Lance Armstrong out of retirement

knedlicky

Paul Sh wrote:

How many of you wear the Livestrong yellow band....Just curious.

Without wanting to sound mean, and not because of my strong dislike of Armstrong, I hope most of the contributors here (presuming most are in the UK or Europe), if they have a yellow band, haven’t restricted their contributions to buying a band from the LAF.

Someone above has already pointed out the deficiencies in what Livestrong does in the way of fighting cancer, but for anyone outside the USA, there’s another relevant reason why not to contribute solely to the LAF – all the income is spent in the USA. When Armstrong speaks of a comeback to help “Promote Global Cancer Awareness”, by ‘global’ he means ‘american’.

Instead, in any West European country, there are 5 to 15 other cancer foundations, and even more cancer trusts, to which one can contribute if one wants to help in one’s own country or own continent.

There are also, unlike LAF, ‘true’ international organisations to which one can contribute, like the Cancer Foundation of Spanish tenor Jose Carreras - especially useful if one feels the need to be associated with a personality.
This has both an international organisation based in Spain and some subordinate national branches (USA, Switzerland, Germany) as well as fund-raising clubs in half-a-dozen other lands, the UK included.

Jez mon

The Moses article is very interesting. But, unfortunately I think modern EPO/Blood doping/other similar methods provide too much of an advantage, especially during a stage race. LeMond certainly beat poeple who doped with 80s tech (and most people believe him to be clean)

The fact is, increasing your RBC count provides an absolutely tremendous boost to athletic performance, you can go much harder, for much longer. Furthermore, it combats the natural change which occurs during a three week tour, your rbc count declines, as does your performance.

However, tinkering with RBC counts, does not provide everyone with the same advantage, especially with the 50% heamocrit limit, those with naturally low values can boost far more than those with naturally high ones.

There are also other reasons, and it is possible that there is some incorrect info here, but I'm not very good at biology!

wildmoustache

mrushton wrote:

i hope that with all this talk of drug taking that the anti-Lance brigade do not buy or listen to music made by people who took drugs or attend concerts by people who have taken or are taking drugs. Nor follow a football time where recreational or PEDs were taken (not that you'll ever find out) If you want to take the anti-drug stance you might as well go the whole way.

I think you are ever so slightly missing the point.

aurelio_-_banned

cougie wrote:

Does anyone remember when Lance first came into cycling ? The comic were waxing lyrical about this kid - he just doesnt develop lactic acid at all.

If that were the case he would`t be able to move for more than a few seconds! It is now well understood that `lactic acid` or blood lactate is not some nasty by-product of exercise but a vital source of fuel. In fact there are huge performance gains to be had from training the body to utilise the fuel potentially available when levels of blood lactate are elevated. As with so many of the arguments supposedly showing Armstrong was clean, this `low blood lactate` thing really doesn`t stand up to scrutiny.

wildmoustache

leguape wrote:

off the back wrote:

I dont believe the real cycling fans want him back. He epitomizes the darkest period of cyclings history and was central in creating a win at all cost drug taking mentality. The sport has since moved on and it does not need to have him back to remind of how bad it was. Why not just dig up the trial of destruction and lost lives and parade these corpses to all the races to remind us what the last 2 decades have been about. A bad day for cycling :-(

Lets hope the tour refuse him a start and nip this in the bud! If he shared a flat with Kimmage for teh next 10months I still wouldn't believe he is clean!!

The sport is considerably less wealthy than it was during his peak. It was one of the most lucrative in the history of the sport. Yeah was really bad

Darkest period in the sport? Far better than the period when riders were routinely taking industrial amounts of amphetamines, barbiturates and opiates and riding for pocket change 200 days plus a year. Or that bit where Telekom and the Italian Federation were making it a matter of course to dope their riders, both of which sort of pre-date the prime of Armstrong's career.

Yes ... it was a great period ... right up until the eve of the Tour in 2006. And of course that had nothing to do with the Armstrong period because he wasn't competing ...

cougie

aurelio wrote:

cougie wrote:

Does anyone remember when Lance first came into cycling ? The comic were waxing lyrical about this kid - he just doesnt develop lactic acid at all.

If that were the case he would`t be able to move for more than a few seconds! It is now well understood that `lactic acid` or blood lactate is not some nasty by-product of exercise but a vital source of fuel. In fact there are huge performance gains to be had from training the body to utilise the fuel potentially available when levels of blood lactate are elevated. As with so many of the arguments supposedly showing Armstrong was clean, this `low blood lactate` thing really doesn`t stand up to scrutiny.

Are you saying that Armstrong was doping before he turned pro then ? If he was, I guess most of his team mates were too. But I dont remember any articles on say Bobby Julich turning pro. There was a deal of excitement in the cycling press when he turned pro. So clearly he wasnt a cart horse as people seem to be saying.

He's a really good athlete.
He probably doped - as did the vast majority of the peleton in those days.
He's not good just because he did dope - it doesnt work that way.

leguape

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Secondly all this rubbish that the multiples of riders sanctioned for doping since leaving Disco/Postal only picked up their bad habits once they were off the team is a nonsense. Take Landis, riding like a train on the front on pass after pass one year and then... Leading his own team so somehow needs to resort to the juice to do same. Not adding up for me.

Okay, okay... I'll accept that for some of you theres some ambiguity about Floyd too. So how about Roberto Heras? Climbing like a god for the Pharmacy that was Kelme, is a valued teammate for Armstrong (although mysteriously out-climbed by Landis etc) and Wins the Vuelta for Postal and then leaves for Liberty before being busted for EPO whilst... Winning the Vuelta. So why the sudden need to dope after leaving?

CSC didn't do much different this year to USPS: ride tempo, shell the opposition, set up principals on key climbs. As Jorg Jakshe said, if Jens Voigt is doping then we might as well all give up and go home.

mididoctors

leguape wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

CSC didn't do much different this year to USPS: ride tempo, shell the opposition, set up principals on key climbs.

not really the strategy required playing frank and andy more strongly as GC contenders
plus they had to make brave commitments rather than defend till the last climb.. more akin to Riis telecom circa 1996 where the decisive play is made in the 3 week after two weeks prep...

disco/postal hammered everyone in the ttt then set up lance for the first mountain top finish where he flattens everyone and then defend (except 2003 the best lance tour)

As Jorg Jakshe said, if Jens Voigt is doping then we might as well all give up and go home.

would be sad

MrT

Here is one possibility. I think it is highly probable that Armstrong did dope pre cancer as did the vast majority of riders since the Tour began...alcohol, amphetamines, rat poison, etc steroids then epo from the late eighties in all its various forms. We could pick our way through those we think did and didn't...the point is that it was endemic and part of the continental cycling culture from virtually day one. Post cancer, i don't know; would it have effected the medication he was likely to be on..i don't know. If you are a naturally talented athlete with great physiology who only focuses on one race a year and devotes all of your time in the pursuit of winning that race you may not need drugs...but for me the real issue is..he knew that a large chunk of the peloton including his team were doping and chose "not to spit in the soup". That is the real downer. Stuff posting blood test on line...make a stand.and get with the new culture that is trying to break through...or alternatively go back to dating X list celebrities enjoy your money and celebrate the fact that yourstill alive. That's the real testament to modern drugs and willpower.

aurelio_-_banned

MrT wrote:

Here is one possibility. I think it is highly probable that Armstrong did dope pre cancer...Post cancer, i don't know...

His 6 samples showing `positive` for Epo were post-cancer. The `rumours` that, once a test for Epo was around, Armstrong and Team Disco had moved on to the use of untraceable, `800 ml of packed cells` autologous blood doping related to his post-cancer career. His positive for corticoids, for which the UCI accepted a post-dated TUE certificate even though days earlier Armstrong publicly stated he had no theraputic use exemptions, happened post-cancer...

Fastlad

LANCE, LANCE, LANCE!!!! er, sorry guys

wildmoustache

given we all now know his major competitors were doping. can anyone work out how extraordinary lance would have to be to win against these coves assuming he wasn't doping?

PS. I want numbers.

Paul Sh

flattythehurdler wrote:

Fastlad wrote:

Ok then!!! As i said earlier, lance was road champ at 21, he nearly lost his life to cancer, comes back more motivated than ever and has a super-strong desire to win the tour. He REALLY knows what life is all about, more so than the rest of us. He also knows what real pain and suffering are all about. Added to all that....he is, as david millar said, one helluva rider who's preparation is like no one elses!!! oh, and he's also won the tour 7 times! those are just a few of the reasons for 'worshiping' lance. :roll:

p.s Lance, if you are reading this, i don't think you are a prick.

P.S. Lance, if you're reading this, i agree with Steven Martin

P.S. Lance, if you're reading this.. Me too

RichN95.

Here's my take on the whole thing:

If he comes back and submits himself to Garmin style scrutiny, then good luck to him. If he places in the top five then it validates his reputation as a great athlete.

If he comes back doped to the gills and hammers everyone then it detracts, in my eyes, from his previous achievements. It would also make him the biggest dick in sporting history I believe he was doped for those wins (to much smoke for there not to be a fire) but so was everyone else so I'm willing to give him some credit.

Either way it will be interesting.

PS Ed Moses - I saw him run a couple of times. He had a freakish stride length. A god given natural. One of the true greats of sport. I see the same in Usain Bolt.

PPS Lance, if you're reading this can you reading this can you lend me a grand or introduce me to some Hollywood starlets - I used to have a thing for Denise Richards, so she'll do.

ajbell

I realise that there seems to be pro or anti Lance camps.

I would like to think, I could take a wide look at LA, and come to some sort of conclusion.

Then I remember my first impression, of the loud arrogant Texan.
On a rainy day in Norway, when he won the World title.
Not a good start, then he disapeared.

I think it's that I can't bring myself, to give him the same respect as other Champions.

There's the: Either you are with me or I badmouth/smear/bully you.

His attitude towards Pantani or Simoni didn't endere me to him either.

You didn't get that from Merckx or Indurain.

I equally have no respect for the Confessers.

Who didn't come clean, after the tragedy of Marco Pantani.

I make no appology that I have been & am a huge Pantani fan.
I think he would have broken & confessed if he had doped.

Would he have kept up such a strong stance, if he was not clean.

Why when, he paid the ultimate price, did no one....confess.

And where were the blazer brigade, (in the background) who condoned the doping, stay so silent.

Notifitsraining

I wrote:
"...how futile pursuing the truth can be - because you just can't tell some people (and if you could they wouldn't be interested anyway - I think it's called belief or something weird like that)."

Kleber wrote:
"Entrenched beliefs despite mounting evidence, a quasi-religious faith in a fairy tale? Sound familiar?"

A big problem here is belief.

I’m not big on belief. I’ve never thought that hope, community and humanity require a belief in God or that I need the arbitrary tenets of institutionalised religion to tell me how to live a good life or be a good person. However, I DO WANT TO BELIEVE IN Lance Armstrong. Why? That’s a toughie! Maybe it’s a need for modern heroes, the need to believe that the human body can be pushed to and is capable of that degree of performance and dominance cleanly, or simply the hope that ultimately L.A. will be proven to have been clean (rude, over-bearing, ruthless and arrogant perhaps, but clean) and the sport left better for it. Perhaps its just stupidity (I admit I wanted Basso and Landis to be clean too!). Whatever the reason, belief is the difference between the two camps here, and it is a gulf not easily bridged.

I suspect that to successfully dispel mankind’s overwhelming obsession with religion would at least require absolute proof of the absence of God. If a super advanced alien species told mankind they occupied a god-less universe, showing overwhelming superior evidence to support their assertion, then if that evidence stopped a fraction short of definitive proof – they might wonder why they were loudly booed off the stage. Even if they did offer proof, people would likely ignore the evidence. Now, I’m not putting forward L.A. as some sort of sporting deity, but belief is belief, so why is one half of this debate so surprised that the other is going to apparently ‘ignore’ their informed views and carrying on believing – if that belief adds something for them?

The fact that the credibility of 7 TdF wins and arguably the greatest sporting event on the planet is at stake here adds to the polarisation of views. Perhaps if I didn’t live in such a chav ridden, dumbed down, belief infected world I’d throw my hands in the air and shout ‘fraud’ in an angry but refreshed way. Instead I’ll probably carry on hoping L.A. was clean and that he wins next year.

I have great sympathy with Simeoni. The godless chav in me thinks he should just have knocked Armstrong out, and then smugly got a day job – but then he’d be no better than what L.A. is in many peoples eyes – a bully. Then again, no-one deserves to be worshipped – applauded, celebrated, even emulated - but not worshipped.

aurelio_-_banned

Notifitsraining wrote:

Now, I’m not putting forward L.A. as some sort of sporting deity, but belief is belief, so why is one half of this debate so surprised that the other is going to apparently ‘ignore’ their informed views and carrying on believing – if that belief adds something for them?

I would argue that ultimately what we hold to be true should always be based on the available evidence and rational argument rather than blind faith. For one, once evidence and rational argument are held to be dispensable the way is clear for a vast range of `truths` to be constructed, something which plays into the hands of despots of all types. For me the unswerving faith some have in Armstrong reeks of the relativism which has become such a blight in modern society, especially the USA, with people seriously arguing that everyone is free to construct their own version of `the truth`, almost irrespective of the available evidence. This is a process that has been exploited ruthlessly by the religious right and the Republicans in the USA.

There is a joke along the lines of `Faith is believing what you know isn`t true.` Behind the joke is the serious point that human beings are capable of absolutely believing a whole range of things which are irrational, unsupported or contradicted by the available evidence or are inconsistent with one another. Again, as George Orwell saw, this ability for `doublethink` is not just the enemy of rationality but humanity itself.

Orwell`s famed `1984` is in many ways a direct challenge to such relativism. See the extract below.

---

(O’ Brien). ‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, ‘ “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”?’

‘Yes,’ said Winston......

‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’

‘Four.’

‘And if the party says that it is not four but five-than how many?’

‘Four.’

The word ended in a gasp of pain.......

‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two make four.’

‘Sometimes Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all three at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane...

(Winston) ‘But how can you control matter?....You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death-...’

O’ Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull....There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation,- anything....You must get rid of these ninteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.’

‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.’

What are the stars? said O’ Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could block them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it’.

Notifitsraining

I agree whole heartedly with Aurelio - there is 'no judgement in ignorance' (though for some there may be more comfort). Unfortunately however half the world is uninterested in the rigours of the truth, or the discipline required to achieve the intellectual insights of those upon whose shoulders we stand. For them blind faith is easier and creationism for example more intuitive (and easier to understand and relate to) than Evolution.

Galileo would no doubt be appalled could he learn that after half a millennium one of the most advanced secular countries in the world can still be impressed by anecdotal arguments for the existence of God on reality TV such as: ‘…well – half the world can’t have wrong can they?’

The problem with the Armstrong is that however likely he was to have been doping, the case hasn’t been conclusively proven, but my real point (if I had one) was that even if it is ever proven (and that may be impossible) – don’t expect everyone to accept it! At least with the ‘L.A. belief syndrome’ there is a saving grace in that people want to believe because it really would be uplifting if it could be proven, conclusively, that he had been clean. It would be good for the sport. Sometimes I can’t help but feel some muddy the waters with their dislike of his personality so much that they would rather he was dirty at any cost.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to believe, indeed biologist Lewis Wolpert suggests it has actually served a great evolutionary function. However, one doesn’t have to give into this urge any more than the urge to violently attack BMW X5 drivers when they cut you up at traffic lights.

Me? I’m actually on the fence. I still ‘want to believe’ in L.A. and as yet no one has put forward a thread to totally convince me otherwise. I have just started reading Jeremy Whittle however so I’ll let you know if he convinces me to jump into the ‘garden of truth’.

jimmythecuckoo

deal wrote:

If he does ride the tour wouldnt it be great to see the entire peloton work against him

to give Filippo Simeoni a maiden TdF win

bantam_1954

I thought the whole idea of late was to achieve a creditable and clean peleton. Why then do we want the leader of the pack back?
Go away.

flattythehurdler

MrT wrote:

Here is one possibility. I think it is highly probable that Armstrong did dope pre cancer as did the vast majority of riders since the Tour began...alcohol, amphetamines, rat poison, etc steroids then epo from the late eighties in all its various forms. We could pick our way through those we think did and didn't...the point is that it was endemic and part of the continental cycling culture from virtually day one. Post cancer, i don't know; would it have effected the medication he was likely to be on..i don't know. If you are a naturally talented athlete with great physiology who only focuses on one race a year and devotes all of your time in the pursuit of winning that race you may not need drugs...but for me the real issue is..he knew that a large chunk of the peloton including his team were doping and chose "not to spit in the soup". That is the real downer. Stuff posting blood test on line...make a stand.and get with the new culture that is trying to break through...or alternatively go back to dating X list celebrities enjoy your money and celebrate the fact that yourstill alive. That's the real testament to modern drugs and willpower.

No, they chose to spit on anyone who crossed them instead (literally). LA is a thug.

Kléber

It's ironic but EPO today comes with a strict health warning. Just as cigarettes have a black and white label warning of their danger, a box of EPO has a similar "FDA Black Box" label. Why? Because EPO use for those on dialysis and chemotherapy can increase their risk of heart disease and cancer.

Now if you are on dialysis/undergoing chemo, the small increase in risk is a price worth paying for the clinical benefits of EPO. Now the FDA warning applies to normal doses, not the large quantities needed to raise haematocrit to doping levels.

The same goes for hormone and steroid abuse, in moderate doses you risk cancer, heart disease and other issues. In larger doses, no one knows since no clinical tests would be allowed using such large amounts.

So ironically the first place someone wanting to raise awareness of cancer could begin is inside the pro peloton, to warn those taking EPO, CERA and various cocktails of hormones and to denounce them. I'd like to see a strong condemnation of all dopers, not just for breaking the rules but for the health risks.

PauloBets

aurelio wrote:

Notifitsraining wrote:

Now, I’m not putting forward L.A. as some sort of sporting deity, but belief is belief, so why is one half of this debate so surprised that the other is going to apparently ‘ignore’ their informed views and carrying on believing – if that belief adds something for them?

I would argue that ultimately what we hold to be true should always be based on the available evidence and rational argument rather than blind faith. For one, once evidence and rational argument are held to be dispensable the way is clear for a vast range of `truths` to be constructed, something which plays into the hands of despots of all types. For me the unswerving faith some have in Armstrong reeks of the relativism which has become such a blight in modern society, especially the USA, with people seriously arguing that everyone is free to construct their own version of `the truth`, almost irrespective of the available evidence. This is a process that has been exploited ruthlessly by the religious right and the Republicans in the USA.

There is a joke along the lines of `Faith is believing what you know isn`t true.` Behind the joke is the serious point that human beings are capable of absolutely believing a whole range of things which are irrational, unsupported or contradicted by the available evidence or are inconsistent with one another. Again, as George Orwell saw, this ability for `doublethink` is not just the enemy of rationality but humanity itself.

Orwell`s famed `1984` is in many ways a direct challenge to such relativism. See the extract below.

---

(O’ Brien). ‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, ‘ “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”?’

‘Yes,’ said Winston......

‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’

‘Four.’

‘And if the party says that it is not four but five-than how many?’

‘Four.’

The word ended in a gasp of pain.......

‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two make four.’

‘Sometimes Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all three at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane...

(Winston) ‘But how can you control matter?....You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death-...’

O’ Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull....There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation,- anything....You must get rid of these ninteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.’

‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.’

What are the stars? said O’ Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could block them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it’.

Get a life Aurelio

jimmythecuckoo

Longest post ever, and I didn't have the time to read it all... Can someone summarise? !

calvjones

Kléber wrote:

It's ironic but EPO today comes with a strict health warning. Just as cigarettes have a black and white label warning of their danger, a box of EPO has a similar "FDA Black Box" label. Why? Because EPO use for those on dialysis and chemotherapy can increase their risk of heart disease and cancer.

Now if you are on dialysis/undergoing chemo, the small increase in risk is a price worth paying for the clinical benefits of EPO. Now the FDA warning applies to normal doses, not the large quantities needed to raise haematocrit to doping levels.

The same goes for hormone and steroid abuse, in moderate doses you risk cancer, heart disease and other issues. In larger doses, no one knows since no clinical tests would be allowed using such large amounts.

So ironically the first place someone wanting to raise awareness of cancer could begin is inside the pro peloton, to warn those taking EPO, CERA and various cocktails of hormones and to denounce them. I'd like to see a strong condemnation of all dopers, not just for breaking the rules but for the health risks.

Kleber, great post. I salute you.

Paul Sh

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Longest post ever, and I didn't have the time to read it all... Can someone summarise? !

Meaningless