Lance interview in Feb Procycling

micron

George, thought you made some excellent points in your post

Anonymous

GeorgeShaw wrote:

Yeh, I'll withdraw my comments about Livestrong, that was unwarranted, I should engage brain before typing.

And all power to the charity raising sportives, they do a great job. They are the real heroes, who put enormous time and energy into their work, and go comparatively unrecognised.

But I stand by the philosophical/psychological points about hero worship. Saint Lance doesn't exist. Even the Pope goes to the toilet.

When I see a post of this nature I immediately have more respect for the poster...I myself have posted with far too much emotion on a few occasions but Ive had the gonads to admit I was wrong....nothing wrong with this....in fact its to be commended......maybe if we had more of this and less 'one upmanship' it would make for better conversation :?:

pottssteve

Hello All,
I believe your chances of getting cancer are 1 in 3 (though I think many of these cases arise in later years of life). Testicular cancer is the most common kind amongst men aged 16-50, therefore, it's not that unusual for 2 team mates to develop it. I know several people who currently have the illness, one of whom has testicular cancer; he too is in his 30's and as a previously very fit triathalon competitior is making a very speedy recovery, much faster than I did as I was relatively unfit at the time when I contracted the disease. It would be interesting to know just how pre-diagnosis fitness affects recovery rates, but I think this is difficult to quantify due to different treatments.

Anyhoo, as someone who had cancer, I don't necessarily see LA as a God or an idol. I can however appreciate what he has been through, and as a result of that it inspires me to shut up and get on with it when I think I'm having a bad day. I'm organising a Livestrong event because I feel it's a positive thing to do and it will raise money which will help people, whether or not the man who devised it did or did not cheat.
Steve

RVsrb

When it comes to Pro level road racing & the subject of this topic, I have only one thing to say:
"smell the coffee, its got EPO in it"

Sorry but I think all the recent statements about cycling getting cleaner are just PR. Just read Paul Kimmage's book for how doping doesn't just have to be about EPO.

micron

Steve, interesting points - and good to hear that you too are giving something back to support efforts to support the community. The self help community that Livestrong has spawned has given a lot of practical help and support to many.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with RV though - the peloton isn't getting any cleaner, and won't be with Team Hogstrong in it.

Jez mon

Just read the interview. I have to say Lance reacted to the last few questions in a rather odd manner. It was almost as if he was looking for an opportunity to react. It's sad IMO, he had a chance to lay to alleviate some doubts, answer difficult questions.

Personally I felt that Ian's question was totally fair calling it "the shi!t they lob in the night", without providing any evidence of it being sh!t is plain stupid. If Lance wants kudos from his apparent relationship with Catlin he should be prepared to either have a legal agreement, or have a very good answer to why one is not necessary.

In the end he had neither and totally went off point.

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

[


Does the fact that something is unproven make it nonsense?
.

Did someone say it does ? i must have missed that post.

MG

skavanagh.bikeradar

I thought he came across as being in a huff and he didn't answer the questions at all well. He didn't answer my (edited) question about his goals in the classics properly and this was a powder puff question, as was the other one of mine that sneaked in. I got the impression that unless the question was:

So, Lance you are really quite brilliant. Tell me, how brilliant are you?

He wasn't going to be all that interested. He might be an inspiration and he might do all sorts of wonderous good work, but I don't have to like him.

Happy new year. It feels, smells and looks just like the last one.

richard wants a baum

Still have to read the interview but the fact that he dodged this question which is a totally valid one and personally attack the person that asked it is just giving the non-believers a bigger stick to beat him with. Im personally not that intrested whether LA has/is cheating (though i will jump into the debate from time to time) but his im still waiting for this whole anti-cancer crusade to start? I live in adelaide and apparently LA will be here sometime this week, i wonder how much of his time will be spent pushing HIS cause?

SpaceJunk

How are you coping Richard with Lanceania?

After yesterday's Sunday Mail - I think I am going to give the papers a miss until after the TDU. As I've stated earlier; LA has certainly drawn much interest into cycling and that really is great.

However, to have a a newspaper article on LA which consists odf a journalist looking at his twitter account and then letting us know how often Lance speaks of the TDU / Adelaide in his posts is absolutely cringe-worthy.

richard wants a baum

Its died down a bit but i get the feeling that its about to go into over drive.

don key

micron wrote:

Of course one could ask how he developed testicular cancer - particulalrly as one of his teammates on the apparently ill fated US junior team also fell victim, and Strock and Kaiter developed immune system problems potentially as a result of the actions of the team coach - one Chris Carmichael (who made an out of court settlement with Strock and Kaiter). A somewhat high concentration of serious illness amongst healthy young men wouldn't you say.

Sorry, but I just can't get it up for cheats - fail to find them inspirational in any sense.

I read into this as follows, Lance Armstrong was nearly taken by drugs.

GeorgeShaw

If you don't mind, having re-engaged my brain, maybe you can all indulge me a little more on the topics of inspiration and myths.

I only have indirect experience of cancer (maybe pottssteve can gives his views on what follows) but I don't think that Lance is inspiring, I just think that he's very lucky. Lucky because his cancer was treatable. Lucky because he responded to the treatment. Lucky because he was on the right side of the survival numbers.

Because there was nothing that Lance did that caused him to survive. His numbers just worked out for him. Lying in the bed alongside him (symbolically) is another Lance who didn't survive. His numbers didn't work out the right way. He was unlucky. So actually there is no real connection between Lance-the-cancer-survivor and Lance-the-cyclist.

Further, I think that one of the first things that a cancer sufferer thinks is "why me?". One of the next things that they think is "why me and why not him?". So all these stories of "successfully battling cancer" can be profoundly disturbing for a sufferer (and their family). It implies that if they die, then they are in some way a failure - they failed in their "battle". When that's not true, it's just that their numbers didn't work out. So Lance-as-inspiration is a rather double-edged sword.

The same thing goes for when we read about the bravery of a sufferer. They're not really brave, because being brave implies having options, to be brave or not to be brave. They don't have an option. Their life is how it is.

In reality, these stories about battling and bravery, of inspiration, they're exactly that - stories, myths. They provide a narrative, and it's really for us - the spectators to it all. We live a nice cosy life, actually untouched by all of it, we have enough disposable income to get our enjoyment from cycling, and we seem to like this kind of thing as it makes us feel good.

To me what's really inspiring are those people who decide to make a difference. The doctors that go to Africa to treat people in war zones. Or, bringing it back to cycling, the people who set up schemes where old bikes can be sent to Africa to be given to children, so that they can cycle to school and get an education. Or those people organising sportives that give money to charity.

So if you want to actually do something, rather than just being a spectator and feeling good, then you should make a difference, or support those that do.

And Lance? Lance-supporting-charity is a good guy. But Lance-the-inspiration is different, and the doubts are that a lot of what he does is not about charity, but is all about Lance. And Lance-the-ego is not a nice person.

Anonymous

Yes, you are correct in much of what you say....a lot is down to sheer fortune of where the cancers grows, a lot is down to how much money you have and where you live and what treatment and equipment are available...so Lance had the fortune to have a cancer at a still treatable phase (but it was thought by the experts to be very slight chance of survival), he was lucky to be wealthy enough to pursue treatments and facilities...but his biggest fortune was having a Oncologist form Germany who happened to be a Cycling Fan...it was him who advised LA where to go for the treatment (platinum treatment)...and he did have a very important choice to make which was very brave, he was offered 2 treatments...
1) Very aggressive chemo therapy which had huge chance of success, but the downside was it would leave his body impossible to ever become a athelete again.

2) A newer treatment for progressive Testicular Cancer, a treatment which offered the chance to still have an atheletic career afterwards....but the treatment never offered the same success as the more aggressive approach.

However he decided on the newer treatment and put his life on the line...now that takes balls.....

I think his story is a mythical hope for sufferers....yes, a lot was down to personal fortune but its the fact that he came back and won the toughest atheletic prize on earth 7 times afterwards...thats just outrageous drive and determination.

I loved the way he dealt with his condition...he learned himself so much about the disease, he treated it like an opponent and always tried to remain positive even on the most dire days of therapy....it was his mental outlook I was enthralled with....and thats just him...like him or hate him...hes a pure and utter winner....his dealing with his disease is his whole make up...

I find it so weird sometimes....here we have an athelete, who has brought the sport of Cycling to the fore, probably the most amazing sporting story the world has yet seen, regardless if you think he doped or not his acheivements are incredible...how many of the other top riders do you think doped...Id guess at around 95%...now they never had the disease this man had, and only the likes of Anquitel,Merckx,Hinault,Indurain can be put in same classiment.....none of them went through what LA went thru....so why are so many wanting to put him down?....hes been a revelation for cycling in general, hes the reason I got on a road bike....he completely inspired me.....and I reckon hes highly responsible for the increase of Cyclists I now see on the roads here in the UK....theres just so much more now...great!.....I look at LA and think he is to Cycling what Ali was to boxing....a legend....drugs or not!

Tempestas

Some people talk utter b0llox on this forum, I have lost 3 members of my family to cancer in the last few years. What Lance Armstrong has done for raising awareness and funds for this horrible disease is fantastic, his comeback after cancer was fantastic and he is a great example and beacon of hope to people with serious illnesses. It gives hope! What have you done?

LA may not be the ‘perfect’ person that everyone demands, but who is? Has anything been proved? Has he ever been banned? To be honest I am amazed he gives any interviews and even bothers with speaking to the public anymore, especially when so called supporters of cycling are the ones who belittle and accuse him. Yes the sport of cycling has cheats within it, but so has every other sport in the world.

Innocent until proven guilty except by the forum police....but I guess we are all experts

Great post Richboy, I just wish everyone could understand what cancer sufferers go through. It's not just luck, its drive, determination and willpower as well. My nan was diagnosed with cancer and given 6 months to live at the age of 30, she died last year aged 81because in her own words 'didn't have time for this nonsense'.

andyp

Tempestas wrote:

LA may not be the ‘perfect’ person that everyone demands, but who is? Has anything been proved? Has he ever been banned? To be honest I am amazed he gives any interviews and even bothers with speaking to the public anymore, especially when so called supporters of cycling are the ones who belittle and accuse him. Yes the sport of cycling has cheats within it, but so has every other sport in the world.
.

The problem I have with the Armstrong myth is that it is, in my opinion, exactly that, a myth. He uses his cancer survival story to give hope to others but his comeback wasn't based on the hard work and talent he claims it was but on his inate ability to respond to performance enhancing doping techniques like EPO and blood doping. Any hope he gives based on his story is a lie.

micron

+1 andyp - yes, he recovered from cancer - though as Steve pointed out, as a super fit young man he perhaps had a better chance than most - but does that give him a free pass to cheat, lie and intimidate? Steve, do you feel that, as someone who has recovered from cancer, you should be allowed to act exactly as you please, break the law etc? I would imagine not - yet we are supposed to allow Armstrong to do as he pleases because he too survived the disease.

Tempestas

andyp wrote:

Tempestas wrote:

LA may not be the ‘perfect’ person that everyone demands, but who is? Has anything been proved? Has he ever been banned? To be honest I am amazed he gives any interviews and even bothers with speaking to the public anymore, especially when so called supporters of cycling are the ones who belittle and accuse him. Yes the sport of cycling has cheats within it, but so has every other sport in the world.
.

The problem I have with the Armstrong myth is that it is, in my opinion, exactly that, a myth. He uses his cancer survival story to give hope to others but his comeback wasn't based on the hard work and talent he claims it was but on his inate ability to respond to performance enhancing doping techniques like EPO and blood doping. Any hope he gives based on his story is a lie.

And you have first hand knowledge, medical proof and vast knowledge of this subject?

If so the media would be very interested, if not I doubt anyone is so please post your negative posts elsewhere until they can be backed up with actual facts.

Negativity breeds negativity

Tempestas

micron wrote:

+1 andyp - yes, he recovered from cancer - though as Steve pointed out, as a super fit young man he perhaps had a better chance than most - but does that give him a free pass to cheat, lie and intimidate? Steve, do you feel that, as someone who has recovered from cancer, you should be allowed to act exactly as you please, break the law etc? I would imagine not - yet we are supposed to allow Armstrong to do as he pleases because he too survived the disease.

Another clueless post about how LA breaks the law....please can you provide proof?

As for LA doing as he pleases....he can do what he likes within the law and has done, by setting up a huge foundation for the benefit of fellow cancer sufferers. Served on the US cancer board for 6 or 7 years, raised millions and spoken about his fight against the disease....But I guess that's not enough for some people....

Kléber

Tempestas, please be open to the idea that a sporting champion can be a cheat, that someone doing lots of good somewhere can be a villain in other areas of life.

The allegedly crooked financier Bernard Madoff was a generous donor to charity. OJ "Innocent" Simpson did a lot to help children in hospices. Inversely, the saintly Mother Teresa had her critics. Life isn't so black and white.

Tempestas

Kléber wrote:

Tempestas, please be open to the idea that a sporting champion can be a cheat, that someone doing lots of good somewhere can be a villain in other areas of life.

The allegedly crooked financier Bernard Madoff was a generous donor to charity. OJ "Innocent" Simpson did a lot to help children in hospices. Inversely, the saintly Mother Teresa had her critics. Life isn't so black and white.

At the end of my post I mention this, but what really gets me is the way that people put others down in this world without the slightest bit of proof. Show me hard facts and I would maybe spend more time on this forum, but everytime I take a look its always negativity towards people who have actually achieved something and are trying to put something good back in the world.

Kléber

Tempestas, I drive a car? I have a clean licence and have never had any points. I've never been stopped by police, nor had a speed camera flash at me. These are the facts.

Now do you think I've never driven above 30mph in a 30 zone, that I've never done more than 70 on a motorway?

Anonymous

Im confused with the last few entries....even if he did cheat (which there in no proof, and lets face it mostly ALL others cyclists have the same or more burden of guilt, and I'm simply at a loss of words for microns input?) his story is still remarkable. You may hate to admit it but Lance has been the best thing for promoting Cycling than anything else in the entire history of the sport. It is already a mythical legend....apart from the other few 'cycling greats' theres no one even came near close in terms of acheivements...even all the others in the sport that have admitted or have a huge suspicion of drug use havent approached the results this fella has attained....and none went through what he went through...dont you get it? He near died from Cancer and came back to be an incredible champion...it would have been a great story if he had came back and only rode 1 tour and actually finished nevermind what he did.

People call him arrogant...of course he is....mostly all the great champions are of this ilk...they are winners....full stop....they are blinkered to win...and accept anything else as failure....

Everyone can have an opinion.....but I reckon that theres a lot on here who hate the man so much it blinds them from reason...you dont have to like him, but you can admire the man for which he has acheived in his life, you cant put down 7 TDFs, christ 99% of the other riders would need a Suzuki not EPO to win 7 TDFs.

Hes been great for for Cycling....I personally reckon hes popularised the sport more than any other human being or organisation.....

And Im not 'pro' camp as many speak of on this forum...its the facts I state...nothing more....I dont know if he took EPO....I have my own suspicions but it doesnt retract from him being an awesome champion...and if he was on EPO then he would most probably be on a level playing ground anyway?.....

If people wish that he had never entered the sport then I reckon they have no real urge to see cycling becoming a more popular sport, and if they also wish he gets proved to be on drugs then the same people have no interest in providing a shining beacon of hope to so many....

Drugs or not the mans acheivements and story are unsurpassable in the world of sport.

Tempestas

But that's a bit different to accusing somebody of sporting fraud, especially since that person has been [edit]one of [edit]the most tested person in recent years. Now if you got speed checked repeatedly you would be caught. Unfortunately now that you have openly admitted to this act of neglect for the law you will be slandered for the next 10 years for your crimes on motoring forums and compared to Jeremy Clarkson, even though you have not been found guilty....

iainf72

Tempestas wrote:

But that's a bit different to accusing somebody of sporting fraud, especially since that person has been the most tested person in recent years.

There's no evidence of that.

Tempestas

iainf72 wrote:

Tempestas wrote:

But that's a bit different to accusing somebody of sporting fraud, especially since that person has been the most tested person in recent years.

There's no evidence of that.

I read it on a forum somewhere, so therefore it must be true....

Maybe I should change it to 'one of the most tested' since this has been one of the most valid points raised in this thread so far.

blazing_saddles

Tempestas wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Tempestas wrote:

But that's a bit different to accusing somebody of sporting fraud, especially since that person has been the most tested person in recent years.

There's no evidence of that.

I read it on a forum somewhere, so therefore it must be true....

Maybe I should change it to 'one of the most tested' since this has been one of the most valid points raised in this thread so far.

It's what LA said about LA.
Which bring us back to who and what you believe.......or want to believe. Those who listen to Lance's words and believe, as opposed to those who read L'Equipe, Walsh and LeMond's words and believe.
Hence to some he perceived as a legend, to others a myth.

Kléber

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Hes been great for for Cycling....I personally reckon hes popularised the sport more than any other human being or organisation.....

You can say cycling has undergone an "Armstrong" boom but in truth, high end bike sales were rising before he became a household name. But for sure many people took up cycling, you only had to see people wobbling around on their Treks and in Postal kit, all good. Maybe he got some of the readers on here into cycling. Excellent.

But this is a very British or American view. If more people are cycling in Britain, it's a drop in the ocean. I think that regions like Tuscany, Flanders and the French Pyrenees have more registered racers than the entire UK. Few Italians, Frenchmen or Belgians got on the bike because of Armstrong.

Indeed, the "omerta" culture and a general unwillingness to tackle doping mean that far fewer in Europe are getting into cycling, parents don't want their kids taking up what they see - sometimes rightly - as an unreformed and corrupt sport.

And when it comes to omerta, I regret that Armstrong's entourage blocked accredited journalists from attending press conferences because they put awkward questions; that he sometimes refused French TV interviews during the Tour de France because of the tough questions and that he chased down Simeoni.

I follow cycling, I'm a fan and if I've still got lots to learn, I know a lot less about cancer fundraising. So I can't comment much on Armstrong the charity man, but I can only comment on the cycling aspects. If Armstrong-the-fundraiser is a good guy, I dislike some of the things he's done to cycling.

Finally, I am not singling Him out, I think many riders, managers and so-called doctors are equally unpleasant when it comes to omerta: they are quick to protect their money and mythical reputations at the expense of their health and sport.

Tempestas

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Tempestas wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Tempestas wrote:

But that's a bit different to accusing somebody of sporting fraud, especially since that person has been the most tested person in recent years.

There's no evidence of that.

I read it on a forum somewhere, so therefore it must be true....

Maybe I should change it to 'one of the most tested' since this has been one of the most valid points raised in this thread so far.

It's what LA said about LA.
Which bring us back to who and what you believe.......or want to believe. Those who listen to Lance's words and believe, as opposed to those who read L'Equipe, Walsh and LeMond's words and believe.
Hence to some he perceived as a legend, to others a myth.

I don't think he is a legend, I think he is someone that is trying to achieve worthwhile goals and help people. My whole point is that people in this day and age are too quick to put people down, the press is full of 'how bad the world is' stories, the news is mostly 'doom and gloom'. It's increasingly rare for positive stories to get good press and when they do, people always assume the worst and look for some kind of hidden agenda.

Jez mon

Kléber wrote:

RICHYBOYcp wrote:

Hes been great for for Cycling....I personally reckon hes popularised the sport more than any other human being or organisation.....

You can say cycling has undergone an "Armstrong" boom but in truth, high end bike sales were rising before he became a household name. But for sure many people took up cycling, you only had to see people wobbling around on their Treks and in Postal kit, all good. Maybe he got some of the readers on here into cycling. Excellent.

But this is a very British or American view. If more people are cycling in Britain, it's a drop in the ocean. I think that regions like Tuscany, Flanders and the French Pyrenees have more registered racers than the entire UK. Few Italians, Frenchmen or Belgians got on the bike because of Armstrong.

Indeed, the "omerta" culture and a general unwillingness to tackle doping mean that far fewer in Europe are getting into cycling, parents don't want their kids taking up what they see - sometimes rightly - as an unreformed and corrupt sport.

And when it comes to omerta, I regret that Armstrong's entourage blocked accredited journalists from attending press conferences because they put awkward questions; that he sometimes refused French TV interviews during the Tour de France because of the tough questions and that he chased down Simeoni.

I follow cycling, I'm a fan and if I've still got lots to learn, I know a lot less about cancer fundraising. So I can't comment much on Armstrong the charity man, but I can only comment on the cycling aspects. If Armstrong-the-fundraiser is a good guy, I dislike some of the things he's done to cycling.

Finally, I am not singling Him out, I think many riders, managers and so-called doctors are equally unpleasant when it comes to omerta: they are quick to protect their money and mythical reputations at the expense of their health and sport.

+1

The "boom" in cycling isn't just about Lance. Besides, cycling as a sport has taken hits in the recent years (including whilst Armstrong was riding) there are fewer and fewer road races and many premier calender races face a constant struggle to keep going year after year.

Lance undoubtedly has done a lot for cancer, and for the spread of latex wrist bands, BUT his singular focus on the tour probably hurt the sport in it's traditional strongholds and his actions did uphold the culture of omerta within cycling.