Thanks for clarifying, with much better details!!!
1 Like
Not just bikes. Clothing. Helmets. Tires. Nutrition. Everything…
There’s a great CBC Nature of Thing episode call The Equalizer about this.
And Lance sucks.
The word is hypocrisy, not hypocracy. There, I feel better now too. 
1 Like
Would Hypocracy be something like Theocracy or Idiocracy?
1 Like
Well, regarding the palmares, Lance was officially stripped of his titles, and Virenque was not, so it is fair to say “Virenque is a 7time winner of the Mountain jersey, Lance is not a winner of the TdF”. You might think this is unfair or hypocritical that Virenque gets to keep his wins, which I understand, but those are the facts. Although I think after Festina he was never convicted or admitted to doping (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), so no reason to strip him of those titles.
All the other riders from Festina did continue their careers as at that time, sanctions for doping were far less than now, but to the cycling public, they are all stamped by the “Festina affair”, so it’s unfair to say “no one talks about them”. For they didn’t win a Tour, let alone 7, so it’s normal that most people know about Armstrong and not the domestiques (or co-leaders) from Festina.
Also, the Tour was aware that Armstrong was not the only one who doped, as they left the winner spot vacant instead of giving it to the 2nd place rider.
Regarding treatment of Lance, I won’t try to counterpoint too much, as everyone has pretty strong opinions on this, but I will say this : personnality goes a long way. Virenque, Pantani, were loved for their panache, their way of racing. A lot (far from everyone though) of the public forgave them their doping. Armstrong was so superior, so cold, so calculated, it was hard to root for him. And easy to pile on him when he finally came crashing down.
The fact that he was american probably did’n’t help him in Europe either, but that’s just sport, everyone prefers to support their countrymen and countrywomen, more or less.
And finally, in order to strip someone of their title, you need investigation, trial, etc… Even if someone admits to doping, you still have to do the whole procedure to strip the title. That means ressources. I guess no one wants to open that can of worms from title past. But thanks to USDA, it happened to Armstrong.
The triple crown was likely fixed, but that probably was the DSs, not Lance. The first race was a free-for-all, but once you have a winner (Lance/Motorola) there is a huge incentive ($1MM) to have that rider also win the last two races. Some of that money can be spread around to the other teams to make sure it happens. Buying wins (typically from a small group near the finish) has a long history in cycling.
1 Like
Everyone has different opinions. Many people believe that doping was and still is endemic in cycling. I am one of those people. The most talented and mentally tough riders will still rise to the top. While Lance was formally stripped of his titles, I think a lot of people, including me still consider him the 7 time winner of cycling’s version of the enhanced games, ie the TDF. If you want to have a double standard and consider one doper a winner, and another doper not a winner, that is your prerogative.
1 Like
And running. Young gave Mantz the win at US Olympic trials. It was believed because Mantz had the bigger sponsors bonus for a win.
This is almost a given in poker when you get down to the last few. Just saw a tournament where the final 3 did a split where they all got at least 2 million, and they played it out for much smaller differences than the promoters set up initially. Here there was a distinct difference, either Lance wins or the million just disappears. Huge pressure to make deals..
Armstrong had an unfair advantage compared to the other guys as he had the UCI’s help based on his own allegations. Hence why I don’t consider him the winner of anything post cancer. Yes, the other guys were using PEDs too, but they had to beat the system and almost all his rivals failed to do so. That was never an even playing field. Would some of us feel different if he wouldn’t be a world class POS? Perhaps, but there is a life lesson in there, don’t make so many enemies 
1 Like
I wouldn’t say an unfair advantage, remember Operation Puerto?? I mean they had all of the top guys dead to rights, but the Spanish government as I recall put the brakes on it. I mean we knew the actual 6 drugs that Ullrich was taking, but because only code names were on the bags, not much was done and everyone got away with it.
There were rumors that among the 100’s of clients, that some were famous soccer players. Now those are guys in a sport that no one would mess with, and cover up to the end of time…Think the cyclists lucked out on that one..
I wouldn’t say the Spanish government, but rather the terrible law enforcement system we have in Spain. Plus in that particular case the chain of custody for the blood bags was broken. And that unfortunately killed them as a proof.
So yes, Lance still had an advantage. Being covered by UCI and an exclusive arrangement with doctor Ferrari so he could not advise anybody else.
He had so much power that he managed to ban Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano from the final podium of the midi libre (he was second) because he dared to attack him! Full story here in Spanish El día que Lance Armstrong insultó, amenazó y dejó sin podio a Igor González de Galdeano - AS.com
“If we prosecute everyone in those files, the whole system would collapse”
9 Likes
To me the hypocrisy is that people posting on these topics happily ignore the drugs (street), drugs (performance), illegal activity with guns, dog fighters, wife beaters, and deplorables while watching Olympics, football, American football, basketball, boxing, or anything else.
We would need dozens of topics to parallel the moaning about Lance and eliminate the hypocrisy. Nevermind even delving into idolized dopers of past cycling lore or modern triathlon dopers.
Either enter the gladiator arena and pay your coin or don’t. Don’t rationalize one event or person over another.
We should coin the term “LDS”.
1 Like
Can we have a thread entitled, “Teflon Georgie” ? George’s lawyer: “Just sign the damn affadavit and keep your mouth shut.”
Lance was greedy and his self defeating narcissism wouldn’t let him walk away or stop until he brought himself down. Ultra charming when he wants something from you. Your money, attention, praise. He’s like a rescue dog that’s been traumatized. He’ll be cute and funny and smart and then turn around and bite your achilles off- for no reason other than what’s in his head. In layman’s terms- he’s a dick.
(Dr. Sigmund McNulty)
We’re so close to a “Reasoned Decision” thread revival
I think much of it is that, like Bonds, LA was at the top of the game when he was doping. Nobody seems to care much when a top pro, but not THE top pro, is doping. LA’s problems were/are compounded by his personality. If the day comes that Pog is found out, and it might, he won’t be vilified because he’s so damned likable.
2 Likes
I disagree. When you change the playing field, different athletes do better. Bjarne Riis couldn’t make it as a domestique in the pre-ipo era, but was then able to become a TdF winner. Hincapie went from being a sprinter to being able to win a TdF mountain stage. Some riders had a lot more upside from O2 vector doping than others.
2 Likes
Froome is probably the best example of this. Went from being at the back of the pelotón to winning 4tdf.
2 Likes
