Armstrong wins because he trains harder/smarter . . . not doping

[TRDean]

One comment here...I never liked the Armstrong "trains harder than everyone" argument. Sure, some guys train harder than others...but for the most part all of those guys are highly dedicated and extremely hard workers. Does Armstrong train and work harder than Evans? Menchov? or any of the other guys? I highly doubt it. That doesn't hold water...all of them are where they are because they have busted their ***.

 

[franciep10]

BYU do you know anything about competitive cycling, because the riders who dope they train just as hard as the ones who compete clean, do you actually think they sit on their *** for a week shoot up on epo and then get up and win races, no my teammates that doped they didn't do that they were with me on training rides they trained at altitude also. and another thing one of the most important factors of a stage race is recovery, and training at altitude doesn't help that, doping products do and thats what you need to understand. The reason that doped riders win is that they train just as hard as clean riders sometimes harder because they recover faster, and then due to the products they use they have a edge on the clean riders and that's why they win. By the way why do you want to provoke discussions like this, are you a troll ore just some idiot who likes to get a big reaction out of people on forums.

 

[Parrot23]

The reason that doped riders win is that they train just as hard as clean riders sometimes harder because they recover faster

Can put in bigger/more intense/frequent blocks of training, because of abnormally faster recovery. Won't break down whereas clean guys will.

Then when off some of the "gear" in a race to avoid detection, natural/baseline levels of fitness are temp. higher than undoped training guys'. Timing is key (doping helps peaking immeasureably).

Think Lasse Viren. Wouldn't win win much, but had weirdly consistent preternatural (ungodly, as in humanly impossible) ability to consistently/accurately peak for Olympic 5/10Ks to the day, unlike competitors. Why? Timed autologous blood boosting.

Sound familiar?

 

[dsteel]

I'm pretty new to cycling certainly watching it but am quite staggered that if LA was doping for so long how was he never caught, even once , after all he's never been banned has he?

It just seems a hell of a long time to be doping and never get caught (i know there have been lots of rumours)..

 

[whiteboytrash]

"Lance Armstrong worked with [Ferrari] and won the Tour seven times, there was no problem," added Vino. "I just needed a better trainer, that's all. [But] when journalists hear the name Ferrari they think doping, doping, doping. It's not like that with him. I only work on training and he's the best there is. If I win this Tour, it will be magnificent and I will thank him."

 

[whiteboytrash]

In an interview published in the French sports daily L’Equipe, Vinokourov said he was angered by the implication.

“Stop the rumors! If I train in a black jersey it’s only on the Cote d’Azur, where I live, and it’s because I want to be avoided be recognized by cycling tourists,” an angry Vinokourov said. “It’s not ideal to train for the Tour when I have 20 riders on my wheel for hours at a time. I’m not the only one who does it. Bettini doesn’t train in his rainbow jersey.”

On Wednesday, UCI anti-doping manager Anne Gripper told AFP that it was tracking “six or seven” suspect riders ahead of the Tour and subjecting them to extra out-of-competition controls.

Vinokourov told L’Equipe he’s already been tested three times, once ahead of Fléche Wallone, another time while training in Tenerife in April and once again in early June in his home in Monaco.

“If there had been an anomaly, I’d be the first to know, but there’s been nothing from the UCI, no mail,” Vinokourov said. “They are trying to scare us a little, but I am calm. I have nothing to hide.”

 

[Snake8]

I saw that commercial as well. WBT I appreciate your response. I am not an LA hater or fanboy, but I have seen first hand how much he has been an inspiration for folks with cancer. BYU you might have a better argument for LA not being a doper by arguing that he has the wings of tiny angels of cancer survivors carrying him up the hills.

 

[joe_papp]

...I have actually competed as a pro-cyclist, and if there is one thing you need to know it is that most cyclists who dope actually train really, really hard....

Right. The doping facilitates recovery so that brutal training sessions can be repeated more frequently.

 

[byu123]

I think this says a lot.

I'm not going to get into the timeless did he or did he not dope but you are very wrong to assume that dopers are worthless slugs or are lazy. You can be D**N sure that Kohl and Bella Jorg were ultra hard workers and suffered tremendously during racing and training and I will actually say that it is likely that the hardest workers are probably those who dope.

If you found out that Armstrong doped how would you feel?

You have a lot to learn yet byu123.

