Lance Armstrong, love or loathe, in 2019

[KneesUp]

IMO Only David Millar achieved redemption. Nobody else ever will.

Some didn't need to achieve redemption - you don't hear many people criticising Tom Simpson, for example.

 

[Milkfloat]

Some didn't need to achieve redemption - you don't hear many people criticising Tom Simpson, for example.

You do, he was doped up to the eyeballs!

 

[roadrash]

I thought everyone in tdf would have a desire to win or they wouldn't be in that race in the first place.

Everyone in that era cheated but Lance was a lot more assertive. If it's the assertiveness and bullying we don't like, then we should call him out, and we do. But to single him out as the only cheater is missing the overall picture, imho?

I am pretty sure I did not, and have not, singled him out as the "ONLY" cheating rider

 

[Edwardoka]

IMO Only David Millar achieved redemption. Nobody else ever will.

Jury's still out on that one. Some people believe firmly in the maxim "once a doper, always a doper".

I seem to recall some people at GCN being quite opinionated about such matters, though admittedly that didn't stop them going for a ride with him in the countryside around Girona and interviewing him about his time-trialling philosophy.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Jury's definitely out on Millar. Nicole Cooke is definitely not a fan. Graeme Obree made some pretty damning comments about him at the time when Millar was made "Super Squeaky Cleanliness Honcho" of British Cycling, or some such mantle, a couple of years ago. I don't know if he still holds that post.

We are all entirely free to form our opinions people on the based on our own biases, and on their character and their story as well as their chemical intake. Which is why Armstrong is an embarrassment who is best forgotten and Pantani and Simpson are a tragic folk heroes.

Millar ... I do think he's quite good on the telly as a pundit, but I still don't like him.

 

[stoatsngroats]

An interesting thread, thanks for your thoughts!
My thoughts at the time we’re that he was exciting to watch, I was aware of some of the allegations over the years, but believed the lies that others saw through. I have similar dislike for other around at the time, and since, but always enjoyed the competitiveness each one of those above showed.

Maybe I’m not really interested in the stuff going on behind these scenes, more interested in the ‘show’.
When you consider other personalities across other sports, and dare I say, entertainment, music, politics etc. I may
be superficial, but at the time of watching, I’m frequently spellbound by effort, daring, strength, and competitive spirit. It’s better when there is a clean approach obviously, but maybe I like the ‘moment’ rather than the histrionics.

I bought some Livestong items, at the time, and I’m glad we had the spectacle of those years. It may have been equally spectacular without the whole episode, of course, and history has been rewritten to expunge that period.

Slightly different, I realise, but is F1, athletics, even movies and drama, any different to those cycling times?

Will cycling ever be different, believeable, trustworthy? Maybe, maybe not, but damn it’s very watchable innit?
Cheers for involving yourself in my original post!
SnG

 

[david k]

I thought everyone in tdf would have a desire to win or they wouldn't be in that race in the first place.

Everyone in that era cheated but Lance was a lot more assertive. If it's the assertiveness and bullying we don't like, then we should call him out, and we do. But to single him out as the only cheater is missing the overall picture, imho?

As far as I understand it, his cheating was more ruthless, determined and consistent whilst controlling many other riders, team mates and various people involved.

I despise people like him, although I do find him fascinating

 

[mustang1]

As far as I understand it, his cheating was more ruthless, determined and consistent whilst controlling many other riders, team mates and various people involved.

I despise people like him, although I do find him fascinating

Typical narcissist. I hate them. BUT I was in a car race once and someone accused me of cheating as I had a turbo installed which was not allowed. I told him he also has a turbo installed but he said that kind of cheating was ok because his turbo was smaller than mine.

I digress but am making a round about point that they all cheated but Lance was called out because he was systematic.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I digress but am making a round about point that they all cheated but Lance was called out because he was systematic.

Depends what you mean by "called out". Plenty of riders at the time were caught at the time (including Armstrong who managed to pull some strings and make it disappear) Plenty have been caught after the fact and had their race results annulled. He's nothing special.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Some didn't need to achieve redemption - you don't hear many people criticising Tom Simpson, for example.

You could justifiably criticize Simpson, but only in the same terms you could criticize virtually everyone who rode in that era. He was just unlucky in that his use of stimulants contributed to his high profile death.

 

[KneesUp]

You could justifiably criticize Simpson, but only in the same terms you could criticize virtually everyone who rode in that era. He was just unlucky in that his use of stimulants contributed to his high profile death.

What do you mean by "that era" though? The 1960s? Pre-EPO? The era where cyclists did whatever they could in order to win?

 

[Crackle]

What do you mean by "that era" though? The 1960s? Pre-EPO? The era where cyclists did whatever they could in order to win?

I think somewhere there is this very discussion. I can't recall all the details now but the doping laws were very different, almost non-existent and cycling was just moving out of an era of casually using stimulants to beginning to accept that they carried risks.

Simpson's wasn't the first death, it led to further rules but anti-doping as we know it today didn't exist then, though it was gaining traction. 1964 was the first anti-doping tests at the Tokyo Olympics, 1965 Belgian and France enacted legislation about stimulants. Simpson died in '67, steroids weren't banned, not all amphetamines could be detected, some weren't even tested for, attitudes amongst the Peloton and the public had not hardened against drug use or begun to take the testing seriously, it wasn't even illegal in many countries and there was no WADA only the UCI.

Systematic doping as we'd understand it today did not carry the same connotations, many still viewed it as necessary, racing schedules were different, how riders were paid was different, how they lived, how they were trained, everything, so sure, he doped, took stimulants and alchohol but it's not directly comparable to what Armstrong did, nor were the effects of stimulants anywhere near as potent as later steroids and then EPO which really could transform someone from Donkey to racehorse.

 

[cheys03]

Bit late to the party, but loathe

 

[Lloss]

Just about all top cyclist have doped some have got caught some have not, EM springs to mind do we ban them all or just some of them, let us not forget the biggest doping team who have never been caught are racing today.I for one think LA was a tremendous rider.

 

[roadrash]

^^^^^ bollox ^^^^^