# Reality check: why should I still believe Lance?



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

I apologize for the Lance Armstrong post. I'm not a Lance-o-phile or an apologist, but just a skeptic and a rationalist. This issue has been touched on in other threads and it seems like an elephant in, at least, my analytical room. I'd like to know your thoughts so I'm putting my question front and center. 

My previous reason for believing that Lance did not dope (as doping was defined at the time) was that: (1) we are presumed innocent until proven otherwise; (2) he was never caught despite numerous testing; (3) he was a physiological freak; (4) he was psycologically driven; (5) he trained intelligently and progressively; and (6) he had the benefits of money and a good team. I think that's all. 

However, considering that most of the runners-up that Lance crushed during his reign have now become tainted or confessed, I find it hard to balance these six good reasons against the logical inference that a non-doper could simply not crush hard-working dopers like Jan, Ivan, and company without also doping. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Wilier_Willy (Jul 23, 2006)

*Ya.*

Agreed. And now that this point seems more then liable, you'll hear less people defending the dude. But it does bring more ammo for that argument, others will not care.
Too me though its kind of like defending JFK assasination as non-governmental or the roswell landings are false. Everyone knows what happened but people turn a blind eye or don't want to believe that it happened.

It's also a tough issue too because of the cancer story that goes with it. For too many it's inspirational and goal setting. 
I realize now its just better to think what you want and leave others to think what they want.


Thats all I want to say.


----------



## Rockbluff20 (Feb 20, 2007)

Pablo said:


> I apologize for the Lance Armstrong post. I'm not a Lance-o-phile or an apologist, but just a skeptic and a rationalist. This issue has been touched on in other threads and it seems like an elephant in, at least, my analytical room. I'd like to know your thoughts so I'm putting my question front and center.
> 
> My previous reason for believing that Lance did not dope (as doping was defined at the time) was that: (1) we are presumed innocent until proven otherwise; (2) he was never caught despite numerous testing; (3) he was a physiological freak; (4) he was psycologically driven; (5) he trained intelligently and progressively; and (6) he had the benefits of money and a good team. I think that's all.
> 
> ...


 What about Michael Jordan he continually made the rest of the pro players look like little kids in the yard. People can come along at any time and just be better than everyone else, why is it so hard to believe in cycling. Lots of sports have people that are clearly better than everyone else, and many of the other sports have drug use that is far more pronounced than in cycling. I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, until someone proves otherwise. I'm sure others will disagree but I will continue to believe in his ability, and others like him in different sports. And no I'm not a Lance-o-phile either.
Keep on believing, what does it hurt?

Dale


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Groan...this topic will not end well. Let me summarize the key issues before everyone comes out to beat this to death:

1. Lance recovered from cancer, would he put that stuff in his body?!?
2. It's all conjecture, people beat Lance sometimes in other races, maybe he didn't dope!
3. He never failed a test!

on the other side...

1. Of course he doped, remember the cortisone, actovegin, Ferrari, etc!
2. He must've been doping, he beat all the dopers and all his ex-teammates got nabbed too!
3. Go read Andreu-Vaughters' conversation...suspicious yet?

and the middle...

1. So what, they all dope, the best guy still wins!
2. He only started doping in '04 after he almost lost in '03.
3. He only doped up until '02 when they came out with an EPO test.

Have fun...


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

That was a great post. Thanks. I apologize if my question caused you such consternation. I'm just interested in how other balance these competing inferences as it pertains to most pro riders. Lance is just a notable and interesting case study.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Well I recall the story about most of his samples from 1999 testing positive for EPO. I know that it was dismissed, but I think it was due to improper procedure as opposed to a false positive.

Also, comparing him to Jordan is a bit unfair. Cycling is more of a brute force sport, as opposed to a skill sport (like basketball). Doping for endurance wouldn't help Karl Malone make the winning shot when he needed to.

That's why when you see EPO or Blood doping, you see it in cycling, track and field, cross country skiing, etc...

So yea, I don't believe Lance. Sorry. I think anytime you get past the late 80s or so, you get to a different level of doping. I'm pretty sure up until then the drug of choice was amphetamines, and two things make this a lesser deal (except for Tom Simpson): Less absolute benefit, and everyone can afford to do it.

It's pretty interesting if you read some of the history of the TdF. There was an interview with one or more of the riders back in the early days (1910 or thereabouts), and the rider talked about how they would use cocaine eye drops to keep from falling asleep on the bike (back when it took 17 hours to complete a stage).


----------



## Chase15.5 (Feb 17, 2005)

Wilier_Willy said:


> ...Too me though its kind of like defending JFK ...the roswell landings are false...


Do you mean false as in : "Yeah, of course they were weather balloons." or "Yeah, of course is was a alien spacecraft that crashed." :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## mountaineer (Sep 26, 2005)

First, there is no question that every professional level athelete will use every training method considered legal at that time to maximize performance. What is considered legal may change/evolve over time. And Ferrari always said that if there was no positive test, then it did not constitute illegal activities. At least that is their perspective....

Secondly, I always wondered what effect his brain metastasis and subesequent crainiotomy had on his ability, or inability to percieve pain the way others do. Maybe some pain centers were deadened by the surgery. And he was already a phenom to begin with....

But I doubt we will ever know the *rest of the story*..


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

The two facts that would put a "nail in the coffin" for me would be LA failing a drug test or some of his close allies ratting him out. 

Regrettably neither has happened. The one test where a french newspaper stole a 6 year old lab sample seemed a little too sensationalist even for me to beleive. 

But it has always been so amazing that NO one, Heras, Hamilton, Basso (who trained with him through an off season) has ever put Lance's name in the same sentence as doping. Maybe Basso will give us something in his "cooperation" I can only hope.

Also, I think it is funny that Hincapie is never (at least in my memory) accused of doping, yet he is best friends with the guy who the entire world suspects to be doping. How does he fly with LA and escape the shady reputation?


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

mountaineer said:


> First, there is no question that every professional level athelete will use every training method considered legal at that time to maximize performance. ..


In general I agree that most athletes will train hard, but one of the things that allows me to continue to believe that Lance didn't dope (and I'll freely admit that I want to believe that he didn't) is that during those years when Ulrich was widely considered to be Lance's top competitor, Ulrich wasn't using every training method considered legal. Ulrich's conditioning was often suspect, as was his dedication to training. So, I can believe that someone who was incredibly dedicated and focused on that race could beat someone who was out partying and enjoying his celebrity. As for the other top competitors, who knows. But it does seem like Lance's training regime was more advanced that what others employed.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Kestreljr said:


> Also, I think it is funny that Hincapie is never (at least in my memory) accused of doping, yet he is best friends with the guy who the entire world suspects to be doping. How does he fly with LA and escape the shady reputation?


Maybe because he's not nearly as good? Doping is supposed to make you win races, right?

Not that I would be at all surprised if he is doping...


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Why are his positives for EPO in the 1999 samples always left out of the argument? At least read the Procycling synopsis of that evidence if you can't stomach French. The pattern and timing of positives was entirely consistent with an early form of micro-dosing and about as likely to be the result of random test flaws as the Encyclopedia Brittanica being ejected from a black hole. He's as nailed as any of these guys can be without a full confession.

There's no doubt he's a physical freak and it's theoretically possible that he could be such a freak that he could beat the most gifted and doped athletes entirely by natural means. However there is no evidence in either his much ballyhooed lab tests or in his results (decidedly subpar compared to Merckx who is the gold standard for freaks of nature) that would support that conclusion and there is substantial evidence, including the EPO tests, that supports the conclusion that he doped - just like everyone else of that era.

It has no bearing at all on whether he can be an inspiration, support worthy causes, or -really stretching it - be a nice person.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

terzo rene said:


> Why are his positives for EPO in the 1999 samples always left out of the argument?


Correct me if I am wrong (which I certainly can be!)- but weren't those test done on a sample that was unlawfully obtained? I thought that for a certain amount of time a french sensationalist newspaper writer had them in his possession- which would kill any credibility to the samples being untampered. 

I think LA could certainly be guilty, but tabloid journalism in France is less ethical then in the US from what I hear- which puts it somewhere really, really low... 



SilasCL said:


> Maybe because he's not nearly as good? Doping is supposed to make you win races, right?


lol... Good point! Seriously though, Doping is supposed to make you better and Hincapie has been a staple in the upper half of the peloton for years... but I guess your point is right- who cares if you aren't regularly winning!


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

Great post. Thank you. Not to be a moral relativist, but if he did dope, so what? He did it to win bicycle races, which are not all that important in the grand scheme of things. Obviously his competitors were doing it, so why not level the playing field? I'm sure many of us would do the same if we knew our competitors had an unfair advantage.

There is significant circumstantial evidence to support the claim that he did dope. If he did, that makes him a liar. But it does not diminish the work he has done off the bike for cancer advocacy. The chairman of HBO was recently arrested for assaulting his girlfriend...but I'm still going to watch The Sopranos.



terzo rene said:


> Why are his positives for EPO in the 1999 samples always left out of the argument? At least read the Procycling synopsis of that evidence if you can't stomach French. The pattern and timing of positives was entirely consistent with an early form of micro-dosing and about as likely to be the result of random test flaws as the Encyclopedia Brittanica being ejected from a black hole. He's as nailed as any of these guys can be without a full confession.
> 
> There's no doubt he's a physical freak and it's theoretically possible that he could be such a freak that he could beat the most gifted and doped athletes entirely by natural means. However there is no evidence in either his much ballyhooed lab tests or in his results (decidedly subpar compared to Merckx who is the gold standard for freaks of nature) that would support that conclusion and there is substantial evidence, including the EPO tests, that supports the conclusion that he doped - just like everyone else of that era.
> 
> It has no bearing at all on whether he can be an inspiration, support worthy causes, or -really stretching it - be a nice person.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> The one test where a french newspaper stole a 6 year old lab sample seemed a little too sensationalist even for me to beleive.


You need to do some research if you think that is what happened.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> You need to do some research if you think that is what happened.


I certainly will do.. you got a link or site for me? Thanks..


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> I certainly will do.. you got a link or site for me? Thanks..


Cyclingnews.com

In more recent times they will link to all the stories related to "affairs" whenever they add to the story. So if you find just one story you might find all the links to the saga.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

You guy's have too much time on your hands.

No Confession and no Legal proof of guilt. Case CLOSED.

Get over it, he beat-down everybody just like Merckx.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

DMFT said:


> You guy's have too much time on your hands.
> 
> No Confession and no Legal proof of guilt. Case CLOSED.
> 
> Get over it, he beat-down everybody just like Merckx.



Case closed or innocent? I agree wholeheartedly that the case is closed and that Armstrong will never be sanctioned however that does not mean he did not dope. In the eyes of the law he is certainly "not guilty". Good luck on getting that confession though!


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Lance may be telling the truth when he speaks about his doping but chooses his words well: "I have never failed a drug test"...

I never beleived LA to be clean but since stage 18 of the 2004 Tour, I think it's pretty naive to think he never doped.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> Correct me if I am wrong (which I certainly can be!)- but weren't those test done on a sample that was unlawfully obtained? I thought that for a certain amount of time a french sensationalist newspaper writer had them in his possession- which would kill any credibility to the samples being untampered.
> 
> I think LA could certainly be guilty, but tabloid journalism in France is less ethical then in the US from what I hear- which puts it somewhere really, really low...


ok. you're wrong. the samples were obtained in a lawful manner. they were later retested by the lab. you can debate whether they should have, but they did. the lab has a mole. the mole leaked the numbered results to a journalist who had LA's control #'s and matched them up. the actual samples were never outside the lab.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Hmmmm....*



blackhat said:


> ok. you're wrong. the samples were obtained in a lawful manner. they were later retested by the lab. you can debate whether they should have, but they did. the lab has a mole. the mole leaked the numbered results to a journalist who had LA's control #'s and matched them up. the actual samples were never outside the lab.



- And you KNOW this to be a FACT how??? That's right, you DON'T!  

"If" a lab has a "mole" how can that lab be "trustworthy". ?????


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

blackhat said:


> ok. you're wrong....the lab has a mole. the mole leaked the numbered results to a journalist who had LA's control #'s and matched them up. the actual samples were never outside the lab.


thanks blackhat- I knew there was something about a journalist involved that was a little sketchy. 



DMFT said:


> - And you KNOW this to be a FACT how??? That's right, you DON'T!
> 
> "If" a lab has a "mole" how can that lab be "trustworthy". ?????


If every time something was leaked to the press then the institution was deemed untrustworthy, then no one who is a business man, celebrity, etc... would be trust worthy. Leaks are often calculated and intentional.


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

If every time something was leaked to the press then the institution was deemed untrustworthy, then no one who is a business man, celebrity, etc... would be trust worthy. Leaks are often calculated and intentional.[/QUOTE]


I take it then you trust all the engineered leaks by politicians, business, celebs etc? I think the fact that so often those leaks are manipulated is the reason why so many don't trust the information that is leaked. For myself, I do have a hard time believing much of what is leaked because those leaks are so often calculated and intentional. My point being that I think that many people do not find those institutions trustworthy.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

kmac said:


> I take it then you trust all the engineered leaks by politicians, business, celebs etc?


No- I said that because someone leaked a story doesn't make the story untrue. I did not say that every leaked story must be true. BIG difference, sorry if you didn't understand that. 



> For myself, I do have a hard time believing much of what is leaked


I agree, if you read this thread, I was the first to state that the reporter was a tabloid journalist- they are not known for the ethics. But if the lab stood by the leaked results, and the lab has a history of being a reputable place, then I don't think you can discount the facts b/c some tabloid journalist got the story first. 

For the life of me, I still can't find the cycling news story on this. I have tried searching 100 different ways, but come up with too many results... any help out there?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

All I know is the story came out in August-September of '05, that would be the place to start.

Here's an enormous thread on the results of the report on the incident:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=62263&highlight=lance


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

team_sheepshead said:


> Great post. Thank you. Not to be a moral relativist, but if he did dope, so what? He did it to win bicycle races, which are not all that important in the grand scheme of things. Obviously his competitors were doing it, so why not level the playing field? I'm sure many of us would do the same if we knew our competitors had an unfair advantage.



It would matter a great deal to me if he cheated, and doping is cheating. Just because everyone else might be doing it does not make it right. Where does that circle end? He gets a pass because others were doing it. Then some new riders get a pass because LA was doing it. Under your logic, it would go on and on. And, more importantly, he is building the platform to launch his advocacy on his Tour victories. Right or wrong, people listen more to "Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and Tour de France Champion" than they would to "Lance Armstrong, cancer surivor who went on to ride in the Tour." And this comes from me, a guy who really wants to believe that Lance didn't cheat. Somehow I justify in my head the potentially conflicting positions of condemning doping and believing that Lance didn't dope.


