Lance Armstrong, Doper.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

They wish to be able to advertise their competitions as contests of skill or athletic ability, rather than as simple "biggest payer wins" games.

In some cases, yes. In other cases they want a freakshow. It depends on the fan. It depends on the media. Did people show up to watch the Cardinals versus the Pirates? Or did they show up to see McGuire go yard? Do people watch Olympic swimming because they can say, “Whoa! Check out Lochte’s mechanics” or do they want to see a record

People are inherently fascinated by freaks. What attracts people to many things? Freaks being freaks. People showing up to see a face or a heel. Check out Mohammed Ali. Either loved or hated. Barry Bonds – people either loved or hated him. Google Tony Mandarich – so what if the scouts and others looked at him and said, “The guy’s footwork is bad.” Hey, look at that guy on the cover of SI!

The NFL Scouting Combine? Show off the individual skills to see about drafting. Want to see somebody run a 4.3 forty yard dash? Let’s see if someone can actually hit 50 reps of 225 pound bench! And we end up with marginally skilled players who move up the draft board because they can run the 60 yard shuttle in 11 second flat.

People love teams. But we also love freaks. We love a nice sideshow.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[masterrig 1]

Thanks, for your response! Here's the part I really can't wrap my pea brain around... So, what's the deal? He passed those tests and now, they want to strip him of his medals!? I think, I'm on Armstrong's side on this. How can you fight their logic... or lack there-of?


Chuck

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Didn't Armstrong pass those tests at the time of the events he was entered in and won? Am I missing something? Does the cycling committee go-back and re-test old samples when new tests are brought about? I don't follow cycling but I have read the news stories of Armstrong's testing and passing those tests and I'm confused.


Chuck

Technically, yes, Lance passed those tests. That means that when he was tested (ie when he raced) he was clean.

Not exactly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

People love teams. But we also love freaks. We love a nice sideshow.

...and if you're a natural born freak, then I'd happily welcome them into the MLB...but if you're just a wannabe freak created by mad science, than they'd probably be better served in the FLB.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Didn't Armstrong pass those tests at the time of the events he was entered in and won? Am I missing something? Does the cycling committee go-back and re-test old samples when new tests are brought about? I don't follow cycling but I have read the news stories of Armstrong's testing and passing those tests and I'm confused.


Chuck

Technically, yes, Lance passed those tests. That means that when he was tested (ie when he raced) he was clean.

Not exactly.

Well, technically, that's pretty much it.

Now, the EPO tests were not as good as they are now, and while transfusions were not allowed, techniques existed that passed the tests without any details showing (like testing for plastics that leached from the bags or some of the anti-coagulants).

On top of that, Lance did not race much outside of the tdf, so with a good medical plan, he could train and dope plenty and still be clean during his races.

I think no one who knows much about cycling think he's clean. Hell, Strickland who was one of his biggest supported in past year came to that realization a couple years ago.

Now, whether the ADA is doing the right thing, I don't know. But there is no doubt in my mind that he was as dirty as most other riders back then.

Remster

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Thanks, for your response! Here's the part I really can't wrap my pea brain around... So, what's the deal? He passed those tests and now, they want to strip him of his medals!? I think, I'm on Armstrong's side on this. How can you fight their logic... or lack there-of?


Chuck

He didn't pass all of them. He failed a test at the TdF in 1999 which the UCI covered up through a backdated prescription and TUE. He also failed a test at the 2001 TdS. UCI covered it up in exchange for a monetary donation.

There is a reason the IOC agreed to have independent testing and prosecuting agencies. Governing bodies like the UCI are way too invested in keeping bad publicity away to trust that they would or could fairly police themselves.

This is not unique to Armstrong. UCI also tried to coverd up the Contador positive. It is also not unique to cycling. The US Olympic Committee covered up a ton of positive drug tests prior to the 1984 olympics and the track and field association (then called TAC) covered up positives from Carl Lewis and others prior to the 1988 olympics.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[masterrig 1]

Between you and Remster, I've gotten my questions answered and I appreciate it. I think, Major League Baseball should strip the records of some players who have been found guilty of 'doping'. At least, they could put an asterisk after their names!
Thanks, again.


Chuck

[AndyBoyd 0]

I read an article online about the most bizarre form of athletic cheating I've ever heard of. Athletes in the Paralymipcs who have spinal cord injuries apparently cannot get the normal blood pressure boost that comes with exercise. So in order to get that boost, they intentionally cause themselves pain before competitions by, for example, breaking their toes or blocking their cathaders. This is called "boosting", and it is against the rules, but frequently done.

http://www.businessinsider.com/boosting-paralympics-2012-8

BTW, just replying to the last post.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

UCI also tried to coverd up the Contador positive.

How so?

Contador was originally cleared by the Spanish federation. The UCI had to appeal to CAS to get him banned, in the process dragging the affair out for almost 2 years. If they were trying to avoid publicity, they did pretty much everything wrong!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[masterrig 1]

What people won't do to give them an 'edge'.


Chuck

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

UCI also tried to coverd up the Contador positive.

How so?

Contador was originally cleared by the Spanish federation. The UCI had to appeal to CAS to get him banned, in the process dragging the affair out for almost 2 years. If they were trying to avoid publicity, they did pretty much everything wrong!

You can read about it here in the original dutch or here for the google translate version.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Major League Baseball should strip the records of some players who have been found guilty of 'doping'. At least, they could put an asterisk after their names!

That’s going to be a really tall order and be pretty arbitrary. Check out McGuire – he was doping. But there were issues with it in that doping itself wasn’t provable. Prove that Sosa used a corked bat when he was hitting all those dingers in Chicago.

Go back to the 60’s and 70’s when athletes routinely used amphetamines. Nowadays those would be performance enhancers. Football players ate whites by the handful. Doc Ellis pitched a no-hitter while dosed on LSD (a performance enhancer? Worked for him)

Heck, back in the 1800s and early 1900s there were athletes hopped up on cocaine and strychnine. There was a good-sized history of cyclists dying in competition in the 1960’s, and greats like Eddie Merckx were implicated. Do we strip Eddie of his wins? Do we give him a win of the Tour de France in 1975 because he was punched out on a hill climb? How about past wrestlers and boxers dosing themselves with diuretics to lose weight prior to a weigh in?

Substance abuse and doping have occurred since before the standards and statutes were made. I think it’s tough to eliminate the dopers because they all were doping back when.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

He didn't pass all of them. He failed a test at the TdF in 1999 which the UCI covered up through a backdated prescription and TUE. He also failed a test at the 2001 TdS. UCI covered it up in exchange for a monetary donation.

As I wrote earlier, this is old news, old allegations that were never proven despite years of opportunity and attempts. I don't see reality having changed recently.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

On top of that, Lance did not race much outside of the tdf, so with a good medical plan, he could train and dope plenty and still be clean during his races.

His racing schedule usually started in February or March and was pretty solid in May and June as he built up to peak form. This is a long enough period that he couldn't dope in his preseason and use the form to coast into July. Also, there is off season testing, and cyclists have to keep the team and tester appraised of his location. Failure to do that is what got Rasmussin kicked out a few years back.

[masterrig 1]

I was watching a Cubs game, back when Sosa was playing. Sosa came-up to bat and after a couple pitches, he took a swing like I'd never seen! He hit the ball and his bat broke and there, for all the world to see was CORK! He tried later to breeze it off by saying that the bat was a 'practice bat' and it somehow got mixed-up with his 'game bats'! Bwa-hahahahahahahaha...
I think, the bad part of the 'big boys' doping is it gets to kids. High school players taking steroids and such. A few years ago, one well known high school team here in Texas, had players who sneaked across the border to Mexico to get enhancers. the big boys doping-up are not a good example to young athletes. Bottom line, it's 'cheating' but, I guess it's the old story... 'If, you ain't cheatin' you ain't trying!'


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Steroids just push some boundaries out a bit, but the effort level (maximal) is just as taxing.

Not when you can wake up feeling 100% practically every morning...who couldn't push the limits?

You have any experience here? Mine is slight- but I've had 4 cortisone shots to my shoulder as I've rehabbed it from surgery. There is definitely a considerable boost in what you can do - but it still takes your commitment to do it. Because you're not pushing the same weight at the same intensity - you're doing 20% (as a WAG) more. It's still the same 100% effort....and that's 100% of what you actually can do, not what your mind thinks it can do.

"The last three or four reps is what makes the muscle grow. This area of pain divides the champion from someone else who is not a champion. That's what most people lack, having the guts to go on and just say they'll go through the pain no matter what happens." ~ Arnold Schwarzenegger

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

but I've had 4 cortisone shots to my shoulder as I've rehabbed it from surgery.

Cortisone isn't the same as an anabolic steroid. It is an anti-inflammatory and can have a muscle wasting effect.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ryoder 1,390]

Quote

Quote

Not when you can wake up feeling 100% practically every morning...who couldn't push the limits?

You have any experience here?

Testosterone is what is used to improve overnight recovery.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Zach 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wiggins won this year purely based on the time trials.

Side issue, but no he didn't. He didn't lose time to anyone in the mountains.

Those statements are not in opposition. He didn't lose time (well, he did marginally on one, I recall). But you don't win the race keeping pace. You win the race by gaining time, and as I said, he did that in the time trials.

Well, you can discount Froome since he would never have been allowed to chase the overall win over Wiggins. If you then look at Nibali in 3rd, he lost 5'56 to Wiggins in the three TTs and was 6'19 behind overall. Take out the TT's and Wiggins beats him by 25 seconds. And if you don't discount Froome, well, he lost 2 minutes precisely in the TTs and was second by 3'21.

Just for the record.

Froome could have hurt Wiggins badly in the mountains. Almost certainly 1:22 worth. Wiggins was/is strong for sure, and I'm not saying it would have been a sure thing, but if they both had a team as strong as Sky to work for them, I think Froome would have taken it.

Zach

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Froome could have hurt Wiggins badly in the mountains. Almost certainly 1:22 worth. Wiggins was/is strong for sure, and I'm not saying it would have been a sure thing, but if they both had a team as strong as Sky to work for them, I think Froome would have taken it.

If, but, maybe. What happened, happened. If circumstances were different everything would be different.

Regardless, I disagree. Froome was very good at making it look like he was ready to attack, but I don't think he could actually have made anything stick, not that much.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

As for doping in general: legalize the safer forms of it and educate people on how to do it safely. Otherwise, there will always be a competitive advantage to cheaters, and there will always be an incentive to cheat, because the people who are doping will have the advantage. Level the playing field.

That seems a bit to me like saying we should teach people how to drive 100mph, and allow them to do so on public roadways, because some are going to do it anyway.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

As for doping in general: legalize the safer forms of it and educate people on how to do it safely. Otherwise, there will always be a competitive advantage to cheaters, and there will always be an incentive to cheat, because the people who are doping will have the advantage. Level the playing field.

That seems a bit to me like saying we should teach people how to drive 100mph, and allow them to do so on public roadways, because some are going to do it anyway.

doping is a bit of a vague term. The practice of blood doping (drawing blood in advance and then injected for the higher red blood cell count) was banned because it resulted in quite a few deaths. There's no safe way as there's no clear threshold where you're now likely to blow a gasket due to the higher pressure.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As for doping in general: legalize the safer forms of it and educate people on how to do it safely. Otherwise, there will always be a competitive advantage to cheaters, and there will always be an incentive to cheat, because the people who are doping will have the advantage. Level the playing field.

That seems a bit to me like saying we should teach people how to drive 100mph, and allow them to do so on public roadways, because some are going to do it anyway.

doping is a bit of a vague term. The practice of blood doping (drawing blood in advance and then injected for the higher red blood cell count) was banned because it resulted in quite a few deaths. There's no safe way as there's no clear threshold where you're now likely to blow a gasket due to the higher pressure.

Or when you forget to store the blood in a cold enough fridge before re-injecting it..

Do you want to have an ideagasm?