Lance Armstrong out of retirement
Comments
-
fruit bars with eyes wrote:in fact, let's all take a moment to applaud the great man for avoiding all those nasty dopers in teams he was in complete control of- like heras, beltran, landis, hamilton, basso, andreu et al- and for taking such a principled stand - with riders such as simeoni and bassons
With the exception of Andreu, every other rider listed tested positive/was suspended on a team other than Armstrong's and ones who were known for either actively encouraging doping among their riders or turning a deliberately blind eye to it.
Andreu claims he only did a couple of times, to try and ensure his place on the USPS squad for the 1999 Tour. He offers no evidence of it being organised or systematic within the team: http://www.velonews.com/article/108510 -
Can I just chuck this into the mix - difficult for even the Lance groupies to naysay this - for all of his victories with USPS and Disco, his team were an integral part of his wins. Large numbers of those team members have subsequently been established to be dirty. So even disregarding the probability that the man himself doped, and the certainty that he's an absolute c***, you can't really call his palmares clean.Bulbous also tapered0
-
NJK wrote:
Ah someone else who seems to know him personally - when you next speak to him as you know him so well can you ask him for an autograph for me please :roll:0 -
Will be a very interesting TDF if Lance is there.
Now the peleton is much cleaner, if Lance won all his TDF's clean, even at 37 he should win this easily then?
We shall see.0 -
How many of you wear the Livestrong yellow band....Just curious.0
-
since power now on the climbs has gone down about 10-15% from the Lance-EPO era, Armstrong should walk the tour with 10 mins in hand.
......that's of course if he was clean in the first place.0 -
Absolute nonsense! According to data put out by Ed Coyle and the Armstrong camp he started his post-cancer Tours with a weight in the `low 74 kg` range. When he won the world RR championships ( a whole different kettle of fish to winning the Tour) his weight was 75.1 kg, a difference of 1 Kg at best. Like every other claim originating from the corporate-backed Armstrong propaganda machine, the arguments supposedly `proving` Armstrong was clean fall to pieces when the focus is placed on the facts rather than the spin.Patrick1.0 wrote:Weight loss makes a massive difference. People who underestimate that surely don't realise the benefits....It must have been similar for Lance after cancer. He's about an inch taller than me, obviously a much stronger build but I've been told he went from high 70's pre cancer to 68 kg (during the Tour) post cancer.0 -
Where's he been?.... I thought doping only got you two years out of the game?
0 -
leguape wrote:fruit bars with eyes wrote:in fact, let's all take a moment to applaud the great man for avoiding all those nasty dopers in teams he was in complete control of- like heras, beltran, landis, hamilton, basso, andreu et al- and for taking such a principled stand - with riders such as simeoni and bassons
With the exception of Andreu, every other rider listed tested positive/was suspended on a team other than Armstrong's and ones who were known for either actively encouraging doping among their riders or turning a deliberately blind eye to it.
Andreu claims he only did a couple of times, to try and ensure his place on the USPS squad for the 1999 Tour. He offers no evidence of it being organised or systematic within the team: http://www.velonews.com/article/10851
Surely that means that Postal / DIscovery just had it absolutely down with regards to systematic doping? The riders leave to explore pastures new and resort to doping themselves without the Postal / Discovery knowhow and they get caught. It's massively suspicious which is why people are less than thrilled at LA's return. I think he's great to watch on the bike and he's a bonafide mega-star with the doping as a very interesting sub-plot. He's certainly been Mr Teflon thus far, but for this guy's life to be really worth making into a movie we are going to have to see a fall from grace. Ballsy to come back, especially given the bizarre circumstances of Landis' positive test. Could just as easily happen to him. He thinks he's the saviour of cycling, but in so many ways he's a curse.0 -
I can only imagine what it's like to race a GT but I do know what it's like to attempt a come back. It's very hard. To make a come back to ride the TDF after 3 years out of racing is a very very tough challenge indeed. You may choose to believe he was clean or not but whatever your thoughts on that, you have to admire his guts and determination.
He has put himself in a no win situation. If he fails then it's because of the new regime. If he succeeds then it's because of his doping nous.
