Lance Armstrong out of retirement

Mark Alexander

Now AP have it on record so....
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6A- ... gD933NV9G0

It'll be interesting if nothing else. Who'd they get to be in 'team Lance' this time.

aurelio_-_banned

P.s Also good. No, absolutely superb!

---

http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/

09 September 2008
Irredeemable and unforgiven

I just read that horrifying Vanity Fair article and now I feel like I have crawled headfirst through a giant pile of steaming excrement. I cannot stand this. This sport has already asked a lot of it's fans, but this is unbearable. We've been utterly betrayed by our favorite riders, told an endless stinking stream of bald-faced lies, talked down to like imbecilic fools, and totally disrespected in every way. Now we are supposed to tolerate the Second Coming disguised as a fake cancer crusade. Do any of these ego-bound idiots ever pause to consider the fact that our belief in the sport is a two-way street, and it requires that the teams and riders treat us, at the very least, as sentient beings possessing a brain and capable of rational thought? But Armstrong just wants us all to hold hands, play dumb, hand around the yellow bracelets, and pretend that his comeback is about saving the world from cancer. Bullshit. It is about revenge, ego, and his bottomless greed for attention and approval. Lance's bloated ego cannot tolerate the idea that the world of cycling wants to forget all about him, his dirty wins, the doping arms race he fueled, and his black-hearted mafia tactics. He cannot stand the idea that clean cyclists could overtake his legacy and bury the memory of his malfeasance under something real, authentic, and worthwhile. He has to have the nasty last word. He's a megalomaniac and we are his victims. He's incurable and incorrigible and there is absolutely nothing that you or I can do about it. Welcome to cycling fandom. A sport where the cure and the disease are equally deadly, where the truth is nonexistent, the EPO is always cold, and the lies are never-ending. A sport where the weapon is the latest doping innovation and the open wound never heals.

Someone please tell me, does there even exist any possible way to be an ethical cycling fan? God knows I have tried, but it gets me nowhere. It turns me into a hypocrite and a cynic. But how can we give up trying? Or are we all just meant to forget the concepts of right and wrong, forget good and evil, and just reduce ourselves to Armstrong's repugnant base level, and all become amoral assholes getting off on a bunch of dopers crushing each other under their respective fraudulent pharmaceutical prowess?

blazing_saddles

Straight from the horse's mouth, or after this, I'd say its other end. :oops:

Google garbage, but:-

Prudhomme:-
Lance Armstrong, that announced his return Tuesday after three years of absence, will be able to participate in the next Tour de France if it respects the rules concerning notably fights it antidopage, explained Wednesday Christian Prudhomme, the test director. "From that time that his team that one does not know and himself will subject to themselves the rules, concerning notably doping and the antidopage of which the perception a lot evolved the latter years; from that time that it will be at the summit, one will accept it", declared Christian Prudhomme, raising that "suspicions had accompanied its victories since 1999".

"It is not possible that a racer does not submit himself to these rules that are stronger and of which the perception really changed." Questioned on the return of the American, Christian Prudhomme replied: "I classify this return under the challenge angle. There are very few sportsmen that succeeded their return as Michael Jordan. This is a true challenge to return after three years of stop, even if it finished second of a race of VTT recently. What's more, there is his age. It will be 37 years old in a week. One always can say itself that Raymond Poulidor had finished second of the Turn to 38 years (in 1974), and 3rd (in 1976) at the age of 40 years. Now, we are at mid-September, and water will have flowed under the bridges of here at the start of the next edition of the Turn to Monaco." (With AFP)

So, it's full ahead Astana.
OAP's need not worry about any old dirt the ASO might have.
Maybe Jan ought to put in an application and if young Ivan can get a forged birth certificate, who knows? :roll:

Money, money, money, hypocrisies funny, in a rich man's world.

stueyc

cmon Lance....legend,pure legend

Gary Marshall

can see lance using the astana squad but the all american hero riding in the colours of kazakstan? don't think so, would expect a one off tdf / year re-branding of astana to team lance.

it's going to prove little, they'll always be doubt but it will be a hell of an event, i'm more likely to be on the roads of france in july next near if it's true.

i thought the paranoia that the chateau malabry lab would ' tamper' with his samples would be enough to keep him away but apparently not.....

mrushton

You can tell none of us work for Nike,Giro,Oakley,Trek, a LBS or depend on cycling to provide our living. All those companies must be seeing $/£ signs. If he does return and win the trickle down factor will be astounding plus the publishing deal for 'The Sequel' plus the publicity campaign Livestrong/cancer research gets.

secretsam

I'd love him to come back and fail, a little humility wouldn't hurt (don't start me)

mididoctors

Evil_Cod wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

this could all end in tears

he can't win..

if he wins at 37 its simply unbelievable and if doesn't people will say he can't do it without the sauce...

if he rode in the US or something... but the tour...

some one push him off early season and save us all the mess in the press at the tour.

Malcolm Elliot is still riding at 47.

well yes but he struggles manfully in a truly impressive way to pull off the odd win in the British premier calender.. which is no mean feat I may add..

however....

Gazzaputt

You know cyclists, well road cyclists in particular, are funny bunch.

I'm sure part of the mentality to accepted to the fold is that you must whine, pour scorn and bleat about everything to do with the sport.

Lance got my backside on a road bike as I expect he did millions of others around the globe.

Fella went through hell and back and came out triumphant. If it was anyone of us that went through what he did and then be able to throw our legs over the bike we'd applaud him and slap them on the back well done.

I think you'll find outside of cycling fraternity the guy is held in high esteem.

Fair play to him and I for one am excited for his comeback.

kuota

The great thing about this years tour was the exictment of not knowing the winner right up to the last minute and attacks all over the place. Next year we'll have the sight of Armstrong riding up to any breaks and telling to get back in line, how dare they put him under pressure this is THE LANCE ARMSTRONG SHOW NOT THE TOUR DE FRANCE!!!!

Jez mon

It was watching Basso in the 2004 tour that got me into cycling, but the tour as an event was what excited me, not Lance.

TBF the last few years it was as if everyone had decided to race for 2nd. I don't see what's so exciting about that.

pottssteve

Wow! Some people get really wound up about riding a bike, don't they?

Seeing as everyone else is saying what they feel, here's my go.

I've had testicular cancer. I have a colleague whose son has cancer. I have an 11 year old student who has leukemia. My uncle died of it.

I'm running a LIVESTRONG event next January.

Lance Armstrong can clearly ride a bike. He's obviously an aggressive, controlling, focussed competitor who likes a bit of attention. If his return puts another few quid in the buckets I'll be happy. It's not like he's coming back to a clean-as-a-whistle sport. I was a fan of Piepoli.....
Welcome back, Mr Armstrong.

leguape

aurelio wrote:

Just when I was beginning to think that cycling was really moving on from the bad old Epo and `800 ml of packed cells` days, first Hamilton returns to racing and now this!

I too have little inclination to waste time `debating` Armstrong`s `comeback`. I have just about had enough of the circus pro-cycling has become. and if is this for real I certainly can`t see myself going to see the Tour next year, something I had promised myself I would do if the good work by the ASO continued to save cycling from the pit is has fallen into.

Just a couple of passing observations: Firstly, explicit in Armstrong`s comments is the acceptance that when he `won` his 7 Tours, it was quite possible to get away with doping. For him to claim he was the exception he would have to race at a level comparable to when he `won` those 7 Tours. However, even if his test data was made public would this really prove he was clean? For example, what about `800 ml of packed cells` autologous blood doping? As far as I understand there is still no certified test for this.

So what is Armstrong up to? Given he is a master of spin and propaganda we can`t be certain. Looking on the positive side perhaps he believes that the racing is cleaner these days and his arrogance is such that he also believes he can still win if the rest of the field is no longer doped, even if he needed to dope in order to win during the Epo era. On the other hand perhaps the new `clean` era is just another sham and he knows that with careful manipulation of one`s parameters, micro-dosing and all the rest the careful doper can still stay one step ahead of the testers.

Given that the name Armstrong and the issue of doping have become synonymous, I cannot see how his `comeback` can be good for cycling.

Anyhow, that my tuppence worth. For now I`m just going to wait to see what comes of this `comeback`. You can read William Fotheringham`s views on the issue via the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/se ... e.cycling1

1. "800ml of packed cells" is still being touted around then. Er, wouldn't it show up in the blood values under Damsguard's blood profiling? There hasn't been a test for autologous since the 60s when Nencini was a Tour winner and a blood doper (and a chain smoker which sort of defies current medical opinion). I'm not sure how anyone can claim Armstrong was the first to try or master it when it had been available to riders for years.

2. Much as I love the writing of Will Fotheringham, the attitude displayed by him is typical of the endemic parochialism in the cycling press which is a huge contributing factor to why the sport remains at best a niche interest in the british press at least. Cycling was never bigger, more lucrative or more popular in the modern era than it was during Armstrong's time. That many not please "the fans" but it is the truth of the matter.

3. CFA is the most partisanly anti-Lance site out there. If I were that partisan I wouldn't be crowing about how dreadful it is that Lance is coming back and is on the record saying that he's happy to do the testing while being a cheerleader for Garmin. Iif Millar, who hid his doping, can be on your fanboy list, then you've got to allow Armstrong the chance too. Or are we not judging everyone on their past record equally?

4. The only place Armstrong's name is synonymous with doping is in the world of an entirely partisan and obsessive sector of fandom and journalism who have this entirely false romantic notion that Armstrong somehow ruined their sport. Cycling was synonymous with doping in the mens populi long before Armstrong was even born.

cougie

I think we may need a new forum sub-division for Lance.

Like him or not, he does get peoples interest. Thats gotta be a good thing for the sport.

nasahapley

Gazzaputt wrote:

You know cyclists, well road cyclists in particular, are funny bunch.

I'm sure part of the mentality to accepted to the fold is that you must whine, pour scorn and bleat about everything to do with the sport.

Lance got my backside on a road bike as I expect he did millions of others around the globe.

Fella went through hell and back and came out triumphant. If it was anyone of us that went through what he did and then be able to throw our legs over the bike we'd applaud him and slap them on the back well done.

I think you'll find outside of cycling fraternity the guy is held in high esteem.

Fair play to him and I for one am excited for his comeback.

Totally agree with this. If it hadn't been for Armstrong's winning streak and the publicity it generated I doubt very much I would have got into road cycling, and I know many other people who could say the same. Although I am now a seriously keen roadie, the professional side of the sport leaves me totally cold for the reasons Gazzaputt outlined in his second paragraph; if a bloke does well most 'proper fans' of the sport would cast aspersions on his probity rather than congratulate him (unless he's British in which case he must be cleaner than the Virgin Mary).

I'm not so naive as to think doping doesn't occur on a large scale in cycling or any other sport, but I'm willing to apply the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Besides, if you get worked up about doping then you should probably stay away from any kind of professional sport, because as long as there's riches and glory on offer then young athletes with a limited time in which to earn them will be tempted to cheat, it'll never change.

Lance's return will get more people interested in road cycling than anything anyone else could have done, yet this is apparently a bad thing because he might not be a very nice chap. Unbelievable.

leguape

nasahapley wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

You know cyclists, well road cyclists in particular, are funny bunch.

I'm sure part of the mentality to accepted to the fold is that you must whine, pour scorn and bleat about everything to do with the sport.

Lance got my backside on a road bike as I expect he did millions of others around the globe.

Fella went through hell and back and came out triumphant. If it was anyone of us that went through what he did and then be able to throw our legs over the bike we'd applaud him and slap them on the back well done.

I think you'll find outside of cycling fraternity the guy is held in high esteem.

Fair play to him and I for one am excited for his comeback.

Totally agree with this. If it hadn't been for Armstrong's winning streak and the publicity it generated I doubt very much I would have got into road cycling, and I know many other people who could say the same. Although I am now a seriously keen roadie, the professional side of the sport leaves me totally cold for the reasons Gazzaputt outlined in his second paragraph; if a bloke does well most 'proper fans' of the sport would cast aspersions on his probity rather than congratulate him (unless he's British in which case he must be cleaner than the Virgin Mary).

I'm not so naive as to think doping doesn't occur on a large scale in cycling or any other sport, but I'm willing to apply the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Besides, if you get worked up about doping then you should probably stay away from any kind of professional sport, because as long as there's riches and glory on offer then young athletes with a limited time in which to earn them will be tempted to cheat, it'll never change.

Lance's return will get more people interested in road cycling than anything anyone else could have done, yet this is apparently a bad thing because he might not be a very nice chap. Unbelievable.

I agree as well.

andy_wrx

Two threads next to oneanother on the cakestop forum

Lance Armstrong out of Retirement
and
World to end on Wednesday

stueyc

very well said pottsteve

off the back

I think Lances comeback is very planned and the team already knows...

The way teh ASO came out and said that he can come back - all is forgiven etc. This has been planned and doors have been knocked on long in advance - if u look at the anti doping sign up statement it would indicate that he will get into the tour only if the team has an anti doping stance - hell maybe even a French team! All this leads me to think that just maybe Lance is not going to Astana - Contador and Levi wil not ride 100% for him, he would have to earn his team leader role.

The Russians have teh money but he does not want money and they dont want anti doping :-) US teams would be either Columbia / Garmin. JV has not been the biggest lance fan but IF he turned around and said I want to do it clean then I think JV is teh type of guy that would work with him - The PR would be immense. Columbia has GeorgeHincapie so who knows there but would all of this team want to sacrafice everything fro Lance. Also Cervleo mentioned they have amazing riders lined up ... who knows. Eitherway I think teh team has been chosen already we just haven't be told

idaviesmoore

I'm bored of him already :twisted:

blazing_saddles

Just when you thought things couldn't get any lower.

The Ginger Monster's timing is even worse than his ex-manager's blackmail technique.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... sep10news2

I doubt whether it will cause a ripple around here......
.....Hey, maybe he's signed up with Alistair Campbell? :roll:

idaviesmoore

'Advising The Younger Team Members' :shock:

Don't like the sound of that at all........

Landis:- 'Hey Leeeetle boyzz, you wanna go faaaast, you gottta take theeeeese.'
YTM :- 'P1ss off Has-Been!'

Jez mon

hmmm.

Who reckons they'll get a ride at the ToB next year

donrhummy

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!!

That's the dumbest, most unfounded statement I've seen on this forum. Isn't the last 4 years the darkest period? During Lance's reign, there were ZERO huge doping scandals. None of the GT winners had their victories taken away, the TDF was not marred by 5 or more people and 2 or more teams being kicked out for doping, pro-cycling was more popular than now, it had better TV coverage (especially in Germany), sponsors were falling all over themselves to get new teams, salaries were up, the UCI and ASO worked well together, etc.

Moomaloid

I don;'t think any cycling fan will pour scorn on his achievements in recovering from Cancer and the good that he has down for the fight against the disease. I've been wearing a livestrong band since the week they were available in the states.

But i can guarantee that most of the guys on here that are backing him have read very little of the evidence against him. Its stacked up against his argument, and the argument that he's been tested more than anyone else is such a bury your head in the sand comment.

You know deep down i hope he does come back and prove that he was a clean athlete, but i don't think its physically possible. He was my hero, but sadly no more.

CONTADOR - I'm guessing he'll be looking to move on if Lance signs for Astana.

And i totally agree with the miserable cycling cynic comment, the sport is rife with it, but i'm totally not one of these people. I just don't believe anymore.

Jez mon

donrhummy 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!!

That's the dumbest, most unfounded statement I've seen on this forum. Isn't the last 4 years the darkest period? During Lance's reign, there were ZERO huge doping scandals. None of the GT winners had their victories taken away, the TDF was not marred by 5 or more people and 2 or more teams being kicked out for doping, pro-cycling was more popular than now, it had better TV coverage (especially in Germany), sponsors were falling all over themselves to get new teams, salaries were up, the UCI and ASO worked well together, etc.

Becuase as well all know, no positive tests=everyone's clean :roll:

Then again, I wouldn't call it the darkest, what about heart attacks etc, before the 50% limit was introduced. Or poeple dying due to amphetamines. At least doping during Lance's era was pretty safe and controlled.

donrhummy

Jez mon wrote:

donrhummy 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!!

That's the dumbest, most unfounded statement I've seen on this forum. Isn't the last 4 years the darkest period? During Lance's reign, there were ZERO huge doping scandals. None of the GT winners had their victories taken away, the TDF was not marred by 5 or more people and 2 or more teams being kicked out for doping, pro-cycling was more popular than now, it had better TV coverage (especially in Germany), sponsors were falling all over themselves to get new teams, salaries were up, the UCI and ASO worked well together, etc.

Becuase as well all know, no positive tests=everyone's clean :roll:

Then again, I wouldn't call it the darkest, what about heart attacks etc, before the 50% limit was introduced. Or poeple dying due to amphetamines. At least doping during Lance's era was pretty safe and controlled.

I never said they were all clean. But to call it the darkest period means it was the time of greatest turmoil, scandal, loss of money, etc. And it was the exact opposite. You could call it the greatest Oz period (as in Wizard of Oz, where everything was great on the surface, glittering like gold but underneath it was a farce) if you wanted, but not the darkest. (I'm not sure I totally agree with that assessment as cheating and performance enhancement goes back to the first TDF's, but I can see that being a more sensible statement)

turnipian

Blimey, what a depressing lot....

Why not just move on, accept it at face value. The guy wants to race again, he may or may not be successful and only he knows the answer to all the questions. He'll be required to play by the current rules, face the scrutiny and the rest is up to him.

Give him a chance!!

And to all the naysayers. You should all be jumping for joy - it's another chance for you to catch him out.

Jez mon

donrhummy wrote:

I never said they were all clean. But to call it the darkest period means it was the time of greatest turmoil, scandal, loss of money, etc. And it was the exact opposite. You could call it the greatest Oz period (as in Wizard of Oz, where everything was great on the surface, glittering like gold but underneath it was a farce) if you wanted, but not the darkest. (I'm not sure I totally agree with that assessment as cheating and performance enhancement goes back to the first TDF's, but I can see that being a more sensible statement)

I agree to a certain to extent. But for me, the period saw a building up of problems which became clear in the following years. Lance epitomises an era where poeple were visiting a spanish blood clinic. Lance epitomises an era where cycling became one race a year. Lance epitomises an era where the tests didn't work and where many lost all faith in their heroes. It was a dark period for cycling. Sure when Lance retired sponsors went away, drug scandals boiled over and cycling went through a very rough patch, but that was needed so that cycling could gain a new sheen.

donrhummy

Jez mon wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

I never said they were all clean. But to call it the darkest period means it was the time of greatest turmoil, scandal, loss of money, etc. And it was the exact opposite. You could call it the greatest Oz period (as in Wizard of Oz, where everything was great on the surface, glittering like gold but underneath it was a farce) if you wanted, but not the darkest. (I'm not sure I totally agree with that assessment as cheating and performance enhancement goes back to the first TDF's, but I can see that being a more sensible statement)

I agree to a certain to extent. But for me, the period saw a building up of problems which became clear in the following years. Lance epitomises an era where poeple were visiting a spanish blood clinic. Lance epitomises an era where cycling became one race a year. Lance epitomises an era where the tests didn't work and where many lost all faith in their heroes. It was a dark period for cycling. Sure when Lance retired sponsors went away, drug scandals boiled over and cycling went through a very rough patch, but that was needed so that cycling could gain a new sheen.

Whoah, you have it wrong. Lance dominated an era where people visited blood clinics in Spain, not epitomizes. He's never been shown to have visited a blood bank. So how can you say he epitomizes it? Epitomize means "to serve as the typical or ideal example of" something. Since Lance has never even been suspected of using a blood bank like Puerto, he's not an example of that. BIG difference.