Armstrong charged and banned

[yello]

^^^ That is a really good article. Speaks much to the attitudes in pro-teams.

 

[yello]

To perhaps put the cat among the pigeons, the question that some (not here maybe) have been asking hits the headlines.... did doping cause LA's cancer?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...ntary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions

Read and form your own opinion.

 

[Crackle]

To perhaps put the cat among the pigeons, the question that some (not here maybe) have been asking hits the headlines.... did doping cause LA's cancer?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...ntary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions

Read and form your own opinion.

It's not the first time it's been speculated. Much more likely is that the drugs both masked and quickened his cancer development.

 

[Buddfox]

This is really interesting and illustrates just what happened (or happens?) when you confess and go public in pro-cycling.

Interesting article, so frustrating that this is what happens. Although I did reflect on this statement: "...despite the shorter sentence, no team was willing to allow him back. It wasn’t for a lack of talent. He’d won Paris-Nice, made the top twenty in the Tour as a second-year professional and become a reliable domestique." Talent of course that was driven by taking drugs...!

 

[Boris Bajic]

Where's the clinical evidence for this tin-foil hatted nonsense? Even the article says "there is no vast scientific literature".

I might not like the bloke for what he's done, but c'mon, we'll be blaming 9/11 on him next.

I think that was Ferry Porsche. And what a timeless piece of design it was!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Interesting article, so frustrating that this is what happens. Although I did reflect on this statement: "...despite the shorter sentence, no team was willing to allow him back. It wasn’t for a lack of talent. He’d won Paris-Nice, made the top twenty in the Tour as a second-year professional and become a reliable domestique." Talent of course that was driven by taking drugs...!

I don't think you can make up for having no talent at all by taking drugs. It's quite clearly he had talent. And Armstrong would have been a top rider regardless (although rather less superhuman and more beatable).

 

[Buddfox]

On a broader note, when sometimes listening to the Eurosport or ITV4 commentary, I wish, every time they mentioned the name of a cyclist who'd been done for doping, that they added the fact that they were a convicted doper. I mean, not to the point of ridiculousness (if you've mentioned Valverde 10 times in 20 minutes, probably once is enough) but it would keep the issue in the public eye!

 

[Buddfox]

I don't think you can make up for having no talent at all by taking drugs. It's quite clearly he had talent. And Armstrong would have been a top rider regardless (although rather less superhuman and more beatable).

Yes, opinion seems divided on that. The contrary view tends to hark back to the Millar quote from his book "EPO can turn a donkey into a racehorse", others argue that it's marginal gains. I am happy to confess as to having no idea!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Where's the clinical evidence for this tin-foil hatted nonsense? Even the article says "there is no vast scientific literature".

I might not like the bloke for what he's done, but c'mon, we'll be blaming 9/11 on him next.

There are links between anabolic steroids and some cancers: prostrate and breast cancers, in particular, but apart from some posts of dubious value on online forums, I have not seen specific evidence of a link between anything that Armstrong is alleged to have taken and testicular cancer. It isn't inconceivable enough to be tinfoil hat territory, but AFAIK it remains almost entirely speculative.

 

[Buddfox]

I don't think you can make up for having no talent at all by taking drugs. It's quite clearly he had talent. And Armstrong would have been a top rider regardless (although rather less superhuman and more beatable).

Without wanting to labour the point as it is drifting a bit off topic, but my uncertainty over the performance impact is one of the things I find most frustrating about the entire saga, LA or others. When I first got into cycling, my hero was Richard Virenque. There was a time when I admired Riis, Armstrong and Pantani. But now, not only am I frustrated to know that they were all cheats, I have no real idea how to judge their performances. Boris Bajic has mentioned Pantani a number of times. I was in the Alps a few weeks back toiling up to Alpe d'Huez and Les Deux Alpes and on returning, my friend showed me the videos of him ascending both in 'record' times. I watched it for about 30 seconds and realised I was totally turned off by the whole thing. All I could think was "You're cheating, I've no idea how good you really were". And that's deeply disappointing - and for me the reason why I just wipe the whole period from the memory bank. Would Virenque have ever been KoM if he hadn't doped? Who knows? I hope in ten years when I show friends the clips of the stage yesterday in La Vuelta (for example), it's because it's still regarded as genuine racing, and not a bunch of cheats out to fool us all.

 

[Happiness Stan]

Nope.

So Wiggings, Millar, Cavendish, Froome are dopers?

 

[thom]

There are links between anabolic steroids and some cancers: prostrate and breast cancers, in particular, but apart from some posts of dubious value on online forums, I have not seen specific evidence of a link between anything that Armstrong is alleged to have taken and testicular cancer. It isn't inconceivable enough to be tinfoil hat territory, but AFAIK it remains almost entirely speculative.

In one of the links I posted a while back, I think the hour long podcast with a couple of scottish guys talking about the history of the LA case, they state that doctors confirmed the type of testicular cancer LA had could have been caused by the testosterone (iirc) he was supposed to have been taking. Nothing conclusive, just that sometimes it causes that particular form as opposed to others.

 

[lukesdad]

So Wiggings, Millar, Cavendish, Froome are dopers?

 

[rich p]

In one of the links I posted a while back, I think the hour long podcast with a couple of scottish guys talking about the history of the LA case, they state that doctors confirmed the type of testicular cancer LA had could have been caused by the testosterone (iirc) he was supposed to have been taking. Nothing conclusive, just that sometimes it causes that particular form as opposed to others.

Thom, that post was back in the last century on page 56 or something....

Anyway apropos of nothing much, I found this clip elsewhere which is worth a quick gander...
WARNING - CONTAINS RUDE WORDS

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So Wiggings, Millar, Cavendish, Froome are dopers?

Millar has admitted to being a doper. Does that make him an ex-doper? Once a doper?

As to the rest, are they dopers, have they ever been dopers, will they ever dope? Dunno, to soon to say, ask me in 20 years time and we will no doubt know. For now I won't canonise any of them just yet. Have they been a dopers lieutenant, or domestique, or team mate, or shared a hotel room on a grand tour with a doper and looked the other way? You tell me.