# Lance Armstrong -- Would Dope Again



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

No real contrition from the guy. Lance Armstrong: If I Had To Do It All Over, I'd Probably Cheat Again


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

At least he's honest, he could have lied.


----------



## kps88 (Dec 3, 2013)

he clearly stated that if it were 1995 he would do it again and he stated that before. nothing new. he stated the reason why and he feels/knows he couldn't compete in those days without doping. i'm guessing almost all of those guys feel the same way. now, if he knew others wouldn't dope then he said he still would...he's a bigger jerk than he already is (not sure how that is possible). he claims he wouldn't cheat today..now there is the issue. He has lied so much and including about 2009/10 that I simply don't believe him. But the interview is an absolute joke and is just a repeat of what he has said. I have no respect for him at all. Tyler Hamilton showed what its like for a doper to come clean..Lance has not. he has his reasons, whatever they are.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> At least he's honest, he could have lied.


that's not in his nature.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

kps88 said:


> he clearly stated that if it were 1995 he would do it again and he stated that before. nothing new. he stated the reason why and he feels/knows he couldn't compete in those days without doping.
> 
> Tyler Hamilton showed what its like for a doper to come clean..Lance has not. he has his reasons, whatever they are.


Regarding the first paragraph, about 15 years ago in the course of some study a large sampling of Olympic athletes were asked the following:

If the could take a substance into their system that would guarantee them an Olympic Gold Medal but that they would definitely die from within (It was either a year or 5 years, I don't recall), would they do it. Over 90 percent said they would. 

Regarding the second paragraph I don't understand what you are saying about Hamilton or what your statement means. I'm not trying to troll, it's a genuine question from me. If you posted about it or answered earlier in some other post I just haven't seen it. (Too many topics and too many doping/Lance Armstrong threads.) So if you don't mind could just elaborate a bit or expand your statement about Hamilton?

Thanks. 

Thanks.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

This just in: Lance Armstrong is still a douchenozzle.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Mandeville said:


> Regarding the first paragraph, about 15 years ago in the course of some study a large sampling of Olympic athletes were asked the following:
> 
> If the could take a substance into their system that would guarantee them an Olympic Gold Medal but that they would definitely die from within (It was either a year or 5 years, I don't recall), would they do it. Over 90 percent said they would.
> 
> ...


You right on that quote. Almost EVERY athlete athlete would "cheat" if they knew they could get away with it. If you think thats NOT the truth, then you have never been around or REALLY knew an "Elite Athlete." Now I used the word cheat, not dope.

LA is right on this one and I would too in his shoes. Now in todays world. after all his lies, I would find it hard to believe we wouldn't. Why? Doping in cycling is ALL he knows. Think todays riders feel its easier NOT to, plus test and penalties are more harsh.
I bet of doping was LEGAL in cycling and all sports, 98% plus of athletes WOULD dope.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

This article from BBC Sport may be more insightful.

While I admire his candor, as I see it he still doesn't really get it. He remains unapologetic to the cycling community of which he was a part. He injured many as he sought to keep the truth from leaking out. The one thing he got right in the interview was this:
_As for whether the world was ready to accept his return to public life, Armstrong said: "Selfishly, I would say 'yeah, we're getting close to that time'. 

"But that's me, my word doesn't matter any more. What matters is what people collectively think, whether that's the cycling community, the cancer community. 
_ 

I am certainly in no position to judge Armstrong for his transgressions. But consistent with his comment I suggest that those he directly injured and attempted to along the way be the jury. If they are collectively willing to forgive him, and would commute his lifetime ban, I am certainly in no position to argue with them.

We now know what LeMond thinks on the subject. What do the others have to say?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> At least he's honest, he could have lied.


He lied throughout the interview


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He lied throughout the interview


So are you saying he lied about cheating if he could do it again?????


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

ibericb said:


> This article from BBC Sport may be more insightful.


Thanks for that link. It provides both what he literally and completely said as well as context. It gives people a chance to make an informed decision as to what they think about his comments.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> So are you saying he lied about cheating if he could do it again?????


No, I mean he lied repeated throughout the interview. 

Andreu: Armstrong?s not sorry; his lawyers will subpoena Frankie | CyclingTips

Lance needs to stop listening to the sycophants that surround him. The talking points might sound good in that small group but when he spews it in public he sounds like a fool


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Mandeville said:


> Thanks for that link. It provides both what he literally and completely said as well as context. It gives people a chance to make an informed decision as to what they think about his comments.


I agree and its good read for someone with an OPEN mind. if what he said is true and form the heart,, its a good start.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

love4himies said:


> So are you saying he lied about cheating if he could do it again?????


The cyclist's paradox.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

We live in a society where we reward massive cheaters who brought the world economy to its knees and continue to reward them with multi-million dollar bonuses on top of extraordinary salaries, while a good chunk of the population has to pick through trash cans for dinner. I'm saddened that our boy Lance doped and lied to cover it up, but where is the outrage about cheating that actually matters?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wgscott said:


> We live in a society where we reward massive cheaters who brought the world economy to its knees and continue to reward them with multi-million dollar bonuses on top of extraordinary salaries, while a good chunk of the population has to pick through trash cans for dinner. I'm saddened that our boy Lance doped and lied to cover it up, but where is the outrage about cheating that actually matters?


This is a cycling forum. In this particular part of the forum we discuss dopers. If you want outrage over the stuff you mention I suggest Politics Only


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

wgscott said:


> ...but *where is the outrage *about cheating that actually matters?


Since you seem to be pointing specifically to financial matters, did you miss the entre "Occupy" movement? That's about the greatest display of public outrage I've witnessed.

In Armstrong's case it's not about public outrage, nor is it about our financial and banking systems. It's about his transgressions in cycling, as a professional. That's within the purview of these forums. Of course, there is the lounge if you like.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Gotta laugh about Lance crying about USDA never calling him. :cryin:

The WADA code spells out the reduction in sanction he can receive for assisting the investigation. Lance should know this because not only did he sign it multiple times but it was also written by his Agent, Bill Stapleton, when he was on the board of the USOC. 

Lance met with Travis twice. Both times he told Travis to Fork off and that he would never participate. The book Wheelmen detailed how USADA talked with Armstrong's lawyer multiple times about a deal, it was made clear he would never participate. Finally USADA made a last attempt 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/150499171/USADA-invite-to-Lance-Armstrong

Armstrong ignored it, filed a lawsuit in Federal court, and used Livestrong funds to lobby congress to defund USADA. 

Lance figured lying worked for a decade so he might as well try it again


----------



## kps88 (Dec 3, 2013)

I also have heard that statement/question about drugs. Maybe it was Olympic athletes or other sports. But it's sad that so many would risk their lives and reputation. That's the human race for you.

sorry, I should have been more specific regarding Tyler, but as you noted so much of that has been discussed. I mean that Tyler has truly come clean and been honest about what he did and how he feels. Lance..not so much. He continues to lie. Except for the yes/no questions that he answered on Oprah almost everything was a flat out lie or partially the truth. He lied about 09/10, refused to admit about Andreu, lied about bullying teammates, lied about USADA investigation and I could go on. These lies have been uncovered not by me, but others that know a heck of alot more than I do. But these so called "interviews" are a joke. Until he comes clean, like Tyler, he should be ignored.



Mandeville said:


> Regarding the first paragraph, about 15 years ago in the course of some study a large sampling of Olympic athletes were asked the following:
> 
> If the could take a substance into their system that would guarantee them an Olympic Gold Medal but that they would definitely die from within (It was either a year or 5 years, I don't recall), would they do it. Over 90 percent said they would.
> 
> ...


----------



## kps88 (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks for the info Doc. Its disgusting how much he lies. I really don't understand how anyone can stomach this idiot. I really hope he loses that lawsuit.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Gotta laugh about Lance crying about USDA never calling him. :cryin:
> 
> The WADA code spells out the reduction in sanction he can receive for assisting the investigation. Lance should know this because not only did he sign it multiple times but it was also written by his Agent, Bill Stapleton, when he was on the board of the USOC.
> 
> ...


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is a cycling forum. In this particular part of the forum we discuss dopers. If you want outrage over the stuff you mention I suggest Politics Only


Sorry, I saw it come up in recent posts and didn't pay attention from where. Nevertheless, our sports heroes are fallible humans. The guy has confessed, has been stripped of his titles, etc. He has suffered extreme public humiliation. We seem to be willing to put him through a lot more than we put people through who order torture, illegal invasions, sell cancer drugs for $100,000/month, you name your favorite transgression.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wgscott said:


> Sorry, I saw it come up in recent posts and didn't pay attention from where. Nevertheless, our sports heroes are fallible humans. The guy has confessed, has been stripped of his titles, etc. He has suffered extreme public humiliation. We seem to be willing to put him through a lot more than we put people through who order torture, illegal invasions, sell cancer drugs for $100,000/month, you name your favorite transgression.


Last I checked lance was not going to prison or on trial for war crimes. He is crying because he got caught. 

Lots of people get away with lots of bad things but that does not mean we should never enforce any rules.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm not an Armstrong apologist by any means, but I am a bit perplexed by the continued outrage. If Einstein had developed general relativity while taking Adderal, would it have been any less of an achievement? Maybe we are being a bit puritanical about performance-enhancing drugs. Most of us drink coffee. Where should we draw the line, and why is it not arbitrary?


----------



## kps88 (Dec 3, 2013)

I think its because he hasn't truly come clean. He still lies and denies. I think until the suit and any others are settled and he just tires of lying (if he can actually tire of that) then we will continue to hate on the guy. Look at Hamilton and even Landis. Those guys look alot better than he does.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

and 15 years ago, everyone else would have doped as well

maybe Lance would re think how he kept the Omerta. Had he not been such a monumental a hole he may have skated.

my guess is on his regrets is "I'd have kept my usage completely to myself" and had the Hog handle the team's dope


wg does have a point. I wish there was equal rage toward the financial sector


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> wg does have a point. I wish there was equal rage toward the financial sector


Personally I am glad that the outrage against Lance is *NOT* equal to Occupy Wall street. Marches with thousands of people. Stinky hippies camping out for weeks. Ewww

Yeah, Lance is a douche' but even I would not participate in some goofy March Against Lance


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

You are equating coffee with EPO and blood transfusions? Interesting.

Neither you, I, or anyone else on this forum decides what is or isn't a prohibited performance-enhancing substance for professional sports. That task falls to WADA, and the athletes subject to their decisions signed on to abide by their code.

I think Lance, in that article, was likely presenting the truth as he sees it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it resembles reality, but maybe only his perception of it, his version. I can see where he gets it from, even if I don't agree with the extent he took that perception to.

I still think a lifetime ban is just about right.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

SF Comical said:


> "*If I was racing in 2015, no, I wouldn't do it again*. Because I don't think you have to do it again," he began. "If you *take me back to 1995, when it was completely and totally pervasive, [I'd] probably do it again.*"
> 
> Armstrong, 43, knows that's not the answer people want to hear, but it's the truth. "That's the honest answer. But it's an answer that needs some explanation," he told BBC Sport's Dan Roan. "I mean, I look at everything -- when I made that decision, when my teammates made that decision, when the whole peloton made that decision. We get it. It was a bad decision in an imperfect time. But it happened."
> 
> He went on to point out *some of the less negative effects of pervasive doping in the '90s*, saying, "I know what happened to the sport of cycling from 1990 to 2005. I saw its growth, I saw its expansion. I know what happened with the industry..."


So let's just separate the message from the messenger for a moment. What he appears to be saying is that they were using performance-enhancing drugs then because their competition was. Although hardly an excuse, it is somewhat understandable.

Also, cycling really has taken off, and the cycling industry has really flourished, and continued to do so, even into the recession. How much of this is drug-induced?


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

Alaska Mike said:


> You are equating coffee with EPO and blood transfusions? Interesting..


No. I am saying caffeine is a performance-enhancing drug that has zero social stigma and I doubt violates any rules of any athletic organization.

Where should the line be drawn? In other words, why is erythropiotin illegal, but caffeine is legal?


----------



## mchu004 (Jun 25, 2014)

wgscott said:


> I'm not an Armstrong apologist by any means, but I am a bit perplexed by the continued outrage. If Einstein had developed general relativity while taking Adderal, would it have been any less of an achievement? Maybe we are being a bit puritanical about performance-enhancing drugs. Most of us drink coffee. Where should we draw the line, and why is it not arbitrary?


This brings up an interesting conversation I recently had. 

A friend of mine was telling me about her college experience at a well-known school, and she had told me that a large population of the students were all taking Adderall to study. She said and I quote: "I was at a disadvantage right at the start". Sound familiar? Essentially, it's the same as the UCI and doping, as students are competing against each other for grades and positions in the job market. Ultimately, she did not take Adderall due to the possible health effects it would have. Smart girl. With integrity.

Just gets you thinking though...

Now back to LA:
He looks like he's aged 10 years in the last 2 (brutal, I think was his word choice) and as much as I want to defend him, he really just sounds like a whiny kid who wants to play in the playground again and trying to convince everyone, "I'm a good person (again)!"

As for the TdF winners who get stripped and "needs winners", I say we bring back all the GC contenders of those years' TdF and have a charity race for each year's title. See who wins 15 years later.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wgscott said:


> I'm not an Armstrong apologist by any means, but I am a bit perplexed by the continued outrage. If Einstein had developed general relativity while taking Adderal, would it have been any less of an achievement? Maybe we are being a bit puritanical about performance-enhancing drugs. Most of us drink coffee. Where should we draw the line, and why is it not arbitrary?


If Lance had ridden a motorcycle instead of a bike would his fraud be any less of an achievement?


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

Actually, you have uncovered the real reason I am interested in this. I teach a lot of undergraduate chemistry and biochemistry courses, and I think your friend is correct.  (More mundane cheating is also becoming more socially acceptable, but that is a different story). A few years ago there was an editorial in _Nature_ (the leading science journal) advocating the use of mentally-enhancing drugs.

http://www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/4501157a

also, I just found this while looking for the other link:

Poll results: look who's doping : Nature News

Full disclosure: Despite being diagnosed with ADHD as a kid, I don't use any of these.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mchu004 said:


> Essentially, it's the same as the UCI and doping, as students are competing against each other for grades and positions in the job market.


No, it's not. 

If your friend hacked into the schools computers and stole the answers to a test do you think the school should look the other way if she said "Everyone was doing it"?


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If Lance had ridden a motorcycle instead of a bike would his fraud be any less of an achievement?


If you stretch this logic any further, would it be even more a non-sequetor?


----------



## mchu004 (Jun 25, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> If your friend hacked into the schools computers and stole the answers to a test do you think the school should look the other way if she said "Everyone was doing it"?


That's not a fair comparison. 

Hacking a computer and stealing answers require no effort on part to win. You get the answers, you're done. That's like Rosie Ruiz, the woman who won the Boston Marathon by not completing the entire course. 

Taking Adderall gives your body the ability to focus on one task for a large amount of time. You still have to actually study and do the work. Much like you still have to get on the bike and ride.

I'm in no way defending LA, if you think that I am. It just raises an eyebrow about other areas where performance-enhancing drugs are also used, but not necessarily regulated.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mchu004 said:


> That's not a fair comparison.
> 
> Hacking a computer and stealing answers require no effort on part to win. You get the answers, you're done. That's like Rosie Ruiz, the woman who won the Boston Marathon by not completing the entire course.
> 
> ...


You are welcome to pretend that taking Adderall to study for a test is the same as transfusing a bag of blood and paying off the UCI but most can see that is an absurd comparison.


----------



## mchu004 (Jun 25, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to pretend that taking Adderall to study for a test is the same as transfusing a bag of blood and paying off the UCI but most can see that is an absurd comparison.


Fair enough. Not exactly a fair comparison either of me to make, but my point is the mindset is still the same (in terms of taking the drugs, not paying off the UCI): Taking a performance-enhancing drug to so-call "level the playing field".

Ride safe...and clean :thumbsup:


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

They aren't equivalent. Students taking drugs to better their chances of getting into medical school is a phenomenon much more likely to have a direct impact upon the average person's life, especially if their doctors are all amphetamine addicts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wgscott said:


> They aren't equivalent. Students taking drugs to better their chances of getting into medical school is a phenomenon much more likely to have a direct impact upon the average person's life, especially if their doctors are all amphetamine addicts.


Oh brother......another of the "Everyone was doing it" Crowd. 

You assumption that anyone who takes who takes Adderall for finals is suddenly going to become a lifetime junky is absurd.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

wgscott said:


> I'm not an Armstrong apologist by any means, but I am a bit perplexed by the continued outrage. If Einstein had developed general relativity while taking Adderal, would it have been any less of an achievement? Maybe we are being a bit puritanical about performance-enhancing drugs. Most of us drink coffee. Where should we draw the line, and why is it not arbitrary?


Oh, stop it. The guy is a remorseless scumbag.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

wgscott said:


> No. I am saying caffeine is a performance-enhancing drug that has zero social stigma and I doubt violates any rules of any athletic organization.


Actually, there is a high school cycling organization in the States (NICA) that does prohibit the use of caffeine. 


wgscott said:


> Where should the line be drawn? In other words, why is erythropiotin illegal, but caffeine is legal?


Again, not for us to say. The boost from the two substances is far from equal, and I trust that very smart people have debated it to death. Since caffeine is apparently included in the 2015 WADA Monitoring Program (along with Bupropion, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol and synephrine), perhaps the debate is still not over. We very well could see a return to threshold limits for the drug.

Since you've asked twice:


> The WADA Prohibited List endeavours to capture as many known substances and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria:
> 1.Potential to enhance or enhances sports performance
> 2.An actual or potential health risk to the athlete
> 3.Use violates the spirit of sport (outlined in the Code)
> ...


----------



## ddave12000 (Aug 16, 2013)

I've been reading for years that the problem with Lance wasn't cheating (since everyone was doing it, right?) but that he was such an a-hole, ruining peoples lives in his wake of deception. Yet, in the BBC article, he seems to recognize exactly that and goes so far as to say if he could have a do-over he would change himself to not be that guy. 

Would we have less vitriol for Lance if he had been a nicer guy and nothing else had changed? It seems likely since no other doper has been treated the same way. 

I'll probably get called a fanboy or whatever, I don't care I've got no skin in the game. I just find it interesting that LA finally comes out and admits the real problem is how much of a jerk he was, but that probably won't change many peoples opinions of him.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

The problem I have with LA today is he still believes, really believes, it was perfectly acceptable to dope and use PED's as he did throughout his career simply because so many others were doing it to, and it was what you ahd to do to win. Rather than stand for anything of principle he chose the low road, and it took him to the bottom. After it has been said and done, he still believes he deserves the credit for everyone of his TdF "wins", even though he admittedly cheated in every single one of them. He completely misses the point of athletic completion, what is being measured, and what is being recognized and rewarded. 

It will be really interesting to see how the Landis / DoJ suit against him (and others) turns out. From what I've been able to read, his legal team ahs abandoned most of their defenses. My guess is there will be a settlement in the next couple of months. It must be painful and difficult for him to accept that Landis stands to garner 25% of whatever is decided.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

ddave12000 said:


> Would we have less vitriol for Lance if he had been a nicer guy and nothing else had changed? It seems likely since no other doper has been treated the same way.


You mean if he was Tyler, Floyd, or any number of other doped team leaders? Possibly. If he had never returned from retirement? Possibly. We'll never know, will we?

With age comes some perspective, and Lance is a type A, hyper competitive guy. Maybe he can put that in some perspective now, but in his era he was the perfect storm to take the doping arms race (in that form) to that level. Not only in methods and logistics, but in the political maneuvering and cover-ups that he used shield his activities. Nobody else went to those extremes. A few tried, but Lance had the back story, connections, and popularity that transcended the sport to pull it off.

Yeah, a lifetime ban is pretty deserved. I don't think many athletes want to line up against him, given his history. He's toxic for any sport now, just a spectacle for anyone wanting to see a train wreck, but not of any real lasting value to the sport. Maybe in 10 years we can apply some new perspective and re-address it, but everyone needs that distance without a firm deadline and fresh scars hanging over their heads.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

I think you have to go back to what is being recognized and rewarded, and how that is earned. In athletic competition, what is being measured, and what is being recognized and rewarded for wins and top finishes? There are numerous accepted routes that competitive athletes exploit in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. It begins with training, diet and nutrition, and equipment. There are also governing organizations that establish rules and regulation that seek to create a level and fair playing field so that competition actually reflects what is intended. In about every sport their are competitors that knowingly violate those rules in an effort to gain an advantage that undercuts the intent of fair competition. 

Those rules are not arbitrary because they are established by the governing bodies, and athletes agree to play by the rules and regulations for the opportunity to be recognized for their achievements. It is a select subset of our broader society, with its own select rules of conduct. Those who are accorded the recognition for their competitive achievements are expected to have played by the rules. If they infringe upon them, then they should be disqualified from competing and receiving the recognition, even if that means the entire field. Otherwise, the rules for competition become completely meaningless, and the measure of achievement is totally lost.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

ibericb said:


> The problem I have with LA today is he still believes, really believes, it was perfectly acceptable to dope and use PED's as he did throughout his career simply because so many others were doing it to, and it was what you ahd to do to win. Rather than stand for anything of principle he chose the low road, and it took him to the bottom. After it has been said and done, he still believes he deserves the credit for everyone of his TdF "wins", even though he admittedly cheated in every single one of them. He completely misses the point of athletic completion, what is being measured, and what is being recognized and rewarded.
> 
> It will be really interesting to see how the Landis / DoJ suit against him (and others) turns out. From what I've been able to read, his legal team ahs abandoned most of their defenses. My guess is there will be a settlement in the next couple of months. It must be painful and difficult for him to accept that *Landis stands to garner 25% of whatever is decided*.


It must be painful and difficult for him to accept that according to Allen Lim, Landis has much more natural talent than he, Armstrong, has.

LeMond's natural talent must kill him.

LOL


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

He's looking OLD! And stressed...


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

He 's a walking modern day, walking pariah.

A walking, modern day Jesus Christ.


----------



## ridingred (Aug 25, 2010)

I can't be the only one who is tired of hearing about Lance.
Other than A-Rod is there a bigger ego in all of sports??
Enough already.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Jackhammer said:


> It must be painful and difficult for him to accept that according to Allen Lim, Landis has much more natural talent than he, Armstrong, has.
> 
> LeMond's natural talent must kill him.
> 
> LOL


I remember a poster saying this exact thing over a year ago. That poster was banned. 

Hmmm...


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> I remember a poster saying this exact thing over a year ago. That poster was banned.
> 
> Hmmm...


Smart guy! I wonder why he was banned? BTW, do you disagree with the sentiment?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

wgscott said:


> They aren't equivalent. Students taking drugs to better their chances of getting into medical school is a phenomenon much more likely to have a direct impact upon the average person's life, especially if their doctors are all amphetamine addicts.


Doctors get drug tested.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Doctors get drug tested.


They do? Throughout their careers or just prior to residency? 

If you are not making stuff up, the testing must be very ineffective. Physicians have historically had high rates of substance abuse.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I appear to be 25 years late for my mandatory drug test...


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If Lance had ridden a motorcycle instead of a bike would his fraud be any less of an achievement?


what if everyone who was competing with him was also on a motorcycle?

or are you going to posit that Lance was the first successful doping cyclist?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> what if everyone who was competing with him was also on a motorcycle?
> 
> or are you going to posit that Lance was the first successful doping cyclist?


You don't really believe that "Level playing field nonsense do you? Some were on a Ducati some were on a moped. 


Armstrong paid Ferrari over $1,000,000 how many Neo-Pro's can afford that?
In 1999 teams were scared of bringing EPO to France. The Retro testing showed a fraction of postived compared to 1998, 50% of them belonged to one rider: Armstrong
How many teams were doing transfusions in 2000?
Armstrong did not even have his entire team on the program, 3 guys and a special RV, and Ferrari....how is that "Everyone was doing it?"
Do you really think all riders respond the same to dope? Really?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You don't really believe that "Level playing field nonsense do you? Some were on a Ducati some were on a moped.
> 
> 
> Armstrong paid Ferrari over $1,000,000 how many Neo-Pro's can afford that?
> ...


who won the tours prior to Lance?
Were they on dope?
So if one wanted to compete at that level one clearly chooses to dope
They all did
Did they all compete with H Crits around / under 50?
Did Lance do it better? Does it matter? Do I get less jail time if the bank I rob only had $40K instead of $400K ?

Why bring Neo Pros into this? It's a red herring and immaterial. Every major GC Honch and their support riders were doped. T Kom was doped as a team, Festina was, ONCE was.

Again, Lance probably regrets not being secretive and being an a hole. Do you think Bjarne, Pantani, Jan, etc... would NOT do it again given the same circumstances? It's what it took.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

who won the tours prior to Lance?
Were they on dope?
So if one wanted to compete at that level one clearly chooses to dope
They all did.
Did they all compete with H Crits around / under 50 after the limit was set?
Did Lance do it better? Does it matter? Do I get less jail time if the bank I rob only had $40K instead of $400K ?

Why bring Neo Pros into this? It's a red herring and immaterial. Every major GC Honch and their support riders were doped. T Kom was doped as a team, Festina was, ONCE was.

Responds to dope the same? No. Same goes with responding to training. Some folks just luck out. He happened to be top o' the heap for his generation. Had he died of cancer Jan would be the most dominant tour rider in History and a lifelong systematic doper.

Again, Lance probably regrets not being secretive enough and for being a monumental a hole. Do you think Bjarne, Pantani, Jan, etc... would NOT do it again given the same circumstances? It's simply what it took.


----------



## wgscott (Jul 14, 2013)

But Lance is worse than Vlad the Impaler!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> who won the tours prior to Lance?
> Were they on dope?
> So if one wanted to compete at that level one clearly chooses to dope
> They all did
> ...


Where did I say Armstrong was the first cyclist who doped? You might to sanction Merckx, Indurain, or Pantani but none of them signed the WADA code. You may want extra-judicial sanctions most can see that is just deflection. 

The idea that it was a level playing field and they were all on the "same motorcycle" is absurd. This question is especially comical



atpjunkie said:


> Did they all compete with H Crits around / under 50?


In an interview with Joe Lindsey, Jonathan Vaughters explained the variable response to oxygen vector doping.



> “for EPO, the person who’s at 36, whether there’s a 50 percent limit or not is irrelevant because the biggest improvement is in the low end, that thin blood range. That person, when they’re out training every day, their body is starved for oxygen and becomes extremely efficient at pulling oxygen from not very much hemoglobin. So you dump a big amount of red cells in that person who’s already very efficient and whoa! Are they going to go fast. Conversely you take a person at 47 and do the same thing. And let’s go to 60, say the limit isn’t 50 but that the limit is that you don’t stroke out and die. That person is not going to experience anywhere close to the difference. So people say, ‘Yeah, but that’s equalizing it out.’ But imagine the guys at 36 and 47 have exactly the same VO2 at threshold and they are neck-and-neck competitors their whole life, and one chooses to dope and the other says, ‘Well then I’ll dope too.’ Then one guy is going to go a lot faster and the other guy will go a little faster. And so you have guys that train the same, are very disciplined athletes and physiologically the same but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour, then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by who’s the best, some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be compatible with the drug


You exposed your lack of knowledge of cycling history with comments like this



atpjunkie said:


> Why bring Neo Pros into this?


Neo Pro contracts are 2 years. No way can they afford to spend $1,000,000 on a doping program like Lance did, or $80,000 in a year like Tyler and Jan did with Fuentes. 

Why does this matter? 

LeMond was on the podium of the Dauphine and Tirreno–Adriatico in his Deo Pro contract

Merckx won the Giro during his Neo Pro contract. He won the Tour in his 3rd year

Edwig Van Hooydonck won Flanders twice before he was 25. He was out of the sport by 28 because he refused to take EPO

Fignon won the Tour during his Neo Pro Contract

Hinault won Liège–Bastogne–Liège, Gent–Wevelgem, Dauphiné, Tour and the Vuelta in his Neo Pro contract

Prior to Oxygen vector doping riders showed their talent early, not late in their career like Riis and Armstrong. EPO distorted all of this. Victories became about who responded best to dope and who took the greatest risk, not who was the most talent or worked the hardest. 

You are welcome to pretend that there was a level playing field but most of us can see that is nonsense.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Where did I say Armstrong was the first cyclist who doped? You might to sanction Merckx, Indurain, or Pantani but none of them signed the WADA code. You may want extra-judicial sanctions most can see that is just deflection.
> 
> The idea that it was a level playing field and they were all on the "same motorcycle" is absurd. This question is especially comical
> 
> ...


Pantani responded well to it, Jan responded well to it, Contador......
all the top pros respond well to it. That's why they were/are the 'top pros'.
Lance won WORLDS as a Neo as well as a Tour stage. So does that not fall under 'showing talent early'? I'm sure he was doping as a neo, albeit not to the level they were later, but like most Neos he still had a program. And as a promising upstart he got better paychecks which allowed better doping. That isn't uncommon in the sport.
The part that is so ridiculous is that you think his path is/was so much different than everyone else. Once he got rolling he was probably better funded than most and I'm sure his personal nature led to an extremely meticulous program but I doubt it was vastly different than what Jan had gone through and I'm sure Jan's program started a decade before Lance's. 
I get it, you passionately don't like the guy, you're an anti-fanboi. He doesn't matter to me one bit, I like the classics over the GTs. I'm not a Cancer survivor or a Trek owner. (in fact I don't ride any Carbon bikes) I think LA was an a hole for the way he went after people who tried to expose him but this matters little to none to me, I wasn't one of them.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

How did Lance start out with such a high budget and how is he 100% responsible for that?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Pantani responded well to it, Jan responded well to it, Contador......
> all the top pros respond well to it. That's why they were/are the 'top pros'.
> Lance won WORLDS as a Neo as well as a Tour stage. So does that not fall under 'showing talent early'? I'm sure he was doping as a neo, albeit not to the level they were later, but like most Neos he still had a program. And as a promising upstart he got better paychecks which allowed better doping. That isn't uncommon in the sport.
> The part that is so ridiculous is that you think his path is/was so much different than everyone else. Once he got rolling he was probably better funded than most and I'm sure his personal nature led to an extremely meticulous program but I doubt it was vastly different than what Jan had gone through and I'm sure Jan's program started a decade before Lance's.
> I get it, you passionately don't like the guy, you're an anti-fanboi. He doesn't matter to me one bit, I like the classics over the GTs. I'm not a Cancer survivor or a Trek owner. (in fact I don't ride any Carbon bikes) I think LA was an a hole for the way he went after people who tried to expose him but this matters little to none to me, I wasn't one of them.


Armstrong did not finish his first two Tours. It was not until he started to work with Ferrari that he finished a Tour. To pretend he showed ability to win a Grand Tour at an early age is laughable. 

As I pointed out many times Lance is hardly the only rider to benefit from responding well to dope. No way Riis, Ullrich, Berzin, Pantani wins a Grand Tour if there really was a level playing field. 

The key elements to winning during the oxygen vector years were


Response to doping
Willingness to take risk
Early adopters
Money
Protection from the UCI


Hard Work and natural talent became secondary


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong did not finish his first two Tours. It was not until he started to work with Ferrari that he finished a Tour. To pretend he showed ability to win a Grand Tour at an early age is laughable.
> 
> As I pointed out many times Lance is hardly the only rider to benefit from responding well to dope. No way Riis, Ullrich, Berzin, Pantani wins a Grand Tour if there really was a level playing field.
> 
> ...




did I ever say he did finish his first tours? That is a ddge

He won a WC as a Neo
Answer the question. Is that showing early promise?

Mig vs Zulle and Bjarne, Bjarne vs Jan and Virenque, Jan vs Virenque and Pantani, Pantani vs Jan and Bobby, what makes those match ups any different than Lance vs Zulle, Marco, Jan, Joseba....?

again, had Lance died or never been able to comeback from cancer, Jan could have potentially won 8x. He'd be considered the greatest ever, or be accused as having the greatest doping program of all time.

Early adopters and willingness to take risks? Well we need to look no farther than T Kom (or Banesto), funny both rode Pinarellos) who set the standard long before USPS was even a team. 

It's an arms race, and in such things, each side tries to out do each other. I don't hold one party more guilty because they wound up doing it better. Again, had they not, then the #2 team would be the #1. This again falls under is a $40,000 armed robbery not as wrong as an $60,000 armed robbery?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> did I ever say he did finish his first tours? That is a ddge
> 
> He won a WC as a Neo
> Answer the question. Is that showing early promise?
> ...


It appears you do not understand the difference between a one day race and a Grand Tour. :idea:

Jan is certainly a contender for best doping program but he was often late to the game. He did not start transfusions until the 2003 season, three years after USPS did. Pevenage has also said they stopped using EPO during races in 2000/01 due to the testing risk. 

You like to pretend that everyone was doing it but the facts do not support your claim. In 1999 teams and riders were scared of getting caught with EPO in France. They all showed up "Glowing" but few took that risk during the Tour.The retro testing supports this. In the *83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong* Compare that to 1998 where there were 32 positive/questionable samples. Not every team had a Motoman. 

Name one team, besides USPS, that was using transfusions in 2000.

You clearly want to make this personal and all about lance but I have mentioned several other riders as well. Riis may have set the standards for risk in the 96 Tour. He took twice the HGH and EPO as his teammates, shooting his Hct to 64%. It is no wonder he tanked once the 50% rule came in.

Unfortunately few of these riders are covered under the WADA code and the few that are do not have the level of evidence that USADA had on lance, Marti, Bruyneel, Celya, Leinders, Ferrari, or del Moral. Riis will likely be banned next month and Jan was sanctioned already.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Name one team, besides USPS, that was using transfusions in 2000.


Kelme was there so.........


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

no I understand quite clearly. as clearly as I understand what using an ad hom to skirt a question looks like.

Jan was late to transfusions, BFD, produce me a comparison between his and the rest of the TdF's top 5 H Crit levels and we'll see. Unless his levels were dropping dramatically while everyone else's were stable he was using some form of manipulation. See, it doesn't matter to me if it was done via transfusion, EPO, CERA, hell altitude tents. If theirH Crit was staying relatively level they were getting some form of help.

and again you fall back to the USPS 'cheated better'. It's an arms race and somebody typically wins. 'They all showed up glowing" reads as "They all were cheating" but USPS continued to cheat while the rest lost the nerve. Just like Bjarne was willing to cheat more than the rest, that's the way it goes, that's why people dope, risk = reward. Again, had Lance not been there and USPS never had a GC contender then T Kom would be the reigning champs. There still would have been cheaters. That's my point, damning one team who was not the first, but maybe the best for their time and not condemning the lot of them will never solve anything.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

speed averages
1996 - 25.888
1997 - 24.350
1998 - 24.844 FESTINA
1999- 25.027 omg THE FEAR

so everyone was terrified yet average speed remained relative


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

atpjunkie said:


> no I understand quite clearly. as clearly as I understand what using an ad hom to skirt a question looks like.
> 
> Jan was late to transfusions, BFD, produce me a comparison between his and the rest of the TdF's top 5 H Crit levels and we'll see. Unless his levels were dropping dramatically while everyone else's were stable he was using some form of manipulation. See, it doesn't matter to me if it was done via transfusion, EPO, CERA, hell altitude tents. If theirH Crit was staying relatively level they were getting some form of help.
> 
> and again you fall back to the USPS 'cheated better'. It's an arms race and somebody typically wins. 'They all showed up glowing" reads as "They all were cheating" but USPS continued to cheat while the rest lost the nerve. Just like Bjarne was willing to cheat more than the rest, that's the way it goes, that's why people dope, risk = reward. Again, had Lance not been there and USPS never had a GC contender then T Kom would be the reigning champs. There still would have been cheaters.* That's my point, damning one team who was not the first, but maybe the best for their time and not condemning the lot of them will never solve anything*.


Your point is that no one else was sanctioned?

I got it!

The problem is your point has no basis in reality.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

This is the problem with Internet forums. No matter how wrong someone is or how comprehensively their point has been disproven, they still blather on.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Kelme was there so.........


Manzano said Kelme did not use transfusions until the 2003 season


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> no I understand quite clearly. as clearly as I understand what using an ad hom to skirt a question looks like.
> 
> Jan was late to transfusions, BFD, produce me a comparison between his and the rest of the TdF's top 5 H Crit levels and we'll see. Unless his levels were dropping dramatically while everyone else's were stable he was using some form of manipulation. See, it doesn't matter to me if it was done via transfusion, EPO, CERA, hell altitude tents. If theirH Crit was staying relatively level they were getting some form of help.
> 
> and again you fall back to the USPS 'cheated better'. It's an arms race and somebody typically wins. 'They all showed up glowing" reads as "They all were cheating" but USPS continued to cheat while the rest lost the nerve. Just like Bjarne was willing to cheat more than the rest, that's the way it goes, that's why people dope, risk = reward. Again, had Lance not been there and USPS never had a GC contender then T Kom would be the reigning champs. There still would have been cheaters. That's my point, damning one team who was not the first, but maybe the best for their time and not condemning the lot of them will never solve anything.


Pointing out how wrong your assumption are is not a personal attack.

That you do not understand the difference between EPO, transfusions, and an altitude tent explains a lot. In the third week of a Grand Tour which works best for a GC contender? Do you really think that taking EPO when you are getting tested every day is the same as a transfusion? Really? Do you really think any GC contender is using an Altitude tent in the 3rd week of a GT? 😄


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Manzano said Kelme did not use transfusions until the 2003 season


That's peculiar. Seems that they wouldn't need to use transfusions with all their good results before that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> That's peculiar. Seems that they wouldn't need to use transfusions with all their good results before that.


Very valid point. I have always wondered what Kelme was doing in 2000. Granted they were not close to Lance and some of their results (Botero) were flukes but still they dominated the rest of the field. 

It would not suprise me if they were doing transfusions in 2000 but I have seen no evidence of it. 

Boogerd was the first on Rabo to do a tranasfusion, He did it in 2002. Rass and a few others started in 2003. 

Telekom explored transfusions but thought they were too risky. They finally started in 2004. 

Jan had a separate program from the rest of Telekom. He started transfusions in 2003. Remember that Tour? All of a sudden lots of riders caught up to Armstrong. 

The idea that everyone was riding the same motorcycle, especially in 1999 and 2000, is simply nonsense.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

In assessing Armstrong's natural talent one has to consider his physique before and after cancer. He as would anyone with what he had wasted away in his fight against the cancer. His extreme regimen of chemo and his surgeries ravaged his tissues including his musculature. 

When he began to recover from his successful battle against bot the disease and the chemo the body that filled back in long before he began competing again was a different physique than before the cancer. The "new" body was lighter and muscles were longer or leaner--a much better natural build for cycling than he had before. The change in his physique was very noticeable and widely commented on at the time by those that knew of him before his cancer, treatment, and recovery

In a nutshell even without the doping he was a naturally potentially better cyclist than he was before he became sick.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Mandeville said:


> In assessing Armstrong's natural talent one has to consider his physique before and after cancer. He as would anyone with what he had wasted away in his fight against the cancer. His extreme regimen of chemo and his surgeries ravaged his tissues including his musculature.
> 
> When he began to recover from his successful battle against bot the disease and the chemo the body that filled back in long before he began competing again was a different physique than before the cancer. The "new" body was lighter and muscles were longer or leaner--a much better natural build for cycling than he had before. The change in his physique was very noticeable and widely commented on at the time by those that knew of him before his cancer, treatment, and recovery
> 
> In a nutshell even without the doping he was a naturally potentially better cyclist than he was before he became sick.


Nope. 

Armstrong Pre-Cancer.


















His weight preseason 1992 and around his World's win in 1993 was around 3kg lighter than 1999 preseason, when he supposedly lost all that weight after cancer treatment.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Yes, and he had the best scientific breakthroughs in sports performance and he simply worked harder than anyone else in the peloton...

It almost sounds like the propaganda that Lance and Co trotted out for years every time they were accused of doping. That is, when they didn't counter-attack.

I'm sorry, but Lance, while a gifted athlete, did not have the physical potential to be a Tour-winning cyclist without doping- before or after the cancer.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Mandeville said:


> In assessing Armstrong's natural talent one has to consider his physique before and after cancer. He as would anyone with what he had wasted away in his fight against the cancer. His extreme regimen of chemo and his surgeries ravaged his tissues including his musculature.
> 
> When he began to recover from his successful battle against bot the disease and the chemo the body that filled back in long before he began competing again was a different physique than before the cancer. The "new" body was lighter and muscles were longer or leaner--a much better natural build for cycling than he had before. The change in his physique was very noticeable and widely commented on at the time by those that knew of him before his cancer, treatment, and recovery
> 
> In a nutshell even without the doping he was a naturally potentially better cyclist than he was before he became sick.


Actually I think Lance got cancer again after he retired in 2005.

Did you see how skinny he was during his comeback?

Maybe he was eating a lot of those special Spanish steaks?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Very valid point. I have always wondered what Kelme was doing in 2000. Granted they were not close to Lance and some of their results (Botero) were flukes but still they dominated the rest of the field.
> 
> It would not suprise me if they were doing transfusions in 2000 but I have seen no evidence of it.
> 
> ...


They may all say that, but why should their word be trusted? Many riders initially denied doping to the extent that several denied doping in their biography. Eskartin still dances around the topic of doping while beating 'ol Lance up a mountain in 1999. A few guys like Zabel admit to trying something once or twice, which was later proven to be another lie. 

2003 was an interesting tour. It's a shame the roads were wet in the final time trial. The results could have been quite different. I'm still amazed at Armstrong's handling after Beloki's tire issue.


----------



## dcb (Jul 21, 2008)

Mandeville said:


> muscles were longer or leaner


This is an interesting. Can you site a source for this? If his muscles got longer, how did it happen? Did the attachment points move? If so, how? Or, did his bones get longer and the attachment points get farther apart? 

In regard to leaner muscles, this may in fact be true, but it would difficult to assess it without having pre and post MRI's for analysis. Are these floating around and has somebody measured his intramuscular fat deposits pre and post cancer/treatment?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Jackhammer said:


> Your point is that no one else was sanctioned?
> 
> I got it!
> 
> The problem is your point has no basis in reality.


no my problem is there are known dopers still in the peloton, many of them leading teams whose top riders had doping busts while under their direction.
Focusing all your vitriol on one person will solve nothing.
Lance is done, Johann is most likely done, they are the past. Too much energy wasted on the past while in the present we still have plenty of the culture still in action. That's typically how corrupt organizations keep being corrupt. They toss the lamb to the lions, everyone seems appeased and it is back to business as usual.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Pointing out how wrong your assumption are is not a personal attack.
> 
> That you do not understand the difference between EPO, transfusions, and an altitude tent explains a lot. In the third week of a Grand Tour which works best for a GC contender? Do you really think that taking EPO when you are getting tested every day is the same as a transfusion? Really? Do you really think any GC contender is using an Altitude tent in the 3rd week of a GT? 


I understand that physiologically operating with a H Crit of 49 whether from dope, transfusions or other methods is the same. 

Again, show me radically falling H Crit levels of Jan or any of the top riders during the 3 weeks and you'll show an advantage. Whether you dodged the test with masking agents or took a bag is inconsequential until your competitions inability to do the same shows a drop in their numbers.

So until we have those #s it is all a guessing game, just like guessing whether teams say "We didn't transfuse until 2003" are actually being truthful or not. You are trusting the words of liars and cheats. "I tired doping once but didn't like it" and then using said trust to make claims about other people's ignorance.

Please, why don't you review your own personal history here and check how many times you start a post with some form of 'clearly you don't know what you are talking about'

lastly this all (again) falls under "They cheated better"
so the teams who were only using EPO, T and HGH in the off season were 'less guilty' than the teams that did the same, plus transfusions (again speculative) during the race.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

atpjunkie said:


> no my problem is there are known dopers still in the peloton, many of them leading teams whose top riders had doping busts while under their direction.
> Focusing all your vitriol on one person will solve nothing.
> Lance is done, Johann is most likely done, they are the past. Too much energy wasted on the past while in the present we still have plenty of the culture still in action. That's typically how corrupt organizations keep being corrupt. They toss the lamb to the lions, everyone seems appeased and it is back to business as usual.


Well, there are still unresolved legal issues with Pharmstrong.

If he was honest they'd be resolved quickly.

Whose fault is that?

Then YOU start with this assumption; "Focusing all your vitriol on one person will solve nothing."

Pointing out the awful truth about Armstrong is not vitriol.

Armstrong has forced this "waste of energy." 

You suggest the authorities drop legitimate claims against him?

Armstrong is the "lamb?"

Wasn't the "corrupt organization" in cahoots with Armstrong?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> I understand that physiologically operating with a H Crit of 49 whether from dope, transfusions or other methods is the same.
> 
> Again, show me radically falling H Crit levels of Jan or any of the top riders during the 3 weeks and you'll show an advantage. Whether you dodged the test with masking agents or took a bag is inconsequential until your competitions inability to do the same shows a drop in their numbers.
> 
> ...


I already gave you test results, you ignored them because they did not fit your narrative. 

1999 Tour: 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong.....not exactly "Everyone was doing it" is it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> no my problem is there are known dopers still in the peloton, many of them leading teams whose top riders had doping busts while under their direction.
> Focusing all your vitriol on one person will solve nothing.


If you have any evidence that could lead to a sanction of a rider or staff please submit it. The UCI doping tip line is +800 8884 8884 (No joke, that is the actual number)

If you bother to read my posts you will see that I talk about many riders. You focus on one rider. Why are you not crying victim for Leinders, Dilucca, Hamilton, Ricco? Why did you not scream about the UCI and German courts 10 year pursuit of Jan? When Riis gets sanctioned next month will you be here defending him?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*5 out of 83 samples were Armstrong samples?*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> 1999 Tour: 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong.....not exactly "Everyone was doing it" is it?


Armstrong was tested more than any other athlete.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I already gave you test results, you ignored them because they did not fit your narrative.
> 
> 1999 Tour: 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong.....not exactly "Everyone was doing it" is it?


Then why wasn't he banned when they found the positives? Were any of the 4 others banned?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> Then why wasn't he banned when they found the positives? Were any of the 4 others banned?


because they were tested in 2005 I believe and there was no way to use them legally at that point. you will of course know that the retroactive tests were never done to issue bans.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Then why wasn't he banned when they found the positives? Were any of the 4 others banned?





den bakker said:


> because they were tested in 2005 I believe and there was no way to use them legally at that point. you will of course know that the retroactive tests were never done to issue bans.


No B samples.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> No B samples.


in addition to other problems at the time to use them for a ban. but you'll get a cookie anyway.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 1999 Tour: 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong.....not exactly "Everyone was doing it" is it?


I find it very hard to believe that there were only 4 other non-Armstrong positives in the 1999 prologue.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I find it very hard to believe that there were only 4 other non-Armstrong positives in the 1999 prologue.


how many positives does the Phd expect out of 4 samples?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

den bakker said:


> how many positives does the Phd expect out of 4 samples?


eleventy billion?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> how many positives does the Phd expect out of 4 samples?





Doctor Falsetti said:


> eleventy billion?


Stay classy.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Stay classy.


once you do your homework you too can have a cookie.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> once you do your homework you too can have a cookie.


83 tests, 9 positives, 5 of whom were Lance, that means 4 other positives. I find that number hard to believe in any year, especially 1999.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> 83 tests, 9 positives, 5 of whom were Lance, that means 4 other positives. I find that number hard to believe in any year, especially 1999.


well you tried. 
but you forgot "after the prologue". as in tests taken on the days after the prologue. there were 4 taken on the prologue day.4 positive. is google broken today? 
it never occurred to you that 5 LA positives the same day is a bit weird? (and he had more than 5 positives in any case during the full tour). 
had you bothered to look it up you could have spent some time on the somewhat sloppy numbers from Falsetti but a bit late now. and don't really change the picture anyway.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> well you tried.
> but you forgot "after the prologue". as in tests taken on the days after the prologue. there were 4 taken on the prologue day.4 positive. is google broken today?
> it never occurred to you that *5 LA positives the same day is a bit weird?* (and he had more than 5 positives in any case during the full tour).
> had you bothered to look it up you could have spent some time on the somewhat *sloppy numbers from Falsetti *but a bit late now. and don't really change the picture anyway.


Why yes, that did occur to me, however, he has a blog site to back up these numbers.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Why yes, that did occur to me, however, he has a blog site to back up these numbers.


did occur to you but just keep on going strong. That's the spirit.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> did occur to you but just keep on going strong. That's the spirit.












Goes to credibility, your honor.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> 83 tests, 9 positives, 5 of whom were Lance, that means 4 other positives. I find that number hard to believe in any year, especially 1999.


Not hard to believe. Many riders and team managers have talked about how they were scared to take EPO into France in 1999. France had criminalized doping, riders and staff had already been tossed into jail. There was increase testing and team cars were searched often.

The numbers reflect riders fear of criminal prosecution. It is clear that during the race the vast majority of riders did not take EPO while lance hired Motoman to make sure he was always glowing. 

The level playing field is a myth


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> eleventy billion?


Over 30!

...


uhm




...



I meant to say 6


----------

