Red Mosquito

4/5 wrote:The demonization of steroids/PEDs fascinates me.

so what kinda roids r u using now?

As a side story: there’s the in Belgium famous story about Edwig Van Hooijdonck, a brilliant talent that won the Tour of Flanders (one of the hardest one day classics there is) twice as a young rider. But he quit cyclism before he was even 30, in 1995. He said quite literally then, early 90ies “If I want to continue to compete, I need to do things I don’t want to do, it’s not worth it for me”, specifically talking about doping and the rise of EPO. Noone took him serious then. He’s now a local politician and a simple guy but has been in the news again lately with journalists looking him, pretty much saying sorry for never believing him. There’s probably thousands like him. For all these people alone I think it’s so unfair to say “he was still the best and a great champion because everyone was doping”. This guy who quit, lost out on a fortune and you can say guys like Armstrong stole it away from him. Like in that article of the female cyclist: “Tyler Hamilton can earn more with just writing a book about his doping than I can in an entire career of honest work”. I don’t even want to know what Armstrong is getting for just appearing on Oprah. It’s criminal.

turned2black wrote:

Angus wrote:

turned2black wrote:This is based on what can best be determined as his pre-doping performances (pre-95ish).

Sorry, but he was already heavy on dope in 93 when he won the World Championship. Still, it’s probably true he was a great athlete. I think I’ve read about tests as well in which he did remarkably better than your “standard” athletes. But that has zero value for me any more.

Yeah, sorry, that should have been "pre-93ish."

Also, some of LA's physical stats are good but certainly not otherworldly. For example, several cyclists and other athletes have or have had a higher VO2 max than LA. Current ultra-running stud Kilian Jornet has a VO2 max that's 10ml/min greater than LA at his peak.

Angus wrote:As a side story: there’s the in Belgium famous story about Edwig Van Hooijdonck, a brilliant talent that won the Tour of Flanders (one of the hardest one day classics there is) twice as a young rider. But he quit cyclism before he was even 30, in 1995. He said quite literally then, early 90ies “If I want to continue to compete, I need to do things I don’t want to do, it’s not worth it for me”, specifically talking about doping and the rise of EPO. Noone took him serious then. He’s now a local politician and a simple guy but has been in the news again lately with journalists looking him, pretty much saying sorry for never believing him. There’s probably thousands like him. For all these people alone I think it’s so unfair to say “he was still the best and a great champion because everyone was doping”. This guy who quit, lost out on a fortune and you can say guys like Armstrong stole it away from him. Like in that article of the female cyclist: “Tyler Hamilton can earn more with just writing a book about his doping than I can in an entire career of honest work”. I don’t even want to know what Armstrong is getting for just appearing on Oprah. It’s criminal.

This is the main issue with PED use to me. It robs sport of the reason that it's fun to compete against each other. If the playing field is not level the competition is not valid.

I'd love to see the limits of human performance on one hand, and I do think HGH may one day be more acceptable in sport than it is currently as a means of healing injury more quickly, but PED use robs us of true comparison of performance.

I'm not trying to demonize the science behind these drugs that are allowing for amazing human performance, but I don't feel like I want sports to become so results focused that it's impossible to compete at the highest level without drug use, unless of course we come up with an unlimited league or something like that.

Lance Armstrong's fraud to me is akin to Bernie Madoff's fraud or other gaming of the free market system. Winning and fame has become sort of the only thing that matters in sports in my society I feel anyway and I don't think this is a good thing.

On a personal note, I did really well in my first 24-hour race, but took 3 Ibuprofens in the process. It was the first time I ever took anything during a race. I was pretty much riddled with guilt for weeks. I didn't show up to the awards ceremony. This was for Ibuprofen, which is completely legal. I can't even imagine shooting myself up with something or sitting through some kind of blood transfusion. Even if there were millions of dollars at stake with prize money and endorsements, I couldn't do it. I couldn't look my kids in the eyes.

the cheating is one thing, but that doesnt compare to the shitty way he treated people who were telling the truth. He's a thug and a bully.

Electromatic wrote:This is the main issue with PED use to me. It robs sport of the reason that it's fun to compete against each other. If the playing field is not level the competition is not valid.

