Lance Armstrong to Ride again!

[_Jason Bourne]

As some of you know I am big cycling fan and Lance Armstrong is for many reasons some what of a hero of mine. And I am really not into celebs much but I guess because I do some amture long distance racing and have personal experience with cancer for many I am close to he sort of appeals to me.

Well he has decided to race again and wants to win and 8th Tour de France in 2009. One of the main reasons he says he wants to do it is to further raise awareness about his fight against cancer.

I am so excited about this.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... rong200809

[_skippy the dead]

My cynical guess is that he wants to see if he can win "clean." He is surrounded by suspicions about how he managed to dominate the sport, and I suspect that his ego is so big that he wants to prove something. The cancer awareness story is not the main focus.

For the record, I do not think he won all those races without some chemical or scientific assistance.

[_Jason Bourne]

My cynical guess is that he wants to see if he can win "clean." He is surrounded by suspicions about how he managed to dominate the sport, and I suspect that his ego is so big that he wants to prove something. The cancer awareness story is not the main focus.

For the record, I do not think he won all those races without some chemical or scientific assistance.

Hmmm

Well he does have an ego. The rest of your cynicism though I think it unfounded. The man has lived and breathed his cancer foundation since retiring. He puts his money where his mouth is. He is one of the most active and vocal cancer advocates in the USA.

Next yes even the article I linked says this is a way he can show he can win and is not a doper. He has even started having his training and testing on video for a future documentary.

As for him not winning clean in the past I strongly disagree with you. What do you know about it and the testing that he did all through his career. He never failed one test and was arguably the most tested athlete in the world. Cyclists submit to random testing anytime and anywhere. They must make their whereabouts known to testing authorities at all times so they can be randomly tested. Last years TDF leader Michael Rasmussen was dismissed from his team during the tour when it became known that he lied about his location in the weeks before the tour. He claimed he had been vacationing in Mexico but was actually training in Europe somewhere.

Anyway, if Armstrong did dope he was the very best about hiding it. Too bad you want to convict him without evidence.

[_skippy the dead]

As for him not winning clean in the past I strongly disagree with you. What do you know about it and the testing that he did all through his career. He never failed one test and was arguably the most tested athlete in the world. Cyclists submit to random testing anytime and anywhere. They must make their whereabouts known to testing authorities at all times so they can be randomly tested. Last years TDF leader Michael Rasmussen was dismissed from his team during the tour when it became known that he lied about his location in the weeks before the tour. He claimed he had been vacationing in Mexico but was actually training in Europe somewhere.

Anyway, if Armstrong did dope he was the very best about hiding it. Too bad you want to convict him without evidence.

C'mon - can you really give him an automatic free pass? If there's anything we've learned from the Balco era is that everyone is suspect. Everyone. I'm not going to convict Armstrong, but I will suspect him. As an avid sports fan, I must.

Cycling has been one of the dirtiest sports. And as we've seen by the recent tightening of testing in cycling, lots of riders that were previously above reproach were dirty. Armstrong hasn't been subject to the more rigorous testing yet. I would hope that he's been clean, but I won't assume it.

Remember that Landis was "clean" for years, too, but he got has since been caught. One of the goals for the science cheaters is to stay ahead of testing (see: the "cream" and the "clear"). PEDs are intended to be used cyclically in order to avoid detection, with various masking agents. Testing is good, but not exact and not perfect.

Sorry, I'm just much too jaded to hold Armstrong up as an example of untainted excellence.

[_Jason Bourne]

C'mon - can you really give him an automatic free pass?

I do not give him a free pass. I rely on the years of testing thousands of times.

If there's anything we've learned from the Balco era is that everyone is suspect. Everyone. I'm not going to convict Armstrong, but I will suspect him. As an avid sports fan, I must.

Well sure I wonder and have doubts but at the same time I see him as one of the most assaulted atheletes on this and one of the most tested and he has passed with flying colors.

Cycling has been one of the dirtiest sports.

I think other sports have been just a dirty but have not been as active about rooting it out.

And as we've seen by the recent tightening of testing in cycling, lots of riders that were previously above reproach were dirty. Armstrong hasn't been subject to the more rigorous testing yet. I would hope that he's been clean, but I won't assume it.

Armstrong was subjected to thousands of tests during his winning career. Maybe the tests are better in the past three years. Rather than be the cynic I will opt to believe he was clean since he never failed a test.

Remember that Landis was "clean" for years, too, but he got has since been caught. One of the goals for the science cheaters is to stay ahead of testing (see: the "cream" and the "clear"). PEDs are intended to be used cyclically in order to avoid detection, with various masking agents. Testing is good, but not exact and not perfect.

Landis is still and enigma to me. The test he failed was for a substance with a short life and that means he would have had to take ti during the tour which makes absolutely no sense at all. He still maintains his innocence but then so does Tyler Hamilton.

Sorry, I'm just much too jaded to hold Armstrong up as an example of untainted excellence.

I understand. I probably cut him a lot of slack because I like him so well and his accomplishments mean a lot to me for some very personal reasons.

[_skippy the dead]

I understand. I probably cut him a lot of slack because I like him so well and his accomplishments mean a lot to me for some very personal reasons.

This I can totally understand.

Of course, I still love Barry Bonds, even though he was undoubtedly dirty. So go figure.

[_Jason Bourne]

From the Vanity Fair article:

The subject swings, inevitably, to the dreaded topic: doping. Another reason Armstrong is entering the Tour is to bury the notion, once and for all, that drugs helped propel him to victory, that his generation of cyclists were deviants. By winning the 2009 Tour, under rigid anti-doping strictures, he believes he’ll forever silence the doubters. “You know, when I first came back, in ’98, ’99, there was a huge revenge factor,” he explains. “I was basically just not wanted by the sport. And was kicked out of the French team because I was cancer sick and so I was angry at people. And I was going to come back and prove that a survivor could do that. There’s a little of that revenge spirit in me now.

“There’s this perception in cycling that this generation is now the cleanest generation we’ve had in decades, if not forever. And the generation that I raced with was the dirty generation. And, granted, I’ll be totally honest with you, the year that I won the Tour, many of the guys that got 2nd through 10th, a lot of them are gone. Out. Caught. Positive Tests. Suspended. Whatever.… And so I can understand why people look at that and go, Well, [they] were caught—and you weren’t? So there is a nice element here where I can come with really a completely comprehensive program and there will be no way to cheat.”

Armstrong recognizes that the European press may very well be laying in wait for him, hoping he’ll fail. “I didn’t go out of my way to make friends with the French media,” he says. “In fact, I was combative. I was unavailable, arrogant, and I was that way to a lot of them. Anybody who wrote a negative article: Done. Never speak to them again. I won’t do that this time. I mean, these daily or weekly [phone conferences]? Everyone’s invited. From the bitterest of rivals I’ve ever had in the pressroom: Get on call. If you’ve got a question, ask it.… They’ll realize that I’m not messing around.” The difference this time, he says, is that he won’t be flaunting his Americanism in their faces. “The constituency that I represent,” he says, “is now cancer survivors.”