Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 138 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Von Mises said:
I did not take his "conservative doper" comment with a meaning "I took less", but more like: I was risk averse, methodical, cautious. And if I read Hamilton and compare it Rasmussen (dog blood) or stories from Puerto or stories from mid 90-s, I have similar take. Armstrong´s and USPS doping success did not come from "taking more", but from being very systemic, well planned, well organized etc.
How exactly was Rasmussen's "dog blood" more risky than LA's dope?
 
Netserk said:
How exactly was Rasmussen's "dog blood" more risky than LA's dope?

Mikhail Bulgakov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Dog#Plot
provides a cautionary tale: ;)


[Sharik the dog] is dragged by the scruff of the neck into the lab. There, he is sedated and an operation begins. As Doctor Bormenthal assists, the Professor trepans Sharik's skull and gives him a human pituitary gland. Sharik's torso is also opened and he is given human testicles. Only repeated injections of adrenaline prevent the dog from dying on the operating table.

During the weeks after the operation, the household is stunned as Sharik begins transforming into an incredibly unkempt human.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Amgen (applied molecular genetics) was founded in 1980. Founded through funding from Thomas Weisel. Owner of USPS.

The US team was doing USAC sanctioned blood doping at the 84 Olympics yeah?

If you think LA did Worlds without significant assistance, based on Lance saying he was not on EPO yet. Well. Too many pieces of that jigsaw puzzle fit together differently to allow me to agree.

This is a good point actually, and triggers another. The 80's was the height of the cold war, and the period when some in the US got really 'laissez faire' about doping to beat the 'Reds', up to and including FloJo.

It's easy to get lost in the euro-centric narrative, and forget the concurrent american one was not identical...
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
martinvickers said:
This is a good point actually, and triggers another. The 80's was the height of the cold war, and the period when some in the US got really 'laissez faire' about doping to beat the 'Reds', up to and including FloJo.

It's easy to get lost in the euro-centric narrative, and forget the concurrent american one was not identical...

Has that 'laiissez faire' attitude changed? USADA are underfunded and look how long it took to bust one of the most obvious dopers in USA sport, never mind the obvious doping in NFL, MLB or NBL.
 
Benotti69 said:
Has that 'laiissez faire' attitude changed? USADA are underfunded and look how long it took to bust one of the most obvious dopers in USA sport, never mind the obvious doping in NFL, MLB or NBL.

Anti "doping" in any context or walk of life is clearly not a thoroughgoing priority in the US.
 
USADA are not responsible for the professional sports leagues, nor the NCAA

They have their own systems in place.

The players unions seem to be more interested in protecting dopers, than clean athletes in each case.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Has that 'laiissez faire' attitude changed? USADA are underfunded and look how long it took to bust one of the most obvious dopers in USA sport, never mind the obvious doping in NFL, MLB or NBL.

Yes, I believe it has; certainly since Balco and Marion Jones, and probably since Big Ben Johnson. The baseball sagas are an indictment of that.

The culture now concentrates considerably less on 'them' - the other, the foreigner, the enemy - doping, and more on 'us' doping.

If you're looking for all the yanks to mirror your views, that's not a sensible test, and frankly not a desirable outcome. But there's been changes, certainly, and the fall of lance is part of that, as is the gathering storm over concussive injury in the NFL, for example - it'll take time, years, but now it's out there, the issue will eventually start to come round to the sheer size and muscle mass of many of the footballers, and how they got there. It did eventually for baseball; the treatment of A-Rod is considerably worse (for which, read, actually, better - i.e. more deserved) than would have happened back in the day.

These things aren't changed by sarcasm and cynicism, however good it feels lashing out. But by care, time and dedication to putting it together. Patience, in other words.
 
ebandit said:
it's so unfair.........I was born to live in a bigger house than anyone else
, fly around in my private jet and hob *** with the rich and famous

you can't take that away from me..............you can't!

Mark L

:D

Add the downside that because his heart is the size of a pumpkin, he also has a particular need for high water consumption.

Dave.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-2

LA on David Walsh

I doubt that he will read this interview because he’s in the middle of his global victory tour.

zhttps://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/398419931093811200

What a tool Armsrong is, he still wants to strike at Walsh

Anyway more from David Walsh

I read the parts of LA interviewed already in CN and though there were some interesting bits, too much missing, Carmichael, Ochowitz, Weisel, Gorski, Stapleton, Bruyneel, Celaya, Trek, Oakley, Nike, US Cycling, etc. Sooner or later, we will know.
 
hrotha said:
In part 3 Benson finally decided to put up some real pressure with his questions, and of course that made Armstrong come across much more clearly as the jerkass he is.

That's what I commented on before at the end of that piece, that the interviewer came across as a Wonderboy fan sort of, as he didn't ask any tough questions, just skirted around certain issues. I can kind of see why he did this though, because he was probably in fear that LA wouldn't grant him an interview if he did a full on press on him right out of the gate. I will continue reading though, in hopes he finally says something we didn't know.
 
I would have liked to have known whether Lance had any interactions with convicted drug dealer and snitch Joe Papp after Lance quit racing. And what those were.

Lance's response would have been hilarious. But . . . CN wouldn't want to offend Lance, would it?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
We're not going to see him come forward and dish it all out in a T&R. You can see he wants the 6 month ban incentive to do so.

Just a self-serving *** who is trying to pull a fast one to get back to competitive sport.

His true character came out even more in this section of the interview.
 
gooner said:
We're not going to see him come forward and dish it all out in a T&R. You can see he wants the 6 month ban incentive to do so.

Just a self-serving *** who is trying to pull a fast one to get back to competitive sport.

His true character came out even more in this section of the interview.

DB: What now makes you trust someone?

LA: I don’t trust anybody.


Love it!
 
Ahahahahaaha

I wish Bock called me and said, ‘You’re not going to get suspended and this is what we’re going to talk about.’ I wish

I bet you do. Is this guy for real? Why in the world would Tygart offer that to Armstrong with all the ammunition he already had at that point?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
As it would appear CancerMonkeyMouthJesus has not repented i hope his lack of competitive sport is eating him up inside more than anything and from the interview it is. Good.

It is so good that Armstrong has an itch that he will never be able to scratch.

But i bet games with Dad are a pain.
 
Nov 7, 2013
146
0
0
LA: I did what I could to apologize. LeMond wouldn’t take my call. Hamilton wouldn’t take my call, Landis I couldn’t call. I paid Walsh back, and I tried to make that right.
-------------------------------------------
This is an incredible amount of spin. He has been fighting tooth and nail against the insurance companies he has fraudlently collected money from. How is that trying to make things right? He didn't make it easy for the Sunday Times to get their slander money back, either. Has he actually done anything to help clean up the sport? He won't even admit that Dr.Ferarri helped him dope. I think that he thinks if I just keeping saying "I am sorry and I am doing everything to make it right" enough times that all his problems will go away without having to give all the money back or having to live as a non-celebrity. In the interview, he says maybe I just have to say it a thousand more times to get to the people who won't take his calls like it is something you just have to mechanically do enough times until it works. I don't know what to say but Lance is Lance.
 
Benotti69 said:
As it would appear CancerMonkeyMouthJesus has not repented i hope his lack of competitive sport is eating him up inside more than anything and from the interview it is. Good.

It is so good that Armstrong has an itch that he will never be able to scratch.

But i bet games with Dad are a pain.
I just noticed your signature, my friend, and I've always laughed
at the quote because about a month earlier on Christmas Eve '77
I saw John and his infamous pop group at what turned out to be
their second last gig in the UK. I had no ticket, but when the doors
to the Pavilion opened there was such a surge of bodies I just rode
the wave right past the ticket takers, so I've always felt I cheated
JL just a little, too. Man, it feels good to finally confess, but at this
time I am not prepared to name any others, that's not my style.
 
thehog said:
If only Bock called I could have offered him a donation.


Justin O'Pinion47 minutes ago

I said it for part two and I'll say it again here; good interview. There are some of you on this forum who will never be happy, no matter what Armstrong does or says. Once a liar and cheat, always a liar and cheat.

There are some people who may never forgive him, those that were directly affected by his bullying and rough tactics. Fair enough. There are yet others, perhaps cancer survivors themselves or family and friends affected by cancer, who may arguably feel betrayed by Armstrong as well. Fair enough.

At the end of the day, Armstrong is just a (very) flawed individual who was a very good bike rider. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how good he would have been had he never doped, or lost all the weight when he was ill. He got better, most cyclists improve in some manner the more they ride and the better they apply training techniques. If you took away the HGH, Coritsone, steroids, blood tranfusions, EPO and heaven knows whatever else the pros were using, the best pros still would (likely) have been the best pros. Dr. Ferarri helped some, sure, but he helped many, many pros. Geez, he was helping Pozatto, Scarponi and Kreuzinger (three big names in the CURRENT road ranks) until very recently. Why is this allowed to happen and why are they still riding? Scarponi just signed a new contract at Astana! Pozatto is on Merida commercials as the face of Lampre during cycling coverage on Euro Sport. You guys that want to hate, you should hate a lot more than just Armstrong.

I can't think of a heck of a lot of top pros (and/or domestiques) who didn't have some cloud of suspicion over them. Please don't say Indurain for the love of Pete. Carlos Sastre (although he was at CSC) and Oscar Freire (dispite what Rasmussen has to say) are two of the only top cyclists from the last generation (or generation and a half if you go back to the Jalabert, Zulle, Laurent Dufaux days - all dopers) who haven't really been implicated in some way.

The new generation, well time will tell. I want to believe riders like Cancellara are riding clean. I sure hope so because he's frikin awesome. There will be a test down the road for whatever drugs the cheats are now using that are ahead of testing procedures. God only knows what ill-health aspects might follow as well.

Your outrage towards Armstrong may be well justified, but there are a lot more cards in the pro cycling doping deck, from team management to lowly domestiques, who did the same thing and profited in one way or another. The riders who got railroaded from the sport, like Filippo Simeoni, will never get back what could have been a solid career and palmares had the field been level. That is the sadest part here for me; lost dreams - while yet many others had to cross the dark line to pursue theirs.

Frank Schleck gets welcomed back by new the Pro Tour team title sponsor Trek team who unceremoniously dumped their bread and butter for ten plus years when it didn't suit them anymore. What kind of message does that send? We'll trade the supposed king of doping for a lesser celebrity star doper. Trek is sending the wrong message with the Frank Schleck hiring.

Did Armstrong deserve what he got? Absolutely, and he admits as much in the interview. He has to sit at home and wallow in his own self-pity. But hypocracy is well evident and although I think Armstrong got what he deserved in the end, I think he has been treated far, far worse than other doping cheats. Keep it to the doping topic,and the affects it has had on cycling, and keep the man out of the equation, as hard asit might be for some people.

The reckoning had to start somewhere, and it started with Lance Armstrong. Just don't forget everything else that goes along with it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Justin O'Pinion47 minutes ago

<snip>.

All those points have been raised and addressed a lot in this thread.

It also ignores a lot of truths about Armstrong.

The Ferrari bit is wide of the mark.

Not going to do a DocMas on it.