What are your thoughts on Lance Armstrong doing a cycling podcast??
#52
Banned.
Likes For Rajflyboy:
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Carolina Upstate
Posts: 2,109
Bikes: 2010 Fuji Absolute 3.0 1994 Trek 850
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked 555 Times
in
322 Posts
love hearing his insight about riding the race. regardless of the negativity that surrounds him he did ride the race and the stages many times and his opinions are interesting
Likes For Flip Flop Rider:
#55
Senior Member
#56
Banned.
#58
Prefers Cicero
People seem to want to make Lance's only crime doping, and hey - everybody did it, right?
His other crimes were bullying, witness intimidation, and basically destroying people's lives - Emma, Tyler, Filippo, Betsy and Frankie, Mike, Levi, Jonathan etc. etc. That stuff shouldn't be so quickly erased.
His other crimes were bullying, witness intimidation, and basically destroying people's lives - Emma, Tyler, Filippo, Betsy and Frankie, Mike, Levi, Jonathan etc. etc. That stuff shouldn't be so quickly erased.
#59
Junior Member
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,690
Bikes: Giant Propel, Cannondale SuperX, Univega Alpina Ultima
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 672 Post(s)
Liked 417 Times
in
249 Posts
You meant within the next few days. I just saw him in a segment on stage 11. I appreciated his insights and perspective.
__________________
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton
#61
Senior Member
I always tape the race, so thankfully I am allowed to fast forward it when he comes on.
#62
Recovering Bikeaholic
Lance AND (now that you mention it) doping, in general...
This will no doubt draw some heat, but I need to voice... First disclaimer: I'm not a racer... I'm anti-drug... I don't even drink alcohol... I believe in healthy lifestyle, but I first and foremost believe in individual rights to choose. I DO NOT agree with the popular view on sports doping. To me that's part of being a world-class athlete (and if it means enough to an athlete to take those kinds of measures and risks, they do so at their own peril). Remember Lyle Alzado? His choice, his life...
The years that Lance rode (and won) the Tour de France were (in my opinion) some of the most exciting ever (in ANY sport)... and while some claim he had an unfair advantage, let's be real... EVERY WINNER of a sports event has some kind of advantage... whether the best training, the best genetics, the best nutritionist, the best support, the most passion on a given day... whatever. There is NO SUCH THING as a truly even playing field. This gets into the question of "doping"... WHO ARE WE to draw the line on how far someone can go (and is willing to go) to push their body (and potentially their health and safety) to win at sports? I could drink 3 Red Bulls and perhaps have more energy to race... I'd also risk heart attack...no thank you... but that should be MY CHOICE. Lance no doubt had all the advantages he could possibly have (and then some), but HE STILL RODE the tours, HE CLIMBED Alpe d'huez, HE SPRINTED to those victories. Ask yourself: If you had all the same advantages as Lance (including artificially enhancing your blood), COULD YOU DO THE SAME? I doubt it... Above all the advantages Lance may have had, HE had the necessary skills, the passion and the determination to win.
Now ask yourself: what advantages does someone like Peter Sagan (who should we assume is 'clean') have??? If it's pure genetics, better training, better nutrition, faster wheels, then what do others have to do to beat him? I say athletes who want to win should be left to do whatever they are willing to do to their bodies (good or bad) to achieve their goals. It's about risk/reward...
I'm no fan of the man, Lance Armstrong... but as a competitor and cyclist, I LOVED watching him ride. I think he's one of the greats, and nothing will EVER ERASE IN MY MIND the thrills of watching him compete...
Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion. I don't necessarily care to further this debate; I just would like others to acknowledge that doping will always take place... the only difference between peoples' view of right and wrong is WHERE WE CHOOSE TO DRAW THE LINE. I say leave that to the athlete... to their glory and/or peril.
Peace,
BB
The years that Lance rode (and won) the Tour de France were (in my opinion) some of the most exciting ever (in ANY sport)... and while some claim he had an unfair advantage, let's be real... EVERY WINNER of a sports event has some kind of advantage... whether the best training, the best genetics, the best nutritionist, the best support, the most passion on a given day... whatever. There is NO SUCH THING as a truly even playing field. This gets into the question of "doping"... WHO ARE WE to draw the line on how far someone can go (and is willing to go) to push their body (and potentially their health and safety) to win at sports? I could drink 3 Red Bulls and perhaps have more energy to race... I'd also risk heart attack...no thank you... but that should be MY CHOICE. Lance no doubt had all the advantages he could possibly have (and then some), but HE STILL RODE the tours, HE CLIMBED Alpe d'huez, HE SPRINTED to those victories. Ask yourself: If you had all the same advantages as Lance (including artificially enhancing your blood), COULD YOU DO THE SAME? I doubt it... Above all the advantages Lance may have had, HE had the necessary skills, the passion and the determination to win.
Now ask yourself: what advantages does someone like Peter Sagan (who should we assume is 'clean') have??? If it's pure genetics, better training, better nutrition, faster wheels, then what do others have to do to beat him? I say athletes who want to win should be left to do whatever they are willing to do to their bodies (good or bad) to achieve their goals. It's about risk/reward...
I'm no fan of the man, Lance Armstrong... but as a competitor and cyclist, I LOVED watching him ride. I think he's one of the greats, and nothing will EVER ERASE IN MY MIND the thrills of watching him compete...
Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion. I don't necessarily care to further this debate; I just would like others to acknowledge that doping will always take place... the only difference between peoples' view of right and wrong is WHERE WE CHOOSE TO DRAW THE LINE. I say leave that to the athlete... to their glory and/or peril.
Peace,
BB
#64
Banned.
#65
Recovering Bikeaholic
Yeah, I know...
... admittedly I have been only an occasional lurker, probably relating to discussions of classic touring bikes, which I collect... (BTW my wife and I visited Dublin in 2018 to run the marathon)... The people of Dublin are awesome. We can't wait to return to Ireland. Peace, BB
#66
Heretic
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,246
Bikes: Specialized Sirrus, Giant OCR3, Giant CRS3
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2827 Post(s)
Liked 561 Times
in
429 Posts
... admittedly I have been only an occasional lurker, probably relating to discussions of classic touring bikes, which I collect... (BTW my wife and I visited Dublin in 2018 to run the marathon)... The people of Dublin are awesome. We can't wait to return to Ireland. Peace, BB
While I don't agree with your ideas about allowing athletes to use PEDs I hope we can have a civilised discussion. To me integrity is more important than creating an exciting sporting spectacle.
I know online debate isn't always civilised and understand your reluctance to get involved.
Regards,
B
#67
Senior Member
Hi BB, glad you had a good time here. I don't collect bikes apart from the three I regularly use but I do have a big interest in cycling history and collect original printed material, books, advertising, cycling maps, etc.. More related to the social history side than competitive cycling.
While I don't agree with your ideas about allowing athletes to use PEDs I hope we can have a civilised discussion. To me integrity is more important than creating an exciting sporting spectacle.
I know online debate isn't always civilised and understand your reluctance to get involved.
Regards,
B
While I don't agree with your ideas about allowing athletes to use PEDs I hope we can have a civilised discussion. To me integrity is more important than creating an exciting sporting spectacle.
I know online debate isn't always civilised and understand your reluctance to get involved.
Regards,
B
Did cycling have more integrity when the TdF race bible explicitly said you had to provide your own amphetamines since the race organizers wouldn't have them available for you? Or when cocaine was the stimulant of choice? Or when the derailleur gave an advantage over the flip-flop fixed gear up the climbs? Or when we started to get a better understanding of sports science and nutrition, so athletes gained a performance edge that rivals with less money might not have had access to?
To me, the only carry over through all of sport is the integrity to give 100% effort and leave everything you have on the road or field. Since we can't judge present and past performances against each other on a purely technical standpoint due to the differences in training knowledge, "supplements", equipment technology, etc., all we can do is judge by how much of themselves an athlete gives. And I would say LA gave as much of himself when he rode as anyone ever has. He may have been a total dirt bag as a person, and he may have legitimately changed since his fall from grace. I hope he has. But I think it's unfair to judge him solely on his PED use since EVERY SINGLE RIDER OF NOTE did the exact same thing. And I think it's unfair to not give him the chance to make amends for his past mistreatment of his fellow humans.
Likes For Riv-Lantis:
#68
Prefers Cicero
Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion. I don't necessarily care to further this debate; I just would like others to acknowledge that doping will always take place... the only difference between peoples' view of right and wrong is WHERE WE CHOOSE TO DRAW THE LINE. I say leave that to the athlete... to their glory and/or peril.
Peace,
BB
Peace,
BB
Lots of those athletes don't want to dope, but if we "leave that to the athletes" we're throwing those ones to the wolves.
Likes For cooker:
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LF, APMAT
Posts: 2,752
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 623 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 397 Times
in
226 Posts
I haven't watch pro cycling much until the last 10 years or so. I missed the heyday of Lance and only caught the "comeback" era and there were rumors of doping swirling around him by then. In other words I don't have a big personal stake in his doping scandal. In spite of his doping he did show a solid knowledge of tactics and strategies re: racing. If he wants to do a podcast go for it. They are probably fairly informative. I do find it interesting they are including him in this year's TDF. Maybe a deliberate plan to rehab his image. If I remember Phil L. was a pretty stanch supporter when he was accused. As far as him moving into the booth as a commentator. I don't see that happening. For one thing isn't he banned from attending by the race organizers? Also he was such a jerk that I don't see many people ready to forgive yet.
#70
Professional amateur
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Ga.
Posts: 688
Bikes: Does a Big Wheel count ?
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 302 Post(s)
Liked 136 Times
in
92 Posts
This will no doubt draw some heat........ but I first and foremost believe in individual rights to choose. I DO NOT agree with the popular view on sports doping. To me that's part of being a world-class athlete (and if it means enough to an athlete to take those kinds of measures and risks, they do so at their own peril). Remember Lyle Alzado? His choice, his life...
If an athlete chooses to use PED's, this forces clean athletes to follow suit, or play on a significantly uneven playing field. It basically puts athletes into a position that they don't even need to waste their time and effort to become a world class athlete, if they also want to stay clean and healthy, because the game is rigged against them right out of the gate ( and yeah, there are always exceptions, but exceptions don't disprove a rule).
Also, world class athletes are idolized by millions, who, for better or worse, DO blindly mimic what their heroes do. If it was discovered that an NFL player was the Grand Wizard of the KKK, we all know full well he'd be banished, despite the fact that it's "his life", "his choice", and even though "it doesn't affect his performance on the field", etc, etc. and they would do this partially because they don't want to be seen as endorsing that behavior, or give him a platform to perpetuate his views.
The rationale here really isn't dissimilar from the condemnation of PED use.
Last edited by Brocephus; 07-19-19 at 09:33 AM.
Likes For Brocephus:
#71
Senior Member
“Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets — this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive le Tour forever! “
#72
Member
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: SW Michigan/SW Alabama
Posts: 35
Bikes: Trek FX2, Nishiki Tri-A, Univega Sportech
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I never really liked his personality but give him his tremendous cycling ability. From what I recall PED usage was the norm during that period so I can’t with a clear conscience judge him harshly. As far as an ambassador of the sport he excelled so again, I give him his props.
I don’t watch his stuff but more power to him if he can make it work.
Did I mention I didn’t like his personality??? 😊
I don’t watch his stuff but more power to him if he can make it work.
Did I mention I didn’t like his personality??? 😊
#73
I got a fever.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it isn't just a given athlete's life, it spills over into others' lives (just like having a downtown full of homeless junkies does......or even one living in your basement. )
If an athlete chooses to use PED's, this forces clean athletes to follow suit, or play on a significantly uneven playing field. It basically puts athletes into a position that they don't even need to waste their time and effort to become a world class athlete, if they also want to stay clean and healthy, because the game is rigged against them right out of the gate ( and yeah, there are always exceptions, but exceptions don't disprove a rule).
Also, world class athletes are idolized by millions, who, for better or worse, DO blindly mimic what their heroes do. If it was discovered that an NFL player was the Grand Wizard of the KKK, we all know full well he'd be banished, despite the fact that it's "his life", "his choice", and even though "it doesn't affect his performance on the field", etc, etc. and they would do this partially because they don't want to be seen as endorsing that behavior, or give him a platform to perpetuate his views.
The rationale here really isn't dissimilar from the condemnation of PED use.
If an athlete chooses to use PED's, this forces clean athletes to follow suit, or play on a significantly uneven playing field. It basically puts athletes into a position that they don't even need to waste their time and effort to become a world class athlete, if they also want to stay clean and healthy, because the game is rigged against them right out of the gate ( and yeah, there are always exceptions, but exceptions don't disprove a rule).
Also, world class athletes are idolized by millions, who, for better or worse, DO blindly mimic what their heroes do. If it was discovered that an NFL player was the Grand Wizard of the KKK, we all know full well he'd be banished, despite the fact that it's "his life", "his choice", and even though "it doesn't affect his performance on the field", etc, etc. and they would do this partially because they don't want to be seen as endorsing that behavior, or give him a platform to perpetuate his views.
The rationale here really isn't dissimilar from the condemnation of PED use.
#74
Recovering Bikeaholic
Nicely articulated...
... in an older article written by Chris Smith, entitled "Why It's Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports", (sorry, I don't yet qualify to post links, please Google it, it's a good article)... he at least expressed (better than I) the case for legalizing PEDs... which like my original point centers around WHERE we draw the line. Alcohol was once illegal in America (for good reason), but ultimately the lines were redrawn, and today it's not only acceptable in our culture, it's encouraged, despite its proven negative health and societal impacts.
As for the argument that legalizing PEDs will 'force others' to take them to compete, I agree it presents athletes with a new choice and perhaps a new risk. Competing doesn't always have to mean winning and competitors make choices as to how far they're willing to go... but if winning is all that matters, then this becomes another risk/benefit choice that competitive athletes may have to make (in highly risky sports where the bar is constantly being raised). Just as some may choose NOT to tuck at 60 mph down a twisty mountain road (and likely forego a chance of winning a big race stage) that's the essence of sports and competition.
But as Smith points out, legalizing can have some positives, like eliminating the mystery around virtually every super athlete who has won anything ("is he or she clean?"), and for those stripped of their lofty accomplishments, restoring at least some (deserved) level of credit to these athletes who DID perform at a very high level, despite crossing over "the line" that was established at the time.
Christian Vande Velde admitted to doping, and I'd say he's been warmly embraced by TdF fans... Lance may have been much more audacious, brash and dishonest (character flaws, yes), but I say at least give him credit for the GOOD that he brought to cycling, like legions of new fans (and also let's not forget LiveStrong)...
I will now go back to lurking for classic steel touring bike discussions... I love the debate; this is a GREAT GROUP of thoughtful cyclists... THANK YOU!! BB
As for the argument that legalizing PEDs will 'force others' to take them to compete, I agree it presents athletes with a new choice and perhaps a new risk. Competing doesn't always have to mean winning and competitors make choices as to how far they're willing to go... but if winning is all that matters, then this becomes another risk/benefit choice that competitive athletes may have to make (in highly risky sports where the bar is constantly being raised). Just as some may choose NOT to tuck at 60 mph down a twisty mountain road (and likely forego a chance of winning a big race stage) that's the essence of sports and competition.
But as Smith points out, legalizing can have some positives, like eliminating the mystery around virtually every super athlete who has won anything ("is he or she clean?"), and for those stripped of their lofty accomplishments, restoring at least some (deserved) level of credit to these athletes who DID perform at a very high level, despite crossing over "the line" that was established at the time.
Christian Vande Velde admitted to doping, and I'd say he's been warmly embraced by TdF fans... Lance may have been much more audacious, brash and dishonest (character flaws, yes), but I say at least give him credit for the GOOD that he brought to cycling, like legions of new fans (and also let's not forget LiveStrong)...
I will now go back to lurking for classic steel touring bike discussions... I love the debate; this is a GREAT GROUP of thoughtful cyclists... THANK YOU!! BB
#75
Heretic
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,246
Bikes: Specialized Sirrus, Giant OCR3, Giant CRS3
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2827 Post(s)
Liked 561 Times
in
429 Posts
... in an older article written by Chris Smith, entitled "Why It's Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports", (sorry, I don't yet qualify to post links, please Google it, it's a good article)... he at least expressed (better than I) the case for legalizing PEDs... which like my original point centers around WHERE we draw the line.
I've read the article which is nearly all about baseball and it seems the author knows little about cycling but just throws it in because it was in the news around 2012 when he was writing it.
His basic argument is that banning is bad for business. The same argument was made for 'light touch regulation ' in the financial sector and we all know where that led.
Likes For Caretaker: