Lance Armstrong's NYC Marathon times to be erased...

Cabaal

Suppose it makes sense and was to be expected

http://corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2012/10/lance-armstrongs-nyc-marathon-times-to.html

Now doubt, many of you will be well aware of the news that Lance Armstrong was stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles. Now, the organisers of the New York City Marathon are likely to erase his times in that event as well. Armstrong, 41, finished the 2006 marathon in 2 hours, 59 minutes, 36 seconds and shaved almost 13 minutes off that result with a time of 2:46:43 in 2007 for 214th place among men.

Mary Wittenberg, president and chief executive officer of race organizer the New York Road Runners, said in an interview..."I anticipate the results will come out of our archives. Lance doesn’t have a place in running because we will stick to the rules and support USADA (U.S. Anti-Doping Agency).”

USADA stripped Armstrong of his Tour de France wins and barred him from Olympic-related sports in August after the Texan opted not to contest doping charges in arbitration. USADA’s stand was upheld then by the International Cycling Union, known by the French acronym UCI. The UCI decision came after USADA released a 202-page summary of its findings on Oct. 10, which stated that Armstrong “engaged in serial cheating” throughout his career.

hardCopy

Cabaal wrote: »

Suppose it makes sense and was to be expected

http://corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2012/10/lance-armstrongs-nyc-marathon-times-to.html

Proper order

TRR

A bit OT but I've been stalking Armstrong's twitter pages of late. Interestingly he has removed "7 time winner of tour de France" from his twitter heading. I see this as an admission of guilt. If I personally won a race fairly and was stripped of the title for suspected cheating I would continue to claim the victory no matter what anybody else said.

rovers_runner

Kind of reminds me of Marty McFlys brother vanishing from the pic in Back to the Future.

Soon we'll be thinking to ourselves, did that Lance fella really exist at all? Bad dream methinks....

shels4ever

rovers_runner wrote: »

Kind of reminds me of Marty McFlys brother vanishing from the pic in Back to the Future.

Soon we'll be thinking to ourselves, did that Lance fella really exist at all? Bad dream methinks....

Next Garmin connect will remove all this training runs and cycles - he'll lose all the kcal's that he burnt over the years and put on about 25 stone.

Krusty_Clown

Damnit. It's only now that they erase him from the history books, that I realize I was two seconds faster than him over the course of a marathon. All those months of gloating opportunities I've missed. Wait... They haven't stripped him of his time yet! I'm two seconds faster than La... <snip>

TRR

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Damnit. It's only now that they erase him from the history books, that I realize I was two seconds faster than him over the course of a marathon. All those months of gloating opportunities I've missed. Wait... They haven't stripped him of his time yet! I'm two seconds faster than La... <snip>

Yeah but apparently you were on performance enhancing beer while training.

rom

Lance who ?

walshb

rom wrote: »

Lance who ?

Lance Armstrong, an incredible athlete!

Krusty_Clown

TRR wrote: »

Yeah but apparently you were on performance enhancing beer while training.

... and racing.

spurscormac

walshb wrote: »

Lance Armstrong, an incredible athlete cheat!

FYP

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

Lance Armstrong, an incredible athlete!

Didn't you get banned from the Armstrong thread on the cycling forum for trolling like this ?

myflipflops

I really hope he is not forgotten. There is so much to learn about his system as more people come clean.

This is also the best opportunity we will get to put pressure on companies like Nike to actually get behind the anti doping fight rather than either ignoring it, indirectly backing it or directly supporting it (Mark Block).

ciaranmac

walshb wrote: »

Lance Armstrong, an incredible athlete!

Lacking in credibility alright.

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

Didn't you get banned from the Armstrong thread on the cycling forum for trolling like this ?

Yes. Apparently giving Lance any credit or not slating him led to a troll accusation and a ban. Let's hope the Athletics forum is a bit different. Drugs or not the guy was an incredible athlete. Phil Liggett thinks so.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Yes. Apparently giving Lance any credit or not slating him led to a troll accusation and a ban. Let's hope the Athletics forum is a bit different. Drugs or not the guy was an incredible athlete. Phil Liggett thinks so.

Well, all is forgiven so..

dna_leri

walshb wrote: »

Lance Armstrong, an incredible athlete!

in·cred·i·ble /inˈkredəbəl/

Adjective: 1. Impossible to believe: "an incredible tale of triumph".
2. Difficult to believe; extraordinary: "the noise was incredible".

Synonyms: unbelievable - improbable - fabulous - inconceivable

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Yes. Apparently giving Lance any credit or not slating him led to a troll accusation and a ban. Let's hope the Athletics forum is a bit different. Drugs or not the guy was an incredible athlete. Phil Liggett thinks so.

I'm seeing a common link between your sporting idols. Lance Armstrong, Carl Lewis, Flojo. Hmmmm.......

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I'm seeing a common link between your sporting idols. Lance Armstrong, Carl Lewis, Flojo. Hmmmm.......

Muhammad Ali, Bolt, Federer, Nadal, Montana, Rice etc al. Drugs or no drugs these people are special.

Anyway, I never liked Lance that much. Always came across as quite arrogant, moody, unsportsmanlike etc. Oh, and now his career is tarnished badly.

BTW, Carl Lewis was the GOAT!

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Muhammad Ali, Bolt, Federer, Nadal, Montana, Rice etc al. Drugs or no drugs these people are special.

Anyway, I never liked Lance that much. Always came across as quite arrogant, moody, unsportsmanlike etc. Oh, and now his career is tarnished badly.

BTW, Carl Lewis was the GOAT!

Lewis was a goat? That's a bit harsh! He may be a filthy drug cheat, but describing him as a farm animal was uncalled for.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Lewis was a goat? That's a bit harsh! He may be a filthy drug cheat, but describing him as a farm animal was uncalled for.

Filthy drugs cheat? Now that's more harsh. His positive test was minuscule, absolute minuscule. He was a natural. As for Flo Jo. Neber tested positive ever. She is no different to any great that never tested positive.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Filthy drugs cheat? Now that's more harsh. His positive test was minuscule, absolute minuscule. He was a natural. As for Flo Jo. Neber tested positive ever. She is no different to any great that never tested positive.

I'm not going to waste any further time with you.

walshb

Fine by me. I never asked you for a reply in the first place.

Itziger

walshb wrote: »

Filthy drugs cheat? Now that's more harsh. His positive test was minuscule, absolute minuscule. He was a natural. As for Flo Jo. Neber tested positive ever. She is no different to any great that never tested positive.

I'm with Pisco Sour on the wasting time bit, but the Sunday lunch is in the oven (Arroz al Horno, where else would it be!!) and I have 40 minutes to kill.

I'm guessing you realise the highlighted bit above is bull****, yeah?

1) Not all greats had her fabulous time improvement late in their careers.

2) Not all greats changed their body shape, voice, jawline from one year to another.

3) Not all greats retired immediately after their big year and died sadly a couple of years later.

walshb

Itziger wrote: »

I'm with Pisco Sour on the wasting time bit, but the Sunday lunch is in the oven (Arroz al Horno, where else would it be!!) and I have 40 minutes to kill.

I'm guessing you realise the highlighted bit above is bull****, yeah?

1) Not all greats had her fabulous time improvement late in their careers.

2) Not all greats changed their body shape, voice, jawline from one year to another.

3) Not all greats retired immediately after their big year and died sadly a couple of years later.

Well, if it's all just a waste of time, what is the point? Let's us just leave it. I am not into these kind of discussions where one side is ramming their view down your throat. Any deviance being met with scorn. No, not for me.

hardCopy

walshb wrote: »

Well, if it's all just a waste of time, what is the point? Let's us just leave it. I am not into these kind of discussions where one side is ramming their view down your throat. Any deviance being met with scorn. No, not for me.

Can I ask what makes you think he was great? As in better than a mid pack domestique?

average_runner

hardCopy wrote: »

Can I ask what makes you think he was great? As in better than a mid pack domestique?

He never finished a tour de France until he went dirty. He couldn't time trial or finish on the mountains

corny

hardCopy wrote: »

Can I ask what makes you think he was great? As in better than a mid pack domestique?

Lance said so.

ted1

So he has never tested positive and the ruling is all based on hear say.

I can only imagine that a good proportion of the U.S Olympic team are sh1tt1ng it.

corny

ted1 wrote: »

So he has never tested positive and the ruling is all based on hear say.

walshb

hardCopy wrote: »

Can I ask what makes you think he was great? As in better than a mid pack domestique?

Well, the guy was not a donkey who became a thoroughbred racehorse. The sport is a sport that I have little trust in. It's been proven to be rotten for years. My personal belief is that he was one of many in them tour wins that was on something. Drugs or not he is/was an incredible cyclist/athlete.

I know full well that persons who dope should be criticised. I am speaking as a general fan of sports and athletes. No matter what these people are special talents. Physically they are gifted in their chosen disciplines. Some take drugs to give them that little edge. Lance doesn't suddenly become "not an incredible athlete" because of this. At least not to me. And, I am not alone in this view.

I still think that even if ALL the riders from 1999-2005 were doping that Lance would have most likely still won.

If it came out that Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan were dopers in their time, the same applies there.

If it comes out that Usain Bolt doped, then again, same applies.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Well, the guy was not a donkey who became a thoroughbred racehorse. The sport is a sport that I have little trust in. It's been proven to be rotten for years. My personal belief is that he was one of many in them tour wins that was on something. Drugs or not he is/was an incredible cyclist/athlete.

I know full well that persons who dope should be criticised. I am speaking as a general fan of sports and athletes. No matter what these people are special talents. Physically they are gifted in their chosen disciplines. Some take drugs to give them that little edge. Lance doesn't suddenly become "not an incredible athlete" because of this. At least not to me. And, I am not alone in this view.

I still think that even if ALL the riders from 1999-2005 were doping that Lance would have most likely still won.

If it came out that Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan were dopers in their time, the same applies there.

If it comes out that Usain Bolt doped, then again, same applies.

But Armstong was donkey before the drugs, his record in tour de france etc proves it

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

But Armstong was donkey before the drugs, his record in tour de france etc proves it

Well, them must have been some serious drugs!

And, when one looks at his career it is obvious that he had real talent. Wasn't Roche about 27/28 before he won the tour? I think Lance was of similar age in 1999. Lance was a triathlete of considrable talent when in his younger years. A donkey is not how I'd describe him.

Dozen Wicked Words

walshb wrote: »

Well, them must have been some serious drugs!

And, when one looks at his career it is obvious that he had real talent. Wasn't Roche about 27/28 before he won the tour? I think Lance was of similar age in 1999. Lance was a triathlete of considrable talent when in his younger years. A donkey is not how I'd describe him.

Maybe a Mule would be more apt.

walshb

dooferoaks wrote: »

Maybe a Mule would be more apt.

No, not really!

Enduro

dooferoaks wrote: »

Maybe a Mule would be more apt.

Brilliant!

hardCopy

walshb wrote: »

Well, them must have been some serious drugs!

And, when one looks at his career it is obvious that he had real talent. Wasn't Roche about 27/28 before he won the tour? I think Lance was of similar age in 1999. Lance was a triathlete of considrable talent when in his younger years. A donkey is not how I'd describe him.

EPO is a hell of a drug.

Armstrong was a one day rider before he got sick, he won the world championship but had no touring calibre. (According to Betsy Andreu he was already on steroids, testosterone, growth hormone, E.P.O., cortisone before this)

When he returned he was suddenly an all-rounder: he could attack, he could Time Trial and he could climb. EPO is perfect for guys like him. The natural climbers would never have the power to compete with him on the flat but he could hang with them in the Alps due to EPO.

He was a good underage triathlete but there's nothing to suggest he would have gone on to be a successful tour winner without pharmacological assistance.

Even the juiced-up guys that he beat didn't have the advantages he had. His whole team were doped up to the gills and could support him all day long where the others had to go it alone.

Athletic achievement aside I'd have zero respect for him as a person as he's an evil vindictive bully who hid behind cancer while targeting and isolating anyone who dared to question him.

corny

walshb wrote: »

Wasn't Roche about 27/28 before he won the tour? I think Lance was of similar age in 1999.

The difference between the two is very obvious with a bit of research. Roche won Paris-Nice in his first season as a pro. He also won Romandie and other stage races along the way. His first attempt in the tour he came 13th, 3rd in next attempt. Armstrong by comparison showed no aptitude for stage racing. DNF 3 of his first 4 attempts at the tour and on the one occasion he managed to finish he was 36th. He was a decent one day rider though; he won some good races (Worlds, Fleche Wallonne, San Sebastian). Then he gets cancer, starts working with Ferrari and low and behold not only has he discovered the ability to TT at 27 but now he can drop people in the high mountains. He used to finish with the Gruppeto ffs. Ferrari awakened the remarkable gift in him.

No not a donkey but in the context you refer him 'would have won regardless' he doesn't deserve it. A Sean Kelly (or numerous others i could rattle off) would piss on him.

Itziger

corny wrote: »

The difference between the two is very obvious with a bit of research. Roche won Paris-Nice in his first season as a pro. He also won Romandie and other stage races along the way. His first attempt in the tour he came 13th, 3rd in next attempt. Armstrong by comparison showed no aptitude for stage racing. DNF 3 of his first 4 attempts at the tour and on the one occasion he managed to finish he was 36th. He was a decent one day rider though; he won some good races (Worlds, Fleche Wallonne, San Sebastian). Then he gets cancer, starts working with Ferrari and low and behold not only has he discovered the ability to TT at 27 but now he can drop people in the high mountains. He used to finish with the Gruppeto ffs. Ferrari awakened the remarkable gift in him.

No not a donkey but in the context you refer him 'would have won regardless' he doesn't deserve it. A Sean Kelly (or numerous others i could rattle off) would piss on him.

God, I'd love to see the comeback to this. Walshie???

walshb

Well, I guess the common denominator is that the sport has a bad rep for doping. Roche was implicated too. Can we ever be certain that he and other winners were clean? Anyway, cycling is very much to do with physical endurance. Different eras, bikes and technology all play a part. I wouldn't be all that certain that Roche "pisses" on Lance if all things were equal.

Both on the same bike I'd love to see where Roche is somehow superior? What does he do on a bike that is so much better. I mean, they simply pedal and pedal and pedal. It's not like tennis or boxing.

Anyway, it's off topic really. This is athletics.

walshb

Itziger wrote: »

God, I'd love to see the comeback to this. Walshie???

A pretty easy comeback. Jeez, Armstrong now becomes a donkey and a mule because of all of this? That's silly.

I admire Roche, but I am not going to say that Roche pisses on Lance all things equal. Eras, technology and bikes. Cycling has different aspects to it. Mountains, TT, desecending, sprinting.
Overall it would be very difficult to call between Roche and Lance if all things were equal.

Simply saying that Roche showed more promise and success early on in no way proves that he'd piss on Lance.

Edit: Maybe the poster wasn't saying that Roche would piss on Lance. Anyway, Roche is far from Mr. Clean himself.

Itziger

walshb wrote: »

A pretty easy comeback. Jeez, Armstrong now becomes a donkey and a mule because of all of this? That's silly.

I admire Roche, but I am not going to say that Roche pisses on Lance all things equal. Eras, technology and bikes. Cycling has different aspects to it. Mountains, TT, desecending, sprinting.
Overall it would be very difficult to call between Roche and Lance if all things were equal.

Simply saying that Roche showed more promise and success early on in no way proves that he'd piss on Lance.

Kinda what I expected. Tosh. The poster was showing you the HUGE difference between the early years of Roche in stage cycling and the early years of Armstrong. End of.

walshb

Itziger wrote: »

Kinda what I expected. Tosh. The poster was showing you the HUGE difference between the early years of Roche in stage cycling and the early years of Armstrong. End of.

I am aware of their early years. It's pretty easy stuff to research. The point is that it does not prove that Roche was a superior stage cyclist OVERALL. It's also pretty easy to research Roche and his issues with doping allegations.

Lance developed cancer when he was 24/25 years of age. This needs to be factored in too. Many many sports show different athletes being successful at different stages of their careers.

I just think that it's a bit naive to demote Lance to a less than great athlete/cyclist due to the doping case, yet use Roche as some barmoter for great. Roche was great, but was it all natural?

ecoli

Mod: If you wish to continue this discussion, save it for the Cycling forum