Armstrong: 2008 Tour "A Joke"

[yello]

Oh and done just a little bit through the Foundation too.

All is forgiven then.

 

[simon_brooke]

If you read his books he speaks candidly about his attitude and freely admits he's not bothered about much except winning.

Well, exactly. Makes a big fuss about cancer, gets himself a lot of publicity selling yellow rubber bands. His GIRLFRIEND gets cancer, he dumps her. Yes, you can win races if you're an obsessive, selfish, bullying, cheating piece of shoot, but it doesn't make you a great sportsman. To be a great sportsman you first have to be a decent person.

Amazing how many people just can't stand someone who excels.

It's not because he excels that people can't stand him. It's because of how he behaves.

 

[rich p]

Apparently (and I read this in Toto, so it must be true), he can't actually cure cancer yet, he can just make you aware of it.

 

[SheilaH]

And you never earn the right to be an peanut. You either are one or you're not.

Oh right. You've spoken to all those people have you? Or is this just the people who pipe up to diss him in the media etc?

Maybe he is an acknowledged expert in this area

 

[John the Monkey]

Why hound Armstrong with unproven allegations of doping? The contrast with Ullrich is the strongest... nobody ever cast suspicion on him, but as it stands, he was the doper and not Armstrong. Ditto Erik Zabel.

Doesn't that stem from the tests on the '99 samples though (for Armstrong)?

Anything comparable for Ullrich during his career?

FWIW, Der Speigel have done sterling work on the doping programme followed by the T-Mobile team - available in English on their website too.

FWIW I'd be stunned if LA hadn't given himself a haemotological advantage over the years. Still a level above all the other dopers though.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Ashenden's argument related to the '99 samples, the possibility of tampering &c is in this interview.

Regarding rEPO doping in a wider sense, Matt Rendell makes an interesting point at the end of his Pantani book.

Lots of people assume that if doping is prevalent, what you see is normal performance plus, say, 20%. the implication being that if everyone dopes, effectively the competition is fair (you're only seeing an enhanced version of natural ability). Rendell says (as I remember) that the performance boost of rEPO isn't an addition to your natural ability as such - it's heavily dependent on how well your body can "use" rEPO.

So what we see may well be thoroughbreds given a little extra oomph, or carthorses turned into thoroughbreds, no one ever really knows. And the idea of widespread rEPO doping "levelling" the playing field is a nonsense, if you take it to mean everyone being given a consistent boost to existing natural talent.

 

[kennykool]

No comment - you all know where I stand

These Lance Threads DO make me smile tho!!!!