Hamilton's autobiography *spoilers*

Lichtblick

I've just ordered this book off Amazon. Hope it arrives soon.

mfin

Lichtblick wrote:

I've just ordered this book off Amazon. Hope it arrives soon.

Damn, I was going to order it. I reckon they should mass produce it in a factory cos a lot of people would buy it.

rick_chasey

I wish we could know what feelings/thoughts Lance would have going through his head when people asked him about EPO or when was cycling over road paintings with LANCE POSTAL or a massive c*ck with an EPO syringe sticking into it.

Must be a weird existence. Being one of the biggest dopers (according to this anyway) and the fiercest denier.

disgruntledgoat

Rick Chasey wrote:

I wish we could know what feelings/thoughts Lance would have going through his head when people asked him about EPO or when was cycling over road paintings with LANCE POSTAL or a massive c*ck with an EPO syringe sticking into it.

Must be a weird existence. Being one of the biggest dopers (according to this anyway) and the fiercest denier.

Just grab another Olsen twin and forget about it, I imagine.

slim_boy_fat

Rick Chasey wrote:

I wish we could know what feelings/thoughts Lance would have going through his head when people asked him about EPO or when was cycling over road paintings with LANCE POSTAL or a massive c*ck with an EPO syringe sticking into it.

Must be a weird existence. Being one of the biggest dopers (according to this anyway) and the fiercest denier.

Surely you must get to the stage where you can rationalise it to being the right thing to do. Both doping and deceiving people about it. And top class athletes are different beasts to the rest of us. I read a piece recently that talked about a study done in the nineties that asked athletes and joe public the same question. If you could take a drug that would guarantee you a gold medal at the olympics but would mean you died in five years would you take it? A large majority of the athletes said they would and only a small minority of Joe pubic said the same. These people think in different ways to the rest of us. It what gets them to the top I guess.

Edit: Found it.

In a study conducted from 1982 to 1995, athletes were given a Faustian bargain: They could take a drug which guaranteed them sporting success would also certainly kill them in five years time. An astonishing amount of athletes answered they would take that. It became known as the Goldman Dilemma. Somewhat curiously, a similar study revealed that members of the general population would almost universally decline the offer. It highlights the differences between risks taken by athletes, and therefore the responsibilities of society to prevent harm occurring.

http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30990 ... ng-defence

rick_chasey

I know all that. But lying is lying. You rationalise it however you want to do it, but there's always a moment of reflection where you feel like you're falling.

I know a thing or two about lying, professionally and it's f*cking no fun. You can park it, sure, but it ocassionally comes out to play whether you like it or not.

graeme_s-2

Rick Chasey wrote:

I know all that. But lying is lying. You rationalise it however you want to do it, but there's always a moment of reflection where you feel like you're falling.

I know a thing or two about lying, professionally and it's f*cking no fun. You can park it, sure, but it ocassionally comes out to play whether you like it or not.

Rick... are you Lance Armstrong? Go on, you can tell us...

ocdupalais

Rick Chasey wrote:

I know all that. But lying is lying. You rationalise it however you want to do it, but there's always a moment of reflection where you feel like you're falling.

I know a thing or two about lying, professionally and it's f*cking no fun. You can park it, sure, but it ocassionally comes out to play whether you like it or not.

Tru dat. Although you could swap "ocassionally(sic)" with "eventually"...

Richmond Racer

I;m not sure Bill Gates could afford the amount of professional help Armstrong would/may end up needing.

Yer classic narcissitic personality disorder, rejection by natural and step-father, burying so deep in himself all the lying and cheating...

I think he may end up going postal..

sorry...

slim_boy_fat

Rick Chasey wrote:

I know all that. But lying is lying. You rationalise it however you want to do it, but there's always a moment of reflection where you feel like you're falling.

I know a thing or two about lying, professionally and personally and it's f*cking no fun. You can park it, sure, but it ocassionally comes out to play whether you like it or not.

Totally agree, no way I could exist like that. He's a human being so there must be days that it gets to him, but I'm willing to bet he has a lot less days like that than anybody else. And I reckon he just used all the signs painted on the road as motivation. I get the feeling that winning was the single most important thing to him so whatever it took to win was worth it. I'm not sure that's true for the vast majority of people.

dennisn

RichN95 wrote:

'Better Responder' has become a get-out clause which permits people to demonize one doper (typically Armstrong) while still remaining fond of others (Pantani & Ullrich are favourites here). Some may even use it to portray their favourite doper as a victim. In reality they are all cheats, so don't complain that another cheat turned out to be a better cheat that your pet cheat.

+1.. I like the way you put that.

dsoutar

RichN95 wrote:

'Better Responder' has become a get-out clause which permits people to demonize one doper (typically Armstrong) while still remaining fond of others (Pantani & Ullrich are favourites here). Some may even use it to portray their favourite doper as a victim. In reality they are all cheats, so don't complain that another cheat turned out to be a better cheat that your pet cheat.

It's pretty depressing tbh. I have what some old-fashioned people might call a romantic nature. I get very emotional about sport (I don't mean in the football fan manner, I mean genuinely emotional) . So with cycling one has one's favourite(s) - then they get caught - you get fed up and finally come out of it and pick some new favourites then they get caught - you get fed up and finally come out of it...

It's a bit like having a girlfriend where you get to the point you're very involved and then you find out they're a ladyboy only to have the experience repeated.

Not that I have any experience of such a matter you know - just an analogy :shock:

Mikey23

I am with you but I think that your last remark is a little unfortunate and possibly discriminatory ..

No_Ta_Doctor

We'll I'm about halfway through now.

The picture Hamilton paints of LA isn't one that really supports the idea that he'd have a problem with either the lying or the cheating aspect of doping.

Neither of them considered it cheating, it was just doing what everyone else was doing but doing it better. Competitive doping was just part of the sport.

As for the lying - it's not really lying, it's just PR, for LA - or that's the feeling I get. The plebs don't understand what doping is really about, so don't tell them, they'll just get upset.

DeadCalm

I've just finished it. A very interesting and occasionally shocking read.

As I've said elsewhere the allegations of UCI being complicit with Lance are pretty persuasive but not compelling. The UCI does have questions to answer though.

Interesting that both he and Floyd got busted for things they are adamant they hadn't done even though they've admitted to everything else. One thing is clear, back in the days of US Postal, the only way you would be caught is if you were sloppy.

skylla

So DeadCalm & No t'a Doc now you've both finished the read, I would be interested to know what kinda taste that leaves with you guys. I'm assuming you knew the situation was bad, perhaps not THAT bad, but did it leave you a bit sickened as a cycling fan? I'm trying to avoid reading these 'tell it all' confessions (for now) as it must be so so sad. Now you're an 'insider' so to say to the habits and psyche of these guys, did you wish you rather not know? I'm intrigued..

No_Ta_Doctor

skylla wrote:

So DeadCalm & No t'a Doc now you've both finished the read, I would be interested to know what kinda taste that leaves with you guys. I'm assuming you knew the situation was bad, perhaps not THAT bad, but did it leave you a bit sickened as a cycling fan? I'm trying to avoid reading these 'tell it all' confessions (for now) as it must be so so sad. Now you're an 'insider' so to say to the habits and psyche of these guys, did you wish you rather not know? I'm intrigued..

Well I turned off cycling after Festina, and only switched it back on after Floyd's letter looked like things might get shaken up. It was only the fact that teams like Garmin existed that made it possible to watch at all.

So I missed LA's tour wins and Floyd and Hamilton's busts, along with a lot of other bad stuff.

The taste I got from the book was that I'm glad I turned it off. Unfortunately I'm increasingly getting the feeling I should probably switch it off again. This year's vuelta - and all the vehemently anti-Lance people who are creaming themselves over the wonderful attacking racing of a couple of guys that served suspensions - isn't positive.

Some of the stuff that seems worst about the whole thing is just how easy it is to avoid getting caught - unless you're named by another rider or caught with a blood bag in your arm. With people like Bruyneel and Riis still in the sport it's difficult to have much faith in it - though I'm convinced it's improved immeasurably over the last few years.

One of the things that comes over quite strongly is quite how complicit so many people, including the UCI, have been - and still are.

I didn't have any emotional investment in any of these riders. I thought they were doping and guess what, they were. So no, I don't find it disturbing from that perspective, I've not had any heroes ruined or dreams shattered. I thought it was bad and it was.

Mainly it leaves me angry that these people pissed on our sport, collectively.

What I really don't like about it is that it leaves us, as cycling fans now, unable to have much faith in any rider or team. Our instinctive reaction to any good performance is to run it past the credibility check. We want to know the W/Kg. We want to know why one rider was able to gap another - natural or assisted? It doesn't make for an enjoyable experience most of the time. Cycling is a romantic sport, it's about feats of heroism, struggle, pain, bravery. It's built to idolise those qualities. But there really aren't that many riders about that it feels safe to idolise now. That's the sad cloud that hangs over cycling.

So no, I don't think there was anything I wasn't expecting in the book, but I can't see all that much incentive for things to have changed (the gains may be more marginal now, and its possible for clean riders to win, but its still a viable short cut) and it feels like it could only have been the tip of the iceberg that Hamilton revealed. Most of it is Postal. There's just so much more out there, so many people still involved with the sport.

Sorry, just rambled on there. Don't think anyone's ever I asked me how i feel about it before :oops:

Mikey23

Well said ...

dennisn

No tA Doctor wrote:

Cycling is a romantic sport, it's about feats of heroism, struggle, pain, bravery. It's built to idolise those qualities. But there really aren't that many riders about that it feels safe to idolise now. That's the sad cloud that hangs over cycling.

I tend to disagree(go figure). I think the sad cloud that hangs over cycling is the people who idolise, so called, sporting heros as Gods and role models. Very sad to me that someone can't find better role models and heroes than athletes. If these people were or are your idols you seriously need to sit down and ask yourself WTF was / am I thinking. Idols?? - good god people get it together. :roll: :roll:

DeadCalm

I think I came out of it feeling sad more than anything. I really get the impression that most of these guys didn't want to cheat. The fact was that the peloton was so doped up that just to finish in the bunch consistently a good rider had to be on EPO. Hamilton talks about the 1000 day rule which is roughly when many riders dope for the first time. The first year they're a keen neo-pro just excited to be there, the second year they simply can't keep up with the peloton and the third year they realise that they have to dope or go home.

He also talks about a stage win where he's smiling and happy on the outside but already as he crosses the line is worrying about the drug test that he'll be faced with as a result.

I'm a lot more positive than No tA Doctor about where we are at the moment in terms of doping though. Hamilton talks at length about 'the numbers' (hematocrit, W/KG, etc.), something that they all seem to have been obsessed with. My understanding is that the Biological Passport has made the situation where even if riders are still doping (and I'm sure there are still some) the gains that they are getting are so minimal that the risks are barely worth it. I'm also pretty confident that riders are able to now compete 'paniagua' (a bastardisation of the Spanish for bread and water that Hamilton uses when he means riding clean) so that young riders aren't faced with the same hard choices that most everyone who had ambitions to be a professional bike rider faced back then.

ocdupalais

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Cycling is a romantic sport, it's about feats of heroism, struggle, pain, bravery. It's built to idolise those qualities. But there really aren't that many riders about that it feels safe to idolise now. That's the sad cloud that hangs over cycling.

I tend to disagree(go figure). I think the sad cloud that hangs over cycling is the people who idolise, so called, sporting heros as Gods and role models. Very sad to me that someone can't find better role models and heroes than athletes. If these people were or are your idols you seriously need to sit down and ask yourself WTF was / am I thinking. Idols?? - good god people get it together. :roll: :roll:

I can feel an endless circular argument that satisfies no one coming on...

Who better than sporting heroes as idols and role models? Business leaders? Politicians? Army generals? Our boys and girls on the front line? Nurses? Mum? Dad? Bono?...While all these (flawed) human beings trying to do their best in sometimes adverse situations, other people's lives aren't always that interesting: perhaps civilised societies need to develop some sort of range of activities involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment...

Whatever that thing is, perhaps it could also come to symbolise something we come to see as a beautiful crystallisation of all that's futile, brilliant and ridiculous about life... Let's call it "sport" and let's let it keep us occasionally preoccupied while we scrub around on this simultaneously fabulous and disappointing planet for what will amount to a fleeting visit...
Blimey, I haven't even had a beer yet and look at the time...

I can't think of anyone else more fitting of my hero-worship than the blokes who ride their bikes like the pro-peloton: and right now, especially all over Spain, there are young kids itching to get out on their bikes tomorrow and ride like Contador, J Rod and Ian Stannard...

dennisn

OCDuPalais wrote:

Who better than sporting heroes as idols and role models?
I can't think of anyone else more fitting of my hero-worship than the blokes who ride their bikes like the pro-peloton:

Who better??? How about your parents, family members, friends??? I'm going to bet that these people were and still are there for you when you need them. When was the last time you were able to call a pro cyclist and have him drop everything to come and get you and your bike on account of a breakdown??? Who spent the day helping you move into that house or apartment? Pro athletes?? How does being good at sports make you a good role model? Is LA a good role model? How about JB? They were / are good at what they do. Right??? So therefore good role models?? Right??? I could name dozens like this. All good riders, all doped up. Good role models??? Who would you rather have raise your kids? People you trust and know or some pro athlete that you haven't got a clue about other than he rides fast??? Ask yourself who you trust and I think you'll find your real role models.
As for hero worship, all I can say is that it's for little kids.

ocdupalais

dennisn wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Who better than sporting heroes as idols and role models?
I can't think of anyone else more fitting of my hero-worship than the blokes who ride their bikes like the pro-peloton:

Who better??? How about your parents, family members, friends??? I'm going to bet that these people were and still are there for you when you need them.

Nah.. they're all @rseholes really. Why would I listen to them?
Don't get me wrong - I love them dearly, but now I'm an adult, I take much of what they say and do with a pinch of salt.
Besides, it's usually because of them that I might have needed assistance in the first place. Can I take it you don't come from a "broken home"?
Ever had your heart broken?

It's usually those closest to you, the ones you trusted, that inflict the deepest wounds... as yet pro cyclists have only registered "acute disappointment" in my life.
As you say, it's "for little kids" the stuff of hero worship - I'd agree. And perhaps role-models could be confined to those formative years (what's that 5-95 years old?)... you know, before you have everything worked-out and sorted in your life.
Why do we have "role-models" or heroes? As a generalisation, I'd say it's because they serve show us how we might conduct ourselves in difficult situations or perform something, perhaps a duty, that we may have agreed to previously but currently don't feel like doing much.
It would be preposterous to apply the same critical analysis of their behaviour as I might do to for, say, sporting figures; as they occupy completely different spheres of my life. My agreement with my missus is that we can carry on living nicely with one another if we don't sleep with other people: my agreement with Lance Armstrong is that I'll be his fan, and buy the sh!t he endorses, if he wins bike races and that he does within the (arbitrary) rules.

dennisn wrote:

Good role models??? Who would you rather have raise your kids? People you trust and know or some pro athlete that you haven't got a clue about other than he rides fast??? Ask yourself who you trust and I think you'll find your real role models.

Nope, you've lost me there - but I'm liking the idea that I might get Laurens Ten Dam around to knock up an omelette for the kids because their mother can't cook for toffee...

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Cycling is a romantic sport, it's about feats of heroism, struggle, pain, bravery. It's built to idolise those qualities. But there really aren't that many riders about that it feels safe to idolise now. That's the sad cloud that hangs over cycling.

I tend to disagree(go figure). I think the sad cloud that hangs over cycling is the people who idolise, so called, sporting heros as Gods and role models. Very sad to me that someone can't find better role models and heroes than athletes. If these people were or are your idols you seriously need to sit down and ask yourself WTF was / am I thinking. Idols?? - good god people get it together. :roll: :roll:

You're a little hard of understanding dennis. I'm talking purely in the context of cycling. Sporting heroes. I absolutely never said anything about role models. I have precious few heroes/idols in any walk of life, and for the most part my idolisation is only relevant to the field in which they were famous in. Miles Davis is a musical idol, but I don't think he was a particularly nice human being.

No_Ta_Doctor

DeadCalm wrote:

I think I came out of it feeling sad more than anything. I really get the impression that most of these guys didn't want to cheat. The fact was that the peloton was so doped up that just to finish in the bunch consistently a good rider had to be on EPO. Hamilton talks about the 1000 day rule which is roughly when many riders dope for the first time. The first year they're a keen neo-pro just excited to be there, the second year they simply can't keep up with the peloton and the third year they realise that they have to dope or go home.

He also talks about a stage win where he's smiling and happy on the outside but already as he crosses the line is worrying about the drug test that he'll be faced with as a result.

I'm a lot more positive than No tA Doctor about where we are at the moment in terms of doping though. Hamilton talks at length about 'the numbers' (hematocrit, W/KG, etc.), something that they all seem to have been obsessed with. My understanding is that the Biological Passport has made the situation where even if riders are still doping (and I'm sure there are still some) the gains that they are getting are so minimal that the risks are barely worth it. I'm also pretty confident that riders are able to now compete 'paniagua' (a bastardisation of the Spanish for bread and water that Hamilton uses when he means riding clean) so that young riders aren't faced with the same hard choices that most everyone who had ambitions to be a professional bike rider faced back then.

Yes, the numbers are good, but I'm not sure the culture has changed enough yet. I'm confident that a young rider getting onto the right team will be safe, but otherwise.... I'm also a little worried that there may be a pressure now to "fix" a young rider's number early on, so that the bio passport doesn't show up irregularities later - get a nice high baseline to work with. That could even make it difficult to stop doping later, in effect dropping numbers at a later date might show up earlier doping. I don't know whether this is a real problem, but I'll bet there are a few in cycling that have thought about it.

I'm not entirely convinced by the "we had no choice, it was cheat or go home" argument either. While I'm fairly sure it was true I don't think it excuses the riders that didn't go home quite as thoroughly as some seem to think it does. If you think about it, you can also apply it to the "evil" DSs and doctors - deliver results or get the sack. Poor Bruyneel, he really didn't want to dope his riders, but he'd be out of a job if he didn't, it was cheat or go home. So where does the responsibility rest in the end? Team owners? Sponsors? Most of those guys are probably either clueless or deliberately not looking at what's been swept under the carpet.

That said, I don't think a culture of blame can help the sport go forward. There are some people who are now just too tainted to be allowed to continue in cycling, but as long as we're looking for the scapegoat we won't be fixing what's still broken. And that's the culture. The only way forward is with greater transparency. But there are a lot of riders that aren't keen on it, for various reasons - some entirely innocent.

That's why my overwhelming impression was "what a f****** mess".

DeadCalm

No tA Doctor wrote:

Yes, the numbers are good, but I'm not sure the culture has changed enough yet. I'm confident that a young rider getting onto the right team will be safe, but otherwise.... I'm also a little worried that there may be a pressure now to "fix" a young rider's number early on, so that the bio passport doesn't show up irregularities later - get a nice high baseline to work with. That could even make it difficult to stop doping later, in effect dropping numbers at a later date might show up earlier doping. I don't know whether this is a real problem, but I'll bet there are a few in cycling that have thought about it.

I guess that's a possibility and don't get me wrong I'm sure that there are riders out there seeking to gain an illegal edge. I just think that the possible gains are so small that far fewer riders will be tempted, that those who refuse to cheat can still be successful on the Pro Tour provided that they have the innate ability and that we are no longer in a situation where we can assume that a rider is doping simply because he won. That may not be perfect but it's a whole lot better than the period described in Hamilton's book.

I'm not entirely convinced by the "we had no choice, it was cheat or go home" argument either. While I'm fairly sure it was true I don't think it excuses the riders that didn't go home quite as thoroughly as some seem to think it does. If you think about it, you can also apply it to the "evil" DSs and doctors - deliver results or get the sack. Poor Bruyneel, he really didn't want to dope his riders, but he'd be out of a job if he didn't, it was cheat or go home. So where does the responsibility rest in the end? Team owners? Sponsors? Most of those guys are probably either clueless or deliberately not looking at what's been swept under the carpet.

I'm not excusing those that chose to cheat. There were riders who didn't succumb, who did go home or who hung on at the back of the peloton, so they did have a choice. It's just sad that they were faced with that choice in the first place. As to responsibility for the situation, the doctors seem to have been the most morally corrupt in my view.

That said, I don't think a culture of blame can help the sport go forward. There are some people who are now just too tainted to be allowed to continue in cycling, but as long as we're looking for the scapegoat we won't be fixing what's still broken. And that's the culture. The only way forward is with greater transparency. But there are a lot of riders that aren't keen on it, for various reasons - some entirely innocent.

100% agree.

That's why my overwhelming impression was "what a f****** mess".

Mine was "what a sad f****** mess".

skylla

Thanks for the response DeadC, No TaDoc & OC.

I thought it would be depressing read even though it confirms the many suspicions we'd all had. I'm guessing the only way is up and out of this cesspit. As to who's responsible? I very much think it's a too powerful UCI, who is covering the interests of too many parties, including their own. But it's them that make and set the rules, choose not to abide and turn a blind eye to the performance of certain individuals/teams. They failed the sport big time! I think the UCI is also where the biggest change is required in the coming years to drive cycling forward and out of this downward spiral. Here's to a paniagua future!

No_Ta_Doctor

skylla wrote:

Thanks for the response DeadC, No TaDoc & OC.

I thought it would be depressing read even though it confirms the many suspicions we'd all had. I'm guessing the only way is up and out of this cesspit. As to who's responsible? I very much think it's a too powerful UCI, who is covering the interests of too many parties, including their own. But it's them that make and set the rules, choose not to abide and turn a blind eye to the performance of certain individuals/teams. They failed the sport big time! I think the UCI is also where the biggest change is required in the coming years to drive cycling forward and out of this downward spiral. Here's to a paniagua future!

Oh the UCI have been a big part of the problem, that's for sure. But there's a collective failing as well - riders, management, team staff, journalists and even us as fans - who demand insane climbs and mad attacks and will turn a blind eye to how they're achieved. Here's to bread and water!

ocdupalais

No tA Doctor wrote:

Here's to bread and water!

...and beer. That's allowed too, isn't it?

And some salty snacks - I was always partial to Jamon Jamon crisps in Spain.

I'll admit "paniaguacervezajamonjamon" is a bit of a mouthful, but who said the way forward would be easy?

Turfle

I would not let Ten Dam cook for me.