Say it ain't so Lance!!!

gntlmn

If you combine a whole lot of "what if's" surrounding a theory which holds no water, and then convince people that each "what if" builds on the last one, you come up with a well concocted lie. And why would this lie sell a lot of books? Because it's what people might expect to hear about a dominant rider.

Sure, the masseuse may have disposed of syringes. But what was in them? Vitamin B? Iron? Probably. But what does a masseuse do who is no longer in the game to garner publicity for herself? She treats it as if it is some major unsolved mystery. She doesn't explain that they were most likely for legal injections that all riders take. If she did that, she would still be in the doldrums without the worldwide attention she gathers now from her story, which may be true in what she saw, but preposterous in the conclusion it makes.

If you want to start seeing what is more likely the truth, read the following article. After all, when you consider Lance Armstrong has passed all drug tests, and he is subject to RANDOM tests all year long and has passed them all, most likely he is clean and has been clean all along.

http://sport.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=701762004

gntlmn

Read carefully what I wrote in my post above this one, and read the article linked. The book does nothing more than link together many different instances which might indicate that drug use may have occurred. These indications are not the most likely indications; they are simply indications which might arise from the facts. It's the facts that journalists must be held responsible for. They seem to be free to generate trashy opinions about why those facts occurred, and this is what is happening. If someone passes many, many drug tests and comes up clean every time, do you think you can sell a book that declares, "Lance is clean"? Do you think that would make the bestseller list? I doubt it. The tests have shown he's clean all along. So it's no surprise. People aren't going to buy that.

You can sell a lot more grassy knoll books than lone gunman theory books. People are always looking for a conspiracy. But don't you think someone would have seen something a little more convincing than syringes which may have been used for vitamin injections?

By the way, I am more inclined to believe the grassy knoll than the doping allegations.

steve007

David Walsh has done interviews about the book and still aint brave enough to state that Lance HAS taken drugs. And as people have said Lance gets tested all year, more than most too.

Personally, I believe that anything is possible, but even if it was true I would still have massive amount of respect for LA and his accomplishments.

Bottom Line: LA has done far far more to educate and help people than David Walsh has or will ever do.

gntlmn

Let's play devil's advocate to illustrate just how preposterous this sounds. Let's say you are in Lance Armstrong's position. You keep winning the Tour, but you have this horrible secret--you have been doping ever since you recovered from cancer.

How do you cover this up? Whom do you trust? Do you really think that even your closest friends would avoid outing you to the world press for all this time while you keep winning the Tour every single year, all the while losing so much sleep worrying if anyone whom you have trusted with this dreadful secret will come clean at last?

I doubt that this would have gone on this long. It defies logic. Consider how many people would have been involved in this conspiracy. Clearly, this coverup would have involved many, many people, not just Lance. It's rather absurd to believe that they could have kept quiet this long.

I think he's innocent. Conspiracies are a lot harder to put together than you think. Celebrities live in fish bowls. It is very tough to keep secrets that involve many people if you are a celebrity.

traxnseq

But the court in France has rejected the demand of LA;
he will not be able to include a mention in the book....
justice exists...
pls stop defending Armstong; if he is guilty he has to face the consequences; this time there are just too much facts against him and I am curious how much time it will take before cylcing authorities will exclude Armstong;
earlier this year you certainly heard about the cofidis and manzano story & consequences ...

Brunswick_kate

Yes, Exactly. In this day and age of “if you want loyalty, buy a dog”, Lance Armstrong has NO ONE he can trust with his secrets, dirty or otherwise and I doubt he’s stupid enough to think otherwise.

The most preposterous part of the story is the bit about Ms. O’Reilly, or whatever her name is, lending him make-up to cover up needle tracks. Like a minor staff member would be privy to his illegal activities…the team doctor, yes. Senior management of the team with significant things to lose themselves but not the hired help. Secondly, do we all actually think that Lance Armstrong, a millionaire a few times over and veteran commercial guy, couldn’t purchase his own makeup if he needed it. And have it tucked away. Finally, does anyone really believe that physicians involved in doping control are not going to be on the lookout for things like needle tracks, injection sites etc etc etc or that a little pancake make up is going to fool the trained professional eye of someone on the lookout for such things.

Thanks Mr. Walsh and company. It’s a fantastic story. But please, don’t try and out Le Carre Le Carre.

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

limerickman

I haven't read the book - I have read the serialisations in the various newspapers and I have got to say that I think that Walsh is on to something here.

It is my belief that what we have seen since 1998 is not solely
the result of hard work, sacrifice, nutrition, better equipment.
I simply do not believe that a man who was dying in 1996, can in the space of three years, not only recover but go on to win the TDF the worlds toughest endurace sport.

While I can see the view of those who oppose Walsh's sentiments, I equally oppose the waffle we have had to listen to from Armstrong in his attempts to justify his performances.

Armstrong, in my opinion, has not only insulted our intelligence for the last few years, he attempts to patronise us in to accepting that his performances are due to the fact that he works harder,
sacrifices more, than any other cyclist.
How does he know that he trains harder than anyone else ?
Just because he gets a phone call from David Millar - who happens to be on the piss when he calls and LA is on his bike -
is this the criteria for LA's claim ?
Did anyone ever hear Indurain making condescending remarks
about the lack of training/sacrifice by Rominger/Zulle/Bugno ?

Merckx, Hinault, kelly worked damn hard and were able to win
ALL YEAR ROUND.

Armstrong has consistently avoided being interviewed by Walsh.
His press conferences are devoid of serious questions about doping allegations.
It is immaterial whether he has passed every single drug test
conducted - the pace of drug development has outstripped drug detection (consider that TGH, manufactured by Balco, was undetectable - a whistleblower told the drug authorities about this drug !).

The simple fact of the matter is that a cyclist with no ability to win
a major stage race or indeed a grand tour (or indeed a classment jersey within a grand tour) between 1992-1996, can suddenly manifest in to a totally dominant grand tour winner (1998-now)
has not been explained by Armstrong.

Armstrong's explanation never, ever, rang tue and I for one welcome David Walsh's book.

gntlmn

Clearly, you don't understand what drives a man who might have had dreams of victory only to have it all snatched away along with his life itself. When he comes back from that, his resolve is ever so much stronger because this is his second chance, the chance he hoped he would have. And this is even more evident because the near death event leaves remnants of injury which are borne as well. Buckshot in the heart didn't stop Lemond from winning 2 more Tour victories. And you thought I was talking about Armstrong? What about Pantani? He wasn't quite near death, but his injuries were severe too. And he won the Giro and the TdF after his debilitating injuries. As I said, you underestimate the resolve of the recovering athlete. When you throw mud on Armstrong, you throw mud on Lemond and Pantani too.

Eddy Merckx told Armstrong that he needed to lose weight to win the Tour, and cancer gave him no choice. He couldn't eat enough to maintain his weight, as is true of virtually all cancer patients. So he lost something like 18 pounds. Can you imagine how Jan Ullrich would ride if he lost 19 lbs (8.6 kg)? Well that's how much he'd have to lose to be the same riding weight as Lemond was. He's the same weight.

So what you say, and you keep repeating it, makes very little sense, and yet the Tour draws near. You see Armstrong blood drawn by pecks from this tabloid journalism style writer Walsh, and you want to draw more. Maybe you hope that he will lose his focus in the so called controversy.

gntlmn

Well, at least Walsh got his facts that he based his fairy tale on straight, at least from the point of view of saying, "this person made this comment, that one made that, etc." This makes it more difficult to be sued successfully. It's the same thing the tabloids do. They don't care about the truth; they care about saving their a**. So that's what they do, just line people up to point the finger at when the allegations prove false.

You on the other hand, can't even get your facts straight. You better check Lance Armstrong's record much closer because what you say is as bad as saying you don't notice a herd of thundering buffalo when they are coming to stampede right over you. If you didn't see the thundering herd of Lance Armstrong from 1992-1996, perhaps you might consult with the great Eddy Merckx, who stated to Lance, "You have the ability to win the Tour de France, but you need to lose weight." Well, cancer was the help he needed to lose the weight, and the rest is history. Merckx was right about Armstrong, but you, I'm afraid, better go back and study Lance's cycling history a little closer.

gntlmn

But the blood samples may be saved as long as they wish. What makes your claim rather preposterous is that not one of those blood samples has ever come up positive for "future" banned substances with Lance Armstrong. Now don't you think that that would have been made public by now? After all, he has won the Tour de France for the last 5 years now. Or did you forget that too?

gntlmn

I mainly wanted to repost your post here because it's nice to see someone else who exercises skepticism. I was beginning to feel like a lone voice in the wind.

This reminds me of what an author once said about mass delusions. It was something like, "the crowd wakes up slowly, and only one by one," not that you ever believed this Walsh story to begin with. It's just that when the crowd starts believing something which is not true, it takes a long time before it wakes up.

limerickman

I am well acquainted with Lance Armstrong's record for the period
1992-1996.
You will know there there is no Dauphine, No Paris Nice, No Midi
Libre, No four Days of Dunkirk, No Tour Of Switzerland ,No Vuelta, No Giro, No TDF, in his entire palmares for the period 1992-1996.
In addition, he did not threaten the podium of any of these races in 1992-1996.
He did manage to finish one TDF (out of four starts) between 1992-1996, when he finished - 36th.
He also won two Tours Du Pont.

I don't wish to be sarcastic - but you cannot really be suggesting that this illustrates a great grounding in stage race successes ?
This record hardly suggests a "thudering herd" as you suggest.

I am surprised at your revisionism in this particular issue because
I know from discussing other issues that you know your cycling history and that is why I am surprised at your unequivocal
acceptance that Armstrong is totally kosher.

I think we should agree to disagree perhaps ?

steve007

Well I agree with everything you have said. I think its extremely unlikely story made up by DW and some masseur in need of a few quid.

Also LA has history going back to when he was 11 or 12 and was swimming 6 miles a day plus cycling. His VO2 has always been high - some people need to accept that this guy was born fit and drugs are not involved.

In my opinion, someone is innocent until proven guilty. This should be a basic human right for everyone.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

gntlmn

Apparently, Limerickman has not reviewed these facts as you and I have. He was a phenomenal swimmer when he first started swimming at 8 years old. He was an excellent runner as well when he later picked that up. By his own admission, he never was much for hand eye coordination, which would be necessary for baseball or basketball. Where he shined was in the long, grueling events, the more painfully prolonged they were, the greater was his advantage.

Furthermore, Limerickman doesn't seem to be aware that Lance Armstrong was beating the top triathletes in the United States as a 16 year old (they were 26 or thereabouts). If this is not a sign of an oxygen burning prodigy, I don't know what is. To deny it would be to ignore what is right in front of our eyes.