Thread: Say it ain't so Lance

Originally Posted by Hirlau

If they had a Drug Olympics, I da*n sure know a few of my relatives would be medal contenders.

On some level this subject becomes funny...in a very sad way though.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090

I've always thought this was the case. One doesn't get his track record in a clean way if everyone else is doing worse while on performance enhancers.
Call me cynic, but I've never believed that any of the pro top are clean. Not just Lance. All of the ones who get results.

In a way, this is inherent to the sport. I'm sure that all sports have their issues, but at least in many other sports, there is a big factor of strategy, tactics, technical skills, etc. With bicycle races, there is none of this. Any strategy is taken care of by the team leaders. All the cyclist has to do is pedal inhumanly fast for hundreds of miles. Any performance enhancers will have a direct advantage over the competition. These guys just go beyond what a normal human being is capable of, regardless of training.

I don't think he has admitted to it yet. I'm still holding out hope that he tells Oprah that she took drugs to loose weight.

Originally Posted by Bruno

All the cyclist has to do is pedal inhumanly fast for hundreds of miles.

Other then a time trial race, witch is a speed race short distance, but in most tours race is full of stategy, tactics skills, endurance, wit, teams tactics and stategy plays a large part of their success or failure. Its not about jumping on the bike and go as fast as you can till the finish line thats been proven many times to fail. But ultimaltely it doesnt justify to make yourself better with performance enhancers.

Originally Posted by Martin103

Other then a time trial race, witch is a speed race short distance, but in most tours race is full of stategy, tactics skills, endurance, wit, teams tactics and stategy plays a large part of their success or failure. Its not about jumping on the bike and go as fast as you can till the finish line thats been proven many times to fail. But ultimaltely it doesnt justify to make yourself better with performance enhancers.

Plus one.

Strategy even comes into time trials (my preferred discipline). TTs are fairly basic, but one must strategize for the course layout, wind conditions and dynamics of the day. I have been in events where guys I normally beat by MINUTES were within seconds of my time because they got an early start before the wind peaked (during my run time). Obviously humidity and precipitation can be a factor (often beyond the riders control) but knowledge is power and the big money guys can afford the gadgets to give them this data (not to mention the aerodynamics that may be developed by people with agendas...and made unavailable to certain competitors). What I hope to convey is that there are tactics on and off the race course

In mass start races tactics can and often do result in the fastest rider NOT winning. It is hard to understand for some, but there is FAR more skill to bike racing than pedaling hard and not crashing.

Originally Posted by Martin103

Other then a time trial race, witch is a speed race short distance, but in most tours race is full of stategy, tactics skills, endurance, wit, teams tactics and stategy plays a large part of their success or failure. Its not about jumping on the bike and go as fast as you can till the finish line thats been proven many times to fail. But ultimaltely it doesnt justify to make yourself better with performance enhancers.

Yes, but the runners all have earpieces. It is the team leadership who knows exactly where all teams are, and what strategy should be followed. There is strategy etc involved, it is just that the cyclist himself does not have to do that anymore in the big races.

Interesting read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/sp...20130115&_r=1&

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

True, but the man has been disgraced and stripped of his titles, but that's not enough, let's keep dragging him through the mud until he admits it. The sad thing is someone like Barry Bonds will never admit it and will go into the Hall of Fame without an asterick next to his name and someone like Pete Rose who admitted his wrong doing will never be inducted.

If he had admitted it when they asked him, there would have been no need for mud-dragging. He would have done it himself. That or he would have become another statistic, because he would have been banned/suffered extended exclusion from participating. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? He wanted to be (and was) the best in a field where it's impossible to be the best without cheating. So yes, he was the best cheater. I don't see why he has to be some sort of martyr, hero or a bad, bad person.

People want/need superhumans, gladiators. We love to see people do amazing things. I personally do not mind cheaters in sport, firstly because I'm not really into sports, but secondly I see it for what it is: entertainment.

And by the way, I'm tired of public figures, such as sports people ('athletes') having to be 'role models for our kids'. I call BS, they are people too. And people are not squeeky clean Clark Kents. Don't blame the cheater if you can't explain to a child why someone cheats to be the best. And don't reflect your dissappointment on your children, either. I believe most people using that argument are just very disappointed in certain people themselves, but for some reason feel it has more validity from the perspective of an innocent child.

Although Armstrong did pose himself as an inspirator for people with cancer. When your inspirator is a pants-on-fire, I can imagine it's a bummer. Nevertheless, I don't think Lance Armstrong is necessarily a bad person. He is just full of it and I just don't think he's better than most of us, either.

The entire thing reminds me from Coriolanus' typification of the public:

"With every minute you do change a mind,
And call him noble that was now your hate,
Him vile that was your garland."

--Coriolanus act I, scene 1, 184

Confessing is good for him too, because without it he can never move on. No matter what he'd do, people would always bring his drug use back in the picture. By doing this, he can deal with it and then move on and give focus to his life again, as a triathlete or something else.

I also think it is important from a different pov. If he kept denying, there would always be a lot of people who kept suspecting the UCI and USDA from foul play because they had it in for their hero Lance. And some people would always have harbored doubts.

I think it is important for pro athletes to know at a really fundamental level that if you use illegal performancer enhancers, the USDA (or other equivalent agency) will take you down no matter how big you are and no matter how long it takes. This makes sports as a whole a better thing.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

True, but the man has been disgraced and stripped of his titles, but that's not enough, let's keep dragging him through the mud until he admits it.

Difference with Lance is that back then, he dragged any journalist brave enough to take him on through the mud. He took hundreds of thousands in libel damages from newspapers, now it's payback time.