"says a lot" about what???? Sure . . . I have never ridden one inch as a competitive cyclist but I played NCAA Division I football for a top 20 team. I have seen the results of doping first hand. I have had to stand and face a tester while they directly observed you pi$$ing in a cup with a temperature gauge to test for PEDs. I have been tested for doping as a competitive athelete several times so what's your point? I have seen the team mate who was slower and could bench press 50lbs less in the spring come back in the fall faster, stronger and 20lbs heavier with acne, agression, and complaints from his girl friend that he couldn't get it up, etc. etc. etc. (BTW guy is a total wreck now but for that season he certainly kicked a$$). What??? unless you have competed in cycling specifically you have no opininon on doping in sports?

 

[Publicus]

Let me help.

"says a lot" about what???? Sure . . . I have never ridden one inch as a competitive cyclist but I played NCAA Division I football for a top 20 team. I have seen the results of doping first hand. I have had to stand and face a tester while they directly observed you pi$$ing in a cup with a temperature gauge to test for PEDs. I have been tested for doping as a competitive athelete several times so what's your point? I have seen the team mate who was slower and could bench press 50lbs less in the spring come back in the fall faster, stronger and 20lbs heavier with acne, agression, and complaints from his girl friend that he couldn't get it up, etc. etc. etc. (BTW guy is a total wreck now but for that season he certainly kicked a$$). What??? unless you have competed in cycling specifically you have no opininon on doping in sports?

I think you are missing the point that it is being conveyed. Cycling isn't like football where athletes are looking for short cuts to power. Contrary to what you implied with your original statement, the folks using PED's aren't looking to avoid training. They are the ones training just as hard (or harder) and looking to continually build on that training by shortening their recovery time (which is (apparently) the PEDs come in). In short, they've thoroughly debunked your erroneous conclusion that only the lazy use PEDs and made an indirect argument to explain WHY Lance doped. Elegant isn't it?

 

[byu123]

I think you are missing the point that it is being conveyed. Cycling isn't like football where athletes are looking for short cuts to power. Contrary to what you implied with your original statement, the folks using PED's aren't looking to avoid training. They are the ones training just as hard (or harder) and looking to continually build on that training by shortening their recovery time (which is (apparently) the PEDs come in). In short, they've thoroughly debunked your erroneous conclusion that only the lazy use PEDs and made an indirect argument to explain WHY Lance doped. Elegant isn't it?

There's just that one minor little issue of being tested hundreds of time for PEDs and never once having a positive results. Sure collective group think from those with a hatred fixation can imagine he doped but that is a long ways from "Lance doped." The difference is I come here as someone who has competed in competitive athletics at a high level an admire someone like Armstrong who has the dedication and drive to excel at an extremely challenging report. I admire his accomplishments not begrudge them due to some sort of infantile jealousy mentality of many erstwhile "competitive cyclists" here with a fixation on hating Armstrong . . .

Mind of the Lance the typical hating "competitive cyclist" here . . .

(7 TDFs! Damn if only I were ever strong enough, good enough, or dedicated enough to be that good . . .although I love biking, am a biker, and dream of being a great biker, I really hate the fact that Armstrong is so dominant. I just burns me. I just can't accept the fact that he had the drive and talent I could only dream of having. It must not be my shortcomings that denied me the ability, or my idol's ability, to be like Armstrong . . . it must be that he doped. Yeah! He doped! It can't be that he is just better, strong, and harder working! My ego couldn't accept THAT!!!!)

 

[byu123]

ICycling isn't like football where athletes are looking for short cuts to power.

STUDY: EPO increases "power" output by 54% in "reasonably fit cyclists"
http://boards.msn.com/thread.aspx?threadid=824529&boardsparam=Page=5

Hmmm . . . cyclists aren't "looking for short cuts to power"? If you really are some sort of competitive cyclist as opposed to a wannabee with a cycling avatar, you may want to rethink that statement.

Sure cycling is not football but the analogies to cheating and using PEDs to get an unfair competitive advantage are nearly the same. Sure different PEDs for different results but the issues are the same.

 

[byu123]

I think you are missing the point that it is being conveyed. Cycling isn't like football where athletes are looking for short cuts to power./QUOTE]

STUDY: EPO results in 54% increase in "power" output in "reasonably fit cyclists."

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Hmmm . . . unless you are just a misinformed wannabee cyclist with a cycling avatar you may want to reconsider that one.

Sure cycling is not football but the issues of using PEDs to get an advantage in competition is closely analagous. Each uses PEDs for different reasons and results, but the issues are the same.

 

[Publicus]

Ah.

There's just that one minor little issue of being tested hundreds of time for PEDs and never once having a positive results. Sure collective group think from those with a hatred fixation can imagine he doped but that is a long ways from "Lance doped." The difference is I come here as someone who has competed in competitive athletics at a high level an admire someone like Armstrong who has the dedication and drive to excel at an extremely challenging report. I admire his accomplishments not begrudge them due to some sort of infantile jealousy mentality of many erstwhile "competitive cyclists" here with a fixation on hating Armstrong . . .

Mind of the Lance the typical hating "competitive cyclist" here . . .

(7 TDFs! Damn if only I were ever strong enough, good enough, or dedicated enough to be that good . . .although I love biking, am a biker, and dream of being a great biker, I really hate the fact that Armstrong is so dominant. I just burns me. I just can't accept the fact that he had the drive and talent I could only dream of having. It must not be my shortcomings that denied me the ability, or my idol's ability, to be like Armstrong . . . it must be that he doped. Yeah! He doped! It can't be that he is just better, strong, and harder working! My ego couldn't accept THAT!!!!)

Let's take these one at time:

1. We know that synthetic EPO was found in his 1999 samples (6 incidents). No need to rehash the who-s, what's and why's. He hasn't demonstrated that they were false or challenged them on the basis that they were the result of sabotage.

2. You aren't the only person who has (A) competed at a high level and (B) admired Lance's work ethic. None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether Lance Armstrong has use PEDs. It may influence how you view certain facts and allegations, but it is dispositive of nothing more than you competed at a high level and you admire Lance's work ethic.

3. You engage in a great deal of projection in your attempts to dismiss the so-called haters. Because you've allowed your admiration to overcome your ability to logically and rationally analyze the facts and allegations of this situation (the 6 positives), you assume, incorrectly (though I guess logically), that others are engaging in the opposite behavior, namely that their hate blinds them to the facts of the situation (his numerous negative test results, he works harder than anyone ever(!) and the French super-duper hate him). Lance is a human being, which means he his fallible. He lies. He cuts corners. Hell I bet he even cuts farts from time to time. All of this is to say, don't believe too much in the marketing. I've learned a great deal about Lance from reading these threads that I didn't know or otherwise accepted as gospel truth (especially regarding his 'unique' physiology). That doesn't mean I regret being a fan or admiring his work ethic. Just that I learned something I didn't know before that colors how I look at him going forward.

 

[BikeCentric]

There's just that one minor little issue of being tested hundreds of time for PEDs and never once having a positive results. Sure collective group think from those with a hatred fixation can imagine he doped but that is a long ways from "Lance doped." The difference is I come here as someone who has competed in competitive athletics at a high level an admire someone like Armstrong who has the dedication and drive to excel at an extremely challenging report. I admire his accomplishments not begrudge them due to some sort of infantile jealousy mentality of many erstwhile "competitive cyclists" here with a fixation on hating Armstrong . . .

Mind of the Lance the typical hating "competitive cyclist" here . . .

(7 TDFs! Damn if only I were ever strong enough, good enough, or dedicated enough to be that good . . .although I love biking, am a biker, and dream of being a great biker, I really hate the fact that Armstrong is so dominant. I just burns me. I just can't accept the fact that he had the drive and talent I could only dream of having. It must not be my shortcomings that denied me the ability, or my idol's ability, to be like Armstrong . . . it must be that he doped. Yeah! He doped! It can't be that he is just better, strong, and harder working! My ego couldn't accept THAT!!!!)

You don't get it at all Mr. Noob cycling fan who has never raced a bike. There is one similarity between bike racing and football: when you lose it is because you were completely physically dominated by your competitor - in cycling it means that you simply could not hold your competitors wheel as they put in a nasty attack, and you suffer like you never have before with lactic acid burning you everywhere in your body, legs turning to shredded hamburger meat, vision dimming as you gasp for breath because you can't get enough oxygen, drooling and slobbering on yourself as you grovel in the gutter for some tiny shred of a slipstream to lessen your pain.

In cycling, when you can't hold the wheel there is no trash talking, no whining, and no shame, there is only respect. That person that dropped you is simply stronger than you on that day, period. Everyone who has ever raced a bike has experienced this, even Mr. Armstrong. All of us who are amateurs have had our asses kicked by people who went pro, and we know that they are simply on another level from us physically, drugs or not.

