# Lance, the silence is deafening...



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

...know what I mean? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

What do you expect him to say? "Bad Bjarne, Zabel, Basso......" Look to Merckx for an example...best to stay out of it.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Even if everybody comes out and say they doped, even if Johan would say there was organized doping on the team, even if Dr. Ferrari said he had a nice doping program for Lance, he still wouldn't admit it. He would still say 'I never failed a dope test' and sue everybody who imply he doped...


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

Seriously, I would expect him to set up his own press conference and come clean. He'll never do that, but then I never thought I'd hear Zabel and Basso confess. 
Come on Lance, you can do it. The sun will still rise tomorrow.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

chuckice said:


> Look to Merckx for an example...best to stay out of it.


Don't forget Eddy's experience with dope..._Merckx cried in front of the press and to this day keeps repeating people cheated with the doping test. He argued that there were no counter-experts nor counter-analysis available and that some foreign supporters hated him. Further, he stated that the stage during which he was allegedly using drugs was an easy one for everybody, so there was no need to use any drugs.
_​Does this sound familiar???


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*even Eddy's main rival*



Fredke said:


> Don't forget Eddy's experience with dope..._Merckx cried in front of the press and to this day keeps repeating people cheated with the doping test. He argued that there were no counter-experts nor counter-analysis available and that some foreign supporters hated him. Further, he stated that the stage during which he was allegedly using drugs was an easy one for everybody, so there was no need to use any drugs.
> _​Does this sound familiar???


and winner of the Giro Felice Gimondi thinks some Italians messed with Eddy's sample to stop him from dominating it


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

LA will take the same road as Merckx...distance and silence.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

LA was not on Telekom...........

Right now, all the singing is coming from past Telekomers....

My hunch is the reason they [past Telekomers] are singing like sparrows has to do with the investigations surrounding the Ullrich Fraud charges...

So, here's some off the wall speculation:


they could have been worried about their own azzes gettign caught up in what would have been the fallout.....
or maybe there was soem back door pressure from Ulle to fess up or he was going to turn on them....???...he's prolly been at home drinking alot of beer, maybe he picked up the phone and pulled a Will...???
It'll be interesting to see if any other teams fess up with a wholesale confession session...


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Lance was taking EPO in '96. He has publicy, and famously, admitted this. Read "It's Not About the Bike".


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

I have not read the book, but was that before or after he was diagnosed with cancer? EPO is used in many cancer and other treatments. Like I said I haven't read the book.


----------



## DonkeyMan (Mar 23, 2007)

JSR said:


> Lance was taking EPO in '96. He has publicy, and famously, admitted this. Read "It's Not About the Bike".


I've read the book and don't recall that. Maybe I miss that part of the book. Rumor says that the EPO probably casue the cancer but that's rumor. I know Frankie and his wife stated that Lance admitted to doctor that he was on EPO before his treatment but that's Frankie and his wife words. If i recall correctly, LA denies everything. I don't know, man.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

JSR said:


> Lance was taking EPO in '96. He has publicy, and famously, admitted this. Read "It's Not About the Bike".


Not quite right, he still denies it: From NPR Morning Edition, June 28, 2006 · "Seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong is making the media rounds this week to rebut the latest doping allegations against him. In particular, he is denying sworn testimony from two witnesses who say he openly acknowledged in 1996 that he had used performance-enhancing drugs." 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5517391&ft=1&f=1051


----------



## trihiker (Mar 29, 2005)

*Epo*

Epogen (EPO) is a drug manufactured by Amgen that is legitimately used with cancer patients and kidney dialysis patients, neither of whom can create the naturally occuring hormone erythropoetein on their own. Epogen is a man-made substitute for erythropoetein that helps create red blood cells. A life saving drug for cancer and kidney disease patients. Lance said he took EPO in "It's Not About the Bike" as a cancer patient, not as an athlete abusing the use of EPO.

(I'm not saying he didn't use EPO after his recovery, as a pro cyclist - just responding to the suggested admission from his book).


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

He will not confess until it is clearly on his doorstep. 
- Just like all these other guy's "coming clean" now before they are called on it.

I'd like to "think" he did it clean, but I would not be the least bit shocked if he was just as dirty as the rest. 

This is a GREAT time for cycling right now just as much as it is a very SAD time.
I'd really like the sport to get a true, fresh start so I can enjoy watching these guy's turn
themselves inside-out just as I do when I'm on a brutal ride, rather than thinking in the back of my head : "Hmm, wonder what he's taking."


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

trihiker said:


> Lance said he took EPO in "It's Not About the Bike" as a cancer patient, not as an athlete abusing the use of EPO.


Correct. 

Sorry, I should have put in a smiley face or something. I thought everyone would get it.

My bad.

For the record, I do not personally know of Lance using any drug or illegal method for improving performance. He did use EPO to help save his life when he had cancer.

I think it is plausible that he did not dope. In the pre-cancer years he was a cocky rider with so much talent he may have thought he didn't need it. We now can see that the peak years for drug use seem to be 1996 and 1997, exactly when Lance was of of the sport suffering from cancer. In the post-Festina years I think it can be assumed there was less doping in the peleton, so maybe he didn't dope.

I dunno.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

JSR said:


> In the post-Festina years I think it can be assumed there was less doping in the peleton, so maybe he didn't dope.
> 
> I dunno.


Basso, Jan, Hamilton, Pantani, Floyd, ........I could go on all day


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bonkmiester said:


> LA was not on Telekom...........
> 
> Right now, all the singing is coming from past Telekomers....



It appears you missed many of Lances former teammates, soigneurs, and support staff coming clean over the past few years. Of course they were all liars, out for financial gain, and the Telekom guys are telling the truth


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> Basso, Jan, Hamilton, Pantani, Floyd, ........I could go on all day


Oh, it's clearly picked up again! I was just suggesting/hoping that from '98 things might have slowed down a bit before ramping up again.

In any case, who cares at this point whether Lance doped? He's retired. Not competing any more. Not part of the peleton. 

It's the active riders who need to be dealt with. I mean when you've got an entire bloc of Spaniards negotiating as a class action you know things are out of control!


JR


----------



## Hairnet (Dec 17, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> Basso, Jan, Hamilton, Pantani, Floyd, ........I could go on all day


Yes, perhaps less EPO was being used, but blood boosting was its replacement.

And then there are the synthetic undetecable drugs. What was Bettini on last year, and why has Quick Step become Slow Step his year?


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

trihiker said:


> Epogen (EPO) is a drug manufactured by Amgen that is legitimately used with cancer patients and kidney dialysis patients, neither of whom can create the naturally occuring hormone erythropoetein on their own. Epogen is a man-made substitute for erythropoetein that helps create red blood cells. A life saving drug for cancer and kidney disease patients. Lance said he took EPO in "It's Not About the Bike" as a cancer patient, not as an athlete abusing the use of EPO.
> 
> (I'm not saying he didn't use EPO after his recovery, as a pro cyclist - just responding to the suggested admission from his book).



EPO can be obtained via drugs, but the body also makes EPO. EPO is a naturally produced hormone in the body made by the kidneys which act on the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells used in oxygen uptake. Synthetic EPO is made by the drug companies. Amgen is one drug company that makes synthetic EPO.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Don't you guys realize......*



JSR said:


> Oh, it's clearly picked up again! I was just suggesting/hoping that from '98 things might have slowed down a bit before ramping up again.
> 
> In any case, who cares at this point whether Lance doped? He's retired. Not competing any more. Not part of the peleton.
> 
> ...


that the only way anyone gets caught doping is:

1.) An MD/distributor gets busted
2.) A Mule gets busted
3.) The rider/team makes a mistake.

to believe that doping peaked in 1997 is the height of rose colored glasses....there is as much or more going on today as ever. 

As to Lance...........read some of Ferrari's comments to get a hint as to what was going on....."Lance has never used anything that was on the banned list." Think about that oft repeated comment.

Len


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I always found it interesting that at first LA would say he took it during cancer treatment but never as a PED. Later he started saying he never took it period. A bit of revisionist history and perhaps an indication of hjust is self justifying mindset. If nothing else it proves he's comfortable with lying as long as it's stated forcefully enough and when doing battle with his "enemies".

BTW his doctor, who denied LA said he took EPO or other drugs prior to treatment, has recently been fired from OHSU for undisclosed reasons. I suspect it was over his aggressive enrollment of people in clinical trials without exhausting conventional treatment first (saved my wife's life by doing it so f*ck em if that was the reason) but it does make you wonder if the trials and publicity was a factor.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Len J said:


> to believe that doping peaked in 1997 is the height of rose colored glasses....there is as much or more going on today as ever.


Ok! well! snappy retort! followed by witty rejoinder!



Nah, I got nothn'. Yer probably absolutely correct. Which is too bad. It's a beautiful sport. And it's so f'ed up...



JSR


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

Why hasn't Lance said anything about Basso getting busted? After all, Basso was a Team Discovery rider and so was Hamilton and Landis at one point. Has Lance even commented about the Operacion Puerto EPO drug busts? I know that there are a great many of the pro cyclists that were given EPO and had their names recorded on that one in the form of code names.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*If I were Lance's advisor.....*



barbedwire said:


> Why hasn't Lance said anything about Basso getting busted? After all, Basso was a Team Discovery rider and so was Hamilton and Landis at one point. Has Lance even commented about the Operacion Puerto EPO drug busts? I know that there are a great many of the pro cyclists that were given EPO and had their names recorded on that one in the form of code names.


I would tell him to stay as far away from anything dope related as far as public statements go. Why "re-associate" himself with doping in the public mindset? There is no upside but satisfying our curiousity.

Len


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*Bingo*



Len J said:


> I would tell him to stay as far away from anything dope related as far as public statements go. Why "re-associate" himself with doping in the public mindset? There is no upside but satisfying our curiousity.
> 
> Len




personally, I don't really care whether LA doped or not....WHY, cause it doesn't matter to me, and his accomplishments AFTER being treated for an advanced metastatic cancer, are unbelievable, REGARDLESS of whether doping was involved. Even if he was, so were his two top competitors, so what? It was even playing field then anyway, and he STILL won....7 times I might add. There are no clean pros, so it's a level field anyway.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

physasst said:


> personally, I don't really care whether LA doped or not....WHY, cause it doesn't matter to me, and his accomplishments AFTER being treated for an advanced metastatic cancer, are unbelievable, REGARDLESS of whether doping was involved. Even if he was, so were his two top competitors, so what? It was even playing field then anyway, and he STILL won....7 times I might add. There are no clean pros, so it's a level field anyway.




Typical. If you believe that Armstrong used EPO like you claim, then who is to say that someone not even in the top 20 or top 50 could've won the Tour clean? Take the drugs away from all the athletes and you end up with a much different result.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*Again*



barbedwire said:


> Typical. If you believe that Armstrong used EPO like you claim, then who is to say that someone not even in the top 20 or top 50 could've won the Tour clean? Take the drugs away from all the athletes and you end up with a much different result.



your reading comprehension needs a little work, I said, that I didn't care if he doped or not, I never said that he did...and I simply do not believe that there are any "clean" professional athletes.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

physasst said:


> personally, I don't really care whether LA doped or not....WHY, cause it doesn't matter to me, and his accomplishments AFTER being treated for an advanced metastatic cancer, are unbelievable, REGARDLESS of whether doping was involved. Even if he was, so were his two top competitors, so what? It was even playing field then anyway, and he STILL won....7 times I might add. There are no clean pros, so it's a level field anyway.


No, sorry, it changes everything if he doped. After all, that's why he is so adamant in his denials..

Add to that the possibility that doping may have brought on the cancer in the first place.

As LA knows the whole point is that the accomplishments *are* believable.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

physasst said:


> Even if he was, so were his two top competitors, so what? It was even playing field then anyway, and he STILL won....7 times I might add. There are no clean pros, so it's a level field anyway.



I suspect you know that there's no equality in doping. Jan's fuentes doping program may have been more or or less sophisticated than LA's ferrari designed doping program but it's not likely they were the same. that's why it matters, the sport is decided based on who has the best medical advice.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

The only thing that makes me think LA didn't actually dope (insofar as anyone still gives a sh%$#) is that IF he was supposedly doing all these PED's before cancer, I do have a hard time believing that, having come back from the brink of death, he would pick up and do the exact same drugs again. 

Of course, there are a lot of if's in that statement.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

I think that the amount of evidence against Armstrong using EPO and Actovegin is overwhelming. Past teammates, a former trainer, USPS team physician, Dr. Ferrari, the French vials that tested positive for EPO, the positives for the Actovegin substance in 1999 that then wasn't on any banned lists.

The fact that he had EPO during his cancer treatment and also his consultations with Dr. Ferrari who often stated that EPO was very safe and not dangerous at all, like drinking orange juice. His microdosing of EPO and his IV transfusion after one of the stages of the Tour after he lost a lot of time to Ulrich. Did he dope. No doubt about it.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

barbedwire said:


> Did he dope. No doubt about it.


Well, maybe some doubt. Don't get me wrong, I am chomping at the bit for his guilt, but he has never had a positive test. I know the allegations, and the "positive" test using illegals samples- but if he is so guilty with those test they should have done proper course of the law to prove it. The guy is surrounded by EPO- every darn side of him, but we *never* have had an evidence that comes close to "trial worthy". 

I agree, I* think *he is guilt too, but the fact remains that nobody has every proved it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> Well, maybe some doubt. Don't get me wrong, I am chomping at the bit for his guilt, but he has never had a positive test.


That's not quite true. He failed for corticosteroids once but the UCI (pre-WADA) use to give riders an "out" by allowing them to get a retroactive theraupetic exemption nominally for a saddle sore cream. 

All kinds of reasons to believe that was total BS. Regardless if it had been post-WADA he would have been suspended for 2 years.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

The orange juice comment is constantly misquoted.
What he actually said was:

"EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice." are statements of Ferrari's that are on the public record. (from a NYT article)


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

barbedwire said:


> I think that the amount of evidence against Armstrong using EPO and Actovegin is overwhelming. Past teammates, a former trainer, USPS team physician, Dr. Ferrari, the French vials that tested positive for EPO, the positives for the Actovegin substance in 1999 that then wasn't on any banned lists.
> 
> The fact that he had EPO during his cancer treatment and also his consultations with Dr. Ferrari who often stated that EPO was very safe and not dangerous at all, like drinking orange juice. His microdosing of EPO and his IV transfusion after one of the stages of the Tour after he lost a lot of time to Ulrich. Did he dope. No doubt about it.



- Boy-howdy! With all that "Evidence" you have there YOU should go right to Dick Pound!
Stop being so bitter because your favorite guy DIDN'T win the Tour 7 times, it's not flattering & it ages the soul. :cryin:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

barbedwire said:


> I think that the amount of evidence against Armstrong using EPO and Actovegin is overwhelming. Past teammates, a former trainer, USPS team physician, Dr. Ferrari, the French vials that tested positive for EPO, the positives for the Actovegin substance in 1999 that then wasn't on any banned lists.
> 
> The fact that he had EPO during his cancer treatment and also his consultations with Dr. Ferrari who often stated that EPO was very safe and not dangerous at all, like drinking orange juice. His microdosing of EPO and his IV transfusion after one of the stages of the Tour after he lost a lot of time to Ulrich. Did he dope. No doubt about it.


No doubt, really? I have a lot of doubts, but I'm also of the belief that he could have done it clean.. Maybe this sounds somewhat naive, but the guy was a freakish talent from the time he was in his early teens. If he wasn't clean it's tragic..c'est la vie...


----------



## Run1stBike2nd (Oct 28, 2005)

karategirl said:


> The only thing that makes me think LA didn't actually dope (insofar as anyone still gives a sh%$#) is that IF he was supposedly doing all these PED's before cancer, I do have a hard time believing that, having come back from the brink of death, he would pick up and do the exact same drugs again.
> 
> Of course, there are a lot of if's in that statement.


I've always thought that it could've been more like he was clean pre-cancer, but upon beating cancer decided, "I've been given a second chance here, so I'm going to do whatever it takes to live my life to its fullest and win some bike races." Of course, I can't prove this theory. I guess I just never understood the whole "he survived cancer, so he would never dream of putting anything potentially harmful in his body" argument that many of his supporters subscribe to.


----------



## Run1stBike2nd (Oct 28, 2005)

DMFT said:


> - Boy-howdy! With all that "Evidence" you have there YOU should go right to Dick Pound!
> Stop being so bitter because your favorite guy DIDN'T win the Tour 7 times, it's not flattering & it ages the soul. :cryin:


Don't worry, I'm calling WADA right now.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

lookrider said:


> but the guy was a freakish talent from the time he was in his early teens. ...


I don't think that's really true. he was good, but not anything close to great pre cancer. not even on the radar, really. not until he started doing whatever he started doing post cancer.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*what?*



blackhat said:


> I don't think that's really true. he was good, but not anything close to great pre cancer. not even on the radar, really. not until he started doing whatever he started doing post cancer.


He was a world champion pre cancer and probably one of the strongest American riders on the scene.

PLEASE do not get me wrong. As far as GT caliober, yeah, I have to agree. BUT he was a veery good rider.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

blackhat said:


> I don't think that's really true. he was good, but not anything close to great pre cancer. not even on the radar, really. not until he started doing whatever he started doing post cancer.


I don't think that is accurate either. He was a decent classics rider/rouleur pre-cancer. He had won Worlds, Fleche Wallone and San Sebastian. I believe he was also a decent stage race rider for shorter races (maybe won Paris-Nice or was close?). 

It would be sorta like Jens Voight suddenly becoming a dominant GT rider.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It would be sorta like Jens Voight suddenly becoming a dominant GT rider.


Hey!! Don't be so quick to count Jens out!! ... it could happen...maybe..... perhaps. :thumbsup:


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yup*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't think that is accurate either. He was a decent classics rider/rouleur pre-cancer. He had won Worlds, Fleche Wallone and San Sebastian. I believe he was also a decent stage race rider for shorter races (maybe won Paris-Nice or was close?).
> 
> It would be sorta like Jens Voight suddenly becoming a dominant GT rider.


He had a TDF stage win as well....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

He was Lemond's heir apparent. The guy was a national level triathlete in his mid teens, world champ at 21, and tour stage winner at 22. Jens Voight is a very good rider. LA was and is a once in a lifetime talent and there really wasn't much dispute about that, except on this forum. That's why Merckx introduced him to Ferrari in the first place and what began their friendship


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Before Armstrong's "medical" program on Team Motorola, he was a one-day racer*

Hampsten, Swart and the the older Motorola riders wanted to do it clean, but there was pressure from the younger Motorola riders that they had to adopt a medical program similar to the other Euros if they wanted to remain competitive. Armstrong was the driving influence behind the "out with the old" riders, and in with the new brass at Motorola. The new Motorola riders adopted that "medical" program. The following year Armstrong won Liege.

Armstrong was a classics-type rider & never a serious contender for any of the grand tours ever. Armstrong was every bit a great junior and young cyclist, but so was Ulrich, Moreau, etc from their respective countries. In fact, America's best hope post-Lemond for the long tours was Bobby Julich, who's best finish is 3rd in the Tour. Julich has also spoken out against drug use and it is a shame that he has not done better in the best stage races. Who knows how well Julich would've done if not for all the cheats in cycling during the Armstrong years?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok*



barbedwire said:


> Hampsten, Swart and the the older Motorola riders wanted to do it clean, but there was pressure from the younger Motorola riders that they had to adopt a medical program similar to the other Euros if they wanted to remain competitive. Armstrong was the driving influence behind the "out with the old" riders, and in with the new brass at Motorola. The new Motorola riders adopted that "medical" program. The following year Armstrong won Liege.
> 
> Armstrong was a classics-type rider & never a serious contender for any of the grand tours ever. Armstrong was every bit a great junior and young cyclist, but so was Ulrich, Moreau, etc from their respective countries. In fact, America's best hope post-Lemond for the long tours was Bobby Julich, who's best finish is 3rd in the Tour. Julich has also spoken out against drug use and it is a shame that he has not done better in the best stage races. Who knows how well Julich would've done if not for all the cheats in cycling during the Armstrong years?


What source do you have that confirms the time period you are talking about?

You mean that you dope for a year and then WHAMMO, you win a Classic? As to the riders wanting to do it clean, they all did. Armstrong was a young impatient guy who had talent and yeah, probably rubbed alot of the older folks the wrong way. No doubt. Hence the nickname gooniors as opposed to Juniors that was often thrown around.

Speaking of a doping culture, what do you think was going on in the EAST BLOC (Jan and his home of Thuringen come to mind). These guys were statewide, sponsored and systemic in their doping. Take a look at the East German womens swim team from roughly the same time period.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

barbedwire said:


> Hampsten, Swart and the the older Motorola riders wanted to do it clean, but there was pressure from the younger Motorola riders that they had to adopt a medical program similar to the other Euros if they wanted to remain competitive. Armstrong was the driving influence behind the "out with the old" riders, and in with the new brass at Motorola. The new Motorola riders adopted that "medical" program. The following year Armstrong won Liege.
> 
> Armstrong was a classics-type rider & never a serious contender for any of the grand tours ever. Armstrong was every bit a great junior and young cyclist, but so was Ulrich, Moreau, etc from their respective countries. In fact, America's best hope post-Lemond for the long tours was Bobby Julich, who's best finish is 3rd in the Tour. Julich has also spoken out against drug use and it is a shame that he has not done better in the best stage races. Who knows how well Julich would've done if not for all the cheats in cycling during the Armstrong years?


You claim to know facts, but you can't even get the obvious ones right. Armstrong never won Liege. The rest of what you write is conjecture at best, and that's being charitable.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*have to agree here*



mohair_chair said:


> You claim to know facts, but you can't even get the obvious ones right. Armstrong never won Liege. The rest of what you write is conjecture at best, and that's being charitable.


Its been obvious that some folks just do not like American cycling champs. Doped or not. I am not the best at recall but once you start claiming wins, losses, yeras dates etc etc like they are a gospel, you sort of open up the chance for constant ridicule.

The greatest irony is having the tamarity to say, they all wanted it clean, but alas, they doped. GOLLY GEE YOU THINK SO????? Better yet, looks like its the same on either side of the pond.

Its the equivalent of asking the male body builder model/playboy hey how do you sleep at night? The answer: On top of a big pile of money with lots of naked women.......Yeah man, its all good here.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> What source do you have that confirms the time period you are talking about?.


That's what I'd like to know. Unfortunately, I don't speak french. Any English translations for LA Confidential.




ttug said:


> You mean that you dope for a year and then WHAMMO, you win a Classic?


 NO, not in the absence of other factors, but if you give that stuff to a world class rider, yeah, it could put them over the top. I was thin, muscular, in decent shape and applied androgel for about 3 months (doctor's prescription) and my co workers would come up to me and ask me if I was working out. I was just drinking a lot at the time. I didn't have major changes, but an inch less here, a half inch more there, it's noticeable. You can also see it in someones face and neck, a little tighter, harder look.




ttug said:


> Speaking of a doping culture, what do you think was going on in the EAST BLOC (Jan and his home of Thuringen come to mind). These guys were statewide, sponsored and systemic in their doping. Take a look at the East German womens swim team from roughly the same time period.


This stuff has been going on since the 50's if not earlier..Forever actually...Do you wanna see someone who was completely screwed? How about Shirley Babashoff from the '76 Olympics. Probably the greatest female swimmer ever and I think she won one gold in a relay and about 5 silvers. She complained about the obvious and was rewarded with the nickname 'Surly Shirley.' Nice. Did Dick Pound ever get around to getting her gold medals to her? After all, when the wall fell,they got all the evidence in the world...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmmmm*



lookrider said:


> That's what I'd like to know. Unfortunately, I don't speak french. Any English translations for LA Confidential.
> 
> 
> NO, not in the absence of other factors, but if you give that stuff to a world class rider, yeah, it could put them over the top. I was thin, muscular, in decent shape and applied androgel for about 3 months (doctor's prescription) and my co workers would come up to me and ask me if I was working out. I was just drinking a lot at the time. I didn't have major changes, but an inch less here, a half inch more there, it's noticeable. You can also see it in someones face and neck, a little tighter, harder look.
> ...



It is of note that after the introduction of steroids in common medical formats, almost every athletic endeavor kept incrementally increasing as far as achievement time lowering weight lifted etc etc. Thats what I think we can all call a no brainer. IMO.

As to the French or having the data in French, I take it with a grain of salt. The bias is unforgiving I know, but lets face it, have the French has a TDF Champion lately. Oh hell no.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BTW, I love the Levitra popups on this website. If that stuff isn't a PED, then nothing is. LMAO. It seems most people are very hypocritical where performance enhancers are concerned, and most often the incentives with ordinary people are vanity, not fame, and their livelihood.


----------



## tellico climber (Aug 14, 2006)

Len J said:


> I would tell him to stay as far away from anything dope related as far as public statements go. Why "re-associate" himself with doping in the public mindset? There is no upside but satisfying our curiousity.
> 
> Len



I think you are exactly right. What do people here want him to say? Anything the man says will be twisted into something indicating previous guilt. If I were in his shoes I would say nothing either, guilty or not. I have no idea if Lance doped during his Tour de France reign or not, but he is under no obligation to come out and speak now


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

lookrider said:


> He was Lemond's heir apparent. The guy was a national level triathlete in his mid teens, world champ at 21, and tour stage winner at 22. Jens Voight is a very good rider. LA was and is a once in a lifetime talent and there really wasn't much dispute about that, except on this forum. That's why Merckx introduced him to Ferrari in the first place and what began their friendship


Armstrong was very good but I don't think anyone thought he was going to be much more than a good classics rider, i.e. no Museeuw or Bartoli but maybe a Tafi or Van Petegem. There was no indication he would ever contest a grand tour for the GC. There are plenty of guys Lance's age pre-cancer who show their talent in the Grand Tours, in fact how many riders become serious GT contenders at the age Lance did without ever showing any real indication of that talent beforehand?

I think Armstrong had shown he could TT respectably (but I don't believe he was known as a TT specialist) but climb the high mountians?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> in fact how many riders become serious GT contenders at the age Lance did without ever showing any real indication of that talent beforehand?


Indurain?



Dwayne Barry said:


> I think Armstrong had shown he could TT respectably (but I don't believe he was known as a TT specialist) but climb the high mountians?


That's why Merckx was always on him to lose weight...As even LA acknowledged he never would have would have won the tour if he didn't get cancer.

I tend to think LA was clean when he was winning the Tour.

I think you said you thought he was doping. You may be right..I hope not though..


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

lookrider said:


> Indurain?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't start following cycling until the year of Indurain's final TDF win and not too much at that time. Is it really true that Indurain didn't give any indication he could climb well enough until during his first TDF win?

I think it is exceedingly likely Armstrong was doping pre and post-cancer. I also think while the weight loss was critical to his TDF success it is only part of the story. He only claims to have dropped something like 10-15 pounds and I hardly think that would take his W/Kg from the no chance to dominating range. His W clearly improved too as evidence by his dominating TTing.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I don't think you are making a reasonable comparison. Armstrong never tried to go for GTs before cancer. He was on a completely different program. After cancer, he changed his focus, he changed his training and he stopped racing so much. One of the things he always got knocked for was how little he raced during the year, but not getting worn out and peaking at the right time is part of why he did so well at the Tour. Pre- and post-cancer is really apples and oranges.

Laurent Jalabert is a good example of a guy who probably could have won GTs if he had focused on them like Armstrong did. He finally figured out that he could be a classics guy or a GT guy, but not both, and he chose to be a classics guy.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> He only claims to have dropped something like 10-15 pounds and I hardly think that would take his W/Kg from the no chance to dominating range.


I don't know. When he ran the NYC marathon, he was a monster.. I couldn't believe his bulk..I think going from the high 170's to the low 160's was huge. Look at how much to do the weight weenies make over a few grams. He lost 7kgs, the weight of a whole bike..His approach to his training just seemed so comprehensive post cancer...One of the most insightful, intelligent things he mentioned about the cancer was that "it gave me room to live."

Maybe I just like to think that his story is inspiring, but logically I think it's possible too.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"He lost 7kgs, the weight of a whole bike."

If you do the calculations based on the "magic" W/Kg numbers Ferrari has given Armstrong would have had to have lost roughly twice that to have become a TdF winner if it were the only factor. He would have had to have gone from ~180 pre-cancer to ~150 post cancer. I've never seen anything to indicate his pre or post cancer weights were anywhere near those. The only reasonable conclusion is that he became "stronger" as well. Training, periodization, doping, something increased his W as well.

"Maybe I just like to think that his story is inspiring, but logically I think it's possible too."

Possible, yes, exceedingly unlikely for a large number of reasons.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

blackhat said:


> I suspect you know that *there's no equality* in doping. Jan's fuentes doping program may have been more or or less sophisticated than LA's ferrari designed doping program but it's not likely they were the same. that's why it matters, the sport is decided based on who has the best medical advice.


yeah, and:

...there's no equality in bikes...
...there's no equality in wheels
...there's no equality in saddles
...there's no equality in lubricants
...there's no equality in bearings
...there's no equality in tires
...there's no equality in chamois
...there's no equality in components
...there's no equality in helmets
...there's no equality in aerobars
...there's no equality in cables
...there's no equality in waterbottle cages
...there's no equality in shoes

get the point?

the implication that LA dominated teh TdF simply because Ferrari was better than Fuentes is ludicrous..........

LA was dominate in the TdF because that was the only thing he worked for, everything else he did was "practice & experimentation", he built a single purpose team and won against teams with a much broader [traditional] agenda...

...in many ways, it wasn't a level playing field...it wasn't traditional...

...allot of people didn't like his approach to the TdF, and combined w/ his arrogance, he's easy to "hate"...

...but what he did was remarkable nonetheless...regardless of one's like or dislike for the guy...



edits: for clarity


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> "He lost 7kgs, the weight of a whole bike."
> 
> If you do the calculations based on the "magic" W/Kg numbers Ferrari has given Armstrong would have had to have lost roughly twice that to have become a TdF winner if it were the only factor. He would have had to have gone from ~180 pre-cancer to ~150 post cancer. I've never seen anything to indicate his pre or post cancer weights were anywhere near those. The only reasonable conclusion is that he became "stronger" as well. Training, periodization, doping, something increased his W as well.
> 
> ...


...so it's all in the dope???...

...nothing else...???

DB, do you really believe that ...???......


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> "He lost 7kgs, the weight of a whole bike."
> 
> If you do the calculations based on the "magic" W/Kg numbers Ferrari has given Armstrong would have had to have lost roughly twice that to have become a TdF winner if it were the only factor. He would have had to have gone from ~180 pre-cancer to ~150 post cancer. I've never seen anything to indicate his pre or post cancer weights were anywhere near those. The only reasonable conclusion is that he became "stronger" as well. Training, periodization, doping, something increased his W as well.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but it bears remembering that dope is not what made LA a contender. Steven Swart, who's in at least as good a position to judge as any of us, said it best when he said that if everyone was doping (as has pretty much turned out to be true), Lance would have been the best and if no one was doping, Lance would have been the best. This is a huge talent we're talking about here, not only physiologically, but psychologically. Dope doesn't turn a mule into a thoroughbred, and LA ain't no mule in any event. I'm not suggesting that LA was clean, I just think that the people who completely devalue his accomplishments because of the likelihood that he doped are not seeing the picture clearly.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*I agree completely, unless..........*



harlond said:


> Yeah, but it bears remembering that dope is not what made LA a contender. Steven Swart, who's in at least as good a position to judge as any of us, said it best when he said that if everyone was doping (as has pretty much turned out to be true), Lance would have been the best and if no one was doping, Lance would have been the best. This is a huge talent we're talking about here, not only physiologically, but psychologically. Dope doesn't turn a mule into a thoroughbred, and LA ain't no mule in any event. I'm not suggesting that LA was clean, I just think that the people who completely devalue his accomplishments because of the likelihood that he doped are not seeing the picture clearly.


whatever doping program he was on was incredibly leading edge.....of course we may never know.

Ignoring that for a minute, combine a state of the art doping program with his physiological anomalies (Heart/lungs/lactic acid processing) and his post cancer mental toughness and his ability to tolerate pain & his laser like sole focus on the tour and he proved unbeatable. Are there any of his major challengers that haven't been strongly implicated in doping? I don't think so. 

What he did was incredible.....however, his holier than thou attitude is very off putting.

I don;t devalue his accomplishments, rather I question whether he would have won clean against a clean peloton........and if he would have done it 7 times. That being said, I sure would have enjoyed watching it unfold.

Len


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Testimony from former Armstrong teammates about big tex cowboy's EPO*



ttug said:


> What source do you have that confirms the time period you are talking about?
> 
> You mean that you dope for a year and then WHAMMO, you win a Classic? As to the riders wanting to do it clean, they all did. Armstrong was a young impatient guy who had talent and yeah, probably rubbed alot of the older folks the wrong way. No doubt. Hence the nickname gooniors as opposed to Juniors that was often thrown around.
> 
> Speaking of a doping culture, what do you think was going on in the EAST BLOC (Jan and his home of Thuringen come to mind). These guys were statewide, sponsored and systemic in their doping. Take a look at the East German womens swim team from roughly the same time period.




You're a young guy so you probably don't know too much about the older Motorola guys, some of whom raced for 7-Eleven and Coor Light. So, I'll fill you in on this. When Motorola brought aboard a young Armstrong, some guys (like Hampsten & Phil Anderson & Bauer) were being forced out or else, comply with the "medical" program that Armstrong was insisting they all did to remain competitive with the other Euro teams. I suppose you didn't know who Stephen Swart is and will probably make light of his past abilities, even though he was at one time one of the top cyclists around, but what he and other teammates had to say about Armstrong is damning and supports the other pieces of evidence of performance-enhancing drug use by Armstrong.

Article here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10365749



.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

bonkmiester said:


> ...so it's all in the dope???...
> 
> ...nothing else...???
> 
> DB, do you really believe that ...???......


No. If you read what I wrote that should be fairly obvious.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Len J said:


> What he did was incredible.....however, his holier than thou attitude is very off putting. Len


Yeah, unless he's telling the truth. Then you could understand it...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> If you do the calculations based on the "magic" W/Kg numbers Ferrari has given Armstrong would have had to have lost roughly twice that to have become a TdF winner if it were the only factor..


Who's saying the weight is the only factor? He was 25 when he was diagnosed. Pre cancer by his estimation, he wasn't tapping all of his talent. He said he was a slacker. So if he's at 3/4's before and at 90 to 95% after, that gives him another big edge.



Dwayne Barry said:


> He would have had to have gone from ~180 pre-cancer to ~150 post cancer. I've never seen anything to indicate his pre or post cancer weights were anywhere near those..


Just look at the pictures of his face and upper body, pre and post cancer..




Dwayne Barry said:


> The only reasonable conclusion is that he became "stronger" as well. Training, periodization, doping, something increased his W as well.


I believe it was possible for him to do it minus the doping. Look at all of us on this forum. We're all trying to get in shape, get stronger, and for the most part succeeding in our 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's......



Dwayne Barry said:


> "Maybe I just like to think that his story is inspiring, but logically I think it's possible too."
> 
> Possible, yes, exceedingly unlikely for a large number of reasons.


Well of course "exceedingly unlikely"...Isn't that the story of every "miraculous" comeback? Pre-doping era, that's what seperated the immortals from the also-rans, the combination of talent, belief, will, luck....The sense of poetry..Sorry, don't mist up here..LMAO

It's like the teacher telling Nick Faldo, "professional golfers are one in a million" and he responds, "Well then, I'm the one."

Or in the movie "Endurance", Haile Gebrselassie's father comes to visit him and tells him to stop running and work on the farm and Gebrselassie basically throws him out of the house, saying ok, good, whatever, I'm running, in whatever language Ethiopians speak..It was a great scene.... http://www.iaaf.org/GP07/news/Kind=2/newsId=38789.html

The improbability of these things is a necessary element to the story. 

If they are clean, you can understand why Armstrong and Landis, dislike Lemond so much...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Len J said:


> whatever doping program he was on was incredibly leading edge.....of course we may never know.


Why? He probably was using your typical run-of-the-mill EPO and hormone program like most every other pro. The only "leading edge" is mixing in the old-school blood doping that appears to have been what separated the domestiques' program from the big riders' programs.

I don't think doping explains his success, but probably it is true that without doping at the time he rode that he could not have been highly competitive let alone dominant.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*It's possible.......*



Dwayne Barry said:


> Why? He probably was using your typical run-of-the-mill EPO and hormone program like most every other pro. The only "leading edge" is mixing in the old-school blood doping that appears to have been what separated the domestiques' program from the big riders' programs.
> 
> I don't think doping explains his success, but probably it is true that without doping at the time he rode that he could not have been highly competitive let alone dominant.


though unlikely, that Lance & his entorage discovered some unigue either combination or utilization of PEDS that gave him the necessary advantage over all other dopers. We really don't know what he was doing or how he was doing it.....all of us on both sides of this debate are specualting.

But, like you said, the indicators all point in the same direction.

Len


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bonkmiester said:


> yeah, and:
> 
> ...there's no equality in bikes...
> ...there's no equality in wheels
> ...



It is not the dope, it is how the body reacts to the dope. Not all athletes react the same, are super responders whose increase in performance outstrips others. It is funny, people always talk about how Lance must have had some secret sauce but when you look at his positives it is always for the normal stuff. The 6 positives in the 99 tour were for EPO, of course the Cortisone, and the Actovigen, all stuff that it appears most of the top guys took at the time


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*not again*



bonkmiester said:


> yeah, and:
> 
> ...there's no equality in bikes...
> ...there's no equality in wheels
> ...


It is pure BS to say that the "LA approach" to the TDF was non traditional. If you mean he was the first rider to focus only on the TDF, thats a weak argument only because, we have a GT that over 100 tyears old and in that time, a whole century, NOBODY EVER FOCUSED ON JUST WINNNING THE TDF??????????

Thats very weak.

Yes, I am aware that in earlier cycling, there was an overall focus and riders were expected to ride it all. However, that type of thinking was pre historic by the late 70's. There were way too many specialists in specific disciplines to say, yeah, I can be the best overall in every race. That has not happened in nearly 30 years.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

lookrider said:


> BTW, I love the Levitra popups on this website. If that stuff isn't a PED, then nothing is. LMAO.


Good evening. Wide World of Sports is here in the Royal Manhattan Hotel for a live, on-the-spot telecast of the Fielding Mellish honeymoon. Mellish and his new bride were married in a civil ceremony in downtown Manhattan. The bride wore the traditional virginal white, as did Mellish. They had dinner and are both now ready for the consummation of their marriage.

The turnout has been gigantic, and here for a play-by-play description is Howard Cosell. Take it away, Howard.

You join us with the action just about to start. Yes, indeed. Here comes the bride and she's got a lot of fans here. They are tense, but they swell to a tremendous cheer. And, as I think is apparent, she is in very good physical condition. 

And here comes Mellish. Listen to that crowd roar. He is wearing a green corduroy suit, jogging and bobbing down the aisle, buttressed by his trainer and his handlers.

The action has started. They approach one another cautiously. Nothing unique about that. Now... Mellish begins to make his moves and so does Nancy.

The two are working together closely, the action growing more rigorous. It is swift, rhythmic, coordinated. 

What's that? A cut over Mellish's right eye. The doctor comes in to examine the cut. No, it will not be stopped. It continues. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I've never seen action like this. 

That's it. It's over. It's all over. The marriage has been consummated. Nancy and Fielding Mellish, in the most real sense, are now man and wife. 

lf it's humanly possible, I'll break through these fans to talk to the two.

Excuse me. Excuse me.

Nancy, I know that this is very personal, but was it everything you expected?

Well, Howard, it all went by so fast. I had no idea that it'd be so quick. I was expecting a longer bout.

No difficulties of any kind?

Well, as you know, I'm extraordinarily ticklish so I had a rough time there. I couldn't stop laughing. I thought it'd really get in my way. But I really trained well for this and I think it held me so there really wasn't any time that I didn't feel in control.

How about you, Fielding? 

I was concerned about that cut. I thought they might stop the action.

Did you feel that?

Yes. I thought that I'd have to finish it up quick. I thought the referee might come in and stop it. I knew I was leading at that point and I was just hoping that they'd let me go all the way and I did.

No disappointments at all?

I had heard he'd be in great shape. And I felt that he... he wasn't, that he could use a little seasoning. The timing was a little off, but I think he'll be fine. He's not the worst I've had. Not the best, but not the worst.

Are you offended by what Nancy just said, Fielding? 

I'm not offended, but I don't agree. I was in great shape. I thought I had her in real trouble with the right hand. I was in good form. My breathing was good. I've been training very hard for this. I just gave a hundred per cent.

When do you anticipate your next bout?

I think we could probably do this again in the late spring.

Are you... ln the late spring?

Well, I think I'll be ready by the late spring...

As long as the late spring?

I think we should leave the happy couple on that note. It's hard to tell what may happen in the future. They may live happily ever after. Again, they may not.

Be assured of this, though. Wherever the action is, we will be there with ABC's Wide World ofSports to cover it.

Now, on behalf of Nancy and Fielding Mellish and the others who have made this possible, this is Howard Cosell thanking you for joining us and wishing you a most pleasant good night


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*thank you*



barbedwire said:


> You're a young guy so you probably don't know too much about the older Motorola guys, some of whom raced for 7-Eleven and Coor Light. So, I'll fill you in on this. When Motorola brought aboard a young Armstrong, some guys (like Hampsten & Phil Anderson & Bauer) were being forced out or else, comply with the "medical" program that Armstrong was insisting they all did to remain competitive with the other Euro teams. I suppose you didn't know who Stephen Swart is and will probably make light of his past abilities, even though he was at one time one of the top cyclists around, but what he and other teammates had to say about Armstrong is damning and supports the other pieces of evidence of performance-enhancing drug use by Armstrong.
> 
> Article here:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10365749
> ...


Uh, you are a funny one.

In 1981, I knew and was introduced to the racing scene by a junior who rode for what was 7-11. Hampsten was a hero who won a GT, you may recall the Giro? He retired in Italy. I am not certain, but I recall that was a country in Europe. Better check out that fact.A GT winner being forced out, not a savvy move...but a nice try....


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Hampsten himself has said EPO forced him out of the sport because in the early 90's he was suddenly being dropped in the mountains by guys who were always in the gruppetto before. By the time LA rolled into town the Hampster was no longer competitive, a situation that hardly requires much agitating before someone is out the door.

Interesting mention of Indurain. First because he dropped LA for 8 minutes in a TT at the Tour, which shows LA could neither TT nor climb pre "miracle". Second because he was really the first EPO champion, and prior to his run hadn't won much of anything other than one mountain stage of the Tour on a long breakaway (Mazzoleni's recent performance reminded me very much of Mig's sudden leap up from domestique level). Nobody thought he had a GT champion lurking within when he was domestique for Delgado either. A little blubber lost, a faster cadence, and a good doctor and suddenly he's a 5 time champion. Though LA had a better record before his reinvention it still made a good template for what was to come.


----------



## erol/frost (May 30, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I didn't start following cycling until the year of Indurain's final TDF win and not too much at that time. Is it really true that Indurain didn't give any indication he could climb well enough until during his first TDF win?
> 
> I think it is exceedingly likely Armstrong was doping pre and post-cancer. I also think while the weight loss was critical to his TDF success it is only part of the story. He only claims to have dropped something like 10-15 pounds and I hardly think that would take his W/Kg from the no chance to dominating range. His W clearly improved too as evidence by his dominating TTing.


At the 1990 Tour, LeMonds final win, they (LeMond and Indurain) climbed LuzArdiden i think it was, together. Indurain went on to win that stage and i remember thinking when i watched it on the tube that wow Indurain really can climb. In hindsight this might indicate some change from domestique for Pedro Delgado to more of a GT-challenger.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

I'm not saying he was thinking he was never going to put anything impure in his body again after cancer. But, wow, what is the psychology of someone who has supposedly done EPO and HGH, which may have been a factor in his getting cancer in the first place, literally nearly dies of the cancer, and then, as soon as he recovers, decides to do these same drugs again? It boggles my mind. Pure arrogance?

That said, I agree- I think his doping program was just one ingredient in the secret of his success. He really did bust his butt, training with a laser-like intensity, climbing the same mountains that were in the tour, good tactics by Bruhnyeel (sorry, can't spell his name)--all of these things were factors.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

karategirl said:


> That said, I agree- I think his doping program was just one ingredient in the secret of his success. He really did bust his butt, training with a laser-like intensity,


Well if anything the drugs allow a rider to do more work than they otherwise could, if anything riders doing drugs probably do work harder because they can. I think one aspect of why riders are reluctant to admit doping is that it appears to diminish their accomplishments when they know full well they worked incredibly hard to get where they were and they probably weren't doing anything all the other riders were doing.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Armstrong Doctor Banned*



karategirl said:


> I'm not saying he was thinking he was never going to put anything impure in his body again after cancer. But, wow, what is the psychology of someone who has supposedly done EPO and HGH, which may have been a factor in his getting cancer in the first place, literally nearly dies of the cancer, and then, as soon as he recovers, decides to do these same drugs again? It boggles my mind. Pure arrogance?



Yeah, but EPO isn't a chemotherapy drug. HGH isn't a chemotherapy drug either. So, why does that boggle your mind about him taking non-chemo drugs after fighting off the cancer? The Italian doctor, Michele Ferrari, who Armstrong consulted with during his Tour de France wins, was convicted by the Italian courts of prescribing EPO to his athletes. Ferrari was a proponent of "microdosing" EPO. That is, he had a systematic schedule for each rider based on the events they were targeting and claims that the EPO given in this way is no more dangerous than orange juice.

*Article:* Armstrong Doctor Banned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3708036.stm


_


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

Yes, I realize that EPO and HGH are not chemotherapy drugs. My point is, there is a theroy that part of the reason he developed cancer in the first place is his use of PED's. I am sure you remember Frankie Andreu saying Lance did tell his doctor's that he had taken EPO before he developed cancer, sort of implying that there was at least a question in his mind as to whether these drugs were a factor in his developing cancer--a particularly aggressive cancer at a young age. What boggles my mind is, after he literally teetered on the brink of death, he does recover, and then picks up where he left off in his doping regime? Wouldn't you think he would pause and think to himself, "Hey, I don't know whether these drugs contributed to cancer or not, but I've been given a second chance here, so...what the heck. On with the program!"


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

No one else finds this somewhat pathological?


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

I think you're examining it as most of us would. But the one thing that no one can deny is Lance's desire to win. I could see it over riding your thinking, especially if they are not the same drugs. It will be interesting when the truth comes out in 30 years no matter whether or not he used PEDs.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*Epo*



karategirl said:


> Yes, I realize that EPO and HGH are not chemotherapy drugs. My point is, there is a theroy that part of the reason he developed cancer in the first place is his use of PED's. I am sure you remember Frankie Andreu saying Lance did tell his doctor's that he had taken EPO before he developed cancer, sort of implying that there was at least a question in his mind as to whether these drugs were a factor in his developing cancer--a particularly aggressive cancer at a young age. What boggles my mind is, after he literally teetered on the brink of death, he does recover, and then picks up where he left off in his doping regime? Wouldn't you think he would pause and think to himself, "Hey, I don't know whether these drugs contributed to cancer or not, but I've been given a second chance here, so...what the heck. On with the program!"


Is not a drug that is chemotherapy, but it is used in conjunction with chemotherapy.

_It is used in treating anemia resulting from chronic renal failure or from cancer chemotherapy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin

Erythropoietin can be given as a treatment for a low red blood cell count (anaemia), as an alternative to a blood transfusion. Our red blood cells contain haemoglobin, which carries oxygen around the body. If your haemoglobin level falls too low after treatment with certain types of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, your doctor may recommend a course of erythropoietin. http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Treatments/Supportivetherapies/Erythropoietin_

And a bunch more at http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/erythropoietin/DA00137

By the way - nowhere that I looked could I find any suggestion that EPO _causes_ cancer.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*You are assuming.........*



karategirl said:


> No one else finds this somewhat pathological?


that all of us humans always act in rational ways. Obviously, we don't.

My Dad contracted Lung cancer after 50 years of smoking. After a year of radiation and cemo, the tumor was completely gone and he went into remission. New lease on life right? Oh, one small problem....he never stopped smoking. He was dead in 2 years. He knew he shouldn't smoke, but he couldn't/wouldn't stop.

One thing I've learned in my life is that it's near impossible to understand someone's actions from the outside in.....they rarely make sense.....but on some level,even seemingly irrational actions make sense to the persone taking the action.

Len

BTW, Money is spot on as to no link yet between EPO & Cancer...but I think that there is a connection between HGH and testicular cancer.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

barbedwire said:


> Yeah, but EPO isn't a chemotherapy drug. HGH isn't a chemotherapy drug either. So, why does that boggle your mind about him taking non-chemo drugs after fighting off the cancer? The Italian doctor, Michele Ferrari, who Armstrong consulted with during his Tour de France wins, was convicted by the Italian courts of prescribing EPO to his athletes. Ferrari was a proponent of "microdosing" EPO. That is, he had a systematic schedule for each rider based on the events they were targeting and claims that the EPO given in this way is no more dangerous than orange juice.
> 
> *Article:* Armstrong Doctor Banned
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3708036.stm
> ...


I think it boggles her mind because it has been suggested that both EPO and HGH have been suspected as a factor in Armstrong's developing cancer in the first place...Why would someone be crazy enough to resume taking something that almost killed them?

Who suggested they were chemotherapy drugs?

According to your link, Ferrari was acquitted of providing drugs to his athletes.

The orange juice quote was taken out of context.

The rest is speculation.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Plus I think all the emphysema patients smoking cigarettes while hauling around their oxygen tanks is a good argument against. I would be somewhat surprised if he took HGH post cancer but not at all with EPO. The worst that can be said is that there is preliminary evidence it MAY promote growth of some types of preexisting cancers, and at the time he was operating even that weak link was nowhere in the medical literature.

Pure arrogance? Isn't that the definition of a professional athlete??


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

There are certain drugs that are strongly associated with higher incidence rates of future cancers, such as testicular cancer. EPO is not one of those drugs. Possibly Armstrong was taking other performance-enhancing drugs that led to his testicular cancer. It wouldn't seem to terribly implausible that he "refined" his medical doping program post-cancer. Dr. Ferrari, with who, Armstrong consulted with on many occasions during his Tour de France wins was a proponent of EPO usage which he claims was very safe when "microdosed".

Emma O'Reilly, the USPS team physical therapist and masseuse was hired by the team to also obtain the drugs and give them to team doctors. In May 1999, while Armstrong was at a training camp in the Pyrénées, she was asked to drive to Spain to collect drugs and bring them back into France, which she later handed to Armstrong in a parking lot.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

I guess that is true, about people developing lung cancer and emphysyma (sorry, can't spell) and then going on to smoke anyway. I wonder if there is an addiction factor in PED's as well? Probably not physical (though I don't know, I've never tried them), but I could see where there would be a psychological addiction.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

barbedwire said:


> Emma O'Reilly, the USPS team physical therapist and masseuse was hired by the team to also obtain the drugs and give them to team doctors. In May 1999, while Armstrong was at a training camp in the Pyrénées, she was asked to drive to Spain to collect drugs and bring them back into France, which she later handed to Armstrong in a parking lot.



Can you provide proof of this please, or at least a link?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh the irony*

Man, this thread is cool if you have a beer buzz or popcorn.

Bottom line, at this point, its he said she said and every story has 2 sides.

1)Some folks, like it or not will never ever like American cycling champs. I am fine with that.

2)Others like myself, love the sport, but really do not have a personal interest in the nationality of the athlete. If Lance was from Namibia or Portuagal or Iceland, it really would not matter.

3)There are many many obvious omissions here in regard to the tested athlete who doped and never tested positive. Where is the hate for Richard Virenque? 

4)My all time favorite, some zealots here like to bring history into the mix which is fine, but then it gets funny, yeah, back in the old days of Motorolla blah blah blah. Look folks every one of the carpers and whiners about EPO have done so at the end of their career when they did not have the goods anymore. Its called aging in a non gracious manner. It happens its human and every great in the sport with few exceptions have done this. Merckx leaps to mind.

5)Cycling is a great sport and it is rank with doping. If you just look at the surface and say hey, there are endless motivations for doping, and then MOVE ON and tackle the issue, DOPING, I think these threads might actually get passed the ad hominem attacks that in short have grown comical.

People who jump the bandwagon and acuse anyone of an illegal act have an axe to grind. Money, greed, fame, mental illness hey who knows?????


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well, that begs the question, why would you believe Armstrong's claims? He clearly has the biggest motivation of anyone in this whole situation to lie (not that that necessarily means he is).


With that kind of logic, you could accuse Armstrong of the Kennedy assassination. After all, he clearly has the biggest motivation of anyone in this whole situation to lie (not that that necessarily means he did it).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> With that kind of logic, you could accuse Armstrong of the Kennedy assassination. After all, he clearly has the biggest motivation of anyone in this whole situation to lie (not that that necessarily means he did it).


Come on, you really think it's not exceedingly likely in the context of pro cycling that Armstrong was doping, especially given all the circumstantial evidence beyond merely guilt by association?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> They're claims - why should we believe that they're credible?



if it was just an isolated incident, one person making these allegations you could credibly dismiss them. unfortunately there's several. former teammates, former team doctor, former soigneur(o'reilly). you've got to be willing to assume the worst about a lot of people to believe LA is clean and the'yre <i>all</i> lying. of course, you've got to also ignore the positives and the legions of circumstantial evidence too.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Come on, you really think it's not exceedingly likely in the context of pro cycling that it's not pretty likely Armstrong was doping, especially given all the circumstantial evidence beyond merely guilt by association?



DB, I think you are missing the point that a lot of us are trying to make- yes you could make the connections and he does look pretty [email protected] guilty, but nothing has ever stuck to him- we all are looking for the glue to make the evidence stick. Believe me, I hate the guy, and I wish he would go down, but you have to give the guy a fair shake. 

You obviously have a some ill hatred for LA, you even posted :


Dwayne Barry said:


> was no indication he would ever contest a grand tour for the GC


What? The kid was sponsored by the age of 14 by Shimano!! He was the youngest rider to ever win a world championship, and he won a stage of the TdF in '93 at the age of 22. the Great Merckx didn't even compete in the Tour until he was 24. When did young riders start just becoming GC contenders right off the bat? 

If anyone in this world thought that the best is yet to come for this kid at 22, and say he wasn't a potential threat for any GC is crazy. Believe me, I think LA is guilty, but you make yourself look silly when you say no one thought he would ever be a GC contender.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> If anyone in this world thought that the best is yet to come for this kid at 22, and say he wasn't a potential threat for any GC is crazy. Believe me, I think LA is guilty, but you make yourself look silly when you say no one thought he would ever be a GC contender.


Different horses for different courses. Armstrong had shown minimal ability to either TT or climb well enough to contest a GT until he came back from cancer. Argueing that his one-day results which were respectable but not phenomenal gave any indication he was going to be a GT protagonist yet alone win multiple times is silly. 

So you think Boonen could be Indurain if he changes his focus? He's shown way more class than Armstrong ever did by his age. Is there even any indication Lance thought he could contest for the GC at GT pre-cancer?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> When did young riders start just becoming GC contenders right off the bat?


There are actually quite a few examples of these, the three most recent that come to mind are Valverde, Cunego and now A. Schleck. Furthermore, no one just appears out of the blue, even at that age they have had to progress thru the ranks and know their relative talents.

So I'll stand by my earlier statement, that pre-cancer there was no indication Lance would ever be a GT protagonist b/c he had never shown he could TT or climb in that class. He was a rouleur who had had some decent success. So if there were people who thought Lance could win a GT they weren't basing it on his race results.

It's probably in one of those books regarding the genesis of going for the GC in a GT. Was finishing 4th in the '98 Vuelta the genesis for this or was the GC targeted in the Vuelta, I don't know?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Come on, you really think it's not exceedingly likely in the context of pro cycling that Armstrong was doping, especially given all the circumstantial evidence beyond merely guilt by association?


I'm not stupid, and I'm not naive. I'm just honest enough to say I don't know. The circumstantial evidence I've seen amounts to he said-she said type things and guilt by association. I'm just tired of the same old accusations and insinuations put forth by people claiming they are fact and recorded history. I'm tired of the standard post saying "There's no way he could be that good, he must be doping." Give me a break. Someone has to win these races! He clearly was an elite rider, doping or not. He totally focused his year on the Tour de France. He had the best training, the best equipment, and often the best singularly focused team. So why not him? I'm no Lance-boy, but I'll defend him and anyone else against baseless and unprovable tabloid-style accusations. Did he dope? I wish we could all just admit the one certain truth, which is that none of us knows for sure.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Argueing that his one-day results which were respectable but not phenomenal gave any indication he was going to be a GT protagonist yet alone win multiple times is silly.


Name one mutli- stage race that Merckx won before he won the Giro at age 24. 

Do you claim that all GC contenders just slowly rise up the GC standings until they finally break through? I can't think of any GT GC rider who wasn't a [email protected] good one day racer early in his career. No one _knew_ he would be GT champion, (if people knew things like this, Vegas would be out of business) but if you told them, I am sure it wouldn't be out of left field. 

Indurain's big break through was when he won the Spanish amateur championship at 19. Armstrong won the American amateur championship at the age of 20. Pretty similar paths for young riders. 



> He's shown way more class than Armstrong ever did by his age.


Armstong is the champion of showing that class, regretably, has nothing to do with winning races.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Armstrong was winning time trials in the Tour DuPont pre-cancer, beating guys like Ekimov. He was also climbing pretty well.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> I'll defend him and anyone else against baseless and unprovable tabloid-style accusations. Did he dope? I wish we could all just admit the one certain truth, which is that none of us knows for sure.


Sure none of use know for sure, I don't think I've ever made that claim. But I also think it is disingenous to claim that the indications that Armstrong doped are "baseless and unprovable tabloid-style accusations". It goes way beyond that and comes from multiple different arenas extending as far as the retroactive EPO tests and to me the most damning, the "positive" for corticosteroids.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

mohair_chair said:


> Armstrong was winning time trials in the Tour DuPont pre-cancer, beating guys like Ekimov. He was also climbing pretty well.



Mohair Chair, I just think we don't get it. Evidently, using DB logic, a rider must win a GT before he is ever even _considered _a contender for a GT.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Armstrong was winning time trials in the Tour DuPont pre-cancer, beating guys like Ekimov. He was also climbing pretty well.


Come on, the Tour du Pont was like the Tour of California or Georgia nowadays. It has a weak domestic field with a few top Euros who treat it as a training race. That's like saying guys who outclimbed Simoni at the TofC this year are great prospects for winning a GT in the future!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> Mohair Chair, I just think we don't get it. Evidently, using DB logic, a rider must win a GT before he is ever even _considered _a contender for a GT.


Is that really what you're getting out of my posts? How about this instead? Riders who win a GT have typically in the past shown in a GT or big stage races that they can at least TT or climb in the same league as GC protogonists at some point.

Armstrong did not show this kind of class until the '98 Vuelta.

If we are going to mischaracterize logic, I can draw the obvious conclusion from your posts that anyone who has shown some success in one-day races should be considered a potential future GT winner. Is that really what you believe?

BTW, I'm not even sure why this matters? Everyone seems to pretty much agree that Armstrong reinvented himself post-cancer as a GT rider, no? Or are you guys saying the cycling media and most fans have it all wrong and really there was no reinvention, his earlier career clearly indicated he was going to win GTs one day? Just you guys were the only ones who saw it?


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Come on, the Tour du Pont was like the Tour of California or Georgia nowadays. It has a weak domestic field with a few top Euros who treat it as a training race. That's like saying guys who outclimbed Simoni at the TofC this year are great prospects for winning a GT in the future!


Ok- so lets now say that a 22 year old, 1st year pro won the ToC this past year... you don't think that is going to get him _some_ street cred with the teams? 

Wasn't it JJ Hadeo's Tour of California Stage wins that impressed CSC, and thus lead to him signing with those guys and jumping in with the Euros? No!! That couldn't be it, because no one cares about those races, right DB?  

Please, you are now sounding pathetic.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Never mind- not even worth it...


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

ttug said:


> 3)There are many many obvious omissions here in regard to the tested athlete who doped and never tested positive. Where is the hate for Richard Virenque?


Just to set the record straight: Virenque doped w/ EPO pre-1998... before there was a synthetic EPO test (and the Festina doping programme made sure that didn't pass the 50% hematocrit level). So, yes, he was tested. Yes he doped w/ EPO. But he was never tested for EPO before he was busted in 1998! Same w/ Riis, Indurain, Pantani, etc...


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

Sorry, didn't I read something about Valverde being accused of doping on this forum somewhere?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"Ok- so lets now say that a 22 year old, 1st year pro won the ToC this past year... you don't think that is going to get him _some_ street cred with the teams?"

Sure, people will take notice, that doesn't mean there is a reasonable expectation he'll be a future GT winner. 

"Wasn't it JJ Hadeo's Tour of California Stage wins that impressed CSC, and thus lead to him signing with those guys and jumping in with the Euros? No!! That couldn't be it, because no one cares about those races, right DB? "

You seem to find it necessary to mischaracterize what I say. Sure Haedo's domestic results got him noticed. That doesn't mean CSC thinks he's going to be the next Cipollini! Especially now that he's been tested in the Euro waters and while he had some good results he got his doors blown off at the Giro. 

"Please, you are now sounding pathetic. "

All I am saying is that as far as I'm aware cycling fans and journalists etc. were not expecting Armstrong to be a future GT winner based on his results up to the point he got cancer. That is half of the cache of his story. Not only is it the remarkable comeback from cancer, but who would have thought he was going to be GT contender in the first place? As I remember it even his first Tour win was a big surprise after his 4th in the Vuelta. No one or at least very few people thought he could climb in the high mountains because he had previously not shown the ability to do this and that is a prerequisite for winning GTs. I guess you remember different?


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Armstrong did test positive, for corticosteroids, Actovegin, and EPO*

What I have generally found in these discussions about doping is that most Lance Armstrong fans are younger and so they lack a bit of perspective on the sport the past 20 years. For example, the bias and the comments about lack of positive tests = proof positive that no EPO doping was going on. Besides Armstrong's alleged guilt, there is also admissions from other riders who never tested positive, yet admit they they did use EPO. Virenque, Riis, David Millar, etc.. So, why the Armstrong fans will always scream bias I will not know.

Secondly, it's not only lack of perspective on the past 20 years, but clearly a lack of knowledge of the assertions made by people close to Armstrong that is the most damning. Most of the Armstrong fans want to focus on Lemond's comment that Armstrong shouldn't have associated with Dr. Ferrari (convicted of distributing EPO to athletes). Instead, the most guilty AND credible assertions have come from people close to Armstrong. This isn't 2nd hand info. This is directly from former teammates, former physiotherapist/masseuse, a convicted EPO doctor, etc. These people are highly credible because they are numerous and had 1st hand info. It doesn't get any more credible than that. If the Armstrong supporters don't think that people with 1st hand info are not credible witnesses, then who is?

Armstrong tested positive for a corticosteroid that was banned, then his team presented a document after the positive saying that he was taking some creme for a saddle sore. No explanation why they did not declare any of this medication in the pre-Tour forms, as they are supposed to. Armstrong also tested positive for Actovegin in 2000. The drug was so new it was not on any banned lists. Armstrong tested positive for EPO in 1999. The vial #s that tested positive for EPO matched the name Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

barbedwire said:


> Armstrong tested positive for a corticosteroid that was banned, then his team presented a document after the positive saying that he was taking some creme for a saddle sore. No explanation why they did not declare any of this medication in the pre-Tour forms, as they are supposed to. Armstrong also tested positive for Actovegin in 2000. The drug was so new it was not on any banned lists. Armstrong tested positive for EPO in 1999. The vial #s that tested positive for EPO matched the name Lance Armstrong.


Well the only one you can really say he tested positive for was the corticosteroids for which he as allowed to produce a retroactive TUE. Which seems to me rather far fetched for several reasons.

He wasn't positive for Actovegin. USPS got caught with it and IIRC Lance or USPS made some pretty silly statements early on (e.g. it's not banned so whats the big deal), but while not specifically banned it was still not allowable under the general "blood doping" ban. Anyway they got a mechanic to say it was for his diabetes and were given a pass. From the leaked SCA arbitration testimony I've read conflicting statements on the internet that the mechanic in question testified that it was not for him and he only said it was b/c he was pressured by Bruyneel and Armstrong, but then I think I also read that that is not accurate and he didn't refute that it was for him.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Manzano's accused Valverde. Plus, bags bearing the name Valv. and Piti were found as part of Puerto. Piti is/was apparently Valverde's dog, like Birillo was Basso's.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

FondriestFan said:


> Manzano's accused Valverde. Plus, bags bearing the name Valv. and Piti were found as part of Puerto. Piti is/was apparently Valverde's dog, like Birillo was Basso's.


I though Piti was speculation at this point. Has anyone really confirmed that Valverde has, or more likely at this point, had a dog name Piti?


----------



## steephill (Jul 14, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I though Piti was speculation at this point. Has anyone really confirmed that Valverde has, or more likely at this point, had a dog name Piti?


He does, but the odd thing is some Puerto documents with the code name "Piti" on them pre-date when the dog was born.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

steephill said:


> He does...


Seems odd that just a few days ago CN said they found no dog by that name at Valverde's house (although it seemed like a very odd statement, almost a joke?) nor made any mention that the dog's identity had been confirmed.

It seems like a rather irrelevant point if they have Valverde's blood but I'm not sure that they do, his supposed codenames may only be in documents, etc.

As I recall, Birillo seemed to be a matter of controversy as well with some folks (nieghbors?) saying Basso has or had a dog by that name and others (perhaps just Basso though) saying he did not.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

steephill said:


> He does, but the odd thing is some Puerto documents with the code name "Piti" on them pre-date when the dog was born.



Maybe he named his dog after the dope bags!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> There are actually quite a few examples of these, the three most recent that come to mind are Valverde, Cunego and now A. Schleck. Furthermore, no one just appears out of the blue, even at that age they have had to progress thru the ranks and know their relative talents.
> 
> So I'll stand by my earlier statement, that pre-cancer there was no indication Lance would ever be a GT protagonist b/c he had never shown he could TT or climb in that class. He was a rouleur who had had some decent success. So if there were people who thought Lance could win a GT they weren't basing it on his race results.
> 
> It's probably in one of those books regarding the genesis of going for the GC in a GT. Was finishing 4th in the '98 Vuelta the genesis for this or was the GC targeted in the Vuelta, I don't know?


Your analysis is just way off base, and is the weakest part of your "evidence" that LA did PEDS. By almost all accounts, Andreu, Swart, his palmares, his friendship with EM who introduced him to Ferrari. Ferrari's reaction to his talent, (he didn't want to work with him,then he changed his mind when he saw his numbers), he was a triathlon prodigy, the guy was a freak.

To say he was a rouler is just absurd. C'mon, find *any* link suggesting that he didn't have immense talent. The contrary is actually true. After his lack of results in Atlanta, he was looked upon as an underachiever. Shortly after the Olympics he was diagnosed with cancer. What was he, 25?

Do you really think 25, 26, 27 or even up to 30 is old? Sprinters use to be regarded as over the hill at 24 or 25, which was actually more a function of the fact that they were amatuers who had to earn a living after college..


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

lookrider said:


> To say he was a rouler is just absurd. C'mon, find *any* link suggesting that he didn't have immense talent. The contrary is actually true. After his lack of results in Atlanta, he was looked upon as an underachiever. Shortly after the Olympics he was diagnosed with cancer. What was he, 25?


I never said he didn't have immense talent, I said his results/performance up until the point he got cancer led almost no one to believe that he had the capacity to win a GT. 

Lots of people have immense talent and achieve big things in cycling but have zero or very little chance at winning a GT (e.g. every sprinter, almost all of the good "classics" riders including many of guys who excel in races like LBL and Lombardy).

And I'll stand by my characterization of Lance as a rouleur, he was a guy with good power but not particularly known as a climber or sprinter, while being a respectable TTist. This made him a good stage hunter, classics guy, competitive in smaller stage races like many of the better rouleurs (e.g. Voigt).


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I never said he didn't have immense talent, I said his results/performance up until the point he got cancer led almost no one to believe that he had the capacity to win a GT.


DB, this is stupid. None of us feel like doing your homework for you, but here you go. less then 1 min of google searching, and here is a prime example from the NYT. 

YOU read the article from 1993. I already did, it says he is the next Greg Lemond. I think you need to shut-up about nobody saying he is a GT contender. 
*
CYCLING; On Fast Wheels to a Bright Future*
*July 5, 1993, Monday*
By SAMUEL ABT, (Special to The New York Times); Sports Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 32, Column 1, 1511 words

Edit: If anyone knows how to gain access to SI, they have at least a half dozen articles about Lance (pre '96) and his potential to be the best cyclist ever. I think that when one is deemed "the best cyclist ever" it would include the potential to be GC contender....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> DB, this is stupid. None of us feel like doing your homework for you, but here you go. less then 1 min of google searching, and here is a prime example from the NYT.
> 
> YOU read the article from 1993. I already did, it says he is the next Greg Lemond. I think you need to shut-up about nobody saying he is a GT contender.
> *
> ...


How do I get to any of those?

(As you so childishly put it) I will shut-up if proven wrong.

Now for some backtracking 

Given the hype that surrounds lots of riders it wouldn't be all that surprising but I think clearly his results did not indicate that. Hell someone at the height of Boonen's dominance last year wrote an article about Boonen being able to win the Tour, which he dismissed as nonsense. 

If you believe the hype Hincapie would be cracking of Museeuw-like wins and Danielson would have bagged several GTs by now and niether of those have happened.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

*Keep on track with your initial argument...*



Dwayne Barry said:


> If you believe the hype Hincapie would be cracking of Museeuw-like wins and Danielson would have bagged several GTs by now and niether of those have happened.


Yes, that is why there a few "greats" in sports. Being young and seeming to have tons of talent is not near as rare as being older, and being one of the "greats". But that doesn't mean that the young athletes didn't have the potential to be one of the "greats" but by definition, only a few make it. 

In retrospect. After your last comment, you have changed your position from {paraphrasing} "nobody said he would be a GC contender" *to* "If anybody said he would be GC contender, they were silly because his results didn't indicate that"

You might have _your opinion_, that Lance should have never been considered a GC contender pre-cancer. But for you to act like that was the universal sentiment of sports writing journalist is ludicrous- to put it mildly.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> But for you to act like that was the universal sentiment of the sports writing journalist is ludicrous- to put it mildly.


OK but I'm still waiting for the proof and doing my homework 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1999/tour_de_france/news/1999/07/25/tour_final/

"Before his illness, Armstrong was known as an effective one-day performer. But he struggled in the longer tests, especially the tough mountain climbs of the Tour."

And from the man himself from the same article "I never expected to be here," he said, after the Star-Spangled Banner had echoed across the Champs-Elysees, and Texas Gov. George Bush had called on the cell phone. 

"Even in my first career, I never had plans for this."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tour_de_france/385256.stm

"In an even bigger surprise, Armstrong showed this year that he had mastered the challenging mountain climbs as never before."

Asked whether he had ever imagined achieving victory in the Tour, Amstrong, replied: "No, never." 


I could find more probably but I don't think it really matters. I guess if people were touting him as I future Tour winner pre-cancer based on his immense talent so be it. But as I remember it and supported by the above, it was a big surprise because up until that point he had never shown the capacity to handle the high mountains and while he was a good TTist he wasn't the great TTist he became. Clearly based on Armstrong's own quotes he never considered himself good enough or with the potential to be a Tour winner.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

These guys really need to work out their stories beforehand so they can keep them straight. First there was no Piti and never was, yesterday he was quoted as saying Piti was born some time after the date of the blood bags. Hope that wasn't Piti paella at that dinner...

I happened to read a couple books on lying and interrogation shortly before Puerto broke and it was almost hilarious to hear people's interviews because it was like they were reading down the list of giveaways and composing their remarks from them. Valverde is big on the answering a question with a question recently.

Lance was a master of the counterattack instead of answer, the question, and "I told you...". The latter is more evidently more comfortable for people because it's psychologically one step removed from the original lie. Later in his career he abandoned contractions using "I have never.." instead of "I've never.." and the list goes on and on....

Believe what you want about LA, that he beat the best juiced up athletes of his generation on OJ and CTS advice, paid Ferrari tens of thousands a year not to give him any doping advice for which he was so famous, and a secret French conspiracy put EPO in his 1999 samples before he ever won his first Tour knowing that someday in the future there would be an EPO test and their evil plan would be fulfilled (they botched the wet seaweed plan that took out half his competition that year, intending it for him).

I prefer to go with the odds. There is really no proof anyone you work with is human other than their outward appearance and [simulated human] behavior but that probably doesn't stop you from assuming they are human and thinking it's a reasonable belief. But there is really no basis for that assumption other than everyone else acts like they believe it and the few DNA tests that have been done on the 6 billion inhabitants have yet to turn up an alien exception (but if you think there's a French conspiracy there is no reason to believe the DNA results either). To be consistent in your standards of proof you need to be casting a suspicious eye on humanity of everyone around you. But hey, as long as the sex is still good there's nothing to worry about right???


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

lookrider said:


> Your analysis is just way off base, and is the weakest part of your "evidence" that LA did PEDS.


BTW, where did I ever say Lance's pre-cancer vs. post-cancer successes were evidence he used PEDS?

I think in all probability he was doping at both times. Certainly many people put his Tour success down to starting to dope especially since that's when he started working with Ferrari. I think if it played a part it certianly wasn't a simple transition from no doping pre-cancer to doping post-cancer.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*good point*



Dwayne Barry said:


> OK but I'm still waiting for the proof and doing my homework
> 
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1999/tour_de_france/news/1999/07/25/tour_final/
> 
> ...


I believe Lance did touch on that in detail in his book, Its not about the bike. At least he had indicated that his training program was not preparing him for it. However, I do not know of alot of TDF champs who went in saying, oh yeah, I am going to win this one and I am 100% confident of that.

Yes, there are exceptions to that statement, but IN GENERAL, I think its sound reasoning. 

To the point of the sports journalist: They dogged Armstrong from his first TDF. It would be a miracle if he won another after 1999 was the accepted belief among journalists both here and abroad. Of course, after the 2000 TDF and even more the 2001 TDF (which was an exhibition not a race), it was apparent that Lance had something that others did not and it was with great relish that he handed it out. True to his arrogant nature however, he would continuously be cautious in any of his TDFstatements concerning victories particularly in the mountains. Could have a bad day, it could all be over if I wreck etc etc etc

SO, while yes, he was arrogant, and lets face it brash, he had the distinnction of winning the race: 7 years in a row. SO, golly gee, where were those great French champs? NOWHERE....... 

Doped or not, it happened and I hope that whatever may or may not be revealed, everyone gets over the fact that he did just dominate and it was fun to watch.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

ttug said:


> I believe Lance did touch on that in detail in his book, Its not about the bike. At least he had indicated that his training program was not preparing him for it.
> 
> Doped or not, it happened and I hope that whatever may or may not be revealed, everyone gets over the fact that he did just dominate and it was fun to watch.




Stupid excuses. All of this crybaby the "French are out to get me" excuses from Armstrong are without merit. None of the people who have the most damning evidence against Armstrong are French. Besides that, there are just way too many credible people associated with Armstrong during his early and winning days that say that Armstrong doped. I highly doubt that ALL of them decided to just lie about it.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

barbedwire said:


> Stupid excuses. All of this crybaby the "French are out to get me" excuses from Armstrong are without merit. None of the people who have the most damning evidence against Armstrong are French.


What? The sources and info might not come from France, but L'Euipe is the biggest publisict of any Lance [email protected] rumors ever. I lived in Belgium for a few years, and I was always surprised that the Brussels paper would pass on a Lance story b/c it was not credible, but L'equipe would make it a headline. Plus, Lemond wrote that book, with no facts- just how much he didn't like Lance, and it was printed by a French publisher, in French, and it never made it to another country because it wouldn't sale. France loves to hate Lance.

Personally, I wish LA was proven guilty 10 years ago. I don't trust him, and I think he is as guilty and dirty as they get. However, when people go around and spread stupid, factless rumors that he can easily pass off, it makes it harder in the future to get things to stick to him.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> Plus, Lemond wrote that book, with no facts- just how much he didn't like Lance, and it was printed by a French publisher, in French, and it never made it to another country because it wouldn't sale. .


exactly what book are you talking about?


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

blackhat said:


> exactly what book are you talking about?


LA Confidential.

Here is one of the BS exerts from the book. Later, Lemond admitted that this was paraphrased - his wife tried to copy down her husband's portion of the conversation. Then (after saying he had proof) he then admitted he had no proof the conversation ever happened. There was also no phone record of the call- even though it was supposedly between two LAN lines from Los Angles to Spain. Look at how "totally awesome" Lemond makes himself look in this exchange.... 



> Lance Armstrong: "Oh come on, now, you're telling me you never done EPO?"
> 
> Greg LeMond: "Why would you say I did EPO?"
> 
> ...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> LA Confidential.....



LA confidential was written by David Walsh, not Greg Lemond.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

blackhat said:


> LA confidential was written by David Walsh, not Greg Lemond.



You are right- I always think of Lemond though, because the book would have never happened without his comments- which are the most absurd BS I have ever heard, and I don't even like LA!


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> You are right- I always think of Lemond though, because the book would have never happened without his comments- which are the most absurd BS I have ever heard, and I don't even like LA!


have you read the book? I ask b/c I haven't. my 2nd hand understanding of it's contents are that emma o'reilly's admissions of being LA's mule were a bit more important to the overall narrative than anything lemond had to say.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

blackhat said:


> have you read the book? I ask b/c I haven't. my 2nd hand understanding of it's contents are that emma o'reilly's admissions of being LA's mule were a bit more important to the overall narrative than anything lemond had to say.


I read the book, in French. My French is quite good, but no where near perfect. From what I remember-- You are right, the Mule was the interesting part- but at the end of the day you just had to believe what he said to be true. He regrettably didn't have anything that could be backed up by any credible person. He did have a couple other friends who supported his story, but they were just his best friends, and they got $$ for backing his story. The mule got a huge pay day too (not sure how much but several hundred grand) for his story. The mule might be a saint, but they don't ever tell you in the book why you should believe the guy. 

Still, the book would have never happened with out Lemond. He was the one that was on the publicity tour around France about the book- meeting with any and every radio, TV, and newspaper that would hear him talk. He had the same talking points at every interview, but then every three or four days he would add a little to his talking points, and make national headlines again for a blip. The French loved it, an American ratting out another American. It was yellow journalism at its finest.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> I read the book, in French. My French is quite good, but no where near perfect. From what I remember-- You are right, the Mule was the interesting part- but at the end of the day you just had to believe what he said to be true. He regrettably didn't have anything that could be backed up by any credible person. He did have a couple other friends who supported his story, but they were just his best friends, and they got $$ for backing his story. The mule got a huge pay day too (not sure how much but several hundred grand) for his story. The mule might be a saint, but they don't ever tell you in the book why you should believe the guy.
> 
> Still, the book would have never happened with out Lemond. He was the one that was on the publicity tour around France about the book- meeting with any and every radio, TV, and newspaper that would hear him talk. He had the same talking points at every interview, but then every three or four days he would add a little to his talking points, and make national headlines again for a blip. The French loved it, an American ratting out another American. It was yellow journalism at its finest.


the mule is emma o'reilly. she wasn't paid <a href="http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6295.0.html">according to</a> Walsh. 

VN: Why do you think Emma O'Reilly decided to talk?

DW: I think maybe it started when Marco Pantani died. Emma knew his soigneur and she was really shaken by his death. I think that she sensed that if she stayed quiet she was contributing to this. She just felt like ‘Why not? Why should I stay quiet?' It was a friendship based on the workplace, and since she left the team she has never heard from them. It's become just two ships passing in the night.

VN: Why should people believe Emma O'Reilly?
DW: Emma's character has been vouched for. People all speak glowingly of Emma. Mark Gorski has been quoted as saying that Emma was the "heart and soul" of the team. The reason she can speak now is that she was never part of the doping culture.

VN: Was she paid for doing the interview?

DW: No.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Blackhat-

I heard that was all BS, and that she was entitled to royalties from the sale. This unfolded in the London High Court when LA sued the publisher/ Walsh. LA won, but part of the settlement was that many of the exact details of the case were sealed.

Now this could be just as damning for LA as for Walsh as too what exactly was "sealed" but my recollection was that the nail in the coffin to getting the book stomped out was the mule's payout. 

Again, I don't have any links- and couldn't find any with a quick google search, but I was living in Belgium at the time when this all unfolded and remember that it fell apart pretty bad. There has to be some Euro dude on here which can set it straight.

Edit:



> DW: Emma's character has been vouched for. People all speak glowingly of Emma. Mark Gorski has been quoted as saying that Emma was the "heart and soul" of the team. The reason she can speak now is that she was never part of the doping culture.


This is exactly my point about credibility. I didn't think she was some street girl, but she was basically some everyday person, and had not one piece of proof to her claims. lots of people said "sure, she is the nicest girl we had working here" but who wouldn't say that about a friendly co-worker. People say the exact same thing about their neighbor when they find out that they were a serial killer.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> Edit:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point about credibility. I didn't think she was some street girl, but she was basically some everyday person, and had not one piece of proof to her claims. lots of people said "sure, she is the nicest girl we had working here" but who wouldn't say that about a friendly co-worker. People say the exact same thing about their neighbor when they find out that they were a serial killer.


so you're to assume O'Reilly decided to fabricate her claims in spite of having no prior history of such behavior? That's in addition to the fact that what she says is more or less supported by the claims made by steven swart and mike anderson, that is to say that LA used/possessed PED's in their presence. If anything, she's more believable in saying LA was dirty than if she said she saw and knew nothing.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> so you're to assume O'Reilly decided to fabricate her claims in spite of having no prior history of such behavior? That's in addition to the fact that what she says is more or less supported by the claims made by steven swart and mike anderson, that is to say that LA used/possessed PED's in their presence. If anything, she's more believable in saying LA was dirty than if she said she saw and knew nothing.


No prior history of such behavior? That's meaningless. Everyone who has a history of such behavior started without one.

How could Steven Swart and Mike Anderson validate anything she says? They weren't with Lance in 1999.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Wow if being rewarded for testimony makes it worthless the entire US judicial system would collapse. Without immunity in exchange for testimony drug offenses and many other supposed crimes would be almost impossible to prove since both parties are willing participants in the transaction.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

blackhat said:


> so you're to assume O'Reilly decided to fabricate her claims in spite of having no prior history of such behavior? That's in addition to the fact that what she says is more or less supported by the claims made by steven swart and mike anderson, that is to say that LA used/possessed PED's in their presence. If anything, she's more believable in saying LA was dirty than if she said she saw and knew nothing.


I don't think she fabricated- hell I don't know her in the least. But my point is it was just her word against his. 

Stuff like make-up to cover track marks on his arm though? That is some serious hollywood make up. Any girl on this forum will tell you that regular makeup wouldn't stay put for 5 hours in sweat and sun.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Terzo- I think you are going to regret choosing that argument. Her testimony was heard in a court- and deemed to be not credible. The publisher and author paid a heafty fine for her story. It wasn't the US, it was the UK- but I would assume their courts are pretty close to ours.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> I The mule got a huge pay day too (not sure how much but several hundred grand) for his story.


You are wrong, the Mule got $9,000.

Funny that Lance never sued her....


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> This unfolded in the London High Court when LA sued the publisher/ Walsh. LA won, but part of the settlement was that many of the exact details of the case were sealed.


Please provide a link, or your credibility is lower then Emma's

Lance settled because he had no case


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> You are wrong, the Mule got $8,000.
> 
> Funny that Lance never sued her....


You got a link? Blackhat just quoted Walsh saying she wasn't paid at all. I remember that she was given several humdred grand- maybe in royalty bonuses?


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> Please provide a link, or your credibility is lower then Emma's
> 
> Lance settled because he had no case


That is funny- that you think I care where my credibilty ranks with some random online poster- 

I am doing my posting on my BB today as I sit in airports. So links are hard, but try velo news. 

Maybe lance settled- but the book was stopped from being published when the settled. That sounds like a victory for LA to me.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> You got a link? Blackhat just quoted Walsh saying she wasn't paid at all. I remember that she was given several humdred grand- maybe in royalty bonuses?


Here is the link, your memory is not so good. it was under $9,000 according to Outside

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-2.html

Walsh claims that two months after O'Reilly completed the unpaid interview with him in early July 2003, she called to protest that the book would be a success based largely on her interview, while her only reward would be Armstrong's wrath. (Walsh says he's made around $55,000 from the book.) According to Walsh, he told Ballester about the situation and then paid O'Reilly approximately $8,850 on September 19, 2003.

"At the time I made what I saw as a moral judgment," Walsh says. "It was an acknowledgment of what she was going to go through. But the bottom line is: Was she telling the truth? There is zero doubt about that for me." Still, no matter what rationale Walsh uses to justify this exchange of money, it can be assumed that Armstrong's lawyers will characterize this as checkbook journalism and aggressively use this revelation to discredit the book.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> Maybe lance settled- but the book was stopped from being published when the settled. That sounds like a victory for LA to me.


Wrong again, no book was stopped from being published.

In fact if you would like to learn more of the truth about your hero you can pre-order the new Walsh book here....and yes it is in English.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780345499622

Always so funny to hear the everyone else is a liar with an agenda...I would say that Lance, who makes over $20 million a year, has a much bigger agenda then Emma and her $9k


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> No prior history of such behavior? That's meaningless....



lol. yes, meaningless. in sort of a "I've never tested positive for anything" kind of way. the difference would be that the only person claiming O'Reilly is lying is Lance, where there's about a soccer teams worth of people with damaging info about LA.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

Kestrel, please stop the Lemond bashing. He didn't, as you earlier claimed, write a book about Lance Armstrong's drug usage. That book was written by Walsh. Lemond NEVER retracted the phone call about the incident of Lance calling and threatening him. Post a link to the "retraction" as you again claim. Emma O'Reilly was the former physiotherapist/masseuse who WAS in the book and claims to have ferried the drugs and money to and from Armstrong. Money did exchange hands. I agree with the other poster. I don't believe that you ever read the Walsh book or else you wouldn't have had the numerous inaccuracies as others have pointed out.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Kestrel, I think you're confusing the case against the Sunday Times, for whom Walsh has written in the past, with any case against 'LA Confidentiel'. The Sunday Times reprinted some of the accusations in the book and Armstrong sued - the paper settled out of court after the judge stated in a pretrial ruling that the article "meant accusation of guilt and not simply reasonable grounds to suspect."

He tried to have an addenda inserted in the French publication of the book but was ruled against on the grounds that Ballester and Walsh had given Armstrong time to reply to the accusations and had heard no word from him or his lawyers.

As far as the makeup story goes - the request was for bruises caused by needles to be covered up for a perfunctory medical - not 5 hours in the saddle.

Unfortunately, kestrel, your main point has been lost in your flurry of misinformation - and it's a point I agree with. I too wish that Ballester and Walsh had found the 'smoking gun' and maybe, in their new book, they have. Or maybe the connection that runs from Fuentes to Checcini will run onwards to Ferrari...and then let's hear the cries of 'amnesty' ring loud and clear. Of course, there is another network that Manzano has talked of, one that would definitely give Armstrong and his Girona buddies sleepless nights were it to be exposed...


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Walsh's book hasn't actually been published yet, meaning no one has read it. _L'Equippe de secrets of Lance Armstrong,  (or whatever--that's close) was published in French, so I'd wager not many people on RBR have read that either._


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

karategirl said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Walsh's book hasn't actually been published yet, meaning no one has read it. _L'Equippe de secrets of Lance Armstrong,  (or whatever--that's close) was published in French, so I'd wager not many people on RBR have read that either._


_

The first Walsh book was published only in French, but there is a English translation that was circulated that I have read. 

The new Walsh book will be released on June 26th, and it will be in English_


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The first Walsh book was published only in French, but there is a English translation that was circulated that I have read.
> 
> The *new Walsh book will be released on June 26th*, and it will be in English


...great, Floyd's book is due out on the 23rd...

...should add to an interesting summer of reading...


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Kestreljr said:


> Terzo- I think you are going to regret choosing that argument. Her testimony was heard in a court- and deemed to be not credible. The publisher and author paid a heafty fine for her story. It wasn't the US, it was the UK- but I would assume their courts are pretty close to ours.


It was meant more to point out that to be consistent if people don't like compensation of whatever kind in Emma's case they should also be questioning the whole victimless crime punishment industry in the US and elsewhere, which few actually do.

I like Bianchigirl's recap because it illustrates how real human affairs typically look when examined in detail; a series of decisions that made sense at the time but lead to a complex tangle of factors after the fact. Cut and dried accounts are always suspicious in my book.


----------



## Prodigy (Feb 23, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The new Walsh book will be released on June 26th, and it will be in English


Anybody got anything planned for the official 'David Walsh Day'?

http://www.secretsofthepeloton.com/nh_david_walsh_day.htm


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Prodigy said:


> Anybody got anything planned for the official 'David Walsh Day'?
> 
> http://www.secretsofthepeloton.com/nh_david_walsh_day.htm



trip to barnes and noble?


----------

