View Full Version : Not exactly steroids

June 2nd, 2005, 11:34 AM
What do you think about Lance Armstrong (sorry I KNOW he's not a swimmer) being sponsored by Bristol Meyers. I am sure that's a great sponsor to land as they can provide (and do) Lance or whatever athlete with all sorts of undectable drugs. Drug A gets more oxygen into your system. Drug B increases your red blood cell count. And so on. At what point is the line crossed? Steroids aren't going to help distance swimmer. As I understand it Steroids are more for power and short bursts of energy as opposed to endurance.

Disclaimer: Lance Armstrong is a phenomenal athlete known for his hard work and for being "clean". Though there are many reports that contradict that. I admire and respect this athlete and in NO WAY at all am I accusing him of anything but just using him as an example.

Anyway ... is this just best left up to the anti-doping committees and those that select the banned substances. I think that there will always be those "lucky" athletes that are given "miracle" pills that help them to recover, get stronger, etc. that cannot be detected there are always ways around the system. But what I am getting at is, is this a problem or is it on the OK side? Is it really fair? Does it really allow for a "level" playing field?

June 2nd, 2005, 11:47 AM
Good for Lance, One of my sposors was The Pignion Rouge (in English -The Red Gables, the only thing I could say about their product, it tasted good.

I think he gets more from them than I got from my sponsor a restuarant. My sponsor fed me for a week.

Tom Ellison
June 2nd, 2005, 11:57 AM
My take is this:

1. I don't care that Bristol Meyers supports Armstrong as long as he continues to stay clean. More power to him in the $ support side of things.
2. If Bristol Meyers gives him substances that are legal, more power to him.
3. The regulatory bodies in charge of his type competition list any and all banned substances and as long as he or any other athlete reframe from taking these substances, they are legal.

June 2nd, 2005, 11:57 AM
But don't forget that he was a professional triathlete at 16, so he has somewhat of a swimming background. And swimmers get sponsored too.

Heck, I wish Anheuser-Busch would sponsor me, but that would probably cut into their profits too much. They'd be losing some coin on that deal.

There was a recent interview with him in Playboy. I thought it was pretty good. It showed his more human side. Also in that article, he talks about how much he gets tested. They can show up at his door at any time. And he's probably been the most tested athlete in history. And "Bristol Meyers-Squibb makes the three cancer chemo agents that saved Lance's life."

I don't really have a problem with which companies sponsor athletes. My naive little mind says it comes down to hard-work, talent, and heart - or at least that's what I like to believe.

With Lance, I'm slated, because he was dropped by his sponsor when he was battling cancer. That's tough. So kudos to him for any company he gets.

June 2nd, 2005, 12:11 PM
He most definitely IS the most tested athlete. He has to always let them know where he will be each day so that they can test him wherever/whenever they want.

Doping is NOT ok, it ruins the spirit of sports because it is less abut the athlete and more about the drugs. Yes, the problem is that if one contender is doping, they all have to in order to compete. It isn't easy doing a 3 week stage race, recovery is incredibly hard. If your opponent is taking drugs to aid his/her recovery than that gives your opponent the upper hand...so you might as well dope too!

More intersting yet is the use of altitude tents to raise your hemocrat level. It's basically the legal way of taking EPO. It is a widely accepted drug free practice.

I pray to god Lance never has a positive test...guess he only has a few more chances at getting caught if he is taking something.