I'm shattered Lance!

never liked him. Always thought he was/is a wanker and he is a cheat as well.
Not surprised.
 
sletti":3bow1jlf said:
I remember reading a fair few fruity articles implying that Hinault and other elite riders of his generation were using steroids at some point in their career, and of course Tommy Simpson was so wankered on speed and booze (trying to use the combo as a diuretic apparently) that he croaked on a hill.

My thoughts exactly. Kind of a big fuss about something that's been going on for years.
 
Personally, I always thought he was on something, everyone else around him was taken down yet he survived !!! I had countless arguments over the years with my non-cycling friends who would not hear a bad word about LA !!! Oh well.

As for the interview with Oprah, I prefer this version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUKZD6eqgo
 
Robbied196":3663gc7i said:
sletti":3663gc7i said:
I remember reading a fair few fruity articles implying that Hinault and other elite riders of his generation were using steroids at some point in their career, and of course Tommy Simpson was so wankered on speed and booze (trying to use the combo as a diuretic apparently) that he croaked on a hill.

My thoughts exactly. Kind of a big fuss about something that's been going on for years.
not quite! Up till Tom's death, the medicine bag was part of a riders tools of the trade. The officals and riders both knew there were likely to be adverse health effects, but doping contols were minimal and many a blind eye was turned. After Simpson, everyone realised things couldnt carry on like that systematic dope controls and sanctions were put in place so that the incident could never be repeated. Point is up til that point doping was ok, almost legalised, after that it became illegal. For those that continued doping, it was still fairly simplified - pot belge and steroids, ie stronger muscles and resistance to pain. And who knows what went on behind the Iron curtain with all the science they applied? The mid 80's took things a lot further with blood doping and cardio vascular enhancements right up to where we are today.
 
pigman":1h9d03kh said:
not quite! Up till Tom's death, the medicine bag was part of a riders tools of the trade. The officals and riders both knew there were likely to be adverse health effects, but doping contols were minimal and many a blind eye was turned. After Simpson, everyone realised things couldnt carry on like that systematic dope controls and sanctions were put in place so that the incident could never be repeated. Point is up til that point doping was ok, almost legalised, after that it became illegal. For those that continued doping, it was still fairly simplified - pot belge and steroids, ie stronger muscles and resistance to pain. And who knows what went on behind the Iron curtain with all the science they applied? The mid 80's took things a lot further with blood doping and cardio vascular enhancements right up to where we are today.

The biggest change has been the public reaction to doping.

I think that has been down to a change in the landscape of recreational drug use. A bit of cannabis use in the 50s and 60s was not given news headlines, so "drugs" was not such a scary word.

Nowadays, "drugs", means some poor looser with a spoon, a lighter, a syringe, fucked up complexion and teeth, laying in a puddle of their own puke under some forgotten railway arch in Soulth London. That is a far more tabloid compatible image that can be used to whip up disgust for, and rejection of a user.

Drugs in sport is one thing; "Drugs" in sport is whole other thing that is handled in a disproportionate way, and it becomes increasingly expedient for the politicians of our sport to bring about ever more draconian measures because they have dealt with this after it has become a ticking political timebomb.

I would not want to be the one who has to dig the sport out of it's mire, but abit more stick and bit less carrot is the only way. It is important for us though, the diehard fans, to keep a brave face and continue to support the sport after this summer's audience become bored of hearing about Wiggins and go back to ignoring cycling.
 
Post Armstrong - what will the future hold.

I think many of the posts on this thread fail on the one hand to really understand the big picture here, and to understand the context both - let's say Armstrong era, post Armstrong and the past before the Festina scandal gave it legs.

Comparing the"Simpson"era to the"Armstrong"debacle is simplistic in the extreme.

As for Wiggos recent remark, he should have said nothing. Wiggo commented about LA on his comeback and thought at the time he was"on something" - so why did he keep quiet?

A lack of integrity.

Using amphetamine is, I suggest, very different from using EPO, blood transfusions and keeping a personal blood bank.

Guys, it is all about the money.
 
Re: Post Armstrong - what will the future hold.

roadking":2hfobasn said:
As for Wiggos recent remark, he should have said nothing. Wiggo commented about LA on his comeback and thought at the time he was"on something" - so why did he keep quiet?

The possible risk at the time of being slapped with a massive lawsuit by Armstrong? After all, without any hard facts or test results, Wiggo couldn't actually prove anything at the time - with Armstrong out of the sport and confessions already made, things are a bit different now. Plus the threatening behaviour directed towards Lemond, Bassons and Simeoni, and no doubt umpteen others, speaks for itself.

Incidentally, I recently picked up a cheap second-hand copy of The Secret Race; reading it has only served to cement my opinion of LA as a bully and a first-class turd.

David
 
Back
Top