Lance the Doosh

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

The commonality is they both felt the rules did not apply to them. Their "greatness" put them above the rules and mores of the common man and therefore they were not to be held accountable. That's all....

I don't think Lance thought he was above the rules, he simply didn't regard it as cheating as it was so common.

Had there been no doping and EPO use by any rider Lance would have still likely been a repeat Tour champion because he's a monster rider and has an ego as big at the Col Du Tourmalet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Are you defending this ass clown spence??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Are you defending this ass clown spence??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, just some perspective.

There could have been hundreds if not thousands of cyclists in his position had they had the skills and drive he did.

Lance is a shame as the entire sport had become a shame. That's the thing people don't seem to grasp, all the others are really just about as guilty. Lance was just higher profile because he was so good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I agree. It's a shame everyone has to cheat to win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete_G

Or, more likely, that PED usage may have caused or contributed to it.

He was diagnosed stage 3 when he was 25...I doubt he had been doing PEDs for that long by then. Never know for sure of course but its less likely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

It was a whole movement based on lies. pretty f'in sad.

Do you think his beating cancer was a lie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you think his beating cancer was a lie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was an excuse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You tell me if the chicken or the egg was first, though if PEDs are as widespread as some claim in cycling they might make a good study group.


With all of those key facts unknown, I asked Dr. Philip Kantoff, Chief of the Division of Solid Tumor Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, whether there could possibly be any link between taking performance-enhancing drugs and developing testicular cancer. Of course Dr. Kantoff has no personal knowledge of Armstrong’s history and our conversation was purely speculative. Here, slightly edited is what he said:

“There are no studies that prospectively look at testicular cancer with any of these drugs…Theoretically, of the drugs under consideration — I’m not sure he took human growth hormone — but of the potential performance enhancing drugs he may have taken, it’s conceivable that growth hormone could, theoretically, be linked to cancer but there is no study to support that…

[On the question of testosterone, Dr. Kantoff said the most common context for treatment with testosterone is this]…the guy that comes in, he’s a middle-aged man, a little depressed, his libido is down and his testosterone is slightly low. They give him enough to normalize his testosterone levels, but this is not in the category of enhancing, it’s normalizing levels. And again, there aren’t any definitive studies on this…there’s belief and then there are studies…

With performance enhancement, you take people with normal levels and gve them super high levels. It’s a whole understudied field. Nobody’s ever taken a look at 20-to-30-year-olds with normal testosterone levels and giving them super high levels and the side effects from that…

With human growth hormone, it’s conceivable — you can enhance the growth of cells — but there’s no data.”

About 5,000-10,000 men a year develop testicular cancer, Kantoff said. But it’s the most common cancer in men between 20 and 40 in the U.S. So what’s the bottom line in Armstrong’s case?

“Any conclusion that there’s a link would be a big leap here,” Kantoff said. “All of these things could cause harm when taken at super high levels, but nobody’s ever studied it.”

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It was an excuse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He said it himself. Because he only had one nut, he felt it was justified to use what ever PED that mimics testosterone.

Sounds like an excuse to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Mike P]

Just to clarify---Livestrong has never raised a single cent in support of cancer research, nor have they ever claimed to. Their mission statement is to raise cancer awareness, and to work in support of cancer victims. They have donated money to victims to fund experimental treatments that typical health insurers won't cover. One aspect of support. It's a legit charity that unfortunately is one of several injured parties here.

Also, you have to know the difference between Livestrong.org, the non-profit that Armstrong established to raise cancer awareness/support, and Livestrong.com, which is Lance's personal money maker for Lance. That is the one that sells the Livestrong rights to companies that make cycling paraphrenalia (Nike jerseys, Giro helmets with the Livestrong colors/logo, sports drinks, etc).

[Nebe]

Liestrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[fishsmith]

Southpark has already covered this. USA TODAY
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

He said it himself. Because he only had one nut, he felt it was justified to use what ever PED that mimics testosterone.

Sounds like an excuse to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Secondary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Are you defending this ass clown spence??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

relativism on steroids he was a victim

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by spence

He was diagnosed stage 3 when he was 25...I doubt he had been doing PEDs for that long by then. Never know for sure of course but its less likely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floyd Landis, who is maybe not the best source for info, has said Michele Ferrari was concerned that doping had been the cause.

I'm guessing it's never something that can be proven anyways, but there's evidence it was going through some people's minds.

I suppose it doesn't really matter.

[Sea Dangles]

Livestrong was formerly referred to as the Lance Armstrong foundation. This was a charity Lance started before even his first tour win. My opinion is he did far more good than bad with his fame. Jimmys Dad is aperfect example of the inspiration he gave to others. He made a similar positive impact on countless other lives.I would be indebted to anybody who could provide comfort and levity for a loved one who was terminally ill and struggled on a daily basis,

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Livestrong was formerly referred to as the Lance Armstrong foundation. This was a charity Lance started before even his first tour win. My opinion is he did far more good than bad with his fame. Jimmys Dad is aperfect example of the inspiration he gave to others. He made a similar positive impact on countless other lives.I would be indebted to anybody who could provide comfort and levity for a loved one who was terminally ill and struggled on a daily basis,

I'd generally agree.

The thing about doping in cycling is that it's impact is small but significant at the top...perhaps a 3-5% increase in power which over the course of a long race or long climb does make a big difference. The point being that doping can't turn an average rider into a great rider, you already have to be elite. During Lance's reign at the TDF it was probably impossible to win unless you were doping.

Doesn't make it right, it's just a reflection of how screwed up the sport had become. If anything I'd judge Armstrong for the most it's how he carried himself to protect his doping.

-spence

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd generally agree.

The thing about doping in cycling is that it's impact is small but significant at the top...perhaps a 3-5% increase in power which over the course of a long race or long climb does make a big difference. The point being that doping can't turn an average rider into a great rider, you already have to be elite. During Lance's reign at the TDF it was probably impossible to win unless you were doping.

Doesn't make it right, it's just a reflection of how screwed up the sport had become. If anything I'd judge Armstrong for the most it's how he carried himself to protect his doping.

-spence

I have to agree with Sea Dangles as well. I can't view Lance as purely good or evil even though he's a vindictive, narcissistic, malicious, cheating liar. Effectively stole and crushed the dreams and potential livelihoods of many. The list goes on of the "flaws", as Lance would say. But I struggle to dismiss the positive effects of the foundation, even if part of the reason he created it and some of his motivations behind it were selfish, and even if I'm far from a defender of his character overall.

The discussion on a lot of morality issues has certainly been interesting. I'm amazed how many people I've heard say "let them all dope" as it relates to all sports, not just cycling. The lack of will on the part of the public and overseeing bodies is a big contributor to the problem.

The sports culture still brings some athletes to a point of making a choice when faced with the option. I would imagine the hardest pressure comes when you're on the edge. Stay clean and live a normal life, or take what's being offered and achieve your dreams and goals, make money, maybe a lot. Until the consequences are in place and the culture has changed to further discourage that choice, I don't think we'll see an thorough change.

When I bring this topic up some people get irritated and state it's minor compared to the scale of the cheating, the lying, and of course relative to cancer, but we wouldn't be here talking about this if the culture didn't allow it in the first place.

Always liked this article addressing the culture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/op...pagewanted=all

[Piscator]

Anyone know if this was an illegal act punishable by fine/imprisonment?

Also, he sued people who were telling the truth about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Lance reminds me of a surfcaster I know. Catching a 50 liber wasn't good enough, so he had to go out and take more pictures in different clothes and claim it was a 60 lber. Sociopaths love sports and competition.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Anyone know if this was an illegal act punishable by fine/imprisonment?

Also, he sued people who were telling the truth about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The doping or the lying?

Doping laws vary by country, but I doubt he could get in additional trouble at this point.

There's speculation he could be at risk for perjury and additional lawsuits to get back money he either won or was awarded in his own suits.

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

It was not a level field. The teams with money had better doping, and the better riders doping. And while the tour has an individual winner, ie. Lance, there is still the team functioning to propel him, draft for him, and block for him. There is no way any member of that team besides Lance would have a remote chance to win. They had their job to get him the win. Tyler was a member of that team at one point, and knew he could not win, because it was not his job. And if he had come public earlier, he felt he would have been causing dozens of people to lose their jobs. That was the pressure on him. He only came forward when he was forced to before a federal grand jury. I know Tyler and spoke with him two days after the 60Minutes interview was filmed. I congratulated him for telling the truth and on being the man he dreamed he could and would be. Yet he was shocked that I had long believed that doping was rampant. One would have to be very naïve to believe that Lance wasn't doping.... A lot of similarities between Lance and Tiger it seems.....

When greg Lemond won his first tour he was a support rider for Laurent Fignon (the professor).At this stage in his carreer he was an up and comer whose job was to help Fignon win another tour title.On the final day,which is historically nothing more than a fun ride where the leader drinks champagne with his team through the streets of Paris,Lemond put on a charge to win the tour and the disdain of a lot of Frogs.
In perspective all Lance did was out-cheat the rest of the cheaters.Kind of like Carl Lewis in the olympics where Ben Johnson got bagged.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

When greg Lemond won his first tour he was a support rider for Laurent Fignon (the professor).At this stage in his carreer he was an up and comer whose job was to help Fignon win another tour title.On the final day,which is historically nothing more than a fun ride where the leader drinks champagne with his team through the streets of Paris,Lemond put on a charge to win the tour and the disdain of a lot of Frogs.
In perspective all Lance did was out-cheat the rest of the cheaters.Kind of like Carl Lewis in the olympics where Ben Johnson got bagged.

Fignon, great rider...also a doper.

You're confusing Fignon and Hinault though. The team screwed LeMond out of a win in 1985 by lying to him about the position of his captain who was s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind.

Lemond's 8 second victory over Fignon was in 1989 on the final time trial when LeMond brought out the aero bars...the second to the last stage. Perhaps one of the greatest moments in cycling.

For those who have never seen it it's worth watching on youtube. At the least that it's on ABC Wide World of Sports will make you feel a bit dated

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

I believe it was the final stage (23rd) from Versailles to Paris. It is still the fastest average speed for a time trial over 10 miles in tour history.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I believe it was the final stage (23rd) from Versailles to Paris. It is still the fastest average speed for a time trial over 10 miles in tour history.

Well yes, looking it up they did the time trial as the final stage which is rare these days. Usually as you noted the GC race is over by the second to the last stage and it's a sprinters finish. The riders drink champagne and generally screw around.

LeMond and Fignon weren't on the same team though that year. He rode under Fignon before the hunting accident.

-spence

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by spence

The thing about doping in cycling is that it's impact is small but significant at the top...perhaps a 3-5% increase in power which over the course of a long race or long climb does make a big difference. The point being that doping can't turn an average rider into a great rider, you already have to be elite. During Lance's reign at the TDF it was probably impossible to win unless you were doping.

That's not correct. Blood manipulation via synthetic EPO and autologous transfusions can make a much greater increase in performance. Up to and beyond 10%. It all depends on the blood values that nature gave you.

The UCI set a 50% hematacrit (HCT) standard as the limit for competition. People with a HCT level of 48% don't even need to engage in blood manipulation. In fact, they really can't due to the risk of busting the 50% threshold, which would cause them to have to wirhdraw from an event and stay out of ompetition until their levels dropped below 50%. However, if your HCT level is 42%, you can get a much bigger boost in performance by adding a few red blood cells. You can take synthetic EPO to stimulate their growth, or you can re-infuse a pint of your own blood that's been in cold storage. The more red blood cells you have, the higher your oxygen uptake. More oxygen transported to the cells increases performance endurance and short term power.

