FIlth written about Armstrong
Having only been a keen cyclist for less than a couple of years, I've only managed to see coverage of the last 2 TdF's and despite the doping I'm hooked on the sport. Naturally, I've set about learning about the sports great history and its great riders. Inevitably, you come across the Armstong.
Setting aside all of the well known achievements, both on and off the bike, it's clear that the man himself is a source of inspiration to some and loathing to others.
I have to say, that reading through many of the forums is often a sickening experience.
There is no shortage of often disgusting filth and bile written about the man, which would be defamation if written in the printed press. Much of it seems to be on a par with conspiracy theory thinking and ignores many of the facts, just to support a personal view point.
It seems to me people forget a few key things, namely, we live in a world that for the most part believes in: Innocent until proved guilty.
I don't care if the man was a boring cyclist, a frenchaphobe, arrogant, egotist,or devalued cycling by concentrating on the TdF or won through building the team around him. It might not make him lovable, but it's not a crime the last I heard.
The crime allegations cheifly centre around three issues.
1) The cortisone in 99
2) EPO in 99
3) Apparent words said on his death bed.
There also seems to be an implied guilt through association with people like Dr Ferrari.
If guilt by assoication was sufficient, there would be no riders left in the pelton. Most know or have worked with someone connected to doping or ex dopers. Is it fit fair to suggest Sastre is doper because he's managed by Riis? No, it's not sufficient on it own.
As for the above points
1) The records show it was prescribed.
2) The subsequent independent inquiry cleared Armstrong and censured WADA.
3) This has been denied by most present and does not hold water as evidence.
Many suggest that everyone doped during the armstrong era. Whilst many obviously did, not everyone. The point is, that many, many were caught, but not Armstrong. To suggest he was somehow smarter, had access to different drugs, or was treated differently to Ulrich or Pantani seems to be a case of trying to re-arrange the facts.
The 99 samples cant now be used. Get the man on a lie detector.
As for the remaining 6 tour wins and hundreds of negative tests, let's take them as what they are. Wins and negative tests.
If he comes back and is competive or wins, I'll take my hat of to the man. After, last years would be winner was founding cheatng and a quarter of this years stage winners were cheating, I'm left with one conclusion. New era my arse.
There's cheats, always have been and always will be. We test to catch them and as the most wanted man on the planet, it seems Armstrong never got caught. Until, someone comes along with some clear, unequivocal evidence that the UCI and ASO and the TdF support, a cyclist is innocent.
And that doesn;t mean Rasmussen is innocent. Missing multiple tests is an offense. Plain and simple.
Setting aside all of the well known achievements, both on and off the bike, it's clear that the man himself is a source of inspiration to some and loathing to others.
I have to say, that reading through many of the forums is often a sickening experience.
There is no shortage of often disgusting filth and bile written about the man, which would be defamation if written in the printed press. Much of it seems to be on a par with conspiracy theory thinking and ignores many of the facts, just to support a personal view point.
It seems to me people forget a few key things, namely, we live in a world that for the most part believes in: Innocent until proved guilty.
I don't care if the man was a boring cyclist, a frenchaphobe, arrogant, egotist,or devalued cycling by concentrating on the TdF or won through building the team around him. It might not make him lovable, but it's not a crime the last I heard.
The crime allegations cheifly centre around three issues.
1) The cortisone in 99
2) EPO in 99
3) Apparent words said on his death bed.
There also seems to be an implied guilt through association with people like Dr Ferrari.
If guilt by assoication was sufficient, there would be no riders left in the pelton. Most know or have worked with someone connected to doping or ex dopers. Is it fit fair to suggest Sastre is doper because he's managed by Riis? No, it's not sufficient on it own.
As for the above points
1) The records show it was prescribed.
2) The subsequent independent inquiry cleared Armstrong and censured WADA.
3) This has been denied by most present and does not hold water as evidence.
Many suggest that everyone doped during the armstrong era. Whilst many obviously did, not everyone. The point is, that many, many were caught, but not Armstrong. To suggest he was somehow smarter, had access to different drugs, or was treated differently to Ulrich or Pantani seems to be a case of trying to re-arrange the facts.
The 99 samples cant now be used. Get the man on a lie detector.
As for the remaining 6 tour wins and hundreds of negative tests, let's take them as what they are. Wins and negative tests.
If he comes back and is competive or wins, I'll take my hat of to the man. After, last years would be winner was founding cheatng and a quarter of this years stage winners were cheating, I'm left with one conclusion. New era my arse.
There's cheats, always have been and always will be. We test to catch them and as the most wanted man on the planet, it seems Armstrong never got caught. Until, someone comes along with some clear, unequivocal evidence that the UCI and ASO and the TdF support, a cyclist is innocent.
And that doesn;t mean Rasmussen is innocent. Missing multiple tests is an offense. Plain and simple.
0
Comments
-
Well, ye, but you know that most people on this forum will either call you a Lance fan boy or somebody who is deluded. Personally, I agree with you.0
-
Deluded maybe, but accusations haven't been by sufficient evidence to establish guilt and that is really should be the end of it.
At which point politics intrudes, the controversy comes to life again, accusations are made afresh.
We can also debate in the same vein wither aliens crashed at Roswell, if MI5 arranged the accident that killed Diana, if the CIA did arrange the shooting of JFK.....realistically the Lance thing is gonna be around for ages until it is conclusively proved that he did take drugs.
In the other direction though, have you ever tried to conclusively prove a negative? People by their nature, well, want to believe whatever it is what they want to believe, evidence be damned they'll find a way to make it so including suspension of rational thought processes and dismissing evidence as being flawed, biased, inconclusive, incorrect, non-factual and so on.
Do you really think something like the Lance controversy is going to go away simply because of a lack of hard evidence? I mean, its taken how long for the tobacco industry to get to the point where it might be close to acknowledging that tobacco products may have some kind of harmful effect on those who use them and those around them, whats a little controversy like this got to stop it?'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
Lance is proven guilty. He just hasn't received a sentence in a court of law. If the case had been a regular criminal offense like stealing, raping, stabbing etc., and not doping in sports, he would have received a sentence long ago.0
-
griselin wrote:Lance is proven guilty. He just hasn't received a sentence in a court of law. If the case had been a regular criminal offense like stealing, raping, stabbing etc., and not doping in sports, he would have received a sentence long ago.
Don't mess around.0 -
Proof of the above may be disputed, but how about this unsavoury little incident with Simeoni? All there for the world to see... the actions of a man who espouses clean riding?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/jul/24/tourdefrance2004.tourdefrance1
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=6762
http://www.velonews.com/article/6653-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0 -
You say that Armstrong is often condemned on this forum, but I would say that the most notable thing about the `discussions` concerning Armstrong is the number of people who are still prepared to defend him!
At times it seems that Armstrong lives in some parallel world where evidence that would see any other rider (or at least any non-American rider) declared to be a doper is held to be inadmissible in the case of Armstrong. For example, it is known that Armstrong was a long term client of one of the most notorious doping doctors in the history of cycling. However many still try to deny that this fact in any way reinforces the case against Armstrong. On the other hand when a rider like Schleck is found to have made payments to another notorious doping doctor (Fuentes) not only do most people seem to accept without question that this is more or less proof that Schleck doped, he is suspended by his team, irrespective of whether he has be `proven` to be guilty or not and his own protestations of innocence.
Much of what else you say could have been culled from an Armstrong press release, but as to your point `3` why not listen to the following recording of Stephanie McIllvain talking with Greg Lemond? In this recording she makes it quite clear that she did hear Armstrong admit to doping, even if she later denied this when her and her husband were threatened with being dismissed by Oakley if she did not back Armstrong.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp30 -
Most of what is said about his holiness on here is actually drawn from the printed press! :roll: Here`s one example:emerywd wrote:There is no shortage of often disgusting filth and bile written about the man, which would be defamation if written in the printed press.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-In ... 549&sr=1-1
I don`t expect to see Armstrong bringing a libel case any time soon though. In the last few years far too much evidence against him has entered the public domain.0 -
'filth'
?
lol.
I feel sickened at the way that people are suckered into the Armstrong myth. Whether he has tested positive or not, he's still got an awful lot to do, IMO, to make up for the 'filth' he dealt out to others. Christophe Bassons, for instance.0 -
i wanna see exciting racing and leave the cheat this/that wotever to cycling forums like this0
-
emerywd wrote:Having only been a keen cyclist for less than a couple of years, I've only managed to see coverage of the last 2 TdF's and despite the doping I'm hooked on the sport. Naturally, I've set about learning about the sports great history and its great riders. Inevitably, you come across the Armstong.
First of all welcome.
Like many others on here I've been a follower of cycling for 20+ years. And what you might notice is not many of those people believe the myth. Perhaps you'll be lucky and the sport will improve but when you've suffered 15 years of chemically enhanced lies pretending to be a sport worth something you get a bit jaded.
I don't want to waste my energy saying anything about Armstrong. When he was retired I wished people would just stop talking about him. Alas, the come back has ruined it all.
Keep and open mind and read as much as you can. Also, prepare to be disappointed. A lot.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Welcome to the forum and to cycling.emerywd wrote:It seems to me people forget a few key things, namely, we live in a world that for the most part believes in: Innocent until proved guilty.
That remark is about as naive as they come. Keep reading about the sport and you'll find out why. If you don't believe the Armstrong doubters on here, read what Greg Lemond has to say about the testing process, and what it means not to have failed a test.
Study your TdF history and you'll also see how many of Armstrong's teammates were busted for doping shortly after they left his team. Either they started doping as soon as they left his team, or they were doping while they were at his team but it was covered up. Nobody, but NOBODY sincerely believes the former. It's a completely unsupportable position. Even the Armstrong fans can't argue it and keep a straight face.
So the only logical conclusion to draw is that Bruyneel and/or the US Postal doctors must be the best in the business at concealing doping.
Then you have to face the fact that even if LA wasn't doping, his TdF victories were secured for him by convicted dopers. If you understand the tactics of stage racing and the aerodynamic effects of riding in a peloton you'll know how much of the work to win LA's victories was performed by cheats. So you can't argue that even if he was clean he deserves those victories. It's like saying that a jockey deserves his win even if his horse is full of steroids.
So keep reading about the sport, but as Iain said, prepare to be disappointed. I think you'll find that many of the Lance detractors used to be his fans! I certainly was - I worshipped the ground he walked on, partly because he won and partly because of his charity work. (I had testicular cancer a year before him and have done my share of work for Cancer Research and even for LA's foundation.)<hr>
<h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>0 -
Eurostar wrote:Study your TdF history and you'll also see how many of Armstrong's teammates were busted for doping shortly after they left his team. Either they started doping as soon as they left his team, or they were doping while they were at his team but it was covered up. Nobody, but NOBODY sincerely believes the former. It's a completely unsupportable position. Even the Armstrong fans can't argue it and keep a straight face.
So the only logical conclusion to draw is that Bruyneel and/or the US Postal doctors must be the best in the business at concealing doping.
Then you have to face the fact that even if LA wasn't doping, his TdF victories were secured for him by convicted dopers. If you understand the tactics of stage racing and the aerodynamic effects of riding in a peloton you'll know how much of the work to win LA's victories was performed by cheats. So you can't argue that even if he was clean he deserves those victories. It's like saying that a jockey deserves his win even if his horse is full of steroids.
Sorry but that's just preposterous as claims go. Even a cursory glance at the big name cases says you've got a very odd idea of "shortly"
Heras: left USPS 2003, busted 2005 - 2 seasons
Hamilton: left USPS 2001 busted 2004 - 3 seasons
Landis: left USPS 2004 busted 2006 - 2 seasons
There is absolutely nothing logical to "they got done elsewhere so they must have been at it at USPS". In almost every instance they got done years after leaving USPS and after making the move from being a domestique allowed to pick up results on occasion in smaller events to team leaders aiming to nail big results in the big races. And aiming to do so on teams which were less disciplined and focused on a result in one particular race, often without the calibre of rider at their disposal that USPS had.
Your assertion is about as accurate and useful as the nimrods who make the assumption that because I ride a bike a lot I dope as well.0 -
Eurostar wrote:Welcome to the forum and to cycling.emerywd wrote:It seems to me people forget a few key things, namely, we live in a world that for the most part believes in: Innocent until proved guilty.
That remark is about as naive as they come.
Let's see if I have this one right. If I've heard rumors about Eurostar that he's a doper, but he has consistently tested clean, this means he's a doper because, well, there are rumors and stories and, it just has to be because I said so and I am all knowing. Hopefully
I explained that right, Eurostar??? You sound like a real piece of work.
Dennis Noward0 -
cycling without cheaters is like gambling without losers it never gonna happen.
lets just all enjoy the drama.
a true champion must be willing to pay the ultimate price for the sport he loves and if that means death then so be it.
everyone knows hes not clean, everyone knows hes not a nice person but lets be honest who cares?0 -
Look back through all your back issues of cycling magazines for the tour contenders.
Now think how many of them have been busted.
If you were a betting man - would you think it likely that a clean athlete could beat all these dopers ?
His own team mates are on record talking about the doping in the team. Independent witnesses with no axe to grind have talked about his pre cancer confessions.
Now I'm leaving the decision up to you - what would you bet on ?0 -
Cycling fans, all of us, arguing over whether our heroes are clean, how sad is that?!
The hard facts are that since there has been organised sport there have been cheats; as long as there is something worth winning, someone will be prepared to cheat. There have been many riders who risked there lives because the prize was big enough, and we trust a word these guys say? It's a fact that riders died through doping, that's how big the desire to win is. How many have been tested throughout their whole career and never tested positive? Sometimes thousands of tests! But we know that doesn't mean anything, only today after one particular drug has been developed do we think we might have a chance of being ahead of he dopers, and then only if they happen to be taking that one particular drug.
Whatever, there will always be people who are prepared to risk it all for victory, whether lance was one (open your eyes) or not, recognise at least that that means everyone should be considered a POSSIBLE doper, sad but true.0 -
Dennis, you should really really learn how to argue the point and not the man.0
-
rapid_uphill wrote:cycling without cheaters is like gambling without losers it never gonna happen.
lets just all enjoy the drama.
a true champion must be willing to pay the ultimate price for the sport he loves and if that means death then so be it.
everyone knows hes not clean, everyone knows hes not a nice person but lets be honest who cares?
Two things. "Everyone" doesn't "know". Obviously he's confided in you and not the rest of us. And I thought he was my friend. Secondly it's not "who cares". A better question,
that no one has really even attemped to answer, would be "why care". The "why" of all this really has my curiosity up. What drives people to this kind of thinking and what appears to be some kind of pent up rage against someone they don't know. I'm starting to believe that there are lots of people out there with minds that are incapable of rational
thought process's and if they read something, well, it must be true, it was written and by someone smarter than themselves. Therefore, they believe it's true because their mind is just a pliable
piece of putty that has never had an original thought of it's own. Good theory, Dennis.
Dennis Noward0 -
Anyone know how reliable lie detector tests are? Maybe LA could just take one of those and clear up speculation forever.0
-
guv001 wrote:emerywd wrote:1) The records show it was prescribed.
He only obtained the prescription after he was caught IIRC.
Same with Miguel Indurain and Salbutamol!
Hence proving he was a drug cheat as well?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Eurostar wrote:Welcome to the forum and to cycling.emerywd wrote:It seems to me people forget a few key things, namely, we live in a world that for the most part believes in: Innocent until proved guilty.
That remark is about as naive as they come. Keep reading about the sport and you'll find out why. If you don't believe the Armstrong doubters on here, read what Greg Lemond has to say about the testing process, and what it means not to have failed a test.
Study your TdF history and you'll also see how many of Armstrong's teammates were busted for doping shortly after they left his team. Either they started doping as soon as they left his team, or they were doping while they were at his team but it was covered up. Nobody, but NOBODY sincerely believes the former. It's a completely unsupportable position. Even the Armstrong fans can't argue it and keep a straight face.
So the only logical conclusion to draw is that Bruyneel and/or the US Postal doctors must be the best in the business at concealing doping.
Then you have to face the fact that even if LA wasn't doping, his TdF victories were secured for him by convicted dopers. If you understand the tactics of stage racing and the aerodynamic effects of riding in a peloton you'll know how much of the work to win LA's victories was performed by cheats. So you can't argue that even if he was clean he deserves those victories. It's like saying that a jockey deserves his win even if his horse is full of steroids.
So keep reading about the sport, but as Iain said, prepare to be disappointed. I think you'll find that many of the Lance detractors used to be his fans! I certainly was - I worshipped the ground he walked on, partly because he won and partly because of his charity work. (I had testicular cancer a year before him and have done my share of work for Cancer Research and even for LA's foundation.)
THen apply all these suggestions to Team GB - do we believe they are clean, or are those who think so just deluded?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
rapid_uphill wrote:cycling without cheaters is like gambling without losers it never gonna happen.
lets just all enjoy the drama.
a true champion must be willing to pay the ultimate price for the sport he loves and if that means death then so be it.
everyone knows hes not clean, everyone knows hes not a nice person but lets be honest who cares?
Don't talk such nonsense. Your analogy is stupid and the rest follows suit.
They're going to have to compete clean now, at least the sensible ones will. Now that they're freezing samples, they can test one years down the line with a new test and bingo, all accomplishments by that rider, gone from the history books. The price for doping and being caught is really huge. It's like having a part of your life taken away... as though it never existed. Just look at Marion Jones. She's not the Olympic or world champion any more. What's the point in spending all those years training if it can all be taken away so quickly by a positive test?
Championing dopers as the ultimate risk takers is pathetic; the risk of them dying is next to zero with the amount of doctors in the sport now. They're just cheats in a peleton which is getting cleaner. In times where the peleton was absolutely full of cheats then it's a bit more understandable, but it isn't now. And that's the message all the fans, riders, organisers and sponsors want to see. Who's going to sponsor a team when it could seriously damage their reputation when riders get caught? Dopers have to become the minority for a number of reasons.
Mind you, the ones who drive the doping culture the most are the talentless ones. The type who believe that everybody of a high standard must be doping because they themselves just don't have what it takes. These guys are pretty much the epitomy of this. Crap without drugs, slightly less crap on them. http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/ ... genumber=1[url][/url]
The true champions view doping as a pretty disgusting thing. If you asked the ones who have doped, been successful and evaded the testers if they would have liked the opportunity to do all that clean in a clean peleton, I am sure if they were totally honest with you and themselves, they'd say, "yes, I'd have prefered that." I seriously believe we have the opportunity to make the sport a largely clean one now. Sure people will always dope, but it's just not good enough to allow that truth/fact to change our opinion so much that we see a whole peloton of doped up riders as acceptable. It just isn't for a whole number of reasons.0 -
whilst i believe the circumstantial evidence against armstrong is about as daming as evidence can be whilst remaining circumstantial I think the amount of hatred directed against a man who didn't do anything his peers didn't do is extremely ott.0
-
Those that think he doped will not change their minds.
Those that think he is a saint will not change their minds either.
Now drop it! Lets all just agree to disagree. It is getting very,very boring and i for one am bloody fed up of LA's comeback and he has not even done a proper race yet. Move on.It’s the most beautiful sport in the world but it’s governed by ***ts who have turned it into a crock of ****.0 -
Well, he's making a comeback and is promising to be totally open. I think it is up to us/everyone/the media/organisers/UCI to ensure he is totally open and then it'll shut everyone up one way or the other. The whole debate is excruciating. The focus on Armstrong is even more so. It'd been better for everyone if he'd just have stayed away and concentrated on charity work.
It's a distracting side show, there is more, much, much more to cycling than Armstrong and the TDF.0 -
aurelio wrote:You say that Armstrong is often condemned on this forum, but I would say that the most notable thing about the `discussions` concerning Armstrong is the number of people who are still prepared to defend him!
At times it seems that Armstrong lives in some parallel world where evidence that would see any other rider (or at least any non-American rider) declared to be a doper is held to be inadmissible in the case of Armstrong. For example, it is known that Armstrong was a long term client of one of the most notorious doping doctors in the history of cycling. However many still try to deny that this fact in any way reinforces the case against Armstrong. On the other hand when a rider like Schleck is found to have made payments to another notorious doping doctor (Fuentes) not only do most people seem to accept without question that this is more or less proof that Schleck doped, he is suspended by his team, irrespective of whether he has be `proven` to be guilty or not and his own protestations of innocence.
Much of what else you say could have been culled from an Armstrong press release, but as to your point `3` why not listen to the following recording of Stephanie McIllvain talking with Greg Lemond? In this recording she makes it quite clear that she did hear Armstrong admit to doping, even if she later denied this when her and her husband were threatened with being dismissed by Oakley if she did not back Armstrong.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
not surprised at all that you had to step in...........
Not saying Ferrari is/was not a dope doc, but he is/was an educated sports doc. Fuentes is/was a gynecologist........ Big difference.0 -
You mean if you are looking for a doping expert, Ferrari would be a better bet than Fuentes? Clearly many riders thought much the same, which is why they were willing to give as much as 15% of their income to Ferrari for, ahem, `training programs`.Arkibal wrote:Not saying Ferrari is/was not a dope doc, but he is/was an educated sports doc. Fuentes is/was a gynecologist........ Big difference.
I love the unintended juxtaposition of Armstrong and Ferrari in the following story from 1997, a time well before anyone knew who was the `sorcerer` behind Armstrong`s comeback.
News for January 25, 1997
Armstrong's first race back
Lance Armstrong will have his first public appearance after his illness at the goodwill race "Race for Roses" in Austin, Texas, on March 23 (this was formerly to be held on February 16).
Doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton
The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.
Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peleton is caught in the grip off...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html0 -
Doubtless the fans of WWF wresling could argue much the same.rapid_uphill wrote:cycling without cheaters is like gambling without losers it never gonna happen. lets just all enjoy the drama.0 -
Look it yourself, http://www.53x12.com/do/show;jsessionid ... page=front
now where is Fuentes homepage for his training advices?? Or his gyne clinic?
0
