Floyd Landis

A strange fellow, for sure. I don't really rate him as a source of reliable information. He is definitely too conflicted and possibly delusional and in need of psychological help.

If you think that Armstrong was taking some form of very advanced undetectable substance and look at the PR evidence against, it could be contrived.

I remember seeing a documentary of him training in Spain, they showed him doing a mountain over and over and over and over again. His trainer then said, that's what makes Lance a champion.

You can attribute his superhuman strength to his cancer survival experiences, but when you know that cycling has been the dirtiest sport out there when it comes to doping, there will always be doubt for Lance, innocent or not.

Too many champions have been outed as dopers, some have have even committed suicide.

Seriously how can any human perform at that level for three weeks ?

quote:

Originally posted by shoot6x7:
Seriously how can any human perform at that level for three weeks ?

Well, "level" is a relative term. Relative to what other humans can do. Riding a bike over those distances for three weeks, even in that terrain is achievable by most people with some training. It comes down to the speed at which they can do it. The winner will, by definition, always be riding at a "level" above the person who comes second. That is what makes them the winner. Sorry to state the obvious.

Yes, they ride the climbs at about TWICE the speed of a club cyclist, and relative to the average punter, the performances are very impressive. But in what field of human endeavour is this not the case? Could the average tennis player take a point, let alone a game or set from Federer? Go play some one-on-one with Kobe Bryant (basketball, I mean - get your head out of the gutter) and see how you get on. How far ahead of the rest of us are the best mathematicians? The best artists? The best chess players?

The pointy end of human performance is way, way out there. The best are MUCH MUCH better than us. This is not evidence of cheating. It is just the way it is.

Looks like he's trying to take down all and sundry too. Lance, Leipheimer, Bruyneel etc. After he's spent $2M on trying to clear himself I guess he is trying to get his money back.

Guess he needs some money, not a source I would trust.

quote:

Originally posted by nap-ster:
Looks like he's trying to take down all and sundry too. Lance, Leipheimer, Bruyneel etc. After he's spent $2M of other peoples' money on trying to clear himself I guess he is trying to get his money back.

The 'Floyd Fairness Fund'. What a joke.

I have a healthy skepticism ...

The reputation of pro-cycling has been damaged over the last ten-years. I really can't imagine what they can do to clear this.

I used to have faith in Mr Armstrong, defending him to friends and so on. Now I have to put my hand on my heart and say I really don't know either way.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
The pointy end of human performance is way, way out there. The best are MUCH MUCH better than us. This is not evidence of cheating. It is just the way it is.

Agreed. Elite athletes in every sport are freaks of nature. It's one of the main reasons I enjoy watching them - I know that no amount of training could get me there. And I say this as someone who raced (mile, 5k, 10k) at a fairly high level, years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
The pointy end of human performance is way, way out there. The best are MUCH MUCH better than us. This is not evidence of cheating. It is just the way it is.

Agreed. Elite athletes in every sport are freaks of nature. It's one of the main reasons I enjoy watching them - I know that no amount of training could get me there. And I say this as someone who raced (mile, 5k, 10k) at a fairly high level, years ago.

It is only by participating at a serious level in these sports do we even get a clue how good the greats really are. I used to run semi-competitively, too. When people suggest that marathoners don't look to be running that hard, I challenge them to go to their local track and try to run just one kilometre in 3 minutes. Then think about doing 42 of them at that speed!

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
It is only by participating at a serious level in these sports do we even get a clue how good the greats really are. I used to run semi-competitively, too. When people suggest that marathoners don't look to be running that hard, I challenge them to go to their local track and try to run just one kilometre in 3 minutes. Then think about doing 42 of them at that speed!

Now that is an incredible feat ... I've only seen a 30km run in person, the winner was running at a pace that bettered most club runners 400m pace !!

I didn't know who this person was until I followed the reports on 'PTI' and 'Around The Horn' on the ESPN webcasts.

He does not sound like a likeable person, but then as they pointed out the same was said about the baseball played who broke the steroids abuse scandal that has rocked baseball the last few years.

Regardless of individual guilt, and blame, there was an interesting point made by Michael Wilbon.

'Do we care if our sports players use drugs to enhance their game?'

I must say that I do, but I do know that what can give positive tests are often things that you and I would take for granted. Many medicines we use contain steroids, but we use them as they solve an irritation or illness.

What causes many sports players to retire is the constant dieting they have to follow, and the fact they can not take a spray to clear a blocked or runny nose, or similar medicines that everyone else takes to ease their lives.

I know the problem was started by the misuse of such chemical/medicines to enhance play, rather than for their intended use.

That said, one of the things in sport is the bettering of old records, and I do feel that the misuse of performance enhancing drugs makes a mockery of that.

I am certainly of the opinion that Barry Bonds should have an asterisk next to his home run hitting record in baseball, as he set it by not playing to the same set of rules of those he surpassed.

It is an interesting question though, should a player be allowed to take what they want to enhance their ability to play a game, it could make for a more exciting game for the spectator, or do we want to see yesterday and today's players on an even field?

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
do we want to see yesterday and today's players on an even field?

Afraid the field is already irrevocably out of level. Advances in materials - better shoes, better balls, better playing surfaces, better bats/gloves/tires/pucks/pads/whatever - as well as advances in the production, training, maintenance, and repair of the athletes themselves, already make it meaningless to compare, say, Bob Beamon's 8.90 meter long jump in '68 to Mike Powell's 8.95 meter effort that broke it, and only about a quarter century separated the two. When it comes to comparing Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth, or Walter Payton and Jim Thorpe - athletes separated by the better part of a century of medicine and technology - it's really apples and oranges territory in my opinion, even without bioactive substance-based enhancements factored in.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL_v2:

It is an interesting question though, should a player be allowed to take what they want to enhance their ability to play a game, it could make for a more exciting game for the spectator, or do we want to see yesterday and today's players on an even field?

I think one of the major issues with drugs is the extent to which they discourage participation at the grass roots level. Parents may be unwilling to encourage their spawn into sports like cycling where drugs are very high-profile.

Both good points, and I agree, totally.

Jayd you quite right, all the advances in sport technology, the money put into better maintenance and building of sports stadiums, even better knowledge of diet.

One area which concerns me about the misuse of drugs in sport is that it is very likely that junior or student athletes could be taking steroids in order to build their body up playing in an area where drug testing does not happen, knowing they can gain the advantage at that point, and doing so at a time that allows them to be clean on drug tests when they enter the higher levels of their chosen sport.

I do think the question Mike Wilbon raised 'do we care if sports players use drugs' is an interesting one, and was worth posting here.