Armstrong - my take on it

Spaniard

http://noviceroadracer.blogspot.co.uk/

ShutUpLegs

The moon landings never happened.

kentphil

I just don't get how he had all those hundreds of blood/urine tests and nothing was found. Doesn't this mean that the dope testing is pretty much meaningless. How many other slipped through the net?

thegreatdivide

KentPhil wrote:

I just don't get how he had all those hundreds of blood/urine tests and nothing was found. Doesn't this mean that the dope testing is pretty much meaningless. How many other slipped through the net?

$$$

Grill

Ummm, you've missed the entire point of the USADA investigation, much like most out there. They don't care that Lance doped, they went after him because he was the kingpin in a huge doping ring. Seriously, that boy has his fingers in every pie in US cycling. Take a look and see where his financial interests lie and how many companies in which he sits on the board. There's a reason that Lance decided not to fight this, he didn't want all his dirty laundry to be aired publicly.

It's never been about him doping or stripping him of his TdF titles. The former has always been a foregone conclusion and the latter was simply a consequence of him being a very naughty boy. As has been mentioned its all about the money. In this life 99 questions out of 100 can be answered with money and this is no exception.

xhacker

Grill wrote:

Ummm, you've missed the entire point of the USADA investigation, much like most out there. They don't care that Lance doped, they went after him because he was the kingpin in a huge doping ring. Seriously, that boy has his fingers in every pie in US cycling. Take a look and see where his financial interests lie and how many companies in which he sits on the board. There's a reason that Lance decided not to fight this, he didn't want all his dirty laundry to be aired publicly.

It's never been about him doping or stripping him of his TdF titles. The former has always been a foregone conclusion and the latter was simply a consequence of him being a very naughty boy. As has been mentioned its all about the money. In this life 99 questions out of 100 can be answered with money and this is no exception.

Agreed!

The untouchable has been touched!
He was right, it's not about the bike. It's all about the money (and power).
The world of cycling cannot seriously expect to continue under its present guise. If the UCI have told the truth and judging by the comments I've read, not many think they are. What the hell was their roll in this desperate, sordid recent history?
I seriously hope Kimmage has his say in Switzerland!

giant_man

I do agree, he doesn't give a $hit about the actual racing or pro cycling in general imo. His recent comments, which was reported on road.cc just shows the absolute arrogance of the man.

http://road.cc/content/news/68569-lance ... -sanctions

verylonglegs

You are 44 and you use yawn as an expression like a teenager. Perhaps forget the blogging and concentrate on your cycling?

meesterbond

verylonglegs wrote:

You are 44 and you use yawn as an expression like a teenager. Perhaps forget the blogging and concentrate on your cycling?

Or perhaps actually read some of the findings and then write something meaningful.

There should be enough in the USADA report to keep Armstrong in court for most of the next decade.

Mikey23

My local gym has a couple of shiny new livestrong cycling machines with that lovely yellow logo on the side. Now I wonder who gets a kick back for that and on what basis that contract was awarded?

AchillesLeftKnee

Grill wrote:

Ummm, you've missed the entire point of the USADA investigation, much like most out there. They don't care that Lance doped, they went after him because he was the kingpin in a huge doping ring. Seriously, that boy has his fingers in every pie in US cycling. Take a look and see where his financial interests lie and how many companies in which he sits on the board. There's a reason that Lance decided not to fight this, he didn't want all his dirty laundry to be aired publicly.

It's never been about him doping or stripping him of his TdF titles. The former has always been a foregone conclusion and the latter was simply a consequence of him being a very naughty boy. As has been mentioned its all about the money. In this life 99 questions out of 100 can be answered with money and this is no exception.

There's more to it than that, I'd say. Reading that report, it seems to me the USADA were after the code of silence more than anything else. I may entirely wrong, but the following strikes me as a pretty good summary of it...

Drug testing and biological passports can't beat sophisticated and well planned doping. The dopers are always ahead, and will almost certainly remain so. However, staying ahead is beyond the means of a bloke shooting up in the bogs. Staying ahead requires the involvement of a large number of people - fellow competitors, team management, team employees, wives, friends, and those who'd tip the setup off regarding testing. We've got some of those people to talk, and not just about a nobody or someone who's dead, but about one of cycling's big dogs who's very much alive. We've done it once, and we'll do it again. So, do you want to keep doping?

Mikey23

Good point well made

upperoilcan

It's way bigger than Amrstrong alone...

The damage this has done to Road cycling in general is unrepairable..

boristhespie

Personally while I can't codone any drug taking I believe that this is a cultural issue within cycling and has been for years. As such I find it difficult to blame the riders who look at Hindcaappi's statement are between a rock and a hard place. This problem is the direct result of management, sponsors and the UCI who viewed cyclists as little more than machines and advertising hoardings and placed so much pressure on the riders and their bodies and expected so much that in all honesty the riders had huge pressures placed on them to perform and by extension become involved in drugs.

I mean so much drugs in one sports over so many years, you have to say there was a culture of it. The riders were at the mercy of ruthless facilitators.

Mikey23

@spaniard... ok, ive looked at your blog. thanks for your opinion. one that ive heard many, many times before and makes little sense to me. i suspect that your view of the world (in this matter) is a little limited

hipshot

upperoilcan wrote:

It's way bigger than Amrstrong alone...

The damage this has done to Road cycling in general is unrepairable..

Yet pro cycling is more popular than ever.

Fans seem quite able to accept - in the back of their minds at least - that their heroes are probably/possibly juiced and they still enjoy the sport anyway. Once we accept the obvious, that pro sport is about money, and that it has never been making more of it; we could be saying Crisis? What Crisis?

Cycling has never been the pristine showcase for human physical achievement that some seem to think it is. It's much more interesting than that.

butcher of bakersfield

upperoilcan wrote:

It's way bigger than Amrstrong alone...

The damage this has done to Road cycling in general is unrepairable..

Is it? I think it's been a positive year. You can sense a turning point. In that there's no longer a pressure for racers to take drugs. There's now a pressure for them to NOT take drugs. Which can only be a good thing.

Or I could be naive. People have been saying this since the 60s, haven't they :?

Cannock Chase

Drug taking is cheating. Attempting to get an unfair advantage over your fellow competitors. Or perhaps with some it's simply being able to keep up and do your job. But cycling is by no means the only sport in which cheating is prevalent.

Take the biggest sport..... Football.
Cheating has become an integral part of the game. Diving with or without the slightest touch in order to get a penalty/freekick is cheating. Even match pundits sometimes criticise a player for NOT falling over in order to win a penalty. Attempting to con the referee is cheating. And how one player can try to get an opponent booked or sent off is totally beyond my understanding of sportsmanship. All cheating.

Cycling is not the only professional sport with its problems but at least it's trying to do something about it.

LiamW

Would he have won the TDF so many times had he not done what done? I'm not up to speed on what drugs do what and when, all i would be asking is if he had an ability to win a grand tour after he came back from testicular cancer?

LiamW

Cannock Chase wrote:

Drug taking is cheating. Attempting to get an unfair advantage over your fellow competitors. Or perhaps with some it's simply being able to keep up and do your job. But cycling is by no means the only sport in which cheating is prevalent.

Take the biggest sport..... Football.
Cheating has become an integral part of the game. Diving with or without the slightest touch in order to get a penalty/freekick is cheating. Even match pundits sometimes criticise a player for NOT falling over in order to win a penalty. Attempting to con the referee is cheating. And how one player can try to get an opponent booked or sent off is totally beyond my understanding of sportsmanship. All cheating.

Cycling is not the only professional sport with its problems but at least it's trying to do something about it.

Drugs in cycling has been there since the 60's. Why has it taken to 2012 to do something about it as you say?

Bozman

upperoilcan wrote:

The damage this has done to Road cycling in general is unrepairable..

The only damage done is in the minds of people who know squat about cycling, to everyone else it's old news and generally the sport has turned a corner.

It's quite funny the way the media are asking - " Do you feel let down by Armstrong?" ....... no, why should i, he was still the best of that era whether he took drugs or didn't because most of the peleton were at it and that's just the way the sport was then, it was an uneven even playing field.

Plus I don't know how you can class it as cheating, Ben Johnson cheated because he was the only one of eight, the top eight TDF finishers were all probably on something.

Cannock Chase

LiamW wrote:

...Drugs in cycling has been there since the 60's. Why has it taken to 2012 to do something about it as you say?

Some have been trying to something about it since 1967 when Tommy Simpson died. Unfortunately the do-badders are more determined than the do-gooders..!! Perhaps this high profile case may be the shot in the arm (no pun intended..) that cycling needs. But somehow........

Team4Luke

yet other american sports are full of almost approved doping, will the americans be going for more of their own or just any american athlete who happens to be a cyclist.................

Silverbull

giant man wrote:

I do agree, he doesn't give a $hit about the actual racing or pro cycling in general imo. His recent comments, which was reported on road.cc just shows the absolute arrogance of the man.

http://road.cc/content/news/68569-lance ... -sanctions

Armstrong’s lawyer Mark Fabiani, describing the blood analysis as representing “no evidence at all,” insisted there was a clear dividing line between those who dope and those who ride clean and that his client had never crossed it.

Clever lawyer speak there... No word of a lie.... Never rode clean... What a douchbag

greentea

Drugs or not, i think it was at a time when everyone was taking it anyway, so its not like it was an un-level playing field. The only thing Armstrong has done was to do the whole doping thing better than the others.

I don't agree with the testosterone stuff, the guy didn't have any balls so to take a testosterone supplement to me is just leveling the playing field for himself as all the other riders had balls so therefore were producing testosterone.

What gets me is the double-standards. They have got ex-riders to say Armstrong doped but they don't mention the fact that if the ex-riders were doping, along with all the other ex-riders, then who was actually clean? because from where i'm sitting they were all taking it, which means no one had a complete advantage, so whats the big deal? how credible are these ex-dopers if they doped? no one seems to be asking this. You wouldnt believe the words of an alcoholic pointing the finger at another guy accusing him of being alcoholic would you?

Doped or not, the guy has still had to drag his ass over 7 Tour de France races, its not like its a walk in the park even with EPO in his system. Im sure if we all took EPO it wouldnt mean we would all suddenly be able to take on the Tour.

The trouble with this enquiry is that its taking modern day ethics and applying them to a time when there werent any. So what do we do? go back and round up every person whos called a black man a 'nigga' because we dont accept it anymore? grab everyones Jim Fixed It For Me badges back because it turns out hes a kiddy-fiddler? where does it end?

Grill

How naive. As I said it had nothing to do with his doping, but the fact that he ran a ring that went deeper than anyone thought.

Take a look:

Joeblack

Honestly this is getting way to much attention, like Tiger Woods doing the dirty on his misses, no one cares cuz everyone's at it.

When I get up and go to work tomorrow do you think Lance Armstrongs doping scandal will be on my mind!!

No and it should be on yours either cuz its been and gone. At the end of the day he's no hero he's just a athlete like the rest of them (I could go into how the world does have heroes (soldiers ect) but there's no point) the problem comes when people hold athletes in to high a regard and feel let down when sh1t like this happens.

I don't so I don't.

stickman

Who thinks it is ok to be found guilty on the "evidence" of a bunch of vindictive convicted lying drug cheats?

Grill

stickman wrote:

Who thinks it is ok to be found guilty on the "evidence" of a bunch of vindictive convicted lying drug cheats?

:roll:
Have you seen who gave evidence (Hincapie, Zabriskie, et al.)? You must be living in a fantasy world if you think it's more reasonable to assume 20+ people are lying as opposed to one, especially in the face of such overwhelming evidence at a time where EVERYBODY doped.

stickman

I am not saying he isn't guilty (or innocent) but people do have a 'if we go down we take him with us' attitude in situations.

Grill

stickman wrote:

I am not saying he isn't guilty (or innocent) but people do have a 'if we go down we take him with us' attitude in situations.

Except that half of those that gave evidence had just as much to lose, and let's not mention those who's lives he's already ruined.

The reason LA didn't let this go to trial is he wanted to keep as much of his dirty laundry a secret as possible.