Ok, I just saw Lance's new Nike ad.

[boalio]

I can only run in Asics Gel Kayano's or New Balance 766 because of all of that floating cartilage and other various knee damage from starting running when I was 12.....SAS is pretty cool though.

running? pffft. running is for girls and fat accountants.

and tri-athalon types.

 

[Kennf1]

Doping has been a part of the cycling culture since the beginning. Among the many requirements for succeeding in pro cycling there is:

1) dope
2) deny doping
3) honor the code of silence

You know this, don't you? You don't appear to be one of the naive ones. Yet, you fault Armstrong. Why? To fault someone for doing what you know he is essentially required to do is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

You say you think Lance could have cleaned up the sport. Really? Do you think cycling is less clean than any other sport? Swimming? Track & Field? Tennis? Football? Basketball? Baseball? You think one guy could really clean it up? No sport does as much to try to keep doping under some semblance of control as does cycling. We can argue about whether the result actually reduces or increases the actually doping, but let's not. You really believe this one guy could have, or still could, done something that would really change things? Pardon me while I laugh my head off. These guys are driven to win, willing to do whatever it takes, as long as they can get away with it, within some reasonable level of risk.

Even if Lance could do something (I have no idea what) to "clean up the sport" (no idea what that would look like - do you?), who are you to hoist that responsibility upon him? If he could do it, and he did choose to do it, that would be something to credit him for doing, sure. But to take him to task for not doing some vague thing to supposedly help clean up cycling? What is that about?

I'm sorry, but these Lance hating posts are starting to look more and more like pathetic whines of plain old ordinary envy.

Anytime a sport is dominated by an individual, that individual has considerable influence to bring about change within the sport. The truch is, none of the dominant riders of the last 15 years have ever talked much about the doping problem or suggested solutions for it. If you are a clean rider, and you believe everyone around you is doping, why not use some of your millions to help with the problem instead of whining about all the testing? I can say the same thing about Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, etc. (obviously the latter two would not have said anything). Lance is the most recent dominant rider, and has made more money off the sport than any rider in history. Could he single-handedly solve the doping issue? Of course not, no one claims otherwise. But there IS a lot he could do. Instead of making noise about buying the Tour, how much the ASO sucks, or chearing the departure of Patrice Clerc (a staunch doping fighter), why not help to coordinate the various testing entities, or confront the riders that are notorious dopers?

People seek to hoist responsibility on him because of his fame and fortune. It's not envy or jealously. Does he have some moral duty to do something? Not for me to say. But when someone who has achieved fame and fortune in a sport riddled with a drug problem does not do something to address the issue, there will be disappointment.

 

[mainemike]

Yea, I eschewed any Nike clothing today in my shopping.

odd. just weird.

 

[yourwelcome]

Too funny that cyclingnews talks about 'rabid Lance fans'. Reading this forum you'd be excused for thinking that it's the Lance haters foaming at the mouth. If he doesn't test positive soon there's going to be some grown up men out there crying

 

[Anonymous]

running? pffft. running is for girls and fat accountants.

and tri-athalon types.

Then come run a marathon with me sometime, you can wear a dress. I don't do tri though. I hate to swim.

 

[Anonymous]

I
___________________________________

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/2009/07/01/0701sptmakers.html

SPORTS LIFE

ARMSTRONG TALKS UP COLORADO AND HIS $9 MILLION NEW HOME

Before he went to France for the bike race that will begin Saturday, Lance Armstrong was spending most of his days training not in Austin but in Aspen, Colo., where he's built a $9 million house.

"The altitude will help," Armstrong told a Denver Post reporter. "I'm here more for other reasons. My kids are here. I've got the new house here. I love the community, and the people are great."

Besides, he says, these aren't exactly great days for training rides around Austin.

"It's so hot in Texas," he said. "Right now it's already 100. It's good for winter time. It's home.

"The kids have school there, but we don't have the climbs in Austin. Obviously, we don't have the elevation. And it's grown a lot. Austin is not a bad riding city, but it's not what it was when I lived there 20 years ago."

So what do you find wrong with him training in the high altitude and cooler temps in Colorado? He's not dissin' Austin.

Plus it's not like any of TX has the elevation gains like the Alpes de Huez or Colorado. So you train where there is elevation to prep for the Tour. And since it's in the states he can be closer to his kids/family rather than be MIA to his family in Europe, like I'm sure he was to his "first" family. It makes perfect sense.

As for the heat... I rode Hotter-n-Hell three years ago in Wichita Falls, TX, and it hit about 116 degrees! It sucked!! (Even in the DFW area where I lived the temps were crazy!) I'd much rather ride in cooler temps. [And I get that in CA, where I live now.]

Austin has grown substantially over the last 20 years. Not only is it a big college town with a big time sports program (music is big there too) it has become the Silicon Valley of TX. So the expansion and growth has certainly changed the makeup of the area for more folks than just LA. (the same could be said for Palo Alto, CA) And because of the denser population it's probably not as ideal a place to ride as it was 20 years ago when he could ride in peace and in less traffic.

Not knocking your feelings about LA but I don't think that's a plausible argument against him.

 

[BigBoat]

The guy is scum. His voice over says "they call me arrogant" "they say I am a doper" "they say I am a fraud" etc, etc, etc all while alternating between video of him riding a bike and video of various cancer patients. That he is using others cancer to legitimize his record in cycling, image, and personality is disgusting. At the end he says that he is "not riding for them" referring to those who consider him a doper and fraud. Well Mr Armstrong, you have proven you are exactly what "they" say you are. A fraud.

What do supporting cancer and his record as a doper, etc have to do with each other regardless of which side you are on?

Its all about controlling his image in the media. I want to puke.

I agree, he makes me want to shoot the TV. I flipped him off, but part of my hate (and I'm honestly trying very very much to work on that) made me want to leave it on for some reason.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Anytime a sport is dominated by an individual, that individual has considerable influence to bring about change within the sport. The truch is, none of the dominant riders of the last 15 years have ever talked much about the doping problem or suggested solutions for it. If you are a clean rider, and you believe everyone around you is doping, why not use some of your millions to help with the problem instead of whining about all the testing? I can say the same thing about Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, etc. (obviously the latter two would not have said anything). Lance is the most recent dominant rider, and has made more money off the sport than any rider in history. Could he single-handedly solve the doping issue? Of course not, no one claims otherwise. But there IS a lot he could do. Instead of making noise about buying the Tour, how much the ASO sucks, or chearing the departure of Patrice Clerc (a staunch doping fighter), why not help to coordinate the various testing entities, or confront the riders that are notorious dopers?

People seek to hoist responsibility on him because of his fame and fortune. It's not envy or jealously. Does he have some moral duty to do something? Not for me to say. But when someone who has achieved fame and fortune in a sport riddled with a drug problem does not do something to address the issue, there will be disappointment.

The whole "something must be done" thing (and therefore Lance with his fame and fortune must do something) is totally overblown. It all sounds good on the surface, but when you ask for details, there is nothing. Even Lemond, when pressed, can't come up with anything specific that could be done. This is because sometimes there is nothing that can be done, other than what is already being done, more or less. I sincerely believe that is the situation with the war on doping in pro cycling.

The reality is they can only test for substances and techniques that they know about, and have figured out how to identify and test for. Another fact is that as long as undetectable, nearly undetectable and even merely fairly undetectable effective performance enhancement substances and techniques are available, they will be used, and there nothing that Lance Armstrong or anyone else can do anything about it.

Believing that catching a Dekker here or a Valverde there is making significant progress in the war against doping in cycling is like thinking that swatting a mosquito dead in a swamp is making significant progress in eradicating mosquitoes in that swamp.

The ironic thing is that if they were no longer able to catch anyone that wouldn't mean there is no more doping; that would mean that all the dopers are using undetectable methods, like designer drugs.

Anyway, blaming Lance for not doing something about the unwinnable war on cyclist doping is like blaming someone for not draining the ocean with a thimble. He could talk about it more, but that would just make him more of a hypocrite. Even Lance has his limits, apparently.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks Kennf1. That was my point exactly.

It's not Lance's duty to do anything. I just felt he had a great opportunity to help clean up the sport by leading from his high position. Instead, he did the opposite and upheld the omerta at every chance and clearly showed which side of the doping argument he was on. That I find to be a real shame.

I'm not saying he could have cleaned up cycling to where there was zero doping. I never said that, and if you have read enough of my posts like you claim, you'd know that I don't believe that's possible. But I've also been around long enough, and close enough to the sport to know that there's quite the difference between doping on cortisone and ephedrine, and doping on blood boosters. The former helps some, and those not choosing to do it can still compete, the latter is a complete game changer.

 

[pmcg76]

I agree with Kenff1 & Alpe d'Huez. Lance could have not stopped doping but he could have helped with breaking the ometra.

In 1999 when Bassons was on his crusade, Lance could have said, I understand why Bassons and others are suspicious but I agree with their stance on doping. ;We need to bring it into the open, no more ometra, I suffered as a consequence of doping before but now the genie is out. I am at the top now, I dont dope and I want to say that you dont need to dope to win the Tour; I guess you can only speak like this if you are actually clean yourself.

I know Garmin could yet turn out to be hypocritcal but if Lance had taken a similar stance in 99, more teams may have followed. The French may have altered their conduct post 99 so a few more teams may have meant that half the peloton might have been cleaner. A good start I think.

Putting your head in the sand does not send the right message either.

In an interview with L'Equipe during the Tour in 99, when asked about the Festina affair, Lance claimed he was really shocked by it. BS. I am not a pro cyclist but even I was not totally shocked.

Lance said he had never witnessed any doping in his career and there was none on his teams, even though F.Andreu admitted to it as did another unknown teamamte and JV has more or less admitted to it. If Lance didnt know what his teammates were doing, why did he answer the question in such a definite manner.

Noy saying Lance could have stopped doping but the right attitude would not have gone amiss, after all he is the biggest star in cycling, ever.

 

[Escarabajo]

Believing that catching a Dekker here or a Valverde there is making significant progress in the war against doping ...

Certainly it won't hurt catching these two. Maybe containing the problem could be a start. I am sure it will never be gone but at least we need to try to contain it. Biological Passport is a good idea. Don't you think?

 

[hfer07]

Biological Passport is a good idea. Don't you think?

Right, tell that to Bernard Kohl....

 

[Escarabajo]

Right, tell that to Bernard Kohl....

I know what you mean. Somehow I feel that the UCI knows some other positives but they are controlling the flow. Probably not the case with Kohl but I am sure is the case with others. Besides the passport is an extra hurdle that the riders have to jump, so it certainly is not going to hurt.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with Kenff1 & Alpe d'Huez. Lance could have not stopped doping but he could have helped with breaking the ometra.

In 1999 when Bassons was on his crusade, Lance could have said, I understand why Bassons and others are suspicious but I agree with their stance on doping. ;We need to bring it into the open, no more ometra, I suffered as a consequence of doping before but now the genie is out. I am at the top now, I dont dope and I want to say that you dont need to dope to win the Tour; I guess you can only speak like this if you are actually clean yourself.

I know Garmin could yet turn out to be hypocritcal but if Lance had taken a similar stance in 99, more teams may have followed. The French may have altered their conduct post 99 so a few more teams may have meant that half the peloton might have been cleaner. A good start I think.

Putting your head in the sand does not send the right message either.

In an interview with L'Equipe during the Tour in 99, when asked about the Festina affair, Lance claimed he was really shocked by it. BS. I am not a pro cyclist but even I was not totally shocked.

Lance said he had never witnessed any doping in his career and there was none on his teams, even though F.Andreu admitted to it as did another unknown teamamte and JV has more or less admitted to it. If Lance didnt know what his teammates were doing, why did he answer the question in such a definite manner.

Noy saying Lance could have stopped doping but the right attitude would not have gone amiss, after all he is the biggest star in cycling, ever.

So you think in 99, the 1 time winner of the Tour de France, not even at his prime, should have stood up and "I'm bigger than the tour, bigger than the sport, Let me be the savior of Cycling and the Tour de France because, dog gone it, there's too much doping going on."

He had no such stature at that time.

You fault him for not being the leader of a movement when all he was at that point was a bike racer.

And that's still all he is. A bike racer more obsesses with winning that makes some people comfortable, but not a revolutionalry with a mission to save the sport.

That's someone else's job.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Certainly it won't hurt catching these two. Maybe containing the problem could be a start. I am sure it will never be gone but at least we need to try to contain it. Biological Passport is a good idea. Don't you think?

I think it is contained as it is ever going to be, and the testing technology must keep advancing in order to simply maintain approximately this level of containment. The biological passport is part of that.

There is a huge difference between "it won't hurt" and "making significant progress". Of course it won't hurt, but let's not confuse that with actual progress, where progress means "significantly more contained than it used to be".

The inherent problem is that the doping substances and techniques are a moving target. They keep getting newer, better and harder (if not impossible) to detect, and, so, just to maintain a given level of containment - without making any progress - the testing has to continually make big improvements.

A reasonable measure of how contained the doping is, is to look at average power outputs. True progress in the war on doping would manifest itself as significant reductions in power output. We're not seeing any of that... not even close. To the contrary.

The busting of Dekker and whoever else is not going to affect that. Even the huge Festina and Puerto busts didn't do that.

There are really only three choices for the cycling fan:

1) Accept that there is ultimately nothing we can do about the doping, and enjoy it anyway.
2) Delusion.
3) Stop being a fan.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I agree with Kenff1 & Alpe d'Huez. Lance could have not stopped doping but he could have helped with breaking the ometra.

Of course he could have tried. Whether it would have actually helped to any significant degree, or whether it would assuredly be all in vain, is what is at issue here. I don't see any reason to believe it would have helped one smidgen, and, much more importantly, neither did Lance nor most everyone involved in the sport (sour-grapes-Lemond being one of the few very vocal exceptions).

In 1999 when Bassons was on his crusade, Lance could have said, I understand why Bassons and others are suspicious but I agree with their stance on doping. ;We need to bring it into the open, no more ometra, I suffered as a consequence of doping before but now the genie is out. I am at the top now, I dont dope and I want to say that you dont need to dope to win the Tour; I guess you can only speak like this if you are actually clean yourself.

Exactly. And of course (well, almost certainly), being a successful pro cyclist, he was not clean. Therefore he could not speak like that.

But beyond that rather significant point, even if he were clean, the question remains as to what effect such a stand and statement would have. To consider that, we have to clip ourselves into the pedals of a pro cyclist. This is their living. And it's not like they get fixed salaries. Their contracts are annual, for the most part, and the amount of next year's contract depends completely on this year's RESULTS. It's not like results are a minor factor - they can determine income differential by several orders of magnitude, especially when you include potential income from endorsements. In that context you have to consider that doping can make the difference between making $80k/year or $800k/year (or even $8M/year). Consider that for every Tyler, Flandis, Basso, Dekker and Ullrich who got away with it for years before getting busted (note that Ullrich, Zabel and most of the other Telekomers never failed a test despite years of doping), there are probably a dozen, two or three who doped without ever getting caught. You really think a speech from Lance is going to cause these guys to think, "huh, yeah, he's right... I guess I'll pour this bag of blood down the toilet". Let's not be silly about this. And whatever Armstrong is, silly is not part of it. There is no way he would think he could influence these guys like that. In any case, it's certainly a reasonable conclusion for him to reach, and anyone who blames him for thinking that is way off base.

Of course, if you can't blame him for that, what have you got left? How can you be a Lance hater then? My point exactly.

I know Garmin could yet turn out to be hypocritcal but if Lance had taken a similar stance in 99, more teams may have followed. The French may have altered their conduct post 99 so a few more teams may have meant that half the peloton might have been cleaner. A good start I think.

It's bullsh!t posturing, almost certainly, on all counts. It simply makes no sense otherwise. The Garmin myth in particular is soon to be unraveled, I suspect.

Putting your head in the sand does not send the right message either.

You think Armstrong is putting his head in the sand? Believe me, Lance is not the one with his head in the sand... You don't win 7 Tours with your head in the sand. You win 7 Tours by knowing exactly and keenly what's going on, and eking every drop of advantage from that knowledge as you can.

In an interview with L'Equipe during the Tour in 99, when asked about the Festina affair, Lance claimed he was really shocked by it. BS. I am not a pro cyclist but even I was not totally shocked.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Among the many requirements to succeed at pro cycling are these:

1) dope
2) deny the doping
3) adhere to the code of silence

Of course Lance feigned shock. He's not a bad actor, and all you have to do is convince yourself that's it's shocking they were caught (not that they did it), and honestly convey that shock.

Lance said he had never witnessed any doping in his career and there was none on his teams, even though F.Andreu admitted to it as did another unknown teamamte and JV has more or less admitted to it. If Lance didnt know what his teammates were doing, why did he answer the question in such a definite manner.

Noy saying Lance could have stopped doping but the right attitude would not have gone amiss, after all he is the biggest star in cycling, ever.

I just don't see how Lance could have made any difference whatsoever in the amount of doping happening in the sport. None. Nada. Zilch. The reason they dope has nothing to do with whether Lance, their mom (think Landis) or anyone else approves of it or not!

 

[tubularglue]

i am halfway, this week, through my 3 session 3 week chemotherapy for cancer.


be very careful reading into Nike's ad, and Armstrong's message.


Cancer sucks, I am still riding my bike daily, have my family close - wife, kids parents etc

and enjoy being able to get up every morning.

until any of you are affected by the proceess, you have very little knowleage

nike is Armstrong's tool in communicating, remember they paid his medical bills

you might question the add, but for all of you that chuckle and shake your heads, you might want to go and volunteer at your local Cancer Outpatient Center

Reality is seldom overcome by Stupidity

 

[grimpeur]

Hey Lance, If you're NOT all that, why bring it up? If the race is fixed by the French labs, ASO and the media, STFH OK? The Tour de France made you, not the other way around. I'd never use any Nike product. Oh, and by the way, loose the stupid black sox.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Hey Lance, If you're NOT all that, why bring it up?

If Lance is not all what?

If the race is fixed by the French labs, ASO and the media, STFH OK?

I don't get it. Do you believe the race is fixed?

The Tour de France made you, not the other way around.

Water makes grass grow, not the other way around. What's your point?

I'd never use any Nike product. Oh, and by the way, loose the stupid black sox.

What do you have against Nike products? Or black socks for that matter?

 

[grimpeur]

What's your point?

No, what's you point? Did you watch the ad? You new to the LA hyperbole around the TDF and the French? That's my opinion on Nike and black sox, what of it?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No, what's you point? Did you watch the ad? You new to the LA hyperbole around the TDF and the French? That's my opinion on Nike and black sox, what of it?

My point is I don't understand what the heck you're talking about.

Yes, I watched the ad. No, I'm not new to the LA hyberbole. I still have no idea what you're talking about. You don't think he should use hyperbole? And it makes you personally upset when he does? Sounds like a personal problem to me.

What is your opinion about Nike? That you won't use their products? What kind of opinion is that?

Don't like black socks, huh? What about orange ones? Why would you think anyone would care what color socks others on this board like or dislike? Maybe we should have a poll.

Sorry for the tone here, but I'm totally mystified by the point of your posts.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The black dinner socks do look odd, you have to admit.

Then again, I don't like argyle socks either...

I don't think I'm being a Pollyanna when saying Lance had an opportunity to be more of a leader in helping get the sport cleaner. Perhaps not in 1999, but after, yes. As a leader, he was the patron of the sport, especially to younger riders in the US. Instead he chased down anti-dopers and upheld the omerta.

Of course, you bring up a point - considering he won because he was connected to Ferrari, and doped (100% certain in 1999, 99% certain after) - it would have been completely hypocritical of him to do so. And if he hadn't of doped, he wouldn't have won anything, due to the nature of the sport. And finishing at the back of the autobus, or getting a lot of DNF's, and then speaking out against doping, no one will really pay attention.

Just to clarify, because it's getting lost in translation here, I don't think the sport will ever be 100% clean. No sport will, ever. Now days we have golfers on steroids and bowlers on beta blockers, etc. This is why I frequently use the term cleanER.

Explained why I don't like Nike about six pages ago in here. I'll let others draw their own conclusions.

 

[indurain666]

an admirer of Armstrong and believe he is clean. .

Suuuuure he is

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Lance, If you're NOT all that, why bring it up? If the race is fixed by the French labs, ASO and the media, STFH OK? The Tour de France made you, not the other way around. I'd never use any Nike product. Oh, and by the way, loose the stupid black sox.

You kind of prove our point that you are way beyond rational about all this when hate the guys socks.