- Jan 20, 2013
 
- 897
 
- 0
 
- 0
 
BroDeal said:Now you are using RR's favorite ploy, twisting words to meet preconceived expectations that support existing biases. People don't like to hear the Armstrong affair is more sordid and complex on the part of all sides instead of the Manichaeistic narrative promoted here. It is a simple view of the world favored by Americans. Systemic problems are blamed on individuals. Befuddlement ensues after the evildoer is removed and the the next in line, a product of the same environment, proves to be no different.
Everything Armstrong did has been recast to buttress the tale of a master manipulator. Take, for example, discussions at Motorola about EPO use. While Armstrong's position was solid evidence of his own drug use, it is a contortion to portray this as Armstrong pushing people into drug use. The talk at Motorola was not remarkable. As EPO use transitioned from a few individuals to entire teams, the same conversations that took place between Motorola riders happened at every team. The decisions to use EPO were not made by each rider cloistered with his only his own thoughts to guide him. They were made with input from teammates, staff, and friends in the peloton, all concerned for their jobs.
Armstrong is a realist. There were riders he used to be able knuckle down in the saddle and drop at will on small hills. As EPO spread, the same riders could cause him to red line on false flat as he struggled to hold their wheels. Since the drug was undetectable and the UCI had never shown an inclination to fight doping anyway, he instinctively knew this was the future. There was no stopping it.
The riders at Motorolo collectively decided to use EPO. More than just Armstrong argued for the realist view, and no one could make a convincing argument for how the team could survive without its use. In fact, one of the primary motivations that underlay the group decision for everyone to use during the 1995 Tour was quite mundane. Motorola was a comfortable, English speaking oasis in a European sport. Riders liked it there and were not enthused about moving to teams with a different culture if Motorola folded because of a lack of results. Armstrong himself was confident in his own ability to succeed if he was using the same tools as everyone else, but he wanted the team to stay together because of loyalty to his teammates even though by that time he considered himself a seasoned European pro and would likely be seeking a bigger contract from another team.
This may mean nothing to you, but this post has my unreserved approval thrice over. Excellent!
I think the system is the same, however the marketing of the sport has changed. Armstrong was the role model for the racing cyclist, the guy who had a good job and could afford the expensive road/TT bike complete with SMR cranks. Then the sports science training to match. Where as Froome is to appeal to the everyman. The tourist, commuter, the keep fit guy/gal who want to participate in charity rides, (on electric bikes
				
		
			
	
	
	