I don't get the current moral panic regarding did he or not; "pro cyclist takes drugs" would seem to be the same as "alcohol associated with teenage pregnancy" in terms of headlines.
Good Call. I knew I'd left one out after I posted it.. I'm just trying to see what peoples views are. I can't seem to edit it after I posted it, and I don't want to repost this poll a second time.
Everyone is lying, his former team-mates, they people who convicted Dr. Ferrari, Simoeni, the people who couriered his needles and dopes, the lab techs, the newspaper, his former personal assistant.
The only one not lying is Lance. Oh, and by the way, the steriods they found in his sytem a few years back were from a butt creme, thats all.
Lance never doped. Michael never molested children. Both denied doing it, that should be enough right?
There is a miniscule chance that he didn't use EPO. To tell the truth, I don't really care. LA has never stimulated anything in me to give a damn one way or another. Despite all of his accomplishments, he mainly comes off as a wanker.
Couldn't agree more, the guy is boring. This year's TdF made for the dullest TV I care to remember. Oh, I forgot last year, and the years before. Dull, dull dull.
Aren't you reading between the lines with a microscope?
I mean nothing personal towards LA. His era, like Indurain's, was marked with a lack of worthy opponents which made for less that exciting races. That said, Indurain came off as a true champion in terms of demeanor--something I personally never got from LA. Having followed the Tour since the '70s, I can't quite get into the nationalistc pride thing. Its one of the premier international cycling events in the world.
Also, regarding the poll... Some performance enhancing drugs are legal, like caffeine.[/QUOTE]
Very true, and good point. But I think in relation to what has been going on in the last week people get the clear picture that I'm polling whether he has used banned enhancing drugs.
Also, regarding the poll... Some performance enhancing drugs are legal, like caffeine.[/QUOTE]
Very true, and good point. But I think in relation to what has been going on in the last week people get the clear picture that I'm polling whether he has used banned enhancing drugs.
Early in his career, lance raced at a time when pretty much everyone used drugs. The chance that he didn't use them as well is pretty slim. I mean, whay wouldn't he? His desire to win seems strong enough that he'd do it if he had to. And i doubt he had any moral qualms- I mean, he doesn't strike me as having a particularly strong moral compass.
Zampano said:
There is a miniscule chance that he didn't use EPO. To tell the truth, I don't really care. LA has never stimulated anything in me to give a damn one way or another. Despite all of his accomplishments, he mainly comes off as a wanker.
I think Lemond was right when he said that Armstrong never showed any talent for winning the Tour and without the dope he would never have won it. He would have been a good one day racer. The evidence indicates that his world championships was won without EPO, probably with just the usual ineffective drugs that have been around forever. Without EPO in the peloton Armstrong would have won several, maybe many, classics. But the Tour? Come on.
I would temper that statement a bit because there is an element of speculation. It is based on a wealth of knowledge, but it is speculation nonetheless. I saw the context in which Lemond put forth that argument and I do not find it definitive. It is based on Lance's VO2 max and his poor showings in his early tour appearances. I do not find it impossible that LA physically matured into the rider that he became, post-cancer.
My impression is that EPO will not make a non-champion into a winner, but it will allow a winner to succeed within an environment where EPO use is the status quo. In the latter event, LA needed it to win. No big deal. When there is clear evidence that the sport has been cleaned up, only then it will be practical to hold the top riders to a higher standard. In the meantime, how can you expect a top competitor to forego the drug, and thus put himself at an obvious disadvantage? This is not just about sportsmanship and prestige, it is above all about money.
Let's play a game then. How many riders can we find who showed no Tour potential whatsoever, like Armstrong, then went on to win. And how many of them won more than once.
Zampano said:
My impression is that EPO will not make a non-champion into a winner, but it will allow a winner to succeed within an environment where EPO use is the status quo.
I think with with most non-blood manipulation methods, it is probably true that you can't turn a donkey into a thoroughbred. It doesn't appear to be true with EPO. The racer who is lucky enough to have a low natural hematocrit will have a huge advantage over someone with a high one because there is a limit that you can safely dope to. The poor SOB that has a natural hematocrit of 49 is screwed with the 50% limit compared to someone with a natural level of 39.
The 90s had numerous instances of riders I don't think would have amounted to anything without EPO. I think one of them that disturbed Lemond a lot was Chiappucci, maybe Bugno too. Who will argue that Riis or Pantani would have won the Tour if they and everyone else would not have been using it?
Let's play a game then. How many riders can we find who showed no Tour potential whatsoever, like Armstrong, then went on to win. And how many of them won more than once.
I think with with most non-blood manipulation methods, it is probably true that you can't turn a donkey into a thoroughbred. It doesn't appear to be true with EPO. The racer who is lucky enough to have a low natural hematocrit will have a huge advantage over someone with a high one because there is a limit that you can safely dope to. The poor SOB that has a natural hematocrit of 49 is screwed with the 50% limit compared to someone with a natural level of 39.
The 90s had numerous instances of riders I don't think would have amounted to anything without EPO. I think one of them that disturbed Lemond a lot was Chiappucci, maybe Bugno too. Who will argue that Riis or Pantani would have won the Tour if they and everyone else would not have been using it?
I tend to go along with the points you make, but with a lessor degree of certainty. Also, I'm not ready to denigrate the victories of Riis and Pantani because the playing field is level. In my opinion, all of the major players are using.
If you're so sure Michael molested children, then why didn't you testify for the prosecution?
unchained said:
No, not our poster boy.
Everyone is lying, his former team-mates, they people who convicted Dr. Ferrari, Simoeni, the people who couriered his needles and dopes, the lab techs, the newspaper, his former personal assistant.
The only one not lying is Lance. Oh, and by the way, the steriods they found in his sytem a few years back were from a butt creme, thats all.
Lance never doped. Michael never molested children. Both denied doing it, that should be enough right?
Read my thread, "A Modest Proposal" in this forum --
I don't care.
If it makes them go faster I don't care. What they do to go fast is between them and their handlers. Let us presume that a world class, professional cyclist is toooooooo damned valuable to risk his physical health and performance with dangerous substances.
If blood doping, oxygen tents, and caffeine enemas (??? ???) make them go faster, what's the harm?
It's not an lionized model of athletic ideals. It's about $$$ and expensive athletes in a world class competition.
-- So you think StarBucks might offer a caffeine enema?
Read my thread, "A Modest Proposal" in this forum --
I don't care.
If it makes them go faster I don't care. What they do to go fast is between them and their handlers. Let us presume that a world class, professional cyclist is toooooooo damned valuable to risk his physical health and performance with dangerous substances.
If blood doping, oxygen tents, and caffeine enemas (??? ???) make them go faster, what's the harm?
It's not an lionized model of athletic ideals. It's about $$$ and expensive athletes in a world class competition.
-- So you think StarBucks might offer a caffeine enema?
I suggest it's dull because of the other riders and money, not because of Armstrong. How would you ride if no one could seriously challenge you? Taking chances is a valid riding style when you have to do it to win. Others need to take chances to win against Armstrong and few were willing to. Armstrong wasn't the one who needed to take chances, so he didn't. That's why many love Vino. The only way he could possibly win (and that was slim to none) was to take chances, so he did, much to the consternation of his team I might add. Vino had no chance of winning so he could afford to put on a show. In fact, he was driven to put on a show because of the second reason, money. In order for him to get a better contract he had to show something. The money in cycling today is what has driven the style of racing we see. When the money wasn't there it was all about panache and passion. Money has made it all about business. It shouldn't surprise anyone that cyclists with a chance at winning take a businesslike approach. Does anyone find the corporate board room exciting? Jan is really exciting? Were any of the cyclists in the Tour who had a realistic chance at winning exciting?
I just read that there are enough samples left from 1998/99 for a counter expertise according to the French minister of sport. Armstrong can prove that he's guilty if he wishes to do so
I think there is a good amount to point to him breaking the rules at some point ... but how many pro cyclists havent? With all the checks of recent years I don't see how he could have recently though, so my respect for the man is still very high.
-Chris
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Road Bike, Cycling Forums
5.4M posts
205K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Road Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!