I think this story is a bunch of Frog poop! Probably started by a Frog journalist who was spurned by Cheryl Crow because he couldn't get an interview or something!
The fact that they mentioned that it could NOT be proven tells me that they are TRYING to be extremely controversial and get some people to think twice about Lance's accomplishments. The sample in question dates back to 1999! Come on, can't they come up with something in the 21st century anyway?
OK so he won 6 in a row- do they want to antagonize him back into the Tour again so he'll win 7 (in their eyes) 8 for the rest of the world?
The man is one of the smallest exceptions in the world in terms of everything (physical abilities, work ethic, etc) give credit where credit is due. I admire his athletic abilities.
That being said, if the Frogs want to throw pond scum, please go after his personal life. While Crow seems perfectly charming, I still think his wife was screwed--- he's a jerk in my eyes, breaking up a home with three young children. What's that worth?
Redeep :p
See www.factmonster.com/.../lancearmstrongtimeline.html for a timeline of Lance's life. It says he and Kristen divorced in 2003 and he began his relationship with Sheryl Crowe in 2004. I've read two of his books. The first one, "It's Not About the Bike," primarily tells the story of his battle with cancer, and it also talks about how he met Kristen when he first began his foundation. She helped him with publicity, they fell in love, and married. It is a common misconception that she nursed him through the cancer. They did not in fact meet until after he was cured. In the second book, "Every Second Counts," toward the end he says that his marriage is in trouble, but they're trying to work it out (this book was published in 2003, so it was probably written in 2002). He ascribes their problems to not talking enough, and him spending so much time training.
I am a big fan of Armstrong, one of the reasons being that he offers so much hope to cancer patients and survivors, and right now my cousin is battling leukemia. So I may not be very objective, and freely admit that I believe Armstrong about the drugs because I CHOOSE to believe him. I also think it's really unfair for him to take heat about his marriage and his celebrity girlfriend. He's not the first person to have a failed marriage, and he is entitled to a private life. People hear a rumor, take it as the gospel, and conclude he abandoned his wife and three children for a rock star. He's probably not a saint, but in this case people have not got their facts straight.
Meg. I'm sorry if my post upset you. I am very proud of all that Lance Armstrong has endured and overcome in his life. I often use him as an example to my swimmers that you can overcome obstacles with determination, hard work and a postive attitude. I loved his first book and found his insights very inspirational.
I'm sorry about your cousin. I recently lost my cousin to cancer and know how heart wrenching that can be.
Like I said before, if I was misinformed, I'm sorry. Obviously I was. I'm glad I was wrong because I want to respect him again.
Gull is right, we are losing the war on Performance Enhancing Drugs. Checking 6 year old samples may put a seed of doubt in today's cheaters - those taking undetectable drugs - because hopefully ONE DAY they will get caught. So I do not care if they are 20 year old samples, if we can now accurately test old samples, then we should. I would think twice about saying "those samples are 6 years old, who cares..."
RE: Lance's private life: Lance's own book is hardly an objective source. That said, who really knows what happened and as Meg pointed out he is entitled to his private life.
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
I think this story is a bunch of Frog poop! Probably started by a Frog journalist who was spurned by Cheryl Crow because he couldn't get an interview or something!
The fact that they mentioned that it could NOT be proven tells me that they are TRYING to be extremely controversial and get some people to think twice about Lance's accomplishments. The sample in question dates back to 1999! Come on, can't they come up with something in the 21st century anyway?
OK so he won 6 in a row- do they want to antagonize him back into the Tour again so he'll win 7 (in their eyes) 8 for the rest of the world?
The man is one of the smallest exceptions in the world in terms of everything (physical abilities, work ethic, etc) give credit where credit is due. I admire his athletic abilities.
That being said, if the Frogs want to throw pond scum, please go after his personal life. While Crow seems perfectly charming, I still think his wife was screwed--- he's a jerk in my eyes, breaking up a home with three young children. What's that worth?
Redeep :p
Karen,
Preach on sister! You took the words right out of my mouth. I am in complete agreement with you!
;)
First, if these allegations are true, they are serious. Don't give me this, "it was soo long ago..." line. We are still cheesed off about Michelle Smith and the East Germans, so no double standards where foreigners we don't like are satan's span forevermore, but Americans we do like get a free pass based of the passage of time. Lance has made a BIG deal about how clean he is, and look at what an exemplary athlete, etc. etc. IF (I say again IF) it was all a big con job and he is simply the most effective doper, that would be a BIG story.
Second, prove it. My understanding, from an NPR piece I heard, is that there are samples from the 99 Tour. At that time there was no EPO test. Subsequently, a test has been developed. A lab that was one of the leaders in developing that test wanted to use some old samples to test, validate and refine their process. They got some samples from the 99 Tour. Some of those samples tested positive for EPO. The lab only knew them by ID numbers. L'Equipe claims to have documentary evidence showing some of the positive samples were from Lance. The Lab Director has stated that a false positive is very unlikely, and in fact that a false negative is more likely because EPO tends to degrade over time.
This is what we have so far. OK fellas. You made the claim. Let's pull all the relevant documents--the ones the magazine has and any others that may still exist. Let's retest any of the samples in question. If that is not necessary because this last test is reliable, let's here from the Lab about why that is so. If it is not possible because there is nothing left of the sample, let's have a full explanation of that. If Lance is truly innocent, he should be eager to sign any release necessary to allow review of any relevant documents. By the same token, if L'Equipe is willing to stand behind its story, it should be eager to have it verified any way possible.
This is a serious story, but I HATE unverifiable accusations. Prove it, or shut the flip up.
Matt
Whoa, I'll bow out of this one. My "frog" comments were tongue in cheek. I have a lot of wonderful French friends that I met in college...
Lance's personal life- whatever the circumstance, "in my opinion" when there are children involved you do what you can and try to make it work- again "my opinion" I do not know Lance, so I should probably just keep my mouth shut- to me, it just looks bad.
Drugs- if you can't prove it at the time, don't bother, again, my opinion. We'd have to go back, then, through our entire sports history and strip numerous records and titles. I do not agree with drugs in sports, but until you are caught red-handed, leave it alone, what else can you do, speculate?
My apologies for offending anyone. See you on another thread :)
I've got to agree with Craig, one newspaper with a vendetta against LA is not the same as the whole country.
That'd be like saying all of the US has the same views as Pat Robertson (the knucklehead).
I completely resent being called a racist. French is not a race.
It would be ok to accuse me of frogism or being a frogist.
It's not like they are gonna stand up and fight about it.
