On the fence - an LA thread

[D Avoid]

I have noticed that nobody has mentioned the incident with Simeoni in this or the other thread. That was a very relevant issue for me and utterly despicable incident in my eyes. People have tried to pass it of as the sort of incident that occurs all the time but if people knew the full history, they would know it was a issue that started before Lance had won a single Tour yet he still managed to make it all about him. I know I have seen very few if any similar incidents in the 20 years I have followed this sport. That was the incident that made me realise what Lance was really like and he has backed it up time and time again since then.

On whether doping makes the Tour more boring or not, its irrelevant, the Tour is boring when there is a dominant rider, team etc. It dont matter if riders were doping or not. There was no EPO in 89 and it was the greatest Tour ever. Most of Lances Tour wins were borefests, because he was so dominant, 03 was the exception and I sure every contender was jacked to the gills that year. Same with the Indurain years. Like most people I came to the sport through the Tour but now I much prefer the classics, just look at the drama at Het Nieuwslad last weekend.

I would agree that that whole episode was despicable, I can't find the footage of the incident where Armstrong chases him down, I'm wondering if it has been removed by Charms interlopers? There should be a truth commission , like the South Africans had after the Apartheid era. I can't imagine how it would work or who would play Nelson, other than the people who own up and implicate the former "Good Fairies", then get their dosh in the form of a pension.

 

[velosopher54]

Over the past half year I’ve read a lot of the threads on this particular spot of the forum with great interest as it pertains to Lance. As someone who discovered the sport of cycling through him, his exploits have always had a special place for me and his battle to return to a sport where no one wanted him inspired me in a situation I went through in grad school.

As I said I discovered the sport of cycling through him, prior to 2004 I had heard of him, the Tour de France and Greg LeMond but never took an interest. In fact it had been close to ten years since I had regularly ridden a mountain bike. Then one July day I saw the finish of stage 17 where Lance came from behind and beat Kloden to the line. From that moment I was hooked. I’d played little league (not very well) and followed the Red Sox, but I knew I could ride a bike, but I didn’t know they could be ridden like that. I got It’s Not About The Bike and became a fan and lucky for me my uncle owns a bike shop so I was able to get into the sport at a cost that was a bit less than it would have been for someone else.

So by now you might be asking yourself, okay so what is the point of this? Well I’ve noticed that the Lance camps on here are divided between those who dislike and believe he doped and those who go beyond the fanboy mentality. I’m curious if there are any on the fence Lance fans? As someone who grew to love the sport beyond just one rider I’d categorize myself as being on the fence. Now I’ve seen all the pro Lance material and read the books. I’ve also read the Ashenden Interview and read what Betsy Andreu has stated. I’d like to think that I’ve been presented with as much evidence as is possible and because as an archaeologist I was trained to look at the facts and from there come to a conclusion that I would be able to. However I still can’t decide, maybe part of me doesn’t want to come to a decision.

And in reading the Ashenden interview on NYVelocity I got to wondering was there ever any background on why Damien Ressiot from L’Equipe was doing the article and needed Lance’s dope control test results? I guess for me I’d like to know what came first the tests or the original article. What was the intent of the article as originally intended? And maybe this will never be known now. The point I’ve read both here and I believe in the Ashenden Interview being that the lab didn’t know whose urine they were testing, but if the reporter got the test results back first he could have passed that information along.

And of course there is the argument that if everyone else was doing it, was it cheating. This point I know has been brought up as well as the argument that EPO wasn't banned back then. This is similiar to the arguments for & against both Barry Bonds & Mark Mcgwire in relation to the home run record and Major League Baseball's abysmal stance on doping and PEDs.

The other thing I keep coming back to and correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Floyd mention something about USADA asking him about Lance. Now we’ve seen that Floyd was apparently willing to do anything to win his case so if he had knowledge of team doping practices why wouldn’t he have given it up for a reduced sentence? Do you think it was the belief that had he done it he would not have been allowed back in to the sport? Why then wouldn't Floyd or anyone else formerly associated with Postal/ Disco have said something? Did they really fear him or owe him some form of loyalty after they left the team?

I know a lot of folks will call me ignorant or a naïve fanboy because of the ’99 retesting and evidence presented by a lot of people. But I guess as things stand now I am on the fence about Lance and was wondering how many others out there are on the fence as well?

p.s. And as someone who in their teens voraciously read anything Marvel Comics put out I do know the definition of a fanboy , which is why I’d argue that I am not one. At least not anymore.

If you're really interested in learning, read the book, From Lance to Landis by David Walsh. I had already made up my mind about L.A. before reading this book but it was still a real eye opener.

I got into road riding because of watching the Tour on tv and part of that was watching Lance but I still love riding though I pretty much despise L.A. Don't be thinking you'll give up cycling if your opinion of L.A. changes.

I think having read this forum for some time it took some courage on your part to make your post. This is a rough crowd when it come's to L.A.

velo54

 

[IntheMidwest]

Over the past half year I’ve read a lot of the threads on this particular spot of the forum with great interest as it pertains to Lance. As someone who discovered the sport of cycling through him, his exploits have always had a special place for me and his battle to return to a sport where no one wanted him inspired me in a situation I went through in grad school.

As I said I discovered the sport of cycling through him, prior to 2004 I had heard of him, the Tour de France and Greg LeMond but never took an interest. In fact it had been close to ten years since I had regularly ridden a mountain bike. Then one July day I saw the finish of stage 17 where Lance came from behind and beat Kloden to the line. From that moment I was hooked. I’d played little league (not very well) and followed the Red Sox, but I knew I could ride a bike, but I didn’t know they could be ridden like that. I got It’s Not About The Bike and became a fan and lucky for me my uncle owns a bike shop so I was able to get into the sport at a cost that was a bit less than it would have been for someone else.

So by now you might be asking yourself, okay so what is the point of this? Well I’ve noticed that the Lance camps on here are divided between those who dislike and believe he doped and those who go beyond the fanboy mentality. I’m curious if there are any on the fence Lance fans? As someone who grew to love the sport beyond just one rider I’d categorize myself as being on the fence. Now I’ve seen all the pro Lance material and read the books. I’ve also read the Ashenden Interview and read what Betsy Andreu has stated. I’d like to think that I’ve been presented with as much evidence as is possible and because as an archaeologist I was trained to look at the facts and from there come to a conclusion that I would be able to. However I still can’t decide, maybe part of me doesn’t want to come to a decision.

And in reading the Ashenden interview on NYVelocity I got to wondering was there ever any background on why Damien Ressiot from L’Equipe was doing the article and needed Lance’s dope control test results? I guess for me I’d like to know what came first the tests or the original article. What was the intent of the article as originally intended? And maybe this will never be known now. The point I’ve read both here and I believe in the Ashenden Interview being that the lab didn’t know whose urine they were testing, but if the reporter got the test results back first he could have passed that information along.

And of course there is the argument that if everyone else was doing it, was it cheating. This point I know has been brought up as well as the argument that EPO wasn't banned back then. This is similiar to the arguments for & against both Barry Bonds & Mark Mcgwire in relation to the home run record and Major League Baseball's abysmal stance on doping and PEDs.

The other thing I keep coming back to and correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Floyd mention something about USADA asking him about Lance. Now we’ve seen that Floyd was apparently willing to do anything to win his case so if he had knowledge of team doping practices why wouldn’t he have given it up for a reduced sentence? Do you think it was the belief that had he done it he would not have been allowed back in to the sport? Why then wouldn't Floyd or anyone else formerly associated with Postal/ Disco have said something? Did they really fear him or owe him some form of loyalty after they left the team?

I know a lot of folks will call me ignorant or a naïve fanboy because of the ’99 retesting and evidence presented by a lot of people. But I guess as things stand now I am on the fence about Lance and was wondering how many others out there are on the fence as well?

p.s. And as someone who in their teens voraciously read anything Marvel Comics put out I do know the definition of a fanboy , which is why I’d argue that I am not one. At least not anymore.

Hey man, great post. I can relate to you a little in that I was excited to see LA race his bike at one time, but that was back in the mid nineties when I was a true fan of the guy. I remember standing in an LBS in 99' when he dropped a few of the best climbers in the world at the time on Sestriere and the place was dead silent (almost crickets) then more-less laughter, then alot of cussing ensued immediately after that. But in any event, in today's world, it would literally be like watching Tom Boonen dropping Contador and the Schlecks in the mountains. Cancer or no cancer, that simply does not happen - without a serious, serious, doping program.

For me, what killed it was when Lance turned into Lance, INC. The once cocky (and rightfully so as races go in the States, he was really good in America at the time) Lance turned into a product once he won in 99. Full on legal team, marketing campaign, I can't prove this but I'll "speculate" - collusion with several major corporations in America and a certain governing body. At the end of the day, the guy raped cancer victims and a beautiful sport that we all love for 7 painfully predictable years. His camp exploited the soft spots in millions of peoples' heart for their own personal financial interests. He exploited the unfortunate complacency of those with a terminal disease and their family members as a back stop to winning the Tour de France by means that were not available to his competitors, even those on full-on doping programs, because to challenge LA and his story, was to challenge hope and all that was currently being sold as "good" for cycling at the time - and by the way, those that did better bring-it legally sound or they would wind up in court. In my opinion, "fanboys" have a hard time letting go of what they want to believe, what was sold to them. But as communication means evolved (i.e. the internet et al) it's easier to realize what was so apparent to a small audience at the time, but is now readily available to everyone to discover what truly went on during that time. For a lot of us, we really just wish the guy would go away. His comeback is a joke, clearly for financial gain. That siht he pulled at the tour this year, no class at all. Their are people in this world that think that guy is actually going to win the Tour this year, but of course, that's what he's selling them.......

 

[Angliru]

I have noticed that nobody has mentioned the incident with Simeoni in this or the other thread. That was a very relevant issue for me and utterly despicable incident in my eyes.

The Simeoni incident really opened my eyes and it also brought back to the forefront a very similar earlier incident with Christophe Bassons. While he may be an a55 just like a decent percentage of the athletic population, this is our little cycling world and he is its most prominent figure by nature of his success. His every action is magnified and the fact that he actively pursues the media and/or rejects them depending on his mood and whether he feels he's been wronged in some way makes him even more of a target. His spinning of the truth (I"m the most tested athlete in sports." "We're the most tested team at the Tour".), knowing that it will be repeated as fact by his faithful legions versus laughed at as his typical media manipulation by the so-called "hater" faction and by those that just don't believe his every word as gospel is one of the many roots of all this discourse and debate. If he were'nt such a media ***** I doubt there would be the endless dialogue that there is now. Give the forums constant material and they/we will put it to use.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Armstrong polarises because he's inauthentic and mendacious; this is a charge that can be levelled at many or even most pro's as they happily project an image white as snow. Armstrong is worse as no one has benefitted like he has. The fact he's a textbook bully doesn't help, either.

This is a bit libellous, but I think Lance has a personality disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder to be specific. The pathological desire to control others and their perceptions for personal gain and power (Contador, Tour 09 & Lemond, Andreu, Stiller et al), brooding grudges (the journalist blacklist), sulking passive-aggressive behaviour when others don't do as he wants (RCS and media, Giro 09), and extreme self-defensiveness and revenge out of all proportion against perceived slights (encouraged fans via vodcast to harrass some guy who privately emailed him). It's all there in Lance.

To get a bit Freudian, there's also a bit of an Oedipus complex with the women who look like his mom. And the absence of a dear father in his young life would be a significant motivating factor for success and dominance - hey dad, look at me, I'm great and I do deserve your love after all. For all his success, there's a strong element of pathos about the guy and I feel sorry for him sometimes.

So, yeah, I don't particularly like the guy. He brought a lot of people to the sport but ultimately he's bad for it: history is yet to judge the Lance Armstrong story.

And his Tour wins were borefests! The need to dominate killed the spectacle!

 

[Race Radio]

You're hardly my favourite poster as well mate, but how about you try the post not poster concept of message boards for a while.

How many times have you posted something to the effect of "You are all just a bunch of haters"? You seldom do anything here but complain that everyone is questioning your hero but you seldom add the the discussion.

 

[progressor]

How many times have you posted something to the effect of "You are all just a bunch of haters"? You seldom do anything here but complain that everyone is questioning your hero but you seldom add the the discussion.

I'll pass on your misconceptions, deliberate or otherwise thanks. I don't want to play today. If you want to disagree with what I say, fine. Lay off the personal attacks - because that's all you're doing.

As I stated before, Post not poster, it's a simple enough concept.

 

[D Avoid]

Armstrong polarises because he's inauthentic and mendacious; this is a charge that can be levelled at many or even most pro's as they happily project an image white as snow. Armstrong is worse as no one has benefitted like he has. The fact he's a textbook bully doesn't help, either.

This is a bit libellous, but I think Lance has a personality disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder to be specific. The pathological desire to control others and their perceptions for personal gain and power (Contador, Tour 09 & Lemond, Andreu, Stiller et al), brooding grudges (the journalist blacklist), sulking passive-aggressive behaviour when others don't do as he wants (RCS and media, Giro 09), and extreme self-defensiveness and revenge out of all proportion against perceived slights (encouraged fans via vodcast to harrass some guy who privately emailed him). It's all there in Lance.

To get a bit Freudian, there's also a bit of an Oedipus complex with the women who look like his mom. And the absence of a dear father in his young life would be a significant motivating factor for success and dominance - hey dad, look at me, I'm great and I do deserve your love after all. For all his success, there's a strong element of pathos about the guy and I feel sorry for him sometimes.

So, yeah, I don't particularly like the guy. He brought a lot of people to the sport but ultimately he's bad for it: history is yet to judge the Lance Armstrong story.

And his Tour wins were borefests! The need to dominate killed the spectacle!

Agree with everything except the likeability scene, there is nothing to like once you've figured everything he does, I would never feel sorry for him either, the hour long video of him and his biggest fan, where he goes through most of his hiccups, mutter wouldn't belt. He is so likeable in this video that you realise, temporarily, that all these haters are mad deranged Tunalics. Even though you know he is trying to con you, it is compelling, the way he appeals to your sense of fairness, it is and extraordinary, Mengele moment , where the good doctor mistakes a cooking pot for a childs crib, I must watch it again, for fun.

 

[cawright1375]

In this thread you called the OP, who simply said in a polite and reasonable way that he has seen all the evidence but is still not sure, an idiot who has a chemical imbalance. So you think everyone that disagrees with you is unstable.

Now I haven't progressed further in reading the posts than the one above, but I did want to address it.

Honestly I could care less what someone on an internet message board says about me or what I believe. Race Radio's opinion is his and he has strong feelings about Lance, which he or anyone else is entitled to and that is fine. My intention was not for this to become a thread where the mud is thrown between those who do not like him and those who believe he can walk on water. Rather my intention was to find if there was anyone out there that fell inbetween the two camps.

Besides I could have a chemical imbalance, mostly a lack of dark chocolate but I can always rectify that.

 

[cawright1375]

If you're really interested in learning, read the book, From Lance to Landis by David Walsh. I had already made up my mind about L.A. before reading this book but it was still a real eye opener.

I got into road riding because of watching the Tour on tv and part of that was watching Lance but I still love riding though I pretty much despise L.A. Don't be thinking you'll give up cycling if your opinion of L.A. changes.

I think having read this forum for some time it took some courage on your part to make your post. This is a rough crowd when it come's to L.A.

velo54

Oh no doubt, the crowd on here is very rough when it comes to LA, in fact the only gray area seems to be the Shack kit!

Cycling is my passion so one rider won't turn me off from it. LA may have been the gateway but I long ago decided that there was more to cycling than just one rider or one race for that matter.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Over the past half year I’ve read a lot of the threads on this particular spot of the forum with great interest as it pertains to Lance.
<snipped for brevity >.

A good and interesting post.

The difficulty I have with Lance is that HE HAS RETURNED!

If he had not come back to the sport I would have viewed him in the same way as all the other dopers of that era, no better or no worse.

After Lance retired from the sport in 2005 we had one case after the next that showed exactly what the sport was,
Heras positive in the Vuelta, Operation Puerto, Ullrich and Basso not allowed start the 2006 Tour. Floyd wins, then gets caught. Then in 2007 Rasmussen was sent home,and we had Vino, Kaskeshkin.

The sport was on its knee's, but there appeared to be a shift in attitudes. In 2008 we had the start of blood profiling and the AFLD were in charge of anti-doping at the Tour, riders were becoming outspoken.
The sport appeared to be changing.

And then LA returned.
Within no time Patrick Clerc was gone from ASO, rules were abandoned to facilitate the return and silence once again descended on the peloton.

Recently Pat McQuaid did an interview in South Africa - in it he discusses LA. He said "the return of Lance Armstrong for instance has done a huge amount to promote and to publicize the sport worldwide and has done a big marketing job for the sport".

This is the attitude of the stakeholders to his return.
They are building up the sport again and in a bid to facilitate that they have lowered their own standards.
IMO the sport is built on sand - another Police investigation like Festina or Puerto could expose the true state of cycling making it very difficult to be ever trusted or taken as a serious sport again.

 

[pmcg76]

For me, what killed it was when Lance turned into Lance, INC. The once cocky (and rightfully so as races go in the States, he was really good in America at the time) Lance turned into a product once he won in 99. Full on legal team, marketing campaign, I can't prove this but I'll "speculate" - collusion with several major corporations in America and a certain governing body. At the end of the day, the guy raped cancer victims and a beautiful sport that we all love for 7 painfully predictable years. His camp exploited the soft spots in millions of peoples' heart for their own personal financial interests. He exploited the unfortunate complacency of those with a terminal disease and their family members as a back stop to winning the Tour de France by means that were not available to his competitors, even those on full-on doping programs, because to challenge LA and his story, was to challenge hope and all that was currently being sold as "good" for cycling at the time - and by the way, those that did better bring-it legally sound or they would wind up in court. In my opinion, "fanboys" have a hard time letting go of what they want to believe, what was sold to them. But as communication means evolved (i.e. the internet et al) it's easier to realize what was so apparent to a small audience at the time, but is now readily available to everyone to discover what truly went on during that time. For a lot of us, we really just wish the guy would go away. His comeback is a joke, clearly for financial gain. That siht he pulled at the tour this year, no class at all. Their are people in this world that think that guy is actually going to win the Tour this year, but of course, that's what he's selling them.......

Whilst I totally agree with everything you say, that first sentence is exactly what I have failed to convey whilst trying to explain why I dislike him so much. David Beckham is another athlete that I have very little time for although I would say Lance was immensely more successful and talented than Beckham. When people say he is important to the sport, they are talking about Lance Inc, not Lance the athlete or person.

 

[ludwig]

Rooting For Lance is Like Rooting for the Yankies

I'm not sure when I started rooting for Ulle over Lance....I guess I started having mixed feelings in 03 and went to fully rooting for Ulle in 04.

Mostly it has to do with Lance being the dominant Tour rider and wanting to see something different.

I don't have any problem with Lance as a person (as if it was our business). Sure he can be an arrogant, but his pride/arrogance is well-grounded, so resenting him for being prideful is like resenting a healthy dog for being healthy. Nor do I object to him using psychological warfare on his rivals...this makes the sport more interesting.

The main problem with Lance is his prominent role as an omerta enforcer, and the persistent doubts whether his wins are do to medical advances or his superior cycling talent and work ethic. As has been discussed ad nauseaum, he circumstantial evidence re. the doping is overwhelming, as is the circumstantial evidence that Lance does what he can to keep doping under wraps.

However, if one supports omerta, and thinks it's the right policy for cycling, then there is little to dislike about Lance.

Ultimately, rooting for Lance is like rooting for the Yankies...i prefer to root for the underdog, even if I"m going to bet on the favorite. This year is interesting in that Lance is not the favorite, but that doesn't mean it would be wildly surprising if he managed to win the Tour.

 

[peloton]

A good and interesting post.

The difficulty I have with Lance is that HE HAS RETURNED!

If he had not come back to the sport I would have viewed him in the same way as all the other dopers of that era, no better or no worse.

After Lance retired from the sport in 2005 we had one case after the next that showed exactly what the sport was,
Heras positive in the Vuelta, Operation Puerto, Ullrich and Basso not allowed start the 2006 Tour. Floyd wins, then gets caught. Then in 2007 Rasmussen was sent home,and we had Vino, Kaskeshkin.

The sport was on its knee's, but there appeared to be a shift in attitudes. In 2008 we had the start of blood profiling and the AFLD were in charge of anti-doping at the Tour, riders were becoming outspoken.
The sport appeared to be changing.

And then LA returned.
Within no time Patrick Clerc was gone from ASO, rules were abandoned to facilitate the return and silence once again descended on the peloton.

Recently Pat McQuaid did an interview in South Africa - in it he discusses LA. He said "the return of Lance Armstrong for instance has done a huge amount to promote and to publicize the sport worldwide and has done a big marketing job for the sport".

This is the attitude of the stakeholders to his return.
They are building up the sport again and in a bid to facilitate that they have lowered their own standards.
IMO the sport is built on sand - another Police investigation like Festina or Puerto could expose the true state of cycling making it very difficult to be ever trusted or taken as a serious sport again.

+1

Also the total "transparency" having Catlin by his side announcing the comeback, the robust testing program that never happened.
UCI bending it's own rules to allow him to race in Australia and then even pulling out the suspicious numbers after someone highly educated questioned them.

Lies lies lies, what else is new.

 

[SpeedWay]

In this thread you called the OP, who simply said in a polite and reasonable way that he has seen all the evidence but is still not sure, an idiot who has a chemical imbalance. So you think everyone that disagrees with you is unstable.

Don't sweat the small stuff. It's just the pot calling the kettle black. Once a hater always a hater.

 

[D Avoid]

Don't sweat the small stuff. It's just the pot calling the kettle black. Once a hater always a hater.

The pot being black does not stop the deflection of your reflection, just leaves it duller.

 

[cawright1375]

Ultimately, rooting for Lance is like rooting for the Yankies...i prefer to root for the underdog, even if I"m going to bet on the favorite. This year is interesting in that Lance is not the favorite, but that doesn't mean it would be wildly surprising if he managed to win the Tour.

Growing up a Red Sox fan I can totally relate to your Yankees comment (yes you spelled it wrong). In fact going into the 2005 TdF I sort of felt like at long last I knew what it really meant to be a Yankee fan, even with the Sox victory in '04. Going into something and knowing your team or guy was going to win was an interesting feeling.

 

[Anonymous]

The debates will continue to rage on. But I say, if he's doping now, catch him and put this story to rest. Otherwise, what he did or didn't do in the past will always be debatable, depending on who you talk to.

On a side note, people do not care for his arrogance and site it often as a reason to dislike him. I am wondering how you feel about other arrogant/cocky champions like Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Yankees, Red Sox, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, etc...? They were all pretty straight forward with their aspirations to win and letting their opponents know it and their personal ability to do so. But isn't that a trait all champions have? The confidence that they are better than the others and that they should always win the big race/game?

As a player these are the attitudes I'd want around me. I want someone that thinks they will always win or wants the ball when it's go time. Not someone that's afraid to go for it. Why is that so wrong? When I played ball there was a time I'd talk my smack, but it was really to get under the other team's skin so they'd play with their emotions instead and make the mental mistakes. It was a useful tool. Does no one else utilize this?

Just wondering...

 

[luckyboy]

I don't think that Senna or Schumacher have cheated and lied as much as Armstrong has. Senna hit Prost off the track at Japan that time, and Schumacher had Adelaide 94, Jerez 97 and Monaco 06. Merckx and Hinault were before my time.

Anyway, arrogance is not the reason I don't like him - I think if a sportsman wins to the extent that these guys do, then its to be expected. Its just that none of them have lied and cheated in the way he has.

 

[pmcg76]

Not 100% certain but I am pretty sure Michael Schumacher was widely disliked, Hinault was definitely disliked by fellow riders and the fans, there was a begrudging respect for his abilities. For every arrogant sports star, we can throw out non-arrogant guys, Miguel Indurain for example.

As I will repeat forever and forever, find me a cyclist who pulled what Lance done on Simeoni and I will happily change my opinion on Lance, until then.............

 

[BroDeal]

Getting off topic here. The Brits are forever complaining about Michael Shumacher being arrogant, but I have not seen it. In English interviews MS has always seemed to me to be coldy efficient and analytical. Am I missing something here or was this issue made up by jealous limeys p) ??

 

[Anonymous]

But Merckx tested positive 3 times in his career. But that seems to get lost amidst his legend as a cylcist.

Makes you wonder if over time the sporting world will forget the doping and only remember the 7 Tour wins by LA?

As for Schumi in Monaco '06.... I remember that. And even though I'm, a Schumi fan I thought it was dirty. Alonso was on his way to best his time but couldn't due to his "stunt". No matter, he got relegated to the back of the grid anyway and Alonso went on to win the race, and the Championship that year. Doh!

 

[elapid]

The debates will continue to rage on. But I say, if he's doping now, catch him and put this story to rest. Otherwise, what he did or didn't do in the past will always be debatable, depending on who you talk to.

On a side note, people do not care for his arrogance and site it often as a reason to dislike him. I am wondering how you feel about other arrogant/cocky champions like Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Yankees, Red Sox, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, etc...? They were all pretty straight forward with their aspirations to win and letting their opponents know it and their personal ability to do so. But isn't that a trait all champions have? The confidence that they are better than the others and that they should always win the big race/game?

As a player these are the attitudes I'd want around me. I want someone that thinks they will always win or wants the ball when it's go time. Not someone that's afraid to go for it. Why is that so wrong? When I played ball there was a time I'd talk my smack, but it was really to get under the other team's skin so they'd play with their emotions instead and make the mental mistakes. It was a useful tool. Does no one else utilize this?

Just wondering...

Arrogance and confidence are one thing, and you rightly point out that every champion has both of these in spades. Where Armstrong differs is his attempts to control, manipulate and cajole the media and others to blindly believe his words without question. For those that dare to question or, god forbid, actually criticize him then they are forever banned from having anything to do with Armstrong, even attend media events when they are reporters.

 

[elapid]

But Merckx tested positive 3 times in his career. But that seems to get lost amidst his legend as a cylcist.

Makes you wonder if over time the sporting world will forget the doping and only remember the 7 Tour wins by LA?

As for Schumi in Monaco '06.... I remember that. And even though I'm, a Schumi fan I thought it was dirty. Alonso was on his way to best his time but couldn't due to his "stunt". No matter, he got relegated to the back of the grid anyway and Alonso went on to win the race, and the Championship that year. Doh!

No, it doesn't get forgotten. Doping was as rife in the peloton then as it is now. And I'm sure Merckx would have taken EPO and blood transfusions if he was racing now. However, he took stimulants. Stimulants are not in the same ballpark, let alone the same city, as increasing oxygen carrying capacity by either taking EPO or autologous transfusions. Yes, you can argue doping is cheating regardless of the what you take and we can go around in circles (and have many times) with this debate. But the simple truth is that stimulants were a matter of survival and did not change race results or make you into a different rider. They just got you to the finish line. EPO and blood doping are the opposite because riders that normally would not have any chance of winning now become winners despite a physiology that would suggest otherwise. Lance is but one of many examples of the latter.

 

[Ferminal]

The debates will continue to rage on. But I say, if he's doping now, catch him and put this story to rest. Otherwise, what he did or didn't do in the past will always be debatable, depending on who you talk to.

On a side note, people do not care for his arrogance and site it often as a reason to dislike him. I am wondering how you feel about other arrogant/cocky champions like Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Yankees, Red Sox, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, etc...? They were all pretty straight forward with their aspirations to win and letting their opponents know it and their personal ability to do so. But isn't that a trait all champions have? The confidence that they are better than the others and that they should always win the big race/game?

As a player these are the attitudes I'd want around me. I want someone that thinks they will always win or wants the ball when it's go time. Not someone that's afraid to go for it. Why is that so wrong? When I played ball there was a time I'd talk my smack, but it was really to get under the other team's skin so they'd play with their emotions instead and make the mental mistakes. It was a useful tool. Does no one else utilize this?

Just wondering...

Nowadays I feel that sports stars need to have some character, be that arrogance or something else. I'm sick of the all too robotic, go out there and win everything and then say "yes I'm happy" and "I wasn't good enough" when you lose. For me, Federer is far too text book, apart from crying when he loses. I can't passionately support the man because he has no story.