Thoughts on Ruling of UCI on Lance Armstrong?

[John Tolhurst]

Love him or hate him, believe him or believe what appears to be the fact, this marks a sad time in cycling. The only good that could come of this is change is how the sport is run. Let's hope this changes things for the better.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[John Tolhurst]

I think UCI were less

I think UCI were less vigilant than they might have been, knowing that break out champions make for exciting sports coverage, which translates to very large TV rights dollars.

Now, to my mind, if they want to make racing more exciting they need to lower the power of the peleton, so that break aways have a better chance, and so that there is more people in genuine contention to win. If only there was such a bike that would perform like a diamond frame yet have better aero so as to lessen the equalising effect of the peleton.

A cheaky comment from an upstart company perhaps. On the other hand I am serious. People want to see advances and excitment then its time to loosen the straightjacket around what UCI define as being a bike.

My views on Lance is that he operated on the basis 'don't fail a doping test', much as one might say its okay to speed in a car as long as you don't get caught. Its a morally weak position, but obviously has been a very common one. He gained more, he lost more. Naturally he is frustrated, after all, he was the best at avoiding the speeding cameras. In the end, it was the aeroplane time checks over known distances that got him the ticket.

(This topic is off limits at some sites. Therefore I will require special respect of all in this discussion, including respect for Armstrong. He might have been at the top of the mountain, but a whole sports industry was holding him up there. I won't entertain dialog on monitoring, I will simply call whatever I see as I see it. Thanks.)

 

[Romagjack]

The whole story makes me very

The whole story makes me very sad. Doping has been a huge problem in the sport and disqualifications in recent years of major riders have helped to limit drug and doping use. Stringent rules on current riders are necessary, but destroying past history of the Tour de France (without penalizing all the other riders and teams that broke the rules) is not going to help the sport. Many people will simply not watch cycling because of all the negative attention. Perhaps an asterisk after all the names of those riders suspected of doping along with stiff suspensions from the sport would have been enough.

 

[Charles.Plager]

Hi,
I was very surprised when

Hi,

I was very surprised when Lance announced he wasn't going to fight. And I didn't (and still don't) think that just because he doesn't fight doesn't make him guilty. I wanted to believe that he was innocent, but I was willing to believe that, unfortunately, he wasn't.

The evidence the USADA released, however, convinces me he is guilty. Before the reports came out, it was clear to me that if his loyal lieutenant Hincape, who I had never accused of doping, came out and said that it happened, it was going to be pretty hard to ignore. Either they convinced a lot of people who weren't doping to say they were, or they were doping and not getting caught. And if they were doping and not getting caught, then regardless of whether you believe their testimony about Lance, then the drug tests are almost worthless (and they are now saying that several of his blood passport results are consistent with doping).

I don't think he could have gotten away with what he did if the UCI really wanted to stop him. And I don't think US Postal was the only team that doped (although like they were in racing, they may have been the best at it).

What bothers me isn't that he doped. It isn't that he lied about it (I don't see how you can dope and not lie about it if you expect to keep doping and racing), it is how aggressive and, well, just mean he was going after people who threatened to bring down his house of cards. If half of what came out is to be believed, I think it is a fair statement to say that Mr. Armstrong is just not a very nice person.

He was a phenomenal cyclist. I don't think that he was doping and all of his competitors weren't. So, the fact that he was doping doesn't take away everything from his accompliments. But doping isn't safe and it needs to be out of the sports so that our children can play and not have to worry about this crap.

I participate on this forum, Bent Riders Online (BROL), and BikeForums.net (and even a few others). What surprises me the most is the difference between bikeforums.net and BROL. On Bike Forums.net site, where they have roadies who are not only fans of bike racing, but (in their own mind at least) walk the walk with the uncomfortable bikes and silly outfits, the response is quite one sided and it is pretty much clear to everybody that he doped. On BROL, there is still a strong and loud minority (I think, err.. hope) that are still saying that it isn't Lance, but that the USADA is just a horrible organization that doesn't play fair and is just out to get Lance. While I think there is legitimately room to discuss how the USADA did everything and if they did it correctly or not, I would have thought that the evidence would really start to speak for itself.

Is it possible that Lance is an angel and that all of these people lied to bring him down? Yes.

Is it likely? Not at all, in my opinion. I guess I'm just somewhat surprised had how varied the opinions are here.

