# Curious about everyone's thoughts on Lance and USPS/Disco



## BTurn7 (May 20, 2006)

I will admit right off the bat that I want to believe Lance won the 7 clean. However, besides his work for cancer I do not care for his almighty persona or what he does off the bike. But I wanted to point out a couple of things and see what your opinions were. 
1. Lawsuits aside, why havent any of his other teamates come out and say he has cheated the whole time. (Landis, Hamilton, Boonen)
2. If Disco/USPS was so doped, then why did they preform so bad in the 8th stage(I think) of the '05 Tour when Lance was left alone with no teamates to help against Kolden & Ulrich- I dont think I could ever be convinced that Big George doped
3. There have been alot of accusations against Lance, like the team doctors, Frankie &Besty, and the cortisone incident, and '99, but all of those really come down to a case of he said/she said- If any of these were true, How has he been able to weasle out of every single incident. I know the tests don't always pick out everything, but really how could he fool it for 7 years, not just at the Tour but during the training/ off season. He never failed a test during the Tour like Vino for Example, but he was pinned in '99 a little 6 or so years late, and I do not think the release of the results were a coincidence with his last Tour/retirement.
4. This may have already been discussed, but what about Landis supposidly being blackmailed for dirt on Lance?

This was just a short list I came up with for why I think he pulled it off without taking EPO, testoterone whatever.I am aware this topic has been discussed before, but I was hoping all of you could share your opinions on this team's history. I will say that I would not be surprised to learn he took PEDS pre-cancer, but only pre-cancer. Go ahead and call me a "fanboy" if you wish, but I beleive he has yet to be pinned by substantial evidence or the icing on the cake that proves he took PEDS to win the Tours. Sorry if i caused another war, I am simply curious of other people's thoughts about my opinions. Thanks for reading.


----------



## snood (Oct 5, 2006)

BTurn7 said:


> I will admit right off the bat that I want to believe Lance won the 7 clean. However, besides his work for cancer I do not care for his almighty persona or what he does off the bike. But I wanted to point out a couple of things and see what your opinions were.
> 1. Lawsuits aside, why havent any of his other teamates come out and say he has cheated the whole time. (Landis, Hamilton, Boonen)
> 2. If Disco/USPS was so doped, then why did they preform so bad in the 8th stage(I think) of the '05 Tour when Lance was left alone with no teamates to help against Kolden & Ulrich- I dont think I could ever be convinced that Big George doped
> 3. There have been alot of accusations against Lance, like the team doctors, Frankie &Besty, and the cortisone incident, and '99, but all of those really come down to a case of he said/she said- If any of these were true, How has he been able to weasle out of every single incident. I know the tests don't always pick out everything, but really how could he fool it for 7 years, not just at the Tour but during the training/ off season. He never failed a test during the Tour like Vino for Example, but he was pinned in '99 a little 6 or so years late, and I do not think the release of the results were a coincidence with his last Tour/retirement.
> ...


1 Riders don't talk even about themselves. Landis and Hamilton havent admitted own doping.

2 Read Andreu and Vaughters IM. Its in another thread.

Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells 

FDREU: they have it mastered. good point 

Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine 

FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed 

FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig 

Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers 

Cyclevaughters: on the rest day 

Cyclevaughters: floyd has a photo of the thing 

FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it 

3. There are a lot of evidence about many riders who havent tested positive. Add the doping products found by french media in 2000. Look up actovegin.

4. Landis tells many fantasies.

5 Watch Ventoux in 2000. All final riders were dopers and Lance. Ullrich Mancebo Heras Pantani Botero Beloki Virenque. That is enough evidence that Lance did what all else did to perform well.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

My thoughts?

Based on no more than what I have observed in 30 years of being a fan of Euro Professional bicycle racing.

They all dope. They are going to keep right on doping (perhaps just not as much or in the same ways with the same stuff as before).

Doesn't matter at all to me.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

this has all been discussed previously. nothing more to rehash.




BTurn7 said:


> I will admit right off the bat that I want to believe Lance won the 7 clean. However, besides his work for cancer I do not care for his almighty persona or what he does off the bike. But I wanted to point out a couple of things and see what your opinions were.
> 1. Lawsuits aside, why havent any of his other teamates come out and say he has cheated the whole time. (Landis, Hamilton, Boonen)
> 2. If Disco/USPS was so doped, then why did they preform so bad in the 8th stage(I think) of the '05 Tour when Lance was left alone with no teamates to help against Kolden & Ulrich- I dont think I could ever be convinced that Big George doped
> 3. There have been alot of accusations against Lance, like the team doctors, Frankie &Besty, and the cortisone incident, and '99, but all of those really come down to a case of he said/she said- If any of these were true, How has he been able to weasle out of every single incident. I know the tests don't always pick out everything, but really how could he fool it for 7 years, not just at the Tour but during the training/ off season. He never failed a test during the Tour like Vino for Example, but he was pinned in '99 a little 6 or so years late, and I do not think the release of the results were a coincidence with his last Tour/retirement.
> ...


----------



## texass4 (Oct 13, 2005)

MB1 said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> Based on no more than what I have observed in 30 years of being a fan of Euro Professional bicycle racing.
> 
> ...


It's so refreshing to hear that someone else shares my sentiment on this issue. 

If anything, I wish more cycling fans would defend the legitimacy of American cycling professionals not for the sake of Lance, Floyd, or anyone else, but to educate to general public and make me more accepted (visible!) on the backroads I love to ride. It's tough to build public tolerance and new interest in a sport clouded by detractors and allegations.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Well of course it has.*



bas said:


> this has all been discussed previously. nothing more to rehash.


Everything has but that is no reason to not have another endless discussion.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

texass4 said:


> It's so refreshing to hear that someone else shares my sentiment on this issue.
> 
> If anything, I wish more cycling fans would defend the legitimacy of American cycling professionals not for the sake of Lance, Floyd, or anyone else, but to educate to general public and make me more accepted (visible!) on the backroads I love to ride. It's tough to build public tolerance and new interest in a sport clouded by detractors and allegations.


how is saying that they all dope "defend(ing) the legitimacy of American cycling professionals"?


----------



## Lumbergh (Aug 19, 2005)

MB1 said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> Based on no more than what I have observed in 30 years of being a fan of Euro Professional bicycle racing.
> 
> ...


I'd qualify that statement only as follows - race winners dope - that's how they win. If the tour's Lantern Rouge was doping, then he needs to get his Euros back. 

Meanwhile, it does matter to me that they dope. It taints their achievements, such that they are.


----------



## texass4 (Oct 13, 2005)

blackhat said:


> how is saying that they all dope "defend(ing) the legitimacy of American cycling professionals"?



You have a good point, but I was speaking more in terms of defending the legitimacy of American cycling professionals _in general_ to the American lay public. Not in terms of any specific rider or team, but more in terms of sustaining the presence and growth of the sport as a whole in the US. 

My co-workers still view my hobby as nearing the lunatic fringe and ask why I don't just play golf or something instead. Heck, one woman asked me if she should change lanes when passing a "bikerperson" going the same direction. She was serious. This is the kind of oblivious question I dream about not having to answer in the future. Pipe dream, I know, but still...

I may have never touched a bicycle again after I outgrew my old BMX bike had it not been for watching Greg Lemond in the 80s. I don't have any opinion of Lemond one way or the other, but watching him winning tours was my first real exposure to riding/racing past adolescence, and that was my motivation for being the only person wearing lycra on a road bike for a "country mile" in the mostly rural areas where I have lived for the past 20 years. 

I didn't care about Roger Staubach or Pete Rose. I wanted to ride a bike. This is more of what I meant by defending the legitimacy of US pros. Acknowledge cheating where it exists [proven] perhaps, but don't condemn the sport to the extent that someone else down the road doesn't get the chance to develop an interest and keep the "wheels" of cycling in the US spinning.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

BTurn7 said:


> I will admit right off the bat that I want to believe Lance won the 7 clean. However, besides his work for cancer I do not care for his almighty persona or what he does off the bike. But I wanted to point out a couple of things and see what your opinions were.
> 1. Lawsuits aside, why havent any of his other teamates come out and say he has cheated the whole time. (Landis, Hamilton, Boonen)
> 2. If Disco/USPS was so doped, then why did they preform so bad in the 8th stage(I think) of the '05 Tour when Lance was left alone with no teamates to help against Kolden & Ulrich- I dont think I could ever be convinced that Big George doped
> 3. There have been alot of accusations against Lance, like the team doctors, Frankie &Besty, and the cortisone incident, and '99, but all of those really come down to a case of he said/she said- If any of these were true, How has he been able to weasle out of every single incident. I know the tests don't always pick out everything, but really how could he fool it for 7 years, not just at the Tour but during the training/ off season. He never failed a test during the Tour like Vino for Example, but he was pinned in '99 a little 6 or so years late, and I do not think the release of the results were a coincidence with his last Tour/retirement.
> ...



In the beginning when I really started watching/paying attention to the Tour in 1997, I didn't give much credance to doping at the time (other than Festina). 

Then watching Lance dominate for 7 years after coming back from cancer I couldn't see why somebody that had gone through so much would dope, especially when it very likely could have contributed to his cancer in the first place.

At this time, after shedding my naivety, I've come to the realization that the top teams in the Peloton that race Grand Tour's all have systematic doping regimes and all members participate if they are on those teams at that level. It's why they have "Team Doctors" that constantly monitor the "Health" of the riders, why they need larger budgets (drugs cost money) and why lots of teams and riders are secretive about their training.

I've also come to the realization that Lance had to have been doping during his 7 wins, as pretty much every champion in the history of the Tour has (just look at history you Lemond fanatics  ).

Now with all that in mind, I still love the Tour and pro cycling in general. I know they dope and I'm OK with it just as I know that the vast majority of Pro football players are on PED's, Baseball players are on PED's, Basketball players are on PRD's (Performance Reducing Drugs....i.e. Marijuana).....Heck even Pro Golfers are looking for an edge with drugs that help them relax and focus, and some reports about 'roids in Golf.

As long as there is money to be made and fame to be won there will be PED's. 

The only changes I can see in cycling is that it won't be systematic from team to team in the future and will be up to the individual riders to supply their own drugs. Other than that, I don't see many changes coming down the line.

I guess I'm a cynic....A realistic cynic that doesn't really care about what the pro's do to themselves as long as the racing is good and the playing field is more or less level (through controlled base levels of body functions).


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

MB1 said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> Based on no more than what I have observed in 30 years of being a fan of Euro Professional bicycle racing.
> 
> ...


1. Not all dope. Some cannot afford the level of doping available to others. So, it becomes a contest for the best drugs.

2. The fact that the stars dope encourages younger junior cyclists to embrace that lifestyle. That does matter. It should matter to anyone who has even a passing interest in the health and well-being of other human beings, especially those who are young and impressionable.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

MB1 said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> Based on no more than what I have observed in 30 years of being a fan of Euro Professional bicycle racing.
> 
> ...


I too don't care if anyone dopes. However, I do care that races have turned into circus events because all these riders get busted for doping. Make it all legal and problem solved.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Tschai said:


> Make it all legal and problem solved.


did you ignore the post directly above yours that illustrates a couple of the negatives of rampant doping or do the health and safety of both pro and junior cyclists not concern you provided the racing is entertaining and free from the distraction of those pesky positive tests?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Actually I think making it legal could help.*



blackhat said:


> did you ignore the post directly above yours that illustrates a couple of the negatives of rampant doping or do the health and safety of both pro and junior cyclists not concern you provided the racing is entertaining and free from the distraction of those pesky positive tests?


I can't imagine it could happen now but if PEDs were given under doctors care and carefully monitored it would stop some of the current abuse. However it wouldn't stop cheating as the cheaters would move on to something else.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I think this acceptance of doping speaks to the basic depravity of having accepted the American pharmaceutical drug culture. Take a drug to get the desired effect and consequences be damned, whether it be to look better, feel happier, f*^k longer, or cycle further. When a role model uses these drugs openly, the drug's use by others is somehow validated.That all these drugs are going to cause long term ill-effects is somehow ignored until they become so rampantly obvious that even the users take notice. This cycle seems to take 10-20 years, at which point the corporate drug makers have moved on to the next drug.

Getting back to Lance, you'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to believe he or his team was clean. In light of this year's events, I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Uh, dude!*



DrSmile said:


> I think this acceptance of doping speaks to the basic depravity of having accepted the American pharmaceutical drug culture. .......


Aren't we talking about a European sport that has been going on for 100+ years?

Those [email protected] American druggies sure have messed it up.  

Give credit where credit is due, they are perfectly capable of messing things up without our help. :cryin:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

MB1 said:


> Aren't we talking about a European sport that has been going on for 100+ years?
> 
> Those [email protected] American druggies sure have messed it up.
> 
> Give credit where credit is due, they are perfectly capable of messing things up without our help. :cryin:



No doubt!!!! Drugs and the Tour have gone hand in hand long before Americans ever became involved with it. I guess some people would rather do this: :mad2: and complain than admit the truth.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> No doubt!!!! Drugs and the Tour have gone hand in hand long before Americans ever became involved with it. I guess some people would rather do this: :mad2: and complain than admit the truth.


not that I neccessarily agree with the sentiment, but I think drsmile was referring to the <i>acceptance</i> of doping (let them dope) not doping itself. on that front you could make a fairly convincing argument that we currently don't take doping or sporting fraud as seriously as some euros.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I was addressing an American cyclist and the reasons why we in the US are apparently more reticent to criticize doping of our athletes. If people can't follow my logic that's ok, I've long since given up trying to argue logic with someone willing to suspend it.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

DrSmile said:



> I was addressing an American cyclist and the reasons why we in the US are apparently more reticent to criticize doping of our athletes. If people can't follow my logic that's ok, I've long since given up trying to argue logic with someone willing to suspend it.


So you no longer argue logic with yourself?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Having grown up in Germany, the willingness of parents to indoctrinate their children into the pharmaceutical culture here in the US was quite shocking to me. Parents even today insist on stuffing multi-vitamins down their children's gullet, despite every major medical journal having clearly shown that there is absolutely no benefit to this practice and that many of these vitamins are actually contaminated by poisons (such as lead). I suppose parents are simply ignorant of the fact that they are acting as enablers to their children in the long term. If you're used to taking pills as a child, taking them as an adult seems like a logical and innocuous next step.

I realize I am in a minority opinion here that will seem radical to most.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> Having grown up in Germany, the willingness of parents to indoctrinate their children into the pharmaceutical culture here in the US was quite shocking to me. Parents even today insist on stuffing multi-vitamins down their children's gullet, despite every major medical journal having clearly shown that there is absolutely no benefit to this practice and that many of these vitamins are actually contaminated by poisons (such as lead). I suppose parents are simply ignorant of the fact that they are acting as enablers to their children in the long term. If you're used to taking pills as a child, taking them as an adult seems like a logical and innocuous next step.
> 
> I realize I am in a minority opinion here that will seem radical to most.


I am just not buying that because some American parents are overdosing their kids European Professional Bicycle Racers are doping. 

BTW I'm more on the grand parent side of things but the kids don't dope and I don't expect they well.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

You are still missing my point. My point is that Europeans ARE in up in arms about their sports stars doping. America doesn't really seem to care, specifically about Lance.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

DrSmile said:


> You are still missing my point. My point is that Europeans ARE in up in arms about their sports stars doping. America doesn't really seem to care, specifically about Lance.


The reason: Americans are realistic about the chances that PED's will be eliminated from the pro peloton, by your posts it would appear that the Europeans are not.

We know PED's will never be completely eradicated from the sport, any sport for that matter. It's just the realistic aspect of sports in general. Trying to do so is going to kill the sport as we are all witnessing. American sports have figured it out. Give the appearance of doing something so the general idiot will think their "Star Player" is clean and everybody gets to see "Super Human" performances and all is good. It's a choice the player has to make at that level.

It's really that simple.

Anybody who thinks cycling will ever be clean are either dreamers or just ignoring the truth. In the meantime while they try and "Clean up the Sport" they are killing it. However, people will turn in to see who gets caught next time and eventually what people will tune in for is to watch the "Chase" not the "Race".


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> Having grown up in Germany, the willingness of parents to indoctrinate their children into the pharmaceutical culture here in the US was quite shocking to me.


Big logical disconnect there. The pharmaceutical culture here in the US is a joke, but that has nothing to do with why racers are doping. Pros have to perform optimally just to survive in the sport... they aren't taking EPO or testosterone to "modify their mood" or "get rid of the pain" or whatever. 

I think you also fail to realize that they culture of dope in cycling is very old and it started in Europe. Until at least the 80s the sport was too unsophisticated in the US for doping to be pervasive.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Maybe from WWII until the 80's the US wasn't a player but the US was very prominent in track cycling and doping from the turn of the century to the 1930's.


Other than cognitive psychology studies showing that information that contradicts people's beliefs tends to strengthen the belief, I'm a bit stumped how the OP can take 6 positive tests for EPO, along with all the other things listed, as part of a foundation for believing LA didn't take EPO.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*I have been following the sport for quite some time now....*



terzo rene said:


> ..... I'm a bit stumped how the OP can take 6 positive tests for EPO, along with all the other things listed, as part of a foundation for believing LA didn't take EPO.


I don't recall when Lance Armstrong ever failed a drug test. 

Details of the race, the test and the penalties would be great, thanks.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

MB1 said:


> I don't recall when Lance Armstrong ever failed a drug test.
> 
> Details of the race, the test and the penalties would be great, thanks.


'99 TDF, corticosteroids and zero penalties due to the post dated and allegedly forged TUE. and of course those 6 EPO +'s that some among us choose to pretend don't actually exist.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

MB1 said:


> I don't recall when Lance Armstrong ever failed a drug test.
> 
> Details of the race, the test and the penalties would be great, thanks.


I suppose you're also going to say that because OJ was found not guilty we can be confident that he didn't do it.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*I think you should go back and read my very first post in this thread.*



Circlip said:


> I suppose you're also going to say that because OJ was found not guilty we can be confident that he didn't do it.


As far as I am concerned the American cheater beat the Euro cheaters at their own game and walked away at just the right time able to proclaim in all honesty that he never failed a legitmate drug test.

No one here has been able to point to where LA actually failed a legal drug test.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*you're right and wrong*



MB1 said:


> As far as I am concerned the American cheater beat the Euro cheaters at their own game and walked away at just the right time able to proclaim in all honesty that he never failed a legitmate drug test.
> 
> No one here has been able to point to where LA actually failed a legal drug test.


the cortico test he failed was "fail(ing) a legal drug test". He produced a TUE that was comical and would not be accepted in the current climate but as with most things dope related, he was the beneficiary of good timing, excellent spin and a compliant sporting press.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

BTurn7 said:


> 1. Lawsuits aside, why havent any of his other teamates come out and say he has cheated the whole time. (Landis, Hamilton, Boonen)



BTurn7,
I think you should do ALOT more homework on this issue before posting your assumptions. Many of the things you wrote about in your original article are false. I'm going to specifically address one, or else I'd spend all day typing corrections. 1) Former teammates HAVE come out and claim there was Lance doping going on. Google it.


----------



## BTurn7 (May 20, 2006)

Barbewire, thanks for your input. In my last post I made a mistake by forgetting to mention Frankie and Vaughters, but I meant to say "why havent any of his other and more prominent teammates( besides Frankie and Vaughters) ever made claims against Lance for example, Hamilton, Boonen, Landis, or Heras." Sorry I cannot provide citation, but through web search and magazine reading I have read where Frankie does not always make the same claim against Lance. I agree there is alot out there that looks like he could have doped and he very well could have; However, there still remains to be found the one key truth that he did dope to win the Tours in my opinion. Barbewire, you said many other things in my post were false, please do inform me of this because I am curious as to where else I was wrong. One more thing, does anyone beleive that Graham Watson, Paul Sherwin or Phil Ligget, think Lance was clean?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

BTurn7 said:


> ... One more thing, does anyone beleive that Graham Watson, Paul Sherwin or Phil Ligget, think Lance was clean?


I don't have an opinion about what Graham Watson knows or doesn't know, but ligget and sherwin have been around long enough to know whats going on. unfortunately they also know to keep their mouths shut as I assume they like to have access.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> the cortico test he failed was "fail(ing) a legal drug test". He produced a TUE that was comical and would not be accepted in the current climate but as with most things dope related, he was the beneficiary of good timing, excellent spin and a compliant sporting press.


Therefore...he never failed a legal drug test. Whatever the reason, they accepted his TUE, threw out the result, and it doesn't count.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

blackhat said:


> I don't have an opinion about what Graham Watson knows or doesn't know, but ligget and sherwin have been around long enough to know whats going on. unfortunately they also know to keep their mouths shut as I assume they like to have access.


Graham Watson has a general opinion that the peloton has to dope. On his website he made comment that during the 2006 Tour the peloton were observed to be restless and going slow. He proffered that the vigilance caused by Operation Puerto had temporarily held back drug supplies to the riders. Poor dears were getting fatigued and conserving themselves! 

Sherwen was employed by either USPS or Motorola in the past in a PR capacity. Both Sherwen and Liggett have a financial vested interest in making the sport appear to the public to be squeaky clean.

I can recall Sherwen making a gaff towards the end of one of the Tours post 1998 - Festina. The French authorities had cracked down on French riders and teams. Other pro teams had abandoned being based in France (for tax reasons!!!) to the sanctuary of Spain.

Towards the end of this Tour Sherwen commented:
"The crackdown in France is having its effect on the results for French riders. Not one stage this year has been won by a French rider and a French rider holds the lanterne rouge (last place)"


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Tschai said:


> Make it all legal and problem solved.


lindsey makes the argument why that can't work in his latest <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/">bicycling.com blog entry</a> and a reply to a <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/why-legalizing-sports-doping-wont-work/">blog</a> at the NYT. in short-"wherever you draw the line, something, some technique or substance, will always be off-limits. And so you’ve merely moved the line, not erased it"


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I'm not on the UCI or CAS so I really don't care about whether tests met the administrative requirements for sanctioning. They provide [yet another] very good reason to believe LA was involved in systematic doping. The pattern of positives wasn't consistent with random lab errors or bias and a conspiracy would have required the involvement of people from at least 3 organizations that don't like each other, along with others. The simplest explanation of the results, consistent with all other evidence, is that he took EPO in 1999.

It was a fair race, he won. I don't think people require a belief that their favorite football or baseball players are clean to feel good about their victories so why is cycling so different? Just because of the St. Lance mythology that would be tarnished? The destruction of some misty eyed 1970's wool shorts and friction shifting view of cycling as a sport? I don't get it.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

BTurn7 said:


> Barbewire, thanks for your input. In my last post I made a mistake by forgetting to mention Frankie and Vaughters, but I meant to say "why havent any of his other and more prominent teammates( besides Frankie and Vaughters) ever made claims against Lance for example, Hamilton, Boonen, Landis, or Heras." Sorry I cannot provide citation, but through web search and magazine reading I have read where Frankie does not always make the same claim against Lance. I agree there is alot out there that looks like he could have doped and he very well could have; However, there still remains to be found the one key truth that he did dope to win the Tours in my opinion. Barbewire, you said many other things in my post were false, please do inform me of this because I am curious as to where else I was wrong. One more thing, does anyone beleive that Graham Watson, Paul Sherwin or Phil Ligget, think Lance was clean?


As far as riders speaking out against other riders... there is a code of silence among the peloton.. if they speak out they are said to be 'spitting in the soup' and in the past anyone doing this has become an outcast.... this is starting to change a bit... your examples: 

Hamilton: I wish he would speak out, he only deny's, deny's, deny's... he now looks like a complete idiot along with his dissapearing twin... why would he say anything about LA? I used to be a big Tyler fan... I would only be a fan now if he were to speak out and tell the truth. 

Boonen: You know Boonen did make some interesting coments in the tour this year, as in saying he thought Evans was really the only clean top rider or something like that.... kind of pointed at Disco there

Landis: Well he is trying to protect his own drug charges... with blackmail calls!! I lost respect for Floyd as well when that happened. 

Heras: Tested positive... just serving his time, playing the quiet game. 

And...Frankie: So he did speak out and he 'spat in the soup'... he lost his job from his domestic cycling team and his name has been drug thru the mud.... It would have been much easier for him to be quiet and his future within cycling would be much more secure now... I have more respect for Frankie now. 


Paul & Phil: did you catch the last day of the tour when Lance was with them, well not one word was spoken of all the drug stuff that had gone on, not one word... sometimes the silence speaks volumes... 


For me it isn not just one thing that points at Lance it is many, many, many things... that say he was not clean before or after cancer... and usually where there is smoke, there's fire. but hey I'm just a cycling fan... and this is just my opinion.. doesn't really mean much...


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> You are still missing my point. My point is that Europeans ARE in up in arms about their sports stars doping. America doesn't really seem to care, specifically about Lance.


I'm coming late to this, but I think mainstream America really does not care about Lance, Floyd, Tyler or whoever else just because there is a cultural-ADD phenomenon. The overall media slant is different than Europe, in America it is more about who is doing something bad TODAY. Currently, the "it" person is Michael Vick. Ever notice how quiet the furor about Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the HR record is now that Michael Vick is front and center? And if it isn't Vick or any other sports celeb then it is some societal celeb who is object of America's scorn. Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson, etc, etc.

Also, in general the biggest cycling stars in America are still small potatoes in public perception compared to the presence of a Jan Ullrich in Germany, or a Paolo Bettini in Italy, or a Tom Boonen or Johan Museeuw in Belgium. Those guys approach cultural icon status. Lance approaches icon status in America, but it is more about the fact that he beat cancer and then garnered his athletic success. If he never had cancer, but won the Tour seven times I doubt he would nearly as recognized by the average joe and hence if he were found to have doped it would not be nearly as big of a deal. 

It is also interesting to see the different reactions of the public and media in the Euro countries. The German and Danish public and media are much more inclined to be up in arms about dopers than the French, Italian, and Spanish. I think in those countries doping is "part of the occupation".


----------



## Chompers (Feb 3, 2004)

I might be wrong, but I didn't think Lance even finished a TdF before he got cancer. So after he got cancer, he returns to win a race he never finished, as well as beat people that are cheating . . . What I think is while he was in the hopsital something happened. . . . something . . . or . . . if it was revealed that Lance doped cycling could not take the hit . . . Lance has his hands into too many pockets that depend on his reputation.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chompers said:


> I might be wrong, but I didn't think Lance even finished a TdF before he got cancer. So after he got cancer, he returns to win a race he never finished, as well as beat people that are cheating . . . What I think is while he was in the hopsital something happened. . . . something . . . or . . . if it was revealed that Lance doped cycling could not take the hit . . . Lance has his hands into too many pockets that depend on his reputation.



Actually.....You would be wrong  

Lance completed the Tour in 1995 finishing 36th overall and winning stage 18, and I believe he finished one other Tour as well. Also in 1995 he finished the year ranked 15th in the world. In 1996 he finished the year ranked 9th overall, but had to drop out of the Tour due to Cancer.

So at a young age he was already showing promis as a Tour rider, and don't forget he was one of the youngest ever to win the World Championships. However, even he will admit that had he lost the upper body weight he lost during his battle with Cancer he wouldn't have won the Tour, but he might have been a top 10 guy as he matured as a rider.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

Circlip said:


> I suppose you're also going to say that because OJ was found not guilty we can be confident that he didn't do it.


I don't recall Lance Armstrong ever being accused of commiting a double homicide either.


----------



## Chompers (Feb 3, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> So at a young age he was already showing promise as a Tour rider, and don't forget he was one of the youngest ever to win the World Championships. However, even he will admit that had he lost the upper body weight he lost during his battle with Cancer he wouldn't have won the Tour, but he might have been a top 10 guy as he matured as a rider.


Maybe . . . but it's just hard to believe he did it clean. I would say cheat, but I don't think you can say that since he wasn't doing anything everybody else wasn't doing . . . or maybe he was doing something different. Something happened in the hospital . . . something.

So lance beat all the dopers, doing it clean for 7 years straight? It's hard enough to beat the best in the world, let alone when they are cheating. I just think you have to follow common sense.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Chompers said:


> Maybe . . . but it's just hard to believe he did it clean. I would say cheat, but I don't think you can say that since he wasn't doing anything everybody else wasn't doing . . . or maybe he was doing something different. Something happened in the hospital . . . something.
> 
> So lance beat all the dopers, doing it clean for 7 years straight? It's hard enough to beat the best in the world, let alone when they are cheating. I just think you have to follow common sense.



I never said I thought he won the Tour "Clean" I just corrected your post about him not finishing a Tour before Cancer. He did finish and finished fairly high in the standings at that.

However, you can't deny his natural talent. He was a professional Triathlete at 16, won the World Championships at what?.....23? He finished the Tour and did well early on and was a classics/sprinter early in his career. He was able to transform himself from a one day rider to a GT rider.

In the beginning I thought he was doing it clean, but in retrospect looking at all those that have been caught, I don't think he did it "Clean". 

However, I don't see it as cheating since everybody else was doing it at the time. I think all teams in the Tour had systematic doping programs and USPS/Discovery was just the best at hiding the doping they were doing.


----------



## Chompers (Feb 3, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> In the beginning I thought he was doing it clean, but in retrospect looking at all those that have been caught, I don't think he did it "Clean".
> 
> However, I don't see it as cheating since everybody else was doing it at the time. I think all teams in the Tour had systematic doping programs and USPS/Discovery was just the best at hiding the doping they were doing.


Exactly


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Chompers said:


> What I think is while he was in the hopsital something happened. . . . something . . . or . . .


Well there are the rumours about the EPO doping at Motorola so I think the old dope transformed Armstrong into a Tour winner is a bit naive. Plus it wasn't like he was a slouch or anything pre-cancer when the whole peloton was riding around with 50+ hematocrits.

Clearly several things changed post-cancer.

He started competing at a significantly lower weight then pre-cancer.
He focused on the Tour after his 4th in the Vuelta in '98.

I think the likely reasonable doping contributions surrounds him starting to work with Ferrari, Bruyneel with the ONCE docs run USPS.

So while I don't think he suddenly started doping in '98, I would buy that his doping became more sophisticated with a full-on hormone program to aid recovery along with the EPO/corticosteroid standard stuff. The interesting questions surround blood doping. Did he ever do it? Did he start all the way back in '98, and thus perhaps really have a leg up on his opponents? Only start after the EPO test was introduced?

It's a shame none of the top guys of that era have revealed much about how the doping took place and how important it was to their performance at various times.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Chompers said:


> Exactly



Exactly....wrong. 

The "They were all doing it so the playing field is level" excuse is BS. Not every rider/team had the funds or the access to the most advanced methods. Also different riders react differently to the same drugs. It has been said that riders with greater muscle mass, like Lance or Indurain, benefited to a greater extent from the introduction of the oxygen vector drugs like EPO


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well there are the rumours about the EPO doping at Motorola so I think the old dope transformed Armstrong into a Tour winner is a bit naive. Plus it wasn't like he was a slouch or anything pre-cancer when the whole peloton was riding around with 50+ hematocrits.
> 
> Clearly several things changed post-cancer.
> 
> ...


Lance started withing with Ferrari in 96. 

And his weight was not significantly lower post cancer, this is a commonly repeated myth


----------



## bsaunder (Oct 27, 2004)

I used to think that he was 100% clean and everyone thinking otherwise were just haters. As I've learned more and more of the history and become more and more of a fan - of all racing, not just the TDF - I've become a bit more of a realist. At this point I believe he, and everyone else, used anything at their disposal to get an edge. Despite the tremendously long list of banned substances, new developments happen every day that can create substance that will enhance performance, yet not be on the list.
So with that, I will still say that I don't think he did anything strictly against the rules, but yes did some things against the ideal.

Now that it is all "over" with his retirement; I'd actually rather play the head in the sand routine on Lance in particular. This sentiment is solely from the impact that having something come out now would truly be a large setback to his cancer foundation and the strides forward it has made. I'm generally not a fan of the ends justifies the means - but at this ponit I'd rather let the sleeping dog lay and not try to dig anything up. Its in the past, and I don't really see any good that could come out from destroying the image of someone that has retired and moved on.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> Lance started withing with Ferrari in 96.
> 
> And his weight was not significantly lower post cancer, this is a commonly repeated myth


If you say so for the first. But I find it hard to believe that at Tour time he was not competing several kgs lower than pre-cancer. He looked a helluva of a lot leaner. I know the Coyle paper shows that his off-season weight and percentage of muscle mass was no different post cancer but at Tour time?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Exactly....wrong.
> 
> The "They were all doing it so the playing field is level" excuse is BS. Not every rider/team had the funds or the access to the most advanced methods. Also different riders react differently to the same drugs. It has been said that riders with greater muscle mass, like Lance or Indurain, benefited to a greater extent from the introduction of the oxygen vector drugs like EPO



So....Essentially the best rose to the top anyway.

If you want to live in a bubble and think that organized doping hasn't been around for ever, that's your choice. However the simple fact is it has...

The East Germans had a huge nationally organized doping system that ran pretty much every athlete through a drug program of one sort or another. Those that showed they had problems with the drugs were weeded out of the system, those that showed they could take the drugs, improve performance and show no signs of usage rose through the system to the top rankings of the world.

So because a team didn't have the money to access the "Right" drugs they were playing on an uneven playing field? It's like that in every sport. The larger the budget the more likely they are to be good. Why do you think the Yankee's are at or near the top every year? They have the largest payroll. In fact with baseball you can almost pick the playoff teams by the size of their teams salary. By your way of thinking all other teams are playing on an uneven playing field and it's just unfair.....Wahhhh :cryin: 

The simple fact that those with more muscle rose to the top because they derived more benefit from the drugs used, still means that the best riders rose to the top drugs or not. What if the sport was "Clean" but other "supplements" were allowed? Some riders would react better to those supplements than others, thus creating an uneven playing field.

So essentially the only thing riders can do is eat food and drink water. Anything else is illegal. However, some teams will have better dietitians, better training methods, better equipment, better tactics, etc......

There will never be a level playing field.....When are some people going to start understanding this?:idea:


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> If you say so for the first. But I find it hard to believe that at Tour time he was not competing several kgs lower than pre-cancer. He looked a helluva of a lot leaner. I know the Coyle paper shows that his off-season weight and percentage of muscle mass was no different post cancer but at Tour time?




...in Lance's books he makes the point he dropped alot of weight...

...Walsh disputes this...

...neither one of them provides verifiable data for their positions [eg photocopy of medical record]...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> So....Essentially the best rose to the top anyway.
> 
> If you want to live in a bubble and think that organized doping hasn't been around for ever, that's your choice. However the simple fact is it has...:


I am not sure how you can come away with that from my post but I certainly aware of the history of doping in the sport. I have been riding for 25 years, 6 of them in Europe. I have friends, teammates and roommates who have doped. The simple fact is the type of doping that has been prevalent in the last 15 years, oxygen vector drugs like EPO, have not been around forever. 



Wookiebiker said:


> The East Germans had a huge nationally organized doping system that ran pretty much every athlete through a drug program of one sort or another. Those that showed they had problems with the drugs were weeded out of the system, those that showed they could take the drugs, improve performance and show no signs of usage rose through the system to the top rankings of the world.


I appears you are agreeing with me? In fact the East Germans have been some of the best sources for how some athletes are "Super responders" and others are not. They also, surprise, found many athletes that did not need, or could not handle excessive drugs or did not improve much because of them and still be successful. Uta Pippig comes to mind.



Wookiebiker said:


> So because a team didn't have the money to access the "Right" drugs they were playing on an uneven playing field? It's like that in every sport. The larger the budget the more likely they are to be good. Why do you think the Yankee's are at or near the top every year? They have the largest payroll. In fact with baseball you can almost pick the playoff teams by the size of their teams salary. By your way of thinking all other teams are playing on an uneven playing field and it's just unfair.....Wahhhh :cryin:


 During the 90's you had largely a level playing field as far as access to doping methods. This changed as the tests became harder to beat and your best option became guys like Dr. Fuentes. Instead of $1,000 per month for 6-7 months it became a $50-150,000 per year expense. At the same time the teams, for the large part, became less involved as the risk became too high. If you are a domestique earning E32,000 per year you do not have an additional 50 to give to Dr. Fuentes



Wookiebiker said:


> The simple fact that those with more muscle rose to the top because they derived more benefit from the drugs used, still means that the best riders rose to the top drugs or not. What if the sport was "Clean" but other "supplements" were allowed? Some riders would react better to those supplements than others, thus creating an uneven playing field.


 No it does not mean that the best riders rose to the top, what it does mean is all of a sudden riders like Indurain, Armstrong, Zulle, Ulrich, Riis, Rominger, Bugno etc. all could climb with the best climbers. Certainly there have been a few exceptions, Pantanti being the most obvious, but for the large part the pure climber has had a diminished role in GT racing in the last 15 years. Many experts believe that because of their naturally smaller muscle mass pure climbers benefited less from EPO then the larger riders



Wookiebiker said:


> So essentially the only thing riders can do is eat food and drink water. Anything else is illegal. However, some teams will have better dietitians, better training methods, better equipment, better tactics, etc......
> 
> There will never be a level playing field.....When are some people going to start understanding this?:idea:


Pro cycling is a very fine tuned, competitive environment. The teams have largely the same access to equipment, training and diet information. The difference are minor....none of these items can improve a rider as much as EPO along with a good hormone therapy program


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bonkmiester said:


> ...in Lance's books he makes the point he dropped alot of weight...
> 
> ...Walsh disputes this...
> 
> ...neither one of them provides verifiable data for their positions [eg photocopy of medical record]...


Lance has said that when he got 2nd at LBL in 1994 he weighed 64kg, of course riders lie all the time about weight, usually they are too high

Total body weight during laboratory testing ranged from 76 to 80 kg from 1992 through 1997 as well as during the preseason in 1999. However, when competing in the Tour de France in 1999–2004, body weight was reported by the subject to be 72–74 kg. Lean body weight was 70 kg during the period of 1992–1997 (Table 2). His height was 178 cm

-- Edward Coyle, Improved Muscular Efficiency Displayed as Tour de France Champion Matures. (March 17, 2005).

Coyle followed him closely for years, if cancer ate away at him Lance was sure able to put it on quickly in time for training camp. and his racing weight during the peak months was very similar


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

*This article says it all....*

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/non_doping_cyclists_finish_tour_de


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

...interesting you should bring that up...

...Walsh used some of Coyle's info in his new book...

...but since Walsh, IIRC, characterises much of Coyle's information as malarkey [particularly when it doesn't support Walsh's opinion], I don't think we can include it in this discussion...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> ...interesting you should bring that up...
> 
> ...Walsh used some of Coyle's info in his new book...
> 
> ...but since Walsh, IIRC, characterises much of Coyle's information as malarkey [particularly when it doesn't support Walsh's opinion], I don't think we can include it in this discussion...


On what basis does Walsh say Coyle's information is malarkey? I know his interpretation that it shows Lance became more efficient over time is contested I don't recall any claims the data isn't real.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Hi DB,

...let me attempt to clarify my sarcastic remark...

...while reading Walsh's latest book, my distinct impression was that Walsh selectively chose bits of Coyle's data to support Walsh's assertions, but at the other times characterized the body of Coyle's work as substandard and not of scientific import...

...since I have returned the book to the library, I cannot cite page & paragraph(s), but that's my recollection, such as it is...FWIW...YMMV... etc...and like that...

...there were other issues in the book, because of which I have mentally filed Mr Walsh under 'self serving hypocrit' [right next to Damien Ressiot] ...so you should factor my opinion of Walsh into your consideration of my comments...


----------



## Chompers (Feb 3, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Exactly....wrong.
> 
> The "They were all doing it so the playing field is level" excuse is BS. Not every rider/team had the funds or the access to the most advanced methods. Also different riders react differently to the same drugs. It has been said that riders with greater muscle mass, like Lance or Indurain, benefited to a greater extent from the introduction of the oxygen vector drugs like EPO





bigpinkt said:


> Exactly....wrong.
> 
> The "They were all doing it so the playing field is level" excuse is BS. Not every rider/team had the funds or the access to the most advanced methods. Also different riders react differently to the same drugs. It has been said that riders with greater muscle mass, like Lance or Indurain, benefited to a greater extent from the introduction of the oxygen vector drugs like EPO


I'm not excusing the action, or justifiing bad behaviour by pointing to other bad behaviour. What I'm saying is that I argee with Wookiebiker that he wasn't doing anything a lot of the others were not doing. 

Funny you bring up Indurain. I remember one year he beat everybody by over 4 minutes in the long TT in the TdF. I think it was LeMond's last "Tour", and if I remember right Greg said "He's from another planet!" . . . or was he?


----------



## Chompers (Feb 3, 2004)

bsaunder said:


> Now that it is all "over" with his retirement; I'd actually rather play the head in the sand routine on Lance in particular. This sentiment is solely from the impact that having something come out now would truly be a large setback to his cancer foundation and the strides forward it has made. I'm generally not a fan of the ends justifies the means - but at this ponit I'd rather let the sleeping dog lay and not try to dig anything up. Its in the past, and I don't really see any good that could come out from destroying the image of someone that has retired and moved on.


I think this is probably the main reason he won't be exposed, if anybody has evidence. Too many people have their hands in lances pockets, and/or vice versa. What good can happen two years later? Nothing, just bad.


----------

