Lance Armstrong accepts lifetime ban, loss of Tour de France


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 981 - 1000 of total 1031 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 01:54am PT
Ken M, if you and I can come up with some instant cure for hiccups, we could make it rich. No it is not food or booze, maybe nerves. But I have been hicupping for over an hour now. Tried everything but standing on my head.

I've had excellent results with IV Chlorpromazine. Don't think I've seen it fail.

Here is a site with a lot of information:
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 02:14am PT
Ken M, the point I was trying to get across was that Armstrong hurt people for his own gain.

I totally agree. I also agree that almost all people do that same thing, to one degree or another. Very, very few people think in terms of step no. 8

Lance Armstrong hurt people. Period. He may have also helped people. When does the bad negate the good?

Judging people this way is a tough business. One in which we probably should not spend a lot of time involved in, when most of us have a messy porch, ourselves.

You repeatedly cite me as a supporter of LA. I am not. I AM a supporter of due process, of fairness, and equality, and of (small d) democratic values.

We don't get to vote him off the island, even if we shout.

Hey I was on the radio in Ireland a couple of times, recently. Good, informed interviewers.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 02:22am PT
Cancer sucks.

You should know that, and yet, and perhaps I am wrong, you want to use it as a barb against me because it seems we disagree about Armstrong.

Patrick, what you seem to have your head up your @ss about, is attacking people with, or surviving cancer...on the basis of their cancer.

That's what you did with LA, and I think it is repugnant. If you think not, then just have your Jennie get onto the firing line, and lets have people publically attack her, on the basis of a disease almost certainly brought on by her, herself. I would think pretty ill of that, as well.

It is totally fair to attack LA on the basis of his cheating in bike races.

It is something else to attack him on the basis of his efforts for cancer.

You are going through a rough patch of life. But there are limits as to the freedom that gives you to attack any other person you want, for any other reason, acting like your sh*t doesn't stink.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 02:25am PT
Make light about cancer in my family, if you will, but I am glad I am not one of your patients.

Lance Armstrong, whatever you may think, has ruined people's reputations and finances. If you think so highly of him, offer to be his doctor, I think it would suit.

This is an example of your B*llsh*t.

YOU brought your family history up. You post it, you live with the comments, buddy.

You want to attack my skills and credentials, fine, but don't be surprised when you get kicked in the teeth.

Your posts on LA, which simply repeat the same thing, over and over and over and over.....are just simply tiring and boring.

But when you digress into cancer, and medical competence, you just sound stupid.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 02:36am PT
Although off-topic, someone challenges me on the issue of positive thinking in cancer, so here are some citations:

Outcomes of guided imagery in patients receiving radiation therapy for breast cancer.
"Overall, 86% of participants described the guided imagery sessions as helpful, and 100% said they would recommend the intervention to others. The results of this study illustrate the positive impact of guided imagery as measured through subjective and objective parameters. Improving the overall care for patients with breast cancer supports the value of incorporating practices of integrative oncology into standard practice."

Effect of art making on cancer-related symptoms of blood and marrow transplantation recipients.

A positive psychological intervention using virtual reality for patients with advanced cancer in a hospital setting

Theoretical rationale for music selection in oncology intervention research: an integrative review.

"Music-based interventions have helped patients with cancer improve their quality of life, decrease treatment related distress, and manage pain."

There are hundreds of similar papers on such subjects. It is why virtually all cancer centers now include stress reduction therapy, and positive-imagry treatment.
The user formerly known as stzzo

Sneaking up behind you
Jan 21, 2013 - 02:51am PT
In the meantime, I still have bloody hiccups.

Ken M and other medical Taco Standers, let's come up with an instant hiccup cure/solution. We could all be wealthier than Lance and Oprah put together.

I just hold my breath. Sometimes it takes a few repetitions, but in the end it always works.

From wikipedia:

The hiccup is an involuntary action involving a reflex arc.[1] Once triggered, the reflex causes a strong contraction of the diaphragm followed about 0.25 seconds later by closure of the vocal cords, which results in the classic hic sound. At the same time, the normal peristalsis of the esophagus is suppressed.

In other words, it's your diaphragm trying to suck in air while your glottis is closing.

I always figured that holding my breath forced my diaphragm to take a time out and quit spasming.

Sport climber
Jan 21, 2013 - 10:56am PT
Ken M

An answer from someone:

What your remark to Patrick implied, was that "negative thinking" causes cancer. What the research you have linked indicates, is that "positive thinking" has a positive effect under the treatment of cancer that has already developed. That's two different situations. Your examples does not prove your point that "negative thinking" causes cancer. Your remark about "negative thinking" as a cause of cancer is not based on sound scientific thinking.

