The Armstrong Lie

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.

Don't try to enter into discussion, we've exhausted it. He doesnae listen.

 

[AndyRM]

Don't try to enter into discussion, we've exhausted it. He doesnae listen.

Noted. Cheerio!

 

[Hont]

How long is the ban for failing a drugs test during a post mortem?

 

[HF2300]

How long is the ban for failing a drugs test during a post mortem?

Life

 

[just jim]

I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it was a combination of amphetamine, alcohol and the heat combined with his tenacious exertion on the climb whilst ill which all contributed to his demise.

 

[ufkacbln]

Don't try to enter into discussion, we've exhausted it. He doesnae listen.

... or doesn't listen to some of the tripe, and conform to a limited agenda?

RichP would still be claiming Post Mortem are invalid as evidence if he hadn't been educated!

 

[ufkacbln]

Sorry to be pedantic, but it was a combination of amphetamine, alcohol, the heat combined with his tenacious exertion on the climb while ill which all contributed to his demise.

Which is correct, but the question is whether without the amphetamines and alcohol the death would not have occurred, especially given that amphetamine and alcohol are antagonists, one being a stimulant and one a depressive

The adverse effect of one is exacerbated by the other, resulting in a higher risk of cardiac failure, irrational behaviour and inability to recognise your limits.

It is unequivocal that these drugs were the main causes of death in this case

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

... or doesn't listen to some of the tripe, and conform to a limited agenda?

RichP would still be claiming Post Mortem are invalid as evidence if he hadn't been educated!

I think you have made valid points, I and others have agreed with you in many of the issues raised; but it's all got lost in the "Simpson was a doper and nobody agrees with me" line. Which is a shame, as I am sure it would be an interesting discussion otherwise - I'm sure you can bring a lot to the discussion but you need to let the Simpson thing go; we know he doped. Can you and @rich p just not have a shag and be done with it?

 

[ufkacbln]

I've only roughly scanned through the thread, but I'm not sure anyone's actually denying that Simpson doped, as that where we seem to have ended up? Of course he did, and it killed him, which is absolutely tragic. There is no such tragedy around Armstrong, unless you count the lives he ruined and the damage he did to the sport. Pharmaceutical activities aside, I don't see how the two are comparable.

The two are only comparable in the sense that they are key in major changes to cycling culture

Simpson's death was a trigger for the entire world of Professional Cycling to take a step back, take a long look and make changes. One of the strongest voices at the time for testing and controlling doping was a Doctor by the name of Pierre Dumas. His prediction of a death in the Peloton was ridiculed prior to this, but entirely vindicated by Simpson's death.

The death triggered measures that were integral to controlling doping

Armstrong's actions have in the same way been a trigger in major changes and despite the dark side, these changes will hopefully in this way a positive legacy for cycling as Simpson.

 

[AndyRM]

The two are only comparable in the sense that they are key in major changes to cycling culture

Simpson's death was a trigger for the entire world of Professional Cycling to take a step back, take a long look and make changes. One of the strongest voices at the time for testing and controlling doping was a Doctor by the name of Pierre Dumas. His prediction of a death in the Peloton was ridiculed prior to this, but entirely vindicated by Simpson's death.

The death triggered measures that were integral to controlling doping

Armstrong's actions have in the same way been a trigger in major changes and despite the dark side, these changes will hopefully in this way a positive legacy for cycling as Simpson.

When you put it like that, it makes total sense. Though I'm not sure that 'positive legacy' and Armstrong will be an easy comparison, even in 50 years or so.

 

[ufkacbln]

When you put it like that, it makes total sense. Though I'm not sure that 'positive legacy' and Armstrong will be an easy comparison, even in 50 years or so.

That is another issue, and why Simpson is important - he became a cult hero, and the site of his death became a memorial that thousands visit each year as a "pilgrimage"

One would hate to think so, but is there a possibility that Armstrong with his powerful press lobby, become rehabilitated in some way, can we learn from the way that this happened with Simpson?

The attempts of some to dismiss this and refuse to discuss Simpson is dangerous for this reason alone

 

[AndyRM]

That is another issue, and why Simpson is important - he became a cult hero, and the site of his death became a memorial that thousands visit each year as a "pilgrimage"

One would hate to think so, but is there a possibility that Armstrong with his powerful press lobby, become rehabilitated in some way, can we learn from the way that this happened with Simpson?

The attempts of some to dismiss this and refuse to discuss Simpson is dangerous for this reason alone

I've only got some half baked ideas in response to this, but here they are.

There's no doubt that Simpson is a cult hero and part of me wonders if that's because he represents a simpler, laissez-faire sort of attitude which seems to have become popular when eulogising about 'the good old days'. I think that dying in pursuit of a dream, with all the flaws and baggage that comes with it is also part of his story, and for me that is a powerful and almost romantic affair.

The same cannot be said of Armstrong. He is a deeply cynical and corruptive force, who almost seems inhuman the way he talks about cycling and other people. He also lacks any shred of humility, which is why it's so easy to have any sense of sympathy for the man.

For me, that's why you can never equate the two. And I doubt there will be any monuments to Lance, in my lifetime or in the future.

 

[resal]

Just watched the BBC Armstrong interview on TV. Still nothing to like about him on it. It finishes superbly well. Reminded me of a brush I had with oldroadman a couple of years ago as he was justifying Yates' actions on the Yates and de Jong thread. Lance babbels on about what else could anyone do but dope. If they didn't dope they would have to go back to a factory job or go back to school and get qualifications or work in the fields in France. The journalist then asks what is wrong with that, at least they would have their integrity and what is wrong with working for a wage. Lance then looks at him like he is sh1t. What a moment to close out the interview.

How quick are the majority of posters to condemn, when we are talking about history which happened before some were even out of school, in what was a very different world. People had mouths to feed, no excuse I know, but often the team domestique rider (average pro career maybe 4 years) needed to make what he/she could to try and secure a better future than a job in a factory.

I am glad I know what side of the fence I sit on.

I had not spotted this before. What complete and utter rubbish. I started work in a factory at 16. Because I had to. Zero other choices. I still have the jersey I bought with my first weeks wages, many decades ago. A rubbish multicoloured thing but it was new and my first ever new jersey, everything else I had before was at least 2nd hand in most cases about 4th hand, with holes in.

Working in a factory was absolutely stunning - I got paid. A simple deal, I did stuff somebody wanted me to do and I got enough money to live on and a little left over. Like many of the 4,000 others at that factory, we did an honest day's work and got an honest day's pay. What the he** is wrong with that ?

I haven't doped and I haven't stolen. I don't park on double yellow lines and I don't take what is not mine. I have never bought a new car and I am sure I never will. I have my family to feed and certainly that influences every decision I make in life. My kids know that they will go without, but we, they, their mother and I, we will retain our dignity.

The dopers are scum. They rob from others and they lie. There is no excuse. I don't care how "dark" it is, or what anyone else is doing, or what the history is, if it is wrong you don't do it. It is not complicated. I don't need a new car, a fancy phone or other rubbish. I actually like riding to work every day. I liked riding in the snow. I don't need to steal so that I can have a bigger house or throw more beer down my neck. I'll settle for what I can afford and love it, mainly because it is mine and I got it by my hard work.

Yates did not know anything about Lance ! Pull the other one. Yates retires on health grounds. Sorry Sky lost me some time ago. I don't trust Brailsford with all the lies regarding de yong, Leinders, Barry and the rest. If this marginal gains gets as much detailed analysis as they say they put into it, then the only way they employed that little lot is by making sure they looked the other way. Because I now have zero confidence that Brailsford tells the truth, I am very sad to say, it spins off onto the others. Cav was making his own bed well before Sky came along and he cheats. I have as much respect for him as I do Millar, but Brad was somebody I thought I could trust. I now don't and I'm very sad that I don't.

Each day I think less of my Federation as it becomes more corrupted by the Sky story.

Wonderful sequel that Yates recovered from his poor health so rapidly that he secured another DS job. And then he brought out a book which could not have more been a tribute to the Omerta in any way. I loved the title tribute to Lance.

 

[rich p]

Just watched the BBC Armstrong interview on TV. Still nothing to like about him on it. It finishes superbly well. Reminded me of a brush I had with oldroadman a couple of years ago as he was justifying Yates' actions on the Yates and de Jong thread. Lance babbels on about what else could anyone do but dope. If they didn't dope they would have to go back to a factory job or go back to school and get qualifications or work in the fields in France. The journalist then asks what is wrong with that, at least they would have their integrity and what is wrong with working for a wage. Lance then looks at him like he is sh1t. What a moment to close out the interview.



I am glad I know what side of the fence I sit on.



Wonderful sequel that Yates recovered from his poor health so rapidly that he secured another DS job. And then he brought out a book which could not have more been a tribute to the Omerta in any way. I loved the title tribute to Lance.

Apart from having a retrospective dig at oldroadman and restating your position (in agreement with most others on here), that Yates and Armstrong aren't role models of propriety, what is your point?
Succinctly if possible.

 

[oldroadman]

Apart from having a retrospective dig at oldroadman and restating your position (in agreement with most others on here), that Yates and Armstrong aren't role models of propriety, what is your point?
Succinctly if possible.

The last three words are asking a near impossibility. Plenty of accusations fly about from Mr (or Ms?) Resal, but mud slinging is not proof or fact. A (very old) comment about factory work, just illustrates a dilemma which many young people have, and if they have a talent they seek, correctly, to exploit it to the best of their ability. This can lead, at times, down a darker route than they had imagined. I'm sorry for them, and even sorrier for those who did the job correctly, clean, taking every legal advantage but not crossing the line, The comments about Sky and the errors which they corrected (viz Leinders, a vey stupid decision), and throwing more mud at Mr Brailsford just seem a bit petty and riven with agendas. That's my lot, no further comments, I know what I did and I can look anyone in the eye, including (especially) my family.