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

I am acquaintances with a guy who was on Sky. He left the team this year. It was not a very nurturing environment for someone who has never proven himself at a Grand tour level (30 hour weeks every single week, until essentially his leg stopped working). It's cutthroat. He never witnessed anything. However, that's not how it works anymore. From what I hear, it's mostly seeking out "help" on your own.

I have only heard rumors about Nibali and Froome. Sky is in hot water because Leinders was just recently banned from the sport (Rabobank doctor then hired by sky, then fired). Why did they hire him in the first place? And well, 3 guys on Astanas continental team (at the level I race) tested positive. 2 more at the grand tour level. If I have 5 guys testing positive on my team, and I won the Tour, you better believe I am going to be doing some serious damage control. Then again, I probably wouldn't want to be on a team directed by a past doper. So therefore, I don't trust Nibali one bit.

Guys are genetic freaks. But there are super smart doctors out there, who have come up with standards the average human can't surpass without doping. Froome and Nibali have been awfully close to that standard. But again, that is an assumption on my part. If you've watched American racing, even on the climbs; generally the same guy isn't dominating every single day. Unless. Well....

The fact that Vinny operates a team is hilarious, not the best way for cycling to improve its image.

I think the overwhelming evidence of what you mentioned about Astana riders being busted along with Nibali being dominant everywhere: the climbs, cobbles, everywhere. It doesn't look good.

yuiop wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

In those times it WAS an easy decision, you dope.

Any PED user can use the same justification.

The Lance fanboys are amazing. As someone else mentioned, no other convicted cheater has ever been defended like Lance.

And, please, enough with the "everyone was doing it" defense. Yes, it was very prevalent, but why have convicted dopers (such as Hamilton and White) apologized to "all the clean riders?"

+1

If the defense of those who support Lance is that "everyone was doing it", then the burden of proof is on them to show that 100% of the riders were actually doping. If even 1 rider was clean in the tour during those years, he is much more deserving of the yellow jersey.

pop_pop! wrote:

Lemond was squeaky clean. There was no epo then.

Lance, on the other hand, was doped as a teenager with Carmichael/USA Cycling and it only got worse from there.

Several riders have admitted using EPO in the late 1980s but Lemond was definitely clean.

Lance is reviled because he didn't just dope. He didn't just lie about it. He ruined the lives of people around him that were a threat to his secret.

Lance isn't hated for doping. He's hated for being a sociopath.

Late 1980's? Who?

Now a Coach wrote:

pop_pop! wrote:

Lemond was squeaky clean. There was no epo then.

Lance, on the other hand, was doped as a teenager with Carmichael/USA Cycling and it only got worse from there.

Several riders have admitted using EPO in the late 1980s but Lemond was definitely clean.

One could understand the decision in 1995. But what about the comeback in 1999, after the post-Festina scandal (not to mention his cancer recovery)? 1999 should have been the year of cycling redemption.But it's correct, if Lance only doped, and kept the secret to himself, he could be forgiven for his decision to dope, and could be considered just like everyone else.For all those who say they might have done the same thing, let's take a quick letsrun poll:1) In 2007, Trek estimated the Lemond line of bikes could have been worth up to $30 million. After the famous 2001 comment, Lance used his influence in Trek to interfere with the business relationship between Lemond and Trek, and cost Lemond millions of dollars of lost business, while destroying the legacy of a retired cyclist and American hero. Who here at letsrun would have done the same thing? Which other Tour de France cyclist destroyed the legacy of retired cyclists in order to keep their doping secret?2) Mike Anderson didn't even talk, but just saw something he shouldn't have seen. Ultimately, after a breach of verbal contract, some lawsuits that cost Mike everything, Mike Anderson was forced to move half way around the world to restart his life out of the influence of Lance. Who here at letsrun would treat there former mechanic, like that? Which cyclist has done the same thing?3) Once Lance had lunch with Nicolas Sarkozy, a big fan, and managed to get funding cut for the French anti-doping labs the next year, as a kind of personal retaliation. Who here at letsrun would do that? Which other cyclist has done something similar? Seems like he similarly used his influence to have Congressional investigation into USADA's charter.The list is too long to rehash all the lives and livelihoods destroyed and negatively impacted by Lance, the Bassons, Andreus, Simeonis, Walshes, Kimmages, O'Reillys, Andersons, Baudrys, etc., etc., etc. not to mention his role in the cancer community. Most cyclists who dope, at least had the decency to keep the fallout and coverup within their team. Cyclists doping against other cyclists somehow know it's part of the game, whether they like it or not. It's all the collateral damage that Lance caused to non-cyclists, and one retired cyclist, which separates him from everyone else who also doped.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Banned cyclist Lance Armstrong says he would not have needed to resort to doping in the sport's current era and what happened 10 years ago should be seen in the context of the times.

"If I was racing in 2015, no, I wouldn't do it again because I don't think you have to," the Texan told BBC in an interview on Monday.

"If you take me back to 1995, when doping was completely pervasive, I would probably do it again."

reader of the forums wrote:

Fan for life wrote:

I don't blame him. People act like he's hitler. It was THAT common in cycling. He made the most $$$ so everyone jumps on him and attacks him in the media.

Doping is one thing.

Going after people in court is another.

I think what he is saying is that he was being attacked by people who were either already involved in doping or were doping or knew that everyone else was doping, yet they decided to make him the poster boy for doping. they all had dirt and I think Lance basically said to himself if you hypocrits are going to do this I will just take you down.

You Are What You Is,

Exactly.

redonk wrote:

Lance Armstrong may have been an Ahole, but he's done a lot of good in the world too,

What "good" has the guy done besides promote himself? I was aware of cancer before him.

AGREE...all about Lance

I don't think Lance or anyone claims that cycling in 2015 is 100% clean, and I also don't think anyone actually believes Horner was clean in the Vuelta(which is why he is not riding for a pro-continental team rather than in the Pro Tour). But how many other Grand Tours has Horner won? How many podiums in Grand Tours does he have? Besides the Vuelta, none. And if he was actually doping throughout his career, wouldn't you expect him to have better results in major races? I think a lot of his success in that Vuelta may have been to the peloton cleaning up. A lot of the other favorites faded in the 3rd week and struggled in the difficult stages, and Horner improved. Average speeds were way down in the 3rd week and that is when Horner won the race. There are still those guys that will dope, but I think the signs are there that the sport is cleaning up because of the actions they finally took to clean up the sport.

J, did you even read the email I sent you? Have you seen my recent thread?

Read it and learn lad. You can listen to all the crap you want from well meaning advisers who have no understanding of ex phys, or you can learn from me, the best adviser you are ever going to get. Don't be such an ignorant fool as to ignore what I am telling you because in 20 years time you will seriously regret it.

Except Horner's power during that Vuelta would have put him on the 2014 TdF podium with epo-like power output. As it was he finished top-20 at the TdF, coming off a terrible accident, supporting another rider. And then there was the blood profiles he released to show he was 'clean' from the Vuelta he won. Dirty, dirty, dirty and never tested positive.

Power estimates at the 2014 Giro and TdF were way down except for Nibali, Contador, and Froome. How and why suddenly almost every rider is off the PED's power is an interesting question.

What I find strangest still is why everyone generally agrees doping is rampant in cycling, few point to the federation permitting the doping. That's what happened with Armstrong and most recently Froome. No one bothers to ask why the IOC remains silent either.

rekrunner wrote:

The list is too long to rehash all the lives and livelihoods destroyed and negatively impacted by Lance, the Bassons, Andreus, Simeonis, Walshes, Kimmages, O'Reillys, Andersons, Baudrys, etc., etc., etc. not to mention his role in the cancer community. Most cyclists who dope, at least had the decency to keep the fallout and coverup within their team. Cyclists doping against other cyclists somehow know it's part of the game, whether they like it or not. It's all the collateral damage that Lance caused to non-cyclists, and one retired cyclist, which separates him from everyone else who also doped.

I think you greatly exaggerate "all the lives and livelihoods destroyed" by Lance. The Andreus?? Seriously? Andreu was a doper and liar too, and even lied to his own wife about it. He stood by Lance. He only "came clean" when his career was over. And then he got a nice job as an announcer and everyone kissed his a$$ as a "great guy", EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A DOPER, CHEATER, AND LIAR.

So Lance covered his a$$ by taking on Besty, big deal.

As far as the others "he destroyed", I am sure all of his teammates, the "good guys" like Tyler, like "Big" George, etc, knew that Lance was doing to others with lawsuits, and the silencing of others, etc, but did THEY step up and say "enough is enough Lance, leave these innocent people alone or we are blowing the whole cover off this thing" ?? No, of course not, because they wanted to keep winning, keep making $, and keep being famous.

Lance is a jerk, and a doper, and a cheater, and a liar. And so was almost everyone involved with him. But people act like he was 10000x worse than the other dopers and cheaters on his team and on the other teams. No way, he just had more to lose, and more to gain, so he just worked really hard at keeping the lid on things. the others all went along with his routine. they could have spoken up at any time. They didn't. This makes them pretty much as guilty and as "bad" as him.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you seem smarter than to resort to mindless generalizations, and blanket judgments. If Lance had only doped, cheated, and lied, then he would deserve to be treated like all the other cyclists. You say that like these are the worst things he did.But first, yes, even "the Andreus, Seriously". Lance put a lot of pressure on Frankie to "get serious" and start working with Dr. Ferrarri. Frankie retired early from cycling. Betsy's ethics were clear from the beginning, and she never waivered or caved in to the pressure. She paid a big price for that. Lance "taking on Betsy" likely also caused pain, suffering, emotional distress, in their private life. I guess that doesn't count as a destruction of livelihood -- that's a real strong observation on your part."Not speaking up" makes others as guilty as Lance? Besides doping, cheating, and lying, omerta was also a big part of the cycling picture -- you speak up, and there would be big consequences. That's what the lesson of Bassons and Simeoni taught cyclists. But "not stopping" a lawsuit is just as bad as starting one? It's selfish and wrong, but also understandable that no cyclist had the courage to make the sacrifice that would surely end their career.Show me, which other cyclist:- treated former cyclists the way Lance treated Lemond, impacting a muli-millionaire business of a former American hero?- treated former employees the way Lance treated Mike Anderson and Emma O'Reilly- treated teammates' family members the way Lance treated Betsy- treated journalists the way Lance treated Walsh and Kimmage? I'd like to read "L.A. Confidential" in English. Why isn't that possible in the lands of freedom to speak the truth?- pressured their teammates to "get serious" like Lance pressured Frankie to work with Ferrari, or probably most tragic, teammates like David Zabriskie, whose father died from drug addiction, and for whom cycling was an escape from the life of living with an addict.Ullrich? Pantani? Riis? Vinikourov? Did they do any of these things? Many cyclists doped, cheated, lied, and kept their silence. It is not these similarities that made Lance unique. It's the bullying, and the chilling lawsuits. This is why Lance cannot be treated like his teammates, or like any other "busted" cyclist.

Except Horner's power during that Vuelta would have put him on the 2014 TdF podium with epo-like power output. As it was he finished top-20 at the TdF, coming off a terrible accident, supporting another rider. And then there was the blood profiles he released to show he was 'clean' from the Vuelta he won. Dirty, dirty, dirty and never tested positive.

Power estimates at the 2014 Giro and TdF were way down except for Nibali, Contador, and Froome. How and why suddenly almost every rider is off the PED's power is an interesting question.

What I find strangest still is why everyone generally agrees doping is rampant in cycling, few point to the federation permitting the doping. That's what happened with Armstrong and most recently Froome. No one bothers to ask why the IOC remains silent either.[/quote]

That is what I am saying, Horner was certainly doped up for that Vuelta, which makes perfect sense that in a less doped up peloton he would podium with those numbers in the Tour and Giro and any other race. Its also possible to dope and not test positive, which I am sure some riders, runners, swimmers, and other athletes are taking advantage of all the time.

Numbers have been down for several years, especially if you look at the younger guys coming up through the sport. Contador and Froome didn't last long enough in the 2014 Tour to really get an idea what their numbers would be like in the mountains, and yes, I believe Nibali was doped up(Astana).

Drug obsessive thinking as usual.

Elties use less oxygen to produce those higher power outputs not more. They are more efficient.

Really this is basic physiology. Not that you would be interested. We even have a guy on this thread who hopes to be a top Pro cyclist, and even he doesn't want to know about this stuff.

I just don't get why you guys are so willfully ignorant?

Why? Just why?

To the bolded, no. The UCI was personally attacking and blacklisting anyone talking directly about doping for years. This includes Frankie who confessed in the WSJ way before USADA anything.

I'm still not certain how Lance had any role in any Cancer community. He was paid for speaking engagements where he promoted himself. I was aware of cancer before him. No contributions to research. Just "awareness" of Lance.

Good science, bad science wrote:

Drug obsessive thinking as usual.

Elties use less oxygen to produce those higher power outputs not more. They are more efficient.

Really this is basic physiology. Not that you would be interested. We even have a guy on this thread who hopes to be a top Pro cyclist, and even he doesn't want to know about this stuff.

I just don't get why you guys are so willfully ignorant?

Why? Just why?

Dont you have a vaccine denier forum to read?