Lance doping confession - I want an apology from him!

tailwindhome

rjsterry wrote:

Actually, Lemond is an interesting one, given how closely matched he and Fignon (who subsequently admitted doping) were. The impression I got from Fignon's autobiography is that pre-EPO doping was more about making up for the bad days (maybe because the drugs available had a more short term effect) rather than the organised season-long programme that we've seen with LA and others.

I think LeMond's very vocal anti drugs stance and a track record of brillance from his junior years buys him a lot of credibilty.

But. You would you really know?

Sastre is an interesting one.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12886861&hilit=Sastre


Hinault and all the old timers get a bye ball as nobody seriously cares what happened decades ago. The general consensus is that before the EPO/ blood doping era the 'doping' of riders wasn't having the game changing effects as can be seen from 1990 on. Does anyone really believe Simpson's performance was being significantly improved by a combination of amphetamines and brandy?

rjsterry

Just spotted that road.cc have picked up the story about Verbruggen admitting that the UCI used to tip off riders whose test results were suspicious, but not yet 'over the limit'. Apparently the idea was that by letting them know that they were being watched more closely, they would stop (ha!) doping. In reality, it was probably useful feedback as to just how far they could push things without getting caught.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Actually, Lemond is an interesting one, given how closely matched he and Fignon (who subsequently admitted doping) were. The impression I got from Fignon's autobiography is that pre-EPO doping was more about making up for the bad days (maybe because the drugs available had a more short term effect) rather than the organised season-long programme that we've seen with LA and others.

I think LeMond's very vocal anti drugs stance and a track record of brillance from his junior years buys him a lot of credibilty.

But. You would you really know?

Sastre is an interesting one.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12886861&hilit=Sastre


Hinault and all the old timers get a bye ball as nobody seriously cares what happened decades ago. The general consensus is that before the EPO/ blood doping era the 'doping' of riders wasn't having the game changing effects as can be seen from 1990 on. Does anyone really believe Simpson's performance was being significantly improved by a combination of amphetamines and brandy?

There's definitely an element of subjectivity in deciding who gets it and who doesn't. Indurain was always consider a real gentleman. He nailed the TTs, hung on in the mountains and sat in the rest of the time. He didn't (as Armstrong did) even try to dominate from first to last - in fact, I don't think he ever won a road stage during his winning years - and thereby allowed the riches to be handed around. He's also quiet and quite withdrawn, again, unlike LA. That gets him a lot of brownie points.

Hinault? Well Virenque was a French cycling hero, was busted, denied, then came clean, and is now a French cycling hero again. There's very little appetite, it seems, for the French to dynamite their own.

Sastre is someone who manages somehow to be likeable despite the fact that you only ever see him through the miasma of TV and controlled interviews. Cervelo used to run some podcasts called Beyond the Peloton when they sponsored CSC. They were fascinating fly-on-the-wall documentaries from inside the team. Everyone needless to say was paint in nice colours, but even in that context, Sastre came across as a bit special.

If the angry mob is sympathetic it won't take up the pitchforks, even if the sympathy is misplaced and it knows it.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Actually, Lemond is an interesting one, given how closely matched he and Fignon (who subsequently admitted doping) were. The impression I got from Fignon's autobiography is that pre-EPO doping was more about making up for the bad days (maybe because the drugs available had a more short term effect) rather than the organised season-long programme that we've seen with LA and others.

I think LeMond's very vocal anti drugs stance and a track record of brillance from his junior years buys him a lot of credibilty.

But. You would you really know?

Sastre is an interesting one.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12886861&hilit=Sastre


Hinault and all the old timers get a bye ball as nobody seriously cares what happened decades ago. The general consensus is that before the EPO/ blood doping era the 'doping' of riders wasn't having the game changing effects as can be seen from 1990 on. Does anyone really believe Simpson's performance was being significantly improved by a combination of amphetamines and brandy?

There's definitely an element of subjectivity in deciding who gets it and who doesn't. Indurain was always consider a real gentleman. He nailed the TTs, hung on in the mountains and sat in the rest of the time. He didn't (as Armstrong did) even try to dominate from first to last - in fact, I don't think he ever won a road stage during his winning years - and thereby allowed the riches to be handed around. He's also quiet and quite withdrawn, again, unlike LA. That gets him a lot of brownie points.

Hinault? Well Virenque was a French cycling hero, was busted, denied, then came clean, and is now a French cycling hero again. There's very little appetite, it seems, for the French to dynamite their own.

Sastre is someone who manages somehow to be likeable despite the fact that you only ever see him through the miasma of TV and controlled interviews. Cervelo used to run some podcasts called Beyond the Peloton when they sponsored CSC. They were fascinating fly-on-the-wall documentaries from inside the team. Everyone needless to say was paint in nice colours, but even in that context, Sastre came across as a bit special.

If the angry mob is sympathetic it won't take up the pitchforks, even if the sympathy is misplaced and it knows it.

True enough, especially when you compare it with LA's antics with Bassons, et al; riding up and down the field telling people what they could and couldn't do.

Ian.B

Apparently two cycling fans in the US who bought his books are bringing a class action against Armstrong for fraud for their feelings of having been ‘duped’, ‘cheated’ and ‘betrayed’. DDD, you need to join in the proceedings!

DonDaddyD

To be honest the sport needs to be bigger than Lance, and for far too long it wasn't.

I could care less what happens to Lance, he broke my heart all those hills I lugged my fat arse over imagining I was a rider of that era seem pointless. Right now I just want Lance to go away and be forgotten about and at the same time I want those in the UCI and the individuals associated with doping exiled from the sport.

The sport needs to distance itself from him, it needs to refresh the people at the top and actually put clean racing, and new testing measures/techniques at the forefont of its immediate agenda - with harsh tough sentencing (and if Countries show leniency then the UCI should take a tough stance with that Country - or teams from said Country).

If I ever see Lance I'm gonna punch him in the kidney and then ask him "why?"

Kieran_Burns

I agree - cycling needs fresh blood!!!

Oh wait......

prawny

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Actually, Lemond is an interesting one, given how closely matched he and Fignon (who subsequently admitted doping) were. The impression I got from Fignon's autobiography is that pre-EPO doping was more about making up for the bad days (maybe because the drugs available had a more short term effect) rather than the organised season-long programme that we've seen with LA and others.

I think LeMond's very vocal anti drugs stance and a track record of brillance from his junior years buys him a lot of credibilty.

But. You would you really know?

Sastre is an interesting one.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12886861&hilit=Sastre


Hinault and all the old timers get a bye ball as nobody seriously cares what happened decades ago. The general consensus is that before the EPO/ blood doping era the 'doping' of riders wasn't having the game changing effects as can be seen from 1990 on. Does anyone really believe Simpson's performance was being significantly improved by a combination of amphetamines and brandy?

The fignon admitting doping angle, I might have missed another story but as far as a know his doping was restricted to amphetamines in some minor races and a bit of Ching in Columbia.

There's an interesting article linked to in pro race from 1989, lemond quit PDM because they were pressuring him to use testosterone and he was worried they put it in his food because he refused. There's not a sniff of doubt around lemond.

rick_chasey

Indurain didn't win without EPO. I figured that was a given.

gb155

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I agree - cycling needs fresh blood!!!

Oh wait......

hahaaha :0)

rjsterry

prawny wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Actually, Lemond is an interesting one, given how closely matched he and Fignon (who subsequently admitted doping) were. The impression I got from Fignon's autobiography is that pre-EPO doping was more about making up for the bad days (maybe because the drugs available had a more short term effect) rather than the organised season-long programme that we've seen with LA and others.

I think LeMond's very vocal anti drugs stance and a track record of brillance from his junior years buys him a lot of credibilty.

But. You would you really know?

Sastre is an interesting one.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12886861&hilit=Sastre


Hinault and all the old timers get a bye ball as nobody seriously cares what happened decades ago. The general consensus is that before the EPO/ blood doping era the 'doping' of riders wasn't having the game changing effects as can be seen from 1990 on. Does anyone really believe Simpson's performance was being significantly improved by a combination of amphetamines and brandy?

The fignon admitting doping angle, I might have missed another story but as far as a know his doping was restricted to amphetamines in some minor races and a bit of Ching in Columbia.

There's an interesting article linked to in pro race from 1989, lemond quit PDM because they were pressuring him to use testosterone and he was worried they put it in his food because he refused. There's not a sniff of doubt around lemond.

That's pretty much what I understand it to have been. IIRC, it was mainly to give him a bit of a boost on a few bad days, rather than a concerted strategy. Still, once you've crossed that line...

@DDD: Funny, I think there's about 5 years between us, but if anyone, I'd say I was more impressed with Indurain and possibly Pantani than Armstrong. Not that either of them were paragons of clean cycling.

Kieran_Burns

I thought the quote from Bradley was telling:

"The thing which upset me the most was about 2009 and 2010. I thought: 'You lying bastard'." Wiggins said.

"I can remember going toe to toe with him and watching his body language and watching the man I saw at the top of the Verbier in 2009, to the man I saw at the top of the Ventoux, a week later in dope control together. It wasn't the same bike rider… Just watch the videos of how the guy was riding. I don’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth anymore."

keyser__soze

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmgMUFzmDss

mtb-idle

saw one of my cycle commuting buddies on the way home last night and he offered me a spare ticket to this:

"My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong by David Walsh"

It's free but it is in Portsmouth. But it looks like it could be a good evening so for that reason I'm in!

Wrath Rob

MTB-Idle wrote:

saw one of my cycle commuting buddies on the way home last night and he offered me a spare ticket to this:

"My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong by David Walsh"

It's free but it is in Portsmouth. But it looks like it could be a good evening so for that reason I'm in!

I'm currently reading 7 Deadly Sins. Very interesting book so far, and I've only got to chapter 3!