First of all, I 100% agree with this. And I'm on board with most of what people are saying about this whole situation.

I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to cycling and the whole cycling world. But I've read a lot of commentary online that pretty much every cyclist dopes extensively. Many people, while not excusing Armstrong, feel this was a bit of a witch hunt, by the French especially, because the didn't like the idea of an American showing them up for years.

Again, I have no idea. But if that's true, and the playing field is sort of level in terms of every athlete doping, does that change anything in your mind?

Peeps wrote:even if you let the PEDs slide, the man is complete scum

This thread won't be complete without the wisdom of George Carlin:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Electromatic wrote:This is the main issue with PED use to me. It robs sport of the reason that it's fun to compete against each other. If the playing field is not level the competition is not valid.

First of all, I 100% agree with this. And I'm on board with most of what people are saying about this whole situation.

I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to cycling and the whole cycling world. But I've read a lot of commentary online that pretty much every cyclist dopes extensively. Many people, while not excusing Armstrong, feel this was a bit of a witch hunt, by the French especially, because the didn't like the idea of an American showing them up for years.

Again, I have no idea. But if that's true, and the playing field is sort of level in terms of every athlete doping, does that change anything in your mind?

It shouldn't because one shouldn't have to make the decision to dope to be successful in a sport. Now obviously there aren't a lot of 14 year olds itching to become professional cyclists. I don't know enough about the medical elements/effects of PED's, but what I do know is ANYTHING you put in your body can be dangerous if not done properly.. and while a professional athlete may be able to do steriods safetly (as Jose Canseco still maintains), there will be dozens of kids emulating that if it were to be legitimized.. and they probably wont be doing it under proper supervision.

durdencommatyler wrote:Many people, while not excusing Armstrong, feel this was a bit of a witch hunt, by the French especially, because the didn't like the idea of an American showing them up for years.

Yet for years, the only journalist who dared to touch the subject was Britishman David Walsch.

No, I understand, it seemed indeed like French newspaper L'Equipe took this personally at the time. But in hindsight, can you blame them? Someone cheated his way past all the greatest cyclists ever ... who were on dope as well, but that's a whole other discussion. And maybe that's why Merckx continues to this day to take side with Armstrong.

@SkitchP wrote:Now obviously there aren't a lot of 14 year olds itching to become professional cyclists.

You're only talking USA here, right? I hope so, because otherwise you're incredibly wrong.

Angus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Now obviously there aren't a lot of 14 year olds itching to become professional cyclists.

You're only talking USA here, right? I hope so, because otherwise you're incredibly wrong.

I am talking US

Angus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Many people, while not excusing Armstrong, feel this was a bit of a witch hunt, by the French especially, because the didn't like the idea of an American showing them up for years.

Yet for years, the only journalist who dared to touch the subject was Britishman David Walsch.

No, I understand, it seemed indeed like French newspaper L'Equipe took this personally at the time. But in hindsight, can you blame them? Someone cheated his way past all the greatest cyclists ever ... who were on dope as well, but that's a whole other discussion. And maybe that's why Merckx continues to this day to take side with Armstrong.

When one of your "assistants" is frequently driving 3 hours to dump various medical supplies into random trash cans, I'd say the suspicion (or witch hunt) was justified.

@SkitchP wrote:

Angus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Now obviously there aren't a lot of 14 year olds itching to become professional cyclists.

You're only talking USA here, right? I hope so, because otherwise you're incredibly wrong.

I am talking US

There have been kids over here experimenting with legal or illegal drugs to try and get better results, get a pro contract, ... with sometimes pretty shocking health consequences. I have a guy I know as well, cycling since he was 16, no shame to admit he's been trying stuff out without knowing the effects. Yet, it all continues and we turn a blind eye. That's just another reason why I want this Armstrong thing to explode. Cyclism needs to take a good look at itself, from the lowest level till the very highest. The sport is very very sick.

Angus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Angus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Now obviously there aren't a lot of 14 year olds itching to become professional cyclists.

You're only talking USA here, right? I hope so, because otherwise you're incredibly wrong.

I am talking US

There have been kids over here experimenting with legal or illegal drugs to try and get better results, get a pro contract, ... with sometimes pretty shocking health consequences. I have a guy I know as well, cycling since he was 16, no shame to admit he's been trying stuff out without knowing the effects. Yet, it all continues and we turn a blind eye. That's just another reason why I want this Armstrong thing to explode. Cyclism needs to take a good look at itself, from the lowest level till the very highest. The sport is very very sick.

Yep, which is exactly why I disagree with 4/5's on it. Roids can be very dangerous, and any legitimacy you give them can really do some bad things.

turned2black wrote:

Angus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Many people, while not excusing Armstrong, feel this was a bit of a witch hunt, by the French especially, because the didn't like the idea of an American showing them up for years.

Yet for years, the only journalist who dared to touch the subject was Britishman David Walsch.

No, I understand, it seemed indeed like French newspaper L'Equipe took this personally at the time. But in hindsight, can you blame them? Someone cheated his way past all the greatest cyclists ever ... who were on dope as well, but that's a whole other discussion. And maybe that's why Merckx continues to this day to take side with Armstrong.

When one of your "assistants" is frequently driving 3 hours to dump various medical supplies into random trash cans, I'd say the suspicion (or witch hunt) was justified.

Like I said, I'm fairly ignorant to all of this. I don't know what the cycling world is like. And I haven't been following the facts of this case too closely. Just reading a lot of thoughts/commentary on the internet. I really appreciate hearing what others, who are more knowledgeable, think about all of this.

@SkitchP wrote:

Angus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Angus wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Now obviously there aren't a lot of 14 year olds itching to become professional cyclists.

You're only talking USA here, right? I hope so, because otherwise you're incredibly wrong.

I am talking US

There have been kids over here experimenting with legal or illegal drugs to try and get better results, get a pro contract, ... with sometimes pretty shocking health consequences. I have a guy I know as well, cycling since he was 16, no shame to admit he's been trying stuff out without knowing the effects. Yet, it all continues and we turn a blind eye. That's just another reason why I want this Armstrong thing to explode. Cyclism needs to take a good look at itself, from the lowest level till the very highest. The sport is very very sick.

Yep, which is exactly why I disagree with 4/5's on it. Roids can be very dangerous, and any legitimacy you give them can really do some bad things.

This, I agree with.

Plus, like you implied earlier, it just sorta takes the fun out sports.

To a much lesser degree, it's why I can't really get into baseball anymore. There just isn't a level playing field. Rois aside, there's little to no parity in the MLB.

durdencommatyler wrote:

turned2black wrote:

Angus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Many people, while not excusing Armstrong, feel this was a bit of a witch hunt, by the French especially, because the didn't like the idea of an American showing them up for years.

Yet for years, the only journalist who dared to touch the subject was Britishman David Walsch.

No, I understand, it seemed indeed like French newspaper L'Equipe took this personally at the time. But in hindsight, can you blame them? Someone cheated his way past all the greatest cyclists ever ... who were on dope as well, but that's a whole other discussion. And maybe that's why Merckx continues to this day to take side with Armstrong.

When one of your "assistants" is frequently driving 3 hours to dump various medical supplies into random trash cans, I'd say the suspicion (or witch hunt) was justified.

Like I said, I'm fairly ignorant to all of this. I don't know what the cycling world is like. And I haven't been following the facts of this case too closely. Just reading a lot of thoughts/commentary on the internet. I really appreciate hearing what others, who are more knowledgeable, think about all of this.

All you really need to know is that he's a liar, cheater and scumbag.

Manti is still lying:

"This is incredibly embarrassing to talk about, but over an extended period of time, I developed an emotional relationship with a woman I met online. We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her. To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone's sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating. It further pains me that the grief I felt and the sympathies expressed to me at the time of my grandmother's death in September were in any way deepened by what I believed to be another significant loss in my life. I am enormously grateful for the support of my family, friends and Notre Dame fans throughout this year. To think that I shared with them my happiness about my relationship and details that I thought to be true about her just makes me sick. I hope that people can understand how trying and confusing this whole experience has been. In retrospect, I obviously should have been much more cautious. If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that others will be far more guarded when they engage with people online than I was. Fortunately, I have many wonderful things in my life, and I'm looking forward to putting this painful experience behind me as I focus on preparing for the NFL Draft."