Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

[micron]

In 3 years, Armstrong improves on the climbs by 3 minutes. After surviving cancer he comes back and has improved by about 25 minutes. Please.

Ferrari, Carmichael (who was at the 84 Olympics when the US cycling team blood doped), Mark Gorski (gold medallist in 84), - even Bruyneel was on the ONCE team that Alex Zulle accused of having a systematic doping programme in the 90s - Armstrong has been surrounded by close confederates with intimate knowledge of doping.

The Tour needed a miracle after 98 and they got one. I'm not making any new arguments here - though don't you love the way that 2 members of Armstrong's inner circle were on the Olympic team that cynically and systematically blood doped even though it was banned under US cycling rules - but I suppose I just want to put my hand up and say that I'm not a gullible Lance lover...

 

[jcthomasjr]

Witchhunt, which witchhunt do you refer to?

The one were millions of advertising dollars are spent on "themes" of work-ethic = success, so buy our product. Or the witchhunt against the dirty little secrets in elite sport.

Or the Advertisements published in Time Magazine featuring Lance and Bristol Meyers Squib drugs, bragging that Lance uses their products and they have just released three new drugs in the past 11 months, anemia, muscular dystrophy and auto immune system dope? Again which mixed message is which?

Surely the banter on this forum is trace elements to the media exposure of "clean living" and "hard work" that translates into utter TDF domination.

Somehow, fans of cycling are supposed to suspend logic, common sense, and the many factual transactions which point to Lance, Inc. in fact advocating a "lifetime doping lifestlye" and being prepared to do whatever it takes to win.

When you factor in "cancer survivor", ""aggressive treatment", "successful recovery" and a fatalistic human nature, Lance immediately returned to what motivates him the most:

Winning Bike races, not family time. No epiphany.

The truth is there for all those to see. You do have to read your history on our sport and Lance's travels within it from 1990 to present.

The greatest miracle is not surviving the cancer--that is doable. Rather it is defeating the worlds greatest athletes---all of whom are on powerful drugs too---that is ridiculous.

The real commercial miracle is that many naive fans actually believe a person can win a Grand Tour w/o drugs. That is amazing indeed.

No witches found yet, just lots of drugs.

I think that some drugs have been found in some cases. What or where are these lots of drugs you are referring to? Regarding your statement about the Bristol Myers Squibb advertisement, you state they brag that Lance "uses" their products? I was under the impression that he may have used their products while undergoing treatment. He still uses their products?

I agree with some of your points, but I do have to say that your opinion, which you are entitled to, is a little strong for me at times. I personally do not think that I am a naive cycling fan, but if you or someone else wants to think that I am, so be it. Doesn't mean that I am though.

As I have said before, I am a cancer survivor myself, and I must say that my mindset changed following cancer. Now, this does not mean I am going to automatically become a better family man, or a more caring person, or a better cyclist. I like to think that I have though. But, I will say that I am more driven and live life a little more fully than prior to being diagnosed with cancer.

The fact that Lance returned to winning bike races does not make him guilty of anything, other than wanting to win bike races. Unless you are directly connected to him I would say you know nothing about his "family time". I have separated from my wife following cancer treatment and I am a cyclist, but that does not automatically make me a doper or mean I am not devoted to my kids and family. Sure, I am not Lance Armstrong, hell, I don't even consider myself a fan of his, and I surely don't know everything that he does. I don't want to know everything that he does because he has his life and his reasons for doing things and I have mine. I do think he works hard at training and I do not think that all pro bike racers train as hard as he does. I do believe that hard work pays off and some people are capable of working harder than others.

Just my opinion.

 

[limerickman]

Well, I think the arguments made above are full of holes, so I will point out a few.

Lance has one of the biggest aerobic engines around, always has. Read his book. He was tested at the Cooper Aerobics Center (the folks who invented the words aerobics BTW) as a teenager, perhaps 15, 16 17 years old and his VO2Max stands as the highest ever done there.

He had such an engine that he managed to finish only one TDF start, out of four starts, between 1992-1996.

His record in other stage races does not denote a great engine - more like an engine that simply had neither the capacity or ability to succeed at the very highest level of cycling.

