Armstrong and Catlin terminate programme

camerone

I don't see thread after thread castigating Mercx, or Anquetil.[/quote]

ah but they were open about it.

murder is less of a crime if you admit it.

skavanagh.bikeradar

I think we've been over this ground many times before Nickwill, I'll put a toe in the water on it and ask how come LA is so well known around the world by non cyclists or non cycling fans or non sport(s) fans? Then reason it through as to why if he has lied it might be a bigger and potentially more damaging situation than say Peepholey's.

blazing_saddles

DaveyL wrote:

You three times. ;-)

It was pretty hot during the TdU. I'm just saying.

Now, if they'd said that, it would have made more sense.

KKspeeder

camerone wrote:

I don't see thread after thread castigating Mercx, or Anquetil.

Neither of them could blood dope with their stored red blood cells that were deep frozen for years, and get a 20-30% power boost in 30-45 minutes.

camerone

KKspeeder wrote:

camerone wrote:

I don't see thread after thread castigating Mercx, or Anquetil.

Neither of them could blood dope with their stored red blood cells that were deep frozen for years, and get a 20-30% power boost in 30-45 minutes.

they used the doping technology available in their respective eras. doesnt make them less guilty.

Kléber

People judge things differently in different eras. Watch a hit TV show from the 1970s and you'll be shocked at the racist language but it was normal for a TV drama in those days. People might love The Sweeney but you couldn't have Dennis Waterman called people "spades" on TV today.

The same goes with doping, for example during the 1980s, Dutch champion Zoetemelk tested positive midway through the Tour de France but was allowed to have his ban start after he'd finish the race.

Attitudes to doping have changed, what might have been indulged in the past just isn't tolerated today.

josame

KK:
He'll race with a crit of 55+% after peeing out the diaretics/ plasma expanders incase getting blood tested on the start line.

excuse the ignorance but if he is blood tested 'on the line' - why wouldn't it show an over 55 reading

micron

The point is it might, but that test would never happen - the UCI have too much invested in Armstrong.

One question, he talks a lot about 'dehydration' but why on earth would a professional athlete, known to be meticulous in all areas of his 'preparation', not take on enough fluids?

moray_gub

micron wrote:

The point is it might, but that test would never happen - the UCI have too much invested in Armstrong.

One question, he talks a lot about 'dehydration' but why on earth would a professional athlete, known to be meticulous in all areas of his 'preparation', not take on enough fluids?

Its not like he has done that before eh !...................whats that did someone say Cap Decouverte ?

MG

micron

Really must get those sarcasm tags sorted

KK would you also be (obliquely) referring to the Cap Decouverte stage? Dehydration has been something of a feature of the Armstrong haematocrit discourse - that and the idea that we 'laymen' couldn't possibly understand the complexity of the limited information that's been released - Basso's is far more comprehensive.

BTW has anyone mapped these values to Armstrong's self reported movements on twitter? Wonder if they match up to his schedule.

Martin Van Nostrand

How many pro cyclists have to write books about doping and passing all the tests?

Millar used EPO and was tested repeatedly-showed up clean, this could have continued for years. With Ferrari's expertise, tests can be beat.

This is NOT a PR nightmare for Armstrong. He understands that his fans are such hero-worshiping sycophants, it doesn't matter.

The trick to doping in sport in the US is to just never admit it, regardless of facts. That's why Landis has so many fans, that's why Barry bonds has so many fans, and that's why everyone is disowning Alex Rodriguez.

Never tell people what they don't want to hear. History as shown that lying works best for the dopers.

You should read the responses at LIVESTRONG.com, after La says he's switching from an independent testing program to one run by his own team:

"I'm fed up with all doping controls ! So many people should be controled in other sports.
When I decided to follow you, I decided to give all my trust, you don't have to justify...We're all becoming "champions"when we fight against the death...When the body is tired, the spirit is stronger. So it's possible to win 7 or 8 TDF for a sportman with this will !I'm sure of that."

You could have a video of Armstrong shooting heroine, it wouldn't change much.

I'm going riding this July, I have better things to do than watch fiction on TV.

Kléber

That's fine, Martin Van Nostrand but just wait until Armstrong lands on French soil for the Criterium International, he can count on support from his fans but the media will start grilling him, he will start getting tough questions that so far only this forum's Iain has put to him and that resulted in a tantrum.

Martin Van Nostrand

Kléber wrote:

That's fine, Martin Van Nostrand but just wait until Armstrong lands on French soil for the Criterium International, he can count on support from his fans but the media will start grilling him, he will start getting tough questions that so far only this forum's Iain has put to him and that resulted in a tantrum.

Armstrong does not care about his image in the rest of the world, only the US, that's the whole point of this comeback- to seek political office. All he has to do is say that tough questions from the 'foreign' media are examples of persecution - and Texas will buy this, as the level of xenophobia down there is off the charts.

You have to talk to someone at Livestrong to understand: people have inflated Armstrong into a pseudo-religious figure, they think he's a saint, they use words like "faith' and 'trust'. It's incredibly creepy. The media grilling him will only make him into more of a martyr.

Besides, it's obvious what's going here:



They are giving Armstrong growth hormone blockers. The idea is to shrink him down to a size 46 frame -better aero, less weight. Dr. Ferrari is a genius.

rockmount

I suppose LA isn't terribly worried about the small band of ardent haters on this forum, and around the world, they exist, so what .. in the grand scheme of his stated goals ie. raising the global awareness of Livestrong, and Cancer, I'd say he's doing one hell of a job. The rantings of the detractors didn't have much effect on the massive publicity generated by his appearance at the Tour Down Under, and I'm absolutely sure the Tour of California won't be any different. The result so far is ... Lance 1 - 0 haters. I can't wait to see how the story unfolds, and I will be in France for the Tour. LA has nothing to prove, he's putting his ball on the line, and I for one will be cheering him on .... allez Lance ;O))

BTW ... I have had a few performance enhancing ales (it is Thursday evening), but I suspect you hate me already anyway, and I am totally open and transparent about my transgressions.

aurelio_-_banned

Martin Van Nostrand wrote:

• This is NOT a PR nightmare for Armstrong. He understands that his fans are such hero-worshiping sycophants, it doesn't matter.

• The trick to doping in sport in the US is to just never admit it, regardless of facts. That's why Landis has so many fans, that's why Barry bonds has so many fans, and that's why everyone is disowning Alex Rodriguez...

• Armstrong does not care about his image in the rest of the world, only the US, that's the whole point of this comeback- to seek political office. All he has to do is say that tough questions from the 'foreign' media are examples of persecution - and Texas will buy this, as the level of xenophobia down there is off the charts.

• You have to talk to someone at Livestrong to understand: people have inflated Armstrong into a pseudo-religious figure, they think he's a saint, they use words like "faith' and 'trust'. It's incredibly creepy.

I have argued these very points on here numerous times and have been dismissed as an 'Anti-American' zealot for doing so, so it's good to see that someone from the US saying these things.

More proof that there are many others in addition to 'the small band of ardent haters on this forum' who are not taken in by the cult of Armstrong...

http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/ ... g+comeback

(It's worth registering!).

http://susutio.blogspot.com/2008/10/exc ... rview.html

Martin Van Nostrand

rockmount wrote:

.. in the grand scheme of his stated goals ie. raising the global awareness of Livestrong, and Cancer, I'd say he's doing one hell of a job.

Does cancer really need global awareness? I'm not even sure what that means.

What is Livestrong about? It's a mechanism to promote Armstrong and his political aspirations after this year. As a charity, it has huge overheads and is not rated very well. They have a mandate to get LA in political office as a lobby for more research spending.

From charitywatch.org:

The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.

I'm not comfortable at all with some of these cancer foundations:

"American Breast Cancer Foundation (ABCF) spent nearly 87% of its budget on solicitations that included an educational message and only $357,500 or 2.4% on research grants. "

(sorry aurelio, I'm not American)

aurelio_-_banned

Martin Van Nostrand wrote:

(sorry aurelio, I'm not American)

My mistake! I guess I read to much into your location tag and you references to Texas being 'down there' and so on.

Anyhow, you make a good point about the religious-like cult that has developed around Armstrong. I have a feeling that things have now reached a point where each new disconfirmation of his claims is likely to reinforce rather than undermine the 'faith' of his followers. They have simply 'invested' too much in their faith to do otherwise.

---

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his convictions then ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing and converting other people to his view.

From When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world. Festinger, Rieken and Schacter (1956).

rockmount

Martin Van Nostrand wrote:

Does cancer really need global awareness? I'm not even sure what that means.

...mmm asked and answered.

Martin Van Nostrand wrote:

From charitywatch.org:

The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.

I'm not comfortable at all with some of these cancer foundations:

"American Breast Cancer Foundation (ABCF) spent nearly 87% of its budget on solicitations that included an educational message and only $357,500 or 2.4% on research grants. "

... and you raised how much ??

aurelio_-_banned

Lionel Birnie is on the ball again...

Armstrong... stands accused of playing the PR card to maximum effect when it suited him by unveiling plans for a tight, transparent anti-doping programme, then quietly backing away once all the hoopla had died down.

“I will subject myself to whatever he wants,” he said back in September. By the turn of the year, nothing had happened. Armstrong and Catlin had struggled to get together as many times as they'd liked, samples were yet to be taken. Only on the eve of his competitive return at the Tour Down Under did Armstrong say the programme was underway.

According to Catlin's Anti-Doping Sciences Institute one sample was taken. One.

The reason for ditching Catlin? It's too difficult and too costly.

Too difficult? Well, the logistics must have been very difficult if Armstrong was only able to provide a single sample in five months. It's not even that they collected dozens of samples in that time but struggled to cope with the analysis of them.

Too costly? Too costly for an athlete with the backing of Trek, Nike and Oakley. Too costly for a rider who is not costing his team a penny in salary?

Too costly for a rider who was reportedly paid a seven-figure appearance fee to race at the Tour Down Under?

Armstrong came back to the sport talking loudly about transparency, about how he accepted a certain level of scrutiny because of the allegations surrounding his past.

The programme designed for Armstrong by Catlin was to be the most advanced and most comprehensive in anti-doping history. Results were to be published on the internet, although recently Armstrong admitted worries that unqualified people might misinterpret the complex data.

But that fear should surely have crossed his mind right at the start. Why shout from the rooftops about allowing the public to judge him on the basis of his blood profiles, only to realise that perhaps the public isn't really qualified?

Because it was great PR, that's why. And a lot of people swallowed it.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Arm ... 76898.html

micron

blimey, CN critical of St Lance? Whatever next - Armstrong not taking us all for fools, perhaps?

rockmount

micron wrote:

blimey, CN critical of St Lance? Whatever next - Armstrong not taking us all for fools, perhaps?

All dozen or so ... mmm he must be sh*tt*ng it ...

micron

Sorry, I apologise to those who are quite happy for Armstrong to treat them as gullible mugs

blazing_saddles

Still spinning the dead fantasy, I see....

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=3903904

Nothing personal, eh Lance?

iainf72

As charity quite often begins at home, I wonder why Lance hasn't warned all the cyclists of the cancer dangers from using things like EPO and HGH.

Or when he's off to visit the Kazak people who are providing all his infrastructure. After all, they have a significant challenge with the big C.

timoid.

Of course he's happy with progress with anti-doping. He can now win goofed up to 400W wheras before he had to boost himself to 450W. Thus the comeback is now feasible. He also has two years worth of stored blood to play with.

I really wish he would just go away.

calvjones

Meanwhile, on cyclingnews today Betsy Andreu is giving him a PR kicking (albeit indirectly) by gaining an out of court settlement over the Guardian's implication that she lied when she said she'd heard him confess to taking PEDs...

turn that around, it means the Guardian knew it couldn't prove she lied. Which probably means :?:

andyp

Timoid. wrote:

I really wish he would just go away.

That makes two of us.

Meanwhile I think Armstrong really wishes Paul Kimmage would just go away;

http://www.sacbee.com/1284/story/1621797.html

Keep asking those awkward questions Paul.

micron

+1 Really, what's positive in all of this for cycling? What positive press does he attract to the sport. The positive press is reserved for Armstrong, but any mention of him in realtion to cycling is riddled with the big D.

blazing_saddles

andyp wrote:

Meanwhile I think Armstrong really wishes Paul Kimmage would just go away;

http://www.sacbee.com/1284/story/1621797.html

Keep asking those awkward questions Paul.

I think Rockmount might like to read all those lovely, well informed comments accompanying the article. :roll: Rabid, or what?
I don't know where the saying: "Those who can do, those who can't criticise", comes from. I always thought it was "teach". :oops:

Anyhow, I digress. I have a saying for them: "You can't educate pork." and there's a lot of bacon been reading this release.

leguape

micron wrote:

+1 Really, what's positive in all of this for cycling? What positive press does he attract to the sport. The positive press is reserved for Armstrong, but any mention of him in realtion to cycling is riddled with the big D.

Just as any mention of Basso or Landis will be, as Millar was when he came back to the sport, which what Kimmage actually asked with a question that was as loaded as a drugs mule. And it is reported as such in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-cy ... 3979.story

Also, highlights slightly wonky reporting in the Sacramento Bee to say Kimmage wrote those things, as weren't they said in a live radio interview.

One thing I don't get with Kimmage is that one minute he's jumping up and down for joy and seemingly forgiving Allen Lim/Vaughters/Millar/Garmin their sins of omission, the next he's making standing by his ad hominem attacks on Amstrong for his.