# Lance was caught



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Funny....why do so many forget that Lance was already caught doping. 
Remember the positive for cortisone and the back dated prescription to cover this up and the bullshit story about using a saddle cream with cortisone in it.

Anyone that knows pro cycling knows damn well Cortisone was like candy for pro's up until very recently....now is ACTH(synacthen) which is undetectable and makes your body jack up it's cortisol big time.

Personally I don't give a **** if he or any pro doped or dopes, but it sickens me when some of them, like Lance, jump up and down and insist that they are clean.

Why can't any of the modern pro's have the balls of Jacques Anquetil....."Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope.

Lance SOOO many of your former team mates have been busted...but you rode clean? HA! do you take us for complete idiots...what an ass!

Anyone that has ever used epo(like myself ) can attest to the fact that the high crit it gives is NUTTY to say the least. Your 5 minute VO2 max repeat power becomes your 60 minute FTP!!!...and your "repeatabilty" goes through the roof.
Lance would not have stood a chance in hell without a high crit and I don't care how talented he was. There were many very talented riders in his day.

RG


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

StellaBlue said:


> And they all doped as well . Should we change record books ? Let it go . They will never prove it and he's not gonna admit it . He won 7 in a row . Not many can even finish 7 in a row . Yeah he's an over hyped clown .


They already proved it with the retrotesting and the people like Betsy and Frankie Andreu who testified that Armstrong admitted using dope. Heck, Landis has been telling people that Armstrong was doping.


----------



## havnmonkey (Jun 21, 2008)

he survived cancer... he brought unimaginable popularity to American cycling... his jersey's were red/white/blue... he got out before he was _really_ caught.

I think that may sum it up... oh wait, he may have bagged an Olsen twin. That should give him pretty decent immunity and pseudo-celebrity status is nice too!


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Let's go one further: everyone used a time machine to go forward 300 years and used a new type of dope and then went back in time and every winner doped in the future and the past.

Heck, you're doping right now, you just don't know it! 

Bust him for banging an Olsen twin, that's way more disgusting than doping although
the health benefits of either are probably quite bad.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

who's he dating now?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

aliensporebomb said:


> Let's go one further: everyone used a time machine to go forward 300 years and used a new type of dope and then went back in time and every winner doped in the future and the past.
> 
> Heck, you're doping right now, you just don't know it!
> 
> ...


Good points 

I am not against the fact that he doped really because all the top dudes doped...only that he has made such a huge stink about being clean all these years. Now Riis had guts and I admire the dude for telling it as it was..

I just wish he would have(or somebody would) quoted Jacques Anquetil 
"Leave me in peace;everybody takes dope"

Cheers
RG


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> who's he dating now?


Is this a rhetorical question? Kate Hudson, I look at the gossip mags on the check out line....

I actually feel kind of bad for the guy. He must be miserable. 

When you think about it, we all have what he has. If you can enjoy just riding your bike then you have what he has when he's happy, and I think that's only when he's riding or running or whatever. Otherwise the guy's an effing mess.....Oh, or when people are sucking up to him. That probably just reminds him what a fraud he is though..


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> who's he dating now?


Matthew McConaughey


----------



## chopsuuy (May 21, 2008)

Barry Muzzin said:


> Matthew McConaughey


Cute couple.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

chopsuuy said:


> Cute couple.


I think Lance broke up with him after McConaughey named his kid Levi.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

jorgy said:


> I think Lance broke up with him after McConaughey named his kid Levi.


BAM!!! Matthew was definitely being a passive aggresive B*** there to get back at Lance for being such a man-w**re.


----------



## havnmonkey (Jun 21, 2008)

His brother's name is Miller Lite... Now this is the question: was it worth it? If Lance beat out the other doper's by doping (was he really cheating?) and became a successful American in a sport dominated by Europeans; was it worth it???

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an athlete that wouldn't say "damn, that really worked out for him! What a lucky guy!" As long as there are no long-term health risks, he made out like a bandit!


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Well Lance has various things to worry about like the insurance deal - so when the all financial hazards and sporting issues are all past the statue of limitations - maybe he'll talk. Still, he needs his credibility for the LA Cancer Founation - which he is truely passionate about and is his most significant accomplishment, well above all else.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Yea I agree with havnmonkey... if he doped while beating other dopers was he really cheating? Wouldnt that just mean that a doped rider that year was the paradigm? Last I checked doping was banned because it gave an unfair advantage but if everyone was doping that year nobody had the advantage. Now that doesnt make it right but it does shed some light on things.


----------



## jparman (Apr 18, 2006)

How do I get EPO?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

jparman said:


> How do I get EPO?


PM Realgains, he's in the medical profession


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

Every drug works a wee bit differently in cyclists bodies. That goes for normal drugs in the normal population as well, some lower their blood pressure better on beta blockers, others need ACE inhibitors, etc.
Whether lance was the most talented bike rider or the most talented drug target, is impossible to say
It wasn't fair just because everybody was doping. Circumstantials tell me that Lance got the better dope, the better people to help him conceal, and his contract and success enabled him to avoid racing too much and avoid the clutches of testers. 
When you look at how much $hit his closest competitor got back home in Germany, you can't say things work out just fair.
When you look at how unlucky people, like Landis and Hamilton were caught, and Lance wasn't, even though they were all cheating, you can't say things work out fair. 
You have to be in a position, both in the team and financially, to dope properly. Look at Vande Velde. I am happy for the guy now, but it doesn't usually work out that great for most guys. Telling you the way the system works now, there are numerous other factors involved, than simply just saying- everybody dope, so it's gotta be fair.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Room 1201 said:


> PM Realgains, he's in the medical profession



Ha ha ha...very funny.
I don't use epo any more buddy...and how old did you say you were?

RG


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

*I forgot....*

Lemond didn't dope.

Nobody clued him in on the secret, he just thought everyone was uber fast.

I must be suffering from a lack of sleep. Ack.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

tricycletalent said:


> Every drug works a wee bit differently in cyclists bodies. That goes for normal drugs in the normal population as well, some lower their blood pressure better on beta blockers, others need ACE inhibitors, etc.
> Whether lance was the most talented bike rider or the most talented drug target, is impossible to say
> It wasn't fair just because everybody was doping. Circumstantials tell me that Lance got the better dope, the better people to help him conceal, and his contract and success enabled him to avoid racing too much and avoid the clutches of testers.
> When you look at how much $hit his closest competitor got back home in Germany, you can't say things work out just fair.
> ...



Hear hear:thumbsup: 

RG


----------



## Travis (Oct 14, 2005)

I don't get your point, everyone is subject to out of competition tests and I have to think Lance was a major target. Are you saying its not fair because he has more money and he didn't race as much so didn't get tested as often?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

B15serv said:


> Yea I agree with havnmonkey... if he doped while beating other dopers was he really cheating? Wouldnt that just mean that a doped rider that year was the paradigm? Last I checked doping was banned because it gave an unfair advantage but if everyone was doping that year nobody had the advantage. Now that doesnt make it right but it does shed some light on things.


I disagree. I think it is possible that dope helps some people more than others, which means, to me that there is an unfair advantage. For example, isn't it possible that Ulrich would be better than Armstrong if both were clean, but Armstrong is better when both are not clean. Then you also have to take into account how good at doping one is. These are just some of the reasons why doping is wrong even if everyone is doing it.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

StellaBlue said:


> And they all doped as well . Should we change record books ? Let it go . They will never prove it and he's not gonna admit it . He won 7 in a row . Not many can even finish 7 in a row . Yeah he's an over hyped clown .


I'm sorry StellaBlue but if you really think Lance never doped....Well I can't put this delicately...you're a sucker.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

*He uses *******



Realgains said:


> Ha ha ha...very funny.
> I don't use epo any more buddy...and how old did you say you were?
> 
> RG


 And why does he want to know your age....scary.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

havnmonkey said:


> he got out before he was _really_ caught.


yeah, he took 7 years to make up his mind and leave  
I guess after 7 yrs he just woke up and said, oh no i better get out now and get out quick


----------



## treehugger (Jul 10, 2007)

I think the problem was that he ran out of enough dope to get him through and win the 8th tour!


----------



## zguy52 (Feb 26, 2007)

Lance not getting caught I think was also due to Lance. His mechanics call him Mr. millimeter everything had to be just so. If he was so meticulous with his training and setup he would have been the same with his doping. The story of "I consulted the best doping doctor in cycling, Dr Ferrari about an altitude tent" is rediculous. There is no smoking gun, yet, but we might get some interesting details out of the Lemond/Trek saga. The entire point of that is Trek lawsuit is protecting themselves from being tarnished by association with Lances and his doping.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

zguy52 said:


> Lance not getting caught I think was also due to Lance. His mechanics call him Mr. millimeter everything had to be just so. If he was so meticulous with his training and setup he would have been the same with his doping. The story of "I consulted the best doping doctor in cycling, Dr Ferrari about an altitude tent" is rediculous. There is no smoking gun, yet, but we might get some interesting details out of the Lemond/Trek saga. The entire point of that is Trek lawsuit is protecting themselves from being tarnished by association with Lances and his doping.


LA obviously has no problem denying any and all accusations under oath (see the SCA trial). Either LA or Frankie/Betsy Andreu commited purgery. Fillipo Simeoni told the truth while on the stand about his dealings with Dr. Ferrari and got chased down by LA for his troubles. Simeoni did not mention LA in his testimony yet the latter felt it necessary to call Simeoni an "absolute liar". I think that Trek/LA will continue to attempt to further marginalize LeMond and use the bitter ex-pro mantra which still holds water for many.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

Lance will never, ever admit to doping. Unlike a lot of others, he has everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain. The best thing he's ever done is the Lance Armstrong foundation. At least he's raising money for a good cause. 

And I'm embarrassed that I know this, but Matthew McConaughy's brother is the one with the kid named Miller Lyte. His brother's name is Rooster.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

karatemom said:


> Lance will never, ever admit to doping. Unlike a lot of others, he has everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain. The best thing he's ever done is the Lance Armstrong foundation. At least he's raising money for a good cause.
> 
> And I'm embarrassed that I know this, but Matthew McConaughy's brother is the one with the kid named Miller Lyte. His brother's name is Rooster.


Miller Lyte? You have got to be kidding me. I thought that was a joke. Talk about a name that destines a person for a mullet and a trailer park.

Jeebus, that should be child abuse.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Can't we concentrate on all the current dopers? Why does a Lance thread pop up every 3 months?


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

ti-triodes said:


> Can't we concentrate on all the current dopers? Why does a Lance thread pop up every 3 months?


Because there are still a few imbeciles who cannot put two and two together to figure out that he doped.


----------



## breakaway (Jun 15, 2008)

ti-triodes said:


> Can't we concentrate on all the current dopers? Why does a Lance thread pop up every 3 months?


Its more like every 3 days or hours especially when a major race event is ongoing at the time.
But the truth of the matter is there will always be armchair wannabe clinical experts/doping non-authoritive guestimate knowitalls that really dont understand that the race is done and over. Its these imbeciles (as quoted) that cant let things go and get over it.
Personal disfunctional issues in their own life i guess that makes them have the need to preach what hasnt been proven in the courts. Its all a sad waste of energy if you ask me. Just watch them all go on. You would think Lance gave each of them their own lil pee sample.... pee in the cup please, mid stream... 
Its sad really. Just sad how much energy they put into it.


----------



## havnmonkey (Jun 21, 2008)

I'd sell his sample on Ebay... for milliiiiiiiooooonnnss!!!!! Please Lance, pee in my cup!!!


----------



## normalnorm (Jan 16, 2006)

Yes, I think Lance doped. \

But, its kinda like this. McGwire or Bonds still had to hit the 100mph fastball. They just hit it farther. The pitchers throwing the ball are probably juiced too. 

If all the top guys doped.....then things equalled out. They all do it(did it?)


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

normalnorm said:


> Yes, I think Lance doped. \
> 
> But, its kinda like this. McGwire or Bonds still had to hit the 100mph fastball. They just hit it farther. The pitchers throwing the ball are probably juiced too.
> 
> If all the top guys doped.....then things equalled out. They all do it(did it?)



Drug therapy does not "even the playing field". Some guys get greater increases in sustainable power than others at the same hematocrit.
Also, not all the teams and riders had/have the money and doping program of others. Lance and Postal/Discovery were very heavily doped. They blood doped with their own blood....up to at least 57% crit. In 2000 Postal registered TWICE as many "medical products" as the next highest team. This is on record. 

Lance was a decent, but not the best, one day classic rider with a VO2 max of 82 which is good but not great(pre Ferarri).....MANY riders had a higher VO2 max and more sustainable power per kilo.
He did not start to get really strong until after his visits with Ferarri. You do not go from a classic rider to a 7 time TDF winner simply by loosing 10-12 pounds of mass. Something very "fishy" was up with Lance.....that was very very evident to all. In his first three tours Lance did very poorly. ALL the most talented men that have won the tour did very well in their very first attempts...Lance couldn't even finish.
Ferarri taught Lance and a some others how to blood dope with their own packed cells(pure red cells). They would also use very tiny micro doses of epo, after morning controls, to keep their retic count normal(their own immature red cell count normal), so nobody would know they were blood doping.

After each stage one can drop ones crit to 50% with saline infusions and volume expanders like hespan, in case they are tested after the stage......or they can do the same right before morning controls.....or they can take the excess blood out for sleeping and then re-infuse after morning controls.
Not all the riders rode at well over 55% crit and this is why Lance dominated. Many riders stayed at the 50% limit. Not all teams could afford this kind of program and nor did they have the medical expertise to accomplish it.

I am convinced that if all the riders of Lances day rode 100% clean that Lance would not have been in the top 10...just look at his pre Ferrari days for the answer.

Cheers


----------



## mquetel (Apr 2, 2006)

Realgains said:


> Drug therapy does not "even the playing field". Some guys get greater increases in sustainable power than others at the same hematocrit.
> Also, not all the teams and riders had/have the money and doping program of others. Lance and Postal/Discovery were very heavily doped. They blood doped with their own blood....up to at least 57% crit. In 2000 Postal registered TWICE as many "medical products" as the next highest team. This is on record.
> 
> Lance was a decent, but not the best, one day classic rider with a VO2 max of 82 which is good but not great(pre Ferarri).....MANY riders had a higher VO2 max and more sustainable power per kilo.
> ...


A logistics question: With packed cells going in and perhaps blood being taken out and perhaps other IVs being administered... where are riders having all this work done on their bodies? Wouldn't it be visible with needle tracks and bruising? Don't you need a pretty large needle to transfuse red cells... which could make this more noticeable?


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

mquetel said:


> A logistics question: With packed cells going in and perhaps blood being taken out and perhaps other IVs being administered... where are riders having all this work done on their bodies? Wouldn't it be visible with needle tracks and bruising? Don't you need a pretty large needle to transfuse red cells... which could make this more noticeable?



The use of IV's is standard. Many "legal" products are used IV. The riders are full of poke marks and they use the arms the most. There are other large veins you can use too...especially the one on the inner aspect of the ankle.. 
When you see a wrapped arm or ankle...they sometimes have heparin locks under the dressing. (Ever wonder why some guys have wraps and the never crashed?) This is an indwelling catheter with a cap that is filled with heparin for it doesn't clot off. They can then stick IV needles into the cap...so yo don't have to poke the skin again.
Yes..the needles need to be big for transfusions....you can get by with a 20 gauge, which isn't huge but an 18 is better and that is getting pretty big.

The teams don't like to take blood out after every stage to get the riders crit down to a safe sleeping level and to pass a post stage surprise control....so they usually try to use saline infusions and volume expanders right after the stage and before morning controls to dilute hematocrit.

UCI cannot prove that you are jacked if your crit is 56% right after a stage...yo just say that you are dehydrated and that is why your crit is above 50%, which also requires jacking by the way. You can re-hydrate he he he to dilute your red cells down, right away in the motor home or hotel, with IV saline and volume expanders shoved in with pumps...and then you are back to 49-50% pronto.

Not all the teams have this kind of program. It takes money and know how to do this...although it isn't rocket science. You also need a "safe place" to keep the riders blood and a way to transport the blood, like on a motor cycle with pannier's packed with ice or a special portable refrigerated box.

Lance was super jacked in his day....blood doping big time. He was at least 57% and maybe more. Before his Ferrari days he was a classic rider...and not the best by the way. You don't go from a classic rider to a 7 time TDF winner, with a VO2 max of only 82(good but not great by any means), without some serious doping. NO loosing 10-12 pounds will not allow for this trans formation but going form 5.5 watts per kilo to 6.7 watts per kilo will...and the only way you can do that is by jacking your crit through the roof. Ferarri taught Lance a lot...but it wasn't cheap. Not everyone had access to Ferarri...he would not take to many guys. Eddy Mercyx asked Ferrari to see Lance and that is the ONLY reason Lance got to see him. If it wasn't for Eddy Lance would probably never gotten the "program" right and would have never even come close to winning the TDF....he would have been like he was before...way way back.

Did you know that in 2000 Postal had over twice as many "medical supplies" registered than any other team....it's on record. Postal/Discovery had the best doping program in the business.

Cheers


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

breakaway said:


> Its more like every 3 days or hours especially when a major race event is ongoing at the time.
> But the truth of the matter is there will always be armchair wannabe clinical experts/doping non-authoritive guestimate knowitalls that really dont understand that the race is done and over. Its these imbeciles (as quoted) that cant let things go and get over it.
> Personal disfunctional issues in their own life i guess that makes them have the need to preach what hasnt been proven in the courts. Its all a sad waste of energy if you ask me. Just watch them all go on. You would think Lance gave each of them their own lil pee sample.... pee in the cup please, mid stream...
> Its sad really. Just sad how much energy they put into it.


What's sad is that you are an apologist for frauds. 

What's the reason for that?

Like with John Bolton, are you a kiss up, kick down type of guy?


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2008)

Interesting stuff. Lance probably made a point of finding out the *real* deal in the Euro Peleton after Indurian blew past him like he was out on a Sunday charity ride.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

AJL said:


> Interesting stuff. Lance probably made a point of finding out the *real* deal in the Euro Peleton after Indurian blew past him like he was out on a Sunday charity ride.


Correct! 

It was pre-Ferrari guys...and NO dropping 10-12 pounds will not take for performances like the one below to a freak machine in TT's and the TDF.
Besides body weight isn't much of a factor in flat to flatish TT's...total power trumps watts per kilo in TT's.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vb1EYB-VzVI


ENTER FERRAI and the best doping program in pro cycle POSTAL/DISCOVER!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGX3Z2wuaE
he he he ...laughing like Beavis

Cheers


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

Realgains said:


> The teams don't like to take blood out after every stage to get the riders crit down to a safe sleeping level and to pass a post stage surprise control....so they usually try to use saline infusions and volume expanders right after the stage and before morning controls to dilute hematocrit.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Taking blood out shouldn't lower hematocrit. You'd have to dilute it out.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

danielc said:


> Taking blood out shouldn't lower hematocrit. You'd have to dilute it out.



That's not correct  hgb and hct both drop with a loss of blood.


Cheers


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

Realgains said:


> That's not correct  hgb and hct both drop with a loss of blood.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Isn't hematocrit a measure of concentration? Therefore in a uniform mixture if you remove blood, yes the total amount of hemoglobin and red blood cells drops but the concentration should remain the same. Overtime the body will compensate the change in volume but doesn't that happen over a longer period of time and not quickly enough to dodge the testers?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2008)

I have read that HCT drops with blood loss, even though it seems counter-intuitive. It a problem in Phlebotomy when, usually in a hospital setting, too much blood is drawn causing anemia. I do not know why this is the case, except that it is.

Obviously, anemia would be detrimental the a cyclist's recovery, so clearly the most successful riders would need a very carefully planned and tested protocol. I suppose this is were someone like Dr. Ferrari would come in. Those who get caught probably make an error in following their protocol or simply do not have one that is not carefully enough designed to avoid the possibility of a positive.

In anycase, I think realgains has indicated b/4 that saline solutions and volume expanders can be used to rapidly decrease HCT. 

I have to say, it's allot to put the body through over the length of a GT - which makes the use of HGH, IGF-1 and steroids more logical to me now.


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

danielc said:


> Isn't hematocrit a measure of concentration? Therefore in a uniform mixture if you remove blood, yes the total amount of hemoglobin and red blood cells drops but the concentration should remain the same. Overtime the body will compensate the change in volume but doesn't that happen over a longer period of time and not quickly enough to dodge the testers?


As soon as you pull "volume" out of the circulation the body immediately replaces the "lost volume" with fluid(plasma).....the shift is remarkably quick....and thus crit drops as does hgb and total hgb.

Plus hemodilution is achieved also with saline infusions(or rigers lactate) and volume expamders like Hespan or Pentaspan that accually help to keep fluid in the circulation.


Cheers


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Realgains said:


> Funny....why do so many forget that Lance was already caught doping.
> Remember the positive for cortisone and the back dated prescription to cover this up and the bullshit story about using a saddle cream with cortisone in it.
> 
> Anyone that knows pro cycling knows damn well Cortisone was like candy for pro's up until very recently....now is ACTH(synacthen) which is undetectable and makes your body jack up it's cortisol big time.
> ...



Wrong "genius", try getting at least your basic facts correct. Here is a link to the original Le Monde article in 1999 which discusses the hype about corticosteroids showing up in an Armstrong test in the 99' Tour. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml

In paragraph 1 of the article even these french hacks from Le Monde, admit Armstrongs corticosteroid test was NEGATIVE! To be positive his testosterone ratio for epitestosterone needed to be 6.0 or higher, his measured reading was 0.2 and the lab ruled the test a Negative result. Your clueless bullshat posted above is a perfect example of idiot fools perprtuating urban legend like BS, who lack the ability to even get basic facts correct about test results, while babbling nonsensical opinions on a matter based more on BS and misinformation than real facts. Fact: Armstrong never lab tested positive in his entire career for any banned substance, never genius, as in not even once!! If you need me to do the math for your comprehension I'll do so: 0+0=0. Clear enough yet for you? 

I suppose next you will tell me that the Le Monde clan are really a seceret ally of Lance and they lied about his NEGATIVE test result in paragraph 1, correct???? Or perhaps the 6.0 lab test threshold and Armstrongs ratio reading of .2 were fabricated by LNLD or Le Monde to protect Lance? LMFAO

The real question of the 99' corticosteroid fiasco is this: why did a french lab which conducted the urine tests leak the results of a NEGATIVE test to the media in an attempt to destroy the credibility of a rider??? A lab which claims it was unbiased and objective, the LNLD lab in Malabry intentionally leaked a NEGATIVE test result in an attempt to harm Armstrongs rep having their media surrogates emphasize that although the test was negative, trace amounts of corticosteroids had been detected - as if that's credible proof of wrongdoing on Armstrongs part??. By the way genius, his exemption from the UCI for his saddle cream had nothing to do with retroactively voidiung a test result as many clueless fools have lied and BS'd about. Why would he need retroactive protection for a NEGATIVE test result???? The truth is after the negative test result was made public Armstromgs team realized that the only possible source of the corticosteroids was the saddle cream and that's why they asked the UCI for an exemption, for future purposes, not to try to get retroactive protection on a test already deemed NEGATIVE!

This scam lab LNLD is also the EXACT SAME hack lab which in 04' 'claimed" they had found epo in 6 samples of Armstrongs urine from 1999. This even though both synthetic and natural epo protein are both unstable in urine and degrade within 2-3 months even if the urine is frozen to -20C, and thus untestable. The UCI reviewed the LNLD labs claims of the epo doping they "supposedly" found in 04 and ruled it results completely invalid and without merit. In addition, this same scam lab claimed in 05' they had no idea they had been testing Armstrongs "supposed" samples from 99', yet when the French reporter for Le Equip went to the UCI to ask for doping control forms he only requested the forms of 1 rider, Lance Armstrong, who lo and behold just happened by "wild coincidence" to end up being 6 of the "so-called claimed" positive tests the lab "claimed" they had made. In 99' a total of 148 riders signed doping control forms and gave permission for their urine to be used in future R&D programs. If the LNLD lab in Malabry truly conducted what they claimed to be "anonomous" tests, how do they or you explain that the reporter for Le Equip who broke the story only asked for the forms of 1 rider = Armstrong, and by "miraculous coincidence" he ends up "supposedly" being matched to 6 of their "supposedly anonomous" positive test samples. This same reporter asked for no samples of any other riders forms from the UCI. Either the reporter is the greatest psychic since nostradamus, or he got Armstrongs name from the lab who in fact knew exactly whose samples they were trying to manufacture results for into an epo doping debacle. And remember, this is THE SAME SCAM LAB which released the results of a NEGATIVE test result of Armstrongs in 99' in an attempt to harm his cred in that tour That lab has zero credibility, none. So the next time you decide to start spouting off about Armstrong or anyone else, try doing something that most intelligent people do, like getting at least the basic facts of the matter correct, ummmmmmmm like how about starting with at least knowing what the lab results ACTUALLY WERE, not what your overactive imagination wants them to be! I know it will probably be a major challenge and I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Just to be clear - the reporter got all the test number identifiers from the UCI, not just Armstrong's -- that's how we know that Manuel Beltran (EPO-positive this year!), Denmark's Bo Hamburger and Colombia's Joaquim Castelblanco also tested positive for EPO in 1999 alongside Armstrong.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Troy16 said:


> Wrong "genius", try getting at least your basic facts correct.


You may want to follow your own guidence




Troy16 said:


> In paragraph 1 of the article even these french hacks from Le Monde,


Le Monde "Hacks" You clearly have no idea what Le Monde is. It is one of the most prestigious, most well respected newspapers in the world. Calling the reporters "Hacks" only debases your argument further.



Troy16 said:


> admit Armstrongs corticosteroid test was NEGATIVE!


No, the test was positive for synthetic corticoids. The ratio was not enough to sanction. What you missed from the original article is the multiple times Armstrong had been asked if he had a TUE, any TUE, for weeks he denied having one. As soon as he tested positive for synthetic corticoids USPS had to manufacture a backdated TUE. Lance lied to cover it up....Of course he lied because he did not think he would get caught because the test for synthetic corticoids was only approved just before the Tour, the riders thought they could get away with it. With the artificially high ratio most did. 



Troy16 said:


> Your clueless bullshat posted above is a perfect example of idiot fools perprtuating urban legend like BS,


Urban legends like Le Monde being full of Hacks. If Armstrong had not lied about not using corticosteroid we would not be talking about this.




Troy16 said:


> The truth is after the negative test result was made public Armstromgs team realized that the only possible source of the corticosteroids was the saddle cream and that's why they asked the UCI for an exemption, for future purposes,


Actually no. Emma O'Reilly, Lance's soigneur, said that the positive test caused chaos in the team as they tried to INVENT a cover up. They chose the saddle sore cream excuse. Once all agreed on the cover up Lance turned to Emma and said, "You now have enough to bring me down" 



Troy16 said:


> This scam lab LNLD is also the EXACT SAME hack lab which in 04' 'claimed" they had found epo in 6 samples of Armstrongs urine from 1999. This even though both synthetic and natural epo protein are both unstable in urine and degrade within 2-3 months even if the urine is frozen to -20C, and thus untestable.


This is completely invented. In fact is was shown that EPO remains very stable for years in frozen samples.



Troy16 said:


> The UCI reviewed the LNLD labs claims of the epo doping they "supposedly" found in 04 and ruled it results completely invalid and without merit.


The Vrijman report was clearly a cover up by the UCI and was roundly criticized in the media and by WADA who released a statement.

"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical."

The report never explained why there Armstrongs samples had EPO in them



Troy16 said:


> In addition, this same scam lab claimed in 05' they had no idea they had been testing Armstrongs "supposed" samples from 99',


They tested all the samples from 99, not just Armstrong's. The sample were marked by anonymous numbers, there is no way for the testers to know who the belonged to.



Troy16 said:


> yet when the French reporter for Le Equip went to the UCI to ask for doping control forms he only requested the forms of 1 rider, Lance Armstrong, who lo and behold just happened by "wild coincidence" to end up being 6 of the "so-called claimed" positive tests the lab "claimed" they had made.In 99' a total of 148 riders signed doping control forms and gave permission for their urine to be used in future R&D programs. If the LNLD lab in Malabry truly conducted what they claimed to be "anonomous" tests, how do they or you explain that the reporter for Le Equip who broke the story only asked for the forms of 1 rider = Armstrong, and by "miraculous coincidence" he ends up "supposedly" being matched to 6 of their "supposedly anonomous" positive test samples.


He received the copies of the forms because
-Lance is a fool and gave his OK to the UCI to release one
-The UCI are fools and released all of them instead of just one




Troy16 said:


> This same reporter asked for no samples of any other riders forms from the UCI.


Actually he did, as did many others, but the other riders were not as arrogant as Lance and did not approve the release of their forms.....and the UCI certainly was not interested in anything but covering it up.




Troy16 said:


> That lab has zero credibility, none.


Only to those who believe the myth that Lance was clean. Do you really think that LNDD tampered with Lances Samples from 99? If not how did EPO show up in the samples? Better put on the tinfoil hat for more LNDD conspiracy theories.


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Realgains said:


> Drug therapy does not "even the playing field". Some guys get greater increases in sustainable power than others at the same hematocrit.
> Also, not all the teams and riders had/have the money and doping program of others. Lance and Postal/Discovery were very heavily doped. They blood doped with their own blood....up to at least 57% crit. In 2000 Postal registered TWICE as many "medical products" as the next highest team. This is on record.
> 
> Lance was a decent, but not the best, one day classic rider with a VO2 max of 82 which is good but not great(pre Ferarri).....MANY riders had a higher VO2 max and more sustainable power per kilo.
> Cheers



I guess I'm just going to have to keep having fun correcting all your nonsensical BS factless posts reaLosses. Let's begin the fun shall we?

Above you said that Armstrong was a "decent" one day classics rider? Is that so? Do you know what the websters Dictionary definition of the word "decent" is????

So becoming world road champion in Oslo in 1993 makes Armstrong in your words only a "decent" 1 day classics rider? LMFAO!! Once again more illinformed opinion on your part posted as if it is fact based when in fact it is imaginary based. And by the way, if my memory is correct there was a a particular rider in that Oslo race known as Big Mig who came in 2nd. Armstrong went on an extended solo break and the entire field including Big Mig could not run him down pacelining. Was Ferarri with him in 1993????? Lets dig a weeeee bit further into this only "decent" 1 day classics rider claim of yours, I think you'll enjoy this little factoid RealLOSSES:

In 1993, Armstrong finished the year ranked number one by capturing 10 one-day events, including becoming one of the youngest-ever riders to win the world road race championship in Oslo. But he was only a "decent" 1 day classics rider huh RealLosses??? Another great "ASSessment" on your part! Oh and by the way, 1993 was his 1st full year as a pro, but winning 10 one day events and capturing the World Road Championship in Oslo when no one was within hailing distance of him at the finish makes him only a "decent" 1 day rider.

You get a lot of so-called FACTS very very wrong. You couldn't get his test results regarding corticosteroids correct, as you BS'ed and claimed he tested positive when it was in fact a negative test - yes NEGATIVE to you other fools as well, he did not test positive for corticoids (get basic facts correct people!!). The lab results are documented fact - he tested NEGATIVE in ALL his 99' tests, ALL his career tests! You claim he was only a "decent" 1 day events rider prior to his cancer when in fact in 1993 he was rated #1 and World Road Champion in his 1st full year as a pro. In my next post which will be following soon I am going to more closely analyze another "informed claim of yours posted above. THIS IS FUN.


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> You may want to follow your own guidence
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WRONG - 100% WRONG, THE TEST WAS NOT POSITIVE FOR SYNTHETIC CORTICOIDS. The test was negative, there was no positive lab result, another individual who can not even get basic test result fatcs correct!! 

WRONG on all parts of the "so-called" 2004 tests, and I'm being overly freaking generous calling them "tests". The UCI thoroughly shot down the entire so-called test process, the ENTIRE process and that reporter certainly did not ask for everyones doping control forms, not according to the UCI!!! More nonsense and complete BS. And that SO-CALLED JOKE OF AN EXCUSE FOR A TESTING LAB to this date, in August 2008 has still not been able to replicate and "prove' the validity of their so called testing techniques on ANY OTHER similiar multi year old aged samples, ie from 2002 , 2003, 2004 etc and they have had 3 YEARS, COUNT EM 3 FULL YEARS TO DO SO AND PROVE IT!! I wont even bother going into what the UCI and Dutch authorities had to say regarding their "failure to properly safeguard those multiyear samples to prevent tampering, violating the anonnimty of donors samples etc!! 

Le Monde is well respected??? By whom, you and a few French fanatics jealous that they haven't produced a serious GC contender in years????????? A "so-called respectable" newspaper that prints BS about a guys NEGATIVE corticosteroids test trying to defame him and that makes them honorable?????? Well maybe in your mind thats what you call honorable. Sane people don't call it that, and this is not their only instance of printing complete bullsheot to help boost sales which have been declining for a decade. LOL Le Monde is honorable, so is the LNLD lab = LMFAO. The reporter asked for all riders forms you say??? = not according to the UCI dumbarse, lie and an even bigger LMFAO. To much other BS to bother responding to.


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

ya. Lance is da man. shut up all you Lance haters. His sports drink makes me kick ass. livestrong *****es! and buy more lance ****!


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

Realgains said:


> ....
> Lance was a decent, but not the best, one day classic rider with a VO2 max of 82 which is good but not great(pre Ferarri).....MANY riders had a higher VO2 max and more sustainable power per kilo.
> He did not start to get really strong until after his visits with Ferarri. You do not go from a classic rider to a 7 time TDF winner simply by loosing 10-12 pounds of mass. Something very "fishy" was up with Lance.....that was very very evident to all. In his first three tours Lance did very poorly. ALL the most talented men that have won the tour did very well in their very first attempts...Lance couldn't even finish.....
> Cheers



Well here we go again RealLosses. Above you stated that ALL, yes ALLLLLL the most talanted men that have won the Tour did very well in their 1st attempts and Lance could not even finish.

Well it is true that Lance did not finish his 1st Tour, and this, like his 2nd Tour was primarily because at that stage of his career he trained for and rode almost exclusively as a 1 day events specialist, the EXACT type of 1 day specialist for which you claimed he was only 'decent" even though he was World Road Champion and 10 event winner in his 1st full year as a Pro in1993. The Websters will be passed out later for those who apparently do NOT understand what the word "decent" means. LOL

Now time for some more fun. So you believe that ALL the most talented men who have won the Tour did very well in their 1st attempts, is that correct RealLosses?????? Lets put that claim of your to a little test. - - - 

Was a guy named Miguel Indurain talented in your eyes or not??????????????????????

I think its safe to say most people considered the Big Mig a pretty darn TALENTED rider!! 

Lets compare 5 time TDF winner Big Migs early TDF results with Armstrongs early TDF results. Oh, and by the way, both started off their pro careers primarily as 1 day events type riders which is one reason why neither did all that well in their early TDF years - ooops I let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

Lets truly begin what I call fun time:


In 1985 Indurain rode in his 1st TDF and failed to finish. In 1993 Armstrong rode in his 1st TDF and also failed to finish, but he did win a stage.

In 1986 Indurain rode in his 2nd TDF and again failed to finish. In 1994 Armstrong rode in his 2nd TDF and also failed to finish. 

In 1987 Indurain rode in his 3rd TDF and finished in 97th place. In 1995 Armstrong rode in his 3rd TDF and finished in 36th place and won his 2nd TDF stage also.

In 1988 Indurain rode in his 4th TDF and finished in 47th place. In 1996 Armstrong rode in his 4th TDF and dropped out from what they thought at the time was only bronchitis. In fact what the man really had was undiagnosed Stage III metatastic testicular cancer which was diagnosed 2 months later on 10-02-96. At the time of his diagnosis he had necrotic tumors in his brain, tumors surrounding his abdomen and in his lymph nodes, a large tumor in his testicle and golf ball sized tumors in his lungs. Now given my confidence in your Oncology knowledge, I'm confident that you are well aware that Stage III testicular cancer does not get from Stage 1 to very advanced Stage III in a matter of weeks and metatastic lung tumors the size of golf balls were certainly already in and advancing in his lungs 2 months before his diagnosis, but you knew that already didn't you?????

So where are we at now? 

Armstrongs early TDF career is very similiar to another previous 1 day classics rider turned TDF multiple champion KNOWN AS BIG MIG, aka Indurain, a GUY WHO I THINK WON A TOUR OR TWO OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 , WHO WAS WHAT I'D LOVINGLY CALL "JUST A WEEEEEEE BIT TALENTED, JUST A BIT"!! LMFAO

In fact Armstrongs early TDF career is better than Indurains if you discount 1996 when the man was riding with undiagnosed stage III testicular cancer!! And in his 1st 2 Tours Armstrong himself admitts he rode with very poor tactics - often going on foolish solo breakaway attempts refusing to conserve energy in the peleton, etc. And at that stage of his career, again he was a 1 day specialist by trade, and that's what his training focused on, not multi week grand tours. 

Are you next going to claim that Indurain also was purely the result of drug improvement? I suppose you can, I could use some more laughs. My next post regarding Armstrongs post cancer vs pre cancer TDf career and your BS about Postal doping to 57% "and its all documented!!" will be even more interesting. This is fun. Nothing like punching holes Swiss cheese like bullsheot. ;-)


----------



## Realgains (Jul 16, 2008)

Troy16 said:


> Well here we go again RealLosses. Above you stated that ALL, yes ALLLLLL the most talanted men that have won the Tour did very well in their 1st attempts and Lance could not even finish.
> 
> Well it is true that Lance did not finish his 1st Tour, and this, like his 2nd Tour was primarily because at that stage of his career he trained for and rode almost exclusively as a 1 day events specialist, the EXACT type of 1 day specialist for which you claimed he was only 'decent" even though he was World Road Champion and 10 event winner in his 1st full year as a Pro in1993. The Websters will be passed out later for those who apparently do NOT understand what the word "decent" means. LOL
> 
> ...




Yeah...you're right wise guy...Indurain's success was due to epo use and being a very good responder to it indeed. I do mention this when I talked about the 91 tour when he destroyed the tour...coming from 10th, and no real threat to win the TDF the prior year.
Without epo Indurain wold have never won a tour. He was not in the class of a Lemond, a Fignon, a Mercyx..and the list goes on. He was more like a Riis, in regards to natural talent, in my opinion. Not everyone responds the same to a jacked crit but it tends to helpo the TT man, like Indurain, the most.


I never said that it was "documented" that postal/disco jacked to 57%.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Troy16 said:


> So becoming world road champion in Oslo in 1993 makes Armstrong in your words only a "decent" 1 day classics rider? LMFAO!! Once again more illinformed opinion on your part posted as if it is fact based when in fact it is imaginary based. And by the way, if my memory is correct there was a a particular rider in that Oslo race known as Big Mig who came in 2nd. Armstrong went on an extended solo break and the entire field including Big Mig could not run him down pacelining.


I guess you have never seen the race. The "entire Field" was only a few riders because most dropped out due to the freezing rain. Lance Armstrong, Romans Vienstiens, Igor Astroloza. All were seen as winning thru luck...This view was reinforced in 1994 when Armstrong barely won anything. It was not until he hooked up with Ferrari that he won Fleche Wallone and was #1 in the world



Troy16 said:


> In 1993, Armstrong finished the year ranked number one by capturing 10 one-day events,


If I were you I would include plenty of ???!!!!!?????? in my response, but that just makes a post look clueless. 

I am not sure what planet you are on but Lance was not the UCI #1 rider in 1993. If you think that winning the Thrift Drug or K Mart races makes you a great classic rider, and #1 in the world, you clearly do not understand the sport. Maurizio Fondriest was the UCI #1 ranked rider and won the World Cup that year. There was nothing in any of Lance performances that would indicate that he would become a top Tour rider.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Troy16 said:


> WRONG - 100% WRONG, THE TEST WAS NOT POSITIVE FOR SYNTHETIC CORTICOIDS. The test was negative, there was no positive lab result, another individual who can not even get basic test result fatcs correct!!


If the test was negative then what was found in his sample? Why did he have to produce a back dated TUE?

The sample tested positive, just not to the artificially high level needed for a sanction. 



Troy16 said:


> WRONG on all parts of the "so-called" 2004 tests, and I'm being overly freaking generous calling them "tests". The UCI thoroughly shot down the entire so-called test process,


The same UCI that ignored and covered up doping for years? The same UCI that gave advanced notice to dopers that they were getting tested? The same UCI that took a $500,000 "donation" from Armstrong. Conflicts of interest and outright fraud are the reason why the UCI is no longer in charge of majority of testing in Pro Cycling. WADA said it best, and this was echoed by most unbiased observers, 

WADA said

"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical," Pound said. "Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves."

The statement said WADA was astonished the UCI "would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report."

You can read the complete response here. Notice how Lance, someone who historically solved issued thru legal intimidation, did nothing against L'Equipe, LNDD...nothing
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf



Troy16 said:


> that reporter certainly did not ask for everyones doping control forms, not according to the UCI!!! More nonsense and complete BS


 Yes he did, as did other reporters after it was found that the tests had been performed. 




Troy16 said:


> Le Monde is well respected??? By whom, you and a few French fanatics jealous that they haven't produced a serious GC contender in years?????????


Ahhh, the evil French conspiracy. Clueless


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

If the sample didn't meet or exceed the designated threshold for the test, it isn't a positive result. That is how tests work. It isn't a positive result. Period. End of story. Changing the facts and adding your own commentary ("artificially high level") to purposely mislead is called lying.

I love the way you make fun of conspiracy theories while at the same time, floating your own. You have no shame. 



> The same UCI that ignored and covered up doping for years? The same UCI that gave advanced notice to dopers that they were getting tested? The same UCI that took a $500,000 "donation" from Armstrong. Conflicts of interest and outright fraud are the reason why the UCI is no longer in charge of majority of testing in Pro Cycling.


As for quoting WADA in regards to the Vrijman report, that is the height of absurdity. The Vrijman report was highly critical of WADA. Did you really expect WADA to praise it and agree with its findings? Take off the blinders.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> As for quoting WADA in regards to the Vrijman report, that is the height of absurdity. The Vrijman report was highly critical of WADA. Did you really expect WADA to praise it and agree with its findings? Take off the blinders.


You believe the UCI over WADA? Make a list of what WADA has done for the sport over the last 4 years and what the UCI has done TO the sport in the same time period.....there is no comparison.

The UCI taking $500,000 from a rider they a supposed to regulate is a clear conflict of interest and is one of many examples of how ethically challenged the UCI is. Unlike the long list of UCI ethical lapses "The French conspiracy" has zero behind it....still waiting for your dozen plausible reasons for EPO in Lance's samples

Take off the blinders.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> You believe the UCI over WADA? Make a list of what WADA has done for the sport over the last 4 years and what the UCI has done TO the sport in the same time period.....there is no comparison.
> 
> Take off the blinders.


As usual, you miss the point completely. It's not what I believe. It's that you fail to see the obvious conflict of interest whenever you quote WADA about the Vrijman report. Did it really never occur to you WADA would be highly critical of a report that is highly critical of WADA? 

Of course Dick Pound is going to bash the report!!! Was there any other option?

Blinders, my friend. Blinders.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> As usual, you miss the point completely. It's not what I believe. It's that you fail to see the obvious conflict of interest whenever you quote WADA about the Vrijman report. Did it really never occur to you WADA would be highly critical of a report that is highly critical of WADA?
> 
> Of course Dick Pound is going to bash the report!!! Was there any other option?
> 
> Blinders, my friend. Blinders.


Again, you miss the point completely.

The Vrijiman report is a joke because instead of examining how or why EPO was found in Lances samples they focused their energy on attacks on WADA. Ignoring the issue and playing politics is why the UCI is in the mess they are in right now. I agree with what WADA, and many others, said about the report and the fact that the UCI is more interested in politics then answers only reinforces that I am backing the right horse....the horse without the blinders.


----------



## Ttown (Sep 7, 2007)

*the 91 tour when he destroyed the tour...coming from 10th, and no real threat to win the TDF the prior year.*

Although he was 10th in the 90 tour, he had a very strong tour in support of delgado. Indurain was 10th 12:47 behind lemond. Most of that time was lost in alpe d'heuz stage where he was 12+ min back of leaders after working hard for delgado. Indurain won stage 16 to luz ardiden (climbing with lemond) and finished ahead of lemond on the 2 indiv TT stages.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Lance, give it up. 

I thought the Olsen episode was pathetic but flaming away on RBR is even lower. We know you were jacked up -- the longer you keep it in, the harder it's gonna hurt when it comes out! 

Even Virenque was more a man about it than you -- that's just not right!


----------



## Greggb (Apr 15, 2002)

Troy16 said:


> Well here we go again RealLosses. Above you stated that ALL, yes ALLLLLL the most talanted men that have won the Tour did very well in their 1st attempts and Lance could not even finish.
> 
> Well it is true that Lance did not finish his 1st Tour, and this, like his 2nd Tour was primarily because at that stage of his career he trained for and rode almost exclusively as a 1 day events specialist, the EXACT type of 1 day specialist for which you claimed he was only 'decent" even though he was World Road Champion and 10 event winner in his 1st full year as a Pro in1993. The Websters will be passed out later for those who apparently do NOT understand what the word "decent" means. LOL
> 
> ...



You can state all the anecdotal banter you want. If RG says LA doped, then I suspect LA doped. I believe RG to be a very l reliable source.


----------

