Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs? Behold our shock!

[Skittl1321]

It's impossible to finish a TdF at the rates they're doing without taking a little extra something. And every year they're going faster and faster.

This is what I don't understand. Nearly everyone from past teams has admitted to doping - so if anyone is to believe the sport is 'clean' the times have to drop. The current riders can't all be so incredible that they are better than the dopers of the past. After baseball's steriod scandals, the homeruns records stopped being broken- that at least lends credibility to the idea that current players aren't doping (at least not as much.)

[Anita18]

I think what's irritating some people is that there's no way to determine if Lance did "come back" from cancer, or if his post-cancer cycling success was largely created by illegal, unethical and dangerous doping. America really wanted to believe this guy's success story. Pretty much all we know now is that Lance did not die from cancer, and there's not enough verve in that theme alone as many other cancer patients, often more likable than Lance, also survive.

Even getting back on the bike to train for the TdF is coming back, and finishing the TdF with any time would have been an inspirational achievement. Of course it wouldn't have gotten him nearly enough attention, but the guy who barely finished the NYC marathon and Ironman triathlon after getting run over by a bus had a book tour and talk show circuit.

My friend with pancreatic cancer is 31 and can barely walk with a cane now. Chemo is a b*tch. (He did joke about winning the TdF, since he needed to be given EPO to keep his white blood cell count up. ) Mere survival is not the point - any sane person would know that it's often a toss of the coin. What your body can achieve after remission is what Lance showed us.

PEDs don't make you Superman by themselves. You still need to put in the work. Couch potatoes who use steroids don't end up like Schwarzenegger.

[Ziggy]

This is what I don't understand. Nearly everyone from past teams has admitted to doping - so if anyone is to believe the sport is 'clean' the times have to drop. The current riders can't all be so incredible that they are better than the dopers of the past. After baseball's steriod scandals, the homeruns records stopped being broken- that at least lends credibility to the idea that current players aren't doping (at least not as much.)

Yes. As long as the records keep getting broken, it's obvious that nearly everybody is drugged up to high heavens.

But then record constantly being broken is what makes the sport "nice to watch" I guess. *sigh*

[Jenny]

Out of curiosity, I checked the history of records for the 100 metre dash. From this link, it looks like it took approximately 90 years to progress just one second - from the 10.8 range in the earliest records in the 1890s to the 9.8 range in the 1990s.

The 10 second barrier was broken in 1968, and the current record, achieved 41 years later, is just .37 seconds under it (Bolt at 9.58 at the 2009 world championships).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_100_metres_men

[Skittl1321]

Yes. As long as the records keep getting broken, it's obvious that nearly everybody is drugged up to high heavens.

But then record constantly being broken is what makes the sport "nice to watch" I guess. *sigh*

With swimming, when they stopped allowing the long suits, some records still got broken, but not every single one of them, every single time someone went out to swim. I mean it is nice to know records can still be broken, but they can't be smashed by the whole field every time.

[heckles]

I've heard that he wants to do other types of competitions, such as iron man - does he need to be cleared in some way, or can he just enter them, as I thought anyone could?

He was banned from Ironman events last June. Ironman events are sanctioned by USA Triathlon, which is a participant in the World Anti-Doping Agency program.

[RickInSanJose]

PEDs don't make you Superman by themselves. You still need to put in the work. Couch potatoes who use steroids don't end up like Schwarzenegger.

But in the end, look how Schwarzenegger ended up -- his drug-fueled body and muscles have deflated like a souffle. On the other hand, a naturally-built bodybuilder from an earlier time, named John Grimek, still possessed a thick and muscular chest and arms well into his eighties.

So, in effect, the steroid Supermen make a pact with the Devil -- and, eventually, the Devil comes to collect.

[Anita18]

But in the end, look how Schwarzenegger ended up -- his drug-fueled body and muscles have deflated like a souffle. On the other hand, a naturally-built bodybuilder from an earlier time, named John Grimek, still possessed a thick and muscular chest and arms well into his eighties.

So, in effect, the steroid Supermen make a pact with the Devil -- and, eventually, the Devil comes to collect.

I think that's mostly due to Schwarzenegger moving on from bodybuilding and acting, to politics. If you don't use your muscles, they shrink. If you continue to weightlift diligently, I'm sure you could be muscular into your 80s. (Also, there's genetics.) I don't think it necessarily has to do with steroids "betraying" you or anything. Unless you use salines and similar muscle-augmenting treatments, which is disgusting anyway.

[RickInSanJose]

I think that's mostly due to Schwarzenegger moving on from bodybuilding and acting, to politics. If you don't use your muscles, they shrink. If you continue to weightlift diligently, I'm sure you could be muscular into your 80s. (Also, there's genetics.) I don't think it necessarily has to do with steroids "betraying" you or anything. Unless you use salines and similar muscle-augmenting treatments, which is disgusting anyway.

I've seen any number of bodybuilders, weightlifters, and baseball players who doped themselves to prodigious muscularity and strength, and who, within a matter of months of getting off the juice lost virtually all of their muscle mass and strength.

The bottom line is that muscle built naturally endures, while muscle artificially built by steroids withers away. "Other things" in the latter wither away as well, incidentally.

[Anita18]

I've seen any number of bodybuilders, weightlifters, and baseball players who doped themselves to prodigious muscularity and strength, and who, within a matter of months of getting off the juice lost virtually all of their muscle mass and strength.

The bottom line is that muscle built naturally endures, while muscle artificially built by steroids withers away. "Other things" in the latter wither away as well, incidentally.

Although yes, muscles pumped up from steroids will be larger than they would be otherwise, I don't see how an athlete could lose virtually ALL of their muscle mass and strength. They'd just be back to where they would have been without the steroids. That's why steroids are so addictive to them - it's not a physical addiction, but a mental one. A lot of men (especially athletes) hate to lose their edge. If they define themselves by their muscle size or how much they can bench or how fast they go (which is how most PED users are, I'd wager), losing any ground is simply unacceptable. That's what happened to Lance. He defined himself by his wins, and losing was simply unacceptable.

[heckles]

"Other things" in the latter wither away as well, incidentally.

Well see, that's what I wanted to Oprah to ask. Is Lance's nutsack resembling an almond these days? That's the singular important question.

Well, that, and just how did Lance pass all those tests? I don't think the interview even touched on that one.

[Jenny]

It begins - Armstrong sued for $12 million. There may be some legal loopholes that will prevent it, but it seems to me they have a case. They tried to get out of paying him bonuses due to doping, but were unable to prove it in 2005, when Armstrong testified that he had competed clean. Now that he's admitted he's been lying all along, that effectively negates his testimony, no?

[Ziggy]

It begins - Armstrong sued for $12 million. There may be some legal loopholes that will prevent it, but it seems to me they have a case. They tried to get out of paying him bonuses due to doping, but were unable to prove it in 2005, when Armstrong testified that he had competed clean. Now that he's admitted he's been lying all along, that effectively negates his testimony, no?

Hopefully it's just the first of many lawsuits.

[Zemgirl]

I'll be shocked if Armstrong didn't put a sizable chunk of his money in offshore accounts and in trust funds for his kids. He's way too savvy to end up with nothing.

Re the lawsuit Jenny mentioned, the language of the settlement was such that the lawsuit might be on shaky ground (see here). I'm hardly an expert in such things, though.

I did get a kick out of the super-dramatic description in the lawsuit - "By now, everyone knows that Lance Armstrong perpetuated what may well be the most outrageous, coldhearted and elaborate lie in the history of sports". There have been quite a few outrageous and elaborate doping cases and programs in the history of sports. This is a big one for sure, but the worst? I don't think I'd go that far.

[heckles]

"By now, everyone knows that Lance Armstrong perpetuated what may well be the most outrageous, coldhearted and elaborate lie in the history of sports". There have been quite a few outrageous and elaborate doping cases and programs in the history of sports. This is a big one for sure, but the worst? I don't think I'd go that far.

Yes, that does go too far. Even if we're isolating this to just doping scams in sports, East Germany's drugging system was a much more elaborate and far-reaching scandal, especially since many of the athletes themselves said they were unaware they were being juiced.