Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Do people think that <snip> was clean throughout 1987?

I don't!

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT.

1 ) Even with all his titles he was not considered the Greatest of all Time.

b ) Also, if everyone cheated and he won does not mean that if nobody cheated he would have still won. It does not work like that. The drugs have different effects on different people. He also had more money to put into it so had the best doctors ( or the same doctor working more for him then the rest ).




[/QUOTE]How many clean riders on that hill?[/QUOTE]

None

Clearlier wrote: »

What's so complicated about thinking that his actions in raising the doping bar which eventually lead to the death of several riders is more reprehensible than a guy who tried to level his perceived playing field by taking what everyone else is taking?

There's nothing complicated about that line of thought, infact it's far too simplistic. Because everyone knows the sport of cycling was / is / always will be crooked beyond compare the only way to assign moral failing to Armstrong is by whinging about him cheating more efficiently than everyone else.

Clearlier wrote: »

As I read your view of the world it was ok for him to dope more than anyone else because he was more determined to win than anyone else. Otherwise read as - everyone else was a loser because they didn't dope like Armstrong and that's ok.

No, everyone else loses any right to complain or feel cheated when they were taking the same thing as he was. If he was smarter about avoiding detection and more efficient in his overall scientific / nutrition / training / race strategy approach then so what? The argument here is incredibly weak and ultimately pares down to a sense of outrage at him being too good for too long allied to a frustration that pretty much everyone else got done apart from him.

Nobody has ever suggested that Armstrong introduced doping into cycling.

Good. They should also park the suggestion that Armstrong himself took it to the next level. Ferrari was just a more studied scientist and Armstrong just had tighter and better coordinated teams. Armstrong didn't create new technologies or introduce strategies no one else used.

You mentioned in an earlier post that Armstrong might have been a great because cancer changed his body. That's another myth he peddled to try and explain away his inexplicable performances.

It's not a myth that he dropped weight and mass, it's just fact. It's not a myth that he changed gear and cadence and set his objectives differently, it's just fact. He was doping before cancer too, his results and impact was different.

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would continue to defend Armstrong. He's by his own admission a serial liar and cheater. He has done some horrible things to colleagues. The good that he has done with his foundation should not be dismissed but it shouldn't be overestimated either.

He has also done some great things for colleagues too. Lance Armstrong's professionalism, determination and will to win displayed during his career is inspirational. Coming back from cancer like he did to get back to being one of the most elite athletes in the world is inspirational.

My opinion is different to yours and we may never agree, but cycling is a doper sport and has been for a very long time. Armstrong played by the 'rules of the road' that everyone else did and beat them hands down time after time after time. I think there is a lot of sanctimonious bull**** written about sport in general when it comes to drugs but the cycling media are the worst offenders by far. As Armstrong has said - everyone made money off his back, including the likes of Kimmage and Walsh who made Armstrong their cash cow cause celebre and got plenty of work bleating about his moral failings.

The world doesn't want fully clean sport. The consequences of clean sport is catapulting back to pre 1960 and never seeing anything amazing yet again; not having world records broken, etc. Maybe there are the few who truly believe in the glory of a clean contest and the joy of pure competition. I could embrace it, but there are no doping controls strong enough to ensure that when there is so much money at stake. But the majority of sport is about entertainment and awe, and it is the height of naivety to think that the bulk of competitors are clean and that holding Armstrong up as an example will even scratch the surface of the problem.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

To be fair, Kimmage's pursuit of Armstrong came with a high tariff for quite some time.

It also gave him lots of work and relevancy though, you can't deny that.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

And I wouldn't try. But I don't think he's all that much better off now because of Lance Armstrong than he would have been if Lance Armstrong had never been a story.

Okay, fair enough. Unfair of me to unconsciously imply their Armstrong crusade was financially motivated anyway. I don't buy for a single second however his sell that in the absence of Armstrong we would have had a clean tour. You may have had a lower percentage of riders and teams doping in 1999 in the immediate aftermath of the Festina scandal, but things would have cascaded back to normal soon enough. Just too much of a payoff to using EPO in 99 and 00 before it was testable for teams to not risk it.

The nature of the sport will always lend itself to doping imo.

This popped up on my newsfeed this morning, good read on what he's up to now..

http://www.esquire.com/features/lance-armstrong-interview-0814

That esquire article made me realise why I still kinda like Armstrong. Despite all he's been through, cancer survival, 7 tours and all the lies and bullying and now going through a downfall the likes of which hasn't been seen before (much worse than Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton or pretty much anyone bar Jimmy Saville) he never once mentions Jesus.

Any American scandal-ee who's high profile will always play the Jesus card because you're pretty much guaranteed a portion of society will forgive you if you go with christ (brah).

I respect that he never played that card. He clearly has no faith but neither do most of the people who miraculously find J-Dog after a scandal. He could have easily pedalled another lie there but he hasn't.

Fair play to him on that.

kevpants wrote: »

He could have easily pedalled another lie there but he hasn't.

Nice work.

jive wrote: »

Your argument for how he is a tremendous athlete is horribly flawed. How many clean riders on that hill? Not many, but not all cheaters are created equal are they? Armstrong was a better doper, not a better cyclist; not like that matters, because how many people were left off that hill as a result of all those cúnts cheating a living?

Of his eight TDF podiums, only one rider who stood with him has (of yet) had no doping charges proved against them. Those off the hill made a choice not to dope and make no mistake - the choice was that stark (and probably still is to some extent). Dope and compete or be clean and struggle to hold a decent contract. Armstrong didn't introduce that choice, it was there long before he began his career and remained after he retired in 2005.

It is also inarguable that he was a tremendous athlete, as all of the other dopers in the TDF have been. As we all know, the drugs don't do the work. Cycling is a sport of elite athletes who pursue medical assistance to the limit on top of nutrition and dedicated training. And Armstrong dominated it like no cyclist before him (and likely none after).

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT... my arse. He wasn't exactly great prior to doping, was he? .

He was a World Champion as a clean rider. The dividing line in his career is cancer. He was doping for a couple of years before he was struck down by the illness, during which he was a strong one day racer and major tour stage threat. When he returned, he continued to dope but had become a far stronger climber.

If a sex trafficker made major contributions to charity on the back of money he made illegally would you be singing his praises as well?

Comparing Lance Armstrong to a sex trafficker is ridiculous and isn't worthy of comment.

The guy stole a living off many clean athletes

Lance Armstrong didn't steal a living off clean athletes. Let's be clear on this - the prevailing culture of cycling pre and post Armstrong was doper friendly. That culture stole a living off clean athletes, not Armstrong. If he wasn't around 1999 - 2005 every one of those tours would have been won by dopers, and the top 10 spots each year filled with dopers with rare exceptions.

and is widely regarded as a complete arsehole from anyone that has had any dealings with him.

Read the esquire article in this thread, or watch the interview that rekindled this thread. Not everyone sees him as the devil incarnate. Like many elite sportsmen, he had a ferocious competitive streak that he didn't know how to switch off and he certainly attacked his accusers to an indefensibly inappropriate extent. But the guy clearly has been involved in doing lots of good in the world too.

He pressured others to use drugs and essentially rid the team of anyone unwilling to dope.

Do you think Festina were caught bringing in boatloads of drugs in 1998 because they had a relaxed opt in / opt out doping policy? Anyone unwilling to dope was going to be dropped from the team because their performance level was not up to scratch. It was the realities of cycling at the sharp end in that era.

He's a complete príck I literally can't believe that there are people who defend him, still, despite everything finally being laid out.

I am not defending the fact that he went too far in batting back his accusers over the years, and he was too aggressive and forthright in his denials. However it is utter bull**** to try and pin a broken sporting culture on one man or to pretend that doping was half hearted or amateurish before he came along. Moreover, as much as people might not like it, he has been an inspirational figure to cancer sufferers and survivors and has made a great personal contribution to supporting those affected by the disease.

People want this to be simple and black and white - unfortunately it isn't.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of his eight TDF podiums, only one rider who stood with him has (of yet) had no doping charges proved against them. Those off the hill made a choice not to dope and make no mistake - the choice was that stark (and probably still is to some extent). Dope and compete or be clean and struggle to hold a decent contract. Armstrong didn't introduce that choice, it was there long before he began his career and remained after he retired in 2005.

It is also inarguable that he was a tremendous athlete, as all of the other dopers in the TDF have been. As we all know, the drugs don't do the work. Cycling is a sport of elite athletes who pursue medical assistance to the limit on top of nutrition and dedicated training. And Armstrong dominated it like no cyclist before him (and likely none after).




He was a World Champion as a clean rider. The dividing line in his career is cancer. He was doping for a couple of years before he was struck down by the illness, during which he was a strong one day racer and major tour stage threat. When he returned, he continued to dope but had become a far stronger climber.



Comparing Lance Armstrong to a sex trafficker is ridiculous and isn't worthy of comment.




Lance Armstrong didn't steal a living off clean athletes. Let's be clear on this - the prevailing culture of cycling pre and post Armstrong was doper friendly. That culture stole a living off clean athletes, not Armstrong. If he wasn't around 1999 - 2005 every one of those tours would have been won by dopers, and the top 10 spots each year filled with dopers with rare exceptions.



Read the esquire article in this thread, or watch the interview that rekindled this thread. Not everyone sees him as the devil incarnate. Like many elite sportsmen, he had a ferocious competitive streak that he didn't know how to switch off and he certainly attacked his accusers to an indefensibly inappropriate extent. But the guy clearly has been involved in doing lots of good in the world too.



Do you think Festina were caught bringing in boatloads of drugs in 1998 because they had a relaxed opt in / opt out doping policy? Anyone unwilling to dope was going to be dropped from the team because their performance level was not up to scratch. It was the realities of cycling at the sharp end in that era.



I am not defending the fact that he went too far in batting back his accusers over the years, and he was too aggressive and forthright in his denials. However it is utter bull**** to try and pin a broken sporting culture on one man or to pretend that doping was half hearted or amateurish before he came along. Moreover, as much as people might not like it, he has been an inspirational figure to cancer sufferers and survivors and has made a great personal contribution to supporting those affected by the disease.

People want this to be simple and black and white - unfortunately it isn't.

He took drugs to win. Simply wrong. To cover it up he bullied, lied and cheated. If others did it they are as bad.

He tried to destroy anyone that got in his way. The man is a fraud.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of his eight TDF podiums, only one rider who stood with him has (of yet) had no doping charges proved against them. Those off the hill made a choice not to dope and make no mistake - the choice was that stark (and probably still is to some extent). Dope and compete or be clean and struggle to hold a decent contract. Armstrong didn't introduce that choice, it was there long before he began his career and remained after he retired in 2005.

It is also inarguable that he was a tremendous athlete, as all of the other dopers in the TDF have been. As we all know, the drugs don't do the work. Cycling is a sport of elite athletes who pursue medical assistance to the limit on top of nutrition and dedicated training. And Armstrong dominated it like no cyclist before him (and likely none after).

He was a doper, the end. You don't know what kind of natural athlete he was.

He was a World Champion as a clean rider. The dividing line in his career is cancer. He was doping for a couple of years before he was struck down by the illness, during which he was a strong one day racer and major tour stage threat. When he returned, he continued to dope but had become a far stronger climber.

Stronger as a result of what? More advanced doping techniques, msot likely.

Lance Armstrong didn't steal a living off clean athletes. Let's be clear on this - the prevailing culture of cycling pre and post Armstrong was doper friendly. That culture stole a living off clean athletes, not Armstrong. If he wasn't around 1999 - 2005 every one of those tours would have been won by dopers, and the top 10 spots each year filled with dopers with rare exceptions.

The culture didn't steal anything. The culture may have been around before around before Lance but he, and anyone else who chose to dope, effectively stole a living and potentially a living from a clean athlete. Lance did everything he could to preserve said culture.

People want this to be simple and black and white - unfortunately it isn't.

It is fairly black and white. He was the most successful doper and also the most aggressive. Just because he did charity work on the back of fake success doesn't excuse what he did in any way, shape or form.

I think we'll agree to disagree because, as a right minded person, I won't be swayed into becoming a Lance Armstrong fan on the basis that he is arguably the most vile sportsman ever. Plenty of other cyclists have a lot to answer for, and I agree that he is a scapegoat, but he deserves everything he is getting let's be frank.

Figerty wrote: »

How many honest men had to give up their dreams because they wouldn't bend to the dishonest. His worst failing was taking drugs and thinking he was a hero.

The governing body are a disgrace for allowing this to happen.

Armstrong should be in jail.

On his own or with all the other cyclists that blood doped, took EEPO, etc etc?

What do people think of Emma O' Reilly??

Have heard a good few interviews with her and I can't say I really like her. Something not very truthful about her (yes I know she is the main whistleblower).

I find this whole thing strange - I can't say I like any of the people involved - Kimmage and Walsh are annoying assholes too.