence that they did dope).sloxam wrote:are we judging, aldag, zabel, riis, ullrich et al?
I'd suggest that given recent evidence involving other sports people, anybody who thinks it's reasonable to assume Lance didn't dope because he never failed a test is rather naive. I'd suggest that on balance of probabilities it's reasonable to assume he did dope given all the available evidence, though accept that there is of course no definite proof.0 -
aracer wrote:sloxam wrote:are we judging, aldag, zabel, riis, ullrich et al?
I'd suggest that given recent evidence involving other sports people, anybody who thinks it's reasonable to assume Lance didn't dope because he never failed a test is rather naive. I'd suggest that on balance of probabilities it's reasonable to assume he did dope given all the available evidence, though accept that there is of course no definite proof.
I wouldn't be 100% amazed if he had doped, but why do we have to assume he did just because a) other drug cheats didn't fail tests, b) some of his main rivals did dope ? What is the available evidence that you refer to ? Please don't try and submit the Walsh books as evidence, they are just hearsay and rumour from peopel with ana obvious axe to grind.
I admit I have a pro Lance bias, but I'd need to see something more concrete than this "he must have" attitude. I was a pro kick-boxer before cycling, I beat plenty of guys who were steroided up to the eyeballs, does that mean I must have been ? The people I beat asked me what I was on, most fighters were on stegs, so "on the balance of probabilities" I must have been ?Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Colin. applying a 'ballance of probabilities'. You 'sometimes' beat, 'low' level fighters in a sport where the drug use would arguably have little effect and you did over a short career span.
Where as Armstrong always beat world class known drug users over a 7 year span in a sport where durg use has proven benefits.
So on ballance of probabilities I'd say given the variables I'd be 99% confident that Lance took drugs whereas only say 25% that you took drugs.
I didn't mean to be derogatory to your achievements, I just wanted to illustrate the differences between your example and the Lance example. Oh and I'm not saying that you took drugs either, just making up figures to illustrate the example.
Some more probability for you all, if you have a negative drugs test, that doesn't mean you haven't taken drugs. It means either you took drugs and the test didn't catch you or you didn't take drugs and the test didn't catch you.
What I'm saying is that since Lance passed every drug test you still can not say that he didn't take drugs. Given the number of people who have come out lately I would suggest that the tests weren't very good at finding the drug users.0 -
wasnt testo-gel the cover prescription that doctors gave to account for abnormally high testo levels, so a cyclist could use synthetic testosterone legally?
also if a rider takes epo he is dirty, were as if a doctor prescribes it hes clean.
clean/unclean he was the best rider on the day thats all that matters.0 -
What evidence do you need? How about US Postal staff dumping medical waste which included Actovegin packets, a blood product made from calves' blood in a bin during the 2000 Tour. Why did they go miles out of their way to do so?colint wrote:I wouldn't be 100% amazed if he had doped, but why do we have to assume he did just because a) other drug cheats didn't fail tests, b) some of his main rivals did dope ? What is the available evidence that you refer to ? Please don't try and submit the Walsh books as evidence, they are just hearsay and rumour from peopel with ana obvious axe to grind.
How do you explain away the fact that traces of EPO were found in Armstrong's urine samples stored from the 1999 Tour? No disciplinary action could be brought as this was done to validate a new test but Armstrong's concerted PR campaign attacked the people involved but failed to address the provenance of the positive test.
Do the actions of an innocent man tally with the vendettas perpetrated against Christophe Bassons, who spoke out in favour of a clean sport, or Filipppo Simeoni, who's crime was to testify under oath that he'd received doping products from Dr Michele Ferrari, Armstrong's long time collaborator and convicted doper.
How about the transcript published as part of the SCA action against Armstrong, where Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters, both ex-team mates of Armstrong, chatted at length about the practices involved in blood doping?
These are just some of the body of evidence that I can come up with off the top of my head, there is more out there. Why do you discount David Walsh's book btw, he's a respected, award winning journalist with a long history of involvement in cycling. A lot of the people he's interviewed have no axe to grind, i.e. Steve Swart, Emma O'Reilly etc.
You can, of course, continue to believe that Armstrong was clean but in a sport where doping has been, and may still be, endemic it's hard to believe that the most prominent rider of the past 15 years was somehow not involved especially when there is a large volume of circumstantial evidence that suggests he was.0 -
This is where it gets exasperating - doping does not create a level playing field. As is the case with all drugs, some people respond better than others. It doesn't mean the playing field is leveled.z000m wrote:clean/unclean he was the best rider on the day thats all that matters.
As an example, if you're haematocrit level is 42% and you use EPO to boost it up to 49% you've more of an advantage than someone whose natural haematocrit level is 46% as they can only boost by 3% compared to your 7%.0 -
Teh first book is a good read- almost gripping - forget its armstrong if that what it takes. Teh second is less 'personal' more bike racing. Also good but not so gripping. Not sure how it measures up to other 'bike racing books' except Obrees - good too but not as well written.0
-
Huge efforts were made to catch him & they failed; so we have to give th eguy his dues.0
-
andyp wrote:
What evidence do you need? How about US Postal staff dumping medical waste which included Actovegin packets, a blood product made from calves' blood in a bin during the 2000 Tour. Why did they go miles out of their way to do so?colint wrote:I wouldn't be 100% amazed if he had doped, but why do we have to assume he did just because a) other drug cheats didn't fail tests, b) some of his main rivals did dope ? What is the available evidence that you refer to ? Please don't try and submit the Walsh books as evidence, they are just hearsay and rumour from peopel with ana obvious axe to grind.
How do you explain away the fact that traces of EPO were found in Armstrong's urine samples stored from the 1999 Tour? No disciplinary action could be brought as this was done to validate a new test but Armstrong's concerted PR campaign attacked the people involved but failed to address the provenance of the positive test.
Do the actions of an innocent man tally with the vendettas perpetrated against Christophe Bassons, who spoke out in favour of a clean sport, or Filipppo Simeoni, who's crime was to testify under oath that he'd received doping products from Dr Michele Ferrari, Armstrong's long time collaborator and convicted doper.
How about the transcript published as part of the SCA action against Armstrong, where Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters, both ex-team mates of Armstrong, chatted at length about the practices involved in blood doping?
These are just some of the body of evidence that I can come up with off the top of my head, there is more out there. Why do you discount David Walsh's book btw, he's a respected, award winning journalist with a long history of involvement in cycling. A lot of the people he's interviewed have no axe to grind, i.e. Steve Swart, Emma O'Reilly etc.
You can, of course, continue to believe that Armstrong was clean but in a sport where doping has been, and may still be, endemic it's hard to believe that the most prominent rider of the past 15 years was somehow not involved especially when there is a large volume of circumstantial evidence that suggests he was.
All of the above is circumstantial, as you admit yourself. I could tell stories about doping in sports I've been involved in, doesn't mean I or the guys I trained with doped. Some of my training partners did dope, and we shared coaches, trainers etc etc, doesn't mean I doped. I'm not being totally naive, but when I look at the same set of evidence as you, I just choose to believe he was an amazing athlete, rather than just another cheat.
You obviously want him to have doped, whereas I want him to have been clean so we'll always look at the sme set of circumstances differently. I just find it a bit sad that some peopel are so desparate for one of the highest profile riders ever to have been a doper, shouldn't we be hoping he was clean ? SO much of it comes down to personal dislike of the guy imho.
As for Walsh, I've met him and he's a total snake. Claims to have the best interests of the sport as a motivation, which is total tosh. HE'd write any tripe and drag the sport through the mud to make a buck, ie promoting his last fantasy on the eve of the tour.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
I don't really care if he was clean or not (although I have no doubt personally that he was doped for all 7 of his Tour wins). What gets me is how he is held up to be a paragon of virtue and some kind of latter day saint when the whole edifice is based on a lie.colint wrote:All of the above is circumstantial, as you admit yourself. I could tell stories about doping in sports I've been involved in, doesn't mean I or the guys I trained with doped. Some of my training partners did dope, and we shared coaches, trainers etc etc, doesn't mean I doped. I'm not being totally naive, but when I look at the same set of evidence as you, I just choose to believe he was an amazing athlete, rather than just another cheat.
You obviously want him to have doped, whereas I want him to have been clean so we'll always look at the sme set of circumstances differently. I just find it a bit sad that some peopel are so desparate for one of the highest profile riders ever to have been a doper, shouldn't we be hoping he was clean ? SO much of it comes down to personal dislike of the guy imho.
I know I'll not change your mind, or those of you who choose to buy into the myth of Armstrong. However, regardless of how good an athlete he was (and his physical attributes are not remarkable compared to previous great champions in the sport) he could not have consistently beaten the best of the rest, virtually all of whom are now discredited, on bread and mineral water. EPO alone will add close to a 20% performance improvement against a clean rider. There is no way a clean rider could have dominated in the way he did. If you believe that one could then I've a bridge for sale.0 -
Wow, for someone who apparantly doesn't care if he was clean or not, you spend a whole heap of time ranting about him on this forum.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
he could not have consistently beaten the best of the rest, virtually all of whom are now discredited, on bread and mineral water
He is damned by this logic (well, the same logic used by the lynch mob). Innocent till proven guilty will do for me. You may say naive, but the way I see it, unless there is incontrovertible proof of guilt then innocence is the natural conclusion. You may not like it but it is wrong to condemn anyone, in any walk of life, on supposition rather than proof.0 -
Apologies, didn't mean to get personal, I'll get my coatPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
In reply to the original question...yes it is a good read. Well worth getting. In reply to everything that has followed in this thread....well, i guess its just going to be one of those mysteries for the time being. For someone to be so dominant for so long in a field stuffed full of dopers is always going to raise suspiscion. The way he left known dopers standing on alpine climbs was amazing but unfortunately, when rider after rider gets exposed, its hard to believe that the very best of them was clean. I'd say its always risky to stand and say that any rider is/was definately clean these days...or infact at any time in the history of pro cycling. Sadly, thats part of the sport we love.
The suspicion doesn't mean you can't still admire him. I'm not going to speculate either way as until we know for certain then there's no point. I'll still scour youtube for footage of his amazing feats though. Just as I will Pantani. Their exploits in the saddle are still something to be inspired by. I guess I just tend to put all the doubts to the back of my mind and enjoy watching them fly up climbs and effortlessly eat up miles through the sunflower fields.0 -
Indeed - he was very good at being one step ahead of the testers (just like Marion Jones et al).musto_skiff wrote:Huge efforts were made to catch him & they failed; so we have to give th eguy his dues.0 -
aracer wrote:
Indeed - he was very good at being one step ahead of the testers (just like Marion Jones et al).musto_skiff wrote:Huge efforts were made to catch him & they failed; so we have to give th eguy his dues.
Maybe ... we'll never know ...0 -
Iv read the 1st book and though it was great. I,d been into cycling before and followed the tour de france on and off since 1998., but reading the book definatly made me want to get a bike ride. I read similer topics about the subject since becoming a member on bike radar and found this interveiw very intresting.
Its david walsh, he is ovisly not armstrongs biggest fan, but some of the points he makes about the change in speed in cycling from 1992 onwards and the change in armstrongs tt and climbing ability from before cancer and after are hard ignore.
From being sombody who just watched cycling on the tv and then to getting into it a bit more, basicly just by reading veiws and links on this forum , Its hard to beleive now that armstrongs wins came drug free. But like has been said before and by listing to these links, its almost like you didnt have a choice but to dope. And that dosn,t make it ok it makes it understandable.
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=1510 -
z00m. Ignore all the did he, didn't he hype. The books are autobiographical and therefore there is a limit to how much negative he will put in there, although drugs aside I think he is not too far up his own.... I've read worse that way, Pele's (who is a hero of mine) left me thinking that he could do with a bit more humility.
I've also read Tour de Force and would recommend that as well.
As far as the drugs go, I don't particulalry care. Nothing was ever proven so I will take the books at face value. On balance it matters little in my life whether he did or didn't. They were a good read, well written. Others who took drugs are less vilified because they were less successful. I suspect we will never know the truth so it doesn't seem much use wasting time over it (which I just have!!)0 -
All you doubters make me sick...you shouldnt be on a bike,be on a bike website or even have the audacity to question...all your arguments are pathetic,no proof....yes,no proof at all just pathetic jealous speculation...the guy is a absolute legend,7 time winner...yes seven times.no failed tests.no failed tests...and again no failed tests
proof....show proof...show proof that the guy cheated,i will hold my hands up,i will accept i and millions of others are wrong...if not,shut up and move on to someone else who as cheated,been caught or admitted
he hasnt,he hasnt been caught,he hasnt admitted...hes an amazing athlete
pathetic middle class bored people with money and time on your hands and a
few quid in your pocket and you dare to judge
thats why this countrys going to ruin....appreciate whats good...dont disect what doesnt need it0 -
Come back from your hols and feeling the need to vent a bit, Stuey?
So can I just check - are we allowed to suggest that Ullrich took drugs, as he's never been caught for performance enhancing drugs or admitted? How about Pantani - he never got caught either? Presumably we can have a go at Riis now as he's owned up, but according to your rules he was whiter than white a couple of years ago? How about Tom Simpson - he never failed a test or admitted to drug use, so presumably he's as clean as Armstrong?0 -
Dear oh dear - someone's blood pressure is a bit high.stueyc wrote:All you doubters make me sick...you shouldnt be on a bike,be on a bike website or even have the audacity to question...all your arguments are pathetic,no proof....yes,no proof at all just pathetic jealous speculation...the guy is a absolute legend,7 time winner...yes seven times.no failed tests.no failed tests...and again no failed tests
proof....show proof...show proof that the guy cheated,i will hold my hands up,i will accept i and millions of others are wrong...if not,shut up and move on to someone else who as cheated,been caught or admitted
he hasnt,he hasnt been caught,he hasnt admitted...hes an amazing athlete
pathetic middle class bored people with money and time on your hands and a
few quid in your pocket and you dare to judge
thats why this countrys going to ruin....appreciate whats good...dont disect what doesnt need it
I tell you what makes me sick - people who try and turn ordinary humans into some kind of saint. They will be sorely disappointed when the saint turns out to be like the rest of us.
I think Armstrong's charity fundraising is fantastic but I also know it is a built on a lie, namely that he won 7 Tours clean. He didn't and it is well documented what he did to evade failing tests (800mls of packed cells anyone).0 -
stueyc wrote:All you doubters make me sick...you shouldnt be on a bike,be on a bike website or even have the audacity to question...all your arguments are pathetic,no proof....yes,no proof at all just pathetic jealous speculation...the guy is a absolute legend,7 time winner...yes seven times.no failed tests.no failed tests...and again no failed tests
proof....show proof...show proof that the guy cheated,i will hold my hands up,i will accept i and millions of others are wrong...if not,shut up and move on to someone else who as cheated,been caught or admitted
he hasnt,he hasnt been caught,he hasnt admitted...hes an amazing athlete
pathetic middle class bored people with money and time on your hands and a
few quid in your pocket and you dare to judge
thats why this countrys going to ruin....appreciate whats good...dont disect what doesnt need it
What dose middle class have to do with anything?.
Ruin!, because were debating if a cyclist did or did not use peds to win a race where lots of his competitors have been found to??.
Did you listen to the links above?, did none it of seem intresting to you?.0 -
stueyc wrote:All you doubters make me sick...you shouldnt be on a bike,be on a bike website or even have the audacity to question...all your arguments are pathetic,no proof....yes,no proof at all just pathetic jealous speculation...the guy is a absolute legend,7 time winner...yes seven times.no failed tests.no failed tests...and again no failed tests
proof....show proof...show proof that the guy cheated,i will hold my hands up,i will accept i and millions of others are wrong...if not,shut up and move on to someone else who as cheated,been caught or admitted
he hasnt,he hasnt been caught,he hasnt admitted...hes an amazing athlete
pathetic middle class bored people with money and time on your hands and a
few quid in your pocket and you dare to judge
thats why this countrys going to ruin....appreciate whats good...dont disect what doesnt need it
Don't know about the middle class thing, but I agree with the general gist of what you're saying. It's the reason why during my time here I hardly ever post in 'Race'.0 -
andyp wrote:[
I tell you what makes me sick - people who try and turn ordinary humans into some kind of saint. They will be sorely disappointed when the saint turns out to be like the rest of us.
I
Is this an admission of your doping Andy ? I knew there was something unbalanced about your posts
Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Tend to agree with stueyc.
It doesn't matter how much circumstantial evidence there is or 'how likely' it is that he doped, based on every supposed experts opinion ... NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN PROVED .... get over it until and unless it is.
LA is a total Hero IMHO
It's great to be .....0 -
Good book. I found it insperational.0
