He was an amazing athlete but forever tainted IMO simply because of his attitude and bullying. All his peers were juiced and have either since been caught or admitted the fact yet he still comes out with the same nonsense time after time...."I've never failed a drugs test blah blah blah."
Can't understand him not fighting it tbh, suggests to me that theres maybe something behind it all which is a shame if true but I'm one who believes theres no smoke without fire.. Considering he allegedly had 5 -600 tests during his career it seems odd , although there has been rumours for sometime that there " were ways to beat the system " and he had allegedly been of the "if you can't beat them............join them " attitude. Certainly tarnishes a great career let alone what further damage it does to cycling. What his foundation has done is amazing, what actually happended during his career I guess we will never the know the full truth.
There are others who were never 'caught' from that era who have since admitted they were doping.
Lance Armstrong beat all the competition when they were all doping and he'd have beaten them all if no one was doping, he was the best. However, I find it hard to grasp that people still believe he could win seven Tours 'clean' when all his peers were juiced. They are saying that up to ten former team-mates were ready to testify that they had seen him doping and samples from way back that new tests revealed his guilt.
It's like the Olympics that have just passed. The IOC have stated that all the urine samples taken from London 2012 will be kept for at least eight years so that as new tests are brought in that could find as yet unknown drugs or diuretics. The dopers greatest weapon has always been being one step ahead of the testers.
Read a few books on cycling and doping whilst on holiday: Death of Marco Pantani, Paul Kimmage - Rough Ride, & David Millar's autobiog. Can recommend any of them to anyone who doesn't understand how Armstrong can be a doper without ever having tested positive. Also, a valuable point made in the Pantani book is that everyone being on EPO doesn't create a level playing field. Some athletes respond more significantly than others to EPO treatment, not necessarily those who are the strongest riders. Also, read David Millar's account of what a huge difference EPO can make to a rider. Point being, whilst Armstrong was clearly a gifted rider there's no telling whether he would have won even a single Tour if everyone, including him, was clean.
Quote: wilsonzenith wrote in post #9Read a few books on cycling and doping whilst on holiday: Death of Marco Pantani, Paul Kimmage - Rough Ride, & David Millar's autobiog. Can recommend any of them to anyone who doesn't understand how Armstrong can be a doper without ever having tested positive. Also, a valuable point made in the Pantani book is that everyone being on EPO doesn't create a level playing field. Some athletes respond more significantly than others to EPO treatment, not necessarily those who are the strongest riders. Also, read David Millar's account of what a huge difference EPO can make to a rider. Point being, whilst Armstrong was clearly a gifted rider there's no telling whether he would have won even a single Tour if everyone, including him, was clean.
The interesting thing about that link I put up just before your post is that from the re-tests done on the samples from the '99 Tour is that seemingly very few riders were using EPO that year and six of the thirteen positive samples were Armstrongs. So far from Armstrong winning with the peleton all doping and therefore on a level playing field it would seem that he was the biggest juicer that year.
Quote: wilsonzenith wrote in post #9Read a few books on cycling and doping whilst on holiday: Death of Marco Pantani, Paul Kimmage - Rough Ride, & David Millar's autobiog. Can recommend any of them to anyone who doesn't understand how Armstrong can be a doper without ever having tested positive. Also, a valuable point made in the Pantani book is that everyone being on EPO doesn't create a level playing field. Some athletes respond more significantly than others to EPO treatment, not necessarily those who are the strongest riders. Also, read David Millar's account of what a huge difference EPO can make to a rider. Point being, whilst Armstrong was clearly a gifted rider there's no telling whether he would have won even a single Tour if everyone, including him, was clean.
The interesting thing about that link I put up just before your post is that from the re-tests done on the samples from the '99 Tour is that seemingly very few riders were using EPO that year and six of the thirteen positive samples were Armstrongs. So far from Armstrong winning with the peleton all doping and therefore on a level playing field it would seem that he was the biggest juicer that year.
Can't seem to see the link in your previous post. Can you post it again.
Currently reading David Walsh's book 'From Lance to Landis'. Interesting comments from some of his early, pre-doping, teammates, that whilst he would probably make a great one-day racer he didn't have what it took to win a grand tour.
Glad to see he's getting what's coming to him. The UCI is more bent than FIFA. What they really should of said was, he failed 500 drug tests. Is anyone not just a little concerned about whats going on at SKY though?
Quote: beduth jase wrote in post #13Glad to see he's getting what's coming to him. The UCI is more bent than FIFA. What they really should of said was, he failed 500 drug tests. Is anyone not just a little concerned about whats going on at SKY though?
Well the nature of the sport and its filthy past does arouse suspicion when a team/country suddenly dominates. The French have already questioned the British success and if it was another nation succeeding like we have then we'd probably raise an eyebrow too. We can only hope they are all clean.
Very well put Andy. Tbh I would be shocked if its anything untoward, the Track side has been successful for sometime now and with the involvement of Sky this success and philosophy has filtered onto the Road ( coupled with the massive £ investment )
Why do sky work with Gert Leinders? Brailsford said at the start of sky that no former cycling doctors would be allowed on the team? Leinders role at Rabobank was head of doping. Does anyone not think that Chris Froome has come from nowhere in the last 12-18 months, to podium in grand tours. What he has done the last 12months is unbelievable for someone who was going to be out of work before last years vuelta. What about Sean Yates the directuer sportiff at sky? Armstrong invited him onto the management of a couple of his teams. If it's too good to be true, it usually is.
Plenty of folk wondering why Wiggins and the peleton have been silent on this Armstrong issue, particuarly Wiggins who lost out on a podium finish to Armstrong. Or is the omerta still in place?
Quote: Vasque wrote in post #17Plenty of folk wondering why Wiggins and the peleton have been silent on this Armstrong issue, particuarly Wiggins who lost out on a podium finish to Armstrong. Or is the omerta still in place?
Very strange this. Wiggins is the patron of the peleton. He should be speaking out, just like he was in 2009. I think all pro sport is ruined by drugs. I don't think cycling is any different to say, tennis. Djokovic and Nadal certainly raise eyebrows and the ITF drug testing is comical. I doubt there will ever be a fully clean peleton until there is a truth commission. Can't see that happening though.
Quote: Vasque wrote in post #17Plenty of folk wondering why Wiggins and the peleton have been silent on this Armstrong issue, particuarly Wiggins who lost out on a podium finish to Armstrong. Or is the omerta still in place?
It wouldn't surprise me if they were all 'at it' tbh mate.
Quote: Vasque wrote in post #17Plenty of folk wondering why Wiggins and the peleton have been silent on this Armstrong issue, particuarly Wiggins who lost out on a podium finish to Armstrong. Or is the omerta still in place?
It wouldn't surprise me if they were all 'at it' tbh mate.
its a knocking bet i read both armstrongs books when they came out and am a bit gutted about all this.... av crossed the cunt of my hero list now only alan shearer and brian blessed left now
I'm glad you found the time to read it mate, though hopefully not in 'works time'
Sheds a new light on Armstrong don't it, tbh I were in denial when the LA story first broke. But taking my head out the sand and taking a good look at the bigger and possibly truer picture the odds are stacked massively against him.
I've got that link bookmarked T. I read this last night, a very open and candid interview with Landis. Remarkable really just how 'natural' it all was.
OFF HAND
Print view
Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:16 am
reply
