Lance Armstrong

[EKE BBB]

Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France victories won't be re-attributed to other riders says Christian Prudhomme

A seven years gap will be created in the history of the winners of the Tour de France. Wise decission, IMHO (rare thing when we're talking about the infamious Christian Prudhomme).

I'm curious to know if the defenders of Armstrong in this board have something to say once the USADA report is published. What was obvious for every aficionado and common knowledge among cyclers is now wide open to the public light.

[T.D.]

Whoa Nellie!

Report: Did Nike pay $500,000 to [uCI bigwig] Verbruggen to cover up Armstrong positive?

[slide_advantage_redoux]

The whole thing is sad. He was America's hero, beating cancer and then proceeds to kick ass on the pro bike tour.

What a schmuck.

[Ed S]

As I mentioned in my post opening this thread, I could not see how Armstrong could have won those 7 Tours riding clean. Since it was made public, I've spent parts of every day reading through the "Reasoned Decision". I am flabbergasted and blown away by the overwhelming and insurmountable evidence - as well as by the scope of doping, the influence LA had on his team relative, the intimidation, the complex network that supported the doping, the involvement of spouses/SOs, the involvement of team support personnel. I'm particularly disappointed to read of the involvement of Hincapie, Leipheimer, Danielson and Vande Velde. Particularly Hincapie whose career was so entwined with Lance's and whose life so benefited from that association. What a bummer.

I've always know that Lance was pretty much a prick and had a huge ego. I wonder how it must be to be forced to step down as head of your own organization and be dropped by career long sponsors like NIKE, TREK, Giro etc.

The shock waves are still resonating - Levi was fired, White was fired by Green Edge, Sky is forcing riders to sign a no doping statement. The Bruyneel hearing is still to come.

One of the articles I've read over the past week characterized Armstrong as the greatest fraud in American Sports history. Move over Barry Bonds - I could not agree more. Huge disappointment.

[Dan Gould]

I agree with Ed. I wanted to believe back then but even beyond the evidence of Armstrong's doping, the documentation of his ugly personality and attitude and behavior toward those who "aren't on the team" is sickening. He's worse than a prick. He's a contemptible POS.

Maybe we can hope that he blows the money he's made and with nothing left he'll be left to sell autographs "sorry I doped, Lance Armstrong" a la Pete Rose.

[brownie]

LieStrong now gets his dues, and it's only the beginning...

NY Times story

Next question:

When will the International Cycling Union be prodecuted for covering up this disgraceful saga?

Edited October 22, 2012 by brownie

[Ed S]

It's disgraceful, shameful, disgusting and any other adjective you can throw out there that the Tour de France will not be able to have a winner from 1999-2005 because virtually every possible alternate choice was a doper too. Unbelievable.

I watched the UCI press conference and was amazed at the aura of denial they had when speaking of doping which was pervasive throughout the sport leading up to and during the Armstrong years.

[T.D.]

It's disgraceful, shameful, disgusting and any other adjective you can throw out there that the Tour de France will not be able to have a winner from 1999-2005 because virtually every possible alternate choice was a doper too. Unbelievable.

I watched the UCI press conference and was amazed at the aura of denial they had when speaking of doping which was pervasive throughout the sport leading up to and during the Armstrong years.

Not that it's any excuse for athletes' cheating, but I think the UCI's former "50% hematocrit" criterion for cheating was a total invitation to dope. It appears that cyclists used the 50% limit as license to drug/transfuse themselves right up to the 50% threshold. Could (1) the UCI have been incredibly stupid? (2) there have been no effective EPO test at that time? (3) the UCI have been aware of their rule's "moral hazard"? I'd say some combination of (2) and (3)...

[BeBop]

It's disgraceful, shameful, disgusting and any other adjective you can throw out there that the Tour de France will not be able to have a winner from 1999-2005 because virtually every possible alternate choice was a doper too. Unbelievable.

I watched the UCI press conference and was amazed at the aura of denial they had when speaking of doping which was pervasive throughout the sport leading up to and during the Armstrong years.

Not that it's any excuse for athletes' cheating, but I think the UCI's former "50% hematocrit" criterion for cheating was a total invitation to dope. It appears that cyclists used the 50% limit as license to drug/transfuse themselves right up to the 50% threshold. Could (1) the UCI have been incredibly stupid? (2) there have been no effective EPO test at that time? (3) the UCI have been aware of their rule's "moral hazard"? I'd say some combination of (2) and (3)...

The 50% threshold was a derivation of medical and statistical research. Beyond that threshold, the likelihood of manipulation was high enough that it merited further investigation. Some riders apparently had natural levels above the threshold. (I say "apparently" and "natural" based on the beliefs and science at that time.)

No, there was no medical means by which to directly test for EPO or most other blood boosting techniques. Therefore, this indirect method was used.

Certainly some athletes artifically raised there levels to just below 50%; some were caught in the manipulation.

A lower threshold would have led to many, many positives (even without manipulation) and little chance to "prove" anything - again, no medically sound, direct test. There were, of course, many "raids" and attempts to catch users "in the act" or "near the act". I can recall hotel raids and various products discovered in the trunks of team and non-team cars. There were unschedule in- and off-season tests which potentially could have caught riders experimenting around their 50% thresholds or engaged in other "activities".

So what more could the UCI have done? To the best of my knowledge, no other sport had anything better. And many had nothing. So, in my mind, the "stupid" was elsewhere.

Postscript: Whatever UCI did or did not do, the cheating and doping (two different things) problems were evident long ago. I'd pointed out the nearly inarguable points to be made against LA and others before 2000; frustrated, I left the sport. And I use the term "sport" only in a broad sense.

Edited October 22, 2012 by BeBop

[T.D.]

Good points. I guess the UCI was doing conscientious testing at some level, but one can't be surprised that athletes manipulated themselves up to the 50% threshold.

As a former runner, I also used to follow track and field (or "athletics" if you prefer) to some degree. I recall the 3 000m, 5 000m, 10 000m, steeplechase,... records being repeatedly smashed in the mid-late '90s, and was pretty sure EPO was involved. Oddly, the men's marathon WR has fallen precipitously only in the past few years, after EPO testing was introduced (the women's marathon WR tumbled earlier, but was arguably "soft"). Maybe EPO doesn't help marathoners for some reason?!

I gave up following running years ago, and began following pro cycling (gee, that was clever; in hindsight, why not pro wrestling?) when I switched to bicycling as my major form of exercise. I'm through as a fan of both: when it gets to the point where even a casual enthusiast needs a working knowledge of hematology, it's time to switch off!

[clifford_thornton]

Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I still maintain that LA wasn't a "fraud" - he was still the best guy out there with the best team, all things being relatively equal (i.e., everyone doping). But EPO alone isn't going to make a sloppy amateur into a seven-time stage race winner. I quit racing in 2000 because of an injury, but at the time I was glad to see the sport becoming a household thing; too bad people feel they were duped by the drama.

Even with races being fixed and PEDs running rampant, I still can feel the excitement and heartache felt watching the pros compete. It's a fascinating sport, and it's too bad that so many people feel they have to renege on years of enjoyment. Even if LA and his boys are a bunch of assholes, I still have respect for the undeniable work and the accomplishments that resulted, tainted though they may be.

[David Ayers]

Cliff, It was EPO, many other drugs, and blood doping. It made it so that to win you had to do all that. The fixed hematocrit level in the test mean that some could benefit more than others (a natural 42 benefits more than a natural 48, as the level accepted by the test was 50). And it all took ingenuity and money. The level playing field defense is out of the window. Of course Lance was a great cyclist - but was he the 'best' or just the most ingenious? All his titles are gone and there is now no longer any meaningful way to think about it, and that's what all this has cost the sport. I imagine that most sports currently have heavy drugs problems but only cycling has faced it - too many financial interests tied up. London Olympics anyone? A handful of positives across all sports - joke.

[Big Beat Steve]

It's disgraceful, shameful, disgusting and any other adjective you can throw out there that the Tour de France will not be able to have a winner from 1999-2005 because virtually every possible alternate choice was a doper too. Unbelievable.

This overview (from German news site Welt.de) speaks for itself.

No translation of the captions needed, I think ...

[Christiern]

Strictly speaking, our very own Armstrong wasn't drug free, but nobody has called for removing the Hot Fives from the shelves.

Let's not even talk about Bird! Isn't it interesting that we (including myself, of course) have such acceptable double standards?

[BeBop]

Strictly speaking, our very own Armstrong wasn't drug free, but nobody has called for removing the Hot Fives from the shelves.

Let's not even talk about Bird! Isn't it interesting that we (including myself, of course) have such acceptable double standards?

But does drug use in music reliably and measurably enhance performance? Does it directly lead to financial advantage (and at the zero-sum based "suffering" of others)?

Sorry, I don't mean to be bitter, but by some measures, my decision NOT to dope or encourage/allow the riders I coached to dope did put me at a disadvantae.

Edited October 23, 2012 by BeBop

[Larry Kart]

Strictly speaking, our very own Armstrong wasn't drug free, but nobody has called for removing the Hot Fives from the shelves.

Let's not even talk about Bird! Isn't it interesting that we (including myself, of course) have such acceptable double standards?

Chris -- I see the smiley, but the above is just silly (if JSngry posted it, you'd probably be all over him). As BeBop said above, there is no double standard at work here because drug use in music does not reliably and measurably enhance performance. Further, of course, music is not an athletic competition -- specifically, as strict/measured a competition as a bicycle or a swimming race or a track and field event. OTOH, I do believe that Bird traveled 100 meters in less than a second ... in his mind.

[Aggie87]

Music's also not a zero-sum game like sports, where one team/player/rider wins and the others lose.

[JSngry]

(if JSngry posted it, you'd probably be all over him).

Oh great, now I'll need more Ambien to get to sleep.

Thanks, Larry.

OTOH, I do believe that Bird traveled 100 meters in less than a second ... in his mind.

The time that was lost in transference from his mind to his horn was sometimes remarkably minimal.

[Soulstation1]

Armstrong for President!!!

[T.D.]

Good writeup by former pro cyclist Robt. Millar

[Tim McG]

I patiently await the banning of all the other cyclists who doped during that same time period.

Clearly, this is just another case of only going after the big fish which will do nothing to curb PEDs in the sport. It will, however, make the cyclists just go deeper underground with it.

It is about as legit a solution to the bigger problem as that French cycling gossip sheet Le Equipe is to real journalism.

Edited October 23, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[BeBop]

I patiently await the banning of all the other cyclists who doped during that same time period.

Clearly, this is just another case of only going after the big fish which will do nothing to curb PEDs in the sport. It will, however, make the cyclists just go deeper underground with it.

It is about as legit a solution to the bigger problem as that French cycling gossip sheet Le Equipe is to real journalism.

They've already been banned or lost their "victories", for the most part. Armstrong, as the "big fish" had the resources/power to evade for a longer time. But the many, many riders already "outed" from that period is why it's so tough to find successors to the now-stripped Armstrong.

I also believe, personally, that Armstrong's celebrity made him harder to fully prosecute - another reason he stood for so long. To be fair, it also made him a bigger target. Add in the fact that Armstrong worked for the United States almost-Government(Postal Service)...

Full Disclosure: Yes, I have a personal thing against Armstrong. He's an a**hole. He made me and all U.S. riders look like shameful, disrespectful cretins. Since he controlled "the microphone", we were unable to defend ourselves.

[Tim McG]

I patiently await the banning of all the other cyclists who doped during that same time period.

Clearly, this is just another case of only going after the big fish which will do nothing to curb PEDs in the sport. It will, however, make the cyclists just go deeper underground with it.

It is about as legit a solution to the bigger problem as that French cycling gossip sheet Le Equipe is to real journalism.

They've already been banned or lost their "victories", for the most part. Armstrong, as the "big fish" had the resources/power to evade for a longer time. But the many, many riders already "outed" from that period is why it's so tough to find successors to the now-stripped Armstrong.

I also believe, personally, that Armstrong's celebrity made him harder to fully prosecute - another reason he stood for so long. To be fair, it also made him a bigger target. Add in the fact that Armstrong worked for the United States almost-Government(Postal Service)...

Full Disclosure: Yes, I have a personal thing against Armstrong. He's an a**hole. He made me and all U.S. riders look like shameful, disrespectful cretins. Since he controlled "the microphone", we were unable to defend ourselves.

Well put, BeBop. You would know better than I would.

All I'm sayin is if UCI and USADA want to put an end to PEDs it can't begin and end with Armstrong.

[BeBop]

Well put, BeBop. You would know better than I would.

All I'm sayin is if UCI and USADA want to put an end to PEDs it can't begin and end with Armstrong.

I'm a definite outsider now, but I do feel like the sport is cleaner, at least among the very few participants I have contact with. So I hold out a little, tempered hope. It can really be a beautiful sport in which to participate. (I've never appreciated the spectator angle on any sport, but that's just me.) And for whatever bitterness I hold, I recognize that I was never really very good at it, even as a domestique.

[Chuck Nessa]

What does humanity gain by being the fastest, fattest, leanest, tallest, etc., and why would anyone cheat to gain an advantage? Seems just to be ego. Worldwide more folks know of Lance than Jonas Salk or a thousand others.