Anybody believe Lance is clean?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
sagard said:
I think Lance is just as clean as his competitors were. He was simply a lot more thorough than his opposition in most cases.

Hate Lance for being a @$%^@!# if you must, but don't hate him due to his more effective "training" and "preparation."
Yeah, this is the new line from Armstrong's people too. It would be a decent argument, if it weren't steeped in logical fallacy.

If only Armstrong weren't so vindictive in trying to suppress his critics, and if only he weren't so determined to ensure exclusive preparation.

Level playing field, even amongst the cheats? No way. Finally, it's still cheating.
 
jimmypop said:
If only Armstrong weren't so vindictive in trying to suppress his critics, and if only he weren't so determined to ensure exclusive preparation.
This always reminds me of the Miguel Indurain approach. As the years have gone by I don't think anyone believes he was clean. But because he was such a modest and humble champion, there's hardly a person alive who criticizes him with any vigor. His modesty silences all his critics - the biggest criticism of him being that he was bland! Even LeMond, who was arguably robbed of winning the 1991 Tour (by many, not just Mig) really doesn't mention Mig at all when criticizing doping from that era.

Night and day between Mig and Lance when it comes to personality, and actions. One was just happy to win. The other had to have everything.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
This always reminds me of the Miguel Indurain approach. As the years have gone by I don't think anyone believes he was clean. But because he was such a modest and humble champion, there's hardly a person alive who criticizes him with any vigor. His modesty silences all his critics - the biggest criticism of him being that he was bland! Even LeMond, who was arguably robbed of winning the 1991 Tour (by many, not just Mig) really doesn't mention Mig at all when criticizing doping from that era.

Night and day between Mig and Lance when it comes to personality, and actions. One was just happy to win. The other had to have everything.
I am a big fan of Big Mig too.

Big Mig has been a fan of Lance for awhile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/2158773.stm
Armstrong first demonstrated his Tour de France pedigree with a stage victory in 1993 at 21 and Indurain, who won his third title that year, began to take note.

"He was very good, but because he was young he was very inconsistent," said Indurain.

"From the start he had something, he was very strong and very explosive.

Indurain won five Tours between 1991 and 1995

"He even beat me to win the world championship in Norway when he was only 22."
Of course, Big Mig would not critisize Lance now. Still a fan!
 
Granville57 said:
Apparently this author does, or is at least willing to suspend all logic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-problem-with-the-lance-armstrong-doping-investigation-2011-1



According to the article, here are some of the culprits:

Floyd who?

Applying the logic of a six-year-old:


On why Betsy is bitter:


And this gem:


Huh, you mean you think it's possible that the Feds just handed everything over to SI and said, "Here, have at it. We've done all we can do."? :rolleyes:

"Unless." :D Now that's a beautiful perspective.
this IS a good post...nice touch.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
......Night and day between Mig and Lance when it comes to personality, and actions. One was just happy to win. The other had to have everything.
A similar thing happened with Roberto Herras winning the Vuelta a few years back. (most here know Herras was a doper and former climbing domestique for LA on USPS). When interviewed after the final stage that left him GC winner, he was very very humble. He was riding for Liberty Seguros at this time and was busted for EPO and stripped of the title. He left USPS before this happened and has had a hard time returning to the peloton, possibly black-listed?

I imagine he knew he had "cheated against other cheaters" to win and therefore wasn't cocky about it. Cheating against cheaters is still cheating.

And as far as the question posed in the original post: generaly those who believe this are those who only follow cycling casually and receive their news from the mainstream media (at least in the US). I have talked to many people who believe the fairytale, but anyone who is fairly intelligent and objective is able to connect the dots after a while if they have actually set aside the time to do a little bit of digging beyond the surface. This is true in my experience, at least.

I have talked to a handful of people who initially "drank the Koolaid" but then slowly figured things out (a co-worker used to throw out the "fast cadence" thing out as Bob Roll had taught him to do, but then started to actualy THINK about what he was saying). He came along gradually as more evidence surfaced.

Another guy at a party threw out the "most tested athlete in the world" thing but I suggested that he delve into stats on track and field competitors and he literally said "oh, yeah.."

Same guy didn't even know, as an American, who Greg Lemond was !!!!, much less Filippo Simeonior Dr. Ferrari. Sufice it to say that as upset and defensive for LA he was in the begining of the conversation, at the end he was "dissapointed".
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
0
0
SC1990 said:
Innocent until proven quilty.
That's a catchy refrain, but in this case it doesn't have much substance.

"Proven guilty" by whom? If those charged with enforcing the rules are complicit in the cheating, there's not much chance of that happening. For most of his career, that seems to be the case.

This is simply a cop-out, an obfuscation or an attempt to keep one's head in the sand. There's enough evidence in the public domain for a reasonable person to make a determination on what they believe.

The fundamental assumption it wrong, BTW, and a b@stardization of the true spirit of it's meaning. You're innocent "in the eyes of the law", meaning you can't be punished, until you're proven guilty. And that's a good policy. But in truth, you're guilty of the crime one you commit it. People's moral compass seems to be slipping, ala Wigans, i.e. you're only guilty if you get caught.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
I don't think any fans think he's clean, but I do think alot of former fanboys think "it's time to move on". I have one buddy, former fanboy, former cycling journalist, claims "its all in the past".

I emailed him the link to the SI article, the best he could do was reply: "Sheesh, let it go! You've been obsessed with this since 2001!".

Yeah right. Evidence of Ferrari/Lance collaboration even in 2009, so where is this "2001" BS coming from? Actual quote from same guy: "I have no doubt Lance doped AT SOME POINT in his career, but...."

SOME POINT?? Try "ALL POINTS".
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
I don't think any fans think he's clean, but I do think alot of former fanboys think "it's time to move on". I have one buddy, former fanboy, former cycling journalist, claims "its all in the past".

I emailed him the link to the SI article, the best he could do was reply: "Sheesh, let it go! You've been obsessed with this since 2001!".

Yeah right. Evidence of Ferrari/Lance collaboration even in 2009, so where is this "2001" BS coming from? Actual quote from same guy: "I have no doubt Lance doped AT SOME POINT in his career, but...."

SOME POINT?? Try "ALL POINTS".
Nashbar, get over it you are a spurned lover. You havn't the time or money like LeMond to obscess over your lost love. You have to much to offer the world to get hung up on if Lance did or did not...
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
131313 said:
That's a catchy refrain, but in this case it doesn't have much substance.

"Proven guilty" by whom? If those charged with enforcing the rules are complicit in the cheating, there's not much chance of that happening. For most of his career, that seems to be the case.

This is simply a cop-out, an obfuscation or an attempt to keep one's head in the sand. There's enough evidence in the public domain for a reasonable person to make a determination on what they believe.

The fundamental assumption it wrong, BTW, and a b@stardization of the true spirit of it's meaning. You're innocent "in the eyes of the law", meaning you can't be punished, until you're proven guilty. And that's a good policy. But in truth, you're guilty of the crime once you commit it. People's moral compass seems to be slipping, ala Wigans, i.e. you're only guilty if you get caught.
I just felt this was worth reiterating, especially after this evening's Troll-Fest 2011.
Good post, 131313
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
All these fan boys keep crying "I won't have an opinion until there is a verdict". Or, in other words, "I won't have an opinion until a jury gives me one".

Wonderfully independent thinkers, that bunch.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
darkcloud said:
Benotti69,
Other than those 12+ items, do you have anything else pointing to Tool-boys
use of performance enhancing drugs?:)
his 99 TdF samples have been found with EPO.

His T/Es back in the early 90's were way above the threshold.

When he road for Astana they were caught trying to get rid of transfusion equipment by driving 100km away from the hotel and dumping it in a bin.

and then there are the allegations from former team mates as far back to Stephen Swart when he rode with Armstrong on the Motorola Team.

That enough for you?

Sit back and be patient it will all be revealed in due course.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
This always reminds me of the Miguel Indurain approach. As the years have gone by I don't think anyone believes he was clean. But because he was such a modest and humble champion, there's hardly a person alive who criticizes him with any vigor. His modesty silences all his critics - the biggest criticism of him being that he was bland! Even LeMond, who was arguably robbed of winning the 1991 Tour (by many, not just Mig) really doesn't mention Mig at all when criticizing doping from that era.

Night and day between Mig and Lance when it comes to personality, and actions. One was just happy to win. The other had to have everything.
So two guys rob a bank. One is a jerk, the other a nice guy.

We let the nice guy go?
Or do we treat them equally?
 
Jun 1, 2010
48
0
0
I don't remember Big Mig claiming he was purer than snow, intimidating riders that dared to question omerta, and belittling subsequent winners of le Tour by saying the race was essentially a joke that year.

The difference between Lance and the other winners of his era; hubris.

As for whether he was riding clean? Watch the YouTube clip, Sestriere Climb 1999 (found in Wonderlance's sig.). Supercharged. Almost laughable in hindsight.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SC1990 said:
Nah, just not willing to condemn people on the basis of posts by deluded 50 year olds sitting behing their computer thinking they know everything about cycling with a picture of Victoria Pendleton as their desktop.

See what I did there?
Yea, you projected your life onto someone else. Pretty easy read actually. Thanks for playing.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY