Tour de France '04

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:

quote:

---

Whether Lance uses drugs or not, certainly his performance has been sublime.

---

So winning's all that counts? The American way

---

What's uniquely American about drug-enhanced performers in major sports and other forms of entertainment? And do you actually believe if he's using drugs that his major competitors are not using them?

I'm not a huge Armstrong fan, but I say kudos to him for outgunning every other man on the planet who had equal opportunity to train, with or without drugs, to win the Tour de France six times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:

quote:

---

Whether Lance uses drugs or not, certainly his performance has been sublime.

---

So winning's all that counts? The American way

---

So are you saying that David Millar is really an American?

I certainly didn't mean that winning is the only thing.

LA's long since earned a place with Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, and...who am I forgetting here...but this year's performance gives him solid claim to pre-eminence in the TdF.

I don't think he towers above top cyclists overall. Of course, if he gets the hour record, a few classics, perhaps a Giro, a 7th TdF....

LA is doubtless not perfect, but he's shown a lot that's admirable. And a 6th TdF win is really something.

Merckx lost a 6th unfairly.

Hinault claims he could have had it, and maybe he could have taken LeMond's first win - but maybe LeMond could have taken Hinault's 5th away, so Hinault's '6th' probably would have been his 5th.

Only LA has a 6th TdF, and he earned it with a dominating, classy performance...possibly - but only possibly - marred slightly by his tactics against Simeoni.

Regards.

Phil

A very balanced assessment Phil .
On the cycling theme , Channel 4 are showing a series of short films ( 5 mins) from 27th July on people's relationships with their bikes . The series includes the fab Nicole Cooke so should be very interesting.
Cheers
Glenda

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Jones:
Tim D -

I think....Lance called Simeoni a liar because of something Simeoni said about Dr Ferrari. Simeoni took Lance to court. Dunno about the outcome.

On st18 there was a break - a potentially successful one. At some point Simeoni rode off the front to try to catch it. LA, determined that Simeoni should not get any Tour glory, sat on his wheel, and when they caught the break said "either Simeoni is not part of this break, or my team will reel it in."

As you say, LA wan't "protecting the interests of the peloton". Seems to me he frequently either confuses or disguises his own interests with those of "cycling as a whole".

Tim J

---

I though the object of competitive sporting events was to win. Am I wrong about that?

Judd

I say kudos to Lance too, but I think he can be small-minded and vindictive at times.

Judd and John - Can you imagine Indurain deliberately chasing a break in which there was absolutely no one who was anywhere near him on GC?

Of course the objective is to win. But he had already effectively won. Do you really think he chased Simeoni because he thought he was a threat? He chased him because of a personal grudge. He did the same thing last year when he sent USPS up the road to stop McEwen getting sprint points. In doing so he just tarnishes his achievement.

Tim

I can't remember exactly, but I think McEwen attacked LA over something a few years ago and they weren't on speaking terms for a while...

"GIANT STEPS ARE WHAT HE TOOK"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
What astounds me about cycling, is that anyone exposing drug use in the sport is ostracised by the peleton! To me that means there is a major cultural problem in cycling (and culture must come from the leaders like Lance Armstrong). Patronising Timmy also seems to subscribe to the 'shoot the messenger' culture.

Patronising Timmy seems to believe that you can only love the sport of cycling if you sweep the drugs issue under the carpet and suspend your disbelief: personally I think that the real TRUE lovers of cycling, are the ones that are trying to route drugs out from the sport. Lance Armstrong has done nothing to dispel concerns over drugs. If he has nothing to hide why is he not completely open about what he's doing? Why will he not discuss drugs? Why does he maintain his link with Dr Ferrari? He has always tested clean, but as we know (from Millar and others), the testing is far from infalible.

I watched the TV interview with Lance the other day, and it is clear that he is a man driven by the fear of losing: to me that makes him psychologically disposed to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to win - including lying and cheating.

And Patronising Timmy, before you start your whinging again, cycling is NOT the only sport with a drug problem, but AFAIK, two blacks never make a white.

---

1. Where is this 'shoot the messenger' thing? I realise you think, in your pompous way, that you have great tidings for us - but here's the thing: we've heard it before. In fact you seem to have nothing to say whatsoever about any other aspect of cycling other than drugs.

2. No, I don't believe you can only love cycling if you sweep the drug issue under the carpet. I'm pretty worried/angry by Amstrong's zipper lip signal to the peloton after the Simeoni incident, and deeply depressed by the Millar episode.

3. Have you ever raised the drugs issue in any other thread on a sport which you 'enjoy'? Such as football or athletics? Or is it just cycling? I'd be interested to know.

4. Clearly, er, Michael Owen really, really wants to win. So he must be on drugs then. It's a bit of a crap argument, isn't it? Maybe Lance dopes. I hope to God he doesn't, but perhaps also his will to win is what drives him to train longer and harde than aynone else.

As I said originally, if it's all so awful and cycling is such a hopeless sport, please feel free to go and watch something else and leave the rest of us with our naive and silly enjoyment.

Tim

Patrick

If you have any corroborated evidence that Lance Armstrong takes performance enhancing drugs then lets see it.

If everyone in cycling takes drugs then Lance's achievements are still great;

if no-one in cycling takes drugs (yeah, right) then his achievements are still great;

if he does (but there is no proof that he does)then he is a cheat

if some do, and he does not, his achievements are outstanding;

cheers

Nigel

Patrick

"But as I said before, IMV it is up to LA to do everything in his power to reassure the public and the cycling authorities that he's completely clean."

He has always denied it; he has never tested positive.

What more can he reasonably do?

What would you have him do?

cheers

Nigel

With cycling (probably briefly) in such a public gaze isn't it time for a sort of Truth Commission? The sport could do with an enormous washing of dirty linen in public-or it will die under weight of suspicion and innuendo.

Whatever doping is done I'd suggest that it rarely allows an athlete to perform way above their ability. EPO and blood doping for example is effectively 'controlled' by the monitoring of haematocrit on a daily basis so the potential performance gain is restricted. Wether LA is clean or not I think we should dispel the myth that using drugs could have made him the outstanding athlete he is. Cheating it may be, but a substitute for ability, hard work and dedication-no.

Bruce

All this talk about drugs can't take way the fact that cycling in the Tour De France is a gruelling exercise

Lance Armstrong's achievement of 6 wins is testament to his sporting ability.

The average person doesn't have anywhere near the ability of him or any of the riders who complete the three weeks; clean or otherwise.

To quote Patrick above : "These guys ARE all great athletes and stupidly brave". I couldn't agree more.

Patrick

Is there any athletic sport which you believe is clean? If so which and why?

Has Lance Armstrong offended you personally in the past? Has he sued your arse perhaps?

Are you on drugs? - a denial will not, of course, be believed.

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

I'm not a great fan of either golf or snooker, but it seems to me that many other sports could learn a lot from the 'code of honesty' that prevails within them. In golf at least, that's backed up by draconian penalties for those that do transgress - even by accident.

---

Uh, yeah. I mean think of the pressure those golfers and snooker players must be under to take performance enhancing drugs to enhance their athletic abilities. The fact that no one does must surely be because of this 'code of honesty'.

Tim

Yawn. Let's go over this ground a few more times shall we. Gizomgirl is spot on.

Dan

and the thing about EPO is that it isn't much different to training at altitude. I'm not saying it should be allowed because of the danger of running blood like treacle, but it doesn't seem quite the same as being pilled out of your head.

But surely one trick is better than none at all, Dan?

(Failing miserably to not take the bait)

Patrick,

Seven months ago we went over this topic in the thread '2004 TDF' and I don't see anything new here. Look over this thread and you will see I quit contributing after you hijacked it. Your contributions certainly took away the pleasure I had in discussing the Tour with other members.

cheers,

Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:

quote:

---

Are you on drugs? - a denial will not, of course, be believed.

---

WTF has that got to do with it? If you pay me the amount of money Lance is earning you can spend 24/7 with me for a year and test me 5 times a day. You'd get very bored, but I'm definitely clean.

quote:

---

Uh, yeah. I mean think of the pressure those golfers and snooker players must be under to take performance enhancing drugs to enhance their athletic abilities. The fact that no one does must surely be because of this 'code of honesty'.

---

Honesty in sport is obviously an alien concept to you Tim, but drugs are of course only one form of cheating. I guess you cheat if you think you can get away with it.

---

Patrick - try getting a sense of humour, or irony or, come to think of it, a view of the world that has more than one dimension.

The next time you see a thread that has anything to do with road racing, why not just have the good grace to let us enjoy discussing it, without assuming that we all need to hear your wise words once again.

Thanks

Tim

"Michael Owen comes across as a slightly less 'fear driven' individual"

So do drug cheats like Jaap Stam, Rio Ferdinand and Edgar Davids.

(The real reason Owen doesn't take drugs is becuase he is scared his Mum wont let him).

"and football as a sport is not quite so dominated by physique and strength as, say, cycling"

Football is played over a long hard season though and there is plenty of scope for drug abuse to allow one to carry on playing, play through injury, do extra training, etc.

