Half of Tour de France winners say Lance Armstrong should get his seven titles back

Joelsim wrote:

A stroke of luck that you are a cycling fan and your surname's Peyresourde, Colin.

Are you a genius? It's a nom de plume.

bikerforever68 wrote:

Doesn't matter if the record book shows he won or not,the fact is whatever your opinion,he did win 7 seven times,I was lucky to watch all 7 tours and got into cycling because of this fantastic era of cycling.yes he cheated just like the other 20 podium riders in thoses seven years.im not condoning drugs,but we all know it's part of out sport.but the fact that everyone is still talking about him,just confirms his status in the cycling world

He DID NOT win 7 times, at the time it seemed that way, and you might not like to think that all that inspiration you got was in actual fact a great big fraud but you need to get over it.
What he did was cheat, plain and simple, the same as if you take a short cut or cling on to a car all day, he broke the rules and cheated deliberately, consistently, and maliciously. In hindsight we can say that he did not win because he cheated.
If you choose to believe that EVERY SINGLE rider that was going for GC was cheating, and that they ALL had the EXACT same level and access to the same drugs and doping that he did, then you are truly deluded. Without the above being true you cannot even say he was best of the dopers, all you can actually give him him credit for, is having the best doping program.
And if you are the type of person that gives someone credit for that then well, I wont say anymore.
Just get over it, there's no point clinging on to this false idol.

pmr wrote:

He DID NOT win 7 times,

I'm pretty certain I saw him wearing a yellow jersey and drinking champagne in Paris. The fact is the blank space is there, we all know who fits into that blank space. Unless they reassign the tours he won't disappear, evidenced by the void where his name should be. You know why we can't reassign the titles so why complain. He is a CHEAT and a WINNER, just like Diego Maradona. The two cannot be separated.

The way I look at it now is a drama (or soap opera if you will) that is still exasperating, shocking and entertaining as it ever was, and it will continue for many years to come.

crazy-legs wrote:

Doping doesn't make you fast - I mean I could take all the EPO and blood transfusions going, I'd still be shit. What it does allow you to do is train much harder and recover much better, it's that which makes you fast. The rider still needs to put the work in and have the raw talent and ability to make it count.

This is a weird reading on doping. Sure, if you EPO up a donkey then you'll just get a faster donkey. But we are talking a cocktail of steroids, HGH and EPO. The Postal teams budget was off the scale. You put all those things into your donkey and actually get a thoroughbred, and it won't look like a donkey so you'll never know what it would have been.

Yes, the drugs do have a different effect on different people, and yes, you do need to train, but that doesn't make Lance great, because the truth is we don't know what was his natural state, and if he wanted to train as much as he liked, he'd pop some steroids.

Chances are we will never know when he really started popping drugs. If I was a betting man I would say he was doing steroids back in high school because that's the sort of man he is. High steroid use, of course, being a cause for testicular cancer....

farrell wrote:

I'd love to be a mediocre also ran if mediocre also ran meant being a national triathlon champion as a teenager and clocking up a few decent wins including a Tour stage in my early 20s.

It's that Colin bloke showing his ignorance again; last week he thought Dave Brailsford was a Director Sportif.
Oi, Colin. Do some research!

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I think part of the problem about Armstrong is that the scientific aspect of his wins seems so large. Evidence suggests that Armstrong was a regular pro-peloton doper before his cancer (Betsy Andreu's bedside comments withstanding) and at that point he was just an ordinary rider in the scheme of things. Basically by pushing the envelope of drug taking he won seven titles. It's not just that he doped, but the extent to how he doped - he would otherwise have been a nobody, an also-ran. So you cannot tell me that he was just like all the others. What he did probably risked his and other peoples lives.

We could also go on about self-serving lies, manipulation and bullying but that's just the nasty side of LA.....

I've been watching the Armstrong Lie - not finished yet - but one of the things that I'm not quite buying is his statement that they began doping as a group because they were getting comprehensively kicked by other teams, week in week out, while he was wearing the rainbow jersey. So, you won the Worlds clean, but get routinely battered every week? What, the rest of the peloton thoughts the Worlds wasn't worth doping for?

At the time, I was kind of on the fence with regards Lance, but it was nothing to do with denials or "never failed a test" etc. In those 7 tour wins, he never crashed, never had a mechanical (other than punctures or whatever), everything was so organised, these guys were into marginal gains before it was trendy. Contrast that with how amateur many teams are reputed to be, and the potential gap seemed vast. Then incidents like Joseba Beloki crashing and Lance just sucking it up and coming out the other side after a spell of mountain biking just seemed to illustrate that actually, this guy really can ride a bike. Ho hum, hindsight and all that.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I think part of the problem about Armstrong is that the scientific aspect of his wins seems so large. Evidence suggests that Armstrong was a regular pro-peloton doper before his cancer (Betsy Andreu's bedside comments withstanding) and at that point he was just an ordinary rider in the scheme of things. Basically by pushing the envelope of drug taking he won seven titles.

But if he was just a mediocre rider previously, why did his team choose him to be the 'the one'? If your objective is to win as much as possible, surely enhancing an already good rider would be more likely to produce the results (while also drawing less suspicion). Was Pantani a brilliant rider who didn't know the right drugs? If so, why wasn't he getting the advice that Armstrong got instead.
The truth is, nobody knows what constituted a level playing field or to what level people were being chemically assisted in those days.

JeevesBath wrote:

But if he was just a mediocre rider previously, why did his team choose him to be the 'the one'? If your objective is to win as much as possible, surely enhancing an already good rider would be more likely to produce the results (while also drawing less suspicion). Was Pantani a brilliant rider who didn't know the right drugs? If so, why wasn't he getting the advice that Armstrong got instead.
The truth is, nobody knows what constituted a level playing field or to what level people were being chemically assisted in those days.

He was a good time trialist, not amazing. But we have no concrete data as to when Armstrong first doped. From all things I've read and heard about I wouldn't be surprised if he was doing steroids back in high school - that's not an exaggeration either. What took Armstrong to the next level was Dr Michele Ferrari, a man who was at the forefront of doping. As I said Armstrong was doping before he got cancer. From what I've read he was pretty much the lead on that at Postal. So if he was getting results because of his doping he would look better than Frankie Andreu and others who didn't.

Pantani was a different kettle of fish. Evidence suggests that he was getting some assistance from Conconi I believe. The difference between the two riders was partly about advice and partly about application. Pantani's 'romantic' style meant that he did not have the aptitude for time trialling which is a more scientific approach to cycling that the 'gorilla' which is the mountains.

The problem is that doping has different effects on riders, so it could give you more of an advantage for less product than another rider. It's also the cocktail of drugs that makes a difference. A blend of steroids and EPO/blood bags is going to keep you fit, healthy and on the bike and make you strong as an ox. Things like HGH help with keeping your power up. As Tyler Hamilton says in his book, "it was about having the best chemist and we had the best around".

What I don't doubt is that Armstrong wanted it more than others. But that ruthlessness spilled over into everything. He was psychopathic. He was inhumane about it. The logical extension of where he was taking things was that riders needed to be doped to the eyeballs and take as many risks with their lives as was necessary to beat their opponents.

But even when that happened he seemed to do whatever to beat them. One of the layered messages in the Tyler Hamilton book is the suspicion that Armstrong was sabotaging Hamilton - the call from Verbruggen to discuss bloods, operation Puerto tip off. Obviously nothing is proven....but I think Hamilton looks back at these events differently because of subsequent events. He was spooked by the phone tapping and suspicion he was being followed in the run up to the USADA decision.

It's the combination of his lying and domination of a sport through that lie which is awful. If sport is a reflection of life what does this tell us? Take no prisoners, crush your enemies and do whatever it takes to win.

Quote:

It's the combination of his lying and domination of a sport through that lie which is awful. If sport is a reflection of life what does this tell us? Take no prisoners, crush your enemies and do whatever it takes to win.

The British Empire / Gaius Julius Caesar / Genghis Khan / Alexander the Great / The Roman Empire / Sparta / Conan the Barbarian.

Mongol General: What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

Sun Tzu: Art of War. Whose strategies are used by sports coaches.

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard for all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting."

George Orwell.

This can go on and on and on, sport is just a microcosm of life and to the very best, in their world it is war.

And do be honest if you don't like it, take up knitting. Ask yourself if you are so pure that your shit smells of lavender, I doubt it.

People need to grow up and lose the romanticised version of sport/cycling, I can imagine all the people who are so personally injured by LAs action (never ever meeting him) wear Rapha and drool over the Rapha videos wearing rose tinted glasses and cooing quietly to themselves why drinking an Espresso and nibbling on a pain-au-chocolat.

Can't find a smiley for it. So )))))YAWN((((( going to watch the TdF recording, and watch elite sportsmen push themselves to their limits over a few big mountains, because I love the sport, the ups and downs, the good and bad characters, the good and the bad stuff, that's what makes it so great.

And if you were a fan during LAs time and you thought it was clean then you were/are a mug, maybe that's why you are so upset

Lance Armstrong 7 times TdF winner.

Cyclist wrote:

Quote:

It's the combination of his lying and domination of a sport through that lie which is awful. If sport is a reflection of life what does this tell us? Take no prisoners, crush your enemies and do whatever it takes to win.

The British Empire / Gaius Julius Caesar / Genghis Khan / Alexander the Great / The Roman Empire / Sparta / Conan the Barbarian.

Mongol General: What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

Sun Tzu: Art of War. Whose strategies are used by sports coaches.

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard for all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting."

George Orwell.

This can go on and on and on, sport is just a microcosm of life and to the very best, in their world it is war.

And do be honest if you don't like it, take up knitting. Ask yourself if you are so pure that your shit smells of lavender, I doubt it.

People need to grow up and lose the romanticised version of sport/cycling, I can imagine all the people who are so personally injured by LAs action (never ever meeting him) wear Rapha and drool over the Rapha videos wearing rose tinted glasses and cooing quietly to themselves why drinking an Espresso and nibbling on a pain-au-chocolat.

Can't find a smiley for it. So )))))YAWN((((( going to watch the TdF recording, and watch elite sportsmen push themselves to their limits over a few big mountains, because I love the sport, the ups and downs, the good and bad characters, the good and the bad stuff, that's what makes it so great.

And if you were a fan during LAs time and you thought it was clean then you were/are a mug, maybe that's why you are so upset

Lance Armstrong 7 times TdF winner.

Oh, so you think cheating is acceptable? Bringing justice to bear is hardly a bad thing. I think you need to grow up if you do not think justice has any place in life and is a joke in sport. This isn't a crime about cycling. This is a crime about the truth, about unlevel playing fields. We can all accept that life deals us a different stack of cards, but when we are cheated, treated like idiots, robbed of the truth or bullied no one likes it. I don't kid myself that the riders are clean. I just look for a day when sport can be.