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 gh » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:54 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Does Track & Field News have a facebook page that I'm unaware of?


apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.

Twitter too.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:00 am

gh wrote:apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.
Twitter too.

I'm sure this is an enormously stupid question, but what function does a T&FN Facebook page serve, that is not addressed by these fora? Alerts?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
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 10:16 am

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Does Track & Field News have a facebook page that I'm unaware of?


apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.

Twitter too.

I guess I don't do facebook enough to recognize symbols like that. :oops:

By the way, here's what Sally Jenkins had to say on the subject of PED use in a Charlie Rose interview from earlier this week:

I’m an outlier on the topic of doping in sports, so what you’re gonna get from me is probably not the prevailing attitude towards it. I think it’s a terrible, terrible moral dilemma and a very complicated question. I think we’ve done a poor job of defining what doping is, what is therapy vs. what is doping, what helps a guy simply get back on the bike to ride another day vs. what gives him a genuine competitive advantage, what substances are truly performance enhancing and which are just on the list. We have things float on and off lists. I don’t have the moral certitude that a lot of people do on the anti-doping question. I think that it’s a matter of personal conscience. I think we’re doing a bad job of persuading athletes that it’s not the best option. I don’t think we’re talking to them honestly about it, and I don’t think we’re listening to them honestly about it. So I have a lot of complicated feelings about this quite apart from Lance Armstrong, and I always have….I think we’re on the wrong track, and I think that quite apart from Lance.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc- ... y-jenkins/

Pego, correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like something you might have said.

And not having read the entire USADA report like Jenkins did, I thought she posed an interesting question about Floyd Landis in her recent column: "The affidavits taken by USADA make it clear that while Lance refused to use HGH, Floyd Landis introduced it to younger riders, so why is the federal government considering giving Landis whistle-blower protection?"
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:25 am

jazzcyclist wrote:here's what Sally Jenkins had to say on the subject of PED use in a Charlie Rose interview from earlier this week:
I’m an outlier on the topic of doping in sports, so what you’re gonna get from me is probably not the prevailing attitude towards it. . . .

I never thought about it that way, but I like and mostly agree with her!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
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 10:33 am

Earlier I mentioned that I knew Armstrong was an asshole after I read his book, so I find it somewhat humorous that Jenkins takes a potshot at the Pollyannas with this paragraph from her column:

"Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because I’ve never believed there was a more innocent sporting past, and I am not one of those people, unlike his prosecutors, who get nervous and angry when great athletes are too far removed from my own image of myself. And 25 years of writing about champions has convinced me that they are indeed, very, very different from you and me, and their qualities are often dark. And because “It’s Not About the Bike” tried to state that quite clearly."
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:39 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:here's what Sally Jenkins had to say on the subject of PED use in a Charlie Rose interview from earlier this week:
I’m an outlier on the topic of doping in sports, so what you’re gonna get from me is probably not the prevailing attitude towards it. . . .

I never thought about it that way, but I like and mostly agree with her!


So do I.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:21 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.
Twitter too.

I'm sure this is an enormously stupid question, but what function does a T&FN Facebook page serve, that is not addressed by these fora? Alerts?


reaches 100s more people than the Board does. (friends refer to friends)

we started a Lance on Oprah thread 13 hours ago that as of right now has been seen by 2712 people.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:23 am

and we have more than 20,000 Twitter followers (not bragging; that's very small potatoes indeed, but compare that to the traffic on this board, which truly defines minuscule)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:13 pm

tweet by miler Lindsay Gallo

<<I just want to know if anyone was doping in the movie "Breaking Away" because that would really ruin cycling for me. :) >>
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby KevinM » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:25 pm

gh wrote:tweet by miler Lindsay Gallo

<<I just want to know if anyone was doping in the movie "Breaking Away" because that would really ruin cycling for me. :) >>


She's obviously in denial regarding the sophisitication of Team Cinzano's program in the late '70s.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:08 pm

deadspin writer is succinct in his take

http://deadspin.com/5976386/lance-armst ... ge-asshole
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:39 pm

gh wrote:deadspin writer is succinct in his take

http://deadspin.com/5976386/lance-armst ... ge-asshole

I agree with you on this 100%. That piece nails it expecially this excerpt:
He's an asshole and he deserves to be shit on. Whether or not he actually merits being thrown in jail and having his penis electrocuted is of little concern to me. Once you cross into Extreme Asshole territory, you invite people to throw rationality out the window. It becomes an intensely personal matter. Your crime becomes superfluous. You are now being punished for being YOU. We are not a society that tolerates people who are both successful AND are jerks about it. And we have a thin-skinned national media that takes being lied to oh so very personally. You don't want to humiliate self-loathing media folks like that. They'll drone on for AGES about how you duped them, and then they'll hound you to the gates of Hell for daring to make them look stupid.

What's the saying about "picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrels"? Lance made the naive media dupes, like Rick Reilly, look like fools, or to paraphrase the movie director Jack Woltz from The Godfather, "He made the sanctimonious, self-important sports media look ridiculous. And folks in their position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous."
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:23 pm

In Night Two, Armstrong bemoans the fact he received the "death penalty", while others received 6 month suspensions.

Of course, he conveniently left out the fact that he had the opportunity last summer to cop to his cheating and receive the reduced penalty. I'm disappointed Winfrey didn't pursue that point.
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 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:32 pm

And now Armstrong drags his former wife into the "I didnt dope during the comeback" tale.

Also, Armstrong states due to the biological passport - the same one he blasted last night for his '09 positives - he thought the field would be level for clean riders. Again, Winfrey missed an important follow up - what about Armstrong's teammate Contador?
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 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:52 pm

Armstrong denies $250,000 USADA payoff attempt, citing it's absence from the Reasoned Decision as proof it didnt happen.

LOL
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 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:20 pm

One thing I've been curious to hear is how other cyclists are reacting to the Oprah interview. Tyler Hamilton supports Armstrong's claim that he never ordered anyone to dope.
"Nobody took a syringe and forced it into my arm. I made that decision on my own," Hamilton said. "But you did feel the pressure. When it was all set up for my first blood-doping experience in 2000, when I flew to Spain on Lance's private jet, I don't know what would've happened to me if I'd said, `I'll stick with EPO but no blood doping.' I assume they would've been angry about it. For me, it was a no-brainer."

However, Hamilton refuted Armstrong's claim about covering up a failed drug test in the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

While admitting to doping in his interview, Armstrong contradicted a key point of Hamilton's: That Armstrong told him he tested positive during the 2001 Tour de Suisse and conspired with International Cycling Union officials to cover it up – in exchange for a donation.
"That story wasn't true. There was no positive test, no paying off of the labs. There was no secret meeting with the lab director," Armstrong told Winfrey. Asked about that, Hamilton told the AP: "I stand by what I said. It's all out there. I don't know if it's a legal thing, or why he said that. It doesn't really bother me that much."

Perhaps Armstrong realized that if he had confirmed Hamilton's claim, Oprah would have asked him some follow-up questions in which he would have been forced to name names which he obviously didn't want to do. He'll have to come clean on this if he wants the UCI and WADA to give him a break.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... ref=sports
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Mighty Favog » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:37 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:deadspin writer is succinct in his take

http://deadspin.com/5976386/lance-armst ... ge-asshole

I agree with you on this 100%. That piece nails it expecially this excerpt:
He's an asshole and he deserves to be shit on. Whether or not he actually merits being thrown in jail and having his penis electrocuted is of little concern to me. Once you cross into Extreme Asshole territory, you invite people to throw rationality out the window. It becomes an intensely personal matter. Your crime becomes superfluous. You are now being punished for being YOU. We are not a society that tolerates people who are both successful AND are jerks about it. And we have a thin-skinned national media that takes being lied to oh so very personally. You don't want to humiliate self-loathing media folks like that. They'll drone on for AGES about how you duped them, and then they'll hound you to the gates of Hell for daring to make them look stupid.

What's the saying about "picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrels"? Lance made the naive media dupes, like Rick Reilly, look like fools, or to paraphrase the movie director Jack Woltz from The Godfather, "He made the sanctimonious, self-important sports media look ridiculous. And folks in their position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous."

I think the press' vitriol directed at Armstrong is fundamentally different because their relationship with him is different than with other athletes or even most other public figures. Few have been so legally aggressive towards any negative coverage. Suing the press for telling the truth is probably the best way to make permanent enemies with the most serious writers. So when they see him pretending to come clean but still denying a few very important things, the denying is what they're going to lead with and beat him over the head with.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:03 am

guru wrote:Things about to get real for Armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... t/1834841/


I said it early on in this whole thing and will say it again. He will be bankrupt before this is all through. I know he had a lot of money. Lawyers have lots of billable hours, and he's got very high-priced ones.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:16 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
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.


Merckx's team was good but nowhere near the quality of the Posties. La Vie Claire with LeMond, Hinault, and Andy Hampsten (and a few others - Jean-Francois Bernard) was the greatest team ever, in my opinion.

Drugs in cycling have been around for close to 100 years, as someone noted above. In the book I wrote about 2 years on the History of Cycling, we discussed this - there were lots of revelations about it in the 1920s. Fausto Coppi admitted this - see his WIkipedia page, for this interview:

Question: Do cyclists take la bomba (amphetamine)?
Answer: Yes, and those who claim otherwise, it's not worth talking to them about cycling.
Question: And you, did you take la bomba?
Answer: Yes. Whenever it was necessary.
Question: And when was it necessary?
Answer: Almost all the time!

Merckx was caught several times so he was not fully innocent. As far as I know, Hinault and LeMond were never caught with anything. But I have to look at the sport and the era - I would be very surprised if they didn't use what was then available - in the early 80s that was amphetamines and possibly blood doping. I think cyclists using 'roids (and HGH) only started in the 90s.

Having said all that, everybody is using them. I got asked the other day by a reporter if I thought Lance would have won anything without the drugs, and I told him that if the playing field was level, if nobody was using anything, I think he still would have won most of the races he won. He was that good, despite his obvious psychopathic personality.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:37 am

Marlow: 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.

No. The GDR program was the most sophisticated doping scheme in history - far more so than the US Postal team under Armstrong, and I've told this to a couple reporters that Tygart's assertion that Armstrong was in charge of the most sophisticated doping scheme ever. Garry is right that the GDR had a doping lab and tested all their athletes in house before competitions so they would not get caught. No GDR ever got caught in the 1980s (Krabbe was in the early 90s). See Brigitte Berendonck's articles on the whole system. A lighter read but pretty good is the book The Miracle Machine by Doug Gilbert from the early 1980s.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:42 am

skiboo wrote:
Gabriella wrote: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.



You imply that we know everyone who was using HGH, but that just isn't true. We may know some of who they were, but it seems like some others get lumped in despite being innocent. You seem to have a problem with one particular American woman who shouldn't be included with the rest.


HGH wasn't even available until the late 1980s. It only exists in minute amounts in any body, and it has to be manufactured by genetic engineering methods that didn't come along until then.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:59 am

I'll add a few more things - was stuck at Heathrow airport yesterday in snowstorm and spent whole day travelling back from Lausanne so was somewhat incommunicado.

LeMond is the greatest American cyclist ever, especially now, but even during Lance's 7 Tours I told a few people that at best it was very close. People don't remember how good LeMond was, given that he was not the cultural icon Armstrong was. 3 TdF wins in an era when no Americans won, no Europeans wanted to help the Americans, his own team (LVC and especially Hinault) worked against him to keep from winning in 1985, he was on terrible teams in 1989-90 (because no good team would hire him after the gunshot accident) but still won, and he did come back from the hunting accident in 1987, probably as great a comeback as Lance's from cancer (more on that next post).

Lance Armstrong "won" 7 TdFs - but if you look at what the cycling world calls his "palmares" it's pretty lean otherwise - nothing like Merckx or Hinault or even Coppi in an earlier world. He won the 1992 Worlds, 1 one-day classic (1996 Fleche-Wallone, a lesser one - not one of the 5 monument races), the Tour de Suisse once, and 3 Dauphine-Librere's (1999, 2002-03), a prep race for the Tour. That's pretty much it in big races. Go back to 2006 - ask the top cycling experts and historians and Armstrong was, at best, the 4th greatest rider ever - behind Merckx, Coppi, and Hinault.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:11 am

Mighty Favog wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:What's the saying about "picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrels"? Lance made the naive media dupes, like Rick Reilly, look like fools, or to paraphrase the movie director Jack Woltz from The Godfather, "He made the sanctimonious, self-important sports media look ridiculous. And folks in their position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous."

I think the press' vitriol directed at Armstrong is fundamentally different because their relationship with him is different than with other athletes or even most other public figures. Few have been so legally aggressive towards any negative coverage. Suing the press for telling the truth is probably the best way to make permanent enemies with the most serious writers. So when they see him pretending to come clean but still denying a few very important things, the denying is what they're going to lead with and beat him over the head with.

Sure, I can understand why reporters like David Walsh and Bonnie Ford would go after him because they've actually been attacked by Armstrong in the course of doing their jobs and Walsh was actually sued by him. But most of the reporters in the American media haven't had these types of run-ins with Armstrong, but they're piling on because Lance made them looked like fools. Rick Reilly, whose experiences with Lance over the years have been all positive, wrote a column that sound like the words of someone who was let down by a friend, not a dispassionate journalist. Then there's Buzz Bissinger, who went to the mat for Armstrong as recently as August, when he wrote an Armstrong fluff piece that was the cover story of Newsweek, who now must get his pound of flesh for being duped.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:28 am

bambam wrote:Go back to 2006 - ask the top cycling experts and historians and Armstrong was, at best, the 4th greatest rider ever - behind Merckx, Coppi, and Hinault.

I agree with this 100%. Lance may even be behind Indurain, who pulled off the Giro-Tour double twice and Anquetil, who pulled off both a Giro-Tour double and a Tour-Vuelta double. Outside of the Tour, he just didn't do very much, and he usually ended his season early without even competing in the world championships after he started piling up Tour wins.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:32 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
bambam wrote:Go back to 2006 - ask the top cycling experts and historians and Armstrong was, at best, the 4th greatest rider ever - behind Merckx, Coppi, and Hinault.

I agree with this 100%. Lance may even be behind Indurain, who pulled off the Giro-Tour double twice and Anquetil, who pulled off both a Giro-Tour double and a Tour-Vuelta double. Outside of the Tour, he just didn't do very much, and he usually ended his season early without even competing in the world championships after he started piling up Tour wins.


Yeah, I said at best. Close between him and Indurain (in 2006). Anquetil is the weirdest of the greats. Superb at time trialling but didn't win a lot of other races. It was said him, "He could never be dropped, but he could drop nobody."

You gotta read "Road to Valor", Jazzy. I sent you an e-mail about it. Recommended reading for anybody who likes cycling. Its a story about a true hero - Gino Bartali, war hero in World War II who helped hide and protect Jews in Italy.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:43 am

Here are some excerpts from an ESPN column by Jonathan Vaughters which really sheds light on the culture of doping in cycling:

"My first two years racing (1994 and 1995), I raced clean and there was no testing whatsoever for (the blood-boosting hormone) EPO in Europe. I would be barely hanging on the back of the peloton, finishing 130th. You were stuck sitting on someone's wheel just praying the race would slow down at some point. Then I'd come back to race in the U.S. and win -- it was amazing the difference when it was all 180 guys on EPO in those European races. The race is just faster and faster and faster because everyone always has the energy for a counterattack.

"It's against the law of nature in the pack that the guy spending 30 percent more energy pulling in the wind for kilometers on end for his team leader can suddenly somehow still hang in there for third or 13th place. The race is just faster and faster and faster because everyone always has the energy for a counterattack. Fleche Wallonne in 1994 [when riders from the same team finished 1-2-3] was the seminal moment, when it went from individuals to team-based doping. So you had an en masse decision, with doctors and managers and riders saying, OK, gig's up; we've gotta do this. And the attitude among the riders was: This is medication given to me by the team doctor. He told me I need to take it.

"With EPO in the 1990s, that was the first time in the history of sport where you had a totally undetectable drug that definitively gave a performance gain to everyone, and there wasn't a downside. By 1996, in big races like the Tour de France, I think doping was very close to 100 percent prevalent. Then came the Festina scandal in 1998 [when Alex Zulle and his Festina teammates were ousted from the Tour de France for using EPO]. Even calling it the Festina scandal compartmentalized it, and for the governing body, by blaming a few brazen individuals as opposed to recognizing it was a systemic problem, it slowed down the process of producing a test immensely. That's why there was a 12-year lag between when EPO started to be used and an EPO test. . . . .

"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. The problem is because his stature was so important to the sport that to dismantle the doping culture is very difficult unless he's exposed as part of it. . . . . . From 2008 to 2010, when reporters would ask if I ever doped, most journalists did not actually care whether I doped. They cared far more about what the answer to the follow-up question was: 'You were teammates with Lance; did he ever dope?' It's very discouraging when you're in a position where you are unable to admit your own past without taking on this behemoth.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... view-issue
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:46 am

bambam wrote:You gotta read "Road to Valor", Jazzy. I sent you an e-mail about it. Recommended reading for anybody who likes cycling. Its a story about a true hero - Gino Bartali, war hero in World War II who helped hide and protect Jews in Italy.

Will do and thanks for tips.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:00 am

bambam wrote:...

There are good cancers and bad cancers. If I was given the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer or glioblastoma (a brain cancer), I would not be treated, but would only ask for pain medicine and go off to die.....


And your doctor would prescribe only half of what you needed because—heaven forfend!—you might get addicted!

(you'll excuse my cynicism, but I'm fresh off a friend dying of an ugly C and her last weeks being "enough morphine to keep the pain tolerable")
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby HopStepJump » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:17 am

bambam wrote:
No. The GDR program was the most sophisticated doping scheme in history - far more so than the US Postal team under Armstrong, and I've told this to a couple reporters that Tygart's assertion that Armstrong was in charge of the most sophisticated doping scheme ever. Garry is right that the GDR had a doping lab and tested all their athletes in house before competitions so they would not get caught. No GDR ever got caught in the 1980s (Krabbe was in the early 90s). See Brigitte Berendonck's articles on the whole system. A lighter read but pretty good is the book The Miracle Machine by Doug Gilbert from the early 1980s.


I agree and how could it not be. It was dedicated science. Yes, they also had a talent scouting system, but you wouldn't see that big a difference between their women and men if it were primarily about talent identificatation.
HopStepJump
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:02 am

Blues wrote:Although Pego's views are as usual valid and based on current facts, I still don't think they necessarily rule out the fact that Armstrong's drug use may have influenced his testicular cancer. Although A FEW (but most likely not ALL) risk factors for the condition have been established, the actual causes of seminoma type testicular cancers are still unknown. As recently as sixty to seventy years ago most people felt that there was no documented evidence that tobacco smoking could cause lung cancer, and even today in many cases there's still much we haven't discovered yet regarding the actual cause of quite a few medical conditions. Considering the fact that some of the drugs that Armstrong used can affect various hormonal and physiological processes in the body, there's always the possibility that something he used could have played a part in his cancer. That doesn't necessarily mean it caused the cancer in the first place, but if it didn't, there's still always a chance that it may have adversely affected the way, or accelerated the speed, in which the cancer developed...


You could be right. The only other downside to that argument, however, goes along with the post by somebody copying Vaughters post on another message board. Not sure Armstrong did a lot of that stuff until around 1995, shortly before his cancer was detected. Remember that except for the 1992 World Championships, Armstrong wasn't all that good in the peleton prior to his comeback from cancer. And it was after the famous 1995 Fleche-Wallone with 1-2-3 finish by the ONCE riders that PEDs really took off on all teams.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:53 pm

Editing grammar, fixing typos, correcting spelling . . . these are all good things. We all make mistakes of that sort, and none of us should hesitate to edit our posts when we see that what we've written is not up to the standards that we set for ourselves.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:08 pm

tandfman wrote:Editing grammar, fixing typos, correcting spelling . . . these are all good things. We all make mistakes of that sort, and none of us should hesitate to edit our posts when we see that what we've written is not up to the standards that we set for ourselves.

Waht deos it mtater wehn the eye olny lokos at the frist and lsat lteter?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:27 pm

Steroids have not been the mainstay of the peloton, it has been more blood doping and EPO. I as sure that steroids helped for recovery, but it was my general impression that steroids were more easily detected unless the dosage was pretty modest.

Given that the cancer had been in place for a while (again, impression, not certain) but the condition had been ignored for a while) and that the main doping with Armstrong is in the 1997 to 2005 time frame, there does not seem to be the type of extended and continual usage that would lead to it 'causing' the cancer. If it was that likely for the amount of use that Armstrong had, then there would be an epidemic. Maybe it made the likelihood jump from 1% to 1.25%, but not 1% to 50%. And, given that it is more likely to get cancer a second time than the first, the very substantial and continual usage later would then been more likely to kick in a second variant.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:26 am

Eddie Merckx continues to bury his head in the sand.
Merckx reserved particular anger for Armstrong’s comment that it would have been impossible to win the Tour de France without doping, opining that it cast a pall over Armstrong’s contemporaries and Tour winners over the past 110 years.

“It’s a scandal for the other riders, the other winners, to affirm that. It’s so easy and hypocritical,” Merckx said. “The Armstrong era was hard for cycling, it came after the Festina Affair, there was EPO etc. but that’s no reason to say that you can’t win the Tour without doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx- ... confession

Meanwhile, Johan Bruyneel is in the crosshairs of the Belgian cycling authorities.

Former team manager for Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, is reportedly ready to cooperate with investigators from the Royal Belgian Cycling Federation (RLVB), according to Het Laatste Nieuws.

The RLVB has been looking into allegations that Bruyneel helped to facilitate an organized doping scheme in the US Postal Service team since Floyd Landis first went public with his accusations to that effect in 2010. The charges were forwarded on to the federal prosecutor last October.

Following the confession of Armstrong to doping during all seven of his Tour de France victories, the RLVB is seeking to move forward its investigation to determine if Bruyneel violated its anti-doping regulations.

"We invited Bruyneel to come in," said federal prsecutor Jaak Fransen on Friday. "He said he is formally prepared to cooperate in the investigation, but because he is often abroad the interrogation has not taken place. . . . . .

Other reports in De Telegraaf state that Bruyneel is working on a book that will tell his side of the US Postal story, and that he is still planning to go forward with his arbitration with the US Anti-Doping Agency, which has proposed a lifetime ban from the sport for the Belgian.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruynee ... estigators

Does USADA have the authority to ban foreign athletes and coaches too?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:45 am

Thomas Dekker says that doping was a way of life at Rabobank.
Thomas Dekker has shed further light on the doping culture that existed at Rabobank during his spell at the team from 2004 to 2008. The Dutchman, who previously served a two-year ban for testing positive for EPO, has now confessed to also undergoing blood transfusions during his time at Rabobank.

“It was easy to be influenced, doping was widespread,” Dekker told NRC Handelsblad, saying that he began using EPO in 2006.

In May of last year, former Rabobank manager Theo De Rooy already admitted that doping was tolerated on the team until 2007 and the Dutch bank withdrew from sponsorship at the end of the 2012 season. The team continues under the guise of Blanco Pro Cycling in 2013, albeit without a title sponsor and with alterations to its management structure.

Dekker, who now rides for Garmin-Sharp after returning from suspension in late 2011, said that doping was simply an endemic part of the culture in the Rabobank set-up of the time.

“They should have told me to be patient and to stay clear of doping, but that wasn’t the case,” he said. “There was no dissenting voice. Doping was a way of life and a way of riding for many teammates, colleagues and me, too. Doping was part of the job – it’s hard, you train hard and you do everything for the bike.”

As well as using EPO, Dekker explained that a member of the team’s management had put him in contact with “a man who carried out blood transfusions,” and he said he received transfusions on three occasions.

“I thought it was the way to success, all the big riders were doing it,” Dekker said. “I received a blood bag three times. With doping, you can have everything, but in fact you’re left with nothing afterwards.”

As well as Dekker’s confession, the NRC Handelsblad report includes information from an unnamed former Rabobank rider, who says that EPO was first used by a majority of the team’s riders at the 1996 Tour de France.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/doping- ... mas-dekker

The stories of all the riders who have talked mesh together pretty well, and that is that EPO first appeared on the scene around 1993 or 1994, and that by 1996, practically the entire peleton was using it via team doctors. It's also likely that LeMond never used it since he retired at the beginning of the EPO era.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:02 am

casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:23 am

gh wrote:casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.


No, I think jazzy is right here, since he was referring to LeMond and EPO only. EPO was not really available until the late 1980s and its effects weren't really known until the early 1990s. As stated in a post yesterday, I would be surprised if LeMond didn't do some stimulants and/or amphetamines in his era, however, but that was about that was available to the cyclists prior to the 1990s.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:31 am

Pego wrote: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.


Been gone on vacation and missed these interviews and discussion. Bad week to be gone I guess.

I disagree with the premise that because "everyone was doing it" that Lance would have won if they were all clean. I have read plenty in which this topic has been discussed by the science and medical folks who say this is likely not true. When looking at natural blood values like Hematocrit levels occurring naturally and the rate these values decline over the course of 3 weeks from what I have heard and read Armstrong was average at best. Therefore, he benefited more from the cocktail of drugs he was taking than someone else might. Someone who is more "gifted" with the naturally occurring blood levels and an ability to recover more quickly from the stresses of the race quite possibly would have been ahead. We will never know who those people were because of this so-called "level playing field" theory.

Lance's performances in his first few TDF's were miserable. His performed horribly as a GC rider. Contrast that with someone like Greg Lemond, who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second in a race he likely wins with teammate help, and then wins it in his third try. Other young cyclists in recent years have shown propensity for doing well over a 3 week race.

My belief is that EPO and testosterone and other steroids made guys who traditionally never would be able to compete as GC contenders be able to do so. I am more likely to believe that Lance wins zero tours than anywhere near 7 with a CLEAN "level playing field".
Last edited by odelltrclan on Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:35 am

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Does Track & Field News have a facebook page that I'm unaware of?


apparently you've never noticed the link front and center on the home page.

Twitter too.


I had "liked" a T&FN link several years ago. It is a page that seems to be an excerpt from Wikipedia describing the magazine. Don't know if you put that page on or not. So all this time I never had a clue you guys had an active Facebook page until now!, and I have been a regular Facebook user.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:39 am

bambam wrote:
gh wrote:casting no aspersions at all on LeMond, but from where I sit, to use the name of any Tour rider (at least a successful one) at this point in conjunction with "likely never used" is close to an oxymoron.


No, I think jazzy is right here, since he was referring to LeMond and EPO only. EPO was not really available until the late 1980s and its effects weren't really known until the early 1990s. As stated in a post yesterday, I would be surprised if LeMond didn't do some stimulants and/or amphetamines in his era, however, but that was about that was available to the cyclists prior to the 1990s.


I remember reading somewhere regarding him and/or Andy Hampsten being at the tail end of their haydays. They described their dismays at being GC contender's to not being able to hang on to the peloton any longer in only a matter of a couple of years in the early 90's. They knew what changed and decided to bow out.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests