Very odd individual but can't but think that he should just have his seven Tour de France victories reinstated. The prevalence of doping throughout the sport at the time was blanket wide. Armstrong would of won the titles if everyone was clean just as he did with everyone on gear.
Interesting watch but couldn't help feel the film maker let him off the hook. I wonder if Armstrong's legal machine insisted on a modicum of editorial control.
I think the whole saga just needs to be put to bed now... the actual doping happened however many years ago now and its just not helping people like Cavendish or Froome to silence the doubters... (i.e. had Cavendish still be in the tour and had won an amazing victory or if Froome has another stage victory like Mont Ventoux) then to a seasoned watcher of the Tour its gonna be a magnificent win, for someone new watching they're gonna see the win, watch the Armstrong programme and say "he's doping".
Of course Froome may have doped for the Ventoux win (I'll always have a few doubts) and it still may be a serious issue in Cycling but the media also needs to highlight that it is the most tested sport out there
Very odd individual but can't but think that he should just have his seven Tour de France victories reinstated. The prevalence of doping throughout the sport at the time was blanket wide. Armstrong would of won the titles if everyone was clean just as he did with everyone on gear.
Nobody will ever know, he had the "best" doctors advising him so he may have had an advantage.
I didnt realise it was on last night but I saw it a few months back just after it came out in the US, just after I'd read Tyler Hamilton's "the secret race". Its a good watch.
I've got my suspicions about Froome, especially on Ventoux. I know Sky released his biological passport for the press to clear any suspicions but nevertheless, to ride up Ventoux quicker than Armstrong did when he was doping will automatically raise eyebrows.
Make the drug testing compulsory rather than random and it clears it up forever.
The thing for me that was most disturbing, was his "donations" to the UCI. They knew. Pat McQuaid knew too. Why on earth would he just donate a 6 figure sum? Would a professional football donate money to FIFA for no reason? Dodgy beyond belief.
Very odd individual but can't but think that he should just have his seven Tour de France victories reinstated. The prevalence of doping throughout the sport at the time was blanket wide. Armstrong would of won the titles if everyone was clean just as he did with everyone on gear.
The most interesting thing for me was it opened it up just how difficult it is to catch those that cheat, and the lengths people would go to to cheat.
EPO they were saying was free from being detected just 4hrs after taking.
I know that every single sportsman uses at a minimum supplements, and the best are not just those with the most talent, but those that follow the best programmes of training, nutrition and chemical assistance. I now have absolutely zero confidence that any top sportsman never crosses the line in what is legal and what is not.
Saw this a few months ago and one thing that struck me was just how much of a nasty c*** Armstrong was/is. He wouldn't just use his wealth/power/influence to scare/silence those that tried to expose him....he would actively and deliberately try to destroy their lives all the time knowing they were right. Now that is taking things beyond just `winning'.
A horrible, spiteful, despicable individual. Good riddance to trash.
The most interesting thing for me was it opened it up just how difficult it is to catch those that cheat, and the lengths people would go to to cheat.
EPO they were saying was free from being detected just 4hrs after taking.
I know that every single sportsman uses at a minimum supplements, and the best are not just those with the most talent, but those that follow the best programmes of training, nutrition and chemical assistance. I now have absolutely zero confidence that any top sportsman never crosses the line in what is legal and what is not.
Based on the above Keef Richards could win the Tour de France/England.
The most interesting thing for me was it opened it up just how difficult it is to catch those that cheat, and the lengths people would go to to cheat.
EPO they were saying was free from being detected just 4hrs after taking.
I know that every single sportsman uses at a minimum supplements, and the best are not just those with the most talent, but those that follow the best programmes of training, nutrition and chemical assistance. I now have absolutely zero confidence that any top sportsman never crosses the line in what is legal and what is not.
For me it was Armstrongs spectacular talent for lying that far outstripped his cycling talents. Psychopathic at times.
Not really. I suspect if you shoot Nadal, Messi, Raul, Thorpe, Phelps long enough you'll ave enough to portray them as saint geniuses or mentalhealth cracked nuts.
The Tours intensity is there all the time, it takes very unique characters to cope let alone revel in it like Armstrong.
As for Froome his power to weight ratio was tested early in his career and is phenomenal. Just as Lemond had a physiology hugely more capable than even rival greats. I have little time for sports scientists who calculate average watt output for an individuals climb, without weather variables, team mates output, individual outputs, pre-climb output. Froome may or may not be doping but reading a singular methodology in Pro Cycling proves little to me.
David Walsh and Pierre Balesters careful debunking of Armstrong's multiple myths made it very clear what was obvious before. He could have never won the Tour without huge abuse of doping practices. Some cyclists used PEDs at similar levels like Ulrich, some didn't.
Some of those who used PEDs like Ris would never have won the Tour without it, some would have had a chance. The story of Bassons who Armstrong destroyed, is the story of cyclists who had a chance to win Stage Races but whose hopes were destroyed by vain and vindictive men like Armstrong: The silent majority of dopers weren't much better: As no doubt many of us would have been either.
Comments
I wonder if Armstrong's legal machine insisted on a modicum of editorial control.
Of course Froome may have doped for the Ventoux win (I'll always have a few doubts) and it still may be a serious issue in Cycling but the media also needs to highlight that it is the most tested sport out there
I've got my suspicions about Froome, especially on Ventoux. I know Sky released his biological passport for the press to clear any suspicions but nevertheless, to ride up Ventoux quicker than Armstrong did when he was doping will automatically raise eyebrows.
Make the drug testing compulsory rather than random and it clears it up forever.
The thing for me that was most disturbing, was his "donations" to the UCI. They knew. Pat McQuaid knew too. Why on earth would he just donate a 6 figure sum? Would a professional football donate money to FIFA for no reason? Dodgy beyond belief.
Not just cycling but athletics too.
Agreed they were all cheating though, sad to say.
EPO they were saying was free from being detected just 4hrs after taking.
I know that every single sportsman uses at a minimum supplements, and the best are not just those with the most talent, but those that follow the best programmes of training, nutrition and chemical assistance. I now have absolutely zero confidence that any top sportsman never crosses the line in what is legal and what is not.
A horrible, spiteful, despicable individual. Good riddance to trash.
The Tours intensity is there all the time, it takes very unique characters to cope let alone revel in it like Armstrong.
As for Froome his power to weight ratio was tested early in his career and is phenomenal. Just as Lemond had a physiology hugely more capable than even rival greats. I have little time for sports scientists who calculate average watt output for an individuals climb, without weather variables, team mates output, individual outputs, pre-climb output. Froome may or may not be doping but reading a singular methodology in Pro Cycling proves little to me.
David Walsh and Pierre Balesters careful debunking of Armstrong's multiple myths made it very clear what was obvious before. He could have never won the Tour without huge abuse of doping practices. Some cyclists used PEDs at similar levels like Ulrich, some didn't.
Some of those who used PEDs like Ris would never have won the Tour without it, some would have had a chance. The story of Bassons who Armstrong destroyed, is the story of cyclists who had a chance to win Stage Races but whose hopes were destroyed by vain and vindictive men like Armstrong: The silent majority of dopers weren't much better: As no doubt many of us would have been either.