"I'd be careful taking training advice from him": F1 star goes cycling with Lance Armstrong

Get bent. The cheating bugger shouldn't darken our doors again.

What would you say to him if you met him face to face on a bike ride? I'm going to Colorado in July and at the end of the first week will ride into Aspen from Glenwood Springs. The next day will be a ride out to Maroon Bells Amphitheatre and the next leave to go over Independence Pass. Now I know the chances of running into him are remote but, just indulging in a bit of phantasy, if I did, what should I say to the cheating sod?

I kind of agree with you... 

To me Armstrong perfectly epitomises the american 'bigger is better' mantra. 

He came (to europe), he saw the doping, and he decided that if they can do it, he can do it too, just do it bigger and better. 

You could argue he only used the same resources as everyone else, but that would not be entirely accurate. He used the same resources as arguably available to everyone else, but no one else was doing it as professionally as the US Postal set up. 

Armstrong and his team were the best doped riders the peloton had ever seen at the time. Sure other riders may have got close, but the consistency and scale of doping at US Postal was top class. Just think, not one rider got busted whilst riding for Postal. 

It was brilliant, it was Team Sky's marginal gains but playing purely on the dark side. 

And I have no real problem with any of this. What I do take issue with is how Armstrong and team 'influenced' external people to maintain the facade. That was really poor. 

Still it was ages ago now, and I no longer have the energy to be mad or care

Fair enough!

There's a not-very-subtle irony in that by positively 'influencing' Verbruggen and McQuaid's UCI via the gift of a Sysmex blood analyser, those same people then chose to put Armstrong 'in the stocks' in an attempt to clear their own grubby reputations.

rivitman wrote:

There's no getting away from the fact that he won 7 Tours from 1999-2005, using the same resources as everyone else.

I guess you haven't read much about what really went on during those years. It wasn't only the doping and please spare us the old nonsense about "a level playing field".

If Bottas and Cromwell choose to ride with a universally acknowledged bully, liar and cheat (also described as a sociopath) that's their choice. But I would be mindful of the old saying - 'You are judged by the company you keep'.

Regarding commentary and analysis, everybody's different but I get far more from listening to some so-called 3rd cat amateurs discuss pro racing than the self-aggrandising guff spouted by the likes of Armstrong or Horner. Even the great Phil Liggett was only ever an amateur cyclist (Cycling Tips published a long audio interview with him in 2020 here) and the chap who did commentary for Eurosport before Rob Hatch - I can't recall his name right now - was excellent.

Edit: the name I couldn't recall is David Harmon.

On the contrary I have read much regarding Armstrong, most of which was written by people who have a vested interest in hyping the 'sociopath' tendency for personal or commercial gain. Perhaps, like many, you should park the prejudice and throw out a little clemency.

Personally, Carlton Kirby is my favourite commentator. I enjoy the introduction of humour, self-effacement and wit over the course of a long day. But I wasn't referring to commentary. Punditry is a very different skillset. Kelly, Lemond, Millar and McEwan are all very adept and informative. I suspect Armstrong would be equally so.

rivitman wrote:

Perhaps, like many, you should park the prejudice and throw out a little clemency.

You obviously like/tolerate Armstrong far more than I will ever do. I'm old enough to be comfortable with most of my 'prejudices' by now. They are founded on what I think are strong principles and I'm not interested in diluting those to please other people I don't even know and don't know me. And I haven't got any time for someone who appears to have no moral compass, is unrepentant and won't recognise or attempt to right their (well documented) many and very blatant wrongs.

rivitman wrote:

Punditry is a very different skillset. Kelly, Lemond, Millar and McEwan are all very adept and informative. I suspect Armstrong would be equally so.

What little I've listened to indicates otherwise; I found that he's not anywhere near as astute and too often his ego tends to get in the way.