Lance learns the truth...

[Paladin]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Paladin wrote:
>
> > Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when you consider what he's
> > overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda
> > talk from me about any other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
>
> You may one day come to eat those words...

Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
good one? ??

Paladin

 

[Sorni]

"Paladin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Paladin wrote:
> >
> > > Unlike most sports champions, Lance is a great role model, and when you consider what he's
> > > overcome, and how he's done it, and where's he gotten, even a hero. You won't hear that kinda
> > > talk from me about any other GR's, but Lance is the true exception to the rule.
> >
> > You may one day come to eat those words...
>
> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
> statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
> good one? ??

Well, if anyone saw today's stage, a spectator snagged Lance's handlebar with a baseball cap, and he
went down fast and hard. After some trouble getting going again (chain off?), he's starts grinding
madly -- only to have his foot slip off pedal and suffer severe "rackage" on the top tube. Ouch!

The pack with Ulrich waited until he was back in sync, and then watched as he stormed by 'em and won
by ~40 seconds. The man has a heart the size of a 53-tooth chainring.

Inspired Bill

 

[Bomba]

Paladin wrote:

>>You may one day come to eat those words...
>
>
> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
> statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
> good one? ??

I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
performance enhancement.

I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

 

[Super Slinky]

bomba said...

> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
> pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
> unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.

I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny amount of time over may hours of
racing separates the top riders. Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn them
all. Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to dispense performance
enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to
wonder if such a secret could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.

Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only advantage. Let's not forget
the vast resources of his sponsors. You can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any price. Some
Europeans like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons, but the truth is that no
other single country has such a huge reservoir of technical and manufacturing expertise, and Lance
gets to tap into that.

> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
> testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
> in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement. It is completely
unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a fact. If a doctor actually said this, then it
only reveals his personal bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
Armstrong.

 

[Bomba]

Super Slinky wrote:

>>I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
>>pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
>>unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
>>performance enhancement.
>
>
> I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny amount of time over may hours
> of racing separates the top riders. Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn
> them all.

My personal opinion is that they are competing on pretty much a level playing field, albeit a field
on a different plain to everyone else.

> Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to dispense performance enhancing
> drugs, but if he does take these drugs he has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have to wonder
> if such a secret could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.

I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in on
it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

> Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only advantage. Let's not
> forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any
> price. Some Europeans like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons,

...not saying a thing...

but the
> truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of technical and manufacturing
> expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.

I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.

>>I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
>>testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
>>in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>
>
> I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement. It is completely
> unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a fact.

I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
his opinion.

If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.

As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert witness
in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

 

[Bob M]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:43:32 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

> Super Slinky wrote:
>
>>> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
>>> pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
>>> unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
>>> performance enhancement.
>>
>>
>> I agree with your skepticism, but let's not forget that only a tiny amount of time over may hours
>> of racing separates the top riders. Therefore if we are going to condemn one, we have to condemn
>> them all.
>
> My personal opinion is that they are competing on pretty much a level playing field, albeit a
> field on a different plain to everyone else.
>
>> Lance has admitted to visiting at least one doctor who was known to dispense performance
>> enhancing drugs, but if he does take these drugs he has managed to keep it a tidy secret. I have
>> to wonder if such a secret could be kept over the years without a few particulars leaking out.
>
> I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in
> on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
>
>> Another thing to consider is that Lance's endurance may not be his only advantage. Let's not
>> forget the vast resources of his sponsors. You can't buy Lance's bike at any bike dealer at any
>> price. Some Europeans like to think that Americans are a bunch of illiterate morons,
>
> ...not saying a thing...
>
> but the
>> truth is that no other single country has such a huge reservoir of technical and manufacturing
>> expertise, and Lance gets to tap into that.
>
> I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.
>
>>> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
>>> testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in
>>> 2000(?) in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>>
>>
>> I'm surprised that any scientist would make such a ridiculous statement. It is completely
>> unprovable, therefore it is at best an opinion, not a fact.
>
> I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
> his opinion.
>
> If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
>> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
>
> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
> witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
>
>

You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it takes to be an expert
in a trial.

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

 

[Craig Brossman]

bomba wrote:

> Paladin wrote:
>
>>> You may one day come to eat those words...
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
>> statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good
>> one? ??
>
>
> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
> pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
> unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.
>
> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
> testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
> in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>
So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the sport) may be using performance
enhancement drugs not discovered by the officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most
participate in). Is that the claim? How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you
sure you are not getting Mr. Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not sure I consider Mr.
Ullrich a bad role model, I tend to agree with Mr. Liggett states that Jan just went through
"typical" growing pains, or something like that.)

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado (remove ".nospam" to reply)

 

[Super Slinky]

bomba said...

> I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in
> on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think that there would be plenty of
people willing to blow the whistle on him if there was any dirty laundry lying around.

> I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.

I think that his one of a kind, wind tunnel tested parts could easily account for the tiny advantage
he has over the other riders if they don't have access to similar engineering muscle.

> I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
> his opinion.

> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
> witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

But besides being ridiculous at face value, in a scientific sense the statement is unprovable, and
therefore only so much hot air. Scientific opinions based on thorough and careful research come and
go faster than teenaged fashions. Such a sweeping generality could never even begin to be researched
and it means nothing except that one scientist got paid to shoot his mouth off. Who knows, maybe
Lance is a genetic freak who has an extra muscle in his ass, or maybe he was bitten by a radioactive
spider. Yes, I'm being silly, but the point is that we are all different and any so-called scientist
who makes such an asinine statement is not an unbiased source of information.

Your last statement about trials is naive, if you don't mind me saying so. In a trial you have two
diametrically opposed sides. One side tries to make the defendant look as good as possible, the
other tries to make them look as bad as possible. By definition, neither side is unbiased, and
exaggeration and hyperbole abound. Experts can be hired by both sides to say just about anything.
Some expert witnesses are hired to appear at trial after trial and make it part of their livelihood.
It is the job of the judge and/or jury to sort out what they consider to be the truth amidst all the
confusion and outright lies.

 

[Dave W]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:43:32 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
>his opinion.

*cough cough ******** cough*
>
>If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
>> bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
>
>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert witness
>in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

**cough cough ******** cough cough**

 

[Paladin]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Paladin wrote:
>
> >>You may one day come to eat those words...
> >
> >
> > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
> > statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
> > good one? ??
>
> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
> pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
> unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.
>
> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
> testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
> in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

There are always those claiming something can't be done getting passed by those actually doing it.
The 4 minute mile. Man on the moon.

Paladin

 

[Paladin]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Super Slinky wrote:
>
> >>I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
> >>pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
> >>unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> >>performance enhancement.
>
> I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
> his opinion.
>
> If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
> > bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
>
> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
> witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, most of the time expert witnesses will say what they're paid
very well to say, and the only one who doesn't know that is the jury.

Paladin btdt

 

[Raptor]

bomba wrote:
> Paladin wrote:
>
>>> You may one day come to eat those words...
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
>> statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good
>> one? ??
>
>
> I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
> pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
> unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> performance enhancement.

Since the Festina affair in 1998(?), doping has been a huge taboo in the Tour de France. I almost
said "pro cycling," but I'm not so sure about other venues.

Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and suspicious were raised high.
His wife was jailed for many months after the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping
material, but all blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail. Recently, Rumsas
was caught with tainted blood and is currently suspended. I don't know if he has been stripped of
his second place.

The Tour de France has rigorous doping controls in place, but it's the usual race between doping and
anti-doping that keeps the question open as to how many of the top riders are getting chemical or
biological help.

Many top pros live in Spain, and Italy is rumored to have lots of doped-up riders and racers in the
lower ranks. It's speculated that Spain doesn't do as much doping control over athletes, in or
outside of active competition, and that's why lots of pros live there.

OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so it's clear that he has
tremendous natural gifts.

Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
there have been a couple/few others.

> I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
> testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?)
> in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

Dr. Michel Ferrarri, most likely. LANCE suffered a minor media scandal a couple years ago because
he's liked with Ferrarri. The fact that Ferrarri is still LANCE's real coach/medical adviser
seems to be somewhat of an open secret. But that doesn't mean he's feeding LANCE anything more
than medical and performance-enhancing expertise.

Regarding the equipment issue, last year LANCE was fond of pointing out that he won on stock Trek
bikes. Apparently that's changed this year. Cannondale provides Saeco their rides. A week or so ago,
they publicized pictures of their team bikes with small weights glued to them to bring them above
the lower weight limit. The riders wore "protest" jerseys that read, "Legalize my Cannondale," and
all got fined for it. Presumably, the sponsor took care of the fines.

But the road bikes they ride are pretty common. Yes, most pros have custom frames, but they're
otherwise off-the-shelf. The time trial bikes are the real expensive high-tech ones, but they're
only used in 3 stages.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

 

[Bomba]

Bob M wrote:

>> As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
>> witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
>>
>>
>
> You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it takes to be an expert in
> a trial.

Well, the trial was high profile in France...

 

[Bomba]

Craig Brossman wrote:

> So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the sport) may be using
> performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other
> race most participate in). Is that the claim?

No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance could be caught using drugs.
At that point, many will have to consider whether he still constitutes a good role model.

> How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you sure you are not getting Mr.
> Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not sure I consider Mr. Ullrich a bad role model, I
> tend to agree with Mr. Liggett states that Jan just went through "typical" growing pains, or
> something like that.)

I'm not getting confused at all - in fact, you're helping me demonstrate my point. Consider that
along with Ullrich, last year's 3rd place, Rumsas has also been banned, the current polka dot jersey
holder, Virenque, was banned along with the rest of the Festina team, then there's Pantani, Del Olmo
and so on. I think everyone's on it, and those that are caught out are merely 'unlucky'. If Lance
was unlucky one day, do you think he would still be considered as a positive role model?

 

[Bomba]

Super Slinky wrote:

>>I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is in
>>on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
>
>
> Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think that there would be plenty
> of people willing to blow the whistle on him if there was any dirty laundry lying around.

I think that's naive. There are probably less than 10 people that have any positive evidence on any
one cyclist. In the case of Armstrong, you're looking at his fellow team mates, his manager, doctor
and, bearing in mind the case of Rumsas, possibly his wife. Now, why would any of those blow the
whistle? The closest you'd get is a domestique in a minor team making allegations that 'everybody's
doing it', at which point the entire sport closes ranks and labels the cyclist a liar. He makes a
bit of cash from selling his story, but his team (including his friends) are indicted and he never
works in the industry again.

I think it's one of those things that's probably generally accepted within Tour circles, but never
referred to.

>>I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.
>
>
> I think that his one of a kind, wind tunnel tested parts could easily account for the tiny
> advantage he has over the other riders if they don't have access to similar engineering muscle.

Bollocks. You think Trek is the only team that has access to a wind tunnel? You think Trek has
more financial clout than Giant? The differences at that level between equipment is minimal to say
the least.

Mind you, they calculated that Lemond's use of an aero helmet in the final stage of the '89 tour, as
opposed to Fignon's pony tail, caused enough of an aerodynamic difference to decide the winner.

>>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
>>witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
>
>
> But besides being ridiculous at face value, in a scientific sense the statement is unprovable, and
> therefore only so much hot air. Scientific opinions based on thorough and careful research come
> and go faster than teenaged fashions. Such a sweeping generality could never even begin to be
> researched and it means nothing except that one scientist got paid to shoot his mouth off. Who
> knows, maybe Lance is a genetic freak who has an extra muscle in his ass, or maybe he was bitten
> by a radioactive spider. Yes, I'm being silly, but the point is that we are all different and any
> so-called scientist who makes such an asinine statement is not an unbiased source of information.

I agree to a certain point. World records are broken all the time, but there must be some evidence
to justify his claim. Anyway, I'm just repeating the story, not trying to scientifically justify it.
It was accepted as valid evidence in the trial and although it doesn't act as definitive proof of
drug abuse by Armstrong, it's worth bearing in mind.

 

[Bomba]

Raptor wrote:

> Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and suspicious were raised high.
> His wife was jailed for many months after the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping
> material, but all blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail. Recently, Rumsas
> was caught with tainted blood and is currently suspended. I don't know if he has been stripped of
> his second place.

No, he won't be stripped of his second place.

> OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so it's clear that he has
> tremendous natural gifts.

I'm not saying you can reach the top just by being drugged up.

> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
> there have been a couple/few others.

Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

 

[Bomba]

bomba wrote:

>> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
>> there have been a couple/few others.
>
>
> Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

Oh, I forgot Brochard and Zulle.

 

[Bomba]

Dave W wrote:

>>I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there was sufficient basis for
>>his opinion.
>
>
> *cough cough ******** cough*
>
>>If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal
>>
>>>bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance Armstrong.
>>
>>As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't get to be an expert
>>witness in a trial of that magnitude without some sort of credence.
>
>
> **cough cough ******** cough cough**

Yep, sorry, I can't back it up. I read it in the paper at the time of the trial.

 

[Mark Hickey]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Craig Brossman wrote:
>
>> So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the sport) may be using
>> performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other
>> race most participate in). Is that the claim?
>
>No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance could be caught using
>drugs. At that point, many will have to consider whether he still constitutes a good role model.

Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether you
still constitute a good role model.

You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up 100%
negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of some
banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even
though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used contained the
substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Super Slinky]

Mark Hickey said...

> Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether
> you still constitute a good role model.
>
> You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
> children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
> scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up 100%
> negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
>
> I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of some
> banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even
> though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used contained the
> substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.

But isn't it true that not all performance enhancing drugs are detectable?