Lance the anti-doping crusader?

Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
Given Lance's prominent position as a public figure and 'secular saint', I'm a bit stumped at the difficulty i have in finding any explicit anti-doping messages that can be attributed to him. Does anybody have a link? It's puzzling that he isn't a prominent anti-doping crusader given that he's 'never tested positive' and is the world's 'most tested athlete'.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
ProfTournesol said:
Given Lance's prominent position as a public figure and 'secular saint', I'm a bit stumped at the difficulty i have in finding any explicit anti-doping messages that can be attributed to him. Does anybody have a link? It's puzzling that he isn't a prominent anti-doping crusader given that he's 'never tested positive' and is the world's 'most tested athlete'.
You are right. Lance has never been anti doping. He has been anti those who talk about doping.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
You are right. Lance has never been anti doping. He has been anti those who talk about doping.
Quite. His public stance has always been "Nobody should talk about doping. Ever. Silence makes the problem go away."

Other than that, his only comments are repeating the "I'm the most tested athlete" myth (that is very very far from being true)
 
Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
so can anyone point me to a strong anti-doping comment? I know that he has 'donated' money to WADA but I'm not sure if that is for anti-doping. Why isn't he the leading anti-doping crusader?
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
ProfTournesol said:
so can anyone point me to a strong anti-doping comment? I know that he has 'donated' money to WADA but I'm not sure if that is for anti-doping. Why isn't he the leading anti-doping crusader?
He donated money to the UCI, not WADA. That is a big difference.
 
With Armstrong's personality you would expect him to be hopping mad and extremely outspoken about all the dopers who he was being forced to compete against. Instead he is quiet as a mouse. That says everything right there.
 
Jul 9, 2009
37
0
0
From Twitter/lancearmstrong:

"At breakfast. UCI antidoping inspectors just walked in. Blood control for Levi, klodi, alberto, and myself. This is a good thing... "

Maybe some of you guys are right and he's clean *ironyoff* :D
 
Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
Hayden Roulston said:
From Twitter/lancearmstrong:

"At breakfast. UCI antidoping inspectors just walked in. Blood control for Levi, klodi, alberto, and myself. This is a good thing... "

Maybe some of you guys are right and he's clean *ironyoff* :D
do you know of any press releases, press conferences, major anti-doping statements? Anything longer than 256 characters?
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
ProfTournesol said:
do you know of any press releases, press conferences, major anti-doping statements? Anything longer than 256 characters?
We get it. We got it the first time you posted this. You think Lance dopes. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess Tiger Woods is racist because he doesn't talk about civil rights, right?

If you Lance haters would just ignore the people who are only here for the Tour, that worship Lance, they'll be gone in 2 weeks and you can have your perfect little Lance bashing world back. I just don't understand why so many people waste so much time taking shots at him. It truly is beyond me.

I hate NASCAR. But, I don't go on Nascar boards ripping on the sport and the drivers. I love football, but hate Terrell Owens. I don't find it necessary to go to the Buffalo Bills website to rip on him.
 
colwildcat said:
We get it. We got it the first time you posted this. You think Lance dopes. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess Tiger Woods is racist because he doesn't talk about civil rights, right?

If you Lance haters would just ignore the people who are only here for the Tour, that worship Lance, they'll be gone in 2 weeks and you can have your perfect little Lance bashing world back. I just don't understand why so many people waste so much time taking shots at him. It truly is beyond me.
Someone comes to the doping forum and is surprised to find them discussing the truth about Armstrong. What a surprise.

If you Lance tea baggers would open you eyes an get a clue then you would know that your analogy with Tiger Woods is a joke. Did Tiger Woods ever tell a golfer who had spoken out about civil rights that he should shut his mouth or leave the sport? Did he ever hire a world renowned racist as his trainer? Did he ever kick the ball of a competitor into the rough because that competitor testified in court that his trainer was a racist? Did his personal assistant ever find periodicals from the KKK his bathroom? Did his caddie ever overhear him and his "team" telling racist jokes?
 
Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
here's the closest I've found, but Lance very carefully avoids giving his own views on doping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw

He does say "do you think I'd be crazy enough to put all that stuff into my body just to go faster?", but leaves the listener to answer that question for themselves. He's happy to repeat "I've never tested positive" etc, but why won't he come out and make an unequivocal statement condemning doping like Linus Gerdemann has for instance? In fact he's threatened to chase Linus down if he gets into a breakaway for questioning Lance's participation in the Tour (Simeoni revisited?)
 
Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
colwildcat said:
We get it. We got it the first time you posted this. You think Lance dopes. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess Tiger Woods is racist because he doesn't talk about civil rights, right?

If you Lance haters would just ignore the people who are only here for the Tour, that worship Lance, they'll be gone in 2 weeks and you can have your perfect little Lance bashing world back. I just don't understand why so many people waste so much time taking shots at him. It truly is beyond me.

I hate NASCAR. But, I don't go on Nascar boards ripping on the sport and the drivers. I love football, but hate Terrell Owens. I don't find it necessary to go to the Buffalo Bills website to rip on him.
I don't know if Lance dopes. I am incredulous that there are 11 Tour riders who are clearly in a different league to every other rider and coincidentally they are all on 1 team and this pattern has continued every year since Lance won his first Tour. I'm curious how Lance's individual performance can still be stratospherically ahead of other elite athletes who have been convicted of doping. I note the number of ex-USPS/Disc/Astana riders who have tested positive, but this doesn't mean that I know that Lance is doping. I note his association with Michele Ferrari but guilt by association is not enough.

I am perplexed, given the questions over his legitimacy, why he hasn't been a prominent anti-doping campaigner, an example to all athletes for how hard work and training can triumph alone over doping etc... True, he doesn't have to do it, but his silence is puzzling.

I'm concerned about it because I'd like to believe in legitimate competition in my favourite sport, not "he with the best pharmacy budget, wins". If there was a drug use cloud over Tiger Woods then I'd expect the same from him.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
ProfTournesol said:
I don't know if Lance dopes. I am incredulous that there are 11 Tour riders who are clearly in a different league to every other rider and coincidentally they are all on 1 team and this pattern has continued every year since Lance won his first Tour. I'm curious how Lance's individual performance can still be stratospherically ahead of other elite athletes who have been convicted of doping. I note the number of ex-USPS/Disc/Astana riders who have tested positive, but this doesn't mean that I know that Lance is doping. I note his association with Michele Ferrari but guilt by association is not enough.

I am perplexed, given the questions over his legitimacy, why he hasn't been a prominent anti-doping campaigner, an example to all athletes for how hard work and training can triumph alone over doping etc... True, he doesn't have to do it, but his silence is puzzling.

I'm concerned about it because I'd like to believe in legitimate competition in my favourite sport, not "he with the best pharmacy budget, wins". If there was a drug use cloud over Tiger Woods then I'd expect the same from him.

A couple things to consider. First, there's only 9 people on a Tour de France team. But, that's just details. Second, there has never been a year where every rider on Lance's team were among the strongest in the tour. Every year, Postal/Discovery, etc, would use their weapons smartly. They would burn guys out at certain points to the best effect. Rubiera would have never had a chance at a Tour win by himself, but he was great at taking Lance 40% up a climb at a blistering pace.

Second, he doesn't talk about it in my opinion because it legitimizes the rumors. The haters and bitter people, such as those that are so Anti Lance here, would just say that he's trying too hard, that it's all false, etc. In other words, there is nothing he could possibly say to silence his skeptics. If he goes out and wins, and doesn't fail tests, that's not good enough. If he does all those things and then talks about doping, why does that make his case any different?

Noboby has answered me this question: Why on Earth would he dope right now? What does he have to prove? He has everything, and I mean EVERYTHING to lose if he is caught. His cancer foundation would be destroyed. And sorry, I don't believe his ego is so big that he would allow that to happen. Unless of course you believe he doesn't care about helping those with cancer. If you're that cynical, then I pity you.

So, he's either the most brilliant man in the world at escaping tests, or maybe, just maybe, he's racing clean. But, if you admitted to yourself that he is racing clean at 37 and is still arguably one of the 10-15 best riders on the planet, you'd have to admit to yourself that maybe, again just maybe, during his prime he really was that good and maybe we truly witnessed greatness.

Call me a teabagger. I don't really care.
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
Fundamental flaw - You assume there is a possibility he will get caught. As long as the UCI controls the testing there is absolutely no chance Armstrong will be positive. Simple inherent conflict of interest. Organisations are not in the habit of slaughtering their cash cow.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
unsheath said:
Fundamental flaw - You assume there is a possibility he will get caught. As long as the UCI controls the testing there is absolutely no chance Armstrong will be positive. Simple inherent conflict of interest. Organisations are not in the habit of slaughtering their cash cow.
Are you really suggesting that there is some vast conspiracy to hide results from his drug tests? Jesus, you people really are humorous. What about every other testing agency that tests riders?

So, Lance is doping. Contador beat him. Ergo, Contador must be doping. Great, you should all hate him as well as he denies it. And, he's not an anti-doping crusader. So, there's nobody in the sport worth following. So, you should all stop following cycling.

Hey, the Giants are no hitting the Padres tonight. That pitcher must be using steroids. I'll wait for his post game press conference to see if he comes out and condemns steroids. If not, I'll assume he's dirty.
 
colwildcat said:
Are you really suggesting that there is some vast conspiracy to hide results from his drug tests? Jesus, you people really are humorous. This is the same UCI whose leader has attacked Lance so many times in the past? What about every other testing agency that tests riders?
When you just make stuff up, like the bolded text, you lose all credibility that you know what you are talking about. The UCI accepted a $500K under the table payment from Armstrong. They accepted a backdated TUE for corticosteroids in 1999. They produced a bogus defense to excuse Armstrong positives for EPO in retrospectively tested urine.

Point out anything that Pat McQuaid or Hein Verbruggen has ever said that could remotely be construed as attacking Armstrong. Let's see it.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
BroDeal said:
When you just make stuff up, like the bolded text, you lose all credibility that you know what you are talking about. The UCI accepted a $500K under the table payment from Armstrong. They accepted a backdated TUE for corticosteroids in 1999. They produced a bogus defense to excuse Armstrong positives for EPO in retrospectively tested urine.

Point out anything that Pat McQuaid or Hein Verbruggen has ever said that could remotely be construed as attacking Armstrong. Let's see it.
You're right. I didn't make it up, I mispoke. That is why I edited the post to remove my error.

Doesn't make the point that every doping testing agency is somehow covering up results any less stupid or asinine.

Go ask any competent lawyer - evidence with no chain of custody, tested outside of the presence of the defendant or his representative, in a process run by journalists - wouldn't stand up in any kangaroo court in the world. But, keep grasping at those straws. I hear there's a new Walsh book coming out soon.
 
colwildcat said:
Doesn't make the point that every doping testing agency is somehow covering up results any less stupid or asinine.
The UCI has covered up positives in the past. There is no reason to think that they do not still do so, especially since the Verbruggen and his stooge, Pat McQuaid, still control the UCI.
 
Mar 10, 2009
140
0
0
colwildcat said:
A couple things to consider. First, there's only 9 people on a Tour de France team. But, that's just details. Second, there has never been a year where every rider on Lance's team were among the strongest in the tour. Every year, Postal/Discovery, etc, would use their weapons smartly. They would burn guys out at certain points to the best effect. Rubiera would have never had a chance at a Tour win by himself, but he was great at taking Lance 40% up a climb at a blistering pace.
Apologies, of course it's 9 not 11. Please read the comment with a '9'. Just because a rider sets a fierce tempo for an hour and then drops off doesn't mean that they aren't 'unusually' strong. Granted, they don't finish the stage with 9 riders riding together but they routinely achieve things that no other team can do, do it stage after stage, and do it with different personnel every year. They can't repeat that when they leave for another team (eg Popovych and Martinez).
colwildcat said:
A
Second, he doesn't talk about it in my opinion because it legitimizes the rumors. The haters and bitter people, such as those that are so Anti Lance here, would just say that he's trying too hard, that it's all false, etc. In other words, there is nothing he could possibly say to silence his skeptics. If he goes out and wins, and doesn't fail tests, that's not good enough. If he does all those things and then talks about doping, why does that make his case any different?
colwildcat said:
A
If he truly believed doping was wrong, why would he not say it publicly. Granted, there are those that wouldn't believe him no matter what he said, but this thread isn't meant as another 'Lance is doping thread', rather it's a 'why isn't he speaking out as he is the perfect example of how someone can ride clean and crush the opposition'?
colwildcat said:
A
Noboby has answered me this question: Why on Earth would he dope right now? What does he have to prove? He has everything, and I mean EVERYTHING to lose if he is caught. His cancer foundation would be destroyed. And sorry, I don't believe his ego is so big that he would allow that to happen. Unless of course you believe he doesn't care about helping those with cancer. If you're that cynical, then I pity you.
Lance, if he were doping, would be the only one who could answer that. it appears though that he not only has a need to win but that it's a need to crush his opponents. In order to do that, he has to be equipped to crush and humiliate, has to win without grace, and has to be able to polarise people so that he has opponents - not just other riders, but 'enemies' - trolls as he calls them. it's the crushing and humiliating that is the essential life force for Lance. Of course were this formulation to be close to the truth (who knows for sure) then doping would easily be justifiable.
colwildcat said:
A
So, he's either the most brilliant man in the world at escaping tests, or maybe, just maybe, he's racing clean. But, if you admitted to yourself that he is racing clean at 37 and is still arguably one of the 10-15 best riders on the planet, you'd have to admit to yourself that maybe, again just maybe, during his prime he really was that good and maybe we truly witnessed greatness.
yes, maybe he's racing clean, none of us know for sure, it defies belief for many people but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. Equally, it is possible that he isn't.
colwildcat said:
A
Call me a teabagger. I don't really care.
 
colwildcat said:
A couple things to consider. First, there's only 9 people on a Tour de France team. But, that's just details. Second, there has never been a year where every rider on Lance's team were among the strongest in the tour. Every year, Postal/Discovery, etc, would use their weapons smartly. They would burn guys out at certain points to the best effect. Rubiera would have never had a chance at a Tour win by himself, but he was great at taking Lance 40% up a climb at a blistering pace.

Second, he doesn't talk about it in my opinion because it legitimizes the rumors. The haters and bitter people, such as those that are so Anti Lance here, would just say that he's trying too hard, that it's all false, etc. In other words, there is nothing he could possibly say to silence his skeptics. If he goes out and wins, and doesn't fail tests, that's not good enough. If he does all those things and then talks about doping, why does that make his case any different?

Noboby has answered me this question: Why on Earth would he dope right now? What does he have to prove? He has everything, and I mean EVERYTHING to lose if he is caught. His cancer foundation would be destroyed. And sorry, I don't believe his ego is so big that he would allow that to happen. Unless of course you believe he doesn't care about helping those with cancer. If you're that cynical, then I pity you.

So, he's either the most brilliant man in the world at escaping tests, or maybe, just maybe, he's racing clean. But, if you admitted to yourself that he is racing clean at 37 and is still arguably one of the 10-15 best riders on the planet, you'd have to admit to yourself that maybe, again just maybe, during his prime he really was that good and maybe we truly witnessed greatness.

Call me a teabagger. I don't really care.
Dude the guy's a friggin doper, period. Stop trying to convince yourself he has never doped. If you want to continue with your self-deception game, which is also wasting our time, it would be better for you to watch a different sport. At least there is more integrity in that. Only little children and dumb people can believe the fairytale nonesense you spew forth. A 7 time tour winner has doped. Every Tour winner, at least since the 50's has doped, in some form or another.

Aliens don't exist, drugs do. Sure you have to be good first, and doped second. That's the way it works. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

And one doesn't condem what one does/has done. Plus he doesn't speak out because of the omertà code of honor ruling the peleton. His public scolding of Simeoni was proof that Lance protects the omertà. In fact he's like the Godfather of cycling and it's just sickening that he has tried to pass us all off as idiots, especially with his false and propagandistic cancer foundation. Anybody that refuses to see that is blind, and stupid.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Why the flames on here yikes. :confused:

So, he's either the most brilliant man in the world at escaping tests, or maybe, just maybe, he's racing clean. But, if you admitted to yourself that he is racing clean at 37 and is still arguably one of the 10-15 best riders on the planet, you'd have to admit to yourself that maybe, again just maybe, during his prime he really was that good and maybe we truly witnessed greatness.

Call me a teabagger. I don't really care.
I wont call you a teabagger man. But I will say there's absolutely ZERO risk with blood doping with your own blood which gives by far the biggest boost. A rider does not have to be an "expert" at evading tests. The top 50 riders can all "draw off" 40 units of blood over multiple visits during the winter, the plasma is spun off in a centrifuge and the remaining red cells are deep frozen in Nitrogen at -80 degrees C. They keep for up to 10 years so each rider can build up a blood bank and always have some on hand for a rainy day.

Its preserved in a manner that minimal cell death is had, they do not have to use epo at all. In fact they dont have to use any drug at all listed on the banned list. All they must do is hemodilute down to their normal blood values before morning race controls which all go on at the same time.

I ask you this... How in the heck did Lance DNF his first 2 Tours? He was 21, 22, 23 years old. He couldnt crack the top 35 places, or he just DNF'd. How do you explain this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs&feature=channel_page

going on to winning 7 Tours and being an unstoppable machine in TTs?
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
rhubroma said:
Dude the guy's a friggin doper, period. Stop trying to convince yourself he has never doped. If you want to continue with your self-deception game, which is also wasting our time, it would be better for you to watch a different sport. At least there is more integrity in that. Only little children and dumb people can believe the fairytale nonesense you spew forth. A 7 time tour winner has doped. Every Tour winner, at least since the 50's has doped, in some form or another.

Aliens don't exist, drugs do. Sure you have to be good first, and doped second. That's the way it works. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

And one doesn't condem what one does/has done. Plus he doesn't speak out because of the omertà code of honor ruling the peleton. His public scolding of Simeoni was proof that Lance protects the omertà. In fact he's like the Godfather of cycling and it's just sickening that he has tried to pass us all off as idiots, especially with his false and propagandistic cancer foundation. Anybody that refuses to see that is blind, and stupid.
Here's a tip, try to have a conversation with another human being that doesn't agree with you without calling them stupid or belittling them. It'll actually make you sound more intelligent and less like a bitter jackass.

I'll concede that he did dope in his career. My skepticism is that he would take the risk to dope today given all that he has to lose, and nobody has convinced me that he really is that stupid.

By the way, I'll admit I'm a bit of fan, but not only because of his riding. But, because of the work that his Foundation did with my father as he died of cancer. You can hate the man all you want, but you take it to a whole new level of ludicrousness if you fail to recognize anything good that he has done.
 
colwildcat said:
Here's a tip, try to have a conversation with another human being that doesn't agree with you without calling them stupid or belittling them. It'll actually make you sound more intelligent and less like a bitter jackass.

I'll concede that he did dope in his career. My skepticism is that he would take the risk to dope today given all that he has to lose, and nobody has convinced me that he really is that stupid.

By the way, I'll admit I'm a bit of fan, but not only because of his riding. But, because of the work that his Foundation did with my father as he died of cancer. You can hate the man all you want, but you take it to a whole new level of ludicrousness if you fail to recognize anything good that he has done.
Everything is propaganda. And I know that's hard to take for someone who has lost his father to cancer, for which I send my condolences.

But I never called you stupid and would only call someone stupid who struck first.

