# Armstrong & the latest doping scandal



## surista (Mar 20, 2006)

Armstrong should be on a plane to Strasbourg ASAP; even after a year off he'd be the favorite of this year's TdF with all the big boys out.

Anyway - what does the latest scandal out of Spain due for LA's reputation? One of my buddies thought it was bad, just by implication - 'some of the biggest names in cycling were implicated, including Basso & Ullrich, so Armstrong also had to be doping'. 

Could we make the case that it actually helps _clear_ his name? Think about it - the authorities were able to find evidence that, among others, Basso, Ullrich, and Mancebo, some of the biggest names in the sport, were doping. This makes it clear that even if you don't test positive, they are still able to catch you - there's just too much of a trail. Yet, they haven't found anything on Armstrong, probably the most tested and closely watched cyclist in the history of the sport. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*Here we go*

nfm, nfm


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

The interesting thing to me is whether those caught are now going to spill the beans about Armstrong-they must be really pissed that they got caught now while Armstrong rides off into the sunset. Realistically Ullrich will never touch the bike competitively again-he's getting old, has always been unmotivated, and with this disgrace will just walk away. What's keeping him now from lashing out against Armstrong?


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

Me thinks armstrong didn't need to goto Spain but had his own doctors working for him.




surista said:


> Armstrong should be on a plane to Strasbourg ASAP; even after a year off he'd be the favorite of this year's TdF with all the big boys out.
> 
> Anyway - what does the latest scandal out of Spain due for LA's reputation? One of my buddies thought it was bad, just by implication - 'some of the biggest names in cycling were implicated, including Basso & Ullrich, so Armstrong also had to be doping'.
> 
> ...


----------



## phil-bianchi (May 23, 2006)

dude, what about lances epo blood samples from 99? it didn't hold up in a court but facts are facts.


----------



## awesometown (May 23, 2005)

*No Lance, Please!*



phil-bianchi said:


> dude, what about lances epo blood samples from 99? it didn't hold up in a court but facts are facts.



People, Bas, Tour-Time New Posters.....lets all just Shut the [email protected]#k up about Lance, please...lets move on, there are much more relevant current doping problems, with people who will actually make some sort of impact in the cycling calendar.

Maybe we need a "re-hashing old lance issues" forum, maximum previous posts: 20.

Don't make me use the bad post button.


----------



## taar44 (Jun 16, 2002)

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that there is such a thing as a "clean" pro. My gut feeling is that to compete at that level, you have to be on "something". Good eating habits and hard training just does not seem to do it no more.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

phil-bianchi said:


> dude, what about lances epo blood samples from 99? it didn't hold up in a court but facts are facts.


Well, it didn't hold up in court because 'facts' might not be 'facts'. There was a letter on cyclingnews this morning comparing this incident to Dan Rather's humiliation. He kept insisting on 'facts', even as his sources were saying that it was a fabrication. 

I'm not saying that those samples were clean, or that they were doctored. But the way things transpired, it was impossible to tell. That's why it fell out of court, and that's why we can't say it's 'fact' that Lance's '99 pee had EPO.


----------



## phil-bianchi (May 23, 2006)

awesometown said:


> People, Bas, Tour-Time New Posters.....lets all just Shut the [email protected]#k up about Lance, please...lets move on, there are much more relevant current doping problems, with people who will actually make some sort of impact in the cycling calendar.
> 
> Maybe we need a "re-hashing old lance issues" forum, maximum previous posts: 20.
> 
> Don't make me use the bad post button.


dude read the title of the thread! "armstrong and the latest doping scandal" don't tell us to shut the f up about, the topic was started, and you joined in.

and danil... no i don't know for sure about lance but c'mon! you'd have to be pretty naive to belive he was clean after all has come to light including his epo samples.


----------



## phil-bianchi (May 23, 2006)

*old timers on drugs*



taar44 said:


> I am finding it harder and harder to believe that there is such a thing as a "clean" pro. My gut feeling is that to compete at that level, you have to be on "something". Good eating habits and hard training just does not seem to do it no more.


who was the old timer, coppi? who's famous quote was "we sure don't do it on bread and water"


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2006)

Geez, Armstrong is OFN - move on...


----------



## phil-bianchi (May 23, 2006)

the only thing these protour guys do better than ride' is LIE!

I for one am absolutley disgusted with this whole affair!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*awesome! the 6 degrees of LA is a doper game!*

55-58 riders get busted and all you wanna do is somehow relate this to LA. You don't want to talk about the 58 involved noooooo, ya wanna somehow implicate someone who hasn't even been mentioned.I know, I know, this happened in Spain and he has a house there and Manolo Saiz says Venga alot and Venga is really close to Verga (which means d!ck) and we know LA is a d!ck who lives in Spain so voila, it's all about Lance.
For those of you following along, Scientists reviewing the procedures of the 99 test said it was all poppycock, garbage, it proved nothing, it didn't even establish a baseline. 
Does this mean I think LA was clean? not necessarily, but when he gets popped legitimately then we can discuss, otherwise lets STFU and talk about those that actually have been popped.
re: LA I bet he's laughing his A$$ off. 7 years of being followed around, having his garbage rummaged through, his rooms snooped and nothing. He retires and the Tour gets hit with the biggest scandal ever.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Never was such a thing...*



taar44 said:


> I am finding it harder and harder to believe that there is such a thing as a "clean" pro. My gut feeling is that to compete at that level, you have to be on "something". Good eating habits and hard training just does not seem to do it no more.


Read Paul Kimmage's book. Voight's 'Breaking The Chain'. 

Drugs and doping have been in cycling since the beginning. It's just that the drugs and the application of PEDs have gotten much MUCH better in recent years. 

So good eating habits and hard training were never ever ALWAYS enough for everyone...but perhaps in the 'old days' you could win some races clean. Or 'cleaner'...whatever that means.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

awesometown said:


> People, Bas, Tour-Time New Posters.....lets all just Shut the [email protected]#k up about Lance, please...lets move on, there are much more relevant current doping problems, with people who will actually make some sort of impact in the cycling calendar.
> 
> Maybe we need a "re-hashing old lance issues" forum, maximum previous posts: 20.
> 
> Don't make me use the bad post button.


Lance is part of the current doping problem. He was doing the same thing - just never caught. Just like these guys - if it was for the Spanish authorties - Basso and Ulrich wouldn't of been caught.

If no one else was doing it - LA would of road away with a 25 minute victories last several years.

If American authorities would of found and busted Armstrongs doctor - then it would of been over for him too.


----------



## awesometown (May 23, 2005)

phil-bianchi said:


> the only thing these protour guys do better than ride' is LIE!
> 
> I for one am absolutley disgusted with this whole affair!



Are you? Are you really disgusted by it? Your childhood heros all thrown to the wind? Don't take it so seriously, the only reason people are being strung up is because the WADA has decided to make cycling its [email protected]#ch. Doping in one form or another has always been part of the sport, and while I am glad that we may see an end to the era of one-man domination; I see little need for moral outrage.


----------



## Bolo Grubb (Aug 25, 2004)

come on sports fans, do you really think any pro, in any sport is clean?


----------



## surista (Mar 20, 2006)

Like it or not, 'was he clean?' is still a major topic of discussion, because LA is probably the most recognizable global figure the sport has ever had.

LA was on ESPN the other day - he said that his best defense was to look at his history: he didn't suddenly get stronger, he was always a top racer. He's got a point: he won the US amateurs in 1991, won TdF stages in 93 and 95, and won the DuPont in 95 and 96 (second in 94). And we all know what he did after 1999.

Still find it odd that they've never found any real direct evidence that LA was doped up, despite all the various accusations etc. from people formerly in his group. The trail left behind doesn't just vanish.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

bas said:


> Lance is part of the current doping problem. He was doing the same thing - just never caught. Just like these guys - if it was for the Spanish authorties - Basso and Ulrich wouldn't of been caught.
> 
> If no one else was doing it - LA would of road away with a 25 minute victories last several years.
> 
> If American authorities would of found and busted Armstrongs doctor - then it would of been over for him too.


I am sure if Lance was brutally honest, he would respond to your post with something like:
"Whatever - they were following me and my team 24-7, going through my trash etc. and they never got any dirt on me. So we were not just smart in our team tactics, but we were also very careful in doping. Basso and Ullrich are no match - they are too careless and stupid. Maybe it just shows the despearation in how far they would go to beat me. 

Even Dick Pound and french press - they have been at it for so long, wasting their reputation on silly accusations, that when they finally got something resembling a smoking gun with their retesting of '99 blood samples, they royally screwed up there too, not following protocol and making it look like a witch-hunt.

Seems I retired at the right moment. Whatever you think of me - I can always say - I won against the best of the best who later all turned out to be dopers - Pantani, Ullrich, Basso. I never tested positive for doping, despite all kinds of attempts and "he-said-she-said" association games. In the end, I win, once again. They lose."


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and if they are all doping*

isn't the playing field still basically level? or does one think the best riders are the best because they dope. clearly by the fact that Liberty Seguros' entire team got popped and none of them has ever won the Tour, it means by and large if everyone from Honch to water carrier is juiced, the fastest riders are still winning.


----------



## carb850 (Oct 7, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> 55-58 riders get busted and all you wanna do is somehow relate this to LA. You don't want to talk about the 58 involved noooooo, ya wanna somehow implicate someone who hasn't even been mentioned.I know, I know, this happened in Spain and he has a house there and Manolo Saiz says Venga alot and Venga is really close to Verga (which means d!ck) and we know LA is a d!ck who lives in Spain so voila, it's all about Lance.
> For those of you following along, Scientists reviewing the procedures of the 99 test said it was all poppycock, garbage, it proved nothing, it didn't even establish a baseline.
> Does this mean I think LA was clean? not necessarily, but when he gets popped legitimately then we can discuss, otherwise lets STFU and talk about those that actually have been popped.
> re: LA I bet he's laughing his A$$ off. 7 years of being followed around, having his garbage rummaged through, his rooms snooped and nothing. He retires and the Tour gets hit with the biggest scandal ever.


I agree with everything you said except the part of LA laughing at all this. I would think the only ones that get any pleasure from this are racers that have been previously caught or otherwise admitted to doping in the past and been banned for doing so.


----------



## awesometown (May 23, 2005)

surista said:


> Like it or not, 'was he clean?' is still a major topic of discussion, because LA is probably the most recognizable global figure the sport has ever had.
> 
> LA was on ESPN the other day - he said that his best defense was to look at his history: he didn't suddenly get stronger, he was always a top racer. He's got a point: he won the US amateurs in 1991, won TdF stages in 93 and 95, and won the DuPont in 95 and 96 (second in 94). And we all know what he did after 1999.
> 
> Still find it odd that they've never found any real direct evidence that LA was doped up, despite all the various accusations etc. from people formerly in his group. The trail left behind doesn't just vanish.



OH GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! Put down Bicycling magazine....new rule: you are not allowed to recount his victories in every post. The only reason he never got caught was he had more money and more influence than any other cyclist, ever. He is the cyclist with the most legal representation in history.


----------



## ChunkyMC (Jun 16, 2004)

Was'nt lance sposored by a company that cures cancer? If they can do that I would think that they can mask performance drugs.

The level of top elite atheliets are so close that you would think that if if basso & ulrich were on PEDs and lance was not that they could have beeten him once.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

awesometown said:


> OH GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! Put down Bicycling magazine....new rule: you are not allowed to recount his victories in every post. The only reason he never got caught was he had more money and more influence than any other cyclist, ever. He is the cyclist with the most legal representation in history.


It's a sign of how much of a polarizing figure Armstrong is/was. He is retired for a year now, we have the biggest doping scandal that in no way or form mentions Armstrong - but does involve the 2nd, 3rd and 4th finishers from last year, as well as other top contenders. And what do we do? Talk about Lance's doping. 

Let's extend this logic a bit - if Basso and Ullrich's suspension also mean Lance was doping, it would also imply that Landis, Evans, Leipheimer, Valverde, Zabriskie, Hincapie, Julich, Voigt, Horner, Eki, Moreau, "insert the name of your favorite rider", are all equally guilty by association. Not only that, but going back I can prove anyone is doping by using the same type of argument, back to early 1900ies.

Tell me who you think is clean and I will argue he is doping. 

And the point of this excercise is...?


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

surista said:


> Like it or not, 'was he clean?' is still a major topic of discussion, because LA is probably the most recognizable global figure the sport has ever had.
> 
> LA was on ESPN the other day - he said that his best defense was to look at his history: he didn't suddenly get stronger, he was always a top racer. He's got a point: he won the US amateurs in 1991, won TdF stages in 93 and 95, and won the DuPont in 95 and 96 (second in 94). And we all know what he did after 1999.
> 
> Still find it odd that they've never found any real direct evidence that LA was doped up, despite all the various accusations etc. from people formerly in his group. The trail left behind doesn't just vanish.



Umm they were all doping up-till festina.

Ask Lemond!


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

awesometown said:


> OH GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! Put down Bicycling magazine....new rule: you are not allowed to recount his victories in every post. The only reason he never got caught was he had more money and more influence than any other cyclist, ever. He is the cyclist with the most legal representation in history.


Don't forget the donation to the UCI! Conflict of interest or what?


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 22, 2005)

Bolo Grubb said:


> come on sports fans, do you really think any pro, in any sport is clean?


Yes, but doubtful about cycling.


----------



## SuperB (Jul 1, 2004)

Bolo Grubb said:


> come on sports fans, do you really think any pro, in any sport is clean?



Are you saying that EVERY pro in every sport is dirty?


----------



## hambinator (Aug 1, 2005)

I have to say this does blow a huge shot to armstrongs credibility. Lets look at last years top 4 finishers, ALL of them have been suspended with the exception of the top podium winner (Armstrong). Now can we all really think armstrong finished 4 minutes ahead of the second podium spot clean? I for one cant believe it. And this blah blah blah about how his cancer helped him out. I dont doubt it, but if anyone has ever been around a cancer patient you know how it destroys your body. I think it wouldve taken a lot more than just cancer to finish with those kind of results 7 years in a row. Catch my drift?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

hambinator said:


> I have to say this does blow a huge shot to armstrongs credibility. Lets look at last years top 4 finishers, ALL of them have been suspended with the exception of the top podium winner (Armstrong). Now can we all really think armstrong finished 4 minutes ahead of the second podium spot clean? I for one cant believe it. And this blah blah blah about how his cancer helped him out. I dont doubt it, but if anyone has ever been around a cancer patient you know how it destroys your body. I think it wouldve taken a lot more than just cancer to finish with those kind of results 7 years in a row. Catch my drift?


Let's assume your logic about Armstrong is correct.
What about Zabriskie? Are we to believe he can time trial on-par with Lance and Ulle without any "help"? How about Landis? Or Evans? Are we to believe these guys can become so good so late in their careers after converting from mountain biking? They are on par with Basso and Ullrich, all things considered.

How about Hincapie? Are we to believe he found his new climbing ability all of a sudden?

What about Boonen? Hmm?

Leipheimer? And the list goes on. When do you stop?

I think it's important to separate actual evidence from pure speculations and guilt by association. I wouldn't be surprised if anyone in the peloton was doping. I am not surprised by Ulle and Basso being suspended. But I also cannot claim I can predict who is doping and who is not based on what I know. So I will shut up and wait for some facts. Otherwise it's very easy to lose all kinds of interest in the sport.


----------



## phil-bianchi (May 23, 2006)

anymore news on the admission of taking PED's from LA to his doctor?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*drug company bit is suchcrap*

what is in it for them?
"New Product! Fooled the UCI for 7 years! Ask Lance!" 
you think some Phram company is going to do all the testing and R&D for a drug they can't sell, can't market and just give to 1 rider.

again did they give it to the team and that is why they never got caught? wouldn't all those ex riders who left have taken that info with them? look at Balco/Olympic scandal.got popped because the US track guys knew the foreigners were using a new drug and sent it to WADA so they could create a test.


there just isn't any MONEY in doing this for a single guy no matter how rich. plus there is no marketing upside, ya can't use their name and success to sell it to the public.

again, I'm not defending. I'm just showing your speculations are bordering on tin foil territory.

and I agree with 55-10, if we assume they all are doping given this evidence, the top riders are still the top riders. Liberty Seguros seems to have had a long term, team wide doping program and they never produced a TdF winner. You can't say dope is producing the winners, since they all still have to function below 51 H-Crit.


----------



## zyzbot (Feb 3, 2004)

phil-bianchi said:


> anymore news on the admission of taking PED's from LA to his doctor?


In a sworn statement Dr. Craig Nichols( who administered Armstrong's chemotherapy at Indiana University Medical Center) said that in multiple doctor-patient interviews, Armstrong never admitted taking performance-enhancing drugs.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

phil-bianchi said:


> and danil... no i don't know for sure about lance but c'mon! you'd have to be pretty naive to belive he was clean after all has come to light including his epo samples.


Not naive at all... Not even naive enough to believe that because someone famous said something, it is necessarily 'fact' - be that (allegedly rule-breaking) LA, or his (apparently law-breaking) accusers. 

I have no way to form an opinion on whether he was clean or dirty as a racer, and never have expressed one. All I said was we can't call something a fact just because it looks that way. IOW, the latest report didn't 'clear his name', it only found that the previous one didn't successfully sully it. 

We can say they were samples. We can say that they were labeled as his, and we can say that they are said to have had EPO in them. We can't say that it was his pee in those vials, or that if it was, it had EPO in it at the time that it was sampled. The testers didn't follow proper custody protocols to allow one to say any of those things, and didn't leave an appropriate trail (or remainder of the sample) to be proven as such. Such protocols are well established in drug-testing circles, and were very obviously not followed in this testing.

If forced to place bets, I would bet that the samples were tampered with. 
I would also bet that at some point or another in his career, LA wasn't completely within the spirit of the rules.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Just imagine what might have happened if Dr Ferrari was put under the kind of surveillance that Dr Fuentes was subject to...to assume that Fuentes is the only bad apple is worse than naive and to assume that the only riders in the peloton who dope are the ones involved in this latest scandal is absolute bollox.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

zyzbot said:


> In a sworn statement Dr. Craig Nichols( who administered Armstrong's chemotherapy at Indiana University Medical Center) said that in multiple doctor-patient interviews, Armstrong never admitted taking performance-enhancing drugs.


Actually the doctor stated when asked if he heard Lance admit to taking PEDS, that if Lance had admitted to taking PEDs he would have written it down in his notes and he could find no such comments in his notes.

take that for what you will but to me it didn't really answer the question.


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

No matter what you think of him personally - and frankly I can't even imagine a problem on that level - Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist of all time. They were all over him and never found proof, only speculation and suspicion, which seems to be enough for some of the un-American riders on this forum. We claim to believe in justice, innocent until proven guilty...but all that gets shunted aside by egos too bruised to admit they are so-so riders at best. Taking pop shots at someone of Armstrong's caliber somehow makes them feel like big boys in their own little minds. 

Armstrong also has been an inspiration to many who have had to deal with cancer, including me as I sit here 8 days after surgery reading all this nonsense. His detractors are not nor will they ever be in his league. 

Ice man


----------



## asudevilrider (Dec 30, 2005)

55x11 said:


> Let's assume your logic about Armstrong is correct.
> What about Zabriskie? Are we to believe he can time trial on-par with Lance and Ulle without any "help"? How about Landis? Or Evans? Are we to believe these guys can become so good so late in their careers after converting from mountain biking? They are on par with Basso and Ullrich, all things considered.
> 
> How about Hincapie? Are we to believe he found his new climbing ability all of a sudden?
> ...


I agree totally with your posts. You are one of the few intelligent thinkers on here.


----------



## LukeVelo (Jun 26, 2006)

_"Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist of all time."_ Ahem, Merckx. Lance has done wonders, wonders for himself, the sport, cancer survivors and and person who needs that bit more motivation on the trainer. But to say he is the best of all time, read your history.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

LukeVelo said:


> _"Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist of all time."_ Ahem, Merckx. Lance has done wonders, wonders for himself, the sport, cancer survivors and and person who needs that bit more motivation on the trainer. But to say he is the best of all time, read your history.


I think it's the guy who invented the bicycle. He was the best sprinter, the best climber, the best time trialer, the best trackie/roadie, off-road - the best everything. And nobody could even challenge him - never mind come close.


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

A little arrogant to say, read your history, isn't it? Someone disagrees with you and they are the ones who should read their history? I did, and Armstrong is the best. He also has done more to help other people than all of the whiners on this message board combined. We should all aspire to be like him rather than spending time tearing him down or detracting from the wonderous comeback he made from near death. 

Thanks for your input.

Iceman


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

walleyeangler said:


> No matter what you think of him personally - and frankly I can't even imagine a problem on that level - Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist of all time. They were all over him and never found proof, only speculation and suspicion, which seems to be enough for some of the un-American riders on this forum. We claim to believe in justice, innocent until proven guilty...but all that gets shunted aside by egos too bruised to admit they are so-so riders at best. Taking pop shots at someone of Armstrong's caliber somehow makes them feel like big boys in their own little minds.
> 
> Armstrong also has been an inspiration to many who have had to deal with cancer, including me as I sit here 8 days after surgery reading all this nonsense. His detractors are not nor will they ever be in his league.
> 
> Ice man


If LA won 10 Tours he still wouldn't be the best of all time.

Coppi, Anqueteil, Merckx, Hinault, Bartali.........ARE the greats, Armstrong is not in their league.

He was the greatest TdF rider of all time, but there are a few more races in the season than the TdF.

He never rode a full season, how can you even consider him a great when he only turned up in late May and was on the beach by early August?

Even before cancer he rode a light schedule. Shame he never tried to emulate Lemond. At least he rode a full classics programme before he rode the Giro AND the Tour. He carried on after the Tour, riding the summer classics too.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

walleyeangler said:


> A little arrogant to say, read your history, isn't it? Someone disagrees with you and they are the ones who should read their history? I did, and Armstrong is the best. He also has done more to help other people than all of the whiners on this message board combined. We should all aspire to be like him rather than spending time tearing him down or detracting from the wonderous comeback he made from near death.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Iceman


If Ju and Basso etc were doping how come Mr Armstrong could take 4 minutes out of them without doping?

As for the best, in addition to the above post, tell me what's LA's record like in MSR, RVV, Lombardy, the Giro, and the worlds. Apart from his lucky win in 93, SFA is the answer.


----------



## galanz (Oct 28, 2004)

LukeVelo said:


> _"Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist of all time."_ Ahem, Merckx. Lance has done wonders, wonders for himself, the sport, cancer survivors and and person who needs that bit more motivation on the trainer. But to say he is the best of all time, read your history.


It's remarkably easy to tell those who have just started paying any attention to cycling in the last 2-3 years, ain't it? Armstrong's a great rider, and the best Tour rider in history, but he's hardly the best cyclist of all time. He's not even the best American cyclist of all time.


----------



## awesometown (May 23, 2005)

galanz said:


> It's remarkably easy to tell those who have just started paying any attention to cycling in the last 2-3 years, ain't it? Armstrong's a great rider, and the best Tour rider in history, but he's hardly the best cyclist of all time. He's not even the best American cyclist of all time.



walleyeangler, you have won a special prize, for being the first person of this, the 2006 Tour De France, to use that time honored phraze "Lance armstrong is the best cyclist of all time"

Cheers to you, good sir! For this you win a helmet mirror and a lifetime supply of primal wear jerseys.


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

Actually I overstated my feelings out of loyality because I'm sick of so many so-so riders (and I count myself as among so-so-riders) who tear him down at any opportunity. His battle with cancer, his rise to the top of the Tour, his example helped save my life. No one else on the tour did that. 

He certainly is the greatest Tour de France rider ever. As for the best cyclist of all time, there are wonderful men riding today who could probably beat him in many forums. But, in my opinion, there is more to being the best cyclist of all time than crossing the finish line first. It's about character and courage and determination. And he is number one. 

Have your own opinion and welcome to them. But expect me to try to balance the small-minded things that are said about him without an iota of proof whenever the discussion turns to doping. It is a simple request and applies to everyone who has had a finger pointed at them over the years and in the past few days _ prove it. Is that asking too much? Seems so.

Iceman


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

awesometown said:


> walleyeangler, you have won a special prize, for being the first person of this, the 2006 Tour De France, to use that time honored phraze "Lance armstrong is the best cyclist of all time"
> 
> Cheers to you, good sir! For this you win a helmet mirror and a lifetime supply of primal wear jerseys.


ROTFLMAO!!!!!


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

surista said:


> Armstrong should be on a plane to Strasbourg ASAP; even after a year off he'd be the favorite of this year's TdF with all the big boys out.
> 
> Anyway - what does the latest scandal out of Spain due for LA's reputation? One of my buddies thought it was bad, just by implication - 'some of the biggest names in cycling were implicated, including Basso & Ullrich, so Armstrong also had to be doping'.
> 
> ...


Get real, without the proper preparation he wouldn't be able to drop Mayo on a short TT.  You really think he won those Tours on KFC and Coke?


----------



## SHVentus (Mar 15, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> what is in it for them?
> "New Product! Fooled the UCI for 7 years! Ask Lance!"
> you think some Phram company is going to do all the testing and R&D for a drug they can't sell, can't market and just give to 1 rider.
> 
> ...


Who says that it has to be a pharm. company? There are much more powerful entities in this world that have their own agendas.

Have these riddles ever been conclusively settled:

Who shot JFK & why?
Who killed Jimmie Hoffa, why, & where is he?
MLK, RK, MM, Malcolm X, LHO, J Ruby, etc., etc.?
For the longest time we didn't know for certain who deep throat was (only once he outed himself). 

Who or what is the most powerful group in the world - the Catholic church. (more powerful than USA govt., IRS, on & on).

Would the USA (government, etc., etc.) have loved to stick it to the French, esp. during the time of LA's reign? To rub their noses in a little merd? (sp?)

With all our military's black ops, their clandestine weapons & who knows what, don't you bet they just might have a special "new generation" PED that is undetectible? Not much of a strectch to imagine someone/group/entity/etc. meeting with LA during his CA days & proposing a deal: We cure your CA, & help to insure your wins in TDF, you're famous & set for life, all for your..... 

Come on, wake up & smell the coffee. Oh ya, more conspiratory rhetoric, yada, yada, yada. Just follow the $$$$$$$$$ &/or power, it might just lead to Pandora's box.


----------



## rroselli (Jan 2, 2003)

*hmm...*

well certainly Lance is one of the luckiest men in the sport. he did work hard to earn those 7 trophies, amen. did he get away with something to win them? dunno. experts that make it their life's mission to catch cheaters, liars and thieves could not prove Lance a doper. For now thats good enough for me. its a shame this latest scandal took out such hopefuls for this years Tour..

Cheers


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

zero85ZEN said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!!!


Armstrong is up there with Merckx. The times were different so you can't compare the two. Ullrich, who was arguably the second best rider over the past 10 years, hasn't been exactly doing all of the spring classics and double or triple grand tours. 

It was a lot less competitive back in the 60ies and 70ies, and nobody could do what Merckx did now - go on solo breakaways, sprints, racing year-round. 
So please get some perspective. I know it's the most popular thing to say "Merckx is the best", but it's like saying that Finnish runner Paavo Nurmi of 1930ies or 1950ies Emil Zatopek are the best distance runners - based on the number of olympic medals. Well the truth is - the kenyan runners of today are clearly much, much, much better athletes. But the field is also a lot more competitive, so you can't win an 800m and a 1500m and 5000m and 10,000m and marathon at the same time. 

So Merckx is the best rider of his time, and Armstrong is the best rider of his time. In terms of sheer domination (how many "riders of the year" would they win?) they are about comparable, and better than Hinault or Indurain. 

To say that Armstrong is not even the best american rider - well, I would be curious who it is, and what criteria would you use to justify that? I think that just shows your "I am not a Lance fan-boy" bias. Armstrong is CLEARLY the best US cyclist. To contradict that you need to use some sort of "what if Lemond wasn't shot" or perhaps bring dope into discussion.


----------



## Duffman (Nov 25, 2005)

*You people are funny.*

This is quite entertaining.


----------



## LukeVelo (Jun 26, 2006)

I am a Lance fan, what he has done is incredible, but I mainly like him because he is using his influence to take on cancer in a big way -- I really think that's great of him. It's a shame Lemond does not get more praise for coming back after being shot and having a brush with death.. The said thing is most Americans prolly think he's French so they don't care. Mabye if he went on to be a gun safety advocate he might be bit more lionized, but Charelton Heston might have shot him or Dick Cheney for that matter.


----------



## awesometown (May 23, 2005)

LukeVelo said:


> I am a Lance fan, what he has done is incredible, but I mainly like him because he is using his influence to take on cancer in a big way -- I really think that's great of him. It's a shame Lemond does not get more praise for coming back after being shot and having a brush with death.. The said thing is most Americans prolly think he's French so they don't care. Mabye if he went on to be a gun safety advocate he might be bit more lionized, but Charelton Heston might have shot him or Dick Cheney for that matter.



Yeah, yeah, he's a Mother Teresa for a modern era.....REGARDLESS

The idea that he is the best cyclist of all time just because he won the TDF so many times, is like saying that Mick Rogers is the worlds best TT rider because he wins the TT champs race (and only that race) every year.


----------



## ralfho (Oct 1, 2005)

Surly he is not saying Lemond is the greatest! :mad2:


----------

