Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

is it fashionable for me not to like armstrong 'cos i cycle?

i must know.

Tell that to Rock Racing..

This is pretty dumb. I'd understand if he was Polynesian or whatever.

He looks like someone dressed up at a Comic convention (albeit with bike gear on too)

is it fashionable for me not to like armstrong 'cos i cycle?

i must know.

I think the fashionable line is not-to-give-a-Schlek.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/walsh-hits-out-at-uci-over-passport

more fuel for the fire.

Double sus bike and a flat rear tyre. What a nodder.

YouTube - Leadville100BikeRace09 067

He won it though. A nodder would've stopped trying after 2mi.

Sucks Weins lost. The footage of last years race was amazing.

Wiens, not Weins.

like a cross between lee evans and dogsballs.

Hah. spot on.

You'd think, with the budget they have, that they'd get him some kit that fits.

is it just me, or does it look like lance has lost a shit load of weight? tourmalet.....

Wiggo gets his oar in:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/weighty-wiggins-talking-tough-on-2010-tour

wiggo for the podium

some interesting reading about how easy it is to dope and not get caught
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=7904&status=True

typed a post and lost it heart breaking. the re-type;

This is such a great debate, i wanna add my two pennies.

But first Ro-land was your play the one featured on resonance fm's cycling show a while back? about armstrong/ulrich/pantani? If so wish id seen it, i dont know how visual it is but would you ever consider recording it as a podcast? (or do you already have radio 4 asking for it?)

While im on the subject why does that resonance cycling program not advertise more on here? they'd get loads more listeners, id love to hear velocio interviewed on it ..... unless this has already been done and ive stuck my foot in it.

My opinion;

yes i think he took drugs (but in an era when every took drugs that doesnt matter to me) and yes i think hes a bully and probably not the great person on earth - he is not my hero - but i do think coming back from cancer to win seven times is simply unbelievable and for that i have a huge amount of respect for him. And then, as someone close to cancer myself, he work for charity is incredible.

I really think those two things out weigh his bad aspects and put him above like/dislike arguments, not everyone is/has to be nice, and whether or not he is he's trying pretty damn hard to do stuff, and that stuff is pretty flippin respectable.

(I actually respect anyone who cycles in the tour its mind blowing to go up and down those mountains in three weeks)

I also think the Shell comparison is very harsh, he's only a biker and hes doing he best to help others, which is more than most people do, without any real ulterior motives (yes ego, but i agree with Hippy ego isnt a bad thing)

i really think give the guy a break, hes just a cyclist living a life and doing stuff, there are worse people doing much much worse things - use energy to shout at them not Lance.

The most interesting thing to come up here is what Ro-land says about him using influence to stop cycling cleaning up, how so, could you elaborate, this the most damning argument ive heard against him.

finally this man is my hero;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-OgG1A74c

he's wearing the green jersey. is he a top sprinter?

think he'd give cav a run for his money

I also think the Shell comparison is very harsh, he's only a biker and hes doing he best to help others, which is more than most people do, without any real ulterior motives (yes ego, but i agree with Hippy ego isnt a bad thing)

i really think give the guy a break, hes just a cyclist living a life and doing stuff, there are worse people doing much much worse things - use energy to shout at them not Lance.

The most interesting thing to come up here is what Ro-land says about him using influence to stop cycling cleaning up, how so, could you elaborate, this the most damning argument ive heard against him.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-OgG1A74c"][/URL
]

As a long standing fan of professional cycling I care about it's future. The last 20 years have seen drug usage become the norm with a governing body that is, at worst, complicit in the widespread usage of performance enhancing drugs that turn pack fodder like Bjarne Riis or Claudio Chiappucci, into Tour de France contenders and winners. In some respects you can add Armstrong to that category as his pre-cancer performances suggested he'd never have what it takes to win the Tour. That changed after he overcame cancer, but was due to him working with Dr Michele Ferrari, the cognescenti's doping doctor supreme, rather than any mythical weight loss.

Armstrong has subsequently used the power he has and his bullying personality to ensure that the omerta that surrounds drug taking is enforced, and has received the protection of the UCI as his reward.

He's done some good work too but his influence on cycling is a negative one in my opinion. I'll continue to shout at him, your words, because I care about pro cycling. I appreciate that's a trivial thing but it's what I'm passionate about so to me, it matters.

some interesting reading about how easy it is to dope and not get caught
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=7904&status=True

Did you see Papp's post about how to beat urine tests? Shoving stuff up your japs eye FTW!

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-cycling-pros-defeat-anti-doping.html

Spooky; the trouble with the everyone took drugs argument is that it is not true;* nearly *everyone but not everyone. They all had a choice; Armstrong chose to dope. Chris Boardman, for one, chose not to and his career suffered as a result. In excusing Armstrong on the basis that he was only one of many you are going along with his view of sport; winning is the only thing that matters.
And just because Boardman is a laconic man not given to big statements or angry outbursts don't imagine he shares your c'est la vie views of dopers. He had the misfortune to be co-commentating on Eurosport once alongside David Duffield when the latter started waxing about how great it was to see Pantani back after he had failed a haematocrit test. Duffield asked Boardman what he thought of Pantani; his reply was that after what had happened he didn't know how Pantani could show his face in public. What Boardman and other clean riders might think of Armstrong you can easily infer.

And there were many more who, like Boardman, had their careers affected by the dopers. Christophe Bassons had the raw talent of a Hinault or Lemond but, because he chose not to dope, he was villified by his peers, led by Armstrong, and was essentially driven from the sport.

hang on -i care too? i like procycling, maybe not as much as you but i like it still.

my opinion on armstrong is hugely swayed by that fact i know a few cancer suffers who have found him truly inspirational, which makes me not really want to nit pick.

but i agree with both of you really and all you points, i just sometimes think these issues become all raveled up as one and picking them apart begins to fall prey to male needs to categorize everything with ill thought through logics and forget that there is a bigger picture with contexts which arent divorced from everything else.

two things i dont agree with - drugs have been a part of cycling long before the last twenty years? Anquetil spoke pretty openly about it in the 60's then theres simpson and even merckx.

and chris boardman also had a bone disease which meant he could have never competed properly in the tour despite being a brilliant cyclist.