Armstrong Alleged Doping -- LA Times Article

[rdclark]

mieshie wrote:
> We musn't forget that it isn't one man doing the job of winning the
> Tour de France. Sure, one man receives the credit crossing the finish
> line, but where would Lance have been if it wasn't for a great team
> paving his way to the finish? George Hincapie was his greatest asset.
> Really, it just comes down to the fact that both the Postal Service
> and Discovery team were what I would call a prodigy team. Basically
> Lance only needed to, in the words that McEwan used for himself, "just
> ride the train till he had to get off at his stop." I think that these
> kinds of reasons are much more realistic than the blood-doping card.

And yet, every rider has a team, but only Lance dominated the TdF for 7
years. He couldn't have done it without a team dedicated to helping him
win, no question, but not just any rider could have been put in Lance's
shoes.

The common man -- and there's nobody more common than a sportswriter,
the classic "can't do it himself, but can tear down the ones who can"
wannabee -- just HATES the idea that some individuals are superior in
some way. Lance Armstrong is that combination of physiology,
psychology, luck, and history that results in clear superiority in a
particular pursuit. And to some people, that's just unacceptable.

RichC

 

[Bill Sornson]

rdclark wrote:

> The common man -- and there's nobody more common than a sportswriter,
> the classic "can't do it himself, but can tear down the ones who can"
> wannabee -- just HATES the idea that some individuals are superior in
> some way. Lance Armstrong is that combination of physiology,
> psychology, luck, and history that results in clear superiority in a
> particular pursuit. And to some people, that's just unacceptable.

Agree with most of that (and all of the LA stuff I snipped), but I disagree
about /most/ sports writers. The vast majority of them truly admire (and
some practically worship) the abilities of the athletes they cover. There
are always rogue a-holes who attack people (athletes and others) personally
and unfairly and often dishonestly, but your sweeping characterization of
sports writers hating the idea that some are simply superior is off the
mark, IMO.

Many reporters and columnists were decent athletes themselves, and thus
appreciate the hard work and discipline required to succeed on an elite
level.

Bill "not sure why I bothered with that, but there ya go" S.

 

[[email protected]]

There's a lot to all this (obviously). I just got into cycling,
although I've been aware of Lance and what he's done the past few
years.

Set the cancer survivorship aside and think about how many of the top
guys got tossed from this year's Tour due to doping. Lance beat them
all in the past (at least I'm assuming he did), so is Lance really that
gifted of an athlete that he remained drug free during the years he
won? Does he really have that much endurance genetically?

Objectively, I would say it's possible yet unlikely.

Also, take one of the last quotes in that article, one of the quotes
from Lance: "I'll go to my grave knowing that when I urinated in the
bottle, it was clean." Maybe it's just me, but there's a lot of
interpretation there. It's almost like when reporters asked Bill
Clinton if he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. How did her respond?
"There is no sexual conduct," or something like that. The point
being, he was tricky enough to answer in the present tense, clearing
himself of anything that might have happened before answering the
question. To a certain degree, Lance did the same thing. When he
****** in a cup, it was clean. The urine itself was clean. Was he
clean? Was he clean when not pissing in a cup? It's just semantics,
but semantics can really go a long way.

Ultimately, I want to believe Lance was and is a clean rider by way of
performance-enhancing drugs, but is it likely? Doubtful--not at the
level of the Tour de France. At the end of the day, I really don't
give a ****, but as an outsider looking in, it just doesn't seem all
that possible.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> There's a lot to all this (obviously). I just got into cycling,
> although I've been aware of Lance and what he's done the past few
> years.
>
> Set the cancer survivorship aside and think about how many of the top
> guys got tossed from this year's Tour due to doping. Lance beat them
> all in the past (at least I'm assuming he did), so is Lance really
> that gifted of an athlete that he remained drug free during the years
> he won? Does he really have that much endurance genetically?
>
> Objectively, I would say it's possible yet unlikely.
>
> Also, take one of the last quotes in that article, one of the quotes
> from Lance: "I'll go to my grave knowing that when I urinated in the
> bottle, it was clean." Maybe it's just me, but there's a lot of
> interpretation there. It's almost like when reporters asked Bill
> Clinton if he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. How did her
> respond? "There is no sexual conduct," or something like that. The
> point being, he was tricky enough to answer in the present tense,
> clearing himself of anything that might have happened before
> answering the question. To a certain degree, Lance did the same
> thing. When he ****** in a cup, it was clean. The urine itself was
> clean. Was he clean? Was he clean when not pissing in a cup? It's
> just semantics, but semantics can really go a long way.
>
> Ultimately, I want to believe Lance was and is a clean rider by way of
> performance-enhancing drugs, but is it likely? Doubtful--not at the
> level of the Tour de France. At the end of the day, I really don't
> give a ****, but as an outsider looking in, it just doesn't seem all
> that possible.

I think he meant his urine was clean when the sample was taken, and any
"post-freeze, switched labels, unclear chains of custody" results found
/later/ are bogus (or just plain doctored).

Bill S.

 

[rdclark]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Many reporters and columnists were decent athletes themselves, and thus
> appreciate the hard work and discipline required to succeed on an elite
> level.

Point taken, and you're right that I shouldn't have tarred them all
with the same brush. Although if I'd limited myself to
"local"sportswriters I might be a little less off-target. Especially in
Philadelphia.

RichC

 

[rdclark]

[email protected] wrote:

> Ultimately, I want to believe Lance was and is a clean rider by way of
> performance-enhancing drugs, but is it likely? Doubtful--not at the
> level of the Tour de France. At the end of the day, I really don't
> give a ****, but as an outsider looking in, it just doesn't seem all
> that possible.

And that's the problem that Armstrong keeps running up against. People
don't care about proof, about science, or about another person's sworn
testimony. They decide what they are willing or not willing to
"believe," and act from there.

People don't want to believe that anyone can be that much better than
everyone else, at anything. There's been too much "empowerment" and
"self-esteem enhancement" going on. Too much "I'm as good as everyone
else." Well, all that's true in a legal sense, and it's true as a moral
principle. But it's not true on the playing field, just as it's not
true in intellectual pursuits or in the arts.

The difference is that on the playing field, people can prove their
superiority in ways that can be measured. (Armstrong's physical
superiority can be measured in a laboratory too, and it has.) But when
they do, it's hard for a lot of people to accept; easier to look for
some illicit means by which the superiority was achieved. Because then
he's not so superior, and everybody feels better about themselves.

RichC

 

[R Brickston]

On 11 Jul 2006 13:48:09 -0700, "rdclark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, I want to believe Lance was and is a clean rider by way of
>> performance-enhancing drugs, but is it likely? Doubtful--not at the
>> level of the Tour de France. At the end of the day, I really don't
>> give a ****, but as an outsider looking in, it just doesn't seem all
>> that possible.
>
>And that's the problem that Armstrong keeps running up against. People
>don't care about proof, about science, or about another person's sworn
>testimony. They decide what they are willing or not willing to
>"believe," and act from there.
>
>People don't want to believe that anyone can be that much better than
>everyone else, at anything. There's been too much "empowerment" and
>"self-esteem enhancement" going on.

How many times have you heard a child receive this accolade at the
slightest completion of even the simplest task: "GOOD JOB!" There's
going to be hell to pay when these children are all in power.


>Too much "I'm as good as everyone
>else." Well, all that's true in a legal sense, and it's true as a moral
>principle. But it's not true on the playing field, just as it's not
>true in intellectual pursuits or in the arts.
>
>The difference is that on the playing field, people can prove their
>superiority in ways that can be measured. (Armstrong's physical
>superiority can be measured in a laboratory too, and it has.) But when
>they do, it's hard for a lot of people to accept; easier to look for
>some illicit means by which the superiority was achieved. Because then
>he's not so superior, and everybody feels better about themselves.
>
>RichC

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote a rather long post that can be summarized
fairly as:

"I have no evidence and really don't even know a damn thing about the
topic being discussed but if somebody is saying something bad about
someone it's probably true."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[n5hsr]

"R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11 Jul 2006 13:48:09 -0700, "rdclark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately, I want to believe Lance was and is a clean rider by way of
>>> performance-enhancing drugs, but is it likely? Doubtful--not at the
>>> level of the Tour de France. At the end of the day, I really don't
>>> give a ****, but as an outsider looking in, it just doesn't seem all
>>> that possible.
>>
>>And that's the problem that Armstrong keeps running up against. People
>>don't care about proof, about science, or about another person's sworn
>>testimony. They decide what they are willing or not willing to
>>"believe," and act from there.
>>
>>People don't want to believe that anyone can be that much better than
>>everyone else, at anything. There's been too much "empowerment" and
>>"self-esteem enhancement" going on.
>
> How many times have you heard a child receive this accolade at the
> slightest completion of even the simplest task: "GOOD JOB!" There's
> going to be hell to pay when these children are all in power.
>
>

Too late. Clinton was already elected President in 1992. And Hillary looks
like she's gunning for 2008. That's all we need is 8 more years of teaching
our kids:

Sometimes a banana is not a banana.
Sex is bad, but perversions are good. (See Winston Smith)
Don't ask, don't tell.
If you can get away with it, it's not wrong.
Sell our weapons technology to your friends, our enemies.
It's all about ME . . .

Charles of Schaumburg, who had to suffer over a decade of this in Arkansas
while Clintoon was governor.

>>Too much "I'm as good as everyone
>>else." Well, all that's true in a legal sense, and it's true as a moral
>>principle. But it's not true on the playing field, just as it's not
>>true in intellectual pursuits or in the arts.
>>
>>The difference is that on the playing field, people can prove their
>>superiority in ways that can be measured. (Armstrong's physical
>>superiority can be measured in a laboratory too, and it has.) But when
>>they do, it's hard for a lot of people to accept; easier to look for
>>some illicit means by which the superiority was achieved. Because then
>>he's not so superior, and everybody feels better about themselves.
>>
>>RichC

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote a rather long post that can be summarized
> fairly as:
>
> "I have no evidence and really don't even know a damn thing about the
> topic being discussed but if somebody is saying something bad about
> someone it's probably true."
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

That's not what I've said, so perhaps you might benefit from going back
and re-reading my post. The underlying message is that when you step
back and approach the subject as objectively as possible---which is a
far cry from "not knowing a damn thing"--it seems "unlikely" Lance
never doped (or whatever you want to call it). I also stated that I
want to believe he never doped, so I don't know where you're getting
"if somebody is saying something bad about someone it's probably true."


Finally, I left out the point regarding persons testifying during
arbitration that they had witnessed Armstrong admitting to drug use (to
a physician) and another phone conversation with Greg LeMond. Now if I
just wanted to jump on the bandwagon (as you've implied I've done), I
would have pointed these things out as pure facts and stated,
"Armstrong is clearly a doper." Rather, it's easy to understand that
the possibility exists that these people may have some sort of bone to
pick with Armstrong. Being as objective as I can, I have no doubt
there are a million other little pieces that are missing from the
articles surrounding Armstrong and his ALLEGED doping. That said, I
don't think that ****'s relevant.

Sure, I'm a fan of Lance and like I said, I want to believe he's clean
and was clean, but that doesn't stop me from closing my eyes and ears
to every available piece of info. Ultimately, if someone proves,
beyond doubt, that he doped, then he's going to look all that much more
idiotic for denying so adamantly and most of what he stands for will
fall through the floor.

If you still think I don't know what I'm talking about, well, that's
just fine.

 

[Bill]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote a rather long post that can be summarized
> fairly as:
>
> "I have no evidence and really don't even know a damn thing about the
> topic being discussed but if somebody is saying something bad about
> someone it's probably true."
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
I have to add something simple but true about people.
There are people who believe the Holocaust never happened, either
because they are not Jewish, think the GI's lied, faked the footage of
the death camps or whatever.
There are idiots who lived during 1969 when a certain Mr. Neil Armstrong
make history for mankind, which I watched on television, and these
people think it was all a hoax. Now they have younger people thinking we
have never been there and that Bush's ***VISION*** of putting a man on
the moon by 2020 is a miracle of a brilliant president.
All it means it that there will always be non-believers and dissidents
over just about any issue.
I think that some of these people make up what was referred to as the
"Lunatic fringe".
Bill Baka

 

[rdclark]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote a rather long post that can be summarized
> > fairly as:
> >
> > "I have no evidence and really don't even know a damn thing about the
> > topic being discussed but if somebody is saying something bad about
> > someone it's probably true."
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> That's not what I've said, so perhaps you might benefit from going back
> and re-reading my post. The underlying message is that when you step
> back and approach the subject as objectively as possible---which is a
> far cry from "not knowing a damn thing"--it seems "unlikely" Lance
> never doped (or whatever you want to call it). I also stated that I
> want to believe he never doped, so I don't know where you're getting
> "if somebody is saying something bad about someone it's probably true."

When *you* approach the subject as objectively as possible, you think
it's likely that Armstrong was a doper. When *I* approach the subject
as objectively as possible, I think it's not.

What's the difference? Well, I think it's that there's no actual
evidence that he was a doper (because all of the "evidence" that's been
put forward has been discredited), whereas there's a great deal of
science to support the position that he's a truly superior cyclist who
was able to dominate because of his physical and psychological gifts.

You seem to be suggesting that he probably was a doper because... what?
If you're being "objective," what proof are you using to support your
suspicion? What do you *know*?

RichC

 

[Pat in TX]

Here's the thing: it's obvious from your posts that you haven't heard or
read of the unusual facts about Lance's physical attributes. For example,
his V02 Max is 80. Can you imagine what that means? (mine is 40.78) I have
a chart here from the hospital showing "the average V02 max values for
healthy active men." The chart stops at 57.5 because that is the average
for an active 20 year old male. And yet Lance scored an 80!

When the Discovery Channel had the specials on him last year, they published
all of these numbers that were just astounding and far above the average
male. I don't have the citation at hand, but you could Google it and
probably find out the stats.

First, find out about Lance's physical abilities before you start saying "I
don't think it's likely."

Pat in TX

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:53:00 GMT, R Brickston
<rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

>>Interesting that they save the most relevant piece of information for
>>the last paragraph.
>>
>>Armstrong won the arbitration hearing and was paid $5 million.
>
>--Plus interest and his attorney fees, total: $7.5 million.

SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written,
and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated.
--
zk

 

[Bill]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:53:00 GMT, R Brickston
> <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>
>>> Interesting that they save the most relevant piece of information for
>>> the last paragraph.
>>>
>>> Armstrong won the arbitration hearing and was paid $5 million.
>> --Plus interest and his attorney fees, total: $7.5 million.
>
> SCA contends it lost because the bonus contract was poorly written,
> and not because SCA failed to prove Armstrong had cheated.

Give it up already. Lance is a physical anomaly who happened to beat
cancer and beat 170+ riders from around the world 7 years running.
Now he is 'retired' so what the hell is this thread going on about.
This is not rec.bicycles.history.stupidarguments, or is it?
It's over, move on.
Christ, I am a minor anomaly. This 57 year old can out sprint all the 13
year olds in the neighborhood plus out endure on a mile run. Most of my
younger 40 something friends haven't run in years and some are no longer
capable due to acting their age. People are different. I am some amount
of different, and Lance is a lot more different in a better way than I
could ever hope for, and I accept it. Some people (like me) enjoy
getting out and doing, some people (maybe the ones claiming Lance had to
dope) are best suited for being couch potatoes or computer nerds, and
some, like Lance excel at fitness. Some people are blond, some are not.
Move on, repeating myself.
Bill Baka

 

[[email protected]]

>
> Give it up already. Lance is a physical anomaly who happened to beat
> cancer and beat 170+ riders from around the world 7 years running.
> Now he is 'retired' so what the hell is this thread going on about.
> This is not rec.bicycles.history.stupidarguments, or is it?
> It's over, move on.
> Christ, I am a minor anomaly. This 57 year old can out sprint all the 13
> year olds in the neighborhood plus out endure on a mile run. Most of my
> younger 40 something friends haven't run in years and some are no longer
> capable due to acting their age. People are different. I am some amount
> of different, and Lance is a lot more different in a better way than I
> could ever hope for, and I accept it. Some people (like me) enjoy
> getting out and doing, some people (maybe the ones claiming Lance had to
> dope) are best suited for being couch potatoes or computer nerds, and
> some, like Lance excel at fitness. Some people are blond, some are not.
> Move on, repeating myself.
> Bill Baka

Well said--I'll shut up about it. Not trying to get a rise out of
anyone, just talking.

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote a rather long post that can be summarized
> > fairly as:
> >
> > "I have no evidence and really don't even know a damn thing about the
> > topic being discussed but if somebody is saying something bad about
> > someone it's probably true."
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> That's not what I've said, so perhaps you might benefit from going back
> and re-reading my post. The underlying message is that when you step
> back and approach the subject as objectively as possible---which is a
> far cry from "not knowing a damn thing"--it seems "unlikely" Lance
> never doped (or whatever you want to call it). I also stated that I
> want to believe he never doped, so I don't know where you're getting
> "if somebody is saying something bad about someone it's probably true."
>
>
> Finally, I left out the point regarding persons testifying during
> arbitration that they had witnessed Armstrong admitting to drug use (to
> a physician) and another phone conversation with Greg LeMond. Now if I
> just wanted to jump on the bandwagon (as you've implied I've done), I
> would have pointed these things out as pure facts and stated,
> "Armstrong is clearly a doper." Rather, it's easy to understand that
> the possibility exists that these people may have some sort of bone to
> pick with Armstrong. Being as objective as I can, I have no doubt
> there are a million other little pieces that are missing from the
> articles surrounding Armstrong and his ALLEGED doping. That said, I
> don't think that ****'s relevant.
>
> Sure, I'm a fan of Lance and like I said, I want to believe he's clean
> and was clean, but that doesn't stop me from closing my eyes and ears
> to every available piece of info. Ultimately, if someone proves,
> beyond doubt, that he doped, then he's going to look all that much more
> idiotic for denying so adamantly and most of what he stands for will
> fall through the floor.
>
> If you still think I don't know what I'm talking about, well, that's
> just fine.

You've apparently taken offense at, "not knowing a damn thing about the
topic", so allow me to explain why I wrote that.
Your post stated quite clearly that you assume Armstrong dominated all
the other top riders and you seem perfectly willing to view that
assumed domination as evidence that he doped. The fact is that
Armstrong did indeed dominate in the TdF but, prestigious as it is, the
TdF is not the *only* event in bike racing. Armstrong was a fantastic
TdF rider- arguably the best TdF rider of all time- but he did not
dominate outside of the Tour. He never won Olympic gold for instance.
He sacrificed Olympic gold to win the TdF. He did not dominate in the
Classics. His entire post-cancer career was focused on victories in the
TdF. That's not a rap on him, just a fact.
You also wrote that Armstrong's denials of doping- specifically, "I'll
go to my grave knowing that when I urinated in the bottle, it was
clean"- seem to you to be vaguely worded. He has denied the doping
allegations many times and in many different ways. Read either of his
books (the one place you'll find his words unedited by anyone but him)
and you won't find his denials there at all vague.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bill]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote a rather long post that can be summarized
>>> fairly as:
>>>
>>> "I have no evidence and really don't even know a damn thing about the
>>> topic being discussed but if somebody is saying something bad about
>>> someone it's probably true."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob Hunt
>> That's not what I've said, so perhaps you might benefit from going back
>> and re-reading my post. The underlying message is that when you step
>> back and approach the subject as objectively as possible---which is a
>> far cry from "not knowing a damn thing"--it seems "unlikely" Lance
>> never doped (or whatever you want to call it). I also stated that I
>> want to believe he never doped, so I don't know where you're getting
>> "if somebody is saying something bad about someone it's probably true."
>>
>>
>> Finally, I left out the point regarding persons testifying during
>> arbitration that they had witnessed Armstrong admitting to drug use (to
>> a physician) and another phone conversation with Greg LeMond. Now if I
>> just wanted to jump on the bandwagon (as you've implied I've done), I
>> would have pointed these things out as pure facts and stated,
>> "Armstrong is clearly a doper." Rather, it's easy to understand that
>> the possibility exists that these people may have some sort of bone to
>> pick with Armstrong. Being as objective as I can, I have no doubt
>> there are a million other little pieces that are missing from the
>> articles surrounding Armstrong and his ALLEGED doping. That said, I
>> don't think that ****'s relevant.
>>
>> Sure, I'm a fan of Lance and like I said, I want to believe he's clean
>> and was clean, but that doesn't stop me from closing my eyes and ears
>> to every available piece of info. Ultimately, if someone proves,
>> beyond doubt, that he doped, then he's going to look all that much more
>> idiotic for denying so adamantly and most of what he stands for will
>> fall through the floor.
>>
>> If you still think I don't know what I'm talking about, well, that's
>> just fine.
>
> You've apparently taken offense at, "not knowing a damn thing about the
> topic", so allow me to explain why I wrote that.
> Your post stated quite clearly that you assume Armstrong dominated all
> the other top riders and you seem perfectly willing to view that
> assumed domination as evidence that he doped. The fact is that
> Armstrong did indeed dominate in the TdF but, prestigious as it is, the
> TdF is not the *only* event in bike racing. Armstrong was a fantastic
> TdF rider- arguably the best TdF rider of all time- but he did not
> dominate outside of the Tour. He never won Olympic gold for instance.
> He sacrificed Olympic gold to win the TdF. He did not dominate in the
> Classics. His entire post-cancer career was focused on victories in the
> TdF. That's not a rap on him, just a fact.
> You also wrote that Armstrong's denials of doping- specifically, "I'll
> go to my grave knowing that when I urinated in the bottle, it was
> clean"- seem to you to be vaguely worded. He has denied the doping
> allegations many times and in many different ways. Read either of his
> books (the one place you'll find his words unedited by anyone but him)
> and you won't find his denials there at all vague.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
Not only is this getting really old but it is wasting a lot of
bandwidth. Michael Jordan retired on top as one of the greatest
basketball players ever, yet there is no ridiculous controversy going on
and on and on about him doping.
Move on.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:
{snippage...}

> Not only is this getting really old but it is wasting a lot of
> bandwidth. Michael Jordan retired on top as one of the greatest
> basketball players ever, yet there is no ridiculous controversy going
> on and on and on about him doping.

Just gambling. (You don't really think he "retired to try baseball" just
for /fun/, do you?)

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> {snippage...}
>
>> Not only is this getting really old but it is wasting a lot of
>> bandwidth. Michael Jordan retired on top as one of the greatest
>> basketball players ever, yet there is no ridiculous controversy going
>> on and on and on about him doping.
>
> Just gambling. (You don't really think he "retired to try baseball" just
> for /fun/, do you?)
>
>
He couldn't have since his baseball was terrible.
Bill Baka