Ten reasons Armstrong will always be a hero!!

1. Anybody who wins the Tour de France once let alone seven times deserves huge respect..
2. He's American.
3. He had less than a 30% chance to live and went through hell and lived to tell the tale..
4. Number 1 again x100 after cancer!!
5. His team basically sacked him at his lowest ebb and in his darkest hour...
6. He dabbled in an age that was saturated by the stuff so it was hardly "cheating"
7. After the French stance before and during the Iraq war I'm glad someone screwed them over!!
8. He's saved lot's of lives and raised huge amounts for good causes...
9. He's the ultimate warrior!!!
10. It's a great film with Bo Derek in!!

Someone delete this pointless thread...

11. He's been burnt in effigy on a Kent village's bonfire while wearing a "Jim'll fix it" badge because burning alongside a reference to a Child Catcher is how they like to revere their heroes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20154327

"Pointless thread..."

Maybe should aim a little higher..

A tribute to the definitive warrior of our time...

Go away Sonny!! There are customers waiting on the Mcdonald's counter for you..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Anybody who wins the Tour de France once let alone seven times deserves huge respect..
2. He's American.
3. He had less than a 30% chance to live and went through hell and lived to tell the tale..
4. Number 1 again x100 after cancer!!
5. His team basically sacked him at his lowest ebb and in his darkest hour...
6. He dabbled in an age that was saturated by the stuff so it was hardly "cheating"
7. After the French stance before and during the Iraq war I'm glad someone screwed them over!!
8. He's saved lot's of lives and raised huge amounts for good causes...
9. He's the ultimate warrior!!!
10. It's a great film with Bo Derek in!!

this should be fun

1. Possibly, I would argue that anyone completing the TdF deserves respect, but moreso if they're clean.
2. Irrelevant, especially in the cycling world.
3. Yes, him coming back from the brink like that is very special.
4. Running out of reasons so needing to use the same one twice? should have settled on 5 instead of 10
5. Not really true...
6. The whole "everyone was cheating" argument is a bit lame as a) it's wrong b) it's not a valid excuse anyway and c) what Armstrong did went far beyond mere cheating. Quite how it makes him a "hero" even if it was a valid excuse is beyond me anyway...
7. Seriously?!?! Refusing to suck up to the USA and stating that the Iraqis didn't have WMD??!!! Also it's not just the French he screwed over. How many careers did he ruin? Read the report, it's scary.
8. Yes. I have huge respect for what he's done in the fight against cancer.
9. On what do you base this? TBH I think describing any sportsman as "the ultimate warrior" is completely OTT.
10. Haven't seen the film, so don't feel qualified to comment

Do we actually believe the 30% to live stuff though?

Given that his take on things that happened and were said in hospital rooms back then are different to a lot of people's recollection (just ask Betsy Andreu), would it be too far fetched that this was just a cynical ploy to enhance his 'superman' status.

"Mad for chelsea.........."

kind of say's it all really...no need for rebuttal..

Found any evidence against Clattenburg yet??

Lance is a cheat. But as he's American he should be forgiven. After all they saved you guys in WW2 (ignoring the fact that the Soviets did most damage to the nazis).
The Yanks wot won the war,

Now you mention it!!

6. He dabbled in an age that was saturated by the stuff so it was hardly "cheating"

-----------

This is wrong. Firstly not everyone cheated. It is safe to assume that at least one of dozens of riders would have been clean and therefore renders this comment false and hugely unfair on those who did not cheat.

Secondly, if everyone cheated then everyone cheated. I can't understand the philosophy that everyone is doing it so it's not cheating. It is cheating. If you cheat and come first you don't win you just cheat better than the others.

Irrespective of whether Armstrong is a hero, an excellent philanthropist, a nice man - he's a cheat.

Mind you he should have held on to Sheryl Crow! She was one of my dream women as a student, I still like her even now!

In cycling it is now almost impossible to separate the cheats from the clean honest competitors, this is a direct result of people in cycling who think that Armstrong is a hero.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
In cycling it is now almost impossible to separate the cheats from the clean honest competitors, this is a direct result of people in cycling who think that Armstrong is a hero.

????? Are you being serious ????? Anyone that thinks that Armstrong wasn't doping is deluded in my view. However, if those that persist in supporting him were to admit that he cheated what would it change? Pretty much nothing in my view as they have no impact on who is and isn't banned, tested, etc. The reason that it is so hard to seperate the cheats from those that are clean is that the cheating was so widespread, and it's very hard to prove who did and didn't do it during the event and much much harder after the event.

That it was widespread has nothing to do with Armstrong. It was widespread long before he was even born and I strongly suspect that it remained widespread for at least a couple of years after he retired. Don't forget that pre-1966 doping was allowed and quite literally all of them were at it - though in some cases they took ridiculous cocktails of drugs and frankly it makes it all the more impressive that they got round alive and in one piece.

Although doping was banned in 66 I don't really think it was taken seriously by the cycling authorities for the next 40 years. A big part of that was perhaps the damage that may be done to the sports image, but equally I think that in much of the cycling world the fans just didn't care about it. I've lived in a few countries on the continent and the culture is very different. Without pointing the finger too directly I can think of a couple (both big on cycling) where the general population really couldn't care less about it. Or at least they couldn't when I lived there 10+ years ago. I actually knew 3 pros in another sport who all doped (and I suspect most of their team did), didn't bother to hide it, and thought I was a bit of an oddball because I wouldn't. It's easy to think of right and wrong as absolutes, but when you travel a bit you release nothing more than a perception.

If there was any big change in the doping culture during the Armstrong era, it was the proliferation of EPO. Such was the impact of EPO use that doping went from being something that might give you a bit of an edge, to something you needed to do to even be in with a chance. However, as he was almost certainly not the first to use it, and it's use was widespread beyond the US Postal team I'm struggling to see how he or his supporters are directly responsible.

In my view a culture that thinks that doping is okay in many cycling countries, and the failure of the UCI to take the issue seriously sooner than it did is the issue. Armstrong was the most succesful doper, and arguably co-ordinated it's use within his team. It seems that he was willing to cheat, and intimated those that stood against him - and if that is true then he is also guilty of perjury and fraud. However, much of an arse as he is, he is not the root of all evil and the cause of all doping.

R4 no.4, Armstrong wasn't number 1 before cancer? He couldn't climb mountains. Do your research.

http://www.theanglenews.co.uk/sport/article-c427ee7a055/lance-armstrong-drug-scandal.html

seanmichaels wrote:R4 no.4, Armstrong wasn't number 1 before cancer? He couldn't climb mountains. Do your research.

http://www.theanglenews.co.uk/sport/article-c427ee7a055/lance-armstrong-drug-scandal.html

Armstrong was a world class rider pre-cancer. World road race champion, winner of a couple of TdF stages and a couple of Classics, plus being a challenger for the toughest Classics (L-B-L in particular). It was already planned, when he signed for Cofidis, that he would look to loose some weight and become a challenger in the Grand Tours, although obviously we don't know now how effective that might have been because of the changes to his body brought on by his chemo treatment - he had a good record in the Tour DuPont in the US, which included some fairly serious mountains, but he definitely needed to lose a few kg if he was going to hang around with the best in the high mountains of the Tour. All this by age 26 certainly suggests a very good rider with the potential to continue to improve and win plenty of races - 7 Tour wins didn't look on the cards, but one or two might have been within his scope over the next few years without the cancer-induced weight loss.

Of course, one of the unknowns is how much PEDs was influencing Armstrong's results prior to the cancer - there are strong rumours that the US amateur / Olympic cycling team was involved in blood doping as early as the 1984 Olympics, and Armstrong did briefly pass through that system in the late 80s, so may have seen the benefits of this very early in his career, but there is nothing beyond speculation to tie Armstrong to PED use in his early years.

All very sad and depressing.

I'm of an age, and hopefully reasonable maturity, not to need heroes, but I don't think we can just dismiss his record over those years. To have kept fit, accident free and to have maintained the team's performance was a remarkable achievement.

There's probably still a story to be told and when his book comes out in a few years ("My Life and When the Whole World Was Against Me"-with a foreword by John McEnrore), what's the betting we all rush out to buy it!

Hopefully reasonable maturity to need heroes!!

So guys that come back from Afghanistan in body bags.....aren't heroes!!!

Pointlessly offensive sentence removed.

I was in no way referring to our brave soldiers; I meant the need many have to have heroes like Armstrong.

The thread is not about Afghanistan.

Your last sentence is needlessly offensive.

He was already doping systematically before he got the cancer and its possible / probable that the doping caused the cancer.

"Pointlessly offensive sentence removed..........."

Ouch!!!!!!!!

Should be glad I posted this thread....Cycling on here is dying on it's butt!!

and that's not being pointlessly offensive..

This section isn't dying.

It was never active in the first place.

But if posting here made you feel good about yourself - that's awesome and I'm pleased for you.

Thanks...

Cycling being in the off season at the moment is probably a reason for lack of activity...

Therere's always a hard core of posters ready to contribute hopefully interesting thoughts if a stimulating subject is created.

We look forward to yours!

I'm gonna try watch more of the Giro and classics this season. Missed a lot revising for GCSE'S last year.

Not having cable I was pleased with ITV4's coverage this year, particularly the Vuelta.

I've got a lot of tapes a friend did for me from Eurosport over the years, and I'm merrily transferring them to my (new) DVD recorder thingie.

Only slight issue is: they're virtually all Armstrong/Virenque/Landis/Hamilton etc., etc!!

"Theres always a hard core of posters..........we look forward to yours"

You keep posting on here dumbass............please feel free to take a hike

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Theres always a hard core of posters..........we look forward to yours"

You keep posting on here dumbass............please feel free to take a hike

No need for the dumbass comment really was there?

When he stops hitting and running like he has been all thread.....

then maybe you'll be right.......

Grant Holt?? .....real name or are you a crazed fanboy??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When he stops hitting and running like he has been all thread.....

then maybe you'll be right.......

Grant Holt?? .....real name or are you a crazed fanboy??

Real name. Unfortunate I know

Good name mate......If it was Joey Barton then you'd have cause for concern...

You're right I apologise for the post before..

i find it no suprise that trussy who's been known to be on certain "supplements" in the past, sees the drug cheat armstrong as a hero

Winning the tour seven times after coming back from cancer (30% survival rate).....In an age where juice flowed all over the place...

Good a reasons as any Son..

Still a cheat

Is he....

Passed every test..

If he wasn't explain to us why he was stripped of his TDF titles?

Because of testimony from his much poorer team-mates and others with various motives..

Passed every test......

I appreciate you're not really clued up on cycling truss, but 'passed every test' as a hysterical Lance fanboy defence is so 5 years ago. Lance has essentially admitted guilt by not contesting the charges, all that's left now is for the brainwashed minions to accept it too. (not that it'll ever happen.)

Marion Jones passed every test too. Whoops.

(If you read the report, or know anything about the case, you would also realise that 'passed every test' isn't true in the strictest sense.)

But keep the faith if it makes you happy.

He hasn't admitted anything.....

Lawsuits cost money to defend and If you knew anything about the US you'd know it doesn't have the same "Loser pays" system you have over here..

Making it expensive......and also time consuming....

Lance does (did have) have a 'Cancer Awereness' charity to sort his legal bills out though.

He's never had a problem taking it to the courts in the past.

You don't believe he's innocent anyway, you said as much in your OP.

Can't help feeling that you are clutching at straws.

Anyone who has acheived what he had in the sport to then have it snatched away from him would make you angry if you were innocent to say the very least. No way any person (and especially one as courageous as you have branded him) would just roll over and except people tarnishing his legacy without doing something about it.

Didn't he fail at test in Switzerland in 2000? Swear I read that somewhere, will try to find the link later

Olly wrote:Didn't he fail at test in Switzerland in 2000? Swear I read that somewhere, will try to find the link later

Olly
There are two or three test results that were questionable. IIRC, the one you are referring to was a suspected EPO positive - the Swiss lab director has recently said that in this case there was enough in the test results to suspect the use of EPO but not to confirm a positive test (I don't know how much you know about analytical chemistry, but such things are not all that unusual - there will have been a spike in the right place for EPO in the results, but the spike could have been too small to confirm that it was more than just noise in the analytical instrument signal i.e. below the Limit of Detection for the test method). The suspicion is that someone (from within the UCI) may have leaned on the lab to down-play the adverse finding as they wanted to protect the reputation of the sport's biggest asset at the time (remembering that we were only 2 or 3 years after the Festina affair had blown the lid off the systematic use of EPO within the peloton).

There was also a corticosteroid positive from the 1999 Tour, which was made to go away by back-dating a TUE certificate. This may have been something as trivial as a topical cream for saddle sores or insect bites, or may have been a much more substantial positive - again, we'll never really know the truth.

Sure I believe he was guilty...........however the fact is he's never tested positive...

Just find the hypocrisy of the US cycling association who basked in his glory.....seeming to go out of their way to destroy a guy....

Even the dumbest member must have realised there was a chance of doping problems...

but now he's not succesful on the track let's have him!!!

Linford Christie has also had questionable tests..

Let's strip him....of his Olympic title..

Ban any athlete who tests positive for life and you will soon eradicate this nonsense in any sport.

But Lance didn't test positive.

Anti-doping in sport is mainly a PR exercise, so it looks like they actually want to catch the cheats, while making sure the biggest names are protected.

In reality, the sports are pretty much alright with their top guys cheating and bringing in the cash, as long as they're not stupid and test positive (take tennis for example.)

The problems start when non-sporting agencies get involved. Like the BALCO case, like Operacion Puerto and most recently the Armstrong case.

I think there is an increasing amount of suspicion in various sports regarding doping, you have had the cycling, countless olympians, boxing (probably the most guilty), MMA even horse racing as the latest offender. Sad really that it is creeping into everything that you watch to the point where you are doubting any sport, except maybe darts.

two_tone wrote:I think there is an increasing amount of suspicion in various sports regarding doping, you have had the cycling, countless olympians, boxing (probably the most guilty), MMA even horse racing as the latest offender. Sad really that it is creeping into everything that you watch to the point where you are doubting any sport, except maybe darts.

I don't think it's the doping that's creeping in, it's more the awareness of it. I suspect that in most sports it's always been there, it's just that other sports haven't had a 'Festina' moment that has made the issue so open to the public that they've had no choice but to crackdown. It's not really that long that sports have had testing for doping. However, the longer we have the testing regimes in place (even the half hearted ones you find in other sports) the more you will find people getting caught out when they get careless. The more that happens, the greater the awareness is and the more pressure there will be for additional testing.

will this make it 11 reasons?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/is-lance-armstrong-considering-a-confession
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/must-read-armstrong-mulling-confession_270509

Speculation.......

so nope.