Fifty Plus (50+) - Bicycling Magazine finally stops hoping for a miracle: "Lance doped."

Bicycling Magazine yesterday posted on their website a preview of the May issue, in which their senior editor, Bill Strickland, writes that he is finally willing to concede that Lance is guilty of the doping allegations made against him.

This is the link to the story...

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,3

...but if you're really interested you should find the link on the page that invites you to register and download the whole package of stories and accompanying charts and sidebar stories all about Lance and doping (it's a big PDF file, a reprint of the layout that will be in the magazine).

Whether you are a Lance fan or opponent, it's an interesting moment in the Lance saga. Strickland has covered Lance since the beginning, and wrote a book about him, "Tour de Lance," about Lance's comeback. I think Strickland has always been considered one of Lance's defenders and true believers, and Bicycling has certainly done its bit over the years in drafting off the Lance phenomenon.

The noteworthy thing about the article is not that there is anything new in it -- it's just the fact that Strickland wrote it, and Bicycling is going with this as their May cover story.

Interestingly, Strickland is *extremely* guarded about what made him change his mind. He hints, in this very obscurely worded passage, that someone on the inside confessed:

"I don't know, if you're not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn't Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong's opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath.

"It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended."

As that website is temporarily down (probably overloaded), I can't get to the details of it right now. But it sounds like a vindication for a certain David Walsh. (His other book, "From Lance to Landis", pretty much disabused me of any last vestiges of doubt.)

They want to sell magazines. There have been several insiders (team members and folks who worked for him) that charged Armstrong used drugs. They all lost in court. The French lab and the overseeing body have charged Armstrong on at least two occasions as I remember. They had lab evidence. They lost in court due to shoddy testing procedures.

There's an anti Armstrong industry out there.

Al

Bill Strickland would have more clout with me were his magazine more than just an unofficial organ for the commercial interests of the cycling industry. Mostly it's "voice" is given over to stimulating us to buy shiny new products. Until actual evidence that passes critical scrutiny-- I think it's called a "trial"-- is made available to the public, anyone, even that juicy target Lance, is innocent. Given the number of critics snapping at his heels, if anything concrete is out there, it will be proudly marched through the streets of public opinion. A sad day.

Innocent in court yes, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. The two are very different. People who are known to have committed prosecutable offenses are not prosecuted for those offenses every day, because the case is insufficient, the prosecuter had too much to lose going after them, etc. etc. Again, that doesn't mean, nor certainly prove, that they didn't commit the prosecutable offense. It just means they weren't prosecuted, or the prosecution failed, which can happen for a variety of reasons.

In some people's world, being convicted of a crime means the person did it; not being convicted means they didn't. My world recognizes the many factors influencing these decisions, and the fact that humans make errors. I suspect yours does as well, but that you are just not applying it to this situation, because doing so wouldn't suit your purpose.

I suspect if you surf the web you will find quite a few that think Lance doped. So good ole Bill may not be the only one to hop on the anti Armstrong bandwagon. I'm just glad he won 7 crowns. And I have too many interesting things to do, and too many miles to put on my bike than to read a bunch of data that I don't have any interest in. Anyway, heresay information never stands up in court, and it shouldn't.

A "disguised" admission of guilt? Can you imagine convicting someone of a crime based on a "disguised" admission of guilt from a secretive informer?

I'm afraid its going to take evidence, something they have been unsuccessfully trying to find, concoct or fabricate for years now.

You might be right, TallRider. Therefore I'm suggesting that all trials be conducted a second time just to make sure the not-convicted really really didn't didn't do it. To be really really really sure, we could go for a 3rd trial-- just to be a little more cetain. Then again, a 4th trial might not be a bad idea either.

I truly agree that we should be skeptical about a judicial system that's shot through with compromises, shady deals, co-options, and downright corruption. But, what ya gonna do..........after the trial (or trials), we'll all return to those original notions we had-- unless there's a red-hot, smoking gun-- make that hypodermic.

Imagine........Lance Armstrong as the new O.J. !!

That "obscurely worded passage" is beyond my reading comprehension skills. Just what did he say, can someone translate that?

Bill Strickland would have more clout with me were his magazine more than just an unofficial organ for the commercial interests of the cycling industry. Mostly it's "voice" is given over to stimulating us to buy shiny new products. Until actual evidence that passes critical scrutiny-- I think it's called a "trial"-- is made available to the public, anyone, even that juicy target Lance, is innocent. Given the number of critics snapping at his heels, if anything concrete is out there, it will be proudly marched through the streets of public opinion. A sad day.

I agree. Bicycling Magazine is a joke. All they want to do is sell magazines. I have found it useless for any real information about cycling. I get more ad better information here.

I for one am tired of the whole thing.

That "obscurely worded passage" is beyond my reading comprehension skills. Just what did he say, can someone translate that?

Translation:

"Somebody in a position to know the truth told me he was a doper -- but the person who told me will never, ever admit he told me."

I have no idea if Lance did or didn't Dope and after reading the Story of the Tour De France I am not sure any racer doesn't dope. That being said with all of the comprehensive tests they have run on Lance after each and every race I wonder what good the tests are if a person is guilty even after passing them? ;)

Landis dropped a dime “after” he was tagged for failing a test for doping. Contador was allowed to continue racing even “after” testing positive using the same battery of tests that have come up negative on Lance. :eek:

There seems to be a double standard or at least a political one the runs rampant in professional cycling. The one thing that seems clear is the testing isn’t trusted by anyone. It seems the best attitude we can take is to assume if someone wins the Tour de France they must have doped period. :rolleyes:

...but if you're really interested you should find the link on the page that invites you to register and download the whole package of stories and accompanying charts and sidebar stories all about Lance and doping (it's a big PDF file, a reprint of the layout that will be in the magazine).

Whether you are a Lance fan or opponent, it's an interesting moment in the Lance saga. Strickland has covered Lance since the beginning, and wrote a book about him, "Tour de Lance," about Lance's comeback.

The noteworthy thing about the article is not that there is anything new in it -- it's just the fact that Strickland wrote it, and Bicycling is going with this as their May cover story.

Interestingly, Strickland is *extremely* guarded about what made him change his mind. He hints, in this very obscurely worded passage, that someone on the inside confessed:


I read the whole screed. Nothing new. What's really sad is how far rodale has dug to try anything to get sales. A company based on the idea of clean living has now debased what little name they had left to beg for money from people who will never share their core beliefs.

They set of 10 possible "cases" against lance and all the west case stuff depends on new evidence or testimony no one has ever heard to come true and the rest, they admit, can never come true. This is really just a sad rehash of the same crap that's been floating around for 15 years. Just pathetic.

I agree. Bicycling Magazine is a joke. All they want to do is sell magazines. I have found it useless for any real information about cycling. I get more ad better information here.

I must also agree. Their circulation must be dipping way down, so this is what they came up with.

It will indeed be a sad day for cycling, if it is ever proved that Lance took performance enhancers. But, as it stands right now, there is no undeniable proof. Stating that "I heard it from someone who knows, but I can't name him, and even if I could, he can't admit how he knows", in print, in a magazine, sounds libelous. Of course, I'm no expert on that. Seriously, that's not journalism. That's urban mythology, ranking right up there with "Well I heard from someone that fast food burgers contain ground up earthworms!"

And all that aside, I agree with Phil, above: I am tired of the whole thing.

Yes, I agree with you, too. It's about time someone got to the real truth ... PHIL LEGGETT DOPES!!! Oh, that wasn't the right Phil was it? Sorry, I'll go back to my Blizzard now ... :lol:

Commiting a crime is not the same as violating the rules of your sport, so the standards for conviction aren't necessarily the same.

I don't know whether Lance doped. For me the jury is still out. I do know what I think of Bicycling magazine. It sucks. I'm guessing their marketing strategy is to appeal to people new to the sport who are all jazzed about their "new lifestyle." If they keep with cycling they soon learn that Bicycling doesn't offer much and let their subscriptions expired. New bikers take their place. Is there any other explanation for what a lousy bicycling resource it is? (It should win an award for the most, shortest, most insipid "articles" ever.)

They all dope.

I must also agree. Their circulation must be dipping way down, so this is what they came up with.

It will indeed be a sad day for cycling, if it is ever proved that Lance took performance enhancers. But, as it stands right now, there is no undeniable proof. Stating that "I heard it from someone who knows, but I can't name him, and even if I could, he can't admit how he knows", in print, in a magazine, sounds libelous. Of course, I'm no expert on that. Seriously, that's not journalism. That's urban mythology, ranking right up there with "Well I heard from someone that fast food burgers contain ground up earthworms!"

And all that aside, I agree with Phil, above: I am tired of the whole thing.

And even worse than all that, Strickland admits that the "source" did not even make a clear statement that is not open to interpretation.

"A guy said something I think means Lance doped, but I can't get him to clarify it, and I'm sure other people will not think it means the same thing that I think it means."

Come on!

I'll take "planing," tire pressure, antiquarianism, neat-looking canvas bags, and expensive French stuff any day, over that.

I for one am tired of the whole thing.

+1

Innocent in court yes, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

There is no "Innocent" in court. There is only "Not guilty." To me the difference is significant.

Interesting article. I'm not sure what did or did not happen, but I like to read what people with various perspectives have to say about the subject. I try not to be so emotionally invested in one side or the other of a story that I can't accept that someone could have an opinion different than what I would hope to be true.

Interesting article. I'm not sure what did or did not happen, but I like to read what people with various perspectives have to say about the subject. I try not to be so emotionally invested in one side or the other of a story that I can't accept that someone could have an opinion different than what I would hope to be true.

That was my reaction. It was really a first-person story by Strickland about "his" struggles to figure out what to think about Armstrong.

I had 3 different conflicting reactions:

1. Too much "navel gazing" by a magazine editor for me. You're paid to come up with a story and point of view, not discuss your struggles with me.

2. Seems very cynical. Your magazine tirelessly promoted the Armstrong brand (and Carmichael Training Systems) for years; you personally wrote a book about his comeback; you squeezed every last drop out of the Armstrong phenomenon. All along, you knew what was going on in the peloton, but you didn't "turn" until he was finally retired.

3. This story might be a precursor to a confession, plea bargain or whatever. As close as Bicycling and Strickland were to the Armstrong machine, I just can't imagine them taking the risk of going with this story as a cover story unless it was "blessed" by an insider.

There is no "Innocent" in court. There is only "Not guilty." To me the difference is significant.

An oft forgotten FACT.

I too am tired of the did/didn't contoversy.

Brad

Whenever the media attacks something or someone near and dear to the diehard fan, the standard knee-jerk reaction is to attack the source. This happens in politics, religion, sports, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. As long as there is reasonable doubt about any topic, the truth will always be an unreachable goal.

The Obama Justice Department must have gotten to Strickland to help justify this giant waste of taxpayer money.

Meh re. the whole issue (literally, any issue of Bicycling; and conceptually).

With apologies to A. A. Milne:

"Crash, bang, who the h_ll cares;
Little Lance Armstrong [or insert pro cyclist of choice name here] has fallen downstairs.
'The UCI is terribly hard,' said Alice."

Or, the magazine could re-title the article: "Bill Strickland: My Struggle."

Bonds was doped too, so what else is new? :D

On all the record holders in all sports, old and new, we can go and find some flaws. But, the fact remains, they did it..

deleted - it just dawned on me that it may not have been meant as a joke.

Whenever the media attacks something or someone near and dear to the diehard fan, the standard knee-jerk reaction is to attack the source. This happens in politics, religion, sports, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. As long as there is reasonable doubt about any topic, the truth will always be an unreachable goal.

+100.

Still, I must wonder why there are so many who seem to want to bring Lance down. Definitely a "Let's go git 'em!" attitude. Yes, it happens anytime an entity is hugely successful, be it an individual, or an organization, large or small. Still, it amazes me that people who have nothing to do with cycling at all, want to see a man who's a hero to the cycling world, and a hero to cancer patients, take a fall. It is just because he's a cyclist, in a nation that largely doesn't like cyclists, or is there something else going on?

Just some random thoughts, don't mind me at all.

I believe he doped. To me, that takes some of the luster off his foundation (hypocrisy, seeking contributions under false pretenses) but not so much from his cycling accomplishments. Given the extent of doping in the sport, his record remains an incredible athletic feat. I understand why the Feds are pursuing him, and as a taxpayer I do want people who may have sold any taxpayer supported entity a bill of goods to be prosecuted, but from a selfish cyclists standpoint, I wish they'd just leave it alone. Even if it is absolutely proven he doped, I'm not sure that reduces what the USPS got from sponsoring him, whatever that was intended to be. I mean, have any of us used USPS more because of its cycling sponsorship? That kind of brand awareness marketing is generally used to make people aware of your enterprise. Is there seriously anyone unaware of the USPS? Are we supposed to think they are fast because they sponsor a fast bike racer? Was the target market the european audience that is much more addicted to cycling than us Yanks?

The question that I would ask is why do people believe he doped? The tests he has taken do not detect a problem. If someone gets pulled over and is suspected of DUI and they blow less than .08 we don't keep assuming that person is DUI. I am still not saying I "know" he was clean but he has tested clean more times than most riders have even had to take a test. Are we saying that all riders that race dope? If so why do we watch? Time and time again the accusation has been made and time and time again hair tests, urine tests and blood tests have come back clean.
I know we can’t be positive about anyone except ourselves but still what makes Lance a target? He took 24 surprise drug tests even when he was just training and passed every one. But even after passing them the press and the UCI and ADLF still didn’t trust their own results. So that begs the question, if a scientific test for banned substances comes up negative 24 times could we ever trust the test if it ever came up positive even twice? Plus if Lance doped and he showed negative can we trust the results when Contadore comes up positive? :innocent:

If there is a real condemnation it should be directed at the UCI and the Tour itself. They are making the rules and the tests and when they don’t like the answers they get they toss out the results and try another test. If someone or something needs to be investigated it is the UCI. :eek:

Still he could have been doping but then anyone who finished in front of him would he highly suspect of doping as well wouldn’t they? Just a thought. :D

I believe he doped. To me, that takes some of the luster off his foundation (hypocrisy, seeking contributions under false pretenses) but not so much from his cycling accomplishments.

How so? What false pretenses? Did he not really have cancer, beat it, refuse to let it stop him and go on to accomplish unprecedented success?

If it turns out that Lance doped, and I have come around to accepting that is probably the case, I am mostly disappointed in his dogged insistence that he was clean and how he discredited anyone who suggested otherwise.

Doping bothers me as a fan of the spectacle and drama of bicycle racing. As a cancer survivor, I am very accepting of the concept of using assorted chemical means to gain advantage over a dominant opponent. ;)

Lance A= Barry Bonds. Just a couple of turds cheating to make a buck.

Only fools believe in turds.

How so? What false pretenses? Did he not really have cancer, beat it, refuse to let it stop him and go on to accomplish unprecedented success?

If it turns out that Lance doped, and I have come around to accepting that is probably the case, I am mostly disappointed in his dogged insistence that he was clean and how he discredited anyone who suggested otherwise.

Doping bothers me as a fan of the spectacle and drama of bicycle racing. As a cancer survivor, I am very accepting of the concept of using assorted chemical means to gain advantage over a dominant opponent. ;)

B-Dawg, as usual, is about 1,000,000% correct. And EPO is freaking magic juice.

The question that I would ask is why do people believe he doped?

If you're seriously interested in this question, read:

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X

Most of what has come out in the past 12 months is mentioned in this book, one way or another. It's got most of the case against Lance laid out in detail, but also has lots of historical detail on the doping activities of the many people he's been associated with over the years.

The only thing really "new" in the past 12 months is Landis's statements.




If it turns out that Lance doped, and I have come around to accepting that is probably the case, I am mostly disappointed in his dogged insistence that he was clean and how he discredited anyone who suggested otherwise.

Doping bothers me as a fan of the spectacle and drama of bicycle racing. As a cancer survivor, I am very accepting of the concept of using assorted chemical means to gain advantage over a dominant opponent. ;)

I agree -- what makes Armstrong's case so interesting is the aggressive, scorched-earth attitude he's taken towards his critics.

Lance A= Barry Bonds. Just a couple of turds cheating to make a buck.

Only fools believe in turds.



How so? What false pretenses? Did he not really have cancer, beat it, refuse to let it stop him and go on to accomplish unprecedented success?

If it turns out that Lance doped, and I have come around to accepting that is probably the case, I am mostly disappointed in his dogged insistence that he was clean and how he discredited anyone who suggested otherwise.

Doping bothers me as a fan of the spectacle and drama of bicycle racing. As a cancer survivor, I am very accepting of the concept of using assorted chemical means to gain advantage over a dominant opponent. ;)

Oh oh, I sense this tread going political!! An that ain't good!! :D

So what. Big deal. Show me any pro sport where doping isn't rampant.

SP
Bend, OR

What you believe doesn't matter. The real question is whether he actually doped or not. Apparently there has not been sufficient evidence to prove that Lance doped. conclusion: he didn't dope. but maybe he did, but again, there is insufficient evidence, so we are back where we started, he didn't dope. Why can't everyone leave it at that?

I for one am tired of the whole thing.

Amen.


What you believe doesn't matter. The real question is whether he actually doped or not. Apparently there has not been sufficient evidence to prove that Lance doped. conclusion: he didn't dope. but maybe he did, but again, there is insufficient evidence, so we are back where we started, he didn't dope. Why can't everyone leave it at that?

I'm truly beyond caring at this point, not only regarding this topic in cycling but in all sports. Why is everyone so obsessed about professional athletes being "clean" anyway? Its different with kids and amatuers, but the pros know exactly what they're doing. Is it because we all remember Lyle Alzado's last days? Its just not like that now. These people all have access to the best medical professionals and monitoring - heck, there's enough science involved that doping is virtually un-provable.

We watch the pros for the spectacle. Its a level playing field because they have equal access. If someone chooses not to dope, good - but no complainng about those that do, its the price of admission to the elite level. The sporting bureaucracies and federal governments pursue this for their own agendas. It would be better for all if they stopped wasting time and money and just got on with it.

I say let them all dope,in any sport,let's see what the human body is really capable of.After a couple hearts explode out of their chests or the people start dropping like flies,the problem will take care of itself.

Apparently there has not been sufficient evidence to prove that Lance doped. conclusion: he didn't dope.

Your conclusion is insufficiently supported. That's the problem. There is evidence he doped, he just hasn't been caught. I bet you have violated a traffic law in the past six months. Rolled through a stop, squeezed through a yellow, exceeded the speed limit, sent a text... whatever. Someone may have even seen you do it, and if asked to testify, would say that you did. The fact that you don't have a ticket for it does NOT mean you didn't break the traffic law.

I say let them all dope,in any sport,let's see what the human body is really capable of.After a couple hearts explode out of their chests or the people start dropping like flies,the problem will take care of itself.

Evidently you're not familiar with the rash of unexplained heart-failure death of "minor league" pro cyclist not long after EPO hit the market... All that did was make the survivors more careful about their doping. "Improved the gene pool" as it were.

SP
Bend, OR

but maybe he did, but again, there is insufficient evidence, so we are back where we started, he didn't dope.

BZZZZT! Bad answer! Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Without sufficient evidence we can't assume either one.

SP
Bend, OR

Evidently you're not familiar with the rash of unexplained heart-failure death of "minor league" pro cyclist not long after EPO hit the market... All that did was make the survivors more careful about their doping. "Improved the gene pool" as it were.

SP
Bend, OR

+1

What I read is that the EPO made the blood so "heavy" that at night, when cyclists were sleeping, it wouldn't circulate well. So riders on EPO would set their alarms to wake up the middle of the night, do a bit of exercise to get the blood flowing, and then go back to bed.

...in addition to numerous other health problems related to steroids, etc.

BTW, if you're up for navel-gazing, here's an article about the article that explains why it's important (to cycling, anyway) that Bicycling is running this piece:

http://www.theservicecourse.com/2011/03/raising-awareness.html

Article raises the point that Strickland is the first major journalist who was "on the inside" of the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp to turn on them.

How so? What false pretenses? Did he not really have cancer, beat it, refuse to let it stop him and go on to accomplish unprecedented success?

If it turns out that Lance doped, and I have come around to accepting that is probably the case, I am mostly disappointed in his dogged insistence that he was clean and how he discredited anyone who suggested otherwise.

Doping bothers me as a fan of the spectacle and drama of bicycle racing. As a cancer survivor, I am very accepting of the concept of using assorted chemical means to gain advantage over a dominant opponent. ;)

+1

Okay, I just need to say that my absence on this thread absolutely betrays how much I don't care. But by participating I guess I care a jot, but probably not a tittle.

There is no "Innocent" in court. There is only "Not guilty." To me the difference is significant.
Not true. Not guilty verdict renders that barring new evidence you can be tried again. An 'Innocent' verdict clears you of charges entirely and means you can not be tried for the same thing again somewhere else.

Whether lance is guilty or innocent, on the internet amongst a bunch of wannabes, he will always be guilty of SOMETHING.

Not true. Not guilty verdict renders that barring new evidence you can be tried again. An 'Innocent' verdict clears you of charges entirely and means you can not be tried for the same thing again somewhere else.

Show me where you are getting this, as I believe it in untrue. Various news organizations have had editorial policies dictating the use of one word over another, but from everything I've read, and I just searched this, in a criminal court you are either 'guilty' or 'not guilty' - there is no innocent.

Which is all beside the point, since we are not a court of law. We are able to weigh the available evidence, and decide for ourselves what we think.