Lance the Doosh

[Redsoxticket]

This leaves the question if the cancer was faked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

This leaves the question if the cancer was faked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Pete_G

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

It could also have been from repeatedly smashing his nuts against the bike seat for all those years. (You canal bike guys best be careful!!)

[Swimmer]

Given the fact that vitually everybody on that tour doped their is logical reasoning to think that the playing field was level, because everyone on the tour doped. Tyler Hamilton said so. And he is the one that outed Lance and helped bring him down. All that is saying is that he won regardless. He would have won if they took away the drugs, because he was in the best shape, and he would have won which he did with the drugs, because he was in the best shape. Its not like he was in the same shape I am in, juiced himself up, and came away a winner seven years in a row.

And my wife thinks the same way, and she has had a mastectomy, and currently very healthy.

[Hookedagain]

Originally Posted by Piscator

It could also have been from repeatedly smashing his nuts against the bike seat for all those years. (You canal bike guys best be careful!!)

Good advice. I am going to put a hole in my seat for added comfort. You guys are always looking out for each other.

[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.....

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

A lot of similarities between Lance and Tiger it seems.....

what similarities? Was tiger leading a pro-marriage campaign? Was he a counselor on family values? Did he create an image for himself and a personal brand that he was an ideal husband? Tigers brand was based on his golf talent. Armstrongs brand was based on his conquering cancer and being a superior athlete. Armstrongs brand was based on a lie. Was tigers?

You guys are focusing on Armstrong cheating in cycling. If he did that, you're right, many did and do. But he created a brand based on HIMSELF. Livestrong is a take on his name - live strong. He didnt live strong, he lived weak. he cheated, lied and created a FALSE identity of living strong. he didnt deny it for a few months, it was YEARS of lying and fraud. he pumped his body full of unnatural enhancers while leading efforts on healthy living. the guy was a spokesperson for living healthy? WTF?

[nightfighter]

Chill, dude.....

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....

Oh, and they were both compensated at ridiculously high values......

[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

[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

[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

[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%.