What would it take to convince you Armstrong is clean?

antoineg

Do more harm than good to whom? To the young kids who are pressured to use EPO because there's this huge silent culture of doping, and who risk dying in their sleep?

Do more harm than good to the cottage industry of pharmacists, doctors, trainers, coaches, teams, and federations who support and benefit from the doping culture?

Do more harm than good to the clean cyclists who choose to compete without doping?

I normally find your posts well-reasoned, even if I don't agree, but I have to say that you are part of the problem.

cleff

Well, if the allegation turns out to be true, then news of it will definitely come out. Publicly announcing things like this would be like if I saw someone steal something, and then instead of notifying the authorities, I just gossip about it, telling everyone who I think did it. What if it was dark, and I didn't see the face right, or what if it wasn't actually theft, but my misunderstanding? It's no one's business to go around defaming people like that. If they have a problem, they should take it up with the governing body that regulates whatever rules or laws they think have been broken.

limerickman

By posting Carmichaels revisionist urban myth - you the one that is spreading propoganda.
All of Carmichaels bilge about VOmax, heart size etc - all applied in 1992-1996, as it dies to 1999-2004.
Yet our friend was unable to win a stage race apart from the Tour du Pont.

Also another urban myth that was posted earlier was that LA was No1 rated
cyclist in the world in 1996 - once again, this is only partially true.
He was No1 for ONE MONTH IN MAY 1996 ONLY.
Laurent Jalabert was the No 1 cyclist in 1996.
When I read this lie about him being No 1 in 1996, I recalled a book that I have by the International Herald cycling journalist Sam Abt.
Abt is a respected (American) cycling journalist.

In this book, Abt followed the peloton for the year 1996.
Page 45 of the book is worth reading.
Armstrong "Jalabert is some cyclist - I prepared really well over the winter.
I targetted Paris-Nice as a race to win and I clocked up serious mileage in training.
I was speaking with Tony (Rominger) and he and Jalabert were on the Toshiba
team in 1989/1990.
Tony says that Jalabert is a great talent.
I prepared specifically for Paris-Nice but Jalabert just blew me away"

Move to the Tour du Pont - Abt states "the Tour Du Pont while not being
on the same level as a European stage race such as Paris-Nice, it is growing in popularity and is helped by the presence of Tony Rominger who at 35
is coming toward the end of his career"
Rominger "our team were asked to participate and I am delighted to be here,
my wife can go shopping while I compete" (sounds really competitive doesn't, it ?).
Rominger "this trip to America is relly interesting, I like visiting new places and
learning about a new culture" (is he more interested in a holiday or racing ?)
Robbie McEwen Rabobank "we're here to compete - although this race isn't at
the same standard as in Europe, hopefully in a few years it might be stronger"

Moving on through the book - Motorola Armstrongs team announce that they
will not be renewing their contract to stay in the sport in August 1996.
Armstrong "well we knew that Motorola were undecided and that is why I was
anxious to get results so that I will be able to get another cycling contract.
Fabio's (Casartelli) death makes me realise that life goes by. I would be lying if I said I get up each morning and that I am thinking about Fabio but when Motorola hadn't made up their mind to commit to this team and coupled with
Fabio's death, I had a lot on my mind in winter (1995).
I trained hard - very hard - no days off, spending hours on the bike in order to get results, so as to make myself marketable, if the worst came to the worst.
I respect Jim Ochowicz and I have told him that I want to stay part of this team and I will try to delay moving to another team for as long as possible.
I have made tentative enquiries - my people contacted Banesto (Indurains
team at the time) but they're not interested at all.
I've spoken with some others - Festina wanted an answer before the end of July but I wasn't prepared to commit and let Jim down in case he got a new
sponsor.
Festina then faxed me to say that they were no interested - shows how much they were interested, don't it ?
Cofidis have been very enthuasiastic and if it comes down to it, I will sign with them but I want to see can we get a sponsor to keep this team together.
I will delay signing until I know that Jim hasn't got any sponsor"

Abt's book is a contemporaneous record of 1996 :
Abt records Armstrongs thoughts, the strength of races during the season,
riders impressions of races.

Ted B quotes a retrospective statement of revisionism by Carmichael.
As with Armstrong's two books and Carmichael's statements, I think that
figures and statements have been made to create a perception post 1998,
which is contradicted statistically (1992-1996) and by Samual Abt and by
Cycling Sport and other contemporaneous accounts, as well as actual live
video footage from Eurosport 1992-1996 of LA just not being able to
cycle like he does 1999-2004.

If we are to take Carmichaels statement about LA as being truthful - why
didn't all those natural gifts propel LA to win stages races ?
How come these gifts only secured LA a rating of No 1 in the world for one month ?
If these natural gifts were so apparent how come Lance Armstrong wasn't bought immediately by other teams knowing that this great engine was going
to be on the market ?
How come LA finished 1hour 26secs behind Miguel Indurain in the 1995 TDF
if he had these great gifts as Carmichaels purports ?

meehs

WHAT??? The poster shot holes in each of your flimsy arguments but you're saying that if a "thinking" person looks at them as a whole we'll see the big picture??? Yeah, the big picture is that your case doesn't hold water. Not a drop!

What amazes me is that there are so many "thinking" people on this forum that are conviced beyond a doubt that Armstrong is a doper based on what adds-up to nothing more than speculation, rumor, accusation and inuendo. It's unbelievabel to me! The man is guilty until proven innocent in your eyes.

grattorney

Limerickman,

You obviously have strong feelings on this subject and I do not pretend to believe that I (or anybody else for that matter) will change your opinion. However, I post only to point out something for you to ponder, as it may help you crystalize your thinking.

As far as I can tell, your primary argument (but not your only argument) as to why LA is doping is that his record pre-cancer does not justify his record post-cancer. These are the statistics to which you often refer. In plying your argument in this regard, you necessarily discount or fail to factor in the affect cancer had on LA. Fighting a deadly disease and, in the process, facing death, can tend to make one more motivated once successful.

And that, rather than drugs, is the quality that separates LA pre-cancer and LA post-cancer. You stop at the assumption that his physical attributes are the same pre and post-cancer and, as such, his success must be attributable to doping. However, what can clearly be different (and what can easily account for his success post-cancer) beyond the physical is that he is a much more passionate, highly-motivated individual.

There is a clear example of what motivation can do for somebody. I think all agree that Ulrich has great physical abilities. Yet he has placed second five times and missed the podium this year. Why? I think the general concensus is that Ulrich lacks the discipline to push himself from a great rider to a repeat TDF winner. What Ulrich lacks, LA has in spades. A insatiable passion and motivation forged by cancer.

The body is a vessel, and the fact that LA's body was the same pre and post cancer proves nothing. What fills the body is the spirit, and LA's spirit is clearly different. That is a non-doping alternative that can explain the difference between his pre and post-cancer records and is something you might want to factor in to your thoughts.

Thanks for being challenging and making everybody think harder. Don't let anybody give you any shine about your opinions. You have a right to them.

Ted B

Ah yes, a mere journalist such as Abt knows far more about the inner workings of Armstrong than the coach who has stuck by him for many years. But in your convoluted world, anything that supports LA is all lies, and anything that even could remotely be construed or twisted into something that appears even remotely contrary is almost certainly of the highest credibility.

The only thing I see proven here is the fact that you've already chosen to believe LA is a fraud and even God himself could not convince you otherwise.

limerickman

I don't discount anything that you have said here - LA's will is iron clad.
I have absolutely no doubt that he pours every last drop of sweat in to preparing himself mentally and physically.
His books say as much - I think he says that no matter how hard a stage is,
it is NOTHING compared to throwing up for three days, then having two days off, then throwing up for the next three days.
And yes facing death does simplify ones outlook if one is lucky enough to get a second chance.

But that will was there before his got that terrible disease.
That determination was there before he got that disease - maybe cancer
crystallised it but those "spiritual" "personal fighting" qualities were there.
His contemporaneous statements between 1992-1996 all show a guy training very hard, killing himself trying to stay with Jalabert in Paris-Nice in 1996
in Samual Abt's book for example.
Or the Cycle Sport article in 1995, where LA states that he trains like he's never trained before.
Or David Walsh's book "Inside the TDF" in 1993 where he says that even though traithletes are tough people - "cycling is on a much higher, harder"
level.

Maybe you are right - maybe cancer and his will transformed him.
For me, the contemporaneous words - recorded by people with no agenda - carry more weight than Armstrong or Carmichaels views.
I could be wrong - but based on what I have read, I believe that I am right.

Miguel_garcia83

we cant compare amstrongs cases with nobodys else, because he suddenly turned into God after his sickness when he had done nothing before it ( world championship doesnt make a tour winner of you )

grattorney

Exactly. The other "great" athletes did not have to endure what LA did. His outlook and attitude post cancer can be what propelled him - rapidly - to the level where he is.

As long as we are making our entire case simply on circumstantial evidence, consider this: LA has done all of the things you would not do if you were trying to perpetrate a successful fraud.

You would not show incredible improvement, as that would only arouse suspicion. You would win more gradually and build your winning resume slowly to make it look natural. You would want to avoid being the target of attention.

When you do achieve your goal and reach the zenith of your sport, you would lose every now and then to make it look more real. You would not continually pound everybody into the ground. To do so would only invite more attention, more accusations, and more testing.

You would certainly not defend those accused of doping or accused of assisting those who do. You would remain as quiet as possible and would only speak on such an issue when absolutely necessary. You would stay away from all lawsuits.

You would not draw attention to yourself by chasing down and publicly humiliating one of your accusors, as that would only draw more attention to yourself and give your critics fodder for their assertions that you are doping and were simply acting that way to quiet those who might expose you.

Of course, if you were clean, you would be free to do all of those things . . .

antoineg

This is quite possibly the worst abuse of logic that has ever been perpetrated on this board.

davidbod

He wasn't just world champion, he was the youngest cyclist to be crowned world champion in history. There is a difference. Do any of you consider what might have come of his career had he not had cancer. He would be more like Ullrich, major talent but not motivated to make the most of it.

grattorney

Really? Interesting. Here is my logic, spelled out for you.

Premise A: LA needs to dope to win the TDF.
Premise B: LA does not want to get caught doping.

Assuming both A and B, how would LA act in order to achieve both? My experience is that people perpetrating frauds do not like to draw attention to themselves. You want to be successful but forgettable. You want to be under radar. You want to be believeable, not unbelievable.

LA has been both very successful (to the point of unbelieveability) and rather loud about it. Those are not the actions of someone who has something to hide.

And, in any event, you are correct. My logic may be absurd. But the point of my post was that when you are dealing only in circumstantial evidence, logic takes a back seat to conjecture and you find yourself seeing things that just are not there.

RedSky

If LA had not gotten cancer, he would have spent the three years before his first TdF win gaining more and more palmares, much like Indurain. It wouldn't seem like such a drastic improvement.

Remember, Indurain was not really doing much until 1998, three years before his first TdF win. Lance spent the three years before his first TdF win being diagnosed with and recovering from cancer.

Dermo

Let's not loose sight of the most important fact here.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Limerickman's views. They are unsubstantiated and not a little disingenuous.

If you are right Limerickman I will hold up my hands, but until then why dont you just shut up with all the unsubtantiated allegations and spoilers.