11/21/24
May 31, 2006
Armstrong cleared of doping during 1999 Tour de France: The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August 2005 that Armstrong's urine samples from 1999 came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004. According to independent Dutch investigators, L'Equipe had the story wrong.
posted by The_Black_Hand to other at 08:10 AM - 69 comments
A timely good new story, considering the current furore in Spain where the Liberty Seguros team director was arrested in what looks to be a huge doping ring (200+ names, supposedly).
posted by afx237vi at 08:36 AM on May 31, 2006
Just one more reason to hate the French. They can't handle that an American is the greatest ever in their sport.
posted by jpeterson at 08:39 AM on May 31, 2006
Please can this thread not turn into a pathetic French-bashing exercise? It's incredibly lame and been done a million times before.
posted by afx237vi at 08:43 AM on May 31, 2006
Tons of allegations + a newspaper revealing the "truth" = a bunch of nothing.
posted by bperk at 09:02 AM on May 31, 2006
"Duh, let's all hate da French. I never done did been der. Also, When I pick my nose - I poke my brain." However, good for Lance. Give 'em a hearty "Kiss my yellow-shirt wearing ass".
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:05 AM on May 31, 2006
Tons of allegations + a newspaper revealing the "truth" = a bunch of nothing. While you probably should be right here, I think that with the current atmosphere in the world of athletics about doping, there has developed a certain guilty until proven innocent mentality. I think that is why this is actually fairly important, not only for Lance, but for many people who had an emotional investment in him.
posted by everett at 09:06 AM on May 31, 2006
So I'm the only one to think this wire story is really light on details? We get the conclusion of the report, and no explanation as to how this conclusion is reached. If you find a more comprehensive story, I'll be glad if you post it.
posted by qbert72 at 09:13 AM on May 31, 2006
Just one more reason to hate the French. They can't handle that an American is the greatest ever in their sport. Oh, and by the way, because I'm in a bad mood today, anyone who thinks Armstrong is the "greatest ever" cyclist is a complete dumbass who knows nothing about the sport of cycling.
posted by afx237vi at 09:14 AM on May 31, 2006
I can only assume you would argue that Merckx is better, possibly Hinault, but that would be a VERY tough argument. I think that margin of victory, and the sheer dominance that Armstrong has displayed put him at number one for me, certainly above Hinault, and above Merckx as well. I think that Armstrong's decision to concentrate on the one race per year has probably all in all made people weary to put him on that pedestal, but seriously... 7 in a row!
posted by everett at 09:23 AM on May 31, 2006
Merckx, obviously. No question. Hinault, definitely. 5 Tours, 3 Giro, 2 Vuelta, all 3 jerseys in the Tour, 1 rainbow jersey, 2 Liege-Bastogne-Liege, 2 Lombardia, and a Paris-Roubaix. That's some record. Of course 7 Tours is phenomenal, but apart from a rainbow jersey in his pre-cancer years, the rest of his palmares is a little sparse. Also, I'd throw in Fausto Coppi, who won 2 Tours, 5 Giros, 5 Lombardia, 3 Milan-Sanremo and a Paris-Roubaix - and that's with 5 whole years of his career being wiped out by WWII.
posted by afx237vi at 09:37 AM on May 31, 2006
Tons of allegations + a newspaper revealing the "truth" = a bunch of nothing. You know, replace "newspaper" with "book" and I swear I've seen this somewhere before...
posted by grum@work at 09:38 AM on May 31, 2006
one has to wonder if more of the best riders will reserve strength, and ride less. It certainly seems possible, and the reason Lance was able to do it, is because of the enormous endorsements he was able to secure.
posted by everett at 09:43 AM on May 31, 2006
you had to say it grum...
posted by everett at 09:44 AM on May 31, 2006
one has to wonder if more of the best riders will reserve strength, and ride less. It certainly seems possible, and the reason Lance was able to do it, is because of the enormous endorsements he was able to secure. Well, so far this season the exact opposite seems to be happening. Ivan Basso began his season in late February and has been winning ever since, and will go into the Tour attempting to do the first Giro-Tour double since 1998 - something Armstrong never attempted. Jan Ullrich even entered the Giro this year, winning a stage, and Floyd Landis has also won three major races. Valverde has also won two classics. Lance retires and all of a sudden it's like, woah, you mean there are other races?!
posted by afx237vi at 09:52 AM on May 31, 2006
Lance retires and all of a sudden it's like, woah, you mean there are other races?! I think in actuality most Americans will simply go back to not regarding cycling as a sport worthy of any discussion now that Lance is gone. He had to win four tours before anyone cared before.
posted by everett at 09:57 AM on May 31, 2006
I was referring the riders, who are riding more often, not to the casual fan, who still doesn't know there is more to cycling than the Tour. And in truth, I don't think your average American (or indeed Brit) regarded cycling as a sport worthy of discussion even when Lance was at the peak of his powers. They were more interested in the saccharine cancer storyline, the romance with Sheryl Crow, and the excuse to bash the French.
posted by afx237vi at 10:08 AM on May 31, 2006
Yeah, well I think a (small but measurable) percentage of Americans who never considered cycling to be a viable spectator sport before the Lance Era might turn on the OLN/Versus network and stop and watch it, where before they wouldn't even dream of such a thing. Is cycling going to replace the NFL or NCAA? No. Is March Madness going to fade in the rising face of July Madness for the Tour? Not a chance. But. Do more Americans know what a peloton is, how a Tour-type race works, and who the top names in the sport are, than ten (or even five) years ago? Without question. (Oh, and in cycling history terms, Eddy Merckx is a cross between Babe Ruth and the Beatles. There were greats before him, but he was a rock star who transcended the sport, and changed it forever. Lance won a lot of Tours de France, and history will remember him quite fondly for it. But Merckx was a far more complete racer than Lance or even Hinault or anyone else. His accomplishments dwarf those of anyone else.)
posted by chicobangs at 10:13 AM on May 31, 2006
I think the focus on the French is funny to me since that particular country has gone 20 TDFs without a champion. Ten of those have gone American riders. Something tells me that the French playa hating had less to do with hatred of the U.S. and more about the timing. I think Armstrong would have been less of a target if not for French favorite Richard Virenque getting busted along with his team in '98. Everyone became suspect at that point. As for reserving energy, do the Italian riders actually have the choice of skipping the Giro without getting strung up? That's definitely a burden that American riders don't have. Finally, I'm a little puzzled by OLN's decision to relegate the other grand tours to weekly recaps and PPV webcasts, when I'm not sure that their morning programming is all that compelling.
posted by jackhererra at 10:59 AM on May 31, 2006
Ahh, but zee French, zey provide us vith zo many bashing opportunities, no?
posted by mjkredliner at 11:00 AM on May 31, 2006
Here's my guess as to what OLN's doing: In the last year, they've changed their programming a lot, just by taking on the NHL (two dedicated nights of games per week during the season, as well as the half-dozen hockey-themed dramatic series and documentary collections that they've been running most other nights), and given that cycling was their biggest ticket before this, and given that Lance left the stage in the middle of the whole operation, they decided to add the "second biggest" tour event and go with two this year, to see if cycling would "take" with what I reckon they suspect is their core audience. If the ratings for the Giro are good enough, I suspect they'll add to their cycling programming as they continue their full-scale rebranding of the network in the coming year. (I've been watching, and it's no less compelling without Lance in the mix.)
posted by chicobangs at 11:08 AM on May 31, 2006
IMO Lance has certainly helped push pro cycling more into the mainstream not just in the US but throughout the world. Because of his immense talent and very compelling story (and personality) he has a lot of star power. Regardless of whether people love or hate him - they know who he is. That said he is not the best cyclist ever. Not even close. He is, however, the best Tour de France rider ever. The Tour was essentially the only race Lance competed in - his entire season (and career) were always based on the Tour. Other riders such as Merckx and Hinault and Coppi (as afx237vi mentioned) not only won multiple Tours but also other Grand Tours and Spring classics. It will be interesting to see if Basso (who completely annihilated the field in this year's Giro) will be able to win the Tour. Whatever happens this year's Tour is sure to be a lot more exciting without having a clear favorite. As for Lance being a doper or not. It's still my opinion that he (and the majority of the pro peloton) used some sort of performance enhancing drugs or methods. Lance was (is) close to an Italian doctor who pioneered the micro-dosing of EPO which is undetectable to tests. Another good indicator that doping in cycling is very widespread is the implication of Manolo Saiz, a very respected manager of the former Liberty Seguros team, and a slew of Spanish (and other) riders.
posted by JohnSFO at 11:26 AM on May 31, 2006
I wonder if Lance is going to go a'suing now? He's certainly got the goods to make a rather sweet retirement settlement, if he wants it. I'm sure he's making/made plenty already but still, he knew he was clean and his name was being dragged through the mud. He should, at least, sue for L'Equipe's extra profits they made selling more issues because of the lies they created about him, that seems justified. chico, Merckx, if I recall stood by Lance when he was accused.
posted by fenriq at 12:05 PM on May 31, 2006
Ahh, but zee French, zey provide us vith zo many bashing opportunities, no? oh oui!
posted by Bill Lumbergh at 12:07 PM on May 31, 2006
fenriq, I believe you're right. Eddy has had Lance's back through this whole process, as have all the historical champions I've heard on the subject (except for Greg Lemond, but -- yeah). What the failure of this investigation means is that Lance Armstrong is pretty much free and clear from here on in. If a screwed-up double-blind test from Lance's first winning year is the best the witch-hunters can come up with, and that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then I'm willing to conclude that at least officially, Lance was as clean as everyone else. Sure, everyone gets away with what they can get away with. (Everyone. Not just cyclists and ballplayers. You, me, everyone.) But as of now, at least in my mind, the cloud over Lance's accomplishments is dissipating. And unless Sheryl Crow writes a tell-all book about how she personally injected horse hormones into Lance's pituitary gland or something, I'm pretty much done with this conversation.
posted by chicobangs at 12:15 PM on May 31, 2006
L'Equipe sounds like ill-equipped to me.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:40 PM on May 31, 2006
Maybe my comments on the OLN coverage were misunderstood. OLN's "Cyclism Sundays" was the only access to the 2006 Giro d'Italia, unless you shelled out $20 to watch it on your PC. Thankfully, I believe the Tour will be televised live as it has been in previous years. My guess on the Vuelta and the World Championships would be that they'll be on cycling.tv, as was the case with the Giro. I understand that things are a'changing at OLN, but most of their hockey programming is at night, meaning that there's no conflict if cycling coverage is shown during the morning. The other impediment would be the cost of covering the event versus the benefit. According to a 2004 interview with Velonews, "it turns out the return is better when the network airs an 'American Shooter' rerun." However, one would think that a major event in an emerging sport would have more potential than "American Shooter" reruns.
posted by jackhererra at 01:02 PM on May 31, 2006
Suing L'Equipe only keeps the story alive. I gotta wonder how much money that is worth to Lance, as he could get bit in the ass if he pursues the matter - not just as a result of the continued association between he and EPO (regardless of the fact that he was vindicated) but also due to the naysayers and their continued accusations, which certainly would not go away...
posted by MW12 at 01:24 PM on May 31, 2006
Lance retires and all of a sudden it's like, woah, you mean there are other races?! I know. In some ways, it's pretty cool not having Lance around. And OLN is doing recaps of the Dauphiné Libéré as well, which, y'know, is more than you'd expect.
posted by etagloh at 03:14 PM on May 31, 2006
While I know it's popular to bash the French, you make us look more idiotic in the eyes of the rest of the world when you say stupid shit like that. Yes, we saved their foie gras in World War II, but if it weren't for them, the concept of American democracy, as well as the shape of our nation, would likely be very different. Don't forget, mon ami, it was the French who allied with us against the British in a little skirmish that became known as the American Revolution; It was the French who sold us the Louisiana Territory in 1803, enabling the fledgling United States room to expand westward. Napoleon still could have fought us over the rights to the territory, which would have been bad news for both countries, as the Spanish and British would've gladly watched us knock each other silly; That lady that stands in New York Harbor, the one with the torch? She was designed in part by Gustave Eiffel, the same man who designed the Eiffel Tower, and was a gift from the French in recognition of the friendship between our two countries. You would be wise to recognize the French for what they have been, still are, and will probably be for some time: a valuable ally to this country, regardless of occasional disagreements over our foreign policies.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:22 PM on May 31, 2006
It was funny that halfway up the board the B-word almost, allllllmost made it into the thread. Glad it didn't though, it's getting tiresome to talk about. As for Lance, well, to think he never took anything at all is very hard to believe. Kudos to him for never being caught and for proving that in this situation he was clean. But with the incredible masking technology available to the dopers out there, it's probable that Lance, with the money of his team behind him, used the best to keep his drug use under the radar. Now if he didn't, then I apologize, but I find it hard to believe he didn't. I hope for his sake it doesn't come out some day that he did dope because he would look like a worse ass than the B-word boy because of Lance's holier-than-thou pronouncement about himself and this issue. In regards to cycling, I am, unfortunately, one of those ignorant Americans who has no clue about the overall scope of the sport. Thanks to all of the posters who have enlightened me with their knowledge. It's interesting to read about the different races, the racers who have dominated, etc.
posted by donnnnychris at 04:08 PM on May 31, 2006
You know, replace "newspaper" with "book" and I swear I've seen this somewhere before.. especially when that "book" was written by a bunch of news columnists Funny how so many on this thread are expressing "vindication" for Lance, yet jury's already out for Mr. Bonds. It's a shame Barry doesn't have the independant Dutch doing an investigation for him.
posted by bdaddy at 06:58 AM on June 01, 2006
That's it. The B-word has been said.
posted by qbert72 at 07:02 AM on June 01, 2006
Haha...my friend and I have a running argument over this very topic. I say Barry and Lance's cases are very similar except for how the media treats Lance's innocence as compared to Bonds. Bdaddy, you are very right. Lance is innocent until proven guilty while Bonds is guilty until proven innocent. I guess if you kiss a few media asses then you get the benefit of the doubt.
posted by donnnnychris at 07:10 AM on June 01, 2006
That's it. The B-word has been said. I feel a bit guilty about lighting the fuse for that so early in the thread. I was surprised it took that long to go off.
posted by grum@work at 12:33 PM on June 01, 2006
I feel a bit guilty about lighting the fuse for that so early in the thread. I was surprised it took that long to go off. Shame on you grum. I say Barry and Lance's cases are very similar except for how the media treats Lance's innocence as compared to Bonds. And the grand jury testimony of bonds, of course. Can't forget that.
posted by justgary at 12:37 PM on June 01, 2006
Well, Dubya has not taken it upon himself to clean up cycling yet.
posted by qbert72 at 02:13 PM on June 01, 2006
And the grand jury testimony of bonds, of course. Can't forget that. Hear, hear. I'm tired of all this "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" rhetoric. "Innocent Though Proven Guilty" is more like it. Hero worship's an ugly thing.
posted by cybermac at 02:48 PM on June 01, 2006
B's testimony is not admissible as proof. That's precisely why he accepted to testify. So no matter how you cut it, he's still not proven guilty. Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in. And I'd still like to see the US administration call a Grand Jury on doping in cycling. Who would you imagine waving his index finger menacingly?
posted by qbert72 at 03:17 PM on June 01, 2006
B's testimony is not admissible as proof. That's precisely why he accepted to testify. So no matter how you cut it, he's still not proven guilty. Not in a court of law. Court of public opion is something different. And unless you choose to believe that the 'cream and clear' bonds admitted to using (from the same company that had a cream and clear steroid) was not steroids, that's a huge difference from "lance and barry are the same", which is what one poster stated. I hate talking about the 'b' man in an armstrong thread, but it's unfair to armstrong to put him in the same boat as barry. There are differences.
posted by justgary at 04:10 PM on June 01, 2006
donnnnychris: I say Barry and Lance's cases are very similar except for how the media treats Lance's innocence as compared to Bonds. justgary: And the grand jury testimony of bonds, of course. Can't forget that. Well, that and the fact that Lance hasn't treated everybody he's ever worked with like shit, and, oh yeah, that whole thing with the cancer that started in his testicles, fer chrissake (!), then metastasized to his brain and lungs. Other than that, yeah, he's just like Barry.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:22 PM on June 01, 2006
I like to believe that only a court of law can establish legal proof, and the court of opinion is just that: opinion. Which we're all entitled to, of course. My opinion about B-vs-A is that the difference in treatment by the public and the media is a lot greater than the difference between the alleged crimes. (Man, I'm talking like a lawyer!) But we've already had this discussion before.
posted by qbert72 at 04:24 PM on June 01, 2006
T_B_H, don't you worry, Barry should get cancer soon enough, which would help even up the score. Woah, he's back. Shooting gold, indeed.
posted by qbert72 at 04:32 PM on June 01, 2006
>>>the fact that Lance hasn't treated everybody he's ever worked with like shit I should stay out of this but... While Lance hasn't treated everyone like shit, it's a well known fact that he and his team kept photos of reporters/journalists who wrote anything less than flattering about Lance so as to never grant them access/interviews, etc.
posted by JohnSFO at 05:15 PM on June 01, 2006
Lance is not quite the angel everybody makes him out to be. While he's not as bad as Bonds in the personality department there have been several stories commenting on his prickly nature. And granted, the fact that Bonds has testified is a major difference in this situation. But I'd love to see what Lance's answers would be if he were forced to tell the truth in front of a Grand Jury. I suspect we might hear a different tale then his standard line, "I've never tested positive for anything." Things change when perjury is introduced into the equation and so far, Armstrong hasn't had to deal with that variable, so he can say whatever he wants and all of his minions fall into line. Pretty easy to deny, deny, deny in that situation. By the way, TBH, I know a couple of guys who have "worked" with Bonds and think he's a great guy. These are friends of mine who played in the major leagues and were on teams with Bonds. So to buy into the media's notion that Bonds is 100 percent disliked by his co-workers is absurd. There is always two sides to every story, even though the world seems to have forgotten that in this case. And yes, it's horrible that Lance had cancer and I applaud his comeback from that. At the same time, I don't allow complete autonomy from all his actions just because of his cancer. He still has to answer his critics just like anybody else. If he did do any of the doping things we've been talking about then I could care less about his recovery. He would be the biggest fraud in the history of sports because of his holier-than-thou attitude. If he didn't do it, I would apologize to every person I've ever brought this up to. But to suggest the evidence is clear in Lance's case is ridiculous. He has had ex-teammates, doctors and people that he's worked with come out with accusations numerous times. All we have is Lance's word that he didn't do it, along with passed tests (haha, big deal, with all the masking technology out there I'd expect him to pass these tests). That isn't good enough for me and probably never will be.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:34 PM on June 01, 2006
Well, that and the fact that Lance hasn't treated everybody he's ever worked with like shit, Well, after his wife hung with him during his hardest times, he ditched her for Sheryl Crow as soon as he got famous. All we have is Lance's word that he didn't do it, along with passed tests (haha, big deal, with all the masking technology out there I'd expect him to pass these tests). That isn't good enough for me and probably never will be. What exactly would be good enough for you in order to exonerate someone? Would accusations of ANY kind about ANY player be enough to permanently taint your opinion of them, regardless of what evidence there may be?
posted by grum@work at 10:09 PM on June 01, 2006
I'd think that someone who'd had cancer would have a somewhat different perspective than the average shaven-legged logo monkey re: stuffing his body full of harmful substances. Could be wrong about that, but...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:32 PM on June 01, 2006
Unfortunately grum@work, we'll probably never know whether Lance did or didn't because his word is really all we have to go by. Accusations aren't the lone basis for my judgment. I just look at his remarkable comeback and find it hard to believe he had no chemically-enhanced help to get his body back into shape to win 7 Tours in a row. That's it. So if that's too cold for you, then oh well, we can agree to disagree on this one. I don't know the man so taking his word at face value doesn't really make any sense to me at all. Too many athletes have looked straight into the camera and lied with a smile on their face to allow me to be that liberal with my faith. Sorry, but the world has hardened me up. Unfortunate probably, but that's the way it is.
posted by donnnnychris at 05:32 AM on June 02, 2006
Hey, look, I didn't say the guy was perfect, just that he doesn't present the same level of assholery (at least publicly) that he who shall not be named does.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:08 AM on June 02, 2006
Ok TBH, I'll give you that one. The nameless one certainly is a bigger prick in public, that's for sure.
posted by donnnnychris at 06:35 AM on June 02, 2006
Sometimes people do great things without chemical enhancements. I think Lance should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as there is some real evidence that he did something. At the very least, we should look skeptically at WADA, the Tour, and L'Equipe who were willing to embrace dubious evidence to confirm their suspicions.
posted by bperk at 08:07 AM on June 02, 2006
donnnnychris, I can sense another "agree to disagree" coming on, but you didn't really answer grum's question. What would it take for you to belive that Armstrong was innocent? Basically your argument comes down to "he's too good, it has to be cheating."
posted by Amateur at 08:33 AM on June 02, 2006
I like the way this thread is going. For the most part, very civil. As for dubious evidence, I think that depends on how people look at it. After all, the stuff that was put out the other day seems to raise more questions than it answers. The most you could get from earlier this week is that he is "not guilty", by the standards of other well-known investigations of sports stars. To be fair to Lance, he was already bringing a lot to the table even if EPO wasn't in the mix. He had a team coach able and willing to get the most out of Lance's teammates, plus a sponsor willing to let him basically focus on one race. I didn't realize the full impact of Lance's team until last year, when looking at a team that couldn't get its shit together when it had a shot to put some pressure on Livestrong. Plus one must respect the innovative nature of using a high cadence, which I don't think other past champions had used. And the guy had a world of talent, as evidenced by his success as a triathlete and his World Championship at age 22. He was a beast, no doubt. But what would it take to "clear" him? Who knows. It might be too soon to do any kind of clearing. That seems to be the lesson of all of this -- everyone's suspect.
posted by jackhererra at 09:14 AM on June 02, 2006
donnnnychris, I can sense another "agree to disagree" coming on, but you didn't really answer grum's question. What would it take for you to belive that Armstrong was innocent? Basically your argument comes down to "he's too good, it has to be cheating." It has nothing to do with Lance being "too good," Amateur, but rather the mere fact that he could recover so quickly and return to the height of his sport. It was the speed and totality of his recovery that has me questioning his methods. Also, a few of his associations have turned out to be dirty (doctors, other riders), while he has gotten a complete free pass from the media and the public. The public has reacted this way because of the cancer recovery and his work in that area, so that's understandable, but the media's job is to investigate these things and I just don't think any kind of effort has been put into looking into any of Lance's activities (except by the bumbling French, who were so sloppy they've probably screwed up any investigation involving Armstrong in the future). He has been given the benefit of the doubt when so many other athletes have not, which doesn't seem fair. I just think there should be less of the all-out praising of Lance and more scrutiny of his associations and actions, that's all. And by the way, if the "too good" theory were to apply to me then I'd be convinced that Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and all the other great athletes used steroids, which I do not. I just think in Lance's case there should be more doubt than is being cast. Sometimes people do great things without chemical enhancements. I think Lance should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as there is some real evidence that he did something. At the very least, we should look skeptically at WADA, the Tour, and L'Equipe who were willing to embrace dubious evidence to confirm their suspicions. Hmmm, sounds like you could be talking about the B-word here. I know everyone is convinced that all the hard evidence is out there but B-boy has never failed a drug test and all of the "details" in that book come from an ex-mistress with an axe to grind (not to mention a book to sell) and Grand Jury testimony, not physical evidence. Why is it that everyone is willing to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and not Barry? (oops, I said his name). If it is just their personalities, then that is sad. And please don't write back spouting all of the "evidence" against Barry. There isn't anything solid, period.