Come on now, he has nothing to prove but everything to lose. Might he not be doing it because of the challenge? The guy is a fantastic athlete and unlike many other riders, managed to ride the TDF with very few tactical errors. The bile that is getting posted about him on here is from the usual suspects. Stand by for personal abuse.0 -
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.M.Rushton0
-
Cougar wrote:Come on now, he has nothing to prove but everything to lose. Might he not be doing it because of the challenge? The guy is a fantastic athlete and unlike many other riders, managed to ride the TDF with very few tactical errors. The bile that is getting posted about him on here is from the usual suspects. Stand by for personal abuse.
IMO when all's said and done this is the only thing that really matters. Sure the guy may be a complete arse, and he may well have doped back in the day, but I don't see many people denying that he knows what he's doing on a bike. Apologies for stating the obvious, but next year's TdF is a bike race, not Mr Nice Guy 2009, and if you were to exclude every rider who has failed a test, been suspected of doping, been associated with dopers, or who rode in the 'bad old days', then I could probably win it myself.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Absolute nonsense! According to data put out by Ed Coyle and the Armstrong camp he started his post-cancer Tours with a weight in the `low 74 kg` range. When he won the world RR championships ( a whole different kettle of fish to winning the Tour) his weight was 75.1 kg, a difference of 1 Kg at best. Like every other claim originating from the corporate-backed Armstrong propaganda machine, the arguments supposedly `proving` Armstrong was clean fall to pieces when the focus is placed on the facts rather than the spin.Patrick1.0 wrote:Weight loss makes a massive difference. People who underestimate that surely don't realise the benefits....It must have been similar for Lance after cancer. He's about an inch taller than me, obviously a much stronger build but I've been told he went from high 70's pre cancer to 68 kg (during the Tour) post cancer.
Have you seen the pics of Lance when he won the world champs ? Much bigger upper body from his days as a triathlete.
Look at him after his cancer - he lost a lot of muscle mass. What he has is mainly on his legs. So whats gonna help him more climbing ?0 -
There are issues here which are much more important than whether or not one is a Lance fan-boy or not. For example, whether or not one can believe in the performances one is watching or whether cycling is now no more than empty `sports entertainment.` In my view issues such as establishing the truth also matter, even if powerful interests are determined to con the public with a load of spin and lies.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.0 -
Yeah right, grew legs like tree trunks, didn`t he? :roll: What`s more weight is weight and still has to be dragged up the climbs. Big muscles in themselves do not make a climber and most climbers have had very slight musclature, including on their legs.cougie wrote:Have you seen the pics of Lance when he won the world champs ? Much bigger upper body from his days as a triathlete.
Look at him after his cancer - he lost a lot of muscle mass. What he has is mainly on his legs. So whats gonna help him more climbing ?
In reality Armstrong`s legs look little different to any other pro rider to me, including those of Filippo Simeoni, as you can see in the picture below.
(This picture was taken the day Armstrong bullied Simeoni into going back to the peleton in retaliation for Simeoni speaking out about the doping practices of Armstrong`s `trainer` Ferrari. Afterwards Armstrong gathered a number of other believers in the `omerta` around Simeoni and led them in a chant of `Bastard, Bastard`. On the final stage Disco riders also spat at Simeoni..).
Further, even when Armstrong was `winning` the Tour, his upper body was hardly wasted away...
And here is a picture of Armstrong in his triathalon days. If anything his upper body looks less well developed than when he was `winning` the Tour...
0 -
So, all the guys who were subsequently caught after leaving USPS/Disco, and who had been part of the most dominant team in Tour history ALL suddenly felt the need to start doping to get some form.
I cannot comprehend the naivety required to swallow such a load of cr@p.
Personally, if LA never rode again, I'd be happy, if he rides and finally gets caught, I'd be happy, or if he rides and gets thrashed, I'd be happy.
I've read his books and thought he was a pr!ck, I've watched and read about how he treated Simeoni and I think he is one of the most thoroughly unlikeable individuals in sport. And don't dare give me the crap about arrogance needed to succeed, 'cos I'll give you a hundred examples of nice guys that win.
I just cannot get the LA worship.
Can someone explain it to me in rational terms?0 -
Entrenched beliefs despite mounting evidence, a quasi-religious faith in a fairy tale? Sound familiar? Here is the wikipedia entry on "cognitive dissonance":
Looks familiar?In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas...
Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1957 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of Earth's destruction, purportedly sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.0 -
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.
0 -
You won`t get a rational explanation as it isn`t rational being more akin to a faith. As such studying the psychology of the disciples of other religions will probably be more instructive! As I posted on an earlier thread:Steven Martin wrote:I just cannot get the LA worship.
Can someone explain it to me in rational terms?
...the psychology of many of his supporters does appear to bear more than a passing similarity to that of religious devotees.
It rather reminds me of a classic psychology text called `When prophesy fails`. This book looked at what happened to the beliefs of a group of cultists who prophesised that the world was about to end. Of course the world didn`t end on the appointed day, no on any of the other dates subsequently prophesised. Now, one might think that the believers, if rational, would see that they were wrong, or at least come to question their beliefs. Instead each disconfirmation only served to increase the degree of their belief!
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his convictions then ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing and converting other people to his view.
When Prophecy Fails. Festinger, Rieken and Schacter (1956).
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=600 -
A! So someone has been reading my posts!Kléber wrote:Entrenched beliefs despite mounting evidence, a quasi-religious faith in a fairy tale? Sound familiar? Here is the wikipedia entry on "cognitive dissonance":
Looks familiar?In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas...
Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1957 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of Earth's destruction, purportedly sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.0 -
NlEDERMEYER wrote:Can I just chuck this into the mix - difficult for even the Lance groupies to naysay this - for all of his victories with USPS and Disco, his team were an integral part of his wins. Large numbers of those team members have subsequently been established to be dirty. So even disregarding the probability that the man himself doped, and the certainty that he's an absolute c***, you can't really call his palmares clean.
This js an excellent point which I for one have never really considered before. The only time he ever took the wind was in the TTs and on one or two big climbs each year. Could he have won even ONCE if his team hadn't been dopers?<hr>
<h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>0 -
aurelio - find a pic of him without his jersey during his tour years - sparrow chest.
He was a pro triathlete - clearly he'd have more upper body mass with all of the swimming he'd done.
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. So even before he was in the peleton there was a buzz of excitement about him. He was no carthorse.
I wonder if I've got the issue up in my loft somewhere ?0 -
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.
He might know more than you about "what life is all about". I have no idea. Don't assume that's true of other people.0 -
A further facet of the Simeoni incident was the fact that he had not badmouthed Ferrari "in the media" as certain posters have suggested... He badmouthed him to a judge in the course of a criminal case against him. There was talk for a time of Armstrong being prosecuted for intimidating a witness. How people can reconcile that with simply beign "driven as an athlete" i don't understand. The average Lance Fan's grasp of the history of the sport displayed perfectly by getting him confused with Gilberto Simoni, two time Giro winner, demonstrating, in Armstrong's defence that it is still possible to perform in a GT in your late 30s.
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?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Eurostar wrote:NlEDERMEYER wrote:Can I just chuck this into the mix - difficult for even the Lance groupies to naysay this - for all of his victories with USPS and Disco, his team were an integral part of his wins. Large numbers of those team members have subsequently been established to be dirty. So even disregarding the probability that the man himself doped, and the certainty that he's an absolute c***, you can't really call his palmares clean.
This js an excellent point which I for one have never really considered before. The only time he ever took the wind was in the TTs and on one or two big climbs each year. Could he have won even ONCE if his team hadn't been dopers?
Very true. Lance freely admits that he relied hugely on his team for his wins. Many of them have been proven to be dopers while performingly similarly (or even worse) than at USPS. So is it completely unreasonable to believe that Lance (clean or not) won with the help of a bunch of cheats?0 -
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. You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
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
Dan0 -
I'd always thought he must be on drugs, as I'd thought that you can't beat the dopers unless you dope too.
Then I read this from Ed Moses the 400m hurdler
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 816380.ece
It may be naive but I think there's a chance that Armstrong (or anyone else) could win the tour and beat drug takers and be clean, here's hoping.0
