Lance doping confession - I want an apology from him!

Hoopdriver

True, all cheating is unfair. But you can still end up with a de facto level playing field if everybody is cheating. Say, for example, the smallest cog sprinters were allowed to have on their rear cassette was 13 and virtually everybody chasing the green jersey was running 11-tooth cogs anyway because nobody at the UCI can count, you would have a de facto level playing field as far as that aspect of the rules went.

Sewinman

Hoopdriver wrote:

True, all cheating is unfair. But you can still end up with a de facto level playing field if everybody is cheating. Say, for example, the smallest cog sprinters were allowed to have on their rear cassette was 13 and virtually everybody chasing the green jersey was running 11-tooth cogs anyway because nobody at the UCI can count, you would have a de facto level playing field as far as that aspect of the rules went.

There is no-one checking that the cheating is fair though.

meanredspider

Sewinman wrote:

There is no-one checking that the cheating is fair though.

Frankly I don't care if the cheating is fair or not. If you cheated, there's no point in bleating that someone else cheated better than you. At that point it becomes a level playing field if only because you've ignored the rules. The "level playing field" bit comes from what you can get away with without being caught.

Armstrong was the "best" of the cheaters. In some ways, if you cheated and still didn't win, you've got no-one but yourself to blame. Bottom line is they cheated though - I don't understand why we would want to distinguish between the cheats.

Cycloslalomeur

I'm baffled by just how persistent this level playing field myth regarding doping seems to be. It just refuses to die, just like the one about mixing Shimano and Campagnolo bits.

Anti-doping rules exist not to protect stupid cyclists from themselves but because there would be no level playing field if all rules were lifted.

First hit on Google: http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing- ... ping-myth/

Fat-Boy-Roubaix

Is the key factor post cancer the person who was dealed out of the interview? No mention of Bruyneel not one snippet, now either her researchers are crap or a deal was done, and how about Carmichael? in nearly 2.5 hours these two constants in LA's sporting life get zero mention?

The main thing that came across for me was that he is addicted to competitive sport worse than crack, not just the competeting but the prep and training.

It also came across that he was gutted to have not taken the the deal back in August to take a hit of two year ban and lose a few TdF wins, truly gutted.

All of this Oprah junk is a tease to cut a deal with WADA or USADA just and I repeat just to get back to competitive sport. He cares not for cleaning up cycling, he wants to give the minium for max return.

Lastly, no one juiced or otherwise rides a bike like LA...

Well not quite lastly I got the Wiggo book for Christmas, and it reads like LA's books except swap out the Madone for Tenerife, swap cancer for a Sky trainer (can't remember his name) to explain the muscle and weight loss but increased strength and maintain your watts..

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

I'm baffled by just how persistent this level playing field myth regarding doping seems to be. It just refuses to die, just like the one about mixing Shimano and Campagnolo bits.

Anti-doping rules exist not to protect stupid cyclists from themselves but because there would be no level playing field if all rules were lifted.

First hit on Google: http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing- ... ping-myth/

I think you're missing the point about the level playing field - but never mind because it's entirely hypothetical anyway - I don't know why anybody pays too much attention to it. It's a bit like debating whether England's goal in 1966 crossed the line.

To paraphrase an England rugby player (don't remember which one or one), but something along the lines of "What does the scoreboard say?""

The myth is a myth

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

First hit on Google: http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing- ... ping-myth/

BTW - it's a bollox argument. Sport isn't fair - get over it. Red Bull with their billions made from fizzy drinks against Caterham in F1. It isn't fair. Red Bull can pay for the best drivers, managers, engineers, trainers, manufacturers etc etc

Olympics: why the fuss about funding? The rules are the same aren't they? Why would funding matter? No one's cheating but somehow the better funded teams seem to, on balance, do better. How can that be?

ALL the arguments in the doping myth can be applied to the legal "myth". The ONLY difference is one is legal and the other isn't.

The real myth is the level playing field myth - it's NEVER level.

Cycloslalomeur

I was talking about the level playing field myth with regard to doping, not in general.

Obviously it's not fair that some riders are whizzed about France in jets while others are driven. The point is that the performance gain from blood doping, assuming a low natural haematocrit count, is so high that any amount of team support pales in comparison. Hence we had a nobody who could not climb to safe his life just pull away from the peloton on the Sestriere climb in 1999, causing bellylaughs from French reporters because the doping was so obvious.

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

I was talking about the level playing field myth with regard to doping, not in general.

Obviously it's not fair that some riders are whizzed about France in jets while others are driven. The point is that the performance gain from blood doping, assuming a low natural haematocrit count, is so high that any amount of team support pales in comparison. Hence we had a nobody who could not climb to safe his life just pull away from the peloton on the Sestriere climb in 1999, causing bellylaughs from French reporters because the doping was so obvious.

I know you're talking about doping but there are so many "legal" examples in sport that make the playing field very bumpy: altitude training, for instance or better sports scientists, psychologists, doctors, masseuses, dieticians, engineers, clothing etc etc You've only got to look at what Team Sky does with its money - hiring a guy who could possibly have won the TdF in his own right to help its #1 rider to win and a world champion sprinter to act as nothing much more than a domestique at times. Level?

daviesee

The difference between Lance and Ulrich (take your pick of rider) is the way they treated those who questioned them and how they reacted when caught.
That is why Lance gets all the vitriol. It is karma (for want of a better word). Schrauden....?????

Everything else is muddying the waters and misdirection. End of.

meanredspider

daviesee wrote:

The difference between Lance and Ulrich (take your pick of rider) is the way they treated those who questioned them and how they reacted when caught.
That is why Lance gets all the vitriol. It is karma (for want of a better word). Schrauden....?????

Everything else is muddying the waters and misdirection. End of.

Well Hamilton (in his own book) denied doping, employed lawyers & sought to discredit the test and testers when he got caught. But the science prevailed. The difference with Armstrong (with the exception of the Tour Suisse or whichever it was when he got the script written after the event) is that he never actually got "caught" in a doping test. It was always their word against his: "I saw him doping". And the legal defence in these cases is always to try to discredit the witness. Often, these witnesses had themselves cheated and lied so it wasn't very hard. I'm not saying what he did was right but how he reacted was, in many ways, how a lot of people would have reacted, only more extreme.

bigmat

meanredspider wrote:

daviesee wrote:

The difference between Lance and Ulrich (take your pick of rider) is the way they treated those who questioned them and how they reacted when caught.
That is why Lance gets all the vitriol. It is karma (for want of a better word). Schrauden....?????

Everything else is muddying the waters and misdirection. End of.

Well Hamilton (in his own book) denied doping, employed lawyers & sought to discredit the test and testers when he got caught. But the science prevailed. The difference with Armstrong (with the exception of the Tour Suisse or whichever it was when he got the script written after the event) is that he never actually got "caught" in a doping test. It was always their word against his: "I saw him doping". And the legal defence in these cases is always to try to discredit the witness. Often, these witnesses had themselves cheated and lied so it wasn't very hard. I'm not saying what he did was right but how he reacted was, in many ways, how a lot of people would have reacted, only more extreme.

Forget the dopers' testimonies, its about his friends, their wives, his masseuse, his sponsors' employees, his competitors, his business associates, journalists, former champions - no end of people that he bullied, slurred and victimised to pursue his own goals and protect his own interests. It goes way beyond simply bending the rules of sport a bit.

daviesee

meanredspider wrote:

............. only more extreme.

And so the pay back is more extreme. Karma.

meanredspider

daviesee wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

............. only more extreme.

And so the pay back is more extreme. Karma.

I think it's less to do with karma and more to do with our "delight" in seeing the "mighty" fall.

I'm just interested in the human nature/psychology behind all of this. The cheats themselves and the lies they told. The bullying (and LA is far from being the only sports person to do this - it goes on all the time). The fans and how some cheats are OK but others aren't. And all of that. That's why I'd love to see as much as possible laid open in a truth commission because I'm loving how all of this is unfolding and coming out in the light.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

daviesee wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

............. only more extreme.

And so the pay back is more extreme. Karma.

I think it's less to do with karma and more to do with our "delight" in seeing the "mighty" fall.

I'm just interested in the human nature/psychology behind all of this. The cheats themselves and the lies they told. The bullying (and LA is far from being the only sports person to do this - it goes on all the time). The fans and how some cheats are OK but others aren't. And all of that. That's why I'd love to see as much as possible laid open in a truth commission because I'm loving how all of this is unfolding and coming out in the light.

OK then - you do have a point here. Maybe Lances mistake (aside from being a horrible human being) was to win the Tour 7 times. Obviously, if you are in a position where you realise that the best of the competition are doping and you have a choice either to take the moral high ground and have a second rate career or to take the Kings shilling and hit the syringes and give yourself a chance of glory then you don't have to be a complete git to opt for the second.

And if you do dope up, you can maybe win the Tour, and feel a bit bad about it, but still be able to justify it a bit because you know the chap you beat was also doped up. But to then repeat it seven times? Really? I think there is something a bit specially wrong about that. You'd have to have no sense of shame at all to do that.

The other angle is that if you behave like a dictator, you tend to fall like a dictator too - we remember people like Gadhaffi and Hussein but not so much their Lieutenants. There is natural delight in that. Maybe the public just likes their cheats to be a bit more humble than Lance.

daviesee

Okay. Maybe not karma. I don't believe in it anyway.
How about an analogy.

Be nice to people on the way up because you never know, you may meet them on the way down.

gtvlusso

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21143251

Bradley Cooper to be Lance Armstrong....

The A Team actor takes on The USPS Team role....

meanredspider

I agree with you guys that sometimes it pays to be just a bit nicer, I'm just fascinated by the response to this especially from the cycling community.

The guy clearly had/has plenty of natural ability - lots of folk I work with know their Hct levels and high Hct doesn't equal great athletic ability just in the same way that SuperUnleaded in your tank doesn't necessarily improve performance. It's a shame that we probably never saw a "clean" fight during that era.

spen666

meanredspider wrote:

I agree with you guys that sometimes it pays to be just a bit nicer, I'm just fascinated by the response to this especially from the cycling community.

The guy clearly had/has plenty of natural ability - lots of folk I work with know their Hct levels and high Hct doesn't equal great athletic ability just in the same way that SuperUnleaded in your tank doesn't necessarily improve performance. It's a shame that we probably never saw a "clean" fight during that era.

So what? Harold Shipman had plenty of natural ability as a doctor. Fred West was decent as a builder.

Should we pretend they are not every bit a criminal as drugs cheat Lance Armstrong.

MRS- stop making excuses and apologies for a drugs cheat. He deserves to be hung out to dry. He is a cheat & a bully & he deserves all that is coming his way.

It is irrelevant that others also cheated. By the same logic we should not have locked up Shipman West etc as others have committed murder as well

meanredspider

spen666 wrote:

So what? Harold Shipman had plenty of natural ability as a doctor. Fred West was decent as a builder.

Should we pretend they are not every bit a criminal as drugs cheat Lance Armstrong.

MRS- stop making excuses and apologies for a drugs cheat. He deserves to be hung out to dry. He is a cheat & a bully & he deserves all that is coming his way.

It is irrelevant that others also cheated. By the same logic we should not have locked up Shipman West etc as others have committed murder as well

I'm not making excuses for him - you're very wrong in that respect.

It's the disproportionate vitriol (your post is a perfect example - Shipman, West & Armstrong: WTF - it's bicycle racing, FFS, not mass murder) I find intriguing. I'm just prodding it to see if I can understand it. Maybe because I've met him and spoken with him, I just see him as a deeply-flawed human being rather than some monster or pantomime villain.

rick_chasey

Panto villain explains most of it.

First.Aspect

I agree with Nick.

It is disproportionate, when you consider that cyclists such as Pantani, Virenque or even Basso and Contador are still lauded. And if its not credible to win the tour 7 times clean, is it credible to win it 5 times, when every rider who won it for the next 11 years are assumed or known to have been doping? I read the other day that Mercx tested positive three times in his career, but he did it all on mineral water, right? Anquetil openly discussed amphetamine use, but it wasn't illegal then, so we gloss over it and call it a level playing field. Not so much different in the 90's and 2000's, really.

Put in the perspective of the modern history of cycling, I don't think Armstrong's actions are exceptionally bad. His main crime is being clever about and being an asshole about it.

daviesee

To paraphrase the man himself - It is not about the cheating.

The cheating is the least of his problems. By trying to get back into sport he is going to bring a load of legal issues on himself.
If he had not sued, if he had admitted when faced with overwhelming evidence and went away quietly we wouldn't be having these discussions. At least I wouldn't.

First.Aspect

daviesee wrote:

To paraphrase the man himself - It is not about the cheating.

The cheating is the least of his problems. By trying to get back into sport he is going to bring a load of legal issues on himself.
If he had not sued, if he had admitted when faced with overwhelming evidence and went away quietly we wouldn't be having these discussions. At least I wouldn't.

He's American, of course he sued.

However, I don't think he swindled anyone out of money before giving up, like Hamilton and Landis, by way of their "fairness funds" or whatever they were called. Those guys are pond dewllers, currently profiting rather nicely from bringing down the boss - or at least Hamilton is. And LA has admitted it, finally, unlike Alberto "the dog ate my homework" Contador, Ullrich or Pantani. And he admitted it when faced with overwhealming evidence, just not a second before, which is exactly the same as Virenque or David Millar. And he's admitted it fully, unlike Basso who merely thought about cheating, paid to cheat but didn't actually do anything else, really. Like I said, the main crime seems to have been that he was good at cheating (which included his legal approach) and that he was an asshole about it. But I don't think he stands out I'm afraid.

Oh, and any talk about unfairness to sponsors and so forth is nonsense too. Sponsorship of sporting events is not an altruistic affair. The likes of Giro, Trek, Shimano and Nike have benefitted overall, despite the acute negative publicity now.

I'm saddened, but then I am a realist so I've been saddened pretty much since I started watching cycling, but it is sadness mixed with awe so I keep watching. But I can't get quite as exercised as football writers who have just heard about biciculating and want to start writing opinion pieces, I really can't.

In a way, LA reminds me more of a Colin Chapman or Adrian Newey type of figure. In althetic sports, the spirit of the doping regulations is not to use any at all. LA instead took the boundary to be the tests which have to be passed, and skipped over the spirit of the regulations part.

In motorsport, the spirit of the regulations, for example with respect to moving bodywork, is that the bodywork should not be designed to flex or move to convey an advantage. Yet car designers are admired for coming up with a second chassis, or clever carbon layup to allow a part to flex in a direction slightly different from that being tested. LA played this game, but in a different sport.

One could argue that just as the regulations in motorsport provide boundaries prevent the designers from coming up with undrivably fast cars which are too fast, and so too dangerous, for the tracks which host them, doping regulations (as defined by the tests themselves) provide boundaries which prevent athletes from putting their health at risk by cycling with an hct level of 60, and so on.

I don't think this is the way to go any more than MRS does, but I struggle to see a conceptual distinction between this sort of thing and painkillers, cortizone injections or a £20,000 UK Institute of Sport bicycle.

Wrath Rob

First Aspect wrote:

I read the other day that Mercx tested positive three times in his career, but he did it all on mineral water, right? Anquetil openly discussed amphetamine use, but it wasn't illegal then, so we gloss over it and call it a level playing field. Not so much different in the 90's and 2000's, really.

Not true. Anquetil used what was legal at the time and therefore didn't cheat by the definition of the rules at the time.

Merckx, despite his protestations, was found guilty, was DQ'd and served his ban. Technically he was therefore a cheater. In his case though, his level of performance without drugs (we assume) was so superior to everyone else's that the need to cheat wasn't there, certainly before his accident and very possibly after it.

The difference between the 90's and before is what the drugs were able to do. HGH, EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions were able to turn "donkeys into race horses", they were game changes, creating situations where sprinters were suddenly able to keep up with climbers in the Alps or where someone who was mid-pack suddenly became a GC contender. As LA himself said, it was "not normal". Brandy, amphetamines etc were never able to do that as they didn't alter your basic physiology. A sprinter still wouldn't be able to race a climber up an Alp and a climber wouldn't be able to out-drag a sprinter on the flat.

tailwindhome

First Aspect wrote:

I don't think he swindled anyone out of money before giving up.

I just skimming this thread now so I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but.......eh?

daviesee

TailWindHome wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I don't think he swindled anyone out of money before giving up.

I just skimming this thread now so I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but.......eh?

Back to the panto villain. Oh yes he did!

First.Aspect

Wrath Rob wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I read the other day that Mercx tested positive three times in his career, but he did it all on mineral water, right? Anquetil openly discussed amphetamine use, but it wasn't illegal then, so we gloss over it and call it a level playing field.

Not true. Anquetil used what was legal at the time and therefore didn't cheat by the definition of the rules at the time.

Merckx, despite his protestations, was found guilty, was DQ'd and served his ban. Technically he was therefore a cheater. In his case though, his level of performance without drugs (we assume) was so superior to everyone else's that the need to cheat wasn't there, certainly before his accident and very possibly after it.

The difference between the 90's and before is what the drugs were able to do. HGH, EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions were able to turn "donkeys into race horses", they were game changes, creating situations where sprinters were suddenly able to keep up with climbers in the Alps or where someone who was mid-pack suddenly became a GC contender. As LA himself said, it was "not normal". Brandy, amphetamines etc were never able to do that as they didn't alter your basic physiology. A sprinter still wouldn't be able to race a climber up an Alp and a climber wouldn't be able to out-drag a sprinter on the flat.

You are chosing to believe some cheaters over others, surely? Why was Mercx only technically a cheater? If he tested positive three times these days, he'd be banned for life. Why do you believe that he was so superior because of natural talent, whereas LA isn't? Surely its simpler to assume that they are both the same, rather than one being the devil incarnate and the other being a natural superhero. Its just your belief, and reinforces the notion that LA is being unduly singled out and villified.

Are you really sure that amphetamines aren't terribly effective compared to EPO? Are they really capable of even handedly doping an entire peloton any more or less than any other drug? I'd say that their use gives an unfair advantage to people who are naturally more easily mentally fatigued or who have naturally higher body fat.

Lets get onto the swindling thing. Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis both cheated and then knowingly drummed up cash from fans' donations to defend themselves. I find that very difficult to forgive.

Tell me who LA did this to. He paid all his own legal costs, as far as I know. I suppose you think he cheated race organisers out of winnings or sponsors out of sponsorship monies and bonuses. However the distinction there is that all parties were benefitting from his presence by far more than the amount they "lost", and were along for the ride for just about as long as it suited them. And they knew what they were getting, else why do so many of the contracts have clauses dealing with positive tests?

Other riders were cheated out of careers, I suppose... hang on though, lets take a look at the records of the GC contenders of the same era. Stone the crows, they were all at it! So no one lost out really, other than a bunch of naturally less gifted riders who still wouldn't have won if the whole field had been clean.

Clearly I'm trolling a little. However I want you to make the case, not merely lambast one single cheat out of a larger group of more or less similar cheats.

I'm gutted Lance has gone down. We all knew he was at it, deep down, but it was much nicer to make believe.

bondurant

"Are you really sure that amphetamines aren't terribly effective compared to EPO?"

Yep.

First.Aspect

Bondurant wrote:

"Are you really sure that amphetamines aren't terribly effective compared to EPO?"

Yep.

Make the case then. I know its the internet and all, but don't be lazy now.

Microdosing of EPO up to a max hct level of 50 vs. as much amphatamine as your heart can take (which is all fine and dandy providing you don't get asked to give a urine sample after breaking the hour record that is, in which case, leave it 48 hours or so and then give a sample...)