What if Armstrong

[pastronef]

more ineteresting than the athletes busted, are the brands that became huge thanks to Lance. Trek and Sram and Giro and Oakley. yeah probably a bit of backlash after the Oprah interview, but those brands benefited a lot from Lance and Postal/Discovery in any case

 

[Charlyghoul]

Actually there is an argument Lance could have just done the giro for a year or two , and let people cool off, like Merckx did.
It’s a shame one has to limit one’s success in that way to be accepted, especially after fighting back from cancer, but this is cycling I guess.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

He had two options get angry / defensive or quit cycling.

Except that isn't true, is it? And you know it isn't.

Because almost everybody else who doped in that same era as Lance didn't destroy people's lives for telling the truth. They didn't indulge petty score-settling and ruin people's reputations in their professional lives. They didn't hide behind the shield of a disease or misappropriate money intended for charity. They didn't collude with officials. They didn't hold the Giro's organisers to ransom over inviting the Italian national champion's team because they had a personal dislike of one of its riders. They didn't amass a horde of loyal acolytes who would threaten, abuse, attack or even assault those who criticised them. They just cheated in bicycle races.

Not all doping is equal, and not all sin is equal. Lance extracted greater benefit from his cheating, and Lance suffers greater consequences.

Lance is on the scrapheap of history not because he cheated in bicycle races but because he was too egotistical to leave it alone, and he came back, and because he toyed with Floyd Landis and laughed at his life falling apart like a playground bully, and kicked him when he was down one too many times. That's not him being a victim of his own success, it's being a victim of his own arrogance and hubris. Which is why very few people have any sympathy for him losing his fraudulent achievements.

 

[kingjr]

Well, after a few innocent threads on general topics and the somewhat benign hypothetical that started the thread, it seems the mask is fully off now. Lance Armstrong a "victim". Give us a break.

Yeah, this thread is basically the logical conclusion to OP's history on here, it's poetic almost.

 

[Charlyghoul]

Except that isn't true, is it? And you know it isn't.

Because almost everybody else who doped in that same era as Lance didn't destroy people's lives for telling the truth. They didn't indulge petty score-settling and ruin people's reputations in their professional lives. They didn't hide behind the shield of a disease or misappropriate money intended for charity. They didn't collude with officials. They didn't hold the Giro's organisers to ransom over inviting the Italian national champion's team because they had a personal dislike of one of its riders. They didn't amass a horde of loyal acolytes who would threaten, abuse, attack or even assault those who criticised them. They just cheated in bicycle races.

Not all doping is equal, and not all sin is equal. Lance extracted greater benefit from his cheating, and Lance suffers greater consequences.

Lance is on the scrapheap of history not because he cheated in bicycle races but because he was too egotistical to leave it alone, and he came back, and because he toyed with Floyd Landis and laughed at his life falling apart like a playground bully, and kicked him when he was down one too many times. That's not him being a victim of his own success, it's being a victim of his own arrogance and hubris. Which is why very few people have any sympathy for him losing his fraudulent achievements.

There are some things he did that were inexcusable, I agree with that.
But all of those riders didn’t do this or that , because they were never good enough to be in that position, how do you know they wouldn’t have done a Lance if they were winning the tour year after year ? If Landis had been winning all those tours how do we know he wouldn’t have done some of the same things?

Is it not human nature to be angry over being accused of doing something to win when everyone else is doing the same thing?
It’s a vicious circle, how much of a *** Lance was before he was ever accused of doping I don’t know.

I can see the arguments for and against Lance being a ‘victim’ to be honest.

Going back to my original post, it is worse for cycling what happened to Lance because now the UCI can’t afford another Lance so it basically gives free rein to dopers.

Guys like the talented amateurs who raced against Lance but never got to be pro because they didn’t want to dope?
Is that situation better for such riders now?
Guess what, it’s probably worse.
But blame that on Lance instead of the UCI, that makes sense.

 

[Charlyghoul]

Yeah, this thread is basically the logical conclusion to OP's history on here, it's poetic almost.

What is wrong with asking these questions?

 

[veganrob]

Well, after a few innocent threads on general topics and the somewhat benign hypothetical that started the thread, it seems the mask is fully off now. Lance Armstrong a "victim". Give us a break.

If just the mere fact of other people having doped is sufficient justification to write off all of the things Lance did to destroy people's lives in defence of his fraudulent legacy, then we may as well Ban Pro Cycling.

BPC. And Polish. Man, clinic was rocking back then.

 

[hrotha]

There are some things he did that were inexcusable, I agree with that.
But all of those riders didn’t do this or that , because they were never good enough to be in that position, how do you know they wouldn’t have done a Lance if they were winning the tour year after year ? If Landis had been winning all those tours how do we know he wouldn’t have done some of the same things?

Is it not human nature to be angry over being accused of doing something to win when everyone else is doing the same thing?
It’s a vicious circle, how much of a *** Lance was before he was ever accused of doping I don’t know.

I can see the arguments for and against Lance being a ‘victim’ to be honest.

Going back to my original post, it is worse for cycling what happened to Lance because now the UCI can’t afford another Lance so it basically gives free rein to dopers.

Guys like the talented amateurs who raced against Lance but never got to be pro because they didn’t want to dope?
Is that situation better for such riders now?
Guess what, it’s probably worse.
But blame that on Lance instead of the UCI, that makes sense.

I'm sorry is this 2010

 

[Charlyghoul]

I'm sorry is this 2010

No but people can still have opinions.
Also it’s relevant to today and how we see doping or riders doing crazy watts per kilo.

If you don’t have any interest in the subject and only want to make inane comments I must ask you to kindly leave

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

What is wrong with asking these questions?

You've gotten your answers, and yet you still stir the pot. It's not even an original thing. You are doing a thing that innumerable people have done on this forum. It's boring. I'm done, but you keep going champ, nothing you do or say will pull Armstrong off the crap pile of history.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

BPC. And Polish. Man, clinic was rocking back then.

BP****ingC and Polish...and their sockpuppets. What a time to be alive.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Except that isn't true, is it? And you know it isn't.

Because almost everybody else who doped in that same era as Lance didn't destroy people's lives for telling the truth. They didn't indulge petty score-settling and ruin people's reputations in their professional lives. They didn't hide behind the shield of a disease or misappropriate money intended for charity. They didn't collude with officials. They didn't hold the Giro's organisers to ransom over inviting the Italian national champion's team because they had a personal dislike of one of its riders. They didn't amass a horde of loyal acolytes who would threaten, abuse, attack or even assault those who criticised them. They just cheated in bicycle races.

Not all doping is equal, and not all sin is equal. Lance extracted greater benefit from his cheating, and Lance suffers greater consequences.

Lance is on the scrapheap of history not because he cheated in bicycle races but because he was too egotistical to leave it alone, and he came back, and because he toyed with Floyd Landis and laughed at his life falling apart like a playground bully, and kicked him when he was down one too many times. That's not him being a victim of his own success, it's being a victim of his own arrogance and hubris. Which is why very few people have any sympathy for him losing his fraudulent achievements.

You are genuinely the most eloquent and accomplished poster on this forum. My hamfisted postings bow to your greatness. Thank you for so beautifully writing a post that encompasses all that needs to be said, as you so often do.

 

[Charlyghoul]

You've gotten your answers, and yet you still stir the pot. It's not even an original thing. You are doing a thing that innumerable people have done on this forum. It's boring. I'm done, but you keep going champ, nothing you do or say will pull Armstrong off the crap pile of history.

Stir the pot ? Crap pile?
All tour winners dope, Armstrong did it better than anyone else.
I actually don’t care about Armstrong or any other rider, but why should he have his tours taken away but not Ullrich? Just for one.

And the handling of Armstrongs doping was terrible and basically set up cycling to be even more filthy when it comes to drugs, but sure, ignore everything. You do you champ

 

[Charlyghoul]

You are genuinely the most eloquent and accomplished poster on this forum. My hamfisted postings bow to your greatness. Thank you for so beautifully writing a post that encompasses all that needs to be said, as you so often do.

Literally hasn’t written anything except confirm the nonsense of cycling ‘ you’re not allowed to be that good, French journalists won’t allow it, we have to bring you down even though everyone else has the same advantages as you, you have to skip the tour for a year or so and then we’ll forgive you’
Get real

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Yawn

 

[BubbaChuck]

my suggestion would be to do some real analyisis of that era,before commenting on it.this 2000s talking points about lance and that era are childish today.its crystal clear,what happened.greatest cover up in doping history.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Classic Armstrong thread. I'd forgotten how stupid threads like this were. Thanks for the memories.

 

[Charlyghoul]

Classic Armstrong thread. I'd forgotten how stupid threads like this were. Thanks for the memories.

Thanks for your opinion
Those results of that era are still a mess and I believe too much time elapsed to remove Armstrong. What’s wrong with debating it?
A lot of activity on the thread from someone so disinterested.
Stupid

 

[Charlyghoul]

You can find it boring in that case stay away from the discussion.
To me there’s a lot of relevance.
What did Armstrongs cheating change in doping measures or doping use, that should be a big one ?

This is the common theme among some fans now who want to to disregard the Armstrong era

‘Yawn, I just want to watch Tadej go stupidly fast and it doesn’t matter if he’s doped to the gills because he’s now even protected more than Armstrong was and will never be outed’

To say that might be a bit unfair on Armstrong and certainly bad for cycling is apparently stupid, sure.

 

[ppanther92]

..didn’t have his tours taken away? Most of us accept that tours aren’t won on bread and water.
Would it be ‘better’ for cycling to look back and for example compare Armstrong with Pogacar a bit more ? But Ullrich was also banned, yet Riis wasn’t? What we have is almost a decade of the tour that is kind of missing.
We know for certain that Anquetil and Coppi doped, if we say that they all did, would it better if the Armstrong was was just left as it was, it’s all a bit of a mess now.
Thoughts ?

Armstrong provenly doped for the Tours he won. Thats why he was stripped of the wins. Not much more to the story.

 

[Charlyghoul]

Armstrong provenly doped for the Tours he won. Thats why he was stripped of the wins. Not much more to the story.

Who not Ullrich, Riis , Anquetil, Coppi?

 

[ppanther92]

I actually don’t care about Armstrong or any other rider, but why should he have his tours taken away but not Ullrich? Just for one.

Ullrich confessed doping in 1997 in an interview 2023. There is a 8 year statute of limitations.

And now it gets a bit technical:

Under US law time is prevented from running for limitation purposes, where a person has wrongfully concealed his own conduct and thereby prevented discovery of his own wrong, until the facts are discovered or should with reasonable diligence have been discovered.

USADA decided to extend the limitation period in the Armstrong case because it concluded Armstrong had deliberately concealed his doping from USADA by: lying under oath; lying in a French judicial organisation; intimidating witnesses; and soliciting false affidavits.

So your answer to that (or Bjarne Riis in 2007) is - US law.

 

[Unchained]

Re USPS as a state owned company; state owned companies shouldn't own or sponsor cycling teams. Or any other sport. It simply shouldn't be allowed. The ramifications are too big if it fails. The risk of corruption is too big and when a team uses peds it reflects back on a whole country not just on the company.

This is one perspective, here's what happened with USPS. When USPS decided to sponsor the team they had very specific objectives. UPS, DHL, FedEx and a few others were having explosive growth in express shipping services. USPS wanted to directly compete with other shippers for the market which was getting more and more lucrative. The marketing efforts were a complete disaster from the time of roll out until today! Consumers in US and internationally never bought into the brand and stuck with existing express shipping companies.. Even today people use UPS, DHL and FedEx for shipping because of technical structure, performance and price ratios. As internet commerce continues to explode, US Postal doesn't have the biggest market share, Amazon for example has developed it's own fleet and another massive backbone of subcontractors to rise up to demand and turn off with very little financial downside and doesn't impact service. US Postal service is included in US Constitution, Like most things associated with government, or large bureaucracy customers never bought into the USPS as being nimble like private enterprise. USPS tried and tried to sell the products but it never caught on as expected.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X5cR1yEARhI&pp=ygUhdXNwcyBleHByZXNzIHNoaXBwaW5nIGNvbW1lcmNpYWxz

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0XIZfPTrNY&pp=ygUbVVNQUyBUViBjb21tZXJjaWFscyBiaWN5Y2xl

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3_AbzFx2td8&pp=ygUbVVNQUyBUViBjb21tZXJjaWFscyBiaWN5Y2xl

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_cTEr03jq0&pp=ygUbVVNQUyBUViBjb21tZXJjaWFscyBiaWN5Y2xl0gcJCbIJAYcqIYzv


They had to know that despite money spent it wasn't working, but with other associations USPS stuck with Armstrong army and got benefits another way ..

 

[Unchained]

Quite a lot to discuss, unless we just take your word for it that you and your mates were levels above Armstrong.

No, you can’t say Hincapie doped or not at that age, because you don’t know.
Why should I stay silent?
One fact we do know is Hincapie never won anything in the pros despite admitting to doping, so how he is so much better than Lance ? The guy that won 7 tours ?
Good luck answering that one, maybe just stay silent ?

‘What I do know and have witnessed’ so basically you are saying you know Horner doped ? So he wasn’t better than Lance was he ?

You may not have local, regional knowledge. As triathlon grew in popularity, Southern California was a hotbed of talent and training grounds for sports elite. Biathalon was around but never really caught on with age group competitors, Triathlon got boost from TV networks covering Ironman. Sports had a divide, USTS distance racing and Ironman distance ( half Ironman also popular) As Armstrong entered the sport he was not elite and was routinely beaten by athletes like Dave Scott, Scott Molina, Mike Pigg and others.. He was good but not recognized as the top of the sport. That's a story repeated and sold but not based in racing results.
When Armstrong switched to cycling, again he was excellent but not a consistent winner and not best on his initial team Subaru Montgomery.. Steve Hegg, Mike McCarthy, guys like Golgoski, Thurlow Rogers and a few others all better than Armstrong consistently. Eddy B often had massive cattle call with field full of Subaru riders. Again Armstrong was good but so were dozens of riders on West and East coasts of US with lots of parity , Armstrong one of many but nowhere near top of American heap..
There is a clear change for Armstrong, he wasn't winning or elite in US, left... got under a different program.. The rest is history..
All the stuff about Armstrong being best triathlete or bike racer in the US , that he outgrew US racing because of his utter domination in complete BS, made up nonsense.
Big George won lots of races ..probably 20+ did 18 or 20 grand tours.

 

[Oldman]

You may not have local, regional knowledge. As triathlon grew in popularity, Southern California was a hotbed of talent and training grounds for sports elite. Biathalon was around but never really caught on with age group competitors, Triathlon got boost from TV networks covering Ironman. Sports had a divide, USTS distance racing and Ironman distance ( half Ironman also popular) As Armstrong entered the sport he was not elite and was routinely beaten by athletes like Dave Scott, Scott Molina, Mike Pigg and others.. He was good but not recognized as the top of the sport. That's a story repeated and sold but not based in racing results.
When Armstrong switched to cycling, again he was excellent but not a consistent winner and not best on his initial team Subaru Montgomery.. Steve Hegg, Mike McCarthy, guys like Golgoski, Thurlow Rogers and a few others all better than Armstrong consistently. Eddy B often had massive cattle call with field full of Subaru riders. Again Armstrong was good but so were dozens of riders on West and East coasts of US with lots of parity , Armstrong one of many but nowhere near top of American heap..
There is a clear change for Armstrong, he wasn't winning or elite in US, left... got under a different program.. The rest is history..
All the stuff about Armstrong being best triathlete or bike racer in the US , that he outgrew US racing because of his utter domination in complete BS, made up nonsense.
Big George won lots of races ..probably 20+ did 18 or 20 grand tours.

Thanks for the infill; particularly on George.
On Mont/Subie LA was a member of the US TTT group destined for Barcelona. They trained in Utah at a house owned by (fill in the principal's name...you know who it is). After a week of training Eddy B requested all riders to appear, one at a time for vitamin supplements. Subcutaneously Injected Supplements. Needless to say recovery picked up dramatically but still did not make Lance close to #1 rider. He was already on that program.
My Boy knew the next day he'd been doped and asked what to do as he was not a signed MS rider. My advice was take nothing more from Eddy or MS staff. They were over a month away and would undoubtedly get pre-tested for afterglow before shipping out. Several guys could not go to Europe after the checkup. LA and my Boy could go.
Our local was far and away the strongest performer and was not LA's kind of lackey even though an older, latecomer to the sport. Lance was so obnoxiously arrogant everyone including Eddy B wanted him gone. His Patron insisted as he had plans for Lance. Years later we saw where that took him and LA had a financial shield backed by the mutual Omerta. Our Boy's pro contract offer was rescinded over the issue of blood doping; now illegal but widely used in LA Olympics by many of the same MS team members.
What happened after the step up to Motorola most of the MS guys were shelved for "seasoned" pros, willing to go full Euronuclear. The rest is history although small minds and booster of the LA fan club try to resurrect the legend in the modern lens. The logic employed, as many here have pointed out; requires general obliviousness or willing warping of actual history and behavior. That allows equivocation and whatever false sense of informational control the new Lance Experts propose to argue.
Disingenuously as this and other topics can be posed, debated and extended the purpose is usually to burnish the reputation of a new self-appointed expert. It's happened on CN forums before now and will probably happen again. I really appreciate debating with Liberty, You and many others in a spirit of pointless fixation on our sport. It passes the time until someone trips the BS alarm and we get too serious.

Hey, the Vuelta is getting interesting. How about that?