Lance Armstrong ends fight against doping charges

[Pantani]

So, could Armstrong POSSIBLY have been good enough without the drugs?

Would he still go 100% when on them to win or would he have to 'act' A LITTLE and tone down his performance to not raise suspicions?

Yes, he probably would have still been good enough, providing everyone else was clean. Problem is the majority were doped in this period, so it is hard to say. Armstrong may just have had the capacity to cope with vast amounts doping products, whereas others did/may not, who really knows? One thing is for certain if I was a clean rider in that era and had finished in the top 10 of the Tour I would not be a happy bunny right now.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So, could Armstrong POSSIBLY have been good enough without the drugs?

Would he still go 100% when on them to win or would he have to 'act' A LITTLE and tone down his performance to not raise suspicions?

Since 1984, only one man has won the TdF with 4 stage wins or more, and while that wasn't unusual back in the era of Eddy Mercx, in the modern era a GC rider winning 7 TdF titles as well as 20 stage wins in 7 years...it does beggar belief, I wouldn't have said 20 stage wins for a GC rider in 7 years was toning down their performance to be honest!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tour_de_France_general_classification_winners

 

[Bold Seagull]

One thing is for certain if I was a clean rider in that era and had finished in the top 10 of the Tour I would not be a happy bunny right now.

Great point, it's easy to forget the victims in all this, those riders that did ride clean for all those years but they never stood a chance. They may have been the best of their generation, but only ever posted marginal positions.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

From those who know more about this than me, can you tell me what difference (i.e how much) the doping actually does to an athletes performance?

I've always wondered this. It's obviously impossible to KNOW, but would LA have been good enough to possibly win without them, or do they really push you on a huge amount?

Let me clarify (as reading this back may appear that i'm Pro LA), I'm not claiming they don't matter as franlkly, I don't have a clue. I'm just genuinly interested into what these drugs do? Does the athlete already have to be PHENOMENALLY good for these to push them that extra yard, or do they produce a MASSIVE boost in performance?

They reckon about a 5% boost at the top level from doping. That's a huge amount when the margins may only be 1 or 2%. A good example is hincapie's ability to lead the usps train over the big climbs during his doping years compared to his climbing now.

How much confidence do you have in this? 100%? 75%? Less?

From following cycling since 1986, all I say is keep an open mind. I've seen loads of 'new generations' herald a new era and then get busted.

I hope Sky are clean and I reckon they are but if if everyone thinks the doping problem now simply stops with this USDA report then that complacency is very dangerous.

Sky should be put under more scrutiny than any team in the sport has been previously - if they keep coming up smelling of roses then the sport will at least be on the right track.

Christ, I expect to be shot down for this

On the contrary, this is a very sensible point and any team that is serious about anti-doping should welcome all and any scrutiny.

The argument that Armstrong did what everyone else is doing doesn't really stack up. He used his influence to ensure other riders received an inferior doping service, got insider knowledge on other riders' practices and held sway with the authorities to allow him to dope more extensively (covered up tests, warnings in testing etc.) or to eliminate the opposition (hamilton).

 

[teaboy]

How much confidence do you have in this? 100%? 75%? Less?

From following cycling since 1986, all I say is keep an open mind. I've seen loads of 'new generations' herald a new era and then get busted.

I hope Sky are clean and I reckon they are but if if everyone thinks the doping problem now simply stops with this USDA report then that complacency is very dangerous.

Sky should be put under more scrutiny than any team in the sport has been previously - if they keep coming up smelling of roses then the sport will at least be on the right track.

Christ, I expect to be shot down for this

I agree 100%. Sky have set out their stall publically as being anti-doping, and racing clean. However, a not-too-close look at their staff asks more questions than most would like. Sean Yates rode with Motorola from 91-96 with Armstrong and tested positive in 1989; Geert Leinders has a history of involvement with doping; and there are rumours within the sport about new signing Jon Tiernan-Locke.

I hope Sky (and others) are racing clean, and aiming for zero-tolerance. I'm certainly not holding my breath, and it won't destroy my love of racing if it turns out everyone's still on the juice.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

LeMond now the only American ever to have worn the yellow jersey!

Armstrong, hincapie, zabriskie, landis all stripped.

 

[Stat Brother]

LeMond now the only American ever to have worn the yellow jersey!

Armstrong, hincapie, zabriskie, landis all stripped.

I guess I'm a naive old romantic, but Hincapie hurts more than Lance

 

[Bold Seagull]

Alex and other cyclists are surely better off keeping their misplaced solidarity to themselves!? Steve Cummings comment that LA has done a lot for charity is almost laughable at this point. No one should want an LA witch hunt as the sole offender, but neither do you want to pretend it is of little importance. Dowsett suggesting he is still a legend frankly is so out of touch you do have to wonder whether it really will be a brave new dawn if attitudes within cycling don't truly change.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

 

[Stat Brother]

The thing is who's Alex's hero, and reason for being in the sport?
£ to a piece of pooh it's Lance, he certainly gave Alex his first chance.

If you believed in Lance up until yesterday, I don't imagine you'll be throwing him under the bus today.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The thing is who's Alex's hero, and reason for being in the sport?
£ to a piece of pooh it's Lance, he certainly gave Alex his first chance.

If you believed in Lance up until yesterday, I don't imagine you'll be throwing him under the bus today.

Perhaps not, but I also wouldn't be commenting publicly on it either, certainly not so soon at any rate. It's another headline to be honest the sport could do without.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

Perhaps not, but I also wouldn't be commenting publicly on it either, certainly not so soon at any rate. It's another headline to be honest the sport could do without.

Exactly, it doesn't help the Sky party line on doping.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Exactly, it doesn't help the Sky party line on doping.

Brad doing the party line

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Mentioned this earlier today, to a US colleague, who said Americans don't give a shit about this. It's only cycling and a winner is a winner regardless of what drugs they have gorged on. I was a bit sceptical about this until I read his sponsors were standing by him. Nice work Nike et al.

 

[Stat Brother]

Mentioned this earlier today, to a US colleague, who said Americans don't give a shit about this. It's only cycling and a winner is a winner regardless of what drugs they have gorged on. I was a bit sceptical about this until I read his sponsors were standing by him. Nice work Nike et al.

I've been surprised by just how weak the little US coverage I've caught on this, has been.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Brad doing the party line

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

He makes a similar point to @Pantini earlier with regard to how far down do you have to go to find the next clean rider in the list? Within the top 5, the top 10? What a crushing shame for that clean rider in 5th, 8th, 10th, whatever that really they were genuinely the best to compete with a bunch of cheats.

As an aside to the point about Americans not caring, what they will care about is a) LA committing perjury under oath, and b) that public financing went into the team. That will get their backs up, even if they are ambivalent to the cheating itself.

 

[Stat Brother]

That, other than personal grudges, is the reason for going after Lance.

It being a Federal Offence, using US Postal money (taxes) for doping.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Here you go just the headlines, but....

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/login/1154527/
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/login/1154491/

I still rank him just above Terry and Cashley though

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

That, other than personal grudges, is the reason for going after Lance.

It being a Federal Offence, using US Postal money (taxes) for doping.

That was the basis of the FBI case headed by Novitzky that was dropped last year.

 

[teaboy]

I guess I'm a naive old romantic, but Hincapie hurts more than Lance

I'm with you on that one. The fact that this was likely to happen and was known about in July made his lead onto the Champs Elysees left a slightly bad taste in the mouth at the time.

Any word on Johan Bruyneel yet? Or the UCI? This still has some way to go...

 

[Seagull58]

Mentioned this earlier today, to a US colleague, who said Americans don't give a shit about this. It's only cycling and a winner is a winner regardless of what drugs they have gorged on. I was a bit sceptical about this until I read his sponsors were standing by him. Nice work Nike et al.

Unfortunately, the attitude of many Americans, including sporting adminiatrators, is pretty much "do whatever you can to win", whether its within the rules or not. The various cases concerning the use of steroids in baseball suggests that they're not too bothered if their sportsmen use drugs.