# Carlos Sastre Time on Alpe d'Huez



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Alot has been made of Sastre having the 17th fastest time on the Alpe this year...It has been used as evidence of a cleaner Tour by many, because it is seemingly slower than many other years....

However, his time is actually ahead of some serious dopers, and only marginally behind other known dopers...these dopers did not take amphetamines or caffeine...these are people who did blood doping and EPO...He rode solo for practically the whole mountain, and there was a head wind according to Cadel....
Aside from this, I'm always suspicious of people who hardly ride before the Tour and then do performances like this...Most accept that the clean riders build their form by racing throughout the Spring classics and Stage Races...Carlos could basically do the 'preparation' needed for himself uninterrupted...Of course, we also have Carlos' link to Sainz with the ONCE team...not to mention Riis with CSC (Schleck, Basso)...
I know it's been said many times, but the CSC level of performance as a whole in this year's Tour was way too much...Supposedly there were five CSC riders on the list of the re-tests, which caught Kohl and Schumacher...Maybe there were more positives, and the UCI intervened, for fear of even more credibility being lost...
Ultimately I am suspicious of Sastre and of CSC as a whole....We've all seen Damsgaard's graph of haematocrit values for anonymous riders...there was a couple of seriously suspect values in there...

*Rank Time Name Year Nationality *
1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy 
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States 
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy 
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States 
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy 
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany 
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States 
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany 
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany 
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France 
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain 
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal 
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain 
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland 
16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark 
17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain 
18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy 
19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain 
20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany 
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg 
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan 
23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States 
24 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France 
25 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1986 Colombia 
26 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain 
27 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands 
28 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy 
29 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States 
30 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France 

* The 2004 stage was an individual time trial.

I want to make a point about Andy Hampsten...a fantastic rider, and one who I believe was clean...he won on the Alpe in 1992, beating the likes of Indurain...He took fourth overall in 1992...Another rider like Lemond with serious physiological ability...To do what he did in 1992 was exceptional, altough I don't believe EPO was as prevalent as it later became...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Alot has been made of Sastre having the 17th fastest time on the Alpe this year...It has been used as evidence of a cleaner Tour by many, because it is seemingly slower than many other years....
> 
> However, his time is actually ahead of some serious dopers, and only marginally behind other known dopers...these dopers did not take amphetamines or caffeine...these are people who did blood doping and EPO...He rode solo for practically the whole mountain, and there was a head wind according to Cadel....
> Aside from this, I'm always suspicious of people who hardly ride before the Tour and then do performances like this...Most accept that the clean riders build their form by racing throughout the Spring classics and Stage Races...Carlos could basically do the 'preparation' needed for himself uninterrupted...Of course, we also have Carlos' link to Sainz with the ONCE team...not to mention Riis with CSC (Schleck, Basso)...
> ...


NONE of the guys in front of him are clean


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

With the UCI enforcing the bike weight limit, I wonder how much faster these times will get in the future.
There is no question that there are a load of dopers in front of him, but wouldn't the race situation dictate how fast guys go up the climb? What about its placement in the race? Yes it is always at the end, but no two stages are identical. 
For instance, look at F. Schleck's time from 2006. For such a recent race, it is pretty far down the list. Wasn't he in a breakaway and dropped Cunego at the end, with the peloton content to the them have the stage, thus no real "free for all"? 
Not trying to say he's clean, it is just a plethora of factors to consider. CSC's TdF was pretty suspect to me as well. Wonder if ADA will wait and drop the hammer on them next year. 
paz afuera


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2008)

I agree that the length of the stage, tactics, and placement are factors. But then again LA rode what about 20 seconds slower at the end of a 200km stage than in an individual TT both of which he won.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Alot has been made of Sastre having the 17th fastest time on the Alpe this year...It has been used as evidence of a cleaner Tour by many, because it is seemingly slower than many other years....
> 
> However, his time is actually ahead of some serious dopers, and only marginally behind other known dopers...these dopers did not take amphetamines or caffeine...these are people who did blood doping and EPO...He rode solo for practically the whole mountain, and there was a head wind according to Cadel....
> Aside from this, I'm always suspicious of people who hardly ride before the Tour and then do performances like this...Most accept that the clean riders build their form by racing throughout the Spring classics and Stage Races...Carlos could basically do the 'preparation' needed for himself uninterrupted...Of course, we also have Carlos' link to Sainz with the ONCE team...not to mention Riis with CSC (Schleck, Basso)...
> ...


Well there you have it (irrefutable evidence) The dirty bastard should be hung.

Would you like me to start your thread about the 2009 winner of the tdf for you. No point in waiting till the race!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

papisimo9807 said:


> With the UCI enforcing the bike weight limit, I wonder how much faster these times will get in the future.
> There is no question that there are a load of dopers in front of him, but wouldn't the race situation dictate how fast guys go up the climb? What about its placement in the race? Yes it is always at the end, but no two stages are identical.
> For instance, look at F. Schleck's time from 2006. For such a recent race, it is pretty far down the list. Wasn't he in a breakaway and dropped Cunego at the end, with the peloton content to the them have the stage, thus no real "free for all"?
> Not trying to say he's clean, it is just a plethora of factors to consider. CSC's TdF was pretty suspect to me as well. Wonder if ADA will wait and drop the hammer on them next year.
> paz afuera


Not for one second am I suggesting that this is 'bomb proof'!!!! Of course you're right, there are variables at play here, and you;ve pointed some of them out...
However, what really got my attention on the issue is the way he rode solo ALL the way up, after the first bend practically...The head wind also...He practically time trialled, after a really tough stage with other mountain passes preceding it....His time is so close to Mr 60% for example...I don't see how it's possible to be have beaten known blood dopers (at the very least Vino, Ullrich, Bugno and Indurain), and been so close to other ones...Maybe if his team had lead the way and paced him, I could see something...Look we all know the difference EPO/Blood Doping has on an athlete's performance, many put it a a 20% increase in performance....


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Well there you have it (irrefutable evidence) The dirty bastard should be hung.
> 
> Would you like me to start your thread about the 2009 winner of the tdf for you. No point in waiting till the race!



Ah I was waiting for your knowledgeable reply!!! It is becoming SO hard to take you in any way seriously..You couldn't just stay on the subject of Sastre...You had to start the usual inflammatory, sweeping nonsense, which is common in almost all of your posts...Keep it general SwiftSolo, otherwise you might have to supply specific information...The horror!!!!

Never once did I say on this thread that it was irrefutable...I said I had suspicions...
Next, stop using words like 'bastard, wankers and losers; in your posts...it serves no purpose other than to reflect on your own personality...Ever heard of a spiritual axium?

I don't believe you should reply to any of my threads until you answer questions which you've avoided answering for two weeks...These include the names of books you keep bringing up, and before this, the list of 'clean' winners of Grand Tours of the past 20 years, who got unfairly labelled as being dopers....

Finally, from the thread on 2004, and many other threads, it becomes apparent very quickly, that you're not held in high regard, by a number of people, on this forum...Although you had supplied numerous titbits of 'irrefutable evidence' over the past couple of weeks showing why this maybe the case...
So, I think humouring you, by replying is not really working...hardly anyone else does!!!!
And when you NEVER answer direct questions, why bother anyway...Are you afraid that by attempting to answer the questions, your lack of knowledge will be shown to all and sundry?
And before you start with the point, that the likes of me are haters, who only want to shoot down successful people, maybe you should read that thread from 2004 again...And think about your reactions, as you found out that one by one, those riders got done for doping....


By the way, I assert my right to be highly suspicious of certain riders, because time and time again, they have shown these suspicions to be correct...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> NONE of the guys in front of him are clean



I know yeah, mad!!! Amazing to see a list of one to sixteen, and be able to say in all certainty, they were all dopers...IMO, the six times directly after Sastre were also aided by EPO and blood doping....and this leaves out Delgado's Probenacide positive and Theunisse's positive for testosterone...
Aside from Sastre, the other notable point for me, was the effect which blood doping/ EPO has had on performances and times, backing up again what people like Lemond, Hampsten, Voet have been saying for years, about truning average cyclists into thoroughbreds...
When Kimmage rode, he said the drugs available undoubtedly gave a big help , but he still firmly believed that at this time 'a doped ass never won the Derby'...However, he reckons this analogy was not true anymore after EPO...Riis is the best example...His results were worse than that of an average cyclist!!!!


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> *Rank Time Name Year Nationality *
> 1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
> 2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
> 3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
> ...


Yes, this list says it all in terms of effect of doping. It is truly amazing to see how much faster riders have been on the Alpe d'Huez after '90 and the introduction of EPO. Fignon and Herrera clocked the best pre-epo times and Fignon was a really classy rider winning the TdF already at age 22 and he was mostly likely blood-doped. And Herrera was a truly gifted and exceptional climber and yet many riders since then have managed to do the Alpe on significantly faster times and even today when the riders are supposedly clean they manage to do it faster .... 

Just a thought: What is doping is after all a political decision. So how about liberalising the doping and letting people do whatever they want?
I know this is not politically correct but it would be kind of interesting/fun to see how fast could a gifted rider do the Alpe d'Huez if every doping trick was applied (i.e. boosting the crit to 70%, lots of testosterone, etc). Could he get below 35 min? Below 33? Below 30?
Imagine the kind of TdF we would see if the riders were allowed to do anything in terms of doping. Of course this would turn cycling into a freak show instead of being a sport but I guess it would still be fun to watch.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Yes, this list says it all in terms of effect of doping. It is truly amazing to see how much faster riders have been on the Alpe d'Huez after '90 and the introduction of EPO. Fignon and Herrera clocked the best pre-epo times and Fignon was a really classy rider winning the TdF already at age 22 and he was mostly likely blood-doped. And Herrera was a truly gifted and exceptional climber and yet many riders since then have managed to do the Alpe on significantly faster times and even today when the riders are supposedly clean they manage to do it faster ....
> 
> Just a thought: What is doping is after all a political decision. So how about liberalising the doping and letting people do whatever they want?
> I know this is not politically correct but it would be kind of interesting/fun to see how fast could a gifted rider do the Alpe d'Huez if every doping trick was applied (i.e. boosting the crit to 70%, lots of testosterone, etc). Could he get below 35 min? Below 33? Below 30?
> Imagine the kind of TdF we would see if the riders were allowed to do anything in terms of doping. Of course this would turn cycling into a freak show instead of being a sport but I guess it would still be fun to watch.



Hey, I think we're both singing from the same hymn sheet here, in that you see what I see!!! Just one small point about Fignon...I'd doubt he blood doped to be honest...Whilst blood doping was used in 1984 in the Olympics, it wasn't really used, to the best of my knowledge, in cycling until the early 1990s...His results, even allowing for his age, were very average in comparison to previous seasons, from 1991 onwards...Although he wasn't completely clean that's for sure...he tested positive for amphetamines in 1989 and he worked very closely with none other than Cyrille Guimard (who Lemond fell out with, some believe due to doping)....

Also, it's a reasonable point about the legalising...Personally, I'm just a naive idealist though!!! I think it (clean cycling) can be achieved...Definite progress being made...I accept that you alluded to this in your post alright, but they may as well be lab rats on a bike...the best doctor would win...
And the person with the best doctor would often be the guy with most money...
For example, 1996 is known by many as not the year of Riis, but the year of Cecchini, because he had a one-two with Riis and Ullrich...Lance and Ferrari...I don't need to go any further!!!!


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Hey, I think we're both singing from the same hymn sheet here, in that you see what I see!!! Just one small point about Fignon...I'd doubt he blood doped to be honest...Whilst blood doping was used in 1984 in the Olympics, it wasn't really used, to the best of my knowledge, in cycling until the early 1990s...His results, even allowing for his age, were very average in comparison to previous seasons, from 1991 onwards...That doesn't mean I believe he was completely clean though, as he worked very closely with none other than Cyrille Guimard (who Lemond fell out with, some believe due to doping)....
> 
> Also, it's a reasonable point about the legalising...Personally, I'm just a naive idealist though!!! I think it (clean cycling) can be achieved...Definite progress being made...I accept that you alluded to this in your post alright, but they may as well be lab rats on a bike...the best doctor would win...
> And the person with the best doctor would often be the guy with most money...
> For example, 1996 is known by many as not the year of Riis, but the year of Cecchini, because he had a one-two with Riis and Ullrich...Lance and Ferrari...I don't need to go any further!!!!


Yes, we are certainly seeing things the same way.

Fignon was using the notorious dr Conconi as advisor/doctor. To me that spells blood-doping although of course I can not be sure.

Well my point about legalising drugs was mainly to start a debate. The problem with the current state of affairs is that a lot of substances are illegal and yet there exist no test to show whether a rider has used it or not. The break-through with the CERA test has received a lot of attention but hardly anyone talks about the very larger number of related substances that exist but that cannot be tested for. And what happened to the blood doping test that the French anti-doping labs said they had developed?
I think your list of Alpe d'Huez times is very good evidence that doping is still very used by the riders.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Yes, we are certainly seeing things the same way.
> 
> Fignon was using the notorious dr Conconi as advisor/doctor. To me that spells blood-doping although of course I can not be sure.
> 
> ...


Never knew that link between Conconi and Fignon...
You're absolutely right though about the CERA thing and the related substances not yet being detectable...God that's depressing actually....We saw that with Activogen and also that substance Rasmussen had in the shoebox (bovine haemoglobin)....
And the blood doping test...I think they're only saying that they;re close, just to act as a deterrant...they were claming the EPO test for years, since 2000 actually...
You know what, unless there's a change in philosophy, we're fu**ed...because it'll have to come from within, as the tests will never be quite up to date...as much as they have improved...Doping, will have to beome the new smoking!!! Uncool!!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Ah I was waiting for your knowledgeable reply!!! It is becoming SO hard to take you in any way seriously..You couldn't just stay on the subject of Sastre...You had to start the usual inflammatory, sweeping nonsense, which is common in almost all of your posts...Keep it general SwiftSolo, otherwise you might have to supply specific information...The horror!!!!
> 
> Never once did I say on this thread that it was irrefutable...I said I had suspicions...
> Next, stop using words like 'bastard, wankers and losers; in your posts...it serves no purpose other than to reflect on your own personality...Ever heard of a spiritual axium?
> ...


Which takes us back to the beginning. The only way anyone can be a winner in your eyes is to be a loser (incidentally, you are obviously a winner!). 

You really ought to consider some form of recreation (besides these lame attempts to bring down all winners). According to recent studies, exercising your body may improve mental acuity.

You have every right to voice your suspicion about anything--as do I. I can assert my suspicion that your observations are based in fact. But, as with Sastre, there is absolutely no supporting evidence.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Which takes us back to the beginning. The only way anyone can be a winner in your eyes is to be a loser (incidentally, you are obviously a winner!).
> 
> You really ought to consider some form of recreation (besides these lame attempts to bring down all winners). According to recent studies, exercising your body may improve mental acuity.
> 
> You have every right to voice your suspicion about anything--as do I. I can assert my suspicion that your observations are based in fact. But, as with Sastre, there is absolutely no supporting evidence.


Yawn!!! More name calling by you...the 'loser' one thrown in again....consistency! Your ignorance, on so many levels is quite extraordinary, as is your lack of knowledge and naivety....there are many people, who I greatly admire on an intellectual, professional and personal viewpoint, that hold views similar to my own on this topic...these people are admired for their knowlledge all over the world, by scientists, doctors, physiologists, but we're all losers!!! The likes of you though, the Johnny come latelys, who have read three books (Two Lance and one Floyd) are the enlightened ones!!!! But you know so little, that ignorance is bliss for you...and I think you quite like this situation...

Oh SwiftSolo, if you only knew who you were talking to in relation to exercise, sport and performance!!!  

By the way, DON'T reply to this thread if you don't answer the questions repeatedly asked today and last week...Otherwise there's simply no point...Are you intellectually capable?

Lame attempts to bring down ALLl winnners? Who have I attempted to bring down?!!!!
What riders have won Grand Tours, who have been labelled dopers, but were actually clean?
Of the list of times in my original post from 1-16, who do you think is/was clean?
What was your reaction to Floyd, Tyler etc getting done? Did you think it was a conspiracy? And did you not believe it at first?

In your opinion (this should be good!!), do you think a clean rider can beat a rider blood doping/taking EPO, over a three week Tour? And considering EPO is said to give up to 20% performance increase, how do you think this is possible? By that I mean, have these 'clean' riders been such physiological freaks that they beat riders on EPO?? specific examples too, like names PLEASE...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Yawn!!! More name calling by you...the 'loser' one thrown in again....consistency! Your ignorance, on so many levels is quite extraordinary, as is your lack of knowledge and naivety....there are many people, who I greatly admire on an intellectual, professional and personal viewpoint, that hold views similar to my own on this topic...these people are admired for their knowlledge all over the world, by scientists, doctors, physiologists, but we're all losers!!! The likes of you though, the Johnny come latelys, who have read three books (Two Lance and one Floyd) are the enlightened ones!!!! But you know so little, that ignorance is bliss for you...and I think you quite like this situation...
> 
> Oh SwiftSolo, if you only knew who you were talking to in relation to exercise, sport and performance!!!
> 
> ...


Mate,
Neither you or I could win the tdf regardless of the number or quantity of drugs we've taken. 

Your question about who you've attempted to bring down was (I assume) asked in jest? What winners haven't you attempted to bring down (other than your masked hero, greg)?

In the end, none of this really matters as long as you realize that this desire to bring down winners is a mental disorder. It forever precludes those obsessed with it from becoming winners themselves. Let the system deal with the problem or, at least, divert this obsession to fixing the system.

At the end of July you will be faced with your next temptation. You will again have to make the decision to either attempt to bring down the new winners or to let the system take care of it. Quit, cold turkey! Take the opportunity to find some kind of alternative life of your own. Remember, I'll be pulling for you!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate,
> Neither you or I could win the tdf regardless of the number or quantity of drugs we've taken.
> 
> Your question about who you've attempted to bring down was (I assume) asked in jest? What winners haven't you attempted to bring down (other than your masked hero, greg)?
> ...


Insults to distract from not being able to answer questions...

Unable to answer questions because of your lack of a clue about the sport...

Ad hominem attack, because you can't answer any questions put to you...EVERY post you make is this type though...

So according to you, all the people who question these 'winners' are losers...The people who follow blindly all these 'winners', are the enlightened ones...A career in academia beckons for you...And if people question your side of things, just call them 'losers', no need to even show why they are wrong...No point, just that word 'loser' encompasses all arguments!!!!

Shame your friend Mr. Damsgaard holds the journalists who question in such high regard..He must be a loser too...

Funny how we (the losers) have been right about SO MANY riders though...Probably just a coincidence...Oh and the lab fu**ed up, I forgot about that...
Some people like knowing the truth though...Losers!!!!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Had to add my two cents

-This is actually not a complete list. In 1997 the group hit the bottom of the climb largely intact. over 60 riders beat 45 minutes that day....crazy. The autobus did 46 minutes that day

-I do not see this list as an attempt to "Bring Down" riders....most on the list have already been "brought down". What sticks out to me is Luis Herrera and Fausto Coppi. Amazing riders

-Unfortunately Fignon did indeed use Conconi as did Roche. His files show that both took EPO. However this was a few years later in 1993. There have always been rumors that Fignon used EPO in 89 but had issues with it as its effects were still unknown. Many mistakes were made when it first was introduced....some mistakes were fatal. Most others underestimated the effect on the body. It takes time for it to work and for the initial few days can have a negative effect on performance as the body uses energy to manufacture new blood cells.

-How much faster a rider could go if there were no limits is debatable. There were essentially no limits in the mid 90's. EPO's key benefit is delivering oxygen to the muscles, however you get to the point of diminishing returns. How to build enough muscle to benefit from the increased oxygen, without increasing weight. The result is a look we saw often in the last 15 years, riders going full gas up a climb, with an impassive look on their face.....like they were out for a Sunday spin.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Had to add my two cents
> 
> -This is actually not a complete list. In 1997 the group hit the bottom of the climb largely intact. over 60 riders beat 45 minutes that day....crazy. The autobus did 46 minutes that day
> 
> ...



Hey...
That first point is incredible...It speaks volumes though...The mid 90s must have been rediculous...You had Pantani and Riis with hematocrits in the 60s...their blood must have been like treacle...
Yeah Kimmage, in update versions of Rough Ride, alludes to the health problems and deaths as a result of EPO abuse...He speaks of riders being seen hanging upsdie down off a door frame to thin the blood!!! Riders on rollers during the night was another apparently...So sad more than anything...
No limits EPO and it's benefits or not...I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that one...I did not realise that more could result in diminishing returns...I did see alright that not every rider reacts in a positive light to it, Erik Zabel being one....

My goal really was for people to see for themselves Sastre's time...Personally I did not like what I saw...It's certainly not fool proof to compare times...I completely accept that...I just did not like how comparative his times are to other ones of poor repute...It's up to people to question or not question for themselves on this one alright though...Coppi's time is mind boggling for the time...He must have been some talent...

Note: I re-edited my first post on this thread today, to mention Andy Hampsten...Alot of people, including myself more than most, talk about Lemond in glowing terms, but as another American, Hampsten had an outstadning career...what he achieved in 1992, considering the 'conditions' of the sport, was superb imo....
Consider who he was beaten into fourth by: Indurain, Chiappucci and Bugno...the latter two were in Conconi's files for EPO...Some athlete he was........


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Hey...
> Consider who he was beaten into fourth by: Indurain, Chiappucci and Bugno...the latter two were in Conconi's files for EPO...Some athlete he was........


Actually Indurain used Conconi as well. When his long time doctor, Sabino Padilla, left to become the doctor for a soccer team up north Indurain employed Conconi for his last couple of seasons. Padilla's reputation took a bit of a hit when a bunch of his players tested positive.

Andy is a great guy. He has echoed much of what many riders have said, and SwiftSolo cannot seem to understand.
http://velonews.com/article/6660

He writes
"I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth."


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Actually Indurain used Conconi as well. When his long time doctor, Sabino Padilla, left to become the doctor for a soccer team up north Indurain employed Conconi for his last couple of seasons. Padilla's reputation took a bit of a hit when a bunch of his players tested positive.
> 
> Andy is a great guy. He has echoed much of what many riders have said, and SwiftSolo cannot seem to understand.
> http://velonews.com/article/6660
> ...


BigPinkt thanks a mill for that about Indurain...Logically I knew he doped, and Walsh has alluded to it, but I never knew about Conconi and that guy Padilla...Could never seem to find out his doctor's name...cheers!!!! :thumbsup: 

Yeah I am a big admirer of Andy, I really like what he's been saying and is yet another person who has nothing to gain for speaking out....


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> Insults to distract from not being able to answer questions...
> 
> Unable to answer questions because of your lack of a clue about the sport...
> 
> ...


Actually, the "losers" have been right about pretty much every rider who ever got past training wheels --as judged by your rules of evidence. 

Back to the point of your thread: What level of slowness would be acceptable to you to declair Sastre a winner? For example, if he posted the 80th slowest time ever recorded, would that be slow enough to be a winner in your eyes? Or, what if he bonked half way up and couldn't finish---would that suffice? Give us your slowness barometer so that we too will be able to judge the "true winner" of the 2009 tdf--from your point of view.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, the "losers" have been right about pretty much every rider who ever got past training wheels --as judged by your rules of evidence.
> 
> Back to the point of your thread: What level of slowness would be acceptable to you to declair Sastre a winner? For example, if he posted the 80th slowest time ever recorded, would that be slow enough to be a winner in your eyes? Or, what if he bonked half way up and couldn't finish---would that suffice? Give us your slowness barometer so that we too will be able to judge the "true winner" of the 2009 tdf--from your point of view.


Do you believe there is any correlation between blood vector doping and riding a bike faster? 

Even with your limited knowledge of the sport it is a challenge to look at that list and not see that Sastre has multiple dopers in front of him and behind him so it is legit question to ask if he is the one of the few clean guys in a group of dopers.

Many riders have talked about the sudden increase in climbing speeds when EPO entered the sport, and the times reflect it. You can pretend it did not but you are in the minority


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Do you believe there is any correlation between blood vector doping and riding a bike faster?
> 
> Even with your limited knowledge of the sport it is a challenge to look at that list and not see that Sastre has multiple dopers in front of him and behind him so it is legit question to ask if he is the one of the few clean guys in a group of dopers.
> 
> Many riders have talked about the sudden increase in climbing speeds when EPO entered the sport, and the times reflect it. You can pretend it did not but you are in the minority


It is the total lack of any understanding of the rules of evidence that comes into question repeatedly on this forum--not the knowledge of cycling. There continues to be complete denial that anyone would stretch the truth or write articles or books to make money by promoting half truths. Without benefit of a hearing, you guys believe that all cyclists are liars and all writers are honest (unless they defend cyclists). You would have everyone believe that Sastre is guilty because of your perverse logic--in spite of a total lack of rational evidence.

The thing that you continue to ignore is that there is a system in place to judge the guilt or innocence of these competitors. You would have readers believe that only you can be the accurate judge of these matters. 

While I suspect that most see right through you guys it is my mission to point out that there exists a large number of societies losers who live to attempt to bring winners down to their level. This Sastre thread is a clear example.

If Sastre is found guilty tomorrow, it will not change anything. That is what your minds are incapable of understanding. The hearings process (not the opinions of witch hunters and other losers) is the thing that allows rational people to form opinions on guilt or innocence when lacking personal observation of the crime.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> It is the total lack of any understanding of the rules of evidence that comes into question repeatedly on this forum--not the knowledge of cycling. There continues to be complete denial that anyone would stretch the truth or write articles or books to make money by promoting half truths. Without benefit of a hearing, you guys believe that all cyclists are liars and all writers are honest (unless they defend cyclists). You would have everyone believe that Sastre is guilty because of your perverse logic--in spite of a total lack of rational evidence.
> 
> The thing that you continue to ignore is that there is a system in place to judge the guilt or innocence of these competitors. You would have readers believe that only you can be the accurate judge of these matters.
> 
> ...



Almost word for word the same as all posts you write...'Losers' thrown in there yet again...Yet, not one of the questions I've put to you, have you answered...More vague references in your posts...Be sure to keep it vague Swift, as you might need evidence to support your answer!!

'If Sastre is found guilty tomorrow, it wil not change anything!' :thumbsup: 

You talk of your 'mission'!!!!  

Honestly, I want nothing further to do with this nonsense...You refuse to answer questions and then just write this kind of nonsense in EVERY post...there's no point whatsoever in engaging you, as you have a standard answer of drivel (see above) for EVERY post...


You keep referring to books which you'd not even read!!! Brilliant!!! But ALL these books are by 'Bob Woodward' wannabes!!! Oh if you only knew...You fool......

Your ignorance on so many levels is mind boggling...Some of this ignorance is no doubt due to your late entry into the sport...the rest, god knows, as it is clearly not exclusive to cycling...As I said to you before, please don;t come over to 'our' side (sorry for the oversimplification) because if this is the level of your logic and arguments, it would really reflect badly on us...Every time you make a statement it shows yet again how little you know of the sport, and as I alluded to before, I believe you know this in your heart....

Just remember, the 'fans' who follow blindly like sheep, must also take some form of blame for the current doping problems in the sport...Because it's the likes of you, who pay for Floyd's defence fund, and cheer other dopers up the side of a mountain...And as the dopers pedal, they say, 'who cares what i've done? The people stll love me'........
When I do support a rider, the likes of Mark Cavendish, VanDeVelde, Gerdemann, Dan Martin, Bradley Wiggins etc etc, I want to be as sure in my own mind, as is possible, that these riders are clean...I am satisfied they are clean...I cheer them on and get great satisfaction from watching them succeed...However, I can't just stand by and be impassive when I see dopers win...Guys you know in your heart of hearts are dirty, because all logic and evidence points to this...Maybe if I wasn't following the sport with long, I'd have this 'they're all innocent until proven in a court of law' attitude....but that's very naive, because for one thing, it's assuming the UCI have always had a great desire to clean the sport...Money talks, and the UCI is a disgrace...Police raids have had by far the most success in weeding out the dopers...And the two most famous police raids, happened as a result of tip offs from people within the sport...It certainly was not the work of the UCI...
Also, I take it that you disagree with Damsgaard in his praise of investigative journalists...

Since you use the word so much, again, above for example, you have another country to add to your famous list of 'losers'!!!...I saw it last night...The German race of people!!!
The country is seriously disgruntled with the doping in the sport, and have turned their back on it for the most part...They see cycling as a joke..Linus Gerdemann echoed what many others have been saying about Lance coming back, they see it as a damage to the credibility of the sport...They are well aware, as a result of the doping scandals, of what has been going on for many years...They are also a very intelligent and logical nation...
But last night, people said that the reason they are not happy with Lance returning, was not due to his doping links, but that they are bitter because Jan Ullrich was beaten so often by Lance!!!! Linus was also called a whiner by the way...For being anti-doping you get called a whiner!!!! Incidentally, Tom Boonen last year, one of the most successful sprinters of all time, said he had given up on all the GC riders except of Cadel Evans...Would a guy as successful as Boonen also be classified a loser?!!!!!!!


----------



## Shojii (Nov 27, 2004)

Actually, back to the subject of Carlos - I'm not convinced that he's a doper. Yeah he practically time trialled and kicked butt, but he waited.

Note that he didn't really play any of his aces at the TdF until the Alpe d'Huez- if you consider that EPO lets a rider take him/herself to the limit more often and recover well (a'la Kohl) and non dopers have fewer and have to use theirs more sparingly, then I'd suggest that perhaps this is why Sastre had to wait to make his move. 

If you watch his past performances, you'll see that he doesn't have the miraculous ability to attack and recover like our more 'talented' dopers - when he goes past the redline, it takes him time to recover. 

My 0.02...


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

Shojii said:


> Actually, back to the subject of Carlos - I'm not convinced that he's a doper. Yeah he practically time trialled and kicked butt, but he waited.
> 
> Note that he didn't really play any of his aces at the TdF until the Alpe d'Huez- if you consider that EPO lets a rider take him/herself to the limit more often and recover well (a'la Kohl) and non dopers have fewer and have to use theirs more sparingly, then I'd suggest that perhaps this is why Sastre had to wait to make his move.
> 
> ...


Maybe Sastre doped, maybe he didn't. The point is that for all the testing that is done, we still don't know for sure because the anti-doping programs are still lacking behind the dopers.
And that is really the tragedy of modern cycling. We should be discussing the races, riders or their equipment but instead the discussion keeps coming back to the doping issues.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> There continues to be complete denial that anyone would stretch the truth or write articles or books to make money by promoting half truths. Without benefit of a hearing, you guys believe that all cyclists are liars and all writers are honest (unless they defend cyclists). You would have everyone believe that Sastre is guilty because of your perverse logic--in spite of a total lack of rational evidence.


I guess it is possible that someone could start false rumours to benefit their own cause. Can you put please put forward any specific example you have in mind?

Well, I can not speak for anyone but myself, but certainly I find it very hard to believe the explanations and conspiracy theories put forward by some of the riders that are caught in doping tests (For instance Hamilton or Landis). 
A rider like Landis had every motive to dope (namely to win the tour) and had he been a slightly smarter guy he might have gotten away with it. Fortunately he was busted.



> The thing that you continue to ignore is that there is a system in place to judge the guilt or innocence of these competitors. You would have readers believe that only you can be the accurate judge of these matters.


What you seem to be ignoring is that the testing system is at best incomplete. A lot of the PEDs can not be detected or the tolerances are so conservative that you can still use it if you are careful.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> It is the total lack of any understanding of the rules of evidence that comes into question repeatedly on this forum--not the knowledge of cycling. There continues to be complete denial that anyone would stretch the truth or write articles or books to make money by promoting half truths. Without benefit of a hearing, you guys believe that all cyclists are liars and all writers are honest (unless they defend cyclists). You would have everyone believe that Sastre is guilty because of your perverse logic--in spite of a total lack of rational evidence.
> 
> The thing that you continue to ignore is that there is a system in place to judge the guilt or innocence of these competitors. You would have readers believe that only you can be the accurate judge of these matters.
> 
> ...


You have given this forum an irrational position of power. We are not judge and jury, we have no power to sanction, we are here to discuss doping in cycling. 

I understand your knowledge of the sport is limited however over the last 15 years we have seen that often huge performances are often followed by the reality of doping. Museeuw, Riis, Ulrich, Armstrong, Patani, Mayo, Virenque, Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Vino. These riders were not brought down by "losers who live to attempt to bring winners down to their level". They were brought down when the reality of their performances were exposed.

Questioning if Sastre's performance, that places him in the middle of known dopers, is evidence of doping is legit. Personally I believe (hope) that Carlos is clean, but that does not make the question any less legit. The fact is that many internal anti doping programs are incorporating output as part of their system. If Sastre's performance coincided with an increase in Hct alarms would go off. 

The unfortunate reality of our sport is that the dopers are still far ahead of the testing. Your faith in the systems ability to catch all cheaters is cute, but misguided. Without police action (Puerto, Santuccione, LA MSS) or mistaken advice from doping doctors (CERA) some would still be under idea that the sport does not have a problem.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> I guess it is possible that someone could start false rumours to benefit their own cause. Can you put please put forward any specific example you have in mind?
> 
> Well, I can not speak for anyone but myself, but certainly I find it very hard to believe the explanations and conspiracy theories put forward by some of the riders that are caught in doping tests (For instance Hamilton or Landis).
> A rider like Landis had every motive to dope (namely to win the tour) and had he been a slightly smarter guy he might have gotten away with it. Fortunately he was busted.
> ...


The Duke Lacrosse rape case would be a recent and obvious case. 

It is fair to take shots at the drug testing program and those who run it. Clearly, they have an obligation to put in place a system that keeps the sport clean. They have failed. In doing so, they have failed cycling fans and the sponsors of the teams. They are damaging the sport through their failure.

It is not, however, reasonable to take shots at competitors simply because they've done well. These are real people engaged in a sport that we supposedly believe in, not gutless and anonymous posters. Rational people adopt belief in the axiom "innocent until proven guilty". On this forum, however, it is not good enough to simply punish those who are found guity. Instead, anyone who wins is accused of doping (if not directly, by innuendo). It is this process that is pathological and devoid of rational thought.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Without benefit of a hearing, you guys believe that all cyclists are liars and all writers are honest (unless they defend cyclists). You would have everyone believe that Sastre is guilty because of your perverse logic--in spite of a total lack of rational evidence.



Just one thing I want to add, and I've alluded to it already...There is this misconeption about me, and the likes of me, that I want to question ALL winners and 'bring them down'...It is a very convenient, but very misleading assumption...Cadel Evans is one rider I've followed for a number of years now, and I am choosing to believe he is clean...One thing about dopers is how ambiguous their statements on doping can be...Floyd in the 2006 Tour in relation to Puerto being a great example...I like what Evans has to say, and there is no ambiguity...I want to believe he is clean...If he wins the Tour, I'll be here next July jumping for fu**ing joy!!! He has great physiology, he builds his form from the start of the season, he was good from a young age (he started as a Mountain Biker)...He had an awful time at a notorious doping team in T-Mobile...The way he dies a death on a mountain is really reassuring also, as there's no sign of him ever morphing into a robocop type figure who hardly breathes...I am even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about his supposed links with Ferrari...There are a number of riders who I am trusting these days...It really is increasing...I was so disappointed in Kohl doping this year...I really thought he was one of the new brand...Did I think he doped at the time? No, I admit I did not...I thought he was finally fulfilling his early promise...Schumacher, yeah his performances day in day out were a bit rediculous alright, so I did have doubts there...

Now, not once did I say that I had 'irrefutable' evidence that he (Sastre) doped...I admitted that to compare times is not bombproof...However, I stand by my suspicions, for the reasons already given...Even the most vocal anti-doping pro cyclists admit that most fans have trouble believing a cyclist is completely clean...(For crying out loud, the riders themselves are supicious of some teams)...They admit this because they accept that the credibility problem has been brought about by cyclists themselves...

But another way your 'argument' falls down is that you know nothing of where I come from and my interests outside of cycling...Be under no illusions, cycling is a big part of my life, but other sports have also played huge parts (both as a competitor and fan)...And I can honestly say that there are a number of people from these sports whom I admire greatly, and would go as far as to call them heros of mine...I love sport...Even players for rival teams, I have respect for...But the only two sports I have serious issues with, in relation to suspicions, are cycling and athletics (namely Sprinting)...And the reality is that there is a bloody good reason for this...
People, like myself, who doubt some performances ('jealous losers') in cycling are not to blame for being suspicious, cycling has made a fine job of heaping suspicion upon itself...

One thing you did mention was that we should focus more on the solution...Well, when the tests have been so inept for so long, this is rather difficult...Lemond came up with a great idea, but he got branded a.....let me think....loser I think was the word!!!!!


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> It is not, however, reasonable to take shots at competitors simply because they've done well. These are real people engaged in a sport that we supposedly believe in, not gutless and anonymous posters. .


more name calling...
I am delighted when I see good performances...but unrealistic ones, there's a problem there for me....And so so many of the performances in recent years have been that way...ETs...


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> There continues to be complete denial that anyone would stretch the truth or write articles or books to make money by promoting half truths.
> 
> .


You can't conceivably continue to make this statement about books and half truths, without giving specific examples...You've continually been unable to do this, knowing it's impossible for me to dispute the point, if I don;t know the books or articles in question...Also you need to address Damsgaard's point on journalists...Was he wrong?


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> The Duke Lacrosse rape case would be a recent and obvious case.


Have you got any example related to cycling?



> These are real people engaged in a sport that we supposedly believe in, not gutless and anonymous posters.


Present you arguments (as far as you have any). But stop judging other peoples moral or ethics.



> Rational people adopt belief in the axiom "innocent until proven guilty". On this forum, however, it is not good enough to simply punish those who are found guity. Instead, anyone who wins is accused of doping (if not directly, by innuendo). It is this process that is pathological and devoid of rational thought.


Normally I would agree with your assertion of "innocent until proven guilty". When it comes to professional cycling I don't: Given the events of the last 10-15 yrs there is (unfortunately) every reason to be suspicious. In fact, the rational choice for a rider is to start using doping! 
It is the continued denial of the doping in the world of professional cycling which is pathological and devoid of rational thought.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Exciton said:


> Have you got any example related to cycling?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me make sure I understand. If one is a professional cyclist, he is by extension a doper? There are no exceptions and therefore no innocent people? 

Would you simply have all pro cyclists arrested or what universal punishment do professional cyclists deserve for being... pro cyclists (and therefore guilty of doping)? 

If this logic isn't reminicent of 1692 and the Salem witch hunts/trials, I can't imagine what could be.


----------



## Exciton (Aug 8, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me make sure I understand. If one is a professional cyclist, he is by extension a doper? There are no exceptions and therefore no innocent people?
> 
> Would you simply have all pro cyclists arrested or what universal punishment do professional cyclists deserve for being... pro cyclists (and therefore guilty of doping)?


First, I note that you did not present any example related to cycling. 

Secondly, you are twisting my argument. I have not stated that all riders are dopers. But I am suspicious to extraordinary performances.

Thirdly, this is a doping thread and people are free to voice their opinions especially if they can back it with sensible arguments but this has nothing to do with a court room, so why do you bring the possible legal actions into this thread?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me make sure I understand. If one is a professional cyclist, he is by extension a doper? There are no exceptions and therefore no innocent people?
> 
> Would you simply have all pro cyclists arrested or what universal punishment do professional cyclists deserve for being... pro cyclists (and therefore guilty of doping)?
> 
> If this logic isn't reminicent of 1692 and the Salem witch hunts/trials, I can't imagine what could be.


Exciton asked you for specific examples like I've been doing for about three weeks now...So just to show this refusal is not exclusive to me, you've also failed to do it in this instance...
Where does Exciton, myself or anyone else, for that matter, say that, 'If one is a professional cyclist, he is by extension a doper'? You deliberately extrapulated this because it is convenient to your point of view...It seemingly adds weight to your argument...but in reality it is untrue and you know it is...Not even the most cynical amongst us believe something even remotely like this...There are many clean riders out there these days...In the 90s and early 00s, this was possibly a different scenario....
More Salem witch hunt mentions!! Are the comparisons to 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the way?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let me make sure I understand. If one is a professional cyclist, he is by extension a doper? There are no exceptions and therefore no innocent people?
> 
> Would you simply have all pro cyclists arrested or what universal punishment do professional cyclists deserve for being... pro cyclists (and therefore guilty of doping)?
> 
> If this logic isn't reminicent of 1692 and the Salem witch hunts/trials, I can't imagine what could be.


As expected, you do not understand. I do not seeing anyone here writing that all pro cyclist are doping. 

Do you know what EPO/Blood doping does? It helps you climb faster. Some studies show up to 10-15% faster, Pantani's time is about 12% faster then Lucho's. There was a dramatic decrease in times when EPO was introduced into the sport....followed by an increase when testing improved in the last few years. To see a rider post a time that until then had only been ridden by dopers raises legitimate questions. Add to this that the Alp d'Huez stage this year was one of the hardest ever and came in the third week of the Tour makes his performance all the more questionable. 

Do you really not understand this or are you just trolling?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:



> As expected, you do not understand. I do not seeing anyone here writing that all pro cyclist are doping.
> 
> Do you know what EPO/Blood doping does? It helps you climb faster. Some studies show up to 10-15% faster, Pantani's time is about 12% faster then Lucho's. There was a dramatic decrease in times when EPO was introduced into the sport....followed by an increase when testing improved in the last few years. To see a rider post a time that until then had only been ridden by dopers raises legitimate questions. Add to this that the Alp d'Huez stage this year was one of the hardest ever and came in the third week of the Tour makes his performance all the more questionable.
> 
> Do you really not understand this or are you just trolling?


Don't be too hard on him. He really can't help it.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Had to add my two cents
> 
> -This is actually not a complete list. In 1997 the group hit the bottom of the climb largely intact. over 60 riders beat 45 minutes that day....crazy. The autobus did 46 minutes that day
> 
> ...


I believe that in 1952 the climb up Alpe d'huez ended lower down the hill - so although Coppi had a heavier bike, he also climbed less high which is why his time appears to compete with modern times.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

PhatTalc said:


> I believe that in 1952 the climb up Alpe d'huez ended lower down the hill - so although Coppi had a heavier bike, he also climbed less high which is why his time appears to compete with modern times.


I think you are correct. It ended in the town and not the back side of the town as it does today. Also, most of those times are measured from the roundabout and not the base of the climb. That adds at least another 1-2 minutes depending on the speed of the group, which is usually crazy fast leading up to the climb.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Hey,
Deviating from the thread slightly...just don;t want to start a new thread for this...In relation to Frank Schleck offering to provide DNA (apparently) to the investigators in Puerto, in order to show it's not his blood...In your opinion, do you think he's just playing a game of bluff? Knowing full well that he probably won;t have to provide it at this stage anyway...I vaguely remember Basso offering in a very roundabout way to do the same...but obviously he got called on it in the end, and then he confessed...Of course the other possibility is that he was just incredibly lucky and hadn't drawn the blood yet...


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Hey,
> Deviating from the thread slightly...just don;t want to start a new thread for this...In relation to Frank Schleck offering to provide DNA (apparently) to the investigators in Puerto, in order to show it's not his blood...In your opinion, do you think he's just playing a game of bluff? Knowing full well that he probably won;t have to provide it at this stage anyway...I vaguely remember Basso offering in a very roundabout way to do the same...but obviously he got called on it in the end, and then he confessed...Of course the other possibility is that he was just incredibly lucky and hadn't drawn the blood yet...


Doesn't the UCI already have his DNA on record, through the blood passport system? Also doesn't the CSC anti-doping program already have that?
I don't know what's happening now (present moment) with all the Puerto seized samples, but if they were stocked somewhere, the UCI or WADA already has all the necessary info to match them to his DNA.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

MG537 said:


> Doesn't the UCI already have his DNA on record, through the blood passport system? Also doesn't the CSC anti-doping program already have that?
> I don't know what's happening now (present moment) with all the Puerto seized samples, but if they were stocked somewhere, the UCI or WADA already has all the necessary info to match them to his DNA.


As I understand it all the bags have been tested for DNA, but the request has to come from the national Fed. What are the odds that the Luxembourg Fed will react the same way the Spanish and US Fed has and ignore it?

Since there has been no action on the DNA test it seems rather clear that it was a fake promise.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> As I understand it all the bags have been tested for DNA, but the request has to come from the national Fed. What are the odds that the Luxembourg Fed will react the same way the Spanish and US Fed has and ignore it?
> 
> Since there has been no action on the DNA test it seems rather clear that it was a fake promise.


Yeah, I don't think anything is going to come if it at all...what a disgrace..Every time I those Spanish riders in question, usually winning, I just want to vomit...There's just no justice...How can they be so corrupt? 
The manner of Schleck's demeanour of late tells me he knows this will come to nothing...Between the two brothers and their father, that's alot of political sway in such a relatively small federation...For me, it's this kind of behaviour from certain federations, allied to Pat McQuaid's behaviour, which is turning me away from the sport...Not even the positives make me even remotely this angry...
Met Frank Schleck last year at the Tour of Ireland, he was an arrogant di**...Andy was a gentleman though in fairness..

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that Ullrich and Basso were brought to justice, in varying degrees of success, it has to be said...But in fairness to them both, where's the justice, if other riders have done EXACTLY the same, and nothing has come of it?:mad2:


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

*Rank Time Name Year Nationality *
1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy 
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States 
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy 
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States 
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy 
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany 
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States 
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany 
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany 
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France 
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain 
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal 
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain 
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland 
16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark 
17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain 
18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy 
19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain 
20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany 
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg 
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan 
23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States 
24 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France 
25 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1986 Colombia 
26 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain 
27 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands 
28 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy 
29 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States 
30 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France 

* The 2004 stage was an individual time trial.

___________________________________________________

Fignon was only 32 sec slower than Lance, LA is a KNOWN doper. Fignon lost the tour to LeMond, so Lemond MUST be a doper too........sounds stupid doesnt it. 

Sastra won the tour thanks to his team. He is a PURE climber. I havent heard of any wrongdoing by Sastra. Im a Lance supporter, but I think he was not clean. If it were Lance, I can see questioning his performance. Lets not slander a, as far as we know, clean rider.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> *
> 
> Fignon was only 32 sec slower than Lance, LA is a KNOWN doper. Fignon lost the tour to LeMond, so Lemond MUST be a doper too........sounds stupid doesnt it.
> 
> Sastra won the tour thanks to his team. He is a PURE climber. I havent heard of any wrongdoing by Sastra. Im a Lance supporter, but I think he was not clean. If it were Lance, I can see questioning his performance. Lets not slander a, as far as we know, clean rider.*


*

Fignon was 4 minutes slower then Lance not 32 seconds.... 2003 was a purely tactical ride, much like 86, and it was crazy hot.*


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

[/QUOTE] Fignon was only 32 sec slower than Lance, LA is a KNOWN doper. Fignon lost the tour to LeMond, so Lemond MUST be a doper too........sounds stupid doesnt it. 

Sastra won the tour thanks to his team. He is a PURE climber. I havent heard of any wrongdoing by Sastra. Im a Lance supporter, but I think he was not clean. If it were Lance, I can see questioning his performance. Lets not slander a, as far as we know, clean rider.[/QUOTE]




I've mentioned in previous posts where I'm coming from in this thread...In no way am I saying this is a serious piece of evidence...Because there are numerous variables at play here...However I feel entitled to have suspicions...And I'm suspicious, because he's so close to, and has beaten known blood dopers..Riis being one example...Considering the benefits of EPO and blood doping, I find his time very difficult to reconcile...He time trialled the mountain, with no pace making from his team, against a headwind, after climbing two all category climbs beforehand, and a brutal day the day before...

2003, Lance was isolated, such a rare thing...he was then attacked and attacked by Mayo and Tyler...Also, a little known fact about Lance that day, he realised three quarter ways up that a break block was rubbing against his wheel...So 2003 is definitely not a true example for Lance....And I'm CERTAINLY NOT a Lance supporter...


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

I was just going by the list. Sastra raced a smart TDF. When the bigger guys like Lance, Indurain, and Jan put up crazy fast times, I don't have a prob questioning them. But what has Carlos done in the past to be questioned? Teamates? I'm sure LeMond has some past teamates who doped.....does that mean LeMond doped? NO! If the teamates of every doper are then labeled dopers, how many guys would be labeled clean? Sorry to keep using Greg as the example, but many here think only he and Andy H were the ONLY clean riders ever....


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Bry03cobra said:


> I. When the bigger guys like Lance, Indurain, and Jan put up crazy fast times, I don't have a prob questioning them. But what has Carlos done in the past to be questioned?


Take Floyd for example...Outside of him being on the USP team, a team of dopers admittedly, I hadn't heard of anything directly attrituble to him, in relation to doping...We all heard it AFTER of course, about the blood being dumped down the toilet etc...
But Kimmage was right, he saw Floyd's performance that day and said this is not believable...He knew that Floyd doped...And looked at Lim at the finish line, and said this must be his doctor...Now, he based this soully on performance...I accept that Floyd's was more freakish to be fair, but I do think that performances can tell alot...When a rider is so close in performance to known dopers (not pigeon sh** doping like caffeine or amphetamines), I do wonder...Some performances are more believable than others...Team mates doping obviously do not equate to being guilty...However, when you come through a team like ONCE and Sainz, I do wonder how much unscathed he was...It's not like he was an instant success like Lemond...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> I was just going by the list. Sastra raced a smart TDF. When the bigger guys like Lance, Indurain, and Jan put up crazy fast times, I don't have a prob questioning them. But what has Carlos done in the past to be questioned? Teamates? I'm sure LeMond has some past teamates who doped.....does that mean LeMond doped? NO! If the teamates of every doper are then labeled dopers, how many guys would be labeled clean? Sorry to keep using Greg as the example, but many here think only he and Andy H were the ONLY clean riders ever....


Carlos has ridden on some of the dirtiest teams in cycling history and the federation he has a license with has consistently show no interest in stoping doping

Despite this it is very possible he achieved everything clean.


----------