BTW, that 50% threshold didn't exist in the Armstrong era, so Lance could theoretically raise his HCT levels to 60% via transfusions and EPO. He could use EPO with impunity during his first 3 wins because the test for that wasn't used in cycling until about 2001-2002. And it's only been in the last 3-4 years that they've developed ways to detect doping via transfusions.

Just to give you a reference, on my last blood test, I was borderline anemic. My red blood cell (RBC), hemoglobin (HGB) and hematacrit (HCT) levels were all below normal range. HCT was 39%.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Mike P

That's not correct. Blood manipulation via synthetic EPO and autologous transfusions can make a much greater increase in performance. Up to and beyond 10%. It all depends on the blood values that nature gave you.

The UCI set a 50% hematacrit (HCT) standard as the limit for competition. People with a HCT level of 48% don't even need to engage in blood manipulation. In fact, they really can't due to the risk of busting the 50% threshold, which would cause them to have to wirhdraw from an event and stay out of ompetition until their levels dropped below 50%. However, if your HCT level is 42%, you can get a much bigger boost in performance by adding a few red blood cells. You can take synthetic EPO to stimulate their growth, or you can re-infuse a pint of your own blood that's been in cold storage. The more red blood cells you have, the higher your oxygen uptake. More oxygen transported to the cells increases performance endurance and short term power.

BTW, that 50% threshold didn't exist in the Armstrong era, so Lance could theoretically raise his HCT levels to 60% via transfusions and EPO. He could use EPO with impunity during his first 3 wins because the test for that wasn't used in cycling until about 2001-2002. And it's only been in the last 3-4 years that they've developed ways to detect doping via transfusions.

But in doing so would put you at much greater risk of detection. The 3-5% is what I've read cyclists believe they can realistically get and not put themselves at terrible risk.

Yes, the greater your natural hematacrit levels the less you have to dope and stay within legal bounds, but you can only do so much with transfusions alone. After that you need to microdose EPO which is hard to detect.

I believe the 50% hematacrit threshold testing was started in 1997. It was EPO at that time they couldn't detect yet. And as you've noted, now they test for plastic chemicals (clenbutyerol or something?) in the blood bags. According to Contador it's very common in beef

As EPO testing became normal they started micro-dosing EPO to avoid the tests.

Did you read the Tyler Hamilton book? It was pretty interesting.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nebe

He should run for congress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He would be right at home.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I believe it was the final stage (23rd) from Versailles to Paris. It is still the fastest average speed for a time trial over 10 miles in tour history.

LeMond and Fignon were not teammates in 1989. They were teammates in 1984, when LeMond placed third in his first Tour, riding in support of Fignon. In 1985, Bernard Hinault offered him a million dollar contract to join the team that he formed, La Vie Claire. In return for LeMond supporting him that year, when Hinault was trying to tie the all-time win record ,Hinault agreed to return the favor the following year, and whether he kept his word depends on who you believe. Hinault claims to this day that he knew that LeMond was stronger, and that he'd be able to reel him in, so he surged to try to break the field for LeMond. LeMond feels that Hinault stabbed him in the back, with the blessings of the team management. LeMond left the team after winning in 86. When he came back in 1989 after his hunting accident, Hinault retired, and he and Fignon were on different teams.

By the way, as far as I know, nobody has ever made a doping allegation against Hinault that stuck. Not that "never testing positive" means anything, but he never failed a test. LeMond, who seems to not be shy about naming names, has never accused him of doping. When they were teammates, their team manager was fanatical about not having dopers on his team. So while all 5 of Hinault's wins might not be clean, it would seem that his last one was.

And of course both Fignon and Hinault long maintained that LeMond was clean for his entire career. And if you look at how far and fast he fell when doping took over, that also supports his innocence.