Lance Armstrong - which came first?

bikeleasingco
bikeleasingco Posts: 68
edited February 2013 in Pro race
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?
«1

Comments

  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    Well I don't think Indurain was as clean as the driven snow if that's what you're asking.
  • snoopsmydogg
    snoopsmydogg Posts: 1,110
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    From a distance, it looks like the system was already in place; but he played it, perpetuated it and pushed the boundaries in an utterly cycnical way, so others joined him and the worse it got. Sort of like MAD.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • kentphil
    kentphil Posts: 479
    Doping was around way before Lance was doing it.

    I think he (Lance) was part of a much bigger conspirisory system. He couldn't of doped for 7 tour wins with no drug detection without help from people above him in the cycling world.
    1998 Kona Cindercone in singlespeed commute spec
    2013 Cannondale Caadx 1x10
    2004 Giant TCR
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    snoopsmydogg wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson

    You need to go back further than that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    KentPhil wrote:
    I think he (Lance) was part of a much bigger conspirisory system. He couldn't of doped for 7 tour wins with no drug detection without help from people above him in the cycling world.
    Yes he could. All the others managed it too. Up until 2005 hardly anyone notable got caught unless they really screwed up.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Scotty-Gee
    Scotty-Gee Posts: 156
    _63449996_tour_de_france_winners_624.jpg
  • snoopsmydogg
    snoopsmydogg Posts: 1,110
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    snoopsmydogg wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson

    You need to go back further than that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling

    just the first one that sprung to mind to show the OP doping was around before LA
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited January 2013
    It's not about if doping was around before Lance. We all know that it was. That's not the OP's question either.

    This is the correct answer to the question.
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    From a distance, it looks like the system was already in place; but he played it, perpetuated it and pushed the boundaries in an utterly cycnical way, so others joined him and the worse it got. Sort of like MAD.
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    Prior to the advent of blood-doping and particularly the advent of blood boosting as developed by the likes of Conconi, Cecchini and Ferrari, funded by CONI in the late 80s there was still a pretty level playing field i.e the strongest riders still won. However, the likes of Chiapucci, Rijs and Armstrong demonstrated that GT riders were no longer just genetically gifted, but that the drugs could provide them 5-10% improvements in performance, taking them from also-rans to winners. What Larry did was cynically exploit the systems and public perceptions to suit his own purpose, and when the likes of Thom Weisel and others realised they could make a hefty fortune on the proceeds, they too joined in.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    ThomThom wrote:
    It's not about if doping was around before Lance. We all know that it was. That's not the OP's question either.

    This is the correct answer to the question.
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    From a distance, it looks like the system was already in place; but he played it, perpetuated it and pushed the boundaries in an utterly cycnical way, so others joined him and the worse it got. Sort of like MAD.

    Yep.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Pross wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    It's not about if doping was around before Lance. We all know that it was. That's not the OP's question either.

    This is the correct answer to the question.
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    From a distance, it looks like the system was already in place; but he played it, perpetuated it and pushed the boundaries in an utterly cycnical way, so others joined him and the worse it got. Sort of like MAD.

    Yep.

    I'll add my +1 to that. Succinctly summarised.
  • conceptual_primate
    conceptual_primate Posts: 81
    Scotty-Gee wrote:
    _63449996_tour_de_france_winners_624.jpg

    As an aside, shouldn't Delgado also have his name 'sullied' here?
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    And Roche and Indurain too, to anyone with half a brain.

    What was Fignon's bust for?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    And Roche and Indurain too, to anyone with half a brain.

    What was Fignon's bust for?

    Highlighted riders tested positive, were sanctioned or admitted to doping. That's why Roche and Indurain were not included. And Fignon admitted it in his book.
  • conceptual_primate
    conceptual_primate Posts: 81
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    And Roche and Indurain too, to anyone with half a brain.

    What was Fignon's bust for?

    I don't disagree with you, but then the graph would then be 'riders known or assumed to be dopers', rather than actually tested positive, sanctioned... etc.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    And Roche and Indurain too, to anyone with half a brain.

    What was Fignon's bust for?

    Highlighted riders tested positive, were sanctioned or admitted to doping. That's why Roche and Indurain were not included. And Fignon admitted it in his book.

    I saw he admitted to taking some coke once, but I don't recall anything further. But then I lent my copy out and never got it back so I may be misremembering.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    I am sure Indurain was as bad as Armstrong, Rominger too. They just got away with it as there was no test at the time. Armstrong is guilty of hubris more than anything else, especially in his comeback. None of this would have happened and he would just be another Indurain...
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    conceptual_primate wrote:
    Scotty-Gee wrote:
    _63449996_tour_de_france_winners_624.jpg

    As an aside, shouldn't Delgado also have his name 'sullied' here?

    Nope. He never failed a test.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    conceptual_primate wrote:
    Scotty-Gee wrote:
    _63449996_tour_de_france_winners_624.jpg

    As an aside, shouldn't Delgado also have his name 'sullied' here?

    Nope. He never failed a test.

    Incorrect

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067577/index.htm
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • Cumulonimbus
    Cumulonimbus Posts: 1,730
    I thought Roche had been proven to have been on EPO in the early 90s but it only came to light years later? (was after his 1987 win )
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Incorrect

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067577/index.htm

    OK, so he tested positive for something that wasn't on the UCI's banned list. How is that a failed test?
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Incorrect

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067577/index.htm

    OK, so he tested positive for something that wasn't on the UCI's banned list. How is that a failed test?

    It was added a month after the Tour, if they weren't looking for it, why test for it? As clear a stitch up as you'll find.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    It was added a month after the Tour, if they weren't looking for it, why test for it? As clear a stitch up as you'll find.

    At the time different sports had different banned lists. The lab that tested his smaple used the IOC list and then that imformation was leaked to the press.

    If you think that is a stitch up, that's fine, maybe it was. But that's not how the list that Scotty Gee posted has been done. Delgado didn't tested positive, wasn't sanctioned and didn't admit to doping.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    I thought Roche had been proven to have been on EPO in the early 90s but it only came to light years later? (was after his 1987 win )
    In March 2000 the Italian judge Franca Oliva published a report detailing the investigation into sports doctors including Conconi. This official judicial investigation unequivocally found that Roche was administered EPO in 1993, his last year in the peloton. Files part of the investigation allegedly detail a number of aliases for Roche including Rocchi, Rossi, Rocca, Roncati, Righi and Rossini. In 2004 Judge Oliva unambiguously found that Roche had taken EPO during 1993 but due to the statute of limitations, neither Roche nor his team-mates at Carrera would be prosecuted.

    So he hasn't tested positive, wasn't sanctioned and hasn't admitted to doping.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    back to the OPs question and already answered earlier the drugs were there first and LA was on them for his entire career it would seem, Ricco is another who has doped since being a junior.

    I think during his illness LA hit on the idea of going as far as he could with his comeback to see what he could achieve. He used every method in the book to cheat and like several other also rans suddenly become a winner despite never showing that form before.
  • oldwelshman
    oldwelshman Posts: 4,733
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    I thought Roche had been proven to have been on EPO in the early 90s but it only came to light years later? (was after his 1987 win )
    In March 2000 the Italian judge Franca Oliva published a report detailing the investigation into sports doctors including Conconi. This official judicial investigation unequivocally found that Roche was administered EPO in 1993, his last year in the peloton. Files part of the investigation allegedly detail a number of aliases for Roche including Rocchi, Rossi, Rocca, Roncati, Righi and Rossini. In 2004 Judge Oliva unambiguously found that Roche had taken EPO during 1993 but due to the statute of limitations, neither Roche nor his team-mates at Carrera would be prosecuted.

    So he hasn't tested positive, wasn't sanctioned and hasn't admitted to doping.
    ffs neither had armstrong !! the only ones I would "guess" were likely to be clean was evans, sastre and lemond.
    http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll245/oldwelshman/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK5Bfqj5fxY
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    oldwelshman wrote:
    ffs neither had armstrong !!

    He was sanctioned. He was stripped of all of his results back to '98 and banned from professional cycling for life.
    oldwelshman wrote:
    the only ones I would "guess" were likely to be clean was evans, sastre and lemond.

    What have you got on Wiggins then?
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    It was added a month after the Tour, if they weren't looking for it, why test for it? As clear a stitch up as you'll find.

    At the time different sports had different banned lists. The lab that tested his smaple used the IOC list and then that imformation was leaked to the press.

    If you think that is a stitch up, that's fine, maybe it was. But that's not how the list that Scotty Gee posted has been done. Delgado didn't tested positive, wasn't sanctioned and didn't admit to doping.

    The lab tested against the IOC list rather than the UCI list and gave an incorrect positive.

    Having a drug that isn't banned in your system isn't a positive test, regardless of when it was added to the banned list.
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    Having a drug that isn't banned in your system isn't a positive test, regardless of when it was added to the banned list.


    This
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.

Categories