Lance comeback

Discussion about professional racing
toby
Posts: 126
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 15:33
Real Name: Toby Draper
Location: Stirchley

Post by toby » 16 Oct 2012 14:09

Neil Compton wrote:"2) It is very clear from the testimony of various confessed dopers and testing experts that the system was very easy to get round: one simply had to avoid getting tested when one was 'glowing' (by laughably straightforward means such as pretending not to be at home)."

And yet riders did get caught. If the system was as easy to get around as they make out they wouldn't have got caught would they. Cycling has had a bad rep for years because of drugs and thats because riders keep getting caught.
No - all it proves is that the testing programme was flawed and that some riders or some teams were more organised in exploiting those flaws than others.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 16:02

Neil Compton wrote:And yet riders did get caught.
Neil, how many tests did Hincapie fail? None. How many tests did Vaughters fail? None. How many tests did Millar fail? None. How many tests did Basso fail? None. The list goes on and on. Even the ones who did fail tests now tell us that they'd been at it for years before they got caught.

Not failing a test means very little at all.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 16:07

And you've got to wonder: if you are presiding over a system that's designed to catch people, and when you do catch someone, they say "I've been doing this for years", what do you do? What is the obvious response that would surely occur to anyone who wanted to make their system work? Surely, it's to ask those people how they got away with it for so long (or otherwise try to find out how they did so) and adjust your system to make it less likely that someone else can do the same?

You really have to wonder why the UCI apparently didn't do the first thing that would occur to most of us.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 16 Oct 2012 16:54

"A former team-mate of Lance Armstrong claims the disgraced cyclist should not be singled out for criticism despite the damning findings of the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

Armstrong was said to have orchestrated "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen" in the USADA report which provided the written reasons behind their decision to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles and to ban him from the sport for life.

But Australian Patrick Jonker, who rode for Armstrong's US Postal team in 2000, believes such was the problem with drugs in cycling at the time to focus solely on one rider is not right.

He told Radio Five Live: "Reading the report, I don't think Lance could have acted as the sole power behind this.

"I believe you must have had the knowledge of a doctor to enforce this.

"To crucify Lance and only Lance would be unfair, they need to crucify the sport during that era."

Although drug-taking was seemingly rife during the early part of the last decade, Jonker, who insisted he had never taken performance-enhancing substances himself, denied everyone at US Postal was involved.

"During that period, I was definitely aware that there were athletes using performance-enhancing drugs but I don't believe it was to the extent that USADA are coming out with," he added.

"The USADA were saying that in the Dauphine race three weeks before the Tour de France that there was a blanket use of performance-enhancing drugs in that particular race by the team and I was in the team with Tyler and Lance.

"The USADA pointing the finger at pretty much everyone is unfair.

"Me, myself, I am pretty sure the majority of the team were not taking drugs.

"In cycling then there was a problem but it was not a blanket."

Armstrong was accused of intimidating team-mates into taking banned substances to boost his own chances of success.

But Jonker said he was never approached by the Texan.

"He never had the conversation with me," he said

"I wasn't a big player in the game, I was a worker, lower down the ladder, often in the B team."

The world cycling union (UCI) has been criticised for not uncovering the depth of Armstrong's cheating earlier but Jonker believes the UCI was, in fact, ahead of the game in its determination to root out those not abiding by the rules.

He added: "The technology was not available to absolutely guarantee 100 per cent proof of the non-use of performance-enhancing drugs but the cycling union did the best they possibly could.

"To say the UCI is corrupt is difficult as there are many other sporting organisations in the world that don't have blood-testing at all, not even today.

"The UCI were very brave to introduce what they did but it has all imploded."

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 17:52

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that quotation, Neil. Most of what Jonker says is perfectly reasonable, but I don't see what bearing it has on earlier postings in this thread. No one here has suggested that Armstrong acted alone or that his team was any worse than various others. My interpretation of the USADA material is that his team was simply better at pretty well everything, including doping.

I for one would like to see him treated in the same way as any other convicted doper. However, I do take greater satisfaction in his downfall than in the downfall of your average doper. And that's because of countless stories like this, which I've read over the years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... g-clean-up

User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 16 Oct 2012 18:29

Between Peaks wrote:
Rather naively I'd assumed it was because Heras et al were careless but, increasingly, I think we ain't seen anything yet.
As I was saying . . . .

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... g-positive

User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 16 Oct 2012 18:32

As for Jonker - only rode for USPS for a year, didn't ride the Tour, was by his own omission a second ranker, therefore no possible value in putting him on a doping programme.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 16 Oct 2012 19:08

George wrote:I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that quotation, Neil. Most of what Jonker says is perfectly reasonable, but I don't see what bearing it has on earlier postings in this thread. No one here has suggested that Armstrong acted alone or that his team was any worse than various others. My interpretation of the USADA material is that his team was simply better at pretty well everything, including doping.

I for one would like to see him treated in the same way as any other convicted doper. However, I do take greater satisfaction in his downfall than in the downfall of your average doper. And that's because of countless stories like this, which I've read over the years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... g-clean-up
This looks like it's possibly going beyond doping, fraud, coverups, US postal wanting there money back, Sunday Times counter suing to name a few.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 16 Oct 2012 19:14

Indeed Neil but i was interested in his comments about the Dauphine race and if he is telling the truth it shows the USADA are not accurate in what they are saying.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 20:46

Between Peaks wrote:As I was saying . . . .

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... g-positive
Interesting.
Ed Moss wrote:This looks like it's possibly going beyond doping
There are certainly stories circulating suggesting that he could face criminal charges, but I've yet to hear anyone in any official role back that up. Obviously if strong evidence of fraud or perjury or any such thing emerges, one would hope that charges are brought.
Neil Compton wrote:Indeed Neil but i was interested in his comments about the Dauphine race and if he is telling the truth it shows the USADA are not accurate in what they are saying.
So not quite everyone on the team was doping. I'm afraid that falls some way short of discrediting the USADA report, Neil.

User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 16 Oct 2012 20:50

Neil Compton wrote:Indeed Neil but i was interested in his comments about the Dauphine race and if he is telling the truth it shows the USADA are not accurate in what they are saying.
Sorry, I'm afraid his statement isn't worth much.

He was aware of doping within the team (but said/did nothing) but doesn't think it was as widespread as USADA state. Setting aside the questionable morality of continuing to work for an organisation you know to be involved in illegal activities, even if Jonker is telling what he perceives to be the truth it does not mean it is the truth - it is merely his perception of how things were, nothing more.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 21:03


User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 16 Oct 2012 21:29

George - thanks for the tip-off on facebook to the radio 5 live programme last night. It was most interesting and the interviewees all sounded genuine - the tremor in Hamilton's voice when he recalled an encounter with Armstrong by which he felt intimidated was noticeable.
Eat cake before you're hungry

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 17 Oct 2012 09:46

You're welcome, Steve. Even though the facts reported by R5 were pretty much what I'd already read, I felt that the documentary gave a real insight into the personalities. It's easy for us as observers to label the various protagonists 'goodies' or 'baddies', whereas in fact they're all complex people operating in complex situations. I found myself saying to the radio "Why didn't you do this; why didn't you say that?" and yet not being at all sure that I would have behaved any better in their shoes.

I would certainly recommend that anyone who missed it pays a visit to iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... rty_Truth/

Saracen
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 16:02
Real Name:
Location: Where I want to be

Post by Saracen » 17 Oct 2012 15:24

Well he has just quit as chairman of the Livestrong foundation but will continue to be an active supporter

And Nike have kicked him to the curb
http://nikeinc.com/press-release/news/n ... -armstrong
2007 Cycle from Birmingham to Bilbao
2008 Cycle to Dubrovnik and back
2009 Cycle Around the Baltic
2010 Cycle from Tariffa to Nordkapp
2011 Cycle Land’s End to John O’Groats and back to Land’s End
2012 Cycle to Istanbul and back

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 17 Oct 2012 15:49

Shame Nike didn't do it years ago, when they knew what he was really on, too little too late.

