Lance interview in Feb Procycling
Comments
-
Look I agree. People love to find a hero and then to start digging up the dirt on them.Tempestas wrote: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.
But the point is more subtle, you might be able to find a great actor who turns out to be a tax dodger. His personal finances are nothing to do with his acting. You could find a footballer's wife who struggles to keep a healthy diet, but she's still a footballer's wife. An accountant who is a high functioning alcoholic can still prepare accounts.
However, if you find an accountant who's a fraudster, it's different, this behaviour directly undermines his ability to do his job. The same goes for a sportsman being a cheat. If Armstrong doped, it is highly relevant and not just some piece of tittle-tattle news.0 -
Kléber wrote:
Look I agree. People love to find a hero and then to start digging up the dirt on them.Tempestas wrote: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.
But the point is more subtle, you might be able to find a great actor who turns out to be a tax dodger. His personal finances are nothing to do with his acting. You could find a footballer's wife who struggles to keep a healthy diet, but she's still a footballer's wife. An accountant who is a high functioning alcoholic can still prepare accounts.
However, if you find an accountant who's a fraudster, it's different, this behaviour directly undermines his ability to do his job. The same goes for a sportsman being a cheat. If Armstrong doped, it is highly relevant and not just some piece of tittle-tattle news.
I do not disagree, but he has not failed a drugs test(except one for saddle soreness). Other riders have and have been punished, I am not saying he hasn't taken drugs, what I am saying is that he doesn't deserve all this constant abuse and negativity based on unsubstantiated info provided by the forum police.
As one of the posters above mentions about parents getting their kids into cycling, they may look to BR for information on cycling and advise buying a bike for their child to get into cycling, then read about how 'all' the riders are on drugs, then goes and buys their kid a tennis racket instead.
Support your sport and it will grow.0 -
If LA took EPO, when did he start? 1993 when he won the worlds and a stage of the TDF? If he did dope early in his career, how does it explain what he did from 1999 , assuming he was not an idiot at 22 and knew which range of of drugs he could use at 21-22...poss 5 different types of doping avaialble at the time. Those who hate him have to explain what change he made to his doping after 98. My hunch is.. he was a brilliant athlete of huge natural talent ...whether it was 1992 or 1998-99 both phases were good, I don't buy the Lance was doped his whole career view yet
Basically which margin of improvment was down to EPO, 93, 99 or both ...but EPO only works the same all the time...no improved versions-HC% is the method. Explain that. i don't believe he could beat Ullrich and Basso and the others without doping...but you need to explain his career trajectory properly before I'd believe it was only down to doping and good response to doping0 -
Just in case... tennis has plenty of doping stories, they are just better at covering them up. Look up the real reason as to why Martina Hingis and Justine Henin suddenly retired from the sport, they certainly left the sport on "a positive note". Or look at all those tell-tale signs of growth hormone abuse on some players. The tennis authorities have only just introduced a "whereabouts" out of competition testing program for 2009 but in the Men' ATP Tour only the top-50 have to sign up, it's very weak and years too late.Tempestas wrote:they may look to BR for information on cycling and advise buying a bike for their child to get into cycling, then read about how 'all' the riders are on drugs, then goes and buys their kid a tennis racket instead.
Cycling is beginning to clean up but it's not been doing enough, but it's beyond the denial stage now, which is where most other sports remain. Encouragingly when I see the likes of Chris Hoy, he has none of the signs of steroid abuse, not something you can say when you look at rugby, football or swimming.0 -
Dave_1 being a huge talent who is dedicated to his/her sport is not mutually exclusive from them taking drugs i.e. he could be naturally the most talented rider and still do drugs. As I understand it Ullrich is a case in point.
There is no doubt that LA looked slimmer and seemed more determined post cancer, also you forget there are levels of doping, it isn't an on or off switch. So maybe he did a little prior to cancer, but got more serious as he got more serious about training, dieting etc. post cancer.
NB: kids will alwys race each other its in their nature, so I'm not overly concerned about the effect drug scandles will have on putting off future generations.0 -
Armstrong just announced he intends to run for office in Texas so it will be interesting to see what happens there - American political campaigns are notoriously dirty...0
-
eh wrote:Dave_1 being a huge talent who is dedicated to his/her sport is not mutually exclusive from them taking drugs i.e. he could be naturally the most talented rider and still do drugs. As I understand it Ullrich is a case in point.
