Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Muppets Threads! (And Anything Else) => Topic started by: jedione12 on May 12, 2005, 03:38:31 am
-
There was an interesting read in playboy's june issue where they interviewed Lance Armstrong, mentioning him as possibly being the most important athlete of all-time. I guess I never really thought of him like that before, but after reading through, this guy overcame 12 tumors, goes on to win the Tour de France 6 times in a row, and helped raise close to $40 million for cancer by selling those simple yellow bracelets for $1 each...he has my vote.
Just wondering what everyone else's opinion is?
Chris P.
-
He`ll do for me.
Incredable guy.
[:)][:)][:)][:)]
-
ALI ,no question ,armstrong was pretty amazing mind you
-
Depends on how you define and measure "important". For sure Armstrong's achievements are amazing but in my mind are very much tainted by suspicions of doping: too many of his former team-mates (Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis) are proven cheats - I know you can't judge some guilty by association, but I can't help but feel that this reflected the general culture in a camp in which Armstrong was teamleader - until cycling really gets to grips with the doping issue - I personally would find it difficult to select anyone from the sport for this accolade.
I'd also go for Ali who in my opinion is the ultimate sporting icon of all-time and who makes Armstrong look totally one-dimensional in his achievements. If you are in any doubt, watch "When we were Kings" for an insight into the genuis that was Ali.
Afterthought: If there is any athlete worthy of respect in cycling, it has to be Graham Obree, who despite his home-engineered record breaking feats, was shunned by professionals teams for his refusal to collude with widespread doping practices. There's a recent film released called the Flying Scotsman which I've yet to see but from what I can understand, a truly remarkable individual worthy of the utmost respect.
-
Lance Armstrong is the greatest motivator in Cycling Sport of all time. If he cheated I do not know how. He worked his backside off to proove he was still alive.
John.
www.pbase.com/john28july
-
He's a hero of mine.
When I'm struggling to finish an Audax I oftern think of his "Pain is temporary, failure is forever" quote.
Not many humans have finished a Tour de France, some top cyclists have quit before the end because it's too hard. Even fewer have actually won it but he's won it 7 times.
I can't think of any sporting equivalent (where even taking part is so tough, this isn't Darts)
-
armstrong all the way,greatest tour rider of all time it was never proved he took drugs never, he was tested more times in and out of competition all clear every time ,this guy is good the best ever, you will never in your life time see his equal .take a look at 2003 tour what a man class all the way.
-
Wouldn't disagree with most of the above, but I would say that it's cast-iron certainty that he was on drugs - he failed a test on one tour but they managed to botch the B-sample. I recognise that the Le Tour is the greatest endurance feat going which makes Armstrong an incredible athlete regardless, especially given that a lot of his competitors were udoubtly doped too. However, both Merckx and Hinault won other tours in the same seaons as their respective Tour victories, Armstrong focussed solely on competing in the tour, which diminishes his relative standing in my eyes.
But I personally dont believe he did follow the rules, and for me his image is tarnished. I prefer to look to people whose is integrity is a cast-iron certainty in terms of sporting heroes. There are many who've achieved incredible things without the faintest hint of suspicion in relation to rule-bending.
-
I agree that Lance Armstrong has had some fantastic results in his cycling career. I would choose Beryl Burton or Reg Harris if I had to stick to cycling - showing my age I know.
There have been extraordinary athletes in lots of sports, but for me the best ever athlete has to be Paul Elvström who won his first olympic gold medal in 1948 at the age of 20, sailing a Firefly singlehanded in Torbay. He went on winning major events up to the 1960s with 2 world championships in 1966.
Paul was an expert in racing single handed dinghies and dominated the Finn class in the 1950s, partly through his physical fitness. He published a guide to the racing rules which was the bible for most racing sailors for a long time.
Racing a dinghy singlehanded is a lot like cycling in the rain - cold, wet, a head wind most of the time and a pain barrier to overcome for top performance. Winning requires stamina, physical fitness and coordination, mental strength, knowledge of the racing rules, endless practice and belief in the god given right to be first over the line.
-
Gary Lineker - I'm not really a fan of football but how many other World Cup goal-scoring players have NEVER been yellow- or red-carded at any time in their careers?
Fair play is always praiseworthy and an excellent basis for a role-model.
-
Lance Armstrong for me, if you read his books he was the most drug tested athlete ever. Thats unless you count his chemo treatment which the French think might have helped his performance.
-
There seems to be enough circumstantial evidence that points to this adulation of Armstrong being somewhat unjustified, see link below which neatly sums up just some of the evidence and arguments!
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/322007.shtml
-
To think Armstrong was "clean" & beat all those doped EPO users quite convincingly for all those years in the Tour de France... Hmm
-
Gary Lineker - I'm not really a fan of football but how many other World Cup goal-scoring players have NEVER been yellow- or red-carded at any time in their careers?
Fair play is always praiseworthy and an excellent basis for a role-model.
John Charles - AKA Gentle Giant - also voted the best foreign player ever to have graced the Italian league.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1390321.stm
-
To think Armstrong was "clean" & beat all those doped EPO users quite convincingly for all those years in the Tour de France... Hmm
I couldn't have put it better myself!
-
Ali & Pele for me - I just can't decide.
-
Jesse Owens or Ali
Armstrong was just very very good. Ultimately he isn't important.
Jesse Owens rubbed Hitler's nose in it, right in front of him.
How important can you get?
-
I seem to have pre-empted myself a little ref John Charles, who's just been voted the greatest player (not just foreign) ever to play in the italian league. Never booked in his career, he could have very much rewritten the 1958 world cup had he not been injured with for Wales's QF tie with Brazil, having already scored in the competition in their defeat of Hungary.
http://www.sportingo.com/football/a11007_welshman-who-was-better-than-maradona-ronaldo-zidane
-
Gary Lineker - I'm not really a fan of football but how many other World Cup goal-scoring players have NEVER been yellow- or red-carded at any time in their careers?
Pele
-
Regarding Armstrong, I don't really see what Landis would have to gain by falsely implicating him, because he'd never win a popularity war. It just seems the insinuations just won't go away and the man's arrogance clearly isn't as diminished as his seeming integrity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/8695890.stm
-
> I don't really see what Landis would have to gain by falsely implicating him
He gains nothing, but IF this is a spiteful act, then I have to say that spite doesn't require the backing of logic!
(Anyone else ever had their new car keyed?)
-
I don't disagree with you Stuart - though it's yet another substantial dollop of mud thrown in Armstrong's direction - whilst I appreciate insinuations can be made out of envy, Armstrong's arrogance (not to mention the very substantial body of evidence as highlighted in an earlier link) does little to dissuade me that he is ultimately, like the probable majority of humans competing on the tour, guilty. I think Landis's admissions are very revealing in that he at least shown his human side - I never see that sense of human touch or humility in Armstrong, just arrogance which I think says/masks a lot.
-
Apologies for a 2nd consecutive post, but as you can probably tell, the general deification of Armstrong is something about which I feel quite strongly.
The point I want to make is probably best illustrated by mention of another rider, David Moncoutie, one of the very few professional riders to have finished top 10 in one the major tours and who is unanimously regarded by his fellow professionals as always having been clean. Moncoutie illustrates that it is possible to remain beyond suspicion and manage a positive reputation within the sport. That Moncoutie is such a rarity speaks volumes about the sport’s credibility and is why Armstrong’s latest statement “We like our credibility” in the wake of Landis’s admissions/accusation simply serves to intensify my rabid dislike of him.
Greg Lemond is on record as saying that the timescale of Armstrong’s Tour victory following his cancer was not humanly possible in terms of recovery and competitive performance. It is possible that Lemond also doped, could have been prone to sour grapes, but his assertion as a 3-time tour winner is no less credible. I also imagine Lemond also likes his own credibility but he would never have the arrogance to utter such words on the basis that he was never caught. However, the critical difference between Lemond and Armstrong is that the former somehow managed keep a healthy distance between himself and any allegations whilst Armstrong has somehow, despite all protestations, has singularly failed to do this.
For all the conspiracy theorists, it seems to me that a man who has the will, guts and intelligence to win 7 tours would also find it within himself to manage a clean reputation, as proved possible by Moncoutie - he chose instead to align himself despite persistent allegations and suspicions with a doctor who was already proven to dope cyclists . I wonder if he also refers Dr Ferrerri’s to credibility when he uses “We”?
Given cycling’s reputation, ultimately Armstrong’s own reputation will be determined in whether he in anyway contributed to enhancing the credibility of the sport (as opposed to appeal) at a time when the sport has been in real need of it. Moncoutie has proved that it is possible to make that contribution, but all Armstrong has proved to me is that if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. To me, Armstrong is nothing short of a disgrace, not because he is a 7 time tour winner, but because, in Lemond’s words, he is so obviously a fraud in having achieved this - his legacy will be generations of cyclists to come unquestioningly viewing Armstrong's blatant lack of integrity and disregard for the wider sport as aspirational. By contrast, the true tragedy will be that the vast majority of these cyclists will be likely to say "David....Who!?" Thank you Lance, cycling and the sporting world in general is not worthy of you!
-
Lemond a possible doper ? - I've read he refused (any) injections off team doctors / soigneurs. Armstrong will always have his doubters, but :
(a) He's never (publically ) failed a dope test ( & he's probably been tested more than anyone )
(b) He chose to come back into the sport (where he has nothing to prove ) & subject himself to more drug testing !
-
Brummie, I appreciate that you're not necessarily making a statement in favour of either.
However, in totally overlooking my main point in reference to maintaining reputations a la Moncoutie, therein lies your answer - Armstrong has never "publicly" (ie. officially) failed a test.
Lemond never failed any that I'm aware of and never had to defend himself against a litany of allegations, or declined to have samples retrospectively tested for drugs they did not have the technology to test for at the time (EPO). Lemond simply didn't behave in a way or make decisions that could allow his integrity to be doubted - quite the contrary in Armstrong's case.
If you read any objective summary of their careers, large chunks of Armstrong's are generally dedicated to allegation and counter-allegations - there's no such central preoccupation with Lemond's.
Given Lemond's pronouncements on Armstrong, who would you choose to believe given that we pretty much have to believe one or the other? Who, in your opinion, has the most credibility?
-
LeMond was a bit of a hero of mine to be honest when I first took up racing as a youingster & the EPO era kind of killed any credibility the sport had for me in terms of athletic performance. Unfortunately for Armstrong & any riders since the Festina affair - there will always be question marks raised by exceptional performances. I respect Armstrong more for his comeback ( He has a hell of a lot to lose if he failed a drugs test ) than his number of Tour wins.
-
i have no idea if lance ever took drugs or lemond or merckx or any of the top riders down through the years, but there's people who will do anything to proove they did .in my book i admire them all there the tops supermen on bikes.
you have got to remember these guy's cover around 50 to 60 ,000 km a year and most of it a race speed so there body's are well trained .
but listen what do i know all i know is i love cycling and lance and all the other pro's life is hard for those guys so dont be giving them to much grief ;)
-
Jags
I don't dispute that they train hard - but feel that I have made my point convincingly enough.
I wish I could be as forgiving as you in my outlook but the circumstantial evidence is simply too overwhelming for me in Armstrong's case as is my perception of his arrogance.
I have have the misfortune to be French following a tour that a Frenchman hasn't won in approx 20 years - that said I have at least discovered my dislike of Armstrong isn't based on anti-americanism given that my research has led me to conclude that Lemond has definitely been one of the more inspiring and credible tour winners - the sport needs a lot more like him and Moncoutie in my opinion if it is ever to salvage its reputation.
-
"His goose is cooked" - not conclusive evidence I appreciate, but I'd say it's looking ominous for Armstrong!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/01/lance_armstrong_an_icon_under.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/1/index.htm
-
I think Lance must be one of the most tested athletes of all time. Have any of these test been positive or are they all inconclusive?
Bob
-
Some people would say Ted Williams is head and shoulders above anyone else on ice. I think Wayne Gretzky the best. he totally transformed a sport with skill and genius.
-
More on the Armstrong Case - it seems that the accusations from former team mates just keep coming - how dare they!? :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13465590
Also, just to prove a point that drugs needn't be part of the formula for success, Moncoutie (see earlier posts) won the Vuelta King of the Mountains for the 3rd consecutive year last year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Moncouti%C3%A9
-
More on the Armstrong Case - it seems that the accusations from former team mates just keep coming - how dare they!? :o
I've noticed he (or his press agent) always say "he has never failed a test... he is the most tested athlete"... I don't remember him ever saying "I have not ever taken banned substances". Perhaps he thinks its illegal to get caught taking EPO, but taking it and not getting caught is a different kettle of kippers.
-
Well put Neil.......and I think a similar choice of words was used by Marion Jones, whose case history has a remarkable similarity to that of Armstrong's in that they've been systematically implicated of drug use throughout their careers. They also both chose to professionally associate themselves with chararacters who have been prominent in use of performance drugs or have who have been complicit in their use, Dr Ferrerri in Armstong's case.
It seems that the trickle of allegations from former team-mates, is turning now into a steady stream - with Hamilton and now Hincapie seemingly testifying that Armstrong used EPO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13481408
-
Most important athlete of all time? Leonidas. Second would be Jim Thorpe.
-
More on the ongoing Armstrong saga - he seems remarkably persecuted for an athlete with such an unquestionably clean record.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18435771
-
I've noticed he (or his press agent) always say "he has never failed a test... he is the most tested athlete"... I don't remember him ever saying "I have not ever taken banned substances". Perhaps he thinks its illegal to get caught taking EPO, but taking it and not getting caught is a different kettle of kippers.
A quote from Armstrong on the BBC:
"I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one."
Notice he says "I have never doped" in his statement.
-
More on the ongoing Armstrong saga - he seems remarkably persecuted for an athlete with such an unquestionably clean record.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18435771
Yes I agree with you Fred,
This statement from the USADA:
"As in every USADA case, all named individuals are presumed innocent of the allegations unless and until proven otherwise through the established legal process."
But yet the fact that:
"The 40-year-old has been immediately banned from competing in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011."
In my mind the two do not go together, either he should be banned because of proven guilt or he should be assumed innocent and allowed the compete, unless or until proven otherwise.
As it is, he is being punished as if guilty but without anything being proven.
-
Yes I agree with you Fred,
This statement from the USADA:
"As in every USADA case, all named individuals are presumed innocent of the allegations unless and until proven otherwise through the established legal process."
But yet the fact that:
"The 40-year-old has been immediately banned from competing in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011."
In my mind the two do not go together, either he should be banned because of proven guilt or he should be assumed innocent and allowed the compete, unless or until proven otherwise.
As it is, he is being punished as if guilty but without anything being proven.
Couldn't agree more. This is a case of mentally inadequate and morally spineless officials covering their asses, having it both ways, without understanding that they do the sport immense damage by giving so much credence to what may be no more than promotional gimmicks thought up by the managers of people whose sole claim to fame is that they rode with Lance.
They're in fact punishing Lance for unproven allegations, made by people who're none too clean, about what happened long ago in another sport. And for no greater cause than that these freeloaders can claim "we're clean".
Andre Jute
...who almost rode with Lance once http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html
-
Andre, I feel your 15 seconds of associated fame has blinkered your opinion of Sir Lance - I simply don't understand the logic of what you are saying, but am assuming it is in defence of him? Which does the sport more damage, the dopers or the officials? I would argue that responsibility lies ultimately with the cause rather than the effect. Another snippet from the BBC:
"More than 10 cyclists as well as cycling team employees witnessed Lance Armstrong using performance-enhancing drugs and techniques...."
These are the dopers to which you are referring? Having been caught and paid the price, I'm certain that to be labelled a liar or cheat twice is something none of them would want or be willing to risk. More likely, they are truly disdainful and are genuinely angry that he hasn't paid the price for a career of cheating, when they have paid the price, and that Lance's arrogance is in part responsible for the number willing to testify against him. Outside of the truth, I really fail to see what motivation his detractors would have, especially given their number.
I was going touch on the subject of being presumed guilty before being found guilty in my last post, but the following sentence in the BBC report dissuaded me:
"It says it collected blood samples from him in 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions". I'm not sure what motivation USADA would have in making such a statement, other than maintaining its credibility in being transparent in getting to the truth. Are people really suggesting (including Lance) that there might be other motivations other than fulfilling its core remit effectively and to the best of its ability? If so, could anyone explain to me in a coherent and objective manner what those motivations could be in pursing these apparently "baseless" claims?
For my part I'm guessing that the agency feel that the weight of evidence and its gravity is so undeniably overwhelming that they felt compelled to act, albeit in quite an exceptional way. A bit like bail conditions for a crime suspect even though they haven't been proved guilty. At least Lance still has has his freedom which given the weight of accusations and their implications, is quite generous.
I personally don't understand how anyone can truly believe that Lance hasn't doped, and I am amazed that he has managed to evade detection for so long given the endlessly long list of circumstantial evidence provided earlier in the thread, which his supporters somehow conveniently contrive to overlook. As also earlier mentioned, others have managed successful careers without the slightest soupcon of suspicion and their integrity totally intact, endorsed by as model professionals by all others within the sport. With Lance, it's just the opposite, and more stuff will inevitably come out. My personal opinion is (and is just that) that he'll ultimately go down in history as having caused more damage to the credibility of the sport than any other individual, or team or organisation.
-
The logic is simple. Until Armstrong is proven guilty before a jury of his peers, and all the appeals procedures exhausted, he's innocent and should be treated like everyone else. "Innocent until proven guilty before a jury of your peers" is an important principle of everyone's liberty, not to be set aside by a bunch of self-inflated blazers. -- Andre Jute
-
As I said, USADA must have pretty compelling reasons for such drastic action, especially given the inevitable ensuing criticism ref human rights.....but he still has more freedom than most, due to his amassed wealth.
You're entitled to your opinion Andre, though I find your derision in judging people who try and provide a framework of disincentives for cheating somewhat puzzling and contradictory - surely those who continue to cheat within the sport, and those who have been their mentors and role models for sporting malpractices should be the focal point of your vitriol?
Given that Lance has been the most influential role model of them of all, I guess we'll have to see if he turns out, to use your own language, to be the most morally spineless of them all.....
-
As cyclists go my money would be on Sean Kelly: Hard, durable, versatile and didn't focus on one event per year.
-
From what I recall of Sean Kelly, he certainly had the respect and admiration of fellow pros for reasons you mentioned - he did fail a couple of doping controls, but doesn't have a litany of ex-pros wanting to testify against him, suggesting that he's probably a more respected character than Armstrong - I guess it ultimately comes down to whether you accept that doping is part and parcel of the sport's history and heritage. As mentioned previously, the more I learn about LeMond, the more he stands out as being the Tour circuit's last credible superstar. As exceptionally exciting as last year's TDF was, I can't help but feel in some ways that it stands for Tour de Farce, such has been the number of high profile doping revelations of late. I am looking forward to this year's edition with eager anticipation nonetheless.....
-
If you are looking at cyclists alone then I am amazed that nobody has mentioned the cannibal Eddie Mercx who won nearly everything he entered.
-
Cycling was always a hard, gritty sport and for so long doping was a normalised part of it. Doping was proscribed at about the same time that the big money came in and then of course it all got more specialised and playing to the absolute limit of the rules became the norm. ie the what's not illegal is allowed mindset.
I always admired the dogged heroic tenacity of Kelly, Zoetemelk, Poulidor, Simpson etc over the sheer talent of Armstrong, Merckx, LeMond etc.
-
Hi All!
As an American cycling enthusiast, I have been following Lance's journey with great interest over the years, from his beginnings as a triathlete to his entry on the world stage of cycling and many eventual wins in the Tour de France. I admired his boyish brashness until it turned to arrogance on the world stage and I cringed at his ill-considered comments to the press and about his competitors, the race, and the sport in the early days of his TdF career. As with many who have suffered life's trials, his battle with cancer seemed to humble him and left him a nicer, less abrasive fellow for awhile; that wore off over time as he fully embraced his return to health and became Lance, Inc. with the well-intended Livestrong foundation and greater corporate involvement.
Discussing his record and history was a favorite pastime during my tours of Europe in 2008, and many of the French, Dutch, and Belgians I spoke with felt there could be no doubt as to his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
I have my own suspicions (and only that; I am speculating like everyone else) he may be telling the truth in the semantic sense -- perhaps he really didn't dope if "doping" means using drugs that were banned and detectable by testing. Remember, these tests only find what they are designed to detect. If he used performance-enhancers that were not on the banned list nor tested for, then he could be telling the truth. That would in no way equate to "riding clean", but it would allow him to have it both ways and so avoid strict prosecution or conviction according the the stated guidelines of the USADA. It would also account for results "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions". In other words, he may have gotten there by unconventional means.
Mostly, I find it sad and deeply disturbing we live in an era where doping has entered the athletic arena and calls into question the accomplishments of all participants and competitors, clean and dirty alike. I long for the days when that was not the case, when true athletic ability was the prime determinant of performance, results, and victory. Or I did, until I read that TdF competitors as early as the second race were rubbing cocaine on their gums to deaden the pain of competing in Henri Desgrange's "death marches" as the unsupported riders called them.
It is always sad when our sports heroes disappoint us. We tend to forget they are also human with feet of clay and the frailties that affect and afflict us all. I was a huge fan of Marco Pantani and found myself actually standing up before the television, cheering and waving my encouragement as he lofted up the mountains after recovering from his horrific head-on crash into a wrong-way vehicle that had entered the closed course. Of course, time showed he was a major doper and he died from his addictions, sad and alone in a hotel room. A broken man who had once ridden like an angel now rides with them.
I hope the real truth will come out about Lance and however the chips fall, will serve to improve the sport and make for a more level, truly fair and even playing field. I'd like to go beyond doping controls and make the entire World Championship (including the Tdf, the Giro d'Italia and all the other major races) a spec sport, with competitors riding equipment as nearly identical as can be. Looking at competitive swimming, the invention of better and faster suits divided competitors into Haves and Have Nots and records set with them were as artificial as if the winners had doped. I think we need to return to the basics in such sports so once again the human element and true physical and mental/tactical prowess are the prime determinants of victory. I'd pay to watch that!
In the meantime, no matter our own passionate opinions, the world will have to wait for full adjudication of Lance's case, and what will be will be. Until then, by any legal standard he must be assumed innocent until guilt is proved.
I love the title of this thread, because it causes us to think deeply about the most influential or important athlete of all time, and not just cyclists. Of course, the argument can be made there is no one "greatest", and that leaves it all open for speculation. I've so enjoyed reading the posts here!
Far from the most important, one of my favorites is Francois Faber, the first non-French rider to win the Tour de France in 1909 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Faber ). Actually, he was French to the core, having been born and raised and lived most of his life in Colombe, a suburb of Paris. He was a Luxumbourger by virtue of his father's nationality. Still, his victory broke the French hold on their own race, and gave others hope for victory. My research to date shows Faber always rode "clean" and was well-liked by his competitors who regarded him as a fair sportsman. As far as I can tell, his only "performance enhancer" was a musette bag full of cold pork chops which he ate by the bagful as he rode well into the night on the much longer stages of those days. When WWI arrived, he volunteered as a member of the French Foreign Legion and was killed by a sniper's shot as he left the trenches. There is some debate as to whether his end came as he stood and cheered as he read a letter from his wife detailing the arrival of their newborn, or whether he was cut down while carrying a wounded comrade to safety. In any case, there was not the faintest hint of a taint or blemish on his record, and that was surely nice to see.
All the best,
Dan.
-
"I long for the days when that was not the case, when true athletic ability was the prime determinant of performance, results, and victory. Or I did, until I read that TdF competitors as early as the second race were rubbing cocaine on their gums to deaden the pain of competing in Henri Desgrange's "death marches" as the unsupported riders called them."
Dan, this was the nub of cycling's close association with doping. It was so hard doping was necessary to just to get by. Until the 60's most professionals were paid by the race and had to race continuously and year round to put bread on the table. There was very little support in terms of career, training, physio. diet etc. It was a HARD day job, probably on a par with mining coal by hand. Many former pros went back to farm or factory work after short careers and anecdotal evidence suggests many died prematurely. This sort of doping was survival, not cheating.
I think it was Jacques Anquetil who said he raced once without drugs and it was so unpleasant that he didn't care to do it again!
Since the 80's the sport has seen a transition to moneyed professionalism (a la tennis, golf, football etc) but the doping culture has been slower to change and been subject to new financial driving factors in it's evolution. By now it should be dead but it would be hard to argue the exact time this should have happened. 1990??
However, if we were to take the athleticism of the topic to include all physical achievement and feats of endurance then I would argue for Robert Scott, Ernie Shackleton and their men as having set the bar for others to reach in terms of overcoming human limitations.
Ian
-
A well-written post, Ian, and some nice observations, particularly...
if we were to take the athleticism of the topic to include all physical achievement and feats of endurance then I would argue for Robert Scott, Ernie Shackleton and their men as having set the bar for others to reach in terms of overcoming human limitations.
Oh, yes! Particularly with regard to Shackleton. I was fortunate to have a high school literature teacher introduce me to the book _Endurance_, and from there I caught "Shackleton fever" and read everything I could about him. I still cannot imagine how he and member of his crew managed to survive. Though I've never experienced anything remotely similar to their trials, sometimes when riding in a strong headwind, I'll think about how the wind drove some of his men temporarily mad and it inspires me anew. It is absolutely incredible how people can, well, endure against tremendous odds and survive. Amazing.
I think you made a really good point about hard men coming from hard lives going into a hard sport and then...back to hard lives again. It must have seemed hopeless at times, when the effort was ceaseless and only the venues changed. You put it well when you said, "This sort of doping was survival, not cheating".
Best,
Dan.
-
Apologies for being like a dog with a bone on my all too infrequent visits, but as the thread started with Armstrong, who presumably doesn't want the endless catalogue of evidence to come out into the open.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384
Seems that he'll be stripped of his 7 TDF Titles - in my mind that isn't punishment enough for the endless litany of lies that he's peddled and the wealth he's accumulated from systematically cheating.....for others to judge whether he's "morally spineless" I guess.
-
still claims he's innocent ;)
-
Then he should fight his innocence, regardless of whether he belives he's being subject to the greatest witch-hunt since McCarthy. That he's being charged as a doping ring-leader sounds closer to the mark for me. I don't think there can now be any real doubt as to his guilt give he's given up the legal fight.
Interestingly Jan Ulrich finished 2nd to him 3 times, (also to Bjarne Riis and Pantani, both admitted dopers), meaning that he could have theoretically won the Tour 6 times had there been consistency in dealing with doping cases......that he was tainted by doping allegations himself, with all post 2005 achievements having been wiped from the record books, doesn't particularly help his case though. Other new TDF winners courtesy of impending revision of TDF results will be Alex Zulle, Joseba Beloki, Andreas Kloden and Ivan Basso.
-
When I was a kid I was told that it was the taking part that mattered, not winning. So long as you tried your hardest, you could hold your head high, with pride. Sadly, I think those days are gone, nowadays it is all about winning, nothing else matters; therefore cheats can delude themselves that they have done something great.
Most of my life my sporting heros were football players (soccer players for our American friends) however nowadays I can hardly bear to watch a match what with all the underhand tactics against opponents, diving to the ground and rolling around in feigned agony, and various feints to con match officials.
I still watch a lot of sport on TV, and sometimes see some unbelievable performances - but it is often in the back of my mind that it may be years before we find out if it was really something special or if something sinister was at play.
Such a shame I can't get so excited about it anymore.
-
Other new TDF winners courtesy of impending revision of TDF results will be Alex Zulle, Joseba Beloki, Andreas Kloden and Ivan Basso.
All have been previously tainted by doping I believe. Awarding the 7 TdF winners could become quite a challenge I reckon.
-
Hi All!
I've always admired the team domestique, a role requiring incredible sacrifice for a team that is often out-of-sight, many kilometers ahead. Such seemingly lowly tasks as ferrying water to the rest of the team, giving up one's bike, or serving as sacrificial point-man for a lead-out are part and parcel of the role and are really vital to success, but virtually guarantee a domestique will never end his three weeks of duty with any but the lowest official standing. Talk about sacrifice for sport, for team, for leader!
I find it interesting that many of the highest ideals of Sport are typified among those who are least likely to win and who receive the least glory and recognition. "Vive le domestique! Celebre l'lantern rouge!" (which, if GoogleTranslate got it right, roughly means "Long live the servant! The famous red lantern!"
Best,
Dan.
-
I think it happens in every human endeavor, that the fame and glory don't really go to those who contribute or accomplish the greatest feats. The pursuit of fame and glory become ends in themselves and then all the publicity stunts etc. begin. Of course nowadays it has gone so far that we have celebrities whose basis for fame is a complete mystery.
The whole concept of "the greatest" is a bit of a delusion. Competition can be a great spur for accomplishment and also a basis for some exciting entertainment. But the published rankings are always a bit of a facade. Lance played the publicity game.. once a person has turned their own life into theater, the facade takes on its own life.
How athletics turns into circus... certainly the audience has a role too. It's our attention flows and flutters the colorful banners on the big top. The key to defusing the whole explosive scene is to stop paying for its construction, to stop paying attention!
-
Worth reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?pagewanted=all)
-
The above is very logical in my opinion, no great surprises.
Equally, no great surprise in the latest Armstrong installment, other than the statements seem to become more and more damming, and weight of evidence even more overwhelming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716
-
Very last word on Armstrong, promise!
Does anyone on this forum still believe he is innocent or has been mistreated?
His words "We like our credibility" in referring to Landis almost struck me as being the simultaneously most arrogant and hollow words ever uttered by a sportsman the very moment I read them.
Where is it now I wonder?
I feel truly sorry for the army of fans that he defrauded over the years. However, In dealing with the individual who has misused power more than any other in causing damaging the image of the sport, the "self-inflated blazers" at USADA should be firmly congratulated for their steps in restoring credibility to the sport.
Now it will be the UCI's turn, although it seems that some of their "self-inflated blazers" will have to fall on their sacrificial swords as part of that process - given that Armstrong's power to corrupt seemingly extended to the very heart of cycling's governing body!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19954565
These are good days for the sport, very good indeed. Long may it continue.
-
LeMond's viewpoint on Armstrong's capabilities! LeMond's words, not mine! :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24628728
-
My, Fred, this has lots of implications for Armstrong and the rest of the peloton who were found guilty of doping (and those who did/were not).
If we accept LeMond's premise that Lance was a "top-30 rider at best", than the effects of doping are truly astounding -- and must exact a terrible toll on human physiology. Makes me wonder if doping helped precipitate his cancer....
Just read an article earlier this week about the doping of racing pigeons in Belgium: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24658278 Any chance of stuffing the Doping Genie back in the bottle? Where will it stop?
Best,
Dan. (...who dearly wishes the world of Sport could be uniformly "clean")
-
Dan
I've heard that the Dutch cycling authorities have decided to act following one of their leading cyclists eating the winners garland on being presented with it ;-)
Seriously though, I don't underestimate the ability of doping to completely transform performance. I met someone who had regular dealings with a French TDF rider by the name of Frederic Finot and had reasonably sure information that he was determined to race clean despite being put under a lot of pressure to do otherwise. He finished the Tour twice (still an incredible achievement) in the bottom 10 if I recall rightly and claimed it was impossible to compete effectively without doping.
There are very few riders acknowledged by other riders as definitely being clean, David Moncoutie three times winner of the Vuelta mountains competition probably the most notable. Both of these riders are more important that Armstrong in my eyes.
I've no doubt that Lance's doping contributed to his cancer - all his other team-mates from his american team of that era have since died, apparently from doping induced ailments - but this was known well ahead of the big confession, and yet people still preferred to be duped than acknowledge the ever-present shadow of doping associations all around him.
-
.........I've no doubt that Lance's doping contributed to his cancer - all his other team-mates from his american team of that era have since died, apparently from doping induced ailments.......
This sounds like pure speculation.
And all of his team-mates have since died? Really? Is this the Motorola team you are talking about?
-
This sounds like pure speculation.
And all of his team-mates have since died? Really? Is this the Motorola team you are talking about?
It sounds remarkable I know but I've definitely read this somewhere but can't unfortunately find the said article- I think from his early days (aged around 18) as part of a US student or olympic set-up, so pre-Motorola at a guess.
-
Could this be what you had in mind, Fred?
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39997062/
Another interesting discussion on doping deaths in cycling is here:
http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=2823.0
Best,
Dan.
-
Hi Dan
Neither of these I'm afraid - I wish I'd posted the link - I thought had - it was a fairly (unsurprisingly) hefty dossier of a life-long association (pre-admission) to duplicitous (as it turned out) misdemeanors!
Cheers
Fred
-
another thing that I cannot forgive Lance Armstrong for, and I'm pretty sure this practice started with him, is the wearing of black socks. Now call me old fashioned, but I'm pretty sure that you have to wear white socks if you are a serious competitive cyclist. I saw someone out training today, full lycra kit, with black socks. I had to look away.
Black socks are fine, at a pinch, if you're just going down the pub and didn't have time to change when you got in from the office, or perhaps when cycling to a funeral.
But not in a race please. It's up there with white lycra shorts. Somethings are just not meant to be.
ian
-
another thing that I cannot forgive Lance Armstrong for, and I'm pretty sure this practice started with him, is the wearing of black socks.
Full agreement, Ian! A tragedy for the Sport.
I did find out white socks (and perish the thought, white trainers...and a baseball cap, of course) are the Universal Marks of an American tourist in The Netherlands, where black socks and 3/4 pants with zip-off legs are the norm for bike-trekkers.
The pants aren't bad, but I'm keepin' m'white socks. I know they need washing when they turn grey. :D
...And white lycra shorts? Just...ew. :P S'posed t'be black.
All the best,
Dan. (...who is adding this to his list of reasons for being Upset with Lance)