Could Lance Armstrong be the best anyway?

vinnymarsden

So let me get this right....if you are saying..everyone was doing it..so LA was only following the lead of everyone else, then its perfectly acceptable in any walk of life to cheat/lie and prosper from it because someone else is doing that too??

NO it isn't is it...it never will be, and Armstrong knew that as did everyone else, the trouble is, when money/glory/fame/success blind the initial desire that any person sets out with then you end up with the pitiful shambles that cycling became during this era.
It has happened in other sports, look at some of the old Eastern block gymnasts etc etc...personally for me taking part is reward enough, but then again I come from a background of Average Joe's Gym members...until you (the athlete) experience the desire to win at ALL costs I guess we can't know what it feels like can we, but it doesn't excuse cheating in my book..no way, never ever.

stickman

Coppi was a well known public figure who said on tv that he took speed coctails most of the time.

Does anyone seriously think bullying to take drugs was not widespread, "do it to be on the team or quit cycling"?

Froomes Edgar

VinnyMarsden wrote:

So let me get this right....if you are saying..everyone was doing it..so LA was only following the lead of everyone else, then its perfectly acceptable in any walk of life to cheat/lie and prosper from it because someone else is doing that too??

NO it isn't is it...it never will be, and Armstrong knew that as did everyone else, the trouble is, when money/glory/fame/success blind the initial desire that any person sets out with then you end up with the pitiful shambles that cycling became during this era.
It has happened in other sports, look at some of the old Eastern block gymnasts etc etc...personally for me taking part is reward enough, but then again I come from a background of Average Joe's Gym members...until you (the athlete) experience the desire to win at ALL costs I guess we can't know what it feels like can we, but it doesn't excuse cheating in my book..no way, never ever.

Ah, the black and white world of the village idiot. Its pretty safe to say that the vast majority of us, had we been aspiring pros in the early 90s, would have crammed anything into our bodies we could to get us through the next race and hopefully get a contract next season. Just as we all tacitly accept appalling working conditions in far eastern countries so we can get our electronics a bit cheaper - which, objectively, is far worse than taking a few pills to win a bloody bike race.

Bozman

lotus49 wrote:

stickman wrote:

I think it's wrong Lance gets so much hate when all the big names were doing it...

I didn't know that all the big names were vindictive aggressive self-serving bullies who did their level best to use their considerable power to wreck other people's careers. Please spill the beans.

+1
I think that this is the main issue with Armstrong.

Monty Dog

If you know your pharmacology and bike racing, you'd also know that too much speed can actually inhibit your ability to win races. Races were a lot, lot longer and the speed was more to counter-effect fatigue rather than produce any ergogenic benefit. Drawing comparisons between Merckx and Armstrong is stupidly laughable - Eddy raced 200 days a year, not just poncing around France for 3 weeks in July re-fuelled from Ferrari's motorhome. Eddy did return a positive for a mild amphetamine in the 69 Giro and indications are that his sample was spiked.

stickman

Me? I think all cheating is totally wrong, not, some reasons are less wrong.

Joeblack

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

All or majority??
For me there is a world of difference.

TBH, if you're a professional athlete and you're not doping, you're not taking your job seriously enough.

So in regards to Bradley wiggins, are you saying he cheats or isn't taking his job seriously enough?

And I'd say regardless of how many of the field are at it, if its against the rules it's cheating, it may be a level playing field but its still cheating.

I think people need to accept that the history of cycling is full of cheating b@stards and forget it but hope dearly that the future will be better, who knows if it will be

vinnymarsden

Stickman..I'm with you..cheating is cheating end of in my book.

And if in one posters opinion I'm a village idiot for thinking so then so be it.

ADIHEAD

The issue with Armstrong is he turned himself into this family friendly, household name persona. To quote 'what am I on? I'm on my bike!' He then sued the telegraph for rightly accusing him of doping Went after anybody who had credible evidence against him. Now it's all come out those people are out for some of what he gave them. If he'd simply kept a lower profile then the USDA probably wouldn't have been half so bothered. Let's face it, they made an example of him to show others how cheats will always be caught. He made himself the biggest name, so he was their biggest prize. Was he the best though? If doing the drugs were all part of it, he certainly got that bit right, in that he made them work with his talent and got more out of the situation than anyone else. If the whole field rode clean would he still have been the best? We'll never know......

Froomes Edgar

Joeblack wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

All or majority??
For me there is a world of difference.

TBH, if you're a professional athlete and you're not doping, you're not taking your job seriously enough.

So in regards to Bradley wiggins, are you saying he cheats or isn't taking his job seriously enough?

I don't have any specific evidence obviously, but its more likely than not

alihisgreat

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

All or majority??
For me there is a world of difference.

TBH, if you're a professional athlete and you're not doping, you're not taking your job seriously enough.

So in regards to Bradley wiggins, are you saying he cheats or isn't taking his job seriously enough?

I don't have any specific evidence obviously, but its more likely than not

How can you say its more likely than not with no evidence? That really doesn't make any sense.

Froomes Edgar

Does it really not?

mamba80

interesting a few have said LAs problem wasnt so much the drugs but that he was a bully? says who? and where does it say that warrants a life time ban? few top flight sports stars are particularly nice people, Hinault, Schmacher or Senna for example
He was a very good Triathlete as a youngster and he certainly had a win at all costs attitude, i enjoyed his battles with Ulrich and Pantani - he was also kind to the family of the young pro that died, Fabio Casartelli in 1995 ? or was that just an act to get good headlines?
To me he was the best of his era (with the dope) and i suspect the drug programes came after he proved himself to be talented, they dont waste money on also rans.

rsands

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Does it really not?

do you want a ladder or a crane to get you out of that hole? What a rediculous statement to come out with.

ben@31

mamba80 wrote:

interesting a few have said LAs problem wasnt so much the drugs but that he was a bully? says who? and where does it say that warrants a life time ban? few top flight sports stars are particularly nice people, Hinault, Schmacher or Senna for example

Didn't Michael Schumacher ram someone of the track on the very last corner so that he could win the Championship?

I suppose some top flight sports stars deteriorate into selfish, self centred, primadonna's when they have a win at all costs attitude.

simon_masterson

ADIHEAD wrote:

The issue with Armstrong is he turned himself into this family friendly, household name persona. To quote 'what am I on? I'm on my bike!' He then sued the telegraph for rightly accusing him of doping Went after anybody who had credible evidence against him. Now it's all come out those people are out for some of what he gave them. If he'd simply kept a lower profile then the USDA probably wouldn't have been half so bothered. Let's face it, they made an example of him to show others how cheats will always be caught. He made himself the biggest name, so he was their biggest prize. Was he the best though? If doing the drugs were all part of it, he certainly got that bit right, in that he made them work with his talent and got more out of the situation than anyone else. If the whole field rode clean would he still have been the best? We'll never know......

Basically this.

Unfortunately, Lance Armstrong was a fitting sacrifice to be crucified for the sins of cycling kind; he was far from just another cyclist who used banned substances. By his punishment he has given much-needed impetus to the voices opposed to doping in cycling, and propelled the issue into the public domain. The UCI (and the anti-doping authorities) may have picked on Armstrong, but at least this shows that they are willing to act - based on their track records you would be forgiven for not believing this to be the case - and punishing Lance Armstrong carries far more weight in my view than stripping Bjarne Riis or Laurent Fignon (etc etc etc), or even Indurain, of their titles instead.

But assuming that all high achievers must be reliant on drugs for their success is one of the uglier consequences of this. Bradley Wiggins races as clean as he - and his team - claims until proof to the contrary is proffered, and his achievements rightfully applauded. He was a tremendous athlete long before 2012 anyway.

P.S. Captainlip is that you?

vinnymarsden

rsands wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Does it really not?

do you want a ladder or a crane to get you out of that hole? What a rediculous statement to come out with.

Is it just me...or does Edgar enjoy the role of devils advocate by making outrageous comments just to stir things up!!!!!

Because this one really does take the biscuit Edgar!!! I'm guessing you have your tongue firmly in your cheek mate...or are you just soooo cynical you don't think the guy is good enough???

mamba80

ben@31 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

interesting a few have said LAs problem wasnt so much the drugs but that he was a bully? says who? and where does it say that warrants a life time ban? few top flight sports stars are particularly nice people, Hinault, Schmacher or Senna for example

Didn't Michael Schumacher ram someone of the track on the very last corner so that he could win the Championship?

I suppose some top flight sports stars deteriorate into selfish, self centred, primadonna's when they have a win at all costs attitude.

Hinault was "known" to be a bully and his treatment of Lemond wasnt great, Senna ran Prost of the the track and to to be a team mate of Micheal S meant " you cannot beat me, whatever happens" BUT they would nt be the great champions without that win at all costs attitude.

For me, either LA is being treated differently because UCI etc wish theyd been harsher in the past OR its because he is an American and cycling is a "european" sport - had Armstrong been an Italian or french, then he d have got the std 2yr ban.
Lets face it, Riis still has his titles and no one is chasing down Ulrich are they?

bigmat

VinnyMarsden wrote:

rsands wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Does it really not?

do you want a ladder or a crane to get you out of that hole? What a rediculous statement to come out with.

Is it just me...or does Edgar enjoy the role of devils advocate by making outrageous comments just to stir things up!!!!!

Because this one really does take the biscuit Edgar!!! I'm guessing you have your tongue firmly in your cheek mate...or are you just soooo cynical you don't think the guy is good enough???

I'm sorry but what was "outrageous" about his comment? Pretty much all the best cyclists of the past 25 years have been shown to have been doping, somebody suggests its more likely than not the current best cyclist is likely to be doping - its a pretty reasonable view isn't it? Not an opinion I share, for the record, but I acknowledge that a large part of that is due to my jingoistic support of an English cyclist winning the Tour. If he was, say, Spanish (just as a random example) would people think it was such an "outrageous" opinion?!

Back to Lance, we just don't know how good he might have been without the drugs. Same as Contador, he appears to have been a career doper, and the fact that his competitors were also dopers makes it impossible to know who would have won clean. Probably none of the guys we're talking about. Certainly, what we know of his haematocrit / VO2 suggests he was no grand tour winner on bread and water.

Jez mon

Anyone expecting someone with the screen name "Froome's Edgar" to have moderate views on whether or not sky are engaging in doping is gonna have a bad time.

stickman

What did contador actually suffer in terms of racing season, about two months ban or something? It does seem biased towards spanish cheaters.

Dess1e

For those with a rose tinted view of the 70's and 80's, cross country skiers started to use blood transfusions to enhance performance around the same time as Merckx was DOMINATING cycling, a technique used legally up to the LA Olympics and the US Cycling team. You can draw your own conclusions.

Pross

I can't believe there are still people who think the fact that 'they were all at it' meant a level playing field and therefore the winner would have still been the winner. All it shows is who has the best doping programme and / or who responds best to pharmaceutical aids.

Froomes Edgar

Pross wrote:

I can't believe there are still people who think the fact that 'they were all at it' meant a level playing field and therefore the winner would have still been the winner. All it shows is who has the best doping programme and / or who responds best to pharmaceutical aids.

And if cycling were 100% clean, all you'd see is the rider who was lucky enough to be born with the best genetics winning. Why should this guy get millions in prizes, salary and sponsorship plus untold glory just by an accident of birth, whereas the genetically mediocre like us can't? That's equally unfair.

thefd

Froomes Edgar wrote:

And if cycling were 100% clean, all you'd see is the rider who was lucky enough to be born with the best genetics winning. Why should this guy get millions in prizes, salary and sponsorship plus untold glory just by an accident of birth, whereas the genetically mediocre like us can't? That's equally unfair.

I don't know what age you are Froome. But that is life! Not everyone is the same and not everyone can win. You neglected to make mention of hard work. Genetics will help but won't take you the whole way alone!

upperoilcan

Anyways,back to Lance.......

Could he or could'nt he ???????????????????????????????????

Froomes Edgar

TheFD wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

And if cycling were 100% clean, all you'd see is the rider who was lucky enough to be born with the best genetics winning. Why should this guy get millions in prizes, salary and sponsorship plus untold glory just by an accident of birth, whereas the genetically mediocre like us can't? That's equally unfair.

I don't know what age you are Froome. But that is life! Not everyone is the same and not everyone can win. You neglected to make mention of hard work. Genetics will help but won't take you the whole way alone!

Indeed life is unfair. So what's the problem with doping again?

Dess1e

TheFD wrote:

Froomes Edgar wrote:

And if cycling were 100% clean, all you'd see is the rider who was lucky enough to be born with the best genetics winning. Why should this guy get millions in prizes, salary and sponsorship plus untold glory just by an accident of birth, whereas the genetically mediocre like us can't? That's equally unfair.

I don't know what age you are Froome. But that is life! Not everyone is the same and not everyone can win. You neglected to make mention of hard work. Genetics will help but won't take you the whole way alone!

What FE is saying is that how you respond to doping is genitally random as having the right genes in the first place, so in a sense no difference. Also does anyone believe that any of these drugs replace hard work as well? They augment the hard training and shorten the recovery period, but you still can't lie on a sofa and just turn up to a race.

vinnymarsden

I think Froome must come from that age group that just feel that sense of "entitlement" you know...that thought process that goes....Look I'm taking part, therefore I want some of the prizes, damn if I'm not good enough...I finished therefore I want a prize!
It's like school sports days....there are no losers now...why not?? Kids need to learn there are losers like there are winners...and the winners get the prizes....and usually the winners are the players/participants who are the best...not just who turned up....not EVERYONE can win Froome....it's life mate....or we would all be in the TDF wouldn't we??
I'm not having a go mate just saying.....winners are why sport is sooo vital, why its so intense....you cant just expect to get the spoils because you think its only fair because you had a go!!!

Monty Dog

Dess1e wrote:

For those with a rose tinted view of the 70's and 80's, cross country skiers started to use blood transfusions to enhance performance around the same time as Merckx was DOMINATING cycling, a technique used legally up to the LA Olympics and the US Cycling team. You can draw your own conclusions.

You're getting your decades mixed up, Merckx was in his prime in 1969, a good 7 years before the likes of Lasse Viren was blood boosting at Montreal in 76 and US Cycling was blood doping at the LA Olympics. Merckx retired in 1978.