Armstrong admits doping (essentially)?

[Ninety5rpm]

My comments inside the quote in [brackets].

High levels of doping in cycling are due to riders pushing human limits further than other sports, Lance Armstrong says. [Now, if the doping is pushing human limits further AND he beat them... the math is clear]

The seven-time Tour de France winner says he's not worried at being mentioned in doping investigations [downplaying], but is concerned at the high number of positive drug tests in cycling.

"I can't say no, you would have to say yes," Armstrong told reporters on Thursday.

"But to me that is really a byproduct of the sport trying harder than any other sport.

"I know if you laid those controls over any other world sport, especially one as demanding as cycling, you would have as many, if not more, positives." [justifies doping]

Armstrong held a media conference in Rowland Flat in South Australia's Barossa Valley wine region, ahead of him racing the Tour Down Under starting Sunday.

The tour will Armstrong's final race outside of the United States, but the 40-year-old said his farewell season would not be nostalgic.

"I have never been one to sit around and reminisce much," he said.

"It would be a mistake for me to think back on the stuff that I did on the bike when I have things in front of me that are much bigger than that." [okay, this is the most blatant part - what on Earth could he be referring to here other than his own doping?]

Armstrong hoped his legacy would be one of a cycling revolutionary.

"I won the Tour de France seven times and I think I won it because we changed the way people in cycling do business," he said. [I suggest the "I think" qualifier speaks volumes... this is anticipation of the accusation that he won because of the doping... he's saying no, "I think" it's because "we changed the way people in cycling do business,"]

"And I'm not going to dance around the fact there has been plenty of questions about that. [Blatant reference to him doping - no denial/anger of the past]

"But the reality is we came with a whole new approach to the sport. [again, downplaying the doping aspect relative to the "whole new approach" in terms of why he won]

"We revolutionised the way people train, the way they build morale in the team, the way they preview the courses, the way they race, the way they sell the sport, the way they tell that story around the world.

"I leave knowing that I did my best and I don't need somebody to give me a plaque or give me a statue, it has been very good to me on a lot of levels, it has been a good ride." [Not sure what to make of this... preparing to give up his trophies???]

Has he ever gotten this close to actually admitting doping before?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-worried-at-doping-in-cycling-20110113-19p31.html

 

[Barracuda]

My comments inside the quote in [brackets].



Has he ever gotten this close to actually admitting doping before?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-worried-at-doping-in-cycling-20110113-19p31.html

WTF .... Man, Id love to have that big Crystal Ball that your staring into at the minute ....... Out of that press conference you pulled that he is admitting he doped ..... you are dreaming !!

Catch the man out with some tests - publish it and then ban him and then i will believe ... until then ... I guess I will see you at the twitter ride on Saturday.

 

[TexPat]

Well, yes. In fact, he has on several occassions.

 

[Ferminal]

WTF .... Man, Id love to have that big Crystal Ball that your staring into at the minute ....... Out of that press conference you pulled that he is admitting he doped ..... you are dreaming !!

Catch the man out with some tests - publish it and then ban him and then i will believe ... until then ... I guess I will see you at the twitter ride on Saturday.

Well he's been "caught out" in seven tests, all of which have been published.

 

[D-Queued]

My comments inside the quote in [brackets].



Has he ever gotten this close to actually admitting doping before?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-worried-at-doping-in-cycling-20110113-19p31.html

I dunno.

Sounds a lot more like wanting it more than anyone else, justifying miracles, preparation, wanting it more than anyone else, pre-riding the course, diet, tenacity, hypoxic tents, wanting it more than anyone else, altitude training, high cadence, climbing out of the saddle, more tenacity and toughness, measuring lactate levels, going into a wind tunnel, wanting it more than anyone else... that nobody else ever thought of before, because nobody ever wanted to win before... making a deal with Basso, chasing people down and giving Ullrich the look.

The next Lance/Livestrong sponsored product will be a meter to measure 'wanting it more than anyone else'.

Of all that, there was new IP developed for the skin suit - but this wasn't exclusive to cycing. The rest of it, not so much.

Dave.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I dunno.

Sounds a lot more like wanting it more than anyone else, justifying miracles, preparation, wanting it more than anyone else, pre-riding the course, diet, tenacity, hypoxic tents, wanting it more than anyone else, altitude training, high cadence, climbing out of the saddle, more tenacity and toughness, measuring lactate levels, going into a wind tunnel, wanting it more than anyone else... that nobody else ever thought of before, because nobody ever wanted to win before... making a deal with Basso, chasing people down and giving Ullrich the look.

The next Lance/Livestrong sponsored product will be a meter to measure 'wanting it more than anyone else'.

Of all that, there was new IP developed for the skin suit - but this wasn't exclusive to cycing. The rest of it, not so much.

Dave.

But what about his high cadence, previewing routes and weighing his food?

 

[skidmark]

Well, yes. In fact, he has on several occassions.

Ha!

Yes, this interview doesn't seem any different than many others he's given, so I don't see the reason to be so excited. It's essentially, to quote Polish, 'ssdd'. I mean, much less damning than him telling a doctor, in the presence of Frankie and Betsy Andreu, outright that he doped. Much less than telling certain assistants, while giving them a pointed look, that '...everybody does it...' Much less telling than multiple positives in 1999. Much less telling than Floyd Landis saying he saw him... etc.

 

[python]

Ha!

Yes, this interview doesn't seem any different than many others he's given, so I don't see the reason to be so excited. It's essentially, to quote Polish, 'ssdd'. I mean, much less damning than him telling a doctor, in the presence of Frankie and Betsy Andreu, outright that he doped. Much less than telling certain assistants, while giving them a pointed look, that '...everybody does it...' Much less telling than multiple positives in 1999. Much less telling than Floyd Landis saying he saw him... etc.

agreed. another thread about the same sameness. 95 pr0lly felt jealous that so many threads about armstrong were started by others, so he had to add his own twist. a useless threads.

 

[thehog]

Your giving the guy too much credit. He's saying what he needs to say to get in there pick up his million and get out. If he flat out denies then there are follow up questions. These comments leave the super sharp Aussie reporters scratching their collective heads thinking they have a new quote.

He's really not saying anything but its enough to fill out a few lines of copy. Armstrong is playing them as per usual.

 

[Ferminal]

Daniel Benson:

@NickMech @FlashingPedals @newcyclingpath When a q on Jeff N investigation came up, entourage put an end to the press conference

-------------------------------------------

In any case, was this Lancey's first proper press conference in a while?

 

[theswordsman]

The only thing I saw was that he's moving from the everyone in pro cycling does it to everyone in pro sports does it theory.

Totally off topic, and possibly been dealt with here before, but I stumbled across an article link while looking at WADA's twitter earlier (By the way, there's also a December 16 reply to a forum member about them looking over the Contador documents and deciding in a few weeks whether to go to CAS). Anyway, you might have seen the article before, but it's about where the PED's come from and who makes the money. I found it really interesting.

'The Doping Trade Is a Mafia, Pure and Simple'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733801,00.html

 

[Roland Rat]

The only thing I saw was that he's moving from the everyone in pro cycling does it to everyone in pro sports does it theory.

Totally off topic, and possibly been dealt with here before, but I stumbled across an article link while looking at WADA's twitter earlier (By the way, there's also a December 16 reply to a forum member about them looking over the Contador documents and deciding in a few weeks whether to go to CAS). Anyway, you might have seen the article before, but it's about where the PED's come from and who makes the money. I found it really interesting.



http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733801,00.html

This is what has always astonished me about the doping apologists. Where do people think the drugs come from? A friendly doctor at Amgen who wants to make a bit on the side so he can buy his kid a nice Christmas present? It's extremely naive to think anything other than they come from part of a much larger organised crime network.

 

[online-rider]

My comments inside the quote in [brackets].



Has he ever gotten this close to actually admitting doping before?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-worried-at-doping-in-cycling-20110113-19p31.html

That is the sloppiest, most unconvincing piece of incrimination I have ever read.

 

[orbis_25]

Armstrong does not essentially admit to doping in this interview. The problem is that you know what you believe, and are twisting the words to fit that. I'm not saying that Lance is a drug free hero, but you need far more solid evidence to make your point. As it stands, you're desperately hunting for something, anything, to convince yourself that you're correct, and this time it just doesn't fly.

 

[Ferminal]

Armstrong does not essentially admit to doping in this interview. The problem is that you know what you believe, and are twisting the words to fit that. I'm not saying that Lance is a drug free hero, but you need far more solid evidence to make your point. As it stands, you're desperately hunting for something, anything, to convince yourself that you're correct, and this time it just doesn't fly.

Erm, he knows he's correct, he's just saying it because it would be an interesting progression in the investigation/Lance's inevitable demise.

I said in the other thread that I don't think it's a deviation from the usual "never test positive" and "high cadence".

 

[D-Queued]

But what about his high cadence, previewing routes and weighing his food?

Before Lance, no full-time, professional cyclist ever dedicated themselves to winning. He changed the whole business. He even thought about what equipment he should use and made sure his tires were inflated properly.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Before Lance, no full-time, professional cyclist ever dedicated themselves to winning. He changed the whole business. He even thought about what equipment he should use and made sure his tires were inflated properly.

Dave.

yeah, the others rode penny farthings till the uniballer came along?

the most innovative successful cyclist ever? Graham Obree.

uniballer did not innovate anything, he believed people innovated for him to make his gear better, this was done to make money out of the guy and in order to feed his ego..

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/07/f-one-thirty-six-seconds.html

debunks the myth....

 

[hrotha]

Well reading this thread with the big sensationalist title turned out to be a huge waste of time.

 

[Cloxxki]

Please don't flatter him with any sort of comparison to Obree?

 

[Benotti69]

Please don't flatter him with any sort of comparison to Obree?

no comparison whatsoever. uniballer has nothing to do with innovation except threatening people to do it for him, whereas Obree is a God.

 

[sniper]

Well reading this thread with the big sensationalist title turned out to be a huge waste of time.

Though you might be right as far as the original thread is concerned, i think you overlooked theswordsman's link to a very interesting read.

This is what has always astonished me about the doping apologists. Where do people think the drugs come from? A friendly doctor at Amgen who wants to make a bit on the side so he can buy his kid a nice Christmas present? It's extremely naive to think anything other than they come from part of a much larger organised crime network.

Indeed, I'd like to hear doping apologists reply to the article posted by theswordsman. No way one can credibly play down the significance of doping in sports after reading it. If the interviewed guy is right about doping leading up to cancer in some cases, than he indirectly strengthens Paul Kimmage's metaphor: rather than fighting cancer, Lance has been spreading it.

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

My comments inside the quote in [brackets].

High levels of doping in cycling are due to riders pushing human limits further than other sports, Lance Armstrong says. [Now, if the doping is pushing human limits further AND he beat them... the math is clear]

The seven-time Tour de France winner says he's not worried at being mentioned in doping investigations [downplaying], but is concerned at the high number of positive drug tests in cycling.

"I can't say no, you would have to say yes," Armstrong told reporters on Thursday.

"But to me that is really a byproduct of the sport trying harder than any other sport.

"I know if you laid those controls over any other world sport, especially one as demanding as cycling, you would have as many, if not more, positives." [justifies doping]

Armstrong held a media conference in Rowland Flat in South Australia's Barossa Valley wine region, ahead of him racing the Tour Down Under starting Sunday.

The tour will Armstrong's final race outside of the United States, but the 40-year-old said his farewell season would not be nostalgic.

"I have never been one to sit around and reminisce much," he said.

"It would be a mistake for me to think back on the stuff that I did on the bike when I have things in front of me that are much bigger than that." [okay, this is the most blatant part - what on Earth could he be referring to here other than his own doping?]

Armstrong hoped his legacy would be one of a cycling revolutionary.

"I won the Tour de France seven times and I think I won it because we changed the way people in cycling do business," he said. [I suggest the "I think" qualifier speaks volumes... this is anticipation of the accusation that he won because of the doping... he's saying no, "I think" it's because "we changed the way people in cycling do business,"]

"And I'm not going to dance around the fact there has been plenty of questions about that. [Blatant reference to him doping - no denial/anger of the past]

"But the reality is we came with a whole new approach to the sport. [again, downplaying the doping aspect relative to the "whole new approach" in terms of why he won]

"We revolutionised the way people train, the way they build morale in the team, the way they preview the courses, the way they race, the way they sell the sport, the way they tell that story around the world.

"I leave knowing that I did my best and I don't need somebody to give me a plaque or give me a statue, it has been very good to me on a lot of levels, it has been a good ride." [Not sure what to make of this... preparing to give up his trophies???]

Has he ever gotten this close to actually admitting doping before?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-worried-at-doping-in-cycling-20110113-19p31.html

The above is nothing more than Transparent Pseudoscience

 

[Trousers O'bongo]

More damning evidence, from CN article;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-supports-flood-victims

"I feel all right," he commented in relation to his physical preparation for the event. "But I can't deny my age. Three years ago I thought I could deny it but I can't. For training, I've done stuff other than riding a bike..."

Throw away the key.

 

[SC1990]

So we work backwards from the desired goal (Armstrong must be a cheat) and work out how his words somehow prove that conclusion, rather then reading his words and forming a conclusion from that now? Interesting logic.

 

[Benotti69]

Though you might be right as far as the original thread is concerned, i think you overlooked theswordsman's link to a very interesting read.

Indeed, I'd like to hear doping apologists reply to the article posted by theswordsman. No way one can credibly play down the significance of doping in sports after reading it. If the interviewed guy is right about doping leading up to cancer in some cases, than he indirectly strengthens Paul Kimmage's metaphor: rather than fighting cancer, Lance has been spreading it.

this is the biggest reason to dislike what he has done in cycling along with his personal enrichment fund AKA liestrong