# New book on Armstrong



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Another book coming out that will of course be dismissed as a giant French conspiracy. 

Among the revelations 

-3 UCI experts working on the blood passport believe LA doped

-UCI protected him all along his career from corticoid postdated medical certificate to the Vrijman survey and financial arrangement between LA and UCI - 6 different situations will be explained. 

-A bunch about the various negations between the UCI and ASO regarding his return, including why some at ASO were fired. 

Looks like Armstrong choose the right time to stop talking to the press.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

So basically nothing new?

I believe the "Blood Passport" system is being looked at as a joke by the riders (read Kohl's statements) and may actually be helping the racers...so I wouldn't put much stock in that.

I think the bigger thing to come from this is whether the UCI and ASO conspired together to protect Armstrong or other riders. The book sounds like it's using Armstrong's name to sell it, yet the real focus should be on the UCI, ASO and other areas that they are using to test cyclists....there is more there to look at than Armstrong, he just sells the books for them.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> The book sounds like it's using Armstrong's name to sell it, yet the real focus should be on the UCI, ASO and other areas that they are using to test cyclists....there is more there to look at than Armstrong, he just sells the books for them.


No sh*t, the greatest story not yet told is how complicit the UCI has been in the doping. It seems more and more likely the sport has regressed as far as the likelihood of clean riders getting a chance.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Will there also be chapters devoted to each new fling?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Yes, there will be a bunch on the UCI.....A good writer could write volumes on the ineptitude and corruption of that place.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

here comes the conspiracy wackos.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> I think the bigger thing to come from this is whether the UCI and ASO conspired together to protect Armstrong or other riders. The book sounds like it's using Armstrong's name to sell it, yet the real focus should be on the UCI, ASO and other areas that they are using to test cyclists....there is more there to look at than Armstrong, he just sells the books for them.




I suppose that the half million dollar donation that Armstrong made plus other monetary donations he made to the UCI are finally going to be scrutinized. Definitely calls into question ethics in sport.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

loudog said:


> here comes the conspiracy wackos.


And the Armstrong salad-tossers.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Will there also be chapters devoted to each new fling?


Yup, he uses performance enhancers in that department too!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

lookrider said:


> Yup, he uses performance enhancers in that department too!


Ouch!


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Doesn't need to be a conspiracy. How much do you think the secretary who makes travel arrangements makes? Or the lab tech in some dope lab? Doesn't take much money aimed at a few low ranking people to have significant influence and information at your fingertips.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

despite the anti-lance theatrics not a single credible source has corroborated tales of lance doping. period. and corticosteroids dont make you fast. 

despite all the supposed lance hatred lance seems neither hated or resented in the peloton. he has actually had long relationships with team members who have generally been loyal; has long standing support with his business people and politicians; has had productive and long standing relationships with sponsors. and has successfully supported a major philanthropic org. generally when someone is a true a$$hole it shows in multiple areas.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

FondriestFan said:


> And the Armstrong salad-tossers.


LMAO!!


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

loudog said:


> despite the anti-lance theatrics not a single credible source has corroborated tales of lance doping. period. and corticosteroids dont make you fast.
> 
> despite all the supposed lance hatred lance seems neither hated or resented in the peloton. he has actually had long relationships with team members who have generally been loyal; has long standing support with his business people and politicians; has had productive and long standing relationships with sponsors. and has successfully supported a major philanthropic org. generally when someone is a true a$$hole it shows in multiple areas.


very well said.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> despite the anti-lance theatrics not a single credible source has corroborated tales of lance doping. period.


Have you been living in a cave?

Start here, read it all

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

And try not to explain it away with a French Conspiracy


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Sorry, i'm not connecting the dots on this book. What's the title? Who wrote it? Is it available in English?

JSR


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

WTF, here we go again........we get it, he doped. 

One thing I have noticed. The hardcore anti-doping people here say how we need to get rid of doping. But, instead of looking towards the future and methods of catching dopers, all that is discussed is how Lance had EPO POS's 10 Years ago.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

And yet again, who cares?

This is nothing newsworthy. Nothing new at all. He doped. Big deal.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> WTF, here we go again........we get it, he doped.
> 
> One thing I have noticed. The hardcore anti-doping people here say how we need to get rid of doping. But, instead of looking towards the future and methods of catching dopers, all that is discussed is how Lance had EPO POS's 10 Years ago.


You're right we do need to look towards the future. However in order to fight it effectively, we need to see what got us to this point. That's in the past. And yes Lance is current news since he came "out of retirement" and put on this entire "look at me I'm transparent" show.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Another book coming out that will of course be dismissed as a giant French conspiracy.
> 
> Among the revelations
> 
> ...


What's the title of the book?
Is it out yet, if not when?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> WTF, here we go again........we get it, he doped. .


We do? How about these guys?

*tidi Quote:*

_Originally Posted by loudog
despite the anti-lance theatrics not a single credible source has corroborated tales of lance doping. period. and corticosteroids dont make you fast. 

despite all the supposed lance hatred lance seems neither hated or resented in the peloton. he has actually had long relationships with team members who have generally been loyal; has long standing support with his business people and politicians; has had productive and long standing relationships with sponsors. and has successfully supported a major philanthropic org. generally when someone is a true a$$hole it shows in multiple areas.​_
*very well said. *




Bry03cobra said:


> One thing I have noticed. The hardcore anti-doping people here say how we need to get rid of doping. But, instead of looking towards the future and methods of catching dopers, all that is discussed is how Lance had EPO POS's 10 Years ago.


That's all that is discussed concerning Pharmstrong? Where's Catlin? That's never discussed? Nothing else regarding LA's doping or his enforcement of the Omerta is discussed? When LA can almost destroy a 3 time TdF winning cycling legend who is safe? You don't think people like Vaughters are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs?

We'll see what happens with the Lemond/Trek lawsuit. Oh, I forgot, Lemond is a whiner.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*EPO, Actovegin, masking agents, saline infusions, doping, etc..*

The Lance Armstrong Foundation Club Members will continue to stick their heads in the sand. Let's see here...

Armstrong has former teammates, team physiotherapists, doctors, etc that have provided first hand evidence of his illicit EPO usage.
Armstrong has failed drug tests in the past. He's tested positive. He's given excuses for this.
Used masking agents. He's given more excuses.
 Used new EPO-enhancing drugs that were not on the banned list at the time. More excuses.
ABC has filmed a USPS team driving for miles away from the finish of a stage to dispose of used syringes and bags of saline, EPO, Actovegin, etc.. ALL ON VIDEO. More excuses from Armstrong, that they were for a team employee not any riders.
EPO Medical Program consults with convicted EPO dope doctor Michele Ferrari.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. As someone famous said in one of Armstrong's book (It's not about the bike) about the greatness of Armstrong... There's a massive amount of iceberg under there.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

lookrider said:


> We do? How about these guys?
> 
> *tidi Quote:*
> 
> ...


Vaughters can't talk because of a little thing called prejury.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

rook said:


> The Lance Armstrong Foundation Club Members will continue to stick their heads in the sand. Let's see here...
> 
> Armstrong has former teammates, team physiotherapists, doctors, etc that have provided first hand evidence of his illicit EPO usage.
> Armstrong has failed drug tests in the past. He's tested positive. He's given excuses for this.
> ...


the only true statement is that he has associated with dr ferrari. show me the ABC footage that shows LA doping. what failed drug tests are these? corticosteroids? what are the names of these new epo boosting agents? looks like a lot of sour grapes to me. and yeah, LeMond is a whiner, read the tour de france article from nat geographic way back, he was a whiner then and is a whiner now.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

loudog said:


> the only true statement is that he has associated with dr ferrari. show me the ABC footage that shows LA doping. what failed drug tests are these? corticosteroids? what are the names of these new epo boosting agents? looks like a lot of sour grapes to me. and yeah, LeMond is a whiner, read the tour de france article from nat geographic way back, he was a whiner then and is a whiner now.


Type into google and do your own search. Here's some help.
keywords: Armstrong, Actovegin, EPO, EPO, positive test, saline infusion, blood thinners

No. Keep on harping about Lemond, because it's the easy solution for LAF club members. Armstrong isn't and was never clean. It's Armstrong's former teammates and people close to Armstrong that have the most damaging things to say about him, not Greg Lemond.

Just one of the many testimonies of a former teammate coming clean about Armstrong's EPO use: 
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10365749


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> the only true statement is that he has associated with dr ferrari. show me the ABC footage that shows LA doping. what failed drug tests are these? corticosteroids? what are the names of these new epo boosting agents? looks like a lot of sour grapes to me. and yeah, LeMond is a whiner, read the tour de france article from nat geographic way back, he was a whiner then and is a whiner now.


Did you even read the Ashenden interview?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Mootsie said:


> Vaughters can't talk because of a little thing called prejury.


"Prejury?" Enlighten me.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> And yet again, who cares?


All sentient cycling fans, except you. Also many other people who follow sports, news, gossip, or are generally alive and in their right minds..



robdamanii said:


> This is nothing newsworthy.


The whole point of the Armstrong phenomenon is that just about everything he does is newsworthy. He's designed his life that way and is very successful keeping himself in the news for better or for worse.



robdamanii said:


> Nothing new at all..


You don't understand the nature of celebrity? Pharmstrong does. Hence the media boycott. Even when he doesn't talk it's "new."



robdamanii said:


> He doped..


Tell that to loudog.



robdamanii said:


> Big deal.


In cycling it is a big deal.


----------



## waterloo (Nov 8, 2005)

rook said:


> [*]ABC has filmed a USPS team driving for miles away from the finish of a stage to dispose of used syringes and bags of saline, EPO, Actovegin, etc.. ALL ON VIDEO. More excuses from Armstrong, that they were for a team employee not any riders..


Anyone have a link to this video?


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Did you even read the Ashenden interview?


You know, I don't like two things about that interview. First, its NYVelocity, which is a website good for just about nothing except *****ing about riders in CP races. Second, this part:



> MA: Yeah, it's an interesting observation, 'cause you cast back to the '98 Tour, obviously it was a debacle. And, I've heard anecdotal or off the cuff remarks, that '99 was a new beginning. It had gotten as bad as it could possibly get, or so we would've thought, and '99 was, "Ok, let's start again, we've really got to make an effort to be clean this year."


<STRIKE>Lets forget for a second that Ashenden was no where near the pro peleton in '99, but</STRIKE> who in their right mind thought after the '98 Tour things were going to turn around? Pantani won the Giro and Tour with performances that were no where near credible then comes back the following year gets ejected from his home tour (where is was almost a god) for a rediculously high 'crit. If the greatest cyclist in the sport is obviously doping, I don't see how the onus for continued doping in the new millenium falls on Armstrong.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> You know, I don't like two things about that interview. First, its NYVelocity, which is a website good for just about nothing except *****ing about riders in CP races. Second, this part:


Looks like you have not been paying attention. They have had some of the best interviews around lately. Check the archives




kbiker3111 said:


> Lets forget for a second that Ashenden was no where near the pro peleton in '99, but who in their right mind thought after the '98 Tour things were going to turn around? Pantani won the Giro and Tour with performances that were no where near credible then comes back the following year gets ejected from his home tour (where is was almost a god) for a rediculously high 'crit. If the greatest cyclist in the sport is obviously doping, I don't see how the onus for continued doping in the new millenium falls on Armstrong.


"No where near the pro peleton"? Ashenden was one of the key researchers who helped develop the test for EPO that was introduced in 2000. 

Many in the sport thought that 98 would change things, it is hardly a unique view. But Armstrong, Ulrich, Basso, Pantani, Landis, Hamilton, and many others insured their optimism was short lived.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Looks like you have not been paying attention. They have had some of the best interviews around lately. Check the archives.



I read NYVelocity daily. Its the Perez Hilton of NY cycling. If by, "best interviews around lately", you mean Schmalz trying to out-weird Dave Zabriskie, I guess so. Its hilarious. 

Hasn't Ashenden interviewed with a legitimate news source? I think Cyclingnews had a piece on him back in '04, but I haven't seen anything recently. 



bigpinkt said:


> "No where near the pro peleton"? Ashenden was one of the key researchers who helped develop the test for EPO that was introduced in 2000.
> 
> Many in the sport thought that 98 would change things, it is hardly a unique view. But Armstrong, Ulrich, Basso, Pantani, Landis, Hamilton, and many others insured their optimism was short lived.


I can't see where he worked with the UCI in '99. He finished his PhD in '99 and worked with the IOC to develope a test for EPO in '00, but I'll defer to your biographical knowledge on this one. I stand by everything else in that paragraph, though.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> I read NYVelocity daily. Its the Perez Hilton of NY cycling. If by, "best interviews around lately", you mean Schmalz trying to out-weird Dave Zabriskie, I guess so. Its hilarious.
> 
> Hasn't Ashenden interviewed with a legitimate news source? I think Cyclingnews had a piece on him back in '04, but I haven't seen anything recently.
> 
> ...


I just re-read my post, sorry if it came off as a bit harsh.

I like that in NYVC interviews with Vaughters, Creed, Hampsten, etc. they do not ask the same tired questions that have been asked over and over. The Creed interviews, while disjointed, are interesting. Much of what Ashenden said he has said in other interviews but the NYVC interview was extremely thorough and comprehensive covering all aspects of the issue, something you seldom see in the puff pieces.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> I just re-read my post, sorry if it came off as a bit harsh.
> 
> I like that in NYVC interviews with Vaughters, Creed, Hampsten, etc. they do not ask the same tired questions that have been asked over and over. The Creed interviews, while disjointed, are interesting. Much of what Ashenden said he has said in other interviews but the NYVC interview was extremely thorough and comprehensive covering all aspects of the issue, something you seldom see in the puff pieces.



That's the thing about these interviewers. They ask the tough questions that Velonews and other American sports mags will not. I happen to like Walsh too. He asks the tough questions. i don't want to read propaganda. If I did, then I would be one of those Armstrong Foundation Club members who read his website and twitter messages. I want the truth, not marketing hype.

Hopefully, this new book will come out in English, but knowing Armstrong's litigious nature, he'll probably try to sue somebody that says anything not positive about him.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> I just re-read my post, sorry if it came off as a bit harsh.
> 
> I like that in NYVC interviews with Vaughters, Creed, Hampsten, etc. they do not ask the same tired questions that have been asked over and over. The Creed interviews, while disjointed, are interesting. Much of what Ashenden said he has said in other interviews but the NYVC interview was extremely thorough and comprehensive covering all aspects of the issue, something you seldom see in the puff pieces.


If thats the case, its a shame this is the best interview Ashenden can get. He certainly has the body of work/publications to stand by. NYVelocity can ask the tough questions, but its only because no one takes them seriously enough to be offended. I'm surprised the NY Times hasn't spoken with Ashenden, even briefly. His IOC experience would have mass appeal.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Yup, he uses performance enhancers in that department too!


personal experience?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SicBith said:


> personal experience?


Per Kate Hudson in the National Enquirer.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Per Kate Hudson in the National Enquirer.


It's all clear now. You've been getting all your information on LA via a supermarket tabloid. What's the latest on Paris Hilton?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

JSR said:


> Sorry, i'm not connecting the dots on this book. What's the title? Who wrote it? Is it available in English?
> 
> JSR


http://livre.fnac.com/a2646788/Pierre-Ballester-Le-sale-tour?PID=1

It is in French, available next week


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

That's goping to stress-test my schoolboy French! I would think the bit about ASO vs UCI re: Lance's return to the TdF should be VERY interesting.

Thanks for the link.

JSR


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I really, really don't have a dog in this fight. But I do make this observation: It's June; time for the Dauphine, the Tour de Suisse, and another French book on doping with Armstrong at the center. God, I love a stable universe!


----------



## werdna (Feb 6, 2004)

Here's an article about the book:
http://www.rue89.com/2009/06/03/argent-et-politique-les-vraies-raisons-du-retour-darmstrong


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Translated

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat...retour-darmstrong&lp=fr_en&btnTrUrl=Translate


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

loudog said:


> despite the anti-lance theatrics not a single credible source has corroborated tales of lance doping. period. and corticosteroids dont make you fast.
> 
> despite all the supposed lance hatred lance seems neither hated or resented in the peloton. he has actually had long relationships with team members who have generally been loyal; has long standing support with his business people and politicians; has had productive and long standing relationships with sponsors. and has successfully supported a major philanthropic org. generally when someone is a true a$$hole it shows in multiple areas.


Mate, 
This is the dope forum. If it ain't a conspiracy, it just ain't possible. Your are about to be $hit-boarded until you admit that you've personally witnessed Lance doping. You'll be asked "how can you be so stupid as to not realize that Humpty Dumpty was pushed"? You'll be pummeled with wagon loads of "proof" from X-Spurts (try to wash it off before it dries). Yes, you are about to meet a platoon of new friends who wouldn't be losers in life or in races if it just weren't for everyone else cheating.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

nope. bogus assertions. pretty much everyone that has ever been involved with lance doping accusations has retracted their statements or been found libelous. people retracting their statements can be taken as a sign of being strong armed by someone more powerful, that they have zero backbone and wont stand up to pressure, they were merely speculation or that they were talking out their arse. the NZ newspaper article is pretty weak evidence and it doesnt look like anyone including the attorneys hired by the people trying not to pay LA 5 mil gave much thought to Swart. i agree theres stuff that makes lance look bad but the fact remains that theres no conclusive proof and apparently no one able to back up their statements with actual evidence. its like calling someone a pedophile.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

loudog said:


> nope. bogus assertions. pretty much everyone that has ever been involved with lance doping accusations has retracted their statements or been found libelous. people retracting their statements can be taken as a sign of being strong armed by someone more powerful, that they have zero backbone and wont stand up to pressure, they were merely speculation or that they were talking out their arse. the NZ newspaper article is pretty weak evidence and it doesnt look like anyone including the attorneys hired by the people trying not to pay LA 5 mil gave much thought to Swart. i agree theres stuff that makes lance look bad but the fact remains that theres no conclusive proof and apparently no one able to back up their statements with actual evidence. its like calling someone a pedophile.



There is not a single person who has retracted their statements that Armstrong used EPO. Not one.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

werdna said:


> Here's an article about the book:
> http://www.rue89.com/2009/06/03/argent-et-politique-les-vraies-raisons-du-retour-darmstrong


« Le budget de l'AMA, seul outil réel de coordination antidopage, est de 23 millions de dollars. Il en faudrait cinq à dix fois plus pour être vraiment efficace. »
Translation:
WADA's budget, only tool we have to coordinate anti-doping efforts, is $23 million. We need 5 to 10 times that amount to be really effective.

If that figure is correct, it goes to show how "serious" sports federations (winter and summer sports) are for the fight against doping.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> nope. bogus assertions. pretty much everyone that has ever been involved with lance doping accusations has retracted their statements or been found libelous. people retracting their statements can be taken as a sign of being strong armed by someone more powerful, that they have zero backbone and wont stand up to pressure, they were merely speculation or that they were talking out their arse. the NZ newspaper article is pretty weak evidence and it doesnt look like anyone including the attorneys hired by the people trying not to pay LA 5 mil gave much thought to Swart. i agree theres stuff that makes lance look bad but the fact remains that theres no conclusive proof and apparently no one able to back up their statements with actual evidence. its like calling someone a pedophile.


Please tell us who has been found libelous?


----------



## snosaw (May 30, 2006)

Whether he did or did not...who cares!? Seriously, does it really matter either way? Go ride your bike instead of burning mental calories on whether or not someone doped.
I wish some of you put as much mental energy into how poor an corrupt our past President was. The last administration has done way worse.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

as i have stated before, its entirely possible that LA doped. however, you all act as if it was fact and i submit that the evidence for fact just isnt there. swart never says lance doped, only that there was a motorola team conversation about it. vaughters never saw LA dope and only had a text message conversation about a photo of a blood bag that landis supposedly had. while the andreus say they heard something in the hospital room the 8 other people and physicians say he didnt. hardly compelling evidence. lastly, theres all these threats about lance ruing people careers, theres been a lot of doping allegations yet no one saying their career was ruined. 

vaughters in cycling news 
But as far as Vaughters could see in the USPS team, "there was no first-hand evidence of anything (doping-related). I didn't see any evidence of EPO or anything like that. But that said, I wasn't there for the second and third weeks of the Tour," he said. (US Postal lost Jonathan Vaughters after he was caught up in the second fall over the Gois on stage 2. He was part of Armstrong's plan for the mountains.)

"I've kept in touch with (former USPS team-mates) Kevin (Livingston) and Frankie (Andreu) and it's never really come up," he said of any post-Tour doping revelations."

Andreu in the NY Times:
Both riders said they never saw Armstrong take anything illegal, but Andreu saw him sorting white pills before a race, which Armstrong said were caffeine.

another from the NY Times:
Neither rider ever tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, but both said they felt as if they had to take EPO to make the Tour team in 1999. Andreu would not say specifically when he took the drug, and the second rider said he did not use EPO during the Tour. Anti-doping experts say the benefits of taking EPO, the synthetic hormone erythropoietin, which boosts stamina by bolstering the body’s production of oxygen-rich red blood cells, can last several weeks or more.

Both of Armstrong’s former teammates also said they never saw Armstrong take any banned substances.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

how can you guys forget some more anecdotal evidence - Dr. Craig Nichols who contradicted the Andreau's testimony about LA's doping admissions in the bonus money trial was fired by OHSU soon after the trial.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

terzo rene said:


> how can you guys forget some more anecdotal evidence - Dr. Craig Nichols who contradicted the Andreau's testimony about LA's doping admissions in the bonus money trial was fired by OHSU soon after the trial.


how is this proof of anything? the guys contract wasnt renewed and he has never been under disciplinary action by his medical board. just cause people claim stuff doesnt make it true.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> .
> while the andreus say they heard something in the hospital room the 8 other people and physicians say he didnt.


Wrong, both Stephanie and Stapleton are on tape admitting the hospital incident did happen. In private Vaughters and other teammates tell a very different story. Emma never retracted her story of delivering drugs to Armstrong and helping invent the posted dated TUE after his postive, after which Lance said "You now have enough to bring me down" Mike Anderson never retracted his claim to have found PED's in Armstrong bathroom while working as his mechanic/assistant. Swart said there was much more then just a conversation, He said that Armstrong was the most vocal about the need to use EPO.. He said that Armstrong thought there was “only one road to take” to compete at the sport's highest level.

It appears you completely ignored the Ashenden interview, or the interview with Robin Parisotto (UCI biopassport doctor) who agreed that Lance used EPO "To deny would be to lie" 

Still waiting for back up of your claim of makers of these claims being "found libelous". None have and none will. It is not libel if you are telling the truth


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

terzo rene said:


> how can you guys forget some more anecdotal evidence - Dr. Craig Nichols who contradicted the Andreau's testimony about LA's doping admissions in the bonus money trial was fired by OHSU soon after the trial.


didn't know that

Despite his testimony Nichols wasn't Armstrong doctor at the time of the admission and was not in the room when he admitted using PED. I am sure it was also only a coincidence that after his testimony the hospital received a nine figure "Donation" from the LAF.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

We'll see what happens with the Lemond/Trek lawsuit. Oh, I forgot, Lemond is a whiner.[/QUOTE]


- Hey, you have something in common with Lemond!
And, Greg destroyed himself & his business on several occasions.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

the ashenden interview isnt all that impressive. he didnt actually test the samples, merely says that the lab did and explains the lab work. also, ashendens debunking of the 18% efficiency doesnt do anything to support doping claims, it only proves that Coyle was less than diligent and after money and publicity. the big flaw with the 1999 samples is chain of custody. like i said before, its possible la doped but its not fact - all of the testimony, accusations, etc is rife with contradiction, grudges, and improperly handled research.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*Armstrong didn't do it clean*



loudog said:


> the ashenden interview isnt all that impressive. he didnt actually test the samples, merely says that the lab did and explains the lab work. also, ashendens debunking of the 18% efficiency doesnt do anything to support doping claims, it only proves that Coyle was less than diligent and after money and publicity. the big flaw with the 1999 samples is chain of custody. like i said before, its possible la doped but its not fact - all of the testimony, accusations, etc is rife with contradiction, grudges, and improperly handled research.



I wholeheartedly, but respectfully disagree. If one looks at the total sum of the evidence and the facts, yes facts, then the conclusion is simple. Armstrong doped. Armstrong used EPO. The multitudes of people that have come forth, former teammates, a team physiotherapist, a former team doctor, positive tests for EPO, the shady dealings with Dr. Ferrari... Armstrong used EPO. None of his Tour wins are legitimate.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

rook said:


> I wholeheartedly, but respectfully disagree. If one looks at the total sum of the evidence and the facts, yes facts, then the conclusion is simple. Armstrong doped. Armstrong used EPO. The multitudes of people that have come forth, former teammates, a team physiotherapist, a former team doctor, positive tests for EPO, the shady dealings with Dr. Ferrari... Armstrong used EPO. None of his Tour wins are legitimate.


you cannot claim any of this is fact as you were not there, i assume. all these 'facts' you talk about are what you read from other peoples written information/reports. just like journalism. you seem to believe what you want as i and almost everyone else does. no crime in that. however for all who are wasting there energy just to place their 2 bobs worth in trying to find other people to think the way they want them to could do better for themselves, and aim at optimistic aspects of the sport they claim to love rather than trying to continually put it down. lance is related to cycling so why not high light the good aspects of him. if you can't find someone else. give yourselves a break and lighten up a little, you might enjoy cycling again.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

tidi said:


> you cannot claim any of this is fact as you were not there, i assume. all these 'facts' you talk about are what you read from other peoples written information/reports. just like journalism. you seem to believe what you want as i and almost everyone else does. no crime in that. however for all who are wasting there energy just to place their 2 bobs worth in trying to find other people to think the way they want them to could do better for themselves, and aim at optimistic aspects of the sport they claim to love rather than trying to continually put it down. lance is related to cycling so why not high light the good aspects of him. if you can't find someone else. give yourselves a break and lighten up a little, you might enjoy cycling again.



No. When I refer to the "facts", I am not referring to the fact that Armstrong used EPO. Obviously, that is my opinion unbeknownst to you. The facts I refer to are well-documented and supported. Fact, Armstrong did consult with notable dope Dr. Michele Ferrari. Fact, Armstrong did test positive for EPO. Fact, there are several former teamates, team employees, etc that have provided first-hand testimony to Armstrong's drug usage. These are facts.

I think you wish that I don't enjoy cycling. I enjoy it immensely. The professional aspect needs to be cleaned up. That does not detract from my own enjoyment of the sport. Perhaps, you need to not get so worked up when other people discuss your hero in a light that you don't agree with. Maybe time for a ride yourself?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> the ashenden interview isnt all that impressive. he didnt actually test the samples, merely says that the lab did and explains the lab work. also, ashendens debunking of the 18% efficiency doesnt do anything to support doping claims, it only proves that Coyle was less than diligent and after money and publicity. the big flaw with the 1999 samples is chain of custody. like i said before, its possible la doped but its not fact - all of the testimony, accusations, etc is rife with contradiction, grudges, and improperly handled research.


The ease at which you dismiss an expert like Ashenden is impressive. If you think chain of custody is the "Big Flaw" then you would have to question all testing done by the lab. This infers that there was some sort of conspiracy to tamper with Lance's samples. Asheden explains the absurdity of this in his follow up questions. 

If your only explanation for positive tests is a French conspiracy and the words of multiple ex-teammates and support staff are dismissed as "Grudges" then it is clear you are willing to suspend rational thought in order to continue to believe the myth.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

tidi said:


> you cannot claim any of this is fact as you were not there, i assume. all these 'facts' you talk about are what you read from other peoples written information/reports. just like journalism. you seem to believe what you want as i and almost everyone else does. .


If you're not there it's not a fact?:lol: :lol: :lol: ut: ut: 

When someone is convicted of a crime that's an indication that all the jurors were at the scene of the crime when it occurred?:idea: :idea: :idea: 

Care to clarify?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

from the Vrijman report:
The refusal by the LNDD, the French Ministry and WADA to provide 
documents and information that are necessary for the proper conduct of a complete 
investigation is extremely troubling and is inconsistent with the principles of the 
Olympic Movement. The fact that WADA President Dick Pound and the LNDD’s 
Professor De Ceaurriz were willing to discuss the research project and its results in 
great detail with the media, while they at the same time were unwilling to cooperate 
with a proper investigation by the organization with jurisdiction over this matter, 
raises substantial questions regarding their reasons for doing so and makes one 
wonder as to what complete cooperation would disclose.

The results reported by the LNDD that found their way into the L’Equipe article are 
not what they have been represented to be. They did not involve proper testing of 
urine samples, as explained in detail in this report. While the testing conducted may 
have been useful for research purposes - which remains to be determined - the 
failure of the underlying research to comply with any applicable standard and the 
deﬁciencies in the report render it completely irresponsible for anyone involved in 
doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were reported 
constitute evidence of anything. To suggest in any way that any of the analyses 
results could properly be associated with a particular rider or riders, is misleading 
and constitutes at least gross negligence, given the complete absence of an internal 
or external chain of custody, proper record keeping and security with respect to the 
urine samples from the 1998 and the 1999 Tours de France that were tested, and 
the absence of any protection against samples having been spiked with r-EPO or 
contamination by other samples. The investigator recommends the UCI to refrain 
from initiating any disciplinary actions whatsoever regarding those riders alleged 
to have been responsible for causing one or more alleged ‘positive’ ﬁndings, on the 
basis of the conﬁdential reports of the LNDD ‘Recherche EPO Tour de France 1998’ 
and ‘Recherche EPO Tour de France 1999’, and to inform all of the riders involved that 
no action will be taken based on the research testing by the LNDD.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Hmmm, seems like I've heard all this before. All of it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

It's head banging on both sides of the issue.

JSR


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

So here's a question: What is the point of LA detractors trying to convince LA supporters that he's dirty? Honestly, does it give the detractors a rise to bang their head against the wall and try to change someone's mind?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

JSR said:


> Hmmm, seems like I've heard all this before. All of it. Nothing to see here. Move along.
> 
> It's head banging on both sides of the issue.
> 
> JSR


Yep, may as well do a search for Lance in the doping forum, same stuff over and over with the occasional new bit.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

rook said:


> Fact, Armstrong did test positive for EPO.



REAL FACT : Armstrong did NOT test positive for EPO because the "test" was a TEST. There was never an "A sample" to test against. Therefore it is not positive.

Call it a technicality if you want but that "Test" get's an asterisk put next to it like it or not.
It was an experiment with NO PROTOCALLS followed to 100% say he tested "Positive".

End of story, bicker some more or move on.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

a big message in all this is that all the people that swear lance doped have never produced anything conclusive. its my opinion that LAs association with dr ferrari is pretty close to conclusive proof. however, the rest of the evidence may be convincing but ya gotta admit theres much contradiction and people on both sides disputing each other. the testing of the 1999 samples was done poorly - giving data to a journalist is pretty scandalous especially when they didnt maintain secure samples or chain of custody. is it likely the samples are LAs, yes. can it stand up to scrutiny, no. end of story.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> REAL FACT : Armstrong did NOT test positive for EPO because the "test" was a TEST. There was never an "A sample" to test against. Therefore it is not positive.
> 
> Call it a technicality if you want but that "Test" get's an asterisk put next to it like it or not.
> It was an experiment with NO PROTOCALLS followed to 100% say he tested "Positive".
> ...


Not exactly. 

The lack of an A sample, and that WADA did not have jurisdiction in 99, insure that he will not be sanction......but the samples still tested positive.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> from the Vrijman report:
> The refusal by the LNDD, the French Ministry and WADA to provide
> documents and information that are necessary for the proper conduct of a complete
> investigation is extremely troubling and is inconsistent with the principles of the
> ...


It seems like every few months there is some one willing to completely embarrass themselves to defend their hero. 

WADA's response to the The Vrijman report

_*"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."*_

6 of Armstrong's samples tested positive for EPO.....how did it get there? Nazi Frogmen? French Conspiracy? Or Armstrong was doing what many in the sport were doing in 99....using EPO to increase their performance. 

Often the most obvious answer is the right one.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

hard to find anyone that didnt think pound was a complete jack-off or that he did a good job of running wada. the vrijman report, even at the very beginning, slams the poor cooperation of wada. i think its clear that wada under pound was ineffective and seen as too biased and reactionary - hence pound was forced out.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> hard to find anyone that didnt think pound was a complete jack-off or that he did a good job of running wada. the vrijman report, even at the very beginning, slams the poor cooperation of wada. i think its clear that wada under pound was ineffective and seen as too biased and reactionary - hence pound was forced out.


Pound was not forced out, his term ended. What has Pound said that was incorrect? 

The Vrijman report was nothing more then a way for the UCI to trash WADA. Vrijman never even attempted to explain how the EPO got in Armstrong samples.

How about yourself, how do you think EPO got in Armstrong's samples? Nazi Frogmen? French Conspiracy? Before you answer you might want to read what Ashenden says on the matter of sabotage.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

lookrider said:


> If you're not there it's not a fact?:lol: :lol: :lol: ut: ut:
> 
> When someone is convicted of a crime that's an indication that all the jurors were at the scene of the crime when it occurred?:idea: :idea: :idea:
> 
> Care to clarify?


well said.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

rook said:


> No. When I refer to the "facts", I am not referring to the fact that Armstrong used EPO. Obviously, that is my opinion unbeknownst to you. The facts I refer to are well-documented and supported. Fact, Armstrong did consult with notable dope Dr. Michele Ferrari. Fact, Armstrong did test positive for EPO. Fact, there are several former teamates, team employees, etc that have provided first-hand testimony to Armstrong's drug usage. These are facts.
> 
> I think you wish that I don't enjoy cycling. I enjoy it immensely. The professional aspect needs to be cleaned up. That does not detract from my own enjoyment of the sport. Perhaps, you need to not get so worked up when other people discuss your hero in a light that you don't agree with. Maybe time for a ride yourself?


rook, i don't wish you didn't enjoy cycling. if they are the words you want to put on it maybe you could lighten up a bit yourself. as for the pro's, i struggle to think many would be totally clean, however i don't know. as others have said here there is always 2 sides of the coin, arguments for and against. lance is not my hero, however i am interested in his comeback because he isn't getting any younger and his focus that he had in his reign on the tour was impressive to me. i don't believe everything i read as it really accounts to very little in the big picture. my comment on "you not being there so you couldn't know" was an over expression to your title that "lance didn't do it clean". correct me if i'm wrong but he has said he took epo for his cancer rehab or something like that but i have yet to read an article stating a suspension for doping to lance.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Pound was not forced out, his term ended. What has Pound said that was incorrect?
> 
> The Vrijman report was nothing more then a way for the UCI to trash WADA. Vrijman never even attempted to explain how the EPO got in Armstrong samples.
> 
> How about yourself, how do you think EPO got in Armstrong's samples? Nazi Frogmen? French Conspiracy? Before you answer you might want to read what Ashenden says on the matter of sabotage.



- How hard is it for you to figure out that EPO occurs naturally in the human body? Nobody knows what kind of EPO was in those "tests" because :

1) It was a "test" of the EPO test.
2) Protocals not followed. ALL of them.
3) No A sample to test against the B sample to "test positive".

Get over it, it's a spectacle, not a sport anymore and hasn't been for a looooooong time.
Just like the rest of the mainstream sports out there.....


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

DMFT said:


> - How hard is it for you to figure out that EPO occurs naturally in the human body? Nobody knows what kind of EPO was in those "tests" because :
> 
> 1) It was a "test" of the EPO test.
> 2) Protocals not followed. ALL of them.
> ...



The test wasn't for endogenous EPO. And Armstrong tested positive for an EPO. A samples, B sample, numbers, schmumbers. He tested positive. Armstrong is a cheat.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

lookrider said:


> If you're not there it's not a fact?:lol: :lol: :lol: ut: ut:
> 
> When someone is convicted of a crime that's an indication that all the jurors were at the scene of the crime when it occurred?:idea: :idea: :idea:
> 
> Care to clarify?



So if LA has NOT been convicted in a court of law then the opinions of all of those who have called him out for EPO use are invaild. Is that what you're saying here?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

loudog said:


> a big message in all this is that all the people that swear lance doped have never produced anything conclusive. its my opinion that LAs association with dr ferrari is pretty close to conclusive proof. however, the rest of the evidence may be convincing but ya gotta admit theres much contradiction and people on both sides disputing each other. the testing of the 1999 samples was done poorly - giving data to a journalist is pretty scandalous especially when they didnt maintain secure samples or chain of custody. is it likely the samples are LAs, yes. can it stand up to scrutiny, no. end of story.


brilliant!


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

loudog said:


> a big message in all this is that all the people that swear lance doped have never produced anything conclusive. its my opinion that LAs association with dr ferrari is pretty close to conclusive proof. however, the rest of the evidence may be convincing but ya gotta admit theres much contradiction and people on both sides disputing each other. the testing of the 1999 samples was done poorly - giving data to a journalist is pretty scandalous especially when they didnt maintain secure samples or chain of custody. is it likely the samples are LAs, yes. can it stand up to scrutiny, no. end of story.


If an objective person looks at all of the evidence/allegations as a whole, it is is very hard to be 100% that LA was clean during his career. Two items really stick with me. 1) not only did LA have a professional relationship with Ferrari, but he kept it "hush" for 6 six years. 2) the IM messages between Vaughters and Andreu.

LA's #1 defense is that he has never tested positive, and that he is the most tested athlete in the world. Both statements are incorrect. Plus, it is a weak argument since it is easy to get around the tests.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

HikenBike said:


> If an objective person looks at all of the evidence/allegations as a whole, it is is very hard to be 100% that LA was clean during his career. Two items really stick with me. 1) not only did LA have a professional relationship with Ferrari, but he kept it "hush" for 6 six years. 2) the IM messages between Vaughters and Andreu.
> 
> LA's #1 defense is that he has never tested positive, and that he is the most tested athlete in the world. Both statements are incorrect. Plus, it is a weak argument since it is easy to get around the tests.



And to be technically correct, he did test positive for EPO. Sure, he got off on technicalities, but his samples were bona-fide positive. Armstrong's claim that he is the most tested athlete ever, is a lie. He focused prominently on the Tour de France and would skip much of the spring classics, even during all those Tour years. He wasn't even the most tested cyclist, let alone athlete.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

rook said:


> And to be technically correct, he did test positive for EPO. Sure, he got off on technicalities, but his samples were bona-fide positive. Armstrong's claim that he is the most tested athlete ever, is a lie. He focused prominently on the Tour de France and would skip much of the spring classics, even during all those Tour years. He wasn't even the most tested cyclist, let alone athlete.


who was/is the most tested?


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

tidi said:


> who was/is the most tested?



Is? Don't know. Was? Boonen and possibly other cyclists. Boonen was more tested than Armstrong in 2002-2004. I'm sure there are even other cyclists that can lay claim to being more tested than Armstrong, but many national federation out-of-competition tests are not made available to the public, so there is really no way to know for sure. As for the most tested athlete...I am not sure on the claim of "most" tested athlete because it's really a matter of semantics. However, if you consider that Armstrong didn't even ride the Olympics in 2004, and you consider the Tour de France as a single race with the multiple tests conducted to determine the eligibility of a single race, then you could also consider the multiple Olympic races and trials that the track athletes undergo after separate heats. Thus, a 100m sprinter can be tested multiple times for his one race, as there are the round heats, quarterfinal heats, semi-final heats, and the finals. Thus, you could make an argument that a track athlete is more tested depending on how many events he runs. I don't get into all that. I know though, that Armstrong was not and was never the "most" tested cyclist.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

tidi said:


> who was/is the most tested?


Anyone who rode a proper season. Probably a sprinter like Cippo, Boonen, Pettachi or McEwen.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

tidi said:


> who was/is the most tested?


From Armstrong's era it would have to be Zabel. He rode all year, 6 days, classics, GT's, Worlds. Won lots of races and wore lots of jerseys.

Even today he is not the most tested. Armstrong complains that he has been tested 29 times in the last 10 months. Cavendish was tested 64 times last season.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

some recent results:
https://community2.livestrong.com/v...9cfd0d35-c300-4191-87ab-876900af77d0.Full.jpg


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> some recent results:
> https://community2.livestrong.com/v...9cfd0d35-c300-4191-87ab-876900af77d0.Full.jpg


Perhaps you can explain something for us Loudog. When Armstrong first released his numbers his Hct for the test taken 2/4 showed a 45.8. This number was quickly questioned as it was a 16% increase from his off season baseline and it was taken during a period of heavy training and racing. 

Why is it in the link you provided, the most recent test results, Armstrong has changed the Hct results for the 2/4 to 43.1? Perhaps it is because he knows that his gullible fans will swallow anything he gives them and never question the myth?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Perhaps you can explain something for us Loudog. When Armstrong first released his numbers his Hct for the test taken 2/4 showed a 45.8. This number was quickly questioned as it was a 16% increase from his off season baseline and it was taken during a period of heavy training and racing.
> 
> Why is it in the link you provided, the most recent test results, Armstrong has changed the Hct results for the 2/4 to 43.1? Perhaps it is because he knows that his gullible fans will swallow anything he gives them and never question the myth?


Perhaps somebody typed it up wrong, had the wrong information, the test was skewed for some reason...who knows?

The only thing that matters in your world is to convict Armstrong of doping at all times, because we all know he's the only one in the history of cycling to dope  

keep sniffing Lemonds jock, and please, please don't tell us you have a pair of his shorts that were worn in the tour


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Perhaps somebody typed it up wrong, had the wrong information, the test was skewed for some reason...who knows?
> 
> The only thing that matters in your world is to convict Armstrong of doping at all times, because we all know he's the only one in the history of cycling to dope
> 
> keep sniffing Lemonds jock, and please, please don't tell us you have a pair of his shorts that were worn in the tour


Typical response.....invent some vague excuse that does not answer the question then try to shift the topic to Lemond.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Perhaps you can explain something for us Loudog. When Armstrong first released his numbers his Hct for the test taken 2/4 showed a 45.8. This number was quickly questioned as it was a 16% increase from his off season baseline and it was taken during a period of heavy training and racing.
> 
> Why is it in the link you provided, the most recent test results, Armstrong has changed the Hct results for the 2/4 to 43.1? Perhaps it is because he knows that his gullible fans will swallow anything he gives them and never question the myth?


i didnt see any results for 2/4 that showed a 45.8. couple things come to mind tho:
1. hct varies by about 10%
2. variation can be compounded by dehydration but thats usually 1% or less
3. the toC is a relatively short race so i wouldnt expect a major drop.

the test results posted are only partially meaningful. they would be more helpful if they showed the MCV and RDW. i think it would be disingenuous to claim doping based on these results. effects of epo are going to exist for 90 days. also jumps in hct from 39-43 wont account for a huge increase in performance. consider marco pantani - he had multiple hct mid 50s to low 60s when he was doping. i'm not a huge lance defender but do think that just as many blindly defend lance theres many here that blindly condemn him.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Typical response.....invent some vague excuse that does not answer the question then try to shift the topic to Lemond.


I only do it out of love :blush2: 

You're a Lemond "Jock Sniffer" who wants nothing more in life than to see Armstrong go down in flames and you spend every possible second trying to prove it. Nothing like holding grudge against somebody you likely have never met and know nothing about other than what you have read :thumbsup: 

So you won't accept any answer other than one that incriminates Armstrong and it's easy to get a "Typical" response from you.

I hate to break it to you but life is not "Black and White"....they *all* dope, and have since the inception of sports.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> I only do it out of love :blush2:
> 
> I hate to break it to you but life is not "Black and White"....they *all* dope, and have since the inception of sports.


i doubt they all dope. but then again maybe that depends on what one defines as doping.

by the way, have you seen the "most epic race" commercials on versus?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> i didnt see any results for 2/4 that showed a 45.8. couple things come to mind tho:
> 1. hct varies by about 10%
> 2. variation can be compounded by dehydration but thats usually 1% or less
> 3. the toC is a relatively short race so i wouldnt expect a major drop.
> ...


It appears you did not read what I wrote. 

In September of last year Armstrong held a press conference to announce his new testing program. He said 

"I want to have a level of transparence and I don't want to leave any hint of doubt. I will do what I am asked to do. It is his (Catlin's) work. He will do whatever he wants (concerning testing).

Of course we now know this program was nothing more then a press conference. After many request's by journalist Armstrong released a small sample of his numbers. 









The results of the test on 2/4 stood out. a 16%+ increase from his off season baseline, during a period of heavy training and racing.

When Armstrong released his numbers again, in April and May, the Hct for the 2/4 test was lowered. 










It is a legitimate question to ask why the drop, especially when the number is the most questionable of the group.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I only do it out of love :blush2:
> 
> You're a Lemond "Jock Sniffer" who wants nothing more in life than to see Armstrong go down in flames and you spend every possible second trying to prove it. Nothing like holding grudge against somebody you likely have never met and know nothing about other than what you have read :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Yes, I have met Armstrong and many others. 

They do not all dope, many do, but not all. 

I understand why riders dope. Some of my best friends have. Many of my teamates, roomates, and guys I looked up to doped. I do not hate dopers as I understand the reasons why some go down that path.....but I do dislike liars. I dislike riders who invent crazy conspiracy theories to cover up their doping and attack anyone who questions the obvious. I dislike sycophantic fans who suspend rational thought when their heroes are questioned. 

Armstrong is often the subject here because this is an American board talking about mostly American riders. If you truly believe they all dope why do you waste so much time attacking those that question the Armstrong myth, but never question those that repeat a press release like they are fact?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Michael Ashenden is speaking at Play the Game conference on "Can corruption derail the testing system?" 

That should be an interesting speech


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> Perhaps you can explain something for us Loudog. When Armstrong first released his numbers his Hct for the test taken 2/4 showed a 45.8. This number was quickly questioned as it was a 16% increase from his off season baseline and it was taken during a period of heavy training and racing.
> 
> Why is it in the link you provided, the most recent test results, Armstrong has changed the Hct results for the 2/4 to 43.1? Perhaps it is because he knows that his gullible fans will swallow anything he gives them and never question the myth?



Exactly! A known EPO doper, Armstrong, has a website where he "publishes" his results of his private blood tests. This is nothing more than marketing for the fans of his. You know. All those Armstrong club members who've recently paid their dues and cry about how unfair everyone is to their hero.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> but I do dislike liars. I dislike riders who invent crazy conspiracy theories to cover up their doping and attack anyone who questions the obvious. I dislike sycophantic fans who suspend rational thought when their heroes are questioned.
> 
> Armstrong is often the subject here because this is an American board talking about mostly American riders. If you truly believe they all dope why do you waste so much time attacking those that question the Armstrong myth, but never question those that repeat a press release like they are fact?


If this is your reason for having what would seem a vendetta against Armstrong, then you must hate most of the pro peloton because they all lie when it comes to drug testing....look no farther than the statements Kohl made....They don't even bother worrying about the drug testing...but I bet if anybody in the press, or otherwise asks them if they are doping their response would be NO! So then....they are liars.

As for the crazy conspiracy theories....why are you not attacking Floyd constantly? Talk about some crazy conspiracy theories...LOL. Why not Hamilton when he came back? Why not every rider that has ever been caught, then comes up with a story of how they didn't dope or have a way of explaining it away.

How many pro riders have explained away their connection with Operation Puerto? Why not attack all those riders? Your focus however always seems to be on Armstrong and only Armstrong...I wonder why? :idea: 

As for attacking those that question Armstrong...I only respond to those that don't address the rest of the peloton at the same time as addressing Armstrong. As I've said a number of times, I think he doped...just as I think the rest of the peloton is doping and just as I think Lemond doped. 

Why Lemond? His numbers are as fast up climbs and he still holds the fastest ITT ever in the Tour. Yet...he somehow did this clean when all the jacked up dopers in the 90's with "crit" levels near/over 60 couldn't match him? Indurain had an hour wattage output of over 500 watts, but he wasn't as fast as Lemond in a TT? Not only did Indurain have huge power numbers but had access to more aero bikes, gear, etc. Come on now, lets get real....he just wasn't caught like most other riders and since he was never caught he can say he was always clean, just like the rest do. 

Lemond is a liar like the rest of them, he just has his supporters....much as Armstrong does. If Lemond had won 7 tours in a row, I'd lay money on the fact that there would be many more people coming out with stories about what he was doing behind the scenes. However, he has made such a joke of himself lately that people really don't give a rats butt about him any longer.

How many riders need to be caught before people realize that the entire pro peloton is doping in one way or another...no, they may not all be doing EPO or CERA but they may be using inhalers, HGH or any number of other PED's...they just haven't got caught yet.


*On a side note*: http://www.velonews.com/article/92918/three-top-katusha-riders-oppose-new-team-rules

I wonder why these guys don't want to sign their contracts? Is it because they are doping or because the testing is so flawed they don't want to risk a positve test? If it's the latter, what's the point of testing? If it's the former then they are all liars and you should be giving them the same sort of treatment you aim toward Armstrong. If a rider is doping and they are racing...they are a liar....Period!!!!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> As for the crazy conspiracy theories....why are you not attacking Floyd constantly? Talk about some crazy conspiracy theories...LOL. Why not Hamilton when he came back? Why not every rider that has ever been caught, then comes up with a story of how they didn't dope or have a way of explaining it away.
> 
> How many pro riders have explained away their connection with Operation Puerto? Why not attack all those riders? Your focus however always seems to be on Armstrong and only Armstrong...I wonder why? :idea:


I wouldn't expect you to follow everything I post but I have been consistently and vocally critical of Landis, Hamilton, Schleck, Basso, Valverde, Ulrich, etc. Use the search function. The only difference is there are few that defend these guys anymore, it is only for Armstrong that some suspend critical thinking. 




Wookiebiker said:


> Why Lemond? His numbers are as fast up climbs and he still holds the fastest ITT ever in the Tour. Yet...he somehow did this clean when all the jacked up dopers in the 90's with "crit" levels near/over 60 couldn't match him? Indurain had an hour wattage output of over 500 watts, but he wasn't as fast as Lemond in a TT? Not only did Indurain have huge power numbers but had access to more aero bikes, gear, etc. Come on now, lets get real....he just wasn't caught like most other riders and since he was never caught he can say he was always clean, just like the rest do.


Lemond'c climbing times and wattages are dramatically slower then hundreds of riders that rode in the EPO era. His fastest time up Alp d'Huez was 45 minutes, Pantani did 37. Lemond and Hinult were able to hold 380- 390 watts. Indurain, Armstrong, did 490. 

You must be new to the sport if you do not know that the final TT, where Lemond won the 89 Tour, was *short * 25 kilometres (15.5 mi) long, with a net elevation *loss* of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a *tailwind* Lemond averaged 420 watts, 54.545 km/h for the short TT (The shortest non prologue TT in Tour history). Armstrong average over 54 kmph over a course that was over twice as long, with climbs. 

The motivation for you and others to go after Lemond is because he questions your hero. There is ZERO evidence, rumor, or anything that Lemond doped. None of the haters have been able to offer up anything. 



Wookiebiker said:


> *On a side note*: http://www.velonews.com/article/92918/three-top-katusha-riders-oppose-new-team-rules
> I wonder why these guys don't want to sign their contracts? Is it because they are doping or because the testing is so flawed they don't want to risk a positve test? If it's the latter, what's the point of testing?


There is zero evidence that the testing produces false positives. Plenty of evidence that the artificially high standards produce false negative but no evidence of false positives.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> You must be new to the sport if you do not know that the final TT, where Lemond won the 89 Tour, was *short * 25 kilometres (15.5 mi) long, with a net elevation *loss* of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a *tailwind* Lemond averaged 420 watts, 54.545 km/h for the short TT (The shortest non prologue TT in Tour history). Armstrong average over 54 kmph over a course that was over twice as long, with climbs.


No, I've heard the excuses that allowed for such a fast ITT...however, that speed has never been beat in the history of the tour by guys that were "supposedly" producing much, much more power. Again, when he won his tours he was beating guys that are admitted dopers....so a non doper is beating the dopers...sounds like the same arguments many use against Armstrong when they post the podiums and who has been caught doping.



> The motivation for you and others to go after Lemond is because he questions your hero. There is ZERO evidence, rumor, or anything that Lemond doped. None of the haters have been able to offer up anything.


Again...you are wrong. I don't have hero's because people are human and there are few if any out there worth looking up to. Athletics...dopers, Politicians...Liars, Movie stars/musicians....drugs, local people...the same crap as everybody else. People are people, simple as that. Those that are in the "Spotlight" are just entertainers, nothing more and that includes pro cyclists.

I'm cynical of everybody...but you sure like to protect Lemond  



> There is zero evidence that the testing produces false positives. Plenty of evidence that the artificially high standards produce false negative but no evidence of false positives.


So if that's the case why don't they sign their contracts? If they are not doping, then they have nothing to worry about if the tests are not turning up "false positives". By your logic then we have at least three more admitted dopers because they are obviously worried that at some point they may turn a positive test and have to pay back 5 times their yearly salary.

They deserve the same lambasting that you give Armstrong at this time.

The only reason I give a rip about Armstrong is because I like to watch him race, he's entertaining compared to guys like Menchov who was as boring as watching paint dry during the Giro. Armstrong wasn't afraid to attack guys, even when he had a lead...Menchov just sat their like a flea on a dogs butt.

I also feel that outside of cycling Armstrong has done a lot of good...does that counter all of the things surrounding him in cycling? Who knows, only each individual person can decide that for themselves.

I do however, believe that Armstrong played/plays on the same field as all the other pro cyclists out there. He was using the same stuff as everybody else, however he was better. Take away the drugs and the results still stack up the same, just with slower times.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> No, I've heard the excuses that allowed for such a fast ITT...however, that speed has never been beat in the history of the tour by guys that were "supposedly" producing much, much more power.


Zabriskie broke the record in 2005




Wookiebiker said:


> So if that's the case why don't they sign their contracts? If they are not doping, then they have nothing to worry about if the tests are not turning up "false positives". By your logic then we have at least three more admitted dopers because they are obviously worried that at some point they may turn a positive test and have to pay back 5 times their yearly salary.
> 
> They deserve the same lambasting that you give Armstrong at this time.
> 
> .


Not signing a contract does not come remotely close to the level of evidence against Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Basso, or even Valverde. .....sad attempt at a straw man though.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Not signing a contract does not come remotely close to the level of evidence against Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Basso, or even Valverde. .....sad attempt at a straw man though.


No straw needed.

They are not signing their contracts because of the "payback" clause...which means they are hiding something...or the tests are flawed. Given the number of riders that test positive, your instance that the tests don't turn up "False Positives", and the history of cycling...what more evidence does anybody really need?

You're either clean or you're not...if you are then you have nothing to lose by signing the contract and a lot to gain. If you're not clean then you have a whole lot to lose by signing the contract....seems pretty simple to me.

I suppose you think "The Chicken" was clean as well? He never turned a positive and there really isn't any "Evidence" that he was doping other than misrepresenting where he was when the testers were looking for him.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Lemond is an easy target for Armstrong fanatics. However, the words of bigpinkt are true. Hinault and Lemond, even Merckx would not be able to match the speed of a EPO doped up Armstrong. It's clear that Armstrong is the biggest fraud in sports. People quote, not the test results, but his Twitter uploads. Uh memo! Nobody gives a crap what Armstrong is doing at the moment, except for thos truly pathetic that drool over the thought of him taking a dump. Can't say that I care to much to argue with a idiot that fails to see reason and real hope beyond all the marketing.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The motivation for you and others to go after Lemond is because he questions your hero. There is ZERO evidence, rumor, or anything that Lemond doped. None of the haters have been able to offer up anything.
> 
> 
> - Wrong. There is another American Tour rider who speaks in the local peleton of Lemond blood doping back in the day. And no, I'm no fan of the p.o.s. either for his criminal past long after cycling but I'd believe it, they all did it.
> ...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Wrong. There is another American Tour rider who speaks in the local peleton of Lemond blood doping back in the day. And no, I'm no fan of the p.o.s. either for his criminal past long after cycling but I'd believe it, they all did it.


Complete BS.

It is absurd for many reasons. If they "All did it" why has nobody talked about it? Ever? If Boyer was telling people that Lemond used blood doping it would have come out by now, no way that stays quite. Boyer and Lemond were never on the same team and like most people and Jock they were not close.

Most of our mutual friends stopped talking to him after he went to prison for being a child molester.....not that they talked to him often anyways as he was always a bit off. I will have a buddy go to his shop and ask him.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I suppose you think "The Chicken" was clean as well? He never turned a positive and there really isn't any "Evidence" that he was doping other than misrepresenting where he was when the testers were looking for him.


You are lining up straw men pretty fast there wookie. 

In 2002 the chicken asked Whitney Richards to bring a box of shoes with Hemopure hidden in them to Europe. He lied on his whereabouts form for 6 weeks. He was involved with the Humanplasma lab in Vienna......None of this is a surprise to me as a buddy of mine who grew up racing with his wife in Mexico stayed at his house near Lake Garda, wasn't surprised when he saw EPO in the fridge.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> But the test(s) they use/perform now
> leave a very large questionmark as to their validity and effectiveness. You HAVE to admit that Pinky.


Don't HAVE to admit it because it is not true.

http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778

Note the Author, Don Catlin


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> There is zero evidence that the testing produces false positives.


Well, it's always easy to not find something you're not looking for. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7205/full/454692a.html


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Well, it's always easy to not find something you're not looking for. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7205/full/454692a.html


You are kidding, Another retread of the Landis case? You don't really believe that Floyd was a false positive? 


Catlin makes a good point

*Our WADA-accredited laboratory has performed the IEF/DB test for rhEpo on more than 6800 urine samples, including more than 2600 doping control samples from athletes. Of the latter, we have reported 9 positive cases for rhEpo: 3 of these have publicly confessed to using rhEpo, 3 have accepted penalties, the physician of a seventh has been indicted for distribution of rhEpo, and 2 maintained their innocence but lost on appeal*


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> You are kidding, Another retread of the Landis case?


Of course you miss the point. This has nothing to do with any one case. It's about the scientific rigor behind the development and application of testing procedures. Bad science is bad science whatever the outcomes. Nevertheless, from your quote it would seem that there were 2 out of 9 false positives.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Of course you miss the point. This has nothing to do with any one case. It's about the scientific rigor behind the development and application of testing procedures. Bad science is bad science whatever the outcomes. Nevertheless, from your quote it would seem that there were 2 out of 9 false positives.


Of course you miss the point. You provided no evidence of "Bad Science". 

It would be 2 out of 6800, not 2 of 9. The 2 who you considered "False Positives" lost on appeal. They had the opportunity to prove their false positives and failed. Landis had the same opportunity and he also failed.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> Of course you miss the point. You provided no evidence of "Bad Science".


You realize http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/454692a.html is a link. You have to click on it and read the article. That text is not meant to be read literally.

As was made so public in the Landis case, the ability of an appelant to prevail depends entirely on the rules under which the arbitrators operate. It has nothing to do with resolving the truth. So the fact that those two lost on appeal only means that under the WADA rules, the arbitrators could not find in their favor. For all we know, those are as likely as not to have been false positives.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> You realize http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/454692a.html is a link. You have to click on it and read the article. That text is not meant to be read literally.


Your link does not go to an article that is readable for the general public, I do not need to spend $18 to read yet another rehash of the Landis scam. I am sure you will find isolated people that have bought into the Landis myth, some even write commentary. It does not mean they have any validity. 



asgelle said:


> As was made so public in the Landis case, the ability of an appelant to prevail depends entirely on the rules under which the arbitrators operate. It has nothing to do with resolving the truth. So the fact that those two lost on appeal only means that under the WADA rules, the arbitrators could not find in their favor. For all we know, those are as likely as not to have been false positives.


Tell that to Joao Cabreira, Le Tasha Jenkins, and other athletes who have won CAS appeals. Landis lost because he is a doper, not because the system was fixed against him.

What was made public in the Landis case was that Floyd and his team were willing to lie, hack, and intimidate in order to get their gullible fans to continue to contribute.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> Your link does not go to an article that is readable for the general public, I do not need to spend $18 to read yet another rehash of the Landis scam.


Well, at least now we know the depth of your understanding and you're willingness to jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

rook said:


> Exactly! A known EPO doper, Armstrong, has a website where he "publishes" his results of his private blood tests. This is nothing more than marketing for the fans of his. You know. All those Armstrong club members who've recently paid their dues and cry about how unfair everyone is to their hero.


Do you do anything but cheer on Pinky? Perhaps you'd like a skirt and some pom poms.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Well, at least now we know the depth of your understanding and you're willingness to jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence.


We now know you inability to provide anything to back up your position.


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

kbiker3111 said:


> Do you do anything but cheer on Pinky? Perhaps you'd like a skirt and some pom poms.


A completely illogical statement kbiker3111, which clearly shows that BigPinkT has won the debate.
Good work.:thumbsup:


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

papisimo9807 said:


> A completely illogical statement kbiker3111, which clearly shows that BigPinkT has won the debate.
> Good work.:thumbsup:


Arguement? I wasn't disagreeing with BigPink.

Maybe you'd like more than 23 posts before you start talking smack.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Complete BS.
> 
> It is absurd for many reasons. If they "All did it" why has nobody talked about it? Ever? If Boyer was telling people that Lemond used blood doping it would have come out by now, no way that stays quite. Boyer and Lemond were never on the same team and like most people and Jock they were not close.
> 
> Most of our mutual friends stopped talking to him after he went to prison for being a child molester.....not that they talked to him often anyways as he was always a bit off. I will have a buddy go to his shop and ask him.



- Hey, I never said I liked the guy, he's a p.o.s as far as I'm concerned as far as humans go walking this earth. Don't forget, they both rode in the stone-age, not the information age so of course there will be lot's more talk about a modern cycling legend than an older champion. It's all spoken word people and people lie. All of them. Sometimes about little things, sometimes about big things......

Relax, it's nothing to get hung about and last I heard, molester doesn't have a shop anymore.

- And, why is it so "absurd" that Lemond is the only human on earth possibly capable of beating a juiced peleton while he was 100% clean??? Makes just as much sense as Lance doing it, right? As stated before, get over it. Lance "won" the most Tours of anybody and has taken what little light that was still shining on Greg's pathetic professional life and shoved it in the closet. B.F.D., it ONLY "Spectacle".


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Don't HAVE to admit it because it is not true.
> 
> http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/108/5/1778
> 
> Note the Author, Don Catlin



- Not that I'm a Kohl fan and not entirely sure I believe the guy but when he say's he should have tested positive 100 times.....that say's something about the test's used.
And I do believe Ashenden has proven he used bunk science in the development of this "test". Using ancient samples, many of which were thrown away because they were unstable and finally NOT having a bonafide "A Sample" to test the "test" against?
Ummmmm, sorry, nope, not going to trust that.

Ohh, I forgot, the chain of custody and storage of said samples??? No documentation of where or how they were handled. Yeah, I am not trusting that as being 100% foolproof.

Keep trying Pinky, or should we start calling you Greg? You DO know everything and everyone everywhere. ut:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Not that I'm a Kohl fan and not entirely sure I believe the guy but when he say's he should have tested positive 100 times.....that say's something about the test's used.


that only shows that the standards for positives are artificially high, it says NOTHING about false positives.




DMFT said:


> And I do believe Ashenden has proven he used bunk science in the development of this "test". Using ancient samples, many of which were thrown away because they were unstable and finally NOT having a bonafide "A Sample" to test the "test" against?


Please provide proof of bunk science? So far the EPO test has stood the test of time. There is no evidence that storing samples can result in EPO magic appearing in them in precisely the levels and times that would be expected based on the common practices of the time. 



DMFT said:


> Ohh, I forgot, the chain of custody and storage of said samples??? No documentation of where or how they were handled. Yeah, I am not trusting that as being 100% foolproof.


The chain of custody is the same as the thousands of other samples that are tested at WADA labs each year. You are inferring a vast conspiracy that you have no evidence of as the only explanation. You really should read the Asheden article as he explains how absurd this idea is.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Hey, I never said I liked the guy, he's a p.o.s as far as I'm concerned as far as humans go walking this earth. Don't forget, they both rode in the stone-age, not the information age so of course there will be lot's more talk about a modern cycling legend than an older champion. It's all spoken word people and people lie. All of them. Sometimes about little things, sometimes about big things......
> 
> Relax, it's nothing to get hung about and last I heard, molester doesn't have a shop anymore.
> 
> - And, why is it so "absurd" that Lemond is the only human on earth possibly capable of beating a juiced peleton while he was 100% clean??? Makes just as much sense as Lance doing it, right? As stated before, get over it. Lance "won" the most Tours of anybody and has taken what little light that was still shining on Greg's pathetic professional life and shoved it in the closet. B.F.D., it ONLY "Spectacle".


As you do not have anything more to support your hatred then "Everyone was doing it" you invent this Boyer story. Sad

You may want to educate yourself about what doping was like the 80's. What was possible to use during GT's and what was not. Go read "Breaking the Chain" and "Rough Ride".


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> that only shows that the standards for positives are artificially high, it says NOTHING about false positives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


- Yup, as always, you have an explanation for everything to explain it all away as if it were 100% correct, the word of god you speak pinky. I mean, it is like YOU WERE THERE or something. Amazing!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Yup, as always, you have an explanation for everything to explain it all away as if it were 100% correct, the word of god you speak pinky. I mean, it is like YOU WERE THERE or something. Amazing!


Instead of insults and sarcasm perhaps you might want to provide some research that backs up your hopes. So far you have provided nothing.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I hate to break it to you but life is not "Black and White"....they *all* dope,


This example of you contradicting yourself in the same sentence illustrates the futility of trying to make a point to you.ut:


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Instead of insults and sarcasm perhaps you might want to provide some research that backs up your hopes. So far you have provided nothing.


- Realllllly??? I mean REALLLLLLLY?????? Insults, sarcasm........Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

And reading your dear Mr. Ashenden's "work" is plenty.....


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> This example of you contradicting yourself in the same sentence illustrates the futility of trying to make a point to you.ut:


And how exactly did I do that? 

The fact that the world isn't "Black and White" but all pro's dope on one level or another is true and not contradictory. Some riders may not be willing to use EPO, but may use an inhaler even though they don't have asthma....still doping, but not considered as bad as EPO.

What one person considers doping another doesn't. Technically if it's not on the banned list, using a "Product" isn't doping because it's not on the list, i.e. nobody says you can't use it....but if they are gaining a significant advantage...isn't it doping? Technically yes, technically no.

This is what baseball did for years...steroids were not on the banned list so players felt just fine using them to enhance their performance, yet they wouldn't come out and actually say they were using them until the rules were changed and they were caught after the rules were changed.

I guess a lot of people just prefer to stick their heads in the sand, plug their ears, cover their eyes.....anything to make it seem like many of the pro's actually ride clean. There are plenty of armatures out there that dope, let alone the pro's. As they say....you don't win on bread and water alone  

145 pound riders don't get sustained FTP's in the 400+ watt range naturally, I always love it when I hear about "Clean" riders then hear their power outputs...cracks me up actually.

But if you only see "Black and White" I guess there is no point in any discussion because "You" will always be right in your own mind.


----------

