FanDuel - WFBC

September 04, 2012

Boom goes the dynamite! Explosive book about Armstrong doping comes out.:
After reading the book, no doubt is left in the reviewer's mind as to Armstrong's guilt.

posted by grum@work to culture at 02:48 PM - 13 comments

Absolutely no one involved in this story is credible in any way whatsoever and anyone who reads this book and is left feeling doubt-free ought to evaluate their trust criteria.

posted by feloniousmonk at 03:12 PM on September 04

The review states that nine former U.S. Postal Service teammates corroborate the allegations Tyler Hamilton makes in the book. If that's true, it sounds like a rock-solid case against Lance Armstrong.

posted by rcade at 03:27 PM on September 04

If no one is credible, we can believe whatever we want. Instead, I'm going to go with the 9 guys who out themselves and in doing so hurt their own reputations.

But, y'know, Lance is such a good guy and all.

posted by yerfatma at 03:31 PM on September 04

Sadly, my mind was made up a long time ago about Lance that he was doping (and I'm okay with that).

At this point, it just feels like it's an opportunity for various people to pile on and cash in.

posted by Bonkers at 03:55 PM on September 04

Absolutely no one involved in this story is credible in any way whatsoever and anyone who reads this book and is left feeling doubt-free ought to evaluate their trust criteria.

I assume you also include Lance Armstrong among the list of "credible-free".

posted by grum@work at 04:22 PM on September 04

To be clear, I am not defending him. I pretty much agree with what Bonkers said.

Edit: Absolutely. In the race to zero credibility, Lance won fair and square.

posted by feloniousmonk at 04:22 PM on September 04

Thirding what Bonkers said. Anyone who actually follows cycling and who has read Paul Kimmage and Willy Voet will hear echoes in that summary of the subterfuge involved, and the treatment of cyclists as lab rats. (Actovegin, a purified extract of calf's blood, is mentioned; the only major users are elite athletes.)

Is everyone who writes about doping from the inside compromised to some degree? Probably. But it's those compromised people who lift the veil every decade or so.

posted by etagloh at 01:03 AM on September 05

Lance is a genius. He throws his hands up and says he's not fighting the charges anymore. Meaning the gullible who think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth can simper and fawn over poor harassed Lance, whereas he sits back and by killing the case stops the actual truth coming out.

posted by Drood at 04:17 AM on September 05

I don't get this from the review: are the nine former teammates named, or are we taking someone's word that there were nine people that agree with the allegations? The review seems to focus on the experiences Hamilton himself had and stories he tells about things he was told.

The reason a lot of people have had trouble believing it to date:

1) Hamilton had a lot to gain from taking Lance down, personally and financially;
2) There was no actual positive test to date that's been made public.

So you can understand why someone isn't just taking people's word for it, or are drumming up conspiracy theories about some plot to get him. The same thing happened to Jose Canseco until he actually produced a ton of evidence and was nearly 100% accurate.

We'd like to see as much evidence as possible before accepting that the heroes of our lifetime are dirty. Pete Rose damaged my dad's ability to watch baseball and Barry Bonds killed it. For a lot of people, Lance was their one lifeline to the sport and took that lifeline and made it something significantly greater and until now, most of the evidence was circumstantial at best.

If nine named teammates are in that book, that's pretty hard to negate, but those haven't been out there for people to see until now.

posted by dfleming at 06:52 AM on September 05

Meta-discussion moved to Locker Room.

posted by rcade at 10:46 AM on September 05

We can be pretty sure that Andreu and Landis are among the nine, although both can be filed under "compromised"; we can also add Vaughters to the list, I'd guess, and Hincapie's a fair bet, too. Zabriskie, Vande Velde? Perhaps. There was a recent piece on the omerta of pro cycling which adds good context to why riders don't go public very often.

For a lot of people, Lance was their one lifeline to the sport and took that lifeline and made it something significantly greater and until now, most of the evidence was circumstantial at best.

I think that's the meta-issue here: Armstrong's career was always semi-detached from "cycling greatness" and belonged more to "American sporting greatness" -- something that didn't apply so much to LeMond. People who've followed cycling for decades tend to accept that their idols have feet of clay; people who engaged with cycling on the basis of Armstrong's greatness didn't have that grounding. Which isn't to say that they were ignorant or deluded -- but as I've said here before, it's a bit like believing in the purity of NCAA football and basketball.

posted by etagloh at 02:25 PM on September 05

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.