Armstrong - my take on it

General bike chat that does not fit elsewhere
User avatar
Grill
Posts: 5378
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 08:27 am

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Grill » Thu Oct 11, 2012 18:55 pm

ShutUpLegs wrote:
Spaniard wrote:
It certainly doesn't give me any satisfaction getting insults from individuals who can hide behind the forum's anonymity!


Then don't post asking for opinions on forums.


Agreed.

@OP- You posted a link to your blog, that was it. It's in your sig too so you clearly want people to view said blog. Opinions are fine, but when you post things without doing ANY research on the topic don't be surprised when it gets picked apart.
English Cycles V3 | Scott Plasma 3 TT | BMC TrackMachine TM01 | Ritchey Road Logic | Scott CX Team

Spaniard
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 22:49 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Spaniard » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:01 pm

I agree with what you're saying - and you're right it's an opinion based on what I've heard in the media. However, my (small) gripe is that so far I've received critisism for posting a niave post, but nobody has actually explained why what I say is wrong.

meesterbond
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 08:57 am

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby meesterbond » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:02 pm

Ok, I'll try and be a little more constructive and less rude than my earlier post. Apologies.
Firstly, the tone of the blog is written as if the case against Armstrong was taken out in order solely to strip him of his TdF wins because he doped.
The fundamental difference between LA and the others you mention (Simpson, Coppi, Indurain etc) is that while they may (or may not, were Indurain / Coppi ever popped?) have doped, there is absolutely no implication that they forced others to do so, threatened other riders who tried to blow the whistle on the situation, intimidated witnesses, had people's businesses ruined when they started saying things a little close to home etc etc etc... I disagree with that for starters.

Secondly, there is also the implication that the whole case is a complete waste of time. Ignoring what Armstrong has shown to have done would be a cycling equivalent of holocaust denial (is that Godwin's Law involked?) It cannot be brushed under the carpet because it's uncomfortable for the sport, however much the UCI would like to have done so.

As for the question of who won those races, personally, I don't think that matters in the slightest. Just write off the decade he competed in and consign it to history as we move to a more enlightened sport (we can only hope).

For what it's worth, I'm glad you reposted as I've just spent the last 15 mins going through some of your other blogs and as someone who's followed professional cycling for god knows how long, but only just starting to think about racing myself there's some interesting stuff in there... thanks!

mamba80
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 13:06 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby mamba80 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:06 pm

ShutUpLegs wrote:
Spaniard wrote:
It certainly doesn't give me any satisfaction getting insults from individuals who can hide behind the forum's anonymity!


Then don't post asking for opinions on forums.


eh? are mr or mrs spaniard then?

I havnt read all of this LA stuff (including this thread) BUT Pro Sport is primarily about entertainment and LA and the others gave it in spade loads, be it Pantani, Ulrich, Roche or Dalgado, Hinault - haven forbide even LeMond and Fignon!
LA and ALL his turn coat team mates werent the first and certainly wont be the last.
Drugs have been used in cycling since the early 1900s and every champion has raced in an era where they were common place, so make your choice?
All that has happened is that the tech has improved, as has the dope testing and sports/societies attitude to doping has changed.
Get over it and celebrate the great year Britain has had this year instead of focusing on what did or didnt happen 10yrs ago.
Personally, im sick to death about posts on LA etc etc etc etc !

User avatar
Mikey23
Posts: 5206
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 16:51 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Mikey23 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:09 pm

@spaniard, I said that I had read your blog and thought your view of events was a little ill informed. Perhaps you could read the dossier provided by usada .. It should answer your questions as to what it is all about, and why it matters?

User avatar
Grill
Posts: 5378
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 08:27 am

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Grill » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:09 pm

1) It's never been about LA doping. The USADA took that angle to expose the real truth as to LA's involvement. (read my other posts in this thread).
2) It's common knowledge that if the UCI sanctions the stripping of said titles they will not go to anyone else. There will just be no winner for those TdFs.
3) So far the reason the investigation hasn't gone further is due to LA not contesting the charges. Had it gone to court (which is what the USADA was hoping) there would have been so much more revealed and more people caught for criminal offences.
4) LA made loads of money (much of it illegally) and the enemies he made were of his own doing. He blacklisted anyone who stood in his way, and let's face it; I don't care if he overcame cancer, he's a grade-A jerk and a bully.

He's still the best cyclist of his era, but that doesn't make him a hero.
English Cycles V3 | Scott Plasma 3 TT | BMC TrackMachine TM01 | Ritchey Road Logic | Scott CX Team

Nickolarse74
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Nickolarse74 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:27 pm

Plus I don't know how you can class it as cheating, Ben Johnson cheated because he was the only one of eight, the


Do your homework on other Seoul / LA sprinters, in particular which stimulants they had been previously caught taking (yet not punished due to cold war issues) and which PED's those stimulants are known to mask through liver retention. Then do some research on what growth hormones can do to your teeth. Then do some research on how Mr. J's doctor and training team had a MAJOR fall out 6 months before the 1988 olympics.

Please understand I'm not being critical of your opinion or knowledge, just that there's a bigger picture which only became public knowledge recently. For more information, you might want to watch the documentary about the race which the BBC showed about 2 months ago. It is a properly explosive documentary (yet VERY cleverly avoids the unwanted attention of US attorneys representing ex-sprinters).

Bozman
Posts: 2529
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 19:05 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Bozman » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:35 pm

Nickolarse74 wrote:
Plus I don't know how you can class it as cheating, Ben Johnson cheated because he was the only one of eight, the


Do your homework on other Seoul / LA sprinters, in particular which stimulants they had been previously caught taking (yet not punished due to cold war issues) and which PED's those stimulants are known to mask through liver retention. Then do some research on what growth hormones can do to your teeth. Then do some research on how Mr. J's doctor and training team had a MAJOR fall out 6 months before the 1988 olympics.

Please understand I'm not being critical of your opinion or knowledge, just that there's a bigger picture which only became public knowledge recently. For more information, you might want to watch the documentary about the race which the BBC showed about 2 months ago. It is a properly explosive documentary (yet VERY cleverly avoids the unwanted attention of US attorneys representing ex-sprinters).


It wasn't supposed to be detailed, it could have been any race in any sport where one individual was a doper, the point being that the majority of riders at the top end of the peloton were, not just "the" one. It was just part of the sport at that time and you needed it to compete at the top level.

Spaniard
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 22:49 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Spaniard » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:47 pm

meesterbond wrote:Ok, I'll try and be a little more constructive and less rude than my earlier post. Apologies.
Firstly, the tone of the blog is written as if the case against Armstrong was taken out in order solely to strip him of his TdF wins because he doped.
The fundamental difference between LA and the others you mention (Simpson, Coppi, Indurain etc) is that while they may (or may not, were Indurain / Coppi ever popped?) have doped, there is absolutely no implication that they forced others to do so, threatened other riders who tried to blow the whistle on the situation, intimidated witnesses, had people's businesses ruined when they started saying things a little close to home etc etc etc... I disagree with that for starters.

Secondly, there is also the implication that the whole case is a complete waste of time. Ignoring what Armstrong has shown to have done would be a cycling equivalent of holocaust denial (is that Godwin's Law involked?) It cannot be brushed under the carpet because it's uncomfortable for the sport, however much the UCI would like to have done so.

As for the question of who won those races, personally, I don't think that matters in the slightest. Just write off the decade he competed in and consign it to history as we move to a more enlightened sport (we can only hope).

For what it's worth, I'm glad you reposted as I've just spent the last 15 mins going through some of your other blogs and as someone who's followed professional cycling for god knows how long, but only just starting to think about racing myself there's some interesting stuff in there... thanks!


Thanks for the reply - and apology.

It was watching LA win the tdf after beating cancer that lead me to start cycling. To see him outed as a bully and a cheat is dissapointing and initially hard to swallow.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think the world needs heroic stories like his (the miraculous return from almost death to the top of his game), and when it all falls apart, as it now has, it kills some hope.

Unfortunately, I now doubt that the courage that I thought he had will bring him to make amends.

User avatar
Grill
Posts: 5378
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 08:27 am

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Grill » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:52 pm

Considering he still denies he doped or did anything else wrong, methinks amends are the last thing on Lance's mind.
English Cycles V3 | Scott Plasma 3 TT | BMC TrackMachine TM01 | Ritchey Road Logic | Scott CX Team

Gazzetta67
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 17:24 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Gazzetta67 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 19:52 pm

Grill wrote:1) It's never been about LA doping. The USADA took that angle to expose the real truth as to LA's involvement. (read my other posts in this thread).
2) It's common knowledge that if the UCI sanctions the stripping of said titles they will not go to anyone else. There will just be no winner for those TdFs.
3) So far the reason the investigation hasn't gone further is due to LA not contesting the charges. Had it gone to court (which is what the USADA was hoping) there would have been so much more revealed and more people caught for criminal offences.
4) LA made loads of money (much of it illegally) and the enemies he made were of his own doing. He blacklisted anyone who stood in his way, and let's face it; I don't care if he overcame cancer, he's a grade-A jerk and a bully.

He's still the best cyclist of his era, but that doesn't make him a hero.

User avatar
Le Commentateur
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 17:08 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Le Commentateur » Thu Oct 11, 2012 20:15 pm

Grill wrote:Considering he still denies he doped or did anything else wrong, methinks amends are the last thing on Lance's mind.

People like that – cheats, narcissists, abusers – never apologize. Instead they attempt to compartmentalize the issue by saying they have moved on, or are concerned with other, more important matters now. They are attemting to force closure on a matter they no longer have absolute control over.

DesWeller
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 15:36 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby DesWeller » Thu Oct 11, 2012 21:16 pm

It's important because using PEDs can kill people. To lead young sportsmen and sportswomen into doing so by persuading them that they will not otherwise be competitive is morally repugnant.

RandG
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 09:14 am

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby RandG » Thu Oct 11, 2012 21:49 pm

Having read all this topic and the Trek one, I'm surprised how little has been discussed about all the protagonists and the detail involved over time. I've also been following a similar topic on "an ice hockey forum" and the level of debate on the subject compared to cycling specific forum as in here is quite remarkable.

I've followed the tour since about 89, but mainly just aware of the odd name here and there but the detail in which is gone in to on the other forum far out weighs what's been discussed in here.

User avatar
Le Commentateur
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 17:08 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Le Commentateur » Thu Oct 11, 2012 22:04 pm

There are a couple of mega-threads in Pro Race that go into wikipedia-like levels of obsessive detail. Maybe "lite" is appropriate for Road General.

RandG
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 09:14 am

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby RandG » Thu Oct 11, 2012 22:17 pm

Le Commentateur wrote:There are a couple of mega-threads in Pro Race that go into wikipedia-like levels of obsessive detail. Maybe "lite" is appropriate for Road General.


Ah, fair point, I never go in that section.

BUR70N
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 21:20 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby BUR70N » Fri Oct 12, 2012 09:30 am

Nice people don't always get where they should be in a sport, its the nasties that fight to get where they are, maybe LA did it this way.

If everyone else was doping at the same time, yes LA took it to a new level, then he was the best at time on a pretty even playing field with the other abusers!

User avatar
Monty Dog
Posts: 20389
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 14:31 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby Monty Dog » Fri Oct 12, 2012 14:06 pm

It's also worth bearing in mind that Armstrong didn't like competition from those in his team - Hamilton's book demonstrates that when he was on the same programme and started beating Armstrong, he was pretty well marginalised and force-out the team, likewise Landis. In that respect, Armstrong wasn't even the strongest rider and it is suspected that this is where Hemassist and synthetic hormones gave him the extra boost he needed to win the Tour.

To say that he was the 'best' rider of that era is wrong, he was only the 'best prepared' probably through priviledged access to certain treatments no-one else could afford.

The sad thing is that there were natural talents of that era who were denied the opportunity because they refused to take the drugs - to say the playing field was 'level' is utterly ridiculous.
Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..

blackhands
Posts: 946
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 16:17 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby blackhands » Fri Oct 12, 2012 16:02 pm

verylonglegs wrote:You are 44 and you use yawn as an expression like a teenager. Perhaps forget the blogging and concentrate on your cycling?


...and learn to spell.

User avatar
coriordan
Posts: 5339
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 21:11 pm

Re: Armstrong - my take on it

Postby coriordan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 18:20 pm

Its also somewhat ironic that he 'came back from the point of death to win the TdF' which in itself is no mean feat, PEDs or not, but it could have been in fact due to systematic abuse of steroids, testosterone, cortizone and specifically human growth hormone prior to his rise to the peak of professional cycling which gave him cancer in the 1st place.


Return to “Road General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gusm41, RichP77 and 6 guests