Well it may take spectacular conditioning to compete at the highest levels in cycling but generally, endurance sports just are not big spectator sports, especially in America. Track events aren't widely followed either in this country, for instance.
A 3-week bicycle race just isn't interesting visually. The first stages look about the same as the last stages. Sure it's cool to see them ride along the Champs Elysees but the rest of the time, as the camera whizzes by, all these towns and villages look nondescript, and all the same. Yes I know that's not the case but sports fans in general don't care if some of these villages date back hundreds of years and has wonderful Gothic cathedrals or whatever.
The prospect of riding for hours a day for 3-weeks looks masochistic too. Even driving for several hours a day for 3-weeks isn't appealing to people. At least people watch basketball and some think about getting off the couch and shooting some baskets. No normal person wants to go on a 3-week bike ride.
About 10 years back they did try to promote triathlons with one of the networks showing some events. They aired them from scenic places like Hawaii but it didn't capture much of an audience. One problem with Armstrong's victories appear to be that there was no suspense in many years and people knew for a couple of weeks that he was going to win. So if you turn on SportsCenter and their segment on the Tour shows Armstrong with a big lead and you see that for 7-10 days, then it just seems to go with the visual monotony of the event.
The other thing is that as fit as these guys are, they're not that imposing. For the same reason that heavyweights are the most popular boxers, 150-pound cyclists aren't going to draw crowds. Before someone says well there are hundreds or thousands of people lined along the roads, how much of that are local people drawn by the spectacle coming to their otherwise sleepy towns?
Yeah these guys may be elite but basketball players have visual evidence of their elite physicality. When Schwatzenegger first tried to get into movies, Hollywood thought he was a joke, with his thick accent. But they noticed when he would go to these events at malls, he drew crowds, even though body building wasn't that well known. Bicyclists look like skinny guys.
LANCE!
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
From Icon to Legend to Hero, you name them in the post above, I don't know why but for once, just once I'd like to have my suspicions shot down.
Where there's smoke there's usually fire, right? Well, I just have this sick feeling that's coming.
I mean the people who run l'Equipe have to know that Armstrong is the litigious type, so they could not go to press without being certain their story is bulletproof.
Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc sounds convinced, saying that it appears Armstrong indeed "fooled" the sports world. This of course despite Lance's denial the last couple of days and today on the Larry King show.
For the first time -- and these are no longer rumours, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts.
Armstrong and his supporters can whine all they want about how it's some French plot to get him: A positive test is a positive test. The world-class labs that are at the cutting edge of the testing process don't fool around with this sort of thing. And we are not talking about 1 test but here's what's troubling me: Theye were 6 other urine test that tested positive for a booster of the red blood cells called EPO.
Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Rafael Palmeiro, Ben Johnson etc. All doping suspects that denied their actions. I guess, I was also curious as to why take a test back to 1999 and not this year or last...making me feel indeed that there's was a coup against Lance. But apparently the scientific study that could prove someone with the EPO susbtance, just proved fruitful recently.
At the time when Armstrong produced those samples in 1999, EPO could not be detected through urine tests; new tests can detect EPO in urine, hence the revelations.
They stemmed from 'B' samples given in 1999; the 'A' samples were used at the time. Any penalties enforced by the various federations require positive tests in both samples -- the 'A' samples in this case no longer exist -- and in any event, Armstrong has retired from competition.
The likelihood here is that only the truth has been punished. Six positive tests constitute overwhelming evidence for anyone who is something less than a true believer in the Armstrong legend. Including myself.
This saga will go on, until the truth comes out.
I just felt like saying "say it isn't so Lance".
Where there's smoke there's usually fire, right? Well, I just have this sick feeling that's coming.
I mean the people who run l'Equipe have to know that Armstrong is the litigious type, so they could not go to press without being certain their story is bulletproof.
Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc sounds convinced, saying that it appears Armstrong indeed "fooled" the sports world. This of course despite Lance's denial the last couple of days and today on the Larry King show.
For the first time -- and these are no longer rumours, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts.
Armstrong and his supporters can whine all they want about how it's some French plot to get him: A positive test is a positive test. The world-class labs that are at the cutting edge of the testing process don't fool around with this sort of thing. And we are not talking about 1 test but here's what's troubling me: Theye were 6 other urine test that tested positive for a booster of the red blood cells called EPO.
Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Rafael Palmeiro, Ben Johnson etc. All doping suspects that denied their actions. I guess, I was also curious as to why take a test back to 1999 and not this year or last...making me feel indeed that there's was a coup against Lance. But apparently the scientific study that could prove someone with the EPO susbtance, just proved fruitful recently.
At the time when Armstrong produced those samples in 1999, EPO could not be detected through urine tests; new tests can detect EPO in urine, hence the revelations.
They stemmed from 'B' samples given in 1999; the 'A' samples were used at the time. Any penalties enforced by the various federations require positive tests in both samples -- the 'A' samples in this case no longer exist -- and in any event, Armstrong has retired from competition.
The likelihood here is that only the truth has been punished. Six positive tests constitute overwhelming evidence for anyone who is something less than a true believer in the Armstrong legend. Including myself.
This saga will go on, until the truth comes out.
I just felt like saying "say it isn't so Lance".
-
TheMightyPuck
- Starting 5
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
He says it again:TheMightyPuck wrote:I thought he said exactly that.10spro wrote: I just felt like saying "say it isn't so Lance".
On Thursday night, Armstrong elaborated on that distrust during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live."
"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it — nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed — and then you get a call from a newspaper that says `We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"
Although frustrated by the report and the difficulty of proving his case, Armstrong said he sleeps well at night knowing that he's competed drug-free.
"All I can do is come on this stage and tell my story and be honest. I've always done that," he said. "Since this stuff's rolled out, I sleep great at night .... I don't have a problem looking at myself in the mirror."
More from Lance:
"Just a day before the start we had a knock on the door, and the minister of sport had sent a crew down there to collect two samples of urine and two samples of blood," Armstrong said. "And we checked around and found out that nobody else in the peloton was tested that day. So I can't say 'witch hunt' loud enough."
Sorry but the man has been tested more than any athlete in history and I am not buying it. 6 year old urine samples. What a f*ucking joke!!!
[img]http://www.ideaspot.net/flags/Big_10/small/mich-sm.gif[/img][img]http://www.ideaspot.net/nfl/NFC_North/small/pack1-sm.gif[/img]
-
DivotMaker
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 4131
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:00 am
- Location: Texas, USA
You just don't know how very likely this is to have happened.JackDog wrote:
"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it — nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed — and then you get a call from a newspaper that says `We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"
Agreed. But because BALCO really brought steroids in sports into the mainstream consciousness, accusations are going to fly when ANYONE does anything even remotely remarkable in sports. Crying freaking shame....JackDog wrote:Sorry but the man has been tested more than any athlete in history and I am not buying it. 6 year old urine samples. What a f*ucking joke!!!
True and a very good point.DivotMaker wrote:You just don't know how very likely this is to have happened.JackDog wrote:
"A guy in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean Francois so-and-so, and he tests it — nobody's there to observe, no protocol was followed — and then you get a call from a newspaper that says `We found you to be positive six times for EPO.' Well, since when did newspapers start governing sports?"
Agreed. But because BALCO really brought steroids in sports into the mainstream consciousness, accusations are going to fly when ANYONE does anything even remotely remarkable in sports. Crying freaking shame....JackDog wrote:Sorry but the man has been tested more than any athlete in history and I am not buying it. 6 year old urine samples. What a f*ucking joke!!!
[img]http://www.ideaspot.net/flags/Big_10/small/mich-sm.gif[/img][img]http://www.ideaspot.net/nfl/NFC_North/small/pack1-sm.gif[/img]
They were talking about it on local talk radio. It can't affect Lance because his career is over right? It would affect his legacy but he's made his money, unless he has plans for a lot more endorsement income.
They say under the rules which govern international competition, they could hold samples for 8 years. So conceivably, we could be hearing about this 8 years from now.
They say under the rules which govern international competition, they could hold samples for 8 years. So conceivably, we could be hearing about this 8 years from now.
In an interview with an Austin newspaper, Lance is contemplating a comeback after he announced recently his retirement. Whether this is a straight shot at the Tour de France it remains to be seen but he did mentioned that he was keeping fit. He's also now engaged to S. Crow.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content ... lance.html
http://www.statesman.com/search/content ... lance.html
What seems odd to me is that Lance would have HAD to be on certain drugs designed to fight off anemia (low red blood cell count) when undergoing chemo/radiation therapy for his cancer. The effect of these medications is to boost red blood cell count so that the cancer patient maintains energy; that is the SAME effect of the doping drugs used by endurance athletes to improve their blood oxygen levels.
Could it be that Lance simply had trace amounts of drugs from his cancer treatment in his system? OR, that he continued to take them after the fact?
Obviously, I'm not a doctor; it just seems odd that no one discusses the drug history of a CANCER patient when discussing possible performance enhancement.
Could it be that Lance simply had trace amounts of drugs from his cancer treatment in his system? OR, that he continued to take them after the fact?
Obviously, I'm not a doctor; it just seems odd that no one discusses the drug history of a CANCER patient when discussing possible performance enhancement.
Sport73
"Can't we all just get along? I'll turn this car around RIGHT now!"
"Can't we all just get along? I'll turn this car around RIGHT now!"
So he's come back, and yesterday, he barely missed winning the stage. What's interesting is that he undermined the guy who is suppose to be the leader of the team.
That along with ridiculous Nike commercial and other antics is why Lance is like Sarah Palin:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222407/
That along with ridiculous Nike commercial and other antics is why Lance is like Sarah Palin:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222407/
It's been an exciting, dramatic, and unpredictable Tour already, which is due in some part to a host of exciting, new, young riders, Team Columbia's attacking thus far (not likely to be persist, but exciting anyway), and Astana's team dramatics. There is nothing, absolutely nothing bad (for fans) about a leadership struggle within a team involving two riders who can win the Tour (or think they can).
And Sarah Palin? That's a reach. Chuck Klosterman should have written that story -- he would have compared Armstrong to at least four or five pop/political-culture icons, and then concluded with a statement about our (Chuck's) proclivity for fast food, amateur pornography, and the zone defense in the NBA and how it relates to Lance Armstrong's choice of sunglasses and the evolution of Oakley in the 1980s.
Armstrong seems like he can be a prick, but we see that through the lens of an international press that hates him, a US-based gossip press that hates everyone, and our only counter is Nike, Versus, and some members of the cycling press who deify him. I have no idea what he's really like, and I'm not too concerned.
And the commercial is a little over the top, but the Jesus/Savior comparison is nonsense too. It's a commercial. All of Nike's Tiger/Lance/MJ commercials are over the top. They're commercials. Understated is not what they're going for ... .
Anyway, I'm enjoying the hell out of this Tour already. And if Armstrong and Contador battle throughout with a split Astana backing each rider, I will be glued to Versus for the whole three weeks. It can only help cycling.
And Sarah Palin? That's a reach. Chuck Klosterman should have written that story -- he would have compared Armstrong to at least four or five pop/political-culture icons, and then concluded with a statement about our (Chuck's) proclivity for fast food, amateur pornography, and the zone defense in the NBA and how it relates to Lance Armstrong's choice of sunglasses and the evolution of Oakley in the 1980s.
Armstrong seems like he can be a prick, but we see that through the lens of an international press that hates him, a US-based gossip press that hates everyone, and our only counter is Nike, Versus, and some members of the cycling press who deify him. I have no idea what he's really like, and I'm not too concerned.
And the commercial is a little over the top, but the Jesus/Savior comparison is nonsense too. It's a commercial. All of Nike's Tiger/Lance/MJ commercials are over the top. They're commercials. Understated is not what they're going for ... .
Anyway, I'm enjoying the hell out of this Tour already. And if Armstrong and Contador battle throughout with a split Astana backing each rider, I will be glued to Versus for the whole three weeks. It can only help cycling.
Re: LANCE!
Is this the final chapter, Armstrong saying he's no longer going to fight the doping charges brought against him by the USADA?
So he's going to be banned, which is not a big deal since he's no longer competing, but now his titles could get stripped.
Supposedly they had a dozen former teammates lined up to testify against him. Apparently the threat of perjury was going to draw out this testimony -- they weren't willing to risk going to jail to lie for him like Bonds' trainer did.
One of the odd details now coming out is that he did in fact test positive in '99 for some substance, just as he was beginning his comeback. But he got an exemption for that positive test because of a medical reason.
So he's going to be banned, which is not a big deal since he's no longer competing, but now his titles could get stripped.
Supposedly they had a dozen former teammates lined up to testify against him. Apparently the threat of perjury was going to draw out this testimony -- they weren't willing to risk going to jail to lie for him like Bonds' trainer did.
One of the odd details now coming out is that he did in fact test positive in '99 for some substance, just as he was beginning his comeback. But he got an exemption for that positive test because of a medical reason.
Re: LANCE!
I'm pretty sure that this allegation was not new. I recall arguing with some True Believers several years ago that if they believed his prescription excuse they were fooling themselves. I think there are witnesses who have said that he had the prescription backdated.wco81 wrote:
One of the odd details now coming out is that he did in fact test positive in '99 for some substance, just as he was beginning his comeback. But he got an exemption for that positive test because of a medical reason.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Re: LANCE!
It's depressing when the house of cards comes down, but we all knew it to be true. Cheating was rampant at the time, and there was no way a guy who wasn't cheating could win 6 years in a row against other guys who were cheating.
Presuming his tour titles are stripped, the runner-up for each of those 6 years has tested positive, admitted to use, or been accused/suspected of doping.
This doesn't really change much in my mind.
Presuming his tour titles are stripped, the runner-up for each of those 6 years has tested positive, admitted to use, or been accused/suspected of doping.
This doesn't really change much in my mind.
XBL-Naples39; Steam-scrub47; GameCenter-MasterOnion39;
-
FifaInspected
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:00 am
Re: LANCE!
I heard an interview this morning on ESPN radio discussing how evil USADA is. The inner circle is saying that they "made an offer too good to refuse" for people to come forward and basically lie about lance. They basically made the USADA sound like the devil and their tainted, classless actions are why none of the other major sports are connected with them (nfl, MLB, F1 ETC.) I found it an interesting bit of information.wco81 wrote:Is this the final chapter, Armstrong saying he's no longer going to fight the doping charges brought against him by the USADA?
So he's going to be banned, which is not a big deal since he's no longer competing, but now his titles could get stripped.
Supposedly they had a dozen former teammates lined up to testify against him. Apparently the threat of perjury was going to draw out this testimony -- they weren't willing to risk going to jail to lie for him like Bonds' trainer did.
One of the odd details now coming out is that he did in fact test positive in '99 for some substance, just as he was beginning his comeback. But he got an exemption for that positive test because of a medical reason.
Lance has however raised some $500 million for cancer research and that's pretty impressive.
PSN - Fifa-Inspected
XBOX - Fifa Inspected
XBOX - Fifa Inspected
-
dbdynsty25
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 21619
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: LANCE!
This is funny to read now, eh PK?pk500 wrote:The greatest cyclist of our generation completed a mind-boggling seventh consecutive Tour de France victory today. This guy clearly is one of the most inspirational, focused, committed and dominant athletes in history.
ALLEZ LANCE!
Take care,
PK
Re: LANCE!
I don't know what to think on this one. The guy passed over 500 drug tests during his career and many were random checks. OTOH he could be pulling a Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or Rafael Palmeiro. I might be worn down to by the witch hunt. 
Re: LANCE!
No one can deny his true humanitarian work and his inspiration to others when he battled cancer. But when you become a cheat in any sport, the medals have to be stripped. It doesn't matter now, but after his 4th straight win, I thought that something was fishy in his camp.
Re: LANCE!
Not so much. It's theoretically for cancer "awareness" and the story isn't nearly so straightforward.FifaInspected wrote:
Lance has however raised some $500 million for cancer research and that's pretty impressive.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all
If Lance Armstrong went to jail and Livestrong went away, that would be a huge setback in our war against cancer, right? Not exactly, because the famous nonprofit donates almost nothing to scientific research. BILL GIFFORD looks at where the money goes and finds a mix of fine ideas, millions of dollars aimed at “awareness,” and a few very blurry lines.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Re: LANCE!
Funny....
"Armstrong will likely be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, despite the fact that he passed every test given to him at that time. Fine. If it happens, the logical victor of the 2005 Tour is Cadel Evans. Evans finished 8th in the part of the race in which people actually pedaled, but the seven riders in front of him are all proven cheats. Congrats to Cadel."
"Armstrong will likely be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, despite the fact that he passed every test given to him at that time. Fine. If it happens, the logical victor of the 2005 Tour is Cadel Evans. Evans finished 8th in the part of the race in which people actually pedaled, but the seven riders in front of him are all proven cheats. Congrats to Cadel."