Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Dr. Maserati]

Yet Armstrong is talking in 2009, after Ricco Kohl and countless others had tested positive, so clearly cycling was doing more than soccer by the time he was speaking.

He is talking in 2009, talking.

What happened the open and transparent testing that was going to be online for all to see? The Caitlin stuff was canned after one test and as soon as somebody looked at his BP numbers he pulled them.

BTW - the 2 example you offer, Ricco & Kohl, were caught by AFLD, not UCI.

 

[thehog]

You separate the message from the messenger. The Bernard Kohl reference was gold. The video was filmed at the height of Comeback 2.0. Catlin and SSDD was just what cycling needed - yeah right!

Throwing in the soccer & "other sports" don't test as much as cycling cliche was just brilliant. Taking cycling forward in leaps and bounds. Just what it needed.

Armstrong was p1ssing all over the sport and using the same old tired arguments of about "other sports".

I wonder how long after this interview he was on the photo to Ferrari for an update on the program.

It all so easy to reign on every other sport & all the cyclists when you know you can't test positive yourself...

He's a bit of a wee loser with his bullsh1t.... looking back that is.

Point being is he's not saying it because he believes it he says it because it deflects from himself. Then he waffles for minutes on end because he's lying and can't remember what it he is actually saying.

 

[Race Radio]

Cycling has about 3000 pro's whereas soccer has 3 million.

So yeah, even if they only get tested twice a year and the tests are for marijuana and alcochol breath, then there will be way more tests in soccer.

Exactly, it is a false equivalency.....just as Armstrong pretending that the histroy of doping in Soccer is remotely similar to that of Cycling, Weightlifting, or track.

We earned it. It would be the largest sports story in history if Soccer was somehow hiding organized doping on the scale that cycling has had over the last 20 years.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Point being is he's not saying it because he believes it he says it because it deflects from himself. Then he waffles for minutes on end because he's lying and can't remember what it he is actually saying.

Exactly.
The master of deflection --but you can still see the outward appearance of his semi-distracted state of mind. It's difficult trying to keep everything straight while looking and acting composed.

 

[Velodude]

I want charges so we can get this on the stand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDJFlnOl8g&sns=em

Any ideas to the point he is making??

Strange man.

Actually, he uses the word "we" as if he, as a mere rider, is involved in the administration and decision making of the sport.

Very similar to the "royal we"

Amazing the presumed status $500k or so can buy you

 

[thehog]

Actually, he uses the word "we" as if he, as a mere rider, is involved in the administration and decision making of the sport.

Very similar to the "royal we"

Amazing the presumed status $500k or so can buy you

He's very pomperous. But I do like how he talks about "dirty guys" getting caught. If only the dirty guys got caught!

I guess he was always being asked about doping so he had to say something but he tends to go on and on and on..... he really could have done a great deal for anti-doping but decided to set it back 10 years with the monumental cheating. Doping yes but bribing, pressuring and everything else.

Loser.

 

[Berzin]

He seemed very eloquent on on-point with his statements.

I didn't notice any rambling at all. And the whole thing about reading his body language is a bit funny-let's face it, if people weren't convinced he was lying you couldn't tell anything from the way he spoke.

And I think his points about other sports is spot-on.

Cycling takes the brunt in a world full of the same organized cheaters other sports have, but since there is no strong cycling union and the teams are set up the way they are, individual cyclists will never have the same type of protection as footballers or track athletes do.

 

[MacRoadie]

Lance evolving from a Squirtle into a Wartortle.

My kid was into Pokemon too. When he was about 8.

 

[sniper]

He seemed very eloquent on on-point with his statements.

I didn't notice any rambling at all. And the whole thing about reading his body language is a bit funny-let's face it, if people weren't convinced he was lying you couldn't tell anything from the way he spoke.

And I think his points about other sports is spot-on.

Cycling takes the brunt in a world full of the same organized cheaters other sports have, but since there is no strong cycling union and the teams are set up the way they are, individual cyclists will never have the same type of protection as footballers or track athletes do.

i strongly agree with this. It's hard to deny he's particularly eloquent for a cyclist. He does have a strong charisma.
Surely that is one of the main reasons why he made it this far, and why he still has fanboys in the first plays, people who actually believe in him still, and cannot look beyond


But his first minute, where he speaks about catching dopers, is clearly his most shaky minute, and is where his eyes show most inquietness.

 

[andy1234]

Exactly, it is a false equivalency.....just as Armstrong pretending that the histroy of doping in Soccer is remotely similar to that of Cycling, Weightlifting, or track.

We earned it. It would be the largest sports story in history if Soccer was somehow hiding organized doping on the scale that cycling has had over the last 20 years.

Are you kidding?
Football has nothing to hide, because no one is looking for it.

There would be no story, because very few football fans care, or even understand, about doping.

