Is there a way we can explain to the American people that Lance Armstrong was NOT clean?

Question

Ivan Basso, the only rider ever to be able to compete with in LA in the mountains admitted yesterday his involvement in the Puerto scandal (blood transfusions of EPO that cannot be detected in the current state of scientific research). Sorry lads, the myth is now broken...

Answer 1

I have no doubt that the entire sport of cycling is dirty in one way or another. I have friends who have raced professionally and all tell of the pressures the artificially raise performance. Check your specifics though. It's a minor point, but Basso admitted to attempted blood doping. This does not require EPO but involves the reinjection of your own blood into your system. This would not trigger an EPO positive and would increase your ability to carry oxygen.

Answer 2

One can't "explain" an unproven accusation, he can only repeat it. Armstrong wasn't just tested by his own doctors, but rather he was tested randomly by international cycling officials, including Tour de France officials who were determined to show that he was cheating. In all his years of competing, Armstrong never once tested positive for banned substances. All those who have accused him of cheating over the years were people with a known ax to grind. Never has there been a credible charge. Some people, such as Armstrong, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordon, through relentless training, determination and God-given talent are simply better than everyone else at what they do and it is highly cynical to assume that one can only be a dominant athlete by cheating.

Answer 3

For what it is worth - no rider that I can remember has ever come under the same scrutiny as Lance - and yet has passed everything! He won the Tour 7 times in a row and has passed everything! I don't care how many conspiracy theories you come up with - until their is a failed test - the man is clean!

Pro cycling has lost a lot of credibility both due to rampant cheating and poor oversight - yet nothing has been able to stick on Lance. The fact that he has endured this over years of racing further reinforces the possibility that the dude may be clean after all!

Must really rub you raw to see the worlds best cyclist come from the USA! Too bad for you. Think you'd be used to losing by now...

Answer 4

In his early days (pre-cancer), Lance was not a dominant Tour rider for a couple of reasons. First, he was young ... with all the lack of strategy and ego that implies. Second, he was not liked by most of the other riders ... which means anything he accomplished was due to his own prowess and/or the bad luck of other racers. Third, his overall body 'type' ... he was able to stay with most of the top riders for many stages, even though he outweighed the 'pure' climbers by almost 50 percent. The only other rider in recent history that falls into that category of 'pure power' would be Jan Ullrich. (Both, to accomplish their feats, required abnormally high VO2 capability and excellent metabolisms, along with significant off-season training to stay in form.)

Now ... take away a third of his body weight, without seriously affecting that VO2 capacity or atrophying the basic muscle mass required for riding (the weight came from his upper body almost completely, not his legs!). Now his power-to-weight ratio is WAAAYYY up compared to even the elite climbers.

Add in the fact that he didn't go straight back to racing ... he got on the right side of a couple of trainers and put the hours in himself, without a cycling team to support him, for almost 16 months. Then he became part of US Postal (which eventually became Discovery). HE didn't start out to be the leader ... but it was obvious after a couple of stages that if the team needed a leader, and wanted to accomplish a good team position, Lance was the rider to back. He didn't win the first year ... but made a good enough impression that the team worked under his leadership the following year.

Seven years later, with a lot of learning about strategy and tactics and a lot of effort (and a lot of R+D poured into his and the team's 'hardware'), he retired from the sport with a string of consecutive victories that are impressive, to say the least. Not to say the string might not someday be broken ... but not until someone else has that luck to get a really great combination of genetics, charisma, intelligence, and drive.

And by the way, I'm NOT an American. Just a follower of Tour history and an avid cycling enthusiast.

Answer 5

So... could you please put this together for me? I'm missing something.

Ivan Basso admitted to doping, so Lance Armstrong automatically doped as well? The other thing that you have to explain to the American people is the PROOF that Lance doped. Since that is still absent, you're just blowing smoke.

You must have come fresh from the Religion & Spirituality section with logic like that!

Answer 6

It kills me that people can't let this one go. Big deal that Basso admitted "trying or about to" dope. That doesn't have anything to do with Lance or his wins in the Tour. He won all fair and square. Mr. Crawford up there has no clue what he is talking about.

Answer 7

No, the "myth" is NOT broken ! Lance is guilty just because Basso is ? Try reading "It's Not About the Bike"...Lance is now retired, give it a break.

Answer 8

First off, capitain - you offer only speculation. I was wrong that I gave basso the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, you need to prove it. There is alot more proof that the LNDD are a bunch of jealous corrupt bastards.

second - B_Crawford_79 - a poor rider before cancer? Try looking at your history you ignorant dolt...Here are his WINS after he turned pro and before he got cancer (just wins, there isn't enough space here to list all his top ten placings):

1996 - Motorola

* Tour duPont (overall, 5 stage wins)
* La Flèche Wallonne

1995 - Motorola

* Tour de France (Stage 18)
* Clásica de San Sebastián
* Paris-Nice (Stage 5)
* Tour duPont (overall, mountains, 3 stage wins)
* Kmart West Virginia Classic (overall, 2 stage wins)
* Tour of America (overall)

1994 - Motorola

* Thrift Drug Classic
* Tour duPont (1 stage win)

1993 - Motorola

* World Cycling Champion - UCI Road World Championships
* Flag of United States US National Cycling Champion - CoreStates USPRO National Road Championships
* Tour de France (Stage 8)
* Tour of America (overall)
* Trofeo Laigueglia
* Tour duPont (2nd overall, 1 stage win)
* Tour of Sweden (3rd overall, 1 stage win)
* Thrift Drug Classic
* Kmart West Virginia Classic (overall, 2 stage wins)

1992 - Motorola

* Settimana Bergamasca (stage 6)
* Vuelta a Galicia (Stage 4a)
* Trittico Premondiale (Stage 2) (or GP Sanson)
* First Union Grand Prix (Atlanta)
* Fitchburg-Longsjo Classic (overall, 1 stage win)

Answer 9

why is it impossible to believe that a person can have training schedule that would put him above all the rest. Seriously, no one questions Tiger Woods or Roger Federer and they are just as dominant in their respective sports.

Answer 10

Why should someone be able to be head and shoulders above all the dopped riders even though he was a poor rider before cancer and lost massive amounts of training time and not to mension musscle mass during his treatment, while the other rides were spending 40hrs a week training.

Yet he returns and magically has become one of the world's best.

His attitude of "I win cause I train hard when the others are resting" was a slap in the face of every competitor who rode the TDF from 98-04.

No you won't be able to explain it.