The point is that many of these guys, when they get to the highest level are now in a talent pool that has very small differences in performance. Many of them dope to keep their jobs and ensure that all the hard training they have done over many many years is not in vain. Many of the people Armstrong beat have doped and it's quite possible that he was a better athlete than most of them. But the main difference between Lance and them is that most pros simply don't talk about doping, but Lance speaks out and belittles his competition, saying that they are lazy and/or unwilling to make sacrifices. He also goes out of his way to ruin the careers of those who speak out in favor of a cleaner sport. This is why many cycling fans dislike him; for most it has nothing to do with what he does on a bike. Personally, I've also enjoyed watching him race his bike, he's a fierce competitor and a damn good racer and always has been. The only dislike comes from when he opens his mouth and I have to think that most fans of any sport are able to seperate the accomplishments of athletes on the field of play versus what they think of them as people off the field.

 

[Parrot23]

I think the situation may be similar to that in law enforcement vs. organized crime before the RICO statute was applied to the latter. The legal, qua "testing", regime was inadequate. So to say the organized crime guys were innocent because they'd never failed a "test" (legal statute) is substantively ridiculous. All law enforcement know that; they know who the criminals are and who has their hand in the pot (qua "blood bags"). They maybe can't prove it....yet. Sooner or later the law/testing regimes catch up with (close loopholes for) those whose behaviour, qua performance, is clearly aberrant, or across the line, or what have you. Many people in the know on this board are of this view vis a vis doping and selected performances/riders (they know their beat, just like a beat cop knows his neighbourhood). Just because someone remains legally untouched doesn't mean there is not very substantive prima facie evidence they are engaged in offences (qua fraud).

A good book to read is D. Coyle's Lance Armstrong's War. He was given access by Armstrong and Bruyneel and is fair-minded. He will give you some insight into the Dr. Ferrari character, etc., and some of the shenanigans that are common.

One important point he makes in interviews is there is a widespread fallacy that winners in sport like Armstrong are often regarded uncritically as nice people, even if they act nice and are engaged in noble causes. He says it doesn't follow (it's a non-sequitur, and that is his experience with the Armstrong phenom). That is the context here for the many comments made about Simeoni and Bassons--and by a wide range of former teammates. It should give you pause. This is a "bloodsport" in more ways that one.

It also explains the more positive attitude to Contador (who may well be on the same "medical" program), a simple guy who still lives in a fairly ugly feeder town to Madrid, whose mother works at city hall and whose dad stays at home to care for one of Alberto's brothers, who has cerebral palsy. Simple guy.

 

[Kennf1]

There's just that one minor little issue of being tested hundreds of time for PEDs and never once having a positive results.

That argument has been debated many, many times, and the sad thing about the current state of affairs is that fans can no longer trust the "never tested positive" stance. This isn't just about Lance, it goes for every cyclist riding right now. The list of pros who doped for years with no positive test, only to later be busted either with a positive test (due to bad doping management or a mistake about the efficacy of the tests) or with a confession keeps growing longer. Here is a partial list:

Ullrich: never tested positive

Basso: never tested positive

Museuuw: never tested positive (confessed to epo and tape recorded discussing doping with his doctor/veterinarian)

Kohl: doped for years with everything but only got popped for CERA in his last year.

Millar: doped for years but got busted through a police raid (although many of those years were before an eop test existed)

Rumsas: never positive (busted for possession when wife's car was found full of epo and HGH)

Edit: Rumsas was actually busted for epo in 2003. Oops.

 

[Kennf1]

(7 TDFs! Damn if only I were ever strong enough, good enough, or dedicated enough to be that good . . .although I love biking, am a biker, and dream of being a great biker, I really hate the fact that Armstrong is so dominant. I just burns me. I just can't accept the fact that he had the drive and talent I could only dream of having. It must not be my shortcomings that denied me the ability, or my idol's ability, to be like Armstrong . . . it must be that he doped. Yeah! He doped! It can't be that he is just better, strong, and harder working! My ego couldn't accept THAT!!!!)

So you honestly think that people who question doping are those that are jealeous they haven't (1) become a euro-professional, AND (2) won the Tour? Do you have any idea how long a ladder it is to be a prossional cyclist? Hell, I'm jealous of the Cat. 2s in my area. I may be jealous of Lance's houses in Austin and Aspen, but not his riding. Maybe if I were a top 20 pro, but not as a spectator.

