mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
Schleck;5269831I myself would of liked it to have stayed hidden.[/QUOTE said:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Lance Armstrong ends fight against doping charges
- Thread starter martyn20
- Start date
I don't think it's any coincidence ALL of NSC cycleistas' sidestepped that point from a first post.
Indurain's Lungs
Legend of Garry Nelson
Sorry, why what? Couldn't work it out (or just not looking hard enough!)
I took up cycling when i was younger because of Indurain as my Dad took it up after he won his 3rd TDF, when i got into my Teenage years Armstrong just won his 3rd TDF, after which i took up cycling, 11 years down the line my Idol's my a cheating doper and been stripped of all his titles, of which is why i took up cycling, albeit i can see why most people wanted it to come out for the cheating doper that he is, just my personal opinion.
I understand where you're coming from to an extent. We've all been there. My favourite rider - Marco Pantani. Jam for blood, and now dead from a cocaine overdose. In 1998 he was the saviour of cycling after the Festina affair. Turned out he wasn't. However, I can detach the rider from the sport. It's something you learn to do after being continually let down by a sport you continue to love.
lost in london
Well-known member
I'm not sure it's exactly the point you're making, but the idea that everyone was doping so in a way it created a level playing field is nonsense. A great post on inrng.com about it:
"There are some who say that because almost every overall contender in the Tour de France was doping it doesn’t make much difference to the result. Since everyone was doing it the results would have been the same if everyone had ridden clean.
But I disagree. The idea of a “level playing field” amongst doped cyclists is a myth that has to be reviewed and then shot to pieces.
Let’s start with the most obvious point: doping is not an egalitarian activity. Whilst there are rules to ensure bikes and clothing are relatively standard, this is not the case with banned substances or methods. There is no single syringe, no identical pill nor regulated dosage. To simplify the cyclist that uses the most performance enhancing substances enhances their performance the most. Therefore the winner is the one who has doped the most as opposed to an equal field of riders each taking a comparable amounts of banned substances.
There’s the obvious health and moral point associated with taking more and more of these banned substances. Anti-doping controls first appeared in the Tour de France following the death of Tom Simpson in 1967. Fans weren’t outraged at the results being fixed, controls were primarily to protect the health of riders. So in an environment were many riders are taking banned substances they are also risking their health. We know several riders died from EPO abuse in the late 1980s and onwards and in more recent times some have withdrawn from races because of failed transfusions, bad reactions and more.
Next there is an asymmetric response. Our bodies are different in so many ways and this includes the response to pharmaceuticals. It’s documented in medical journals but read cycling biographies too. Some riders find some banned substances work for them and yet others don’t. For example Tyler Hamilton says he never used much growth hormone but other riders have consumed extensive amounts of this, something testified by their oversized jawbones and foreheads. Similarly riders with a naturally high haematocrit count of red blood cells can’t consume much EPO before their blood data rings alarm bells whilst those with lower levels can take more.
Roux wanted the best drugs but could not afford them:
EPO, growth hormone, cortisone… I took all the basic stuff that people were doing then. Everyone was taking this as a minimum. The biggest guys were using things that I just couldn’t afford. They were doing other things like synthetic haemoglobin, blood transfusions, which I could get hold of.
That’s my translation of Laurent Roux, these days a farmer but once a rider in the 1990s, in a statement in court as he demonstrates how sport is a winner-takes-all environment.
Win the Tour de France and big prizes, a large salary, product endorsements and more await whilst the combined income of the other two riders on the podium is probably less than the winner. The same logic means the top-10 are earning far more than those outside the top-100. I’ve seen it said that Armstrong has a net worth of $125 million. Ignore the exact number but it means riders and teams with more money can afford more sophisticated and comprehensive pharmaceutical advice, creating a circle where more money funds more sophisticated doping which brings more rewards and so on. Michele Ferrari was kept on an expensive retainer. Other teams also had big schemes but as we saw over the years they were eventually caught. Similarly the UCI has worried about prosecuting big name riders in the past. When the UCI launched prosecutions with its bio-passport scheme it went after shrimp-sized riders like Pietro Caucchioli and Tadej Valjavec to establish the precedent before tackling a potential millionaire like Franco Pellizotti. Like it or not the UCI has been cautious about tackling the biggest names, if only to take extra care before launching a prosecution.
Similarly money doesn’t just buy better drugs, it funds evasive techniques and supports subversion. A well-resourced team can hire lookouts to check for visiting doping controllers. It can fly riders to remote training camps where the testers won’t reach. It can use undetectable methods, “investing” in techniques at the cutting edge of doping. For example the logistics of transporting blood bags around Europe require significant funding; more so if riders need to maintain a complex schedule of EPO microdosing, blood banking and infusion so that they can trick the UCI’s bio-passport with the illusion of stable values all year long. It’s not uncommon to see people refer to anti-doping controls as IQ tests, if people follow advice then they never get caught; meanwhile the little guys get rousted for bungling amateurism.
Also money helps you squash any critics. Cheating your way to vast fortune gives you wealth and legal firepower. As we’ve seen Armstrong has been able to deploy legions of lawyers and a spokesman previous infamous for helping scandal-hit Bill Clinton and Goldman Sachs shape the message in their hour of need. So the more money you make, the more you can squash any accusers, the more you can control the message.
Finally remember that not everyone was doping. The fact that many were doing it doesn’t negate the fact that they were breaking the rules. Even if those who were cheating did it on an equal basis they’re still robbing those who refuse to risk their health.
Summary
Don’t look to sport for an equal universe. The variety of DNA and upbringing mean big differences in ability. Cyclists train in rain, snow or baking heat to get an edge on rivals.
At the same time we codify sport with a set of rules. Anti-doping means exist primarily for health but they help level the playing field, or in cycling terms, to equal the gradient or headwind. It is wrong to imagine the results in cycling since EPO emerged in 1989 would be the same if the molecule was never discovered, or that the Tour de France during the last decade would be the same without blood transfusions. Take Bjarne Riis who seemed destined to be a useful helper for Laurent Fignon but was propelled into a Tour de France winner with the plunge of a thousand syringes. But don’t dwell on him as he is just one example amongst many.
The story of doping is not simply a tale of pharmacology, it is also one of resources, planning and deceit and we can see these cannot be equal. With Armstrong and US Postal and his subsequent teams the vast sums of money cited by USADA show a doping programme on a scale that few other teams could match. It was therefore an unequal contest."
I've finally heard someone 'draw the line' (which happens to be dead straight and in thick marker pen) between Lance - Luis García del Moral - Barcelona.
In checking out Luis' spelling there does seem to have been a few eyebrows raised.
The absolute arse is going to fall out of sport very very soon.
We are in for an interesting few months.
In checking out Luis' spelling there does seem to have been a few eyebrows raised.
The absolute arse is going to fall out of sport very very soon.
We are in for an interesting few months.
It's becoming harder to do.
I'm not sure where I'd be, without Sky, Garmin & HTC before.
I was even grumbling about Phil and to a lesser extent Paul, during this years Tour.
I know what you mean. I really struggle with Contador - he climbs beautifully and has an explosive acceleration that very few can stay with. It's the sort of attacking riding I love. However....
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
I wasn't saying it was made an equal field by doping. I was saying that Lance won by being a better doper than the rest. That period was more about the efficiency of your doping regime than your cycling capabilities.
As there were so many going for midnight jogs they should have left the result as is or remove those Tours from the results list (noted that due to prevalent doping no one knows who won).
Indurain's Lungs
Legend of Garry Nelson
Indurain and valverde say armstrong should keep his titles!
I expected it from the tool valverde but the other might prompt a name change!
I expected it from the tool valverde but the other might prompt a name change!
Indurain still thinks he's innnocent!
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
You'd be as well naming yourself after Ricco.
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
letour.fr said:
Probably old news but this seems to make the most sense to me.
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2003
- 23,173
Does Le Tour actually feature on the radar of the average American? For such an insular-looking country sports-wise (and other-wise), I shoudn't imagine it means much to many of them.
The Tour does. Pro cycling absolutely not, unless you live in Boulder, which I'd love to do.
Greg LeMond pushed Le Tour into America in the late 80's.
But Lance and the whole package made it a big USA tub-thumping thing.
Now it's 'well of course he took drugs, everybody did', omitting the fact it was Lance selling them!.
Although similar to here, apparently there is a MAMIL culture developing on the back of Lance, not to mention for health and economic reasons.
Mark Cavendish @MarkCavendish
Are people so naive they think cycling's the only sport with a hidden past? Maybe it's just the only sport where a hidden past's come out.
Are people so naive they think cycling's the only sport with a hidden past? Maybe it's just the only sport where a hidden past's come out.