In any case, a bitter jackass, well, that's true. Sometimes I am a bitter fùck. But that's only because I have a tremendous empathy for the weak and the exploited. Everything else is just hyperbole and propaganda.
 
Actually, Colwildcat, you're fairly reaonsable for a Lance fan, and I think your questions are valid. I don't agree with all you said, and it peeves me whenever anyone just clumps everyone together that is critical of Lance as "hater". But let me make some comments on the thread.

ProfTournesol said:
I know that he has 'donated' money to the UCI but I'm not sure if that is for anti-doping?
It was for some sort of mysterious blood machine according to Hein Verbruggen. A man I feel quite possibly the most inept and corrupt leader of any sporting organization dating back to Ford Frick (who oddly enough, has an award named after him). But Hein's flippant, defeatist attitude towards doping, and political back-slapping ways don't only apply to Armstrong. Not even close. We could start an entire thread on the Hein-Pat show, and how inept and self-serving the UCI is overall.

colwildcat said:
Noboby has answered me this question: Why on Earth would he dope right now?
To win! To win, to win, to win, to win! With winning comes glory, adulation, etc. It's a great feeling to win. You must have won something at your life, didn't you? It was a great feeling. Now, you must admit that Lance has a pretty big ego (I'm not saying he's the only one, he's one of many, but his is pretty big), winning fuels almost anyone's ego.

As to getting caught, I'd say it's almost a zero chance. I'm guessing that Lance is on a program that is lesser and more refined than Kohl, with no CERA, and the only way they caught Kohl was the CERA, and barely at that.

Also understand how testing works. Using his own blood, the only way they'll kick him out is if his hct is over 50%, as he's not on anything else illegal, or detectable, especially during racing (he and other may have microdosed other products, such as Dynepo, etc. earlier in the year). There are also schedules as to when the vampires are going to come and UCI rules on this. Not that they show up only at 1pm every Tuesday, no. But rides know that the testers will come in the morning, but rarely if ever twice. This gives a great window of opportunity, and why myself, and others, have advocated a 2nd, surprise test after the sign in, and just before the race, as it's when you're most likely to catch someone. Or, almost immediately after a stage. That would really throw a wrench in some motors and cause some bio passport numbers to jump. But the UCI won't do this, it's not in their protocol. Plus as BigB says, Lance is never going to get over 50 on a readable test anyway (various ways of doing this). They might get him at 49.5% or so, in which case he would just say he was dehydrated (he, and others have done this in the past).

Myaybe, again just maybe, during his prime he really was that good and maybe we truly witnessed greatness.
Maybe. I just doubt that's only it. What he was, was completely driven to success. And that's not an insult. Compare his confidence and drive to that of some of the riders he beat: Pantani, Ullrich, Virenque. They, and many others, weren't consistent as a human being even! Some of these guys are head cases that need to be pampered. Lance is more like a CEO.

Others disagree with me on this, but I do think that having numerous tumors in his body did slow Lance down, and once he was cancer free, he was a better rider. Combine that, with being 1000% focused on winning at all costs, put him on the best team in the sport, concentrate on one race (the Tour) and yes, refined doping from an expert doctor (Ferrari), and there you have it.

If that still makes me a "hater" in your eyes, or in the eyes of Lance fans, then I give up.

The OP's question does pertain to Lance because he's the head of the sport, and he talks a lot, in a sport riddled with doping problems. It's the same way the press hounded Barry Bonds. Though Bonds was a much more private, introverted man.

Now, to give the best possible answer I could find, here is what Lance said in about 2005 after word leaked on his "donation" to the UCI:

“I am not the type of person that likes to get up and say in the newspaper: 'Our sport is dirty, everybody is cheating.' This is the sport that I love more than anything, the sport that feeds my children. Why would I stand up and say that?” Armstrong continued. “There are other avenues to combat doping, versus trashing the sport and its players, and sponsors and spectators. It's been the road that I chose. Maybe I'm right, Maybe I'm wrong. …”

Interpret how one may, but there it is out of the man's mouth.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY