f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Sports / Fantasy Sports => Topic started by: ghost on January 19, 2011, 10:51:57 AM



Title: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 19, 2011, 10:51:57 AM
Sports Illustrated just put out their large review of the evidence against Lance Armstrong.  You can read it here (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/1/index.htm), and there is a nice summary here (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-summary-of-the-sports-illustrated-lance-armstrong-investigation) if you don't want to spend the time. 

Quote
The Sports Illustrated article claims that sources familiar with the FDA investigation have discovered that Armstrong had access to the blood boosting drug HemAssist during clinical trials in the USA. The drug trials were ended after several patients died but athletes apparently tried to buy HemAssist because it does not raise blood haematocrit and has a very short half life, making it almost impossible to detect.

Quote
Sports Illustrated claims that Italian police and customs officials discovered performance enhancing drugs when they searched Popovych's home, as well as texts and e-mails that link Armstrong to Dr Michele Ferrari as recently as 2009. Armstrong claimed he had cut all ties with Ferrari after the Italian doctor was found guilty of sporting fraud. Ferrari was later cleared due to the four-year statue of limitations rule of Italian law. Ferrari refused to respond to the accusations when contacted by Sports Illustrated.

Perhaps the most significant section of the story regards Armstrong’s relationship with Professor Don Catlin, the former head of the US Anti-doping laboratory at UCLA. He has been a member of the IOC Medical Commission since 1988 and is also credited with identifying the THG designer drug made famous during the BALCO investigation.

Catlin left UCLA in 2007 and created his own business with his son. In 2009 he agreed to run the internal testing programme at Armstrong’s Astana team. However the programme ended after five months due to problems over costs. Armstrong was only tested once.


This is a strange case.  I would love to hear the details of it many years from now when Lance confesses.  My brain tells me he is guilty as hell, but he's managed to Houdini out of every test and trap thats been put forth.  If nothing else, his associations are very, very questionable.  The statement about Don Catlin is very interesting, and may explain a lot of how Lance may have been able to dope and get away with it. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 28, 2011, 12:48:56 AM
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-saxo-bank-will-not-lose-contadors-ranking-points



Interesting.....Saxo won't lose Contador's points.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: dusematic on January 28, 2011, 07:35:43 AM
I feel like anybody that cycled that long and under that much scrutiny would likely have botched something along the way.  I'm inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt without more than a bunch of hearsay from anonymous informants and associations with shady people in the cycling world (how big is the cycling world anyway?).


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on January 28, 2011, 08:28:42 AM
Not to sound too flippant about it, but who the hell gives a fuck about cycling? (ok yeah... flippant in abundance)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on January 28, 2011, 08:32:21 AM
Cycling is a lot like soccer.  It's much bigger outside the US. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Pennilenko on January 28, 2011, 09:26:10 AM
Cycling is a lot like soccer.  It's much bigger outside the US. 

I live in the US, and I love both soccer and cycling.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on January 28, 2011, 09:39:56 AM
Cycling is a lot like soccer.  It's much bigger outside the US. 

I live in the US, and I love both soccer and cycling.

A good indicator of what's popular in the U.S. is to look at what gets air time on the sports networks. NFL is king. NBA is second. MLB is third. College sports follow with football much bigger than basketball. Then it's NASCAR, the NHL, and golf. After all that, you get to soccer.

Cycling gets nothing or as close to nothing as you can outside the Tour d'France.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on January 28, 2011, 10:08:00 AM
Cycling gets nothing or as close to nothing as you can outside the Tour d'France.

Most Americans have no idea who Greg LeMond or Eddy Merckx are. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 28, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
Cycling is pretty big in Texas.  I see riders out all the time when I'm driving.  I used to ride more, but not as much any more.  I really love the TdF, but don't follow the sport much outside of the big race.  The politics and drama surrounding cycling are great fun though. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on January 28, 2011, 06:26:50 PM
I feel like anybody that cycled that long and under that much scrutiny would likely have botched something along the way.  I'm inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt without more than a bunch of hearsay from anonymous informants and associations with shady people in the cycling world (how big is the cycling world anyway?).

The real problem is that the entire sport was on drugs. If you weren't you physically could not do the mountain parts of the tours. and cycling without the mountain parts was crap TV. It was that simple. There was a huge scandal about it about 15 years ago when the whole thing broke. Cycling was off the tv networks for years following that and it still hasn't recovered in popularity.

Its taken for granted over here that Lance Armstrong was on drugs, but the kinder among us say it was probably the steroids he had to take as part of his cancer treatment that did it. Its just politely not mentioned, especially in front of the US.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 28, 2011, 09:40:20 PM

The real problem is that the entire sport was is on drugs. If you weren't you physically could not do the mountain parts of the tours. and cycling without the mountain parts was crap TV. It was that simple. There was a huge scandal about it about 15 years ago when the whole thing broke. Cycling was off the tv networks for years following that and it still hasn't recovered in popularity.

Its taken for granted over here that Lance Armstrong was on drugs, but the kinder among us say it was probably the steroids he had to take as part of his cancer treatment that did it. Its just politely not mentioned, especially in front of the US.


It's interesting that people think this is a new phenomenon, this doping.  Back in the old days riders would get all jacked up on amphetamines and vodka.  People have been cheating for eons. Something I find intriguing is the suggestion that Fabian Cancellara cheated not by doping, but with a mechanical cheat in his crank case.  We will see more of that in the future, too


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on January 28, 2011, 10:47:36 PM
Cycling is a lot like soccer.  It's much bigger outside the US. 

I live in the US, and I love both soccer and cycling.

A good indicator of what's popular in the U.S. is to look at what gets air time on the sports networks. NFL is king. NBA is second. MLB is third. College sports follow with football much bigger than basketball. Then it's NASCAR, the NHL, and golf. After all that, you get to soccer.

Cycling gets nothing or as close to nothing as you can outside the Tour d'France.

I think this is somewhat regional. MLB owns the hell out of the NBA in the Bay Area I am fairly sure. Cycling and soccer are both relatively popular here is my understanding too - probably because we have a lot of foreign-born people.


It's interesting that people think this is a new phenomenon, this doping.  Back in the old days riders would get all jacked up on amphetamines and vodka.  People have been cheating for eons. Something I find intriguing is the suggestion that Fabian Cancellara cheated not by doping, but with a mechanical cheat in his crank case.  We will see more of that in the future, too

Yeah. It is sort of odd to see how people get worked up about it for some sports more than others, too. Cycling for whatever reason seems to generate more outrage over it than, say, the NBA where OJ Mayo's recent positive has barely caused a murmur.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on May 20, 2011, 08:30:08 AM
Looks like another former teammate coming out against Lance Armstrong.  Tyler Hamilton (who I don't trust a bit) is "coming clean" (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-says-he-saw-armstrong-use-epo) and pointing his finger at Armstrong.  

Quote
"[Armstrong] took what we all took...the majority of the peloton," Hamilton told "60 Minutes. There was EPO...testosterone...a blood transfusion," he said.

"I saw [EPO] in his refrigerator...I saw him inject it more than one time like we all did, like I did many, many times."

I suppose it is likely that there was a fairly sizable conspiracy involved with Armstrong.  Hell, the guy made cycling a ton of money and increased the popularity of the Tour de France significantly.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that those in charge of European cycling at the time of Armstrong's victories weren't firmly in bed with him on this, thus leading to his "500 negative tests".  I can't wait to learn the full truth about all this.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on May 20, 2011, 10:50:41 PM
Wow.  Now Hincapie is weighing in (http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6571826).  This is going to get really fucking ugly for Lance. 

Quote
Using unidentified sources, "60 Minutes" reported that Hincapie testified that he and Armstrong supplied each other with the endurance-boosting substance EPO and discussed having used another banned substance, testosterone, to prepare for races. Citing the ongoing investigation, Hincapie declined to be interviewed by "60 Minutes," which will air its piece on the Armstrong investigation at 7 p.m. ET Sunday.

This could turn out to be one of the biggest meltdowns in the history of sports.  Cycling is so dirty though.  If Lance actually did not use PEDs, he would probably be the only one in the peloton. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Azuredream on May 20, 2011, 11:05:00 PM
I don't think so, at least, not here in America. As was said earlier, we only ever cared about cycling because that's what Lance Armstrong played. If it was a baseball player with this much circumstantial evidence he'd be laughed out of the building, but we don't watch cycling so we're more inclined to defend him. Unless someone comes up with hard evidence all we're going to see is "people who admitted to taking steroids accusing other people of taking steroids."


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on May 21, 2011, 07:14:33 AM
Lance has taken the defense of Rafael Palmeiro and Roger Clemens, in addition to the fact that he has been such a focal athletic figure for even people that don't give a shit about cycling.  I believe it will be a bigger deal than you think. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sjofn on May 21, 2011, 12:00:26 PM
I agree that it will probably be a bigger deal here than you think, Azuredream. Americans don't watch cycling, but we still all know who Lance Armstrong is, and we were still told constantly what an inspiration he was supposed to be. And Americans looooooove when people like that fall from grace.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Xuri on June 13, 2012, 11:25:11 PM
Arise from the dead, thread!

Lance Armstrong faces fresh doping charges from USADA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/lance-armstrong-faces-fresh-doping-charges-from-usada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html) (Link: Washington Post)
Quote
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought formal doping charges against former cyclist Lance Armstrong in an action that could cost him his seven Tour de France titles, according to a letter sent to Armstrong and several others.

As a result of the charges, Armstrong has been immediately barred from competition in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 13, 2012, 11:36:59 PM
He's fucked.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on June 14, 2012, 12:19:58 AM
So if these guys are saying things like "...taking EPO like the rest of the peleton..." then charges should be leveled against every single one of them, no?  Who are they going to hand the titles to once they find him guilty? 

Or, you know, we could stop pretending that this is anything other than a silly bike ride through the mountains and stop wasting fucking time and money on it.  I think Armstrong is a dick and a cheater, but let's move on already.  They were all playing on a level field.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 07:55:52 AM
It's not a silly bike race, it's really fucking cool and pretty amazing some of the rides they are able to make.  But you're right about the prevalence of doping.  I bet it approaches 100% in cycling, at least at some level.  And I would almost guarantee that there's a significant level of "mechanical doping", i.e. small devices that give the riders a slight edge but are undetectable among the machinery of the bikes. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 08:38:50 AM
It is a silly bike race. It was started as part of a political demonstration and an attempt to sell more newspapers in France. Cheating was ridiculous and the riders were beaten up by fans in the first running.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 14, 2012, 08:53:20 AM
It's ENTERTAINMENT.  Who cares if they dope?  It's not like their records are meaningful.  Technology has altered that in monumental ways already.  Even down to something as fundamental as how we time events.  

Do we start boycotting actors and actresses that get plastic surgery too? "I'm sorry honey, but that breast augmentation surgery means that you have to give back your Oscar!"


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 08:57:48 AM
Wrestling is Entertainment under the guise of organized sport drama.

It's hard to say cycling at the Tour de France is purely entertainment when their is a prize pool involved for the winners. That would be like saying that "everyone's cheating at the world series of poker, but it's entertainment!"

Doesn't fly with me.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 14, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
I could have done a better job in my analogy, you're right.

I say let everyone dope if they are willing to take the medical risk.  That levels the playing field just fine.  The records are already meaningless due to technology.  I'm having a hard time thinking of a sport where the records hold meaning over time.  Technology, genetics, and medical advancements have altered sports.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 09:08:18 AM
The only record I hold up for anything anymore is DiMaggio's hitting streak. It's one of the few truly pure records in sports that can't be overcome with medical anything.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 14, 2012, 09:37:47 AM
The only record I hold up for anything anymore is DiMaggio's hitting streak. It's one of the few truly pure records in sports that can't be overcome with medical anything.

Batters today are facing a much more active ball and pitchers with superior fitness and training making that streak a near impossibility to recreate.  Technology (ball, pitch counts, etc.) have altered that record as well.  Hell, the high salaries alone have made MLB pitching a much more competitive and global job than it ever was. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
I agree that the pitching has shifted a ton, but I think the specialization in many cases is actually hurting the game more than helping it. It's not a shock to me that the teams moving their starters to longer games and even complete games have more wins than the rest of the league this season.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 09:49:06 AM
It is a silly bike race. It was started as part of a political demonstration and an attempt to sell more newspapers in France. Cheating was ridiculous and the riders were beaten up by fans in the first running.

Why it was started is really fucking irrelevant.  

Have you tried riding up Mont Ventoux?  Have you ever rode a bike in the mountains, even tame mountains like in New Mexico?  It's amazing what some of these guys can do, doping or not.  It's anything but silly.

As to the other arguments-  I agree with Nebu that we should just let people dope if they want to.  It will eventually self regulate at a certain point on the risk/reward scale.  The powers in charge have already proven that they can't control it so might as well let it fly.  I read in a recent report somewhere that as many as 50% of MLB players use amphetamines or some other stimulants.  If even close to true it's a sham to bother trying to test people.  And if Armstrong was truly doping over his 500 tests (which I personally doubt that he could have done without help from the highest levels of the cycling sport) that is just more evidence.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 10:04:50 AM
It is a silly bike race. It was started as part of a political demonstration and an attempt to sell more newspapers in France. Cheating was ridiculous and the riders were beaten up by fans in the first running.

Why it was started is really fucking irrelevant.

Bullshit. Why is was started, and the fact that people were rampantly cheating at the race's inception is very fucking relevant. It started with cheating, it's continued to support cheating, and it's never stopped being about cheating to this very day.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 10:06:36 AM
But it doesn't make it a silly bikerace.  It's a very fucking serious bikerace, with lots of money on the line (as you pointed out) and very serious risks to life and limb.

And even your points are not even remotely connected to why it was started.  You can say that there has always been cheating in the Tour de France, but the reasons behind its inception are still irrelevant to that point.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on June 14, 2012, 10:09:10 AM
Have you tried riding up Mont Ventoux?  Have you ever rode a bike in the mountains, even tame mountains like in New Mexico?  It's amazing what some of these guys can do, doping or not.  It's anything but silly.

It's also amazing that people climb Everest, or any fete of endurance/man-against-the-elements.

And if these guys are racing for the money and not the sport, they should not be in it to begin with... but that is another issue. The money is for sponsors and corporations backing certain contestants.

Even if you allow everyone to dope, it will have to come from a single source. Otherwise you will get companies competing to create the best drug combos for that specific event and more or less testing out on individual athletes. Then what happens when one or several have their hearts or heads explode on the track? The only real even playing field you can get is without outside enhancement - which then becomes about a person's biology/genetics. It is not a bad idea to let everyone dope across the board, but it becomes a nightmare when sponsors start influencing the contest because they can make a better drug paired with someone who is better able to handle the cocktail. Begs the question: can we manufacture athletes through drug enhancement? Or better yet, have we already?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 10:09:43 AM
When you can't keep the participants from rampantly cheating, I think that makes it pretty silly. Your solution to just let them dope is even sillier.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 14, 2012, 10:17:25 AM
Your solution to just let them dope is even sillier.

When you say this, you should at least offer an explanation as to why you feel this way.  Otherwise it just seems condescending.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
Because for one thing it's not impossible to keep people from doping. MLB, despite the problems with the steroid era, has dramatically cleaned up the sport. The new influx of lower runs, lower ERAs, and more no-hitters is not an accident. Their tacit acceptance of doping did more to harm the sport than help it back in that era, and now they are slowly beginning to fix their issues.

Doping creates a gap between the common fan and the athelete. We want to believe that these people are great at what they do, and that we could do what they do if we had such talent. We don't need to have the inherent knowledge that the only way to be great is through drugs. Not only is that a terrible message for the next generation, but it's a terrible message about the human condition that we aren't good enough on our own merits anymore. It's the type of drug culture with prescriptions crap we're already falling into, and we don't need to just throw our hands up in sport.

It's the type of shit that Huxley warns us about in A Brave New World. That's engineering our athletes instead of just letting them compete. It's using drugs to replace or enhance any experience.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 10:29:29 AM
When you can't keep the participants from rampantly cheating, I think that makes it pretty silly. Your solution to just let them dope is even sillier.

Well baseball and football must be clownshoes silly, too.  

Because for one thing it's not impossible to keep people from doping. MLB, despite the problems with the steroid era, has dramatically cleaned up the sport. 

You have no way of proving that.  Cycling is the most highly tested of all the sports and has some of the highest penalties.  Doping is still rampant.  To assume that just because MLB stepped up testing that the problem has been taken care of is just absurd.  Hell, even the MVP of the national league was doping last year, he just got the charges dropped because of a technicality.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 14, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
Doping creates a gap between the common fan and the athelete. We want to believe that these people are great at what they do, and that we could do what they do if we had such talent. We don't need to have the inherent knowledge that the only way to be great is through drugs. Not only is that a terrible message for the next generation, but it's a terrible message about the human condition that we aren't good enough on our own merits anymore. It's the type of drug culture with prescriptions crap we're already falling into, and we don't need to just throw our hands up in sport.

Actually, I hadn't thought about it from that angle.  We want athletes to be superhuman, but in a reachable sort of way.  I have to say that you've changed my perspective a bit and I appreciate it.  


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 10:35:00 AM
I'm glad, as I do really enjoy sport as a whole, in all it's forms. It sorta makes me sad when I hear about the doping thing.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 10:36:52 AM
Yeah, but there's already a gigantic gap between the athlete and fan.  I'm not sure how doping changes that.  I know I'll never be able to hit a 90 MPH fastball no matter how many steroids I take.  

What misses on this point is that if you believe the reports that are out there and as many as 75-90% of players are doping to some level then testing is a complete sham.  If it doesn't work then you're simply having a random cull of the unlucky or getting rid of those too stupid to cheat correctly.  It's just another part of a big lie.  

Addendum-  I just wanted to add that I don't advocate doping and would love to see it out of our sports.  The big issue is that the testing doesn't work (for whatever reason) and I, as a fan, feel that I am owed a little honesty from what I am following.  I personally love cycling and I know that they are all doping.  It doesn't really change my perspective too much because I know that it's a level playing field.  I suspect that its the same thing with baseball.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on June 14, 2012, 10:40:56 AM
Doping creates a gap between the common fan and the athelete. We want to believe that these people are great at what they do, and that we could do what they do if we had such talent. We don't need to have the inherent knowledge that the only way to be great is through drugs. Not only is that a terrible message for the next generation, but it's a terrible message about the human condition that we aren't good enough on our own merits anymore. It's the type of drug culture with prescriptions crap we're already falling into, and we don't need to just throw our hands up in sport.

To a point though. Taking the NFL as an example, there are very few people in the nation that have the physical attributes to even be considered a potential. When I was at Miami, there was no doubt who were the football players in my class - they are built significantly differently from the general population. Seeing Kellen Winslow sit down in his seat and eclipse the kids sitting behind him... and he wasn't even my biggest student. Some people are just genetically constructed in ways the general population will never reach, even with drugs... unless they are hallucinogenics.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 10:42:45 AM
Testing's not a sham. RANDOM testing is the sham. The processes involved with some of the organizations and their testing methods can be the sham.

Test em all, I say. We're talking about trillions of dollars in sports revenues for professional sports all over the world. If you want to commit to cleaning up the sport, it's not hard.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 10:52:26 AM
They essentially test them all in cycling.  It's still random, meaning that you don't know when you'll be tested, but they all get tested.  It doesn't work.  There's a limit to how much you can actually do testing.  You can't reasonably draw blood or take pee every single day from every single player in every single sport.  There are biological and monetary limits to make it reasonable.

The example of cycling is an interesting one, in a lot of ways, because it shows exactly how bad a testing situation can get without solving any problems at all.  It's probably as comprehensive of a system as you'll ever see in sports.  So why does it fail?  Who knows?  Designer drugs are probably part of the issue, but knowing the tests and the limitations of those tests is also a large part.  I also suspect that the administrative folks in charge of the TdF and world cycling don't want to lose their star cyclists to doping charges.  It's bad for the sport.  I fully expect corruption to be rife in these types of testing protocols.  Do you really think that MLB wants Barry Bonds nailed for doping?  Not a bit.  Baseball was probably at its post Vietnam war pinnacle of popularity during the McGwire/Bonds/Sosa days.  I, as a fan, would almost prefer not to know. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on June 14, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
Testing fails because those that make the drugs have to know how to detect them/what to look for.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 10:58:18 AM
ghost do you really want me to go over the history lesson of what happened in the Tour de France prior to the 1960s when they just allowed doping? Because you probably already know it, and frankly, it's horrifying.

There's a reason they put in testing.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 11:01:59 AM
ghost do you really want me to go over the history lesson of what happened in the Tour de France prior to the 1960s when they just allowed doping? Because you probably already know it, and frankly, it's horrifying.

There's a reason they put in testing.

It's not really all that different from what you see today.  Racing is an inherently dangerous sport.  And are you on about trying to protect the athlete from personal harm now?  I thought it was about making the fan think they can do what Roger Clemens can do. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2012, 11:03:15 AM
Fans don't want to see a horse die on the track either, ghost.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 11:12:02 AM
They don't, but they still go to the horse races.  That's why they put up the little barrier when they shoot the horse in the head.  Horse racing is also extremely dangerous (and, in a not completely unrelated fashion, full of doping as well).  There we have yet another example of how testing doesn't work. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on June 14, 2012, 10:59:57 PM
I followed Lance Armstrong's comeback very closely. I work for a media organisation that covers cycling, I attended his first comeback race at the Tour Down Under (he actually said hello when he passed me while training one morning, and I rode back among his team from one of the stages), and I followed his Twitter account that whole year.

What was most revealing is that their lives can be interrupted at any moment by a doping control. He tweeted about every single one. He would wake up in the morning and they'd be at his door. He'd be getting on a team bus and they'd turn up wanting blood. He'd go to the store and they'd be there and test him. It happened on many, many days. He also deliberately spent the whole comeback year on camera, with very little privacy.

So if the allegations are true, masking agents would have to be 100% effective for every drug involved, in 499-odd out of the 500-odd tests. And the doping operation and masking would have to be managed perfectly using only his private moments.

I've read his autobiography and he's an asshole. A wonderfully motivating asshole, but the kind of driven individual who is difficult to be around (see his multiple marriages). Through sheer force of arrogant words, he increased my motivation, made me a better climber and improved my pedalling technique.

That kind of guy does attract intense haters. Just saying.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 14, 2012, 11:46:27 PM
I don't think most people understand how thorough the cycling doping control tests are.  If Armstrong was doping and passed 500 some odd tests clean (ish  :awesome_for_real:) then he either had some inside help (see the suggested bribes) or a damned good masking agent.  I would bet on the inside help.  The sport of cycling loved Lance Armstrong because it got US money involved. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on June 15, 2012, 05:06:34 AM
Beyond all of this, he's medically extraordinary. As most people already know, he had a near-terminal case of testicular cancer that metastasised in his brain and lungs, which means he lost a testicle and had the most intensive chemotherapy.

He had some sperm frozen before the chemo, which is how the three kids with his first wife were conceived. But the most recent two kids were conceived naturally... Totally unexpected, as it was presumed impossible for his remaining testicle to produce healthy sperm after the chemo. This could lend weight to the allegations of testosterone use, but even if that's what made it happen, it's quite amazing (as is winning seven TdFs, with or without drugs).


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on June 15, 2012, 06:24:40 AM
For my part, since I was the first one who called it a "silly bike ride" or whatever, here is what I meant:

It is a sport.  By it's very nature, it is silly and unimportant.  I don't say this to belittle it or other sports (I fucking LOVE sports), I say it because I could fucking care less if they are doping, because nothing that comes from the outcome of any sporting event should really be that important to anybody.  I could care less if they are smoking pot and drinking beer in the clubhouse of a baseball game.  I don't care if your Power Forward is jacked on cocaine while he is playing.  I don't care if Lance's team car pulls up behind him during his climbing session and injects HGH in his right buttock.  I still consider Ben Johnson the second fastest man to ever live.  You know, because he ran faster than anybody else until Bolt came along.  Don't care, don't care, don't care.  Just the thought of having someone like Clemens or Bonds testify to congress makes me stabby.  What the fuck?  The government is spending how much money to go after people who are doping?  For the love of Christ, why? 

It isn't important.  Cycling is being ruined because of the investigations into doping, not because of the actual doping.  Like many, many, many others, I no longer watch it because I no longer want to here the bullshit drama.  I don't care what these guys are doing to their own bodies, and obviously they don't either, so why not let them all do it and just shut up already?

(these comments not directed any poster, my anger is at the issue in general)

Lastly, let's get this one out of the way:  baseball statistics and records, when comparing era to era, are the dumbest in all of sports.  Quite aside from the differences in athletic sciences, training, genetics, etc....you have the problem that they are quite literally not playing on a level playing field.  The fields themselves are in different proportions, the weather and altitude have a significant effect on the flight of the ball, equipment advances, the type of grass is probably even way different then what they used "back then".  Hell, you cannot even fairly compare statistics between the NL and AL in the same year.  Different strike zones.  DLs and pitchers.  Baseball statistics are bullshit, more so than probably any other sport I can think of.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 15, 2012, 06:43:11 AM
Test em all, I say. We're talking about trillions of dollars in sports revenues for professional sports all over the world. If you want to commit to cleaning up the sport, it's not hard.

True events: many, many years ago when I was a regular track & field competitor, I volunteered to run 400m Hurdles for my club at a competition. I ran my heart out, got a pb, got the 3rd fastest time in my country for that year and still came last in that race. As I was lying on the ground near the finish, trying my best not to pass out, an official came over to me and told me I had to take a drugs test. I said "Do I fucking look like I'm on drugs?" He laughed and told me that they randomly selected the lanes before the race of people who would be tested rather than base it on the athelete.

Yeah, cool story bro.

Point is that the governing body for some sports covers athletes/sportspeople of all levels. Even these days I have an athletics competiton license and am subject to the same competition rules as elite athletes. Under UK Athletics rules - and I quote -
Quote
If you are competing in the UK, no matter what level you are, you can be tested in-competition and out-of-competition... in essence, any time, any place.
It doesn't matter that these days I plod around long distance races rather than sprint or jump at national/international level. It doesn't matter that I don't get paid or that the events I do attract no media or crowds or make big revenues. In theory, I - and many other amateur athletes - are eligible to be randomly tested.

In practice it's never going to happen.

But either we test everyone every time, all the time or we segregate "elite" athletes from "normal" people (which would cause a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare) but again, where do you draw the line? Prevent "elite" athletes from competing against "normal" athletes? Have different competitions? Do you implicitly allow doping at amateur level beause there will never be any testing? Shit - how do you determine who's an elite athlete anyway? Or do we stick with random testing in and out of competition because that's the best compromise?

I passed my drugs test btw. I was always clean (apart from this one time when I did have about 10 cups of strong black coffee before an event...)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 15, 2012, 06:56:13 AM
I still consider Ben Johnson the second fastest man to ever live.  You know, because he ran faster than anybody else until Bolt came along.  Don't care, don't care, don't care. 

You posted while I was still writing.

I do care. I absolutely do care. Johnson cheated. I don't care that he was on drugs (stupid fuck - how many times did he get caught?) but he cheated. He could have jumped the gun and gotten away with it or could have had more than 6 spikes on his shoes (which was in the rules back then I recall) or could have had his fingers over the line by an inch -  he cheated.

Lowest common denominator is that sports (games) have rules and changing those rules can change the game (pick up the ball in soccer and suddenly you've got rugby). Do you give the guy who took a bus during a marathon (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8820301/Marathon-runner-caught-bus-to-the-finish-line.html) a medal because he got there before the next guy or do you disqualify him for cheating? You can debate the merits of doping or not forever but it essentially boils down to one immutable fact - doping in many sports is against the rules. It's cheating.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on June 15, 2012, 07:34:40 AM
I still consider Ben Johnson the second fastest man to ever live.  You know, because he ran faster than anybody else until Bolt came along.  Don't care, don't care, don't care. 

You posted while I was still writing.

I do care. I absolutely do care. Johnson cheated. I don't care that he was on drugs (stupid fuck - how many times did he get caught?) but he cheated. He could have jumped the gun and gotten away with it or could have had more than 6 spikes on his shoes (which was in the rules back then I recall) or could have had his fingers over the line by an inch -  he cheated.

Lowest common denominator is that sports (games) have rules and changing those rules can change the game (pick up the ball in soccer and suddenly you've got rugby). Do you give the guy who took a bus during a marathon (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8820301/Marathon-runner-caught-bus-to-the-finish-line.html) a medal because he got there before the next guy or do you disqualify him for cheating? You can debate the merits of doping or not forever but it essentially boils down to one immutable fact - doping in many sports is against the rules. It's cheating.

I'm not arguing that it isn't against the rules.  It is, and while such rules are in place then I guess they should be punished according to those rules.  To me, it's the rules that should change.

The Ben Johnson case is a good one to use.  The difference for me is that he achieved that result using his own physical person.  He did not jump the gun, he was not over the line, he didn't pay off the timekeeper.  The combination of meat, muscles, nerves, training, technique, stamina, etc., are what did it for him.  That he used chemicals in his body that helped him to build muscle better doesn't change much in my mind...he still did a shitload of work.  I don't seeing it much different than Carl Lewis winning the genetic lottery.  Can I call it unfair that he was born with certain genetic attributes that give him an unfair advantage over me?  That's not a level playing field!


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 15, 2012, 08:17:14 AM
I'm not arguing that it isn't against the rules.  It is, and while such rules are in place then I guess they should be punished according to those rules. To me, it's the rules that should change.

That's fine - I don't share your opinion. I always was and always will be anti-drugs in track and field. If they ever changed the rules then I'd either only take part in drug-free events or stop being interested. As for the genetic lottery - is it unfair? Yeah, maybe - so what? This isn't Harrison Bergeron.



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 09:10:48 AM
I am also against the use of drugs in all sports, but you have to consider the big picture here.  We use random or systematic drug testing to catch people who are using drugs and therefore are cheating.  So the purpose of the drug testing is to catch those that are cheating.  Any medical test, to be truly effective, should have few false positives and provide true positives for a very high level of persons. There are clearly incidents in the past 10 years in which you would consider the testing that is currently done in sport to not be effective.  What happened with all the prior tests that Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton took?  Floyd just didn't start on the stage of the TdF during which he failed his test.  Ryan Braun suddenly wasn't doping because of a chain of custody error?  Riiiiiight.  Even if these drug tests, when performed under proper laboratory conditions, can detect a high level of cheaters without providing a high level of false positives, there still isn't a high rate of detection in reality.  Why is this?  Well, you have masking agents, cleaning regimens and probably collusion/corruption between the competitors and those being tested.  The end result is that the test isn't doing its true job which is to provide a level playing field by preventing cheating.

Why is the level playing field important?  It has been estimated in some cycling articles that I've read that a cyclist gets an approximately 5% increase in their ability to ride.  Cutting 5% off of your time is the difference between being on the podium and being the guy running up Alpe D'huez in his underwear, wearing the crazy football helmet with the longhorns jutting out of the sides while wildly waving a UT flag.  A 1-5% difference in performance at these high levels can be the winning difference.  But when you look at cycling you have so much doping going on that it's impossible to win unless you dope.  I have come to the conclusion that Armstrong doped by simply looking at the circumstantial evidence.  His biggest competitors in prior TdF?  Vinokourov-  Doped.  Ulrich-  Doped.  Basso-  Doped.  Contador-  Doped.  Jalabert-  Probably Doped.  Beloki-  Probably Doped.  Pantani-  Doped.  Riis-  Doped (and was the team manager for Ulrich, who also doped).  Ulrich-  Doped.  Indurain-  Who knows?  Probably?  Do we have any clue what is going on in baseball or football?  I know that the use of PEDs has been suggested to be rampant in the USA. 

What you're creating with current testing is a series of winners that have doped in order to win, and the second and third place folks are almost undoubtedly doping to be able to keep up.  That means that the winners are simply the lucky ones that didn't fail the tests and the testing is doing anything but the target goal of creating a level playing field.  In essence (particularly in cycling) you are creating an uneven playing field by the very testing that is supposed to be keeping everything "fair" by culling out those that are stupid enough to get caught, unlucky or not in tune with cutting edge designer drugs.  The population has already created a more level playing field by itself.  Each and every one of the TdF races from Indurain on have contained a Doper on the podium, and they have all been spectacularly entertaining despite that fact. 

When you look at American sports (primarily baseball and football) you see testing regimens that are much less thorough.  We've seen some positives, yes, but their rate of catching folks is pretty low (and the deal with Braun was the result of spectacular incompetence).  I think it's logical to suspect that the use of PEDs didn't just drop off of a cliff when McGwire and Bonds and Sosa dropped out of the league.  It's also logical to suspect that many football players use PEDs simply because of their unnatural speed and strength.  It's not like people didn't lift weights like crazy 25 or even 50 years ago to train for football. 

Paelos (and others that support rampant testing in sport) want to have that warm fuzzy feeling that if an athlete doesn't test positive that he/she wasn't doping and that this somehow makes it more "real".  You can't trust the tests and therefore you can't get that security blanket that you're looking for.  This is why testing is a sham. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 09:45:49 AM
This is a fantastic article on this point, the steroid issue in baseball, the impact of testing and penalties, and the overall increase in pitching talent.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8048897/the-age-pitcher-how-got-here-mlb (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8048897/the-age-pitcher-how-got-here-mlb)

Quote
Want to guess how many fewer runs will be scored this season than were scored in the 2000 season, if teams continue sputtering along at their current pace? How about nearly 4,000. Right. We said FOUR THOUSAND runs. Want to guess how many fewer home runs will be hit this season, at this pace, than were hit in 2000? How about almost 900. Yessir, NINE HUNDRED. In that 2000 season, there were 571 times when a team scored at least 10 runs in a game. At the moment, we're on pace for a mere 248* -- a plummet of more than 56 percent. And just last season, Matt Kemp led the National League in home runs with 39. In 2001, you might recall, Barry Bonds also hit 39 home runs -- by the All-Star break.

Run totals have dropped in every full season since 2006. Home runs have dropped in every full season but one (2009). And we've seen a massive plummet in homers of 450 feet or more, from 144 in 2006 to just 89 last year. Is anyone surprised by any of this?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
Or it just means that the current designer drugs of choice tend to more beneficial for pitchers than for hitters.  The article suggests that the numbers are good evidence that they've gotten the doping problem under control.  I don't think you can make that leap. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 09:56:05 AM
Or it just means that the current designer drugs of choice tend to more beneficial for pitchers than for hitters.  The article suggests that the numbers are good evidence that they've gotten the doping problem under control.  I don't think you can make that leap. 

I think you are intentionally burying your head in the sand. Were it a smaller sample size I'd agree with you. Over the course of 6 seasons? I'm less likely to believe it's coincidence, or simply BETTER pitching, or a better cocktail of drugs just for pitching.

Besides, did you read that article? He goes on to say that the information age of statistics we have on hitters now completely favor the pitching.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 10:12:05 AM
I read it.  If you were trying to use that as evidence that they've really cleaned all the PEDs out of baseball it doesn't hold water.  It's essentially correlation data which doesn't prove cause and effect. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 10:21:28 AM
There's no way to PROVE a negative like that. That's my point. All you can do is take a look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

I'm simply saying that taken at face value those numbers show a case where I'm more likely to believe that steroid use is down in baseball. I also think that if you weren't taking the devil's advocate POV, you'd agree.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 10:31:55 AM
Steroid use very well may be down, but we have no idea how far down it is.  Maybe it's still rampant and folks are just using it at levels that don't provide the boost that we were seeing in the early 2000s.  Maybe they are using other drugs.  Who knows?  I know that in the past baseball has had pretty clear evidence of rampant use (meaning not just the star players were using, it was more like 80%).  Numbers are now more at a baseline of mid 90's levels maybe?  Was there no use during the era that we're comparing our current numbers to?  Was there no PED use in the 50s, 60s, 70s?  We know that amphetamines were heavily used in sports in the past and are currently to some extent.  We also know that the reigning MVP of the NL was essentially caught for PED use only to get off by a technicality.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 15, 2012, 10:56:53 AM
There's no way to PROVE a negative like that. That's my point. All you can do is take a look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

I'm simply saying that taken at face value those numbers show a case where I'm more likely to believe that steroid use is down in baseball. I also think that if you weren't taking the devil's advocate POV, you'd agree.

I agree. Also

Quote
But it isn't just steroid testing that has transformed baseball. Without amphetamines, position players these days are wondering, by the Fourth of July, whether they're going to have the strength to make it through the season.

"You can definitely see it in the second half," says one NL executive. "These guys are cooked. They're OK through June. But then the weather starts to get hot, they've played 80-90 games, and then the grind, the travel, the schedule starts to get to them."

But as players often point out to us, it wasn't only the hitters who were juicing or popping greenies. Just check out how many pitchers have been suspended for PED use since 2005. Clearly, there's more going on here than just chemistry. So read on.

He doesn't give the stats on the page so I looked some up. (Although forgive me because I have no idea who does what. However, suspensions seem to have gone down considerably since the 12 in 2005) http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/steroids_baseball.shtml (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/steroids_baseball.shtml)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 11:11:34 AM
To go a little further, runs per game stats over the years in the NL have moved around a good bit. 1999 and 2000 were the high water marks with teams averaging 5.00 runs a game.

Right now, the R/G are 4.20, and last year it was 4.13 in the NL. Those numbers mark the lowest it's been since 1992. The average from 1969 to 1992 for teams in the NL was 4.10 runs a game. The average from 1993-2006 was 4.66 runs a game.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 11:30:21 AM
Again, your assumption is that there were no PEDs being used between 1969-1992.  Your statement that steroid use has gone down may be true.  It may have gone down from 90% prevalence to 75% or whatever the baseline was in the 1970s and 80s.  The idea that PED use started in the 1990s is simply absurd.

Here's a nice article for you (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm) from a former player that used steroids back in the 60s. 

Quote
House, a former pitching coach with the Texas Rangers and co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, is one of the first players to describe steroid use as far back as the 1960s.

He was drafted in 1967 by the Braves and pitched eight seasons for Atlanta, Boston and Seattle, finishing his career with a 29-23 record and 3.79 ERA.

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 01:05:14 PM
I used 69-92 because it was the 12 team marker in the NL.

The R/G in 1938 to 1950 was 4.32 in the NL. My point is that the only instance in baseball in the last century that happened to have R/G at a 4.6+ level for that long a period of time was during 1993-2006.

I mean we are talking 100 years of baseball. At some point you're being obtuse about the issue, demanding some sort of beyond the shadow of a doubt evidence that isn't necessary to prove the point.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on June 15, 2012, 01:44:00 PM
Hey, guess what was more exciting back in 2000?  Baseball was.  Now, it is light watching a hernia operation on TLC.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on June 15, 2012, 02:01:44 PM
There are some other significant factors, though. Basically all of the post-steroid-era ballparks in the NL are significant pitcher's parks:

Petco Park (2004): 2011 park factor of .819 (Replaced the Q which was a pitcher's park as well but not as extreme as Petco)
Busch Stadium (2006): .896 (Replaced the prior Busch Stadium which was an extreme hitters park)
Citi Field (2006): .908 (Replaced Shea which was a very mild pitcher's park, not as extreme as Citi)
Nationals park (2008): .955 (RFK where they were temporarily housed after moving from Montreal was an even more extreme pitcher's park, but for the purposes of this discussion Olympic in Montreal is what we should be talking about, and it varied from neutral to extreme hitter's park during the steroid era (1.382 in 2003!))\

Marlins Park (new this year) is showing signs of being an extreme hitter's park so that's the first one to buck the trend I can think of.

Basically while Stark makes a reasonable argument he missed a *huge* chunk of what affects the numbers he's using to make his point and so we really can't draw any conclusions from it. The pitching environment in the NL specifically has become much friendlier since the so-called 'steroid era'.

EDIT: I looked a little more and it looks like the new NL parks that opened at or around the *beginning* of the steroid era (late 90s) were mostly big hitters parks, which exaggerates the numbers in the other direction. Coors Field, Miller Park, Chase Field... Probably some Baseball Prospectus dude with time on his hands will figure this out eventually but I'd bet a very significant chunk of the numbers being tossed around - maybe even the majority? - are due to park effects.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on June 15, 2012, 06:53:21 PM
I don't believe people who post about baseball in a cycling thread can relate to the fallout from a brash Texan dominating a world cardio endurance sport.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on June 15, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
I don't believe people who post about baseball in a cycling thread can relate to the fallout from a brash Texan dominating a world cardio endurance sport.

What does this even mean?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Trippy on June 15, 2012, 07:00:00 PM

I don't believe people who post about baseball in a cycling thread can relate to the fallout from a brash Texan dominating a world cardio endurance sport.
What does this even mean?
It's like if the US dominated World Cup soccer football the last few cups and then got accused of doping. People here in the US would just shrug their shoulders while the rest of the world would be trying to figure out how to destroy the US without destroying their own countries in return.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on June 15, 2012, 07:06:11 PM
But it isn't like it is only or mostly Americans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 08:37:43 PM
Hell the majority of the Tour de France winners were accused of doping going back to it's inception.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 08:44:52 PM
Yes.  Cycling is inherently dirty.  So are American football and American baseball.  Babe Ruth and others in his era used amphetamines, sheep testicle extract and god knows what else to try and get the upper hand.  The idea that doping has been in baseball forever and that the asterisk is a bit overdone is not being obtuse, it's being a fucking realist.

Does anyone know to what level doping occurs in European football, now that we've brought it up?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 15, 2012, 08:46:20 PM
I was actually going to bring up Tennis as one of the worst offenders, who don't really bother checking on it.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on June 15, 2012, 08:48:02 PM
Does anyone know to what level doping occurs in European football, now that we've brought it up?

I get the impression that it is a can of worms that has only been barely opened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance_enhancing_drugs_in_association_football


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 15, 2012, 08:53:30 PM
I think it is fairly likely that Tiger Woods and some of these other golfers have used HgH and testosterone.  And, of course, olympic sports are terrible for doping also. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on June 18, 2012, 12:36:58 AM
I think it is fairly likely that Tiger Woods and some of these other golfers have used HgH and testosterone.  And, of course, olympic sports are terrible for doping also. 

While I do not think you are wrong, particularly in regards to Tiger, I doubt that it is a rampant problem in golf...simply because I don't think they nearly have as much to gain by it as they do in other sports.  If Tiger did it, I would guess it was for vanity reasons, primarily.  Or, you know, because he wanted to become a Navy Seal or some shit like that.  Muscle mass means very little when it comes to moving a golf ball.  Simply being flexible is a far greater advantage, not to mention being tall.  Excess muscle mass would probably, in the short term, actually negatively impact your accuracy.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 18, 2012, 05:14:30 AM
The only person banned for doping in Golf to date was Doug Barron in 2009 for testosterone and propranolol.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 18, 2012, 07:50:00 AM
I realize that equipment has changed, but theres a reason that these guys are hitting the ball a million miles these days. 

Actually, I've been pondering about this some and I think that the next sport that is going to get "outed" about PEDs is the NBA.  Some of these guys are just way too big and fit for their age when they're coming into the league (Dwight Howard is a prime example, and Lebron was one that could be suspect). 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on June 18, 2012, 08:46:16 AM
I realize that equipment has changed, but theres a reason that these guys are hitting the ball a million miles these days. 

Actually, I've been pondering about this some and I think that the next sport that is going to get "outed" about PEDs is the NBA.  Some of these guys are just way too big and fit for their age when they're coming into the league (Dwight Howard is a prime example, and Lebron was one that could be suspect). 

Howard is a genetic freak. No man should have arms that long or shoulders that wide.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 18, 2012, 08:51:54 AM
No man should have.......shoulders that wide.

Ahem.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 18, 2012, 04:17:40 PM
And in other doping news, Roger Clemens gets off on his perjury charges (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8068819/roger-clemens-found-not-guilty-all-six-counts-perjury-trial). 

I'm not sure what we got out of this other than a shitload of money spent. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 19, 2012, 10:14:47 AM
And in still more doping news, the winner of this years South African Comrades ultramarathon has been stripped of his title (http://www.runnersworld.co.za/news/comrades-champ-stripped-of-title/) after testing positive for methylhexaneamine (aka Geranium oil) which can be found in products like "Jack3D (http://www.jack3d.org/)" (marketed as a pre-workout drink).

Comrades has testing (unlike a lot of other ultras) mainly because of the size of the cash pot and kudos associated with winning. Not many other events do afaik.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
Should I consider it odd that a 35 year old is outrunning people in their 20s?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 19, 2012, 10:43:07 AM
Should I consider it odd that a 35 year old is outrunning people in their 20s?

No.  Most endurance athletes peak in their 30's.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 10:56:22 AM
Seriously, is there a pro sport (or even amateur sport) that isn't just rife with doping now? 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Seriously, is there a pro sport (or even amateur sport) that isn't just rife with doping now? 

Bowling.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 19, 2012, 11:00:17 AM
Seriously, is there a pro sport (or even amateur sport) that isn't just rife with doping now? 

Cricket?  Curling?  Yachting?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 11:02:59 AM
I doubt even cricket is clean.  It's huge in India, and there is a lot of money being thrown around.  Not sure about yachting.  Is downing a fifth of high dollar brandy considered doping for yachting?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on June 19, 2012, 11:23:37 AM
Not sure about yachting.  Is downing a fifth of high dollar brandy considered doping for yachting?   :why_so_serious:

Yes, because if you can get your drunken sway in sync with the wave motion on the boat, you become an unstoppable force!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 19, 2012, 11:29:44 AM
Cricket definitely isn't clean. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/6055410.stm) (Also this (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/women-cricket/news/West-Indies-women-cricketer-banned-for-doping/articleshow/10786840.cms)) Not just drugs but also match-fixing.

Curling isn't up there but this case in wheelchair curling is amusing (http://deadspin.com/5893881/what-is-going-on-with-all-the-doping-in-wheelchair-curling)

Most people suspended in Yachting for "Breaches in good manners and sportsmanship (http://www.sailing.org/anti-doping/suspended-sailors.php)" - but Simon Daubney did test positive back in 2007 and then was cleared in 2008.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 19, 2012, 11:40:35 AM
Should I consider it odd that a 35 year old is outrunning people in their 20s?

Hell no, not in ultrarunning. Scott Jurek, one of the best in the world, is 38. Geoff Roes is 35. 8 of last years top 10 finishers of the Badwater Ultramarathon were over 45 with the oldest being 52.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 12:42:16 PM
People that ultramarathon are just fucking insane.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 19, 2012, 12:45:36 PM
People that ultramarathon are just fucking insane addicted to pain and endorphins.

FIFY.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
So they are, by definition, doping?   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on June 19, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
So they are, by definition, doping?   :awesome_for_real:

Naturally.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on June 19, 2012, 03:25:17 PM
People that ultramarathon are just fucking insane.

 :heartbreak:

Cheers though - it's a thought to keep me going in 5 weeks time. (Along with the caffeine and NSAIDs) :grin:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on June 19, 2012, 03:35:08 PM
This thread proves how much cycling doesn't matter in the US. (Yes I know we're not all in the US.) Didn't take long for people to stop talking about cycling!  :grin:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 04:13:45 PM
No.  It just proves how fucking retarded f13 is.

Addendum-  I blame Paelos.   :grin:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2012, 05:51:42 PM
No.  It just proves how fucking retarded f13 is.

Addendum-  I blame Paelos.   :grin:

If I win that copy of Torchlight, you're going to have to choke on those words!  :drill:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 06:35:01 PM
Look for a beatdown tonight.  It's going to be tough for the Thunder to pull out of a 4-1 hole.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Rasix on June 19, 2012, 06:55:46 PM
Look for a beatdown tonight.  It's going to be tough for the Thunder to pull out of a 4-1 hole.

That's usually a tough one to come back from.  Most teams up 4-1 just won't commit to that 6th game.   :grin: :drill: :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Trippy on June 19, 2012, 06:56:39 PM
Yeah that would pretty much require divine intervention.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
Want to amend that addendum, ghost?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 19, 2012, 10:43:16 PM
Fuck you all.  You knew what I meant.   :awesome_for_real:


And the Thunder will be going down. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2012, 06:23:28 AM
Charlie Pierce nails it, IMO:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8071810/the-roger-clemens-verdict-our-senseless-national-drug-hysteria


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2012, 08:12:46 AM
Link no work for me.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 20, 2012, 08:40:46 AM
The link works okay.  Maybe it's a problem with your work blocking sites?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2012, 08:41:58 AM
Works now.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 20, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
It's a pretty decent article.  I think that the Clemens deal was an egregious waste of money.  I don't know a whole lot about Edwards' deal because I didn't pay attention to it. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2012, 09:48:01 AM
Of course it was a waste of money. So was the Bonds thing. The fact they even made them go before congress at all was dumb.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 20, 2012, 10:01:54 AM
Speaking of wastes of money (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/sports/cycling/us-anti-doping-agency-braces-for-legal-battle-in-lance-armstrong-case.html?pagewanted=all), and to get back on topic a little bit, it appears that the USADA is gearing up for a lengthy and costly legal battle versus Armstrong. 

Quote
About a week into its sanctioning process, the antidoping agency already finds itself mired in what could be a long legal dispute, one that lasts months, if not years.

“I don’t think you need to be a crystal-ball gazer to anticipate that it’s going to be rough and tumble from here,” said David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency. “It’s a very serious charge, and now we have to respect the process.”

I would have to ask at what point does this become a circus sideshow rather than something productive?  My thought is that it is already there.  What is the point of trying to prove that Armstrong doped?  Nobody will win from this mess.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on June 20, 2012, 10:08:19 AM
Sometimes negative media attention is as good as positive media attention... particularly for a sport that is losing fan interest in the US.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on June 20, 2012, 01:27:29 PM
From everything I can tell working in the industry and talking to folks outside the sport/industry, outsiders tend to see cycling = Armstrong, as he is probably he only cross over "star". So, bad press on the only name you know attached to the sport does not make for good press.

Also, the sport is actually growing in terms of recognition in the US. Having strong athletes/teams that can compete in Europe effectively, mixed with some higher profile races (Tour of California for instance) is helping the profile quite a bit.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Salamok on June 20, 2012, 02:04:29 PM
I was actually going to bring up Tennis as one of the worst offenders, who don't really bother checking on it.
How did what's her face test positive for coke a few years ago if no one is checking?

edit: Personally I think they are tackling the performance enhancing drugs on the wrong level.  My main issue with it is it promotes drug use in non professional atheletes, after all if your hero is using em why not you?  They should make all these fucks arguing over their millions/billions of dollars they get paid to play for or own a team pony up to the High School testing fund.  I also hate the whole PC bullshit of not using profiling to pick your test subjects, the top 10% should be tested at every single friggen event they participate in as well as being tested during training.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 20, 2012, 02:23:52 PM
Cycling in the US as a sport people do themselves is growing at quite a rapid pace.  It's similar to soccer in that regard.  I will always ask a kid what sports they play in my exams and it is rare to see one who hasn't played soccer at some point.  You see cyclists everywhere on the roads these days.  It's quite common even in backwards Texas.  It's the spectator portion of these sports that suffer.  I think soccer may have reached its peak in the US. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2012, 02:30:16 PM
Well yeah, because often watching floptacular soccer is about as much fun as watching someone bike around.

Hint. Not much.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on June 20, 2012, 02:32:07 PM
Texas is one of the largest cycling markets. Seriously.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2012, 02:37:16 PM
Texas is one of the largest cycling markets. Seriously.

Yeah, but people don't want to watch it. That's my point.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on June 20, 2012, 02:44:39 PM
Texas is one of the largest cycling markets. Seriously.

Yeah, but people don't want to watch it. That's my point.

I was responding to this bit: "It's quite common even in backwards Texas."

Bold text is my emphasis.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 20, 2012, 02:45:46 PM
Texas may be a large cycling market.  It doesn't rank well on the best cities for cycling lists nor on the overall state ranking of cycling friendly states, however, so that would qualify as backwards.  And where I live (San Antonio) is barely above banjos and pitchfork level when it comes to "sharing the road".  The popularity of the sport in Texas is probably high because it is relatively flat compared to, say, Colorado and it is warm most of the time.  

That still doesn't mean people are watching cycling, as Paelos said.  


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Teleku on June 20, 2012, 03:49:09 PM
Yeah.  Cycling as a hobby is very popular across the entire US I'm sure, from what I've seen.  Cyclist doing road trips are everywhere in California (annoyingly.  Why must they ride of narrow but busy cliff roads?  All the cars get stuck behind them because trying to pass is a death sentence).  Nobody actually follows it as a sport, however.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 20, 2012, 03:59:23 PM
Here (http://www.bicycling.com/news/advocacy/america%E2%80%99s-top-50-bike-friendly-cities)'s Bicycling.com's list of the top 50 cities for cycling.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on June 20, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Our third largest market (behind California and Colorado) is Texas. By a pretty big margin. And we're relatively small compared to some of our competitors. Keep in mind that Bicycling's list is about the quality. I won't dispute that (and can't as I don't live there). Again, my comment was directed purely at the popularity of the sport/pastime.

However, given the increase exposure and bidding wars cities and companies are doing, at least in California, seems to indicate that there is SOME reason to think there's money in them thar hills.

(I've worked for a cycling apparel manufacturer for 12.5 years.)

EDIT: I will say that the industry is seriously suffering this year. More so than last year. And Nike did say "fuck this shit" a few years ago and bailed.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on June 21, 2012, 08:10:25 AM
Yeah.  Cycling as a hobby is very popular across the entire US I'm sure, from what I've seen.  Cyclist doing road trips are everywhere in California (annoyingly.  Why must they ride of narrow but busy cliff roads?  All the cars get stuck behind them because trying to pass is a death sentence).  Nobody actually follows it as a sport, however.
Part of my route to work is a popular cycling route, apparently.  It's annoying as hell because it's a narrow road with no shoulders next to the river and when there is a larger pack or riders together, it can take forever to pass them.  Especially if they aren't riding anything close to single-file, either.  I really feel like telling them "Look, I get that you have a right to the road as well, but just remember that I'm bigger and will win any confrontations, especially if you dart out into the lane to move around another rider in the pack."


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 21, 2012, 09:30:09 AM
Sickrubic-  I don't doubt the numbers.  I see scads of cyclists all the time here in San Antonio, Austin and Dallas.  I haven't really encountered many in Houston, but I'm not there very much.  In Dallas several cyclists were killed by road raging drivers in the two years that my wife lived up there by herself.  San Antonio is almost as dangerous.  Austin is awesome, but it's a completely different deal than any of the other big Texas cities.  So when I say backwards, that statement wasn't necessarily meant to imply that there would be (or should be, necessarily) a low number of cyclists in an area, just that there are a lot more hurdles to those cyclists achieving a safe ride.  I think that's going to change, though, as the number of transplants in Texas increase and more and more people start cycling.  Road cycling is inherently dangerous, however, for just the reason that Rhyssa mentioned-  the bike will always lose.  Road bikes were the #3 most common reason that I had to see people in the emergency room for facial injuries back when I was going that thing, coming in significantly behind motorcycles and horses and just ahead of dog bites. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on June 21, 2012, 09:57:40 AM
Quote
So when I say backwards, that statement wasn't necessarily meant to imply that there would be (or should be, necessarily) a low number of cyclists in an area, just that there are a lot more hurdles to those cyclists achieving a safe ride.

That I can't argue with at all, and pretty true of most places.

As a point, people in the industry and hobby/sport don't really need to be told how dangerous it is. We've all lost friends.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on June 21, 2012, 10:01:37 AM
It's really awful.  But I think that there is a lesson in it, and it's not that you guys need to be educated.  I do think that the average Joe that goes out to buy a Trek to be like Lance doesn't have a clue how dangerous it can be.  My wife and I stopped road cycling for that reason.  I don't think that bike shops do nearly enough to educate their customers on the dangers of road biking. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on July 09, 2012, 10:43:10 AM
Bradley Wiggins' response when asked about the belief that winners of the TdF must be doping. (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/bradley-wiggins-has-a-few-choice-words-for-those-who-doubt-racing-can-be-clean_228247)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 09, 2012, 10:54:11 AM
Yeah pardon me if I think he's full of shit. The first go-to now when confronted is to become vehemently defensive. After seeing this exact kind of response with baseball players, I don't buy it from anybody. Words are wind, especially angry ones. Prove it.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 09, 2012, 11:24:49 AM
The proof is in the pudding, Wiggo.  Every winner since Indurain has been implicated in doping, other than Evans.  Maybe they're clean now, but the past 15 plus years indicates not.  And when Indurain was racing there weren't the controls that they have now, so who knows with him.  He will never admit to doping, that's for sure, but Bjarne Riis did and he was a big competitor of Indurain.  

Addendum-  Wiggins destroyed the field today (http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-9/results).  He beat Evans by over a minute on the time trial.  Oddly enough his biggest competition seems to be Froome.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on July 09, 2012, 03:03:36 PM
The french are also VERY VERY hostile to riders from outside Europe.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on July 09, 2012, 10:07:56 PM
Lancy baby is suing meanies and telling them to LEAVE BRITNEY HIM ALONE!!! The Judge was not impressed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/lance-armstrong-usada-doping-charges-lawsuit_n_1660192.html

Quote
AUSTIN, Texas -- A federal judge handed Lance Armstrong a quick setback Monday as he went to court to save his seven Tour de France titles and his reputation as one of the greatest cyclists ever.

Armstrong filed a lawsuit aimed at preventing the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency from moving ahead with charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout much of his long career.

But within hours, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks in Austin dismissed the 80-page complaint. He said it seemed more intended to whip up public opinion in Armstrong's favor than focus on legal arguments.

Sparks, however, did not rule on the merits of Armstrong's claims and will let him refile the lawsuit. Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said he will do that, possibly on Tuesday.

...

The judge was not impressed with a filing that dedicated dozens of pages to Armstrong's career history and long-standing disputes with anti-doping officials.

"This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims," Sparks wrote.

Ouch.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 11, 2012, 12:56:33 PM
Yeah pardon me if I think he's full of shit. The first go-to now when confronted is to become vehemently defensive. After seeing this exact kind of response with baseball players, I don't buy it from anybody. Words are wind, especially angry ones. Prove it.

Huh? 

Sky investigating team doctor (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sky-investigating-team-doctor-leinders-but-sees-no-risk)..... :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Pezzle on July 12, 2012, 09:45:15 AM
His lawyer(s?) refiled hours later challenging jurisdiction, statute of limitations, rights violations etc.  The USADA gave Armstrong a 30 day extension on his decision to arbitrate.  Considering the USADA wants him to surrender his tour victories and retire, why not go to court?  If they had test evidence, why is this dragging out?   


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 12, 2012, 10:03:54 AM
Because the USADA doesn't have very good evidence (which would be strong test sample results) and they probably don't have really good witnesses, e.g. Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, other dopey mcdopes, etc. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on July 12, 2012, 10:53:23 AM
Its not uncommon to grant extensions. That way the defense cant say they were rushed unprepared into a court case and its all bullshit -> 15 appeals. They are ensuring this case is watertight and the conviction stands.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Pezzle on July 12, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
It will be interesting to see what evidence they have, should this actually make it to court. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on July 13, 2012, 08:15:31 AM
Yeah pardon me if I think he's full of shit.

A less ranty Wiggins writes in the Guardian today about his standpoint on doping. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 13, 2012, 08:35:42 AM
Fuckers should stop asking him about it after reading that.  There's nothing left to say.  And if he does dope he will lose all that stuff. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Salamok on July 13, 2012, 08:57:39 AM
Yeah pardon me if I think he's full of shit. The first go-to now when confronted is to become vehemently defensive. After seeing this exact kind of response with baseball players, I don't buy it from anybody. Words are wind, especially angry ones. Prove it.

Unfortunately when that doesn't work the 2nd line of defence is to rat someone out higher up the food chain in exchange for leniency.  I can only imagine the amount of pressure that is put upon these "witnesses" to find another scapegoat.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 13, 2012, 09:15:36 AM
Fuckers should stop asking him about it after reading that.  There's nothing left to say.  And if he does dope he will lose all that stuff. 

He could still be lying dude. All the words in the world don't matter. Tests matter.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 13, 2012, 09:34:05 AM
Fuckers should stop asking him about it after reading that.  There's nothing left to say.  And if he does dope he will lose all that stuff.  

He could still be lying dude. All the words in the world don't matter. Tests matter.

Apparently tests don't matter.  Just ask Lance.   :awesome_for_real:

And I never said that he might not be lying.  I'm certainly not going to take that statement at face value.  All the evidence is there to suggest that he (and his team) might be doping, but the point is that his statement doesn't leave any wiggle room.  There's nothing left to say so why ask again?  He's either lying or he isn't.  And Wiggo's right, he'll get majorly fucked if he is doping, unlike guys like Richard Veranque who never came out with this sort of idiotic statement in the first place.  


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on July 13, 2012, 10:16:59 AM
He could still be lying dude. All the words in the world don't matter. Tests matter.

Do you really think he's not getting tested at the moment on a daily basis? A review of TdF guidelines

Quote
Every rider in the Tour is tested for banned substances prior to the race. Various cyclists are tested after every stage, according to a selection process determined before the race. Under current rules, at least 180 urine drug tests are given, including daily drug tests for the race leader and stage winner and six to eight cyclists selected at random throughout the field.

Or are you going to switch to the argument that "he's somehow fooled the tests" or "he doped during training and didn't get tested"? There's absolutely no way a clean, successful athlete can win against that level of cynicism. So yeah, he might be lying but there's also a distinct possibility that he's not.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 13, 2012, 10:33:01 AM
The skepticism comes from the fact they hired the same doctor that was in the middle of the Dutch scandal. And that more than half of the last 8 winners have been doping.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 13, 2012, 10:46:43 AM
Armstrong passed a multitude of tests.  Testing is mostly irrelevant except for those who are stupid enough to get caught. 

I personally will assume that Wiggins and co. are innocent until something serious comes out.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on July 13, 2012, 10:58:16 AM
Direct question then, Paelos - what would it actually take for you to give someone like Wiggins the benefit of the doubt? Is it even possible? This is a man who has been open about past alcohol problems. This is a man who voluntarily published his own blood test values (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/385285/bradley-wiggins-tour-de-france-blood-values.html) from the 2009 TdF to show he was clean. "Tests matter" you said - but do you actually believe that or do you just believe that they're all doping cheaters waiting to get caught?



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 13, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
1 - He didn't join Team Sky until after December 2009. His blood tests before that are irrelevant.
2 - Team Sky hired a doctor with a past history of doping. Why do that?
3 - I don't believe they are all doping cheaters, but when more than half of the last eight are proven dopers, it's no longer innocent until proven guilty in my mind. The majority WERE guilty.
4 - Publish the tests. Publish them all every day. Publish names, records, etc. Make it transparent and throw out anybody who doesn't live up to that standard.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on July 13, 2012, 01:19:12 PM
Medical privacy laws make #4 a no go.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 13, 2012, 01:24:24 PM
Medical privacy laws make #4 a no go.

Which law specifically does that violate?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on July 13, 2012, 01:31:49 PM
HIPAA for one (I am pretty sure anyway - not a lawyer). I would happily bet money that other countries that have riders in the Tour have even stricter laws about that sort of thing.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 13, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
I don't think HIPAA prohibits the publishing of failed tests. Otherwise we'd never hear about the ones regarding MLB players, NFL players, etc.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on July 13, 2012, 01:42:42 PM
They don't publish the actual specific test results/records for those AFAIK, just say that 'person X failed a test for a banned substance'.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on July 13, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
I don't think HIPAA prohibits the publishing of failed tests. Otherwise we'd never hear about the ones regarding MLB players, NFL players, etc.

HIPAA prevents everything. You have to jump through flaming hoops to get anything out of that black hole of restriction. That said, we would have to know more about the release of information guidelines/protocols that each league has instituted. Leagues in America as well... riding bicycles quickly is worldwide.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on July 13, 2012, 01:49:13 PM
Then short answer, restrictions legally or not, you're never going to convince me the sport is clean until the process is audited, transparent, applied to all leaders of races, and well-documented. Also, you'll have to remove the stigma of your past leaders coming up guilty.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Chimpy on July 13, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Under HIPPA you cannot even disclose to a third party without consent that a person entered your building, much less what they had done or the specific results.



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 13, 2012, 04:35:48 PM
Then short answer, restrictions legally or not, you're never going to convince me the sport is clean until the process is audited, transparent, applied to all leaders of races, and well-documented. Also, you'll have to remove the stigma of your past leaders coming up guilty.

That's a fucking pipe dream, dude.  It will never happen.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on July 16, 2012, 03:52:52 PM
Armstrong too published his test results throughout his comeback.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on July 18, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
An it turns out that Frank Schleck got caught in the doping net - testing positive for xipamide. While only a masking agent, its still banned. So much for the sport being clean haha. This will most definitely also damn Andy Schleck indirectly. 

So who is next? Nibali?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 18, 2012, 11:12:16 AM
They're all doping.  There's not any way that they aren't all doping.  You're talking about a 10-20% estimated dropoff in performance if you don't dope and in the GC in the TdF there's just no way you could compete.  Did Cadel win last years race clean over a doping Frank and Andy Schleck?  I seriously doubt it.  Is there any way that Wiggins and company are just that much better than a predominantly doping crowd?  I seriously doubt it.  But I don't like getting caught up in all that.  If they test clean I'm going to mentally assume they are clean, or at least at a level with the rest of the crowd. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Miasma on July 18, 2012, 11:25:33 AM
I'm not paying too much attention but there was a pretty good article in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sports/cycling/hincapie-an-armstrong-teammate-seen-as-reluctant-but-reliable-witness.html) yesterday about his best racing friend.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on July 18, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
They're all doping.  There's not any way that they aren't all doping.  You're talking about a 10-20% estimated dropoff in performance if you don't dope and in the GC in the TdF there's just no way you could compete.  Did Cadel win last years race clean over a doping Frank and Andy Schleck?  I seriously doubt it.  Is there any way that Wiggins and company are just that much better than a predominantly doping crowd?  I seriously doubt it.  But I don't like getting caught up in all that.  If they test clean I'm going to mentally assume they are clean, or at least at a level with the rest of the crowd. 

I on the other hand do care. And say keep the samples of podium riders and/or those that finish top 10, for a long time. Test them every once in a while, and if they show positives slam those bastards as hard as you can. Fines, exclusion from participating in anyway and potentially harder if possible. This culture must be burned down, if bicycle racing is supposed to keep its status as a sport and not as an entertaining drama @ wrestling.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 18, 2012, 11:29:44 AM
And say keep the samples of podium riders and/or those that finish top 10, for a long time.

That's really the only way it will work if you want to be really testing intensive.  But testing isn't the end-all-be-all.  Clearly there are scores of dudes getting away with it now in the peloton.  I'm also not sure if the fines/exclusion will work, either.  Hell, a 2 year ban is damned near a death sentence.  Look what it did to Ivan Basso's career.  And if you get caught a second time it's 4 years I believe?  Or maybe lifetime?  But people still do it.  I personally think they are fighting a losing battle. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on July 18, 2012, 11:34:31 AM
But Basso is still riding! He is even thought of as an outsider in Giro di Italia(even won it once in 2010) and many smaller but prestigious races! He should be banned for far far longer. And what about Vino? That bastard should be allowed to sit on a bicycle ever again, or being near other bicyclist.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on July 18, 2012, 11:39:05 AM
And as soon as it start to sink in that you will be ruined financially, prodigiously and sportly if you use doping and get caught, even long after you are out of the business, it will make the riders think a hard time before they do it.

The problem is also those doping-rotten riders that become trainers/managers/ect. especially for young riders. They will most assuredly have a negative impact on their moral.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 18, 2012, 12:44:38 PM
And as soon as it start to sink in that you will be ruined financially, prodigiously and sportly if you use doping and get caught, even long after you are out of the business, it will make the riders think a hard time before they do it.

This is an assumption that I'm not sure will prove out to be true.  Cycling already has some of the most heavy penalties in sport.  And most of these guys don't make a lot of money anyway, just sitting back in the peloton. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: UnsGub on July 20, 2012, 04:22:17 PM
They're all doping.  There's not any way that they aren't all doping.  ...

In the 90s yes.  Today this is not the case.

Gaps are up and they are going slower.  Everyone is still pushing for an edge but much of it is legal expensive type.  Still a few outliners doping in cycling but far less then many other sports.

Next few week will be interesting with the Olympic starting.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on July 21, 2012, 09:20:42 AM
In the 90s yes.  Today this is not the case.

Gaps are up and they are going slower.  Everyone is still pushing for an edge but much of it is legal expensive type.  Still a few outliners doping in cycling but far less then many other sports.

I have been watching the time trial today and have watched all the prior dopers (Vinokourov, Basso and Valverde, for example) who used to be top riders and are now middle of the pack riders at best.  I think that, logically, I have to disagree with the idea that doping isn't still widespread.  For a guy to fall that far is pretty much in line with the estimations of a 10-20% increase in production in cycling when you dope.  Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that prior GC contenders are that much worse than all of the current top guys if those other top riders aren't also doping.  You would have to see a serious decrease in the overall times of the peloton for doping to be out, and a slight drop is not indicative of major progress. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Simond on August 07, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
Fuckers should stop asking him about it after reading that.  There's nothing left to say.  And if he does dope he will lose all that stuff. 

He could still be lying dude. All the words in the world don't matter. Tests matter.
So are you asserting that he's cheated at the Olympics as well?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on August 07, 2012, 02:25:48 PM
Troll from more recent material.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Simond on August 07, 2012, 06:24:11 PM
Oh, I think you accusing the olympic champion of being a cheat and a liar within the last month counts as recent.
Is calling me a troll your only argument here?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 07, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
If he cheated at the tour he cheated at the Olympics.  Did he cheat?  Who knows.  You are in the "circumstantial evidence" category just by winning these races.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: lamaros on August 07, 2012, 09:47:42 PM
In the 90s yes.  Today this is not the case.

Gaps are up and they are going slower.  Everyone is still pushing for an edge but much of it is legal expensive type.  Still a few outliners doping in cycling but far less then many other sports.

I have been watching the time trial today and have watched all the prior dopers (Vinokourov, Basso and Valverde, for example) who used to be top riders and are now middle of the pack riders at best.  I think that, logically, I have to disagree with the idea that doping isn't still widespread.  For a guy to fall that far is pretty much in line with the estimations of a 10-20% increase in production in cycling when you dope.  Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that prior GC contenders are that much worse than all of the current top guys if those other top riders aren't also doping.  You would have to see a serious decrease in the overall times of the peloton for doping to be out, and a slight drop is not indicative of major progress. 

Those guys also just got older.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on August 07, 2012, 09:55:13 PM
Oh, I think you accusing the olympic champion of being a cheat and a liar within the last month counts as recent.
Is calling me a troll your only argument here?

Until the sport cleans itself up and stops dealing with these issues well after the fact, I won't believe anybody. We absolutely should question all the wins.

http://bbcicecream.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RTR362HI.jpg


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Trippy on August 07, 2012, 10:10:14 PM
In the 90s yes.  Today this is not the case.

Gaps are up and they are going slower.  Everyone is still pushing for an edge but much of it is legal expensive type.  Still a few outliners doping in cycling but far less then many other sports.

I have been watching the time trial today and have watched all the prior dopers (Vinokourov, Basso and Valverde, for example) who used to be top riders and are now middle of the pack riders at best.  I think that, logically, I have to disagree with the idea that doping isn't still widespread.  For a guy to fall that far is pretty much in line with the estimations of a 10-20% increase in production in cycling when you dope.  Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that prior GC contenders are that much worse than all of the current top guys if those other top riders aren't also doping.  You would have to see a serious decrease in the overall times of the peloton for doping to be out, and a slight drop is not indicative of major progress. 
Those guys also just got older.
Except Vino, apparently, who won the Olympics Road Race :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 07, 2012, 10:30:52 PM
Except Vino, apparently, who won the Olympics Road Race :awesome_for_real:


 :drill:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: angry.bob on August 07, 2012, 11:46:50 PM
I could care less about any of this since pretty much all sports above a 5th grade level are corrupt shitpiles of entitled crybaby morons and the shitpile retard fans who empower them. Any fan of any sport should fucking set themselves on fire for maknig the world a shittier place. That being said, HIPAA allows people to waive priivacy, so whatever retard bicycle group could require people to waive privacy regarding HcT, RBC, CBC, Hgb, or whatever else they feel they need. The bad side of any sort of doping test is that unless they've invented some sort of magic or StarTrek level device, anything that would look like doping can be caused by a dozen different things that a person might not be aware of happening to them. Dehydration being one of the big things, and probably pretty common in people who ride bicycles all day.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: lamaros on August 08, 2012, 12:25:45 AM
Why are you in the sports forum then? Take your poorly articulated bile back to politics.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: angry.bob on August 08, 2012, 01:31:14 AM
Why are you in the sports forum then? Take your poorly articulated bile back to politics.

Boredom mostly. I ran out of other human misery threads to read and decided to see what was being said about the popular sports activity of boy-fucking and how far schools will go to cover it up. Sadly, not nearly enough people are going to go to jail, and the school is not going to lose nearly enough money. But hey, that's what you get when sports are the most important thing ever. Just thought I'd clarify that aspect of HIPAA and that there's no legitimate way to test for doping. You can test for having a high RBC, but that doesn't mean shit.

As far as poorly articulated, this is the sports forum. You should be used to it judging by the athelete interviews I've seen.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 08, 2012, 06:57:57 AM
Go back to Politics with that shit.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Pezzle on August 08, 2012, 11:09:14 PM
angry.bob makes me laugh!  I cannot fathom how so many can tolerate watching your typical sporting events on tv, let alone the extras. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 23, 2012, 10:40:21 PM
Well, it appears as though [urlhttp://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8298135/usada-ban-lance-armstrong-life-strip-seven-tour-de-france-titles-charges-used-performance-enhancing-drugs-cycling-career]the case is closed[/url].  Lance will not defend his case against the USADA.  

I have mixed feelings about this.  One would think that, if he was innocent, he would try and defend himself no matter what.  But if the evidence is against him even if he didn't to it what's the point?  I'm under the assumption that he doped, but I also don't particularly care all that much myself.  I'm just not sure what the USADA is trying to prove with this.  

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/527088_10151037438887709_1564170948_n.jpg)
Just to point out the guilty athletes......


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2012, 10:52:12 PM
Silly mindset to have.  It's the same one that says an innocent man would never plead guilty when being grilled by the cops.  They do all the time.

I'd have given-up long ago, quite aware that they were going to hound until I conceded or gave up. 

Do I think he doped?  Possibly the last year or two, but not the first 5. In any event the tests at the time said no, I don't see why they're going after it so vehemently now, 11 years later.  Seems like a witch hunt and I have no idea why.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 23, 2012, 11:03:03 PM
I've always wondered if he didn't have some sort of deal concocted with Bruyneel to make the other guys on the team think he was doping just to get them doing so.  Having a great team can be just as big of a boost as actually doping.  At this point it's all spilt milk for the USADA and anyone else who cares, however, as he's retired and apparently doesn't give a shit anymore. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Xuri on August 23, 2012, 11:12:58 PM
If he won't fight the charges, I guess that means we'll never get to see what the evidence against him was? If so, that's pretty convenient for him, as he can then maintain his innocence/"woe is me, it's a witch-hunt!"-claims indefinitely.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on August 24, 2012, 12:32:13 AM
If he won't fight the charges, I guess that means we'll never get to see what the evidence against him was? If so, that's pretty convenient for him, as he can then maintain his innocence/"woe is me, it's a witch-hunt!"-claims indefinitely.

I have in the past stated that "I don't care" about all the doping stuff, much of my attitude due to weariness.  I am just sick of hearing about it.

But what really boils me, what really fucking pisses me off, is that there is an actual government agency that must be costing shitloads of money, that seems to spend all of its time investigating retired people.  Sometimes these people testify in front of congress?  What the fuck?

I love sports.  But they are just sports.  Let them govern themselves (or not).

I don't particularly like Lance.  He's an arrogant dick.  But as far as I am concerned it was a level playing each and every time he won.  Fucking leave it alone already.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on August 24, 2012, 01:01:45 AM
Quote
Pain is temporary. Quitting lasts forever. - Lance Armstrong
:uhrr: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2012, 02:14:39 AM
The USADA is not actually a government agency, but it does get a large chunk of its funding from the government.

EDIT:

It occurs to me that if we assume he wasn't doping, and managed to win 7 in a row in dominant fashion while fighting cancer yadda yadda, doping really can't be all that helpful, can it? If it was effective to any kind of reasonable degree one of the dopers behind him would have beaten him at least once in there. OR.... he was doping.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Maledict on August 24, 2012, 03:13:39 AM
One of the main reasons for continuing to investigate people for doping in sports years after their win is that masking technology and drug development is years ahead of drug testing. Often athletes are convicted years after their win because it's only years later that someone figures out a way to detect the drugs people are using. That's why the samples are kept for so many years.

Unfortunately, doping is endemic in many sports. It'll be just as sad when Bolt gets done years down the line as well...


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on August 24, 2012, 05:19:36 AM
The USADA is not actually a government agency, but it does get a large chunk of its funding from the government.

EDIT:

It occurs to me that if we assume he wasn't doping, and managed to win 7 in a row in dominant fashion while fighting cancer yadda yadda, doping really can't be all that helpful, can it? If it was effective to any kind of reasonable degree one of the dopers behind him would have beaten him at least once in there. OR.... he was doping.

Doping or no doping, he is a bit of a genetic freak.  Assuming he was doping, he absolutely demolished a field of others who were also doping.  Over and over again.  If he wasn't doping, it just makes the feat doubly impressive.  So either way, he was better than them.

edit:  spelling


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on August 24, 2012, 06:02:26 AM
It occurs to me that if we assume he wasn't doping, and managed to win 7 in a row in dominant fashion while fighting cancer yadda yadda, doping really can't be all that helpful, can it? If it was effective to any kind of reasonable degree one of the dopers behind him would have beaten him at least once in there. OR.... he was doping.

Let me extricate you from your bizarre fantasy version of events. I have followed pro cycling as a fan and professionally and have read Lance's best selling autobiography It's Not About the Bike.

He was the "strong as a bull" kind of young pro cyclist through his 20s. The kind that wins stages of races, not overall wins. Then he got testicular cancer that had metastized into his lungs and brain by the time he was diagnosed. He lost a testicle and underwent full-on chemotherapy, with an estimated 5% chance of survival. He became a skeletal Auschwitz-looking figure, unable to exercise.

Note: he was not racing while he had cancer. His then team abandoned him and cut off his health insurance, leaving him for dead.

He survived. The cancer went into full remission. He built himself back up from less than nothing, until he could ride again. He emerged a smaller, wiry man compared to the bull-like figure he had been. Small, wiry riders are the kind that win Tour de Frances. He decided to target that race, even though people doubted him. He trained and trained until he was an elite pro cyclist again.

All of that is undisputed. The allegations are about what he did after that. Because what he did then was win seven consecutive Tours.

He had the unique combination of a strong, powerful cycling form that had been brutally reduced into a wiry, smaller body. He had the focus and pain tolerance of a guy who had stared down death. And he always had the best team (cycling being a team sport where your teammates sacrifice their chances by cutting through the wind resistance for you, while you sit behind, conserving your energy for key moments at the end).

These factors are why he was uniquely suited to winning the race. The question is whether he went a further step, and how much that affected things.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on August 24, 2012, 07:07:29 AM
Here's what I don't understand about this whole thing: The guy passed EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DRUG TEST.  How can you charge him with anything if YOUR METHODS OF DETECTION FAILED?

Seems like a witch hunt with some political backdrop to me.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on August 24, 2012, 07:11:40 AM
Yar.  I imagine nailing one of the biggest sporting icons around helps with their credibility and doesn't do anything to hurt their chances of continued funding, either.  Witch hunt no matter how you look at it, guilty or no.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Maledict on August 24, 2012, 08:13:18 AM
Here's what I don't understand about this whole thing: The guy passed EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DRUG TEST.  How can you charge him with anything if YOUR METHODS OF DETECTION FAILED?

Seems like a witch hunt with some political backdrop to me.

Um, the list of people who passed every drug test and then were found to have been doping is as long as your arm plus mine. Bjarne Riis won the TDF in 1996? He always denied the doping charges and had exactly the same line as Armstrong - he had *never* failed a drug test. In 2007 he admitted using EPO, Cortisone and HGH.

The technology to detect doping is about 5 years behind the actual doping technology at the very least. Armstrong isn't in any way unique by being accused of drug taking despite no failed tests, and he won't be the last whose found out to have cheated years afterwards despite passing the tests.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 08:26:32 AM
Here's what I don't understand about this whole thing: The guy passed EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DRUG TEST.  How can you charge him with anything if YOUR METHODS OF DETECTION FAILED?

Seems like a witch hunt with some political backdrop to me.

Um, the list of people who passed every drug test and then were found to have been doping is as long as your arm plus mine. Bjarne Riis won the TDF in 1996? He always denied the doping charges and had exactly the same line as Armstrong - he had *never* failed a drug test. In 2007 he admitted using EPO, Cortisone and HGH.

The technology to detect doping is about 5 years behind the actual doping technology at the very least. Armstrong isn't in any way unique by being accused of drug taking despite no failed tests, and he won't be the last whose found out to have cheated years afterwards despite passing the tests.

This very fact would call into question the point of testing at all, at least in the now.  It appears as though baseball is starting to catch some folks, but I suspect it's just because the culture was so lax for so long that people are still getting used to the testing procedures.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2012, 08:42:10 AM
I don't think the doping thing is the huge story in this case.

It's that Lance Armstrong, the pinnacle person of the "Never give up, never quit, never surrender" is now giving up. I think that's more damaging to my view of him than anything.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 08:44:08 AM
Actually, this (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all) may be the real story in the case.......


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2012, 09:09:57 AM
That article got me looking at Livestrong's non-profit filings. What I found was horrifying.

Livestrong pulled in over $40M in contributions in 2009. It spend almost $5M on salaries alone. That's actually slightly more than it gave in grants to cancer organizations during the year ($4.9M). Over $1M went to legal costs. $8M went to "Other" professional contractors. $2.2M went to advertising. $5M went to office expenses and travel.

The organization netted $12M in unused revenue after their funcational expenses. That means that 30% of whatever they took in went directly to their investment portfolio instead of helping anybody. Livestrong in 2009 was sitting on over $25M in straight cash and investments at the end of the year.

Here's the really scary thing. They paid their officers $1.8M across 10 employees. All of them with 6 figure incomes to run an organization that literally pays less than 13% of it's revenues to actual grants.

So when they say that's he's raised $500M for cancer? No, he raised $65M for cancer and $435 for running a "non-profit" behemoth.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on August 24, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
That article got me looking at Livestrong's non-profit filings. What I found was horrifying.

Livestrong pulled in over $40M in contributions in 2009. It spend almost $5M on salaries alone. That's actually slightly more than it gave in grants to cancer organizations during the year ($4.9M). Over $1M went to legal costs. $8M went to "Other" professional contractors. $2.2M went to advertising. $5M went to office expenses and travel.

The organization netted $12M in unused revenue after their funcational expenses. That means that 30% of whatever they took in went directly to their investment portfolio instead of helping anybody. Livestrong in 2009 was sitting on over $25M in straight cash and investments at the end of the year.

Here's the really scary thing. They paid their officers $1.8M across 10 employees. All of them with 6 figure incomes to run an organization that literally pays less than 13% of it's revenues to actual grants.

So when they say that's he's raised $500M for cancer? No, he raised $65M for cancer and $435 for running a "non-profit" behemoth.

Job creators rule!  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 09:40:37 AM
Quote
THE FOUNDATION considers this money well spent, but if I were a Livestrong supporter I’d also ask: What’s the product here? If not research, then what do I get for my $100 donation?

“I think the product is hope,” says Mark McKinnon, the renowned GOP political consultant and a Livestrong board member. Armstrong’s team approached McKinnon in 2001, seeking advice on positioning Lance for a postcycling career. McKinnon, a media strategist for President George W. Bush, introduced Armstrong to another client, Bono. The two hit it off, and soon Armstrong seemed to be aiming toward a Bono-like role as a global cancer statesman.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on August 24, 2012, 09:43:20 AM
So... this is analogous to bringing Capone down for tax evasion?  They have no proof that he doped but are doing everything they can to destroy his marketing empire that does little to actually help people with Cancer. 

I also agree with Ghost.  If he tested negative EVERY time, it's an indictment of their testing system.  They are spending a lot of time and money on worthless drug testing methods. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
One would also have to wonder if there isn't rampant fraud within the WADA and UCI doping control systems over in Europe.  It's certainly true that Lance Armstrong made the sport of cycling, as a whole, a shitload of money.  They would have had good reason to not see him busted for doping.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on August 24, 2012, 10:27:03 AM
*smug mode*


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 10:28:15 AM
What is there to be smug about?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 10:57:42 AM
Here's (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/24/lance_armstrong_doping_scandal_everyone_was_chating_from_1999_to_2005_.html) an interesting run down of the runners up in the Tour de France on the years Armstrong won. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Maledict on August 24, 2012, 11:30:26 AM
So... this is analogous to bringing Capone down for tax evasion?  They have no proof that he doped but are doing everything they can to destroy his marketing empire that does little to actually help people with Cancer. 

I also agree with Ghost.  If he tested negative EVERY time, it's an indictment of their testing system.  They are spending a lot of time and money on worthless drug testing methods. 

They do have proof he doped. They have more proof than you need to get convicted for murder for goodness sakes. They have 10 people who will testify under oath he doped, as well as failed test results from 2009 to 2011 apparently as well as other stuff. The evidence will apparently come out at some point as the investigation continues to the rest of the team.

The only reason we can't see the evidence now is because Armstrong has decided not to contest it.

So what's more likely? The guy famous for not giving up and for his amazing wins has given up and is willing to see his entire career and reputation destroyed because 'he's tired' despite the fact they have no proof and he's innocent OR they have the proof, he knows it, and this is the best way to protect his image?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Merusk on August 24, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
So when they say that's he's raised $500M for cancer? No, he raised $65M for cancer and $435 for running a "non-profit" behemoth.

I've heard this is the same for just about every non-profit is out there, so I'm not really shocked.  Can you give us something similar for the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen and United Way as well?  I ask because you're the professional and going to know where to look and compare fairly quicker than I will.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
Actually, according to the figures in one of these articles Komen (while certainly no bastion of credibility) gives a lot more to research than Livestrong.  You should read the longish article from Outdoorsonline.com about it.  It is a pretty good piece.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Mosesandstick on August 24, 2012, 01:21:31 PM
I've heard this is the same for just about every non-profit is out there, so I'm not really shocked.  Can you give us something similar for the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen and United Way as well?  I ask because you're the professional and going to know where to look and compare fairly quicker than I will.

Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/)

Hopefully that will give you some answers.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2012, 01:27:00 PM
It occurs to me that if we assume he wasn't doping, and managed to win 7 in a row in dominant fashion while fighting cancer yadda yadda, doping really can't be all that helpful, can it? If it was effective to any kind of reasonable degree one of the dopers behind him would have beaten him at least once in there. OR.... he was doping.

Let me extricate you from your bizarre fantasy version of events. I have followed pro cycling as a fan and professionally and have read Lance's best selling autobiography It's Not About the Bike.

He was the "strong as a bull" kind of young pro cyclist through his 20s. The kind that wins stages of races, not overall wins. Then he got testicular cancer that had metastized into his lungs and brain by the time he was diagnosed. He lost a testicle and underwent full-on chemotherapy, with an estimated 5% chance of survival. He became a skeletal Auschwitz-looking figure, unable to exercise.

Note: he was not racing while he had cancer. His then team abandoned him and cut off his health insurance, leaving him for dead.

He survived. The cancer went into full remission. He built himself back up from less than nothing, until he could ride again. He emerged a smaller, wiry man compared to the bull-like figure he had been. Small, wiry riders are the kind that win Tour de Frances. He decided to target that race, even though people doubted him. He trained and trained until he was an elite pro cyclist again.

All of that is undisputed. The allegations are about what he did after that. Because what he did then was win seven consecutive Tours.

He had the unique combination of a strong, powerful cycling form that had been brutally reduced into a wiry, smaller body. He had the focus and pain tolerance of a guy who had stared down death. And he always had the best team (cycling being a team sport where your teammates sacrifice their chances by cutting through the wind resistance for you, while you sit behind, conserving your energy for key moments at the end).

These factors are why he was uniquely suited to winning the race. The question is whether he went a further step, and how much that affected things.

Um, really? Bizarre fantasy version of events? You got that from the entire one sentence I wrote about him?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2012, 01:35:51 PM
So when they say that's he's raised $500M for cancer? No, he raised $65M for cancer and $435 for running a "non-profit" behemoth.

I've heard this is the same for just about every non-profit is out there, so I'm not really shocked.  Can you give us something similar for the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen and United Way as well?  I ask because you're the professional and going to know where to look and compare fairly quicker than I will.

The United Way is a sinkhole, and I never recommend people giving to that either. The Red Cross has had issues with fraud, but I believe overall in their efforts. The American Cancer Society pulled in $375M at the home office in 2009. They gave up $120M in grants. That's almost 32% of their take going directly to research. Honestly, that's a pretty solid number to be giving a third of your money away for an organization with that much national sway and presence. They also run consistently at a loss because they've built up a billion dollar endowment. The one thing they've done I don't agree with is their CEO officer salary is way out of whack. John Seffrin makes about $2M a year for running the organization, compared to the the officers making low to mid six figures.

EDIT: That is to say the national version of the United Way. There are local versions that do a good job, but you have to take them on a case by case basis.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on August 24, 2012, 01:42:03 PM
Um, really? Bizarre fantasy version of events? You got that from the entire one sentence I wrote about him?

Sorry, it was an overreaction. I thought you had him winning Tours with cancer :)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on August 24, 2012, 01:46:21 PM
The American Cancer Society pulled in $375M at the home office in 2009. They gave up $120M in grants. That's almost 32% of their take going directly to research. Honestly, that's a pretty solid number to be giving a third of your money away for an organization with that much national sway and presence. They also run consistently at a loss because they've built up a billion dollar endowment. The one thing they've done I don't agree with is their CEO officer salary is way out of whack. John Seffrin makes about $2M a year for running the organization, compared to the the officers making low to mid six figures.

The ACS has funded a lot of my cancer research and that of my colleagues.  They are very selective in who they give money to and often get a great bang-for-their-buck in research productivity.  I can not say enough good things about how ACS has helped cancer research.  I am biased though. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2012, 01:47:14 PM
Um, really? Bizarre fantasy version of events? You got that from the entire one sentence I wrote about him?

Sorry, it was an overreaction. I thought you had him winning Tours with cancer :)

He still describes himself as "fighting cancer" in the statement from yesterday so that's where that came from.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: proudft on August 24, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
He won't give up fighting cancer until cancer denies his appeal.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2012, 01:51:12 PM
The ACS has funded a lot of my cancer research and that of my colleagues.  They are very selective in who they give money to and often get a great bang-for-their-buck in research productivity.  I can not say enough good things about how ACS has helped cancer research.  I am biased though. 

I like what they do, and I think giving them money is a good thing. Generally, they run a tight ship and I have very little complaints. Why I'm against the United Way, even though they give a much larger percentage of their income to grants, is because you are essentially paying a middle man for charity. The United Way just takes that money and doles it out to charities like the ACS, and they take a 20% cut for overhead along the way.

I mean, what the fuck? Why not just give directly to the cause and cut out the middle man. I don't really see any reason for most United Way organizations to exist.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: UnsGub on August 24, 2012, 03:35:43 PM
Old article but doping does work.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=all (http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=all)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 03:58:54 PM
The ACS has funded a lot of my cancer research and that of my colleagues.  They are very selective in who they give money to and often get a great bang-for-their-buck in research productivity.  I can not say enough good things about how ACS has helped cancer research.  I am biased though. 

I like what they do, and I think giving them money is a good thing. Generally, they run a tight ship and I have very little complaints. Why I'm against the United Way, even though they give a much larger percentage of their income to grants, is because you are essentially paying a middle man for charity. The United Way just takes that money and doles it out to charities like the ACS, and they take a 20% cut for overhead along the way.

I mean, what the fuck? Why not just give directly to the cause and cut out the middle man. I don't really see any reason for most United Way organizations to exist.

They're kind of a relic from the past, when it was harder to find out what charities were available to donate to and a middle man was more necessary.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: LK on August 24, 2012, 05:34:18 PM
Old article but doping does work.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=all (http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=all)


Good read, thank you.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2012, 05:40:46 PM
Amusingly, nearly every rider who finished 2nd to Armstrong in a Tour has tested positive or gotten themselves in trouble for doping-related activities at some point or another - Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Joseba Beloki.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Maledict on August 24, 2012, 06:11:15 PM
It was a sign of the times - you had to be doping to compete at the top level.

It's a shame because Lance Armstrong *was* the best rider around, yet now he goes down even worse than the rest because he refused to admit doping. They just need to void all the wins from that time period and focus on keeping the sport cleaner.

(if the British cyclists are ever found to have doped it would be horrendous for the sport in this country. Fortunately the British teams seem to have an incredibly strong anti-doping ethos, and barring french cyclists vaguely mentioning stuff at the Olympics there doesn't seem to be those accusations flying around. But even so...)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 24, 2012, 06:17:37 PM
Amusingly, nearly every rider who finished 2nd to Armstrong in a Tour has tested positive or gotten themselves in trouble for doping-related activities at some point or another - Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Joseba Beloki.

Yes.  In fact, I'll redirect you to my article posted here: 

Here's (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/24/lance_armstrong_doping_scandal_everyone_was_chating_from_1999_to_2005_.html) an interesting run down of the runners up in the Tour de France on the years Armstrong won. 

Also, if you look at the winners of the TdF since Big Mig, only Oscar Pereiro, Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans and Wiggins have not been suspended for doping.  The Tour de France is littered with dopers throughout the past 20 years.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on August 25, 2012, 08:17:44 AM
It appears as though public sentiment towards Armstrong and his foundation hasn't waned (http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8301006/lance-armstrong-foundation-sees-78k-donations-25-times-greater-normal-day). 

Quote
Ulman said $3,200 came in Thursday to the organization's website, which was in the range of what it typically receives. As of 4:30 p.m. ET on Friday, Ulman noted $78,000 in donations.

Quote
Merchandise sales were up almost threefold, from $4,000 in gear sold on Thursday to $11,000 sold on Friday.

There's no such thing as bad publicity, I suppose.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on August 25, 2012, 10:20:55 AM
Well, since he has besicly pled guilty, the believers can keep believing and all the evidence stays buried. And the money can keep rolling in.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Apparently the USADA is going to make public their evidence on Armstrong soon (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sports/cycling/antidoping-agency-expected-to-detail-its-case-against-lance-armstrong.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0). 

It looks to be pretty much a nuclear bomb in Armstrong's living room:

Quote
The United States Anti-Doping Agency announced Wednesday that it would soon make public its doping file on Lance Armstrong and that the file would include details of what the agency is calling the most sophisticated and professional doping program in recent sports history.

The agency said its dossier on Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France winner and cancer survivor who denies ever doping, will include sworn testimony from 26 people, including nearly a dozen former teammates on the United States Postal Service team. Those Postal Service teammates have admitted their own doping and say that Armstrong doped, encouraged doping and administered doping products on the team, the agency said on Wednesday.

Quote
The evidence against Armstrong features financial payments, e-mails, scientific analyses and laboratory test results that show Armstrong was doping and was the kingpin of the doping conspiracy, the agency said. Several years of Armstrong’s blood values showed evidence of doping, said a person involved in the case who did not want his name used because the results have not been revealed yet.

He's so fucked.  I can't imagine that Livestrong will be able to stay afloat, and I would imagine that the government could come after him for earnings since he was employed by the US postal service. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 10, 2012, 11:17:44 AM
Meanwhile, thousands of corporate execs and oil moguls enjoy record profits while paying no taxes. 

These witch hunts are nothing but a distraction from the real crimes being perpetrated on society. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 11:21:27 AM
Meanwhile, thousands of corporate execs and oil moguls enjoy record profits while paying no taxes. 

These witch hunts are nothing but a distraction from the real crimes being perpetrated on society. 

I agree.  I would also argue that the election and the politics that we generally see publicly are a distraction from the real crimes being perpetrated on society. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 10, 2012, 11:24:09 AM
I hope Livestrong tanks. It preys on people's sympathies and does next to nothing for the cause it purports to champion.

In fact, Cancer research charities are some of the worst in the nation in terms of efficiency with your money. The American Institute for Cancer Research is just as bad.

The best, if not one of the best, is the Breast Cancer Research Foundation in NY. I HIGHLY recommend that if you want to give to cancer research projects without all the bullshit about "awareness".


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 10, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
The best, if not one of the best, is the Breast Cancer Research Foundation in NY. I HIGHLY recommend that if you want to give to cancer research projects without all the bullshit about "awareness".

The best would be to send your money directly to me and cut out the middle man!  :grin:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 11:26:31 AM
I don't see how Livestrong could help but fail now.  Who in their right mind would give money to such a manipulative cheater?  I am highly suspicious of most charity organizations as it is. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 10, 2012, 11:31:18 AM
Who in their right mind would give money to such a manipulative cheater?  I am highly suspicious of most charity organizations as it is. 

This guy had no problem extracting millions...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Billy_Graham_008.jpg/250px-Billy_Graham_008.jpg)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Who is it?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 10, 2012, 11:42:23 AM
Who is it?


Billy Graham: Evangelist. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 10, 2012, 12:24:52 PM
Low blow. Graham's a pretty nice guy and all-around good human being.

EDIT: I would have used Swaggart, Bakker, or Osteen.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 12:25:58 PM
Ah.  I think Billy was playing with more of a stacked deck.  He had Gawd on his side.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on October 10, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
Low blow. Graham's a pretty nice guy and all-around good human being.

EDIT: I would have used Swaggart, Bakker, or Osteen.

Hinn.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 01:09:19 PM
I live 2 miles from John Hagee's church.  He's such a piece of shit. 

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PvFuU1iTd3g/Tj27NFUqIdI/AAAAAAAAlDc/-umkKg89Lw8/s400/JohnHageeMic.jpg)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 01:19:29 PM
Hincapie's statements (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578048352882559518.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories) on doping are pretty interesting. 

Quote
"Early in my professional career, it became clear to me that, given the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs by cyclists at the top of the profession, it was not possible to compete at the highest level without them," Hincapie said in a statement released to The Wall Street Journal Wednesday.

With the purported 20% boost in effectiveness with doping in cycling, I don't see how any of these guys could be in the top 25%, or even in the top 75% of the field, and not dope.  If you were on the podium, you were doping.  I'm not sure anything has changed since the mid 90's.  They're all guilty until proven innocent. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on October 10, 2012, 02:23:00 PM
This comment made me laugh out loud
Quote
Recall the Onion article August 30, 2007:

"PARIS—A small but enthusiastic crowd of several dozen was on hand at the Tour de France's finish line on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées Tuesday to applaud the efforts of the 28 cyclists who completed the grueling 20-stage, 2,208.3-mile race without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs. One month after the leaders finished the race."


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 02:28:30 PM
You think about a 20% difference and you're talking about 16-18 extra hours of racing as compared to a Tour de France winner.   

Out of the list of past winners (http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfindex.html), you have to look back to LeMond (and prior) to see a significant change in the peloton times.  I would love to believe that cycling has come clean, but Wiggins and Evans are posting the same dope tainted times as the past 15 years. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 10, 2012, 02:39:57 PM
Keep in mind that bicycle technology has improved pretty significantly in the past 20 years.  A state of the art racing road bike in 1990 is entry level by today's standards.  I imagine equipment alone would improve performance by nearly 10% since 1990. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: schild on October 10, 2012, 02:43:27 PM
Wait. The bikes are doped?

I'm just going to say here that I don't really want to read 7 pages of a thread that's been going on for a year, but Lance Armstrong is a shitbag of a person. I wish famous people's personalities were auto-included in how much people liked or admired them.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
Possibly, although they have included more regulations to make bikes more "standardized".  Look at some of the old bikes from Big Mig's days of time trialing.  They were like clown bikes, in a lot of ways.  They've also instituted minimum weight requirements.  So my personal thought is that it is probably less than 10%, just knowing what I know of bikes.  

And that is an interesting thought, schild.  I wonder how much mechanical "doping" is going on.  Fabian Cancellara has been accused of it in the past.  It would be relatively easy, I would think, to put a small motor in the crank case or even in the hubs that would give a little speed boost.  Even 2-5% could make a big difference for these guys.

Example:

(http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/tech/features/pinarello/CN-Giro-Pin_Espada_05.jpg)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 10, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
Wait. The bikes are doped?

I was just pointing out that an improvement in pelaton times can partially be attributed to an improvement in technology.  Nutrition, training, and genetics also play a role.  Do these guys dope?  Probably.  That wasn't the point.  



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: schild on October 10, 2012, 02:48:52 PM
I was joking about the bikes. I just wanted to point out that any case against Lance Armstrong should be founded on the back of him deserving nothing good in life due to him being a total asshole.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 03:02:13 PM
I had already written most of that before you even posted about the bikes.  I know you're joking, but it's been a consideration.  Biking is so dirty that people will do anything to win.

As far as Armstrong being an assbag, sure, it's now common knowledge.  But it wasn't 7 years ago when Armstrong was racing.  Everyone thought he was the golden boy.  The beginning of his downfall (public eye downfall, mind you) was his dumbass divorce from his wife.  But now we get to enjoy the dumpster fire that his life is going to become.  It's going to be more enjoyable than watching Warhammer Online crash and burn.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Here (http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/) is the full USADA decision and evidence, if anyone wants to read through it.  It looks to be interesting stuff.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 10, 2012, 03:14:24 PM
As far as Armstrong being an assbag, sure, it's now common knowledge.  But it wasn't 7 years ago when Armstrong was racing.  Everyone thought he was the golden boy.

Not true. Most people I know (working in the industry) thought of him as an asshole. They may not have thought or believed that he was doping, but they all thought he was a dickhead. He certainly came across that way the one time I met him. But that was one time.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
You're talking about insiders and a person that has personally met Lance, i.e. you.  That is not the general public.  When Lance was at his peak of racing performance (in and around his divorce from Kristen) he was the golden boy as far as public perception is concerned.  Your point is irrelevant. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 10, 2012, 03:52:22 PM
Eh, perhaps I'm colored a bit from being in the industry, but I'm not talking about "insiders". I'm speaking from the perspective of casual riders and pros alike. I just don't know anyone that ever had a particularly high opinion other than "damn, boy is fast", and now the opinion is pretty much, "man the guy is a huge dick AND a huge cheater." More or less how most seemed to feel about Landis.

Plus, you said everyone, so I working off of that. Public perception may have been much more open to him, but I don't think it was as a racer really. I think it was mostly because he was dating Sheryl Crow and "beat" cancer. Plus, yellow bracelets. I'm not sure racing really entered the public perception of him much at all.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 03:54:43 PM
That's why I said the divorce was the beginning of his public undoing.  When he was dating Cheryl Crow it had already begun to unravel for him. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Soln on October 10, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
I think it was mostly because he was dating Sheryl Crow and "beat" cancer. Plus, yellow bracelets. I'm not sure racing really entered the public perception of him much at all.


Yeahhh that's when he stopped being an athlete-whatever in my mind and instead became another Utah-Malibu-millionaire-celebrity-douche.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 03:59:56 PM
Lance and Kristin got divorced in 2003.  Prior to that it would have been a challenge to find someone that didn't at least appreciate what the guy was doing unless they were some insider that had an axe to grind.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 10, 2012, 04:07:42 PM
Lance and Kristin got divorced in 2003.  Prior to that it would have been a challenge to find someone that didn't at least appreciate what the guy was doing unless they were some insider that had an axe to grind.

Well, that was the distinction I made. People admired him but he always came across like a dick. And I'm not talking about SEKRIT INSIDERZ.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 04:12:06 PM
Okay, you're going to argue that public opinion on Lance Armstrong wasn't fucking golden prior to 2003?  And that it wasn't at least pretty damned good prior to Discovery?  That's just daffy.   :uhrr:

Also:

Not true. Most people I know (working in the industry) thought of him as an asshole. They may not have thought or believed that he was doping, but they all thought he was a dickhead. He certainly came across that way the one time I met him. But that was one time.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Rasix on October 10, 2012, 04:20:30 PM
Dude. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 10, 2012, 04:24:24 PM
Okay, you're going to argue that public opinion on Lance Armstrong wasn't fucking golden prior to 2003?  And that it wasn't at least pretty damned good prior to Discovery?  That's just daffy.   :uhrr:

You're acting like I'm reading you the riot act. Back off the the ledge, jesus. We're not actually that far apart at all on the subject.

You said everyone, I said I didn't agree with that and stated why, from my perspective. You then said you meant public opinion, which I then understood as random Joe watching random sports stuff on a lark on ESPN and mass media.

Everyone single time I've stated people respected him for his accomplishments, but thought he was a dick. Now they don't respect him and still think he's a dick.

I stated my impressions come from within the industry, both casual riders and racers/manufactures/etcetc. And yes, that is 100% factual of my experiences in the industry. I don't care if that doesn't mesh with your expectations, but I've been working in the cycling industry since before 2003. He has always from what I can tell been viewed as a dick. Then he was viewed as a dick who was really good as his sport. Now he's just viewed as a dick. I can not make that any more clear. This is a really stupid disagreement. Shit, there REALLY isn't a disagreement. He's a cheating dickhead instead of just a dickhead who is a good racer and beat cancer.

And I have no god damn idea what you are trying to "prove" by that quote. I'm sorry if I've somehow made the conversation confusing. "working in the industry" was referring to myself, not the people that i know.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 04:28:17 PM
Sorry for coming across aggressive.  That wasn't my intention. 

I'm just trying to point out that your experienced opinions (I believe that you are in the industry) is not going to be similar at all to what Joe Blow who went out and bought his Trek and rides 25 miles a day on the Texas access roads thought at the time. 

And now he's not viewed as just a dick, he's at Pete Rose levels of douchiness. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 10, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
I never said it was the wide opinion! After you clarified your statement and helped me understand your point, I agreed with it in principal.

I'm really not trying to dance around where I work, I just prefer to keep that stuff kind of separate. I know how it can come across though.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 04:35:14 PM
Man, I think it would be totally fascinating to have been involved in the industry in the heyday of Lance versus Jan.  That was some awesome racing there, doping or no.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 10, 2012, 05:43:45 PM
Calling it, suicide within a month.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 10, 2012, 05:51:28 PM
He's too narcissistic for that, I believe.  It will be interesting if it does.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 10, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
He doesn't have the balls to do that.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on October 10, 2012, 11:53:45 PM
Did all the dope make them shrivel?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Cyrrex on October 11, 2012, 12:57:40 AM
I think the joke being made is that his balls were lopped off because of all the cancer and stuff.  Though I was under the impression that he had only lost a single nut.  Really, I try not to dwell on other men's gonads whenever possible, so I not exactly sure. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 11, 2012, 10:34:30 AM
I think the joke being made is that his balls were lopped off because of all the cancer and stuff.  Though I was under the impression that he had only lost a single nut.  Really, I try not to dwell on other men's gonads whenever possible, so I not exactly sure. 

That is correct, but what I still said was true. He may have the ball to do it, but not the balls.  :oh_i_see: Also, artistic license, etc etc.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 08:41:47 AM
Well that didn't take long.

Nike drops Lance Armstrong (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062313532317222.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories). 

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2012, 08:46:35 AM
Let the dizzying fall from grace begin!


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
It's going to be ugly for him and for the sport of cycling.  I will still hold his 7 tour wins as one of the singular greatest achievements in sport.  Why?  It was a level playing field, more or less.  They were all doping.  The riders had to in order to have any hope of being competitive.  And his riding was extremely exciting to watch. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on October 17, 2012, 09:00:26 AM
Level playing field my ass. It was most assuredly not a level playing field. Some had better doping programs, medicine, doctors, connections, organisational backings and ect. than others. Whereas Lance had the whole team and management behind him, I am pretty sure that many others (who doped themselves) did so alone in a private restroom with the drugs available to them. That is not a level playing field.

Lance should lose everything of his empire which is build on the foundations of lying and cheating. That includes his titles.

With that said, I would be more than okay with the titles not being awarded to anybody els, since there were no clear winners.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2012, 09:05:25 AM
That's sort of my problem with doping when the argument becomes "everyone was doing it" beyond my normal moral objection to the idea of cheating as a virtue or norm in the first place.

It creates an arms race of sorts with money becoming the key difference over talent. More money means better cheating and more wins. It's the same in baseball in the steroid era.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 09:17:57 AM
Level playing field my ass. It was most assuredly not a level playing field. Some had better doping programs, medicine, doctors, connections, organisational backings and ect. than others. Whereas Lance had the whole team and management behind him, I am pretty sure that many others (who doped themselves) did so alone in a private restroom with the drugs available to them.

With that said, I would be more than okay with the titles not being awarded to anybody els, since there were no clear winners.

I agree with you about not awarding the award to anyone else, but I hope that you don't believe that the rest of the field was doping in dirty restrooms and alleys.  It has been well documented that many other teams ran similar (although probably not as sophisticated) doping programs. 


Doping is just an area where will have to differ in opinions, I suppse.  I personally just don't give a shit if they dope.  It doesn't bother me at all.  I'm a spectator and, in my view, they all had high power teams bringing in lots of money and access to guys like Ferrari.  


But we've beaten that argument to death.

Anyhoo, his own charity has now dropped him as their chairman (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-lance-armstrong-livestrong-20121017,0,681872.story).  


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2012, 09:23:01 AM
I hope Livestrong tanks, as I've said behind. Fuck "cancer awareness."

We're aware. Research or GTFO.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 17, 2012, 09:24:09 AM
If cycling really cared, they would house all of the participants in a restricted dorm during multi-day races.  Never... gonna... happen.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 09:31:46 AM
If cycling really cared, they would house all of the participants in a restricted dorm during multi-day races.  Never... gonna... happen.

Oh, we can see how much cycling cared by the UCI's actions.  If the report is right, the UCI notified teams and racers ahead of time (either intentionally or through leaks and bribes) when testing was going to occur.  That didn't just happen with Armstrong's team, it happened across the peloton.

Also, the UCI is feeling the heat (http://www.todayonline.com/Sports/EDC121017-0000046/UCI-denies-Armstrong-cover-up) and I suspect will get a serious kick in the nuts from taking a blatant bribe from Armstrong when he was at his prime, both in doping and racing. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: UnsGub on October 17, 2012, 09:47:00 AM
It creates an arms race of sorts with money becoming the key difference over talent.

Talent included the ability to use drugs.  All the top riders talent included getting the most from the products they used.  Same drugs have different effects on individuals, just like the same equipment\training does.

The top 100 pros in the world all had the money to pay for it and the organisations to make it happen.  Look at the client list of Operations Puerto for example.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2012, 09:53:23 AM
They if it would provide a level playing field, why not just institutionalize and regulate it?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 10:00:46 AM
They if it would provide a level playing field, why not just institutionalize and regulate it?

They essentially did.   :awesome_for_real:

It was just all behind the scenes.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
No, they didn't. Why not come out and say you're allowing it publically?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 10:05:32 AM
No, they didn't. Why not come out and say you're allowing it publically?

The UCI, by covering all this up and allowing it to happen, was essentially regulating and condoning the activity.  Additionally, lighten up, Francis.  

Addendum-  Look.  You'll never, ever be able to prevent doping in sport.  There will always be the next big thing that will be undetectable for a period of time.  My point is that they had reached a sort of equilibrium where they could detect some of the drugs, chose not to, and the end result is that most of the peloton was using essentially the same shit.  There was no need for further development of regimens or, more specifically, new drugs because they were escaping detection and were seeing some results.  Those results were that they were competitive with the rest of the doping schleps.  Sure, eventually the new "big thing" would have come up eventually, but the competition to get to that drug is not enhanced. 



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on October 17, 2012, 10:22:52 AM
I'm sure I'm repeating myself - as Ghost says, we've been over this before - but anyway:

Institutionalisation and regulation of PEDs in sport would not solve the doping problem. It's not about the drugs, it's about circumventing the rules of the sport to gain an advantage i.e. cheating. If you permitted doping but only allowed some drugs or raised the permissible amounts, some people would still take the banned drugs, or more than was legally permitted, just to get that edge. So the only way for doping not to be a problem is to go back to the 50s approach of "anything goes".

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qvS0dwqEHck/Twtm7ibUu5I/AAAAAAAAAZs/TMr2alQLRuY/s1600/wargames-quote-not-to-play.jpg)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 10:35:48 AM
I've heard talk about how we've "cleaned up baseball" and that US sports' drug programs work because we've caught people.  I seriously doubt that this is true. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 17, 2012, 11:11:12 AM
Catching people only means that they were terrible cheaters.  People are mad at Lance because he was a better cheater than most.  Bad cheaters are always jealous of good cheaters.  In sports and life, cheaters seem to think that the only thing they did wrong was to get caught.

I don't really give a shit about cheating in sports.  It's trivial compared to the cheating we see in business and politics.  That's the cheating that really ruins lives. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: 01101010 on October 17, 2012, 11:13:42 AM
Well it is not cheating if you don't get caught...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 11:18:49 AM
I don't really give a shit about cheating in sports.  It's trivial compared to the cheating we see in business and politics.  That's the cheating that really ruins lives. 

You're definitely undermining my already shaky confidence in the human race, Nebu.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 17, 2012, 11:26:39 AM
You're definitely undermining my already shaky confidence in the human race, Nebu.   :why_so_serious:

You work in health care.  How the hell could you have any confidence at all? 

I think you need to have 10 more children and breed your own human race.  It may be our only hope.  If nothing else, then you and Cheddar could have a mini Olympics with your kids.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 11:31:43 AM
You're definitely undermining my already shaky confidence in the human race, Nebu.   :why_so_serious:

You work in health care.  How the hell could you have any confidence at all? 

I think you need to have 10 more children and breed your own human race.  It may be our only hope.  If nothing else, then you and Cheddar could have a mini Olympics with your kids.

I was shooting for a soccer team, but the wife chose scorched earth this time.  Alas, it looks as though we're done unless we adopt (which may be an option for us).

I almost think we need to find ways, as a society, to buffer (yet still allow) cheating in almost all aspects of life.  It happens everywhere and for everything.  There has to be a model which allows for it to happen yet buffers the negative effects.  Get your monkey model out and get to work!

As an aside, I hate research on monkeys.  There was a guy in my pharmacology PhD program (that I did 6 months of before figuring out it wasn't for me) that would put monkeys in this special chair, brain them with a sharp object and take special readings on their fluids and neural responses as they died.  Disgusting business.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 12:29:34 PM
And actually, right on cue, Slate has come out with a very nice article comparing doping in cycling (and sport) to the cheating that goes on with Wall Street (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports/2012/10/lance_armstrong_doping_how_the_cyclist_is_like_lehman_bros.html).  You sure you're not a writer for Slate, Nebu?

I have gotten to where I really like Slate's opinion pieces. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 17, 2012, 12:42:22 PM
You sure you're not a writer for Slate, Nebu?

You've read my posts.  You know I could never get paid to write.  I don't have the Haemish touch.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on October 17, 2012, 12:46:50 PM
If cycling really cared, they would house all of the participants in a restricted dorm during multi-day races.  Never... gonna... happen.

And make them use the same equipment.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 12:49:11 PM
If cycling really cared, they would house all of the participants in a restricted dorm during multi-day races.  Never... gonna... happen.

And make them use the same equipment.

They do have some rules on the minimum available weight, but this is a good point. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 17, 2012, 01:30:22 PM
Now this would be the real fucking bombshell of the situation.  Nike denies paying the UCI to cover up Armstrong's positive test (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1373818-nike-denies-covering-up-positive-lance-armstrong-drug-test)....

Quote
According to New York Daily News reporter Michael O'Keeffe, a 2006 deposition by Kathy LeMond, wife of American cyclist Greg LeMond, implicated Nike as one of Armstrong's allies in a suspected coverup:

USADA's explosive "reasoned decision" has focused new attention on people who have claimed for years that the cyclist's success was fueled by performance-enhancing drugs – critics who found themselves threatened by Armstrong and his lawyers and marginalized in the media. One of those critics is Kathy LeMond, the wife of American cyclist Greg LeMond, who testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test.



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on October 17, 2012, 10:53:23 PM
This network of Armstrong's mirrors western-style corruption in the corporate and government environments. It's widespread and entrenched, but never admitted. All while they criticise the developing world's open corruption, just as Armstrong criticised cheats who didn't have the wherewithal or resources to cover it up. I doubt this will bring down his sponsors, but this is how Armstrong got away with it: he behaved like they do.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: UnsGub on October 18, 2012, 09:44:50 AM
Package of Services (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-reveals-scale-of-doping-and-money-laundering-under-dr-ferrari) investigation in Italy.  Doping is just a small part of pushing the rules.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: cmlancas on October 18, 2012, 12:57:23 PM
So we can close this thread now, right?

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 19, 2012, 10:45:39 AM
Not yet.

Rabobank Ends Sponsorship, and a Warning Shot to World Cycling Is Fired (http://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjustin/2012/10/19/rabobank-ends-sponsorship-and-a-warning-shot-to-world-cycling-is-fired/)

I'm sure thta they knew of what was going on, but that's still huge news. This whole thing is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 19, 2012, 11:02:46 AM
Wow.  Rabobank has been a stalwart sponsor over the years.  This is a big deal. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2012, 01:05:44 PM
Good. The only way this gets remotely on the beam again is if all the sponsors get fed up.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 19, 2012, 04:51:08 PM
Good. The only way this gets remotely on the beam again is if all the sponsors get fed up.

That's the thing.  Cycling has never been on the beam.  The history of dirtiness and doping is so ingrained that it may not be possible to get it there. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 22, 2012, 01:30:27 PM
You realize that doping is happening in every big money sport, right?  As long as their are sponsorships to win, there will be doping.  The only way to remove doping from sports is to remove money from sports... and that's NEVER happening.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2012, 01:43:52 PM
You realize that doping is happening in every big money sport, right?  As long as their are sponsorships to win, there will be doping.  The only way to remove doping from sports is to remove money from sports... and that's NEVER happening.

Absolutely I realize it. It's not shock that injuries and concussions are up in the NFL. The size and speed of the players is through the roof. I'm not stupid enough to believe that it's due to better conditioning programs. Frankly, it's going to come to a head soon as well. I can't believe it hasn't yet with all the concussion talk.

Tennis is rife with doping. I don't believe for one second that Serena Williams is clean. She's out serving men on the tour, and goes into a panic room the moment she's due for a test. The men are even worse. Top serve speeds across the board have spiked in the last decade.

I'm not for it at all. I want them to crack down on it, but they keep saying it's not a problem. Well, it's not until they uncover the fact that sponsors are paying for positive tests to be covered up.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 22, 2012, 01:54:37 PM
It costs money to stop doping in sports.  More money than is lost due to doping.  That being the case, there is no profit motive to stop doping until the spectators generate enough outrage that the policing of it all becomes worth it financially.  I think that the spectators just want spectacle and will tolerate some amount of cheating to watch records being broken.  Each generation wants its heroes regardless of how they came to be heroes. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2012, 01:56:20 PM
Meh I think baseball flies in the face of that logic. The guys who broke the records aren't exactly seen as heroes.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: cmlancas on October 22, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
Meh I think baseball flies in the face of that logic. The guys who broke the records aren't exactly seen as heroes.

That's funny, I thought of baseball as the case in point.  It wasn't until everyone's superheroes of BigMac and Sammy were unmasked as doping cheaters before outrage spiked and baseball cracked down some.

But, when you think about it...really fans?  You really didn't think they were cheating and they got that big.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2012, 02:17:04 PM
Nebu's right about one point. Fans will forgive amazing amounts of stupid bullshit as long as they are entertained. HOWEVER, if it turns out that you were lying to them to entertain? The next best thing to cheering you as a fan is fucking burying people we once loved.

Listen to sports radio. Fans are ridiculously reactionary. They have zero perspective. They will rationalize anything and everything because they've created a narrative in their heads, and they will seek to find examples that fit that narrative.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Nebu on October 22, 2012, 02:25:05 PM
Cheating takes many forms.  Look at pitching in baseball.  We love cheaters.  America loves the villain almost as much as the hero.  It's as if we need the villain as much as the hero to elevate the hero a tad more. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on October 22, 2012, 02:48:38 PM
The reaction to steroid use in baseball is a weird outlier as these things go, IMO. Everyone loves the pitcher that throws spitballs, nobody cares when they use amphetamines to get through the season (which has at least as much of a performance enhancing effect as steroids), players lying about their age gets teams pissed off but elicits nothing but eyerolls from fans, etc. Hell, steroid use in the NFL gets barely a passing shrug.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on October 22, 2012, 03:18:42 PM
Comments I liked.
Quote
UCI strips Armstrong of Tour titles (http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/40413/uci-strips-armstrong-of-tour-titles)

Stu 22:49 AEST, Mon 22 Oct 2012
Now, somebody strip the UCI and LETS GET BACK TO CYCLING - PLEASE!

Paul.P 22:47 AEST, Mon 22 Oct 2012
So in summary, LA doped, UCI implicated in USADA report for being aware of it and covering up, UCI culture of denial established by USADA, UCI forced to make a call on LA after rubbishing USADA process, UCI forced to "face the music" and accept 'reasoned decision', LA stripped of 7 TDF, UCI now use LA as their scapegoat to save own backsides to appear to be doing something, UCI cronies to this point escape, no real new UCI action or response, business as usual for UCI. What a joke!


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Rasix on October 22, 2012, 03:31:15 PM

Tennis is rife with doping. I don't believe for one second that Serena Williams is clean. She's out serving men on the tour, and goes into a panic room the moment she's due for a test. The men are even worse. Top serve speeds across the board have spiked in the last decade.



I'd argue that you're not terribly accurate about tennis, and speaking directly out your backside.  Higher average serve speeds can be attributed mostly to racquet and string technology being leaps and bounds better than it used to be. And with the string and racquet changes have been changes in technique.  You can hit the ball a lot differently when you're using a space age polymer rather than wood and strings that can be set to really low tensions without any reduction in swing speed.  The western forehand  changed the game as much as wood to metal. Plus, have you seen pictures of older tennis matches? They're actual athletes now.  

Serena is a weird outlier. She's just way better than anyone else.  In form and in just overall athleticism.  She serves about 10-15 MPH faster than most of her peers.  Oddly enough, her thin and more feminine (yet tall) sister serves just as fast, yet doesn't have as good of a technique.  There's a few Germans that can serve up some high speeds, they just don't have the accuracy.  

There have been a few note worthy doping bans.  Mostly from South Americans. Just as common are bans for illicit drug use.

edit: Not saying it's clean, but "rife", probably not.  Ohh, I see why you'd bring this up, I guess Conte said something.   :roll:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2012, 03:56:14 PM
I bring it up because I think the guy over at the "Tennis has a steroid problem" blog has made a good case, and continually brings up the issues in other sports outside of tennis, along with the complete and abject failures behind tennis' testing process.

SEE: http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com/

EDIT: It's actually very interesting stuff he posts. I think he's one of the few bloggers out there who actually digs into details, provides evidence, gives people links, questions the authorities on their bullshit, and takes the issue seriously.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 22, 2012, 04:52:44 PM
All sports are rife with doping.  We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Xuri on October 22, 2012, 05:32:30 PM
What, even dwarf-tossing?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 22, 2012, 05:46:13 PM
Especially fucking dwarf tossing.  All the dwarfs are juicing.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 25, 2012, 10:55:59 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if we'll see a lot more confessions in the next while...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 12:05:17 PM
I think it's inevitable.  Most of these guys were essentially press-ganged into doping and I think a lot of them really regret it (example:  Dave Zabriskie).  

Addendum-  And I think this may be one of the things that irritates me the most about the way the USADA went after Armstrong.  It's not like he was the only one in the peloton doping.  It's very likely that 75% of them (or more) were doping.  That shouldn't excuse his actions, however the American public (who are generally uneducated on the subject of cycling) don't understand that doping has been rife in cycling since the sports inception. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on October 25, 2012, 12:27:16 PM
Well, most of them didn't win 7 TdFs and didn't live in the public light.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 01:13:00 PM
Yeah, I understand that, but I think it is doing a disservice to their message.  I mean, they are trying to use Armstrong as an example to get help get rid of doping in cycling (and in all sport) I would assume.  And by doing so they should be pointing out that it was a problem that was rampant, not only within Armstrong's team but within the entire peloton.  By not doing so it certainly makes their motives seem less than honorable. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Trippy on October 25, 2012, 01:22:51 PM
That would be the UCI's job. The USADA just wanted to make an example of Lance as a warning to US Olympic athletes.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
And that brings up another way that the USADA could be utilizing this-  to show how unethical and corrupt the UCI is.  But that apparently won't happen either.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on October 25, 2012, 01:32:36 PM
Well it isn't really their job. Why would they spend a bunch of money trying to clean up someone else's mess?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 01:34:58 PM
Well it isn't really their job. Why would they spend a bunch of money trying to clean up someone else's mess?

That attitude is part of why sports are in this mess.   :oh_i_see:

This is a prime opportunity to unmask a corrupt organization and demonstrate that a sport like cycling needs to be cleaned up.  Surely there's a moral imperative there. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on October 25, 2012, 01:44:16 PM
I'm not going to hold my breath for a non-profit, even a government funded one, to spend their money tilting at windmills that are outside their organizational purpose. The USADA is concerned with doping by US athletes only; the UCI is the international governing body for cycling. Even if they wanted to they couldn't really go after French or Italian riders, or whatever.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 01:55:23 PM
Well shouldn't they be going after every American in cycling that doped?  That alone was spread across multiple teams over multiple years. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Trippy on October 25, 2012, 01:56:57 PM
All the important ones testified against Lance or are already known cheaters :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 02:03:16 PM
This is true.  I just get annoyed with the "it's not their job" type comments.  I do think it would be their job to call the UCI to the mat for not appropriately policing their athletes because a good number of them are US citizens.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on October 25, 2012, 04:24:25 PM
Greg Lemond is a complete jackass, but he's getting a whole lot of "I told you so" time right now. 

Lemond calls for UCI heads to resign (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2012/10/25/greg-lemond-says-corruption-is-the-problem-in-cycling-calls-for-uci-leaders-to-resign/). 

It's interesting that Trek bought Lemond bicycles and basically shut them down due to the flap with Armstrong. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ginaz on January 05, 2013, 05:22:49 PM
Looks like Lance is thinking about admitting to doping.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/OtherSports/2013/01/04/20473461.html


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on January 05, 2013, 06:41:45 PM
Fuck him. If he does it just so he can get into racing again, let him go the Bonds route.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 05, 2013, 06:54:03 PM
I don't think he has any interest in bicycle racing again, but I do think he'd like to compete in triathalons. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on January 05, 2013, 07:19:34 PM
I don't care if he wants to compete on the international tiddlywinks scene. He's been an insufferable douche throughout this entire process, and there's no virtue in admitting a mistake when you've been browbeaten by evidence.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 05, 2013, 08:56:34 PM
I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't have any virtues.  I'm just explaining what his motives are, bro.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on January 06, 2013, 04:47:11 PM
Not even if he made the walk to Canossa should he ever be allowed near sport in any capacity.

Well maybe american wrestling would be alright.. acting and doping is already something he excels at.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on January 08, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
Aaaand... Oprah! (http://www.oprah.com/pressroom/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 08, 2013, 08:48:52 PM
That could be worth watching. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: shiznitz on January 09, 2013, 10:22:12 AM
Maybe he will sacrifice his one remaining testicle for forgiveness, live on TV!


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on January 09, 2013, 04:50:00 PM


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 13, 2013, 08:09:11 PM
Now that Lance is letting it be known that he may "come clean" in his interview with Oprah, this has changed into a must watch.  Lance could easily tear cycling down to its foundations with fully disclosing his actions.  For instance, if he happened to have bribed the UCI due to the supposed failed test in Switzerland that is big fucking news.  Hein Verbruggen should be shaking in his shoes over this.  I can't wait to see the interview.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Margalis on January 13, 2013, 09:15:27 PM
You know it's going to be the "I don't want to talk about specifics, I've made some mistakes in my life" kind of bland crap you always get from these sorts of things.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 13, 2013, 09:55:30 PM
I don't think so.  Why would he agree to an interview now, if that was the case?  His back is against the wall and he's the kind of guy that will try to take everyone down with him. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ingmar on January 13, 2013, 11:22:53 PM
Naming names in an Oprah interview doesn't seem like the sort of shit she'd allow.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on January 13, 2013, 11:53:54 PM
You know it's going to be the "I don't want to talk about specifics, I've made some mistakes in my life" kind of bland crap you always get from these sorts of things.

He has said she can ask him anything. However, I believe he will come armed with medical evidence of how doping did not help him that much, and he actually had to put in the work as well. Plus testimonials of how his act helped thousands of cancer patients. He is a very charismatic, convincing public speaker and he will win a significant support base from this appearance, even if it's all lies.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 14, 2013, 05:33:59 AM
Naming names in an Oprah interview doesn't seem like the sort of shit she'd allow.

You're probably right.

I still don't believe he's going to come in and deny anything.  The jig is up.  He's done.  I just don't see any way for him to try and squirm out of this.  

I could see him coming in with evidence that you have to dope to win in cycling and pounding on the drum that everyone does it (which they do).


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 15, 2013, 12:02:16 PM
Hah.  I was right (http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/lance-armstrong-liar-fraud-oprah-winfrey-admission-proves-selfish-calculating-011413).  


Quote
No way. Armstrong confessed to Oprah on Monday — in taping for a show to be aired on Thursday — that he did take performance-enhancing drugs.

Reports are that it was an emotional moment. I’m sure it was, with Armstrong and his handlers figuring out beforehand exactly when was the best moment for tears.

And now, Armstrong reportedly will turn snitch and offer up evidence of other doping cheats, theoretically officials and guys in suits who made money off of him.

Which one do you think is more likely? He is turning others in to clear his conscience? Or he’s doing it because of a rule that says a suspension can be cut down dramatically if evidence is given to help bust others?

Yeah, it's going to get very, very interesting in the cycling world soon (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-reacts-to-reports-that-armstrong-could-testify-against-officials).  I can't wait.  I love the drama. 


Quote
The UCI has issued a brief statement after a report in the New York Times suggested that Lance Armstrong is ready to testify against "officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, about their involvement with doping in cycling, but he will not testify against other riders."

The NY Times base the story on "people familiar with his plans" suggesting Armstrong is considering supplying detailed evidence and accusations in an attempt to mitigate his lifetime ban so he can compete in triathlons.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: sickrubik on January 15, 2013, 06:04:51 PM
It's worse than we thought.

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/27315_468505653212474_168283618_n.jpg)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Trippy on January 15, 2013, 06:21:12 PM
He did have chemo. Not a big deal.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 15, 2013, 09:46:37 PM
That's fucking awesome. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 17, 2013, 12:23:28 PM
Lance stripped of Olympic Bronze medal.  Seriously?  It took this long? :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on January 18, 2013, 01:53:18 AM
Oh, no reactions here?

I think Betsy Andreu's reaction speaks for me: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2013/01/18/ac-armstrong-andreu-reacts-to-intv.cnn


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: tgr on January 18, 2013, 02:36:41 AM
Well, at least he didn't call her fat! :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 18, 2013, 08:16:42 AM
Lance is grasping at straws.   The funniest thing about all this is dopers being pissed at a doper for being caught doping and then lying about doping.  I'm assuming he's got attorneys involved because he's going to be sued about a million times.  I'm not really sure why he chose to do this.  He has really opened himself up for a lot of legal difficulty.  Unless he's got some sort of deal in place that if he helps bring down the UCI (which he should) that he will get some leniency.  

Addendum-  in looking at some of the commentary from other riders, you would think that they thought Lance invented doping.  Now he's going to turn into a huge scapegoat for a problem that existed long before he came around, was prevalent when he rode across the peloton and will be present long after he is gone. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: HaemishM on January 18, 2013, 10:14:33 AM
I saw bits of this, heard the commentary on it this morning, then I checked with myself.

...

...

Nope, still don't give two shits about cycling.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Venkman on January 18, 2013, 09:57:52 PM
I really hate this thing. They hype the shit out of his reveal. At first I thought it was on his road to becoming a force against doping. But then I realized, nope, just rebranding. And that was before this:

JJ Abrams picks up write for as yet unreleased book (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/2013/01/18/abrams-produce-lance-armstrong-biopic/NqfaVb7gSDPSDBlaxwDwIN/story.html) on this stupid bullshit.

This right here is why a) this is my first ever post in Sports/Fantasy after 8 years; and, b) I don't follow organized sports. I hear too much about how every sport is really just a metagame of brinkmanship to see who can dodge rules better. That's coupled with this stupid trait in society where we elevate someone whose singularly good at a sport into some paragon of virtue until, shockingly, that really good player in that really aggressive sport does something typical of little-brain-thinking macho narcissism.

My real problem isn't the sports. I'm sure the vast majority of it is legit players in legit games who are merely really good.

It's how the media covers it and how society just loves the shit out of it through the mother of rose colored lenses.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Margalis on January 18, 2013, 10:03:47 PM
JJ Abrams and Lance Armstrong are a match made in heaven.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on January 18, 2013, 10:04:00 PM
Yeah, he ruined people's lives and now wants our forgiveness? Nah. I didn't watch the interview, I won't buy anything he does, and I will do everything I can to advise any clients against his charity in favor of other cancer organizations.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Xuri on January 18, 2013, 10:14:58 PM
He's not after forgiveness. He's not sorry he doped himself, he's sorry he got caught.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on January 18, 2013, 10:34:27 PM
He revealed a measure of the man that he is and this much is certain: If you never met this jerk, well, count your blessings.  (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/cycling-wetzel-thankful-never-met-jerk-090941739.html)

Quote
Fellow riders say they wish they'd never hooked on with him. Support staff claim they wish they'd never taken a job. Sponsors are lining up to sue. Journalists who carried his water for years are writing they wish they'd never bought the lie.

The more Armstrong talked Thursday, the more it became obvious: This seems like the last and least likable individual you'd want to hang around.

He was, and likely remains, nothing but a machine of personal glorification, no concept of his real place in the world. Now that the truth is out, it's not about the cheating so much as it's about the way he fought dirty to protect the cheating.

"I was a bully," he acknowledged. "In the sense that I tried to control the narrative, and if I didn't like what somebody said, I tried to control that and say that's a lie."

Except he didn't stop at saying "that's a lie." He'd start there, then go on the attack, often trying to ruin his accusers professionally and, perhaps, personally, maybe legally and certainly financially.

Consider Emma O'Reilly, an Irish massage therapist who began working for his team while in her 20s. She later told the truth about Lance and drugs. For that she's testified Team Armstrong responded by calling her a whore and a drunk. But Armstrong didn't stop there. No, he tried to sue into oblivion this woman of limited financial means.

What did Armstrong say of Emma? He couldn't remember if he even attempted legal action against her.

"To be honest Oprah," he chuckled lightly, "we sued so many people, I'm sure we did."

You sure?

"She's one of those people I have to apologize to," Armstrong said.

You think?

"She got run over, got bullied," he continued. He was in the wrong tense then. She got run over, got bullied. Not, "I ran her over. I bullied her." Because make no mistake, it was him. It was only him.

How the hell did this guy ever get so popular anyway. I took one look at him years ago and he had asshole written all over him.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Malakili on January 18, 2013, 10:38:35 PM

How the hell did this guy ever get so popular anyway. I took one look at him years ago and he had asshole written all over him.

Cancer. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 19, 2013, 10:11:05 AM
Yeah, he ruined people's lives and now wants our forgiveness? Nah. I didn't watch the interview, I won't buy anything he does, and I will do everything I can to advise any clients against his charity in favor of other cancer organizations.

He's sleaze, but it's silly to think that anyone in cycling is clean.  I find it laughable when they interview other cyclists that have been implicated in doping and they act like Armstrong is the antichrist.  Shit, people, they all dope.  It's the dirtiest sport in the world. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Paelos on January 19, 2013, 11:42:04 AM
Exactly. All the more reason not to bankrupt other people when they try to tell the truth about you.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Ginaz on January 19, 2013, 02:36:31 PM
Well, at least he didn't call her fat! :why_so_serious:

Yeah.  What a douche bag.  That whole interview was a farce.  Instead of going to a real, seasoned journalist he went with Oprah, knowing he'd get soft ball questions and let off easy.

I'm betting sometime in the near future we'll hear Lance has "found God" becomes a born again Christian, which of course, will somehow mean he can't be held accountable for anything he did before that and we should all just leave him alone. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Sir T on January 19, 2013, 05:49:26 PM
I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: lamaros on January 19, 2013, 07:13:40 PM
There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist. There is also no doubt that most of the other cyclists were also doping. Many got caught and many have admitted it.

He's always been an unlikeable jerk, this wild public outcry is mostly driven by a) people who only every engaged with his 'story' feeling stupid and duped, and b) people who have known he's a cheating jerk relishing the opportunity to cry it from the rooftops.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 19, 2013, 10:21:22 PM
There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist. There is also no doubt that most of the other cyclists were also doping. Many got caught and many have admitted it.

He's always been an unlikeable jerk, this wild public outcry is mostly driven by a) people who only every engaged with his 'story' feeling stupid and duped, and b) people who have known he's a cheating jerk relishing the opportunity to cry it from the rooftops.

It's very likely that he has a personality disorder.  He's extremely charismatic, good at making the right comment at the right time and extremely self centered.   People either love him or hate him. 

Personally, I still think he's more entertaining as a failure than many athletes.  His interview with Oprah was riveting.  I can't wait to see how many lies he gets caught in from that.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Margalis on January 19, 2013, 11:47:08 PM
Quote
I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist.

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

If a dude wins a holding your breath underwater competition using an air tank, beating other people using inferior air tanks, who is the best at holding their breath underwater? It's pointless to even discuss. Armstrong was the best at cheating in a field of mostly (but not all) cheaters. There's no way to separate his performance from his cheating.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: satael on January 20, 2013, 04:58:47 AM
Quote
I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist.

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

If a dude wins a holding your breath underwater competition using an air tank, beating other people using inferior air tanks, who is the best at holding their breath underwater? It's pointless to even discuss. Armstrong was the best at cheating in a field of mostly (but not all) cheaters. There's no way to separate his performance from his cheating.

While I have no love for cycling, I'm pretty sure your remark just made most track'n'field sports trivial  (110m hurdles is just about physical and no skill or technique needed either right?) :grin:
I really doubt it's 99% physical with technique and strategy being just 1% of it (I mean there are teams and things like climb specialists for a reason?)


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: rk47 on January 20, 2013, 05:31:09 AM
cycling is like sex. do it wrong and you get sick.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on January 20, 2013, 07:20:26 AM
Quote
I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist.

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

If a dude wins a holding your breath underwater competition using an air tank, beating other people using inferior air tanks, who is the best at holding their breath underwater? It's pointless to even discuss. Armstrong was the best at cheating in a field of mostly (but not all) cheaters. There's no way to separate his performance from his cheating.

While I have no love for cycling, I'm pretty sure your remark just made most track'n'field sports trivial  (110m hurdles is just about physical and no skill or technique needed either right?) :grin:
I really doubt it's 99% physical with technique and strategy being just 1% of it (I mean there are teams and things like climb specialists for a reason?)

Spot on. Endurance sport is as much - if not more - about the mental approach and the will to push through pain barriers as it is about strength and endurance. Technique and strategy also come into it, especially at elite levels where other physiological factors like VO2Max matter less.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: UnSub on January 20, 2013, 07:31:56 AM
How the hell did this guy ever get so popular anyway. I took one look at him years ago and he had asshole written all over him.

He won. There are lots of people out there with asshole written all over them but they win / sing popular songs, earn lots of money and people love them for it.

Armstrong was a winner in a sport dominated by Europeans and had a great story behind him. The US loves winners with personal narratives like his.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 20, 2013, 08:06:55 AM
Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

You should try heading down some of the mountains in the Alps or Pyrinees at 60 miles per hour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tFpNsZXWgc) and see how little skill it takes.  Or try a sprint at full speed in a pack full of bikes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg) because it's super easy and requires no skill at all.   :grin:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: slog on January 20, 2013, 08:37:43 AM
Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

You should try heading down some of the mountains in the Alps or Pyrinees at 60 miles per hour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tFpNsZXWgc) and see how little skill it takes.  Or try a sprint at full speed in a pack full of bikes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg) because it's super easy and requires no skill at all.   :grin:

It's still 99% (maybe 98%) raw physical ability. 

Anyway, Lance is an ass.  I hope the people that he sued all sue him back for lying under oath and he ends up homeless.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: satael on January 20, 2013, 08:59:42 AM
Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

You should try heading down some of the mountains in the Alps or Pyrinees at 60 miles per hour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tFpNsZXWgc) and see how little skill it takes.  Or try a sprint at full speed in a pack full of bikes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg) because it's super easy and requires no skill at all.   :grin:

It's still 99% (maybe 98%) raw physical ability. 

Anyway, Lance is an ass.  I hope the people that he sued all sue him back for lying under oath and he ends up homeless.

And somehow being able to hit a ball (or a player in the opposing team) is not about physical ability but some incredible skills that no cyclist can ever even imagine?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 20, 2013, 09:37:57 AM
It's still 99% (maybe 98%) raw physical ability. 


Umm, no.  It's tough to make a real assessment of "skill" in sport when your frame of reference is baseball or golf which are 98% skill and 2% physical ability.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Margalis on January 20, 2013, 08:16:37 PM
People are taking the low-skill comment about cycling as a pejorative when it wasn't intended as such. Being able to pump your legs fast for a long time is a skill in itself, if you consider basic physical mechanics a skill. My point is that the range of things you have to do in cycling is narrow and very closely related to raw physical ability and performance enhancing drugs give you a big boost that translate very directly into overall performance.

Having a lot of oxygen in your blood is going to help a football player a lot, a baseball player a bit, and a cyclist a huge amount, because converting oxygenated blood into physical motion is the basis of cycling.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on January 20, 2013, 09:07:02 PM
Well certainly endurance is a key factor in any kind of road race, however I don't think that to say it is a "very low skill sport" does it justice.  The comment makes me think that you don't understand cycling.  It's a team sport.  There are fine nuances with the teamwork in both the sprints and in the mountain stages.  And it's not just about endurance.  The sprints are not really endurance based at all.  It's more about pure power and timing.  Usually those guys finish in the back of the stage races overall.  The only part of the Tour de France that would be close to what you're describing as cycling would be the time trials, and even those have a bit of skill involved regarding technique, position on the bike, etc. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Tale on January 21, 2013, 10:45:38 PM
Of all the things I've read on this, I liked best this analysis of how Armstrong is still lying (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-21/mcdermott-the-new-world-according-to-lance/4473234).


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: DraconianOne on January 22, 2013, 05:49:38 AM
David Walsh wrote a fascinating article in this weekends Sunday Times about his impressions of the interview with added tidbits like the fact that Armstrong had called Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly to "apologise" but suggested it was nothing more than a token PR exercise so that he could genuinely say "I reached out to them to make amends". (David Walsh's Twitter here (https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST))



Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 04:53:05 AM
Arise necrothread!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-1#null (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-1#null)

Cyclingnews have interviewed Armstrong, and despite him not answering all questions, there are some interesting titbits such as the the whole High octane vs low octane doping . He also confirms that low octane doping (like using cortizone) is practically the established practice among even low ranking riders.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on November 06, 2013, 08:16:15 AM
God he's such a dick.   :awesome_for_real:

It's silly to think that the whole peloton wasn't doping back then and it's silly to think that the big players aren't still doping now. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 10:52:46 AM
He is not exactly graceful in defeat, that's for sure. Some day I hope he gets financially ruined by lawsuits, so he is forced to publish his memoir with all the juicy revelations. This might just force a much needed break in the sick culture of bicycling. One day maybe..


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on November 06, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
It will definitely happen in our lifetimes.  You note that in the article that he is living in "temporary suburban housing", whatever that means.  I guess he sold his mansion?


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 10:57:10 AM
It will definitely happen in our lifetimes.  You note that in the article that he is living in "temporary suburban housing", whatever that means.  I guess he sold his mansion?

Did he not get divorced recently? I just thought that was the reason. But I soo hope you are right  :grin:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on November 06, 2013, 10:58:14 AM
He got divorced several years ago.  

Edit-  I don't think he married Anna Hansen, but I could be wrong.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 11:07:11 AM
Ahh yeah that was Crow he was married too. Lucky guy.

Well even if he publishes the truth at some point, many might not believe him at all. Just look at Michael Rasmussen(almost won TDC but was thrown out because of the where-abouts scandal) who has a book out very soon, which already got leaked. Because he lied about doping in the past, many commentators and media people is questioning everything to a degree which I find specious. He might still be lying for profit/revenge seems to be their main counterargument. Furthermore they are saying that it's not relevant anymore. Mainly because the bicycling sport have changed, and the riders who used to dope and are now managers, directors, trainers, and commentators have seen the light and changed their way.

Absolute bullshit.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on November 06, 2013, 11:14:45 AM
Actually, they called off their marriage 3 months prior to getting hitched, IIRC.  I don't think he's been married but once.

I actually believe everything that comes out of his mouth right now.  He's a "flipped switch" kindof guy.  Once he's off of lying he's the type that will get all sanctimonious and proselytize about doping.  

And yeah, all you need to know about doping and cycling is that it is estimated that doping gives a 15-20% boos in performance for cyclists.  If it were "clean", as they claim, we'd see significant reductions in the times.  There's just no way that Team Sky, or any of these motherfuckers, aren't doping.


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 11:25:24 AM
That's the gut feeling I have as well. He is not in immediate need of financial capital since he does have a job for a bicycle team. So money is out of the equation. if it's revenge he is after, well he can fulfill that need by just telling the truth considering the wickedness of bicycling sport. Hopefully the anti-doping agencies are following up on all the leads and while many can't be convicted, I still hope they publish everything to shame the people involved. Than sponsors can pressure all the involved out of the teams. Riis among many others should definitely be the first one up against the wall. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 11:28:17 AM
Exactly! How the hell did that British team all of the sudden produce such exceptional riders? New techniques from a swimming couch? Bloody unlikely! ..Unless they were referring to doping techniques  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on November 06, 2013, 11:33:31 AM
This is kind of an interesting blog article (http://www.velominati.com/racing/doping-in-cycling/).  Emphasis mine.

Quote
But it does seem drugs have gotten much more powerful in the last 20 years. For example, the stage of the Tour de France to Luz Ardiden Greg LeMond on Luz Ardiden in 1990generally follows the same pattern: 60-80km of relatively flat roads to the base of the Col d’Aspin. From there they ride over the Aspin, Tourmalet, and finally up Luz Ardiden. The first time they rode this stage was 1985 and the average speed was around 25 km per hour. The next year, Greg LeMond finished the same stage in 26 km per hour; roughly the same speed. Then, in 1990, LeMond raced to the top of that mountain at 39 km per hour. That’s a significant improvement. Today the speeds are even higher; Lance Armstrong won the stage in 2003 at around 42 km per hour. Training practices and equipment have become much, much better than they were in the 80′s, but I find it hard to account for the difference between 1986 and 1990 by just those factors. The late 80′s and early 90′s coincides precisely with the time that EPO is rumored to have arrived in the pro ranks and it likely accounts for at least some portion of the increase in speed we’re seeing.

I think it's almost guaranteed that LeMond was doping.  The loudest denier is usually guilty. 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on November 06, 2013, 11:38:57 AM
I think you'd find this article (http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/) interesting, too.  

Quote

 


CAN PERFORMANCE BE USED AS AN INDICATOR OF DOPING?
July 11, 2013
by Wade Wallace | Photography by Wade Wallace

While cycling is supposedly going through a “new era” of clean performance, fans are still jaded by the lies and deceit of the recent past. Team Sky has come under heavy scrutiny, not because of anything in particular the riders have done wrong, only because they’ve shown such dominance.

After Sky’s remarkable performance on stage 8 of this year’s Tour de France the critics have come out and scrutinised Froome’s win. Without access to direct power data, the critics have had to rely on mathematical modelling, climb times, elevation data and a handful of assumptions in their attempt to quantify Froome’s performance and speculate about whether he has doped or not.

But can performance actually be used as an indicator of doping? Of course climbing up Alp d’Huez in 30 minutes raises red flags, but these aren’t the types of margins we’re dealing with.

VeloNews’s Andrew Hood did an interview with David Brailsford last week in which he asked the Team Sky principal why the team’s riders won’t release their power data to the public. Brailsford replied:

“There is so much pseudo-science out there right now. If you release the data, there are very few people who can properly interpret and understand that data. All you’re going to do is create a lot of noise for people who are pseudo-scientists. You can even write magazines about it.”

Brailsford is referring to “Not Normal”, a magazine released by French journalist and former Festina trainer Antoine Vayer. Released just before the Tour de France, “Not Normal” took 21 of the most successful riders from LeMond to Armstrong to Evans, quantified their performances and then ranked them across an index of suspicion.

The three categories Vayer used were “suspicious” — a power output of 410 watts at threshold — “miraculous” — above 430 watts — and “mutant” — above 450 watts. Note that Vayer standardises the performances of riders against an “average” rider weight of 70kg, allowing him to compare the performances of heavier and lighter riders on the same scale.

Vayer wrote a couple days ago that he calculated Froome’s power output on the stage 8 Ax-3-Domaines climb as 446 watts (scaled to a 70kg rider; the equivalent of 6.4 w/kg for Froome). In the article for Le Monde he described Froome’s performance as “miraculous”; on the phone to me he labelled it “not human”.

Sky is so dirty.

Edit-  More numbers (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-casts-doubt-over-performances-of-indurain-and-jalabert). 


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: Korachia on November 06, 2013, 11:44:54 AM
Hahaha, they badly need a name change. Team Dirt is more fitting by far.

The blog you highlighted also has this little insight:

Quote
But we should also be realistic and recognize that doping has been a major part of the sport since the beginning. Especially in Europe, cyclists are brought up on a doping regimen from the amateur ranks all the way up through the pro ranks. And, upon retirement, many pros become Director Sportifs. It is no small wonder then, that there is organized, systematic doping throughout most of the pro teams.

That's the whole damn problem. There is a viable feeding chain here and it just continues on until somebody cuts the knot. If you got busted by doping, even if it's 20 years ago, they still should not be let near a bicycle at all. It's the only medicine that will cure this dying patient that is bicycle sport.

Edit: By the the second piece of the interview is up http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-2 (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-2) . Guess who is being a dick again  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: jakonovski on February 05, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
I know this is necromantic, but the first instance of mechanical doping in cycling has now been recorded, a young Belgian rider in the cyclocross world champs:

http://road.cc/content/tech-news/177135-breaking-suspected-hidden-engine-bike-2016-cyclocross-world-champs

It puts old videos like this to a new light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nd13ARuvVE

There's lots more chatter going around, my fave being the rumours about $200,000 electromagnetic rear wheels: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/electromagnetic-wheels-are-the-new-frontier-of-mechanical-doping-claims-gazzetta-dello-sport/


Title: Re: The case against Lance Armstrong
Post by: ghost on February 07, 2016, 01:35:32 PM
I've always found this video of Ryder Hesjedal (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc) to be particularly damning.  People try to explain it away by saying that the tire and wheel still had momentum.  I call bullshit because the bike stops with the tire crammed into the pavement and then accelerates.  It defies logic and physics.  And it's clear Cancellara has been up to something for years.


Heh-  apparently her brother, Niels, is suspended for doping and also Niels and her father got arrested for trying to steal several hundred thousand dollars worth of exotic birds.