I supported Lance Armstrong until...

[Willy_Voet]

Phase 1: 1999 I was amazed and hoped (?) that this could be real because cycling had a "new beginning".

Phase 2: The Simeoni incident had me ****ed, and by that time, I knew, but might still defend him (everyone else is probably doing it, too).

Phase 3: Seeing the article on the retroactive testing and seeing the gel for myself...that was it (2005?). He did it...the whole time.

Phase 4: 2005 onwards. The vindictive BS, the tone in his voice during press interviews, I started to take a real disliking to the guy. Arrogant, narcissistic ***. Win #7? Really, 7? FFS, don't take us all for fools.

 

[samerics]

It is heart breaking when friends get cancer, and more heartbreaking when they die. It is so unfair. People who never smoked, complaining of hip problems and being told it's from the cycling training they're doing. Going for a second opinion and discovering you have cancer in your hip. And your lungs. Never smoked. Dying months later. It's cruel.

Sitting at work next to a my friend / boss and every now and then the little pump thing would pfffffft another mini dose of chemo into him. Throat cancer. Never smoked. Fit as a fiddle. Bewildering.

It takes the best people from our lives. No matter how close or precious they are.

I never supported Lance Armstrong.

I don't think we need more cancer awareness.

Exactly, cancer awareness? Give me research anytime. And the b%#tard has lined his pockets through the con too.

 

[oncehadhair]

I'm still his supporter

Maybe you should change your forum name to ostrich.

 

[trailrunner]

It's interesting how the Simeoni incident was a turning point for a lot of us. It's a bit ironic actually, because at the time he was trying to preserve omertà, but in doing so, he wound up drawing more attention to himself.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Don´t get it "Simeoni" as turning point.

I mean did you all just start following cycling in 1999? At least 2000 everybody should have known Armstrong isn´t just a doper, but a heavy junkie. He beat all guys from the Festina year and the "Epo-Era" by at least 6 minutes. A guy who finished with the groupetto pre 1999, he was overtaken in ITT´s. He lost 6 mins in a single ITT. It was too obvious from the start of his winning streak at the TdF...

 

[Ferminal]

...he got cancer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Don´t get it "Simeoni" as turning point.

I mean did you all just start following cycling in 1999? At least 2000 everybody should have known Armstrong isn´t just a doper, but a heavy junkie. He beat all guys from the Festina year and the "Epo-Era" by at least 6 minutes. A guy who finished with the groupetto pre 1999, he was overtaken in ITT´s. He lost 6 mins in a single ITT. It was too obvious from the start of his winning streak at the TdF...

Now, with hindsight, this seems obvious, right? Noone says, "tactics", focusing on the WCs, or any other excuse. Just: he was autobus, then he was winning.

I know I sound like a broken record, but how in the hell is that any different to Wiggins 2012 and Wiggins clean (pre 2009)?

2012: Final GC:

1 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 87:34:47
2 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:03:21
3 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 0:06:19

2008 Giro 39.4km TT:

7. [ITA] NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 54"
157. [GBR] WIGGINS Bradley THR 08'24"

Nibali is 8' down, Wiggins is down 1:16. It is a TT the day after a rest day.

How? He was WC and Olympic gold medallist at IP that year. So he is in peak condition.

 

[sittingbison]

...How? He was WC and Olympic gold medallist at IP that year. So he is in peak condition.

Yup, a broken record! Give it a rest!!

Everyone knows he was training for the track, so couldn't perform on the road. The two disciplines are completely different, different training regimen, different gym program to target specific muscles, different diet to lose 13kg but maintain total power output. Only lighting up after the event, not before. And he was anaerobic on the track. He held his breath, just like Bolt. But on the road he needed to be as aerobically as possible. And he hadn't discovered that riding at 130rpm cadence on the road was not conducive to optimum rolling resistance and stuff like that.

He has a big engine, and won all those gongs on the track, which definitely shows he had the potential to be a GC contender. Jeez, he even almost killed those 21 others in that 4km ITT back in the day (2006, when he was also coming from the track). And he came top ten in some ITTs. If that doesn't show potential nothing will.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Now, with hindsight, this seems obvious, right? Noone says, "tactics", focusing on the WCs, or any other excuse. Just: he was autobus, then he was winning.

I know I sound like a broken record, but how in the hell is that any different to Wiggins 2012 and Wiggins clean (pre 2009)?

2012: Final GC:


2008 Giro 39.4km TT:


Nibali is 8' down, Wiggins is down 1:16. It is a TT the day after a rest day.

How? He was WC and Olympic gold medallist at IP that year. So he is in peak condition.

I guess you didn´t read my posts since i joined here in 2009, or my posts/letters in germany since 1999: I said from the beginning when this obscure guy came from nowhere in the 99-TdF that he is not only doping like your average Festina guy, but big time. I knew it from 1999 on. I was going as far as betting he won´t survive his "i don´t care about tomorrow" massive doping 10 years (actually admit i lost that bet).

Anyway i am not blaming you, just being surprised that so many didn´t got it before the Simeoni incident. That´s all.

P.S.: Never said something good about Wiggo. I highly doubt him.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Exactly, cancer awareness? Give me research anytime. And the b%#tard has lined his pockets through the con too.

Exactly.

"Have you heard of cancer? Yes? My job here is done. Cheque, please".

Raising awareness one dollar at a time...

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

Just something from the start of the video, I used to love listening to that music by Pete Shelley growing up watching the Tour on Channel 4. I think there was even a petition online to even get it back. They should bring it back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=243BJu0zB50&feature=related

Word. I've been dreaming for years that they'll bring it back by way of a Daft Punk or Justice remix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkX64dxTTHA

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

It's interesting how the Simeoni incident was a turning point for a lot of us. It's a bit ironic actually, because at the time he was trying to preserve omertà, but in doing so, he wound up drawing more attention to himself.

I had the same response: that incident was a real eye-opener to me, and it's good to know that it had the same effect on a lot of people. At the time I thought: really? "Zip it"? How exactly do you expect us to interpret that gesture besides as an admission of a guilt?

 

[phanatic]

I started watching the tour on versus in 2002 or 2003 and almost believed the cancer experience would have kept LA from doping, although I previously assumed most athletes doped. As for Lance, the Simeoni incident really sickened me, although I never loved the blue train as it seemed like stacking the deck and paying off potential rivals. Phil and Paul get a lot of flak on this site but they gave a lot of criticism, which may have come across more strongly for a novice than those with a greater knowledge of the sport. But when Jan answered a doping question by saying the race is too hard, I felt sympathetic for these dopers, but out of conscience rooted wholeheartedly for Basso and Vino ...

 

[RigelKent]

Don´t get it "Simeoni" as turning point.

I mean did you all just start following cycling in 1999?

Speaking for myself and a few people I know well: Pre high-speed internet it was next to impossible to follow cycling in the US if you weren't a die-hard, passionate fan who was willing to sacrifice other pursuits, or just read about it after the fact. Then, when we did start getting coverage, it was all about Lance, served up by the (now obviously) complicit general media. The whole Lance phenomenon was designed to create US interest in the previously obscure (in the US) sport and it worked fabulously.
So I'd guess that a lot of US folks did just start following cycling with some regularity post 1999. And as is typical for sports, one's interest starts in pulling for the "home team" and grows once you learn about the intricacies and history of the sport. Despite the way it may appear, few people want to be cynical, and as such, breaking through the myth takes time. MLB's home run race in '98 made me doubt incredible performances so I had early doubts on LA, but I didn't understand the weakness of the testing sufficiently (nor the corruption of the UCI) to be certain--and I admittedly wanted to believe in him.
On the other hand, in the spring of 09 I was auditing a supplier in France. In the hopes of breaking the ice over lunch, I brought up cycling. Two of my three French hosts immediately began gushing over the return of Armstrong and I was kind of surprised to find myself trying to explain that I thought he was a cheat while they raved about his return. Maybe they were being polite? Don't know, but third clearly had a different opinion and took my side, so it wasn't unanimous.
But for me, the "zip the lips" was as complete an admission of guilt as Tyler's book.

 

[sublimit]

I've never supported the Guy. The first warning sign came after his fourth place finish at the Vuelta in 1998. The second came when he tested positive for cortisone at the 1999 Tour De France, which was swept under the carpet by the UCI. (Hein, public enemy number one. What a clown and a gangster !!) His extraterrestrial.....(way beyond his natural physiological capabilities) ......performance at the 1999 Tour made it so obvious that he was loaded with a belly full of chemicals....pardon the pun. From that moment on he reeked of chemical enhancement. And so did all the other loser junkies and vampires on wheels that filled a systematically doped peloton.

I go with most of that, The Vuelta performance went over my head but you summed up pretty much everything I was going to say on this. For a guy who couldn't time trial or climb to start riding like that was just laughable.

 

[TheEnoculator]

I supported for Armstrong until 2010 Tour, when he made the likes of Brajkovič stay with him in the mountains even after it was decided that Armstrong would have no chance to do well in the GC. That ruined Brajkovič's and Levi's chances to do well for themselves. I fully realized then that Armstrong is one truly self-serving SOB.

 

[trailrunner]

Don´t get it "Simeoni" as turning point.

I mean did you all just start following cycling in 1999?

Speaking for myself and a few people I know well: Pre high-speed internet it was next to impossible to follow cycling in the US if you weren't a die-hard, passionate fan who was willing to sacrifice other pursuits, or just read about it after the fact.

Yes, I started following road cycling about 1999. In the 1990s I had been a hardcore mountain biker. I got burned out on that, and starting more road riding. Meanwhile, I read Velonews, but I didn't understand road cycling because it's hard to understand without actually seeing it or doing it. I remember intently reading about the 1997 tour, but it didn't really make sense to me. Then I was in Colorado in around July 2000 or so (maybe 2001), and they were televising the tour. It was the first time I had actually seen road racing, and it suddenly made a lot more sense to me. Around that time, and RigelKent points out, cycling became more accessible to people in the US.

 

[Polyarmour]

As a relative new comer to cycling I totally bought the Lance Armstrong story without knowing much about his background. I entered The Clinic one day and was so badly mauled by the tigers and snakes in here I didn't return for 12 months, but the rot had set in. I read everything I could about LA and I wasn't liking what I was reading. The final straw for me was the Tyler interview on 60 minutes. I think I have a good lie detector and I knew Tyler was telling the truth in that interview.

 

[thehog]

As a relative new comer to cycling I totally bought the Lance Armstrong story without knowing much about his background. I entered The Clinic one day and was so badly mauled by the tigers and snakes in here I didn't return for 12 months, but the rot had set in. I read everything I could about LA and I wasn't liking what I was reading. The final straw for me was the Tyler interview on 60 minutes. I think I have a good lie detector and I knew Tyler was telling the truth in that interview.

Out of interest why did you buy the story? This actually interests me. Was it the websites you were reading or Liggett or something different? I'm trying t understand why others didn't already know what was known.

 

[snackattack]

As a relative new comer to cycling I totally bought the Lance Armstrong story without knowing much about his background. I entered The Clinic one day and was so badly mauled by the tigers and snakes in here I didn't return for 12 months, but the rot had set in. I read everything I could about LA and I wasn't liking what I was reading. The final straw for me was the Tyler interview on 60 minutes. I think I have a good lie detector and I knew Tyler was telling the truth in that interview.

Out of interest why did you buy the story? This actually interests me. Was it the websites you were reading or Liggett or something different? I'm trying t understand why others didn't already know what was known.

http://vimeo.com/41301356#t=55

 

[RigelKent]

I know you didn't ask me, but, damn, I wanted to be able to believe it. If true, the story is awesome. And the media manipulation was so well done, that until one's knowledge hits a certain point it is really hard to see the other side. I'm not looking for a hero amongst athletes, but the "against all odds" story is very seductive. I think it's normal for people to want to believe such a thing.
You can see my early posts that I was in the "best of a bunch of cheaters" camp when I started posting here. I've savaged enough people mouthing off about things I knew way more about that I realized the beating I took may very well be the result of someone knowing a lot more than me. So I did a lot of lurking. RR, TFF/ChewbaccaD, Dr. Mas, et al, still know a heck of a lot more than me on this topic, but I've learned enough to listen to/read those who know.

 

[montel]

I started to really dis-believe around the time that LeMond started asking questions - it started slowly for me - around 2004 for sure.

I also remember at Interbike Lance refusing to sign anything but the poster he was supposed to sign at Giro or Trek (nothing else!) - People were apparently making too much money off of things he was signing...some poor person in a cast was turned down. Wouldn't want that stinky cast to be sold!

 

[Polyarmour]

Out of interest why did you buy the story? This actually interests me. Was it the websites you were reading or Liggett or something different? I'm trying t understand why others didn't already know what was known.

I was initially no different to any other member of the public. All I knew of LA was Cancer, one ball, 7 TdF's. Why was this all I knew? Because when the mainstream media covered cycling once in a blue moon, that's all I heard. When I initially started hearing rumours about LA I immediately thought tall poppy syndrome. No-one wants a good story ruined. Thinking back I believe the Floyd backflip troubled me too. The line from the LA camp was that the guy had ruined his credibility therefore should be ignored, a good lawyers viewpoint. But deep down I knew you would only put yourself through that if you were certifiably insane... or if it was true.

 

[flyor64]

2009 was the turning point for me....on this very forum...in this very clinic. Not a full-on blinders believer before that, but more of a "everyone's doing it...he's doing it best" kind of guy.

The funny thing is I now wonder if he hadn't made his comeback, and this place hadn't "gone to 11" because of it, would I still have the same feeling of ambivalence.

Alot of posts here resonate with me. Polyarmour's could almost mirror my "discovery". And RigelKent's about wanting to believe hits home for me too.

My mom had cancer in 06...I got her the free Livestrong Guide to Survival, or whatever it is called...we all wore yellow wristbands, etc. She survived, thankfully, but the book and bands made no difference.

As someone already posted, who needs more awareness of cancer?

Now I lurk mostly (post count as proof ) and read and learn.

 

[Frosty]

Anyway i am not blaming you, just being surprised that so many didn´t got it before the Simeoni incident. That´s all.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt (and i had considerable doubt) and didnt follow cycling that closely. No real doubt after Simeoni though.