Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: Thor on 24 September, 2008, 12:05:21 pm
-
Probably (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7632837.stm).
And Contador will be somewhat displeased if he does and may go elsewhere. Which should give rise to some interesting rivalry in forthcoming Tours.
-
Surprising.
Kazakh owners happy to ditch the currently most successful rider to accommodate a big name comeback which may backfire, but, pragmatically, will lead to lots of publicity.
Interesting to read the comments from other riders in the comic. Knowing that Armstrong rides a very psychological game, it sounds to me that a lot of them are resigned already to letting him win.
-
Surprising.
Not at all. Astana grew from the corpse of Discovery and USPS. Bruyneel managed all of Armstrongs tour wins.
-
I know the Bruyneel connection, but I would have thought that Armstrong would poach Johann and build his own team, rather than (given the feeling about him particularly in the home of Le tour) ride for a team with more than a whiff of Operacion Puerto about it.
-
[...]given the feeling about him particularly in the home of Le tour[...]
And given Astana rather sulfurous reputation on the Tour as well!
And it isn't very American to ride for Kazakhstan either.
-
True that...
-
Good points. Guess it's down to Bruyneel, then.
-
I dont understand how Astana can be confident of getting the gig ,and I would have thought Armstrong joining them might only have reduced their chances.
-
Armstrong never tested positive... or had any concrete implications.
-
Yeah I know ,what I meant was given French dislike of Armstrong the Astana connection would give reason indirectly.
-
Surely the one thing Lance is NOT trying to achieve is to make friends with the French?!?
Or have i missed an armistice somewhere in all this ...
-
I think they'd be hard pushed to exclude Astana again.
-
Hope Contador does go elsewhere.
-
Agreed. There's Contador, maybe Sastre in the frame against Armstrong. Should be one hell of a scrap :thumbsup:
(Cadel Evans will be frankly irrelevant IMO)
-
Armstrong never tested positive... <snip>
And that's sort of what niggles. He would always say, "I've never tested +ve". Until recently he has (AFAIK) never said, "I never doped." and there is an important difference between the two.
He did say, in the last week or so when the comeback was being talked about, "I didn't dope in 2001 so why would I dope now." or words to that effect. My 1st reaction was huzzah, he's finally said (in a roundabout way), "I didn't dope.", but then I noticed that he hadn't said "1999 or 2000 " or even "I've never doped so why would I dope now."
I'd be very pleased if someone could turn up a quote were he says unequivocally, "I never doped."
-
Armstrong never tested positive... <snip>
And that's sort of what niggles. He would always say, "I've never tested +ve". Until recently he has (AFAIK) never said, "I never doped." and there is an important difference between the two.
He did say, in the last week or so when the comeback was being talked about, "I didn't dope in 2001 so why would I dope now." or words to that effect. My 1st reaction was huzzah, he's finally said (in a roundabout way), "I didn't dope.", but then I noticed that he hadn't said "1999 or 2000 " or even "I've never doped so why would I dope now."
I'd be very pleased if someone could turn up a quote were he says unequivocally, "I never doped."
And then you'd be happy?
I doubt it.
Let's just assume they all doped, including all the great champions. The only ones that tend to admit it are the ones who got caught. I don't remember anyone mentioning it as they stood on the winner's rostrum being showered with money.
What are you looking for exactly?
He won the TdF an incredible 7 times, if he was clean the na breath-taking achievement.
If he doped then still a breath-taking achievement (considering that everyone on his back wheel was doping as well).
-
(considering that everyone on his back wheel was doping as well).
Really?! I think you ought to consider that some countries do have a strict anti-doping policy and have had a system in place for some 10 years...
-
Yeah, by that you mean the French.
..... and which French rider was ever on Armstrongs wheel????
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yeah, by that you mean the French.
..... and which French rider was ever on Armstrongs wheel????
Well this is an argument they may have had legitimately, no?! If they are closely monitored all year long... Not specifically behind Armstrong, mind.
-
Armstrong never tested positive... <snip>
And that's sort of what niggles. He would always say, "I've never tested +ve". Until recently he has (AFAIK) never said, "I never doped." and there is an important difference between the two.
He did say, in the last week or so when the comeback was being talked about, "I didn't dope in 2001 so why would I dope now." or words to that effect. My 1st reaction was huzzah, he's finally said (in a roundabout way), "I didn't dope.", but then I noticed that he hadn't said "1999 or 2000 " or even "I've never doped so why would I dope now."
I'd be very pleased if someone could turn up a quote were he says unequivocally, "I never doped."
Although I can't be arsed to find a quote, I've heard him say on TV (many times) "I have never taken performance enhancing drugs". I've never heard him say "I have never tested positive" :shrugs:
BTW, I'm neither a Lance fan boi or a Lance hater. I just think he's a knob. A knob who can ride a bicycle...
-
...I just think he's a knob. A knob who can ride a bicycle...
The most accurate assessment of the man's career I've ever seen.
-
Bear in mind that he's under a lifetime contract to ride a Trek.
-
Contracts can be broken if the money is right ;)
-
<snip>
I'd be very pleased if someone could turn up a quote were he says unequivocally, "I never doped."
And then you'd be happy?
<snip>
Yup. I would. He says, "I've never doped." rather than some truthful but otherwise 'ambiguous' line about, "I've never tested +ve" and as the tests so far show no evidence of doping then that would satisfy me completely.
-
I dont understand how Astana can be confident of getting the gig ,and I would have thought Armstrong joining them might only have reduced their chances.
I think the absolute opposite is true. Provided that Astana suffer no 'mishaps', having Armstrong on their team is a virtual guarantee of invitation to the TdF...
...think of the tv licensing revenues from the US. Remember, it isn't primarily a sporting event, but a commercial one.
-
<snip>
I'd be very pleased if someone could turn up a quote were he says unequivocally, "I never doped."
And then you'd be happy?
<snip>
Yup. I would. He says, "I've never doped." rather than some truthful but otherwise 'ambiguous' line about, "I've never tested +ve" and as the tests so far show no evidence of doping then that would satisfy me completely.
Try this one then. (http://help.berberber.com/forum102/16160-lance-armstrong-disputes-french-doping-results.html)
Quote:
Lance Armstrong has responded on his LanceArmstrong.com website, branding L'Équipe's reporting as being "nothing short of tabloid journalism." Armstrong says: "I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."
/Quote
About two thirds down. It refers to his website so that might be worth investigating.
-
Ta. That'll do nicely.
-
(considering that everyone on his back wheel was doping as well).
Really?! I think you ought to consider that some countries do have a strict anti-doping policy and have had a system in place for some 10 years...
I'm using the same logic used by many 'Lance Detractors'.
Logic - He has never tested positive but he is a good cyclist, therefore he is probably guilty.
I'm merely taking that to its logical conclusion in that every other talented & innocent rider was probably guilty.
I feel very strongly that accusing sporting winners of being 'probably guilty' could signal the end of all sport. I'd prefer to accuse Lance and any other innocent athletes of being 'probably innocent', in fact I'd go the whole way and say they ARE innocent. I can't watch sport otherwise.
One day a French rider may win the Tour again. If he wins it by a big margin the whole world will just assume he is 'probably guilty' using this mentality, I'm sure you'd prefer people to assume he was innocent.
-
Lee: What does it take to move someone to being guilty then? How about if unofficial tests find them positive? No? Ok, how about if they're found in possession of drugs that hadn't been banned at the time (or some other similar loophole).
It's not just black or white unfortunately.
-
I think that it is very unfortunate that there are high profile cases of athletes in many different sports never actually testing but subsequently admitting their guilt, and many star performers having the finger pointed at them. I was listening to a piece about Flo Jo only recently on this very topic.
I see one big difference for Lance: If he ever used performance enhancing drugs when the tests were not available to find them then he lied. However, given the current levels of science, the scrutiny that would be on him in particular, if he comes back the huge expectation for him to be clean and remain clean will be unbearable if he isn't.
Sometimes you just have an exceptional, gifted and totally dedicated athlete. Sometimes you have a cheat. At the moment I see nothing to assume that Lance is anything but the former.
Oh, and I should admit to not really being interested in cycle racing at all, rather I am interested in rules and regulations. I like these things to apply evenly to all competitors in all sports. I guess I'm a bit sad in this respect. It can get my back up big time when I see inconsistency. As Frenchie will know from another thread or two. Sorry if I was a bit harsh Frenchie.
-
Sometimes you just have an exceptional, gifted and totally dedicated athlete. Sometimes you have a cheat.
What makes you think you can't have both?
-
Sometimes you just have an exceptional, gifted and totally dedicated athlete. Sometimes you have a cheat.
What makes you think you can't have both?
Oh, I'm sure you can, and do.
-
Sorry if I was a bit harsh Frenchie.
No problem at all.
My point here is not to say one is guilty, but to say that there are athletes for whom it is mightily difficult to dope, others for whom it is less. I get a bit cranky when French athletes get a lot of stick for not winning (anymore) because I do believe all (most) of them have to be clean. One day they will be back; I hope.
There is not doubt in my mind though that Armstrong is one unbearable character; this may explain why he wins but winning does not justify such an attitude. I hope for him he has always been clean.
-
(considering that everyone on his back wheel was doping as well).
Really?! I think you ought to consider that some countries do have a strict anti-doping policy and have had a system in place for some 10 years...
I'm using the same logic used by many 'Lance Detractors'.
[...]
I'm merely taking that to its logical conclusion in that every other talented & innocent rider was probably guilty.
There's a breakdown in your logic here if you allow me. You could be doped and finish behind of course. But if the winner was up to his eyeballs and you weren't chances are that you wouldn't be able to hang on to his wheels, no?
-
"Ungracious" is the word that springs to mind ...
I can admire his achievement, but I can't say I'm a Lance fan. That's not likely to change - and I'm sure (rightly) it won't bother Lance one iota.
-
I understand Jalabert very well. He is a super human being, very modest. Hinault was a bit more arrogant; but miles behind Lance. Anquetil as well, but he had humour at least. :thumbsup:
-
There is not doubt in my mind though that Armstrong is one unbearable character ...
I am not so sure. I have never met him but on reading It's Not About The Bike I came to the conclusion (ie. my opinion) that he was obnoxious as a teeneager because of his family background and quite possibly being ridiculed at school as a result of that. I think that's where he discovered that he could channel his anger into competitive sport and show them a thing or two!
Since his cancer I am of the opinion that he has both matured a bit a mellowed a bit. That is not to suggest that he can't be riled and indeed, there have been some TdF stages where you could see that his anger fuelled by adrenalin catapaulted him into the lead. For instance, I think he was annoyed at himself for falling off when he caught the musette bag (in 2003?) and sheer contained anger at himself drove him honking into a staggering lead.
That is the image I have of him. Human, with some faults (and lacking other faults which I may well posess).
*remembers the episode with Simeoni*
*shudders*
You may want to read other sources than LA to find out about LA.
I would like to share your opinion, but unfortunately can only agree with Frenchie.
& add that he's been a fierce defender of omerta too
-
Stade 2 France 2 (http://sport.france2.fr/stade2/?date=2008/09/28&id_article=1140)
Operation seduction...
-
How do we know Pantani wasn't an arrogant dickhead? Or Ullrich, or Contador etc etc...
I'm led to believe Ulrich is a bit of a "big daft laddie", hugely talented, genuinely nice bloke.
Observation would suggest that maybe a bit lacking in racing smarts tho' :P
-
How do we know Pantani wasn't an arrogant dickhead? Or Ullrich, or Contador etc etc...
I'm led to believe Ulrich is a bit of a.....
Well, that is what I mean... you are led to believe, .. rather than actually hearing it from his mouth.
I heard it from folks that used to ride with him in T-Mobile and provided support to the team - mechanic, trainer, PR & marketing guys. Rang true to me - you, obviously, are free to believe what you like :)
-
You are totally missing the point ::-)
-
(considering that everyone on his back wheel was doping as well).
Really?! I think you ought to consider that some countries do have a strict anti-doping policy and have had a system in place for some 10 years...
I'm using the same logic used by many 'Lance Detractors'.
[...]
I'm merely taking that to its logical conclusion in that every other talented & innocent rider was probably guilty.
There's a breakdown in your logic here if you allow me. You could be doped and finish behind of course. But if the winner was up to his eyeballs and you weren't chances are that you wouldn't be able to hang on to his wheels, no?
It wasn't my logic that I was using.
-
I can't follow! ???
-
"every other talented & innocent rider was probably guilty."
Eh? Can I choose any two out of three, please?
Follow THAT, Frenchie!
dave j
-
I can't follow! ???
I borrowed the logic of "Lance has never been found guilty of doping but we'll assume he's probably guilty anyway".
Using that logic it's fair to say that all the great cyclists were probably guilty. The French riders that you say were clean, were not in fact clean, they were probably doping and probably found a way around the tests.
Pretty soon anyone who wins at any sport will probably be guilty of doping. I don't want to start along those lines.
If he's found guilty of doping by the ruling bodies that be then let me know, he'll go right down in my estimation.
Until then he's a great cyclist and I honestly couldn't care less what his personality is like. He's just some sporting legend who I'm never going to meet socially, why would I care if he's kind to kittens or not?
Nigel Mansell is a right old Cnut apparently but I can still admire him for winning an F1 title. I think you may need to be a right old Cnut to head an F1 team or a TdF team, there are so many people gunning for your position that it may be necessary to be totally self-centered.
Incidentally I've never seen an interview with Lance where he came across as anything other than professional and business-like so I can't even say he seems like a Cnut.
-
The probably is very low when one is monitored very closely... On and off season. A lot more than other federations and bodies did or do for example. A lot more.
Nobody here has said Mr Armstrong was doping; merely noting that he is a difficult character, not a great winner and has been at times ambiguous on his stance and on his past. There lies the issue.
I would not call him a sporting legend though! I do not believe that you have to be what you describe by use of a c-word to be a champion. And certainly being a champion doesn't justify turning into one either! On this I strongly disagree, as I do on some of his media relation. But I will leave it at that.
PS You wrote:
If he doped then still a breath-taking achievement (considering that everyone on his back wheel was doping as well).
which is not exactly a "probably" and which would not have me in admiration.
-
A legend makes me "dream"... is admired ... wants to be emulated. Armstrong is and leaves me cold I'm afraid! 7 TdF is good; but I want more, and not only some classics and other tours, but also some class. Sorry. :-[
-
I do not believe that you have to be what you describe by use of a c-word to be a champion.
Interesting quote from the GB track team coach a couple of weeks ago saying that Chris Hoy is a c**t when at work, because he has to be.
-
There's a breakdown in your logic here if you allow me. You could be doped and finish behind of course. But if the winner was up to his eyeballs and you weren't chances are that you wouldn't be able to hang on to his wheels, no?
Good example was Riis. He was doping before winning the TdF. Doping didn't suddenly enable him to win..he still had to get all his ducks in a row.
As it stands, most cyclists,probably until this years TdF, are guilty simply by association. That includes Lance.
In the near future, gene-therapy will become a reality and we start all over again..
-
Frenchie seems to have got it about right.
And if rumour and giossip is to be believed Riis started doping and won the TdF - the events were quite closely connected in time.
-
Since I have talked to some riders and have read and heard in the news that it was fairly common to have as a part of your pay packet from your team a "medical" box, all the way from amateurs to pros.
I'm therefore very sure that any rider who was around when the Festina affair happened have at some point in their carrier taken something that should make them go "faster". Since then I do hope that it is not the common/normal thing to do and riders stay way from it.But just look at the Olympics and the temptation is there to do so and you will always have someone trying to cheat the system.
-
Frenchie seems to have got it about right.
And if rumour and giossip is to be believed Riis started doping and won the TdF - the events were quite closely connected in time.
No. He started doping 3-4 years before that.
-
Frenchie seems to have got it about right.
And if rumour and giossip is to be believed Riis started doping and won the TdF - the events were quite closely connected in time.
No. He started doping 3-4 years before that.
Ok, thanks for the correction.
From memory he made a big weight loss before his TdF win - was it that weight loss that turned him from also-ran to the man who toppled Indurain?
-
You should have seen him after the tour when he was in Atlanta for the Olympics, a mere shadow of himself.
-
The trouble with cycling (and athletics, of the run-fast variety) is that they're pure power sports, and as such drugs will always give better performance.
Darts, on the other hand...a few pints (permitted) might steady your hand, but you can take all the EPO, whizz and HGH in the world and it won't help you with that 9-dart checkout :)
-
Darts, on the other hand...a few pints (permitted) might steady your hand, but you can take all the EPO, whizz and HGH in the world and it won't help you with that 9-dart checkout :)
Beta-blockers, apparently, is what you need here ;D
Wasn't there a modern pentathlete found taking BBs before the shooting round - should have taken your advice and stuck with a few scoops!
-
Hmmmmmm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7648910.stm)
Pierre Bordry gave him the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.
But the seven-time Tour champion refused to consent to the new tests
-
Sans Parole
-
Hmmmmmm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7648910.stm)
Pierre Bordry gave him the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.
But the seven-time Tour champion refused to consent to the new tests
Well I can understand that, given the antipathy between Armstrong and the French cycling authorities, and his distrust of their impartiality. And any lab he trusted the French wouldn't. Impasse.
And what if drugs were found - but ones that were not on the banned list at the time? retrospective justice is always a problem.
-
Why the hell should he be singled out for retrospective tests? Controversy and incrimination surrounds the entire professional peloton and not just Armstrong.
-
Why the hell should he be singled out for retrospective tests? Controversy and incrimination surrounds the entire professional peloton and not just Armstrong.
He hasn't been singled out as such. He has been moaning about this situation and what he sees as sleaze probably. The lab told him, it seems: "You/we can have another go!". This lab and WADA are after all accredited to do that job; not the professor Armstrong wants to appoint (talk about impartiality) now.
If drugs were found that were not on the list (then) nothing would happen; other than tarnish his image and PR values. His record, albeit tinted, would stay.
-
It's just a game aimed at Armstrong. Brinkmanship. He who blinks first is lost.
There is still uncertainty as to the condition and integrity of the samples. If I was him I'd simply say, "Hey, I was clean then and your tests showed that. Are you suggesting now that your testing might not have been up to scratch?"
-
Helo again all, it's rather nice round here, i like the decor!
I recon that lance has been waiting for the anti-doping mob to get their act together, now he's pretty confident he can do it all for free and still open up a six-pack of whup-ass on those young pretenders..
You gotta love him!! ive got £50 on it that says he wins next year in paris..