I love the French, but God are they whiners about Lance Armstrong!

[trumad]

Read this piece about the newest allegations about Lance. It's unfricking believable that they're using this flimsy as shit to tarnish the dude.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/08/24/bc.cyc.armstrong.doping.ap/index.html

[progressivebydesign]

1. If he broke the rules it doesn't matter where he's from.

The evidence is convincing. I'd hate to think that we'd be part of that crowd that thinks America's shit don't stink, so to speak.

[MildyRules]

42. Convincing???

Sure. with absolutely ZERO chain of custody established, it's convincing? LMAO

[atreides1]

2. The Question

Is it credible? Being flimsy isn't a reason to totally discard what may be factual.

[montanacowboy]

3. Not flimsy

been through rigorious testing by labs - urine was frozen because they had no tests then; now they do

[rinsd]

6. 6 year old samples.....

....that have no chain of custody, that the lab states they cannot identify sources, "research" done by a paper notorious for throwing mud at Lance.

Oh and throw in the fact that Lance was the only one named when as many as 6 other riders also tested positive.

Usually we smell a smear a mile away, but one bike ride with Bush and one becomes guilty until proven innocent.

EPO testing started in 2001. I suppose Lance just fooled them as he continued to dominate.

[alarimer]

25. Defintely a smear

Lance has passed every single test they gave him. This story is bogus. French reporters have been caught breaking into his hotel room; they are DESPERATE to discredit Lance Armstrong.

[Spike from MN]

31. Yeah but testing clean really doesn't mean anything.

Richard Virenque also tested clean but he admitted to doping. Raimondas Rumsas tested clean but his wife was busted with all sorts of dope in her car on the last day of the Tour in 2002. Rumsas finished third in the Tour that year.(Rusmas did fail an EPO test in 2003 but through 2002 he had never failed a test.) David Millar never failed a drug test in 8 years but in 2004 he admitted to using EPO. I believe others have also passed the tests and later confessed to using. So, IMHO, "testing clean" really doesn't mean squat.

[alarimer]

40. so fucking what??

I love how people are piling on Lance Armstrong now that he has gone on one fucking bike ride with the President. This article does not prove anything; there are so many holes in it.

[etherealtruth]

46. I'm with you ...

There are many more questions than answers ...

[MadHound]

8. Have to disagree

There is no verifiable chain of custody in regards to the samples, thus anybody could have slipped something into them. That right there is a huge red flag. Second, they've been able to perform these tests since 2004. While they may have not been able to do these tests last year due to their newness, why didn't they do them this year, before the Tour? Third, these are tests that are done by the Lance haters in France, and supported by the French press. Why not turn the the samples over to the governing body of bike racing, the ICU, and let them do the tests?

Sorry, but I think that this is another attempt at a hatchet job on Armstrong. The French have been beside themselves with anger and envy that Armstrong rode in an thrashed them at their own game.

[Amonester]

13. You sure don't mean ALL of 'em are... (reassure moi...)

"The French have been beside themselves with anger and envy"

Sure does "read" like a little "overboard," you know? Can I suggest: "Many sports fans in France have been beside themselves with anger and envy" because: you know why...

:hangover:

[MadHound]

15. Gee, pardon me, can you ever forgive me

Etc. etc.

Lighten up Francis! I forgot one fucking qualifier in a post that otherwise has them, and somebody just has to get bent out of shape:eyes: Give it a break, OK. I think that anybody with a reading comprehension of a sixth grader would realize from the other qualifiers in my post that I wasn't referring to ALL of the French. Sheesh!

[Amonester]

20. What does "sheesh!" mean? - lol

Otay. I don't like sports on teevee anyway.

I do enjoy swimmin' a lot though... alright, not on the tube.

It's good for the heart (and everything else too). :hippie:

[democracyindanger]

11. Not exactly

The lab itself said they would only release the results if they weren't used in any disciplinary actions against a rider--even they don't think the results are sound enough to warrant use as evidence. Also, the sample was used as part of an effort to fine tune their testing methods, i.e. not tested using normal standards.

[mnmoderatedem]

32. Actually

there remains strong doubts about the vaildity of the information, as to whether it can be traced to Armstrong.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-armstrongminister&prov=reuters&type=lgns

[Algorem]

4. "The French are poor losers"-Horse Molester Paul Harvey today

[stopbush]

5. Let's be honest, it's not "the French" who are whining,

it's ONE sports magazine, L'Equipe. They have been on Armstrong's case forEVER.

It's a little like saying Americans are whining because Sports Illustrated penned a negative article about someone.

[Amonester]

10. Exactly. - eom

[BiggJawn]

27. "L'Equipe" is OWNED by the TdF organization....

And LaBlanc has had it "in" for Lance ever since his first win.

Every year, the rumours went around how the route for Le Tour was selected with trying to "break" Lance in mind.

Would you unquestioningly believe stories about firearms printed in "The American Rifleman"?

I wouldn't, and I LIKE firearms!

[Sequoia]

7. Lance is made of brass, not gold.

and now the poor wittle hero is tarnished.

Really, Lance thinks he's mr. big shot, dumped his wife, hangs out with Bush now. I don't care how many races he's won and thinks he's above investigation. But, if we have a sports person who's Hispanice, or Black, let's burn 'em fast.

[trumad]

12. OK..so you don't like Lance.

What's that got to do with this?

[Sequoia]

22. He thinks he's above scrutiny.

His attitude is pathetic, and please spare me the, but he overcame cancer routine. He got it by what he does and I'm glad he overcame it but that does not give him a license to act the way he does. His girlfriend stinks too by the way who got with him to boost her whiney singing career.

[LostinVA]

35. Sheryl Crow certainly didn't need a boost in her career

When they started dating.

And, you're saying he got cancer from "doing what he did." Please.

[BiggJawn]

28. Oh, the "dumped his wife" meme again....

Thanks for playing, pick up your lovely parting gifts from Johnny on your way out.

Unless you've got personal insight into the Armstrong divorce you'd like to share, perhaps you shouldn't spread rumours?
Maybe SHE "dumped" HIM?

[LostinVA]

34. He didn't "dump" his wife, they got divorced

He didn't start dating Sheryl Crow until he and his wife were long kaput. They kept up a friendly public face for the kids, and they are on friendly terms. They've both stated it wasn't the kind of life she wanted to live. It bothers me that people keep on using this to beat up on Armstrong. Because he and his wife rightly kept their personal life personal (umm... are you listening, Briney?), nasty rumors have spread.

I have no idea if Lance has doped or not. The fact is, though, that a segment of the French sports and press establishment has been gunning for him for years. They HATE him.

[Burma Jones]

9. The source of the allegations is highly suspect

The tests and the full documentation thereof have not been made available to third parties.

People forget that Armstrong is kind of a freak when it comes to his Cardiovascular system, he was born with an extraordinary capacity to distribute oxygen throughout his body.

I dismiss the allegations because they're made by an exceptionally biased source. Since there is no way to cross-check the samples and there is only L'Equipe's word that the six digit codes are legitimate, I figure that this is probably yet another smear.

[YapiYapo]

18. The test was made by a french independant laboratory.

However,i agree this was very low from "L'equipe" to release that information since there is no way for a counter analysis.

That being said,most professional athletes in endurance based sport use doping drugs.Cycling has always been one of the worst when it come to doping.

Chance amstrong was using drug is as high as the chance the 2 last great french cycling star, Laurent Fignon and Bernard Hinaut did it.

Did i need to mention richard virenque ?

"However, in 1998 team Festina was shattered by a doping scandal (see the doping scandals of the Tour de France) after health assistant Willy Voet was arrested with large quantities of prescription drugs and illegal drugs used for doping. Richard Virenque denied doping himself intentionally, while Willy Voet charged that he was perfectly conscious of what he was doing, and even participated in trafficking between professional cyclists. Virenque claimed that all this had happened, in his own words, "à l'insu de mon plein gré" ("without the knowledge of my own will"). Voet also wrote a book Breaking the Chain (Massacre à la Chaîne) in which he clearly (although not fully) identified Richard Virenque as an unrepentant doper in full knowledge of his own abuses.

Virenque was highly criticized by editorialists and satirists for his stubborn denial in the face of increasing evidence and his pretense of having been doped without his knowledge. The Les Guignols de l'Info show portrayed him repeating "à l'insu de mon plein gré" (literally, "unbeknownst to my free will"), and this phrase soon passed into French popular culture as a sign of hypocritical denial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque

[Bassic]

14. I have no problem believing the guy was / is doped up.

Did you know that steroids can give you testicular cancer? :eyes:

[MadHound]

16. Oh yeah, that's why he would take EPO,

While recovering from testicular cancer:eyes:

Do you realize how stupid your statement sounds? Think about it.

[Bassic]

24. The guy won the thing 7 years in a row

Call me skeptical, hell call me stupid all you like, I just don't believe he didn't take anything to help him perform (as many of those athletes must do). In my opinion the guy is doped up even now. Doesen'T mean he's not good at what he does, there are probably a lot of those guys who are doped up. Especially in the Tour de France, because it's one of the most demanding sports events in the world.


Testicular cancer is simply a possible side effect of taking those kinds of drugs, look it up.

[MadHound]

36. Armstrong, like many top end atheletes, is a genetic freak

His cardiovascular system allows him to take in an pump up to 1/3 more oxygen that your average human. More O2, less lactic acid build-up in the muscles, more miles you can go at top speed. Think of it as built in blood packing.

And given our recent history with doping in pro sports, I understand your skepticism, but understand that Armstrong, thanks to the dislike he engenders in many of the French cycling community, has been one of the most tested athletes is history. Also understand that all he did, all he worked on for his career was to win the Tour. He competed in very few other races, which is highly unusual given that most European cyclists are competeing in at least one race on month over nine months. Thus, while other cyclists were battling fatique and stress and injuries, Armstrong came into the race every year at the top of his game.

And I wasn't calling you stupid, I was stating that your statement was stupid, a bit of a difference. If you would be realistic about it, you would realize that it was stupid also. I mean really now, do you honestly think that a man, a year and a half after being in the hospital for testicular cancer, would risk his remaining testicle by taking hormones or anything else carcinogenic? The man had nothing to prove in '99, and literally everything to lose. Hell, it was a risk for him just to be riding a bike again, since there have been studies done on cyclists that show that the shape of bike seats can cause testicular cancer in men.

In addition, consider the source of this study. It comes from a lab that was contracted by a French sports magazine that has been gunning for Armstrong ever since he won in '99. They have made at least two false claims that I know of, and this is looking like another. Really now, a sample from '99? They have yet to show any sort of proper chain of custody on these samples, thus those samples could have been tampered with. The samples have been frozen for six years, and degradation does occur, thus leading to false positives. And they aren't producing the actual paperwork, just copies of it, hello, forgery. In addition, the timing is suspicious. The test they did has been available for over a year, why didn't they bring this up before this year's or last year's race? Instead, they wait until the man retires and then try to smear him.

I'm sorry friend, but this whole thing reeks of jealousy and sour grapes, and until they produce the actual documents, including a veriviable chain of custody, then I'm going to have to call BS on the whole thing.

[Bassic]

41. In a word, yes

"I mean really now, do you honestly think that a man, a year and a half after being in the hospital for testicular cancer, would risk his remaining testicle by taking hormones or anything else carcinogenic?"

Yes I dot believe that he might do that. It all has to do with a top athletes psyche. Athletes such as Armstrong are typicaly very self centred and their whole lives revolve around what they do in sports. Take, for example, the many athletes who sink into depression shortly after winning an olympic gold medal or something of the like. After having devoted every minute of their lives to this one goal... they reached it. So then what?

That is why I do not find it hard to believe that even a man who's had testicular cancer could get back on drugs to continue to be the best. To continue to achieve his goal for a while.

Mind you, I could be wrong about this, and I'll be happy if I am, but I've suspected the guy od taking steroids for a long time before the French had anything to say about it.

[sendero]

47. I've read....

... that he actually takes HRT (hormone replacement therapy), i.e. testosterone to replace that which he no longer produces.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide the implications of that.

[Bassic]

50. Interesting information

Where have you read that?

[sendero]

52. Somewhere on the net..

.... but I just spent 5 minutes looking for a credible citatation and I'm not finding it.

So, perhaps what I read was bullshit. It should be - because Armstrong still has one testicle, he should not need HRT.

[MadHound]

51. Then I hate to say it, but your dislike of the man has pushed you

Beyond cynicism and straight on into irrationality. You think that the man is outrageously self centered, yet he has started his own charity to fight cancer. You make broad brush statements regarding Armstrongs mental health, but you probably haven't met the man, and I'm betting that you're not a psychologist or pyschiatrist.

And this statement is the most revealing of your mind set: "That is why I do not find it hard to believe that even a man who's had testicular cancer could get back on drugs to continue to be the best. To continue to achieve his goal for a while" Excuse me, but this was in 1999, before he had even one a single Tour. He wasn't "the best" at the time, in fact all that he was wanting to do was compete, probably with more to prove to himself than wanting to prove anything to the world. Before 1999, I seriously doubt that even one percent of the public, excluding bike geeks, could even tell you who Armstrong was. Don't you get it?

And somehow, I doubt that you even knew who Armstrong was before the '99 tour, so really now, how could you suspect anything? And somehow, when Armstrong is vindicated in this latest flap, I doubt that I will here a peep from the Armstrong haters around here. Perhaps you will prove me wrong.

[Bassic]

53. On the contrary.

I like the guy. I think he's ok, and drugs or not he is a great athlete.

And yes I had heard his name (though not much more) beofre 99.

And 99 was six years ago, that's still a fair amount of time.


"in fact all that he was wanting to do was compete, probably with more to prove to himself than wanting to prove anything to the world."

I'm sorry do you know the guy personnaly to make those kinds of assumptions?

He's an athlete, wether he was the best at the time or not is not relevant, the fact of the matter is he wanted to be the best and he wouldn't be the first great athlete to use performance enhancing substances.

Please stop caracterizing my arguments, just simply refute them. As you speak about irrationality, perhaps you should take the time to realize that your blind admiration of the man seems to have made you completely close to any possible dissenting opinion.

[MadHound]

54. No friend, I don't know Armstrong personally

I base my "assumptions" on the typical attitudes of the many many cancer survivors that I do know, athletes and otherwise. And yes, almost to a person these people, when they are recovered, don't want to be the best, they just want to be in the game.

And despite your assertions to the contrary, I find it hard to believe that you like a man, while still contending that he would risk his life by taking hormones while in recovery from testicular cancer. That is absolutely ludicrous, and simply shows how little you know about cancer survivors and their mindset.

And no, I don't have a "blind admiration" for the man, hell I don't even own a "Livestrong" braclet" I'm just calling BS when I see it, and that is exactly what your wild conjecture is.

So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one friend, and wait for further confirmation one way or the other.

[MadHound]

55. No, I don't know Armstrong personally

I base my "assumptions" on the typical attitudes of the many many cancer survivors that I do know, athletes and otherwise. And yes, almost to a person these people, when they are recovered, don't want to be the best, they just want to be in the game.

And despite your assertions to the contrary, I find it hard to believe that you like a man, while still contending that he would risk his life by taking hormones while in recovery from testicular cancer. That is absolutely ludicrous, and simply shows how little you know about cancer survivors and their mindset.

And no, I don't have a "blind admiration" for the man, hell I don't even own a "Livestrong" braclet" I'm just calling BS when I see it, and that is exactly what your wild conjecture is.

So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one friend, and wait for further confirmation one way or the other.

[dogday]

56. They had their chance when the riders gave samples every

year before the race. If those samples are negative, there is no problem. Now they have taken a year and a sample which they can't resupply to dispute the facts. It is all speculation and innuendo.

As far as Lance's testicles are concerned, I believe many years of bike riding can have a big effect on one's testes. Thee are many reasons for Testicular Cancer and steroids is just one of them.

I give him the benefit of the doubt. He has earned it...

[Bassic]

57. Indeed

And again, I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced he's doped up.

And even if he is, as I strongly *suspect*, I'm not saying he should be stripped of his win either.

Nor am I saying that steroids are the only cause of testicular cancer.

I just believe that he did take drugs to enhance his performance. As do many of the people who run in the Tour de France. A lot of experts agree that this race is extremely taxing and that finishing it is near impossible for normal human beings, however in shape they may be. He not only finished it, but won it seven years in a row. That, and other factors such as his testicular cancer, make me believe that he was doped up.

If I am proved wrong, than good. I'd like to be proven wrong, I like the guy. I just don't belive, objectively, that his performance is 100% natural.

As for having their chance in 99, the drug they say he used was indetectable back then, so it's not much of a chance.

[geek tragedy]

17. This is a witch hunt, but it also looks like Armstrong is guilty.

They should go back and test every rider's samples from 1999--let's see what shows up in Jan Ullrich's sample, besides beer and doughnuts.

[Carolab]

19. Personally, I don't care for Lance now that he rode with Bush.

I would have told him "go F*** yourself".

[Stirk]

21. How can the French still be such poor losers after having so much

practice at it??!

Har har. I kid. I lived and worked in France for a while, and my head is full of this stuff. It used to be fun to tease like that- back before French bashing became a right-wing sport. Now I find myself defending the French again and again. I love the French people, and I love France, but dammit! I miss teasing the French!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. Why is this being characterized as "THE FRENCH"???

This is the opinion of Mr. LeBlanc and is being printed in L'Equipe, a sports newspaper. Does this mean that France itself is tarnishing Lance Armstrong? If Pat Robertson says we should assassinate the Venezuelan President, should Venezuela accuse the entire United States and all of its citizens of promoting assassination? I don't get why it is when a person or a news source in a foreign country takes a position, the U.S. media attributes the opinion to the entire nation, but not so when it occurs in the United States.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. My heart bleeds for a millionaire jock who takes steroids.

Boo-hoo.

[The Stranger]

29. If Armstrong is a Bush supporter, then cut him loose.

Let the French have their way with him.

[theboss]

38. That's fair

A man rides a bike with the President and no longer has the right to be treated fairly.

[The Stranger]

39. Not riding his bike, but supporting Bush and this criminal administration.

Go back and read the post.

[Cocoa]

30. "the French" ???

"they" ???

:wtf:

[Karmadillo]

33. I love African-Americans, but God they are whiners about

whoops! Wrong board. It's always so hard to keep track of which ridiculous generalizations are allowed and which ones aren't.

[theboss]

37. The French press has been desperate to find anything on him

In this era Bonds/Palmeiro/Ben Johnson era of sports, you can't help but look at Lance Armstrong's accomplishments and not have a few thoughts enter your head.

But the fact that what is ostensibly a tabloid - with a huge vendetta against him - is using 6-year old pee to accuse him makes me willing to dismiss this as typical French xenophobia.

What is really disgraceful is how many officials are giving credence to this report. No American commissioner would come within mile of this.

[Flagg]

43. I have always been on the side of Armstrong but....

I have always been on the side of Armstrong. For one reason: I don’t think it is fair to accuse someone without proof.

Well, the story in L’Equipe yesterday comes as close as it gets to a proof. There’s the EPO in his urine, there’s the match to his name, and there’s a serious lab behind it. When you add all this to his close association with Dr. Ferrari (nicknamed Dr. Evil), his treatment of fellow rider Simeoni, the fact that his texan insurance company has refused to pay his bonus and is investigating him, or his former employee Mike Anderson’s “revelations”, that’s quite a bit, and that’s enough for me to now be on the side of those who believe he used performance-enhancing drugs.

But let me make a few things clear:

- Yes, L’Equipe was likely out to get him. That does not change their findings. They acted very professionally, and they conducted a 4-month investigation, which, if they had cut it by just one month, would have gotten a lot more mileage for the paper. Besides, as a paper whose parent company owns the Tour, they would have little interest in discrediting the race.

- No, there’s no anti-Americanism on the part of the French here. Fair or unfair, if Armstrong may be not as well liked in France as he’d like to be, it is because he is perceived (or at least, was) as aloof, and because of his treatment of other riders like Simeoni or Bassons. Not because he is American. Or Greg Lemond would have been hated as well, and he was not, even though he bested Hinault and Fignon, 2 French riders (Lemond himself thinks Armstrong has cheated). Anyone wanting to assert that his nationality has anything to do with all this should try to explain to me the huge popularity in France of someone like Andre Agassi.

- L’Equipe is doing exactly the same thing the American media is doing for athletes in the US: whether it is Jordan’s gambling problems, baseball drug allegations, or Marion Jones and the BALCO scandal, they are investigating. In fact, I find it very surprising that the American media has been so reluctant to even come close to touching Armstrong. He is a hero here, but so was Jordan. Is it because he competes, and wins, in France?

- The fact that it took 6 years for those results to be published is not that surprising. The tests for EPO did not exist in 1999. As well, people should know that, because performance-enhancing techniques are usually well ahead of testing, the Olympics are now required to keep blood and urine samples for 8 years. Meaning that an Olympic gold medal can be taken away after that much time.

- The reaction in France was fairly muted. I belong to a mountain-bike Internet mailing list, and we exchange over 100 emails a day. In 2 days, there has not been one yet about Armstrong. I think the reason is that most people believe that it is not really news (they already suspected it strongly), and anyway, they are pretty much convinced that “everybody does it”.

- Bottom line, Armstrong has been so much more than a cyclist that he will survive this latest episode with the American public. But I am no longer defending him.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. I believe the French and I think Armstrong

is lying. Anyone who would be pals with the idiot-in-chief is LACKING in character and integrity. IMCPO

[bicentennial_baby]

45. generalize much?

[sniffa]

48. bwahaha

:loveya:

so many peopLe on this thread to update my i-List with.

[bicentennial_baby]

49. makes things easier, 'eh?

;)

mwah! :loveya: