Lance Armstrong - which came first?

bikeleasingco

We'll all be aware of the doping debacle and Lance Armstrong, particularly in light of the upcoming interview.

Armstrong has been accused of being a protagonist of doping within the sport. Clearly doping should not be tolerated.

I wonder though, did Armstrong adopt doping as as the only way to get to the top (and the real earning region) within a sport where he already knew doping was rife, or did his success create a situation where other competitors could only win if they doped, thus exacerbating the problem?

If you think about it, road racing has had to compete with lots of other sports for sponsorship, advertising etc. It (the UCI etc) needed to "build a brand". To do this it needed superstars who could be recognised the world over.

I wonder if that is the case that Armstrong will put forward in his interview?

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Which do you think came first?

keef66

Reading through the USADA Reasoned Decision document I get the impression that the others were at it, LA saw it as the only way his team would ever be able to compete / win. He instigated a better / more comprehensive doping program than the competition, and used his money / influence / bullying to keep it a secret for as long as possible.

I doubt the Oprah interview will shed any more light on matters.

snoopsmydogg

imo doping was rife for many years before LA.

Isn't this really a topic for pro race?

bikeleasingco

snoopsmydogg wrote:

imo doping was rife for many years before LA.

Isn't this really a topic for pro race?

Hi,

I've posted it onto the Pro Race forums as suggested. Thanks.

simon_masterson

I do not think that anybody would dope on the kind of scale that Armstrong did without some kind of long-term goal; therefore I can only presume that Lance planned his little enterprise from the start and did a brilliant job of it. But whether or not he created a situation in which other competitors could only win if they doped is a bit of a moot point, because whilst he was competing they didn't.

But doping has been rife in cycling for decades, and used by winners before and after being outlawed. Others have also been implicated (eg. Big Mig) but I don't like the 'He was good therefore he must have cheated' witchhunt mentality.

ugo.santalucia

If you associate Armstrong with the rise of doping, you lack a bit of perspective.
You might be able to find a film where Coppi and Bartali in the late 1940s sing together a little jingle about "the bomb" which was a mixture of amphetamine and God knows what they used at the time as performance enhancer. It was not illegal at the time...
Tom Simpson died of amphetamine abuse and dehydration on the slopes of the Mont Ventoux, of course.
You can probably also find photos of Eddie Merckx crying when he was disqualified from the Giro d'Italia as they found banned substances in his urine. And of course even EPO was well used and abused before Lance Armstrong became a star... it was already in the peloton in the early 1990s, when Armstrong was an emerging young talent and the star was Greg Lemond

Camus

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If you associate Armstrong with the rise of doping, you lack a bit of perspective.
You might be able to find a film where Coppi and Bartali in the late 1940s sing together a little jingle about "the bomb" which was a mixture of amphetamine and God knows what they used at the time as performance enhancer. It was not illegal at the time...
Tom Simpson died of amphetamine abuse and dehydration on the slopes of the Mont Ventoux, of course.
You can probably also find photos of Eddie Merckx crying when he was disqualified from the Giro d'Italia as they found banned substances in his urine. And of course even EPO was well used and abused before Lance Armstrong became a star... it was already in the peloton in the early 1990s, when Armstrong was an emerging young talent and the star was Greg Lemond

Yes, good post. Amphetamines, alcohol, ether, painkillers and other stimulants (Henri and Charles Pelissier mention chloroform, strychnine and horse ointment, whatever that was) have been used by cyclists to assist performance and recovery since the earliest days of the grand tours, (1903 onwards for the TdF) so it shouldn't be a surprise that this already intrinsic culture of using more straightforward and well-known drugs became something more sophisticated, as technology and medicine themselves became more sophisticated and increased the availability to riders and teams of substances such as HGH, EPO and testosterone.

To the OP I think it was most likely 50/50; Lance knew that to get to the top he would have to dope, but his programme made doping an art-form where his team was able to push the limit and manipulate of the amount of EPO in the blood stream to the maximum, (Tyler Hamilton refers to this as the 'glow time', the period immediately after a transfusion of fresh red blood cell rich blood or a shot of EPO), before the number of red blood cells in the blood reached the threshold that alerted UCI's drug testers (until more recent, stricter tests were brought in there was an allowable 'grace' amount of this). This has to have contributed to the development and refinement of doping itself.

But Armstrong, although contemporaneously we see him as this doyen of doping, is just the next in line from a long line of riders who used every available form of assistance to improve their performance (be it drugs or tactics/gamesmanship) to help them to succeed. Additionally, too many times has cycling announced that it has purged and cleansed itself of drugs cheats, only to find itself dragged back down by that rider/those riders next in line. We all hope that Lance is the last in that line, but it's impossible to say that there isn't another team right now taking doping to the next level, aided by all that this scandal has brought to light.

dmclite-3.0

A good balanced chat about the Armstrong affair and good to mention that doping in one form or another has always been present in cycling. Mercxk, coppi, Bartali.....the list could go on indefinitely. It oes strike me that LA has fallen from grace (rightly so) but do we purge all podium placed riders in his era ? do we Get Hincapies national titles stripped ? Is it fair LA has gone down, Hamilton too but not a word on Hincapie, LA's Lieutenant at Postal for many wins.

It is a total mess, gutted at what has come out about LA, but knowing that Eddy Mercxk doped doesn't diminish his cycling legacy for me, so why should it be different for LA ? Eddy was called "The Cannibal" for the way he rode and beat all comers and has been admired for it.

Lots of paradoxes to consider here, cycling is such a difficult sport to like sometimes, but I just can't help but love it, all of it, doping and scandal as well.

Bit of a meandering post, sorry, feeling a bit whimsical today.

bikeleasingco

Great responses everyone. Thank you.

This may be somewhat controversial, but is the general concensus that doping was so rife during the LA period that the only logical conclusion is that any winner must have used some form of performance enhancing drug?

If this is the case, I have a couple of questions:

How are race times over the same distance continuing to reduce? Is it the performance of the equipment, the training regimes or the human?

Is there value in stripping titles at all if everyone knew the score and they were all "working the system" in one way or another. I have to hope that at least some of the competitors were racing without drugs. Perhaps it just needs to be called the doping era and be left at that. At least, that might remove the "scandelous" element that is enabling these riders to get the publicity they do not really deserve.

It would take a brave official to make that happen.

Would it be better to introduce a new award that is recognised as being doping free and subject to the most rigorous checks by independent adjudicators?

Natrually, I feel considerable sympathy for those who did not use any performance enhancing drugs and did not achieve the recognition they may have recieved if everyone was cycling drug free. Those are the people who must have competed purely for the love of the sport.

Thoughts?

ugo.santalucia

bikeleasingco wrote:

Great responses everyone. Thank you.

This may be somewhat controversial, but is the general concensus that doping was so rife during the LA period that the only logical conclusion is that any winner must have used some form of performance enhancing drug?

If this is the case, I have a couple of questions:

How are race times over the same distance continuing to reduce? Is it the performance of the equipment, the training regimes or the human?

Is there value in stripping titles at all if everyone knew the score and they were all "working the system" in one way or another. I have to hope that at least some of the competitors were racing without drugs. Perhaps it just needs to be called the doping era and be left at that. At least, that might remove the "scandelous" element that is enabling these riders to get the publicity they do not really deserve.

It would take a brave official to make that happen.

Would it be better to introduce a new award that is recognised as being doping free and subject to the most rigorous checks by independent adjudicators?

Natrually, I feel considerable sympathy for those who did not use any performance enhancing drugs and did not achieve the recognition they may have recieved if everyone was cycling drug free. Those are the people who must have competed purely for the love of the sport.

Thoughts?

Incorrect again. Before Armstrong there was just as much EPO in the peloton and doping was just as cynical and scientific. Conconi, Ferrari, all these so called sport physicians were very active since the late 1980s. Riis was full of EPO when he won the Tour and so was Pantani... Chiappucci, Indurain... Armstrong did not invent anythnig that was not in place before him... including team doping.

gloomyandy

There was a BBC radio program that had a look at performances in recent tours v older ones. from a statistical performance basis. They found that recent tours have had far fewer attacks etc. in the closing parts of a stage (on big climbs etc.) and that in general the performance in more recent tours has been down. Thus supporting the notion that there is less (or perhaps less effective) doping going on now...

Camus

gloomyandy wrote:

There was a BBC radio program that had a look at performances in recent tours v older ones. from a statistical performance basis. They found that recent tours have had far fewer attacks etc. in the closing parts of a stage (on big climbs etc.) and that in general the performance in more recent tours has been down. Thus supporting the notion that there is less (or perhaps less effective) doping going on now...

Do you mean 'Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth'? That's definitely worth listening to. I've also found interviews with the journalist David Walsh, as well as his books, very insightful.

I think it will be almost impossible to say if any other riders, race winners or members of major teams were also doping, due to inconsistencies in blood and urine testing. Hamilton for example has mentioned how he would just hide in his house when the UCI spooks called. What caught out Lance was a growing mountain of personal testimonies and eye witnesses to his doping routine, and disbelief at his level of performance, as much as testing. When Lance first won the tour, many (fans, commentators, experts) were willing, in fact wanted, to buy into the unreal fairy-tale comeback, but I think what developed in certain sections of the media and cycling world was the realisation that his riding was just that, unreal, that we couldn't believe what we were seeing, shouldn't believe it.

Referring to a 'doping era' would be too much of a simplification since doping and drug use aren't confined to one specific time period, spanning as they do, the sports origins through to contemporary events. It's obviously in the interests of the TdF itself to say that these actions are confined to one period and try and fashion that narrative, since its directors want to retain its legitimacy as the sport's greatest event, but doping is a more complex phenomenon than this.

Christophe Bassons was famously one of the clean riders during the Festina scandal in 1998, the fall-out from this and his refusal to dope pretty much ended his career, but I'm sure there must have been others riding in silent frustration, knowing that if everybody was clean they could be capable of being front runners.

dmclite-3.0

bikeleasingco wrote:

Great responses everyone. Thank you.

This may be somewhat controversial, but is the general concensus that doping was so rife during the LA period that the only logical conclusion is that any winner must have used some form of performance enhancing drug?

If this is the case, I have a couple of questions:

How are race times over the same distance continuing to reduce? Is it the performance of the equipment, the training regimes or the human?

Is there value in stripping titles at all if everyone knew the score and they were all "working the system" in one way or another. I have to hope that at least some of the competitors were racing without drugs. Perhaps it just needs to be called the doping era and be left at that. At least, that might remove the "scandelous" element that is enabling these riders to get the publicity they do not really deserve.

It would take a brave official to make that happen.

Would it be better to introduce a new award that is recognised as being doping free and subject to the most rigorous checks by independent adjudicators?

Natrually, I feel considerable sympathy for those who did not use any performance enhancing drugs and did not achieve the recognition they may have recieved if everyone was cycling drug free. Those are the people who must have competed purely for the love of the sport.

Thoughts?

I think you make a fair and valid point about calling that era "The Doping Era" and leave it at that. If the most prolific riders, contenders and runners up were all doping then there should either be a major cull (that started with LA) or leave them, give LA back his titles and put it in the history books as a bad time.

I just think LA rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but driven competitive people are mostly arrogant and confident to a certain level.

lotus49

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

I just think LA rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but driven competitive people are mostly arrogant and confident to a certain level.

LA is a nasty piece of work. It is not the case that he is merely arrogant, he is vindictive, aggressive and vicious. He has done his best to wreck the careers of journalists and fellow cyclists who have crossed him and has thought nothing of saying so explicitly to them. He has even been brazen enough to threaten cyclists in the peloton (eg Simeoni - you can admire his handiwork on YouTube if you are interested).

Ugo is absolutely correct in saying that doping was rife long before LA appeared. I don't like doping but that isn't why I dislike LA so much. It is the way he has behaved towards other people that offends me so much.

I still think he would have been a great cyclist though. If everyone had raced clean, I thnk he would have been up there with the best and may even have been as successful as he was doping.

simon_masterson

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

bikeleasingco wrote:

Great responses everyone. Thank you.

This may be somewhat controversial, but is the general concensus that doping was so rife during the LA period that the only logical conclusion is that any winner must have used some form of performance enhancing drug?

If this is the case, I have a couple of questions:

How are race times over the same distance continuing to reduce? Is it the performance of the equipment, the training regimes or the human?

Is there value in stripping titles at all if everyone knew the score and they were all "working the system" in one way or another. I have to hope that at least some of the competitors were racing without drugs. Perhaps it just needs to be called the doping era and be left at that. At least, that might remove the "scandelous" element that is enabling these riders to get the publicity they do not really deserve.

It would take a brave official to make that happen.

Would it be better to introduce a new award that is recognised as being doping free and subject to the most rigorous checks by independent adjudicators?

Natrually, I feel considerable sympathy for those who did not use any performance enhancing drugs and did not achieve the recognition they may have recieved if everyone was cycling drug free. Those are the people who must have competed purely for the love of the sport.

Thoughts?

I think you make a fair and valid point about calling that era "The Doping Era" and leave it at that. If the most prolific riders, contenders and runners up were all doping then there should either be a major cull (that started with LA) or leave them, give LA back his titles and put it in the history books as a bad time.

I just think LA rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but driven competitive people are mostly arrogant and confident to a certain level.

The problem with this cull is that it relies on a great deal of evidence that simply isn't there. Testing practices have changed, detection methods have changed (but still aren't nearly adequate, evidently), and still even if it were possible to determine with complete certainty whether or not every single rider that has ever competed in a major competition was using drugs at the time, the number of results and winners that would be struck from the book would be enormous; many grand tour victors would vanish (and we already know that some of them were doing it), and that's assuming that you start from when anti-doping measures were first introduced.

In my view it would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I would like to agree with the proposed logic, but I tend to fall on the side of pragmatism; in practice the system will never be perfect. Crucifying Lance might appear unfair or disproportionate given all of the other cheats who are either unpunished or not penalised to the same extent, but

A) those people should have been caught at the time, whereas Lance's victories are more recent, and

Armstrong was one of a kind in the scale of his cheating, the achievements it facilitated, and in his bullying behaviour.

Lance Armstrong's exposure and punishment have provided much-needed impetus to the voices opposed to drug cheating in cycling, and indeed propelled the issue into the public domain. The governing bodies have a huge amount of work to do to restore faith, but this affair has demonstrated that there is some willingness to punish cheats; based on their track record you'd be forgiven for thinking that not to be so.

tetley10

I would definitely second the comment about 'Peddlers'. It's still on the iTunes podcasts. Comes in two parts and features Tyler Hamilton talking about the systems they used to use.