It´s not about the bike

[cameramanjim]

Apologies if this topic has aired many times before on Cycle Chat but....

While I Xmas shopping I completed my 3 for 2 book purchases with one for myself, ´It´s not about the bike´. Prior to reading it I has gone along with the general view that Lance Armstrong must have had ´help´ to win the Tour de France seven times back to back. Having read the book I´m now not so sure. Wasn´t it just a mixture of physiology and an obsessive dedication to win that one event each year? What´s the general view these days? I´d always thought his refusal to allow testing of his stored urine samples for EPO using new techniques was a smoking gun, but it seems (details not in the book) that the samples weren´t stored correctly. Is Armstrong sports biggest cheat or sports most wronged hero?

 

[Dayvo]

Apologies if this topic has aired many times before on Cycle Chat but....

Wasn´t it just a mixture of physiology and an obsessive dedication to win that one event each year?

What´s the general view these days?

Is Armstrong sports biggest cheat or sports most wronged hero?

No need to apologise, CMJ! Just another can of worms being opened - again!

IMO, I'd agree with you that it was his physiology and the incredibly obsessive dedication and determination to win that made him become a cycling legend!

After becoming World Champion in 1993 at the age of 21, his body underwent a total biological transformation in the treatment of his cancer. The drugs used to save his live and rid his body of this disease, by all sense and purpose, 'artificially' created a new body. His self-belief, and determination to succeed was just the extra 'mind fuel' to supplement his physical strength.

The general view is split, and always will be. Albeit an amazing cyclist, he is considered by many (who have never met him) to be an arrogant, selfish, self-centred peanut. Others, like myself, see him as a unique (but not the best - Eddy Merckx has that distinction, IMO) and fantastic cyclist, who has never tested positive for illegal substances.

So, depending on your view, he is either sport's biggest cheat or sport's most wronged hero!

 

[yello]

People tend not to paint themselves in a negative light in their autobiographies! In the interests of fairness, you could read the opinions of those that have met him and see what they think.

I think popular opinion (particularly in the USA) is changing. Many of those that idolised him are now not so sure. Those that despised him feel the day of judgement is soon. And then there's the middle ground... speaking generally, I suspect many now feel it probable that he doped.

...but it is a can of worms. Let google be your friend.

 

[yello]

Btw, welcome cmj.

Some things to note;

has never tested positive for illegal substances.

This is often stated but not actually true. He had tested positive but a retrospective doctor's note for a saddle sore cream was accepted.

The equally often stated 'most tested athlete' remark is very unlikely to be true. Indeed, if you look at the USADA website you'll see stats showing that he's not even the most (USADA) tested athlete in the USA... by some distance; 22 tests between 2001 and 2010. I think the 'most tested' honour went to the swimmer... Phelps is it? But then, of course, Armstrong will have been tested by other agencies too.

If you have the time to self educate, I really do recommend it. It is a fascinating subject (if you like that kind of thing!) and will prove that no story is ever as it seems at first view. I do not doubt for a moment that Armstrong is/was a magnificent athlete with a strong will, but the Armstrong 'brand' has also been well manipulated and controlled.

 

[raindog]

So, depending on your view, he is either sport's biggest cheat or sport's most wronged hero!

....or just a bloody good bike rider who only ever concentrated on one race and may have, or may not have, taken peds. Which is my view.

 

[iAmiAdam]

Many people who he beat have come out and said they were doping, for him to beat them would of took a huge amount of dedication, training and generally flukeyness in DNA and genetics, or he was doping at the same time...

Either way, he's a fool, everyone knows it's all about the bike.

 

[Noodley]

...arrogant, selfish, self-centred peanut...sport's biggest cheat!

This.

 

[dellzeqq]

The book is definitely worth the read. It's a very distinct voice. Armstrong (or his writer..) paints a harsh picture of himself. So harsh that it makes you wonder why people stuck by him when it seemed he had nothing to offer them. And then again....people did stick by him because, although he doesn't say so, they loved him, or admired him or counted him as a friend

So there's an intriguing gap in the book - between Armstrong's stern picture of himself and the person others genuinely feel for. It reminds me of The Story of My Life, by Clarence Darrow, or even the Rosy Crucifixion by Henry Miller - both autobiographies describing driven souls with litte, apparently, to love, and yet both of people who were clearly loved.

 

[rich p]

Oh gawd! Not this again

He waas undoubtedly a tough and single-minded bloke but if you need to read all the info and come to your own conclusion. No-one on here is going to convince anyone to change their minds in a pithy reply. I have come to my conclusion having read all of the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise and it's that he took drugs as much as all his contempories and in a better organised and scientific way. I'd go further and say that anyone who reads all of it would be hard-pressed to come to any other conclusion. For some it doesn't matter to them and to others it does.

I'd suggest that if you don't want to do your own legwork then sit back and wait for FBI agent Jeff Novitsky to finish his investigation.

BTW, taking your position from reading INATB is a bit naiive for obvious reasons and also for the reason that much of the damning 'evidence' has appeared after it's publication.

 

[yello]

You read WAY more into it than I did dellzeqq! Armstrong's determination and drive shine through, t'is clear, but for me to the point of not caring what anyone else thought. I'd never be (overly) critical of drive but that doesn't mean I like it. But, to be honest, the details by pass me and I may be thinking of 'Every Second Counts'.... I read oone and didn't think I'd bother with the other! I'd have to check my borrower's record with Marylebone library to confirm though!

I would recommend to cmj that he googles Jeff Novitsky. He's a federal agent, it's true, but that's with a little 'f', an agent with the Food and Drugs Administration rather than the FBI. Despite the less than exciting name on the buisness card, he carries a big stick. He's responsible for busting big names in US sport, notabley Marion Jones but baseball players too; google BALCO for details.

Anyways, Novitsky is currently investigating the (mis)use of federal funds in the US Postal Team... broadly... perhaps. It's not common knowledge exactly what he is investigating but he's NOT specifically investigating neither Armstrong nor drug use. I don't think he really cares who took what, in his official remit at any rate. His remit seems to be how they paid for it, how they got it, who sold it to them. But given the nature of the investigation, Armstrong is implicated. It's worth remembering that Novitsky's investigation started before Floyd Landis's recent allegations of Armstrong's drug use. Equally, the BALCO busts were not (just?) for drug use but for lying under oath. Refer to ex-baseballer Roger Clemen's current situation for the seriousness of that latter charge.

In short, because of the USFDA investigation, there is a great deal of new old info about Armstrong currently resurfaced in the public domain. It's worth a read to build a bigger picture of him. It most definitely is not just about the bike!

 

[andy_wrx]

Perhaps you should also read 'From Lance to Landis : Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France' by David Walsh for the contrary view.

Plus 'Lance Armstrong: Tour de Force' by Daniel Coyle for a more median view

 

[dellzeqq]

I have no view either way on the drugs thing, and, to be honest, I'm sort of past caring now he's gone. But (reaches for tin helmet).........most cycling books are just a little bit dull. A bit like shopping lists with palmares instead of baked beans on them. 'Put Me Back On My Bike' by one of the Fotheringhams is a compelling read, and, although INATB isn't as good, if you're going to read three books about cycling I'd make this one of them.

 

[MacB]

I have no view either way on the drugs thing, and, to be honest, I'm sort of past caring now he's gone. But (reaches for tin helmet).........most cycling books are just a little bit dull. A bit like shopping lists with palmares instead of baked beans on them. 'Put Me Back On My Bike' by one of the Fotheringhams is a compelling read, and, although INATB isn't as good, if you're going to read three books about cycling I'd make this one of them.

I think that's being rather kind, I've read ten now and the jury is screaming 'FFS don't start another cycling book'. All, bar The Hour by Michael Hutchinson, were poorly written, a couple bordering on the unreadable, that doesn't make The Hour a great literary work it just means the competition wasn't too hot. Put Me Back on My Bike was interesting as it was an era I knew little about but again let down by the writing. Matt Rendell gives out some interesting data but it's immersed in an, entirely unjustified, belief in his own writing abilities. I've yet to encounter a book, in any genre, more cringeworthily bad than Indurain A Tempered Passion.

So, when you say a little dull, I think you mean mind numbingly, soul destroyingly, boring. I've also read a few 'touring' type cycling books which are much better reads. but then we're talking more a travel/holiday report where the transport just happens to be a bike. I may give a couple of the round the world record books a go, but I think my foray into cyclings literary output may be coming to an end.

By the way, Lance - drugs - yes

 

[yello]

Since we're on the subject, my favourite cycling read (not that I've read anything other than a few!) was probably 'In Search of Robert Miller', perhaps though because the subject was so intriguing rather than any literary plaudits. Then maybe 'The Rider', which is a simple tale very well told. And then maybe from a different slant, Paul Fournel's 'Need for Bike' which, if you like prose with your cycling, is the one to read.

 

[Silver Fox]

I like to think Lance is one of the greatest ahtletes to walk the face of the earth who has been a source of inspiration for so many battling adversity.

If it's ever proven beyond all reasonable doubt by corroborated credible evidence ( not the likes of Landis ) and / or an admission from the man himself that he cheated, I'll be disappointed.