A Very Bad Morning For Lance


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby cullman » Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:40 am

Newsflash: Performance enhancing drugs have been a part of competitive cycling for the last 125 years.
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:06 pm

cullman wrote:Newsflash: Performance enhancing drugs have been a part of competitive cycling for the last 125 years.

I bet cocaine worked dandy in the 1880s/90s!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby eldanielfire » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:47 pm

26mi235 wrote:
lionelp1 wrote:Ask Christophe Bassons or Nicole Cooke about that disgusting criminal. :(


But it is possible that Cooke has an incomplete assessment of history (and I cannot remember the timing of her career and the money flows). She decries that the funding is dropping for women but does not seem to realize that the money for the women's side increased with Lance's ascendancy. Thus, it might be that it is just going back to the pre-Lance levels. Of course, she also lost placings etc. due to druggies on her side as well (see discusses Jeanson, but there were others as well, especially for the semi-Grand Tours).



This is selective. Over Cooke's career many female sports have increased in money due to more acceptance, awareness and more fans enjoying it more seriously as well as people reaslising there is a slowly growing market for female sports. When Cooke was reaching the top as a teenager there wasn't even girl's road racing tournaments in the Uk until she asked for one. Obviously that brings more attention and more money. Or does Lance take credit for better female attention and earnings all sports like Basketball, Netball, Athletics, football etc?
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:26 pm

eldanielfire wrote:Over Cooke's career many female sports have increased in money due to more acceptance, awareness and more fans enjoying it more seriously as well as people reaslising there is a slowly growing market for female sports.

What sports are you talking about? I can't think of a single female sport that wasn't big time seventeen years ago, but is now.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:32 pm

26mi235 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong (jazz, especially), but the greatest cyclist ever, Eddy Merckx, also had the best team (by far?) during his heyday.

Actually, bambam could give you a better answer to this question than I can. I was too young to remember when Merkcx was riding. What about La Vie Claire team that Lemond and Hunault rode on in the mid-80's?

26mi235 wrote:Of the major players in the game that have commented on this, the sport, and their role in it, I like Jonathon Vaughters the most. Sure, you could say he has an agenda, but that agenda is possibly the best aligned with the those of the sport than others I know.

I agree with you about Vaughters. If you look at the circumstances, the timing, the candor and the thoroughness of his confession, he seems to be motivated more out of altruism than any of the other players in this saga. His New York Times op-ed, his Bicycling magazine interview and his posts on the cyclingnews.com message board under username JV1973 are must-read for anyone who wants to get a deeper, nuanced understanding of cycling's doping problem.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:38 pm

Jazz, I have more confidence in my impressions given your comments. I have not been on the Cyclingnews.com message board, so I have missed those comments.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:45 pm

26mi235 wrote:I have not been on the Cyclingnews.com message board, so I have missed those comments.

He starts posting on page five of this thread as JV1973.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18436
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:15 pm

Coach Steve Magness comments on his interactions with Armstrong:

http://running.competitor.com/2013/01/n ... rong_64596
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Dutra5 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:38 pm

gh wrote:My Facebook friend has responded to the comments on his post

<<You guys are all supporting my statement! I'm talking about people's sudden dismay that Lance was a doper! If you've all hated him for years, then congratulations to you all...you're truly prophets! ....

Lance never fooled me or took anything from me like Hesch....

I'm not defending Lance's doping or anything of the sort! I just personally enjoy his F You attitude, and always enjoyed watching him beat other athletes who were doing the same exact thing. So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>


He's exactly who I thought he was as well....which isn't necessarily a good thing.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:40 am

By stripping Armstrong of his 2000 Bronze medal, the IOC has undermined their statute-of-limitations rationale for why they can't strip the East Germans of their medals.

The IOC has stripped Lance Armstrong of his bronze medal from the 2000 Sydney Olympics because of his involvement in doping, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Two officials said the IOC sent a letter to Armstrong on Wednesday night asking him to return the medal. The move came after the International Olympic Committee was notified by cycling's governing body that Armstrong had not appealed the decision to disqualify him.

The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been announced.

The IOC executive board discussed revoking the medal last month, but delayed a decision until cycling body UCI formally notified Armstrong he had been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and all results since 1998. He then had 21 days to appeal.

Now that the deadline has expired, the IOC decided to take the medal away. The letter to Armstrong also was sent to the U.S. Olympic Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 94459.html

I hate it when people selectively enforce rules/laws, but I really hate it when people make up rules/laws to punish people after the fact.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:16 am

jazzcyclist wrote:By stripping Armstrong of his 2000 Bronze medal, the IOC has undermined their statute-of-limitations rationale for why they can't strip the East Germans of their medals.

The IOC has stripped Lance Armstrong of his bronze medal from the 2000 Sydney Olympics because of his involvement in doping, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Two officials said the IOC sent a letter to Armstrong on Wednesday night asking him to return the medal. The move came after the International Olympic Committee was notified by cycling's governing body that Armstrong had not appealed the decision to disqualify him.

The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been announced.

The IOC executive board discussed revoking the medal last month, but delayed a decision until cycling body UCI formally notified Armstrong he had been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and all results since 1998. He then had 21 days to appeal.

Now that the deadline has expired, the IOC decided to take the medal away. The letter to Armstrong also was sent to the U.S. Olympic Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 94459.html

I hate it when people selectively enforce rules/laws, but I really hate it when people make up rules/laws to punish people after the fact.


Yes.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:27 am

Another very bad morning for Lance. The indignities never cease. Now it seems they're not going to invite him to the festivities in July celebrating the 100th Tour de France.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/to ... story.html

I'm shocked, shocked! :)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:39 am

tandfman wrote:Another very bad morning for Lance. The indignities never cease. Now it seems they're not going to invite him to the festivities in July celebrating the 100th Tour de France.

They should not invite anyone whose ridden in the peleton for the last 20 years if they're going to be consistent.
I'm shocked, shocked!

What I find interesting is that Bjarne Riis didn't garner this same Inspector Renault reaction from the UCI and the Society of the Tour de France when he admitted to doping when he won the Tour. As a matter of fact, the only punishment he recieved is to have an asterik put by his Tour victory, and today he is the manager of one of the biggest teams in cycling. Why does Armstrong's Tour wins get expunged but Riis' only gets an asterik?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Gabriella » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:46 am

jazzcyclist wrote:By stripping Armstrong of his 2000 Bronze medal, the IOC has undermined their statute-of-limitations rationale for why they can't strip the East Germans of their medals.

I hate it when people selectively enforce rules/laws, but I really hate it when people make up rules/laws to punish people after the fact.


What happened in the GDR is totally different, and you'd be wrong (and stupid) to think it wasn't.

I don't know why people are getting their knickers in a twist over Armstrong losing his Olympic medal. So the IOC has underminded it's rule. And what? Did you mind that Katrin Krabbe was target tested, the chain of anonymity around her samples broken and her negative results shared amongst federations prior to her positive test, before this kind of thing 'was allowed'. What about her ban being 'illegally' extended? I doubt it.

Armstrong is a serial cheating so-and-so. If I had my way I'd rid him of everything, including his bike.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:00 am

Gabriella wrote:What happened in the GDR is totally different, and you'd be wrong (and stupid) to think it wasn't.

So i'm stupid for expecting some consistency from the IOC? The bottom line is that East Germany had a systematic doping program and I'm disappointed that you find it necessary to be an apologist for them? Their doping program was much bigger and more sophisticated than anything the Armstrong, U.S. Postal or any other cycling team was involved in.
:evil:

EDIT: I also find it interesting that the IOC will not touch the medals of Vyacheslav Ekimov (U.S. Postal teammate and fellow doper) and Jan Ullrich (convicted doper), the gold and silver medalists from that race.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Gabriella » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:13 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:So i'm stupid for expecting some consistency from the IOC? The bottom line is that East Germany had a systematic doping program and I'm disappointed that you find it necessary to be an apologist for them? Their doping program was much bigger and more sophisticated than anything the Armstrong, U.S. Postal or any other cycling team was involved in.


You're not stupid for wanting consistency from the IOC at all, no. But it is stupid to compare what happened behind the iron curtain to Armstrong's team.

Athletes being forced to take drugs, the vast majority unaware of what they were being given, from just past puberty, and having no say in the matter, is absoloutely nothing like what was happing here with Armstrong.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:49 pm

a spoiler alert for those who haven't thought about it and live outside of the Eastern Time Zone.... Oprah,I'm assuming will be shown "earlier" the farther east you are, so revelations about what was said will be appearing here, and perhaps on the front page as well, before it even airs on the west coast.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:09 pm

Gabriella wrote:You're not stupid for wanting consistency from the IOC at all, no. But it is stupid to compare what happened behind the iron curtain to Armstrong's team.

Athletes being forced to take drugs, the vast majority unaware of what they were being given, from just past puberty, and having no say in the matter, is absoloutely nothing like what was happing here with Armstrong.

It's not comparable from a moral point of view, but that should be irrelevant to the IOC. The bottom line is that the athletes who competed against them were competing on an uneven playing field and that's all that matters IMO. Furthermore, the IOC didn't use this excuse as its reason for not taking their medals away, instead they specifically use the 8-year statute of limitations as their as excuse. The article linked here explains the whole thing:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... tive-board
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 18.99s » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:15 pm

Gabriella wrote:Athletes being forced to take drugs, the vast majority unaware of what they were being given, from just past puberty, and having no say in the matter, is absoloutely nothing like what was happing here with Armstrong.

That state-sponsored doping program is different from the cycling debacle in terms of the moral responsibility and culpability of the athletes, but is no different in terms of the dirtiness of the medals and records and how it hurts clean athletes. Whichever of the records still standing from the 1990s or 1980s were achieved with doping, they're unfairly harming today's athletes who can't get world record bonuses and publicity because of them.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:41 pm

I'd love to see all of the East German's to be stripped of their medals as long the US is stripped of theirs too.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:25 pm

Armstrong denies doping during his comeback - the biological passport positives in '09 being whole reason he got nailed to the wall.

Who's surprised...
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:33 pm

Some remarkable admissions, though.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:36 pm

Also denying the damning "Godfather" stuff

Denies '99 Swiss positive coverup. Incredible
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby HopStepJump » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:00 pm

This is pretty compelling viewing. Oprah isn't tossing softballs.
HopStepJump
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:03 pm

Tweet of the night

https://twitter.com/si_austinmurphy/sta ... 5705782272

Austin Murphy‏@si_austinmurphy

I had this naïve fantasy that he would bare his soul, exhibit contrition, abase himself, vow to make amends. Seems laughable now.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:10 pm

Joking about his characterizations of Betsy Andreu? Really?

As I said earlier - psychopath
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:53 pm

It just hit me why he's denying the '09 biological passport - he's going to try to deal with USADA to have his 8 year ban retroactive to his last offense - which without the '09 positive is - wait for it - 2005.

What year is this again?
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:07 pm

tandfman wrote:Some remarkable admissions, though.

I agree with you. His admissions are much more damning than the stuff he denied and he was ten times more candid than Marion Jones. My only problem is that he seems to still be honoring the omerta which meant that he wouldn't talk candidly about other people. I guess I can respect the fact that he doesn't want to rat other people out, but it would have made for a much more compelling interview if he had ratted. And obviously I agree with him when he accused Travis Tygart of hyperbole when he accused U.S. Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of sports since I gave that title to the East Germans earlier in this thread.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:....
Athletes being forced to take drugs, the vast majority unaware of what they were being given, from just past puberty, and having no say in the matter, is absoloutely nothing like what was happing here with Armstrong.

It's not comparable from a moral point of view, but that should be irrelevant to the IOC. The bottom line is that the athletes who competed against them were competing on an uneven playing field .....[/quote]

Surely you're not suggesting that the DDR was the only nation doping in that era?!

Or if you're saying they had a better doping system,you're also off the mark. What they had was the world's best talent-ID/coaching/nurturing system, combined with the same drugs that everybody else was taking. (Or, more likely, usually a year or three behind the latest developments that the cunning Westerners were coming up with.)
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:42 pm

ps--one other thing the DDR did have: an accredited IOC lab (Kreischa?), which allowed them to perform the best tests available on their own athletes, outside of official sampling, and know how to fine-tune to the right tolerances. There weren't many accredited labs in those days, as I recall.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Gabriella » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:21 am

gh wrote:Surely you're not suggesting that the DDR was the only nation doping in that era?!

Or if you're saying they had a better doping system,you're also off the mark. What they had was the world's best talent-ID/coaching/nurturing system, combined with the same drugs that everybody else was taking. (Or, more likely, usually a year or three behind the latest developments that the cunning Westerners were coming up with.)


This ^^

gh wrote:ps--one other thing the DDR did have: an accredited IOC lab (Kreischa?), which allowed them to perform the best tests available on their own athletes, outside of official sampling, and know how to fine-tune to the right tolerances. There weren't many accredited labs in those days, as I recall.


and this ^^

By the 80's the GDR were definitely 'old school' in the drugs they were administering and never got onto giving their athletes HGH, unlike athletes the USA. And we know which western athletes were on that stuff in that decade.

Unfortunately, too many blinkered western fans ignore all the above. Bit like when they were in denial over Armstrong.

On Lance, I thought he revealed more than expected but still not enough. I guess it was appropriate for a TV interview and let us hope he co-operates more with WADA now. But I find him even more distasteful than before.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby mump boy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:42 am

He may be a smug twat but certain track cheats could do with some of Lance Armstrong's belated, self serving honesty
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:09 am

gh wrote:Surely you're not suggesting that the DDR was the only nation doping in that era?!

Or if you're saying they had a better doping system,you're also off the mark. What they had was the world's best talent-ID/coaching/nurturing system, combined with the same drugs that everybody else was taking. (Or, more likely, usually a year or three behind the latest developments that the cunning Westerners were coming up with.)

ps--one other thing the DDR did have: an accredited IOC lab (Kreischa?), which allowed them to perform the best tests available on their own athletes, outside of official sampling, and know how to fine-tune to the right tolerances. There weren't many accredited labs in those days, as I recall.

Okay, besides the USSR, what other nations do you think could have possibly had a better state-run doping program? Did American athletes have access to a better doping regimen, complete with internal testing? Which nations are you talking about? Was Evelyn Ashford playing on a level playing field in the prime of her career?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:25 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Okay, besides the USSR, what other nations do you think could have possibly had a better state-run doping program? Did American athletes have access to a better doping regimen, complete with internal testing? Which nations are you talking about? Was Evelyn Ashford playing on a level playing field in the prime of her career?

Since this sort of speculation is not permissible here, I'll just say that the evidence suggests that many while the doping was global and deep-seated (esp. in the 80s and 90s), the 'eastern bloc' nations seemed to have a more 'communistic' (systemic) approach, while the 'western bloc' had a more 'free market' (individual/small group) approach. Both are viable approaches and capable of great sophistication.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:27 am

Not that I was sympathetic towards him before, but besides Armstrong, one person that I have no sympathy for in this whole saga is Floyd Landis, while Emma O'Reilly is the most sympathetic figure in this story.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:33 am

Marlow wrote:Since this sort of speculation is not permissible here, I'll just say that the evidence suggests that many while the doping was global and deep-seated (esp. in the 80s and 90s), the 'eastern bloc' nations seemed to have a more 'communistic' (systemic) approach, while the 'western bloc' had a more 'free market' (individual/small group) approach. Both are viable approaches and capable of great sophistication.

Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters? Nation-states, which have vast resources, have always been able to do things beyond the capability of private companies, such as building the atom bomb and putting man in space, so why to you think that would be any different when it comes to doping?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 18.99s » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:45 am

jazzcyclist wrote:My only problem is that he seems to still be honoring the omerta which meant that he wouldn't talk candidly about other people. I guess I can respect the fact that he doesn't want to rat other people out, but it would have made for a much more compelling interview if he had ratted.

He's about to lose most of his net worth. Ratting out people would invite lawsuits, which would be hard to defend against if he no longer has any evidence against them other than his own words.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:50 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters?

Yes, in many cases the medical 'advice' was probably top-notch in some western enclaves. The DDR approach seemed 'blunt' in many cases, where More = Better. Figuring out when to give how much was the key and it sure seems like "all the time, a lot" was the primary protocol. I'd guess the Soviet (Russia) science was the best.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Gabriella » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:00 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Okay, besides the USSR, what other nations do you think could have possibly had a better state-run doping program? Did American athletes have access to a better doping regimen, complete with internal testing? Which nations are you talking about? Was Evelyn Ashford playing on a level playing field in the prime of her career?


American athletes had better access to a range of drugs. You couldn't pick and choose what to take in the GDR, you were given it (without your consent). In the USA you could get your hands on HGH,for example, and not even worry about failing a test for it as one didn't exist. You could pump your body full of all sorts of things and tailor it accordingly. And some people did and paid the ultimate price for doing so - death.

Was Ashford playing on a level playing field? No, she was one of the lucky ones with access to whatever she chose, if she so wished, I might add.

jazzcyclist wrote:Of course individual western athletes made the decision to dope, but do you really believe that individuals can match nation-states in these matters? Nation-states, which have vast resources, have always been able to do things beyond the capability of private companies, such as building the atom bomb and putting man in space, so why to you think that would be any different when it comes to doping?


The 'endless pot of money' that communist countries had is a myth. And what you fail to realise is the scope of doping in western nations. This was not a communist systems vs individuals & coaches, This was a communist system vs federations. Federations that covered up drugs tests, federations that asked meet international promoters not to test their athletes at international 'friendly' matches, federations that encouraged athletes to take drugs and provided the means to do so. Do not kid yourself that it wasn't so organised.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:09 am

This is my view of the Lance Armstrong situation.

1. LA is an overbearing bufoon with little regard for civilized behavior.
2. He won fair and square since he did not do anything that all of his competitors did not. That applies to Le Tour as well as the OG's.
3. Singling out LA as an "example" is a crying shame. IOC in particular. Stripping him of a bronze medal 13 years after the fact while leaving gold and silver medalists, also known dopers intact is a joke.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests