I hate Lance Armstrong.

As you say, there are clean cyclists, but my comment was "top level pro cyclists", ie the top 10, 20, 50, whatever in the Tour. I doubt the honest guys will find themselves in there.

What a pesky little detail we have here. I like how we're supposed to accept circumstantial evidence as outright fact, let alone the widescale conspiracy required to sustain the accusations.

The case against Armstrong has always been founded on his assholic personality and fueled by jealousy and rumors. Until there is legitimate proof that he is or was (or more relevatory, one of few) doping, nobody is going to give a shit.

He learned his lesson, re-evaluated his priorities, and is a much better person because of it. I don't see where the hate is coming from...no one's online making a hate filled post about you because you were an asshole ten years ago, why do you feel the need to do so?

I said that Armstrong is a fraud in many ways and, overall, he has not been good for the health of cycling as a professional sport, and he has indirectly contributed to the abuse and killing of poor and desperate young men by powerful corporate-backed entities.

The guy who said that cycling is sponsored by a bunch of Mom 'n Pop operations obviously just doesn't have a single clue about modern cycling. Who do you think T-Mobile is? Who do think Motorola is? Who do you think Liquigas is? Who do you think Credit Agricole is? Who do you think Benneton is? Who do you think Phonak is? The list is endless. These are huge corporations with billions in revenue. Just go to a website that covers pro cycling (like velonews.com or procycling.com) and look up the sponsors for yourself. Do some research. Many giant corporations are involved in cycling sponsorship.

What is most interesting about all of this to me is that some people dismiss the whole subject just because their is not definitive proof that would stand up in court. But this really is kind of a "it takes 30 years for the truth to come out" type of thing -- like Watergate and Deep Throat's identity. Because the numerous journalists who know what's going on can't speak about it.

Years, or decades from now we'll probably learn the truth, with definitive proof provided -- if we're still alive to hear it. Myself, I have a number of sources, and I don't feel that I need to hear anymore. I'm convinced. You should do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Here's a point some of you may not realize: sport drug abuse, in certain respects, is very similar to street drug abuse. The addicts need reliable "on call" dealers they can depended upon to provide them the "good stuff" and not snitch them to the authorities. And there just aren't very many really good drug dealers -- it's a very difficult "profession".

So ... word gets around pretty quick ... the dealers doing a lot of the talking. Another guy who is rumoured to be dirty amongst the professional cycling press corps is Chris Horner. If you make a real effort to befriend (even if only through e-mail) some pro cycling journalists, a few of them will share some tidbits with you. It's relly tough for someone like Lance to nail them for what they discuss in a private e-mail (as opposed to a widely read print or web publication).

As far as hundreds of amateur or pro cyclists dying from EPO abuse ... I'm am fairly certain that that number in fact is not speculation if you extrapolate the number of widely reported profesional deaths out into the amateur ranks. Do some digging on Google. Especially in the late 90s. I believe about 50% of a certain Euro pro team died one year in the 90s -- not all at once, but spread over a few months. I really don't have time right now to dig up all my notes on this, I have to leave for work.

All hacks in all fields know the unprintable, but this does not necessarily mean that abuse is any more or less prevalent than it ever was. Your complaints about 'poor and desperate young men' are as old as organised sport. As for Chris Horner, wooah! Stop the presses! We caught a big fish here! A cyclist taking drugs!

'I am fairly certain that number is fact not speculation' sounds a hell of a lot like speculation to me and anyone else reading. And although I don't doubt the sincerity of your concern and even agree with much of what you say (the difference being I'm not surprised in the slightest by any of it), insulting people who perhaps take cycling rather less seriously than you do makes you sound hysterical, especially when you back track when challenged.

I agree that sport drug abuse is very like street drug abuse though, only the greed is on both sides of the deal. But until 'sporting fraud' becomes a criminal offence, nothing will be done. And ultimately too few care enough about this fascinating minority pastime to change it.

Now then ... instead of two men of our age exchanging idiotic insults, let's think logically. I am not an F1 expert by any means, but my understanding is that currently each F1 team has 2 principal drivers, 1 or 2 back-up drivers, and some test drivers. So, let's say 3 big $ earners per F1 team. As there are only 10 F1 teams in the entire world, that only adds up to 30 big money stars in the sport.

Top-level cycling has quite a few more teams involved across the entire season, and quite a few more riders per team. What is it? About 12 or so? So, perhaps 300 riders, and their salaries all add up.

But this is not really relevant ... why is the relative amount of money sponsors spend your metric of choice?

Cars cost a lot much more than bikes, there is more need for cars than for bikes, and so cars generate much the greater profits for their manufacturers than do bikes, and so the F1 sponsors spend a great deal more to promote their products on an absolute basis -- but probably not on a relative basis.

What is relevant is that big money (compared to an average person's salary, or net worth, or the worth of a small business, etc) is in fact spent on both cycling and motosports -- which are two of the world's most popular sports in terms of fan-bases and related consumer purchases of machines and gear.

Have you noticed that both Ronaldo and Lance wear Nike caps? Nike isn't stupid.

And if you think that just because a problem has been around for ages that nothing should be done about it ... I really don't know what to say to you. Terrorism has been around for ages, but now it is spiralling upwards and out-of-control. The safety and ability of civilized society to function is at stake. So, something must be done now.

Similarly, cycling is the worst sport in terms of killing people off with performance-enhancing drug use. Can you name a sport that kills off more people due to drug use?

Clearly, something must be done.

Well done to Cadel Evans for cheeking the headmaster three days before his retirement, in case we'd all forgotten about L.A.

Are there any other physicians around this place?

Ok, let the flames begin. I suppose some people out thre are really working their panties into a bunch right now.

and if my typos offend somebody's ubermensch mentality, too bad.

I didn't really need to read more. ;-)

"This is a hard Tour and hard work wins it. Vive Le Tour."

Um, didn't they meet after he finished his chemo in '97? Weren't the kids born after they met (you'd think)?

what a jerk

-- shannon
Indeed

I don't agree with those above who are saying that Lance-haters are stupid for saying things like, 'it would have been good if he stepped down after five races' or 'he shouldn't be so competitive'. It's okay that he didn't do those things, but it's exactly right that if he'd behaved in an unusally noble fashion, that would have made him a good role model. Those are the qualities that could be applied to society at large and would probably improve it or whatever.

Another thing, this is pure speculation of course, but if it's true that everyone at the top level of these sports is engaged in steroid-related doping and so on, those drugs effect your psychology as well as your physiology. Like, even when drug users aren't on drugs, their personality seems less subtle.

For accuracy, Lance and Kristin met at the Ride for Roses, in 1997, as he was finishing chemotherapy. The religion issue was likely a facftor, especially as the children grew: Kristin is Catholic and Lance is pretty much agnostic/atheist (sorry if I do not quite understand the distinction there, but let's not turn this discussion into a vitriolic semantics discussion).

I would also point this quote from Kristin:
Kristin Armstrong about the breakup of their marriage, 2/2003: Marriage problems were "brought on gradually by a number of pressures, rather than one big blow-up. We've been together 4 1/2 years, and we've had six homes, three languages, three countries, one cancer comeback, three children, four Tour de France wins and one rise to celebrity. You're not supposed to cram such a huge amount of events into such a small period of time."

Perhaps by the time they split, one could say the bloom was off the rose. An oft repeated maxim is that there are always three sides to any divorce: her side, his side and the truth. Would it be perhaps fair to demean Kristin Armstrong for not putting up with Lance's travels and work? No, it would not be fair to her. How many people could forever tolerate a personality that is, shall we say, somewhat intense and apparently demanding. I make that observation from what I have seen on many occasions. His public persona seems so exacting and meticulous, hence the moniker 'millimeter man', I wonder if he can just switch that off when he goes home. I do not know many people who can do that.

Pardon my objectoivty here, it's just the nature of my training in science and research.

If Lance Armstrong was a TRUE INDIE ROCKER he wouldn't sell out and do Nike commercials and would currently be dating Karen Osomeone so cool we haven't even heard of her yet, not Sheryl Crow.

It seems consistent with his mentality to support those who supported him. Nike was also the company that gave the start money for the LIVESTRONG bracelets, which has provided millions to cancer research.

He only remains loyal if you do what *he* wishes. The amount of enemies he has far outnumbers his friends.

If Armstrong was "decent" guy, he'd have retired after his fifth win

If Lance Armstrong was a TRUE INDIE ROCKER he wouldn't sell out and do Nike commercials and would currently be dating Karen Osomeone so cool we haven't even heard of her yet, not Sheryl Crow.

Kind of ridiculous to demand that Lance retire, but Eddy Merckx did not participate in the '73 tour because of criticism that he won all the time. I think it's not about decency. It's about a wish that there's more competition (for first place). If Lance participates, he'd need to fall flat on his face to see him lose. So yeah I hope he retires.

Yes, he is an exacting individual, undoubtedly one of the MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY sorts. The point I had tried to make was that he is backing Nike's marketing, likely as a response to the support they have given him when was being treated, and afterwards with the livestrong racelets, among others.

Leblanc - Armstrong fooled us all

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 Posted: 1623 GMT (0023 HKT)

Leblanc (right) congratulates Armstrong after his seventh Tour win
PARIS, France -- Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc claims Lance Armstrong has "fooled" the sports world, over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

Leblanc's comments come a day after L'Equipe reported that six urine samples, provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour, tested positive for EPO.

"For the first time -- and these are no longer rumors these are proven scientific facts -- someone has shown me that in 1999 Armstrong had EPO in his body," said Leblanc.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denies the allegations, calling the article "tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," said Armstrong.

Armstrong, who retired from professional cycling after winning the Tour a month ago, was not immediately available for comment regarding Leblanc's latest remarks.

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tour's, but there was no effective test then to detect it.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year -- when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing.

The national anti-doping laboratory said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests.

"That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."

L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

"I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."

The UCI did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, although the drug was banned in 1990.

For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

"There will always be a place on the team for him if he decides to come back. Anyway, he's still under contract with us till the end of 2006."

Also because he knows how much I hate him. :-)))))

Armstrong, Crow announce they're breaking up
Associated Press
Cycling News Wire

AUSTIN, Texas -- Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow have split, the couple announced in a joint statement Friday night.

The seven-time Tour de France champion and the rock star announced their engagement in September. It would have been her first marriage and his second. He has three children from a previous marriage.

"After much thought and consideration we have made a very tough decision to split up. We both have a deep love and respect for each other and we ask that everyone respect our privacy during this very difficult time," the statement said.

I saw Lance in that Dodgeball film. It almost ruined the film for me. ;-)

The only real champion the world has seen was Marco Pantani "the pirate"...hadn't he been persecuted by italian justice Armstrong would have won no Tours! Just remember Courchevel 2000 at the Tour...

FUCK LANCE!!!!

OH MY GOD he's coming back...IN ADELAIDE??

And apparently (according to Mike Rann), it's the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!

I don't like him for the simple reason that I used to supertext-caption the news, and every year the Tour de France and Tour Down Under were a nightmare of demented names and esoteric terms poured out by deranged commentators at nightmare speeds. (Though to be fair, I could at least spell 'Lance Armstrong' correctly, so he should have been one of those I hated least)

the brett favre of cycling