Lance Armstrong on BBC: I'd do it again.

llort_vbo wrote:

Oh, give it a rest. There wasn't a virgin in the bunch. The only reason they wanted to out Lance is that they got shitcannned. All of cycling was dirty.

Is tri (triathlon) dirty? Anyone have inside information on the strength of testing and prevalence of doping in pro triathlon ing? Curious since cycling is being discussed on a running board, but boom you put them together plus swim and then what?

Maybe doping oneself affects a person's perspective, but I find it interesting that every convicted doper in every sport says that it's rampant, even athletes who are retired and have nothing to gain by saying such things. Marion Jones tested positive for EPO for crying out loud. What 9 other PEDs was she taking?

Lance Armstrong may have been an Ahole, but he's done a lot of good in the world too, and I do believe most of his competition was doped when he was racing. Is it fair? I'm not really sure, but so many people have this bizarre idea that he alone was doping and that's why he won. Nonsense.

If you had the opportunity to make tens of millions of dollars and be the best in the world, and you had the knowledge that damn near everyone else was doing it, you'd be a fool not to dope. The NFL knows this. Players these days are enormous compared to 30 years ago, and players are sniffing salts and whatnot between plays so they can perk up peri-concussion and continue to play. It's ridiculous.

EPO isn't the only drug you know?!

I personally disliked Armstrong throughout his career and even moreso after reading his book. Now that he has admitted it I guess I pretty ambivilent towards him, they all cheated, he cheated best! Hamilton's book got loads of plaudits, but it was essentially his account of doping and not being nearly as good as Armstrong, as well as getting caught a few times too!

I wouldn't have a winner for those 7 tours, then just forget about him. I think his lifetime ban is too much too, everyone else gets 1-5 years, why should his ban be for life and cross sport? because he is more famous and more successful?

The NFL and NBA have the most sophisticated doping scheme going.

Their trick? The players union. It is illegal for them to be subjected to blood testing, so urinalysis is their only means for detecting things that can be cleared easily or masked, but in the end I really think they ignore it anyways

NUFCrichard wrote:

EPO isn't the only drug you know?!

I personally disliked Armstrong throughout his career and even moreso after reading his book. Now that he has admitted it I guess I pretty ambivilent towards him, they all cheated, he cheated best! Hamilton's book got loads of plaudits, but it was essentially his account of doping and not being nearly as good as Armstrong, as well as getting caught a few times too!

I wouldn't have a winner for those 7 tours, then just forget about him. I think his lifetime ban is too much too, everyone else gets 1-5 years, why should his ban be for life and cross sport? because he is more famous and more successful?

Doping bans ARE ACROSS SPORTS. His is nothing special. Each and every one of the bans listed on IAAFs list of sanctiond athletes are across sports, the same goes for the ones on UCI's list, etc, etc.

And his lifetime ban is nothing special either. Viktor Chegin has managed to get 3 of his race walkers banned for life before the age of 30. Armstrong is not even the first testicular cancer surviver in cycling to have been banned for life, just ask Niklas Axelsson. And he is certainly not the first American cyclist to have been banned for life, Tammy Thomas received her lifeban already in 2002.

I find it interesting that in the case of almost every other doper the condemnation is immediate and universal. Yet in LA's case its almost like its "somewhat ok" that he doped. There would never be this level of disagreement in LR over any running doper.

SmashMouth wrote:

The NFL and NBA have the most sophisticated doping scheme going.

Their trick? The players union. It is illegal for them to be subjected to blood testing, so urinalysis is their only means for detecting things that can be cleared easily or masked, but in the end I really think they ignore it anyways

It's pretty easy to figure out where doping is rampant: Would it aid performance in your sport? Is there a financial incentive? Is your sport subject to an extraordinarily rigorous regime of out of competition testing? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then your sport is dirtier than a Staten Island port-a-potty at 10am on marathon Sunday.

I'm guessing soccer is one of the worst. We certainly know it was terrible historically.

I agree about soccer. Here in the UK (and the rest of Europe) it is a multi billion pound industry. all the incentives are there for anyone to dope and the top teams have the finances to ensure they get the best possible medical advice so that none of their players gets tested positive. Likewise Rugby Union. You only have to look at how players physiques have changed. Diet and improved training can only explain some of this change!

As for Armstrong; what he said was surely uncontroversial. In 1995 the vast majority of the peleton doped. you did not have to be a nasty person to join in! Read Tyler Hamilton's book if you want evidence of the choice facing a genuinely "nice guy"; either use PEDs or abandon any hope of a career as a pro cyclist. Easy to take the moral high ground and say "go home, back to USA,, don't dope" but if your childhood dream was to make it as a top cyclist ....

In 2006, Lance Armstrong spoke in front of the Ohio State Medical Center on Livestrong Day. He arrived in an entourage of vehicles, looking like he was a head of state.

Situated along a barrier close by where he spoke were a number of kids and adults in wheelchairs, including my friend Leon, who was dying of cancer. Leon was a huge cycling fan, and I brought him to this event to boost his spirits.

Prior to the speech, I talked to one of the volunteers, and she promised she would try to get Lance to come over and say hi after he spoke.

Armstrong gave a rousing speech, which was very well received. As he left, he walked by all the people in wheelchairs. People yelled to get his attention as he passed, not more than 30 feet away.

He never looked at any of us.

I don't have a strong opinion on the doping issue. Doping is prevalent in just about all sports; some more than others. I do have a problem with his behavior.

It would have taken a minute out of Armstrong's time to come over and say hello to the people in those wheel chairs- especially the kids. Even a wave would have been nice.

Leon died three weeks later. I know he did enjoy the experience that day, and I'm sure he didn't lose a lot of sleep over the fact that Armstrong didn't wave at him.

Still, it would have been nice.

Huh! Wow, I had heard Lance was into some freak stuff but BBC?!?! I had no idea....pics?

He said he is bothered that he can't run marathons to raise money because of his ban.

"But what's really frustrating, and probably 80 percent of it, is that if my mom got [multiple sclerosis] tomorrow—and thank God she hasn't—and I wanted to run the Boston Marathon to raise $100,000 for the MS Society, I couldn't do it. And not just run, I couldn't walk it, run a little bit, walk the aid stations and finish in four hours 15 minutes, but raise a hundred grand—I can't do it."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2342837-lance-armstrong-speaks-out-on-doping-lifetime-ban-in-bbc-interview?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Poor man can't go out and raise a hundred grand by running if his mom got sick.

Luckily most people can raise a hundred grand running if they needed to.

(eye roll)

"Lemond was squeaky clean. There was no epo then."

EPO? LOL?

Here, the rider "squeaky clean" LeMond beat at Le Tour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Fignon#Doping

I dont respect his doping, but I do respect his honesty.

Lance's story is one of the greatest stories of all time. While it may be a tragedy in the end, I'm certainly glad I was able to follow along. I think we all learned some good lessons.

mark b wrote:

As for Armstrong; what he said was surely uncontroversial. In 1995 the vast majority of the peleton doped. you did not have to be a nasty person to join in! Read Tyler Hamilton's book if you want evidence of the choice facing a genuinely "nice guy"; either use PEDs or abandon any hope of a career as a pro cyclist. Easy to take the moral high ground and say "go home, back to USA,, don't dope" but if your childhood dream was to make it as a top cyclist ....

Yeah, I think there is a moralizing and grand standing by people that have never been close to being put in that situation. I was a pretty crappy runner on a very crappy college team. I could have taken EPO/Test/ gasoline.. whatever.. I still wouldn't make it to the Trials final. HOWEVER if you are blessed with talent and work out like crazy and the only thing separating you from fame, money, and Ws is an injection here or there... man, if REALLY given that choice, I'd like to know how many people would really chose to give up on the sport and go on and start working a real job. Especially if you know the entire field is doing just that.

I dont think the decision is as easy as lots of us are making it.

Lance is more a man than any of you guys will ever be.

So he might have doped, but it was a level playing field. This Lars Ulrich Clown was doped up to the gills, too. Yet he never won.

Also, Lance was relatively BUFF for a cyclist. That alone earns some respect.

I remember the pics how he was Mountain biking with GWB. Great Americans, great friends.

Edukatur wrote:

Yeah, I think there is a moralizing and grand standing by people that have never been close to being put in that situation. I was a pretty crappy runner on a very crappy college team. I could have taken EPO/Test/ gasoline.. whatever.. I still wouldn't make it to the Trials final. HOWEVER if you are blessed with talent and work out like crazy and the only thing separating you from fame, money, and Ws is an injection here or there... man, if REALLY given that choice, I'd like to know how many people would really chose to give up on the sport and go on and start working a real job. Especially if you know the entire field is doing just that.

I dont think the decision is as easy as lots of us are making it.

All the more honour and respect to the ones that make the right decision then. The ones like Christophe Bassons, who Armstrong literally chased out of pro cycling.

In those times it WAS an easy decision, you dope. It was like putting air in your tires, you need it or you aren't going to be in the peleton long.

Star wrote:

He said he is bothered that he can't run marathons to raise money because of his ban.

"But what's really frustrating, and probably 80 percent of it, is that if my mom got [multiple sclerosis] tomorrow—and thank God she hasn't—and I wanted to run the Boston Marathon to raise $100,000 for the MS Society, I couldn't do it. And not just run, I couldn't walk it, run a little bit, walk the aid stations and finish in four hours 15 minutes, but raise a hundred grand—I can't do it."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2342837-lance-armstrong-speaks-out-on-doping-lifetime-ban-in-bbc-interview?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Poor man can't go out and raise a hundred grand by running if his mom got sick.

Luckily most people can raise a hundred grand running if they needed to.

(eye roll)

I know, right? He's blowing way more than $100,000 on lawyers and has for decades.

Playing the mother card too. Desperate times.