Is this "writer" trying to be the Troll of the Year?

If he is, he's a strong early contender.

Barry Bonds seems to be a better comp than Lance Armstrong. They both shattered records and did things nobody did before by using chemicals in a sport that was already filthy with chemicals.

Looks like a radio guy, so "sanctimonious blowhard" is part of his job description.

"Doesn't say what I believe to be true" = "lying"

The difference is that clemens actually got due process and lance was subject to the wada since due process had given up trying to prove him guilty. How is it the wada could do a better investgaition doj? Grant it nether are all that good at it.

I've about had it with the court of public opinion. That thing's nothing but trouble.

Thank god those tour titles will now go to clean competitors like Jan Ullrich, Alex Zille, and Ivan Basso.

The difference is that clemens actually got due process and lance was subject to the wada since due process had given up trying to prove him guilty

No, the difference is that Clemens attacked the weak, shoddily handled evidence and his lone, horribly unreliable accusor; Armstrong couldn't attack the (supposed) pile of evidence and laundry list of accusors, so he attacked the "process" until he couldn't get anyone to actually believe his sactimonious squawkings and ran away, but not before issuing one final sob letter.

As the federal judge in Texas said, Armstrong may disagree with the way things work, but that doesn't mean he isn't being afforded "due process".

Time to give Travis Tygart's entire life an investigative enema.......

The difference between Armstrong is that Armstrong is 100% lying, while Clemens is only *possibly* lying.

Looks like a radio guy, so "sanctimonious blowhard" is part of his job description.

How dare you! Listen, buddy...I was a sanctimonious blowhard long before I got into radio!

I will admit to not following cycling in any sort of serious manner, but how do we *know* that Armstrong is "100% lying?" I understand that where there is smoke, there is usually fire, but I also believe in the importance of the presumption of innocence. Has Armstrong failed a doping test, or are we reliant on competitors'/teammates' statements? If it's the latter, then what would be the explanation for Armstrong's passing of all of those drug tests?

The article indicates that Armstrong gave up because he knew he was guilty and couldn't beat the rap. Maybe. But I could also understand a point of view that it's expensive (in both time and money) to continue to fight the battle long after he is actually a participant in the sport, and there are better ways to enjoy life.

There may be an angle on this where I am just underinformed, and that's my own fault. As a casual observer (albeit one who is aware of the years of controversy), it seems to me that the pursuit of Lance Armstrong has gone well beyond the point of reasonability.

As the federal judge in Texas said, Armstrong may disagree with the way things work, but that doesn't mean he isn't being afforded "due process".

The judge also expressed doubts about the fairness of the process, but said he didn't want to set a precedent for the federal judiciary getting involved in every disciplinary action by sports organizations.

The Difference Between Lance Armstrong And Roger Clemens

One is very thick and has more balls than brains.

The other is very thin . . .

I saw some research that said every single Tour de France winner since 1978 has tested positive for PED's, that includes the riders after Lance and cycling has set rings right? Right.

Mindy McCreedy vs. Sheryl Crow.

Finishing in the top 10 of the Tour de France is practically prima facie evidence of blood doping. Doping is just so effective in that sport that it's hard to believe a professional who is training hard and doping could be beaten by one that just trains hard, and they all train pretty hard.

Finishing in the top 10 of the Tour de France is practically prima facie evidence of blood doping. Doping is just so effective in that sport that it's hard to believe a professional who is training hard and doping could be beaten by one that just trains hard, and they all train pretty hard.

That's why I always figured Armstrong was guilty. It just didn't make any sense that the one guy who wasn't doping would consistently beat the hell out of the 95 percent of the riders who were juiced to the gills.

Looks like a radio guy, so "sanctimonious blowhard" is part of his job description.

He's a columnist first, I think. Still, pretty much what you said.

Finishing in the top 10 of the Tour de France is practically prima facie evidence of blood doping. Doping is just so effective in that sport that it's hard to believe a professional who is training hard and doping could be beaten by one that just trains hard, and they all train pretty hard.

Is this something like how racing fans look at it all? Do they more or less figure that's the sport? I remember reading a quote about someone complaining about illegal drug aids in racing...and the quote was from the 1920's. It was like one of those Bill James "Old Ballplayers Never Die" quotes.

Srul wins the thread. The rest of us can all go home.

The sport in 2012 is much, much cleaner than ten years ago. There are still accusations alleged at nearly every big winner, though. And yeah, drug use has been around forever. Jacques Anquetil won eight Grand Tours in the '50s and '60s and regularly talked about how it was unbelievable that anyone thought that riders could win without some form of enhancement.

Finishing in the top 10 of the Tour de France is practically prima facie evidence of blood doping. Doping is just so effective in that sport that it's hard to believe a professional who is training hard and doping could be beaten by one that just trains hard, and they all train pretty hard.

So the way to "win" is to finish second, avoiding the major scrutiny the guy ahead of you gets, and wait for him to be stripped of his title?

Or do they leave the titles vacant, the the Tour hasn't had a winner in years?

Armstrong and Clemens are alike in one way. They both continue to deny cheating for public consumption despite evidence and testimony that has the court of public opinion finding both of them guilty.

According to the worldwide leader, the court of public opinion was running about 82% pro-Armstrong this morning. They also report that the Lance Armstrong Foundation took in 25 times as much in donations today as they did yesterday.

I have not been following the cycling "scandal" at all, but with all these Lance Armstrong headlines today I did some catching up.

I did not realize that Floyd Landis eventually 'fessed up, after loudly and angrily (and expensively) proclaiming his innocence for so long. Now he has to repay half a million dollars that was donated by fans to the "Floyd Landis is innocent" fund. Wow, I'm glad I'm not him.

How in the hell can anyone ever be interested in watching a bunch of drugged up (or even non-drugged up) geeks just pump their legs up and down for days on end? Obviously there's a lot of admirable endurance and muscle development, and the scenery can be great, but what sort of actual advanced skill (as in hand-eye or foot-eye coordination) is involved in riding a bicycle?

These events seem about one small step removed from They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, and it's probably no coincidence that the "sport" of marathon bike racing flourished here during the same decade as those marathon ballroom dances depicted in that Jane Fonda movie reached their peak of popularity.

what sort of actual advanced skill (as in hand-eye or foot-eye coordination) is involved in riding a bicycle?

You know, they ride down those mountains too. Do you have any idea how fast they're going? There's a tremendous amount of skill involved in racing bicycles in close quarters.

You know, they ride down those mountains too. Do you have any idea how fast they're going? There's a tremendous amount of skill involved in racing bicycles in close quarters.

There's also skill in knowing how to position yourself, when to attack, how to pace yourself to achieve maximum effort in the time trials...

1st off I enjoy watching it because it is a fascinating test of speed vs. stamina. Aside from the various other titles for "king of mountains" "best team" etc. which I dont care about a lot of it is watching the breakaway go out fast and seeing if the pack, with it's more efficient use of energy, catch them. It's very unusual in that you can watch a 3 hour broadcast and you are glued to every second because a crash or a mechanical problem can arise in a split second. And then you have the reaction to that, does a group move on that situation or have to wait? Do teammates need to come forward to help? does the peloton come to an agreement not to challenge this? It's quite complicated and really interesting when the competition is there.

THis year I found it one of the most boring in years because basically Wiggens had probably the second (or first) best rider right there as his teammate, so the competition really did not develop. But it is usually a pretty interesting affair until someone finally cracks on the last day or two of mountains.

As for Lance I figured he and most of the peloton was guilty as hell that one day back in 2003 or 4 I guess when this one maverick rider who had accused Lance for years attempted to go out with the breakaway. And Lance was in the breakaway and ran down the rider and told him he could not go with the breakaway it was back to the peloton for you. And the rest of the tour backed up Lance. It impossible to breakaway on your own from there so he had no choice to go back...

Anyhow the pt. is here is this guy Lance Armstrong how beats the #### out of these competitors each and every year and here they are butt kissing Lance! WTF. If that doesnt tell you something's wrong nothing will.

It would be like Canseco or Bonds or whoever getting called out on steroids and seeing EVERY LAST MAN in mlb backing them up. Why? Why wouldn't you come out against them just because they are your competition? Just to pile on them.

But not Lance. He beats these guys like drums every year and here they are backing him up on doping charges. Clearly something amiss in the competitiveness thing.

it's probably no coincidence that the "sport" of marathon bike racing flourished here during the same decade as those marathon ballroom dances depicted in that Jane Fonda movie reached their peak of popularity.

Brilliant, this is like trying to stretch a single into an inside the park home run.

To each his own. I'd rather watch Alex Pagulayan and Shane Van Boening square off in a sport that requires a complete different skill set, is far more aesthetically pleasing, requires just as much stamina in events that go on for a week or more, and doesn't require blood doping to be competitive.

[30] I'm confused. Isn't all of this overwhelming evidence that USADA has against Armstrong basically other riders ratting him out? Maybe they were a little late to the party, but they seem to be piling on plenty now.

[32} You don't have to like watching it. Claiming that there is no skill involved is another matter.

[32} You don't have to like watching it. Claiming that there is no skill involved is another matter.

There are times I'll make statements like that solely in order to draw out an answer. This was one of those times, and I grant all the points that were made in rebuttal. I'm not seriously trying to deny the skill involved in marathon cross-country bike racing, even if I do find it tedious to watch.

Alex Pagulayan could never do what Lance Armstrong has done, with or without the blood doping. And Lance Armstrong could never do what Alex Pagulayan does in a million years, either. They're just entirely different skill sets, and which is "better" or more enjoyable is strictly a subjective take.

There are times I'll make statements like that solely in order to draw out an answer.

The technical term is "trolling".

;-}

I'm still trying to recover from the shock of being told billiards requires as much stamina as the Tour de France.

As far as I know, blood doping is still har to find through tests. Evidence against Armstrong is that quite a few riders from his team were busted and later said that doping was organized on team level, and training staff and team officials were also found in posession of doping. One would have to believe that Armstron was the only one in that team who didn't take doping, and that he didn't know that everybody else was taking. There were plenty of stories durng his victories, but he was too influential and nobody officially investigated that.

From everything I've read, the entire sport of cycling is cheating. Lance has to be included.

But I view modern sports as a combination of talent, training, and medical assistance. Every single player in every single sport uses modern medical assistance, be it basic GNC powders and better training regiments, or the other end with blood doping and steroids.

Fans want to believe there is a stark, defined line that its easy to separate the "cheaters" from the "innocents", but there isn't. Similar to the drug war, it'd be more effective to legalize and regulate advanced medical assistance. But we instead stick our heads in the sand and pretend that athletes are "innocent".

I thought it was a great article. Particularly the last line.

Has Armstrong failed a doping test, [?]

Apparently, they have tests available now that were not available when the riders finished their races in the early 2000's. One, I believe, is to check the radioisotopic content of, for example, testosterone, to see if it matches that of other carbon in the rider's body. Kind of like radiocarbon dating the testosterone to see if it is artificial or made by the athlete's body. I suppose one could do this with red-blood cells and EPO as well.

TdF level biking, cross-country skiing events and long-distance running are all heavily suseptible to blood doping and other hard-to-catch chem-bio cheating.

One, I believe, is to check the radioisotopic content of, for example, testosterone, to see if it matches that of other carbon in the rider's body. Kind of like radiocarbon dating the testosterone to see if it is artificial or made by the athlete's body.

This sounds like the test that Cabrera, Colon, and Braun flunked. It's not really carbon dating, as it has nothing to do with the "age" of the hormone. Rather, the relative abundance of different carbon isotopes in biologically produced testosterone differs from what is found in testosterone produced in a pharmaceutical lab. I doubt you could do anything remotely similar to detect autologous blood doping. Also, I thought that they had a pretty reliable EPO test now and that riders had gone back to good old-fashioned blood doping as a result.

I'm still trying to recover from the shock of being told billiards requires as much stamina as the Tour de France.

I'll put it this way: You could take a player like Mika Immonen or Niels Feijen, dope him up a la Lance Armstrong, and train him into a seriously competitive cyclist a lot more easily than you could take a champion cyclist and make him into a world class pool player.

From a purely physiological standpoint marathon bike races are obviously far more demanding, but you apparently have no idea of what goes into week long tournaments or marathon gambling sessions that can go on for days on end with no break time whatever. For all the rigors of the bike races, the break times are scheduled and predictible, racers have support teams that cater to their every needs from the end of one day to the beginning of the next. Whereas in world tournaments (or the U.S. Open) a player can play as many or six or seven matches in a day, ending as late as 3:00 am, and then have to be ready to play at 10:00 or 11:00 the next day and go on from there. Sleep patterns get constantly interrupted, and since pool matches can be won or lost by aiming that's on or off by microinches, after a while the erratic scheduling takes its toll. And support teams? They wish.

Of course since pool matches are played indoors, you don't have weather factors entering into the equation, and all in all, bike races require a far greater level of purely physical conditioning. But until you've followed some of these champion pool players from the beginning of one major tournament to the end of another one two or three weeks later, halfway around the world from the first one, I don't think you can have any real idea of just how much mental and physical stamina is required to keep playing every match at your top level, knowing all the while that one bad shot at the wrong moment can ruin your entire week.

I'll put it this way: You could take a player like Mika Immonen or Niels Feijen, dope him up a la Lance Armstrong, and train him into a seriously competitive cyclist a lot more easily than you could take a champion cyclist and make him into a world class pool player.

I'll grant this. While there are some technical skills required to be a cyclist it's not comparable to the exquisite hand-eye coordination (among other physical attributes) required by a professional billiards player. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the stamina required. I think you underestimate the degree of mental stamina required to endure the kinds of physical pain cyclists (and other endurance athletes) must withstand relative to that required by billiards players.

I'll put it this way: You could take a player like Mika Immonen or Niels Feijen, dope him up a la Lance Armstrong, and train him into a seriously competitive cyclist a lot more easily than you could take a champion cyclist and make him into a world class pool player.

And I'll bet you that a grandmaster chess player can be turned him into a pool champion easier than turning a pool champion into a grandmaster chess player. So what.

From a purely physiological standpoint marathon bike races are obviously far more demanding, but you apparently have no idea of what goes into week long tournaments or marathon gambling sessions that can go on for days on end with no break time whatever. For all the rigors of the bike races, the break times are scheduled and predictible, racers have support teams that cater to their every needs from the end of one day to the beginning of the next. Whereas in world tournaments (or the U.S. Open) a player can play as many or six or seven matches in a day, ending as late as 3:00 am, and then have to be ready to play at 10:00 or 11:00 the next day and go on from there. Sleep patterns get constantly interrupted, and since pool matches can be won or lost by aiming that's on or off by microinches, after a while the erratic scheduling takes its toll. And support teams? They wish.

What I really dislike is people taking their personal sport and trying to make it out to be something more than it is, because at the upper extreme it's "intense".

