pmcg76 said:
Compare the fame of Lance in 2003 to Miguel Indurain in 1996, there is simply no comparison. If I asked my average friend who Miguel Indurain was, they wouldnt have a clue, they all know who Lance is and knew long before he won 7 Tours.
That is partly because of the cancer, I agree with that, but also because LA is American, representing a much larger country which has much greater influence on global culture. Indurain was voted by his countrymen as the greatest Spanish athlete of the 20th century, and was well known all over Europe. Yet he still finished a distant second overall to an American, Michael Jordan. I strongly suspect your friend was American and not Spanish?
I think timing was important, too. Bike racing did not reach the public awareness in America until the 1984 Olympics, then Lemond pushed it further. LA entered an environment where he had certain advantages in public awareness that Lemond did not have. Greg had helped pave the way, ensure that the next TDF champion would be better known. Floyd, following LA, I think was much better known for his one victory than Greg was for his first, though because of the positive we never got a chance to find out just how much. Again, i'm not discounting the effect of cancer, but there were other factors.
On the comparison with Ullrich, I dont know if they would have busted Ullrich if he was the dominant rider, knowing the UCI they would have covered it up regardless. But, from the start there was far more rumours surrounding Lance than there ever was against Ullrich. I for one believe the story about Lance testing positive in the Tour de Suisse 01 which was covered up. I dont know if Ullrich has had any similar accusations leveled at him. I believe the media gave Lance an easier ride because of his story.
If the media gave LA an easier time, why did all these rumors and innuendo get published? I think because LA was so well known, doping rumors became magnified. Doping accusations of a very well known athlete are always better copy--think Barry Bonds. If LA was so good at doping, covering his tracks, why would he get tripped up and not Ulle? I thought LA's association with Ferrari was supposed to make him safer, not more at risk.
I for one never thought Lance was a donkey, I knew of him before he even turned pro and what huge potential he had. However, I would be weary of dismissing the 'cannot turn a donkey into a Tour champion line of reasoning'. As long as there is Bjarne Riis, that logic is fallible. Chiappucci is another that springs to mind. If EPO could turn Riis into a Tour winner, then it could surely turn a good rider into an out of this world rider which Lance was. Of course EPO had different effects on different people so we will never know.
Fair enough. But unless you think Riis was working with Ferrari, this argues strongly against the exclusive program claim that so many hard core antagonists seem to buy into. You are saying, in effect, that Riis may have just been lucky to get better effects from EPO than his contemporaries. If he was lucky, perhaps LA was, too. That's very different from saying he took advantage of an exclusive program, that he bought the Tour with the millions he gave Ferrari.
OTOH, there is one big difference between Riis and LA. Riis did not have to deal with the 50% HT limit. Maybe he did so well because he was willing to raise his HT to levels beyond those of other riders. LA did have to keep his HT below that limit (unless you think he had far more protection than the evidence warrants), which again, suggests that he really didn't get any more advantage from doping than any of his competitors. Blood doping, before the EPO test, then before the HBT and the biopassport, allowed any rider to raise his HT to the limit. You basically had to be stupid or careless or very unlucky to get caught. Given that, I just fail to see how any program could give LA a distinct advantage there, unless he just happened to respond better with the same HT as other riders.
For me the big one is this, I agree that Livestrong was set up with genuine intentions(others claim that not to be the case). When Lance returned in 98/99 he could have focused on what he had done before and gone unnoticed by and large. Instead he decided to change his focus to winning the Tour, the biggest event in the sport.
Anyone who thought he was capable of winning the Tour would focus on that. If Cancellara thought he could win the TDF, he would gladly sacrifice his classics wins, I'm sure. Or at least change his focus. Bert, Andy, Cadel, Valverde, and others are capable of winning classics, and compete in some (as LA did during most of his TDF reign), but they focus on GTs, because there is more prestige in winning one.
If that is your aim and you achieve it, then you know attention will come your way. If you have a story like Lance and you win, then you surely know a lot of attention will come your way. In the wake of Festina 98, you would also surely realise that a lot of questions will come your way especially when you have no previous history of performing in the Tour.
I cannot see how they could not have envisaged this happening so knowing all this, they still went ahead and doped to the gills. He must also have known he would have to then lie barefaced to the community he claimed to represent. The question is, did they hypothesize that by having the cancer angle, they could deflect attention from the rather obvious questions to be asked in regards to doping.
If Lance felt he had to be duplicitious with the cancer charity, surely the moral thing would have been to disassociate himeself from Livestrong. I believe they deliberately chose to go the other way and use the charity as a shiled and thats what I find cynical and immoral.
Yes, this is a good point. I don't have any problem with that. Maybe by the time he realized the conflict--realized that the cancer charity was going to be a very big thing--he was in the position where dissociating himself from it would have raised even more suspicions. He was an inspirational icon to millions, and it would have looked very strange for him to withdraw from this role. Since lying apparently comes easily and naturally to doping athletes, he felt he could just continue to do it. As I said before, I don't think he emphasizes his previous cancer when he says he wouldn't take PES. He's mentioned it, but he doesn't hammer it home the way he does the never tested positive routine. I would like to think he's a little uncomfortable in saying that, but feels trapped, in a position where he has no choice any more.
.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram