[remus]

Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.

Maybe it's because I'm a fan of Olympic Weightlifting but I don't see taking PEDs as being the same as a Simpson-esque lie. At the end of the day he did win those races (and its not like his competitors weren't on drugs either, they absolutely were, they just never got caught or did and it wasn't newsworthy). Sure he cheated but like, Ilya Ilyin was clearly on drugs when he won the weightlifting gold, and I don’t really give a shit.

Not arguing your point Wellsy, but by many accounts Lance was also a colossal prick (see his behaviour with regards to Greg Lemond) so there's plenty of other good reasons to be disappointed in him.

[ali k]

I don’t think he lied about having cancer.

That's true. He certainly used it as a means to deflect criticism and garner support from his fans and sponsors whenever he needed to bully the disbelievers and shut them up though. He really was a nasty piece of work and made a lot of people's lives a misery in order to save himself.

[Wellsy]

Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.

Maybe it's because I'm a fan of Olympic Weightlifting but I don't see taking PEDs as being the same as a Simpson-esque lie. At the end of the day he did win those races (and its not like his competitors weren't on drugs either, they absolutely were, they just never got caught or did and it wasn't newsworthy). Sure he cheated but like, Ilya Ilyin was clearly on drugs when he won the weightlifting gold, and I don’t really give a shit.

Not arguing your point Wellsy, but by many accounts Lance was also a colossal prick (see his behaviour with regards to Greg Lemond) so there's plenty of other good reasons to be disappointed in him.

For sure, and he also did cheat and get rightfully stripped of his wins etc. But if Simpson had done those problems/routes but was just on a lot of gear I think that the discussion would be different.

That said yeah fuck Lance Armstrong he was a dick

[duncan]

Rope soloing Brandler-Hasse in 1hr 37 min is an absolutely bonkers claim.

To be fair (!) he said he free soloed most of it and just back-roped the cruxes with the rope loop method, leaving a carabiner at the belay. It at least showed he’d read up on Alpine soloing strategies.

Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.

Cycling is made for Simpson isn’t it? I bet he has an e-bike and is logging incredible times on Strava.

[Will Hunt]

Lance Armstrong.

Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.

Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.

[Snoops]

Lance Armstrong.

Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.

Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.

Can't agree with you on this one. He was a very good cyclist before he had testicular cancer, but so were many others.
After he recovered from his chemo, he became the main protagonist in one of the most professional doping regimens seen in sport. I don't see how that makes him an incredible cyclist ....


Inspirational? Perhaps someone like Bethany Armstrong who won the national surfing championship after losing an arm to a shark for sure...not Armstrong

[Potash]

I find drawing the line between all the drugs he took to not die of cancer (apparently perfectly acceptable) and all the drugs he took to win at cycling (apparently unacceptable) really hard.

His performance after all, was much improved by not being dead and that was due to a shit tonne of drugs.

This seems a common feature with a lot of modern doping in sport (tennis) where people have doctors prescribing them drugs for medical problems. Whilst the medical problems may not exist, the uplift from the drugs certainly does.

[Snoops]

I find drawing the line between all the drugs he took to not die of cancer (apparently perfectly acceptable) and all the drugs he took to win at cycling (apparently unacceptable) really hard.

His performance after all, was much improved by not being dead and that was due to a shit tonne of drugs.

This seems a common feature with a lot of modern doping in sport (tennis) where people have doctors prescribing them drugs for medical problems. Whilst the medical problems may not exist, the uplift from the drugs certainly does.

His improvement didn't come from his oncology treatment. It came from dedicated doping after he returned to the sport.

[iain]

Lance Armstrong.

Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.

Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.

Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.

Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.

[Potash]

His improvement didn't come from his oncology treatment. It came from dedicated doping after he returned to the sport.

You can't tell me that "not having died of cancer" had no performance enhancing effect.

How many dead cyclists (at the time of winning) have won the tour?

[Wellsy]

Lance Armstrong.

Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.

Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.

Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.

Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.

Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.

Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly. He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.

[seankenny]

Anyone who is unsure how much correct climbing movement matters could do worse than checking Master of Stone II on youtube, and see for themselves how really strong climbers could struggle on 8as.

Well, that's my slap bass and jazz/rock fusion needs for the week fulfilled.

What's interesting about this is that surely this was the era in which top climbers climbed on real rock for a hugr proportion of their time? Some climbing walls but basic compared to now. If they were on the crag every day how come their movement skills were so shonky?

[User deactivated.]

I've never really followed the Armstrong saga in much detail, but if he had testicular cancer, surely a prescription for testosterone and a TUE would be completely reasonable after that? (assuming damaged / removed testes). Obviously the TUE wouldn't extend to supraphysiological levels of it, or EPO...

[Potash]

Anyway.

Was RS on performance enhancing drugs in order to not actually climb routes.

If your special skill is making shit up presumably any drug that stimulates the imagination is performance enhancing.

[iain]

Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.

Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.

Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.

Well yes, that's obvious and what we expect from elite athletes right?

Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.

That's exactly how it was though.

He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.

Hence my point about his determination, and I don't disagree that he wouldn't still have made a mark, but when the genetics are favourable to drug taking that's not something worth praising now we know what was happening surely?


Also, we're now way off topic but maybe it's good there's less chat about RS anyway.

[teestub]

For anyone vaguely interested who hasn’t seen it, I thought the 2 part BBC thing on Armstrong did a great job at looking at his impact both good and bad, and there’s also a lot of face to face stuff so you get an idea of his character
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08qzcqr

[Wellsy]

Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.

Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.

Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.

Well yes, that's obvious and what we expect from elite athletes right?

Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.

That's exactly how it was though.

He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.

Hence my point about his determination, and I don't disagree that he wouldn't still have made a mark, but when the genetics are favourable to drug taking that's not something worth praising now we know what was happening surely?


Also, we're now way off topic but maybe it's good there's less chat about RS anyway.

I'm just saying it's not like Armstrong sat around twiddling his thumbs. He was genetically talented (for taking drugs and cycling) and he took drugs AND he trained really hard. As hard as Lemond or anyone else did.

His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's I.e not really but still mega relevant, as were Lemond's, or Ondra's, or Aiden's. He had the right stuff from day 1.

[User deactivated.]

Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.

Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.

Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.

Well yes, that's obvious and what we expect from elite athletes right?

Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.

That's exactly how it was though.

He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.

Hence my point about his determination, and I don't disagree that he wouldn't still have made a mark, but when the genetics are favourable to drug taking that's not something worth praising now we know what was happening surely?


Also, we're now way off topic but maybe it's good there's less chat about RS anyway.

I'm just saying it's not like Armstrong sat around twiddling his thumbs. He was genetically talented (for taking drugs and cycling) and he took drugs AND he trained really hard. As hard as Lemond or anyone else did.

His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's I.e not really but still mega relevant, as were Lemond's, or Ondra's, or Aiden's. He had the right stuff from day 1.

I think the point is that they all worked really hard. We praise good genetics when that means natural ability or a good response to training. We don't know how good Lance's response to training alone was (relative to his competitors), we only know how good his response to drugs and training was. I assume some people get a better response to the drugs than others, so he may or may not have been the hardest worker or most naturally gifted sans drugs. 

[Wellsy]

You'd absolutely be right there, yeah. Some people's bodies fucking love drugs, others really don't. I guess I don't really praise any genetics; they are what they are, and then you go and try to do something with them, but also I guess every time you're impressed by a pro you're on some level impressed by genetic capabilities.

[iain]

His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's

When it come to drug taking in a 'clean' sporting context they really aren't.

He absolutely did work hard, and I was a fan while it was all happening until it slowly dawned on me what was really going on. That legacy is not something to be celebrated.

For anyone vaguely interested who hasn’t seen it, I thought the 2 part BBC thing on Armstrong did a great job at looking at his impact both good and bad, and there’s also a lot of face to face stuff so you get an idea of his character
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08qzcqr

Nice one for linking, genuinely interesting program.
So hard to take what you see at face value when you know how good they've been at lying, deflecting and presenting the face they want to be seen in the past. He's a complex character.

[Will Hunt]

Do many of these comments not hinge on the rest of the peloton being clean? Which it most likely wasn't. Armstrong might have been a better cheat than everyone else, but he certainly wasn't the only one at it. I don't think you can take his achievements out of that context.

[mrjonathanr]

But that’s also the point, isn’t it? Highly successful drug users force clean athletes into an impossible bind: compete at a disadvantage and almost certainly fail, or play dirty.

It robs people of the career they should have had, potentially(given the dangers of drug use) the long term health they should have had, and the public the fair competition they should have enjoyed.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in any way, that is praiseworthy about that.

[Nibile]

Going back to the original topic, Gonzalo says hi.

[jwi]

But that’s also the point, isn’t it? Highly successful drug users force clean athletes into an impossible bind: compete at a disadvantage and almost certainly fail, or play dirty.

Textbook prisoners dilemma I would say. Unless drug use is strictly policed the rational athlete will have to assume that everyone else is using drugs.

Anyone who is laissez-faire about performance enhancing drugs should watch Secrets of the Dead

[Tom de Gay]

I don’t have anything to add regarding RS, but it reminds me one episode in my formative years.


I started climbing at school, we had one of those DR walls: rocks cemented into blocks in the wall and a pocketed concrete overhang. There was also the Nottingham wall, which was a more modern affair. After a couple of years I was getting reasonably proficient at this climbing thing. A new guy joined the school in my year, a strong climber apparently. He’d sometimes come and hang out at the DR wall and shoot the breeze on climbing – or rather, regale us with big talk about the things he’d done down at the Nottingham wall. He was getting a bit of a reputation for tall tales in other areas of school life, but I didn’t have any reason to disbelieve his climbing claims, after all he’d never actually pulled on to demonstrate his abilities to us. Tired from one of his cellar sessions at the wall, I suppose.


Yes, the cellar in the Nottingham wall was where the real connoisseurs dwelled. A basic steep board down in the dark, dusty bowels of the building. The kind of board with holds fashioned from bits of old chair leg, all varnished, pulley-busting globules. Climbing to the top of the thing by any means was desperate. Amongst the problems recorded in the cellar’s crinkly notepad, one stood out that was given the barely imaginable grade of English 7a. The physics of it looked impossible. But our new school colleague had repeated it – amazing! In fact, he bragged, it had only had two ascents: one by him and one by his mate – I shit you not – Si O’Connor.