Somehting I always wondered -- like many nany footballers, Freddie Flintoff had a Cortisone injection in his ankle last week so he could play through an injury. How come this sort of steroid injection is ok but others aren't, even though people like Ian St. John can barely walk now from pumping their knees full of the cortisone in the 60s?

Matthew

quote:

---

(The real reason Owen doesn't take drugs is becuase he is scared his Mum wont let him).

---

And because his Mum would stop doing his washing.

quote:

---

even though people like Ian St. John can barely walk now from pumping their knees full of the cortisone in the 60s?

---

At least it keeps him off the TV.

Matthew

Steroids used for anti-inflammatory purposes are a different group of drugs to the anabolic steroids used to gain muscle mass etc. In fact the steroids used in joint injections etc cause muscle loss if given systemically.

Steroid injections are undeniably 'abused' in terms of exposing athletes to uncertain future risk and allowing them to compete with injuries but they are not performance-enhancers and therefore not 'banned substances'. Injections given to athletes are not always steroid, long acting local anaesthetics are sometimes given to mask the pain from an injury-done quite often for broken fingers for batsmen for instance.

The evidence for drugs actually improving sporting performance is pretty variable, it is really endurance aerobic sport (cycling, running, X country ski-iing) and pure power events (weight lifting, sprinting) where the benefits are likely to be greatest. Football probably has less potential for successful illicit performance enhancement as it is skill based and does not require extreme physical fitness.

Complicated and fascinating subject.

Bruce

"Apparently, everyone in the media knows why he missed the test, and it had nothing to do either with drugs or him forgetting"

The unfounded and almost certainly untrue and potetnially libellous rumours about Rio are that he likes the odd line of Finest Colombian and missed the test to avoid this becoming public knowledge. One of his friends from his Peckham days is said to be a "party fixer" (a euphemism for the sort of man who can supply a suite in a 5 star london hotel complete with piles of drugs and a handful of groupies/East European prostitutes).

"There's always been a distinction between 'legitimate medication' and 'performance enhancing drugs'"

So Cortisone to reduce inflamtion that is preventing you training/playing is "legitimate medication" but EPO to boost your red blood cells so you can continue training when "exhausted" is "performance enhancing"? Morally it seems to be splitting hairs to say the lesat.

"I was reading something recently about a baseball star who hit his record home runs (or something-or-other) whilst full of some drug which had been banned by every serious sport (probably even Golf and Snooker, Tim Wink) - but not Baseball!"

Mark McGuire broke the most famous record in Baseball in 1998 while taking a "nutritional supplement" called Androstenedione (a natural hormone that bosts Testosterone levels) which was then legal in Baseball but banned by everyone else.

Baseball has no drug testing and no agreement between the players and the league about testing and banning. The players argue that it is an invasion of privacy for the league to test and effectively professional Baseball players can take more or less what they like with impunity although negotiations about introducing testing are ongoing (sort of). I think there was talk of players being banned for some short period of time after testing postitive like 5 times or something. They also did some random anonymous testing last year and something like 5% of the samples came up positive for steroids. Exactly who these people are remains unknown (although the league knows).

Baseball's equivalent to Armstrong is Barry Bonds who is the best player (possibly the best player ever) and freakishly big and strong compared to how he was in his earlier career and has some kind of links with trainers who worked for BALCO. Rumours and innuendo dog him much like they dog Armstrong. He maintains his innocence.

Matthew

Patrick

"Nigel's tried to make the question about me"

You really don't get it, do you?

To labour the point, because you obviously are not the sharpest tool in the box (and a denial will not be believed), is that it is easy to accuse anyone of anything, based on prejudice, envy, spite, whatever, and to disbelieve their expression of innocence (despite no proof of guilt) for the same reasons.

Were you once a witchfinder?

cheers

Nigel

So Cortisone to reduce inflamtion that is preventing you training/playing is "legitimate medication"

Speaking of cortisone, I seem to recall that there was a big uproar when Armstrong used a cortisone cream for a crotch rash developed during a particularly hot and sticky Tour. The French press were all over him for that.

There's little wiggle room in the Tour for administering drugs for legitimate reasons. There's probably less room than any other sport, because of the intense scrutiny, and probably any drug can have some performance effect. One year Vaughters dropped out because they would not let him take something when his face balooned up from a bee sting and was causing breathing difficulties. I imagine tha epinephrine used to treat anaphylactic shock was on the list of performance enhancing drugs. There's justice for you -- 6+ months training down the tubes for a bug bite.

Dan