Let it go Lance

lucybears

Moray Gub wrote:

"Despite the fact that he is by far and away the best known rider in the sport of cycling and achieved a podium finish after a three year absence from the Tour de France, he insisted that the team, even at the Tour, will not be solely focused on him.

So he thinks he has a very good chance of winning (unlikely) and he has other strong riders in the team whats the problem with him saying that ? or would you rather he told you how comfortable his new assos shorts are ?

Nothing wrong with him saying he has a very good chance of winning, which he does in the latest Australian Associated Press article linked here.
It's just that in the latest article he does not say that he has other strong riders in the team.
He does, however, use the word I (or I'm, I've) more than a dozen times...
He's back to normal.......

frenchfighter

Raymond Poulidor came 3rd in the Tour de France at age 40. Not many people know that.

disgruntledgoat

Michael Caine wrote:

Raymond Poulidor came 3rd in the Tour de France at age 40. Not many people know that.

Fixed that.

lucybears

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Michael Caine wrote:

Raymond Poulidor came 3rd in the Tour de France at age 40. Not many people know that.

Fixed that.

Peter Sellars impression of Sir Michael Caine wrote:

Raymond Poulidor came 3rd in the Tour de France at age 40. Not many people know that.

Fixed that.

micron

MG, as we're all opinionated on this forum - or we wouldn't be here - I can't argue. However, the consensus is also that there's no need to be rude in order to express an opinion. For me I think that's a standard that a few people in the public eye could hold themselves accountable to.

lucybears: there's no I in team, but there is a dick in Radioshack.

Wish I could do impressions

bennyhana22

lucybears wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

"Despite the fact that he is by far and away the best known rider in the sport of cycling and achieved a podium finish after a three year absence from the Tour de France, he insisted that the team, even at the Tour, will not be solely focused on him.

So he thinks he has a very good chance of winning (unlikely) and he has other strong riders in the team whats the problem with him saying that ? or would you rather he told you how comfortable his new assos shorts are ?

Nothing wrong with him saying he has a very good chance of winning, which he does in the latest Australian Associated Press article linked here.
It's just that in the latest article he does not say that he has other strong riders in the team.
He does, however, use the word I (or I'm, I've) more than a dozen times...
He's back to normal.......

I rarely post on BR, but I do read a lot. I've been thinking about posting for a few days. Now I have and it's just to make one point about...

...LANCE

By crikey he gets a lot of column inches on here, doesn't he? The lovers, the haters. Those who are convinced he doped, those who faithfully protest that he never tested positive. It is quite clear to anyone who steps back from the argument that it is Lance's personality that garners the 'interest'. More is written, dicussed and argued about a rider who, let's be factual, HAS NEVER TESTED POSITIVE (Cortisone cream, notwithstanding) than so many villains who are, to many, more 'lovable'. Personally, I am betwixt and between. I admire his achievments and, not just as a doctor, am astonished at his recovery from his illness. I think sometimes in the mire of vitriol the casual observer loses track of just how close he was to DEATH. Not retirement, not a bad injury and walking with a stick, folks. DEATH. I see death a lot. It's not a nice thing. Latterly I have become increasingly distanced from his personality, beginning to feel (and again, only FEEL, because none of you bloody experts on here know ANYTHING about the man!) that he is probably NOT a very nice person. Certainly he has that Seb Coe/McEnroe driven, aloof, arrogant thing going on. He appears to be incredibly selfish, but again, that is the requirelment for many elite sportsmen and women, though not all. There is a recognisable personality type in many of the top-most performers that is unattractive, but a 'necessity' for their success. So hopefully that gives a snap-shot of how I feel about him/. Did he dope? I don't know. My heart says I want to think not, ny head says SO many of the very best from the last 50 years did, so why not him? I still dislike that element of his persona less than the Landis/Basso/Riccos of our sport. No, David Millar is not a saint, but at least he has said he was an idiot and a cheat. Was that only when he was caught 'red-handed'? Maybe, maybe not. But he still had the grace to call it like it was. Not so for so many others...

So why am I posting?

Well, I was in Waterstone's the other day and I flicked through Lance's latest money-making venture, the coffee-table picture book about his comeback from retirement. And all I wanted to say, was this: Forget his personality if you hate it, forget your obsession with whether he doped, forget the idea that he's possibly not a very nice man. Look at that book and what he put himself through to get in shape to ride with the best in the world again and be astonished. Remember that he didn't just manage to ride in the peleton. He didn't just crawl over the mountains in the autobus. In his late thirties, after a break of three years, he was at the vanguard of the finest cycling athletes in the world, head to head with guys to whom he was often giving away over a decade! Assuming he was clean for the 2009 Tour, which even the real haters must concede is almost certainly true (Xth generation EPO-derivative, as yet untested for notwithstanding...), I defy anyone on this forum, anyone who has ever ridden a bike (especially up a mountain) not to acknowledge that as an extraordinary achievement.

*raises barricades for better-informed, but less objective diatribe*

Come on then, let's have you...

Ben

lucybears

.

Latterly I have become increasingly distanced from his personality,

& why is that ?

le_patron

Let it out Ben

I don't think anyone will disagree with that, but that's not what causes the divisions, nothing is ever that black and white.

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

let's be factual, HAS NEVER TESTED POSITIVE (Cortisone cream, notwithstanding)

So what? All through his career there was no way to detect autologous blood doping.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

And as to him never testing positive for Epo...

UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

And let's not forget Armstrong was Tour no-hoper until he teamed up with Ferrari...

News for January 25, 1997
Armstrong's first race back

Lance Armstrong will have his first public appearance after his illness at the goodwill race "Race for Roses" in Austin, Texas, on March 23 (this was formerly to be held on February 16).

Doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton

The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.

Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peloton is caught in the grip off.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html

And you can get away with a lot if you have 'friends' in the right places. We all know how the UCI went out of their way to protect him when it came to light that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo. (Of course this had nothing to do with the half a million Dollars Armstrong 'donated' to the UCI - money that no one in the UCI has been able to account for :roll: ). And it's not just the UCI who are on Armstrong's 'team'.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/1

bennyhana22

lucybears wrote:

.

Latterly I have become increasingly distanced from his personality,

& why is that ?

Oh from reading, listening to interviews etc. I refer to one of the points I made earlier - none of us actually know anything at all about the man. The same is true of 'all' celebrities, and yet we shape our opinions on them - often based on the amount/type of exposure they get. For instance, I truly despise Piers Morgan, yet do not 'know' him at all. Is that legitimate? With Lance, he just comes across as selfish, manipulative etc. He seems to fall into the category that I have termed 'generously selfish' - by that I mean that if he has a mind to he will go out of his way to do everything he can for you...after he's completely sorted first! I think that's an inevitablity of the type of character needed in order to push yourself to the limits. To do things selflessly becomes increasingly 'foreign'...

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

Forget his personality if you hate it, forget your obsession with whether he doped, forget the idea that he's possibly not a very nice man. Look at that book and what he put himself through to get in shape to ride with the best in the world again and be astonished.

And the training of all the other riders in the race amounted to little more than eating pastries and watching TV, no doubt. Have you ever stopped to think that his latest book might just be part of his ongoing propaganda war to make people think there is something uniquely 'special' about him as an athlete and human being - a war that exploits to the fullest the myth that, by the sheer force of his will, he 'beat' cancer...

bennyhana22 wrote:

Assuming he was clean for the 2009 Tour, which even the real haters must concede is almost certainly true... (Xth generation EPO-derivative, as yet untested for notwithstanding...)

Why should anyone concede such a thing, especially when the available evidence suggests otherwise? And why rattle on about Epo when autologous blood doping remains the 'state of the art' method these days? I would, however, agree with you that Armstrong was, as ever, prepared to do anything to put himself into the best shape possible for the 2009 Tour.

bennyhana22

BikingBernie wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

let's be factual, HAS NEVER TESTED POSITIVE (Cortisone cream, notwithstanding)

So what? All through his career there was no way to detect autologous blood doping.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

And as to him never testing positive for Epo...

UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

And let's not forget Armstrong was Tour no-hoper until he teamed up with Ferrari...

News for January 25, 1997
Armstrong's first race back

Lance Armstrong will have his first public appearance after his illness at the goodwill race "Race for Roses" in Austin, Texas, on March 23 (this was formerly to be held on February 16).

Doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton

The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.

Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peloton is caught in the grip off.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html

And you can get away with a lot if you have 'friends' in the right places. We all know how the UCI went out of their way to protect him when it came to light that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo. (Of course this had nothing to do with the half a million Dollars Armstrong 'donated' to the UCI - money that no one in the UCI has been able to account for :roll: ). And it's not just the UCI who are on Armstrong's 'team'.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/1

Beautiful, BB. You are the epitome of everything narrow-mindedly obsessive about so much on this (usually entertaining and engaging) forum!

Despite my perhaps feeble attempts to draw attention AWAY from all that stuff just for a minute, and to reflect on the magnificent achievement that LA had made in getting his body into condition to do what he did in TdF 09, at his age, after that lay-off from elite road cycling, your ONLY interest is to dissect posts for references to doping/not doping so that you can refute, argue against, appeal. Unbelievable :roll: And yet strangely predictable! I'm sure I'm wrong, but I do not recall Merckx giving a frank and open confession of all of his doping (in)discretions and yet he's still revered by most as the greatest ever and an all 'round great guy...so is it all that LA just isn't desperately personable, and if so does that really disable so many from admiring his achievements from a purely sporting perspective?

Ben

Ben

bennyhana22

Quote: And the training of all the other riders in the race amounted to little more than eating pastries and watching TV, no doubt. Have you ever stopped to think that his latest book might just be part of his ongoing propaganda war to make people think there is something uniquely 'special' about him as an athlete and human being - a war that exploits to the fullest the myth that, by the sheer force of his will, he 'beat' cancer...

No, you're right. I'm sure that most of the peleton trained just as hard, just as long, just as methodically. The only reason they weren't on the podium is down to Lance's blood doping. Well, that's that one scientifically put to bed.

Lance beat cancer because 1. he received the best possible treatment, 2. he had the resources to seek that treatment and lived in the USA, 3. despite its aggression and wide-spreading, his tumour type was sensitive to chemotherapy, 4. his determination to beat his disease was extraordinary. 5. he was 'lucky' (in that a myriad factors within his illness came good to lead to remission).

To suggest that 4. has no validity is, I'm afraid, an entirely uninformed opinion. To suggest that it alone can lead to cure is misguided/deluded. To suggest that LA has claimed that it was sheer-will alone and not in combination with 1-3 +5 is disingenuous and approaching disrespect to those whose ability to combat physical disease is influenced significantly by their emotional/psychological approaches and strategies. I'm thinking not a medical man...?

Ben

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

Beautiful, BB. You are the epitome of everything narrow-mindedly obsessive about so much on this (usually entertaining and engaging) forum!

You spoke earlier about 'objectvity.' In my book objectivity is all about letting the facts speak for themselves. See my previous two posts for example...

bennyhana22 wrote:

I do not recall Merckx giving a frank and open confession of all of his doping (in)discretions

From the 'Lance fanboy' perspective this is probably a good thing, given that it was non other than Merckx who introduced Armstrong to Ferrari!

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

Lance beat cancer because 1. he received the best possible treatment, 2. he had the resources to seek that treatment and lived in the USA, 3. despite its aggression and wide-spreading, his tumour type was sensitive to chemotherapy, 4. his determination to beat his disease was extraordinary. 5. he was 'lucky' (in that a myriad factors within his illness came good to lead to remission).

To suggest that 4. has no validity is, I'm afraid, an entirely uninformed opinion.

Really?

Cancer survival not influenced by patient’s emotional status

A patient’s positive or negative emotional state has no direct or indirect effect on cancer survival or disease progression, according to a large scale new study. The research, to be published in the December issue of Cancer, found that emotional well-being was not an independent factor affecting the prognosis of head and neck cancers. The question of whether or not the mind, through psychological state and emotional status, has the ability to heal organic disease in the body, continues to be reviewed and tested in human health research. A large body of evidence strongly suggests that, for life-threatening diseases such as advanced cancer, it does not.

http://www.ecancermedicalscience.com/ne ... ?itemId=38

Optimism 'no bearing on cancer'

Cancer growth was not affected by mental outlook

The power of the mind has been overestimated when it comes to fighting cancer, US scientists say.

They said they found that a patient's positive or negative emotional state had no direct bearing on cancer survival or disease progression.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7052318.stm

Positive thinking 'cuts no ice with cancer'

Neither stressful events, nor a woman's 'fighting spirit' have any impact on the likelihood of developing or dying from breast cancer, say scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/475128.stm

Things Not to Say to Someone With Breast Cancer

In our rush to be supportive, it's all too easy to fall back on such encouraging and inspirational messages. But they can give breast cancer patients a deep-seated feeling of failure. "I call this the Lance Armstrong syndrome, this idea that if you have the right fighting spirit you can overcome disease," says Knajdl. "I admire Armstrong, and he's done great things to publicize cancer, but this idea that people can triumph over cancer with will power and an upbeat attitude is just crazy.

http://www.caring.com/articles/saying-w ... eat-cancer

Etc. Etc. Etc.

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

To suggest that LA has claimed that it was sheer-will alone and not in combination with 1-3 +5 is disingenuous and approaching disrespect to those whose ability to combat physical disease is influenced significantly by their emotional/psychological approaches and strategies.

Rubbish, the real 'disrespect' is the implication, implicit in the 'Armstrong Myth' that those who succumb to cancer can, at least in part, be blamed for their own demise because their 'will to live' was not strong enough.

bennyhana22

BikingBernie wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

Beautiful, BB. You are the epitome of everything narrow-mindedly obsessive about so much on this (usually entertaining and engaging) forum!

You spoke earlier about 'objectvity.' In my book objectivity is all about letting the facts speak for themselves. See my previous two posts for example...

bennyhana22 wrote:

I do not recall Merckx giving a frank and open confession of all of his doping (in)discretions

From the 'Lance fanboy' perspective this is probably a good thing, given that it was non other than Merckx who introduced Armstrong to Ferrari!

And yet you fail to address the philosophical question of why Merckx is generally revered and LA generally damned, particularly by those on this forum. Does that not fit into your agenda?

Ben

bennyhana22

BikingBernie wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

Lance beat cancer because 1. he received the best possible treatment, 2. he had the resources to seek that treatment and lived in the USA, 3. despite its aggression and wide-spreading, his tumour type was sensitive to chemotherapy, 4. his determination to beat his disease was extraordinary. 5. he was 'lucky' (in that a myriad factors within his illness came good to lead to remission).

To suggest that 4. has no validity is, I'm afraid, an entirely uninformed opinion.

Really?

Cancer survival not influenced by patient’s emotional status

A patient’s positive or negative emotional state has no direct or indirect effect on cancer survival or disease progression, according to a large scale new study. The research, to be published in the December issue of Cancer, found that emotional well-being was not an independent factor affecting the prognosis of head and neck cancers. The question of whether or not the mind, through psychological state and emotional status, has the ability to heal organic disease in the body, continues to be reviewed and tested in human health research. A large body of evidence strongly suggests that, for life-threatening diseases such as advanced cancer, it does not.

http://www.ecancermedicalscience.com/ne ... ?itemId=38

Optimism 'no bearing on cancer'

Cancer growth was not affected by mental outlook

The power of the mind has been overestimated when it comes to fighting cancer, US scientists say.

They said they found that a patient's positive or negative emotional state had no direct bearing on cancer survival or disease progression.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7052318.stm

Positive thinking 'cuts no ice with cancer'

Neither stressful events, nor a woman's 'fighting spirit' have any impact on the likelihood of developing or dying from breast cancer, say scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/475128.stm

Things Not to Say to Someone With Breast Cancer

In our rush to be supportive, it's all too easy to fall back on such encouraging and inspirational messages. But they can give breast cancer patients a deep-seated feeling of failure. "I call this the Lance Armstrong syndrome, this idea that if you have the right fighting spirit you can overcome disease," says Knajdl. "I admire Armstrong, and he's done great things to publicize cancer, but this idea that people can triumph over cancer with will power and an upbeat attitude is just crazy.

http://www.caring.com/articles/saying-w ... eat-cancer

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The quality of this evidence is irrefutable and I bow to your more thorough research. Anecdotally though, as a medic, I would still stand by the position that mental approach is not without its merits. Much in medicine (and without) does not lend itself well to 'conventional' scientific scrutiny or testing, and I say this as an atheist, merely to clarify my 'spiritual' stance on such issues.

Ben

bennyhana22

BikingBernie wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

To suggest that LA has claimed that it was sheer-will alone and not in combination with 1-3 +5 is disingenuous and approaching disrespect to those whose ability to combat physical disease is influenced significantly by their emotional/psychological approaches and strategies.

Rubbish, the real 'disrespect' is the implication, implicit in the 'Armstrong Myth' that those who succumb to cancer can, at least in part, be blamed for their own demise because their 'will to live' was not strong enough.

Again I must turn to your extensive reading for tangible examples from which LA's 'implication' to the effect of your post above is extrapolated. You have demonstrated your thoroughness with aplomb before, so don't let me down and let your subjectivity get in the way of a good ding-dong at this stage, BB...

Ben

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

you fail to address the philosophical question of why Merckx is generally revered and LA generally damned, particularly by those on this forum.

I have discussed this many times and the main issue is not so much the morality of doping, but its effectiveness. Riders like Merckx almost certainly doped, but to paraphrase Willy Voet 'old school' doping could not turn a donkey into a racehorse. Epo and blood doping do have the power to make 'new men' as Voet put it. What's more different riders benefit from such doping practices to very different degrees. As such the performances of riders like Armstrong, Riis, Indurain and the other beneficiaries of the Epo / medically managed blood doping generation lack any 'authenticity' and, as such they turn the sport of cycling into meaningless 'sports entertainment'.

Of course, that Armstrong is an egotistic, manipulative bully hardly endears him to people as well.

lucybears

bennyhana22 wrote:

lucybears wrote:

.

Latterly I have become increasingly distanced from his personality,

& why is that ?

Oh from reading, listening to interviews etc. I refer to one of the points I made earlier - none of us actually know anything at all about the man. The same is true of 'all' celebrities, and yet we shape our opinions on them - often based on the amount/type of exposure they get. For instance, I truly despise Piers Morgan, yet do not 'know' him at all. Is that legitimate? With Lance, he just comes across as selfish, manipulative etc. He seems to fall into the category that I have termed 'generously selfish' - by that I mean that if he has a mind to he will go out of his way to do everything he can for you...after he's completely sorted first! I think that's an inevitablity of the type of character needed in order to push yourself to the limits. To do things selflessly becomes increasingly 'foreign'...

so when you see the quote "he is a great champion, I have never had admiration for him and I never will," made by some one who does know the man , you would not have any reason to disagree ?

gabriel959

Indurain didn't behave like a tw*t (as Lance does) though.

bennyhana22

lucybears wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

lucybears wrote:

.

Latterly I have become increasingly distanced from his personality,

& why is that ?

Oh from reading, listening to interviews etc. I refer to one of the points I made earlier - none of us actually know anything at all about the man. The same is true of 'all' celebrities, and yet we shape our opinions on them - often based on the amount/type of exposure they get. For instance, I truly despise Piers Morgan, yet do not 'know' him at all. Is that legitimate? With Lance, he just comes across as selfish, manipulative etc. He seems to fall into the category that I have termed 'generously selfish' - by that I mean that if he has a mind to he will go out of his way to do everything he can for you...after he's completely sorted first! I think that's an inevitablity of the type of character needed in order to push yourself to the limits. To do things selflessly becomes increasingly 'foreign'...

so when you see the quote "he is a great champion, I have never had admiration for him and I never will," made by some one who does know the man , you would not have any reason to disagree ?

Oh, crumbs! That comes down to your definition of admiration. Could I admire his achievements but not him as an individual? Maybe that's the most accurate take on it. On that level, no, I would not have any reason to disagree with the quotation above.

Ben

BikingBernie

Dan Coyle probably knows Armstrong better than anyone, and this is what he has to say about him.

Booknoise: What’s our biggest misconception about Armstrong?

Daniel Coyle: That he’s a nice guy. Lance is smart, charismatic, incredibly hardworking, and he does a lot of good works, especially within the cancer community. All that has led most of us to the misimpression that he’s saintlike or even cuddly. He’s not, by a long shot. Like DiMaggio, like Sinatra, like Babe Ruth, Armstrong is one of those who lives life all the way up. When it comes to his sport, and especially winning the Tour, niceness is just not part of his decision-making.

So what’s he really like? Let’s put it like this: He’s the kid from nowhere who became best in the world at a sport that is very difficult, painful, and dangerous. He’s the proof that Darwinism works. As his best friend, John Korioth, says, Lance is animalistic, the ultimate alpha wolf. On the bike, and often off the bike, he’s a competitive beast. It’s what makes him a fearsome competitor—it also makes him a complicated human being to deal with.

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html

bennyhana22

BikingBernie wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

you fail to address the philosophical question of why Merckx is generally revered and LA generally damned, particularly by those on this forum.

I have discussed this many times and the main issue is not so much the morality of doping, but its effectiveness. Riders like Merckx almost certainly doped, but to paraphrase Willy Voet 'old school' doping could not turn a donkey into a racehorse. Epo and blood doping do have the power to make 'new men' as Voet put it. What's more different riders benefit from such doping practices to very different degrees. As such the performances of riders like Armstrong, Riis, Indurain and the other beneficiaries of the Epo / medically managed blood doping generation lack any 'authenticity' and, as such they turn the sport of cycling into meaningless 'sports entertainment'.

Of course, that Armstrong is an egotistic, manipulative bully hardly endears him to people as well.

But you're not considering all the possible confounders to your argument. In the 90's 'they were all on it' so all that doped in similar programmes should have seen a similar return on their immoral investment...but then if interpersonal responses to doping are highly variable then did Armstrong, Riis and Indurain really achieve all they did solely on the basis of individual response? Or is it individual response plus inherent physiological advantage as we are so often told re: Indurains lung capacity etc...or could it, just could it be, in part that some are prepared to work that much harder than the average guy? No, can't be for then it would be hard not to have some admiration forArmstrong's achievements on a purely sporting (and not factory-fabricated 'sports entertainment') level...

Ben

bennyhana22

BikingBernie wrote:

Dan Coyle probably knows Armstrong better than anyone, and this is what he has to say about him.

Booknoise: What’s our biggest misconception about Armstrong?

Daniel Coyle: That he’s a nice guy. Lance is smart, charismatic, incredibly hardworking, and he does a lot of good works, especially within the cancer community. All that has led most of us to the misimpression that he’s saintlike or even cuddly. He’s not, by a long shot. Like DiMaggio, like Sinatra, like Babe Ruth, Armstrong is one of those who lives life all the way up. When it comes to his sport, and especially winning the Tour, niceness is just not part of his decision-making.

So what’s he really like? Let’s put it like this: He’s the kid from nowhere who became best in the world at a sport that is very difficult, painful, and dangerous. He’s the proof that Darwinism works. As his best friend, John Korioth, says, Lance is animalistic, the ultimate alpha wolf. On the bike, and often off the bike, he’s a competitive beast. It’s what makes him a fearsome competitor—it also makes him a complicated human being to deal with.

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html

My point exactly. The fact that he probably is such an unpersonable character makes it (perhaps understandably) nigh on impossible for many of the LA-detractors (and as I think I have shown overtly, I am ambiguous in my overall opinion of him) to acknowledge just how magnificent an athlete he has been and, given his age etc, still is. We marvel at Giggs, Redgrave etc. Putting aside the darker aspect of our sport, indulged in even by the most high;ly revered and loved, are we so shallow that our dislike of a man's ego and persona makes us unable to see through to his achievements?

Ben

Stuey01

Lance writes in his book (I'm paraphrasing here as I don't have it to hand)

"I did not beat cancer. My doctors beat cancer."

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

In the 90's 'they were all on it' so all that doped in similar programmes should have seen a similar return on their immoral investment...bet then if interpersonal responses to doping are highly variable then did Armstrong, Riis and Indurain really achieve all they did solely on the basis of individual response? Or is it individual response plus inherent physiological advantage as we are so often told re: Indurains lung capacity etc...or could it, just could it be, in part that some are prepared to work that much harder than the average guy?

Firstly, riders benefit from Epo use and blood doping to hugely different degrees. To put it most simply a rider with a natural haemocrit of 39 has much more to gain from boosting it to 49.9, or higher, than someone whose natural haemocrit level is 49.

True, natural talent and hard work still play an important role. However, it is a complete myth that the harder you train, the better you will be: often the biggest improvements in performance come for training less and resting more.

To be honest, having gone through this many times before, it is often apparent that many people like to believe in the Armstrong myth because it fits in with their personal political beliefs, especially a belief in the myths of the meritocratic society. That is the attitude that those who succeed deserve all they get, and those who don't 'succeed' not only can be blamed for not having the necessary talent or will to work hard enough, they don't deserve any help or even sympathy from the 'winners' in society.

BikingBernie

bennyhana22 wrote:

I think I have shown overtly, I am ambiguous in my overall opinion of him

No deception is more powerful than self-deception...

disgruntledgoat

BikingBernie wrote:

bennyhana22 wrote:

I think I have shown overtly, I am ambiguous in my overall opinion of him

No deception is more powerful than self-deception...

To be fair Bernie, Benny's chief crime seems to be disagreeing with you and to be willing to say so and not back down in the face of your links. He's not coming over as some crazed fan-boy, just a guy with a balanced opinion and a desire to debate.