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

Kestreljr said:


> No- I said that because someone leaked a story doesn't make the story untrue. I did not say that every leaked story must be true. BIG difference, sorry if you didn't understand that.
> 
> 
> I guess the point that I really wanted to make was that for me, because so much of what is leaked is a manipulation of the truth it does lead me to doubt the veracity of the leaked story. That is my perception, and why on stories that come out about that particular lab, I have a very hard time believing the credibility of the results.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2007)

SilasCL said:


> Groan...this topic will not end well. Let me summarize the key issues before everyone comes out to beat this to death:



LOL! Already heading in the wrong direction...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Kestreljr said:


> But it has always been so amazing that NO one, Heras, Hamilton, Basso (who trained with him through an off season) has ever put Lance's name in the same sentence as doping. Maybe Basso will give us something in his "cooperation" I can only hope.



- Here's something I was thinking about. 

Maybe, just maybe more people should pay attention to those still involved CURRENTLY in the sport. 
Everyone mentions LA's former teamates had doping problems AFTER leaving USPS/Disco. The Teams that come to mind are 1) CSC with a DS who is named as having used right along with Jan Ullrich, Mr. Riis. HE coached Hamilton, HE coached Basso. How come nobody mentions him???  2) Phonak with what? 9, 10, 12 team members with doping offences? Hamilton was there, Sevilla was there, and Landis (who hasn't been proven guilty yet) was there as well. So maybe, just maybe USPS/Disco has been a straight team all these years.

Discuss.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

AJL said:


> LOL! Already heading in the wrong direction...


To be fair I am really enjoying this one...nothing riles up the bunch like a Lance-doping thread.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*That is sooooo 2 years ago.*



Pablo said:


> ......Thoughts?


:Yawn:


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kestreljr said:


> For the life of me, I still can't find the cycling news story on this. I have tried searching 100 different ways, but come up with too many results... any help out there?


Well I've pretty much always found their search engine to be useless too. Try "Vrijman", he is the dutch lawyer who led the white-wash (IMO) report that "completely exonerated" Armstrong.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> All I know is the story came out in August-September of '05, that would be the place to start.
> 
> Here's an enormous thread on the results of the report on the incident:
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=62263&highlight=lance


Jesus that brought back some memories. Glad I didn't say anything that contradicted what I believe today. FWIW, I don't think it was ever mentioned in that thread that the LNDD later said that many of the documents regarding the testing that Vrijman claimed to have never received were never requested or they were in the process of gathering for him when the report was released.

One of my wife's relatives is a pretty good buddy of Armstrong (or was the last time I heard). I don't have the sort of relationship where I would call to talk to him but I see him at family functions every once in a while. I wonder if he has any inside scoop on any of this.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

If you remember, that thread started when Vrijman said Lance was exonerated a few days before the actual report release. That was the story picked up by the media. About 50-75 posts into that thread the actual report was out and it got real interesting...

Edit: Re-reading that post still gets me riled up...time to back away from the doping forum...


----------



## Walt12 (Jan 4, 2007)

The journalistic ethic, or legal-correctness of the leaked results of the 99 samples is irrelevant - it wouldn't be so if he was still competing, but since he is not, and will never receive any sanction (forget about being stripped of his Tour wins, can you imagine that!!!), then all that matters is that trace EPO was detected upon subsequent testing, on samples, I might add, that pre-dated the advent of repeatable and reliable tests.

That he subsequently (to those 99 samples) "never tested positive" despite being one of the most-tested athletes of all-time could be due to having the not insubstantial amounts of money (compared to his peers) to spend on the very best medical advice on how to beat the testing and also on cutting-edge product, and screening by his major sponsors (ostensibly to protect their own interests) with the side-effect of assisting him with a non-notifiable heads-up when perhaps he was "pushing the envelope".

Just conjecture on my part, but I remain a skeptic.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

DMFT said:


> - Here's something I was thinking about.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe more people should pay attention to those still involved CURRENTLY in the sport.
> Everyone mentions LA's former teamates had doping problems AFTER leaving USPS/Disco. The Teams that come to mind are 1) CSC with a DS who is named as having used right along with Jan Ullrich, Mr. Riis. HE coached Hamilton, HE coached Basso. How come nobody mentions him???  2) Phonak with what? 9, 10, 12 team members with doping offences? Hamilton was there, Sevilla was there, and Landis (who hasn't been proven guilty yet) was there as well. So maybe, just maybe USPS/Disco has been a straight team all these years.
> ...


If Disco is, as you suggest, a "straight" team why would they have made such a cynical move in signing Basso in light of his association with Riis and the Puerto allegations? (BTW, I want to clarify that I am talking about their Grand Tours squad) It certainly could be seen as an unspoken policy of "don't ask, don't tell" as regards doping. At some point in the (not so) distant future I do feel that the USPS/Disco/Armstrong legacy will be that they not only had the most progressive training methods but also the most well-run doping program. Phonak's sloppy methods seemed off-kilter for a big-budget squad but look back at Kelme and the stories of blood bags being transported on scooters through the streets of Madrid in summer. My guess is that USPS/Disco and particularly Armstrong had *so much* (Nike, Livestrong Foundation) to lose that they had the wherewithall to keep everything "in-house". Honestly, until Puerto, as long as a rider avoided a positive or getting caught red-handed with PEDs they were likely able to dope via Fuentes-styled clinics/programs. Armstrong has always ridiculed his opposition and their teams as behaving like "farm boys" with regard to tactics, training and the like. Why is it so far-fetched to think that he saw the writing on the wall and did not allow some cheapo spanish doctor to (poorly) handle his "preparation"? Again, this is just my hunch but I believe that history will prove this theory, or some version of it. to be true...


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The way I remember it the "mole" that talked to l'Equipe was in the UCI not the lab; they were the only organization that had access to all the relevant info and the Dr responsible was eventually mildly disciplined by the UCI.

In a cagey move the journalist acquired the control #s to match to the results on the 1999 samples by telling LA he was doing a story trying to show that LA had a TUE (therapeutic use exemtion) for testosterone due to his being a uniballer post cancer. I assume Lance wasn't using testosterone so was all too happy to sign a release for his information thinking it would give him a chance to actually prove them wrong for once (a good reminder to never make emotional decisions and think of longer term consequences rather than jump at the chance to dance on someone's grave).

It was really just good old investigative journalism of the type that hasn't been done in the US since the early 70's and if that gets a paper labeled a sleazy tabloid I wish there were many more of them. What got reported in the US was highly influenced by a massive PR campaign by LA's paid professionals. Most of the more mainstream articles were taken straight from their press releases (I really admire his PR team as much as I do LA because their performances over the years have been equally dominating).

The biggest issue surrounding those tests was that they were being done only for research purposes so the UCI/WADA procedures were not followed. That doesn't mean they were scientifically flawed, but that and the lack of A samples did mean no sanctions could ever be applied under cycling's rules. The independent review that his PR team made so much about merely proved that, at great and boring length, which was quite obvious from the start.

What seemed most striking to me about the 1999 results was how few riders tested positive. Because of what is known from other sources about very high rates of EPO use during that time either the test was strongly biased toward false negatives or only LA and a few others were risking having EPO on hand during the Tour, presumably due to fear of police raids. Neither of those alternatives helps LA's case.

The EPO test can have false positives through natural processes as the triathlete Beke was able to show. But as Lance liked to say he never tested positive which he would have if the positives had been the result of natural processes in his body.

Is it proof sufficient to take away his victories? Obviously not. Was it enough proof to win in court? Well, he didn't follow through on his lawsuit threats against l'Equipe for some reason and it wasn't because the allegations didn't damage his image or because of lack of money or legal counsel.

Does his using EPO take away from his victories? Hell no because everyone else in at least the top 20 every one of those years was doing the same thing. He was a great rider, a great inspiration, a great philanthropist, and a doper. Big deal. He also pedaled like a robot and that's the one thing that really bugged me with him. I much prefer Basso's beautiful (dope enhanced) pedaling to LA's.

PS. even if the sample were illegally obtained it would have no bearing on the validity of the test results, just their usability in court. He would still be a doper but not guilty.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

serbski said:


> If Disco is, as you suggest, a "straight" team why would they have made such a cynical move in signing Basso in light of his association with Riis and the Puerto allegations? (BTW, I want to clarify that I am talking about their Grand Tours squad) It certainly could be seen as an unspoken policy of "don't ask, don't tell" as regards doping. At some point in the (not so) distant future I do feel that the USPS/Disco/Armstrong legacy will be that they not only had the most progressive training methods but also the most well-run doping program. Phonak's sloppy methods seemed off-kilter for a big-budget squad but look back at Kelme and the stories of blood bags being transported on scooters through the streets of Madrid in summer. My guess is that USPS/Disco and particularly Armstrong had *so much* (Nike, Livestrong Foundation) to lose that they had the wherewithall to keep everything "in-house". Honestly, until Puerto, as long as a rider avoided a positive or getting caught red-handed with PEDs they were likely able to dope via Fuentes-styled clinics/programs. Armstrong has always ridiculed his opposition and their teams as behaving like "farm boys" with regard to tactics, training and the like. Why is it so far-fetched to think that he saw the writing on the wall and did not allow some cheapo spanish doctor to (poorly) handle his "preparation"? Again, this is just my hunch but I believe that history will prove this theory, or some version of it. to be true...


- Maybe because the case was 1) Shelved in Spain. 2) Shelved in Italy as well.
Disco took his word, he lied, and now that new/more info. comes out to prove he is a cheat. 

I never said they "are" a clean team, I don't know "for sure", but it appears they are, right? How many doping convictions have come against their team members?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Nice Logic.....*



terzo rene said:


> The way I remember it the "mole" that talked to l'Equipe was in the UCI not the lab; they were the only organization that had access to all the relevant info and the Dr responsible was eventually mildly disciplined by the UCI.
> 
> In a cagey move the journalist acquired the control #s to match to the results on the 1999 samples by telling LA he was doing a story trying to show that LA had a TUE (therapeutic use exemtion) for testosterone due to his being a uniballer post cancer. I assume Lance wasn't using testosterone so was all too happy to sign a release for his information thinking it would give him a chance to actually prove them wrong for once (a good reminder to never make emotional decisions and think of longer term consequences rather than jump at the chance to dance on someone's grave).
> 
> ...



- You (and others) convict the guy in the court of public opinion when the man has never been convicted in a court. Nice.

Who knows though, maybe 10 years down the road someone else will come out and nail him with some real proof. And that will be a (another) sad day for cycling.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DMFT said:


> - Maybe because the case was 1) Shelved in Spain. 2) Shelved in Italy as well.
> Disco took his word, he lied, and now that new/more info. comes out to prove he is a cheat.


There are all kinds of indications that "insiders" have a whole different level of information than we on the outside have. Sorry but I think it's incredibly naive to think Bruyneel, Riis, Armstrong etc. didn't know exactly what they were getting with Basso. Hell, that might have been part of the attraction, he was clearly fully committed if he was doing blood doping. 

They were investing millions of dollars in him and risking a huge black-eye and you think they didn't know he was doping? Hell all it would take was hiring someone in Italy to go find out what his f'in dog's name was to be pretty sure one way or other. They simply miscalculated or gambled that OP would be swept under the table like many other police raids in the past, and this time they were wrong.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

One thing that seems to be over-looked is this - If you take a look at Lance's training, his results in races from February right up until the Tour, you'll see a natural progression (i.e. he gets better and better each month). 

He started serious training around November/December for the Tour, began racing in February (he wasn't the best, but he certainly wasn't being dropped by the peleton), and sharpened his form right up through June into July...

Contrast that with Ulrich, who's training was suspect, who gained a ton of weight in the off-season, who went from being dropped by the peleton in April to winning races in May...

If we were to assume that _neither_ of them were doping, who would look like the bigger freak of nature? Ulrich for sure.

Now that we know Ulrich was doping, it begins to make sense... you take a guy with a ton of natural talent, poor training, over-weight, dope him up and he's able to compete with a guy who's dedicated the past several months to a strict regimen of diet and training.

Doping allowed guys like Ulrich to over-come their flaws..... put them up against a guy who's got a ton of raw talent, strict disciplined training, meticulous attention to diet, etc... and it doesn't seem like _that_ far of a stretch to imagine that Lance was actually clean.

I'm willing to bet that if you took Ulrich and got him to take his job seriously (i.e. mirror Lance's TdF prep) and doped him up, he would have crushed the field completely. Take away the training and leave the dope, you've got a guy who consistently finished 2nd.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

serbski said:


> If Disco is, as you suggest, a "straight" team why would they have made such a cynical move in signing Basso in light of his association with Riis and the Puerto allegations?



Your argument falls apart pretty quickly IMO....

If you assume Disco is straight... (which I don't) 

then they could have signed Basso b/c Lance likes him and Lance can get anyone on that team he wants...


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> They simply miscalculated or gambled that OP would be swept under the table like many other police raids in the past, and this time they were wrong.


Yeah, you could look at that a couple of ways:

1) They knew Basso was doping, and that was part of the attraction. They figured that OP would be swept under the rug, and that would be that. When the link between Ulrich and the 9 bags of blood was made, they realized they had a real problem on their hands and forced Basso out.

2) They believed Basso to be clean. They took a lot of flack/big risk in signing him, so if they knew he was a cheat they'd also have to assume that a lot of scrutinty would be given to Basso and/or the signing. Would they really want all of those prying eyes looking at their dealings? I'd think not...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you'd have to be on crack not to have suspected Basso was dipping into the sauce with his Giro win last year. Seriously, how could a DS who has been around the sport most of their life look at Basso's performance and not know he was doping? Bruyneel took a gamble and lost.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> They believed Basso to be clean.


Look most of us hear couldn't believe he was clean and we don't know anything but what gets reported in the media nor do we have inside connections, nor do we have thousands of dollars to find additional information. Certainly Disco had those resources. To think those guys truly believed he was clean is simply unbelievable. I can see naive fans believing that but anybody who's been knee deep in the sh*t for the last couple of decades would believe that is crazy.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Look most of us hear couldn't believe he was clean and we don't know anything but what gets reported in the media nor do we have inside connections, nor do we have thousands of dollars to find additional information. Certainly Disco had those resources. To think those guys truly believed he was clean is simply unbelievable. I can see naive fans believing that but anybody who's been knee deep in the sh*t for the last couple of decades would believe that is crazy.


I don't disagree at all... knowing this, the Disco signing just doesn't make sense. If you're Disco, why put your program under a microscope again? If you assume that Lance doped, then you believe they dodged that bullet once - what are the chances of dodging it again?

I think you're right - no other DS was willing to touch Basso with a 10' pole... and they all ripped JB appart for signing him. Why do that to your team?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the implication is that for Bruyneel the bottom line is winning at all costs. It's called 'plausible deniability' You set up an organizational structure where the top is protected from the murky goings on below so when a rider tests positive you hang him out to dry, shed some crocidile tears, then make an impassioned speech about looking to the future...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> Why do that to your team?


Like you said they haven't been caught yet, success always breeds confidence


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Wow, there are some great over-simplifications and speculations goin' on here....

- I didn't know you could just look at someone and "tell they were doped".  

Priceless thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmmmm*



DMFT said:


> Wow, there are some great over-simplifications and speculations goin' on here....
> 
> - I didn't know you could just look at someone and "tell they were doped".
> 
> Priceless thread. :thumbsup:


Better and better all the time


----------



## Rouleur (Mar 5, 2004)

*Lance's Template*

A few years ago a friend was musing on how Lance was doping and why he never got caught.

Just some thoughts:

1. Lance is a multimillionare. He is able to afford the best methods in the most discrete manner (no paper trail). One of the biggest revelations regarding the OP case is the high monetary cost of a systematic doping program. 

2. Lance stopped microdosing during competition. After the UCI adopted a test for exogenous EPO, Lance stopped dosing at races. As a consequence you do see a relative drop-off in his dominance at the TdF. He still won, but he wasn't crushing people on the first mountain stage.

3. EPO and HGH are the bomb. You don't need testosterone anymore. I think the potential health risk to Lance is too great to take a chance with exogenous androgens, especially since his cancer was a hormone sensitive / producing one. But, no documented major long term side effects from EPO and HGH. They also offer the biggest bang for the buck.

4. Limited racing...lots of training. A recent article quoted a French cyclist saying, that he was also disgusted when a racer shows up and rips the legs off of everyone after not seeing him for a month. Conventional wisdom is that racing is the best training. With Lance's limited race schedule he was able to be off the grid at his training camps. EPO and HGH are not only performance enhancers for RACING, but for TRAINING as well. Lance is a great physical speciman. I believe could carry his elevated, pharmceutically enhanced fitness in a 3 week tour.

5. Lance did not ignore all the other stuff. Best team. Best equipment. Obsessive attention to detail. A lot of PR was devoted to this. I don't think it was all a smoke screen. I think with Bruyneel and Lance, they were both utterly committed. Every little advantage was factored into their preparation.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Rouleur said:


> 5. Lance did not ignore all the other stuff. Best team. Best equipment. Obsessive attention to detail. A lot of PR was devoted to this. I don't think it was all a smoke screen. I think with Bruyneel and Lance, they were both utterly committed. Every little advantage was factored into their preparation.


Isn't it more likely that this "other stuff" gave him the advantage and not dope? Think of it this way - Ulrich did the exact opposite from the above, doped and was competitive with Lance.

If you level the playing field (i.e. both are dopers), Lance's preperation should have put him light years ahead of Ulrich.... not ~5 minutes.


----------



## Wiaruz (Jan 2, 2003)

Pablo said:


> I apologize for the Lance Armstrong post. I'm not a Lance-o-phile or an apologist, but just a skeptic and a rationalist. This issue has been touched on in other threads and it seems like an elephant in, at least, my analytical room. I'd like to know your thoughts so I'm putting my question front and center.
> 
> My previous reason for believing that Lance did not dope (as doping was defined at the time) was that: (1) we are presumed innocent until proven otherwise; (2) he was never caught despite numerous testing; (3) he was a physiological freak; (4) he was psycologically driven; (5) he trained intelligently and progressively; and (6) he had the benefits of money and a good team. I think that's all.
> 
> ...





I think the other thing to remember regarding LA is that he is now extremely rich. He has the money to buy people's silence and if that doesn't work he has enough money to tie any detractors up in court for so long you would go bust.

IMHO he obviously used banned substances or substances and/or methods for which there was no testing. Like the great Jacques Anquetil said way back, "you don't honestly think we (the riders) can perform like this on perrier!". You might be able ride the Tour de France without doping, you might even be able to win a stage or two, but you will never dominate as Armstrong did without using all available legal and illegal methods. The French know this and is the reason why they were always so sceptical of LA.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

James OCLV said:


> Isn't it more likely that this "other stuff" gave him the advantage and not dope? Think of it this way - Ulrich did the exact opposite from the above, doped and was competitive with Lance.
> 
> If you level the playing field (i.e. both are dopers), Lance's preperation should have put him light years ahead of Ulrich.... not ~5 minutes.



You do have a point James, but in pro cycling 5 minutes is light years....


----------



## Rouleur (Mar 5, 2004)

*Dope makes a greater impact.*



James OCLV said:


> Isn't it more likely that this "other stuff" gave him the advantage and not dope? Think of it this way - Ulrich did the exact opposite from the above, doped and was competitive with Lance.
> 
> If you level the playing field (i.e. both are dopers), Lance's preperation should have put him light years ahead of Ulrich.... not ~5 minutes.



Ullrich did not prepare like LA. No question there. But he did prepare. It wasn't like Jan just ate strudel and showed up. At least he raced the Giro, tour de Suisse, etc (and ate a little strudel along the way). I just think the impact of EPO and HGH to the performance of the endurance athlete is enormous, especially at the elite level where a few watts means a win or the gruppetto. The separation between the winner and also-ran is very small (watt/kg). 

Doping has always been with the pro peloton. But with the advent of these synthetic hormones (the holy grail for the endurance athlete), the percentage gain is so overwhelming that all the other things that go into preparing for the TdF become relatively minimal.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Kestreljr said:


> You do have a point James, but in pro cycling 5 minutes is light years....


I do realize that... but I also think that 5 minutes over ~3,000 Km could be attributed to superior preparation.

Even in his best years, Lance didn't do to his competitors at the Tour what Basso did to his competitors at last year's Giro... not by a long shot.

Look at Ulrich - last year he went from getting dropped by the peleton in April to winning stage races in May... If you contrast that with Lance's preparation, you'll see more consistency in the later.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Rouleur said:


> Ullrich did not prepare like LA. No question there. But he did prepare. It wasn't like Jan just ate strudel and showed up. At least he raced the Giro, tour de Suisse, etc (and ate a little strudel along the way). I just think the impact of EPO and HGH to the performance of the endurance athlete is enormous, especially at the elite level where a few watts means a win or the gruppetto. The separation between the winner and also-ran is very small (watt/kg).
> 
> Doping has always been with the pro peloton. But with the advent of these synthetic hormones (the holy grail for the endurance athlete), the percentage gain is so overwhelming that all the other things that go into preparing for the TdF become relatively minimal.


Ullrich did prepare... but not to the degree that Lance did. In April last year, Ullrich was getting dropped from the peleton. In May, he won Romandie... Definitely looks like he was 'helped'.

The devil is in the details... Ullrich typically gained 10 kg in the off-season, Lance did not. Ullrich didn't typically get on his bike until January, Lance started preping 2 months before. Lance recon'ed key stages, Ullrich did not. Lance's fitness progressed in a linear fashion, Ullrich went from sucking wind to winning races in a month.

You'd think that, given all of the above, if Lance was doping Ullrich wouldn't have been anywhere even close...

And you're right, when it comes down to it Lance's superior w/kg put him over the top... the question is, how were those watts developed... naturally or with help?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

This level of conjecture is ridiculous. There is ABSOLUTELY no way you can judge whether or not a rider dopes by their coming into form over months, weeks, weight gain in the off-season, etc. You MIGHT suspect that riders who were taking transfusions could quickly gain form over a couple weeks...but the evidence is that EPO microdosing has been a more popular doping method (if only due to its lower cost). This would result in consistency, not spurts of form. So all this talk about how Lance could beat other guys who were doping, and it was obvious they doped, but that Lance didn't...it's a complete fairy tale.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Wiaruz said:


> I think the other thing to remember regarding LA is that he is now extremely rich. He has the money to buy people's silence and if that doesn't work he has enough money to tie any detractors up in court for so long you would go bust.
> 
> IMHO he obviously used banned substances or substances and/or methods for which there was no testing. Like the great Jacques Anquetil said way back, "you don't honestly think we (the riders) can perform like this on perrier!". You might be able ride the Tour de France without doping, you might even be able to win a stage or two, but you will never dominate as Armstrong did without using all available legal and illegal methods. The French know this and is the reason why they were always so sceptical of LA.



- Yup, they "know" it. Sure. Maybe they're just a lil' miffed that they haven't had anyone to put a "W" in the Win-Column for their bike race?


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> This level of conjecture is ridiculous. There is ABSOLUTELY no way you can judge whether or not a rider dopes by their coming into form over months, weeks, weight gain in the off-season, etc. You MIGHT suspect that riders who were taking transfusions could quickly gain form over a couple weeks...but the evidence is that EPO microdosing has been a more popular doping method (if only due to its lower cost). This would result in consistency, not spurts of form. So all this talk about how Lance could beat other guys who were doping, and it was obvious they doped, but that Lance didn't...it's a complete fairy tale.


I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion...

It's ALL conjecture without hard evidence. Why does it matter which side of the line the conclusion that all this conjecture leads to falls on?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Rouleur said:


> A few years ago a friend was musing on how Lance was doping and why he never got caught.
> 
> Just some thoughts:
> 
> ...



- #2 - Don't ya think maybe he was just getting a little bit older or long-in-the-tooth in his cycling career by this point???? Maybe his team wasn't as strong or had bad day's or bad luck or, or, or, or.......

- #1, #3, #4, #5 - Wow, you've got alot there. Maybe you should prosecute the guy with that kind of proof. :thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

James OCLV said:


> And you're right, when it comes down to it Lance's superior w/kg put him over the top... the question is, how were those watts developed... naturally or with help?



- That's an easy one to answer. The answer is "naturally" until there is proof that he was a 
cheat. 

And if in 2, 5, 10 years some real "proof" comes out that he was a cheat, he'll go down as the biggest fraud in sporting history.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

James OCLV said:



> I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion...
> 
> It's ALL conjecture without hard evidence. Why does it matter which side of the line the conclusion that all this conjecture leads to falls on?


It's certainly ridiculous both ways, I have no problem admitting to that.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

James OCLV said:


> Even in his best years, Lance didn't do to his competitors at the Tour what Basso did to his competitors at last year's Giro... not by a long shot.


Again playing devil's advocate- Lance simply could have been more calculated on his tour wins. He gets it up to 5 minute lead, then keeps it there to not over extend himself. Why go for a 20 minute lead and bonk the next day? 

The point being that 5 minutes is a huge pad to sit on in a pro tour- sure it could be lost in a day, but that is more for the reason for him to save energy after a 5 minute gap to make sure that doesn't happen...


----------



## 21switchbacks (Aug 6, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - Yup, they "know" it. Sure. Maybe they're just a lil' miffed that they haven't had anyone to put a "W" in the Win-Column for their bike race?


I hear/read this all the time and just LOL. It's not like there was a Frenchman standing on the second step of the podium every year. They weren't going to get a win no matter what. Maybe they are miffed because it was/is in fact a "peloton at two speeds" and none of their guys were in the fast group. What would it matter if LA didn't win but Ullrich/Basso/Beloki or whoever did? It's still a doper taking home the trophy.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

DMFT said:


> - You (and others) convict the guy in the court of public opinion when the man has never been convicted in a court. Nice.
> 
> Who knows though, maybe 10 years down the road someone else will come out and nail him with some real proof. And that will be a (another) sad day for cycling.


Very few things accepted as true whether by science or common sense have been proven so in court. Do you avoid air travel because you fear the earth is flat since it was never proven in court? Particularly in cases that revolve around science the court system is notoriously bad at arriving at the "correct" verdict. You need only look at the court rulings on patenting life for some eggregious examples.

Having your day in court and trial by jury are a method for enforcing laws that was designed to err in favor of false negatives and originally to allow jury members to decide whether the laws were just and should be enforced at all as a protection against tyranny. The goal is a just verdict, not the literal "truth" despite what they always say on TV shows.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

James OCLV said:


> Isn't it more likely that this "other stuff" gave him the advantage and not dope? Think of it this way - Ulrich did the exact opposite from the above, doped and was competitive with Lance.
> 
> If you level the playing field (i.e. both are dopers), Lance's preperation should have put him light years ahead of Ulrich.... not ~5 minutes.


That could be true for recreational or non-competitive riders but when both riders, and really all professional athletes, are already bumping their heads on the absolute limits of human performance 5 minutes IS a light year. 10% gains are a piece of cake for Joe Sixpack but the higher up the ladder you go even a 1/2% gain in peak performance becomes a monumental achievement.

There is also no way to really know what either LA or Jan's genetic potential was. Most people, including Lance, said they felt Jan had more natural talent. Despite all of Jan's well known shortcomings by the time he was midway through the Tour he was very close to a good as he could possibly get. In his good years he was there at the start, in the bad ones only by the end but at that level it doesn't take more than a fraction of a percentage to drop 10 places.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*I disagree (which is Ok)*



terzo rene said:


> Very few things accepted as true whether by science or common sense have been proven so in court. Do you avoid air travel because you fear the earth is flat since it was never proven in court? Particularly in cases that revolve around science the court system is notoriously bad at arriving at the "correct" verdict. You need only look at the court rulings on patenting life for some eggregious examples.
> 
> Having your day in court and trial by jury are a method for enforcing laws that was designed to err in favor of false negatives and originally to allow jury members to decide whether the laws were just and should be enforced at all as a protection against tyranny. The goal is a just verdict, not the literal "truth" despite what they always say on TV shows.



- Science and other methods can "prove" guilt. That's what it would take for me to toss LA into the heap of other cheaters that met the same fate. That's all.

Take Jan & Ivan for example : Proof. Guilt. Cheat. = Done with them, take away their championships, they are fakes.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> - Science and other methods can "prove" guilt. That's what it would take for me to toss LA into the heap of other cheaters that met the same fate. That's all.
> 
> Take Jan & Ivan for example : Proof. Guilt. Cheat. = Done with them, take away their championships, they are fakes.


The cortisone positive and '99 positive are no good?

Nothing about the testing procedure for Jan's blood has come out yet, you don't feel the need to give him the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Huh???*



SilasCL said:


> The cortisone positive and '99 positive are no good?
> 
> Nothing about the testing procedure for Jan's blood has come out yet, you don't feel the need to give him the benefit of the doubt?


- The guy had a Doc's note for the Corti. like a million others and what "positive" from 99?
The one from LNDD that for the life of them can't seem to follow protocols and has/had NO other samples to backup their "finding" around some sketchy-at-best circumstances?
That one?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

DMFT said:


> - The guy had a Doc's note for the Corti. like a million others and what "positive" from 99?
> The one from LNDD that for the life of them can't seem to follow protocols and has/had NO other samples to backup their "finding" around some sketchy-at-best circumstances?
> That one?



The TUE from the doc was provided post test. meaning he got it to cover the positive. not exactly above board and apparently based on the amount, not exactly rational. and you can dismiss the '99 positives if you wish, but they are what the are-either a grand Franco conspiracy if you're a True Believer, or useless proof of doping if you're not. they're positives either way though.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*You do realize......*



James OCLV said:


> I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion...
> 
> It's ALL conjecture without hard evidence. Why does it matter which side of the line the conclusion that all this conjecture leads to falls on?


That one of the biggest advantages of PED's is inrecovery and therefor in being able to do more and more training? In fact, the training benefit is at least as great if not greater than the reacing benefit. This is one of the most misunderstood facets of PED's. 

Lance's training speaks more to PED's than Jan's does.

Len


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Len J said:


> That one of the biggest advantages of PED's is inrecovery and therefor in being able to do more and more training? In fact, the training benefit is at least as great if not greater than the reacing benefit. This is one of the most misunderstood facets of PED's.
> 
> Lance's training speaks more to PED's than Jan's does.
> 
> Len


That's the most intersting inference I've read in a while. Way to turn this whole thing on its head.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Len makes an interesting point...but once again, all conjecture.

You can 'prove' this either way using any 'data' you like...the only fact is that Lance hasn't been found guilty of anything, so he falls in the same camp as Rebellin, Di Luca, Bartoli, Pantani, and other upstanding non-dopers.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Of course this is all conjecture......*

if it wasn't we wouldn't be talking about it.

Dumb guy walking down a street and sees a pile of brown stuff.
"Looks like Shi%"
"Smells like Shi%"
"Tastes like Shi%"
"Sure glad I didn't walk in it"

Point is that there are an awful lot of indications (But no direct evidence (other than the debatable 99 EPO)) that LA used PED's.....not the least of which is the fact that just about every one who challanged him has come up positive (Or at least strongly implicated in cheating).

Check out this graph from a site that shows those implicated in doping from the TDf










http://cyclisme.dopage.free.fr/courses/tdf-palmares.htm

In addition, I'm convinced that LA used PED's that were not yet on the banned list...does this fall under the "cheating" standard? It does for me, but I'm sure for others it's not. In addition, I will not be surprised if someday it becomes public that there is a strong link between LA's cancer and his PED use prior to his illness. Sad, but I won't be surprised.

But in the end, does it really matter? It's entertainment after all, nothing more. Our watching feeds the machine the money it needs and the motivation it needs to "Oil" the machine and make winning at any cost OK. If you want to impact it, stop watching!

We ask these guys to perform at inhuman levels for days on end (both in training and in 20 day racing with killer climbs, TT's in sweltering heat) and then are surprised that they might need assitance to succeed. 

Is he a genetic freak? Clearly. But so are all these guys. They are the best of the best. The Lanern Rouge in the last several Tours could wipe us up, ride us into the ground and talk to us while he was doing it. A small % gain in the ability to train harder and longer, coupled with a drive like LA's and his innate genetic capability ='s someone unbeatable at a race he aims to peak at (barring other catastophie).

I believe that to compete in Europe at the highest level, the ante is some type of PED......the likelihood that someone could compete over an extended period of time is pretty low (to me). There is a part of me that wants to believe that someone could win at the highest level in the hardest race without PED....but I'm afraid it's a pipedream.

But I still love watching....I still am inspired at what these guys endure. 

IMO...did he "enhance"?...of course he did. Does it matter?...no.

Len


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Len J said:


> That one of the biggest advantages of PED's is inrecovery and therefor in being able to do more and more training? In fact, the training benefit is at least as great if not greater than the reacing benefit. This is one of the most misunderstood facets of PED's.
> 
> Lance's training speaks more to PED's than Jan's does.
> 
> Len


I see what you mean - it would allow him to train harder/more frequently. However, I really wasn't questioning the program... I was questioning the dedication.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

I've read this whole thread and have great interest in this subject. I am responding to you, Len, because you are reasonable and able to take the emotion away from your analysis. If I have anything standing between me and reason, its my emotions. I am guilty of that, admit it freely, and know that it taints my judgment. 

You commented about LAs cancer and PEDs being linked. The American Cancer Society may not be the most compassionate cancer advocacy organization, but they have collected a wealth of data and present it in an understandable fashion. With respect to TC, here are some of the things they say:



> Age:
> 
> Ninety percent of testicular cancers occur between the ages of 20 and 54. But this cancer can affect males of any age, including infants and elderly men.
> 
> ...


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/c...the_risk_factors_for_testicular_cancer_41.asp

LA was 25 when diagnosed. He is a white man who is tall and slim. Fits a good part of the profile. While TC is rare, LA did not shake the cancer/science world as some sort of out-of-sample freak by being dxed. I have met numerous men who are TC survivors who fit the same set of circumstances that LA had when diagnosed and had never taken PEDs yet came up with the same disease. I know its anecdotal and doesn't hold water for scientific purposes, but it is what it is. Unless LA was taking testosterone or HGH, as those two can speed up the damage cancer causes, I would find it hard to believe that PEDs were the cause of his cancer.

HGH can cause a great deal of damage to those dxed with cancer. An ariticle from the Cancer Prevention Coalition states the following:



> HGH induces growth promoting and other effects by stimulating the liver to increase production of the natural Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) whose blood levels normally decline with advancing age. However, there are numerous publications in prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals showing that elevated IGF-1 levels are strongly associated with major excess risks of colon, prostate, and breast cancers; even minor elevations are associated with up to 7-fold increased risks of breast cancer, risks almost as high as those in women carrying genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) with the strongest hereditary predisposition. Additionally, IGF-1 inhibits the programmed self-destruction (apoptosis) of cancer cells, thus stimulating the growth and invasiveness of small, undiagnosed cancers, besides increasing the resistance of cancers to chemotherapy. For these reasons, anti-aging HGH medication, compounded by failure to explicitly disclose its grave risks, constitutes medical malpractice.


http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/med_avoid/hgh.htm

Does this exonerate LA? No. But what makes sense to me is that someone who has/had cancer would NEVER (and I speak from all-too-recent experience) knowingly take a substance that would make this awful disease worse. I would liken it to LA lighting up a Marlboro after 10/2/96. The suffering and pain he went through was beyond what most of us could only imagine, yet its the same suffering and pain that millions of survivors go through every day. Add the suffering endured from chemo, surgery and recovery to the genetic freakiness of LA and you have a formidable force in a sport where he who suffers most, wins.

Then there's the motivation. Obviously, the desire to win in some individuals is greater than in others. From the beginning, LA was highly motivated to tell the world he was better than everyone. He was an arrogant SOB who, after having been kicked around by life, believed he had something to prove. But he was an arrogant SOB with an incredible physical ability to ride, run and swim faster than everyone else. During his days with Postal/DC, he was not always the fastest rider in the peloton, but he was, IMHO, more motivated than the others. He still was/is seen as an arrogant SOB (not my experience, BTW) and he still carried that chip on his shoulder that said he had something to prove. 

LA had the ability to suffer more than the others (still does - running the NYC Marathon with a broken bone constitutes suffering in my book); he had the phenomenal physical gifts that were extraordinary even when compared against the extraordinary athletes in the peloton; he had the motivation to win constrained by the knowledge of what damage drugs can do to his health. To me, those things add up to say: no drugs.

Finally, he has the Foundation. The LAF, at its inception, was a couple of LAs friends who put on a charity ride. Today, its a major force in the cause of cancer advocacy. His investment in the LAF, in terms of money and emotions, is tremendous. His credibility in the community he cares about most, cancer survivors, would collapse if he was shown to be a cheat. He was able to get past the divorce, the breakup with Sheryl Crow, and the other bad publicity generated from all the other stuff. But a "guilty" verdict (not just more accusations) or an admission of guilt from his lips would sink his credibility and the LAF. In my mind, the risk is too great. He could have lost TdF 2-7 and still been loved. But winning those same races, only to be found to have done so while cheating, would shatter those who believed in him and his story, and subsequently shatter the LAF. 

I have been involved with the LAF for seven years. I have met and talked with LA a number of times. I have much closer relationships with many of the LAF staff members. I'm a cancer survivor myself, and next week I'll be in DC on behalf of the LAF, talking about funding for cancer research with my Congressional delegation. I have a tremendous personal stake in this, and I understand entirely that that can cloud my ability to make a rational decision about LA and cheating. But I weighed all the evidence before I jumped in, and my verdict was not guilty. Hence, I am comfortable with the personal risk of hanging my hat on LA and the LAF.

If LA were to step up to a microphone and admit that he was, in fact, a cheater, it would hurt a great deal. To me, its not just entertainment.


----------



## Red Sox Junkie (Sep 15, 2005)

If Lance was using PEDs in training, he is still running the risk of an out of competition test. I'm sure he has been tested during his training for the tour. How could he pass these out of competition tests?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

moneyman said:


> I've read this whole thread and have great interest in this subject. I am responding to you, Len, because you are reasonable and able to take the emotion away from your analysis. If I have anything standing between me and reason, its my emotions. I am guilty of that, admit it freely, and know that it taints my judgment.
> 
> You commented about LAs cancer and PEDs being linked. The American Cancer Society may not be the most compassionate cancer advocacy organization, but they have collected a wealth of data and present it in an understandable fashion. With respect to TC, here are some of the things they say:
> 
> ...



- Great Post. Glad you are well. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Red Sox Junkie said:


> How could he pass these out of competition tests?


The same way the rest do. Wise use of the drugs, timed so that in case of a surprise test they are out of the system. It was suggested from Museuuw's text messages that he knew when the test were. A review of the Dutch testing system just last year found that athletes knew weeks ahead of time when "surprise" test were to be conducted.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DMFT said:


> - Great Post. Glad you are well. :thumbsup:


EPO isn't a chemotherapy drug, it's one of the one's you give patients to ameliorate the effects of the chemo drugs. Not quite the same as chemo, but HIV patients who I've worked with think EPO is great. It makes them feel better and gives them "energy", they don't get winded going up stairs, etc. Plus, he may very well have had some years of use of the drug with no negative consequences.

For all we know, thinking surviving cancer would have made LA unwilling to take EPO might be akin to thinking it would have made him unwilling to take Tylenol.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

especially since his doctor/trainer thinks it's as safe as orange juice...


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*I hear what you are saying Money.....*

and it makes sense looking at it as if he was making all the decisions today but the reality is he was making them "In the moment".....I believe it's possible that he made a series of incremental decisions that may have locked him into a place where he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

A few counter points to your logic:

1.) I know from a friend who was racing in europe in the mid to late 90's that HGH & EPO were the coctail of choice in europe. As you note, this wouldn't have been good for his condition (were he partaking)

2.) As to motivation, if you remember in 1998 he quit midway thru his comeback out of frustration for his lack of performance....his Miraculous rekindling of the flame in Boone and subsuquent rapid improvement can be interpreteted as either a victory of the human spirit or the result of him reacquainting himself with PED's. Neither of us really know the truth.

3.) Now he starts having some success...and as he wins the '99 tour the LA foundation takes off......what if this win was the result of PED's? Now what does he do? rationalize that everyone does it? Ferarri, at the time (see Sports illistrated article on Lance's win) is very specific in his answer to the question Does lance use illegal drugs?...Ferrari's answer is something like..."He uses nothing that is on the current banned list." Follow up several years later with the afore-debated EPO positivies.

You see where this is going.......His motivation may have been to win....he could not have anticipated the degree that his win would galvanize the cancer community and the power (as shown by your post) of survivors relating to his survival. If (& I admit it is an if) he did win in 99 with PED';s......now what does he do? It's possible he worked very hard to stay one step ahead of the testers.

I can see how an admission by LA or even real proof of his doping would be devestating to Cancer survivors that took hope from his success......frankly, I hope he didn't dope.......I hope he is such a genetic mutant that he is able to work harder than anyone else and recover easier....I hope that he was able to beat a series of competitors that it is becoming clearer and clearer were not clean...that he was so much better than everyone else that the only way they could even come close to competing was to use PED's.......but Logic tells me this is unlikely.

All that being said, I wonder if it really matters if he doped. To recover from Cancer the way he did and to beat the best in the world for 7 years straight, in the hardest bike race in the world, doing the same things every one else sseems to have been doing is still an amazing accomplishment. It is still inspirational.

He has always been a flawed human, it's part of what, I think, allows him to relate to survivors so well....if it turns out he was flawed in this, I'll be disappointed, but I won't be angry.

Thanks for your perspective.

Len

Additional Edit Money...you wrote...



> Does this exonerate LA? No. But what makes sense to me is that someone who has/had cancer would NEVER (and I speak from all-too-recent experience) knowingly take a substance that would make this awful disease worse. I would liken it to LA lighting up a Marlboro after 10/2/96. The suffering and pain he went through was beyond what most of us could only imagine, yet its the same suffering and pain that millions of survivors go through every day. Add the suffering endured from chemo, surgery and recovery to the genetic freakiness of LA and you have a formidable force in a sport where he who suffers most, wins.


got me thinking about human behavior....my Dad was diagnosed with Lung cancer in 1989 (after smoking for 55 years)...he went thru Chemo & Radiation and after 6 months was tumor free........Did he quit smoking? not one single day from the time he was diagnosed unitl he relapsed 2 years later and died of Lung cancer. Was he addicted to nicotine?...no doubt, but he was unable to even enteratin the idea of not smoking.

My point, I guess is that it's possible that Lance was unable to entertain the idea of not being able to compete at the highest level. The human mind is capable of acting in a very illogical way. Just sayin'


----------



## MellowDramatic (Jun 8, 2006)

This conversation cracks me up. In Europe, everyone knows. It's not even a debatable issue whether Lance doped or not. They still hold him in high regard, but there's no blind patriotic need to believe Lance was clean. Then again if you had gone to Madrid two months ago and said Valverde doped, the Spaniards would deny it endlessly. I think a lot of people really feel like they need to believe Lance, which I can understand. I just don't...I'm too young to be jaded, so I doubt that's why.

I'll admit, Lance is a big part of the reason I'm even a cyclist. Without him, I would in all reality never have been exposed to the sport having grown up in suburban midwestern America, where football is the only thing that matters. I have a fair amount of respect for the man, but I find the idea that he won the TdF on nothing but Gatorade utterly ridiculous.

Maybe I'm just cynical.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Rockbluff20 said:


> What about Michael Jordan he continually made the rest of the pro players look like little kids in the yard...


You don't seriously think Jordan wasn't doping do you?


----------



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

I have felt that anyone who can win so effortlessly and still pass all the drug tests deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I've been one of the Lance-haters too, because you just get so sick of him winning, hearing about him, reading about him (how many issues of Outside magazine had him on their cover?), seeing him everywhere. Regardless, it does not remove the fact from my mind that he is an incredible athlete, and now that he's retired, even more so when we see what remains on the pro circuit. Good discussion, btw.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I would be surprised if LA took HGH post cancer but even before the EPO positives I was ready to put money on him taking EPO post cancer. It's good stuff and as Ferrari was trying to point out with his OJ quote it's only dangerous if overdone.

The worst cancer link to date is that it can worsen progression of preexisting cancers; nothing has shown an increased risk of developing it (though since it is a growth factor theoretically there should be some small subgroup of blood cell cancers that it could facilitate). Hardly something that would worry a guy whose whole identity depends on winning and who likened losing to dying.

As with every part of human behavior there are oddballs in every direction - for every person who swears off everything post cancer there is another one that takes their survival as a sign that they can survive anything. A woman I used to work with survived advanced thyroid cancer only due to experimental treatment and tremendous luck and she went from being non-smoker, non-drinker, non-druggie to doing all of the above.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Looking over that French listing of dopage they are missing a number of dopers. Breukink, Jaskula, Basso, Pereiro, Beloki, Vino, Kloden, and Escartin very likely as well - he was so awkward on the bike that if he had straightened out his ergonomic issues he probably could have achieved the same results without dope


----------

