Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Questions for Lance haters

TheDrunkMonkTheDrunkMonk Posts: 181
edited February 2009 in Pro race
Hello Lance haters. I've seen loads of threads that spiral into Lance is a cheat, 1999, EPO. So I have a few questions to start you all off again. Try and stay on subject, I'm not judging and I'm genuinely interested.

1. If eveyone agreed that he was doping in 1999, would you accept that he is still the greatest TDF rider of all time?

2. Do all of you believe he was doping in all of his tour wins?

3. If he came top 5 this year at 38, (proved clean) would you admit he's pretty special?

4. Are you all as anti-Pantani, Merckx, Anquetil etc?
«13456

Posts

  • teagarteagar Posts: 2,100
    Most people say it because they want to bring down what is, success aside, a thoroughly unlikeable guy.

    I don't think the problem is he cheated/didn;t cheat. The problem is he is unlikeable ("No gifts" - "if only the tour wasn't in France", the Simeoni incident, etc), won everything, and didn't get caught when everyone else did. It feels like the villain got away with it all.

    He knew how to win races - he didn't understand cycling.


    That and his success, if it was without drugs, considering that all his opponents were on drugs, is, metaphorically for some, literally for others, unbelievable.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • BakuninBakunin Posts: 868
    I agree. My problem with Lance is not the drugs -- that was a generational problem. His teammates and foes were doing them.

    What I don't like is how petty and nasty he was with teammates who wanted to ride for themselves.
  • micronmicron Posts: 1,843
    Armstrong is no more the 'Greatest Tour de France Rider of All Time' than he is 'The Most Tested Athlete' - Merckx's record of 5 wins in 7 startsplus enduring records for stages won and days in yellow is incomporably better.

    Whether he doped or not (and surely with the overwhelming wieght of evidence that is not in doubt) is a sideshow to issues like omerta v transparency, panache v control, and whether cycling is about the whole season and race calendar or is only really about 3 weeks in July/whatever races Armstrong chooses to compete in. To posit one rider as greater than the sport is unhealthy for the sport.
  • im not contributing to this thread started by a lance lover.
  • 1. If eveyone agreed that he was doping in 1999, would you accept that he is still the greatest TDF rider of all time?

    2. Do all of you believe he was doping in all of his tour wins?

    3. If he came top 5 this year at 38, (proved clean) would you admit he's pretty special?

    4. Are you all as anti-Pantani, Merckx, Anquetil etc?


    OK - first of all, I'm not a Lance hater.

    but my answers:
    1) No, because he isn't. He's won the most Tours, but he's not the greatest TdF (small d) of all time. Merckx is.

    2) Yes

    3) Proved clean? Love to see that actually happen. I don't think anyone can be proved clean. But yes, he is pretty special, whether doped or not.

    4) Can't really answer that, as I'm not anti-Armstrong. I just wish people will start to accept that although he was a great rider, he's not a paragon of truth and justice. I DO have less respect for him than I perhaps should, but my reason is called Christophe Bassons. Google that if you need to.
  • Slow DowncpSlow Downcp Posts: 3,041
    If he'd have won the Tour in addition to other races, as did other multi TdF winners, then his record could be compared to Mercx, Hinault etc.
    Carlsberg don't make cycle clothing, but if they did it would probably still not be as good as Assos
  • If eveyone agreed that he was doping in 1999, would you accept that he is still the greatest TDF rider of all time?
    He was certainly the most prolific winner of the Tour during the Epo/ "800 ml of packed cells" era. Beyond that the question is about as meaningless as discussing whether Riis's ride on the Hautecam was one of the ‘greatest’ rides ever seen in the Tour. Take the drugs and blood doping out of the equation and the podium during the Indurain/ Pantani/Ullrich/ Riis/Armstrong era would almost certainly have looked very different.

    Given the also-ran performances of Armstrong in his first 3 Tours, where he often lost 20 odd minutes on the big mountain stages and consistently lost over 6 minutes in the flat time trials, and given that he only managed to finish the Tour at his third attempt (and that one and half hours behind the winner) there is no reason to think that without the 'training programs' of Dr. Ferrari he would have ever have come to dominate the Tour the way he did on natural talent and dedication alone. Perhaps if everyone had been clean Armstrong would have still become a multiple winner, but there is no way to know.

    Such an also-ran to 'winner' transformation is very much a phenomena of the Epo era. Other examples include Indurain and Riis :wink: In comparison in past eras riders usually showed their Tour winning potential very early on. Just look at Merckx, or Fignon whose first Tour win was also his first major stage race. This isn't to say that people didn't dope in earlier eras. However 'old school' doping couldn’t turn also-rans like Riis and Armstrong into Tour winners in the way modern doping methods clearly can.
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    I'm not a hater, just a sceptic. Can I answer? :?

    1. It's for a pub competition. Coppi could have won more, Merckx won five and took all the jerseys plus so many stages, Armstrong won seven in a row. Each stands out, as do other riders too but obviously the way modern doping distorts results can't be ignored.

    2. The others on the podium in 1999 were Zuelle and Escartin, both exposed as doping. By 2005, the sames goes for Basso and Ullrich.

    3. You can't prove a negative! :wink: But if he was willing to submit himself to independent tests and if the UCI can let the AFLD do the testing, it's a start but why not also condemn Dr Ferrari?

    4. I'm anti-doping. Whether you're using a testosterone patch or relying on a pan-European logistics network to store chilled blood, it's not on...

    ...but I don't remember Pantani blacklisting journalists. I don't remember Merckx bullying small Italian riders. I don't remember Indurain unleashing multiple legal actions (only to drop them once the media heat subsided). There's also the issue of how Armstrong has exploited his tale to launch a vast business and charity empire. Now the charity side is great. You can argue it would be better if we just shut up and let the fairy tale go on because Livestrong does plenty of good. But this is a cycling forum, so we're principally here to discuss racing and that includes respecting the rules, being sporting and staying healthy and ways to make the sport better, and that's why the debate on Armstrong rages on.
  • Chip \'oylerChip \'oyler Posts: 2,349
    1. If eveyone agreed that he was doping in 1999, would you accept that he is still the greatest TDF rider of all time?

    2. Do all of you believe he was doping in all of his tour wins?

    3. If he came top 5 this year at 38, (proved clean) would you admit he's pretty special?

    4. Are you all as anti-Pantani, Merckx, Anquetil etc?


    OK - first of all, I'm not a Lance hater.

    but my answers:
    1) No, because he isn't. He's won the most Tours, but he's not the greatest TdF (small d) of all time. Merckx is.

    2) Yes

    3) Proved clean? Love to see that actually happen. I don't think anyone can be proved clean. But yes, he is pretty special, whether doped or not.

    4) Can't really answer that, as I'm not anti-Armstrong. I just wish people will start to accept that although he was a great rider, he's not a paragon of truth and justice. I DO have less respect for him than I perhaps should, but my reason is called Christophe Bassons. Google that if you need to.

    My thoughts exactly :)
    Expertly coached by http://www.vitessecyclecoaching.co.uk/

    http://vineristi.wordpress.com - the blog for Viner owners and lovers!
  • rockmountrockmount Posts: 761
    If he'd have won the Tour in addition to other races, as did other multi TdF winners, then his record could be compared to Mercx, Hinault etc.

    So let me get this straight, to be considered "the greatest TDF rider of all time" as OP asked, winning Tours de France is not enough ... like has been said before, LA will never be able to satisfy the "haters" :? :?
    .. who said that, internet forum people ?
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Hello Lance haters. I've seen loads of threads that spiral into Lance is a cheat, 1999, EPO. So I have a few questions to start you all off again. Try and stay on subject, I'm not judging and I'm genuinely interested.

    1. If eveyone agreed that he was doping in 1999, would you accept that he is still the greatest TDF rider of all time?

    2. Do all of you believe he was doping in all of his tour wins?

    3. If he came top 5 this year at 38, (proved clean) would you admit he's pretty special?

    4. Are you all as anti-Pantani, Merckx, Anquetil etc?

    I'm neither a hater nor a particular fan, so I'll answer your questions from a neutral point of view.

    1. No. I think that doing grand tour doubles, or winning TdF and a monument in the same season is more difficult than winning the TdF seven times on the trot. Quality over quantity. However, I accept that Merckx, Hinault et al were competing in a different era, with different approaches to training, different pressures etc, and would put Lance just behind them, but only just.

    2. Haven't a clue, and neither does anyone else except LA and those who worked with him. I wouldn't accuse without evidence, but on the other hand I would never say that a cyclist from that era must have been clean because he didn't fail a test. To be honest, I'm more bothered about what goes on now than what went on 5 or 10 years ago.

    3. I'll separate my answer into two parts: 1. Of course, even those who dislike Lance will admit that he's a special rider. Anyone who comes back from cancer to win the TdF must be. 2. Can't be proven that he's clean. There are loads of undetectable substances out there.

    4. I won't answer this because I'm not anti-Lance.
  • DaveyLDaveyL Posts: 5,167
    johnfinch wrote:

    I'm neither a hater nor a particular fan, so I'll answer your questions from a neutral point of view.

    1. No. I think that doing grand tour doubles, or winning TdF and a monument in the same season is more difficult than winning the TdF seven times on the trot.

    Nothing to do with Armstrong per se, but - surely if that was the case, hardly any folk would have done GT doubles or GT + monument, and loads of (or at least several) riders would have won the Tour 7 times?
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • Monty DogMonty Dog Posts: 20,614
    As a sceptic I'm not getting drawn into all 'hate' bull - but to be considered a great rider requires panache and style - the fact that the majority of those tour wins were a consequence of attrition and tempo from the team that just left the freshest rider to nip off the front for the finale actually doesn't make a great race. The fact that he failed to win a 1-day classic post-cancer, despite repeated attempts shows that his abilities as a 'great' are pretty average outside of 3 weeks in July.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • DaveyLDaveyL Posts: 5,167
    It all sounds so simple. No wonder he won it seven times!
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • jp1985jp1985 Posts: 434
    1. Greatest tdf rider yes hes won 7 end of story its only winning that matters in this question - greatest grand tour rider no - greatest cyclist **** off
    2. Probably
    3. I'd probably already admit hes pretty special, i think if he sticks to a test on average every 3 days as hes said he is going to be by catlin(as long as they are also random tests) and then has race controls and uci testing on top there is probably a good chance he will either be racing clean this year or caught but i really dont think he'd be stupid enough to comeback and dope and risk everything.
    4. as stated by someone before its that hes pretty unlikeable, thats the problem not allegations about doping, im not anti lance, i just dont like him.

    But just to qualify he didnt transform also ran to tour winner over night. he was 14th at the olympics at 20, he won the world champs and a tour stage at 21 another tour stage at 23, 6th in olympic tt at 24 and was 4th in both the world road race and tt at 26, the year he returned from cancer. OK his isnt the greatest palmares for a 26 year old but it is pretty good and you would certainly class him as one of the better riders in the peleton at that point, not just a domestique.
  • timoid.timoid. Posts: 3,133
    rockmount wrote:
    If he'd have won the Tour in addition to other races, as did other multi TdF winners, then his record could be compared to Mercx, Hinault etc.

    So let me get this straight, to be considered "the greatest TDF rider of all time" as OP asked, winning Tours de France is not enough ... like has been said before, LA will never be able to satisfy the "haters" :? :?

    Depends on how you judge it

    Most days in yellow: Merckx
    Most stage wins: Merckx
    Only rider to win all three major jerseys in one year: Merckx

    Also Merckx's win ratio (71%) is better than Armstrong's. His wins even more dominant (except 72) and he never finished outside the top 6.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • SpaceJunkSpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    I too don't give a damn about Lance and the drugs etc.

    I've read his two books, and I just don't find the guy inspiring at all. At the end of the day he has won 7 Tours - big deal. It is just a bike race.

    What is more important to me is how he has achieved it. His books do nothing to inspire me. The other thing I dislike about how Lance goes about his business is how he bends the truth.

    The guy in a walking contradiction when it comes to quotes.

    I can now say I have met the guy (here at the TdU). Can't say that I know him, therefore I wouldn't say I'm a Lance hater as such. I just don't have any respect for how he portrays himself in the public forum.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    DaveyL wrote:
    johnfinch wrote:

    I'm neither a hater nor a particular fan, so I'll answer your questions from a neutral point of view.

    1. No. I think that doing grand tour doubles, or winning TdF and a monument in the same season is more difficult than winning the TdF seven times on the trot.

    Nothing to do with Armstrong per se, but - surely if that was the case, hardly any folk would have done GT doubles or GT + monument, and loads of (or at least several) riders would have won the Tour 7 times?

    I don't believe this is the case. If the other great riders had focused solely on the TdF every year, I'm sure that they would have won it just as many times as Armstrong, if not more in some cases.

    Look at the ages of the 5x winners when they took their final TdF victory:

    Indurain 31, Hinault 30, Merckx 29, Anquetil 30.

    Armstrong, on the other hand, won his last one at 33. Concentrating on one race a year means that a cyclist can be competitive over a longer period of time - even with Armstrong's cancer, he didn't wear himself out by competing all year long.

    This isn't a criticism of Armstrong. As I said in my first post, the others were cycling in different eras, and let's be honest, how many Americans (and therefore his sponsor) would have cared about him winning the Giro di Lombardia or Paris-Nice?
  • I was not going to post on a thread that baits so blatently.
    However, it is great to see that a thread, directed at a perceived group of biased individuals, has actually generated a constructive debate.
    Indeed, it is the Lance fans that let the thread down.
    Q1 Remove the term greatest, which is confusing, as you have to look at the bigger picture when judging. Replace with "most successful" and you will get a consesus.

    I would also suggest there is probably nobody around here, who is a position, age wise, to have first hand experience of all the contenders for the title of greatest.
    While Merckx stands above the rest, I wonder upon Coppi and Bartali.

    Both lost 7 of their prime years to WW2, yet still have fantastic palmares. How many Tours might they have won?

    With due respect to LA fans, I don't think his years out, due to cancer, had a negative effect on his Tour record!
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    I was not going to post on a thread that baits so blatently.
    However, it is great to see that a thread, directed at a perceived group of biased individuals, has actually generated a constructive debate.
    Indeed, it is the Lance fans that let the thread down.
    Q1 Remove the term greatest, which is confusing, as you have to look at the bigger picture when judging. Replace with "most successful" and you will get a consesus.

    I would also suggest there is probably nobody around here, who is a position, age wise, to have first hand experience of all the contenders for the title of greatest.
    While Merckx stands above the rest, I wonder upon Coppi and Bartali.

    Both lost 7 of their prime years to WW2, yet still have fantastic palmares. How many Tours might they have won?

    With due respect to LA fans, I don't think his years out, due to cancer, had a negative effect on his Tour record!

    +1 for Bartali and Coppi. Such a pity that they had their careers interrupted in such a way, and Bartali's a hero for helping the Italian resistance, when he had nothing to gain and so much to lose.
  • DaveyLDaveyL Posts: 5,167
    I was not going to post on a thread that baits so blatently.
    However, it is great to see that a thread, directed at a perceived group of biased individuals, has actually generated a constructive debate.
    Indeed, it is the Lance fans that let the thread down.
    Q1 Remove the term greatest, which is confusing, as you have to look at the bigger picture when judging. Replace with "most successful" and you will get a consesus.

    I would also suggest there is probably nobody around here, who is a position, age wise, to have first hand experience of all the contenders for the title of greatest.
    While Merckx stands above the rest, I wonder upon Coppi and Bartali.

    Both lost 7 of their prime years to WW2, yet still have fantastic palmares. How many Tours might they have won?

    With due respect to LA fans, I don't think his years out, due to cancer, had a negative effect on his Tour record!

    If Lance hadn't had cancer, he could have gone on to become one the best classics riders of all time (in the words of none other than David Walsh!). Even better and classier than Kelly, again in the words of Walsh.

    Since we're speculating... :-)
    Le Blaireau (1)
  • it is bait and and you fell for it, how many times do we have to read the same questions and answers over and over and over again.
    the original poster only needed to do a search to find out the ifs and buts about armstrong hes just plain lazy. someone lock the thread quick ffs.
    I was not going to post on a thread that baits so blatently.
  • it is bait and and you fell for it, how many times do we have to read the same questions and answers over and over and over again.
    the original poster only needed to do a search to find out the ifs and buts about armstrong hes just plain lazy. someone lock the thread quick ffs.

    I'm kind of new to cycling, I've enjoyed watching the pro stuff that's televised, but essentially I'm a commuter that does a few sportives. On this forum I see thread after thread decend into general Lance bashing, so I've posted 4 specific questions to try and get an understanding of what the problem is with him, based on what I perceived the problem to be, and I've been pleased with the answers. For some its not just about drugs, it's about his style and attitude which I didn't realise, and others I think quite honestly its just an anti-Lance club.

    I don't mind either way, he's no friend or family member of mine. I'm impressed with his acheivements as I am with many, many other riders I've seen or read about.

    This isn't a thread to find out 'the truth' about Armstrong. It's to find out why the people that don't like him, don't like him.
  • trying to justify baiting is still baiting.
  • trying to justify baiting is still baiting.

    You might be right. I'm definitely lazy.

    So how would you anser the questions in the post? :wink:
  • Hello Lance haters. I've seen loads of threads that spiral into Lance is a cheat, 1999, EPO. So I have a few questions to start you all off again. Try and stay on subject, I'm not judging and I'm genuinely interested.

    1. If eveyone agreed that he was doping in 1999, would you accept that he is still the greatest TDF rider of all time?

    2. Do all of you believe he was doping in all of his tour wins?

    3. If he came top 5 this year at 38, (proved clean) would you admit he's pretty special?

    4. Are you all as anti-Pantani, Merckx, Anquetil etc?

    Not a Lance hater, I admit as a enthusiast I feel cheated by the amount of doping out there.

    1. No, as to be the best ever you will be compared to winners who did not dope
    2. Yes
    3. No, but to be truthful I am not sure when doping actually became a major
    4. No, as from what I hear and read, they seemed to have competed clean. I have to admitt that I did not follow cycling when they were riding
  • afx237viafx237vi Posts: 12,630
    ^ Yikes.
  • Sorry, regardless of whether he doped, LAnce was/is the first rider that started the concept of only really competing for the tour, and no other races. This is a far, far cry from Merckx who was doing Giro/TDF tours, as well as winning all the classics, the hour record, world Champs, etc.,etc. Armstrong never sought to be the World's best, he only sought attention from the US media and fans, few of who even know more than once race exists.

    I can't believe people still use the "most tested" argument. How many riders have to get caught and write books who admit to drug use and passing every single test? Testing cannot detect many, many types of doping. Trivial to beat testing. See David Millar. See Basso. You know what the #1 selling item is in Alberta drug stores? Fake urine for drug testing.

    CR..yikes indeed. Pantani never rode a race clean in his life. Anquetil and his generation doped, but they did this openly, and they all did it equally with amphetamines. Marckx was caught doping, but back then, the drugs available were nothing compared to the modern arsenal. No one blood doped in the 60-70s.

    The reason why I hate Lance is not doping, it's because he manipulates everyone around him for his personal gains, he's vindictive and petty, he censors facts and he uses a cancer charity as his personal press manager to clean up his image. This charity is also using raised dollars to promote his political career, and to promote the Charity as an organization to the point that little is really being spent on research. This is all public information on charity watch. In most countries, charities cannot exceed 30% overheads, and good charities are 10-15%. Livestrong is 44%. It's also a dirty secret that they pay Lance.
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,367

    The reason why I hate Lance is not doping, it's because....... It's also a dirty secret that they pay Lance.


    Well, at least you admit to hating Lance. It's somewhat of a free world and you are allowed to hate whomever you like(or is it dislike?).
    I would question your "dirty secret" though. Did you discover this "secret" through months
    or even years of sleuthing at the very core of the "Lance" organization? Or are you a higher up in this organization with access to this "sensitive" information? And while I'm at it, What are James Bond and Q really like? I mean you know them don't you? Being a real
    spy / sleuth you must have crossed their paths?

    Dennis Noward
  • Heres the problem, most ppl on this forum dont Hate Lance, there just not Fans and have an objective view of how he won. I would ask you why you think the opposite of all those questions and i imagine most of the answers would be about how much you admire his results etc. which is fine each to there own.
    Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.