Szyjakowski Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 The caluculating Lance, will most likely win number seven...infukinconceivable... Col du Galibier (2646m) cool page about the big hill this year Quote
selkirk Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 look at those legs! Shaved Somebody's Envious Quote
Dru Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 get real selkirk, the boy's a dope monkey.. i bet he'd still have both balls today if he wasn't using the juice. Quote
Cobra_Commander Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 actually what he is saying is "check it out just because I'm riding this bike I get to wear the most flaming gay attire available" Quote
b-rock Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 get real selkirk, the boy's a dope monkey.. i bet he'd still have both balls today if he wasn't using the juice. And yet despite a level of scrutiny not seen in any other sport, he's never tested positive... Quote
Cobra_Commander Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 All the tourists de france are on something. It's just a matter of what and how much. Quote
Dru Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 get real selkirk, the boy's a dope monkey.. i bet he'd still have both balls today if he wasn't using the juice. And yet despite a level of scrutiny not seen in any other sport, he's never tested positive... exactly.. he is winning because he's got the winning team of doctors. Quote
mec Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I think this is all bs, why can there not be a good cycler out there that can just kick the butt out of everybody else. Are we going to say that Sharma, Potter, Viesturs, Graham, and the other climbers that climb better than the rest of us are on something as well. Lance is the man, I am sure his diet and vitamin regimen is very regulated, but I doubt there are any 'roids in there. #7 is going to happen! Quote
Dru Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I think this is all bs, why can there not be a good cycler out there that can just kick the butt out of everybody else. Are we going to say that Sharma, Potter, Viesturs, Graham, and the other climbers that climb better than the rest of us are on something as well. Lance is the man, I am sure his diet and vitamin regimen is very regulated, but I doubt there are any 'roids in there. #7 is going to happen! Lets put it this way. Most drugs climbers use hinder rather than enhance performance. The level playing field exists and those who excel do so because they have natural talent. The same is not true of the Olympics, or the Tour de France. Doping is widespread in these sports. The playing field is not level. In order for Lance to be beating his opponents through his postulated inherent ability, he must first be doped up to their level, in order to counteract the benefits they gain from being doped. Quote
mec Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Interesting argument, but how many people are climbing 5.14s today. A whole heck of a lot more than there was 10 years ago. The playing field is not so level, it just keeps getting higher and higher. 10 years ago, climbing 5.14 was news worthy. Today you have to be 8 years old to make news climbing a 5.14. How many of these people who climb 5.14 are climbing that due to natural talent. If we use your argument, not many of them. So, for Sharma and Graham and a few others to be climbing 5.15, they must be doping right? They do this to stay ahead of the pack, stay in the news to get their sponsership. I don't think so. However, I might just be hoping that there are true sportsman out there. What I have read and seen about Armstrong and cycling, is that he has more sportsmanship than anybody in the standard three pro sports here in the US (basketball, baseball, and football). Quote
jon Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 The same is not true of the Olympics, or the Tour de France. Doping is widespread in these sports. The playing field is not level. In order for Lance to be beating his opponents through his postulated inherent ability, he must first be doped up to their level, in order to counteract the benefits they gain from being doped. And what evidence do you have that suggests this? Quote
cj001f Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 What I have read and seen about Armstrong and cycling, is that he has more sportsmanship than anybody in the standard three pro sports here in the US (basketball, baseball, and football). The same Lance who slammed his former team, because they asked him to take a physical before they'd pay his salary. The same Lance who preaches loyalty, but dumped his wife for Sheryl Crow after 3 children. It goes on. The guys no saint, as much as the US press loves to treat him like one. Quote
Dru Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Booknoise: What about the allegations of Armstrong’s doping? Are people out to get him, or is there actually something to these charges? Coyle: Going into the book, I hadn’t hoped or planned on spending much time on the doping question. Doping is part of the shadow-side of bike racing or any sport—facts are often murky, contentious, hard-to-prove, and stories tend to end up in a courtroom or a lab. Plus, I had the sense that I probably wouldn’t find anything new. As a relative outsider to the sport, I thought I knew the routine. People—sneaky French journalists, it seemed—accuse Armstrong, Armstrong denies, there’s no proof. It didn’t exactly increase my interest to know that Armstrong had a well-practiced habit of suing people who questioned his integrity on the subject. As it turned out, doping was a subplot of the bike-racing season—there was David Walsh’s book, Tyler Hamilton’s shocking positive test result, Armstrong trainer Dr. Michele Ferrari’s guilty verdict, and, as the season ended, a flurry of lawsuits between Armstrong and his former personal assistant, Mike Anderson. But to me, these weren’t just stories—they were people whom I’d gotten to know during the season, people whom I found utterly fascinating. And after two years of research, all I can say for certain is this: the doping issue has been around Armstrong and cycling for a long time, and it’s probably never going to disappear. I found that, as a relative outsider to the sport, there was a lot about cycling that I didn’t know—not all of it pretty. In my book, I try to share that information so that people can come to their own decision. Booknoise: What are the facts? Coyle: They fall into two categories. On the one hand, you’ve got Armstrong’s spotless record: 150-odd doping tests over the past six years, all clean. You’ve got the fact that he donates money to testing programs, that he’s probably the most-tested athlete in the history of sports, that his $20 million in endorsements would end if he tested positive. You’ve got the fact that some journalists would clearly love to nail Armstrong. You’ve also got the sheer epic stakes of the present situation. As Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, put it, “Can you imagine what would happen if Lance tested positive? Can you imagine what would happen if it turns out we’re screwing with people on this?” On the other hand, you’ve got the fact that doping is inseparable from bike racing. (If you’re interested, check out The Crooked Path to Victory: Drugs and Cheating in Professional Bike Racing, by Les Woodland.) In 2004 alone, three current and former world champions were busted for dope, one team was nearly disbanded, and several pro cyclists went public with detailed, harrowing stories of doping practices on their teams, including one who said he was given a substance designed for anemic dogs. What would people say about the NBA if Kobe, Shaq, and Tim Duncan all tested positive in a single year? If a bunch of them died of heart attacks—as eight cyclists did in 2003-4? You’ve also got the accounts accumulated by David Walsh, who spent two years trying to prove Armstrong might be a doper. His book, L.A. Confidentiel, came out on the eve of the 2004 Tour. It was 375 pages, and it went into exhaustive (and exhausting) detail. (See this link for more detail on Walsh’s allegations.) Walsh has his own backstory—he’s anything but objective about doping, and people have pointed out that his personality resembles Armstrong’s, most particularly in stubbornness. But the accounts Walsh unearths–including testimony from seemingly credible ex-teammates, Armstrong’s former masseur—are interesting and detailed. Those accounts, it must be pointed out, are not clearcut proof of any wrongdoing—which is part of the reason, along with the inevitability of lawsuit, that the book was published only in France. So maybe it will turn out that all these accounts are made-up, fantastic tales, vindictive baloney from disgruntled people. Walsh and his sources knew full well he was going to be sued—that’s part of what makes it so interesting. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.