# Lance on 2009/2010



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

LA: Over time, hopefully, there’s a test for transfusions and 2009 will be put to the true test.

DB: And 2010?

LA: Oh god yeah. I was terrible then. I wasn’t that good in '09. It’s so funny as people point to Ventoux. It would be one thing if you were 15th, rode away, won by 5 minutes and made the podium but I was ****ing hanging on by the skin of my teeth.

DB: That’s the blip on the passport that people and experts point to.

LA: But the sample was taken, me and Levi [Leipheimer], we drive down, the doping control agent was in the room and the sample was taken immediately. No food, no water, no nothing.

DB: USADA said that there was a one in a million chance that you rode that Tour clean.

LA: That was just about one of their ten talking points. Hey, I don’t care what they said. What I’m saying is that the day there’s a test of a transfusion I’ll be the first guy to put that sample on the line. And I’ll bet everything on that.

Either he really is off the planet insane, or he's telling the truth. I'd like to believe him. Discuss.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> he really is off the planet insane,


Yup. 

He knows the tests being developed likely will not be used for retro testing as both test for damage to the cells due to storage. 

Johan and Lance are in for some surprises at the London arbitration.


----------



## bbrrxx (Jul 17, 2013)

Lance Armstrong Exclusive Interview: Part 2 | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

bbrrxx said:


> Lance Armstrong Exclusive Interview: Part 2 | Cyclingnews.com


more nonsense



> There was never a blacklist.





> David and I are similar. I was a win at all costs kind of guy. David is a win at all costs kind of guy


There was clearly a blacklist. David told the truth, and Lance hates the truth.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Expecting Armtrong to tell the truth. Right.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup.
> 
> He knows the tests being developed likely will not be used for retro testing as both test for damage to the cells due to storage.
> 
> Johan and Lance are in for some surprises at the London arbitration.


Doc, do you think that there is any chance that Johan goes nuclear, and brings the whole thing down in flames?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Expecting Armtrong to tell the truth. Right.


There's more chance of his nuts growing back.

He dopes to win 7 straight tours then out of the clear blue sky decides to listen to his ex-wife, ride clean and hope to win by leaving everything to chance against younger, faster guys, who are doping. Um, nope.

He still doesn't get it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Doc, do you think that there is any chance that Johan goes nuclear, and brings the whole thing down in flames?


I am not sure how much more there is to bring down. 

It will largely be a smear campaign. He knows he can't win so his target is USADA and JV. He will say they conspired to push him out of the sport so JV can take all U.S. sponsor money

Johan has completely lost his mind


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not sure how much more there is to bring down.
> 
> It will largely be a smear campaign. He knows he can't win so his target is USADA and JV. He will say they conspired to push him out of the sport so JV can take all U.S. sponsor money
> 
> Johan has completely lost his mind


There is a lot to bring down if he gives lie to this "we all stopped doping in 2006, or 2003, or whatever year". Although I don't know if he has any proof to that fact. He could also finger Weisel, Fat Pat, and Hein.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

As this has gone on I think there's a reasonable chance Armstrong is a certifiable psychopath. He's probably lying about this too. The whole Livestrong thing may not have been motivated by even an inkling of empathy and compassion on his part.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> He could also finger Weisel, Fat Pat, and Hein.


He may not if those 3 have info on him that has not been disclosed yet.


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

I think the OP wants to temper his belief in people wanting to do the right thing, with the skepticism we all have with anything Lance says.

I choose to remember the wins, and remember that they were against other teams and other guys who were doped to the gills. To me, that's a fair playing field. Yes, it's $hitty to have cheated in the first place, and even worse to lie about it and run people under foot. Can't disagree with that. I do want to believe in that fact that Lance was still better, and won those races. 

That aside, I am a conspiracy believer who thinks Lance "retired" after 2005 because the heat was high and he was looking at a ban for 2 years and the sport didn't want that. But other competitors had been "outed" at that point, and he failed a test or evidence was clear he doped, and was given an ultimatum.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> He may not if those 3 have info on him that has not been disclosed yet.


Without them, he couldn't have gotten away with all that. They should pay a hefty penalty as well for creating such a doping culture. We care about doping, right???


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> As this has gone on I think there's a reasonable chance Armstrong is a certifiable psychopath. He's probably lying about this too. The whole Livestrong thing may not have been motivated by even an inkling of empathy and compassion on his part.


I'm relying on memory and don't have documentation to back this up, but the way I remember things, Armstrong started Livestrong during his recovery when there was still a lot of doubt whether he would ever recover enough to ride professionally. 

I remember thinking at the time, he was setting it up as a way to have a post-competition career. Also remember at the onset, Livestrong was dedicated to funding research to find cures, not support people with disease. At the time, direct empathy and compassion for the ill did not play a part.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ashpelham said:


> I choose to remember the wins, and remember that they were against other teams and other guys who were doped to the gills. To me, that's a fair playing field.


When the EPO test was introduced in 2000 Lance moved to transfusions 

Rassmussen started transfusions in 2003
Levi did not do them till 2005
Telekom did not do transfusions until 2004
VDV never did transfusions and was left off the Tour team
Dave Z never did a transfusion
Lance received advanced notice of "Surprise" testing
Lance tested positive for EPO 8 times, Cortisone 4 times, Testosterone 3 times....but was never sanctioned

How is it a fair playing field Armstrong is not subject to the same rules, or using the same methods, as the vast majority of participants.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Without them, he couldn't have gotten away with all that. They should pay a hefty penalty as well for creating such a doping culture. We care about doping, right???


Agree absolutely.

I've said before that cycling's problem is systemic. The conditions had to exist for Armstrong and others to take advantage of them. Hein and McPaid and their cronies preserved the status quo. They helped create the monster. They deserve investigation and where proven culpable, punishment.
There is one point on which I think Lance is absolutely correct- the issue of riders having any real voice or control over how the sport is run. They are chum to be used, chewed up and spat out. Doping was (probably still is) the only certain way a pro can ensure any career longevity.


----------



## Tig (Feb 9, 2004)

Looking forward to watching a new documentary, "The Armstrong Lie".
‘The Armstrong Lie’ Details Cycling Champ’s Web of Deceit

In it Academy Award winning director Alex Gibney was given access to Lance Armstrong that no outsider had ever had before. The completed documentary was to be named "The Road Back" until the news broke of Armstrong's potential (at the time) cheating. "The Armstrong Lie" is a film the director never intended to make. 

He spoke to Armstrong just hours after the revealing Oprah interview and added the conversation to the film:

"There was a group of us primarily living in Italy and we just said we either have to play ball here or go home," Armstrong tells Gibney in the film.

"Were you pissed off you had to do it or you just did what you had to do?" Gibney asks him.

"The latter," Armstrong responds with a laugh. "Maybe I'd approach the decision differently today, but at the time I didn't lose sleep over it."

Armstrong also further explained how he got away with using the blood booster EPO during races.

"The half-life of EPO is four hours, so back it off from there and figure out when you're in trouble," Armstrong says in the film. "My defense was I have passed every control you've given me. That's true. The samples that were given were clean."


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Without them, he couldn't have gotten away with all that. They should pay a hefty penalty as well for creating such a doping culture. We care about doping, right???





sir duke said:


> Agree absolutely.
> 
> I've said before that cycling's problem is systemic. The conditions had to exist for Armstrong and others to take advantage of them. Hein and McPaid and their cronies preserved the status quo. They helped create the monster. They deserve investigation and where proven culpable, punishment.
> There is one point on which I think Lance is absolutely correct- the issue of riders having any real voice or control over how the sport is run. They are chum to be used, chewed up and spat out. Doping was (probably still is) the only certain way a pro can ensure any career longevity.


Agree!!!!!


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When the EPO test was introduced in 2000 Lance moved to transfusions
> 
> Rassmussen started transfusions in 2003
> Levi did not do them till 2005
> ...


All of those guys plus Basso and other contenders doped and none of them tested positive. It can be assumed that they all enjoyed similar levels of protection or neglect. Without disclosure of all their cases and other info we're not privy to, we'll never know.

I'm inclined to believe that as LA says in the interview, the UCI and WADA lacked credible tests and resources to do much about at the time. We can all remember what debacles some of these investigations were. Landis was caught literally by accident.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> It can be assumed that they all enjoyed similar levels of protection or neglect.


There is nothing to support this theory. 

When OOC tests were still rare Ullrich was given a surprise test after a night out at a Disco that led to a 6 months suspension and the loss of $$$. He did not get advanced warning

While the UCI ignored Armstrong's doping and obstructed the USADA and Federal probe they aggressively pursued Ullirich. Appealing to CAS twice when they could not get the evidence to stick. 

When Mayo had a questionable EPO test, much like Lance did in 2001 and 2002, the kept testing it until they could produce a positive. They did not invite his manager to review the testing procedure like they did with lance

While Fuentes used a old man with Alzheimer's so bad that he could not testify Lance and Johan used Dag Van Elslande, *A UCI doping inspector*, to do their transfusions. 

It is clear that Lance was given special treatment by the UCI. This special treatment made pushing the doping envelop much less risky


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

ashpelham said:


> I think the OP wants to temper his belief in people wanting to do the right thing, with the skepticism we all have with anything Lance says.
> 
> I choose to remember the wins, and remember that they were against other teams and other guys who were doped to the gills. To me, that's a fair playing field. Yes, it's $hitty to have cheated in the first place, and even worse to lie about it and run people under foot. Can't disagree with that. I do want to believe in that fact that Lance was still better, and won those races.
> 
> That aside, I am a conspiracy believer who thinks Lance "retired" after 2005 because the heat was high and he was looking at a ban for 2 years and the sport didn't want that. But other competitors had been "outed" at that point, and he failed a test or evidence was clear he doped, and was given an ultimatum.


The OP has a track record of defending Lance, hence the red chiclet.

This interview is a poorly contrived spin job by LA. 
'Conservative doping'
'Everyone was doing it'
'I wasn't the ringleader'
'Clean comeback'

He hit those same points with Oprah and he's hitting them here again.

I think the bigger story is why didn't David Benson seriously call him out on his BS? For starters, challenging LA on the 'conservative doping' myth. Journalists perpetuated LA's myths during his career, they seem to be repeating that to some degree now.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When the EPO test was introduced in 2000 Lance moved to transfusions
> 
> Rassmussen started transfusions in 2003
> Levi did not do them till 2005
> ...


because they were all using some form of system to boost their RBCs and none could take their hematocrit higher than 50. If one thinks T Kom didn't start blood doping until 2004, one is delusional. Maybe they didn't do transfusions but they were using EPO.
Transfusions have been around since the LA Olympics, it wasn't some new technology


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

Hi folks. A few questions from a lifelong TdF fan if you don't mind.

1. It's been alluded to by some that had Lance not returned in 2009, none of this would've happened. Why is this? Is it due to the statute of limitations? The USADA didn't have a case until Floyd Landis came along?

2. I've read in places that at some point in one of the Tour's, Lance didn't have a good day in a mountain stage (he had a very bad day). He apparently had a public explanation, but others have said that his blood/EPO concoction was messed up that day so he didn't have it going for him (something like this). Does anyone know what year/stage this bonk was referring to?

3. His first wife, "Kik". Was their divorce amicable? I just read "It's not about the bike" this week for the first time and in it, she's described by him as quite the wonderful wife. They got divorced only a few years after the book's publication. I noticed in the book - an "encore" section (last chapter of the book, probably an addition to the text, assuming the book was originally published after his 1999 win). Anyways - the Encore chapter didn't really talk about her much. Just wondering if their divorce was cause Armstrong became a superstar and started hanging around celebrities - and thus wanted to "trade up"? This is purely my personal speculation - was wondering if there's any reality to it or did they divorce for different reasons?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

armstrong said:


> Hi folks. A few questions from a lifelong TdF fan if you don't mind.
> 
> 1. It's been alluded to by some that had Lance not returned in 2009, none of this would've happened. Why is this? Is it due to the statute of limitations? The USADA didn't have a case until Floyd Landis came along?
> 
> ...


1. The theory is Landis sat there stewing during the comeback. Broke and disgraced while King Doper was beloved. Supposedly Landis asked Armstrong for a job (spot on his team?) and Armstrong declined. The rest, as they say, is history. 

2. Don't know.

3. Also don't know. I believe Kristen Armstrong once publicly insinuated 'I've got dirt to spill, but theres a confidentiality agreement.' I always assumed she meant doping, but who knows. 

Personally, I don't think others' marriages / relationships are my business. I have enough reasons to dislike Armstrong and think hes a world class jerk without speculating on his former marriage.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> because they were all using some form of system to boost their RBCs and none could take their hematocrit higher than 50. If one thinks T Kom didn't start blood doping until 2004, one is delusional. Maybe they didn't do transfusions but they were using EPO.
> Transfusions have been around since the LA Olympics, it wasn't some new technology


You are confused. 

The EPO test came out in 2000. Riders could still take EPO out of competition with moderate risk but trying to keep your Hct up in the 3rd week of a Grand Tour, far too risky. Even with Ferrari's new injection method Armstrong tested positive twice

I suggest you read the Freiburg report on Telekom's doping program. It is very detailed and talks in detail about the history of their doping program about their challenges with using EPO in competition and their eventual move to transfusion in 2004


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

armstrong said:


> Hi folks. A few questions from a lifelong TdF fan if you don't mind.
> 
> 1. It's been alluded to by some that had Lance not returned in 2009, none of this would've happened. Why is this? Is it due to the statute of limitations? The USADA didn't have a case until Floyd Landis came along?
> 
> ...


1. Floyd led to JV telling all his riders they had to tell the truth. That lead to George telling the truth

2. I asked a friend who was on the 2003 Tour team and he said he did not think that was the case. It is alway been rumoured but none of the guys I talk to had heard it. You may be referring to the TT or a climbing stage before a refill

3. Lance dumped Kik because he thought she was cheating on him


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is nothing to support this theory.
> 
> When OOC tests were still rare Ullrich was given a surprise test after a night out at a Disco that led to a 6 months suspension and the loss of $$$. He did not get advanced warning
> 
> ...


There is very little to support these theories


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Bluenote said:


> The OP has a track record of defending Lance, hence the red chiclet.
> 
> This interview is a poorly contrived spin job by LA.
> 'Conservative doping'
> ...



sooo.... you're on a witch hunt for the "red chiclet" 
If you have a red chiclet you must be a LA fan, green chiclet means you're clean.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> There is very little to support these theories


Former Armstrong doctor Van Elslande also worked as doping control inspector

Direct witness testimony from multiple sources


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Former Armstrong doctor Van Elslande also worked as doping control inspector
> 
> Direct witness testimony from multiple sources


Great article which supports your comments in paragraph 4.
It certainly implicates this doctor/tester of giving transfusions. You're suggesting he gave Postal advance warning of random testing. This article does not support that, though I would assume the same. It also shows that the UCI had one crooked tester which they may or may not have known about. 
It does not support any of your other opinions you have stated as fact.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Great article which supports your comments in paragraph 4.
> It certainly implicates this doctor/tester of giving transfusions. You're suggesting he gave Postal advance warning of random testing. This article does not support that, though I would assume the same. It also shows that the UCI had one crooked tester which they may or may not have known about.
> It does not support any of your other opinions you have stated as fact.


Not theory, fact

Do you really dispute the fact that Ullrich was suspended for 6 months for testing positive in an OOC? 
USATODAY.com - Former Tour champ Ullrich suspended six months

Do you really not think the UCI pursued Ullrich for 6 years, appealed to CAS, tried to ban him for life? Ultimately he was stripped and banned for 2 years
Jan Ullrich banned for two years, stripped of 2005 Tour third place - ESPN
All of this while they obstructed the Armstrong case in every way possible


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

armstrong said:


> ...
> 1. It's been alluded to by some that had Lance not returned in 2009, none of this would've happened. Why is this? Is it due to the statute of limitations? The USADA didn't have a case until Floyd Landis came along?
> ...


When the CSC/SaxoTinkoff DS (Bjan Rijs, spelling?) confessed to doping, it was like 11 years after his TdF win (I think), and they (ASO or UCI, not sure) said they were not going to strip his TdF win, as it was outside the ten year statute. I find it interesting that for LA they have stripped titles from over ten years ago.

I do think that if he'd just disappeared off to Hawaii when he retired, and stayed retired/off the radar, then he may have got away with it. Sastre won (the year after Landis?), and he's not being mentioned anywhere, and his DS at CSC was Rijs, who confessed to doping in his day.

-Landis 'I didn't cheat' = I took drugs/doped, but so did everyone else, so it's not cheating.
-LA 'I passed 500 tests' = you didn't take the drugs if the tests are negative.
-Froome 'these results won't be overturned in 10 or 20 years time' = not saying I didn't cheat, just saying that retesting my samples in 10 or 20 years won't show that I did take drugs/dope

There needs to be better tests.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SNS1938 said:


> When the CSC/SaxoTinkoff DS (Bjan Rijs, spelling?) confessed to doping, it was like 11 years after his TdF win (I think), and they (ASO or UCI, not sure) said they were not going to strip his TdF win, as it was outside the ten year statute. I find it interesting that for LA they have stripped titles from over ten years ago.


The ASO at first said they would strip Riis, then decided against. The UCI is unable to sanction Riis as the WADA code was not around when he raced. Tolling the SOL is no uncommon in the regular legal world. This essentially allows the SOL to be set aside if there was an active cover-up that prevented discovering evidence that would lead to a sanction. WADA established precedent in the Hellebuyck case, applied it again Armstrong case, and has since had their position confirmed by an independent review


----------