The fact is at the basic level, the endurance involved in cycling is much higher than it is in pool. One game vs one event type of thing. It's like people talking about car racing and the "athletes" in Nascar.....No, just stfu. It's driving a car. Everyone can do it, it's not that difficult at it's core. The higher levels are of course higher levels, but you can say that about anything ever done by a human being in a competition. I'm a bowler, and it's silly to talk about the endurance involved, yes at the highest levels etc. bs, etc. type of crap, it's intense, but at it's core, it's walking a few feet, throwing a 16 pound ball at 15mph waiting a few minutes and doing it again.(I've bowled 100 games in one day, it's not that hard--heck I know a 60+ year old who bowled 60+ games in one day). It's not that ####### tough.

I don't care how intense something gets, there is a limit to how actually physically demanding every task can get, and pool no matter what, is never going to be as tough as the tour-de-france, heck it's never going to be as tough as the workouts high school kids get prepping for a football game. I don't know of many pool players who have died from exhaustion. Heck there has probably been more Korean Starcraft competitors to die from exhaustion than pool players.

#13 First, Armstrong did in fact fail one test at the time it was given (excused on the grounds that it was an accidental positive due to a salve he was using for saddle sores) and failed a retro test (that is they had some old specimens and subjected them to new test)

Second, Armstrong isn't the only person to pass every test he was given. Richard Virenque never failed a drug test (nor did Christophe Moreau, Laurent Brochard and Armin Meier) but eventually admitted to using when he had to testify under oath. David Millar hadn't failed any drug tests at the time of his arrest in 2004. Similarly, a number of cyclists were convicted in a blood doping affair despite not having failed any tests. More than a dozen professional cyclists have been suspended due to police work without having failed a drug test.

The test in Armstrong's prime simply would not catch anybody using EPO, so "passed every test" isn't as meaningful as most people think.

What I really dislike is people taking their personal sport and trying to make it out to be something more than it is, because at the upper extreme it's "intense".

What I really get amused by is people reading what they want to read, not reading what they don't want to read, and then getting their panties into a bunch over the part they chose to read. Not that you're the first person around here who's done this.

Look, I'm sorry if you think I've disrespected the doped-up Greek Gods of your universe, but as I said, "From a purely physiological standpoint marathon bike races are obviously far more demanding", and "Of course since pool matches are played indoors, you don't have weather factors entering into the equation, and all in all, bike races require a far greater level of purely physical conditioning." And for all I know, if those doped-up cyclists ever put their minds to it, they could probabaly send the Navy SEALs to the unemployment line and take out the entire Taliban in between their working days at Le Tour.

I don't know of many pool players who have died from exhaustion. Heck there has probably been more Korean Starcraft competitors to die from exhaustion than pool players.

Yeah, but there have been a hell of a lot more pool players who've died of gunshot wounds after a pool match that there've been Tour de France competitors who've died from heart attacks or accidentally driving off a mountain road.

but there have been a hell of a lot more pool players who've died of gunshot wounds

9mm, shirt pocket.

I'll put it this way: You could take a player like Mika Immonen or Niels Feijen, dope him up a la Lance Armstrong, and train him into a seriously competitive cyclist a lot more easily than you could take a champion cyclist and make him into a world class pool player.

I'll grant this. While there are some technical skills required to be a cyclist it's not comparable to the exquisite hand-eye coordination (among other physical attributes) required by a professional billiards player. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the stamina required. I think you underestimate the degree of mental stamina required to endure the kinds of physical pain cyclists (and other endurance athletes) must withstand relative to that required by billiards players.

I think we all tend to underestimate the incredible amount of work, skill and stamina required to perform in any sport at the highest level, especially if it's a sport we've never taken up on a fairly serious level ourselves. But again, as far as purely physical conditioning and endurance goes, it's hard to imagine anything more demanding over the course of a week (or three) than the Tour de France. For a more "normal" sport, without the marathon factor entering into it, I think it'd be hard to top NHL-level hockey for a combination of violence, hand-eye coordination, and doing it all while skating at breakneck speed. Though if you add the chances of suffering a crippling serious injury then NFL-level American football probably takes the prize.

The difference between Armstrong and Clemens is that Armstrong only uses 50% as much Icy Hot.