Lance Armstrong to be stripped of all tour titles
12 October 2012, 10:42 AM
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends how you define big.
Biggest race in the world. Huge amounts of spectators. Huge global TV audiences. New paper column inches. Grass roots events. Local races and teams.
Not for the first time we will have to beg to differ.
In 2009, stage 20 was the 12th most watched event in global sport. More viewers that the Daytona 500. Thats pretty big my anyones estimations.
You don't like it and understand that, that's fine. But it is a big deal in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
Biggest race in the world. Huge amounts of spectators. Huge global TV audiences. New paper column inches. Grass roots events. Local races and teams.
Not for the first time we will have to beg to differ.
In 2009, stage 20 was the 12th most watched event in global sport. More viewers that the Daytona 500. Thats pretty big my anyones estimations.
You don't like it and understand that, that's fine. But it is a big deal in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
12 October 2012, 11:23 AM
#123
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends how you define big.
Biggest race in the world. Huge amounts of spectators. Huge global TV audiences. New paper column inches. Grass roots events. Local races and teams.
Not for the first time we will have to beg to differ.
In 2009, stage 20 was the 12th most watched event in global sport. More viewers that the Daytona 500. Thats pretty big my anyones estimations.
You don't like it and understand that, that's fine. But it is a big deal in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
Biggest race in the world. Huge amounts of spectators. Huge global TV audiences. New paper column inches. Grass roots events. Local races and teams.
Not for the first time we will have to beg to differ.
In 2009, stage 20 was the 12th most watched event in global sport. More viewers that the Daytona 500. Thats pretty big my anyones estimations.
You don't like it and understand that, that's fine. But it is a big deal in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
You can quote figures all day long, but they are meanaingless unless put in context. For instance Bernie loves telling us that F1 has a global TV audience of 600million, doesn't mean that the sport is bigger than football, cricket, rugby, golf or even horse racing in most people's eyes!
12 October 2012, 11:29 AM
#124
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North Wales.
Posts: 4,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason he was so much faster was because the cancer ravaged his body and he lost a **** load of weight and that makes a big difference to your performance on a bike. I know from experience. If you`d read the books PROPERLY you know this
12 October 2012, 11:43 AM
#125
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve, how do you know he didn't use the cancer-induced weight loss as a smokescreen to explain the drug-enhanced performances? May have been a bit "convenient" in a very unfortunate way? From what i've seen of these cyclists, not one of the top boys is carrying a spare ounce of excess bodyweight.
12 October 2012, 11:54 AM
#127
Those boys have hardly a pick of fat on them, and if the weight loss was muscle, then he'd have been weaker suely.
Last edited by urban; 12 October 2012 at 11:55 AM.
12 October 2012, 02:42 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North Wales.
Posts: 4,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strength is easy enough to work on, combine that with a loss of a few stone and he`s bound to improve. I don`t want it proven he took drugs as I hold Lance in very high esteem after all he and his family have been through but if it`s proven...not heresay, then so be it 
12 October 2012, 03:24 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Well no, the question was, how did HE become quicker. As said, the majority of weight loss was upper body so no, he wouldn`t become weaker. He was quite a `porker` in cyclist terms when he was a triathlete and when he first joined Motorola Strength is easy enough to work on, combine that with a loss of a few stone and he`s bound to improve. I don`t want it proven he took drugs as I hold Lance in very high esteem after all he and his family have been through but if it`s proven...not heresay, then so be it
Strength is easy enough to work on, combine that with a loss of a few stone and he`s bound to improve. I don`t want it proven he took drugs as I hold Lance in very high esteem after all he and his family have been through but if it`s proven...not heresay, then so be it times, dates procedures etc
they testified how they evaded the drug testers etc etc - re no negative testing, the final "clutching straw" defence, well George Hincapie never tested positive and so did quite a few other riders of the era
think about it, if the drug testing was as rigorous as it should have been they would have closed cycling down as a sport, because we now know THEY WE ALL AT IT
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 12 October 2012 at 03:28 PM.
12 October 2012, 05:42 PM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, you sound like one of those people who say the Holocaust never existed.
His career was based on cheating...........FACT. Whether everyone else did as well, who knows, was he a good cyclist, of course he was, but it beyond any doubt, his seven wins of the TDF were based on cheating.
What fascinates me is can you be a good person who does bad things, and it be seen as acceptable. Obviously he was a very talented cyclist and sportsman who did beat cancer. He also does a lot of charity work, which is commendable. However, he is also someone who will do anything to win, anything, and that includes cheating. Can the good be enough to make people "forget" about the bad.
Interesting to see where this go's.
His career was based on cheating...........FACT. Whether everyone else did as well, who knows, was he a good cyclist, of course he was, but it beyond any doubt, his seven wins of the TDF were based on cheating.
What fascinates me is can you be a good person who does bad things, and it be seen as acceptable. Obviously he was a very talented cyclist and sportsman who did beat cancer. He also does a lot of charity work, which is commendable. However, he is also someone who will do anything to win, anything, and that includes cheating. Can the good be enough to make people "forget" about the bad.
Interesting to see where this go's.
His oustanding results have not been officially proved to be a result of cheating. That is why I said that it is a mistake to accuse him of that because of some announcements that say that he did. Had he been accused in a court and been proved to have done it after presentation of undeniable evidence with him in a position to defend himself then it is a different matter. Hearsay is not good enough.
Incidentally have you seen the photo's of those victims in the concentration camps, all those gaunt bodies with the bones sticking out? Have you ever visited a concentration camp and been in one of the "shower rooms" and seen the crematoriums which were like a death factory? Have you seen the huts where the "medical experiments" were carried out which killed off so many in agony? I have. My father was a POW in a Lager close to Auschwitz and they could smell the crematoriums when they were fired up for a killing session!
How dare you accuse me of being in denial! You should be more careful before you start accusing people!
Les
12 October 2012, 08:50 PM
#134
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must have read different versions of the books to me then
The reason he was so much faster was because the cancer ravaged his body and he lost a **** load of weight and that makes a big difference to your performance on a bike. I know from experience. If you`d read the books PROPERLY you know this
The reason he was so much faster was because the cancer ravaged his body and he lost a **** load of weight and that makes a big difference to your performance on a bike. I know from experience. If you`d read the books PROPERLY you know this
12 October 2012, 09:21 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Swansea
Posts: 4,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't care less tbh, if athletes want to pump themselves full of drugs and cycle/run as fast as physically possible I wanna see it!! Maybe have a Drugged up classification, to keep it fair.
Personally I think its a fit up as those guys have blamed Lance to save their own skins, as the "evidence" is testimony from other "cheating" cyclists who will not get any blame, and whose results cannot be appealed against or double checked.
But imagine Ben Johnson, on the start line with 9 other Ben Johnsons, I'd watch that.
Personally I think its a fit up as those guys have blamed Lance to save their own skins, as the "evidence" is testimony from other "cheating" cyclists who will not get any blame, and whose results cannot be appealed against or double checked.
But imagine Ben Johnson, on the start line with 9 other Ben Johnsons, I'd watch that.
12 October 2012, 10:13 PM
#138
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't care less tbh, if athletes want to pump themselves full of drugs and cycle/run as fast as physically possible I wanna see it!! Maybe have a Drugged up classification, to keep it fair.
Personally I think its a fit up as those guys have blamed Lance to save their own skins, as the "evidence" is testimony from other "cheating" cyclists who will not get any blame, and whose results cannot be appealed against or double checked.
But imagine Ben Johnson, on the start line with 9 other Ben Johnsons, I'd watch that.
Personally I think its a fit up as those guys have blamed Lance to save their own skins, as the "evidence" is testimony from other "cheating" cyclists who will not get any blame, and whose results cannot be appealed against or double checked.
But imagine Ben Johnson, on the start line with 9 other Ben Johnsons, I'd watch that.
as said by others , 2 feds would be great, one where testing is not implemented then a thoroughly tested event. the moral and ethical implications mean it just can never be allowed.
12 October 2012, 10:51 PM
#140
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Swansea
Posts: 4,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with all those saying let them all take PED is what about the guys who want to be clean pros. There could have been clean guys back when Armstrong and his crew were cheating who would have been the number 1 but we will now never know them because they were racing cheats.
12 October 2012, 10:56 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never in a million years would that happen mate. imagine the politician that suggested that be allowed - public backing would be almost zero. and partly could be justified by potential health risks - which is unethical never mind any other issues
14 October 2012, 03:18 PM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know, I always thought that the idea of physical sport was for people to compete in order to match their physical abilities against those of others.
If so, what on earth is the point of taking any form of drug in order to improve one's physical strengths? What on earth would anyone be trying to prove...the efficacy of the drug which was in use?
Can anyone see any value in that?
Les
If so, what on earth is the point of taking any form of drug in order to improve one's physical strengths? What on earth would anyone be trying to prove...the efficacy of the drug which was in use?
Can anyone see any value in that?
Les
14 October 2012, 03:44 PM
#144
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know, I always thought that the idea of physical sport was for people to compete in order to match their physical abilities against those of others.
If so, what on earth is the point of taking any form of drug in order to improve one's physical strengths? What on earth would anyone be trying to prove...the efficacy of the drug which was in use?
Can anyone see any value in that?
Les
If so, what on earth is the point of taking any form of drug in order to improve one's physical strengths? What on earth would anyone be trying to prove...the efficacy of the drug which was in use?
Can anyone see any value in that?
Les
its a reflection on the human desire to continually improve and be the best. some will go to these lengths. its a hollow victory if your the only one using and clearly without use you wouldnt be competitiv. but that scenario is extremly unlikely.
it happens in all sports in one way or another - illegal wings/maps in motor racing - although probably not now, the issue a while back re swimming suits which were considered an unfair advantage, and obviously PED use.
the thing is drug use alone isnt going to help anyone unless the the rest of the training and nutrition use is 100%. and they have the talent and genetic pre disposition to respond well to drugs. as said before results are not simply exponential to amount of drug used. they have potentially harmful side effects, which at some point could become detrimental to the purpose they were used for. so its not a who takes the most drugs wins, scenario.
although by and large the variance in performance among top level athletes is usually quite minimal, drug use over no drug use would likely see the user perform better - all else being equal.
but if your the only one using anything and you win, i cant see how walking onto that podium, or getting that trophy would be a good feeling atall
14 October 2012, 03:54 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clearly the thousands of people using them do.
its a reflection on the human desire to continually improve and be the best. some will go to these lengths. its a hollow victory if your the only one using and clearly without use you wouldnt be competitiv. but that scenario is extremly unlikely.
it happens in all sports in one way or another - illegal wings/maps in motor racing - although probably not now, the issue a while back re swimming suits which were considered an unfair advantage, and obviously PED use.
the thing is drug use alone isnt going to help anyone unless the the rest of the training and nutrition use is 100%. and they have the talent and genetic pre disposition to respond well to drugs. as said before results are not simply exponential to amount of drug used. they have potentially harmful side effects, which at some point could become detrimental to the purpose they were used for. so its not a who takes the most drugs wins, scenario.
although by and large the variance in performance among top level athletes is usually quite minimal, drug use over no drug use would likely see the user perform better - all else being equal.
but if your the only one using anything and you win, i cant see how walking onto that podium, or getting that trophy would be a good feeling atall
its a reflection on the human desire to continually improve and be the best. some will go to these lengths. its a hollow victory if your the only one using and clearly without use you wouldnt be competitiv. but that scenario is extremly unlikely.
it happens in all sports in one way or another - illegal wings/maps in motor racing - although probably not now, the issue a while back re swimming suits which were considered an unfair advantage, and obviously PED use.
the thing is drug use alone isnt going to help anyone unless the the rest of the training and nutrition use is 100%. and they have the talent and genetic pre disposition to respond well to drugs. as said before results are not simply exponential to amount of drug used. they have potentially harmful side effects, which at some point could become detrimental to the purpose they were used for. so its not a who takes the most drugs wins, scenario.
although by and large the variance in performance among top level athletes is usually quite minimal, drug use over no drug use would likely see the user perform better - all else being equal.
but if your the only one using anything and you win, i cant see how walking onto that podium, or getting that trophy would be a good feeling atall
I think that accepting the use of artificial and illegal aids is a mistake and as you say at the end of your post,will eventually lead to complete lack of meaning in the results of any kind of competition. More that anything when it comes to physical sport of course.
Les
14 October 2012, 08:07 PM
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's cheating.
It goes on in most sports.
But this cheating seemed to involve everyone. Journalists, team managers, the athlete and worst all of, the governing body. The UCI.
It goes on in most sports.
But this cheating seemed to involve everyone. Journalists, team managers, the athlete and worst all of, the governing body. The UCI.
14 October 2012, 08:14 PM
#147
Scooby Regular
it was once again a case of "to big to fail"
had the UCI admitted the scale of the problem the sport would of looked like a joke
Armstrong exploited that "turn a blind eye" position ruthlessly, even getting them to surpress a positive drug test
14 October 2012, 08:32 PM
#148
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long ago a French rider won a stage, failed a drugs test and had to pay a small fine.
The following day, this minor offence was on page 7 on lequipe....in very small text.
I find the whole subject fascinating, if you like this kind of stuff search on Paul Kimmage who is being sued by the UCI.
The following day, this minor offence was on page 7 on lequipe....in very small text.
I find the whole subject fascinating, if you like this kind of stuff search on Paul Kimmage who is being sued by the UCI.
14 October 2012, 08:42 PM
#149
Scooby Regular
yes, the French were to some extend hoisted by their own petard, it seems they (media, drug testing authorities etc etc) had a very laissez faire attidude to drug abuse in the TDF, and had done so for years
the arrival of Armstrong on the scene in the late 90's, blitzing everyone on the tour, must have caused some consternation and confusion within the french authorities
they knew he was on drugs, he knew they knew he was on drug (everyone was on drugs) they knew he knew they knew he was on drugs
a mexican stand off, until the good old FBI got involved
the arrival of Armstrong on the scene in the late 90's, blitzing everyone on the tour, must have caused some consternation and confusion within the french authorities
they knew he was on drugs, he knew they knew he was on drug (everyone was on drugs) they knew he knew they knew he was on drugs
a mexican stand off, until the good old FBI got involved
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 14 October 2012 at 08:45 PM.
14 October 2012, 08:45 PM
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts