Lance Armstrong

[Folanator]

I'm sure there are cyclists out there who chose not to do it that couldn't get qualified because of it.

There are a ton of them.

To me, I don't care if 29 out of 30 students cheat on a test. They're all cheaters and should be punished as such, not rewarded just because they followed the herd.

Except in this case the school and the teachers were the ones allowing the cheating by turning the other way or actively helping.

 

[OH10]

True. But if the competitors who want to bring him down were all doping too then LA as a fellow doper STILL whipped them 7 times in a row. They all cheated so they were at the same level and he was still dominate.

That's fallacious for two reasons. First, since doping is illegal and all, there was no standarized method for doping like there probably was for the actual bicycles they were riding. So how do we know they were all on the same level? Maybe he was just a better doper than the rest of them. Second, cheating is cheating. The "everybody is doing it" defense is just about the most absurd rationalization in human history.

I mean, if Lance Armstrong was so justified in doping and so dominant on a level playing field, why doesn't he just come out and defend himself rather than lying? That's probably the worst part for me. I'd prefer he admitted it and said it was wrong. But at least admit it even if you think you were right. Stop insulting our collective intelligence by repeatedly making false statements.

 

[Folanator]

That's fallacious for two reasons. First, since doping is illegal and all, there was no standarized method for doping like there probably was for the actual bicycles they were riding. So how do we know they were all on the same level? Maybe he was just a better doper than the rest of them. Second, cheating is cheating. The "everybody is doing it" defense is just about the most absurd rationalization in human history.

I mean, if Lance Armstrong was so justified in doping and so dominant on a level playing field, why doesn't he just come out and defend himself rather than lying? That's probably the worst part for me. I'd prefer he admitted it and said it was wrong. But at least admit it even if you think you were right. Stop insulting our collective intelligence by repeatedly making false statements.

That's actually not true. When the UCI agreed to the 52% Hematacrit levels (% of plasma to red blood cells) they were giving tacit approval for people to dope up to the 52% mark. There was a clear defined standard in the same exact way there is a weight minimum for a bike. This was sport sponsored cheating at the highest levels.

I firmly believe that at some point he will write a book and come clean. He is such a freeken egomaniac that he will think it is important for people to hear his side of the story.
My guess is that he will lean on the fact that many of the same drugs he used to combat his cancer are EXACTLY the same drugs he used to cheat with. I bet he blames the line being blurred between recovery and performance.

 

[Oh8ch]

Did he take PED's? - Yep
Did he cover up taking PED's? - Yep
Did he encourage team members to do the same? - Yep
Was his competition also taking PED's? - Yep
Did anyone have a gun to Lance's head forcing him to take PED's? - Nope
Did he then act indignant and threaten to sue anyone that accused him of taking PED's? - Yep, multiple times
Is he still in denial? - Absolutely
Has his cancer awareness program been beneficial and inspiration to folks dealing with that disease? - Absolutely
Could he still have become an inspiration force for cancer recovery by not ever winning the TDF? - Sure but not to the extent he did. The complete domination was probably addicting and certainly added to the lore
Will he ever come clean on taking PED's? - Unlikely. I see a Pete Rose kind of ending for Lance. Though Pete not in the HOF is criminal, IMHO

I agree with everything except the self delusion. There was too much at stake not to keep denying and really - nothing to lose.

That he was drug fueled does nothing to reduce my opinion of him as one of the greatest cyclists of all time.

His ability to look the camera in the eye and lie does make me question his fundamental character. In particular testimony about his ruthlessness in preserving the lie is disturbing.

But given all he has done to find a cure I feel strongly that the world is a better place because of Lance Armstrong. Parents may have some splaining to do to help their kids understand the good and the bad of it, but the world has never been as black and white as many of us want to believe.

Pete Rose and Lance Armstrong are still in my scrap book of sports heroes. Role models - not so much. But I started making that distinction a long time ago.

 

[OH10]

That's actually not true. When the UCI agreed to the 52% Hematacrit levels (% of plasma to red blood cells) they were giving tacit approval for people to dope up to the 52% mark. There was a clear defined standard in the same exact way there is a weight minimum for a bike. This was sport sponsored cheating at the highest levels.

And I'm sure they all stuck to it. Honor among cheats, right?

Also, assumes everything else is equal - which, again, is a huge assumption among cheats.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

And I'm sure they all stuck to it. Honor among cheats, right?

So, Folantor (who knows just what the fuck he's talking about, trust me) shows you proof that the UCI agreed to Hematacrit levels that are at the very top end of normal spectrum and thus implied it was OK to dope up provided you didn't exceed that level, and yet you decry Armstrong as a "cheater". The UCI itself set up the system to where if you didn't dope you had virtually no chance of competing, so spare us the sanctimonious drivel. You need to read this.

What's total bullshit is that Armstrong is the lone target while the USADA isn't even looking at anyone else.

 

[Folanator]

And I'm sure they all stuck to it. Honor among cheats, right?

Also, assumes everything else is equal - which, again, is a huge assumption among cheats.

It's Math, over 52% and your positive and not allowed to race. Not much room for discussion.

To Mili's point, "normal" for top end athletes is more like 41-42%. 52% is virtually impossible even if you are sleeping and training at altitude. So, by the UCI saying 52% is legal, it's approved cheating by cyclings governing body.

Look this is not as simple as "he cheated". This was systemic drug approval and use by all persons involved with the sport (except Slipstream). It's just the way it was and part of the very fabric of professional cycling.
The only other sport that has a similar mindset is bodybuilding. If you want to get freaky huge, drugs are the deal and it is accepted by those involved with the sport.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

To Mili's point, "normal" for top end athletes is more like 41-42%. 52% is virtually impossible even if you are sleeping and training at altitude. So, by the UCI saying 52% is legal, it's approved cheating by cyclings governing body.

I got my hematocrit values here which was the top Google result for "hematocrit normal range", and it says the "Normal Adult Male Range" is 41-53 percent. If this site's range is not indicative of top-end athletes, but rather everyday John and Jane Doe types, then it further supports Folanator's point that pro cyclists were all but outright encouranged to dope.

 

[colobuck79]

Pete Rose and Lance Armstrong are still in my scrap book of sports heroes. Role models - not so much. But I started making that distinction a long time ago.

I wonder if Pete ever bet on the TdF?

 

[OH10]

So, Folantor (who knows just what the [censored] he's talking about, trust me) shows you proof that the UCI agreed to Hematacrit levels that are at the very top end of normal spectrum and thus implied it was OK to dope up provided you didn't exceed that level, and yet you decry Armstrong as a "cheater". The UCI itself set up the system to where if you didn't dope you had virtually no chance of competing, so spare us the sanctimonious drivel. You need to read this.

What's total bull[Mark May] is that Armstrong is the lone target while the USADA isn't even looking at anyone else.

And yet he used banned substances as confirmed by his teammates and he still refuses to admit it. Again, the "everybody is doing it" defense is just about the dumbest shit rationalization ever applied to anything. But Armstrong apologists will pound it into the ground. Sad. Just sad.

 

[OH10]

It's Math, over 52% and your positive and not allowed to race. Not much room for discussion.

To Mili's point, "normal" for top end athletes is more like 41-42%. 52% is virtually impossible even if you are sleeping and training at altitude. So, by the UCI saying 52% is legal, it's approved cheating by cyclings governing body.

Look this is not as simple as "he cheated". This was systemic drug approval and use by all persons involved with the sport (except Slipstream). It's just the way it was and part of the very fabric of professional cycling.
The only other sport that has a similar mindset is bodybuilding. If you want to get freaky huge, drugs are the deal and it is accepted by those involved with the sport.

Did he follow the rules then? Because if he didn't, it is just as simple as "he cheated".

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Again, the "everybody is doing it" defense is just about the dumbest shit rationalization ever applied to anything. But Armstrong apologists will pound it into the ground. Sad. Just sad.

What's sad is your reading comprehension. I don't know what else to say other than "Either you doped or you didn't ride...period". I'm not an "Armstrong apologist"...if he doped when few or no others did, then he should get bent over. But the fact is that USADA went after no one but Armstrong. It doesn't matter what their rationale was (he was too dominant, he was a dickhead in person, he kept beating the screenings, or whatever), the fact that they doggedly went after him and no one else is bullshit.

If your sanctimonious, holier-than-thou position is that doping is cheating and must be punished, what do you say about the other 98% of the field, especially those that rolled on Armstrong?

 

[Roundabout]

Ok... fine

He is guilty as hell and we all agree to that. This however was a witch hunt to get him. If they went after every biker over the last 40 years I wonder how may finishers (not winners) would still have there finishes credited.

The governing body is dirty, the racers are dirty, the fans knew it was/is dirty....

The only way that cycling ever gets its rep back is to blow the whole thing up and have a new governing body created, and the whole thing rebooted.

I won't hold my breath, but till it happens I have lost all interest in biking except when I'm riding my own.

 

[Thump]

Heard many pro cycling commentators question why they were spending so much time and effort on a rider that had already retired instead of keeping up with current riders' possible doping actions.

Did Armstrong cheat?...Yes
Does he deserve to have his Tour titles stripped?....Yes
Was it a witch hunt?....Yes

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The only way that cycling ever gets its rep back is to blow the whole thing up and have a new governing body created, and the whole thing rebooted.

I won't hold my breath, but till it happens I have lost all interest in biking except when I'm riding my own.

Or just let the status quo, or semblence thereof, remain. If you can bring your HCT up to 52%, and not get caught using banned substances/methods, then you should be allowed to complete and be eligible for any and all awards/monies. You also should be subject to no more than one test before and one test after each event, period. Between events, no more than one test per week.