Perhaps the US Postal Service was developing a drug and blood delivery business for professional sports teams. After all why else would they possibly want to sponsor a cycling team?
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Perhaps the US Postal Service was developing a drug and blood delivery business for professional sports teams. After all why else would they possibly want to sponsor a cycling team?
Boris Bajic
Guest
This has been an interesting and mostly good natured thread.
To those who scoff at the impact of Armstrong on the wider image and enhanced profile of pro cycling: Look at the numbers for this thead.
There have been some fascinating links and some very insightful posts here.
Ultimately it's a guessing game, as none of us (as far as I can tell) will be deciding on the future or past of Lance or the TdF.
I'm a fan of the Tour. The whole LA thing is to a large extent just another station we saw through the window as our train went past.
Of course there are people who have attached some emotional baggage (or similar) to the whole LA phenomenon, just as there are those who cannot but spit when his name comes up.
Mr Imlach (I think) told me via the medium of Radio 4 some days ago that the whole LA thing was less a question of proof than one of faith. I may have misquoted him, but that was the angle. This thread rather backs him up on that.
Much of the thread has been happy-happy, but there are signs of some quite harsh invective emerging. The crosser people get, the more inclined I am to see the issue as a conflict of faith.
To those who scoff at the impact of Armstrong on the wider image and enhanced profile of pro cycling: Look at the numbers for this thead.
There have been some fascinating links and some very insightful posts here.
Ultimately it's a guessing game, as none of us (as far as I can tell) will be deciding on the future or past of Lance or the TdF.
I'm a fan of the Tour. The whole LA thing is to a large extent just another station we saw through the window as our train went past.
Of course there are people who have attached some emotional baggage (or similar) to the whole LA phenomenon, just as there are those who cannot but spit when his name comes up.
Mr Imlach (I think) told me via the medium of Radio 4 some days ago that the whole LA thing was less a question of proof than one of faith. I may have misquoted him, but that was the angle. This thread rather backs him up on that.
Much of the thread has been happy-happy, but there are signs of some quite harsh invective emerging. The crosser people get, the more inclined I am to see the issue as a conflict of faith.
At that time it was fringe in the US and was here too at that time. It was only through the Armstrong years and after that the Tour de France and cycling rose to public prominence. I bet even now if you asked most people to name world road race champions, Cav is the only one they would come up with if any and back then they wouldn't have a clue or even have known any of the names.
mangaman
Guest
He may try to spin that, but the French and the European cycling establishment did nothing to stop him as Bernard Hinault rightly says - the UCI even took money from him while he hounded French and Italian cyclists out of the sport.
It ultimately took the US to bring him down.
black'n'yellow
Guest
Your definition of 'fringe' is obviously slightly more 'fringe' than mine is. The 7-Eleven team was riding the TdF from 1986 and had a good profile in the US, as did cycling in general through the 80s/90s. Nine American cycling medals at the LA Olympics in 84. Like I said, it might not have been the NFL or NBA, but it simply wasn't 'fringe' in the way you are describing it.
You're right there.
I have to admit to completely under-estimating the strength of belief. I've been blind-sided by it. Chuffy did point it out to me, but I still discounted it. I guess I'm just too pragmatic to understand people's drive to stay true to faith.
Other than for 2 World Wars there are no years without an overall winner.
I'm sure it was just a simple typo, but I got your meaning.
The belief is on both sides. Nobody here has seen any of the evidence USADA has yet people are convinced of his absolute guilt or his innocence already and many were already convinced before any of the USADA stuff blew up in the first place. Personally I am reserving judgement until the evidence is released and we can see it for ourselves. But until then I continue with the innocent until proven guilty stance. At the moment he has a default judgement and is technically guilty but any evidence has yet been weighed and judged.
There is the line that has been used that he caved under the weight of the evidence against him but remember that he does not get to see any of the evidence until he has taken the decision to challenge it so like us he has little other than rumour and leaks to tell him what is in the evidence. And the latest offer from USADA hints that he took them by surprise in not fighting it and their evidence may not be as convincing as they said.
It will be interesting to follow the Bruyneel case as it unfolds and the evidence against Armstrong if and when USADA release it. But a bit like some other debates on here, an evidence based approach gets lost amongst the professions of faith and belief.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Wait a second. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. 
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
I'm starting to think of Armstrong fans in the same way as I think of Creationists. Deluded and wrong, but irretrievably wedded to their beliefs. There is literally *no* evidence that will shake their faith. What I find frustrating is that they won't accept they are hopelessly wrong, which in turn is a function of my position (rational & scientific etc).
This is not an issue of faith vs faith. It's faith vs evidence.
You haven't said anything about the vacant positions in recent years. Podiums. Yes podiums. Pay attention. You actually said before that people had to be upgraded in position. Do you have any thoughts on this or are you going to keep on repeating the same things?
World War 2 is similar in many sports. However that irrelevance aside, I don't see why we simply can't have a vacant winner in the TDF with appropriate will. We've got two vacant podium places at this point in time. Once again your thoughts?
Boris Bajic
Guest
I'm not sure it's rubbish. Armstrong had already won the rainbow thingummy, but was little known in the US beyond his own family and the domestic road racing and triathlon communities.
Lemond, too, was not a widely recognised figure in the US.
Even in Europe, Armstrong was not too well known before he got his first TdF win. I followed cycling back then and was aware that a yank had won the World Champs and the odd TdF stage. Could I name him? Could most people?
There will always be people who come on and say that they had him marked down as a future multiple TdF winner as soon as he stopped doing Triathlon, or as soon as he got a stage in the Tour... Before he got sick, he was one of very many fast, young riders who looked as though they might have an impact.
I've spent quite a while working in the US and do not recall overhearing a conversation about pro cycling. I overheard 38,486,000 chats about sport: NBA, Football and Baseball. None about pro cycling or the Tour.
I imagine most US citizens still know little about Lemond. What is known about Lance Armstrong is sometimes clouded by strongly partisan views and unusual reporting in the domestic media.
Armstrong (the man, the brand, the survivor et al) has become a phenomenon and a divider of opinion since his first few consecutive TdF wins. Had you asked anyone in Europe or the US to name 20 pro cyclists at any time pre-1999, almost nobody would have got past five names and none of those would have been Lance Armstrong. In the US, few people outside cycling would have got past two names.
You can argue that LA was hardly an 'unknown' in '93, but he was very close to that even in Europe and absolutely that in the US.
black'n'yellow
Guest
Not sure what that proves - other than the fact that you perhaps didn't follow cycling as closely as you thought you did.
Armstrong was not an 'unknown' to anyone who followed cycling in the early 90s. It's impossible to prove a negative in this context, so there's no point trying.
- Status