After reading all of this, I realized I haven't answered Andrew's question at all. I think the UCI did mostly the right thing. I think they needed to come out more strongly against doping by agreeing to look at their part in this and I think that until they do that, it will be hard to get rid of doping here.

As far as John's (some what sneaky) suggestion that we allow Vendettas to race, I would love to see large organized races where people can ride whatever they want. But it will be a different race than what we see in the current UCI racing. I think the teamwork is fascinating and I like it.

I think we have something of a chicken and egg problem. The best athletes aren't going to ride recumbent bicycles until we can have a race where we have a very good DF rider lose a race to a recumbent rider (by very good, I mean Wiggo, Cadel Evans, Fromme, Contador, etc). I don't think that's even possible until there is a rider of their caliber who is willing to train the big boys do, but on a recumbent. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

No races for very high end recumbent riders -> no motivation to have very high end recumbent riders -> No opportunity for recumbent rider to beat top tier DF rider -> no races for very high end recumbent riders.

(I mean no disrespect for Maria, Jim and the likes, but they aren't 20 something-year olds with no other job than riding a bicycle. They might have children* who could qualify, but professional bicycle racing seems like kind of a crappy life to live once you look into the details, so I'm certainly not going to suggest that path for them, regardless of the whole "You can't race recumbents" problem which makes it even more silly/painful a choice)

Cheers,
Charles

* I'm mentioning Jim and Maria's children just because I believe that given both of their parents physical abilities, the children might (or might not) have them too.

 

[Charles.Plager]

Hi Romagjack,
but destroying

Hi Romagjack,

but destroying past history of the Tour de France (without penalizing all the other riders and teams that broke the rules) is not going to help the sport.

I disagree with you here, but I do see and understand your point of view. I think dramatic actions are necessary to save the sport.

Many people will simply not watch cycling because of all the negative attention.

I completely agree with you here. And it is because of this that I can see how reasonable people can disagree about the point above.

Here's a silly analogy:

You're in a bike race and you're close(ish) to the end. You're winning, but you find that you can't shift out of the big ring and that's going to slow you down on the hills. Do you stop and fix it or just push ahead?

Well, that depends. It's a judgement call about looking at the current conditions, etc.

Back to the subject at hand, I'm concerned that if we don't fix this now, the sport won't survive. And your concerned that if are too negative now, the sport won't survive. And we're both right.

Cheers,
Charles

 

[Andrew 1973]

Some great insight and no Lance Bashing

That is exactly what I knew I would hear. I believe that those of us on this forum have a different view of the situation as opposed to thoseclad in lycra upon their skinny upright bikes.

I would love to see advancements in pro cycling to allow the machines to evolve. What if the UCI would look at the records set on the Vendetta and just once say that the prologue time trial had to be on a recumbent? Just imagine world class atheletes having to train on and ride something they may have never even seen up close. What is the worst that could happen? Maybe the playing field for one stage would be leveled. Maybe course records would be shattered and maybe, just maybe the word would see that there are more than just a couple configurations of the bicycle which allow for performance and speed. Also there is the Tour de France Féminine; why not allow an open-class TDF too?

Until then, we still have Battle Mountain, the UCMA and RAAM among others. If we can't get recumbents to the pro ranks, maybe we can bring the pros to the recumbent. Is Lance banned from every organization? I'll bet he could set a record or two...clean.

That would be a day to remember, indeed.

 

[Charles.Plager]

Hi Andrew,
I don't think I'd

Hi Andrew,

I don't think I'd trust Armstrong to ride clean, even on recumbents.

They are effectively different sports. I think road racing needs to morph somewhat, hoping making it a cleaner, safer sport.

Maybe that's what we need to do for the Vendetta. Get our strongest sprinter to run the time trial course just before or just after everybody else on a Vendetta. If they can get times close to those of the individual riders, that will get noticed. (Of course, being chased by the police during the ride will also get them noticed. ).

And remember, the MAMILs* are really your friends. Let's not make too much fun of the.

Cheers,
Charles

* Middle Aged Men in Latex

 

[John Tolhurst]

Middle Aged Men in Latex =

Middle Aged Men in Latex = GFDs, Grim Faced Dudes

This is a generational change. The other thread on a kid's cruzbike is more important to the prospect of updating bicycle technology in the sport. If that objective were met, a whole generation will organise a sport for themselves and the UCI will either embrace it or allow others to run it.

 

[Charles.Plager]

You'd be grim too if you had

You'd be grim too if you had to sit on that saddle all day... *cough cough*

(sorry)

Yes, John, the youth are our future. Train them well and we will be well off.

 

[Andrew 1973]

"This is a generational change."

John,

I had a Sofrider in my posession for about two weeks and there was no shortage of young keeds, pre-teen and older who wanted to ride it. I think if a simplified version could be made avaialble for retail sale, this could be marketed to the youth segment who would maybe grow into wanting the performance variant of the Cruzbike.

 

[MrSteve]

Lance

I've had a lot of vicarious fun over the years, watching Mr. Armstrong race.
For me, there are two memories that stand out....
-Lance cutting the corner, off-road, on a dangerously crowded downhill
switch-back during an early TDF. Which he ultimately won.
-Lance in a cameo role, as Lance Armstrong, in the film, "Kingpin" offering advice in a bar.

Change is inevitable.
You either go with the flow or you cling to the past.

In my opinion, the past is lost to history and history has it's lessons.
Mr. Armstrong is history....

----

As to racing recumbents and the UCI?
I don't care!
(I do not race. Not really!)
Let the racers continue to race on their UCI-legal race-bikes.

If and when a recumbent formula race-bike becomes an accepted/sanctioned UCI-race-bike...
I still won't care: the racers, on their UCI-legal racing recumbent bikes will still be racers racing.
Mano-a-mano, man-to-man, woman-to-woman, all on equal racing platforms.

The officials in the UCI organisation make as much sense to me, have the same impact on my life,
as do the T.V. professional wrestling championship organisations.
-That would be none.

----
However:

If I built recumbents?
Race 'em, I say!
Race winners sell!

-Steve

 

[Romagjack]

There's no real debate here

There's no real debate here and no big disagreement. We all love watching the professionals do their thing. Like all big time sports, there is tremendous pressure for the athletes to perform at peak levels. It is understandable why they might be tempted to go beyond their own moral and physical limits, especially when confronted by a terminal illness and competition from cycling's high percentage of elite cheaters. But having other cheaters squeal on Armstrong and get off scott free is a tactic that will haunt the sport forever. Humiliation of Armstrong will drive the rest of the cheaters (including team managers and others) to figure out how to hide their doping. There has to be a serious attempt, along with effective drug tests, to make cycling a "wholesome" sport. My guess is that the majority of professional cycling teams will continue a game of how not to get caught pharacologically while the clean teams will come in last. It's still very exciting to watch but the true winners are oftentimes the guys that hang on through falls and injuries that simply complete the race.

In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy recreational Cruzbiking. This is a sport that required no drug enhancement.

 

[Kim Tolhurst_2]

No matter what

No matter what the rot at the top of any organisation and even those that need each other as part of the whole will always reconfigure/replace one way or another by the width of the base for its continued expression of success. The moral and ethical majority in the base always and only can hope for a clean top in the organisation/s they follow. Trying to write a person or event out of history becomes the entrenched history. Organisations grow with good or bad press, past a point of their develpement so no back off for sport cycling will occur. Thoughts on UCI ruling? you have just read mine. Effects on cycling? hopefully for better! Would their decissions stop someone taking up cycling, no. Do you like riding your bike with people who enjoy cycling? yes. Does Lance Amstrong enjoy cycling? yes. Would I ride with Lance? Yes. He would need a Vendetta to keep up with me on mine! For speed? no. For comfort and scenery? DEFINATELY!

 

[fthills]

Aside from the cycling what

Aside from the cycling what do we make of what was written in LA 's books ,training guides , dvds and so on , and those of his coaches / managers at the time?

 

[John Tolhurst]

To be the best, you have to

To be the best, you have to be the best at all elements. I would take those guides and so forth as very reliable and trustworthy. To my mind doping was only a tool to create a separation within the top 50 to 100 cyclists in the world, and really you can't get that good without 'world best practice' in every single aspect. If you weren't already at that level, doping at undetectable levels would not have been enough. Armstrong was no doubt a great cyclist during all those years.

There would really be no media sales if he were just peleton filler. His material would not have been developed as a product - but similar stuff would have been available endorsed by someone else. Perhaps the motivational power of those products has diminished, I would suppose the ebay market has collapsed.

 

[MrSteve]

Drugs? We Don.' Need no Steenkin.' Drugs!

Sorry... I kind of like the movie, "Blazing Saddles".

Seriously now,
I've always thought that the place for performance enhancing drugs
was in games designed from the outset to encourage the use of any and all
performance-enhancing substances.

Why not?

All that would be needed, I'm guessing, would be to have all substances legalized
(at least for competition) and have all parties sign waivers.

The future of drug-games?
I'm guessing it's down to altering genes!

Talk about passing drug-tests: genes are not drugs....


Mr. Armstrong is blessed with great natural talent;
he has good genes.

 

[Charles.Plager]

HI Steve,
If the drugs were

HI Steve,

If the drugs were safe, then I would like your proposal. But they aren't. Which at the very least implies all sorts of things for sponsorship. Long-story-short: I don't think it would (or, personally, should) fly. I do very much understand your motivation.

The usual proposal is that we have two sets of games (like they do body building) - regular and natural. People will always be trying to get into the natural games unnaturally.

Cheers,
Charles

p.s. I've had similar thoughts about drunk drivers. Instead of making it illegal, we build (at their expense) a set of enclosed roads that only drunk people use. And what happens happens. This proposal is much less reasonable than yours for sports...

 

[Hilry]

Tour de France

I have missed watching Le Tour for several years until this year, because of the doping.

You got half way through the tour and it was just getting to the interesting stage and the half the riders would get knocked out for doping, even whole teams. So there didn't seem to be any point in watching.

If people stop watching a sport then sponsorship and ultimately teams and the sport itself dwindles.

Being in the UK, news of Cavendish and Wiggos performances, who claim to be in a clean team, piqued my interest again.

Motor sports have different categories of races. Why not cycling?

They have annual carnival cycle races in a circuit that passes my house with juniors and adults races, on DFs of cours (although they did used to have one with penny farthings and suchlike, which was interesting to see)

I can't imagine the circuit being so suitable for recumbent racing with a gradual downhill slope ending with a sharp turn at traffic lights.

Close to here they held the 2002 Commonwealth games cycling events, mountain biking and road races.
The hills they went up on the road route would I imagine would again be tough on a recumbent.
I have cycled them on a DF.
My time was twice as long for one circuit as the pros were doing.

The day before the races started, coming down one of the hills on the route into a sharpe left turn, my chain came off changing down.
I was stopped and replacing my chain when I heard a swishing noise.
The Australian team came flying past out training.
If I had me chain on I would have shown them a thing or two!
They were cheating. They were doing a short circuit that didn't include the hills the way they were going.

Anyway, reminiscing aside, horses for courses I think.
Separate races for recumbents (actually horses is another example of different types of events isn't it.)

Maybe they will start to include a recumbent race in the carnival races here sometime.

 

[JAE1969]

The problem I have with it

The problem I have with it all is it turned into a witch hunt. It may have always been. Do I think he did it, hard to say he didn't; as much as I want to believe he didn't. But why just destroy Lance. Why give the others all sweetheart deals and immunity. EVERYONE from mid peloton to the front, safe bet, was doing it. That is what Levi, Hincapie, Hamilton and others have said. So why just destroy Lance. It is obvious they (UCI) agree with this as they have chosen not to give the titles to anyone else. Why? Because they can't go down the list far enough to find someone that wasn't.

As for Mr poster boy Hincapie. I lost respect for him with the way he announced it. Sure it may have been eating at him for years, but how convenient and how spineless for him to wait until AFTER his retirement to come out of the proverbial closet. I guess he didn't want to ruin his celebration party and farewell on the Champs at the TDF.

I am all for cleaning up the sport, but this isn't the way to do it. This will only hurt the sport. Like him or not, Lance was and is INCREDIBLE for the sport; PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. They all loved Lance when he was making big bucks for all of them. But he is dead to their pocket books and bottom line now, so they are okay throwing him to the wolves.

Proof to this is Nike kept Tiger, Kobe, A-Rod and the others that all cheated; either with drugs or on their wives and had major scandals. Why did they keep these guys? Because they still have money making potential for them...SAD!!! Same for the other sponsors. At least be consistent.

 

[John Tolhurst]

Thanks for all comments, I am



Thanks for all comments, I am retiring this thread.