Hinault on Armstrong & Doping
View Full Version : Hinault on Armstrong & Doping
From and interview on Eurosport.com:
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is continually
swirling around cycling, some have made the connection
between Armstrong and the medications he was allowed to take
- and may currently still be taking - because of his cancer.
Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I
have to say to that bunch of assholes: I wish you just one
thing: That you have the same sickness. That you have one
foot in the grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to
live. How much you'll want to do what you love and do it to
it's maximum
-------
Gotta love that kind of candor. Jeff
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> From and interview on Eurosport.com:
>
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
>
> Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is continually
> swirling around cycling, some have made the connection
> between Armstrong and the
medications
> he was allowed to take - and may currently still be taking
> - because of
his
> cancer.
>
> Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I
> have to say to
that
> bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That you
> have the same sickness. That you have one foot in the
> grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to live.
> How much you'll want to do what you love and do it to
> it's maximum
>
Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the question.
> -------
>
> Gotta love that kind of candor. Jeff
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:8TWDc.31336$Y3.22744@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
> news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> >
> >
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
> >
> > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > continually swirling
around
> > cycling, some have made the connection between Armstrong
> > and the
> medications
> > he was allowed to take - and may currently still be
> > taking - because of
> his
> > cancer.
> >
> > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I
> > have to say to
> that
> > bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That you
> > have the same sickness. That you have one foot in the
> > grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to live. How
> > much you'll want to do what you love and do it
to
> > it's maximum
> >
>
> Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> question.
Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping" crowd to
get over it. Hinault is saying that Lance was near death and
he came back from that experience with a newfound
appreciation for life and what he could accomplish with his
life - both on and off the bike. LA's near-death experience
is what is driving his performance, not drugs.
Of course, he could be wrong.... Jeff
> > -------
> >
> > Gotta love that kind of candor. Jeff
> >
>
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
news:ldXDc.747$qE.85@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:8T-
> WDc.31336$Y3.22744@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
> > news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
> > >
> > > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > > continually swirling
> around
> > > cycling, some have made the connection between
> > > Armstrong and the
> > medications
> > > he was allowed to take - and may currently still be
> > > taking - because
of
> > his
> > > cancer.
> > >
> > > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what
> > > I have to say
to
> > that
> > > bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That you
> > > have the same sickness. That you have one foot in the
> > > grave. Then you'll see how
much
> > > you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do what
> > > you love and do
it
> to
> > > it's maximum
> > >
> >
> > Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> > question.
>
> Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping" crowd
> to get over it. Hinault is saying that Lance was near
> death and he came back from that experience with a
> newfound appreciation for life and what he could
> accomplish with his life - both on and off the bike. LA's
> near-death experience is what is driving his performance,
> not drugs.
>
> Of course, he could be wrong.... Jeff
>
>
>
> > > -------
> > >
> > > Gotta love that kind of candor. Jeff
Bernie is a paid employee of the Tour who isn't going to
spit in the financial soup that Armstrong helps to season. I
would only expect him to repeat the Lance mythology or
cancer survivor comback kid. That's sells, not covered up
track marks and car park drop-offs.
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message news:<TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
> From and interview on Eurosport.com:
>
> http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport-
> _Lng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
>
> Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> continually swirling around cycling, some have made the
> connection between Armstrong and the medications he was
> allowed to take - and may currently still be taking -
> because of his cancer.
>
> Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I
> have to say to that bunch of assholes: I wish you just one
> thing: That you have the same sickness. That you have one
> foot in the grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to
> live. How much you'll want to do what you love and do it
> to it's maximum
>
> -------
>
> Gotta love that kind of candor. Jeff
Yeah, Bernie's not much of one to mince words.
Originally posted by J Jones
Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I
have to say to that bunch of assholes: I wish you just one
thing: That you have the same sickness. That you have one
foot in the grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to
live. How much you'll want to do what you love and do it to
it's maximum
Hinault is 100% right... Who gives a toss if he dopes or not... he is one of the greatest athletes in the world and a true symbol of a human defeating a horrible disease.
I am not a Lance fan, but attacks on his doping are just as stupid as attacks on Ulrich for his "fatness". It just shows a lack of respect. It's the IOC and UCI who have the final word.
"Tuschinski" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:hQ_Dc.4869$i21.3536@fe12.usenetserver.com...
> It's the IOC and UCI who have the final word.
And God Bless them.
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message news:<TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
> From and interview on Eurosport.com:
>
> http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport-
> _Lng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
>
> Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> continually swirling around cycling, some have made the
> connection between Armstrong and the medications he was
> allowed to take - and may currently still be taking -
> because of his cancer.
>
> Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what I
> have to say to that bunch of assholes: I wish you just one
> thing: That you have the same sickness. That you have one
> foot in the grave. Then you'll see how much you'll want to
> live. How much you'll want to do what you love and do it
> to it's maximum
> -------
>
> Gotta love that kind of candor.
One of "they're all guilty and cheats" Lafferty's heroes
is no longer. Brian "carrie nation" Lafferty's bubble has
just burst.
-Ken
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:eo%DC.31583$Y3.13389@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in
> message news:20040628161323.05845.00000449@mb-
> m27.aol.com...
> > >From: "B. Lafferty"
> >
> > >Bernie is a paid employee of the Tour who isn't going
> > >to spit in the financial soup that Armstrong helps to
> > >season. I would only expect him
> to
> > >repeat the Lance mythology or cancer survivor comback
> > >kid. That's
sells,
> not
> > >covered up track marks and car park drop-offs.
> >
> > Walsh is selling track marks and car park drop-offs, and
> > *you're*
buying.
> >
> > That's one reason he didn't do this "expose" in his
> > newspaper column,
> because
> > he is already paid for that output. --TP
>
> Walsh is selling a book of investigative journalism which
> you can read and reach your own conclusions about. Bernies
> is (a) not a journalist, (b)
has
> an obligation to his emplyer to present the employer's
> line --the Lance
Myth
> and (c) didn't answer the question. You might want to take
> a look at Eric Boyers comments in L'Equipe.
> http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/boyer_2306.html
>
>
Looks interesting. Translation please?
Mark VandenBerghe
Brian, you DO realize that you're the laughing stock of the
universe don't you?
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:eo%D-
c.31583$Y3.13389@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in
> message news:20040628161323.05845.00000449@mb-
> m27.aol.com...
> > >From: "B. Lafferty"
> >
> > >Bernie is a paid employee of the Tour who isn't going
> > >to spit in the financial soup that Armstrong helps to
> > >season. I would only expect him
> to
> > >repeat the Lance mythology or cancer survivor comback
> > >kid. That's
sells,
> not
> > >covered up track marks and car park drop-offs.
> >
> > Walsh is selling track marks and car park drop-offs, and
> > *you're*
buying.
> >
> > That's one reason he didn't do this "expose" in his
> > newspaper column,
> because
> > he is already paid for that output. --TP
>
> Walsh is selling a book of investigative journalism which
> you can read and reach your own conclusions about. Bernies
> is (a) not a journalist, (b)
has
> an obligation to his emplyer to present the employer's
> line --the Lance
Myth
> and (c) didn't answer the question. You might want to take
> a look at Eric Boyers comments in L'Equipe.
> http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/boyer_2306.html
"B. Lafferty" wrote:
>
> Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> question.
Dumbass, it wasn't a question. You're fired.
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
news:ldXDc.747$qE.85@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:8T-
> WDc.31336$Y3.22744@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
> > news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
> > >
> > > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > > continually swirling
> around
> > > cycling, some have made the connection between
> > > Armstrong and the
> > medications
> > > he was allowed to take - and may currently still be
> > > taking - because
of
> > his
> > > cancer.
> > >
> > > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's what
> > > I have to say
to
> > that
> > > bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That you
> > > have the same sickness. That you have one foot in the
> > > grave. Then you'll see how
much
> > > you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do what
> > > you love and do
it
> to
> > > it's maximum
> > >
> >
> > Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> > question.
>
> Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping" crowd
> to get over it. Hinault is saying that Lance was near
> death and he came back from that experience with a
> newfound appreciation for life and what he could
> accomplish with his life - both on and off the bike. LA's
> near-death experience is what is driving his performance,
> not drugs.
>
> Of course, he could be wrong....
He *could* be wrong? Actually, he is. There is no logic in
what Hinault says. A near-death experience does not make you
go faster. 'Surviving cancer' and 'using blood doping' are
not interchangable. I'm sure that Armstrong has a strong
character and the way he was able to cope with his illness
is testimony to that. But I've yet to see anyone dispute
that. But that kind of drive is different from the advantage
doping gives. Or do we assume that Armstrong shoots syringes
full of cancer survivorship into his arm?
If anything is in the way of solving the doping problem, it
is the pathetic hero-attitude that surrounds sportsmen. Some
can do nothing wrong, while others are cheaters to begin
with. Armstrong has played the hero card too much, I think,
and it is backfiring towards him.
I have a lot of respect for Armstrong's career, and
especially for the way he stood up to his illness. I
wouldn't call it inspiring, because I'm more inspired by a
very different sort of person, but it is easy to see why he
inspires others. But the kind of moral blackmail that his
cancer history is used for is sickening, and I've had enough
of it (something that should have been said in 2000 or
1999). Any accusations about Armstrong and doping are
unconnected to his history with cancer, in any way. Let that
be clear from now on.
> Jeff
>
>
>
> > > -------
> > >
> > > Gotta love that kind of candor.
You love it that Hinault uses strong language to conceal the
fact that he's actually saying nothing at all?
Jonathan.
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message
news:cbrh39$55c$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
> "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
> news:ldXDc.747$qE.85@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:-
> > 8TWDc.31336$Y3.22744@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
> > > news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > > > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
> > > >
> > > > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > > > continually swirling
> > around
> > > > cycling, some have made the connection between
> > > > Armstrong and the
> > > medications
> > > > he was allowed to take - and may currently still be
> > > > taking - because
> of
> > > his
> > > > cancer.
> > > >
> > > > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's
> > > > what I have to say
> to
> > > that
> > > > bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That
> > > > you have the same sickness. That you have one foot
> > > > in the grave. Then you'll see how
> much
> > > > you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do what
> > > > you love and do
> it
> > to
> > > > it's maximum
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> > > question.
> >
> > Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping" crowd
> > to get over it. Hinault is saying that Lance was near
> > death and he came back from that experience with a
> > newfound appreciation for life and what he could
> > accomplish with his life - both on and off the bike.
> > LA's near-death experience is what is driving his
> > performance, not drugs.
> >
> > Of course, he could be wrong....
>
> He *could* be wrong? Actually, he is. There is no logic in
> what Hinault says. A near-death experience does not make
> you go faster.
Actually, in Lance's case, it did make him better/faster
because of the physical changes his body underwent - i.e.,
lighter up top. This, along with the Carmicheal-based
training principles improved his power-to-weight ratio to
make him faster in the mountains and TTs. Of course, the
mental toughness that Lance developed through surviving
cancer helped an incalculable amount too - i.e., suffering
for your life w/cancer most surely puts suffering on a bike
in perspective, a perspective that no other competitor in
the peloton can appreciate.
> 'Surviving cancer' and 'using blood doping' are not
> interchangable. I'm sure that Armstrong has a strong
> character and the way he was able to cope with his illness
> is testimony to that. But I've yet to see anyone dispute
> that. But that kind of drive is different from the
> advantage doping gives. Or do we assume that Armstrong
> shoots syringes full of cancer survivorship into his arm?
>
> If anything is in the way of solving the doping problem,
> it is the
pathetic
> hero-attitude that surrounds sportsmen. Some can do
> nothing wrong, while others are cheaters to begin with.
> Armstrong has played the hero card too much, I think, and
> it is backfiring towards him.
>
> I have a lot of respect for Armstrong's career, and
> especially for the way he stood up to his illness. I
> wouldn't call it inspiring, because I'm more inspired by a
> very different sort of person, but it is easy to see why
> he inspires others.
> But the kind of moral blackmail that his cancer history is
> used for is sickening, and I've had enough of it
> (something that should
have
> been said in 2000 or 1999).
Moral blackmail? His cancer story is now part of who he is -
no one can change that. Aside from the inspiration he
provides millions of sick individuals, his charitable
foundations have raised extraordinary amounts of money to
help the cause. But alas, the sick and the charitable are
being duped by LA. What a twisted viewpoint you have. Jeff
> Any accusations about Armstrong and doping are unconnected
> to his history with cancer, in any way. Let that be clear
> from now on.
>
>
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > > > -------
> > > >
> > > > Gotta love that kind of candor.
>
> You love it that Hinault uses strong language to conceal
> the fact that
he's
> actually saying nothing at all?
>
> Jonathan.
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
news:ZheEc.721$kN1.672@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message
> news:cbrh39$55c$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
> > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:ldXDc.747$qE.85@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message new-
> > > s:8TWDc.31336$Y3.22744@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n-
> > > et...
> > > >
> > > > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > > > > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
> > > > >
> > > > > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > > > > continually swirling
> > > around
> > > > > cycling, some have made the connection between
> > > > > Armstrong and the
> > > > medications
> > > > > he was allowed to take - and may currently still
> > > > > be taking -
because
> > of
> > > > his
> > > > > cancer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and here's
> > > > > what I have to
say
> > to
> > > > that
> > > > > bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing: That
> > > > > you have the
same
> > > > > sickness. That you have one foot in the grave.
> > > > > Then you'll see how
> > much
> > > > > you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do
> > > > > what you love and
do
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > it's maximum
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping"
> > > crowd to get over
it.
> > > Hinault is saying that Lance was near death and he
> > > came back from that experience with a newfound
> > > appreciation for life and what he could accomplish
> > > with his life - both on and off the bike. LA's near-
> > > death experience is what is driving his performance,
> > > not drugs.
> > >
> > > Of course, he could be wrong....
> >
> > He *could* be wrong? Actually, he is. There is no logic
> > in what Hinault says. A near-death experience does not
> > make you go faster.
>
> Actually, in Lance's case, it did make him better/faster
> because of the physical changes his body underwent - i.e.,
> lighter up top. This, along with the Carmicheal-based
> training principles improved his power-to-weight ratio to
> make him faster in the mountains and TTs. Of course, the
> mental toughness that Lance developed through surviving
> cancer helped an incalculable amount too - i.e., suffering
> for your life w/cancer most
surely
> puts suffering on a bike in perspective, a perspective
> that no other competitor in the peloton can appreciate.
Well, as Peter Winnen said, Armstrong has a lot of doctor's
notes, so yes, from that viewpoint you can shoot some cancer
survivorship into your arm.
>
>
> > 'Surviving cancer' and 'using blood doping' are not
> > interchangable. I'm sure that Armstrong has a strong
> > character and the way he was able to cope with
his
> > illness is testimony to that. But I've yet to see anyone
> > dispute that.
But
> > that kind of drive is different from the advantage
> > doping gives. Or do
we
> > assume that Armstrong shoots syringes full of cancer
> > survivorship into
his
> > arm?
> >
> > If anything is in the way of solving the doping problem,
> > it is the
> pathetic
> > hero-attitude that surrounds sportsmen. Some can do
> > nothing wrong, while others are cheaters to begin with.
> > Armstrong has played the hero card
too
> > much, I think, and it is backfiring towards him.
> >
> > I have a lot of respect for Armstrong's career, and
> > especially for the
way
> > he stood up to his illness. I wouldn't call it
> > inspiring, because I'm
more
> > inspired by a very different sort of person, but it is
> > easy to see why
he
> > inspires others.
>
> > But the kind of moral blackmail that his cancer history
> > is used for is sickening, and I've had enough of it
> > (something that should
> have
> > been said in 2000 or 1999).
> Moral blackmail? His cancer story is now part of who he is
> - no one can change that. Aside from the inspiration he
> provides millions of sick individuals, his charitable
> foundations have raised extraordinary amounts
of
> money to help the cause. But alas, the sick and the
> charitable are being duped by LA. What a twisted viewpoint
> you have.
My problem is not with the story itself, and I don't
understand why you fail to see the respect I have for
Armstrongs history. What words must I put down to convince
you of the utter devotion I feel toward this saintly person
who has helped so many persons in need? Oh my, I am being
accused of having a twisted viewpoint, without ever
producing any piece of text that actually contains such a
viewpoint.
What I object to is how that story is used to turn any
argument that might say something negative about Armstrong
into disrespect for his struggle against cancer. That cannot
be right. If Hinault calls Walsh an asshole because he
criticizes someone who struggled with cancer, then Hinault
is exerting emotional pressure without giving rational
arguments. That is not a twisted viewpoint, Mr. Jones, and I
kindly ask to take back such an insulting qualification.
I do not know of a single person who is eager to believe Mr.
Walsh. But if you take a step back and look at how Armstrong
has been defended, then I think Walsh is comfortably
awaiting the trials and the eventual verdict of history.
Scott Sunderland wrote something like: "I haven't read the
book, but I'm sure it's crap." Great debating skills, Scott.
Why would Armstrong need enemies when he has such friends?
Hinault's words are in exactly the same league - not giving
us a clue about whether Walsh (or more specifically: Emma
O'Reilly) is right or not. All we learn is who is on whose
side, which is extremely tiring for anyone trying to deduce
the facts.
But hurray, Hinault verbally punches Walsh. Let's see if
Verbruggen jumps into the fray. What will he call Walsh?
Verbruggen uses correct language, but I'm sure he'll
respectfully produce a stream of words good for at least
three messages on usenet. Never mind the fact that he won't
be saying anything at all, which is for the best anyway.
After all, this whole 'L.A. Confidential' thing is going to
trail off into obscurity and prolonged court cases and leave
some undecisive conclusion after Armstrong has retired, and
that might be the best for all, right?
Jonathan.
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message
news:cbs1he$1o0$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
>
> "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
> news:ZheEc.721$kN1.672@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in
> > message news:cbrh39$55c$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
> > > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
> > > news:ldXDc.747$qE.85@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > > > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8TWDc.31336$Y3.22744@newsread2.news.atl.earthl-
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:TaWDc.1423$BA1.29@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > > > > > From and interview on Eurosport.com:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/E6083/sport_L-
ng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto607341.shtml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eurosport: Amidst the doping innuendo that is
> > > > > > continually
swirling
> > > > around
> > > > > > cycling, some have made the connection between
> > > > > > Armstrong and the
> > > > > medications
> > > > > > he was allowed to take - and may currently still
> > > > > > be taking -
> because
> > > of
> > > > > his
> > > > > > cancer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bernard Hinault: Yeah, I've heard that and
> > > > > > here's what I have to
> say
> > > to
> > > > > that
> > > > > > bunch of assholes: I wish you just one thing:
> > > > > > That you have the
> same
> > > > > > sickness. That you have one foot in the grave.
> > > > > > Then you'll see
how
> > > much
> > > > > > you'll want to live. How much you'll want to do
> > > > > > what you love
and
> do
> > > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > it's maximum
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, Hinault conveniently didn't answer the
> > > > > question.
> > > >
> > > > Hinault's obvious answer is for the "LA is doping"
> > > > crowd to get over
> it.
> > > > Hinault is saying that Lance was near death and he
> > > > came back from
that
> > > > experience with a newfound appreciation for life and
> > > > what he could accomplish with his life - both on and
> > > > off the bike. LA's
near-death
> > > > experience is what is driving his performance, not
> > > > drugs.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, he could be wrong....
> > >
> > > He *could* be wrong? Actually, he is. There is no
> > > logic in what
Hinault
> > > says. A near-death experience does not make you go
> > > faster.
> >
> > Actually, in Lance's case, it did make him better/faster
> > because of the physical changes his body underwent -
> > i.e., lighter up top. This, along with the Carmicheal-
> > based training principles improved his
power-to-weight
> > ratio to make him faster in the mountains and TTs. Of
> > course, the
mental
> > toughness that Lance developed through surviving cancer
> > helped an incalculable amount too - i.e., suffering for
> > your life w/cancer most
> surely
> > puts suffering on a bike in perspective, a perspective
> > that no other competitor in the peloton can appreciate.
>
> Well, as Peter Winnen said, Armstrong has a lot of
> doctor's notes, so yes, from that viewpoint you can shoot
> some cancer survivorship into your arm.
>
> >
> >
> > > 'Surviving cancer' and 'using blood doping' are not
> > > interchangable. I'm sure that Armstrong has a strong
> > > character and the way he was able to cope with
> his
> > > illness is testimony to that. But I've yet to see
> > > anyone dispute that.
> But
> > > that kind of drive is different from the advantage
> > > doping gives. Or do
> we
> > > assume that Armstrong shoots syringes full of cancer
> > > survivorship into
> his
> > > arm?
> > >
> > > If anything is in the way of solving the doping
> > > problem, it is the
> > pathetic
> > > hero-attitude that surrounds sportsmen. Some can do
> > > nothing wrong,
while
> > > others are cheaters to begin with. Armstrong has
> > > played the hero card
> too
> > > much, I think, and it is backfiring towards him.
> > >
> > > I have a lot of respect for Armstrong's career, and
> > > especially for the
> way
> > > he stood up to his illness. I wouldn't call it
> > > inspiring, because I'm
> more
> > > inspired by a very different sort of person, but it is
> > > easy to see why
> he
> > > inspires others.
> >
> > > But the kind of moral blackmail that his cancer
> > > history is used for is sickening, and I've had enough
> > > of it (something that
should
> > have
> > > been said in 2000 or 1999).
> > Moral blackmail? His cancer story is now part of who he
> > is - no one can change that. Aside from the inspiration
> > he provides millions of sick individuals, his charitable
> > foundations have raised extraordinary
amounts
> of
> > money to help the cause. But alas, the sick and the
> > charitable are
being
> > duped by LA. What a twisted viewpoint you have.
>
> My problem is not with the story itself, and I don't
> understand why you
fail
> to see the respect I have for Armstrongs history. What
> words must I put
down
> to convince you of the utter devotion I feel toward this
> saintly person
who
> has helped so many persons in need? Oh my, I am being
> accused of having a twisted viewpoint, without ever
> producing any piece of text that actually contains such a
> viewpoint.
Moral blackmail is the specific text that you used that I
consider twisted.
>
> What I object to is how that story is used to turn any
> argument that might say something negative about Armstrong
> into disrespect for his struggle against cancer.
The Eurosport article specifically makes the link between
doping and Lance's cancer treatment. Hinault's response has
nothing to do with the "he's doping" crowd showing
disrespect for Lance's cancer struggle, and everything to do
with indicating that people who make the link between
Lance's performance and cancer drugs are nuts.
> That cannot be right. If Hinault calls Walsh an asshole
> because he criticizes someone who struggled with cancer,
> then Hinault is exerting emotional pressure without giving
> rational arguments.
I don't think Hinault is calling Walsh an asshole because
Walsh is criticizing a cancer survivor. He's calling people
assholes that think Lance's cancer treatments (then and now)
are 'doping' and are thus responsible for Lance's TDF wins.
I happen to agree with him. Bottom line, Lance has never
failed a doping test. Is it possible that he's doping? Sure.
Is it likely he's doping? I don't think so. Hinault doesn't
have to produce this evidence, it's widely documented and
continues to be so.
> That is not a twisted viewpoint, Mr. Jones, and I kindly
> ask to take back such an insulting qualification.
>
> I do not know of a single person who is eager to believe
> Mr. Walsh. But if you take a step back and look at how
> Armstrong has been defended, then I think Walsh is
> comfortably awaiting the trials and the eventual verdict
> of history. Scott Sunderland wrote something like: "I
> haven't read the book, but I'm sure it's crap." Great
> debating skills, Scott. Why would Armstrong need enemies
> when he has such friends? Hinault's words are in exactly
> the same league - not giving us a clue about whether Walsh
> (or more specifically: Emma O'Reilly) is right or not. All
> we learn is who is on whose side, which is extremely
> tiring for anyone trying to deduce the
facts.
Just like we know who is on whose side in this thread. It's
all opinion. The facts produced to date (i.e., Lance's drug
test results for years and years) do not indicate that he's
doping - period. Jeff
>
> But hurray, Hinault verbally punches Walsh. Let's see if
> Verbruggen jumps into the fray. What will he call Walsh?
> Verbruggen uses correct language, but I'm sure he'll
> respectfully produce a stream of words good for at
least
> three messages on usenet. Never mind the fact that he
> won't be saying anything at all, which is for the best
> anyway. After all, this whole 'L.A. Confidential' thing is
> going to trail off into obscurity and prolonged
court
> cases and leave some undecisive conclusion after Armstrong
> has retired,
and
> that might be the best for all, right?
>
> Jonathan.
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
>
> I have a lot of respect for Armstrong's career, and
> especially for the way he stood up to his illness. I
> wouldn't call it inspiring, because I'm more inspired by a
> very different sort of person
what kind do you mean? curious, heather
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
news:IRgEc.1511$SY.579@bignews4.bellsouth.net... <snip>
> Moral blackmail is the specific text that you used that I
> consider
twisted.
It's not. The moral blackmail is the fact that continually,
Armstrong's history of his illness is used to ridicule his
criticasters and make them look evil. That is an emotional
appeal that tries to exploit everyone's sympathy with those
suffering from a disease, while completely ignoring the
actual content of the criticism. You have not given any
indication why this moral blackmail is a good thing, only
asserted that I use twisted reasoning, which is simply not
true and still an insult that you should take back. Hereby,
I kindly ask you again to do that.
>
> >
> > What I object to is how that story is used to turn any
> > argument that
might
> > say something negative about Armstrong into disrespect
> > for his struggle against cancer.
>
> The Eurosport article specifically makes the link between
> doping and
Lance's
> cancer treatment. Hinault's response has nothing to do
> with the "he's doping" crowd showing disrespect for
> Lance's cancer struggle, and
everything
> to do with indicating that people who make the link
> between Lance's performance and cancer drugs are nuts.
>
> > That cannot be right. If Hinault calls Walsh an asshole
> > because he criticizes someone who struggled with cancer,
> > then Hinault is exerting emotional pressure without
> > giving rational arguments.
>
> I don't think Hinault is calling Walsh an asshole because
> Walsh is criticizing a cancer survivor. He's calling
> people assholes that think Lance's cancer treatments (then
> and now) are 'doping' and are thus responsible for Lance's
> TDF wins. I happen to agree with him. Bottom
line,
> Lance has never failed a doping test. Is it possible that
> he's doping? Sure. Is it likely he's doping? I don't think
> so. Hinault doesn't have
to
> produce this evidence, it's widely documented and
> continues to be so.
Walsh' evidence is also documented well, and if it's so
faulty, why don't people indicate that? Wishing that someone
is going to suffer from terminal cancer isn't helping any
argument, and he certainly isn't convincing me. It's good if
you like polarisation, I guess.
>
> > That is not a twisted viewpoint, Mr. Jones, and I kindly
> > ask to take back such an insulting qualification.
> >
> > I do not know of a single person who is eager to believe
> > Mr. Walsh. But
if
> > you take a step back and look at how Armstrong has been
> > defended, then I think Walsh is comfortably awaiting the
> > trials and the eventual verdict
of
> > history. Scott Sunderland wrote something like: "I
> > haven't read the
book,
> > but I'm sure it's crap." Great debating skills, Scott.
> > Why would
Armstrong
> > need enemies when he has such friends? Hinault's words
> > are in exactly
the
> > same league - not giving us a clue about whether Walsh
> > (or more specifically: Emma O'Reilly) is right or not.
> > All we learn is who is on whose side, which is extremely
> > tiring for anyone trying to deduce the
> facts.
>
> Just like we know who is on whose side in this thread.
> It's all opinion. The facts produced to date (i.e.,
> Lance's drug test results for years and years) do not
> indicate that he's doping - period. Jeff
Millar, Zuelle, Pantani, Frigo, Virenque, Manzano and
Gaumont have never tested positive. But they didn't ride
clean. US Postal had actovegin, and Manzano said it was used
as doping. If Armstrong wasn't talking about doping, then
what did he say to O'Reilly? I'm not out to get the man and
he can keep his yellow jerseys no matter what they fid out,
but there still is no simple solution to it. As I have
indicated, the problem lies not in if he's guilty or not,
it's the way people get worked up about it. That interferes
with any level-headed thinking,
For some reason, Armstrong seems to be getting al lot more
defense and apologies than other riders. In spite of the
good things he did, I don't think that's fair. If we're
going to pretend that all negative publicity is produced by
greedy, lying journalists, then Walsh isn't exactly the only
one to rant about.
Jonathan.
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message
news:cbs8ki$qn9$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
>
> "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
> news:IRgEc.1511$SY.579@bignews4.bellsouth.net... <snip>
> > Moral blackmail is the specific text that you used that
> > I consider
> twisted.
>
> It's not. The moral blackmail is the fact that
> continually, Armstrong's history of his illness is used to
> ridicule his criticasters and make them look evil.
I've not noticed this. Doesn't mean that it's not the case,
I just haven't noticed it.
> That is an emotional appeal that tries to exploit
> everyone's sympathy with those suffering from a disease,
> while completely ignoring
the
> actual content of the criticism. You have not given any
> indication why
this
> moral blackmail is a good thing, only asserted that I
> use twisted
reasoning,
> which is simply not true and still an insult that you
> should take back. Hereby, I kindly ask you again to
> do that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > What I object to is how that story is used to turn any
> > > argument that
> might
> > > say something negative about Armstrong into disrespect
> > > for his
struggle
> > > against cancer.
> >
> > The Eurosport article specifically makes the link
> > between doping and
> Lance's
> > cancer treatment. Hinault's response has nothing to do
> > with the "he's doping" crowd showing disrespect for
> > Lance's cancer struggle, and
> everything
> > to do with indicating that people who make the link
> > between Lance's performance and cancer drugs are nuts.
> >
> > > That cannot be right. If Hinault calls Walsh an
> > > asshole because he criticizes someone who struggled
> > > with cancer, then Hinault
is
> > > exerting emotional pressure without giving rational
> > > arguments.
> >
> > I don't think Hinault is calling Walsh an asshole
> > because Walsh is criticizing a cancer survivor. He's
> > calling people assholes that think Lance's cancer
> > treatments (then and now) are 'doping' and are thus
> > responsible for Lance's TDF wins. I happen to agree with
> > him. Bottom
> line,
> > Lance has never failed a doping test. Is it possible
> > that he's doping? Sure. Is it likely he's doping? I
> > don't think so. Hinault doesn't
have
> to
> > produce this evidence, it's widely documented and
> > continues to be so.
>
> Walsh' evidence is also documented well, and if it's so
> faulty, why don't people indicate that? Wishing that
> someone is going to suffer from
terminal
> cancer isn't helping any argument, and he certainly
> isn't convincing me. It's good if you like polarisation,
> I guess.
>
> >
> > > That is not a twisted viewpoint, Mr. Jones, and I
> > > kindly ask to take back such an insulting
> > > qualification.
> > >
> > > I do not know of a single person who is eager to
> > > believe Mr. Walsh.
But
> if
> > > you take a step back and look at how Armstrong has
> > > been defended, then
I
> > > think Walsh is comfortably awaiting the trials and the
> > > eventual
verdict
> of
> > > history. Scott Sunderland wrote something like: "I
> > > haven't read the
> book,
> > > but I'm sure it's crap." Great debating skills, Scott.
> > > Why would
> Armstrong
> > > need enemies when he has such friends? Hinault's words
> > > are in exactly
> the
> > > same league - not giving us a clue about whether Walsh
> > > (or more specifically: Emma O'Reilly) is right or not.
> > > All we learn is who is
on
> > > whose side, which is extremely tiring for anyone
> > > trying to deduce the
> > facts.
> >
> > Just like we know who is on whose side in this thread.
> > It's all
opinion.
> > The facts produced to date (i.e., Lance's drug test
> > results for years
and
> > years) do not indicate that he's doping - period. Jeff
>
> Millar, Zuelle, Pantani, Frigo, Virenque, Manzano and
> Gaumont have never tested positive. But they didn't ride
> clean. US Postal had actovegin, and Manzano said it was
> used as doping. If Armstrong wasn't talking about
> doping, then what did he say to O'Reilly? I'm not out to
> get the man and
he
> can keep his yellow jerseys no matter what they fid out,
> but there still
is
> no simple solution to it.
Sure there's a simple solution - it's called evidence. If
Lance is doping, there's GOT to be some real evidence
somewhere that can prove it without a shadow of a doubt. So
far, that evidence has not shown up.
> As I have indicated, the problem lies not in if he's
> guilty or not, it's the way people get worked up about it.
Sorry, but the problem most definitely is whether he's
guilty or not. The reason people get so worked up about it
is because 1) he's much loved by his legions of fans and
people who are truly inspired by him, 2) there's no hard
evidence (yet) that proves he's guilty.
> That interferes with any level-headed thinking,
>
> For some reason, Armstrong seems to be getting al lot more
> defense and apologies than other riders. In spite of the
> good things he did, I don't think that's fair. If we're
> going to pretend that all negative publicity
is
> produced by greedy, lying journalists, then Walsh isn't
> exactly the only
one
> to rant about.
>
> Jonathan.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>
> Millar, Zuelle, Pantani, Frigo, Virenque, Manzano and
> Gaumont have never tested positive.
>
Actually, Gaumont has quite a colourful doping history.
See http://cyclisme.dopage.free.fr/annuaire.htm
"J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
news:fKjEc.1463$Op5.198@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message
> news:cbs8ki$qn9$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> >
> > "J Jones" <nfw@spammers.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:IRgEc.1511$SY.579@bignews4.bellsouth.net... <snip>
> > > Moral blackmail is the specific text that you used
> > > that I consider
> > twisted.
> >
> > It's not. The moral blackmail is the fact that
> > continually, Armstrong's history of his illness is used
> > to ridicule his criticasters and make
them
> > look evil.
> I've not noticed this. Doesn't mean that it's not the
> case, I just
haven't
> noticed it.
Well, look closely at Hinault's diatribe again, and you
might see it. He gives no argument, only points to the
suffering that Armstrong went through. You really don't need
a lot of interpretation skills to see what kind of argument
Hinault is using. It is as I described, and I don't love
that kind of candor. My reasoning is not twisted, and I
kindly ask you to take back that qualification. You can
disagree, but 'twisted' is insulting to me.
<snip>
> > Millar, Zuelle, Pantani, Frigo, Virenque, Manzano and
> > Gaumont have never tested positive. But they didn't ride
> > clean. US Postal had actovegin,
and
> > Manzano said it was used as doping. If Armstrong wasn't
> > talking about doping, then what did he say to O'Reilly?
> > I'm not out to get the man and
> he
> > can keep his yellow jerseys no matter what they fid out,
> > but there still
> is
> > no simple solution to it.
> Sure there's a simple solution - it's called evidence. If
> Lance is doping, there's GOT to be some real evidence
> somewhere that can prove it without a shadow of a doubt.
> So far, that evidence has not shown up.
That does not need to be the case. What you say holds true
in detective novels, where criminals always make a
mistake. But I think some cyclists use doping and never
get caught, or *really* caught. Did Riis use doping? There
are plenty of rumors, and this usenet group apparently
considers his reputation to be based on established fact.
But it's never been proven, and it's my guess that the
available evidence is less solid than what's incriminating
Armstrong. I've yet to see a former Telekom soigneur with
the same stories as O'Reilly.
But do we really want to dig so deep into the dealings of
US Postal that all possibility of finding evidence of
doping has been ruled out? It does not appear so; the
current attitude that I read in most reactions on the
internet (Dutch papers don't discuss this much) suggest
that Armstrong should be left alone, that he should be
presumed to be clean in spite of what Walsh brings forward
and that those doing the digging are ten times worse than
what is dug up. Not a reaction that appears filled with
confidence about the facts. Perhaps Armstrong doesn't have
anything to worry about. To claim that 'evidence has not
shown up' seems a bit too bold in the light of Walsh' book,
which isn't filled with blank pages. I haven't read it, so
it might all be nonsense, but the quotes given by l'Equipe
have made me curious. There is evidence, the question is
how it should be weighed.
Jonathan.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