Thanks anyway - the articles have a value on their own right - OT!

Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 21, 2013 - 01:45pm PT
Marlow, I post what I have at hand.

As I say, there is a huge amount more. If you are interested, you may want to search on your own. Any one of my links takes you to a search engine on the medical literature.

I'll just say that the kind of research that you advocate, is essentially impossible to do.

What it would require is to have two groups WITHOUT cancer, one that participates in positive imagry, and one that does not. And neither they, nor the researchers can know who is in which you have to have some sort of sham positive imagry....and I don't know of anything you could use.

And then you'd have to wait, for years and years and years, to see if there is a difference in CA incidence.

This kind of study would need to involve a VERY large number of research subjects, with massive interviewing to detect what they are actually doing, and it would have to go on for a long time...perhaps 10-20 years.

Such an undertaking would cost probably hundreds of millions of dollars.
Who would fund such a thing?

So we have an alternative: What does positive imagry do for people WITH cancer, compared to people who do not have cancer?

I agree it is not the same, but it does give insights into the process.

With such overwhelming evidence that positivity enhances outcomes in the vast majority of cancer victims, I would be rather crazy to discount positivity in the incidence of cancer.

Another line of thinking goes with the PROVED affect that stress has on the immune response...which is a negative effect. Since we seem to think that the emergence of cancer is a disfunction of the immune system, there seems to be a rather proven link here. One paper of thousands:

Besides, what if I'm wrong? People living their lives with positive thoughts is such a terrible outcome? Happiness is to be avoided?
Patrick Sawyer

Originally California now Ireland
Jan 22, 2013 - 02:59pm PT
Hey Ken M, let's not try and flame each other okay,

You have your views, and indeed credentials. If I have insulted you, I apologize.

But I have my views, are they any more worthier or less worthier than yours?

Trad climber
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:26pm PT

Says it all. IMHO

(edit - I don't think I put in sufficient description...

this is an interview of Trais Tygart, head of the US Anti Doping Agency.
Amoung other interesting tidbits, ALL of Lance teammates testified against him, he routinely fired team members that wouldn't dope. He routinely threatened anyone who testified about doping. Even threatened their girl friends. Anyway, listen to the thing. Nice to hear something that doesn't come out of Lances well oil PR machine. Tygart has even received death threats and has FBI protection.


Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:45pm PT

i don't know if i got it, but i think i didn't

switched browsers, got it now

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:19pm PT
I'm not guilty!!!!

Credit: Unknown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:30pm PT
the infamous bull by the horns no doubt
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
How Lance Does It: Put the Success Formula of a Champion into Everything You Do

One of the books in my Lance collection! ;

"’Lance hates losing, but is not afraid of it.’" This fearless approach gave Lance the freedom to take the risks required to achieve peak performance and to continue to seek improvement even while at the top of his sport."
--from How Lance Does It

McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:52pm PT
It's the extreme Ironing of it that peaks me;

I still love Lance and my Lance book collection.

A long way from where I started
Jan 29, 2013 - 12:13am PT
This thread has finally jumped the shark, thanks to McHaley's Navel.

And I salute him. Extreme Ironing rules

Extreme Ironing
Extreme Ironing
Credit: Ghost
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
Jan 29, 2013 - 12:42am PT
I bought a GoPro today. Now I'll be able to film more ironing.

Tour de Fraud; The thought that Lance got 'used' by the likes of the 'racing system' has circled around me for awhile. He was sure a great promotional 'tool' for the Tour de France - I mean Tour de Fraud. You could say he got the big ride. He's almost more the fool than the 'fans'. Did he really think none of what he did would ever come out? Did he think 'they' would protect him 'forever'? Lots of questions - it's interesting and yet vomit inducing.....lots of ironing there.


Kennewick wa
Jan 30, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
Lance Armstrong exclusive interview

By: Daniel BensonPublished: January 30, 14:33, Updated: January 30, 15American describes Pat McQuaid as 'pathetic'

Lance Armstrong has spoken for the first time since confessing that he doped to win the Tour de France, answering a series of questions put to him by Cyclingnews.

Armstrong reiterated that he feels a scapegoat for the doping issues that have dogged cycling but has called for WADA to set up a truth and reconciliation programme and states that the UCI should have no part in the process.

In this exclusive Q&A Armstrong tells Cyclingnews' Daniel Benson that “My generation was no different than any other. The 'help' has evolved over the years but the fact remains that our sport is damn hard, the Tour was invented as a 'stunt, and very tough mother f**kers have competed for a century and all looked for advantages.”

Cyclingnews: What was your family's reaction to your confession?

Lance Armstrong: They were well aware of what I was doing and going to say. They loved the interview. I was in Hawaii when it aired but my older kids and Kristin watched both nights live. We spoke immediately after both shows. What was said then I'll keep to myself.

CN: Did you protect Dr. Ferrari during your confession?

Armstrong: I wasn't 'protecting' anyone. I was there to speak about myself, my experiences, and my mistakes. No one else. I know that goes against what we have grown used to in the last few years in cycling but I'm only interested in owning up to my mistakes. I'm a big boy and I'm not in the blame game.

CN: Why do you believe that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is the best way forward for cycling?

Armstrong: It's not the best way, it's the only way. As much as I'm the eye of the storm this is not about one man, one team, one director. This is about cycling and to be frank it's about ALL endurance sports. Publicly lynching one man and his team will not solve this problem.

CN: When and why did you come to this conclusion?

Armstrong: A long time ago. When I was on speaking terms with ol' Pat McQuaid many, many months ago I said, 'Pat, you better think bold here. A full blown, global, TRC is our sports best solution.' He wanted to hear nothing of it.

CN: If a TRC is to work, who should be called to testify? Every riders from your generation or those from before too? If a TRC looks at the 1990s shouldn't it also look at the years before your first Tour win?

Armstrong: It's not my place to set the parameters but if you're asking, I'd say that if you are alive today and you podiumed in a GT, WC, or Grand Tour then you should be called. Sounds ambitious but the authorities have proven that nothing with regards to cycling is time barred.

CN: Does TRC need to provide a complete amnesty?

Armstrong: Of course otherwise no one will show up. No one.

CN: Truth is easy to explain but what sort of reconciliation would you like personally and for others that help/testify?

Armstrong: Let's be honest, folks in my situation have their own selfish reasons. It's why we are here. Floyd felt singled out so therefore he went public amongst other things. Removing my selfishness, the fact remains that is the best thing for cycling.

CN: Would you hope that your ban was reduced if you testified to WADA?

Armstrong: That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that everyone is treated equally and fairly. We all made the mess, let's all fix the mess, and let's all be punished equally.

CN: Why WADA and not USADA?

Armstrong: No brainer. This is a global sport not an American one. One thing I'd add - the UCI has no place at the table.

CN: What's the alternative to TRC? It looks like the sport is now descending into chaos.

Armstrong: The alternative? Well, first let me say that cycling will never die it will just simmer. Zero growth. Sponsors leaving, races cancelled - this we are seeing. This current state of chaos and petty bullsh#t, tit for tat, etc, will just ensure that cycling goes flat or negative for a decade plus. Which is a real shame for the current crop of young pros the sport has.

CN: What do you say to the theory that Tygart stated: 'That for you, it's about eligibility to compete?'

Armstrong: That was Travis' stunt to make me look self-serving. When I met with him I told him, 'Yes, of course, I'd love to compete again. I'm a competitor.' However the truth is that it was more about equality and fairness. Letting some race the season then giving minor off seasons sanctions versus the death penalty (for similar offences) isn't fair and isn't about 'cleaning up cycling'. It's about getting your man.

CN: It's pretty clear to anyone with a brain that the UCI played the game and knew the score, yet Pat McQuaid said you had no place in cycling. How did that make you feel? What do you think of the UCI?

Armstrong: Pat is just in constant CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode. Pathetic.

CN: How much is the current level of hypocrisy a frustration for you?

Armstrong: Of course it's frustrating but it's cycling so it's not surprising.

CN: Do you feel like you're the fall guy for an entire sport/system?

Armstrong: Actually, yes I do. But I understand why. We all make the beds we sleep in.

CN: When you came into the sport, it probably wasn't to dope, it wasn't to cheat but at what point, specifically, did you realize that was how cycling worked and that the governing body weren't dealing with the situation?

Armstrong: My generation was no different than any other. The 'help' has evolved over the years but the fact remains that our sport is damn hard, the Tour was invented as a 'stunt, and very tough mother f**kers have competed for a century and all looked for advantages. From hopping on trains a 100 years ago to EPO now. No generation was exempt or 'clean'. Not Merckx's, not Hinault's, not LeMond's, not Coppi's, not Gimondi's, not Indurain's, not Anquetil's, not Bartali's, and not mine.


Jan 30, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
Frank Schleck, too:

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Jan 30, 2013 - 01:27pm PT

Hankster this is fuking HILARIOUS!!!...


Messages 981 - 1000 of total 1031 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews