Armstrong saga

OK – ‘unfairly singled out’
OK – ‘unfairly singled out’ is perhaps a wrong phrase to expalin my feelings on the matter. At the end of the day it’s the US doping authority that has charged him, so they can hardly go after any of the other GC winners / contenders of the era anyway. I suppose, what I mean is that Armstrong has always been the main focus of condemnation in the court of public opinion, with others barely getting more than a mention.

If you’ve read Armstrong’s books about his comeback, you’ll know he didn’t have the most money when he made his comeback – having been ‘released’ by Cofidis in very stressful circumstances (incidentally, David Millar’s book gives a great insight into the indemic drug culture at Cofidis during this period – read that book and you’ll realise that Lance wasn’t the one who took doping to a whole new level – it was already there!).

If by the best doctors you mean Dr Ferrari – loads of cyclists (and other sportsmen) were also getting ‘advice’ from him. There were also a couple of other sports doctors at that time who were just as well respected as Dr Ferrari – again David Millar gives a good insight into this – and plenty of cyclists were consulting with this other doctors too. David Millar recalls paying £12,000 per year for the sevices of a certain Spanish doctor.

I never said doping makes a level playing field – however, Armstrong would have known that the main contenders in the Tour had a few extra red bloodcells coursing through their veins. What do you do, rely on talent & training alone, or give your own blood a boost to get your base-line somewhere near to the competition.

‘Before the cancer / massive scientific doping, LA was a mediocre to good cyclist’ :O . Professional triathlete at 16 years old and national champion at aged 18; won his first pro road race (beating an ex-world champ in the process); first Tour de France stage win aged 21; World Champion aged 21 (one of youngest world champions ever); 2nd place in Liege-Bastogne-Liege aged 22; got his second Tour de France stage win aged 23; won the San Sebastian Classic aged 23; won Tour DuPont aged 23; won La Fleche Wallonne aged 24 (first American to do so); won Tour DuPont again aged 24; diagnosed with cancer aged 25. If he’d have ended his career at that point, that was a top class palmares for such a young rider. Admittedly, he was a 1 day rider at that point, and needed to change to be a serious GC rider – but many experts are talking about Peter Sagan taking a similar course, eventually morphing into a GC rider.

Take a look at the history of doping in cycling, and who has been tested positive. Would you say that Merckx was a fraud? What about Coppi? Anquetil? What about the big names of the 70’s, 80’s, & 90’s – are they all frauds? Face facts, Armstrong won his titles in an era (maybe….hopefully, towards the end of an era) where doping was rife throughout the pelaton. If he also doped then it’s not really a surprise – but to pin the whole system and culture of doping at that time on Armstrong is laughable!

My biggest problem with the whole Armstrong case is if he doped during his ‘comeback’ years, when his Tour paticipation was supposedly about cancer awareness rather than winning. But going back to 1996 – 2005 and making Lance out to be the evil king of doping, what is the point of that?

And we also know from
And we also know from testimonies of people like Millar and Vaughters that doping wasn’t just another bit of preparation, it was the incredibly difficult choice you had to make if you wanted to compete with riders like LA who were untouchable.

Basically, people like LA ruined the chance of other talented but clean riders having a winning career, and forced other riders who wanted to be clean down the doping path.

Maybe so, but I’ve thought
Maybe so, but I’ve thought for a while that the difference is in the perception – we view doping as being ‘off limits’, but those guys – particularly during the 90s-early 00s – viewed it as just another part of the sport; you ride a light bike, you train hard, eat/sleep right and ensure the right ‘preparation’. Dope controls were just another distraction on their time, with press conferences, sponsor gigs, interviews etc, where they wheel out a performing monkey who says what others want to hear, regardless of the truth.

Armstrong case – I’m torn.
I
Armstrong case – I’m torn.

I loved watching him ride. If the main contenders were all doped or if they were all clean, I think Armtrong would still have won 7 Tour titles.

In the Times’ serialisation if Hamilton’s book, Hamilton says: “He was incapable of being paasive, because he was haunted by what others might be doing. This was the same force that drove him to test equipment in the wind tunnel, to be finicky about diet, to be ruthless about training”.

The implication being that others were doping, so he would also have to dope. Hamilton lumps the doping ‘preparation’ together with the other areas of prepartion (training, planing, strategy) and calls it “Lance’s Golden Rule”, which he says was “Whatever you do those other f***ers are doing more.”

If you listen to Armstrong respond to doping questions in the past he answers with a dodge – things like ‘never failed a test’; ‘most tested athlete’; ‘never broke the rules’. This tells me that if he was doping (and I think that when it finally comes out, the evidence will be damning), then he firmly believed that at the time he was merely playing by the unwritten rules of the peloton, where top GC riders on the Tour were expected to dope – so much so that even non-dopers observed the omerta. If this is the case, then I can understand why he would refuse to admit to cheating.

So, on the one hand I feel he is being unfairly singled out. He didn’t win those titles because he (allegedly) doped – I really believe that a clean Lance would still have won in a clean peloton.

On the other hand – :”(

The point that I was trying
The point that I was trying to make with the case of John Christie and Timothy Evans was that many people gave evidence against Evans and consequently he was hung for murder. The irony was that one of the people who gave evidence was Christie; a serial killer and the real murderer. So, no, history records that 10 witnesses to murder does not always equal justice.

Having 10 witnesses to a
Having 10 witnesses to a murder would constitute a pretty closed case, no? Having 10 witnesses to doping is the same. These witnesses, for the most part, won’t have failed drugs tests. So by the same logic, why would they *need* to testify? 10 witnesses to a crime IS beyond reasonable doubt.

SideBurn wrote:I have a

SideBurn wrote:

I have a number of ‘gripes’ against Lance; seeing him ‘done’ for doping would be the icing on the cake for me. But I want to see it done properly; beyond reasonable doubt.

“Beyond reasonable doubt” – why? He’s not up for murder.

The World Anti-Doping Code stipulates that the “standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

A document well worth reading by anyone with an opinion on the Armstrong case, by the way – after all, it’s those rules that give USADA its authority here and set out the specific offences, sanctions, proceedings etc.

http://www.wada-ama.org/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/