From Lance to Landis
Comments
-
Many of us admire people. We see good things in them and often want to believe in something special. Some people find life easier with heroes and role models.
My problem comes when you look closely. The champion we sometimes see (I'm naming no one, your honour) isn't the superhuman figure of myth, he's a guy who took short cuts and lied through his teeth. In building up the fairytale, which borders on the biblical with the resurrection, people are given false hope. Many may lie sick in hospital but are inspired by a tale of recovery, but in reality it's just not true. Yes you can recover but come back stronger? They've just fallen for some marketing bull. The reality is different: a willingness of some to not only bend rules but to smash them and to take millions of people for a ride, whilst enriching themselves and a close circle of business associates along the way.
Like I say, it's a false story. Maybe it is worth believing, just as Christmas wouldn't be the same if Father Christmas didn't exist. We like these simple tales, they're easy.0 -
Oh dear god...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
fto-si wrote:dennisn wrote:fto-si wrote:dennisn wrote:fto-si wrote:If you look at the definition of the word hero you will see why he is a hero to many.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
What heroic act or acts has he performed?? Riding a bike??
What are his noble qualties?? And how would you know?? Do you know him on a personal level??
What "drowning child" has he saved?? Yes, I know I'm being facetious. Still, it begs an
answer.
And his brave deeds?? Is doing your job a brave deed??
Noble qualities?? Sounds like someone I should be bowing down to. You can bow down
to him if you like but I'm not into hero worship.
Dennis Noward
Yeah I suppose you are right, the courage to beat cancer, the ability to win 7 TDFs in a row and the dedication to raising millions in the fight against cancer is nothing out of the ordinary is it.
The courage to beat cancer?? Do you know how many people have done this and are not
called heroes? What makes Lance any different?? Don't mistake the will to live as a kind of courage that only Lance has. The ability to do your job seven years in a row?? What's so special about that?? While raising millions is very laudable, and good publicity, there
are plenty of people out there who dedicate their lives to finding cures for all kinds of
illnesses and don't look for publicity. They just quietly do the best that they can. Then again they are only "ordinary" people doing "ordinary" things. Nothing really useful like
winning bicycle races. Last I heard Lance was a human being and hadn't been promoted
to "GOD" status yet.
Dennis Noward
No I dont have an exact count at this present time of how many people have defeated cancer, sorry that's so careless of me. But everyone who has deserves credit and don't presume that I think he is the only one with the ability to do it. Did I say LA was any different? Answer is NO.
The ability to win 7 TDFs in succession is something out of the ordinary, if you can't see that then you are a bigger idiot than i first thought.
So he is working hard to raise millions to fight cancer just for publicity, I am so stupid for missing that.
You are right, he hasn't been promoted to GOD status and for your information no one claimed that he was.
The simple fact is that people admire him for things he has achieved be it sporting or otherwise. You can't change that.
So, what happens to these heroes if they get found out or confess to have been cheating all along? Will they still be your heroes or will you try to find new ones???
Could you forgive them like you would a family member or close friend?? Do they even need your forgiveness or hero worship for that matter??? Do you really feel that you
know these people and trust them?? If so, why?? As for myself I generally reserve
trust and admiration for people I know pesonally. Sometimes I admitt that I have been
mistaken about people but I always reserve judgement until I have met them on a
personal level. I try not to judge them on rumor, publicity(good or bad), fame, fortune,
or preceived heroic status. I'm really starting to ramble on now. Better quit. Been having a great discussion / arguement though.
Dennis Noward
Dennis Noward0 -
LA might have doped, might have not. I don't know, nor do anyone else than him.
The FACT is that he was never convicted of doping, so I still give the "innocent until proven guilty" high value.
Whatever "facts " are out there, (if) proofed to be true, then he should have been convicted by now.
Time to move on.
Dismissing his cancer work is really disgusting.0 -
Haha I hope you're suitably ashamed of what you've started...10 pages by Amstel's my guess.DaveyL wrote:Oh dear god...
Iain, have never got round to readin Into Thin Air, looks good though. I presume you've read/seen Touching the Void?
Can recommend 'Mountains of the Mind' by Robert McFarlane, 'Killing Dragons' by Fergus Fleming and 'How The English Made The Alps' by Jim Ring if you're interested in more general, why we climb and so forth books. I've got Walter Bonatti's biography on my shelf, but it still hasn't worked it's way to the top of my to read list.0 -
I am slightly embarrassed now. I posted quite a specific question and was looking for an answer, or at least opinion, to that if only in a hypothetical situation, and certainly not to re-open the whole did he/didn't he thing. I would actually like to remove this thread now...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
In a public forum you can't control the flow of a discussion so if you didn't want Armstrong to be discussed you shouldn't open a thread which basically asks did he dope or not?DaveyL wrote:I am slightly embarrassed now. I posted quite a specific question and was looking for an answer, or at least opinion, to that if only in a hypothetical situation, and certainly not to re-open the whole did he/didn't he thing. I would actually like to remove this thread now...
Armstrong is divisive in the extreme. There are those who think he is a latter day saint whose good work out does any bad things he may have done and there are those who think he is the banner boy for all that is wrong with pro cycling today. These two camps will never be reconciled.0 -
DaveyL wrote:I am slightly embarrassed now. I posted quite a specific question and was looking for an answer, or at least opinion, to that if only in a hypothetical situation, and certainly not to re-open the whole did he/didn't he thing. I would actually like to remove this thread now...
Most people have missed the point of the original post. Nobody has properly put their finger on his improvement post cancer.
If you believe he's clean, its a real headscratcher.
If you believe he's dirty, what did he do/use that he didn't pre-cancer. Did some new and improved drug come out in the interval?
I don't think Walsh ever explains this.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
There are rumours of congressional hearings in the US and FBI investigations into the matter. Until that happens, the story will remain one that pops up on forums from time to time.0
-
Kléber wrote:There are rumours of congressional hearings in the US and FBI investigations into the matter. Until that happens, the story will remain one that pops up on forums from time to time.
Meanwhile cycling does not change because of the usual backwards looking mentality of all involved.
If the amount of energy expended on this kinda stuff was put into looking at the current testing regimes, team structures, biological passports etc maybe we'd get somewhere. But I suspect no one really wants to get anywhere.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Kléber wrote:There are rumours of congressional hearings in the US and FBI investigations into the matter. Until that happens, the story will remain one that pops up on forums from time to time.
I think neither will happen - the FBI are fairly occupied with diverting resources to investigate the whole sub-prime lending mess (47 separate investigations as of this morning, IIRC) By the time they get around to bothering about LA, the whole thing will be covered by the statute of limitations anyway.
Congress could move more quickly but there is no political benefit, for a huge political risk. Tackling a nationally popular figure like Lance would be career suicide. Even if ultimately they could prove LA had taken PEDs, whats the pay-off? - the appreciation of a few thousand cyclists versus the anger of probably millions who have had their hero destroyed.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Timoid. wrote:DaveyL wrote:I am slightly embarrassed now. I posted quite a specific question and was looking for an answer, or at least opinion, to that if only in a hypothetical situation, and certainly not to re-open the whole did he/didn't he thing. I would actually like to remove this thread now...
Most people have missed the point of the original post. Nobody has properly put their finger on his improvement post cancer.
If you believe he's clean, its a real headscratcher.
If you believe he's dirty, what did he do/use that he didn't pre-cancer. Did some new and improved drug come out in the interval?
I don't think Walsh ever explains this.
Exactly, Timoid. All the other opinions expressed on the thread have been expressed a thousand times before. I thought this might be a new angle. I do understand you can't control the direction of the thread, I guess I'm just frustrated that hardly anyone has addressed what I (and Timoid!) think is an interesting issue, but that people have instead preferred to re-tread very well-worn ground...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
But not as the result of a congressional investigation. She got caught up in a fraud investigation and is in more trouble for lying under oath that for PED use. Plus she didn't have cancer.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0
-
andyp wrote:
The difference between Jones and Armstrong is more than just gender though.Kléber wrote:True but Marion Jones was an American hero too. She got taken down.
Lance isn't an American Hero in the way in which we in Europe think he is - there is sometimes the impression that his face stares out of every cereal packet, every cookie box and every ad. As one who is married to an American and visits there quite often, I've never seen a picture of him - even in a bike shop - or talked to anyone who kenw who he was.
He may have boosted cycling from something which .5% of the USA are intersted in to something which 2% are - which to us seems like a huge impact since we see american equipment and riders in increasing numbers, but overall he's not a national figure in the way that Track and Field athletes are.
The FBI and Congress won't go after him because he's not important enough, in the grand scheme of things.0 -
I guess that's a good point. Baseball players like Roger Clemens must be bigger targets by several magnitudes.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
GroupOfOne MkII wrote:flattythehurdler wrote:iain, have you read "The White Spider"? It's great.
Yes excellent book! An even better read if you've been and stood at the bottom of the Eigerwand and looked up (or looked down out of one of the windows in the face) :shock
That is my one of my 2009 ambitionsDan0 -
Davey, you shouldn'e leave that can of worms next to a can-opener! It has been a good discussion though and people clearley have strong feelings both for and against. For my part I'll continue to believe in the positive aspects of his life and hope I'm never proved wrong.Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
flattythehurdler wrote:GroupOfOne MkII wrote:flattythehurdler wrote:iain, have you read "The White Spider"? It's great.
Yes excellent book! An even better read if you've been and stood at the bottom of the Eigerwand and looked up (or looked down out of one of the windows in the face) :shock
That is my one of my 2009 ambitions
Do it! Beautitful countryside round Grindlewald, Wengen, Murren. Plus the Eiger really has to be seen to be believed.0 -
Kléber wrote:Many of us admire people. We see good things in them and often want to believe in something special. Some people find life easier with heroes and role models.
My problem comes when you look closely. The champion we sometimes see (I'm naming no one, your honour) isn't the superhuman figure of myth, he's a guy who took short cuts and lied through his teeth. In building up the fairytale, which borders on the biblical with the resurrection, people are given false hope. Many may lie sick in hospital but are inspired by a tale of recovery, but in reality it's just not true. Yes you can recover but come back stronger? They've just fallen for some marketing bull. The reality is different: a willingness of some to not only bend rules but to smash them and to take millions of people for a ride, whilst enriching themselves and a close circle of business associates along the way.
Like I say, it's a false story. Maybe it is worth believing, just as Christmas wouldn't be the same if Father Christmas didn't exist. We like these simple tales, they're easy.
Can I just ask, and it may be exceedingly niaive however, how is it you know this information to be 'Fact' and what lance has said 'untrue'? I know little about the whole subject however, it troubles me when seemingly intelligent people proclaim things to be lies etc based on something they have read in a book or seen on the internet. To be so sure you can say everything Lance has said is untrue you must really be involved and know what figures you are given are correct. Just because a theory sounds convincing people seem to translate it in to 'Facts' that are then developed on further to derive further 'facts'.
The claim that it is impossible to come back from cancer stronger. Quite how can you validate this? Could Geoff Thomas have cycled a TdF route whilse he was a professional footballer? I don't know but I am not sure he could have.0 -
You're assuming I'm talking about Lance Armstrong. Don't assume!
In general people fit ideas to suit their theories and this argument can apply both ways when looking at sporting performace in cycling over the past 20 years.0 -
One of the problems with the Coyle study is that they seem to have tested once a year when he wasn't at his peak. This makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the studt. But he does demonstrate a power increase over the time and his weight possibly reduces but it's self-reported so we don't really know.
IF we assume (if only shortly) that he was using using PEDs both pre and post-cancer doesn't necessarily mean his performance should be comparable. Post I would assume his training changed greatly and as others have said he raced in a more mature fashion.
For me it's not a case of he wasn't on PEDs pre-cancer than was post-cancer. It would take a combination of factors like, exactly what PEDs, training methods (things Dr. F could have helped him with) and a strong team built around him. I wouldn't discount the probability (IMO) that having cancer would have changed his perspective on life and his attitude to training and racing.0 -
To learn about the true Lance listen to a candid conversation between Greg Lemond and Lance's good friend Stephanie McIlvain. She is his Oakley contact too. Lemond was wrong to lie about recording the call but it is a peek into the sordid world of Lance Armstrong.
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=713FDA2867E90D330 -
Timoid. wrote:DaveyL wrote:I am slightly embarrassed now. I posted quite a specific question and was looking for an answer, or at least opinion, to that if only in a hypothetical situation, and certainly not to re-open the whole did he/didn't he thing. I would actually like to remove this thread now...
Most people have missed the point of the original post. Nobody has properly put their finger on his improvement post cancer.
If you believe he's clean, its a real headscratcher.
If you believe he's dirty, what did he do/use that he didn't pre-cancer. Did some new and improved drug come out in the interval?
I don't think Walsh ever explains this.
I see what you mean. I'd not discount the effect of him getting a coach who he listened to and discovered you didn't have to ride everyone off your wheel to win a race. Then again wasn't it Guimard at Cofidis in his time there? Pre-cancer he was a dumb rider, post-cancer a very considered one in that respect.0 -
leguape wrote:Timoid. wrote:DaveyL wrote:I am slightly embarrassed now. I posted quite a specific question and was looking for an answer, or at least opinion, to that if only in a hypothetical situation, and certainly not to re-open the whole did he/didn't he thing. I would actually like to remove this thread now...
Most people have missed the point of the original post. Nobody has properly put their finger on his improvement post cancer.
If you believe he's clean, its a real headscratcher.
If you believe he's dirty, what did he do/use that he didn't pre-cancer. Did some new and improved drug come out in the interval?
I don't think Walsh ever explains this.
I see what you mean. I'd not discount the effect of him getting a coach who he listened to and discovered you didn't have to ride everyone off your wheel to win a race. Then again wasn't it Guimard at Cofidis in his time there? Pre-cancer he was a dumb rider, post-cancer a very considered one in that respect.
The well-managed/smart-rider thing cuts much deeper than that. if you look at all 7 tour wins he wasn't the strongest rider in all of them, but was the smartest - and this extends all the way through the season.
Ullrich missed two of the seven due to injuries in the warm up races, Hamilton's papier maiche collarbones took him out of two when he would have been a threat, Valverde should have won in '05 if he hadn't damaged his knee, Zulle should have beaten him in '99 but his team forgot about the Passage Du Gois. Lance never crashed early season, never damaged himself training, never got caught in a stupid crash in the first week and never got amubushed.
Add to that the fact that he rode for a team who were the first to really take advantage of the tactical possibilities radios offered and was trusted by his sponsors to train all year to the three key Tour stages,and rode against Ullrich and the Telekoms who must be the most tatically inept team and rider to ever win a grand tour.
I don't know if he was clean or not and I actually don't really care - Ullrich, Beloki, Vino, Virenque et al proved that there is much much much more to winning a bike race than putting someone elses' blood in to climb 3% faster. It makes it easier, it's true, but if dope alone won tours then Virenque and Chiappuchi would be on the winners list, among others.0 -
leguape wrote:I see what you mean. I'd not discount the effect of him getting a coach who he listened to and discovered you didn't have to ride everyone off your wheel to win a race. Then again wasn't it Guimard at Cofidis in his time there? Pre-cancer he was a dumb rider, post-cancer a very considered one in that respect.
My memory may be failing me, but I don't think he ever turned a pedal in a Cofidis jersey.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Some of you have posed the question as to LA's mental attitude pre and post cancer.
I'd suggest that anyones attitude would be massively changed by surviving such an experience. Most people in this situation live life to the absolute MAX where they didn't previously, and if you read LA's own words he says he still worries that it might come back (who wouldn't worry?)!
There was a huge difference in LA's performance pre & post cancer ... my point is 'Why wouldn't there be? Why is it quoted as a 'possible' reason for an improvement in attitude/competitiveness when it was 'obviously' a major factor?
Strikes me that he came back with a huge dose of attitude combined with a work ethic which no-one (even the Lance haters) denies.
I don't think it is naive to believe that these factors combined to make the difference. I'm certainly prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It's great to be .....0
