USADA files doping charges against Lance

derbygrimpeur

Ok, this is Sky material but...

Investigation shows there are a number of factors which have all played a part in driving this growth, including:
• 200 per cent expansion of the National Cycle Network to over 12,000 miles
• More dedicated cycling lanes in urban and city areas
• Environmental concerns, with 83 per cent of people believing that environmental questions are a priority issue2
• Health considerations, with inactivity costs in the UK estimated to be £760m per annum and 80 and 70 per cent of men and women respectively forecast to be overweight or obese
• British successes at elite level act as a motivator, through, for example, Olympic gold medals in Beijing and the prospect of more wins at the upcoming London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics
• Increase in the numbers of large scale organised cycling events across the UK

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/ ... ng_economy

It doesn't mention Lance Armstrong, although clearly this is related to recent upsurge in cycling participation. Was there a surge in participation between 1999 and 2005? Not as much as now, I'd guess?

mididoctors

derbygrimpeur wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

lance armstrong did put a whole bunch of people on bikes...

How do you know that though? I accept some people may have taken up solely due to him, but the total volume, as a percentage of all new cyclists is surely going to be inconsequential? Other than one person on here, I've not encountered ANYONE that's taken up cycling because of LA.

same way you know the effect was inconsequential

skylla

derbygrimpeur wrote:

Was there a surge in participation between 1999 and 2005? Not as much as now, I'd guess?

Well that's something I have been trying to find out. Participation in Road Club rides over the years should be a good indication. Anyone in Club Secretary colours that cares to comment on this? my inkling, too, is that numbers didn't "soar" until after 2006.

rick_chasey

skylla wrote:

derbygrimpeur wrote:

Was there a surge in participation between 1999 and 2005? Not as much as now, I'd guess?

Well that's something I have been trying to find out. Participation in Road Club rides over the years should be a good indication. Anyone in Club Secretary colours that cares to comment on this? my inkling, too, is that numbers didn't "soar" until after 2006.

Any club captain will have long lost interest.

I doubt Lance put many on bikes. I believe he made the Tour de France more recognised across the world, in that he was, at the time, put amongst other greats like Woods, Schumacher, ali etc etc.

mididoctors

derbygrimpeur wrote:

It doesn't mention Lance Armstrong, although clearly this is related to recent upsurge in cycling participation. Was there a surge in participation between 1999 and 2005? Not as much as now, I'd guess?

in this country I think you are right

in the UK sky hoy et al must of had an effect

I dont think armstrong has had much to do with that... most of the armstrong effect would be in the states is my WAG

andy_wrx

Jez mon wrote:

Truthfully, Lance was easily, the most well known cyclist for a fair few years. People making the point about Hoy/Pendleton being more well known than Armstrong should remember:

a) Lance hasn't won a Tour since 2005
b) They're comparing different sports

Fundamentally, in the UK Armstrong was a foreign road cyclist who was very well known even by those who knew nothing about the sport, the same can't be said for Contador, for example.

I'd agree with you, Armstrong was easily the most famous cyclist in the world at that time.
Apart from the Tour, he had the cancer story. 'It's Not About The Bike' was a paperback that sold large numbers as a holiday read for people interested in sport, not necessarily cycling.

But I'm not talking about 10 years ago, I'm talking about the last few years.

The cycling 'explosion' in the UK wasn't in the late90's/early 2000's, it was the late 2000's
There have been far more people out on road bikes (not MTB's...) in the last 4 or 5 years and that's when the growth of the number of sportives has occurred

In this period, in the UK, Team GB track cyclists winning lots of Gold medals in Beijing has had greater impact than some American having won the Tour several years before.

Ask Joe Public in the UK now for the name of a cyclist and I bet you'll get Hoy (lots of Golds, keeps popping-up on telly, Bran Flakes adverts) or Pendleton (glamour girl, keeps popping-up in the papers) or Cavendish (won Sports Personality, "won that Tour de France", cries in interviews, page3 model girlfriend)
I doubt you'll get Wiggins, most certainly not any continental pros. As you say, who is Contador ?

As for being different sports - oh come on !
Joe Public won't even see them as different branches of the sport - it's blokes in lycra riding on "pushbikes"

derbygrimpeur

mididoctors wrote:

derbygrimpeur wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

lance armstrong did put a whole bunch of people on bikes...

How do you know that though? I accept some people may have taken up solely due to him, but the total volume, as a percentage of all new cyclists is surely going to be inconsequential? Other than one person on here, I've not encountered ANYONE that's taken up cycling because of LA.

same way you know the effect was inconsequential

the difference is you said he "did put a whole bunch of people on bikes" (i.e. stated as fact), whereas my inconsequential comment was a guess / question, i.e. I did not try to state it was fact. You are correct, either one of us could be correct, but I would be willing to put money on my version being closer to the truth than yours, if there was any way for us to categorically find out.

The general point I was making with my post(s) is that LA's influence on cycling participation is overstated by some, and the effect of him being busted (IMO) is likely to have no effect on participation in cycling. Yes, he was the face of cycling for many people, but that doesn't mean that he created a surge in cycling participation.

mididoctors

derbygrimpeur wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

derbygrimpeur wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

lance armstrong did put a whole bunch of people on bikes...

How do you know that though? I accept some people may have taken up solely due to him, but the total volume, as a percentage of all new cyclists is surely going to be inconsequential? Other than one person on here, I've not encountered ANYONE that's taken up cycling because of LA.

same way you know the effect was inconsequential

the difference is you said he "did put a whole bunch of people on bikes" (i.e. stated as fact), whereas my inconsequential comment was a guess / question, i.e. I did not try to state it was fact. You are correct, either one of us could be correct, but I would be willing to put money on my version being closer to the truth than yours, if there was any way for us to categorically find out.

The general point I was making with my post(s) is that LA's influence on cycling participation is overstated by some, and the effect of him being busted (IMO) is likely to have no effect on participation in cycling. Yes, he was the face of cycling for many people, but that doesn't mean that he created a surge in cycling participation.

TL:dr

derbygrimpeur

mididoctors wrote:

derbygrimpeur wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

derbygrimpeur wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

lance armstrong did put a whole bunch of people on bikes...

How do you know that though? I accept some people may have taken up solely due to him, but the total volume, as a percentage of all new cyclists is surely going to be inconsequential? Other than one person on here, I've not encountered ANYONE that's taken up cycling because of LA.

same way you know the effect was inconsequential

the difference is you said he "did put a whole bunch of people on bikes" (i.e. stated as fact), whereas my inconsequential comment was a guess / question, i.e. I did not try to state it was fact. You are correct, either one of us could be correct, but I would be willing to put money on my version being closer to the truth than yours, if there was any way for us to categorically find out.

The general point I was making with my post(s) is that LA's influence on cycling participation is overstated by some, and the effect of him being busted (IMO) is likely to have no effect on participation in cycling. Yes, he was the face of cycling for many people, but that doesn't mean that he created a surge in cycling participation.

TL:dr

:roll:
Not sure how you cope with a 47 page topic then

I guess it's just your way of admitting that you're wrong.

ddraver

I agree with Derbygrimpeur....to put it bluntly and not to write it all out again...

Yes, Larry caused a boom in cycling in the US, no he did nt in the rest of the world. Unfortunatly, most of the pervayers of the boom story are US Cycling journalists who forget that US does not equal World - I could make a World Series point here but I won't... :P

BikingBernie

Timoid. wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

I was thinking of the period between 1968 and 1976 when not a single French rider got on the podium, or 36 years ago plus...

Except:
1969: Pingeon 2nd, Poulidor 3rd
1972: Poulidor 3rd
1973: Thevenet 2nd
1974: Poulidor 2nd
1975: Thevenet 1st
1976: Poulidor 3rd

Try again

You are, of course, correct! :oops:

I mistakenly thought that the list I looked at gave the podium places when it actually gave the winners of each jersey. I did get the seven year period right though in my original post, in that from 68 to 74 no French rider won any of the classifications.

A humble pie has duly being put into the oven and I will be having it for tea.

No_Ta_Doctor

Youtube views for top result returned (sorted by relevance) of following cyclists (various disciplines):

danny macaskill: 30 million
danny hart: 1.7 million
lance armstrong: 1.4 million
mark cavendish: 116,000
chris hoy: 41,000

First cyclist related video by relevance for a search for "bike": Danny Macaskill, 20million views.

I didn't sort by "most views" because that seems to just turn up youtube spam.

The cycling boom (all types) in the UK is probably fuelled by:

The National Lottery funding of cycling infrastructure
Mountainbiking becoming a cool outdoor passtime for eco friendly / health concious - same trend in climbing, surfing, kayaking
BMX regaining street-cred alongside other urban sports like skateboarding
Cheap Chinese bikes.
Cycle courier chic - we only had cycle couriers in London since the late eighties. There's a chic associated with them - a bit hipster, a bit eco-warrier, a bit anarchist.
Environmental considerations
Cost of transport
Niche sports in general becoming more mainstream

Lichtblick

Getting back on topic, I really hope that this time the hypocritical lying litigious bully gets what he's earned. Massive fines, loss of TdF titles, loss of reputation, paying back prize money, and banned for life.

I was a LA fan for a while. Then I read a lot of books and talked to a lot of people. Now I think that anyone who truly believes that he won those 7 titles, clean, is childishly naive. All those photos of him standing in front of the Arc de Triomphe after "winning" yet another TdF title, looking "humble", make me sick. All those books : "it's not about the bike" : No! it's not about the bike is it? It's about cheating and stamping on anyone who gainsays you.

People who cheat to win sports events are bad enough. To bully people into silence, pay people and organisations to shut up, and lie for years and years is worse.

No, I'm not obsessed - I have a Life. But I really do think that enough's enough with the LA-blind-worship, mostly in America, it seems.

BigGar35

Totally agree. Have next to no time for the man and never have. Great athlete but that's it in my eyes. I just hope that this one sticks but gut feeling is that it won't!! The whole era was just an absolute mess but I feel progress is being made now. Am not that bitter a person but I hope he gets his comeuppance.

Rundfahrt

Lichtblick wrote:

Getting back on topic, I really hope that this time the hypocritical lying litigious bully gets what he's earned. Massive fines, loss of TdF titles, loss of reputation, paying back prize money, and banned for life.

I was a LA fan for a while. Then I read a lot of books and talked to a lot of people. Now I think that anyone who truly believes that he won those 7 titles, clean, is childishly naive. All those photos of him standing in front of the Arc de Triomphe after "winning" yet another TdF title, looking "humble", make me sick. All those books : "it's not about the bike" : No! it's not about the bike is it? It's about cheating and stamping on anyone who gainsays you.

People who cheat to win sports events are bad enough. To bully people into silence, pay people and organisations to shut up, and lie for years and years is worse.

No, I'm not obsessed - I have a Life. But I really do think that enough's enough with the LA-blind-worship, mostly in America, it seems.

I think you meant to log into the cycling news forum.

P.S.- Havev you looked at the list of riders you posted in your first post????

Lichtblick

Rundfahrt wrote:

P.S.- Havev you looked at the list of riders you posted in your first post????

Why? Has the list of those who came second, changed since I posted it yesterday?

:?:

Rundfahrt

Lichtblick wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

P.S.- Havev you looked at the list of riders you posted in your first post????

Why? Has the list of those who came second, changed since I posted it yesterday?

:?:

No, but, based on your CN style stance you should not believe any of them should get the title. Oh, wait, I forgot, the CN stance is only about one rider. My bad. Glory to the #2's!

mfin

On Livestrong.com there's an article giving advice all about Tattoos.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/2828-facts-tattoos/

5. Can I Remove the Tattoo?
If you decide you made a bad decision, you should discuss tattoo removal with a dermatologist. A laser procedure can get rid of a tattoo by aiming concentrated light at the ink and causing the body's immune system to remove it. This procedure can take months to complete and can be uncomfortable. You may need anesthesia during the several visits it takes to fully remove a tattoo. Talk with your dermatologist about risks associated with laser tattoo removal.

...that's good of them to cover this, but interestingly they don't have a section regarding Taste, Quality etc, and I can't imagine the following people using such professional methods to remove a Tattoo compared with how badly they've had it applied, maybe wire brush sales will be up soon? ...and, thinking ahead, it might be worth buying a few shares in Dettol?

timoid.

BikingBernie wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

I was thinking of the period between 1968 and 1976 when not a single French rider got on the podium, or 36 years ago plus...

Except:
1969: Pingeon 2nd, Poulidor 3rd
1972: Poulidor 3rd
1973: Thevenet 2nd
1974: Poulidor 2nd
1975: Thevenet 1st
1976: Poulidor 3rd

Try again

You are, of course, correct! :oops:

I mistakenly thought that the list I looked at gave the podium places when it actually gave the winners of each jersey. I did get the seven year period right though in my original post, in that from 68 to 74 no French rider won any of the classifications.

A humble pie has duly being put into the oven and I will be having it for tea.

So you are describing the Merckx years? I don't think the French liked them much either. IIRC Merckx was punched by an irate French spectator who was sick of Merckx domination (regardless of the Elan of his victories) in 75, cracking, or at least badly bruising his ribs. This was instrumental in him losing the Tour that year.

The French don't like losing any more than the next nation.

BikingBernie

Timoid. wrote:

The French don't like losing any more than the next nation.

But for 'the French' the Tour has, historically at least, always been about far more than who won. Hence the significance of the Lantern Rouge prize, the iconic status of events such as 'the sacrifice of René Vietto' and so forth. You mention Merckx but the French hardly warmed to Anquetil or Hinault either, and they were both multiple 'home' winners of the Tour. As I said earlier, Raymond Poulidor must be the most popular French cyclist ever, and this was largely because he never won the Tour or wore the yellow jersey. Would Armstrong have become an 'all-American hero' in the States had he never won the Tour or even worn the yellow jersey? I very much doubt it!

I do realise that attitudes to the Tour and sport in general also reflect wider social attitudes, and it is to be expected that 'American' 'look after number one', 'to the victor the spoils', 'Winning isn't everything, its the only thing' attitudes will have had an influence even in more traditionally egalitarian countries such as France. However, I think that the sort of alternative values promoted by people such as Pierre de Coubertin, who argued that 'The important thing in life is not victory but combat; it is not to have vanquished but to have fought well' still run deep in the psyche of the French. Even Armstrong has said that he was not more popular in France largely because the French would appear to prefer to see someone fighting courageously and losing than to see someone win with apparent ease.

ddraver

^Which is equally true of us brits....

Witness how many people p1ss and moan about Cav and Wiggo now they ve dared to start winning stuff.

But the best example has to be the "Come on Tim" attitude of loving Tim Henman, who was never ever going to win anything, but whining about Andy Murry becasue he actually wins matches against the No.200 easily!

neiltb

and he's Scottish, Tim was loved more as he was pure to the wombles.

ddraver

meh, maybe.....you'd hope not really...

BikingBernie

ddraver wrote:

Which is equally true of us brits....the best example has to be the "Come on Tim" attitude of loving Tim Henman, who was never ever going to win anything

Yup, the Brits have historically always had a place in their hearts for the 'plucky loser' / underdog as well. You should have given 'Eddie the eagle' a mention though!

I think that the underlying reasons are not exactly the same though. For one sport in Britain has often been seen as a way of building 'team spirt' and so on. The view of the Duke of Wellington was that "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton", and much the same idea is expressed in Newbolt's poem "Play up! Play up! And play the game!" or Vitae Lampada:

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night -
Ten to make and the match to win -
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote -
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'

The sand of the desert is sodden red, -
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; -
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'

On the other hand sport in France has more often been seen as a way to express a daring individualism, which is why, or so it has been argued, that the French have tended to make heroes out of cyclists and mountaineers rather than the players of team games. For example, the American writer Jon Krakauer in his book Eiger Dreams wrote:

'The French, when it comes right down to it, look at risky sports - and sports in general- in a fundamentally different way than Americans do. We go in for team sports...The French, in marked contrast, are notorious individualists with a fondness for the sensation deed, the stylish twist, the dramatic solitary act.'

The following also captures some of the differences in attitude towards sport in France and Britain:

As Michel Platini once remarked to an English journalist: "You have fans. We have supporters."

Even that isn't strictly true. French supporters are only prepared to rise above the role of mere spectators when their side is playing à la française , producing du beau jeu - which is to say playing with style, wit, talent and imagination.

"The French are too cold; they don't get behind their teams," says Patrick Mignon, an academic and author of La Passion du Football. "They are more ironic spectators than supporters. If they're playing well, they'll cheer them. If not, it's scorn and derision if you're lucky - and if you're not, complete indifference."

... Tellingly, French football supporters talk about their national or even their home-side using the third person plural. It is always "They were wonderful" or "They were pathetic", never "We".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/1 ... l.euro2004

BikingBernie

P.s. Here is a quote from Armstrong about the attitudes of the French towards his 'wins' in the Tour:

So what does he believe is behind the French anti-Armstrong mentality? "I think the way that I raced the Tour; the methodical robotic approach to racing; not showing emotion; not showing pain, suffering or ease. It's not a popular style of racing in France. To them, panache is the guy who suffers swinging all over his bike looking like he is about to fall off. I never found that to be an effective way to try and win.”

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... rong_nov08

RichN95.

It's strange, a week or so ago I suggested that French riders were more interested in getting on TV showing their 'panache' and playing up to the French crowd than they were in winning and I was called xenophobic. Cut and paste the same argument from elsewhere and it's 'philosophy' or 'social history'.

I suppose it's easy to get confused when you try to pass yourself off as an intellectual with other people's borrowed opinions rather than form your own.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

It's strange, a week or so ago I suggested that French riders were more interested in getting on TV showing their 'panache' and playing up to the French crowd than they were in winning and I was called xenophobic. Cut and paste the same argument from elsewhere and it's 'philosophy' or 'social history'.

Here I am effectively arguing that for the French followers of the Tour 'winning is not everything' and, for them, it is more important for a rider win with style, or to fail gloriously whist trying to do so, than just to win at any cost.

That is a rather different proposition to your earlier argument that French riders 'just attack to get on the television' and are not actually trying to win at all, that French teams don't even deserve a place on the Tour as they only get in the race because 'they're promised a Tour place regardless of how incompetent they are', and that no one racing in France can even consider themselves even to be a 'proper racer'.

rick_chasey

Why are you arguing about the French in a thread about Lance & former team managers/doctors are about to get done by the USADA?

BikingBernie

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why are you arguing about the French in a thread about Lance & former team managers/doctors are about to get done by the USADA?

Because that is what a number of the posters on here clearly want to discuss in this thread at the moment. Including, or so it seems, yourself. :roll:

Perhaps you should issue yourself with a warning for going off-topic and lock the thread. :roll:

rick_chasey

BikingBernie wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why are you arguing about the French in a thread about Lance & former team managers/doctors are about to get done by the USADA?

Because that is what a number of the posters on here clearly want to discuss in this thread at the moment. Including, or so it seems, yourself. :roll:

Perhaps you should issue yourself with a warning for going off-topic and lock the thread. :roll:

The odd tangent off topics is fine. It's part of a discussion.

If the off topic tangent BECOMES the discussion, the discussion longer on topic. People come here to read and write about pro-race - not national attitudes to life, winning, and losing. There is another part of the forum for that. I'd be happy to point you there.

We've all been there, when there's that bait, that big incorrect thing that you must write to correct or argue about. I get that. Hence the post. Consider that a nudge to start writing back on topic.