'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Chips Lovell

No

joker77 wrote: »

One small point though about your post - 'force them to make choices'. Would you class it as force? There is a choice there, but free will was exercised.

I'd say it can depend on the choice. Some people can leave and move into another well paying job that doesn't involve ethical dilemmas. Some people's alternatives may be far less palatable.

I'm sure not everyone would agree with me. I'm convinced Paul Kimmage would call those guys cowards for example. But having seen more than a few people stuck in jobs where they aren't comfortable doing some of the stuff asked of them, I'd be reluctant to take the moral high ground.

Surinam

No

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm not sure what it was called, pretty sure Ger Gilroy was presenting. The interview started at 3pm and was about half an hour long.

Found it - great interview, Lance truly is a scumbag :eek: How he treated his Irish masseuse when she raised concerns, says it all.
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/47224/saturday/1/popup

Click on part 2 and you'll find it in there for anyone else interested.

Monty Burnz

No

Surinam wrote: »

Found it - great interview, Lance truly is a scumbag :eek: How he treated his Irish masseuse when she raised concerns, says it all.
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/47224/saturday/1/popup

Click on part 2 and you'll find it in there for anyone else interested.

Just listening to how he publicly declared Emily O'Reilly an alcoholic and a prostitute to try to get her evidence dismissed. He does sound like a pyschopath alright.

Now listening to how he drove one of the clean cyclists out of the sport.

RedTexan

No

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls
Think it says it all

Waitsian

No

RedTexan wrote: »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls
Think it says it all

Quote: "Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

alfalad

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'd say it can depend on the choice. Some people can leave and move into another well paying job that doesn't involve ethical dilemmas. Some people's alternatives may be far less palatable.

I'm sure not everyone would agree with me. I'm convinced Paul Kimmage would call those guys cowards for example. But having seen more than a few people stuck in jobs where they aren't comfortable doing some of the stuff asked of them, I'd be reluctant to take the moral high ground.

Think most people would see both sides of the argument, and looking back journalists may feel bad about the choices they made, but at the time they were trying to make a living and create their career, not getting a story for your paper that you were meant to get I'm sure wouldn't help that career, or put bread in the table.

corny

No

mod9maple wrote: »

Quote: "Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

Well its either true or Sky really have brought cycling to a new level with only a couple of years experience in the game.

alfalad

No

corny wrote: »

Well its either true or Sky really have brought cycling to a new level with only a couple of years experience in the game.

Think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that this and last's years tour were the slowest in a number of years.

alfalad

No

furiousox wrote: »

Two page spread on Armstrong by David Walsh in the Sunday Times today.

Times website doesn't want my money, and would love to know what it says. Hopefully they get it fixed later so i can buy a copy.

aca101

Don't suppose anyone could post up the article if they can get it? Meant to be a fantastic piece..

Beasty

No

mod9maple wrote: »

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

You could argue that no-one is free from suspicion given the way the sport has behaved in the past. However speculation about specific riders is not allowed on Boards

aca101 wrote: »

Don't suppose anyone could post up the article if they can get it? Meant to be a fantastic piece..

No - it's a premium service for a reason. If anyone wants to read it they need to subscribe or get hold of a copy of the paper. Boards rules do not allow the posting of such copyrighted material

brandon_flowers

No

I would like to ask one question to why does that believe USADA is undertaking a witch hunt against L.A.

Under what circumstances are they not allowed investigate him?

Inquitus

No

mod9maple wrote: »

Quote: "Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

:eek: Is that true? Are Wiggins and Froome under genuine suspicion now?

That's simply not true, Wiggins and Froome are alot slower than the 90's riders and cannot put out anything like the same sustained power over a long tour climb.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

Have a read of that for some analysis.

Hungrycol

Yes, but he's still great

alfalad wrote: »

Think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that this and last's years tour were the slowest in a number of years.

This is probably also partly due to the fact the Sky dominated the peloton and enforced it's own pace from the front, i.e. a pace that suited them.

FrankGrimes

No

Hungrycol wrote: »

This is probably also partly due to the fact the Sky dominated the peloton and enforced it's own pace from the front, i.e. a pace that suited them.

Not sure if that post is intended to support what corny is implying, but it would seem contradictory if so - i.e. implying on the one hand that Sky's dominance is due to something untoward while on the other hand implying that the quantifiable evidence (in the Sports Scientist link above) which clearly depicts that the current performance as being far below those of the 2000s is only lower as Sky dominated the pacing to make it slower. Perhaps Sky are just dominating slower peletons?

There is no comparison, say, between Froome's attempted injections of pace towards the end of the Vuelta stage on Saturday and Armstrong's when Pantani won that infamous stage on Mont Ventoux (linked in this thread). One looked very human, the other looked super-human.

Again, I'm not sure if Hungrycol was trying to imply the above, but I'm sure there are those that would try to convince themselves that it's a valid argument, bizarre as it may seem.

I think it was niceonetom who posted above about the level of stupid arguments and failures of basic reasoning shown in so many peoples' views (generally poor informed) on Lance - pity I could only thank that post the once. It's reassuring to know though that if I ever find myself with a case to answer to a court or authorities that I can just refuse to contest the charge, tell everyone I'm innocent, and there's a decent proportion of people out there that will probably buy it.

Kev M

FrankGrimes wrote: »

It's reassuring to know though that if I ever find myself with a case to answer to a court or authorities that I can just refuse to contest the charge, tell everyone I'm innocent, and there's a decent proportion of people out there that will probably buy it.

Not necessarily buy it, but choose to support you anyway regardless of it!

Nobody knows the intricacies of what the top riders at the time (Lance's peak) were doing... apart from they were all doing whatever they could (inside and outside the rules) to compete and win. Sports scientists, physios, doctors, training programming, wind tunnels, equipment, nutrition, supplements, drugs etc. all falls under the same banner to me and many others - performance enhancement... but of course, some are allowed and others aren't. Morality, legality, it's a loaded topic and you can go round in circles all day and people will still disagree.

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view, even though I believe he used everything under the sun to enhance his performance. I feel sorry for the very honest few who might have had a chance at competing with him on a level playing field (if such a thing even exists!), but 'don't hate the player, hate the game' - pro cycling has needed to take measures to clean itself up for years (since way before big bad Lance came along ) and is finally appearing to do that now.

Hermy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view...

Greatest ever what?

Kev M

Hermy wrote: »

Greatest ever what?

Do you wanna say "no, for the greatest ever must have been clean"? That's the argument and you could go round in circles with it all day.

Hermy

No

I want to know what you think is great about Lance Armstrong.

Kev M

Hermy wrote: »

I want to know what you think is great about Lance Armstrong.

His ability to ride a bike over long distances fast.

corny

No

Kev M wrote: »

His ability to ride a bike over long distances fast.

Without EPO he'd have been an average maybe slightly above average cyclist.

Maybe a decent classics rider but we're lead to believe getting cancer transformed him into the most powerful climber cycling had seen. Absolute fairy tale stuff if you ask me.

hardCopy

No

Kev M wrote: »

Not necessarily buy it, but choose to support you anyway regardless of it!

Nobody knows the intricacies of what the top riders at the time (Lance's peak) were doing... apart from they were all doing whatever they could (inside and outside the rules) to compete and win. Sports scientists, physios, doctors, training programming, wind tunnels, equipment, nutrition, supplements, drugs etc. all falls under the same banner to me and many others - performance enhancement... but of course, some are allowed and others aren't. Morality, legality, it's a loaded topic and you can go round in circles all day and people will still disagree.

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view, even though I believe he used everything under the sun to enhance his performance. I feel sorry for the very honest few who might have had a chance at competing with him on a level playing field (if such a thing even exists!), but 'don't hate the player, hate the game' - pro cycling has needed to take measures to clean itself up for years (since way before big bad Lance came along ) and is finally appearing to do that now.

The big problem is that he didn't just play the game, he went to great lengths to protect the game and bully anybody who ever tried to change it, see Bassons, Simeoni, O'Reilly, Kimmage, Walsh, Andreu et al.

Kev M wrote: »

His ability to ride a bike over long distances fast.

Which came from a syringe.

RobFowl

No

Kev M wrote: »

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view.

Enjoy

alexanderomahon

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Kev M

corny wrote: »

Without EPO he'd have been an average maybe slightly above average cyclist.

Maybe a decent classics rider but we're lead to believe getting cancer transformed him into the most powerful climber cycling had seen. Absolute fairy tale stuff if you ask me.

I think that's speculative at best but you're entitled to your opinion and that's fine.

By all accounts he was juiced to the gills before ever getting cancer, so it's more likely that the weight loss is what had a significant impact on his climbing ability.

furiousox

No

Kev M

RobFowl wrote: »

Enjoy

Well that's just insulting really. Slagging someone over their opinion, and you're a moderator? I'm not on here mocking anyone.

Liamo08

corny wrote: »

Without EPO he'd have been an average maybe slightly above average cyclist.

Maybe a decent classics rider but we're lead to believe getting cancer transformed him into the most powerful climber cycling had seen. Absolute fairy tale stuff if you ask me.

To be fair he was World Champion at 21 over 3 years before he ever had cancer so I think it's safe to say that he was a pretty talented guy.

hardCopy

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Basically yes.

He had the best drug doctor on the circuit, he had private jets and helicopters to bring drugs across borders and he had enough money to drug his entire team.

Good drugs are expensive, drugs that can beat the tests are even more expensive, bribing the sports governing body to cover up tests and tip you off ahead of tests costs even more again. Lance had the money to pay for all that and more.

Monty Burnz

No

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Given so many other drugs cheats at the top of cycling in his era, then how come he beat them? Did he have special special drugs?

Does it occur to you that it's not that the top riders were drug cheats, rather it's that the drug cheats were the top riders? And does this not make sense seeing as the whole point of doping is give you an advantage over more talented riders who aren't doping?