# a different view on doping



## Suddha (Aug 2, 2002)

I am not pro-Lance, anti-Lance, nor am I stating an opinion on doping. I just got to thinking about this big brouhaha and started to wonder: if doping is so rampant in all of pro cycling (or in the majority of it), then can't we still consider Armstrong the greatest rider? After all, if he and all his fellow peloton members are taking the same stuff, then the playing field is leveled and Lance is still doing things above and beyond in order to win six straight TdF's. Talent, training, will, discipline, etc.

Or do I interpret the argument incorrectly? Is the issue really that Lance is doping and no one else is, and therefore he has an unfair advantage over his competitors? Or is it that he is taking more potent drugs than the others and that is giving him an unfair advantage? 

Again, I am not stating an opinion on doping per se. Nor am I trolling (or if I am, then I am too new to trolling to even recognize it). I just wanted to take the discussion out of the "doping right or wrong" arena and see what people think.

Cheers.


----------



## Sub (Feb 13, 2004)

I don't understand why people think Lance is a doper. There has to be a rider that is the best, and that's Lance. Is Ullrich a Doper because he is better than everyone else but Lance? is beloki a Doper because he is better than everyone else but Ullrich and Lance? I have no doubt in my mind that Lance is not a doper. Put yourself in his position of having been on his deathbed, would you ever mistreat your body again after being in that position? Lance loves and respects cycling to much to ever do anything like that. I guess Basso must be a Doper as well since he was hanging with Lance on the climbs.


----------



## FunkySoul (Jun 8, 2004)

*Dopers*

Personally, I beleive they're all doping. An unfortunate fact is drugs are a huge part of cycling. 

They answer to your question in yes. Lance most likely would mistreat his body if it meant winning. There have been numerous polls given to college and pro athletes in regard to taking a drug that would make you a star but possible kill you prematurely. And you know what, most said they would take it. 





Sub said:


> I don't understand why people think Lance is a doper. There has to be a rider that is the best, and that's Lance. Is Ullrich a Doper because he is better than everyone else but Lance? is beloki a Doper because he is better than everyone else but Ullrich and Lance? I have no doubt in my mind that Lance is not a doper. Put yourself in his position of having been on his deathbed, would you ever mistreat your body again after being in that position? Lance loves and respects cycling to much to ever do anything like that. I guess Basso must be a Doper as well since he was hanging with Lance on the climbs.


----------



## samh (May 5, 2004)

*I Agree*

"Lance most likely would mistreat his body if it meant winning." People are naive. In real life, do people cheat on a test, their taxes, etc? YES!


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

*Everyone's missing the point*

I don't believe this thread was started to finally answer the Lance, doper or not question. The question is, is it still cheating if everybody does it? Of course it is still cheating, because not everyone does it. While doping might be rampant, epo use widespread, most D3 pros don't have the money to pay for epo, they'd go broke before their hematocrit level went over 45%. The fact of the matter is that not everyone who is currently, or wants to be a pro cheats, so in essence, these dopers are taking the jobs/sponsorship $s/prize money away from honest guys who don't dope.

Second thing, putting them all on the same drugs doesn't necessarily mean they will all have the same benefit. Depending on your body, drugs may have a greater or lesser effect. So, having them all doped to the gills wouldn't necessarily produce the same winners.

Silas


----------



## AmateurBiker (Feb 28, 2005)

Your thread sums up what I have always thought myself. Riders with naturally high hkt lose their advantage when people take EPO. Now, you could ask- is it unfair to even out genetic predispositions? By the way, I doubt that any main contender is heroic enough to ride clean. If you have winning chances why sacrifice them? Nobody's ever gonna find out that you were clean and the others (like perhaps lance and jan) not. So why become a bitter, clean rider? Why not just cheat and have a real chance to be a winner?

Be happy that drugs are expensive. Otherwise, we amateurs would have to use that too, if we would wanna race. Be happy that there isn't much prize money up for grabs as well.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Sub said:


> Is Ullrich a Doper because he is better than everyone else but Lance?


I don't know about the rest of them, but Ullrich is a doper because he got caught.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

*yes, well....*

caught?! doing what? Taking ecstasy while partying? Come-on -- he wasn't caught using performance enhancing (I mean *sports* performance-enhancing) drugs. That's not to say he hasn't doped but he wasn't caught "doping", he was caught "partying".

Still love that Fournel quote though!

A+

Philippe


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Suddha said:


> I am not pro-Lance, anti-Lance, nor am I stating an opinion on doping. I just got to thinking about this big brouhaha and started to wonder: if doping is so rampant in all of pro cycling (or in the majority of it), then can't we still consider Armstrong the greatest rider? After all, if he and all his fellow peloton members are taking the same stuff, then the playing field is leveled and Lance is still doing things above and beyond in order to win six straight TdF's. Talent, training, will, discipline, etc.
> 
> Or do I interpret the argument incorrectly? Is the issue really that Lance is doping and no one else is, and therefore he has an unfair advantage over his competitors? Or is it that he is taking more potent drugs than the others and that is giving him an unfair advantage?
> 
> ...


I think your point is very well made. This is actually why I am at peace with the doping issue and lance. There are two likely scenarios regarding the top climbers and time-trial cyclists:

1. They are mostly clean AND Lance is the best of the clean cyclists.
2. They are mostly doping AND Lance is the best of the dopers.

These are two obvious scenarios and I believe one of them more than the other. Either way, I still admire Lance's accomplishments. 

The two unlikely scenarios are: They are mostly doping and Lance is not. And they are mostly clean but Lance is doping.

The 'everybody is doping' so I should be doping argument is wrong. It is immoral. It is not ethical. HOWEVER, if everybody around you is indeed doping AND they are kicking your butt AND there is no effective enforcement AND you have devoted your life and your livelyhood to winning... then the decision to dope is more tempting.

francois


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*?*

Excellent point.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

philippec said:


> he wasn't caught "doping", he was caught "partying".


You're right of course. I meant my comment to be silly and also to point out the absurdity of the WADA rules that treat party drugs similarly to performance-enhancing drugs. I don't see any good reason why athletes should be penalized for non performance-enhancing drugs, but I suppose that it's just hard to draw a line, given the prevalence of pot belge, etc.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

you're also treading on dangerous ground if you allow the use of 'party' drugs which are _illegal_ and only legislate against PEDs, the vast majority of which have legitimate uses and are perfectly legal.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> you're also treading on dangerous ground if you allow the use of 'party' drugs which are _illegal_ and only legislate against PEDs, the vast majority of which have legitimate uses and are perfectly legal.


You have a good point, but there are not uniform laws in all countries as to which party drugs are illegal. Heroin is legal (with prescription) in several countries. Marijuana is permitted in some. Alcohol is illegal in others. Whose laws should be used to determine what counts as "doping?"


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Problem is*

some Party drugs (XTC and Cocaine) are stimulants so you can't draw a line between them.
Wada exec to rider "So Mr So and So you have an illegal level of stimulants in your system"
Rider to Exec " Yea, that's just because I was on a bender"

there's no way to tell the difference between using Stimulants or Painkillers (Morphine)
for fun or PED so they are all banned.

I mean Pot Belge sounds like an uber speedball, as good on raceday as a saturday night.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> some Party drugs (XTC and Cocaine) are stimulants so you can't draw a line between them.


I'm with you on cocaine and pot belge, but XTC? It wouldn't be my choice for competitive sport:
_I can pedal all day at the head of the peloton, but I love everyone so much. Why can't we all be friends? I'm going to share the love and lead out someone from another team. Don't be so grumpy, Mr. DS or I'll unplug my radio. Have a hug._​Come to think of it, cocaine wouldn't be too useful either. It has a half-life of about half an hour, compared to over 10 hours for amphetamine. Using cocaine for anything other than a short time-trial you'd have to re-administer many times during the race, and it's hard to keep it from blowing off the mirror at 50 kph .


----------



## Angelracer (Dec 12, 2004)

Im so sick if this stupid doping bullcrap. Take Pantani for an example. Yeah he probally tried it, but he sure didnt use it. Just because someone won, look at how inspired he was. Look at Lance and how inspired he was. Lance was a survivor. He learned what it took to win the TDF after cancer. Pantani was a hard worker. All these other guys just want to win. And they will do anything to get it. The media isnt good also. It really blows things up into porportion. Lance was blamed just cause they found needles used for IV's during the TFD for health reasons. Paranoid people suck. A ture winner is a person with inspration and determination. Look at how hard they work. A doper or a cheater is a deparate person who doesnt have the intestinal fortitude to just get off their but and train to race. 

...it is said Pantani died of a drug overdose... Do you think that someone who had so much passion, so much determination to race would just up and do coke ? ? Someone just didnt like him. Yeah he had a 9 month suspension after he won the Giro de Italia and he could train. Look at the 2000 TDF. Lance almost lost to Pantani. Pantani trained to win, but he had to drop out for medical reasons.

Look at it this way...If someone wins a race, beating you by seconds, your going to be jelous that you didnt win. I had it happen, I lost a race by .4 of a second, not qualifiying for the State race. Yeah I was bummed, but I sprained my anckle and was out for a month running. So it just hintered my running. The next year in college I could have won that State race by a longshot, I went from a 5:00 mile to a 4:30 mile. Now I stopped running because my ancle is a rubber band. 

As I stated before, you have a winner, and so many other atheles so close not everyone is going to be happy. Jelous people are going to try to prove them wrong. Pantani was driven into depression after all his dignity was ruined by someone else. 

I am sickened by people who cant see anything that truely is real and its just too hard for them to belive...


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Angelracer said:


> A doper or a cheater is a deparate person who doesnt have the intestinal fortitude to just get off their but and train to race.


How do you figure Virenque or Zülle? Both of them have serious palmarès but both of them were serious dopers at one time. They won a lot of races when they were not doping, but both took dope seriously at one time in their careers. The same appears to be true of Tyler Hamilton.


----------



## Angelracer (Dec 12, 2004)

Fredke said:


> How do you figure Virenque or Zülle? Both of them have serious palmarès but both of them were serious dopers at one time. They won a lot of races when they were not doping, but both took dope seriously at one time in their careers. The same appears to be true of Tyler Hamilton.



I dont know much of these other riders but sorry. I guess if they were serious about it at one point of time wouldnt it conclude that they are pritty much selling out? Once you loose your dignity you can never get it back...it will haunt you for the rest of your life no matter what the decision you made was


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Angelracer said:


> I guess if they were serious about it at one point of time wouldnt it conclude that they are pritty much selling out? Once you loose your dignity you can never get it back...it will haunt you for the rest of your life no matter what the decision you made was


That's a puritanical attitude. And it's naive. It only makes sense if you think of doping in cycling as cheating. As long as you think of it is systemic to the sport then it wouldn't bother you at all. 

In fact I think the very opposite feeling is more likely. When riders get busted I would think they would be quite upset. It would be like being singled out for a speeding ticket when the surrounding cars are going the same speed. Look at poor Pantani. He gets kicked out from a sure win of the Giro and the race is handed to Ivan Gotti, who had his hematocrit doped up to 58% by Dr. Ferrari when he was on team Gewiss.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Angelracer said:


> I dont know much of these other riders ... Once you loose your dignity you can never get it back...it will haunt you for the rest of your life no matter what the decision you made was


Among his accomplishments, Richard Virenque won a number of KOM titles at TdF whilst doping and won more until he was caught in the 1998 Festina scandal and banned for a couple of years. Then he started riding clean again and won more KOM titles. He retired last year after setting a new record of seven KOM titles. His popularity with French cycling fans didn't suffer from his doping scandals.

Alex Zülle also doped while part of the Festina team, but after cleaning up went on to win an impressive number of races, including 2nd in GC at the 1999 TdF and 1st GC in Tour de Suisse and Tour de Romandy in 2002. As with Virenque, his popularity with cycling fans didn't seem to diminish during or after the drugs scandal.

Zülle's take on doping was somewhat different from yours: "_It's like being on the highway. The law says there's a speed limit of sixty-five, but everyone is driving at seventy or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit?_"

What puzzles me is how, if you're so judgmental about these riders, you can give Pantani a free pass for his doping? Doesn't your statement, "sure, he tried it, but he sure didn't use it" conflict with the other things you say. Virenque and Zülle trained just as hard as Pantani, yet they were complete dopers from 1994-98. To them, as to many other cyclists in the mid 1990s, dope was simply one of many pieces in the training program, no more and no less.


----------



## Angelracer (Dec 12, 2004)

Zülle's take on doping was somewhat different from yours: "[i said:


> It's like being on the highway. The law says there's a speed limit of sixty-five, but everyone is driving at seventy or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit?[/i]"QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I dont get your point. Just becuase other people make it 'OK' in their mind to do it it still isnt right. Either way you look at it if it is still questionable, it is still cheating. Try me.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*I despise it too*



Angelracer said:


> Im so sick if this stupid doping bullcrap. Take Pantani for an example. Yeah he probally tried it, but he sure didnt use it. Just because someone won, look at how inspired he was. Look at Lance and how inspired he was. Lance was a survivor. He learned what it took to win the TDF after cancer. Pantani was a hard worker. All these other guys just want to win. And they will do anything to get it. The media isnt good also. It really blows things up into porportion. Lance was blamed just cause they found needles used for IV's during the TFD for health reasons. Paranoid people suck. A ture winner is a person with inspration and determination. Look at how hard they work. A doper or a cheater is a deparate person who doesnt have the intestinal fortitude to just get off their but and train to race.
> 
> ...it is said Pantani died of a drug overdose... Do you think that someone who had so much passion, so much determination to race would just up and do coke ? ? Someone just didnt like him. Yeah he had a 9 month suspension after he won the Giro de Italia and he could train. Look at the 2000 TDF. Lance almost lost to Pantani. Pantani trained to win, but he had to drop out for medical reasons.
> 
> ...


Marco Pantani, while a venerable personna in cycling, is not the person to choose as your crucible of doping purity. However, you dug that up, I will never know.

1)Marco was tested with a crit level of 60 in his career. Mysteriously, he was then kicked from another Giro for, you guessed it, training on the moon or having a huge crit level, you be the judge.

2)Marcos room was searched, a syringe with insulin was seized and his first words were thats not my syringe, not, wrong room etc etc 

3)Marco beat Jan Ullrich at the 98 TDF by having the TT of his life. He never got near that time again. He never ever bettered a TT champion ever again after that one race and one stage

4)Marco was found dead and alone with illegal drugs in his room with a known history of illegal drug usage among his friends. The man was depressed and needed mental help.

5)Marco was cited for nearly driving wrecklessly at one point. Rational huh????


So, considering the above, known incidents, on the public record, NOT the fount of stability. In my book


----------



## Angelracer (Dec 12, 2004)

ttug said:


> Marco Pantani, while a venerable personna in cycling, is not the person to choose as your crucible of doping purity. However, you dug that up, I will never know.
> 
> 1)Marco was tested with a crit level of 60 in his career. Mysteriously, he was then kicked from another Giro for, you guessed it, training on the moon or having a huge crit level, you be the judge.
> 
> ...



Ive never heard a that much bull, so Im just going to rest my case at this. Im sure you read the actual police reports and his drug history so Im sure that you can read about other lies. Im sure you know the truth. So go ahead and base your info off from lies others had gone along with and just go with it.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Angelracer, you make a clear distinction between riders who dope and riders who train. But the PEDs used in cycling - an endurance sport - are of the kind that aid recovery and promote the ability to train more intensively, rather than those that boost performance like steroid use for sprinters. So, there is a possibility that the riders who are capable of training hardest do so because they are doping.

And does it not strike you as strange, to say the least, that fit athletes should need IV equipment to ride a race like the Tour?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Listen to the words, please*



Angelracer said:


> Ive never heard a that much bull, so Im just going to rest my case at this. Im sure you read the actual police reports and his drug history so Im sure that you can read about other lies. Im sure you know the truth. So go ahead and base your info off from lies others had gone along with and just go with it.


Its very important to understand that this forum, (Doping Forum) is at best, an educated or non-educated guess on any persons part (includes me) as to who is, is not might, might not etc etc Doping

If you can read French, German or Italian, you have a broader, NOTE NOT BETTER, basis to look at any cyclists career. Marco died a sick sad person in need of help. Thats sad. I find no humor or joy in that or in the death of any individual. However, if you live in a Glass House, do not throw rocks. You will note, I did not in any way detract from the fact that Marco had incredible talent. He did. 

Thats another perky myth here. If you dope, its all good. No, its not. Talent is talent. How you choose to manifest it, train it etc etc thats the athlete. 

There is a common trend in this thread and really in every doping thread. 

1)The moronic supposition that doping is a magic bullet.
2)Dopers have no talent. (Yes they do)
3)Great results by anyone are suspect as long as there is an axe to grind (Moronic, but human nature) 
4)The blissful ignorance that the accuser lacks ability, integrity and talent of their opponent. So, its all dope
5)Why o why are folks so upset about doping assertions, all I am doing is impugning their entire lifes effort?????

Wakey wakey, Polly, Polly Parrot!!!


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Angelracer said:


> Im sure you read the actual police reports and his drug history so Im sure that you can read about other lies.


The official inquest found that Pantani died of acute cocaine intoxication. This is not lies or guesses. It's the result of careful objective medical tests. Read about it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3551077.stm


----------



## jam (Apr 5, 2005)

> I am sickened by people who cant see anything that truely is real and its just too hard for them to belive...


THIS is the problem, for fans, with doping. Anytime someone starts going good, anytime we see something that might just be too good to be true, which in a way, is what sport is about... we can't accept it at face value.

You know?

That, and I, at least, don't want the athletes/people I admire hurting themselves, and in some cases knowingly putting their lives in jeopardy, for the sake of earning prestige in a sport I support.

'Na mean?

But it's come this far, of course... so what can anyone do, really? It's easy to understand why anyone/everyone dopes. It's sport. It's competition. The point is to get ahead. The point is to win. It's how people -- especially these people -- are wired.

So... I dunno.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Huh????*



jam said:


> THIS is the problem, for fans, with doping. Anytime someone starts going good, anytime we see something that might just be too good to be true, which in a way, is what sport is about... we can't accept it at face value.
> 
> You know?
> 
> ...


What do you mean? Are you saying that a more competetive person is going to dope? The point of sport is competition. This makes you try your hardest, you try to achieve your best. It is not, might as well do anything I can so why not shake the dice and see what happens. That is nut job central and folly.

Competition is not: You svck, I am great, go home loser. Thats trash talk and yup, every sport has it. Is trash talk part and parcel of every sport, IMO, yes. However, justifying usage of performance enhancing drugs is not the point of sport.


----------



## Angelracer (Dec 12, 2004)

Fredke said:


> The official inquest found that Pantani died of acute cocaine intoxication. This is not lies or guesses. It's the result of careful objective medical tests. Read about it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3551077.stm



I dont get what your saying. Their wasnt a single bit of drugs in his room where he died. The results of the CAREFUL MEDICAL tests weren't even done yet. Even read this, theirs his own truth in it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3489569.stm


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ten packs of sedatives*



Angelracer said:


> I dont get what your saying. Their wasnt a single bit of drugs in his room where he died. The results of the CAREFUL MEDICAL tests weren't even done yet. Even read this, theirs his own truth in it
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3489569.stm


FROM THE ARTICLE YOU PROVIDED:

"Magistrate Paolo Gengarelli said there were no illegal drugs in the room but 10 packages of prescription sedatives were found at the scene, some empty and some started. 
"

So, 10 packs of persription meds(SEDATIVES), sporadically used, leave every hint to believe that he was calm and cool and collected when he decided to kill himself. Hey, calm cool people kill themselves everyday right? Are you starting to see a little absurdity here yet?  

Why would a single, slightly built individual require 10 packs of sedatives? No possible way that another drug used at another location could have caused an individual to believe that he required 10 packs of perscription sedatives?? 

Because: He was using cocaine. He died of cocaine intoxication. It is stated in the press. It is a medical fact provided by a coroner in the press. At the risk of HUGE liability and a career ending error, the coroner stated medical facts. The bar of perfection is too high for anyone. 


YET ANOTHER ARTICLE, SAME SOURCE

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3551077.stm

"The agency quoted coroner Giuseppe Fortuni as concluding: "The death of Marco Pantani was caused by acute cocaine intoxication." 

Fortuni ruled out the possibility that the 34-year-old had committed suicide. 

Pantani, who won the Tour de France and Giro d'Italia in 1998, was found dead in a hotel room in the Italian resort of Rimini on 14 February. 

An autopsy showed that Pantani died of swelling in the brain and lungs caused by accumulation of fluid. 

Prosecutor Paolo Gengarelli ordered more tests to determine what caused the fluid to build up. 

Pantani had been tormented by doping accusations and had been hospitalised in the summer of 2003 in an Italian clinic specialising in treatment of depression and drug addiction."


----------



## olds_cool (Feb 14, 2005)

*i just read in some english cycling mag...*

where marco's manager said that he had been fighting cocaine addiction since the late 90's while he was still racing. he started right around the time he won the giro. she said that even as a partier, he was much faster than most guys in the peloton. i also read that when marco was in the hospital with his leg broken after an accident his hemocrit was so low they were concerned about his body being able to produce red? blood cells anymore. some of the team management guys showed up to visit one day, and after they left his hemocrit was back to normal.that was in cyclesport in the "death" issue. i know, don't believe everything you read. i kinda do when it comes to marco, cause there are just way too many coincedences to believe he wasn't doing it.


----------



## jam (Apr 5, 2005)

> Are you saying that a more competetive person is going to dope? The point of sport is competition. This makes you try your hardest, you try to achieve your best. It is not, might as well do anything I can so why not shake the dice and see what happens. That is nut job central and folly.


No, no, no. Not necessarily, at least. Look, I in no way condone or justify doping. Please, it's seriously tainting, if not ruining so many of the sports I love.

But, still, I can understand why it happens. Doping is an extreme, dangerous version of swimmers in long, super-slippery suits, of speedskaters on clap skates, of hoopsters swiggin' on Gatorade instead of water... It's taken me a long time, but I can start to sort of see why some athletes who aren't bad people, and who aren't dumb, can do such a bad, dumb thing.

I really, really wish they wouldn't, of course. But how do we stop them? I mean, how do we actually stop them from doing it?


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Angelracer said:


> Zülle's take on doping was somewhat different from yours: "[i said:
> 
> 
> > It's like being on the highway. The law says there's a speed limit of sixty-five, but everyone is driving at seventy or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit?[/i]"QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## OneGearGuy (Jan 27, 2005)

*"arguably Naive"*



AmateurBiker said:


> Your thread sums up what I have always thought myself. Riders with naturally high hkt lose their advantage when people take EPO. Now, you could ask- is it unfair to even out genetic predispositions? By the way, I doubt that any main contender is heroic enough to ride clean. If you have winning chances why sacrifice them? Nobody's ever gonna find out that you were clean and the others (like perhaps lance and jan) not. So why become a bitter, clean rider? Why not just cheat and have a real chance to be a winner?
> 
> Be happy that drugs are expensive. Otherwise, we amateurs would have to use that too, if we would wanna race. Be happy that there isn't much prize money up for grabs as well.


dude- if you think that NO amateur cyclist can afford expensive doping products, then you need to open your eyes a bit.
it makes things even more unfair in the amateur ranks- similar to the guy who shows up to the state TT with a $5,000 aero bike with disc wheels, etc. and races against you with your road bike and clip on bars. the field is never level, unfortunately. that is one reason i don't road race much any more (i was an elite rider on the Jamis squad in the mid-late 90's).
the pros do it for money and fame. the amateurs do it for ego and pride.


----------



## Chase15.5 (Feb 17, 2005)

*He would be a total fool to dope...*

I truely believe Lance would be a total fool to dope. If he were to be caught, he would be villified the world over for talking about how cancer made him who is today. The foundations etc would crumble under the uproar. I don't think it would be like Hamilton and his problems which really has mostly only been covered in cycling news circles. With Lance, it would be in every paper around the world. He has become bigger than just a cycling athlete.

Of course I never thought Hamilton would dope...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

Chase15.5 said:


> I truely believe Lance would be a total fool to dope. If he were to be caught, he would be villified the world over for talking about how cancer made him who is today. The foundations etc would crumble under the uproar. I don't think it would be like Hamilton and his problems which really has mostly only been covered in cycling news circles. With Lance, it would be in every paper around the world. He has become bigger than just a cycling athlete.
> 
> Of course I never thought Hamilton would dope...


problem is: he may not think like you.. people are not logical and sport superstars can be even less logical than the average guy. suppose he thinks that if he doesn't train hard enough he won't win and the foundations will go down. so he takes recovery dope to TRAIN. dope that's so sophisticated, or taken in a smart way, that stays out of the radar.
as to pantani being far from coke.. sorry, evidence is too strong. his death scenario is obviously(to anyone who has been around coke heads) a coke down spiral.


----------



## alvaro1675 (May 29, 2005)

FunkySoul said:


> Personally, I beleive they're all doping. An unfortunate fact is drugs are a huge part of cycling.
> 
> They answer to your question in yes. Lance most likely would mistreat his body if it meant winning. There have been numerous polls given to college and pro athletes in regard to taking a drug that would make you a star but possible kill you prematurely. And you know what, most said they would take it.


Agree with u 110%.. I love cycling but the reality is that at the Pro level this sport has become inhuman. Most of these poor guys have no option but to dope in order to even be competitive in a very demanding schedule . But if the cyclists themselves dont care about putting their life and carrers at risk why shall we? It is a show and watching Armstrong going up a hill faster than a Honda 250cc after 15 days of racing , it is quite a spectacle


----------