posted by donnnnychris at 10:19 AM on June 02, 2006
Interesting thread (considering the topic). One thing is certain, Lance has been utterly exonerated... from the L'Equipe's allegations. Nothing else. To say that he is clean is impossible. To say he is dirty is also impossible, although there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Beyond the numerous accusations of people close to him, his superhuman performances will always make him suspect. And not just him, but half of the professional cyclists appear to be somehow juiced. What they do day in and day out in the TDF cannot be done by a normal human being chugging red bull, I assure you. The testing techniques are far behind the masking techniques, and who are we kidding anyway? The Tour, the Giro, the Vuelta, etc., they want superhuman mutant cyclists doing what they do. If there were no freakish cyclists who the hell would bother watching the sport? I also agree that Lance isn't the greatest cyclist ever, because he didn't compete in the other important events, just the Tour. Indurain, for example, managed to win two Giros while winning five straight tours. Still he is a historic TDF champ. Btw, despite his numerous hagiogaphers, Lance is not the greatest guy in the world. He's known as a total prick amongst racers, but then again so was Michael Jordan, doesn't change him as a cyclist.
posted by sic at 10:26 AM on June 02, 2006
Why is it that everyone is willing to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and not _____? Actually, I'm willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt. I am wavering a bit on he who must not be named but I do not subscribe to any suspicion based on performance alone. And I guess that the answer to grum's question is that nothing could convince you that Lance is not a doper. Given the associations with shady people, the allegations by peripheral characters, his unlikely recovery, and the proven drug use in his sport, he's guilty. Obviously none of those things is ever going to be undone, so Lance can never be proven innocent.
posted by Amateur at 11:41 AM on June 02, 2006
Thanks for the update, everett. I was a little skeptical of the strong wording of the report's conclusion. It now seems Armstrong is caught in the crossfire of a political war between l'Union Cycliste Internationale and the World Anti-Doping Agency. It's unfortunate for him, but it also almost guarantees that we'll never know the whole truth.
posted by qbert72 at 03:10 PM on June 02, 2006
What is Pound supposed to say when the report is critical of him? Oops. I didn't see him doing that. He can just criticize the report. That's pure politics. Without reading the report, we can either agree with an independent investigation or Pound's strongly worded rhetoric.
posted by bperk at 03:22 PM on June 02, 2006
Isn't Pound kind of a shit anyway? I seem to recall him being villified more than once in this esteemed forum. This is just beginning to sound like a pissing match between UCI and WADA. So to speak.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:34 PM on June 02, 2006
Love the censorship on this site.
posted by shootinggold at 06:59 PM on June 02, 2006
Love the censorship on this site. SportsFilter is not the US government, your freedom of speech is not absolute here.
posted by billsaysthis at 07:49 PM on June 02, 2006
Love the censorship on this site. posted by shootinggold We "try" to keep the threads on topic and at a certain level. A lists of why the french suck fails at both.
posted by justgary at 08:52 PM on June 02, 2006
The pissing match between UCI and WADA is longstanding. And yes, Pound is known for going off half-cocked. WADA boss warns Armstrong Inquiry (March 3 2006): "In 2004, Armstrong wrote an open letter to European newspapers saying that Pound should not be in charge of Wada." Transition Game: Dick Pound Must Go Outside the Whale: Should Dick Pound Resign as Chair of WADA?
posted by Amateur at 09:27 PM on June 02, 2006
Is it because he's angry about not getting Samaranch's job?
posted by qbert72 at 01:02 PM on June 03, 2006
The NY Times article linked in Amateur's second link is a very good read. Also: previous Pound noise.
posted by qbert72 at 01:27 PM on June 03, 2006
Is it because he's angry about not getting Samaranch's job? Dunno, but Dick Pound clearly has an inadequate sense of appropriate boundaries and way too much authority. That's a bad combination. I'd hate to meet this guy in a dark alley. ...but I'd love to heckle him from the crowd about his stupid name.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:05 PM on June 03, 2006
Why is it that everyone is willing to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and not Barry? (oops, I said his name). If it is just their personalities, then that is sad. And please don't write back spouting all of the "evidence" against Barry. There isn't anything solid, period. There's a ton of evidence against barry. You just choose to stick your head in the sand. And if you don't want people to bring it up, don't misrepresent the situation. I know everyone is convinced that all the hard evidence is out there but B-boy has never failed a drug test and all of the "details" in that book come from an ex-mistress with an axe to grind (not to mention a book to sell) and Grand Jury testimony, not physical evidence. You say you've read the book, so I'll just assume you misread it, or maybe forgot what you read, because you couldn't be more wrong. The book has 36 pages of footnotes. The girlfriend is a small part of it. It isn't her book to sell. Since you read it, I guess you know they raided the home of bond's trainer, greg anderson. I guess you know they found calendars and a ton of paperwork regarding barry's steroid use. They also found evidence of barry's blood sent to a lab for testing. They found the same paperwork on giambi. I guess you also know they have a recording taken secretly of barry's trainer, anderson, admitting giving bonds steroids. And we still havn't gotten to the part where barry admits he took the 'creme and clear' steroid unknowingly (when of course, he did know.) When we last had this discussion, I had only read parts of 'game of shadows'. I decided to read it from cover to cover, and it in no way is the book you describe. There's a ton of evidence, and the book is done very well. Even if you throw out the girlfriends accusations (which, after reading the book, come off very truthful), it's still a very damning to barry. People get convicted of murder with less evidence than there is against barry. I'm guessing you'd be the one jurer at a slam dunk trial that would say "I can't convict without seeing a video of the shooting". Yet you say this about lance: But with the incredible masking technology available to the dopers out there, it's probable that Lance, with the money of his team behind him, used the best to keep his drug use under the radar. You think lance probably did steroids even though he didn't get caught because he could mask it, yet with all the evidence against barry, all the documents, secret audio, the accusations of many close to the situation, his own admittance, you say there's no 'hard evidence' and the only difference is their personalities. Your logic and reasoning skills are either amazingly bad or my brain simply isn't large enough to comprehend them.
posted by justgary at 01:21 AM on June 04, 2006
Justgary, I never said Barry didn't use steroids. What I said was the media's scrutiny of Barry and Lance is very unbalanced. Lance has NEVER gotten the third degree at any stage of his career (except from the French). The U.S. media has basically given him a free pass the entire time. I'm just curious why that is. All you have to do is read Rick Reilly (Sports Illustrated's back-page columnist and winner of 7 straight sportswriter of the year awards, so he's supposedly the creme of the crop) to see the difference. Even before the Grand Jury and the book he had convicted Barry Bonds. The columns he wrote about Bonds were embarrassing they were so one-sided. At the same time he wrote a couple of the most glowing pieces imaginable about Lance. At that time (remember, this was BEFORE the book and the Grand Jury, just so we're clear), Barry and Lance were roughly in the same boat in terms of accusations leveled against them. Yet Lance was given the pass and Barry was vilified. So to say there hasn't been a distinct bias in this situation is both uninformed and ignorant. Sorry, but that's the truth. And just so you can't say, "well, that's one sportswriter," it was that way across the board. I know this because I was a sports editor from (1997 to 2002, at several mid-sized dailies in California) at the time and I read hundreds of stories on the news wires on both Lance and Barry. The majority of them were pro-Lance and against Barry. And to say there isn't any "hard" evidence against Lance is, in your words, sticking your own head in the sand. Numerous ex-teammates have come out and said, flatly, that he used. Some of them even had some "hard" evidence. Unfortunately, there is no Grand Jury into cycling, so Lance hasn't been forced to get up and tell the truth about all of this. Whether Bonds lied or not he'll have to deal with that on his own, but to say Lance hasn't had some hard evidence tossed his way is not correct. He's just been able to deflect it, with the help of all of his media lackeys in the U.S. The thing is, people just don't want to believe Lance did anything wrong and that's fine. But I don't choose to "stick my head in the sand" and give him a free pass, that's all.
posted by donnnnychris at 02:37 AM on June 04, 2006
For some odd reason this makes me feel good...