I hate Lance Armstrong.

"Ding! Ding!"

Amanda Platell yes; Sheryl Crow no.

Btw, is anyone watching now? He's about to win the stage!

If Armstrong was "decent" guy, he'd have retired after his fifth win, and put himself up there with Mercx, Hinault, Indurain and the other two whose names escape me now, who've all won five times. When you're one of the greats, you don't need to go further, unless you've some flaw in you're make up that makes you unaware of that fact.

Plus his reaction to some of the other riders at various times over the last few Tours has been nothing short of petty tyrany. Okay it's a sport and he wants to win, but he should be able to do it without being a mean spirited bully.

that's ridiculous!

Well, Edster was rumoured to be taking doping. ;-)) Yes, I realize he was cleared but the rumour persisted (here anyway). I loathe both guys. But I guess this has more to do with me: I just don't like smug arrogant self-obsessed winners.

In North America, we only hear about Armstrong the gutsy hero who recovered from cancer and became a better rider than he had ever been before.

Armstrong really is the Barry Bonds of cycling ... the doping allegations that are regularly leveled against them are spectacularly similar ... and neither guy hesitates to spit venom when speaking to the media. The Tour coverage here never goes beyond "Lance is still in yellow, and some other guy won the stage today", so most people never get to hear actual interviews with Lance where he rips into other riders -- sometimes those on his own team. As for Armstrong's smug arrogance, look no further than him chasing down Fillipo Simeoni in last year's Tour de France for completely personal reasons.

Doping accusations aside, this is easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Get one understanding of competition.

On a good day, I can get even dumber.

This was the key sign of Andy's retardation...

in his books he presents himself as a really nice all-american guy with all these people against him, but that aforementioned smugness and self-importance is totally apparent nonetheless.

what's wrong with him knowing that he's good in an event and deciding to concentrate on that? He obviously has passion for the Tour, even if it is just an ego driven one. He's participating in a sport, a very competative one, and he's doing what practically every other cyclist would do in his position.

To be honest I don't think he cares whether people loathe him or not, but it seems to be odd that so many people loathe him for wanting to win the Tour and being good at it.

Best possible result in sport? A draw at the end of a five day test (cricket, to those who don't understand). Discuss.

It is not enough for me to succeed, others must fail. Discuss

They are all on drugs.

Get one more understanding of competitive sports.

perpetual winners are boring. i like athletes who know how to lose with style, and who occasionally win, also with great style.

it's nice to read about people who overcome illnesses and actually are inspiring--but this guy is just an arrogant fuck, one more person who pretends to be inspirational just to make a spectacle of himself and try to gain admirers.

Juliaaa, why don't you tell us the story about how you or a loved went about facing metastatic cancer? I hope you have not had to do so, but if you have, then you know how impossible it can feel, and how important it is to feel hope, and have courage to just keep going.

Millions of people who have cancer, who have beaten cancer, or have friends and loved ones who have suffered with the disease ARE ACTUALLY INSPIRED by Lance Armstrong's experience. And Armstrong ACTUALLY HAD REAL LIVE CANCER THAT HAD METASTASIZED TO HIS BRAIN AND LUNGS. So when you say that Armstrong "pretends to be inspirational," are you saying that he faked cancer? That you, "juliaaa, Arbiter of Righteousness," are NOT inspired is YOUR personal reaction, and many share it. You may chalk Armstrong's celebrity (and in some corners, veneration) up to a PR machine, but it really is beyond that. His recovery from cancer and his victories in TdF are very real, and are proof of a very, very exceptional person.

And a guy that in so many ways is a smug, petty, egotistical jerk.

I also possess a sensitive BS detector, and it makes me allergic to the type of fanboy Lance-worship so nauseatingly present in the July media. But, step back from your emotional reaction to the machine and the hype to consider what Armstrong actually delivers, beyond his obvious, near extra-terrestrial physiology: extreme competence, extreme determination, extreme focus, and extreme courage and perseverance.

If you wish to discuss dopage, it's certainly a huge issue for cycling and an element of Armstrong's story. I don't know if he's doping now or not, but I do know that even if he is, he is not alone by any means. An exercise phsiology PhD friend of mine (and racing teammate) wonders if Armstrong has experimented with gene-doping. This is not to excuse doping by any means, but I will tell you this, his level of success at the TdF, even with doping, is extra-fucking-ordinary. The type of planning, consistency, focus and even good fortune, required to win six Tours is huge. The best physiology and/or the best dope in the world will not accomplish it, and you may ask Jan Ullrich about it. I do not allege Ullrich has doped here, but he is obviously an amazing specimen. Are Ullrich's "failures" because he is too spoiled? Dunno, but he has pretty much been coddled in the wake of his success in the 96 TdF, and his victory in 97. He has his own management team that is semi-detached from his actual team (and the arrangement is acrimonious). Yet, I think Ullrich's problem is that he is a normal man, a good man, in all-time great cycling body. And he may be a better person than Armstrong, with a far better "EQ," but that doesn't win the TdF six times consecutively in mostly dominating fashion.

Confession time: I am kind of a bitter hater by personality type. I don't care for people like Armstrong--vindictive and self-obsessed. As I contemplate Armstrong's move into the political sphere, I feel the fear. But I will say that Armstrong is the Texan that George W. Bush wishes he were. They share the chip on the shoulder, they both demand total loyalty, and like to punish their enemies, and take everything reaaaal personal. But there is a big difference. Armstrong knows adversity, he micro-manages everything, making the decisions himself, and he is fucking awesome at it.

I won't apologize for the bastard, and I won't give him a free pass, but I am impressed by what I see.

xpost

xp i'll respond to that in a minute

I hope he wins.

King Asshole.

i never claimed to be an arbiter of righteousness, and resent the tone of your post, hunter. yeah, damn straight i'm not much inspired by lance. i may not have cancer but i can certainly relate far too well to what you said here for my own health-related reasons:

then you know how impossible it can feel, and how important it is to feel hope, and have courage to just keep going.

to me (and obv this is ONLY MY OPINION) lance talks about his cancer in his books as if it were not really that big of a deal. to me, he comes across as oh-i'm-such-a-hero, rather than truly portraying the suffering and terrifying feelings of helplessness that can come with a serious illness. he makes it look easy, and that seems to trivialize what a lot of people go through in facing similar challenges. maybe i'm just a bitter, jaded bitch, but that's my opinion.

in terms of doping, they've tested him like mad, and found nothing. maybe he just has a physiology that disposes him to a level of athleticism that most can't achieve, as well as training like mad to maximize what he can do athletically.

with a clear intent to humiliate others in order to make themselves look good

Armstrong lives to enforce his dominance against those he takes as his enemies. He does not need to do it to look good. His treatment of Simeoni only made him look like a villain, I was appalled. His assertion that he let Pantani win atop the Ventoux was also not classy (and to the proud Pantani, a grave offense), but I don't think it was beyond-the-pale. I also think it was true, though, and Lance wanted his generosity recognized in the way that 12 year old boys do.

Further, I regret wasting anyone's emotional energy on something so inconsequential as sports or bike racing.

Pantani was a shameless cheat, even if he had a funny face.

I quite like Armstrong myself, though he's certainly been lucky over the years as his rivals have fallen at convenient times (Ullrich, Beloki). He can't be blamed for beating whoever is out there, even if it means he'll enter cycling lore as a Larry Holmes rather than an Ali. As for his politics, he doesn't come across as a Bush fan to me, though I understand the comparison. Dubya is just the sort of prick he's been kicking against all these years.

And of course there's an obvious fault in the logic here; that is whoever was the first "great" to get 5 wins must not have been a "decent guy," because he didn't stop where others had stopped. Come now, this definitely makes no sense.

maaaaasive xpost

???

Merckx was more versatile, but apples and oranges.

I'd cut his balls off and tell mama I beat cancer. Corny face.

There is. There are UCI rankings (International Cycling Union)(er, Union Cycliste Internationale) based on how well riders do in major races. The thing is, most casual fans don't know this because they don't hear about any races other than the TdF. It matters to the riders and to serious cycling fans, though.

I think Lance is great, and have a harder time understanding the hate, for me, the reason I can't stand, say Manyoo is that mainly it's the fans that bleat on that get on my nerves (ILX is a pretty manyoo-bore free zone compared to much of the internet - the fans here are mainly reasoned and not text talking idiots) with Lance you don't get that (although maybe in the states with the media on Lance-alert creates that feeling) you just see a cold-hearted cycling assasin, but one with a bit of a character, not a faceless machine such as big Mig.

This is one of the most rambly posts I've ever made, I'm really tired, sorry.

I've got no problem with Lance Armstrong. To suggest he should have quit after his fifth win is ridiculous. At least he is an attacking rider. Yesterday he destroyed everyone in the mountains. When Indurain used to win every year that WAS boring as he'd just play it safe in the mountains and grind everyone down in the time trials. Merckx (sp?) was a better all-rounder, but Armstrong knows what he's good at and concentrates on that - what's the problem? Also, talking about Merckx and doping is missing the point a bit as it's pretty much accepted that at least 95% of professional riders were (are?) on drugs.

WE SHALL UTILIZE THIS ARMSTRONG BY REVERSE ENGINEERING AND CREATING OUR OWN. GENTLEMAN, WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

theres pre- and post- cancer eras to take into account here. he was certainly a great road racer, a real one day dude, prior to cancer. i saw him win the texas state championships for fun when the rest of his team was at corestates (which he couldn't do 'cause he was still amateur) in like '91 i think. he was already a regional legend in TX then. triathlete. whatever happened to chann macrae actually?

104 Chann McRae (TARGETRAINING) 10.20

I claim ultimate cycling results trainspotting idiocy.

Lance Armstrong is a God

BUt do you HATE him?

He beats cancer, and becomes one of its biggest spokespersons and fundraisers, but he continues to dope in more and more sophisticated manners and with better and better drugs. As he amasses more loot, he can employ the services of the world's best medical experts on safely doping (and covering up the evidence) so that the woefully inadequate tests currently in use can't detect his cheating abuse.

Following the scandal of the 1998 Tour (Festina nabbed attempting to smuggle massive quantities of drugs into France in a team car, etc.), France (who had just won the World Cup) was in horrible disarray because of the damage done to its most well-known, popular -- and most profitable -- sporting event. The French Ministry Of Youth And Sport spent millions upon millions of dollars on the current post-race urine test for use of EPO.

However, it is currently widely acknowledged amongst doping experts that the test is useless in detecting the practice of "topping off" -- mini doses of EPO (1/5 the normal) administered the night before a big race or a big stage. (The serious EPO doping occurs 1-2 weeks before a stage race). The reason is that the amount of water circulation and blood circulation in the body during a long and hot or mountainous stage of The Tour is quite sufficient to wash away the evidence.

Additionally, drugs far superior to EPO are now on the (black) market including Oxyglobin, SERS, and others.

Lance publically disavowed (in a sympathetic manner) his and USPS/Discovery's relationship with Dr. Michele Ferrari when Ferrari was found guilty in Italy for illegally and inappropriately prescribing and supplying dangerous drugs (Ferrari's the guy who said "taking EPO is like drinking orange juice" ... but guess what?

A few months after this supposed parting-of-ways occurred, Ferrari was seen in Girona (Lance's training base) at a time Lance was there, and rumour has it that Lance has continued to be heavily dependent on Ferrari for his "training methods" -- has been for the last 10 years (at least) and so it makes little sense that he would suddenly stop now and be able continue his superhuman domination of the peloton (many of whom also are doping).

The tragedy of this is two-fold:

1. Lance is perhaps the biggest hypocrite in the world. He gets cancer from doing very dangerous things to his body so that he can cheat at professional sports, and then he uses the disease to his advantage to build an image of a God-like saviour of the terminally ill. EPO and the other drugs Lance used/uses to cheat at sport are specifically developed to treat the terminally ill. It's despicable.

2. Scores of young, poor, and naiive riders continue to literally instantly drop dead from doping, most notably Jose Maria Jiminez in March of this year. This is because incorrect use of EPO and similar drugs thickens the blood and during exercise the heart becomes overworked pumping the thick blood. It gradually is weakened and damaged and there comes a point where massive heart failure occurs.

These riders do not have the money to employ the services of Ferrari or other top "doping doctors". A lot of them are uneducated. They obtain the drugs and advice on how to use them from other riders and then self-administer. Additionally, many of the lesser teams are known to not only be dirty but also not care for their riders, and -- as hard as it may seem to belive -- don't really mind if a few guys drop dead along the way, as long as it keeps the business profitable.

It's one thing to be poor, have a family, and been in desperate need of a paycheck and to turn to doping to enable oneself to compete with others who are doping.

It's quite another thing to engage in this behaviour when you are a multi-multi-millionaire (Lance's fortune is reportedly in the neighborhood of $26 million, and that does not include the huge bonus Discovery will pay him for completing his contract to ride 2005 Tour).

The journalists who wrote the book "La Confidentiel" which exposes Lance's doping are not hacks looking for a quick payout. They are long established cycling journalists. Unfortunately, the only evidence they could obtain and which their publisher was willing to take the legal risk of printing is circumstantial evidence -- but that's expected: if there was any evidence that could hold up in court, the UCI or other authorities or the courts/police would take action.

The journalists are not both French as is commonly believed -- it's not a "French hate Americans" dynamic. The lead writer, David Walsh, is Irish, and he has a long and respected career as a cycling journalist -- until Lance started applying pressure to various teams and riders and other journalists to not talk to him any more. Luckily, Rupert Murdoch (worth billions) is backing up Walsh, and so Lance's bullying has finally encountered a bigger bully.

Lance attempted to have this book banned in France. When that failed he attempted to have a disclaimer page written by himself inserted in every copy: the French courts dismissed his claims and fined him for filing a frivolous lawsuit. However, Lance's attorneys were successful in effectively preventing publishing of the book in America. This is not only because of legal threats, but because of American publishers and American arms of foreign publishers reluctance to publish the book due to the massive popularity of Lance in America -- due to his involvement with cancer, and primarily because of the mindless "America kicks the rest of the world's ass" mentality that unfortunately is so pervasive and powerful in this country.

Lance got ahead of the doping game early on, before doping well-known and before tests were deployed, and even before many of the substances were illegal. He's been able to consistently stay ahead of the game because he is one of the smartest and most savvy guys to ever play the game -- any game. And his monetary fortune was amassed ahead of the curve -- he was becoming a bigger and better paid star faster than the anti-doping forces could work to effectively combat the problem.

Finally, Lance has massively abused his money and power (both legal power, and the power of influence within the peloton) to attempt to destroy the careers of any rider, journalist, or other person who would dare say anything against him: this includes David Walsh, Pierre Ballister, Filippo Simeoni (following The Tour, Lance will face a defamation lawsuit filed by Simeoni in the French courts), and many, many others.

Many are not aware that Lance is hated by a great many in the peloton. He is not a leader like Merckx who was respected by nearly all. Almost every other American cyclist in The Tour hates him (perhaps all except his friend and current teammate George Hincapie) and this includes ex-teammates such as Floyd Landis. One of the world's greatest sprinters, Australian Robbie McEwen hates Lance for his bullying and threats against lesser riders.

Lance is perhaps the greatest sporting fraud of the last 100 years. What is especially sickening is that reportedly he has targeted politics as his second career.

Do you really think that Greg LeMond (rich, famous, and long-since retired) would publically accuse Lance of doping and suffer enormous damage to his popular image amongst Americans (not to mention his friends, comrades, and business relationships within the cycling world) if he hadn't heard the real scoop on matters? Word gets around, and Greg did the right thing -- attempting to stop.

Unfortunately for Greg, America is currently obsessed with Lance kicking the world's ass, just like we were obsessed with the NBA superstars team kicking the world's ass at the Olympics. Nothing apparently will stop this steam-train of nationalistic egomania.

Tyler Hamilton's recent 2-year ban from cycling for homologous blood doping on two occassions is more proof that top (and already rich) American cyclists are abusing our superiour science and medical knowledge to cheat at sports in a dangerous manner motivated by egoism and lust for fame, power, and more money -- or when they are in a rough spot in their careers.

Forget about Lance. He's not hero. The man is bullshit.

Australian Robbie McEwen hates Lance for his bullying and threats against lesser riders.

This made me laugh.

A) Barry was winning World Series after World Series;
B) Everyone else in baseball was Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and dude who wrote the whiny tell-all book.

Unfortunately for Greg, America is currently obsessed with Lance kicking the world's ass, just like we were obsessed with the NBA superstars team kicking the world's ass at the Olympics. Nothing apparently will stop this steam-train of nationalistic egomania.

Hahahahaha did you forget about what happpened at the last Olympics???

Part of Lance's team once livened up the culture, cos he was deadly as a vulture.

If Barry didn't bother playing in the regular season (except for a few games here and there so he could get used to the daily rigours of competition), and spent his whole year training in anticipation of his special invite to join the roster of one of the teams playing in the World Series, then he'd have several championships too.

In spite of this, I think we all miss one important point about Lance. You can see it in any documentary, or his books, he sees only what he wants and will step over anything to get it. He often doesn't see reason or common sense when it steps in the path of what he is after. Most thherefore label him as a selfish egomaniac, which might not be far from the truth, but if he has no sense or thought of the fact that he is screwing others over, then maybe he's not so selfish. Anyway, the traits that make him so difficult to get along with are obviously what enables him to be so successful. Take Jan for example, physiologically better than Lance, and a nice guy to boot. Unfortunately he is not so driven or self-centric to get as far as Lance does every July. Just look at how his marriage broke up. You can tell from reading his book that he would be a pain in the ass to live with.

In spite of being a doped up, lying, impossible-to-live-with egomaniac, I kind of like him, and would love to see him win the TdeF one last time. In years to come, it won't quite be the same without so many people cheering for an all conquering hero, or the rest hoping there is someone else out there who can match him. The fact is he is an inspiration to so many, and needs to be the way he is to do so. And it cannot be denied that he simply is a cut above the rest of us who dreamed of achieving similar feats. One final thought however; we know all top level pro cyclists take drugs, just so they can get to where they want to get, and seemingly take a vow of secrecy when they do, so spare a thought for those like Scotsman David Millar (former TdeF prologue winner), who, unlike Lance, when asked straight up by the press whether he took Epo, his reply was, "well, yeah, sorry, I did"......... It's sad that honesty might not always be the best policy.

You don't think that abuse of drugs meant for specifically terminal medical illnesses can lead to cancer ?

I suggest you visit your personal doctor tomorrow and ask him about that one.

It is very well known in medical science that drug abuse (of many and varied kinds) catalyzes and assists in the development of cancer.

Cancer is a disease where the genetics of the cells are altered so that that they reproduce excessively -- extremely excessively. This genetic modification is often due to the cells' reaction to foreign substances. Have you ever heard of skin cancer? That's caused by too much UV radiation destroying the natural genetics of the epidermus cells.

When it comes to having the courage to attempt to put a stop to an out-of-control spiral that is causing scores of otherwise super-healthy and super-fit young men in their early twenties to instantly drop dead from massive heart attacks, I would say that honesty is the only policy.

Paul Kimmage and David Millar are heros. Lance is not.

Dominating the competition and amassing impressive victories, fame and fortune does not constitute heroic behaviour in my view of the world.

What is heroic is those who have the courage to step back from living a lie, who have the courage to disclose the truth, and to stop the poor, ignorant, and desperate from being used as expendable (expendable in the worst sense of that word) pawns in a game of giant profits for corporations.

This isn't like baseball in the US. This isn't Barry Bonds. The deaths from abuse of EPO, HGF, etc. in pro cycling are up in the hundreds.

It's basically young kids who are dying. Cycling is a sport where you either make it or you don't by your very early twenties. Actually, 21 is about the average age where you either get a contract or give it up.

These young guys give it all to the sport ... it's completely exhausting and all-consuming to become a pro cyclist ... you have to train continually almost year round (maybe one month semi-off around Christmas) ... and so these guys are only rolling only one set of dice in life.

It's not like in American sports where you can grab a college degree or a second career in the off-season. In cycling, there is no off-season. And you're dead tired -- exhausted in an armchair, or in bed-- when you're not on your bike.

Finally, I don't believe that all top cyclists are on drugs. Especially in France. The police and the courts are so on top of it these days that it's very difficult to be doping on a French team and not be caught. The French teams themselves have done a 180 from the late 80s.

It's a matter of national image, saving their most treasured and valuable sporting institution. The government got involved and applied serious pressure to the sponsors -- mainly French corporations. This is what has to happen to stop the trend. But first the truth needs to be told.

And many French riders are saying that this year it is "a race at two speeds". The French just can't keep up. No Frenchman is high in the GC. Considering France's long history of producing perhaps the highest percentage of great cyclists of any country, a believable explanation for their lack of success in this year's tour is that the French teams are generally clean, and other teams are not.

I don't know who you are, what you do ... myself, I'm not a professional athlete, so it's not my war to fight. But if something that is incredibly wrong is occurring in my profession then I would take steps to put a stop to it if I could. Not figure out a way to profit from it.

As you say, there are clean cyclists, but my comment was "top level pro cyclists", ie the top 10, 20, 50, whatever in the Tour. I doubt the honest guys will find themselves in there.

What a pesky little detail we have here. I like how we're supposed to accept circumstantial evidence as outright fact, let alone the widescale conspiracy required to sustain the accusations.

The case against Armstrong has always been founded on his assholic personality and fueled by jealousy and rumors. Until there is legitimate proof that he is or was (or more relevatory, one of few) doping, nobody is going to give a shit.

He learned his lesson, re-evaluated his priorities, and is a much better person because of it. I don't see where the hate is coming from...no one's online making a hate filled post about you because you were an asshole ten years ago, why do you feel the need to do so?

I said that Armstrong is a fraud in many ways and, overall, he has not been good for the health of cycling as a professional sport, and he has indirectly contributed to the abuse and killing of poor and desperate young men by powerful corporate-backed entities.

The guy who said that cycling is sponsored by a bunch of Mom 'n Pop operations obviously just doesn't have a single clue about modern cycling. Who do you think T-Mobile is? Who do think Motorola is? Who do you think Liquigas is? Who do you think Credit Agricole is? Who do you think Benneton is? Who do you think Phonak is? The list is endless. These are huge corporations with billions in revenue. Just go to a website that covers pro cycling (like velonews.com or procycling.com) and look up the sponsors for yourself. Do some research. Many giant corporations are involved in cycling sponsorship.

What is most interesting about all of this to me is that some people dismiss the whole subject just because their is not definitive proof that would stand up in court. But this really is kind of a "it takes 30 years for the truth to come out" type of thing -- like Watergate and Deep Throat's identity. Because the numerous journalists who know what's going on can't speak about it.

Years, or decades from now we'll probably learn the truth, with definitive proof provided -- if we're still alive to hear it. Myself, I have a number of sources, and I don't feel that I need to hear anymore. I'm convinced. You should do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Here's a point some of you may not realize: sport drug abuse, in certain respects, is very similar to street drug abuse. The addicts need reliable "on call" dealers they can depended upon to provide them the "good stuff" and not snitch them to the authorities. And there just aren't very many really good drug dealers -- it's a very difficult "profession".

So ... word gets around pretty quick ... the dealers doing a lot of the talking. Another guy who is rumoured to be dirty amongst the professional cycling press corps is Chris Horner. If you make a real effort to befriend (even if only through e-mail) some pro cycling journalists, a few of them will share some tidbits with you. It's relly tough for someone like Lance to nail them for what they discuss in a private e-mail (as opposed to a widely read print or web publication).

As far as hundreds of amateur or pro cyclists dying from EPO abuse ... I'm am fairly certain that that number in fact is not speculation if you extrapolate the number of widely reported profesional deaths out into the amateur ranks. Do some digging on Google. Especially in the late 90s. I believe about 50% of a certain Euro pro team died one year in the 90s -- not all at once, but spread over a few months. I really don't have time right now to dig up all my notes on this, I have to leave for work.

All hacks in all fields know the unprintable, but this does not necessarily mean that abuse is any more or less prevalent than it ever was. Your complaints about 'poor and desperate young men' are as old as organised sport. As for Chris Horner, wooah! Stop the presses! We caught a big fish here! A cyclist taking drugs!

'I am fairly certain that number is fact not speculation' sounds a hell of a lot like speculation to me and anyone else reading. And although I don't doubt the sincerity of your concern and even agree with much of what you say (the difference being I'm not surprised in the slightest by any of it), insulting people who perhaps take cycling rather less seriously than you do makes you sound hysterical, especially when you back track when challenged.

I agree that sport drug abuse is very like street drug abuse though, only the greed is on both sides of the deal. But until 'sporting fraud' becomes a criminal offence, nothing will be done. And ultimately too few care enough about this fascinating minority pastime to change it.

Now then ... instead of two men of our age exchanging idiotic insults, let's think logically. I am not an F1 expert by any means, but my understanding is that currently each F1 team has 2 principal drivers, 1 or 2 back-up drivers, and some test drivers. So, let's say 3 big $ earners per F1 team. As there are only 10 F1 teams in the entire world, that only adds up to 30 big money stars in the sport.

Top-level cycling has quite a few more teams involved across the entire season, and quite a few more riders per team. What is it? About 12 or so? So, perhaps 300 riders, and their salaries all add up.

But this is not really relevant ... why is the relative amount of money sponsors spend your metric of choice?

Cars cost a lot much more than bikes, there is more need for cars than for bikes, and so cars generate much the greater profits for their manufacturers than do bikes, and so the F1 sponsors spend a great deal more to promote their products on an absolute basis -- but probably not on a relative basis.

What is relevant is that big money (compared to an average person's salary, or net worth, or the worth of a small business, etc) is in fact spent on both cycling and motosports -- which are two of the world's most popular sports in terms of fan-bases and related consumer purchases of machines and gear.

Have you noticed that both Ronaldo and Lance wear Nike caps? Nike isn't stupid.

And if you think that just because a problem has been around for ages that nothing should be done about it ... I really don't know what to say to you. Terrorism has been around for ages, but now it is spiralling upwards and out-of-control. The safety and ability of civilized society to function is at stake. So, something must be done now.

Similarly, cycling is the worst sport in terms of killing people off with performance-enhancing drug use. Can you name a sport that kills off more people due to drug use?

Clearly, something must be done.

Well done to Cadel Evans for cheeking the headmaster three days before his retirement, in case we'd all forgotten about L.A.

Are there any other physicians around this place?

Ok, let the flames begin. I suppose some people out thre are really working their panties into a bunch right now.

and if my typos offend somebody's ubermensch mentality, too bad.

I didn't really need to read more. ;-)

"This is a hard Tour and hard work wins it. Vive Le Tour."

Um, didn't they meet after he finished his chemo in '97? Weren't the kids born after they met (you'd think)?

what a jerk

-- shannon
Indeed

I don't agree with those above who are saying that Lance-haters are stupid for saying things like, 'it would have been good if he stepped down after five races' or 'he shouldn't be so competitive'. It's okay that he didn't do those things, but it's exactly right that if he'd behaved in an unusally noble fashion, that would have made him a good role model. Those are the qualities that could be applied to society at large and would probably improve it or whatever.

Another thing, this is pure speculation of course, but if it's true that everyone at the top level of these sports is engaged in steroid-related doping and so on, those drugs effect your psychology as well as your physiology. Like, even when drug users aren't on drugs, their personality seems less subtle.

For accuracy, Lance and Kristin met at the Ride for Roses, in 1997, as he was finishing chemotherapy. The religion issue was likely a facftor, especially as the children grew: Kristin is Catholic and Lance is pretty much agnostic/atheist (sorry if I do not quite understand the distinction there, but let's not turn this discussion into a vitriolic semantics discussion).

I would also point this quote from Kristin:
Kristin Armstrong about the breakup of their marriage, 2/2003: Marriage problems were "brought on gradually by a number of pressures, rather than one big blow-up. We've been together 4 1/2 years, and we've had six homes, three languages, three countries, one cancer comeback, three children, four Tour de France wins and one rise to celebrity. You're not supposed to cram such a huge amount of events into such a small period of time."

Perhaps by the time they split, one could say the bloom was off the rose. An oft repeated maxim is that there are always three sides to any divorce: her side, his side and the truth. Would it be perhaps fair to demean Kristin Armstrong for not putting up with Lance's travels and work? No, it would not be fair to her. How many people could forever tolerate a personality that is, shall we say, somewhat intense and apparently demanding. I make that observation from what I have seen on many occasions. His public persona seems so exacting and meticulous, hence the moniker 'millimeter man', I wonder if he can just switch that off when he goes home. I do not know many people who can do that.

Pardon my objectoivty here, it's just the nature of my training in science and research.

If Lance Armstrong was a TRUE INDIE ROCKER he wouldn't sell out and do Nike commercials and would currently be dating Karen Osomeone so cool we haven't even heard of her yet, not Sheryl Crow.

It seems consistent with his mentality to support those who supported him. Nike was also the company that gave the start money for the LIVESTRONG bracelets, which has provided millions to cancer research.

He only remains loyal if you do what *he* wishes. The amount of enemies he has far outnumbers his friends.

If Armstrong was "decent" guy, he'd have retired after his fifth win

If Lance Armstrong was a TRUE INDIE ROCKER he wouldn't sell out and do Nike commercials and would currently be dating Karen Osomeone so cool we haven't even heard of her yet, not Sheryl Crow.

Kind of ridiculous to demand that Lance retire, but Eddy Merckx did not participate in the '73 tour because of criticism that he won all the time. I think it's not about decency. It's about a wish that there's more competition (for first place). If Lance participates, he'd need to fall flat on his face to see him lose. So yeah I hope he retires.

Yes, he is an exacting individual, undoubtedly one of the MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY sorts. The point I had tried to make was that he is backing Nike's marketing, likely as a response to the support they have given him when was being treated, and afterwards with the livestrong racelets, among others.

Leblanc - Armstrong fooled us all

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 Posted: 1623 GMT (0023 HKT)

Leblanc (right) congratulates Armstrong after his seventh Tour win
PARIS, France -- Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc claims Lance Armstrong has "fooled" the sports world, over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

Leblanc's comments come a day after L'Equipe reported that six urine samples, provided by Armstrong during the 1999 Tour, tested positive for EPO.

"For the first time -- and these are no longer rumors these are proven scientific facts -- someone has shown me that in 1999 Armstrong had EPO in his body," said Leblanc.

"The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L'Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled."

Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denies the allegations, calling the article "tabloid journalism."

"I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs," said Armstrong.

Armstrong, who retired from professional cycling after winning the Tour a month ago, was not immediately available for comment regarding Leblanc's latest remarks.

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tour's, but there was no effective test then to detect it.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year -- when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing.

The national anti-doping laboratory said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn't understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests.

"That seems bizarre, and I don't know who would have the authorization to do it," he told L'Equipe. "I don't even know if it's legal to keep these samples."

L'Equipe's investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he had doubts about L'Equipe's report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

"I do not confirm it," he told RTL radio. But he added: "If what L'Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it's a serious blow for cycling."

The UCI did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, although the drug was banned in 1990.

For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

"There will always be a place on the team for him if he decides to come back. Anyway, he's still under contract with us till the end of 2006."

Also because he knows how much I hate him. :-)))))

Armstrong, Crow announce they're breaking up
Associated Press
Cycling News Wire

AUSTIN, Texas -- Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow have split, the couple announced in a joint statement Friday night.

The seven-time Tour de France champion and the rock star announced their engagement in September. It would have been her first marriage and his second. He has three children from a previous marriage.

"After much thought and consideration we have made a very tough decision to split up. We both have a deep love and respect for each other and we ask that everyone respect our privacy during this very difficult time," the statement said.

I saw Lance in that Dodgeball film. It almost ruined the film for me. ;-)

The only real champion the world has seen was Marco Pantani "the pirate"...hadn't he been persecuted by italian justice Armstrong would have won no Tours! Just remember Courchevel 2000 at the Tour...

FUCK LANCE!!!!

OH MY GOD he's coming back...IN ADELAIDE??

And apparently (according to Mike Rann), it's the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!

I don't like him for the simple reason that I used to supertext-caption the news, and every year the Tour de France and Tour Down Under were a nightmare of demented names and esoteric terms poured out by deranged commentators at nightmare speeds. (Though to be fair, I could at least spell 'Lance Armstrong' correctly, so he should have been one of those I hated least)

the brett favre of cycling

or roger clemens

And apparently (according to Mike Rann), it's the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!

Oh, don't tell me you're writing into The Advertiser now. Those people are the reason why I left Adelaide.

I don't think many people realise that Lance is coming back for Astana, so he'll be racing in the glorious colours of KAZAKHSTAN!!

Oh, don't tell me you're writing into The Advertiser now. Those people are the reason why I left Adelaide.

Er, what?

cant believe i ever wasted time opining about this and so annoyingly

This is a very rare case of accomplishment completely supplanting douchiness.

another ex-teammate just came out of the woodwork and fired some accusations in lance's direction.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=dw-wetzel_lance_armstrong_faces_new_allegations_051911

as far as this guy managing his public reputation, he fucked up by not coming clean years ago when he still had tons of positive cache -- his redemption tour would've come full circle by now, but at this point I think he's generally seen as a massive fraud

I don't think so... he cured cancer and won 7 tours with one ball, he still is a hero in the eye of the typical american sports fan (ie, has no clue about cycling).

My favorite MSM defense piece of Lance came early this year when referring to Armstrong as retired... yet Lance was racing a stage race in Australia at the time.

Let me try to find it, it was pretty funny.

i think that the "defiant" reaction to accusations like this is actually kind of revealing. i would think people who were being accused of something absolutely untrue over and over again by some of their closest compatriots would actually react with more palpable hurt and shock rather than some kind of "haters gonna hate" defiance.

Sports Illustrated 1/18/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-20028841-10391697.html

by Joshua Norman

Doping allegations have followed Lance Armstrong into retirement. (Credit: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Lance Armstrong has tested negative for performance enhancing drugs on countless occasions. He counts among his friends and supporters former presidents and some of the world's biggest celebrities. He is also among the most prominent spokespeople for eradicating cancer and helping those suffering with it.

Regardless, journalists and federal prosecutors just won't let the now-retired legendary cyclist be.

A federal investigator experienced at probing performance enhancing drug use in U.S. sports who already nabbed track star Marion Jones and baseball great Barry Bonds has barely concealed his continued investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of PEDs.

Now, Sports Illustrated magazine has sent two of its investigative journalists on the trail to uncover evidence of Armstrong's alleged use of PEDs. They will report the full findings in the magazine on newsstands on Wednesday, but in the meantime, they have leaked evidence that they believe may link Armstrong to "the saddest deception in sports history."

None of SI's leaked evidence is particularly strong, however.

Included in their key findings are:

- Armstrong had "access" to a drug that boosts the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity in the 1990s called "HemAssist." He has since denied every taking it and never publicly tested positive for it.

- "Lance had a bag of drugs and s---," said former teammate and admitted doper Floyd Landis, when talking about being stopped by customs in St. Moritz in 2003. Agents allegedly found syringes and drugs with labels written in Spanish. Landis claims Armstrong then asked a member of his traveling crew to convince customs "agents that the drugs were vitamins and that the syringes were for vitamin injections." Armstrong has since denied this happened.

- Armstrong's testosterone-epitestosterone ratio was reported to be higher than normal on three occasions between 1993 and 1996, although the evidence for this is spurious. The lab that reported the higher levels has long since dismissed the tests, and all attempts at unearthing them have fallen flat.

- Another former teammate who has admitted taking PEDs said Armstrong was "the instigator" in 1995 when it came to his cycling team using the banned blood booster EPO. Again, Armstrong denies the accusation and has not tested positive for EPO during his career.

Meanwhile while this article was published he was in the middle of a 7 day Tour Down Under stage race (1/16-1/23/11), earning to a 67th place finish in the biggest race south of the equator:
http://www.tourdownunder.com.au/race/results-2011

the latest accuser from the wayback machine- were we still old ilx in 03?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2003/tour03/stage15/20.jpg

Professional cycling is NAGL

it could be worse. i could be floyd landis