Bye Lance

[mrcharly-YHT]

This just in...

Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html

This is weird - all of a sudden I am feeling sorry for the guy.  He remains a remarkable person, surviving cancer and then duping the world into thinking that he was one of history's greatest athletes. 

It wasn't a dupe.

He was one of the greatest cyclists of his time.

It is very hard to prove a negative, but seriously doubt that any of his competitors were riding drug-free. People ask for a level playing field?  There was one. They all had the same drug-testing regime. They all worked under the direction of the same limited number of sponsors.

If LA were riding today, drug-free, he'd still be up there as a contender. I'm not sure he'd beat Wiggo in the TDF as it is currently run as there is a huge bias towards the yellow jersey being held by a TT specialist. Wiggo is a phenomenal time trialer.

[TimC]

This just in...

Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html

This is weird - all of a sudden I am feeling sorry for the guy.  He remains a remarkable person, surviving cancer and then duping the world into thinking that he was one of history's greatest athletes. 

He is one heck of a tall poppy.

The shame is he probably was one of history's greatest athletes - he was of a group who were all doping, but nevertheless he was the best of them. We will never know how good he could have been without drugs, but I suspect he would have been the best in any level playing field. Better than any other cyclist ever? Quite possibly, but we'll never know.

As for Livestrong, it seems to do good work and it is hopefully now bigger than Lance Armstrong and can survive without him at the helm. If LA does a Dave Millar, it could even increase its influence. I can't see that happening, but I would love to!

[bobb]

If LA does a Dave Millar, it could even increase its influence. I can't see that happening, but I would love to!

I was wondering this earlier. He's fucked either way, but he'd be a little bit less fucked if he just held his hands up. Maybe do it on TV. Perhaps cry a bit....

[hubner]

This just in...

Lance-Armstrong-dropped-by-sponsors-Nike-following-insurmountable-evidence-in-USADA-report-that-he-doped.html

This is weird - all of a sudden I am feeling sorry for the guy.  He remains a remarkable person, surviving cancer and then duping the world into thinking that he was one of history's greatest athletes. 

It wasn't a dupe.

He was one of the greatest cyclists of his time.

It is very hard to prove a negative, but seriously doubt that any of his competitors were riding drug-free. People ask for a level playing field?  There was one. They all had the same drug-testing regime. They all worked under the direction of the same limited number of sponsors.

If LA were riding today, drug-free, he'd still be up there as a contender. I'm not sure he'd beat Wiggo in the TDF as it is currently run as there is a huge bias towards the yellow jersey being held by a TT specialist. Wiggo is a phenomenal time trialer.

Or he was just better at doping than his rivals, ( you can't really compare riders from different eras). He was better at organising and running his doping regime, had the best doctors, took more risks and doped more than others, took care of officials etc, responded better to PEDs, etc. Maybe he had better drugs that others didn't even know about .

[spesh]

Sorry guys, but the idea of a "level playing field" among doped cyclists is a myth.

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 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.

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.

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

See also the Bicycling magazine interview with JV, where he goes into more detail. The numbers he uses are approximations, but he underlines how different riders will get differing benefits from using EPO:

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider/featured-stories/jonathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform?page=0,3

[henshaw11]

It is very hard to prove a negative, but seriously doubt that any of his competitors were riding drug-free. People ask for a level playing field?  There was one. They all had the same drug-testing regime. They all worked under the direction of the same limited number of sponsors.

The 'level playing field' argument keeps cropping up here and there. Have a look at Jonathan Vaughter's article  - it's easy enough to find - on why he thinks it *isn't*.

Plus if you read some of the individual riders statements provided in the USADA bargain bundle, you'll see that some riders were reluctant and/or very variable, in the way they doped.

Whether or not a non-doping LA would have been exceptional amongst a field of non-doping riders is difficult to say - I certainly wouldn't take it as given (and there's an interview/statement somewhere which suggests he wasn't, pre-doping). However, it does sound like he excelled in the application of PED in terms of a more sophisticated regime - which *isn't* then a level playing field.

(ah, beaten to it..)

[slope]

Another power, wealth, invincible corruption. Shame. Is LA Religious?

[mrcharly-YHT]

Sorry guys, but the idea of a "level playing field" among doped cyclists is a myth.

That's like saying that different teams are not a level playing field because they have different coaches.

[hubner]

Plus if you read some of the individual riders statements provided in the USADA bargain bundle, you'll see that some riders were reluctant and/or very variable, in the way they doped.

Good point. I would guess Armstrong committed himself 100% with doping and went as far as it takes with new and unknown drugs to win. Whereas others maybe doped a bit here and there just trying to get an improvement.

[hubner]

Sorry guys, but the idea of a "level playing field" among doped cyclists is a myth.

That's like saying that different teams are not a level playing field because they have different coaches.

But the rules say you're allowed to have different coaches, but doping is not allowed

[Exit Stage Left]

Level Playing Field? I've seen the Tour de France on telly, it's up and down like a bride's nightie. I'd need more than mineral water to race over that.

[hubner]

Level Playing Field? I've seen the Tour de France on telly, it's up and down like a bride's nightie. I'd need more than mineral water to race over that.

You don't need more than mineral water, you and everyone in the race just go slower.

[spesh]

Tyler Hamilton was asked in an interview how many Tours Armstrong would have won if everybody had been riding clean, and he reckoned that the likely number was one, two at a pinch.

There was little to suggest from Armstrong's Motorola career that he'd be a multiple grand Tour winner, and going by testimony in the SCA case, Motorola and the other American trade teams that crossed the Atlantic to race in Europe only raced clean until they worked out by they were getting a spanking from the continental riders.

USADA investigation affadavits from Frankie Andreau and Stephen Swart, backing up what was reported in the LA Times in 2006:

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Andreu+Frankie+Affidavit.pdf Points 23-26 inclusive.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Swart%2c+Stephen%2c+Affidavit.pdf Points 6-11 inclusive.

Pre-cancer, the 1995 TdF was the only one he finished (placed 36th overall, with one stage win, which may have been partially gifted by the peloton to give him a chance to honour Casartelli), out of four starts.

[Exit Stage Left]

Level Playing Field? I've seen the Tour de France on telly, it's up and down like a bride's nightie. I'd need more than mineral water to race over that.

You don't need more than mineral water, you and everyone in the race just go slower.

It'll not be won by someone paid 2 million Euros, with a hyperbaric chamber at home, an undemanding schedule and regular altitude training camps then?

[fuzzy]

Notwithstanding the PED assistance Armstrong got on the Tours he rode after cancer, lets not forget the massive effect the disease had on his physical make up. he lost a shitload of bulk.

Pre cancer Armstrong may not have done anything clean TdF wise. Post cancer Armstrong cannot be compared to his pre cancer capabilty.

[Exit Stage Left]

You've also got to look at the conditions during his Tours, he won the Worlds in crap weather, and that was always his forte, in the same way that Indurain was only ever good when it was hot.

[cuddy duck]

Notwithstanding the PED assistance Armstrong got on the Tours he rode after cancer, lets not forget the massive effect the disease had on his physical make up. he lost a shitload of bulk.

Dunno how true that is, never seen it quantified, suspect it's another strand in Lance's self-mytholigising; up there with 500 tests/most tested athlete in the world guff and never failed a drug test lies.
He seemed pretty stocky and broad shouldered during his TdF triumphs, relative to the transparent thinness of, say, Hamilton, Rasmussen and even Wiggins this time around. Certainly chunkier than the specialist climbers he used to fly past in his drug addled pomp.

[spesh]

The problem is, the sheer scale of Armstrong's doping and the associated lies means that it is hard to come to any properly quantifiable conclusion  about what his real performance level should have been. The worst part is that a clean rider today can't say that he's improved through losing weight or training harder/better without many people going "yeah, right... Armstrong said that, and he's a confirmed doper, so why should we believe you?"

[henshaw11]

The problem is, the sheer scale of Armstrong's doping and the associated lies means that it is hard to come to any properly quantifiable conclusion  about what his real performance level should have been. The worst part is that a clean rider today can't say that he's improved through losing weight or training harder/better without many people going "yeah, right... Armstrong said that, and he's a confirmed doper, so why should we believe you?"

I think this is the 'study' that has been cited in the past
http://www.utexas.edu/features/2006/athletes/index.html
 - however, there's also some criticism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/11iht-11cycling.16080289.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 - and an Ashenden interview with a bit more detail (a little way down):
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

[Justin(e)]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

What a good article.  It seems strange that there was such strong science - that backed up these findings - in the public domain before USADA let all hell brake loose.

Why was I so blind to the obvious?  I guess I wanted to believe just as much as many others. 

Note to self to be a little bit more skeptical in the future, and listen to more voices in the debate.

[Hedgebanger]

I've not tried to work out what his level of performance would have been with or without dopping. Ok I've enjoyed his TDF wins. At times they were a bit like a cowboy series were the 'star/ hero would prevail in the end. (there was always a 'Lance moment' where he put his rivals to the sword)
WhoI'd like to know is was the marketing genius who worked the whole thing out!
You've got a reasonably good cyclist being treated for a life threatening disease ,any changes can be down to his treatment then write  a couple of brochures(books ) on the treatment, this then gets the sympathy vote because of the pain etc he'd suffered. They then work out to get him into first place on the world's biggest bike race. ''I'm on my bike !''
Ask the testing body to be leanient on his tests (Here's a few dollars for your fav charity ) Plus the publicity of him winning ( cancer survivor etc ) will increase TV revenue and profile for the UCI. Then there's all the Trek bikes sold as a result (Plus Shimano kit ) the list  goes on. 

[henshaw11]

WhoI'd like to know is was the marketing genius who worked the whole thing out!

I'm just waiting for the OJ Simpson stylee 'If I had doped, this is how I'd have done it', coming to bookshops everywhere

TBH, if he *did* come clean about the whole lot, he'd probably sell 'em by the bucketload !

[Justin(e)]

TBH, if he *did* come clean about the whole lot, he'd probably sell 'em by the bucketload !

It's been said elsewhere, but there is something about the personality of Ben Johnson that allows us to forgive the naive savant.

LA was way too arrogant and calculating to recover from this.  He was just plain nasty.  Threatening the wives of fellow cyclists is pretty low.

It will be interesting to watch what happens when his paid lackeys (lawyers etc) and sycophants start to desert him once the money starts to disappear.  He has to pay back a lot of people.

[Tewdric]

I have to say that this endgame is playing out even better than I'd hoped for.  The UCI next.. I'm sending out for more popcorn!

[rogerzilla]

If LA raced on a level playing field, it was because he made it so - everyone had to take drugs.

He's stolen ten years of pro cycling from history and I can't feel sorry for him.