# Does Armstrong really deserve to be forgotten in cycling?



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

I know those are McQuaid's words but I still can't help but think about that statement. Most people here including myself have watched the tour since the late 80s, some even before that. I am by no means an Armstrong fanboy, but most of us who watched the tour have got to admit that some of the best moments I have seen in the Tour with the exception of Lemond/Fignon were from Lance. Beating Kloden on the line in 04,the shortcut,dominating Pantani on Ventoux, etc. There have of course been other epic moments in recent years from other riders as well, but you gotta admit, at least I do, that you watched Lance in awe sometimes even though in the back of your mind you knew the truth. 

I don't post here alot, but I put my miles in,watch races when I can, and I love the sport as much as anyone else here. I live in a town where there are not alot of cyclists,so when I want some "expert" analysis or if I just want to read some intelligent discussion about cycling, I come here. But I am surprised that alot of the other cyclists in my area and beyond say that Lance does deserve to be forgotten. As much of an unsavory as Lance could be sometimes, I still disagree.
Guys like Bobby Julich(who I have always liked) coming forward as well as others will hopefully usher in a new era. 

But given that alot of the great riders in TDF history are also pretty questionable, does Lance really deserve to be forgotten?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

McQuaid would love it if people forgot a lot of things.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

pretender said:


> McQuaid would love it if people forgot a lot of things.



+1 True that.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

Yes, but not before the UCI has been fixed.


----------



## ocean-ro (Nov 23, 2009)

Yes. And the list remain open...


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Armstrong won in a mechanical way. Using his team to drag him up mountains then sprinting uphill for the last few kilometers was not very interesting. At least in the Indurain years, Indurain was content to let others take wins if it did not challenge his overall position.

In the exceitment department, Lance was no Landis, that's for sure. He certainly is not Contador either.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 13, 2009)

Consider this: 100 years from now, PBS does a show on the "History of TdF". There were the early days of cheats riding the train, then came amphetamines, then PEDs (and who would they choose to be the best example of that?), then the attempted enforcement of all-natural racing followed by the slow movement to gene manipulation for enhanced athletic ability. So, no, he won't be forgotten. In fact, PEDs will be considered archaic compared to EPO-testosterone generating lungs enhanced with skin chlorophyll to boost ATP synthesis (at least on sunny days) making sugar and consuming some of the body generated CO2, virtually eliminating lactic acid production. 

The Kurt Russell movie "Soldier" was pretty close to this.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

The idea of Lance Armstrong being forgotten strikes me as pretty ridiculous. McQuaid might wish it became true, but in the United States at least, Armstrong's name will continue to be remembered. Unless a new American star comes along on the scene who might dominate the sport of cycling like Armstrong, Armstrong will continue to be the first person an American will think of when the subject of professional bicycle racing comes up. 

Plus, who knows how attitudes will change toward doping in the coming years? Who knows how much Armstrong will remain the the public eye, as a cyclist or something else?


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Nice pictorial summary of US Postal team over on Pezcyclingnews.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

the winning / stripping LA of 7 TdF victories ensures that his name will always be held in context with pro cycling....

famous and infamous go hand-in-hand...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Good question. Not sure personally. I keep wondering how many other guys could have won 7 TdFs with the same team, corruption, bullying tactics, dope etc that Lance did/had.

It was still quite a feat imo! I believe that most of the pros in the peleton still think "Holy shi*, the dude won SEVEN times!"

It is sad that his personality is simply crushing him in so many ways Karma I guess...


----------



## tnvol123 (Sep 11, 2012)

I agree. I think most people wouldn't have so much animosity if he wasn't such a douchebag. 



rydbyk said:


> Good question. Not sure personally. I keep wondering how many other guys could have won 7 TdFs with the same team, corruption, bullying tactics, dope etc that Lance did/had.
> 
> It was still quite a feat imo! I believe that most of the pros in the peleton still think "Holy shi*, the dude won SEVEN times!"
> 
> *It is sad that his personality is simply crushing him in so many way Karma I guess...*


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

One of Hamilton's main points in interviews is that there was Testosterone and EPO use prior to Armstrong. Another point is that US Postal wasn't the only team to dope. 

This isn't the "level playing field" argument. It's a reality check from Hamilton to those who think Armstrong brought team-wide systemic and blood vector doping to cycling.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

Armstrong definitely should not be forgotten. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, and I don't think we want that.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

McQuaid's statement is quite revealing. What he would like us to forget is not just Armstrong but the UCI's complicity in his 'success'. It's the same kind of pablum offered up by all the dopers in the peloton still in denial- 'sure, the past was terrible, but we need to move on, look to the future etc'. 
Armstrong will never be forgotten, how could a gaping hole in TdF results be shrugged off? 
He just needs to be remembered as a cheat, a liar and a bully. From a purely racing point of view I didn't find watching him all that exciting either, the only time I was really impressed was in 1995 when he stayed away to win stage 17 in honour of Casartelli. That was the first time I heard the name 'Armstrong'.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

From a pure cyclist standpoint, you gotta remember that some of the other dopers are legends in their home towns simply because they win ONE stage.

Lance won SEVEN TdFs. Again, yeh, maybe other cyclists think he is the biggest cheater and is a jerk, but I guarantee you that most of them sit back and think "Dayuuuum! Homie was able to WIN SEVEN Tdfs....no way I could have done that with all the help/corruption in the world...."


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> From a pure cyclist standpoint, you gotta remember that some of the other dopers are legends in their home towns simply because they win ONE stage.
> 
> Lance won SEVEN TdFs. Again, yeh, maybe other cyclists think he is the biggest cheater and is a jerk, but I guarantee you that most of them sit back and think "Dayuuuum! Homie was able to WIN SEVEN Tdfs....no way I could have done that with all the help/corruption in the world...."


In some respects it was just too easy, hence 7 wins. He found a foolproof way to crook the House, why, the House even helped him by looking the other way. So train like mad, a few warm up events like Tour de Swiss or the Dauphine, have the bags in place, your teammates primed, make it the focus of your year and just collect. When he bragged that he showed up prepared he really meant it! Ego and greed, that was his downfall. For that he should be remembered.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

He should be remembered. He's a legend - The BIGGEST sporting cheat of all time!


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

sir duke said:


> McQuaid's statement is quite revealing. What he would like us to forget is not just Armstrong but the UCI's complicity in his 'success'. It's the same kind of pablum offered up by all the dopers in the peloton still in denial- 'sure, the past was terrible, but we need to move on, look to the future etc'.
> Armstrong will never be forgotten, how could a gaping hole in TdF results be shrugged off?
> He just needs to be remembered as a cheat, a liar and a bully. From a purely racing point of view I didn't find watching him all that exciting either, the only time I was really impressed was in 1995 when he stayed away to win stage 17 in honour of Casartelli. That was the first time I heard the name 'Armstrong'.


Seriously? The only time you were impressed with Armstrong was in 95? So between then and 2005.....nothing else in almost 10 years? I thought him winning the stage for Fabio was touching and all,but at in that 10 years I find it hard to believe that nothing else impressed you.

My point is this. Why do guys like Merckx who tested positive for the BANNED substance Pemoline in 77 and had doped for years prior to that get a free pass with most people. And Indurain had worked with Ferrari in the past so he may or may not be questionable. I love both of those guys, but let's be honest here. Granted, Merckx didnt use EPO because it wasn't around then,but he was finding out ways to beat what they were testing for at the time. So to me that is the same thing. Oh...and let's not forget about Fignon either . 

So since it is confirmed that Merckx and Fignon doped, their races must not have been that exciting either and we should forget about them to. And I guess I should just not acknowledge Fignon's showdown with LeMond in 89 or Merckx's hour record either. No way. So to make the comparison that Lance had a more sophisticated system or that he was a D-bag makes no difference. Whether you are the nicest guy in the world or the biggest jerk, one thing remains the same...cheating. Fignon, Merckx, Armstrong and many others cheated, that's all that matters. So it's kind of a double standard. Even though they are all from different eras, as far as I am concerned it's all the same. Merckx won 5,Fignon won 2, and Lance won 7.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

sir duke said:


> In some respects it was just too easy, hence 7 wins. He found a foolproof way to crook the House, why, the House even helped him by looking the other way. So train like mad, a few warm up events like Tour de Swiss or the Dauphine, have the bags in place, your teammates primed, make it the focus of your year and just collect. When he bragged that he showed up prepared he really meant it! Ego and greed, that was his downfall. For that he should be remembered.


I never liked the fact that Lance didn't race the other Grand Tours on a regular basis ether. But there was no rule against that. The Tour was his thing, so be it. 

But his team wasn't the only team at the time that had the "bags in place"


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

g29er said:


> Seriously? The only time you were impressed with Armstrong was in 95? So between then and 2005.....nothing else in almost 10 years? I thought him winning the stage for Fabio was touching and all,but at in that 10 years I find it hard to believe that nothing else impressed you.
> 
> My point is this. Why do guys like Merckx who tested positive for the BANNED substance Pemoline in 77 and had doped for years prior to that get a free pass with most people. And Indurain had worked with Ferrari in the past so he may or may not be questionable. I love both of those guys, but let's be honest here. Granted, Merckx didnt use EPO because it wasn't around then,but he was finding out ways to beat what they were testing for at the time. So to me that is the same thing. Oh...and let's not forget about Fignon either .
> 
> So since it is confirmed that Merckx and Fignon doped, their races must not have been that exciting either and we should forget about them to. And I guess I should just not acknowledge Fignon's showdown with LeMond in 89 or Merckx's hour record either. No way. So to make the comparison that Lance had a more sophisticated system or that he was a D-bag makes no difference. Whether you are the nicest guy in the world or the biggest jerk, one thing remains the same...cheating. Fignon, Merckx, Armstrong and many others cheated, that's all that matters. So it's kind of a double standard. Even though they are all from different eras, as far as I am concerned it's all the same. Merckx won 5,Fignon won 2, and Lance won 7.


You forgot Hinault, he cheated too.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Good question. Not sure personally. I keep wondering how many other guys could have won 7 TdFs with the same team, corruption, bullying tactics, dope etc that Lance did/had.
> 
> It was still quite a feat imo! I believe that most of the pros in the peleton still think "Holy shi*, the dude won SEVEN times!"
> 
> It is sad that his personality is simply crushing him in so many ways Karma I guess...


I don't know if others could've won the TdF 7 times but Armstrong made sure that Hamilton wouldn't even win one, when the latter started displaying superior physical abilities.
Furthermore, Contador was on his way to achieving far more without the bullying tactics.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

MG537 said:


> I don't know if others could've won the TdF 7 times but Armstrong made sure that Hamilton wouldn't even win one, when the latter started displaying superior physical abilities.
> Furthermore, Contador was on his way to achieving far more without the bullying tactics.


I know. I read all about that with TH. Just terrible...


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

albert owen said:


> He should be remembered. He's a legend - The BIGGEST sporting cheat of all time!


Or how 'bout "Most detested athlete in history."


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

albert owen said:


> He should be remembered. He's a legend - The BIGGEST sporting cheat of all time!


People still remember Ben Johnson 24 years down the road. 

Don't know whether he's the biggest sporting cheat of all time, but he's the one who benefitted most from doping. Johnson and Carl Lewis would have been world class sprinters and gold medal contenders without steroids. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would have had Hall of Fame careers without PEDs. I would say that Armstrong's only rival for most successful doper would have been Mark McGwire. He went from a 30-40 season HR guy to a 50-60 one.

I wouldn't say that he was a total fraud because he had the skills to ride in the pro peloton without doping. Rosie Ruiz was the total fraud. :lol:


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

sir duke said:


> McQuaid's statement is quite revealing. What he would like us to forget is not just Armstrong but the UCI's complicity in his 'success'. It's the same kind of pablum offered up by all the dopers in the peloton still in denial- 'sure, the past was terrible, but we need to move on, look to the future etc'.
> Armstrong will never be forgotten, how could a gaping hole in TdF results be shrugged off?
> He just needs to be remembered as a cheat, a liar and a bully. From a purely racing point of view I didn't find watching him all that exciting either, the only time I was really impressed was in 1995 when he stayed away to win stage 17 in honour of Casartelli. That was the first time I heard the name 'Armstrong'.


Amen! :thumbsup:


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

albert owen said:


> He should be remembered. He's a legend - The BIGGEST sporting cheat of all time!


+1 This. :thumbsup:


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

g29er said:


> Seriously? The only time you were impressed with Armstrong was in 95? So between then and 2005.....nothing else in almost 10 years? I thought him winning the stage for Fabio was touching and all,but at in that 10 years I find it hard to believe that nothing else impressed you.
> 
> My point is this. Why do guys like Merckx who tested positive for the BANNED substance Pemoline in 77 and had doped for years prior to that get a free pass with most people. And Indurain had worked with Ferrari in the past so he may or may not be questionable. I love both of those guys, but let's be honest here. Granted, Merckx didnt use EPO because it wasn't around then,but he was finding out ways to beat what they were testing for at the time. So to me that is the same thing. Oh...and let's not forget about Fignon either .
> 
> So since it is confirmed that Merckx and Fignon doped, their races must not have been that exciting either and we should forget about them to. And I guess I should just not acknowledge Fignon's showdown with LeMond in 89 or Merckx's hour record either. No way. So to make the comparison that Lance had a more sophisticated system or that he was a D-bag makes no difference. Whether you are the nicest guy in the world or the biggest jerk, one thing remains the same...cheating. Fignon, Merckx, Armstrong and many others cheated, that's all that matters. So it's kind of a double standard. Even though they are all from different eras, as far as I am concerned it's all the same. Merckx won 5,Fignon won 2, and Lance won 7.



Again, as stated in my previous post, other TDF winners are getting a free pass. Do you think Armstrong was the only unsavory Tour winner and the rest were super nice guys? Hinault was definitely no saint and was also known to be quite the bully as you all know. Remember that stunt Hinault pulled on Lemond in 86? Kinda rivals Armstrong in 09 doesn't it? He even had the nerve back then to demand the peloton to not attack at times because the next day's stage would be a hard one. He also said that Cadel will never win the tour,how nice. Fignon was also not known for being roses either when he was younger. 

It's laughable to me that people want to pick and choose their legends and base it on who was the most polite doper. As I said before, It's not a secret that Merckx was pretty heavily involved in doping throughout his career and so was Fignon. But Merckx is regarded as a legend because he was a nice guy. All the crap about Armstrong covering it up and the way in which he did it is irrelevant. They all attempted to cover it up in their own way except for Jacques Anquetil of course. You also forget to that Merckx was also wealthy enough back then to have a pretty effective doping program as well. 

So gimme a break. To say that Armstrong should be forgotten is ridiculous. I am all for clean sport to,but if people are going to beat the ant-doping drum and claim that one person's achievements are irrelevant and someone else's are celebrated and remembered based on how much you like the guy even though they were all cheating is insane. 

To me, Merckx,Fignon,Anquetil,Hinault,Armstrong, and the rest are all legends. And you cant exclude certain riders based on personality alone. Doping is doping folks.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

MG537 said:


> I don't know if others could've won the TdF 7 times but Armstrong made sure that Hamilton wouldn't even win one, when the latter started displaying superior physical abilities.
> Furthermore, Contador was on his way to achieving far more without the bullying tactics.



I kind of agree but other winners have broken out of the shadow of their leader and went on to win the tour. LeMond did it, so did Contador. 

He did work for Lance for a while but when he went on his own he still had plenty of time to make a name. He had some successes but he also had his chance with CSC and Phonak but couldn't pull it off.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

Won't be totally forgotten............still has his '93 World Championship


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

g29er said:


> Again, as stated in my previous post, other TDF winners are getting a free pass. Do you think Armstrong was the only unsavory Tour winner and the rest were super nice guys? Hinault was definitely no saint and was also known to be quite the bully as you all know. Remember that stunt Hinault pulled on Lemond in 86? Kinda rivals Armstrong in 09 doesn't it? He even had the nerve back then to demand the peloton to not attack at times because the next day's stage would be a hard one. He also said that Cadel will never win the tour,how nice. Fignon was also not known for being roses either when he was younger.
> 
> It's laughable to me that people want to pick and choose their legends and base it on who was the most polite doper. As I said before, It's not a secret that Merckx was pretty heavily involved in doping throughout his career and so was Fignon. But Merckx is regarded as a legend because he was a nice guy. All the crap about Armstrong covering it up and the way in which he did it is irrelevant. They all attempted to cover it up in their own way except for Jacques Anquetil of course. You also forget to that Merckx was also wealthy enough back then to have a pretty effective doping program as well.
> 
> ...


No, doping isn't doping. O2 blood vector manipulation is light years ahead of what guys like Merckx were putting in their systems. Speed and nitro aren't going to augment what genetics gave you to move you from the middle of the pack to the podium. Blood doping took an average long distance runner named Lasse Viren from a virtual unknown in track and field to 4 gold medals, and he didn't do squat between Olympics. Or much after 1976, when the rest of the world caught on. If you have a chance, watch the video of his 10000 meters in 1972. He broke the WR despite falling. Watch how he ran the last 600 meters of that race, and tell me that he wasn't supercharged on something. Even more impressive, when he ran the last 1500 of the 5000 in a time which would have placed 8th in the 1500 meter final. Then, he comes back they very next day and runs a 2:13 marathon, placing 5th. Baseball players who took greenies in the 60s and 70s didn't get the enormous power increases that steroids and HGH gave guys like Sosa and McGwire. Doping isn't doping in that regard. There's dope, and then there's super-dope.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> No, doping isn't doping. O2 blood vector manipulation is light years ahead of what guys like Merckx were putting in their systems. Speed and nitro aren't going to augment what genetics gave you to move you from the middle of the pack to the podium. Blood doping took an average long distance runner named Lasse Viren from a virtual unknown in track and field to 4 gold medals, and he didn't do squat between Olympics. Or much after 1976, when the rest of the world caught on. If you have a chance, watch the video of his 10000 meters in 1972. He broke the WR despite falling. Watch how he ran the last 600 meters of that race, and tell me that he wasn't supercharged on something. Even more impressive, when he ran the last 1500 of the 5000 in a time which would have placed 8th in the 1500 meter final. Then, he comes back they very next day and runs a 2:13 marathon, placing 5th. Baseball players who took greenies in the 60s and 70s didn't get the enormous power increases that steroids and HGH gave guys like Sosa and McGwire. Doping isn't doping in that regard. There's dope, and then there's super-dope.


So now your implying that if someone dopes its ok, as long as it isn't super-dope? And from a cycling standpoint everyone knows that EPO didnt really make the scene until the 90s' And in Viren's case it was all speculation and if it was confirmed it was the method then it certainly was not well known at the time. If they are testing for a banned substance and you took said banned substance and hid it, it is doping. Just because something does not augment what genetics gave you does not mean it cant give you an advantage. Hence the reason for why they tested for it in the first place. 

If cyclists of that era had back then had what they have today, one would be a fool to think that they would not have dabbled in it. Either way, when Merckx and everyone else from that era was riding they tested for stuff back then to and he found ways to avoid testing and tested positive. Case in point. The only difference is that technology was different. 40 years from now people are going to say,what's the big deal? It was only EPO, it's not like it was super dope or anything,because by then technology will have evolved again like it always does.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Hamilton*



Local Hero said:


> One of Hamilton's main points in interviews is that there was Testosterone and EPO use prior to Armstrong. Another point is that US Postal wasn't the only team to dope.
> 
> This isn't the "level playing field" argument. It's a reality check from Hamilton to those who think Armstrong brought team-wide systemic and blood vector doping to cycling.


was busted doping @ CSC, Landis @ Phonak, Jan and Co. were doping @ Telekom.
Bjarne was as much a doping enthusiast as the hog

I don't really buy that much into Tyler's testimony. If so, he should have won a GT @ CSC because he could have gotten back on a program. Sounds like sour grapes coming from the guy who lied on his dog's grave


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

g29er said:


> So now your implying that if someone dopes its ok, as long as it isn't super-dope? And from a cycling standpoint everyone knows that EPO didnt really make the scene until the 90s' And in Viren's case it was all speculation and if it was confirmed it was the method then it certainly was not well known at the time. If they are testing for a banned substance and you took said banned substance and hid it, it is doping. Just because something does not augment what genetics gave you does not mean it cant give you an advantage. Hence the reason for why they tested for it in the first place.
> 
> If cyclists of that era had back then had what they have today, one would be a fool to think that they would not have dabbled in it. Either way, when Merckx and everyone else from that era was riding they tested for stuff back then to and he found ways to avoid testing and tested positive. Case in point. The only difference is that technology was different. 40 years from now people are going to say,what's the big deal? It was only EPO, it's not like it was super dope or anything,because by then technology will have evolved again like it always does.


It does not matter one bit what happened in prior cycling eras. Lance's behavior speaks for itself. He was a global brand name based on the biggest fraud in sports. Among other things, he ruined peoples' careers, sued innocent people, called women ****s and hid behind his cancer foundation. Accuse Lance of doping and you were depicted as pro-cancer. It was an empire based on lies and deceit. 

Any time one mentions anything about other cyclists doping, past eras, what others may or may not have done in the past, and so on and so forth, it waters down what Lance did. There is no excuse for doing so. You might as well argue Lance is innocent.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

g29er said:


> So now your implying that if someone dopes its ok, as long as it isn't super-dope? And from a cycling standpoint everyone knows that EPO didnt really make the scene until the 90s' And in Viren's case it was all speculation and if it was confirmed it was the method then it certainly was not well known at the time. If they are testing for a banned substance and you took said banned substance and hid it, it is doping. Just because something does not augment what genetics gave you does not mean it cant give you an advantage. Hence the reason for why they tested for it in the first place.
> 
> If cyclists of that era had back then had what they have today, one would be a fool to think that they would not have dabbled in it. Either way, when Merckx and everyone else from that era was riding they tested for stuff back then to and he found ways to avoid testing and tested positive. Case in point. The only difference is that technology was different. 40 years from now people are going to say,what's the big deal? It was only EPO, it's not like it was super dope or anything,because by then technology will have evolved again like it always does.


You're entirely missing the point. I never said doping was OK, or that amphetamines didn't give someone some performance edge. They increase alertness, and can act as an analgesic to reduce pain. They increase heart rate. They don't aid recovery, and they do nothing to increase one's red blood cell count, which increases the oxygen supply to muscles during extended exertion, in events like a 200 km stage of a Tour, or a long distance race. Someone with a 42% HCT value is still going to have a 42% HCT value even if he drops a handful of bennies. Blood doping and EPO increase red blood cell count, and raise HCT levels. Someone with a 48% HCT value won't get nearly as much of a performance boost from taking EPO or a transfusion, as the cut-off point for HCT value is 50%. However, someone with a 42% HCT value, who might not be able to hang with more naturally gifted riders, can get a huge boost from it. Just like "all men are created equal" is a myth when it comes to sports genetics, all dope is created equal, or all dopers respond equally to dope is similarly a myth. Most people respond similarly, if not equally, to CNS stimulants. The same isn't true of O2 vector doping.

Yes, Viren has never admitted blood doping. Much like Armstrong has never admitted any EPO use. He hasn't bristled with anger when anyone raises the subject, like Armstrong did. He just plays cute. One of his stock answers is "I never took dope. I never did anything illegal." He's technically correct. Transfusing one's own blood isn't taking a drug, nor was it illegal until 1986.His countryman, Kaarlo Manninka, admitted that he blood doped in Moscow in 1980. It was well a well know method of enhancing performance in distance events.It had to be for the subject to have come up with Viren. Whenever average--or even above average--athletes turn in super-human performances, you have to wonder what propelled them to that performance. Running a WR 10000 meters, followed in a few days by a blistering last 1500 in a 5000, then following up that with a 2:13 marathon 18 hours later is one of those super-human performances that defies belief that some performance enhancer wasn't involved.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

It really bothers me how he lied to our faces for so long. It bothers me that he's just a bully. I really don't like him much anymore. I really hope he's thinking about crawling under a rock right about now.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

> It really bothers me how he lied to our faces for so long. It bothers me that he's just a bully. I really don't like him much anymore. I really hope he's thinking about crawling under a rock right about now.


Well guess what? Everyone who has ever doped is lying to our faces. Nobody is going to admit to it while they are doing it unless they get popped or in the case of Hamilton,Hincapie etc. have pressure applied to them by the authorities, then they fess up to it. 



> You're entirely missing the point. I never said doping was OK, or that amphetamines didn't give someone some performance edge. They increase alertness, and can act as an analgesic to reduce pain. They increase heart rate. They don't aid recovery, and they do nothing to increase one's red blood cell count, which increases the oxygen supply to muscles during extended exertion, in events like a 200 km stage of a Tour, or a long distance race. Someone with a 42% HCT value is still going to have a 42% HCT value even if he drops a handful of bennies. Blood doping and EPO increase red blood cell count, and raise HCT levels. Someone with a 48% HCT value won't get nearly as much of a performance boost from taking EPO or a transfusion, as the cut-off point for HCT value is 50%. However, someone with a 42% HCT value, who might not be able to hang with more naturally gifted riders, can get a huge boost from it. Just like "all men are created equal" is a myth when it comes to sports genetics, all dope is created equal, or all dopers respond equally to dope is similarly a myth. Most people respond similarly, if not equally, to CNS stimulants. The same isn't true of O2 vector doping.
> 
> Yes, Viren has never admitted blood doping. Much like Armstrong has never admitted any EPO use. He hasn't bristled with anger when anyone raises the subject, like Armstrong did. He just plays cute. One of his stock answers is "I never took dope. I never did anything illegal." He's technically correct. Transfusing one's own blood isn't taking a drug, nor was it illegal until 1986.His countryman, Kaarlo Manninka, admitted that he blood doped in Moscow in 1980. It was well a well know method of enhancing performance in distance events.It had to be for the subject to have come up with Viren. Whenever average--or even above average--athletes turn in super-human performances, you have to wonder what propelled them to that performance. Running a WR 10000 meters, followed in a few days by a blistering last 1500 in a 5000, then following up that with a 2:13 marathon 18 hours later is one of those super-human performances that defies belief that some performance enhancer wasn't involved.


I fully understand how EPO works and the differences between how it and other performance enhancers work. Just because a Finnish runner blood doped in 1980 doesn't mean that alot of cyclists were using it .But EPO did not emerge in cycling until the late 80s early nineties. Not everyone responds to stimulants the same way either because everyone's physiology is obviously different when it comes to either genetic or built up tolerances. Some guys could pop em like candy while some guys would give out. Or some guys would give out after poppin em like candy. Think Tom Simpson. And since you stated that not everyone responds to "O2 Vector doping" the same way either then you wouldn't know how effective it would be for Lance or anyone else for that matter. So I am not sure of the point you were trying to make. And whether someone "plays cute" or someone is "bristled with anger" when confronted about doping is irrelevant.

My whole point is everyone is joining the lynch mob and acting all surprised and hurt about Armstrong to the point of ridiculousness. Yet I don't hear the same disdain for Hincapie and all the other riders who have been recently outed. They didnt come forward until they were forced to,otherwise you wouldn't even have given it a thought. What George and everyone else from that era did was live a lie, just like Armstrong. So is Hincapie really different? No he isn't. And neither is Hamilton or Julich and anyone else. If anyone is going to jump on the bandwagon and hold Armstrong to the flame, then you have to do it for everyone else to. Who cares if you like them or not. 

If Jensy got busted, which is a possibility because he rode for CSC,everyone would say how much it sucks and feel bad for the guy. Jens is my favorite rider, but I would still have to hold him to the same scrutiny that I would for Armstrong or anyone else. I still wouldn't forget about how he punished riders like no one else and just write off his achievements though. 

So we will just agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, but I still don't think that Armstrong should be forgotten in cycling. And neither should Hincapie, Julich or anyone else.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

g29er said:


> Well guess what? Everyone who has ever doped is lying to our faces. Nobody is going to admit to it while they are doing it unless they get popped or in the case of Hamilton,Hincapie etc. have pressure applied to them by the authorities, then they fess up to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. Everybody who doped should be treated equally.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

I agree that Lance shouldn't be forgotten. For better or for worse, he's an indelible part of cycling history. Also, my wife is a first generation Finnish-American. Lasse is a god in this house. I don't hold blood doping against him, because it was legal at the time. Much like I don't hold it against Anquetil, because it wasn't banned at the time. There's a bright line that neither of them ever crossed. I just don't have any illusions about how he pulled off his Olympic achievements. It still was an awesome performance in the 1972 10000. Blood manipulation or not, he could have quit when he got tangled up and fell, losing 50+ meters on the field.

I also have to give Armstrong my grudging admiration for being so strong-willed and determined.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Agree, the hipocracy is nauseating. 



g29er said:


> Seriously? The only time you were impressed with Armstrong was in 95? So between then and 2005.....nothing else in almost 10 years? I thought him winning the stage for Fabio was touching and all,but at in that 10 years I find it hard to believe that nothing else impressed you.
> 
> My point is this. Why do guys like Merckx who tested positive for the BANNED substance Pemoline in 77 and had doped for years prior to that get a free pass with most people. And Indurain had worked with Ferrari in the past so he may or may not be questionable. I love both of those guys, but let's be honest here. Granted, Merckx didnt use EPO because it wasn't around then,but he was finding out ways to beat what they were testing for at the time. So to me that is the same thing. Oh...and let's not forget about Fignon either .
> 
> So since it is confirmed that Merckx and Fignon doped, their races must not have been that exciting either and we should forget about them to. And I guess I should just not acknowledge Fignon's showdown with LeMond in 89 or Merckx's hour record either. No way. So to make the comparison that Lance had a more sophisticated system or that he was a D-bag makes no difference. Whether you are the nicest guy in the world or the biggest jerk, one thing remains the same...cheating. Fignon, Merckx, Armstrong and many others cheated, that's all that matters. So it's kind of a double standard. Even though they are all from different eras, as far as I am concerned it's all the same. Merckx won 5,Fignon won 2, and Lance won 7.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> Agree, the hipocracy is nauseating.


Very much in agreement. Not that Armstrong is innocent by any stretch. Fignon, Pantani, Ullrich, VINO FOR PETE'S SAKE, etc. have all been allowed to keep their GT wins. Even upon his death, Pantani denied ever doping. Hell, he even beat a juiced Armstrong up a mountain. Twice. 

I think the destruction of Armstrong is a symbolic end of doping and a cleansing. In reality, not so much and we're likely to catch more than a few cyclists while baseball and football players roid up.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Yep. I just don't get the logic of the LA haters. If you're going to condem him you have to condemn the rest otherwise it's hypocritical. 



g29er said:


> Again, as stated in my previous post, other TDF winners are getting a free pass. Do you think Armstrong was the only unsavory Tour winner and the rest were super nice guys? Hinault was definitely no saint and was also known to be quite the bully as you all know. Remember that stunt Hinault pulled on Lemond in 86? Kinda rivals Armstrong in 09 doesn't it? He even had the nerve back then to demand the peloton to not attack at times because the next day's stage would be a hard one. He also said that Cadel will never win the tour,how nice. Fignon was also not known for being roses either when he was younger.
> 
> It's laughable to me that people want to pick and choose their legends and base it on who was the most polite doper. As I said before, It's not a secret that Merckx was pretty heavily involved in doping throughout his career and so was Fignon. But Merckx is regarded as a legend because he was a nice guy. All the crap about Armstrong covering it up and the way in which he did it is irrelevant. They all attempted to cover it up in their own way except for Jacques Anquetil of course. You also forget to that Merckx was also wealthy enough back then to have a pretty effective doping program as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

So light cheating is ok heavy cheating is bad and you get to draw the line. That's interesting. 



mpre53 said:


> No, doping isn't doping. O2 blood vector manipulation is light years ahead of what guys like Merckx were putting in their systems. Speed and nitro aren't going to augment what genetics gave you to move you from the middle of the pack to the podium. Blood doping took an average long distance runner named Lasse Viren from a virtual unknown in track and field to 4 gold medals, and he didn't do squat between Olympics. Or much after 1976, when the rest of the world caught on. If you have a chance, watch the video of his 10000 meters in 1972. He broke the WR despite falling. Watch how he ran the last 600 meters of that race, and tell me that he wasn't supercharged on something. Even more impressive, when he ran the last 1500 of the 5000 in a time which would have placed 8th in the 1500 meter final. Then, he comes back they very next day and runs a 2:13 marathon, placing 5th. Baseball players who took greenies in the 60s and 70s didn't get the enormous power increases that steroids and HGH gave guys like Sosa and McGwire. Doping isn't doping in that regard. There's dope, and then there's super-dope.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

All of this "Lance was just another doper, why is he so persecuted" stuff is chapping my hide. Lance was not just another doper. None of the others systematically went about ruining the careers and reputations of every person who dared to cross them. None of the others bullied and intimidated everyone who could create problems for them. None of the others hired PR companies specifically to slander perceived enemies, or fired off fusillades of lawsuits at the drop of a hat.

Dante reserved a special place in hell for people who sinned with such hypocrisy and without a shred of shame. Dante was right. Armstrong's little soliloquy from the podium after his 7th TDF "win" about how he felt sorry for everyone who doubted him because they were afraid to dream big and couldn't believe in miracles is a modern benchmark in hypocrisy. Can I imagine any other cyclist having the hollow cynicism to say those things while standing doped to the gills in the brightest spotlight in the sport? Hell no. He's not just another doper, and he has a lot to answer for.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> Dante reserved a special place in hell for people who sinned with such hypocrisy and without a shred of shame. Dante was right.


It's one thing to desire justice through the legal system, but eternal damnation? I think some of y'all take this stuff entirely too seriously and you hopefully don't belong to a fundamentalist group that has lots of weapons.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> It's one thing to desire justice through the legal system, but eternal damnation? I think some of y'all take this stuff entirely too seriously and you hopefully don't belong to a fundamentalist group that has lots of weapons.


I guess it's no big deal if our kids grow up thinking its a-ok to become a sports champion and global celebrity by injecting themselves with an alphabet soup of hormones, blood transfusions, suing everyone on sight and being generally morally vacant a-holes. 

I mean, don't have a cow, man.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> I guess it's no big deal if our kids grow up thinking its a-ok to become a sports champion and global celebrity by injecting themselves with an alphabet soup of hormones, blood transfusions, suing everyone on sight and being generally morally vacant a-holes.
> 
> I mean, don't have a cow, man.












Why you little.......!!!!!


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

Fireform said:


> All of this "Lance was just another doper, why is he so persecuted" stuff is chapping my hide. Lance was not just another doper. None of the others systematically went about ruining the careers and reputations of every person who dared to cross them. None of the others bullied and intimidated everyone who could create problems for them. None of the others hired PR companies specifically to slander perceived enemies, or fired off fusillades of lawsuits at the drop of a hat.
> 
> Dante reserved a special place in hell for people who sinned with such hypocrisy and without a shred of shame. Dante was right. Armstrong's little soliloquy from the podium after his 7th TDF "win" about how he felt sorry for everyone who doubted him because they were afraid to dream big and couldn't believe in miracles is a modern benchmark in hypocrisy. Can I imagine any other cyclist having the hollow cynicism to say those things while standing doped to the gills in the brightest spotlight in the sport? Hell no. He's not just another doper, and he has a lot to answer for.


And how would you know all this? The short answer is, You don't. You're just speculating.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> It's one thing to desire justice through the legal system, but eternal damnation? I think some of y'all take this stuff entirely too seriously and you hopefully don't belong to a fundamentalist group that has lots of weapons.


I agree.

Rapists/murderers/child molesters/abusers should have a place in eternal damnation, but for doping, not so much. Public persecution and banned from sports, absolutely.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

OK so you're an LA hater because he's alpha. That's cool. But then call a spade a spade. If you hate em because he's a doper, then hate on all the dopers. The hypocrisy is what "chaps my hide". From a doping perspective, yes he's just another cog in the entire wheel of corruption. The fact that he played harder to win then other dopers doesn't make him a standout doper.



Fireform said:


> All of this "Lance was just another doper, why is he so persecuted" stuff is chapping my hide. Lance was not just another doper. None of the others systematically went about ruining the careers and reputations of every person who dared to cross them. None of the others bullied and intimidated everyone who could create problems for them. None of the others hired PR companies specifically to slander perceived enemies, or fired off fusillades of lawsuits at the drop of a hat.
> 
> Dante reserved a special place in hell for people who sinned with such hypocrisy and without a shred of shame. Dante was right. Armstrong's little soliloquy from the podium after his 7th TDF "win" about how he felt sorry for everyone who doubted him because they were afraid to dream big and couldn't believe in miracles is a modern benchmark in hypocrisy. Can I imagine any other cyclist having the hollow cynicism to say those things while standing doped to the gills in the brightest spotlight in the sport? Hell no. He's not just another doper, and he has a lot to answer for.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> I agree.
> 
> Rapists/murderers/child molesters/abusers should have a place in eternal damnation, but for doping, not so much. Public persecution and banned from sports, absolutely.


LOL, hopefully you don't get any hate mail for being a Pharmstrong sympathizer. I got a fun one in my PM box saying "I hope you're proud of yourself." To which I responded, "yes, I am very proud of myself. Thanks for reminding me!" :thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> OK so you're an LA hater because he's alpha.


I think you hit an extremely strong point. There are a lot of alphas and wannabe alphas in here. Working in a hospital, I deal with more than my fair share of alphas. Didn't take me too long to realize that nobody hates an alpha as much as another alpha.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> LOL, hopefully you don't get any hate mail for being a Pharmstrong sympathizer. I got a fun one in my PM box saying "I hope you're proud of yourself." To which I responded, "yes, I am very proud of myself. Thanks for reminding me!" :thumbsup:


Some people just get too emotional over sports .


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> Some people just get too emotional over sports .


Just a little. A facebook friend told me he overheard that some guys were going to refuse to race USAC races and to pressure local race promoters to not be USAC sanctioned. I suspect these people are in the minority and most of us racers are going to continue doing our thing. Now, if my favorite local TTs or road races with hill finishes get cancelled, then LA and I will have a talk.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Robert1 said:


> OK so you're an LA hater because he's alpha. That's cool. But then call a spade a spade. If you hate em because he's a doper, then hate on all the dopers. The hypocrisy is what "chaps my hide". From a doping perspective, yes he's just another cog in the entire wheel of corruption. The fact that he played harder to win then other dopers doesn't make him a standout doper.


This logic is laughable. First of all, equating what Lance did in and to the sport with what, say, Dave Zabriski did (because hey, they're "both dopers") is just idiotic. That's not to say I condone what Dave did, but its a whole different order of transgression and merits different punishment. Plus, he came forward to testify in the federal case voluntarily. So no, there is no equivalence among all dopers. 

Second, just because someone is an alpha doesn't automatically mean they're an a-hole or excuse them from being one. I work around some pretty serious alphas too. I have met Nobel and McArthur prize winners who were deeply decent people. I think most of us can rattle off a list of sports superstars who are known to be very nice people, and do all sorts of charitable work with little publicity. In my experience its the wanna be top dogs who deep down know they don't have the goods who are the biggest jerks. So that's another false equivalency. 

You're 0 for 2. Better luck next time.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> Yep. I just don't get the logic of the LA haters. If you're going to condem him you have to condemn the rest otherwise it's hypocritical.


It is odd, but most of the "hate" is based on Lance's personality. Not doping.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

BuenosAires said:


> And how would you know all this? The short answer is, You don't. You're just speculating.


It's not speculation, it's public record. Just because you may be ignorant of it all doesn't mean we all are.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

So what crimes did you actually show/list that LA committed beyond other dopers? So now you feel like one should be sentenced based on "*******lisshness". Voluntarily coming forward against another doesn't absolve one from their *crimes*, though in our legal system it does generally get you some leniency for cooperation. But what about the rest of the dopers that had guns put to their head facing perjury? What's their excuse in your eyes for a pass? I'm sure you have one. You really think Hamilton would have come forward not for that? He was injecting EPO side by side with LA together in the same bathrooms and tents. I understand some people just plane hate LA. 



Fireform said:


> This logic is laughable. First of all, equating what Lance did in and to the sport with what, say, Dave Zabriski did (because hey, they're "both dopers") is just idiotic. That's not to say I condone what Dave did, but its a whole different order of transgression and merits different punishment. Plus, he came forward to testify in the federal case voluntarily. So no, there is no equivalence among all dopers.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I really don't see your point. I'm not giving anyone a free pass and neither is the USADA. Hamilton was perfectly clear that he had no intention of spilling his guts before he was called before the grand jury. So what? What do the circumstances of anyone's truth telling have to do with the price of tea in China? None of that changes what Armstrong did. Maybe it helps you to pretend he's a victim, but he's not.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Really you don't see the point? What it has to with is that all these guys are the same. But for some folks it seems to be a very personal hate for LA. You hate the guy I get that loud and clear. But don't pretend it has anything to do with his doping because there's a plenty of guys out there that are the same in that regard. LA was just more stupid and arrogant about it. I'm mean seriously, I just don't get what you are saying. Is LA a standout because of doping? Show me facts. What in your mind makes him a worse criminal than the rest? The only thing that makes him a standout is his personality and that last time I checked it's not a crime be an ass. But it certainly is a reason to be disliked.





Fireform said:


> I really don't see your point. I'm not giving anyone a free pass and neither is the USADA. Hamilton was perfectly clear that he had no intention of spilling his guts before he was called before the grand jury. So what? What do the circumstances of anyone's truth telling have to do with the price of tea in China? None of that changes what Armstrong did. Maybe it helps you to pretend he's a victim, but he's not.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

Fireform said:


> This logic is laughable. First of all, equating what Lance did in and to the sport with what, say, Dave Zabriski did (because hey, they're "both dopers") is just idiotic. That's not to say I condone what Dave did, but its a whole different order of transgression and merits different punishment. Plus, he came forward to testify in the federal case voluntarily. So no, there is no equivalence among all dopers.
> 
> Second, just because someone is an alpha doesn't automatically mean they're an a-hole or excuse them from being one. I work around some pretty serious alphas too. I have met Nobel and McArthur prize winners who were deeply decent people. I think most of us can rattle off a list of sports superstars who are known to be very nice people, and do all sorts of charitable work with little publicity. In my experience its the wanna be top dogs who deep down know they don't have the goods who are the biggest jerks. So that's another false equivalency.
> 
> You're 0 for 2. Better luck next time.


How rich. Zabriski did not come forward voluntarily like you are led to believe. Neither did Leipheimer or Hincapie. They were nudged. So to regard these guys as brave or noble as some people do for some reason is an exercise in stupidity. And how in the world does a Nobel or McArthur prize winner equate to cycling? If any of these guys REALLY cared about the sport, they would have truly come forward voluntarily and they ALL would have been part of trying to clean up the sport and not attempting to do so when they get called out. It's all disingenuous,any way you slice it. 

If Zabriski was so busted up about being "forced" and was all disenchanted about cycling or Lance then you should see the video of Leipheimer,Armstrong and Zabriski from the 09 tour all paling around on the team bus.

So enjoy your Kool-aid.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Every guy that was forced to come out and testify is going to tell a version of the story that puts themselves in a better light--it's just human nature. Anyone that takes any of this stuff as absolute truth word for word is as you say "drinking the kookaid"



g29er said:


> How rich. Zabriski did not come forward voluntarily like you are led to believe. Neither did Leipheimer or Hincapie. They were nudged. So to regard these guys as brave or noble as some people do for some reason is an exercise in stupidity. And how in the world does a Noble or MacCarthur prize winner equate to cycling? If any of these guys REALLY cared about the sport, they would have truly come forward voluntarily and they ALL would have been part of trying to clean up the sport and not attempting to do so when they get called out. It's all disingenuous,any way you slice it.
> 
> If Zabriski was so busted up about being "forced" and was all disenchanted about cycling or Lance then you should see the video of Leipheimer,Armstrong and Zabriski from the 09 tour all paling around on the team bus.
> 
> So enjoy your Kool-aid.


----------



## Chaz (Sep 24, 2005)

g29er said:


> Seriously? The only time you were impressed with Armstrong was in 95? So between then and 2005.....nothing else in almost 10 years? I thought him winning the stage for Fabio was touching and all,but at in that 10 years I find it hard to believe that nothing else impressed you.
> 
> My point is this. Why do guys like Merckx who tested positive for the BANNED substance Pemoline in 77 and had doped for years prior to that get a free pass with most people. And Indurain had worked with Ferrari in the past so he may or may not be questionable. I love both of those guys, but let's be honest here. Granted, Merckx didnt use EPO because it wasn't around then,but he was finding out ways to beat what they were testing for at the time. So to me that is the same thing. Oh...and let's not forget about Fignon either .
> 
> So since it is confirmed that Merckx and Fignon doped, their races must not have been that exciting either and we should forget about them to. And I guess I should just not acknowledge Fignon's showdown with LeMond in 89 or Merckx's hour record either. No way. So to make the comparison that Lance had a more sophisticated system or that he was a D-bag makes no difference. Whether you are the nicest guy in the world or the biggest jerk, one thing remains the same...cheating. Fignon, Merckx, Armstrong and many others cheated, that's all that matters. So it's kind of a double standard. Even though they are all from different eras, as far as I am concerned it's all the same. Merckx won 5,Fignon won 2, and Lance won 7.


Well Said !


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Robert1 said:


> OK so you're an LA hater because he's alpha.


Is Alpha another way to say vindictive bully? Are payoffs, tax evasion, and fraud common traits of an "Alpha"?


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is Alpha another way to say vindictive bully? Are payoffs, tax evasion, and fraud common traits of an "Alpha"?


Sorry but doping for all riders constitutes fraud. Tax evasion??? Wait what?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

g29er said:


> Sorry but doping for all riders constitutes fraud. Tax evasion??? Wait what?


Did all riders obsessionally harass anyone who told the truth? How much did Contador give to Pat and Hein?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Robert1 said:


> Really you don't see the point? What it has to with is that all these guys are the same. But for some folks it seems to be a very personal hate for LA. You hate the guy I get that loud and clear. But don't pretend it has anything to do with his doping because there's a plenty of guys out there that are the same in that regard. LA was just more stupid and arrogant about it. I'm mean seriously, I just don't get what you are saying. Is LA a standout because of doping? Show me facts. What in your mind makes him a worse criminal than the rest? The only thing that makes him a standout is his personality and that last time I checked it's not a crime be an ass. But it certainly is a reason to be disliked.


You apparently have not familiarized yourself with Lance's entire case. He was much more than an ass. Much, much more. In such situations, such as civil and criminal cases, there are always mitigating and aggravating factors. All these guys are not the same. 

The other guys did not win 7 Tours. The other guys did not ruin people's careers. The other guys did not sue people who WERE telling the truth. The other guys did not try to destroy people's businesses. The other guys did not lie under oath at depositions. The other guys did not use their cancer charity as a shield. The other guys were not "national heros". The other guys are not continuing to lie. The other guys did not make millions upon millions of dollars. The other guys did not bribe others to cover up their doping. The other guys did not "donate" $200,000 to the UCI. The other guys did not openly hold in contempt all of the millions of cycling fans that knew he was cheating. And, yes, the other guys were not ASSES.

PS: Lance is the Ann Coulter of cycling. Sorry, I had to.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

He does not deserve to be forgotten, nor will he be. Instead, history will remember him as a 7 time cheat, just like how they'll remember OJ as a killer.

Armstrong HAD AN OPPORTUNITY to walk away cleanly, and be immortalized. But because of the stupidity and arrogance of this human being, he will forever be remembered as a sham.


----------



## bbaker22 (Jul 25, 2006)

I would say "No, Armstrong does not deserve to be forgotten". In the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

baker


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

The Ann Coulter of cycling? Now you've gone too far, haha. Not even Lance deserves that.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> The Ann Coulter of cycling? Now you've gone too far, haha. Not even Lance deserves that.


WOW. I would have never even dreamed anyone would go there.


----------



## yosarian9 (Mar 15, 2010)

I havent read the thread and Im not sure of the exact quote but when I saw the thread title all I could think was
"those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> The Ann Coulter of cycling? Now you've gone too far, haha. Not even Lance deserves that.


LOL, that deserves a rep. :thumbsup:


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

*Angry Mob:* Kill Lance!! Kill Lance!! Let's get that son of a .......Oh hey, look it's Hincapie and Leipheimer What's up guys? How are you? Great Movie Levi, and congrats George on your 17th Tour. Oh by the way you guys haven't seen Lance around have you? 









*Hincapie and Leipheimer:* Yeah.... we're pretty sure he went that way.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

g29er said:


> *Angry Mob:* Kill Lance!! Kill Lance!! Let's get that son of a .......Oh hey, look it's Hincapie and Leipheimer What's up guys? How are you? Great Movie Levi, and congrats George on your 17th Tour. Oh by the way you guys haven't seen Lance around have you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read. The. Book.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

If the sport had ben cleaned up after Festina, it would be in a much better place now. Instead, Lance put his foot on the gas pedal to increase doping. It has caused cycling to be considered a hopeless mess. Sponsors such as Rabobank have abandoned the sport.

Lance should be remembered as a champion. A champion liar, a champion bully, and a champion doper on a team of outstanding dopers. His primary contribution to cycling was to MASSIVELY increase the sophistication, effectiveness, and pervasiveness of doping.


----------