 

[Parrot23]

Yes, Kenn, +1

But here we have a purported FBI cop who says the testing regime, qua legal regime, is infallible and has no holes in it. It came deus ex machina from the sky.

Sound familiar, BYU?

The testing regime really is, or has been, fallible, BYU. Jerry-rigged, with lots of holes/loopholes for the smart and well-financed to game and go through. Lot of doctors have been corrupted. The autologous blood doping thing (with own blood) is undetectable. It's like a hole in the Mexico-USA border, 300 miles wide with zero policing there.

 

[BikeCentric]

So you honestly think that people who question doping are those that are jealeous they haven't (1) become a euro-professional, AND (2) won the Tour? Do you have any idea how long a ladder it is to be a prossional cyclist? Hell, I'm jealous of the Cat. 2s in my area. I may be jealous of Lance's houses in Austin and Aspen, but not his riding. Maybe if I were a top 20 pro, but not as a spectator.

Trust me, don't be jealous of the Cat 2's - most of those poor *******s have to train 20 hours a week and eat like anorexic supermodels just to get dropped in the P/1/2 races.

 

[mainemike]

i keep coming back and checking in on this forum every week or so. nothing new. dope. lance. dope.lance. hate. hate. i'm a real racer you not. dope. hate. lance. dope. hate. lance. too bad really, cn is cool, this forum is, i don't know, odd, to say the least. keep fighting guys, i'll check in w/you next week.

 

[BikeCentric]

i keep coming back and checking in on this forum every week or so. nothing new. dope. lance. dope.lance. hate. hate. i'm a real racer you not. dope. hate. lance. dope. hate. lance. too bad really, cn is cool, this forum is, i don't know, odd, to say the least. keep fighting guys, i'll check in w/you next week.

Nah, that's cool brah - please don't bother.

 

[boalio]

i keep coming back and checking in on this forum every week or so. nothing new. dope. lance. dope.lance. hate. hate. i'm a real racer you not. dope. hate. lance. dope. hate. lance. too bad really, cn is cool, this forum is, i don't know, odd, to say the least. keep fighting guys, i'll check in w/you next week.

so go somewhere else. i don't mind.

 

[pmcg76]

Mind of the Lance the typical hating "competitive cyclist" here . . .

(7 TDFs! Damn if only I were ever strong enough, good enough, or dedicated enough to be that good . . .although I love biking, am a biker, and dream of being a great biker, I really hate the fact that Armstrong is so dominant. I just burns me. I just can't accept the fact that he had the drive and talent I could only dream of having. It must not be my shortcomings that denied me the ability, or my idol's ability, to be like Armstrong . . . it must be that he doped. Yeah! He doped! It can't be that he is just better, strong, and harder working! My ego couldn't accept THAT!!!!)

You really, really dont have a clue, I am betting the majority of posters on here started out as Lance fans and morphed into haters or dissenters. I will give you a personal breakdown of how I went from fan to foe and I am sure most are pretty similar.

My own awareness of Lance goes back to 1990 when he competed in the Worlds Amateur race in Japan. I then followed his progress through the pages of Winning magazine(in which he had a column thru 1993), I remember him winning races your average Lance fan dont know jack about.

He was definitely the up and coming English speaking superstar and I was a big fan, he was good from the moment he turned pro, winning USPROS, TDF stage and Worlds in his first full season, everyone including fellow pros thought he would be king of the classics, not a Tour winner. His career never took of the way many expected however, even in 1996, he admitted to the late Rich Carlson(Winning) he would never be a Tour contender.

When he came back from cancer to win the Tour, I was as happy as anybody but I was really surprised how he dominated in mountains especially. The Festina affair had happened in 1998 so long term fans were no longer innocent lambs to what happened in pro cycling. I gave Lance the benefit of doubt and believed all the theories, weight loss etc, and kinda ignored the incident with Bassons.

I bought a Trek bike, US Postal jersey, raincape etc so definitely not anti-Lance. On all the allegations, I observed proceedings but witheld judgement. The Ferrai connection was a big question mark however, I knew of Ferrari being a doping doctor as far back as 93. As time progressed and doping was still obviously widespread in cycling, I wanted Lance as the top guy to take a firm stance but he just buried his head. This frustrated me as did his continuing dominace of the Tour, it was becoming boring and predictable, I think this is natural in sport when one team or person dominates totally.

Then the spat with Simeoni in 04 finally put me into the anti-Lance camp, how could he do that to a guy who was helping to bring down the most famous doping linked doctor in cycling. His attitude was so wrong I was so happy he retired and then the 99 retested samples. I wasnt surprised but didnt get into it too much, I was just happy he was gone. What happened in the intervening years with Puerto, ex-teammates getting busted, all the little stories, it only confirmed what had been obvious to most longtime fans.

Disgusted when he announced his comeback as I knew it would be all about Lance again and it has, I know I am being hypocritical now but imagine how much better this forum would be if there was no Lance around, without all these Lance threads. Cycling does not need Lance, US cycling might but we were managing just fine without him.

My dislike of Lance is not based on some irrational jealousy, its based on over 20 years of observation in detail of cycling and using my logic to workout what is going on in the sport. I never needed anybody else to influence me on the Lance issue, he done it himself.

When you actually know something about cycling, then try and lecture us. I dont go on football sites and try to pass myself of as intelligble by saying Tom Brady is the greatest ever QB. Stick to what you know, and just watch as people recount similar stories on their own passage from Lance fan to hater.

Apologies for the length of this but needed to get it out.

 

[Anonymous]

You really, really dont have a clue, I am betting the majority of posters on here started out as Lance fans and morphed into haters or dissenters. I will give you a personal breakdown of how I went from fan to foe and I am sure most are pretty similar.

My own awareness of Lance goes back to 1990 when he competed in the Worlds Amateur race in Japan. I then followed his progress through the pages of Winning magazine(in which he had a column thru 1993), I remember him winning races your average Lance fan dont know jack about.

He was definitely the up and coming English speaking superstar and I was a big fan, he was good from the moment he turned pro, winning USPROS, TDF stage and Worlds in his first full season, everyone including fellow pros thought he would be king of the classics, not a Tour winner. His career never took of the way many expected however, even in 1996, he admitted to the late Rich Carlson(Winning) he would never be a Tour contender.

When he came back from cancer to win the Tour, I was as happy as anybody but I was really surprised how he dominated in mountains especially. The Festina affair had happened in 1998 so long term fans were no longer innocent lambs to what happened in pro cycling. I gave Lance the benefit of doubt and believed all the theories, weight loss etc, and kinda ignored the incident with Bassons.

I bought a Trek bike, US Postal jersey, raincape etc so definitely not anti-Lance. On all the allegations, I observed proceedings but witheld judgement. The Ferrai connection was a big question mark however, I knew of Ferrari being a doping doctor as far back as 93. As time progressed and doping was still obviously widespread in cycling, I wanted Lance as the top guy to take a firm stance but he just buried his head. This frustrated me as did his continuing dominace of the Tour, it was becoming boring and predictable, I think this is natural in sport when one team or person dominates totally.

Then the spat with Simeoni in 04 finally put me into the anti-Lance camp, how could he do that to a guy who was helping to bring down the most famous doping linked doctor in cycling. His attitude was so wrong I was so happy he retired and then the 99 retested samples. I wasnt surprised but didnt get into it too much, I was just happy he was gone. What happened in the intervening years with Puerto, ex-teammates getting busted, all the little stories, it only confirmed what had been obvious to most longtime fans.

Disgusted when he announced his comeback as I knew it would be all about Lance again and it has, I know I am being hypocritical now but imagine how much better this forum would be if there was no Lance around, without all these Lance threads. Cycling does not need Lance, US cycling might but we were managing just fine without him.

My dislike of Lance is not based on some irrational jealousy, its based on over 20 years of observation in detail of cycling and using my logic to workout what is going on in the sport. I never needed anybody else to influence me on the Lance issue, he done it himself.

When you actually know something about cycling, then try and lecture us. I dont go on football sites and try to pass myself of as intelligble by saying Tom Brady is the greatest ever QB. Stick to what you know, and just watch as people recount similar stories on their own passage from Lance fan to hater.

Apologies for the length of this but needed to get it out.

No need for that, your post was articulate and honest. Thank you for posting. Many like me were very similar. Simeoni was the watershed moment for many. Then the Tyler and Landis things just took it all out of me because I was a real fan of both. I always kind of rooted for Armstrong, but after reading "Its not about the bike" I knew that personality wise, he was not someone with whom I agreed regarding guiding forces in life.