You keep saying Lemond. Please pull out all the instances of suspect cheating besides the one and only one you always say in your posts, bad Giro to tour win which has been been answered again and again, and not just the iron injections. So all the people in the peloton, the numerous witnesses ect, what are they?

You know what else has different effects on individuals depending on their physiology? Weight training, aerobic training, nutrition, altitude acclimation, recovery after injuries, overall wellness, etc etc etc - in other words...GENETICS. Your argument is not relevant in this context.

Merckx was never a cuddly personality, he wasnt quite the schmuck Hinault is/was, but neither was he more affable than Lance. He also failed three doping tests in his career, and was even kicked out of the Giro in the middle of the race for a failed test. But people's memories are short, Merckx still retains his titles and is heralded as the best ever (which I agree with.) Doping or not, a ruthless, singular focus is what it takes to win.

There's a meaningful difference between Vaughters and Lance that you are overlooking. Indeed, this is the difference between Lance and the rest of the dopers in the peloton. All the others were merely pawns. They were doping as individuals with the implicit approval of their teams or most likely doping with their team's help. Some obviously more willing than others. It's become obvious, to me at least, that Lance was an architect of organized doping that we all deplore as the bane of professional cycling. He encouraged and pressured others to dope and financed it. All to ensure he had the strongest team supporting him. He paid off the UCI. How much difference is there between what Armstrong and Bruyneel did to pro cycling and what the East Germans did to Olympic sport in the 1980s?

And then we've had to listen to his bullying and pleas that his charitable work somehow placed him above scrutiny. Those that doubted him in the public were bullied. Look at Simoeni. Say anything and you'll be banished from the peloton. I know the LAF has touched many, but let's recognize that it's part of Lance's "brand" that has furthered his wealth and fame. Just pickup US Weekly, and you'll see he obviously loves the spotlight.

I can understand the sadness. Lance was an inspiration to me for years. My first road bike was a Trek. But his actions were so abhorrent, does he really deserve our sympathy? If you do, you're just like the rest of the Postal boys that did whatever Lance wanted so that he could win.

Thank you. Well said.

Lances dog tugboat must be crying in heaven.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Ullrich is so classy, "I know the order in which we crossed the line."

The issue is so much bigger than Lance, cycling or sport. We are headed towards a society of massive enhancement, well beyond what can even be imagined right now, and certainly far beyond mere physical enhancement. To ostracize a product of the machine is ignorant when the machine itself lives on and is in fact growing at an ever-accelerating rate. How much better it is to stand back and marvel at the wonder or, like Lance, actually paddle out and ride the f****n wave.

I've generally tried to stay away from the Lance arguments here, but I see it pretty much as you've described it.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

My take on this is that if Lance is clean, he's not being rational:

If he's clean, USADA is corrupt, and he does no-contest: He gets his titles stripped, but USADA's corruptness is far from demonstrated. This is the scenario he has chosen.
If he's clean, USADA is corrupt, and he goes to trial: He gets his titles stripped, but he demonstrates their corruptness vividly by highlighting shortcomings in the actual process. This would maximize his water-muddying potential, and keep his name in the news as much as possible.
If he's clean, USADA is fair, and he goes to trial: He's cleared. This is clearly the best possible outcome, but it's only possible if he goes to trial.

So of the 3 possible clean-rider outcomes (the 4th, where he's clean, thinks USADA is fair, and pleads no-contest, is nonsensical), he has actually chosen the worst... if he's clean.

If he's dirty though:
If he's dirty, USADA is corrupt, and he pleads no-contest: He loses his titles, he gets to muddy the waters with a statement accusing USADA of being unfair, and no evidence is presented. This is the route he claims he has chosen (well, apart from the dirty part)
If he's dirty, USADA is fair, and he pleads no contest: He loses his titles and gets to muddy the waters, and no evidence is presented. This (or the one above) is what he has chosen.
If he's dirty, USADA is corrupt, and he goes to trial: He loses his titles, and probably doesn't do a good job skewering the corrupt USADA since he was dirty anyway.
If he's dirty, USADA is fair, and he goes to trial: He loses his titles and probably loses a ton of standing in public opinion by having all the evidence aired in a real trial in a fair process.

If he's dirty, he is being perfectly rational. Whether USADA is fair or not, this is the best possible outcome since it reduces the amount of people that'll see/hear the evidence presented.

---

STAC Zero Trainer - Zero noise, zero tire contact, zero moving parts. Suffer in Silence starting fall 2016

Lance Armstrong has decided to stop fighting the USADA regarding his doping allegations. We know that there is very little middle ground; Cheater or Hero.

I want to believe he is innocent (Hero is not a word I'd use). My main concern for this is that the USADA has set a precedent that should, by all economic and common sense rights, put themselves out of business. By their accustations, and most LA haters, just because you passed all the tests, doesn't mean you didn't cheat. This calls ALL clean tests into question, and begs another question... If millions of dollars are being spent on testing that is ineffective, why test? If millions of dollars are being spent investigating and prosecuting someone, who has passed all the tests that were supposed to ensure fair play, why test? Why spend millions of dollars? Why fund an Organization that admits the testing they do is of no value?

So now does the USADA infer that every winner of any event, Olympic, professional, amatuer, is a cheater? "They passed the drug tests, so that means they are clean... er, no wait, we don't mean to infer that they cheated, even though that's what we just said with LA" (My imagined response by USADA). How do we now decide who is playing fair and who is not?

Should everyone that denies they've doped be called into question?

A very slippery slope has just been watered down, then iced by the USADA.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

refer back to LAA1125 post. I think GL is just as enhanced as the rest of the riders were back in his day. Oh and for the record I think GL is a complete ASSCLOWN.

No the USADA forced his hand. Its no longer a question of his being clean or dirty. He cannot win the case against him therefore he has no choice but to bow out now while able to control some of the outcome. The battle against USADA would be too expensive to risk.

"It's become obvious, to me at least, that Lance was an architect of organized doping that we all deplore as the bane of professional cycling."

I don't think you dream big enough. At best, Lance is one of the greatest knights on the field, but the idea that he architected much is naive. He is blessed with a physiology that responded exceptionally well to a system of doping that was already well established. Making LA the "kingpin" in the game is a mistake. The REAL powerful people in the game are not feeling the heat...at least not just yet.

It's great to see a step in the right direction here. But don't foolishly believe that it means much in the grand scheme. The apparatus that created LA continues to operate the sport....waiting for the next chance to create a Merckx, Hinault, LA, etc. Rest assured, another will come. Contador might have become the next, but, well, he likes seems to like his steak rare and well fortified.

Without further action, the idea that this means much beyond a bit of back-slapping congratulation on catching a big fish like LA fails to comprehend what is really going on. If you believe LA and co represented the pinnacle of doping in cycling, you haven't been paying attention and are nearly as naive as those who still cling to hope that LA is innocent in the first place.

Honestly. How good does Ullrich look in this? Not only does he get his second, third and fourth TDF titles (begging the question where he ranks in the pantheon), but he also is the consummate gentleman.

---

****************************

"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" -H.D. Thoreau

Hmmm you have you heard of Regina Jacobs, Dwain Chambers or is it that you only follow cycling?

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

I didn't day it is OK nor would I instruct my son to cheat. I just won't judge the guy without living his life. That's all I am saying. Easy for us to be heros from behind the keyboard. Like I said in my post....compare Vaughters and Lance. I'm not sure Vaughters makes the decisions he made if he was actually winning the tours. Much easier for him to "bail".

Where should we start? USADA was created in 2000. I'm pretty sure Lance was still racing then. Ah, yes, the UCI is defending Lance. The esteemed Professional association governing his sport. This was the very governing body that has such high ethical standards that it accepted "donations" from an athlete that it was responsible with regulating. Finally, it seems pretty evident that USADA is willing to present its evidence. In fact, with his decision, Lance is the one preventing the presentation of evidence. Indeed, the process would have afforded Lance two opportunities to present evidence and fight the charges: First in arbitration and then before the CAS. How many chances does he really need?

You obviously think you're clever with your reference to Kafka, but perhaps you should think through your argument a little more because it doesn't seem very relevant to the facts of this case.

Oh, so it is unfair to say LA doped becauese he beat guys who were doping but because Lemond won, he is a doper. One big difference the others in the pelaton did not accuse. No suspiciions of him doping,. By your logic anyone who ever won was a doper because other winners were dopers. With LA there is a mountain of evidence. You don't like Lemond, well that is fair. Free country. Nothing wrong with that

was barryp drunk that day?

LOL! Awesome

I just can't wait to see who they give the titles to.

Paging Mr. Dan "Slowman"--still mulling over this story? I know you're out there watching...what are your thoughts on all this hoopla back & forth beat a horse to death stuff? Are you going to do an editorial on this? You seem to have an interesting perspective on some subjects, let's hear it...

I can't image they would strip his titles. Does anyone know what happened with respect to the 1996 title?