There is no doubt that LA looked slimmer and seemed more determined post cancer, also you forget there are levels of doping, it isn't an on or off switch. So maybe he did a little prior to cancer, but got more serious as he got more serious about training, dieting etc. post cancer.
NB: kids will alwys race each other its in their nature, so I'm not overly concerned about the effect drug scandles will have on putting off future generations.
so...if he only did a little doping prior to cancer then he only got a little out of it but ...nobody wins worlds alone at 21 ahead of the 2 top 1 day men of the era + Indurain without being either extremely doped or not so doped but extremely talented instead!!!0 -
Following on from Micron.
Was also announced on the local sports radio, today. I have only one question.
When's the election?
Catlin further down that "to do" list. :roll:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/01 ... al-office/
(Check out some of the comments.
Number 6 being the mark of the beast!
)
Capitol Hill seems to be having the same doping debate! :shock:"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
micron wrote:Armstrong just announced he intends to run for office in Texas so it will be interesting to see what happens there - American political campaigns are notoriously dirty...
I hope the hell not....christ America still has Arnie and has already had Clint....and we have Seb Coe!....somehow I just think less of people if they pursue politics...and there is a wholey dishonesty to that game!0 -
Tempestas wrote:
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.
Not to labour the point, because it's so unlike me, but it's interesting if you do some work with publically available numbers.
USADA site - I'll pick 2003 and 2004 numbers. I wanted to avoid 2004 only as the Olympics might skew things a bit.
http://www.usantidoping.org/what/stats/history.aspx
2003 : Lance Armstrong - 1 test
Michael Phelps - 8 tests
Justin Gatlin - 3 tests
2004 : Lance Armstrong - 5 tests
Michael Phelps - 9 tests
Justin Gatlin - 7 tests
Okay, so those are only USADA tests.
http://www.fina.org/project/index.php?o ... 2&Itemid=9
In 2003 Phelps also had another 12 FINA tests. And 11 FINA tests in 04
Unfortunately the UCI / IAAF don't hold archives of testing stats of any note. Cyclists would probably be tested a lot more by the UCI than their national ADA for sure.
There was an article back in 05 about this but I can't find it for the life of me with stats from various sports including the UCI tests. There were no cyclists in the top 10 most tested.
PS - Phelps is also winning this year with his 36 USADA testsFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I dread to think what some of you guys say about the winner of your club time trial !!!.. who said that, internet forum people ?0
-
What i always find funny is a couple of you guys that defend LA so strongly quickly comment on how you cant trust any of the wins because you dont trust them anymore? Im not having a go here, but it seems like there the rules for LA ( burden of evidence, innocent till proven guilty etc etc. ) and then rules for the rest of the Peloton. I remmeber staying up with my dad who had just got back into cycling after giving it up in his teenage years and watching the tour in 2000 and every year after that. While i watch LA win and admired the achievement im not a fan. Though i wouldnt conunt myself one of the Anti-Lance brigade (does anyone) but i am doubtful of the cleaness of his victories. I dont think there are too many posters on this forum that would say that they know without any shadow of doubt that Lance was definately postive but a fair few would doubt that he wasnt. You dont need to have proof for doubt. Lastly yes LA does some great work but that doesnt mean his not cheated.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
andyp wrote:
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.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.
.
I too believe he took EPO or transfusions...everyone in the top 10 got caught and he thrashed them all...but don't agree re your comments that it was only his inate ability to respond to EPO...pls explain the jump up 2 levels in a decade-the same products exactly available in 92 as in 99...HC% is not rocket science nor the other stuff.
he should not have built a chairty given what he had to do...that is the problem and his out of control ego someone punched him http://cbs11tv.com/local/Dead.Mans.Hole.2.636966.html0 -
Blimey, I have a day or so away and it's all gone off!
For what it's worth, this is clearly a complex issue, due partly to the small point that nobody here actually knows some of the key facts.
micron, part of the reason that I don't see LA as an idol is exactly that:
1. The fact that he got cancer was (presumably) not within his control
2. Testicular cancer is one of the more treatable ones, although when metastases occur these cause complications (I have 2 fractured vertebrae as a result of mine). It's still not a walk in the park, believe me.
3. People with cancer are not heroic - medical staff who choose to treat them are.
However, if he did choose the more risky but less damaging chemotherapeutic option in order to maintain his post-cancer cycling career, it certainly shows cojones. I don't know whether I would have gambled in that way, but maybe that's what makes him a strong competitor. It's also his livelihood, whereas mine is less physically demanding. (Maybe it also makes him more likely to gamble on getting caught?).
I do feel however that mental attitude is important in recovery from any disease - I was told as much by a couple of my nurses. It's not that some people want or expect to die, just that those who consistently expect to get better may stand a slightly better chance of doing so.
I don't know whether LA has taken substances which have improved his performance in competitions. I do know that even competing in an event such as the TdeF must make huge demands on the body. How many of us could do it; I couldn't. I also suspect that we may never know the full story..
SteveHead Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
pottssteve wrote:Blimey, I have a day or so away and it's all gone off!
I don't know whether LA has taken substances which have improved his performance in competitions. I do know that even competing in an event such as the TdeF must make huge demands on the body. How many of us could do it; I couldn't. I also suspect that we may never know the full story..
Steve
everyone around him has been done for doping...it'd be naive to think he didn't also...though whatever he had at the 2000 TDF it passed the the EPO test brought in the following year in 2001 and used in investigations by the French...some think he used detergent powder to neutralise his samples....seems far fetched...LA with powdery hands walkking into dope control...0 -
thanks for that excellent and insightful response, Steve - and all the best with the ongoing recovery process.0
-
pottssteve wrote:
micron, part of the reason that I don't see LA as an idol is exactly that:
1. The fact that he got cancer was (presumably) not within his control
2. Testicular cancer is one of the more treatable ones, although when metastases occur these cause complications (I have 2 fractured vertebrae as a result of mine). It's still not a walk in the park, believe me.
3. People with cancer are not heroic - medical staff who choose to treat them are.
Steve
Testicular Cancer as I gather it is the most treatable male cancer if caught in its early stages...but as you say if it mestates then it morphs into a whole different ordeal...if I remember correctly LA disease had mestated into the Lungs,Lymph Nodes and Brain...he was at the 2nd most critical stage of the disease (the 1st being terminal)...it was thought he only had a very small chance of survival......
Medical Staff who treat sufferers are surely heroic.....but if a patient shows real grit and positive thinking and copes with the disease as best as they possibly can then i think these people are heroes aswell....if you are dealing with your own mortality and show such risilence then to me thats heroic...how can anyone even think straight if you know you could die?.....and as for someone who showed such courage and then went on to recover and win 7 TDFs then thats more than heroic....drugs or not.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:micron wrote:MG are you suggesting that one should only be allowed to swallow the Myth hook, line and sinker and not ask akward questions? There wouldn't be much integrity in that, would there?
awkward questions.?? :roll: ..more like mind numbingly boring rehashed doping allegations-bored to death is what the postings against LA leave me...move on son...he's got away with what he did in this sport and its worth enjoying the 09 season and not being a bore re posting reposted reposted stories
+ 10000 -
BenBlyth wrote:Dave_1 wrote:micron wrote:MG are you suggesting that one should only be allowed to swallow the Myth hook, line and sinker and not ask akward questions? There wouldn't be much integrity in that, would there?
awkward questions.?? :roll: ..more like mind numbingly boring rehashed doping allegations-bored to death is what the postings against LA leave me...move on son...he's got away with what he did in this sport and its worth enjoying the 09 season and not being a bore re posting reposted reposted stories
+ 1000
x 1,000,0000 -
andyp wrote:
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.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.
.
This just goes too far. You can't see beyone the obsession with Lance the cheat view you have. Let us look objectively at his comeback (Not the past, that has been done to death and you will never prove he doped).
Lance is not the spawn of the devil. He will have good points and bad just like the rest of us.
The work he has done with Livestrong is clearly good. Do you think he would risk damaging that by doping on his comeback? Think what him failing a dope test would do to the foundation and the work it does and the money it raises. Or does this hatred mean that you can't genuinly see that he is clearly bothered about fighting cancer?
For me there is no way in the world he will risk all that by doping. And if he can be even close to what he was after 3 years out and being the age he is, well, that just adds even more weight to the already proven fact (No recognised failed dope tests) that he was clean.0 -
andyp wrote:
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.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.
.
And do you think with a smidge of EPO and a dash of blood doping you could compete the tour even in double the time he does. I'm not saying he uses that stuff and I'm not saying I have any respect for someone who does however, you make it sound like it is bloody rocket fuel. The 'myth' is he recovered from Cancer and then returned to the top level in arguably the hardest sport in the world. Actually it's not that impressive is it.0 -
Dave_1,
"everyone around him has been done for doping...it'd be naive to think he didn't also..."
I agree that the circumstances seem to indicate that he may have been involved in drugs. However, I'd hate to be convicted in a court of law based on the fact that because everybody else was guilty, I must be too.
micron - thanks for the positive feedback - 11 years clear, now.
For what it's worth, my world view has certainly changed as a result of the illness. I tend to remember that all of us are only a few minutes away from death at any one time (sorry if that sonds melodramatic), so it's probably best to make the most of what you have. And don't get too stressed on a bikeradar forum!
Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
BenBlyth wrote:This just goes too far. You can't see beyone the obsession with Lance the cheat view you have. Let us look objectively at his comeback (Not the past, that has been done to death and you will never prove he doped).
Lance is not the spawn of the devil. He will have good points and bad just like the rest of us.
The work he has done with Livestrong is clearly good. Do you think he would risk damaging that by doping on his comeback? Think what him failing a dope test would do to the foundation and the work it does and the money it raises. Or does this hatred mean that you can't genuinly see that he is clearly bothered about fighting cancer?
For me there is no way in the world he will risk all that by doping. And if he can be even close to what he was after 3 years out and being the age he is, well, that just adds even more weight to the already proven fact (No recognised failed dope tests) that he was clean.
1. I am not obsessed with Lance Armstrong.
2. I used to be a vocal supporter of Armstrong, a man I've met on two occasions. I think the work he does for cancer is praiseworthy but I still believe it to be based upon a lie.
3. Why does staring death in the face automatically mean that someone won't dope?
4. Do you really believe he won the Tour 7 times when doping was the norm in professional cycling? He'd need to be a genetic freak yet the stats available in the public domain mark him out as such.
Wake up, smell the coffee.0 -
I'm not sure all those statements were directed at me as you referenced things I didn't say anything about.
1 - Your posts do sometimes seem to argue otherwise but ok.
2 - Ok. Like I said, I am talking about his comeback here. There is just no point going over the past as it has been done to death and impossible for anyone on here to prove he doped.
3 - It doesn't. Not sure if this was a question for me.
4 - See point 2. I did try to make this clear.
For the avoidence of any doubt. my key point was - Do you think he would risk damaging that by doping on his comeback? Think what him failing a dope test would do to the foundation and the work it does and the money it raises. Or does this hatred mean that you can't genuinly see that he is clearly bothered about fighting cancer?0 -
andyp wrote:BenBlyth wrote:This just goes too far. You can't see beyone the obsession with Lance the cheat view you have. Let us look objectively at his comeback (Not the past, that has been done to death and you will never prove he doped).
Lance is not the spawn of the devil. He will have good points and bad just like the rest of us.
The work he has done with Livestrong is clearly good. Do you think he would risk damaging that by doping on his comeback? Think what him failing a dope test would do to the foundation and the work it does and the money it raises. Or does this hatred mean that you can't genuinly see that he is clearly bothered about fighting cancer?
For me there is no way in the world he will risk all that by doping. And if he can be even close to what he was after 3 years out and being the age he is, well, that just adds even more weight to the already proven fact (No recognised failed dope tests) that he was clean.
1. I am not obsessed with Lance Armstrong.
2. I used to be a vocal supporter of Armstrong, a man I've met on two occasions. I think the work he does for cancer is praiseworthy but I still believe it to be based upon a lie.
3. Why does staring death in the face automatically mean that someone won't dope?
4. Do you really believe he won the Tour 7 times when doping was the norm in professional cycling? He'd need to be a genetic freak yet the stats available in the public domain mark him out as such.
Wake up, smell the coffee.
So when someone excels at something they are deemed a cheat....what a world we live in now....
So there are no 'freaks' in sport?
Some that spring to mind are Michael Phelps, Big Mig and not really a sports related one but how about David Blain and his recent underwater world record? If someone like him can train his body to withstand that length of time under water just imagine what a focused athlete with a positive outlook can achieve with a solid team behind him.
I would hate to have been brought up in the homes of some of the posters here, I would end up in a dead end job resenting the world because its full of cheats....I prefer to wake up and enjoy the Starbucks coffee with my enjoyable job and positive outlook on life.0 -
Procycling is full of cheats. It's getting better but most teams will still cheat if they think they can get away with it.0
-
andyp wrote:Procycling is full of cheats. It's getting better but most teams will still cheat if they think they can get away with it.
You seemed to avoid my question. Does that mean you have no answer and it indicates you are totally wrong? A presume you wouldn't agree with that. I gues you may not have seen it, can't be bothered replying, are sick of the conversation or any other understandable reason. Shame the same view can't be afforded to Lance if he doesn't answer a question he has answered a thousand times....0 -
andyp wrote:Procycling is full of cheats. It's getting better but most teams will still cheat if they think they can get away with it.
There will be cheats in all aspects of life unfortunately, what I fail to understand is the way forums pick on one out of thousands and hound them. Innocent until proven guilty applies and like a poster above says, I doubt LA will risk the Livestrong foundation by cheating and I for one hope this season he can produce some good results so he can retire in peace without idiots smearing his name continuously with faceless forum posts.
FYI I am actually not a Lance fan, I found his tour victories boring and calculated. What has impressed me is his efforts off the bike with raising Cancer awareness and raising funds for something that has effected him.0 -
No.Tempestas wrote:So there are no 'freaks' in sport?
Look at the Tour de France, the winning margin after 21 days is still just a couple of minutes, most riders come in with a very close performance. In the swimming pool Phelps was only milliseconds ahead of his rivals.
All biological factors have a normal, Gaussian distribution through the population. Take an obvious example, adult male height. The average is 1.74m for the UK. Most people are around this tall. There are some "freaks" who will be shorter or taller. But the tallest man in Britain isn't much taller than the second tallest. The same goes for shoe size or lung capacity.
Put this into sport and the best rider doesn't have a much bigger heart or lungs than the next guy. Remember, the top rider is only a minute ahead of the next guy and some of that advantage could be from kit or tactics.
It's here where doping comes in. You can gain an advantage that allows you to become this freak. Take growth hormone and you get bigger feet and hands, ideal for the swimming pool. Take EPO and you gain a big enough advantage to go from an Elite rider to a GC contender.
In other words the gap between a GC contender and top-50 rider is so small, there is no freakish ability, the natural advantage between riders is tiny. These are not guys swept up off the streets, they have risen up through the ranks, from local champion to national champions until they turn pro. They're all "freaks" or in a kinder way, they are all thoroughbreds.0 -
Kléber wrote:
No.Tempestas wrote:So there are no 'freaks' in sport?
Look at the Tour de France, the winning margin after 21 days is still just a couple of minutes, most riders come in with a very close performance. In the swimming pool Phelps was only milliseconds ahead of his rivals.
All biological factors have a normal, Gaussian distribution through the population. Take an obvious example, adult male height. The average is 1.74m for the UK. Most people are around this tall. There are some "freaks" who will be shorter or taller. But the tallest man in Britain isn't much taller than the second tallest. The same goes for shoe size or lung capacity.
Put this into sport and the best rider doesn't have a much bigger heart or lungs than the next guy. Remember, the top rider is only a minute ahead of the next guy and some of that advantage could be from kit or tactics.
It's here where doping comes in. You can gain an advantage that allows you to become this freak. Take growth hormone and you get bigger feet and hands, ideal for the swimming pool. Take EPO and you gain a big enough advantage to go from an Elite rider to a GC contender.
In other words the gap between a GC contender and top-50 rider is so small, there is no freakish ability, the natural advantage between riders is tiny. These are not guys swept up off the streets, they have risen up through the ranks, from local champion to national champions until they turn pro. They're all "freaks" or in a kinder way, they are all thoroughbreds.
Wrong....
At the top of his career, Miguel Indurain had a physique that was not only superior when compared to average people, but also when compared to his fellow athletes. His blood circulation had the ability to circulate 7 litres of oxygen around his body per minute, compared to the average amount of 3-4 litres of an ordinary person and the 5-6 litres of his fellow riders. His Cardiac Output is 50L a minute, a fit amateur cyclist's is about 25L a minute Also, Indurain's lung capacity was 8 litres, compared to an average of 6 litres. In addition, Indurain's resting pulse was as low as 28 BPM, compared to a normal human's 60-80 bpm , which meant his heart would be less strained in the tough mountain stages. His VO2 max was 88 ml/kg/min; in comparison, Lance Armstrong's was 82 ml/kg/min and Greg LeMond's was 92.5 ml/kg/min.
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain which shows he was very different from fellow riders.
As for Phelps winning margin over 100m's, scale this to 20 000m's to put in line with the distance involved in a world tour and you may realise miliseconds over 100m's is not quite the same....0
