A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
gh wrote:his "jaundiced" view is that of a national-class runner looking from the inside out, as compared to your look from the outside in. I know which one I trust.
??!! It's not a matter of trust, but yes, it a matter of perspective (but certainly you are not thinking just because he is a nat-class runner, he represents ANYone's opinion but his own, which may or may NOT be determined by his nat-class 'prestige'), and yes, his perspective is jaundiced* as evidenced by its content AND tone. I certainly don't expect anyone to 'trust' or 'accept' my perspective, but the exact same thing can be said of his!
*Jaundiced, in this context, refers to his dismissiveness of how STOOPID you must be to have ever had any emotion towards Lance except disgust . . .
Well, let me tell you what Mrs Pego's attitude toward Lance is. I think she is one of the public, outside rabid fans (like us) or talking heads. Whenever she watches, for example, Tyler Hamilton interviews, this is what she says (condensed and paraphrased). "You have been doing the same as Lance and he whipped your ass. Sour grapes, Tyler."
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).
Within cycling, what would have hurt most is not merely racing against someone that is using PEDs but against a whole team that is using PEDs, as the team is such an important element. And Lance developed the 'assisted team'. This makes sense also in terms of one of their strengths, which was to keep almost all the riders in the race through to the end. 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.
Comment on Sally Jenkins:
Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because more informative than the USADA report was an ESPN interview with his former teammate Jonathan Vaughters, who observed: “There is the huge misconception, though, that this is about Lance. This is about a culture that Lance was a part of, and that he participated in . . . If you want people to be truthful and want to know what actually happened, as opposed to chasing ghosts for the next 10 years, then you have to let them know that we won’t chop your head off.”
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.
gh wrote:My Facebook friend has responded to the comments on his post
<< 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.>>
This part of your friends post really resonates with me. I figured out that he was an asshole when he I read his book It's Not About The Bike, and I figured out that the sport was dirty in the late 90's after the Festina affair. By the time I stood on the roadside of the upper slopes of Alpe D'Huez in July 2001 and watched Armstrong pull away from Jan Ullrich in one of the most epic stages in Tour history, the blinders had already taken off my eyes for the most part. As former NFL coach Dennis Green might say, "he is who we thought he was". What I find amazing is how certain folks in the media (eg. Phil Liggett, Al Trautwig, etc) are responding to the confession by doing their best Inspector Renault impressions.
Pego wrote:she says (condensed and paraphrased). "You have been doing the same as Lance and he whipped your ass. Sour grapes, Tyler."
There is, of course, merit in that position also! That's why when posters here lament the PEDness of an athlete from (especially) the 70s - 90s, I say: and you KNOW the other athletes were clean because . . . ?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.)
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.