Revisionism in his books is breathtaking.

Why did he tell David Walsh in 1993 - "Inside the Peloton" book - that he worked hard, trained hard, prepared as well as he could possibly do ?
If he was working so hard - and had such a great engine, explain 1992-1996 ?

Forget his books/propoganda - and look at the statistics.

As for the argument about 6 minutes and Indurain. Someone please check out how many 22-23 year olds were in the Tour this year and how they did against Lance. Someone please check out where Basso, Vino, Ullrich were in the Tours when they were 23. Ullrich was winning the U23 world road race, the same year Lance won the Worlds in Oslo against Big Mig.

How about Ullrich taking 3mins 30 secs out of Indurain in the Les Arcs stage 7 in the 1996 TDF ?
Ullrich was only 22 at the time.
Does this qualify as a comaprison between a 22/23 year old and a TDF champion ?

Let's see now - how about 1996 ITT Bordeaux - St Emilion.
You remember that - don;t you ?
Maybe you're like Zapper and Co - fairweather blowins to our sport ?
Let me remind you - Jan Ullrich in his first TDF over 63km ITT course beat Miguel Indurain by nearly one minute.
A rookie beating the man who dominated the TDF since 1990.
A rookie beating the greatest ITT'ist ever.
A rookie beating a man who would go on to win the Olympic TT title three weeks later.

Or how about Bourg St Maurice - Val D'Isere in 1996.
Individual TT.
Stage 8.
Ullrich finished in the same time as Miguel Indurain (well there was a six second difference - NOT SIX MINUTES !).

Your hero lost 6 mins to the same man a year before in an ITT.

And LA's world title was won when the major players either dropped out or didn't bother to start the race in 1993.

SO yes, the weight loss, the improved pedalling technique and cadence, (check the videos of his cadence and sloppy pedalling while winning the Tour Dupont vs 1999 Tour), the specific and consistent training, doing more training than the competitors, and more desire DO all add up to the difference.

Lance, as is commonly known, trains harder than a lot of racers can race. Ask Roberto,Tyler, and Chechu. Coming out of a mountain training week in early June before the Tour in 2001, they came out with tendinitis in knees due to repetetive punishing climbing intervals in the cold--thats why they were wrapped in guaze and bandages!!

So you either believe the guy or you dont. As for being there and seeing him come in 19 minutes down on Pantani on the Alpe, thats really pretty good for a classics rider, especially since Pantani's hematocrit was probaly higher than his VO2Max in the days before the 50% rule. Where did the classics riders guys come in on Plateau de Beille this year if they were in the race at all--lets see--Weseman, Backstedt, Hammond, Rebellin? I saw where they came in on Luz Ardiden in 2004, 30-40 minutes later!!

No, Lance is clean and folks just cant stand it. Too bad, he will never ride a Tour again.

Peace

You're taking what he claims in his book as verbatim - he alleges that he trains harder than every other cyclist.
Can he prove this ?
How does he know how hard other people train ?
He doesn't train any harder than other cyclists - and for him to try to claim this is derogatory.
Invoking Tyler Hamilton as a witness for the defence ain't a smart move either.

19 minutes down for a classic rider isn't bad on the Alp, I'll concede.
Except that LA wasn't a very successful classic rider, now was he ?
You've seen his record and it doesn't measure up to the Classic riders of that time and is a mile away from the all time classic riders such as Sean Kelly.
The other classic riders that day - who didn't manage to lose time to Pantani to the same extent as LA and who were still contenders overall in that years TDF - include Tony Rominger, Alex Zulle, Broachard, Tafi, Zberg, Lelli.
Classic riders all.

As regards the performances of the 2004 one dayers in the TDF - cycling has fundamentally changed.
Classic riders ride as part of their team.
As I recall LA was Motorola's great white hope for the TDF between 1992-1996.

 

[TiMan]

In 3 years, Armstrong improves on the climbs by 3 minutes. After surviving cancer he comes back and has improved by about 25 minutes. Please.

Ferrari, Carmichael (who was at the 84 Olympics when the US cycling team blood doped), Mark Gorski (gold medallist in 84), - even Bruyneel was on the ONCE team that Alex Zulle accused of having a systematic doping programme in the 90s - Armstrong has been surrounded by close confederates with intimate knowledge of doping.

The Tour needed a miracle after 98 and they got one. I'm not making any new arguments here - though don't you love the way that 2 members of Armstrong's inner circle were on the Olympic team that cynically and systematically blood doped even though it was banned under US cycling rules - but I suppose I just want to put my hand up and say that I'm not a gullible Lance lover...

This makes a lot of sence! Good stuff.

Lance sure the hell has doped...give me a break people!
The routine practice in the USA in Cat 1-2 is to dope with your own blood. Few comes into a big race with a natural crit....eveyone wants to get to 49-50%.
To recover from very hard training some of the better riders have a docs consult saying that they have low natural test levels and are hypogonadal and then they can legally take injections to keep their testosterone levels up into the high normal range. This helps a TON in recuperation.
Very hard training hammers testosterone DOWN bro's....
many are on HGH to help in the recovery process too.

Armstrong makes me sick...

The last tour champ that didn't dope was Lemond(maybe Indurain) both had more talent in their little fingers than Armstrong has in his entire being.

Merckx was BY FAR the best rider ever and to compair Armstrong to him, as many have, is a joke to say the least....Armstrong has been tinkered with big time bro's.

 

[Flyer]

I think that some drugs have been found in some cases. What or where are these lots of drugs you are referring to? Regarding your statement about the Bristol Myers Squibb advertisement, you state they brag that Lance "uses" their products? I was under the impression that he may have used their products while undergoing treatment. He still uses their products?

I agree with some of your points, but I do have to say that your opinion, which you are entitled to, is a little strong for me at times. I personally do not think that I am a naive cycling fan, but if you or someone else wants to think that I am, so be it. Doesn't mean that I am though.

As I have said before, I am a cancer survivor myself, and I must say that my mindset changed following cancer. Now, this does not mean I am going to automatically become a better family man, or a more caring person, or a better cyclist. I like to think that I have though. But, I will say that I am more driven and live life a little more fully than prior to being diagnosed with cancer.

The fact that Lance returned to winning bike races does not make him guilty of anything, other than wanting to win bike races. Unless you are directly connected to him I would say you know nothing about his "family time". I have separated from my wife following cancer treatment and I am a cyclist, but that does not automatically make me a doper or mean I am not devoted to my kids and family. Sure, I am not Lance Armstrong, hell, I don't even consider myself a fan of his, and I surely don't know everything that he does. I don't want to know everything that he does because he has his life and his reasons for doing things and I have mine. I do think he works hard at training and I do not think that all pro bike racers train as hard as he does. I do believe that hard work pays off and some people are capable of working harder than others.

Just my opinion.

Good points, all.

 

[micron]

Andreas Kloeden recently gave an interview to ProCycling.

He says that although Lance has written pages of cycling history it disturbs him that Lance gives the impression that he is the only rider who works, the only rider who reconnoitres the tour stages etc. Kloden says "What does he think I do then? I work hard, invest time in my job. Every cyclist does the same it annoys me when he stands on the podium and says "I, Lance Armstrong do everything for my sport."

I imagine Kloeden isn't the only rider who works just as hard as Armstrong. So what is making the big difference? I wonder...

 

[kennf]

How about Ullrich taking 3mins 30 secs out of Indurain in the Les Arcs stage 7 in the 1996 TDF ?
Ullrich was only 22 at the time.
Does this qualify as a comaprison between a 22/23 year old and a TDF champion ?

Let's see now - how about 1996 ITT Bordeaux - St Emilion.
You remember that - don;t you ?
Maybe you're like Zapper and Co - fairweather blowins to our sport ?
Let me remind you - Jan Ullrich in his first TDF over 63km ITT course beat Miguel Indurain by nearly one minute.
A rookie beating the man who dominated the TDF since 1990.
A rookie beating the greatest ITT'ist ever.
A rookie beating a man who would go on to win the Olympic TT title three weeks later.

Under yours and Flyer's logic, does this prove without a doubt that Ullrich was doping at the time?

 

[limerickman]

Under yours and Flyer's logic, does this prove without a doubt that Ullrich was doping at the time?

Actually I would say that Ullrich, because he has been consistent, is less likely to have doped.

The issue here is the improvement - LA improved beyond comprehension.
That's the difference between him and Ullrich.
Ullrich has been consistently a great rider.
LA hasn't been.

I look at the statistics and Jan Ullrich was a talent visible on the radar before he became professional.
We saw him here in the early 90's as an amateur and his potential was being talked about.

Miguel Indurain himself told me in 1998, that out of the entire peloton that he rated Jan as the next great champion.
He said that he feared no one from the new generation, apart from Jan when he was cycling.
Miguel always took account of Zulle, Rominger, Jalabert, Pantani and Riis when he was racing - his peers.
he didn't watch anyone else other than Jan also.

 

[limerickman]

Andreas Kloeden recently gave an interview to ProCycling.

He says that although Lance has written pages of cycling history it disturbs him that Lance gives the impression that he is the only rider who works, the only rider who reconnoitres the tour stages etc. Kloden says "What does he think I do then? I work hard, invest time in my job. Every cyclist does the same it annoys me when he stands on the podium and says "I, Lance Armstrong do everything for my sport."

I imagine Kloeden isn't the only rider who works just as hard as Armstrong. So what is making the big difference? I wonder...

Kloden article was very interesting.
Did you read that Kloden thinks that Armstrong hates Pevenage/Ullrich ?
And what about LA's comment to Kloden after he beat him in the sprint in the 2004 - about it being not personal ?

Kloden made some very astute points.
He said that he never heard a cyclist being so abused as LA is by the (international) spectators at the TDF.
Kloden felt that Indurain would never be treated this way by the public.

my estimation of kloden has gone up after reading that interview.

 

[bobke]

Miguel Indurain told you he feared Ullrich. Right.
Well maybe, everyone thought Jan would rule for several years.

But Indurain goes to Austin to be in the Ride for the Roses.
Indurain spends time with Lance working on pedal cadence and climbing.
Indurain predicts Lance as the one to watch in the Tour de France in 1999 before anyone had any idea he could succeed.

As for the many other mistakes posted above, Lance's big engine means his VO2Max is high, not that he had the training to finish a grand Tour at age 21, 22, 23. Lots of one day classics guys have trouble finishing the Tour, especially when young.

If one watches videos over time one sees the progression Lance was already making before cancer toward becoming a stage race rider. He was already planning on becoming a Tour rider.

In an interview right after recovery from cancer though, he said that the emergence of Ullrich meant he probably would not try that, he was worried the training would reduce his immune system. Turns out he WAS able to tolerate the training etc but interesting that Lance also, like most people, saw Ullrich as the likely dominator after 96/97.

It was the retaining of power and loss of weight along with the above mentioned technique improvements and tactical savvy of Bruyneel which helped.

 

[limerickman]

Miguel Indurain told you he feared Ullrich. Right.
Well maybe, everyone thought Jan would rule for several years.

But Indurain goes to Austin to be in the Ride for the Roses.
Indurain spends time with Lance working on pedal cadence and climbing.
Indurain predicts Lance as the one to watch in the Tour de France in 1999 before anyone had any idea he could succeed.

As for the many other mistakes posted above, Lance's big engine means his VO2Max is high, not that he had the training to finish a grand Tour at age 21, 22, 23. Lots of one day classics guys have trouble finishing the Tour, especially when young.

If one watches videos over time one sees the progression Lance was already making before cancer toward becoming a stage race rider. He was already planning on becoming a Tour rider.

In an interview right after recovery from cancer though, he said that the emergence of Ullrich meant he probably would not try that, he was worried the training would reduce his immune system. Turns out he WAS able to tolerate the training etc but interesting that Lance also, like most people, saw Ullrich as the likely dominator after 96/97.

It was the retaining of power and loss of weight along with the above mentioned technique improvements and tactical savvy of Bruyneel which helped.

In 1998, the TDF was here in Ireland - I met Indurain, spoke with him.
Miguel never mentioned Armstrong - Armstrong's name never entered the conversation of potential competitors when Indurain was riding, nor did Armstrong's name enter Miguels conversation when he spoke about potential TDF winners.
He spoke only of Jan Ullrich and his admiration for him.
There were two other participants in our chat - Stephen Roche and Guido
Bontempi.
Neither Roche or Bontempi mentioned Armstrong as a potential anything.

The alleged remarks about Indurain and the Ride of the Roses, are quoted from where ?
Armstrong's book ?
You see there's a myth perpetuated by Armstrong that somehow himself and Indurain are on friendly terms.
This myth exists in Armstrong's head.

But don't take my word for it - have a read what Indurain said about Armstrong in the book "Armstrong : Images of a Champion".

I'll paraphrase it because I only read Indurains/Merckx comments and I had no intention of buying a book that supports a cyclist who has a lot of questions that needs answering.

Indurain states in the first paragraph that when LA joined the peloton that neither he or anyone he knew, thought that LA was capable of winning a
single TDF, never mind five T's DF.
He finishes his statement by saying that although LA has now won 5 (at that
times) T's DF, that history will show that he (Indurain) was first to achieve
the five successive wins.
It is clear to me that this statement alone by Indurain speaks volumes.
Indurain's statement in that book reveals the doubts that permeate Armstrong's achievements.

As regards you contention about VOmax etc - you earlier asked, could a 22/23 year old beat a reigning TDF champion ?
I pointed out the 1996 TDF to you and how Jan Ullrich managed to beat a great TDF champion.
You will recall that LA debuted in the TDF at the same age as Ullrich - but unfortunately his alleged "big engine" only allowed him to finish one TDF,
out of four starts, and even then he was 1hour 30mins behind the eventual winner - his alleged amigo BigMig.

And finally - this repeated claim that LA was a classics rider during the 1992-1996 period, is another misnomer.
While it is factually correct to say he rode the classics during this time period,
there is a paucity of wins during that period when his record is compared to his contemporaneous peers at that time.
Armstrong was not only some distance behind the other classics rider of that time, his achievements were a universe away from the real classics specialists
like Sean kelly, Rik Van Looy etc.

 

[bobke]

In 1998, the TDF was here in Ireland - I met Indurain, spoke with him.



Miguel never mentioned Armstrong - Armstrong's name never entered the conversation of potential competitors when Indurain was riding, nor did Armstrong's name enter Miguels conversation when he spoke about potential TDF winners.
He spoke only of Jan Ullrich and his admiration for him.
There were two other participants in our chat - Stephen Roche and Guido
Bontempi.
Neither Roche or Bontempi mentioned Armstrong as a potential anything.

>>Well, 1998 was before Armstrong had decided to return to racing in a serious way.

And all were wrong!! Ha Ha!>>

The alleged remarks about Indurain and the Ride of the Roses, are quoted from where ?
Armstrong's book ?

>>the remarks are not alleged, they are well documented from several sources: Armstrong's book, photos of the event the Ride for the Roses, cycling videos with Paul Sherwen commenting that he was there in Austin when Lance and Indurain met "a little bird named Miguel Indurain spoke with Lance about keeping the pedal revs high on the mountain passes etc" .

>>And also from talks I had with Phil and Paul when they were doing the Giro commentary from the US OLN studios 30 minutes from my house. I went beer drinking with Paul, Phil, Bob Roll, and the CEO of OLN and heard a lot of great stories about Lance etc.

"You see there's a myth perpetuated by Armstrong that somehow himself and Indurain are on friendly terms.
This myth exists in Armstrong's head."

>>Wrong!!

"But don't take my word for it - have a read what Indurain said about Armstrong in the book "Armstrong : Images of a Champion".

I'll paraphrase it because I only read Indurains/Merckx comments and I had no intention of buying a book that supports a cyclist who has a lot of questions that needs answering.

Indurain states in the first paragraph that when LA joined the peloton that neither he or anyone he knew, thought that LA was capable of winning a
single TDF, never mind five T's DF.
He finishes his statement by saying that although LA has now won 5 (at that
times) T's DF, that history will show that he (Indurain) was first to achieve
the five successive wins.
It is clear to me that this statement alone by Indurain speaks volumes.
Indurain's statement in that book reveals the doubts that permeate Armstrong's achievements."

>>No, it speaks to the ego all five time winners have. Lance has beaten them all last time I checked.

As regards you contention about VOmax etc - you earlier asked, could a 22/23 year old beat a reigning TDF champion ?
I pointed out the 1996 TDF to you and how Jan Ullrich managed to beat a great TDF champion.
You will recall that LA debuted in the TDF at the same age as Ullrich - but unfortunately his alleged "big engine" only allowed him to finish one TDF,
out of four starts, and even then he was 1hour 30mins behind the eventual winner - his alleged amigo BigMig.

>>Lance as I recall was the youngest rider to win a stage at the Tour de France when he did in Verdun, not too shabby.

And finally - this repeated claim that LA was a classics rider during the 1992-1996 period, is another misnomer.
While it is factually correct to say he rode the classics during this time period,
there is a paucity of wins during that period when his record is compared to his contemporaneous peers at that time.
Armstrong was not only some distance behind the other classics rider of that time, his achievements were a universe away from the real classics specialists
like Sean kelly, Rik Van Looy etc.

>>Whether it is a misnomer or not is not really the point, the point is he rode and won a number big one day races during this period: the World Championships, the US Pro in Philly, Fleche Wallone, 2 stages in the Tour de France, 2nd in Liege-Bastogne-Liege, 2nd in Zurich as his second race as a pro rider--again not too shabby, etc--so better perhaps to say a one day racer who was on the way to transforming into a stage racer.

 

[micron]

And he was dead last in his first pro race (San Sebastian Classic) - points to another somewhat dodgy improvement wouldn't you say?

 

[bobke]

And he was dead last in his first pro race (San Sebastian Classic) - points to another somewhat dodgy improvement wouldn't you say?

No, it shows how fast Mr. Armstrong responds to a vastly increased training load, compared to his rivals. Lance had been over in the US doing much shorter races, and thinking he was king-**** to quote C Carmichael. This is the deal with Lance, his body responds well to increased loads and he recovers, the mark of a future stage racer.


Besides, what drug in the world would result in someone going from dead last to second in a week's time? Not EPO, not HGH etc which all take weeks to work well.

I believe it is the drug that fuels Lance all the time--desire to win, pride, ego, hating losing...a very powerful drug. And by the way, it was the same thing Indurain said when asked who to watch in the Tour of 99 and why... he said Lance, because he has got something to prove or words to that effect.

 

[limerickman]

>>Whether it is a misnomer or not is not really the point, the point is he rode and won a number big one day races during this period: the World Championships, the US Pro in Philly, Fleche Wallone, 2 stages in the Tour de France, 2nd in Liege-Bastogne-Liege, 2nd in Zurich as his second race as a pro rider--again not too shabby, etc--so better perhaps to say a one day racer who was on the way to transforming into a stage racer.

There is no point in splitting hairs.

All I want to know is how he managed to improve - that's all.
His explanations don't ring to me - that's all I can say.

I was a fan of his to 1996.

If he is doping - and I think he is - I would suggest that his trying to advocate that his improvement is natural, compounds the crime of doping.

No other cyclist has gone out of their way to suggest that they don't take drugs.
And this is what rankles a lot of cycling fans, including me, when I hear LA telling us that what he does is natural, hard work etc.

Is this hypocrisy on my part - the fact that I am prepared to tolerate it if a cyclist dopes but doesn't claim to be clean ?
Perhaps.

But I think that it is much worse to try to convince people that you're clean, when you are doping.

 

[DiabloScott]

No other cyclist has gone out of their way to suggest that they don't take drugs.

OK Lim, you're loosing your grip: Millar swore up and down he was clean until the gendermerie put the screws to him. Virenque did the same. In fact I can't think of a single rider that didn't challenge his A test positive. A few folks fessed up after being popped, but most deny it until the end.

You certainly see and hear different things from the media on your side of the pond, but the only time I hear Lance say he's clean is when someone asks him. And they ask him or question him about it in practically every interview, including his own Discovery Channel presentation.

 

[micron]

If Armstrong has to constantly assert his 'cleanness' because he is constantly being questioned about it, don't you have to ask yourself just why he arouses so much suspicion?

I don't recall Indurain being put under such scrutiny, even though he was the first rider to win 5 consecutive Tours.

But Armstrong does himself no favours by constantly seeming to defend the code of silence - that zipped lips gesture at last year's Tour really spoke volumes, didn't it?

 

[limerickman]

OK Lim, you're loosing your grip: Millar swore up and down he was clean until the gendermerie put the screws to him. Virenque did the same. In fact I can't think of a single rider that didn't challenge his A test positive. A few folks fessed up after being popped, but most deny it until the end.

You certainly see and hear different things from the media on your side of the pond, but the only time I hear Lance say he's clean is when someone asks him. And they ask him or question him about it in practically every interview, including his own Discovery Channel presentation.

Ok - maybe their is more media coverage here and David Walsh is on the airwaves here quite a bit.
Also the discussion of drugs in sports - on this side of the world - is taken up mostly by cycling.

I take your point - few if any cyclists admit that they dope when confronted.
And you can apply that across all sports too.

It seems to me that LA goes out of his way to claim to be clean.
Maybe he is subject to more questioning over here.
But I find it strange that, this is the case.

LA has always alleged that the french media and the french authorities are out to get him.
He has always maintained this.
we here this in the media regularly.
One week it's **** Pound, then it's David Walsh, then it's a french TV crew.
He claims that the french despise him and that's why he's getting all these questions.
This does not make sense to me because i think that the french would have it in for others closer to home.

Think of a local rivalry.
The antagonism against a guy from a bordering state or bordering country, when that person is winning, is bound to be more vitriolic within the nation of say, france.
Year after year, a Spaniard comes over the border and beats our guys, takes our title.
Vitriolic levels would rise - you'd assume.

Given the proximity - the need to "do down" the bloke who wins from a neighbouring country would be higher, wouldn't you think ?
Why would a vast conspiracy gang up on the guy from far away and not the
bloke from the neighbouring country ?
There was never any conspiracy to do down BigMig - there is no conspiracy to do down LA either.
He is asked valid questions because there is a valid doubt about him based on his prior performance levels.

 

[bspeedy00]

Limmerickman - get a hobby, Lance is clean. Maybe you should post another 18,000 messages about a bunch of rumors. Who are you to question anyone. Do you know Lance? Have you talked with him? Your life makes me sad.

 

[micron]

bspeedy - Limerickman and others of us don't happen to buy into the unquestioning adulation surrounding Lance.Inc and prefer to be a little less credulous and a little more questioning of the corporate phenomenon that is Lance Armstrong. Surely his 10 year association with Dr Ferrari (only reluctantly severed after the 'sporting fraud' ruling and 'under review') gives you pause? Or perhaps the fact that his coach, Chris Carmichael, made an out of court settlement to Strock and Kaiter who alleged he had been involved in systematic doping when coaching the US Junior team (a team that Armstrong was a member of)?

You will claim this all to be circumstantial and just because Ferrari may have worked in one way with other riders doesn't mean he worked that way with Armstrong. But surely this is something to debate? Surely we should question our heroes when they become involved with questionable personnel? Don't you feel public figures should be held accountable? Or do you truly feel they they should not be questioned and are beyond reproach?

Personally, I'd like to think that the most dominant name in the sport was not only beyond reproach but wanted to stand up for ethical standards in the sport - instead of which he attacks **** Pound for his hardline anti-doping stance, rides down Simeoni, attacks whistle blowers and then claims he's never heard of EPO (hilariously enough he once claimed that he was World Champ in 1993 when no one had ever heard of EPO - for such a hard nosed business man, he's awfully awfully naive about the biggest problem in the sport, isn't he?).

Fine, you disagree with this viewpoint. You buy wholeheartedly into the 'miracle', the work ethic, the corporateness of Armstrong.Inc. Others of us don't. Your gullibility makes me sad. But I'd be far too polite to say so.