Armstrong article worth a read

iainf72

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... e?page=0,0

By my old chum and LA fanboi Bill Strickland

No_Ta_Doctor

Good read, and strangely moving.

avoidingmyphd

I like that. It's the best explanation I've seen for a while that captures the fact (obscured on e.g. forums) that most people are neither fanboy nor hater.

calvjones

Good read that. Wonder who it was that half-admitted the doping?

TMR

Great read, I really enjoyed that. Thanks for posting.

RichN95.

calvjones wrote:

Good read that. Wonder who it was that half-admitted the doping?

Vaughters would seem a good candidate. He's been half-admitting it for a couple of years.

iainf72

Here's the full article

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/ ... _LANCE.pdf

afx237vi

avoidingmyphd wrote:

I like that. It's the best explanation I've seen for a while that captures the fact (obscured on e.g. forums) that most people are neither fanboy nor hater.

Hmm, I agree with this, but I didn't like the Strickland article.

Read this: http://theelementsofguile.wordpress.com ... l-cycling/

...and then read the Strickland thing again.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Here's the full article

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/ ... _LANCE.pdf

That's a fairly major article (even if it's just in the cycling press). It has more clout coming from someone like Strickland than it Kimmage, as he's a self confessed fan.

It also prompts the real questions at this point - not whether he doped or not - but what will the impact on the sport be, what is his legacy?

As the poster who has been avoinghisphd for about five years now says, most people were usually fairly neutral. I always wanted Ullrich to win.

LA was part of the pre-Puerto era, his rivals were all doping, yet attracts hatred because he was better at it than the others. A cheat is a cheat in my book, there's no sliding scale.

Many say doping invalidates his 'story', the comeback. I disagree. Regardless of how much doping you do, you still have to be a supreme athlete to win the Tour. Anyone who drew hope from his story shouldn't abandon it.

But I disagree with Strickland's ending, that his doping will be overlooked as it was with past champions. Again that's a different era, different doping.

Ultimately, I think LA's final demise will make headlines worldwide, but will only have impact for cycling in the US and maybe a few other territories.

Strickland publicly turning though, that's quite something. Whither Phil & Paul?

tlw1

Good article

RichN95.

afx237vi wrote:

Hmm, I agree with this, but I didn't like the Strickland article.

Read this: http://theelementsofguile.wordpress.com ... l-cycling/

...and then read the Strickland thing again.

Interestingly, I largely disagreed with that article. It seemed naive and blind to the practicalities of a modern sports journalist.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Hmm, I agree with this, but I didn't like the Strickland article.

Read this: http://theelementsofguile.wordpress.com ... l-cycling/

...and then read the Strickland thing again.

Interestingly, I largely disagreed with that article. It seemed naive and blind to the practicalities of a modern sports journalist.

I actually found it was the naivety of the Strickland article that was somehow touching. Though the article afx237vi posted was a little harsh. Cycling is a romantic, heroic, sport. We expect our cycling journalism to be romantic and heroic. And cycling journos who are also cycling fans might well get sucked into the romance and heroism.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

I actually found it was the naivety of the Strickland article that was somehow touching. Though the article afx237vi posted was a little harsh.

I was saying I found the other article (the blog) naive, not Strickland's. Strickland admits he was duped, as were many of us for varying lengths of time.

afx237vi

RichN95 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Hmm, I agree with this, but I didn't like the Strickland article.

Read this: http://theelementsofguile.wordpress.com ... l-cycling/

...and then read the Strickland thing again.

Interestingly, I largely disagreed with that article. It seemed naive and blind to the practicalities of a modern sports journalist.

Strickland himself touches on the issue, though. If a DS says to you "don't worry, he's one of us," the implication of what is being said is blindingly obvious.

I agree that journalists need teams and riders on their side, and it's a delicate balancing act. But if certain journalists (and I'd dispute whether broadcast commentators are included here) spend years building up the myth, they should take some kind of responsibility when said myth is exposed as a fraud.

RichN95.

afx237vi wrote:

Strickland himself touches on the issue, though. If a DS says to you "don't worry, he's one of us," the implication of what is being said is blindingly obvious.

I agree that journalists need teams and riders on their side, and it's a delicate balancing act. But if certain journalists (and I'd dispute whether broadcast commentators are included here) spend years building up the myth, they should take some kind of responsibility when said myth is exposed as a fraud.

That's the nature of modern journalism. Not just cycling, not just sport, but all over. It's easy for a blogger to say that journalists should write scandalous reports (which they probably can't back up with anything but heresay). But the bloggers aren't relying on their words to pay the bills. Some journos get a free reign to go on the attack, but they're in the minority, most are compromised. It's something that many fail to grasp. That's why I found it naive, but found Strickland's article more worthwhile.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I actually found it was the naivety of the Strickland article that was somehow touching. Though the article afx237vi posted was a little harsh.

I was saying I found the other article (the blog) naive, not Strickland's. Strickland admits he was duped, as were many of us for varying lengths of time.

Yes. I just thought it was an ironic juxtaposition.

The blog article is cynical about journalist's motivations. You defend the Strickland article by accusing the blog of naivety wrt to real life considerations, I defend the Strickland article by pointing to Strickland's apparent naivety.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Yes. I just thought it was an ironic juxtaposition.

The blog article is cynical about journalist's motivations. You defend the Strickland article by accusing the blog of naivety wrt to real life considerations, I defend the Strickland article by pointing to Strickland's apparent naivety.

I'm seeing them separately. I read the blog before I knew Skrickland had written anything. And knowing a couple of sports journalists, I thought the blog writer had no grasp of the realities of being a pro journalist. I know the compromises they have to make. It's easy to say 'why don't you speak out', when your livelihood doesn't rely on it.

deejay

Oh dear the lamp is swinging again, like this -

1996 a rider we know who has no palmares for expecting to win a Grand Tour is suddenly able to run rings around people with the ability to climb mountains and then, Wins a GT.
Years later he confesses he was on PED's to do that.

1999 another rider with that same type of ability is also able to Time Trial and climb mountains to win a GT.
We await some pronouncement as to how he was able to change his body to do that. (we think we know what cheats and Frauds get up to and he has to be one)

2011 - By that same precident we can expect Allessandro Ballan to win a GT in France, perhaps.
Maybe he is not desperate enough to do the proceedures of the other two.

Tell the Journo that other GT winners before 1996 did not suddenly become great overnight but were able to improve themselves year by year.
Including I might add, todays winner Spartacus. (ie. 2004 Tour de France Prolog winner)

Kléber

Did Lance Armstrong dope? Well even Bill Strickland now believes so. For me the doping is only one element of the picture. Like Strickland I believe he did and we know other riders did too. That doesn't make it right, it still means the wins were a fraud.

What grates with me is what went with it. His team had a view that journalists who weren't "with us" were "against us", they blacklisted people who asked questions. Other people were intimidated by legal action, threats about jobs and income and other means. Omerta was rigidly enforced by this clan.

All this whilst Armstrong's stock rose higher and higher thanks to cheerleaders like Strickland. Many were doping but nobody else was such a bully. So turning round and saying "I reckon he doped" is ok but almost meaningless.

Still, if you stand back it means another of the cheerleaders is now pointing fingers. Put Lance aside for a moment, he's retired, and it means there are questions here for Hincapie, Leipheimer and above all Bruyneel.

mrushton

The same Bruyneel who guided the much-admired, nay loved by certain posters Albert Contador to 3 TdF wins, Giro and Vuelta plus others? Surely he would have recommended the same preparation to Bertie as he did to Lance yet Bertie remains clean and has not cried 'foul' of JB

Monty Dog

LA had pretty well 'exclusive' access to Ferrari - there is no way that Bertie would have been allowed 'on the programme' as the 2009 Tour animosity demonstrated.

inkyfingers

Monty Dog wrote:

LA had pretty well 'exclusive' access to Ferrari - there is no way that Bertie would have been allowed 'on the programme' as the 2009 Tour animosity demonstrated.

I'd have thought their is a fair chance that Contador was "on the programme" by 2007 while LA was sat at home drinking beer and eating tacos.

Kléber

Contador has a personal trainer, Pepe Martin. He was part of the conditions for joining Astana, he has now been signed by Saxo but he's not listed on the team roster. He trains Contador and a couple of trusted riders like De La Fuente, Navarro and Noval.

If there's been any "salsa picante", it's probably from Chef Marti.

Birillo

I thought the comments on the article told us rather more about people's feelings towards Armstrong than the article itself. For example:

Bill, my name is Kenneth, and I wish to tell you I registered today for one purpose and one purpose only. I hope you rot in Hell after you die Bill! Lance Armstrong has never tested positive on a drug test. In the United States of America, a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd hand accusations from proven liars or anonymous sources does not constitute proof of guilt. Bill, I hope Mr. Armstrong sues the asses off of you and Bicycling magazine for writing and publishing this derivative, sophomoric crap of yours...you BASTARD!

Monty Dog

Who needs enemies when you've got 'fans' like that in your corner?

P_Tucker

Rule number 736 of life - if someone starts a tirade by annoucing their name, you can safely ignore him/her.

micron

Interesting that Armstrong also gave an exclusive interview to Bicycling - tin foil hat time but has anyone considered that Armstrong approved this as a first step to an 'I doped but all the greats did and look at the cancer charity' defence? For a 'Lance doped' article it's pretty effing positive

deejay

inkyfingers wrote:

I'd have thought their is a fair chance that Contador was "on the programme" by 2007 .

He was picked up by the Hog, early in 2007 for the Disco team and must have been advised about the programme like so many others that have been caught from that set up.
Well he was desperate for a team but perhaps not desperate enough to need the programme. I did say perhaps.
60-40 I am still a fan and with so much meat going into Spain from South America I give him the benefit of doubt on that one.
The Disco time, hangs heavy with me, though.
He could just have been strong enough in 2007 to resist the programme and that theory comes from his mental strength in 2009 to ignore the B.S. (and the Hog) to be his own man on the climb to Verbiers and quietly stick an index finger in the air.

As Duffield would say, "I await with baited breath".

Monty Dog

micron wrote:

Interesting that Armstrong also gave an exclusive interview to Bicycling - tin foil hat time but has anyone considered that Armstrong approved this as a first step to an 'I doped but all the greats did and look at the cancer charity' defence? For a 'Lance doped' article it's pretty effing positive

That's the considered view of many over on Cycling News that the article was in fact penned by Mark Fabiani and got Strickland as cheerleader-in-chief to start letting folks down gently in the face of more serious charges such as fraud, RICO, drug-peddling and the like.

flanners1

Monty Dog wrote:

micron wrote:

Interesting that Armstrong also gave an exclusive interview to Bicycling - tin foil hat time but has anyone considered that Armstrong approved this as a first step to an 'I doped but all the greats did and look at the cancer charity' defence? For a 'Lance doped' article it's pretty effing positive

That's the considered view of many over on Cycling News that the article was in fact penned by Mark Fabiani and got Strickland as cheerleader-in-chief to start letting folks down gently in the face of more serious charges such as fraud, RICO, drug-peddling and the like.

Good point. Worst thing you can do is try and spin a crisis; we are now seeing a more transparent tack away from the usual propaganda and litigation.

iainf72

Monty Dog wrote:

That's the considered view of many over on Cycling News that the article was in fact penned by Mark Fabiani and got Strickland as cheerleader-in-chief to start letting folks down gently in the face of more serious charges such as fraud, RICO, drug-peddling and the like.

You forget the point that people who live in "The Clinic" are stark raving mad.

If that was the case, surely Lance himself would start making noises to help ease the pain for the faithful. But he doesn't. All Strickland has done is polarise things more and make himself disliked by both sides.