Forum menu
I give up.
The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.
Then go after Bruyneel.If you think Lance is so evil that it's worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don't.
And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?
Realman - You think Lance was just a pawn in Bruyneel's evil schemes? He was part owner, THE rider of the period and the person that ensured that people who spoke out against doping were ostracised from the rest of the community, to the point that they left cycling altogether in some circumstances.
The USADA charges are MASSIVELY important to cycling because they show that anyone involved will be chased down, even after the team has gone away and their livelihoods may well be put in jeopardy for the rest of their careers. I'm willing to bet that if they're found guilty there may well be civil and criminal cases to follow.
To answer your last point, I think the fact we have a 7-time champ who avoided censure for doping but is widely accepted to have doped is a VERY bad example to the cycling community. It would suggest that all you need to do is be clever enough, pay the best doctors and be famous enough and you can duck everything. Hell, look at Contador. The rules were explicit but his own federation bypassed them and let him off before it was appealed and he got the ban almost two years after the fact.
I don't understand why you think allowing him to get away with cheating is acceptable - if that is what he has done
I give up.The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well
Oh come off it.
And it seems likely that Hincapie is one of the witnesses and is likely to have doped too. So what I guess your viewpoint is is that Lance is too big to be made low no matter what he's done. So you're not denying he may have doped, just it's too big a problem if he's shown as a cheat.
RealMan - Member
I give up.The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.
It's almost as if your idea of honesty and integrity is different to everyone else's.
The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped. Lots of people already believe he did, lots more suspect he did, and only a proportion of cycling fans are adamant that he didn't. So it's not really going to affect anyone apart from those who's wellbeing relies on Armstrong being some sort of saintly superhero.
You'll get your heart broken a lot more times before you die Realman, face up to the facts fella...
The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences.
[img] 
[/img]
I give up.The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.
[img] 
[/img]
The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped.
If it had happened while he was in yellow, a few days off from Paris then yes it would.
You look at the fallout from the Festina affair, from Rasmussen being kicked off the Tour while in yellow, Landis and Contador. None of them are even a 10th as big as Armstrong.
Really difficult call - there's the issue of how he became a multi-millionaire off the back of what is potentially one huge conspiracy balanced with the exposure and media coverage of the Tour that he generated (especially in America) but there's also the balance that, if he did dope, if he was engaged in a big conspiracy with doctors, DS, the team, then he certainly wasn't the only one. Festina, Astana (before Amstrong/Bruyneel), T-Mobile were rotten to the core, almost everyone was in on it - organised drug trafficking and taking, blood doping, the whole structure was rotten. So why go after a small select group? Why just target Bruyneel as DS when there's a much more solid case against Bjarne Riis (who still works as a DS)?
Targeting the most famous cyclist of the modern era just smacks of some desperate publicity for the anti-doping agencies. I'm all for justice being done but the whole media circus around it and the lengthy drawn out denials, counter allegations, trials, hearings etc make the whole process a farce. Look at Contador - allowed to race in major Tours while under investigation and with a doping charge hanging over him before finally being convicted and having those victories taken away. It makes the whole process look woefully inadequate and incapable.
The whole road race scene is in chaos about this. Armstrong is ostracised, yet you can buy Pantani T shirts from Cycling Weekly. Where's the consistency ?
The whole road race scene is in chaos about this.
they will be throwing selves off alpe d'huez once the reality hits home.
the shame will be unbearable.
They may give up riding as it will be a total shock to everyone....its not like we have had years to get our heads round this news
WHAT A SHOCK
ps Panatani was never found guilty either nor did he technically fail a drug test as they could not test for EPO at the time.
Landis is going to start a charity to support disillusioned lance fans.
RideJuiced™
Quote of the week has to go to Realman for this little gem
The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences.
Pretty sure we're being trolled here guys.. first all the classifieds "discussion" over refunds, now this.. no way is Realman actually a real man and actually exist. AICMFP.
I do worry what affect this would have on the Livestrong foundation if he was found guilty.
Also, I'm not sure I could watch THAT scene in Dodgeball ever again.
Yes what will we do if he does not promote cancer eh
It is a vanity project largely IMHO and does little of any real good/value. If it was a proper charity it would not be so intrinsically linked to his image
Pretty sure we're being trolled here guys.. first all the classifieds "discussion" over refunds, now this.. no way is Realman actually a real man and actually exist. AICMFP.
he's one of LA's cronies they are all over the internet telling us how he killed cancer and is the most winningest tour cyclist of the road cycling world championships of france ever.
[url= http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Actions/Programs-Partnerships ]What they do[/url]
First, no one can be too big for the sport if the sport is to be sustainable. Professional cycling has existed for more than 100 years before he came on the scene and I am sure it can survive. The allegations are fundamental to sport, and whilst sports can survive without integrity, their value to society in my view is greatly diminished. It is alleged that he was effectively protected by the UCI presumably because of their commercial ambitions for cycling - but what is the point of those ambitions if it is not to develop a sport with integrity. I fear that it was for the personal aggrandisement of the individuals in the sporting bodies themselves rather than for the benefit of sport itself. It is about time these international sporting bodies were held to account and if this is an opportunity to do it - fantastic.
Second, whilst raising funds under a false premise will undoubtedly cause his charities issues, they can survive and indeed thrive if he comes clean and explains why he did it. He recovered and still achieved hugely on the basis that he thought was necessary. If he is big enough to come clean, he will still be capable of being highly regarded if handled well, he is still an extraordinary individual, albeit not so extraordinary that he is not flawed like the rest of us. If he truly believes in his cause, then this is what he will do if he is banned, I can't imagine him doing before but one can live in hope.
The mans a ****
On the cahrities Just had a google around on his critics - even his critics cannot find any personal enrichment of his directly but there is no doubt he uses it to improve his image and has used the image created to make money in other areas.
I'm pretty sure the whole of the peleton is doping, so it sort of makes it fair in a way. Lance seemed so much better than all the others in his time so even if no one them were doping I still think he would have won.
TJ - I think your view on charity fund raising expressed earlier is a bit simplistic. Whilst I recognise the importance of keeping running costs low, what is better a charity that raises £1m with running costs of 50K, or one that decides to spend an additional 100K on marketing but raises £2 million in total as a result. The first has admin costs of 5% but only has raised £1 million, the second has 50% more in admin expenditure as a percentage but can do a lot more good. Simple measures of efficiency are not always best. I do however appreciate your concern about significant admin expenditure by some charities, including Armstrong's.
the magical watts per kilo that were being churned out in the EPO days.
A good measure of wats per kilo is climb rate and that has never gone back down to pre EPO levels. I yhink you'll find Cantador holds the record on a Tour de Swisse climb not long ago.
VAM for schleck and contador were notably lower in 2010 when the biological testing came in, edukator. not sure which tour de swisse you're referring to. not this years and last year contador was struggling at the tour.
VAM for schleck and contador were notably lower in 2010 when the biological testing came in, edukator. not sure which tour de swisse you're referring to. not this years and last year contador was struggling at the tour.
I think he is referring to the verbier climb ,which is in switzerland ,in the tour in 2008.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html
More specifics, and power outputs examined..
In Richard Moores' book [i]The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the Olympic 100m Final[/i]
he says only 2 out of the 8 runners in the final have not been brought down / disgraced by failed drugs tests.
BBC Radio Scotland Sportsnation
Interview with Richard Moore and others; discussing Armstrong, Millar etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxwg0
In Richard Moores' book The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the Olympic 100m Final he says only 2 out of the 8 runners in the final have not been brought down / disgraced by failed drugs tests.
Same in the TdF, you look back at the winners from the last 20 years and the only two not implicated in any kind of doping is last years winner, Cadel Evans and Carlos Sastre who won in 2008.
a thought, Lance won the tours from 1999 - 2005 inclusive.
From reading the letter the only tests i see mentioned relate to 2009 and 2010? so aren't relevant to his tour wins, there are witness statements that say that say he cheated, but they are just bitter old men who got caught and are kicking out trying to blame everyone else for their stupidity.
read it how you like, he probably cheated, but what does it prove? shall we just rip up the tour results for the last 100 years because most winners, in-fact a good proportion of all the riders were on something.
[url= http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12134/Italian-investigators-reported-as-tracing-465000-payment-from-Armstrong-to-Ferrari-in-2006.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+velonation_pro_cycling+%28Cycling+News+%26+Race+Results+|+VeloNation.com%29 ]Italian investigators reported as tracing $465,000 payment from Armstrong to Ferrari in 2006 [/url]
he probably cheated, but what does it prove? shall we just rip up the tour results for the last 100 years because most winners, in-fact a good proportion of all the riders were on something.
If we take this attitude we may as well give up on the TdF as a sporting event and just enjoy it as entertainment/spectacle.
If we take this attitude we may as well give up on the TdF as a sporting event and just enjoy it as entertainment/spectacle.
All i am saying is going after the past to me is pointless, at some point you have to say enough is enough. Where do you draw that line? I said far earlier in this thread that it is common knowledge that many racers that have admitted to doping long after the events.
67 1980 Joop Zoetemelk
68 1981 Bernard Hinault (3)
69 1982 Bernard Hinault (4)
70 1983 Laurent Fignon
71 1984 Laurent Fignon (2)
72 1985 Bernard Hinault (5)
73 1986 Greg LeMond
74 1987 Stephen Roche
75 1988 Pedro Delgado
76 1989 Greg LeMond (2)
77 1990 Greg LeMond (3)
78 1991 Miguel Indurain
79 1992 Miguel Indurain (2)
80 1993 Miguel Indurain (3)
81 1994 Miguel Indurain (4)
82 1995 Miguel Indurain (5)
83 1996 Bjarne Riis
84 1997 Jan Ullrich
85 1998 Marco Pantani
86 1999 Lance Armstrong
87 2000 Lance Armstrong (2)
88 2001 Lance Armstrong (3)
89 2002 Lance Armstrong (4)
90 2003 Lance Armstrong (5)
91 2004 Lance Armstrong (6)
92 2005 Lance Armstrong (7)
93 2006 Óscar Pereiro
94 2007 Alberto Contador
95 2008 Carlos Sastre
96 2009 Alberto Contador (2)
97 2010 Andy Schleck
98 2011 Cadel Evans
If you look at this list of tour winners and think how many have admitted they used drugs it changes a tad, and if you consider that this isn't the list of tour winners who stood on the top step of the podium as it has already been amended.
From the excellent [url= http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.uk/ ]bikesnob nyc[/url]:
As someone who finds the subject [of Armstrong and doping] incredibly tedious, I react to these news stories like I do when I hear the Red Hot Chili Peppers have put out a new album--that is to say with a combination of total disinterest and utter disbelief that anybody is still paying attention. I also think it's especially absurd that he's now been banned from triathlon, a sport which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cycling and more to do with getting changed.
Just let the guy dork out during his golden years. Seriously, they might as well ban him from backgammon.
If you're so disinterested don't post.
In that list of winners I draw a line between Lemond and Indurain. Before the line clean athletes had some hope of achieveing something in cycling, after that no hope.
[url= http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html?m=1 ]http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html?m=1[/url]
Edukator - really? I don't think there has been a clean winner ever.
Given that all the premier contenders in the TdF are [i]probably[/i] doping at some point, i can't help but find
86 1999 Lance Armstrong
87 2000 Lance Armstrong (2)
88 2001 Lance Armstrong (3)
89 2002 Lance Armstrong (4)
90 2003 Lance Armstrong (5)
91 2004 Lance Armstrong (6)
92 2005 Lance Armstrong (7)
pretty fekking amazing!!!!!!
I have no idea if there has ever been a clean Tour winner TJ, I think there were a handful of clean major race winners pre 91, I'll risk quoting a couple: Charly Mottet and Giles Delion. Greg Lemond is perhaps your best bet for a clean Tour winner.
Fairy snuff
I don't think there has been a clean winner ever.
This is the absolute point. The 3 week tours are barbaric circus events, not bike races.
Funny how we draw our own conclusions, I always (wanted) to believe Indurain was clean, but always thought it likely LeMond was drugged up to his eyeballs.