As a thank you to Nike, I've promised to continue not buying their products, made by children.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 17 Oct 2012 15:52

I wonder how much money Nike made out of selling those yellow wristbands, 80 million were sold, 79 miliion are probably now in landfill...

mike mac
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 May 2010 22:16
Real Name:

Post by mike mac » 17 Oct 2012 16:15

I'm just wondering if Nike are now trying to distance themselves due to the allegations of hush money being paid to Verbruggen?

I can't wait for the next LA book. Probably titled " told you it wasn't about the bike "

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 17 Oct 2012 18:33

Must have a hard decision for them, what with the millions they have made from cancer, maybe now they will look to commercialise another illness?

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 18 Oct 2012 08:47

And now Trek have jumped ship. Lets hope the era of "Motivational slogans" are coming to an end.

Wonder when/if Lance will come clean, would be some interview and he could bring down a lot more people.

User avatar
John Sanderson
Posts: 114
Joined: 27 Nov 2006 21:35
Real Name:
Location: Colchester, Essex

Post by John Sanderson » 18 Oct 2012 12:48

Ed Moss wrote:Wonder when/if Lance will come clean....
I think that's the most interesting part of this now...
It's all about the bike.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 18 Oct 2012 15:45

You do wonder sometimes why people go on denying things when pretty much the whole world has stopped believing them. One (theoretical) explanation, of course, that pretty much the whole world has got it wrong. Another is that the person is delusional (I'm sure that's sometimes what is going on with people accused of more serious crimes than LA). Another is that the whole truth is even more damaging than what we already know.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 18 Oct 2012 16:46

Answer is in Tyler's book :wink:

laurence_cooley
Posts: 1006
Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
Real Name:
Location: Harborne

Post by laurence_cooley » 19 Oct 2012 15:13

Here's a TV documentary that was shown in Australia a few days ago, similar to the 5 Live programme: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 08613.htm/.

mike mac
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 May 2010 22:16
Real Name:

Post by mike mac » 19 Oct 2012 15:46

Damn Shame about Rabobank. There is no way they have pulled out over the USADA report, that's just a smoke screen. It's so strange they stood by the dirty dopers of the past (Dekker, Rasmusen etc) but now the sport is undoubtedly cleaner they decide to pull out!!

Millar is right, they choose to run away from a problem they where part of/helped create/turned a blind eye to and leave a younger generation of clean riders on the scrap heap. Typical bloody bank! Bas***ds.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 22 Oct 2012 12:09

So the UCI isn't standing by Lance. I wonder what Lance will now have to say about the UCI. Lance hasn't previously been shy about hitting out at his 'enemies'.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 22 Oct 2012 12:29

UCI's defence to EPOGate appears to be 'lack of resources' to police cyclists and investigate cheating. That is an elastic defence.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 22 Oct 2012 12:43

UCI are not going to drop the Kimmage case, citing that it is a straight foward deformation case against the UCI commissioners. On the one hand they have the right to defend their reputation; on the other hand, it will only continue to drag the UCI's reputation through the dirt. McQuade appears to have progressed the UCI, so why he continues with this case is a contrary action.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 22 Oct 2012 13:05


rdleaper
Posts: 259
Joined: 25 Jun 2011 01:29
Real Name: Richard Leaper
Location: King's Heath

Post by rdleaper » 22 Oct 2012 13:17

Philip Whiteman wrote:UCI are not going to drop the Kimmage case, citing that it is a straight foward deformation case against the UCI commissioners. On the one hand they have the right to defend their reputation; on the other hand, it will only continue to drag the UCI's reputation through the dirt. McQuade appears to have progressed the UCI, so why he continues with this case is a contrary action.
Worse than that, given what's been going on lately and the fact it's an investigative journalist they're suing, surely there's a risk the opposite could be proven in the courts? That's what happened to Bruce Grobbelaar when he sued a newspaper following match-fixing allegations. Having said that, if Kimmage has any further evidence of UCI wrong-doing he may already have published it?

I hope no other sponsors follow Rabobank's lead.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 22 Oct 2012 13:43

"Unlike Lance Armstrong, Tommy Simpson was a product and victim of an era when a drug taking culture was accepted and commonplace amongst cycling professionals". Critically discuss.

User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 22 Oct 2012 14:16

Philip Whiteman wrote: McQuade appears to have progressed the UCI.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 22 Oct 2012 15:07

How poetic: starting the disqualification in 2008 means that he gets to keep his win in the 1994 Thrift Drug Classic.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 22 Oct 2012 15:43

A message from Lance posted in The New Yorker - to be believed or disbelieved.....
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/s ... lance.html

I think it is called satire.

Saracen
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 16:02
Real Name:
Location: Where I want to be

Post by Saracen » 23 Oct 2012 09:22

Well they are demanding that he pays back his tour winnings now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20038998
2007 Cycle from Birmingham to Bilbao
2008 Cycle to Dubrovnik and back
2009 Cycle Around the Baltic
2010 Cycle from Tariffa to Nordkapp
2011 Cycle Land’s End to John O’Groats and back to Land’s End
2012 Cycle to Istanbul and back

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 23 Oct 2012 09:32

Animal wrote:Well they are demanding that he pays back his tour winnings now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20038998
That will be interesting when taking into considering the tradition of the winner distributing his winnings to fellow riders. To be sure, his 'mates' will not be willing to refund Lance. So Lance will have to repay out of his other earnings. What is the betting that he declares himself as a bankrupt whilst living of his funds banked offshore?

rdleaper
Posts: 259
Joined: 25 Jun 2011 01:29
Real Name: Richard Leaper
Location: King's Heath

Post by rdleaper » 23 Oct 2012 12:35

Philip Whiteman wrote:"Unlike Lance Armstrong, Tommy Simpson was a product and victim of an era when a drug taking culture was accepted and commonplace amongst cycling professionals". Critically discuss.
The only real difference is the way they did it. From a moral perspective they both had a choice, and chose to cheat; it's just that the systematic approach of Lance Armstrong dragged many others into it and proved more successful. Tommy Simpson's drug taking led to his death whereas Lance's led to 7 TdF titles (albeit temporarily) so you could say he was better at it - not that that deserves credit.
With lack of knowledge or care regarding the risks, anyone could have been a casualty of a drug-taking culture in either era. Two very different eras in terms of medical knowledge, but which sadly had widespread drug-taking in common.

rdleaper
Posts: 259
Joined: 25 Jun 2011 01:29
Real Name: Richard Leaper
Location: King's Heath

Post by rdleaper » 23 Oct 2012 12:38

Ringo wrote:
Neil Compton wrote:Lance boring. ! No way, not compared to some of the riders in recent tours. Just curious to who you think were exciting riders during lance's reign and recently.?
agreed, the 2003 tour was the best i've ever seen. it's not lance's fault that he was so much better then everyone else.
Ah, the irony! Little did we all know (not just Chris)... :wink:

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 23 Oct 2012 17:22

Despite many of the anti-Armstrong views posted on this website, it is interesting to read the views of individuals that have come to his defence:

Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Indurain http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066

Jamie Staff http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20027832

As I have said before and shall say again, I would wish to see Armstrong tried in a court of law to either prove the position beyond all unreasonable doubt or not. Until that is done, there will continue to exist an air of doubt and discursive space for those that question the legitimacy and reliability of the report's findings.

For the record, I am personally satisfied with the USADA & WADA findings and believe Armstrong to be a cad and neerdowell.

carl
Posts: 77
Joined: 29 Jan 2011 13:11
Real Name:
Location: redditch

Post by carl » 23 Oct 2012 17:30


User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 23 Oct 2012 17:46

Carl, whilst many might agree with sentiments expressed in your recent posts can you rephrase them using slightly less colourful language (bearing in mind the possible age range of readers).

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 23 Oct 2012 20:03

For now he is still the winner of the seven TDF as far as i am concerned.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 23 Oct 2012 22:22

Neil H: thanks for the intervention. I do hope that everyone adding to this thread can continue to show a bit of respect for the other contributors, including those they disagree with.

Neil C: Armstrong was undoubtedly the best of the drugged-up stage race riders of his era.

However, there are two things we'll never know:
1. Was he the best on account of his natural talent and determination, or because his doping doctors were better, or because his body happened to respond more positively to the dope than most riders' bodies?
2. Were there riders with as much natural talent and determination (or more), who walked away from the sport at an early age because of the doping, or who never reached the top because they refused to dope?

I expect that similar questions could be asked about quite a few champions of the past. In that particular respect, we shouldn't single Armstrong out. But, if we don't want the same questions to be asked about the champions of the future, we need the people who cling to the old values exposed and removed from the sport.

There was a time when I admired Armstrong as a rider, but I never liked him as a man, and the more I hear about him, the more confirmed I am in that opinion.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 23 Oct 2012 22:41

Philip Whiteman wrote:Despite many of the anti-Armstrong views posted on this website, it is interesting to read the views of individuals that have come to his defence:

Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Whatever the truth, it's refreshing to see a bit of balance at this point. Even if Armstrong is guilty as charged, maybe he was at least a shrewd judge of character.
Eat cake before you're hungry

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 24 Oct 2012 00:18

To come back from cancer and win seven tours takes some doing and i don't believe for one minute that if he hadn't done the training and been a great athlete would he have been able to do it whether he was on drugs or not.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 24 Oct 2012 10:15

Yes it is a great story, shame he cheated his way to doing it. What we were watching was the result of cheating and having a doping program which was ahead of the rest of the riders.

Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results. Wouldn't have been such a great comeback without the hep of the Mr Ferrari.

Hammond wasn't really any use to Armstrong so no wonder he wasn't asked to join in..

A refreshing comment from Cav, agree his silence is damaging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20051664

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 24 Oct 2012 10:17

CakeStop wrote:
Philip Whiteman wrote:Despite many of the anti-Armstrong views posted on this website, it is interesting to read the views of individuals that have come to his defence:

Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Whatever the truth, it's refreshing to see a bit of balance at this point. Even if Armstrong is guilty as charged, maybe he was at least a shrewd judge of character.
Goodness! Are you still in the 'if' camp, Steve? I don't doubt that he is a shrewd judge of character and has many other positive traits. Everyone seems to say, for example, that he could be very loyal and supportive towards his friends and allies. He also clearly has tremendous courage and was regarded as super-determined even by top pro cyclists, amongst whom determination isn't in short supply. I'm sure many other things can be said in his defence.

However, my grandmother was fond of saying, "We all have the vices of our virtues." In other words, there is no positive personality trait that doesn't have a down side; no virtue that, in certain circumstances, isn't a vice. I believe that the same exceptional determination which made Armstrong a natural winner and won him countless admirers also drove him to deceive his fans and ruthlessly step on those who got in his way. Whether you like him or not depends, I suppose, on whether you choose to place more emphasis on the up side of his determination or the down side.

Although such matters fascinate me, whether Armstrong is 'nice' or not is essentially irrelevant to the central points. Those are:
a) He cheated.
b) The future health of cycle sport depends on cheats being exposed and excluded.
c) The whole saga highlights profound structural inadequacies in the sport's administration.

laurence_cooley
Posts: 1006
Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
Real Name:
Location: Harborne

Post by laurence_cooley » 24 Oct 2012 10:32

What's going on with Miguel Indurain?

I can't help look at this BBC graphic and wonder...

Image

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 24 Oct 2012 10:39

Spanish. Similar comments as Valverde.

Only ex rider to listen to in all this is Greg Lemond, his experiences of the 1991 tour are very interesting...

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 24 Oct 2012 11:37

Agreed. I'm confident that Evans, Wiggins and LeMond won clean. For the time being, I'm willing to believe that Hinault did. I'm not at all confident in any of the others.

Nevertheless, I hugely enjoyed watching many of them and cherish those memories. It's a funny old business.

Post Reply