Quote from: Kingy on October 22, 2021, 10:19:31 amLance 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.
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.
I don’t think he lied about having cancer.
Quote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 10:49:26 amQuote from: Kingy on October 22, 2021, 10:19:31 amLance 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.
Rope soloing Brandler-Hasse in 1hr 37 min is an absolutely bonkers claim.
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.
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.
Quote from: Potash on October 22, 2021, 12:01:11 pmHis 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?
His improvement didn't come from his oncology treatment. It came from dedicated doping after he returned to the sport.
Quote from: Will Hunt on October 22, 2021, 11:50:46 amLance 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.
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.
Quote from: iain on October 22, 2021, 12:10:04 pmGreg 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 12:22:27 pmQuote from: iain on October 22, 2021, 12:10:04 pmGreg 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?Quote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 12:22:27 pmPlus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.That's exactly how it was though.Quote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 12:22:27 pm 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.
Quote from: iain on October 22, 2021, 12:42:30 pmQuote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 12:22:27 pmQuote from: iain on October 22, 2021, 12:10:04 pmGreg 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?Quote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 12:22:27 pmPlus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.That's exactly how it was though.Quote from: Wellsy on October 22, 2021, 12:22:27 pm 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.
His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's
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
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.