 

[Roninho]

Are you kidding?
Football has nothing to hide, because no one is looking for it.

There would be no story, because very few football fans care, or even understand, about doping.

I sincerly feel that most soccer fans just don't believe that there is (much) doping in soccer. And to be honest i think it is just a human reaction. I used to get that reaction a lot about cycling as well. Obviously not about those damned foreign cyclist, but about national riders like Boogerd and Dekker, especially when i said i wouldn't be surprised if most riders used doping. They used to ask even boogerd and dekker and if i would reply that it wouldn't shock me they just couldn't believe that i even thought that. I get the same reaction on (american) football forums, where even after the HGH scandal in baseball people still think that apart from a few loners no doping is present in the NFL.


Imo somehow it is quite a natural reaction to think that the guys we like and support wouldn't do something like that. And to be honest, i thought the same way 10-15 years ago.

Add to this that most have no clue how doping works and how hard it for many products to be detected. In the nfl-forums a frequent reply is: the guy got tested and nothing was found, so he didn't use anything.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you kidding?
Football has nothing to hide, because no one is looking for it.

There would be no story, because very few football fans care, or even understand, about doping.

Who gives a monkeys about football/soccer?
The point that was put forward was that cycling does more than other sports on doping - unless we are talking about spin, than it doesn't.

Do people on football forums complain that football has an unfair reputation for corruption?

"Look at cycling, their authorities took money to hide tests, and wasn't there a guy who bought a big race outed recently? If that was football he would have been massacred. Their fans don't understand or care about corruption - it isn't fair that football does more than anyone else to fight corruption".

 

[The Hitch]

Exactly, it is a false equivalency.....just as Armstrong pretending that the histroy of doping in Soccer is remotely similar to that of Cycling, Weightlifting, or track.

Why wouldnt it be?

As this article shows, its easy for football to carry 10 times as many tests as athletics and still leave a majority of players untested while all athletes get tested. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3170586.stm

We earned it. It would be the largest sports story in history if Soccer was somehow hiding organized doping on the scale that cycling has had over the last 20 years

ANd yet O Puerto points to just that. Lots of money and weak tests/ few tests = lots of doping

 

[doolols]

Since we seem to have drifted off topic a bit, would many of those 'other' sports benefit from doping? Steroid and other substances help the building of muscle, which might help with certain sports, but there aren't many sports of the cycling type, that need a combination of strength and stamina.

Or have I got it all wrong again?

 

[The Hitch]

Who gives a monkeys about football/soccer?
The point that was put forward was that cycling does more than other sports on doping - unless we are talking about spin, than it doesn't.

I dont give a monkeys about Lance. But as a die hard fan of cycling I stand by anyone who points out that the popular sports which like to **** on cycling all the time are far from clean themselves.

If you dont give a monkeys about football then you didnt have to let my comment interrupt your activity. But I presume that any post that gives the slightest bit of credit to Lance must be met with fierce opposition.



The biggest richest soccer players, admit to getting tested as little as twice a year (cyclists can get tested several times in a single week). They have no blood passport, not special labs that can find 0.0000001% of clenbuterol, the tests rarely test for epo, according to evidence tests can be covered up, players usually get bans limited to a few months if they do somehow test positive even then, and football continues to reject new anti doping suggestions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...are-wrong-to-reject-new-anti-doping-rule.html

Im sorry, Lance cant be wrong on absolutely everything.

Whatever his agenda was, he was right on that.

 

[sniper]

I dont give a monkeys about Lance. But as a die hard fan of cycling I stand by anyone who points out that the popular sports which like to **** on cycling all the time are far from clean themselves.

If you dont give a monkeys about football then you didnt have to let my comment interrupt your activity. But I presume that any post that gives the slightest bit of credit to Lance must be met with fierce opposition.



The biggest richest soccer players, admit to getting tested as little as twice a year (cyclists can get tested several times in a single week). They have no blood passport, not special labs that can find 0.0000001% of clenbuterol, the tests rarely test for epo, according to evidence tests can be covered up, players usually get bans limited to a few months if they do somehow test positive even then, and football continues to reject new anti doping suggestions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...are-wrong-to-reject-new-anti-doping-rule.html

Im sorry, Lance cant be wrong on absolutely everything.

Whatever his agenda was, he was right on that.

I agree with almost everything the hitch has said thus far.
YES, football is as dirty or dirtier than cycling, but not even the German Press are questioning football, although there is plenty of reason to do so.

The fact that doping is a club-monitored (perhaps even FIFA-monitored) activitiy in football (vs. much more of an individual thing in cycling, with exceptions of course) is one reason why it is so easy to uphold omerta in football.
most footballers have no idea what they are being fed in the morning.
a needle for breakfast? ah, that's my daily dosis of vitamins.
Really, the ignorance in football is not to be underestimated.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I dont give a monkeys about Lance. But as a die hard fan of cycling I stand by anyone who points out that the popular sports which like to **** on cycling all the time are far from clean themselves.

This isn't about Armstrong - it is about your point that "cycling does more than other sports", although you have changed it to now soccer is dirty too. That a big difference, soccer is dirty - but cycling is no better.

If you dont give a monkeys about football then you didnt have to let my comment interrupt your activity. But I presume that any post that gives the slightest bit of credit to Lance must be met with fierce opposition.

Why?
You're point is wrong - why can't I query it.

This has nothing to do with Armstrong, this is about history repeating itself, we had cycling celebrating the clean Pantani after Festina - the Tour of redemption after Pantani, clean Landis after Puerto......

Cycling does more than other sports?

The biggest richest soccer players, admit to getting tested as little as twice a year (cyclists can get tested several times in a single week). They have no blood passport, not special labs that can find 0.0000001% of clenbuterol, the tests rarely test for epo, according to evidence tests can be covered up, players usually get bans limited to a few months if they do somehow test positive even then, and football continues to reject new anti doping suggestions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...are-wrong-to-reject-new-anti-doping-rule.html

Clenbuterol, is tested by a WADA lab? Whats that got to do with cyling??
Yes, cyclists get blood drawn a lot - for what the Passport, which goes ..... nowhere really.

Im sorry, Lance cant be wrong on absolutely everything.

Whatever his agenda was, he was right on that.

 

[thehog]

I agree with almost everything the hitch has said thus far.
YES, football is as dirty or dirtier than cycling, but not even the German Press are questioning football, although there is plenty of reason to do so.

The fact that doping is a club-monitored (perhaps even FIFA-monitored) activitiy in football (vs. much more of an individual thing in cycling, with exceptions of course) is one reason why it is so easy to uphold omerta in football.
most footballers have no idea what they are being fed in the morning.
a needle for breakfast? ah, that's my daily dosis of vitamins.
Really, the ignorance in football is not to be underestimated.

If it was a simple conclusion to test the most then the war on doping would be over….

Testing numbers alone cycling may test more but a lot of those tests are “fruitless” and have no intention of catching a rider when they would actually be doping.

The fact remains and the video was indicative of this very point; Armstrong himself had over 500 tests and was the most tested athlete of all time who has spent 20 years doping has never tested positive. There is your answer – how effective can the testing be when the world’s biggest cheat cannot be caught?

Armstrong also mentions Bernard Kohl who himself says that he doped his entire career without testing positive. It was only when the AFLD netted him for CERA which the riders thought was undectable. Again how effective is the testing?

Cycling gets a bad rap not because guys are testing positive. It gets a bad rap because guys like Armstrong who flout the testing their entire careers get caught by the police and have federal prosecutors chasing them. That’s the bad story and not “dirty guys” testing positive.

The video proves one thing. Testing is not working and if the sport’s biggest cheat beats up on other sports for their testing methods them something is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Maxiton]

Point being is he's not saying it because he believes it he says it because it deflects from himself. Then he waffles for minutes on end because he's lying and can't remember what it he is actually saying.

Exactly.
The master of deflection --but you can still see the outward appearance of his semi-distracted state of mind. It's difficult trying to keep everything straight while looking and acting composed.

He seemed very eloquent on on-point with his statements.

I didn't notice any rambling at all. And the whole thing about reading his body language is a bit funny-let's face it, if people weren't convinced he was lying you couldn't tell anything from the way he spoke.

And I think his points about other sports is spot-on.

Cycling takes the brunt in a world full of the same organized cheaters other sports have, but since there is no strong cycling union and the teams are set up the way they are, individual cyclists will never have the same type of protection as footballers or track athletes do.

If you see enough of his interviews - and thus see this one in context - you see that he is actually quite consistent with what he is driving at. What he is saying is, essentially, this:

"Athletes do whatever they can to get an edge. They always have, they always will. All the big money sports make a show of catching the cheats, enough to satisfy the sponsors, and life goes on. Cycling, the small money sport, destroys its reputation and its money possibilities by actually taking this stuff seriously. It's entertainment folks, that's all it is. Pretend to test, like they do in the NFL, and let's get back to making money and having fun."

That's his thesis, albeit a cynical one, and in some interviews I've seen he practically comes right out with it. In other interviews, such as this one, he dances around it a little bit.

 

[The Hitch]

Cycling gets a bad rap not because guys are testing positive. It gets a bad rap because guys like Armstrong who flout the testing their entire careers get caught by the police and have federal prosecutors chasing them. That’s the bad story and not “dirty guys” testing positive.

What?

Cycling does get a bad rap for the positives. It had a bad rap long before Armstrong had federal prosecutors on his case, long before OP.

And funnily, when the Tour reports no positives, people say its getting cleaner.

 

[ultimobici]

Are you kidding?
Football has nothing to hide, because no one is looking for it.

There would be no story, because very few football fans care, or even understand, about doping.

Too true. Football is riven with corruption, only now being dealt with reluctantly due to the UK broadsheets' exposé.

When OP kicked off in 2006 FIFA refused blood testing at the World Cup due to "the expense"! When Rio Ferdinand "forgot" to attend a test despite repeated reminders & attempts to recall him, he got a Mickey Mouse ban of 8 months. In cycling that would have been 2 years AUTOMATICALLY.

Football is where cycling was 20 years ago in many respects when it comes to admitting there is a problem.

The only reason OP unearthed the names of cyclists only is that football leant on the powers that be to shut things up. Fuentes got death threats when he claimed he had clients in every sport.

Do the maths FFS.

 

[Oldman]

If you see enough of his interviews - and thus see this one in context - you see that he is actually quite consistent with what he is driving at. What he is saying is, essentially, this:

"Athletes do whatever they can to get an edge. They always have, they always will. All the big money sports make a show of catching the cheats, enough to satisfy the sponsors, and life goes on. Cycling, the small money sport, destroys its reputation and its money possibilities by actually taking this stuff seriously. It's entertainment folks, that's all it is. Pretend to test, like they do in the NFL, and let's get back to making money and having fun."

That's his thesis, albeit a cynical one, and in some interviews I've seen he practically comes right out with it. In other interviews, such as this one, he dances around it a little bit.

You're point about the circus going on as usual makes sense except in the NFL. Now that former players, broke and damaged are suing the league is a much more serious deal. These guys are angling for pensions and disability coverage over head injuries but right below the surface is the issue of team-administered "programs". The claim could/will be that the extent of injuries were intensified by the size and aggresiveness of the players using PEDs. While cycling teams seldom have enough money to be a serious ligitigation target; NFL owners most certainly do. How this exposure relates to USADA investigational pressure is only a guess but for those that think the investigation will simply "go away" need to acknowledge that an international prosecution after Armstrong represents a better window dressing than trying to supplement the class action case of former football players against Billionaires.

 

[thehog]

What?

Cycling does get a bad rap for the positives. It had a bad rap long before Armstrong had federal prosecutors on his case, long before OP.

And funnily, when the Tour reports no positives, people say its getting cleaner.

Alas it’s not just Armstrong. Puerto, Festina, Oil for Drugs. The list goes on. Positives are neither here nor there in terms of publicity. Its cars being stopped at borders with trunks full of product, its hotel room raids with rider throwing their stashes out the window and local GP’s storing the blood of 200 athletes that gets the headlines and causes a bad rap. You know it’s true. By riders trying to flout the rules causes them to break state and federal laws. If they just abided by the rules and the UCI actually tested properly then cyclists wouldn’t have to go to such extraordinary lengths and break the law to get their drugs to the races.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Alas it’s not just Armstrong. Puerto, Festina, Oil for Drugs. The list goes on. Positives are neither here nor there in terms of publicity. Its cars being stopped at borders with trunks full of product, its hotel room raids with rider throwing their stashes out the window and local GP’s storing the blood of 200 athletes that gets the headlines and causes a bad rap. You know it’s true. By riders trying to flout the rules causes them to break state and federal laws. If they just abided by the rules within cycling they wouldn’t have to go to such extraordinary lengths and break the law to get their drugs to the races.

Exactly.
At the 98 TdF there was only one positive, I don't think that is what the race was remembers for.

Cyclings problem is it "says" it is cleaning up, the lack of positives is used as a measure........ and then the real truth is uncovered by the Police.

 

[thehog]

Exactly.
At the 98 TdF there was only one positive, I don't think that is what the race was remembers for.

Cyclings problem is it "says" it is cleaning up, the lack of positives is used as a measure........ and then the real truth is uncovered by the Police.

Correct. There was video on the web which I can’t find anymore of whereby Beltran was nabbed by the AFLD in the 2008 Tour. The look on his face was one of sheer shock. He couldn’t actually believe he was about to be tested. He was obviously so used to riding and only being tested on “off” days or being forewarned of “surprise” tests that he couldn’t actually believe that he was being tested after a stage. He subsequently tested positive.

Number of tests and testing more than other sports means little. Circling back to Armstrong as this is where it all started is that he was more than happy to jump around the tests and implement a process of bribing and intimidation to not be tested. He has no right to point the finger at other sports when he was doing everything in his power to ensure the testing didn’t work.

Taking this one step further Armstrong was very active in sending letters to governing bodies (UCI/ASO/WADA) about other cyclists doping and was more than happy for “negative” publicy to occur from them being caught.

I think the statements made in the linked video were more about what was good for Armstrong not what is good for the sport.