Bye Lance

[Lordy]

An interesting response

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720
 

[citoyen]

There were a lot of factors in 1999.

True. I suspect being more doped than the other teams was possibly the biggest factor though.

d.

[Exit Stage Left]

There were a lot of factors in 1999.

True. I suspect being more doped than the other teams was possibly the biggest factor though.

d.

The Christophe Bassons incident was what cemented Armstrong as the Patron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Tour_de_France#Christophe_Bassons

The Patron is the school bully in essence, a strong one ensures stability. The more certain behaviours are driven underground, the more power the bully has. In ostracising Bassons the peleton were making it clear where they stood on the issue of doping, and their opinion of those who broke the omerta.

[Exit Stage Left]

The interesting thing about Lance is his attitude to adversity and authority. He thrives in adversity, and part of that is in pitting himself against authority. He wants to be able to compete in sanctioned events, so he wants the validation of authority, yet he wants to subvert it at the same time. Withdrawal of validation is an appropriate punishment for him.
If he can't play nicely, he shouldn't be allowed to play at all, for keeps.

[Andrew]

And conversely, I wondered if allowing him to compete again might produce interesting results.

I wonder how fellow  competitors might respond to him? Or any spectators? Would event organisers even want him in their events?

He seems to me to crave attention and he may not get the attention he desires. Having got what he wanted in being able to compete again, he may then find that he has a bigger problem - nobody wants him. Punishment indeed!

[spesh]

As far as the WADA-affiliated tri circuit is concerned, Armstrong's about as popular as an eggy fart in a crowded lift.

... two top triathletes have said that they hope he doesn’t get to come back.

Current Hawaii Ironman world champion Pete Jacobs believes that he would be a bad influence, and also that he would still have an advantage even if he stopped taking banned substances. “We are all done with the cheating and lies,” he told News Limited.

“The advantages, because he could train so much harder, are still there. That would be an unfair advantage. If the body is fitter, stronger, it is still effective. It (Armstrong's body) would have to retain some of that.”

As for former triple world champion Craig Alexander, he wants a lifetime ban introduced. “We need to draw a line in the sand and say 'no'. This is a great time to take stock and put new rules in place for zero tolerance."

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13753/Armstrong-reactions-Triathletes-and-Gripper-dont-want-his-return-Hammond-speaks.aspx

[Veloman]

......... “The advantages, because he could train so much harder, are still there. That would be an unfair advantage. If the body is fitter, stronger, it is still effective. It (Armstrong's body) would have to retain some of that.”

Absolute tosh!

[spesh]

Well, he's a triathlete, mustn't judge him too harshly!

 

Joking apart, the argument about long term advantages conferred by doping does crop up from time to time. I believe there have been studies into how effective different doping methods are in the short term, but I'm not sure whether anyone's done a proper study of any purported long-term effects.

[Hot Flatus]

In a totally unscientific way, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't residual benefits, not from the products per se, but from the harder training that they could have enabled. Muscle memory and all that.  They say that if you ride the Tour your body changes forever and you become able to do things that previously you could not.

[eck]

Joking apart, the argument about long term advantages conferred by doping does crop up from time to time. I believe there have been studies into how effective different doping methods are in the short term, but I'm not sure whether anyone's done a proper study of any purported long-term effects.

No? Veloman obviously has:

Absolute tosh!

[Veloman]

Joking apart, the argument about long term advantages conferred by doping does crop up from time to time. I believe there have been studies into how effective different doping methods are in the short term, but I'm not sure whether anyone's done a proper study of any purported long-term effects.

No? Veloman obviously has:

Absolute tosh!

Their hypothesis appears to be that because LA used PED/transfusions he could train harder than others that were not using them as his body had greater capacity before the onset of fatigue.  One assumes this would give some muscular/aerobic threshold benefit and enable LA to gain advantage because of that.  It then assumes those advantages are maintained and remain effective throughout his lifetime, or at the very least deteriorate at some rate or other that is relatively slow.

I think this is tosh as the whole purpose of PED/transfusions was to give the boost at the appropriate time as demonstrated in Hamilton’s book, particularly as those who stopped doping did not match the performances of when they doped and if the hypothesis is true, then surely a life ban would be applicable for anyone caught doping as the advantage continues.  (No tears for the likes of Contador et al never riding a bike again.)  There is a slight difference between using illicit methods of bulking out, as previously demonstrated by east European athletes, and what cyclists were/are up to regards targeted improvement of performance.

So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)  They should just have more courage and tell him he is not welcome.

[LEE]

What did he use growth Hormone and Testosterone for?

[sg37409]

Anyway, he was shit in 2010.

In 2009 I think he was still doping to win.  I don't believe he was in 2010. (not saying he didnt dope, but dont think he had his blood top-ups during the race)

[JJ]

I've no expertise to draw on so I'm sure it'll be easy to shoot me down but, to take one example, it doesn't seem inconceivable that the use of  EPO or blood doping to increase the ability to get oxygen to the muscles may allow the athlete to challenge and hence develop other parts of the system more easily, like lung capacity or numbers of mitochondria.  One would expect those gains to reverse themselves more or less quickly after doping stopped, but I don't know how easy it would be to get funding to find out how quickly for different aspects after stopping different kinds of doping.

Maybe someone with a sports medecine background knows?

Beyond that, surely you'd have to consider the relative benefit of deterence against the value to sport of allowing the possibility of redemption.  If there is no possiblity of redemption, then what incentive to come clean?  Of course you could reasonably view LA as a special case, and/or his repentance as insincere.

Glad to have got that off my chest.  As you were!

[mattc]

I've yet to hear any evidence from sports scientists that there is a long-term effect.

Every effect of 'natural' training fades over time.

Put these two together: I'm happy to assume there is no significant long-term benefit.

[Veloman]

Beyond that, surely you'd have to consider the relative benefit of deterence against the value to sport of allowing the possibility of redemption.  If there is no possiblity of redemption, then what incentive to come clean?  Of course you could reasonably view LA as a special case, and/or his repentance as insincere.

Or you could say that if you test positive and are subsequently banned and do not admit to doping, then no redemption.  If you are caught and admit to everything you have done, along with information on who assisted, then redemption and ride again.  How many riders who have been caught have not admitted it?  Quite a few, and some will be competing in TDF 2013 and might even be competing for GC.

[DaveJ]

How many riders who have been caught have not admitted it?  Quite a few, and some will be competing in TDF 2013 and might even be competing for GC.

Or won Olympic Gold medals.

[Nuncio]

What did he use growth Hormone and Testosterone for?

Testosterone for muscle recovery, I think. 

[bikey-mikey]

Lance should be treated the same as everyone else. Simples.....

I have never liked the stupid American 'deal' concept.   You get someone who has only murdered two people to nark on someone who has murdered 20 and call the first guy a hero and let him go with a token sentence. It's discrimination  and wrong.

All those guys who admitted doping or being aware of it and not reporting it, and then much later fingered Lance, are equally as guilty and should all get the same punishment, and lose all their book royalties as well.

All the urine samples from those 7 tdfs should be tested for EPO and results posted. I wonder how far down they would go to find a clean winner, if they even have something to test.

[aidan.f]

Agree, I don't  much like what  lance  was (and  is) but  'scapegoat' come to  mind.

using  scapegoat with its original meaninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

[Karla]

So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)

My irony meter just went beserk.   You've got a lot of unproven assumptions in your post, how about you find a study to back them up before you go about calling tosh?  Particularly given the very common perception of sportspeople of my acquaintance that it's easier to regain fitness than to gain it for the first time.

[rafletcher]

So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)

My irony meter just went beserk.   You've got a lot of unproven assumptions in your post, how about you find a study to back them up before you go about calling tosh? 

The opposite should also hold - where is the proof that it isn't "tosh". I have no idea either way, although my own feeling would be against long term benefits - and indeed would lean towards possible long term harm.

Somewhat OT, but I read an article recently about the effects of pre-emptive dosing with NSAID's, the theory being that taking e.g. ibuprofen before exercise would allow harder training. It may do, but it also may promote increased bleeding in the small intestine. Which in turn may prove injurious to health.  The human body is a very complex organism.

[LEE]

A cocktail of Testosterone, growth-hormone and EPO would allow for some very hard training and muscle-building, beyond what an un-doped rider could manage in a session.

I don't see it as beyond the realm of fantasy that drugs cheats have bodies built, unfairly, on drugs and that such a body continues to provide an advantage for the rest of their career. EPO or blood-doping would just provide extra fuel for such a body on the day.

If Lance is talking about competing again then I'd make sure he's having random doping tests now.  I honestly wouldn't put it past him to be training on drugs as we speak.

I think a lifetime ban would be in his interest though.  I don't think he yet realises how unpopular he would be at these events.  I picture a chorus of booing as he makes his way along the triathlon course.

(As for whether event organisers would want him...of course they would..they'd get big money from TV companies to cover events that would normally remain anonymous).

[Karla]

So, complete and utter tosh! (IMO)

My irony meter just went beserk.   You've got a lot of unproven assumptions in your post, how about you find a study to back them up before you go about calling tosh? 

The opposite should also hold - where is the proof that it isn't "tosh".

Yebbut I didn't see anybody shouting "tosh" the other way with the same vehemence.

[mattc]

I think a lifetime ban would be in his interest though.  I don't think he yet realises how unpopular he would be at these events.  I picture a chorus of booing as he makes his way along the triathlon course.

(As for whether event organisers would want him...of course they would..they'd get big money from TV companies to cover events that would normally remain anonymous).

Some good points there.

I believe he's done some big-ish triathlons (Ironmans?) since retirement. I don't think they got much media coverage (outside the bike/triathlon nerdweb!).

Anyone know how welcome he was at those?
[Obviously these were before the recent admissions, but i'd still like to know.]