Page 3 - Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

11-01.-2005, 03:37 AM

#31

jcthomasjr

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Maryland, USA

Posts: 93

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

Hmm.
This is my entire difficulty with LA.
Bad enough that he cheats.
But he also invokes the cases of genuinely ill people with cancer.
It's despicable.

Ah, but I'm covering old ground here.

Could you please explain what you mean by "But he also invokes the cases of genuinely ill people with cancer." I don't understand this statement.

__________________
Like each bike ride, life is a journey.

11-01.-2005, 05:18 AM

#32

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,487

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcklyde

Look, I don't know if LA dopes (anymore than I know if any other pro dopes), but suggesting that LA degrades cancer patients is just dumb. LA has raised millions of dollars for cancer research and devotes a significant part of year to raising money. That's a very admirable thing, something that deserves recognition and appreciation independent of his success.

Plenty of big name atheletes just blow their money on cars and real estate and clubs and like showing up in the papers. People love LA because he's used his fame well. There is nothing despicable about that. Try visiting www.laf.org -- how many other pros spend that much effort helping other people?

You miss my point.

I believe he patronises the cycling public, cancer patients.
I don't believe anything that eminates from him - I believe that he is denial.
Denial about drugs, denial about why people will never believe his yarns.

I acknowledge that he has raised money for people with the illness - so some good has come about.
But his constant self-justification and self aggrandisment is patronising and thoroughly disingenuous.

It's up to you if you accept his yarn - I don't.
Never have accepted his yarn and I never will.

I've seen LA in the earlier days - and it was evident pretty early on that he was a trier but not a champion in the tradition of the greats.
That's still the case - no matter how many TDF titles he wins.

if you want I'll copy the tapes for 1992-1996 and send them to you.
Tey're more reflective of his real ability.

11-01.-2005, 05:58 AM

#33

TiMan

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: Recovery is the Golden Fleece and almost nobody gets it right

Posts: 484

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

YUP!!!

The guy has been tinkered with big time.....it's so very clear to me.

11-01.-2005, 08:25 AM

#35

jcthomasjr

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Maryland, USA

Posts: 93

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

What is most despicable is fraud and deception. That's what our primary concern is.

The problem with the Drug Business and Pro-sports too, is that it is a "business first and last". If cancer drugs don't save lives, that is irrelevant, only that they earn a profit. So too with Celebrix or Aleive or a vasodilator or an anti-depressant.

There may be homeopathic remedies---but they are not promoted or discussed by Drug Companies--and their paid proxies, because they will not increase sales and profits.

Lance speaks out of both sides of his mouth on Cancer drugs, 1) he supports drug research and clinical trials, 2) he allows Bristol Meyers Squib to bragg that he uses their drugs in Time Magazine and then 3) he denies using drugs on his team when he already admitted to that in December 2000 and he has/had depending on who you believe a 10 year EPO/ blood boosting anti-anemia relationship with Michele Ferrari. What are the details?

Lance is just another example of corporate commercial marketing pandering to potential customers and naive fans caught up in it.

Cancer patients are desperate for anything that works. Sometimes (but more seldom than you may think) the chemo, radiation, and recovery drugs does work. Many times, it fails. The failures are never discussed or advertised, only the successes.

Lance's story is such a theme. Many unanswered questions remain, and yet in the name of Cancer research and Drug profits, we should remain silent?

Meanwhile, every day more teenagers abuse drugs for athletic performance. 350,000 to 500,000 kids in the USA alone use steroids.

Who cares what Lance says?

Cancer patients are not desperate and they are a lot more positive and thankful then you appear to be. It is our nature to want to survive, but I would not call it desperate. I am a cancer survivor and must take issue with your statement that "The failures are never discussed or advertised, only the successes." Now, they may not be discussed when it comes to different cancer fighting drugs and by drug companies, but they are discussed on cancer survivor and cancer information forums. The whole point of the LiveStrong campaign is to raise awareness and provide resources for cancer survivors. If LA or someone like myself believes the treatment we received worked, why would we not be advocates for that type of treatment or for research to expand on the current types of treatments. What should we do, be cynical like you and while we undergo chemotherapy think that all the drug companies care about is the money they are making? Give me a break.

I would be naive to say drug companies exist only to cure people and do not care about profits. But I would be cynical to say drug companies only care about profits and do not care about helping people. I think there are people working within drug companies who truly believe in the research they are doing and who strive to find cures for different diseases, including cancer. I do believe that not enough research is spent on homeopathic remedies, but if the issue is coming up with homeopathic remedies, than I would think that more money should be spent trying to figure out why disease occurs in the first place, because if there is a natural way to cure disease, there must be a natural way to prevent it.

I understand your points 1 and 2 but then you jump to point 3 and it does not make sense to me: "3) he denies using drugs on his team when he already admitted to that in December 2000 and he has/had depending on who you believe a 10 year EPO/ blood boosting anti-anemia relationship with Michele Ferrari. What are the details?" What? This sentence makes no sense. If I invest with a broker who is legally investing my money but who is doing insider trading and breaking the law with other investors, am I guilty of investing with that person or company? Guilt by association is not a generalization.

__________________
Like each bike ride, life is a journey.

11-01.-2005, 09:51 AM

#38

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,487

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

I do care what he says - because it's ballony.

The issue for me is twofold.
I don't mind people taking drugs because I think that it is safe to say that there is a large constituency of the peloton doing so.

What galls me is that LA actually sermonises us with lectures about him being clean and how it's all hard work etc and how he never takes drugs.
That's what annoys me.
If he said nothing and just went about his business, then I would just ignore him.

Putting it very coarsely - the guy was a donkey, he's now a thoroughbred.
Donkey's don't become thoroughbreds.
The tapes prove it - 1995 TDF where did he finish ?
1 hour 30 mins behind Indurain.
Says it all really - and that was his third TDF.

Look at the other greats - Ullrich, Merckx, Hinault : they had won their first TDF in the first, second, attempts respectively.
Yet Armstrong in his third TDF is still 1 hour 30 mins behind the eventual winner.

As I say I leave up to others to decide - I know where I stand on LA.

PS : I don't support drug taking in sport, but I feel more annoyed when someone claims to be clean when patently their improved performance cannot be supported by their real physical abilities circa 1992-1996.

11-01.-2005, 10:39 AM

#39

kennf

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Texas

Posts: 536

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

I do care what he says - because it's ballony.
Putting it very coarsely - the guy was a donkey, he's now a thoroughbred.
Donkey's don't become thoroughbreds.
The tapes prove it - 1995 TDF where did he finish ?
1 hour 30 mins behind Indurain.
Says it all really - and that was his third TDF.

I imagine a lot of donkeys would like to have his pre-1997 results:

1996 (Age 25, riding with STAGE 3 CANCER)

1st Fleche Wallone
1st Tour DuPont, five stage wins
1st Fresca Classic stage win
2nd Paris-Nice
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd GP Eddy Merckx
2nd Tour of Holland
4th Leeds Classic
4th GP Suisse
6th Olympic Time Trial
8th GP Harelbeke
11th Milan - San Remo
12th Olympic Road Race
14th San Sebastian Classic
17th Amstel Gold
9th End of year world ranking

1995
1st stage win Tour de France, 36th overall
1st San Sebastian Classic
1st Tour DuPont, three stage wins
1st Paris-Nice stage win
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, one stage win
1st Tour of America race series
2nd Thrift Drug Classic
5th CoreStates USPro Championship
6th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
15th End of year world ranking

1994
1st Thrift Drug Classic
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd San Sebastian Classic
7th Tour of Switzerland
7th World Road Race Championship
25th End of year world ranking

1993
1st World Road Race Championship
1st Tour de France stage win
1st CoreStates USPro Championship
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Tour of Galicia
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, two stage wins
1st Tour of America series
* Winner of $1 million Thrift Drug Triple Crown
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
3rd Tour of Sweden, one stage win
5th Leeds Classic
9th Paris-Nice
14th Championship of Zurich
21st End of year world ranking

1992
1st First Union Grand Prix
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Trittico Premondiale second leg
1st La Primavera Tour, three stage wins
1st Settimana Bergamasca stage win
2nd Championship of Zurich
8th Coppa Bernocchi
12th Tour DuPont
14th Tour of Galicia, one stage win
14th Olympic Road Race
17th GP Teleglobe
* Signed with Motorola following Olympics

1991 * Signed with Subaru-Montgomery
1st US Amateur Championship
1st Settimana Bergamasca

11-01.-2005, 10:49 AM

#40

TiMan

Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: Recovery is the Golden Fleece and almost nobody gets it right

Posts: 484

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennf

So he was a fairly good classics/one day rider and did well in the minor tours with no big names....so what! The guys sucked in the big tours...doesn't that tell you anything?
God I can't believe that anyone thinks the guys "made it" on his own talent and sweat.

11-01.-2005, 11:35 AM

#41

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,487

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennf

In relative terms - he was a donkey between 1992-1996, compared to 1999-now.

Look, I'm knocking the guy because his performance improvement is not explained by the reasons he gives us.

This is an emotive subject - a lot of people, with a serious illness look to LA for inspiration.
I acknowledge that he overcame a very serious illness.

As I say, it's down to personal belief - I don't believe his explanation for hsi improvement.

11-01.-2005, 12:21 PM

#43

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,487

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

Great point! No dispute from me other than to assert that that "donkey" was doped pre-cancer----perhaps that was what lead to the cancer in the first place. btw: injecting hCG to mask the maximum allowed T/E ratio of 6 to 1, urine test result might delay detection of testicular cancer and, thereby allow the anabolics to grow the cancer quicker (insulin, nandrolone, and Growth Hormone will spur rapid growth of everything, good and bad) Is this what happened?

Donkey is the wrong description--Elite Champion Athlete is more accurate. (albeit with some help)

But who were Lance's Junior National teammates in July 1990? And were only 75% of them doping, the ones not named Lance? Hmmmmmmm.

Their names are: Erich Kaiter, Greg Strock & Gerrik Latta. All three corroberate the daily injections and doping practices at USA Cycling (then known as: US Cycling Federation)

Chris Carmichael, Rene Wenzel and Agnus Frazier were the adult Trainers and Junior Coaches. They would know--but ain't talking pursuant to legal agreements or pending settlements.

Lance would know too---but he ain't speaking cause he hit the jackpot on corporate endorsements.

So the truth gets supressed yet again.

btw: Was the Thrift Drug triple victory rigged? Many believe it was. I even have a photo of Sean Yates swinging off at 300 meters to go so as to allow Lance to win in Pittsburg, Pa and ensure the $1,000,000
prize. So I don't count those Thift Drugs as true wins. But there I go again----more drugs!

I am slightly lost here - you seem to be asserting that LA was in all probability
doping, pre-cancer.
If this is the case - his form between 1992-1996 in Europe was still that of an
also ran (when compared to 1999-now).
Even with drugs his form was nowhere near an Indurain/Rominger/Jalabert for that time period.

I simply don't have any knowledge of what LA was up to before he came to Europe as a cyclist, except to know that he was a triathlete of some renown.
But this doesn't predispose him to become a great cycling champion - as some of his apologists would happily allege.

My central point holds - that unlike the great champions of the past who either debuted in the peloton strongly (Merckx, Hinault, Ullrich) or those who slowly matured (Indurain/Kelly), LA's improvement doesn't correspond to anything in the entire history of cycling.
Some people point to his overcoming cancer to try to advocate the premise that, in LA's case, we're in totally new territory and to dispell the existing axioms of cycling greatness when it comes to LA.
That is merely an excuse for people to try to disregard the empirical evidence
of a cyclist who was unexceptional between 1992-1996.

12-01.-2005, 12:49 AM

#45

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,487

Re: Mr. 60%, should he have his tour win revoked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

Limerickman:

Lance was a spectacular one-day and 7-day stage racer. He was tremendous nearly winning LBL in 1996 after winning Fleche Wallone a few days earlier.

He was on par with Laurent Jalabert in my opinion.

Lance won stages in the TDF and a 1993 World Road Championship defeating Miguel Indurain straight up.

He was NOT a Grand Tour rider, nor did he train as such. In addition, as you have astutely pointed out, he was heavy due to upper body mass. (170 lbs) This hurt his climbing power-to-weight ratio on longer sustained climbs. On short climbs he was fine, he could climb with most anyone.

Post cancer, he was at square one. As he recovered---with Ferrari's help, he quickly gained back muscle relevant to Stage Racing and deemphasized sprinting, explosive power upper body muscle.

Core abdominal and legs and light resistance for upper body muscle and maximal sustainable power output became his new prime focus.

The rest is history.

What is important to be aware of is: The doping stories were already with Lance pre-cancer and they got much worse after his miraculous change to a Grand Tour Champion in 1999.

14-15 years of medications, I believe. Not always the same dope, frequencies or dosages.

I disagree with your view in a number of instances.

Lance Armstrong was never on par with Laurent Jalabert as a cyclist between
1992-1996.
Jalabert was at a class above that of Armstrong.
Compare their respective palmares for the period and you will see this.
1995 alone shows Jalabert utterly dominating the professional calendar.
(Paris-Nice : Jalabert won it in 1995/96/97 - was second in 1991).
(Vuelta : Jalabert won overall GC and green jersey).
(Pais Vasco : Jalabert second in 1995/96/97).
(Tour of Catalunya : Jalabert overall winner 1995).
(Criterium International : Jalabert overall winner 1995).
(Midi Libre : Jalabert overall winner 1996).
(TDF 1995 : Jalabert 4th on GC and winner (for the second time) of the Points Jersey).
(Milan-San Remo : Jalabert winner 1995).

The assumption that Lance was a spectacular one days cyclist is over the top.
He was a moderately successful one day rider - but compare him to Musseuw,
Tchmil, Tafi, Ballerini, Jalabert, and he's nowhere.

Paris Roubaix : 1993 Ballerini third.
Paris Roubaix : 1994 Tchmil wins, Ballerini third.
Paris Roubaix : 1995 Ballerini wins, Tchmil second, Museeuw thrid.
Liege - B - Liege : 1997/98 Jalabert 2nd in both races.
Amstel Gold : 1992/94/96 Museeuw 2nd and 1st and 3rd respectively,
Fleche Wallone : 1995/97 Jalabert overall winner.
Ghent Wevelgem : Museeuw 3rd in 1994 and 1996.
Ghent wevelgem : Tchmil second in 1997
Ghent Wevelgem : Ballerini second in 1994.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode