# why all the lance haters?



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

with all the negative responses from this post I just decided to delete it. apparently tired ole subject that nobody really wants to discuss. So rather than a "why all the Lance Haters" thread lets change it to something that may be more productive and help me with what I thought was a pretty simple question.

Anyone have additional information on where I can look to find some of the circumstantial evidence that LA was a cheat. Some have already offered up links or books or names to google. Thank you, that is helpful. Others are appreciated. Sure I will do some searches on my own, but hey time is precious and theres no point in reinventing the wheel if others already know where to go.

Again, I am not trying to defend LA. I was am still am a fan. However, if there is convincing information to the contrary I would just as soon not have him in my list of cycling greats. And yes, I am new to following cycling.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

What a novel idea for a thread. 

If you aren't going to try and learn why it appears someone is a cheat I have no idea why you expect people to try and converse with you why it appears that way.


----------



## Stasera (Mar 6, 2006)

*What does this have to do with Lance Armstrong?*



smbrum said:


> I just dont think we can assume someone is a doper just because they win races.


Yes, that kind of assumption probably would be unfair. 

Given the mountain of evidence that Armstrong doped throughout his career, however, I don't see what your comment could possibly have to do with Armstrong.


----------



## bikesarethenewblack (Dec 30, 2008)

Why are you baiting for a war? Really. Didn't you seer the melee that ensued when someone asked the equally silly question regarding Trek?

I like Lance plenty, but as for my favorite rider? I'll say this and it's a combo of JD Salinger and Competitive Cyclists - any cycling fan who doesn't value the Tour of Flanders more than the Tour de France is a goddam spy


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

You may be new to this so let's draw a parrallel.

In the game of basket ball you have guards, forwards and centers. Now if one day a 5'9" guard starts out rebounding 7'4" centers, would you be a bit suspicious?

Now take a look at Lance's career pre and post cancer and tell us what you think. And we haven't even scratched the surface yet.

If you see nothing there, then maybe one day Mark Cavendish will be a yellow jersey contender.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> any cycling fan who doesn't value the Tour of Flanders more than the Tour de France is a goddam spy


True!


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

Henry Porter said:


> What a novel idea for a thread.
> 
> If you aren't going to try and learn why it appears someone is a cheat I have no idea why you expect people to try and converse with you why it appears that way.


why would you make a comment like that??? what do you think I am trying to do by starting this thread.. Lets see, learn!!! I thought my OP made it clear I wasnt an expert or even trying to state an argument for LA being clean. Simply posing some questions as to why others feel so confident that he isnt. I havent been exposed to cycling except overt he last few years and so I dont have the luxury of a mountain of history. Thats why I came to this forum and posted what I thought was a reasonable post that might help educate me on the doping scandals in cycling. Instead I get responses such as yours and others "what a novel idea for a thread: rolleyes". It seems to me that this forum is nothing more than a spot for you "experts" to come together and share your ideas and opinions and who the heck do I think I am to come in and ask, what I thought was a simple question. When my only goal was to try and learn more about why others have drawn the conclusions they have about LA or anyone else being a doper before evidence is presented. Silly me to think this forum was for an open exchange between cyclist to share and learn. Appears as though the club membership is already at capacity and not accepting new members. Thats ok I'll stick to other forums where respondents primary goal isnt to make fairly new cyclist feel stupid. thanks for your feedback


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

smbrum said:


> It seems to me that this forum is nothing more than a spot for you "experts" to come together and share your ideas and opinions and who the heck do I think I am to come in and ask, what I thought was a simple question. When my only goal was to try and learn more about why others have drawn the conclusions they have about LA or anyone else being a doper before evidence is presented. Silly me to think this forum was for an open exchange between cyclist to share and learn. Appears as though the club membership is already at capacity and not accepting new members. Thats ok I'll stick to other forums where respondents primary goal isnt to make fairly new cyclist feel stupid. thanks for your feedback


There really aren't that many experts on this forum or people with pro cycling 'inside' information for that matter. Just lots of conjecture and pontification. Don't take anything personally and everything with a grain of salt.


----------



## bikesarethenewblack (Dec 30, 2008)

smbrum said:


> why would you make a comment like that??? what do you think I am trying to do by starting this thread.. Lets see, learn!!! I thought my OP made it clear I wasnt an expert or even trying to state an argument for LA being clean. Thats ok I'll stick to other forums where respondents primary goal isnt to make fairly new cyclist feel stupid. thanks for your feedback


Let me give you some feedback that has little to do with senior Armstrong himself.

1. In your opening statement you didn't say you were new and wanted to learn. You said things like people think he doped, but maybe he didn't. That's a baiting comment which leads me to my second point

2. Lots of people are new to cycling because of lance. Lots of people were into the sport well before him and some before LeMond and some even before them. Here is the one thing you will learn - Lance is a back or white - fans of cycling (who are different from Lance fans) either love him or hate him and some accept him for who he is, but by and large it's a partisan point.

3. This has been debated on this site for a long, long time - you could have done a simple search. Regardless, it almost always never ends on a good note.

4. Why not ask about history of the sport sans Lance. There is a difference between learning the sport and learning why one might not like lance. You asked for the ladder, but brought up the former to defend yourself.

5. Ask people to PM you and I will bet you will get a more reasoned response.

Hope this helps, no one is trying to make you fell bad - this topic, though, that's another story.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

MG537 said:


> You may be new to this so let's draw a parrallel.
> 
> In the game of basket ball you have guards, forwards and centers. Now if one day a 5'9" guard starts out rebounding 7'4" centers, would you be a bit suspicious?
> 
> ...


understood...and yes suspicious I would be. But suspicion isnt proof. Since basketball was your analogy, and a reasonable one at that, I would ask you to recall Spudd Webb from the Atlanta Hawks. I think its safe to say that a 5' 6" individual would be largely discounted as any real competitor in the land of giants. However, he was a competitive player who also went on to win a slam dunk championship. Certainly that has to be performance above the normal for his stature, agreed. All I'm saying is that have I been suspicious of LA or any other superhuman performance, certainly. I was just asking for a little more concrete reasoning since so many others seem to know beyond a reasonable doubt. Didnt realize I was, as someone else pointed out, "baiting for a war" I simply wanted a better understanding of why there is so much discord for an individual who has done a lot for cycling in the us. Admitedly I have been a fan, but if my faith in his abilities has been misplaced I would want to know and would want to know with certainty.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Let me give you some feedback that has little to do with senior Armstrong himself.
> 
> 1. In your opening statement you didn't say you were new and wanted to learn. You said things like people think he doped, but maybe he didn't. That's a baiting comment which leads me to my second point
> 
> ...



fair enough. 1st I thought I put in I was new so sorry for the confusion there. 2nd I could have done a search but was wanting to get into a dialogue with the opportunity to ask questions, rather than just read up on a bunch of old threads where others werent likely to respond. I also understand the difference between the history of the sport and Lance but I also thought it was relevant given his return and doping still plagueing the sport. Virtually anytime doping is brought up, LA is mentioned and if LA is mentioned doping is brought up. I just havent been able to follow how his doping is presented so many times as fact on this forum. Perhaps it is fact, but its never presented like that on any race coverage as it is with other dopers who have come back to the sport. Perhaps I didnt prepare the wording of the OP correctly..Fine, it would still seem the civilized thing to do is respond with some kind of legitimate answer or just dont respond at all. Believe it or not, some people actually post questions to try and learn from others who have been in the sport for a while. The intent was not to bait or start a war or even defend Lance. The intent was to try and find out why others were so passionate about an opinion that was different than what I have had. Thanks for your reply


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

smbrum said:


> understood...and yes suspicious I would be. But suspicion isnt proof. Since basketball was your analogy, and a reasonable one at that, I would ask you to recall Spudd Webb from the Atlanta Hawks. I think its safe to say that a 5' 6" individual would be largely discounted as any real competitor in the land of giants. However, he was a competitive player who also went on to win a slam dunk championship. Certainly that has to be performance above the normal for his stature, agreed. All I'm saying is that have I been suspicious of LA or any other superhuman performance, certainly. I was just asking for a little more concrete reasoning since so many others seem to know beyond a reasonable doubt. Didnt realize I was, as someone else pointed out, "baiting for a war" I simply wanted a better understanding of why there is so much discord for an individual who has done a lot for cycling in the us. Admitedly I have been a fan, but if my faith in his abilities has been misplaced I would want to know and would want to know with certainty.


Spudd Webb winning a slam dunk competition is different than going up against a 7 foot defender in the paint. A somewhat more realistic analogy would be, Spudd Webb playing center against the likes of Robert Parrish, Kareem Abdul Jabbar etc. 
The analogy I was trying to make is the following. Look at his accomplishments pre-cancer. Nothing there tells us that this man was ever going to last a three week grand tour. He did win a World Road Race Championship in 1993 and he did win Fleche Wallone in 1996 (and if one believes one Mr. Andreu he was pretty bulked up for that one).
Now post cancer he comes out and wins the TdF (against Pantani, Ulrich etc.).
This is where my analogy of someone like Spudd Webb playing center comes in and since this is a cycling forum, why can't Tom Boonen one day win the TdF. Because he's lazy?

All of the above is just scratching the surface.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

*Reading & Viewing List*

Reading
From Lance to Landis
A Rough Ride
Armstrong's War
Viewing

1989 Tour de France - Pre EPO era
1990 Tour de France - Probable start of EPO era
1991-1995 Tours de France - Full Gas
1999-2005 Tours de France - LA
1996 Amstel - Pre Cancer LA
Once you've digested that you'll see that it ain't kosher. Something smells funny.
To go from a rider that has 6 minutes taken out of them by Indurain to the one handing out the kicking is downright suspicious. Just like Hincapie winning a summit finish stage! Pull the other one, it's got bells on!


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

MG537 said:


> Spudd Webb winning a slam dunk competition is different than going up against a 7 foot defender in the paint. A somewhat more realistic analogy would be, Spudd Webb playing center against the likes of Robert Parrish, Kareem Abdul Jabbar etc.
> The analogy I was trying to make is the following. Look at his accomplishments pre-cancer. Nothing there tells us that this man was ever going to last a three week grand tour. He did win a World Road Race Championship in 1993 and he did win Fleche Wallone in 1996 (and if one believes one Mr. Andreu he was pretty bulked up for that one).
> Now post cancer he comes out and wins the TdF (against Pantani, Ulrich etc.).
> This is where my analogy of someone like Spudd Webb playing center comes in and since this is a cycling forum, why can't Tom Boonen one day win the TdF. Because he's lazy?
> ...


understand your point. honestly I am not a Lance or cycling history buff. didnt realize his pre cancer performane was so subpar. i have only been in the sport for 4 or 5 years. My point on Spudd was just that sometimes people arise above what would be expected based on physical limitations. Your points make sense


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

smbrum said:


> fair enough. 1st I thought I put in I was new so sorry for the confusion there. 2nd I could have done a search but was wanting to get into a dialogue with the opportunity to ask questions, rather than just read up on a bunch of old threads where others werent likely to respond. I also understand the difference between the history of the sport and Lance but I also thought it was relevant given his return and doping still plagueing the sport. Virtually anytime doping is brought up, LA is mentioned and if LA is mentioned doping is brought up. I just havent been able to follow how his doping is presented so many times as fact on this forum. Perhaps it is fact, but its never presented like that on any race coverage as it is with other dopers who have come back to the sport. Perhaps I didnt prepare the wording of the OP correctly..Fine, it would still seem the civilized thing to do is respond with some kind of legitimate answer or just dont respond at all. Believe it or not, some people actually post questions to try and learn from others who have been in the sport for a while. The intent was not to bait or start a war or even defend Lance. The intent was to try and find out why others were so passionate about an opinion that was different than what I have had. Thanks for your reply


I get it, we're here for your amusement. It's pretty rude to not do a search and read what others have posted over the years yet expect people to retype out their opinions/thoughts.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

smbrum said:


> understand your point. honestly I am not a Lance or cycling history buff. didnt realize his pre cancer performane was so subpar. i have only been in the sport for 4 or 5 years. My point on Spudd was just that sometimes people arise above what would be expected based on physical limitations. Your points make sense


Nobody in this forum will ever say that Lance's accomplishments were sub-par before 1996. 
All most of us want to point out is that you don't go from a one day race, classics type of cyclist to grand tour winner just on will power. 

Many of today's stars are excellent one day riders, Tom Boonen, Fabian Cancellara to name a couple. Be very suspicious however, if in 2011 or beyond you see any of these win a grand tour.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

Henry Porter said:


> I get it, we're here for your amusement. It's pretty rude to not do a search and read what others have posted over the years yet expect people to retype out their opinions/thoughts.


ahhh, I get it. Didnt realize a pre-requisite for posting was that the topic could never have been discussed previously. Rude, really??? No one forces people to respond or re-type what was done over & over. Dont like the question or dont want to repeat yourself...then dont. A 0 replies would have sent the msg that perhaps this is a worn out topic. Besides, peoples opinions change, new information or evidence gets found over the years. If I have a question why should I rely on old information, why not just pose a question in say...a forum for instance. Thought thats what this was, open discussion. Perhaps I will email the moderator and ask if he can change this to the "Doping Archives" so that people like you dont have to waste their time exchanging with people like me.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

smbrum said:


> ahhh, I get it. Didnt realize a pre-requisite for posting was that the topic could never have been discussed previously. Rude, really??? No one forces people to respond or re-type what was done over & over. Dont like the question or dont want to repeat yourself...then dont. A 0 replies would have sent the msg that perhaps this is a worn out topic. Besides, peoples opinions change, new information or evidence gets found over the years. If I have a question why should I rely on old information, why not just pose a question in say...a forum for instance. Thought thats what this was, open discussion. Perhaps I will email the moderator and ask if he can change this to the "Doping Archives" so that people like you dont have to waste their time exchanging with people like me.


You're just trolling now.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

There are certain subjects that come up repeatedly on RBR, and a lot of the people that have been hanging around here for a while get tired of them.

If you want a similar set of negative reactions - and a similar suggestion that you use the search function. Go to either the general forum, or the components forum and start a thread about shimano versus campy with a subject like "Why so many Shimano haters out there"

There's very little on the Lance subject that hasn't been beaten to death here.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

So much to say here.
Firstly the headline 'why the Lance haters'? Such a convenient way to describe people like myself who want a clean sport and have followed the sport pre 1999. I love that sketch where Lance asks Lemond, 'Greg, why do you love cancer'? It's as if it's sacreligious to question the cancer hero. I don't believe the vast majority of people who doubt him, actually hate him. Any sane person would be slow to hate or loathe a person they've never met. 
What gets me frustrated is the mistruths which many, not all, his fans come out with. These include the notions that he had the best equipment, lost weight, improved his cadence, had the best team, focused completely on the Tour. The people who criticise him are 'haters, jealous losers, axe-grinders, money seeking, bitter and tabloids.' Rarely is the essence of the message questioned. It is always a case of shoot the messenger. David Walsh being called a 'fu**ing troll' for example. Lemond has been called unstable and an alcoholic. Emma O'Reilly a sl**. 
A few people here have alluded to his drastic change in performance from the early to mid nineties and his winning years. They are correct. Lance never had the physiology to climb mountains with the best in the world in a Grand Tour. He is not, and never has been a genetic freak. His figures show this. Lance has said alot recently that he was winning from the start of his career. One day races yes - and even that was sporadic. His performances in the Tour de France were very average at best. He was often losing 20 mins on mountain stages.
People who attributed the change in performance to loss of weight. He lost, at best, two kgs. 
Change in cadence - yes he did change it....but this also requires a far greater amount of oxygen, something his VO2 Max capabilities do not support. 
The original poster asked the question if all winners have to be dopers. When a rider like Lance beats known blood dopers like Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Mancebo etc, by seven and eight minutes, one realises that it is simply not possible to do it clean. Blood doping improves performance by as much as 20-25%. How much would he have won by if they were all clean?

Google Stephanie McIllvain, hospital room, to get to the essence of why people are sick of the lies. It is wrong to have thois guy on a pedestal, when he achieved it all through cheating and lies. I've said before, as have many others, that his cancer could very well have been caused by doping in the early 90s, under the guidance of CC. He wasn't the only person on that team to gets sick. The irony of him being supported for his efforts in the cancer field, against the drug allegations, and he may have got the cancer from doping in the first place....


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> So much to say here.
> Firstly the headline 'why the Lance haters'? Such a convenient way to describe people like myself who want a clean sport and have followed the sport pre 1999. I love that sketch where Lance asks Lemond, 'Greg, why do you love cancer'? It's as if it's sacreligious to question the cancer hero. I don't believe the vast majority of people who doubt him, actually hate him. Any sane person would be slow to hate or loathe a person they've never met.
> What gets me frustrated is the mistruths which many, not all, his fans come out with. These include the notions that he had the best equipment, lost weight, improved his cadence, had the best team, focused completely on the Tour. The people who criticise him are 'haters, jealous losers, axe-grinders, money seeking, bitter and tabloids.' Rarely is the essence of the message questioned. It is always a case of shoot the messenger. David Walsh being called a 'fu**ing troll' for example. Lemond has been called unstable and an alcoholic. Emma O'Reilly a sl**.
> A few people here have alluded to his drastic change in performance from the early to mid nineties and his winning years. They are correct. Lance never had the physiology to climb mountains with the best in the world in a Grand Tour. He is not, and *bever has been a genetic freak*. His figures show this. Lance has said alot recently that he was winning from the start of his career. One day races yes - and even that was sporadic. His performances in the Tour de France were very average at best. He was often losing 20 mins on mountain stages.
> ...


Come on, it's simply "most of the athletes in Lance's era felt he couldnt be beaten before the first stage was completed."  Your bever miskey made me laugh, thinking up some genetically freaked beaver on a bike.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> So much to say here.
> Firstly the headline 'why the Lance haters'? Such a convenient way to describe people like myself who want a clean sport and have followed the sport pre 1999. I love that sketch where Lance asks Lemond, 'Greg, why do you love cancer'? It's as if it's sacreligious to question the cancer hero. I don't believe the vast majority of people who doubt him, actually hate him. Any sane person would be slow to hate or loathe a person they've never met.
> What gets me frustrated is the mistruths which many, not all, his fans come out with. These include the notions that he had the best equipment, lost weight, improved his cadence, had the best team, focused completely on the Tour. The people who criticise him are 'haters, jealous losers, axe-grinders, money seeking, bitter and tabloids.' Rarely is the essence of the message questioned. It is always a case of shoot the messenger. David Walsh being called a 'fu**ing troll' for example. Lemond has been called unstable and an alcoholic. Emma O'Reilly a sl**.
> A few people here have alluded to his drastic change in performance from the early to mid nineties and his winning years. They are correct. Lance never had the physiology to climb mountains with the best in the world in a Grand Tour. He is not, and bever has been a genetic freak. His figures show this. Lance has said alot recently that he was winning from the start of his career. One day races yes - and even that was sporadic. His performances in the Tour de France were very average at best. He was often losing 20 mins on mountain stages.
> ...


I accept that lance more than likely doped. It was the culture of the sport during his wins. But what will happen if he is fairly successful this time around?? 

There is a post assuming that he Doped up beacause he looked good on the climb the other day. Its fair to question his previous performances, but why assume he's doping now?

Almost every rider he shared the TDF podium with was a doper. Why so much hate for the guy? Because he didnt get caught?? Many here claim its a cleaner sport now. If it really is, maybe the pre-cancer Lance could beat the current guys out there.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

godot said:


> There are certain subjects that come up repeatedly on RBR, and a lot of the people that have been hanging around here for a while get tired of them.
> 
> If you want a similar set of negative reactions - and a similar suggestion that you use the search function. Go to either the general forum, or the components forum and start a thread about shimano versus campy with a subject like "Why so many Shimano haters out there"
> 
> There's very little on the Lance subject that hasn't been beaten to death here.


ok, I get it. its an tired old topic. thats fine, I know the rules now. I just didnt realize this post would actually offend people by the mere fact they were forced to read it. Last Lance post by me, thats for sure. What I dont understand is why this post or a Shimano vs Campy post would get such negative reactions. It assumes that everyone on RBR has been around for ever and that no one coming in would be new. I didnt even know RBR had forums like these until last year when I was trying to find some info on a bike I was looking at. Never even read the doping forum until last week. Thats what brought up the initial question. I was reading through some posts that were put up over the last few weeks or months and many discussions kept coming back to Lance. I had just never saw where he had been caught with anything and was wondering why so many were so sure and why so many had such hate. So I thought, why not ask those that have been around and involved in the sport longer. Through all the negativity though I have actually received some good information, some through private messages. I am still surprised at the negativity, even if a worn out topic. seems it would be easier to just not even open up a thread titled lance Haters and move on if you have already read the same ole stuff year after year. I mean why go through the trouble of not only reading it but actually responding???


----------



## bikesarethenewblack (Dec 30, 2008)

smbrum said:


> understand your point. honestly I am not a Lance or cycling history buff. didnt realize his pre cancer performane was so subpar.


Whatever anyone says the guys pre cancer performance wasn't subpar, it was just different from where he is now. Subpar it was not. He won the world jersey be sheer force, he won the US national champ jersey by force, too. Some of the tour stage wins were decent as well. What he wasn't, pre cancer, was a tour contender. Not even close. He was average in the mountains and TT - heck there is video of him getting floored by Big Mig in one TT and he gets passed like he is standing still.

Subpar, no, different, yes.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

smbrum said:


> ok, I get it. its an tired old topic. thats fine, I know the rules now. I just didnt realize this post would actually offend people by the mere fact they were forced to read it. Last Lance post by me, thats for sure. What I dont understand is why this post or a Shimano vs Campy post would get such negative reactions. It assumes that everyone on RBR has been around for ever and that no one coming in would be new. I didnt even know RBR had forums like these until last year when I was trying to find some info on a bike I was looking at. Never even read the doping forum until last week. Thats what brought up the initial question. I was reading through some posts that were put up over the last few weeks or months and many discussions kept coming back to Lance. I had just never saw where he had been caught with anything and was wondering why so many were so sure and why so many had such hate. So I thought, why not ask those that have been around and involved in the sport longer. Through all the negativity though I have actually received some good information, some through private messages. I am still surprised at the negativity, even if a worn out topic. seems it would be easier to just not even open up a thread titled lance Haters and move on if you have already read the same ole stuff year after year. *I mean why go through the trouble of not only reading it but actually responding???*


Because responses like you got encourage people to use the search function. There is a wealth of information in all these forums that have easily answered many questions I've had.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

I hate Lance because he doesn't know how to form paragraphs. Everything he writes looks like a big blob of blah blah.

JSR


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

smbrum said:


> ok, I get it. its an tired old topic. thats fine, I know the rules now. I just didnt realize this post would actually offend people by the mere fact they were forced to read it. Last Lance post by me, thats for sure. What I dont understand is why this post or a Shimano vs Campy post would get such negative reactions. It assumes that everyone on RBR has been around for ever and that no one coming in would be new. I didnt even know RBR had forums like these until last year when I was trying to find some info on a bike I was looking at. Never even read the doping forum until last week. Thats what brought up the initial question. I was reading through some posts that were put up over the last few weeks or months and many discussions kept coming back to Lance. I had just never saw where he had been caught with anything and was wondering why so many were so sure and why so many had such hate. So I thought, why not ask those that have been around and involved in the sport longer. Through all the negativity though I have actually received some good information, some through private messages. I am still surprised at the negativity, even if a worn out topic. seems it would be easier to just not even open up a thread titled lance Haters and move on if you have already read the same ole stuff year after year. I mean why go through the trouble of not only reading it but actually responding???


Mate,
You've come to one of the UFO sites and exclaimed that those things are not full of aliens. You've got to expect responses from a lot of x-spurts who've actually talked to the aliens!


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

1 - He's a cheat and a fraud
2 - He is an arrogant primadonna that goes after anyone that even hints that he's a cheat (ala Stephanie after the Lemond taped call, Simeoni on the breakaway)
3 - Here's the most damning evidence against him that corroborates the mountain of circumstantial evidence:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> But what will happen if he is fairly successful this time around??.


Well, there's no transparency, is there? 



Bry03cobra said:


> There is a post assuming that he Doped up beacause he looked good on the climb the other day.


I don't know if you were referring to my thread. I was half joking, and also like to stir the pot



Bry03cobra said:


> Its fair to question his previous performances, but why assume he's doping now?.


Again, I'd like to see his numbers, which he promised would be forthcoming months ago. He's backtracked.



Bry03cobra said:


> Almost every rider he shared the TDF podium with was a doper. Why so much hate for the guy?.


Why is pointing out facts and inconsistencies hate?



Bry03cobra said:


> Because he didnt get caught??


He's utilized slash and burn tactics against his critics, and the more damning the accusations against him, the more vicious the attacks he's unleashed.



Bry03cobra said:


> Many here claim its a cleaner sport now. If it really is, maybe the pre-cancer Lance could beat the current guys out there.


There's evidence the pre-cancer LA was pretty doped up, and the Carmichael connection also lends support to that argument.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

HikenBike said:


> 1 - He's a cheat and a fraud
> 2 - He is an arrogant primadonna that goes after anyone that even hints that he's a cheat (ala Stephanie after the Lemond taped call, Simeoni on the breakaway)
> 3 - Here's the most damning evidence against him that corroborates the mountain of circumstantial evidence:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html


While I don't doubt LA doped, that IM exchange doesn't sound genuine. Sounds very scripted. Also according to that exchange, Floyd was doing what he had to do to defeat the evilness of Lance. Floyd believed that that's how all the teams worked. LA haters, shouldn't ya like Floyd for that?

I never met LA, I did enjoy watching him race. I met Floyd once, seemed like a really nice guy. While I defend Lance from time to time, I'm just being devils advocate. Since I'm a union worker tend to try to look at both sides of everything and try to be fair. With Floyd I feel more of a connection. Really want to believe him. In the summer I ride some of the roads he grew up riding. I really hope he gets a second chance. Maybe he will get a chance with the giro and veulta next season. As much as I would like to see him race the TDF again, he probably never will

My parent's divorced when I was 4 years old. My father moved from PA to Florida when I was 8. I didn't see him again til I was 22yrs old. He was diagnosed, and later died from cancer. He wanted to see me before he died. My mother thought that I should see him even though they had a nasty divorce. Before I left for florida to see him for the last time she told me something that I have never forgotten. "There is 3 sides to EVERY story", his story, her story, and the truth. That's how I feel about Lance. Do I believe him that he was clean, no. Do I believe that he did $hitloads of drugs to win, no. I tend to think the doping stories are exageratted(sp) to prove a point. Clean? No. But no dirtier than any other top pro from his era.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> That's how I feel about Lance. Do I believe him that he was clean, no. Do I believe that he did $hitloads of drugs to win, no. I tend to think the doping stories are exageratted(sp) to prove a point. Clean? No. But no dirtier than any other top pro from his era.


If you read his first book, you'll see his philosophy about drugs pertaining to his cancer treatments. When he went to MD Anderson, his thoughts were to throw the most extreme drug protocol at it. His views were tempered by the doctors at IU who told him that more is not necessarily better, that either the drugs work, or they don't.

He realized the power of drugs and the importance of dosage and timing, and I'll bet with his mentality, it gave him more incentive to take PED's when he decided to resume his career. Armstrong gave an interview to Walsh in April 2001, where he said he didn't give much thought to whether his rivals were using EPO during Fleche Wallone in '94, just an absolute absurd statement, especially coming right after Ferrari said correct use of EPO was no more dangerous than drinking OJ, that it was the abuse that was dangerous. Then in '95 he starts working with Ferrari? Gimme a break. Ferrari provided him with expert dosage and timing, things he realized were important during his cancer treatments. It wasn't like he was your basic gym rat, taking tons of stuff blind. I'm pretty sure his regimen was more targeted and refined. That's what he was paying such a large percentage to his "family member" Ferrari for.

Ferrari had tremendous experience gained in a controlled environment under Conconi, with other athletes, (Moser) and experimenting on himself with Ceccini.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> So much to say here.
> Firstly the headline 'why the Lance haters'? Such a convenient way to describe people like myself who want a clean sport and have followed the sport pre 1999. I love that sketch where Lance asks Lemond, 'Greg, why do you love cancer'? It's as if it's sacreligious to question the cancer hero. I don't believe the vast majority of people who doubt him, actually hate him. Any sane person would be slow to hate or loathe a person they've never met.
> What gets me frustrated is the mistruths which many, not all, his fans come out with. These include the notions that he had the best equipment, lost weight, improved his cadence, had the best team, focused completely on the Tour. The people who criticise him are 'haters, jealous losers, axe-grinders, money seeking, bitter and tabloids.' Rarely is the essence of the message questioned. It is always a case of shoot the messenger. David Walsh being called a 'fu**ing troll' for example. Lemond has been called unstable and an alcoholic. Emma O'Reilly a sl**.
> A few people here have alluded to his drastic change in performance from the early to mid nineties and his winning years. They are correct. Lance never had the physiology to climb mountains with the best in the world in a Grand Tour. He is not, and never has been a genetic freak. His figures show this. Lance has said alot recently that he was winning from the start of his career. One day races yes - and even that was sporadic. His performances in the Tour de France were very average at best. He was often losing 20 mins on mountain stages.
> ...


thanks for the info. I did google mcilvain. very interesting. Question though. that incident was easy to brush off by LA by simply saying "it never happened" or "they hate me" kind of stuff. He was in a hospital for crying out loud being questioned by staff doctors. Why couldnt someone have spoken to that dr on duty who asked the PED question? Also, he was asking questions for a reason and Im sure had his little chart writing notes as to LA answers. Why couldnt someone get that stuff? I know confidentiality but if it went to a court hearing looks like there could have been a subpoena. Reading that and some other things it smells of a giant conspiracy. But why? Why would there be so many who would have his back. He was nobody back then. Certainly not the international superstar of today. So why would people cover up. I just dont get it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

smbrum said:


> thanks for the info. I did google mcilvain. very interesting. Question though. that incident was easy to brush off by LA by simply saying "it never happened" or "they hate me" kind of stuff. He was in a hospital for crying out loud being questioned by staff doctors. Why couldnt someone have spoken to that dr on duty who asked the PED question? Also, he was asking questions for a reason and Im sure had his little chart writing notes as to LA answers. Why couldnt someone get that stuff? I know confidentiality but if it went to a court hearing looks like there could have been a subpoena. Reading that and some other things it smells of a giant conspiracy. But why? Why would there be so many who would have his back. He was nobody back then. Certainly not the international superstar of today. So why would people cover up. I just dont get it.


OJ brushed off the murders by saying he was chipping golf balls in his yard.

Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true.

Of course LA is going to answer the accusations with something. The bigger question is, why would the Andreu's and McIlvaine concoct something that would ruin their livelihood's? Because they hate Lance? It's ridiculous.

He was nobody to you!

You don't get it because you're making assumptions that weren't true at that time. The facts are that LA was a star cyclist with a big contract who was sponsored by both Oakley, and Nike. He was 1993 World Road champion and had won some classics and the Tour Du Pont in '96. He was also a contender for two golds in Atlanta.

McIlvaine was his liason to Oakley and Armstrong had enough pull to enable her to keep her job there and work from home to take care of her disabled son.

Why? the answer is what it usually is, MONEY!

Look at all the "friends" he had visiting in the hospital. He was their cash cow to varying degrees.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> If you read his first book, you'll see his philosophy about drugs pertaining to his cancer treatments. When he went to MD Anderson, his thoughts were to throw the most extreme drug protocol at it. His views were tempered by the doctors at IU who told him that more is not necessarily better, that either the drugs work, or they don't.
> 
> He realized the power of drugs and the importance of dosage and timing, and I'll bet with his mentality, it gave him more incentive to take PED's when he decided to resume his career. Armstrong gave an interview to Walsh in April 2001, where he said he didn't give much thought to whether his rivals were using EPO during Fleche Wallone in '94, just an absolute absurd statement, especially coming right after Ferrari said correct use of EPO was no more dangerous than drinking OJ, that it was the abuse that was dangerous. Then in '95 he starts working with Ferrari? Gimme a break. Ferrari provided him with expert dosage and timing, things he realized were important during his cancer treatments. It wasn't like he was your basic gym rat, taking tons of stuff blind. I'm pretty sure his regimen was more targeted and refined. That's what he was paying such a large percentage to his "family member" Ferrari for.
> 
> Ferrari had tremendous experience gained in a controlled environment under Conconi, with other athletes, (Moser) and experimenting on himself with Ceccini.


So its not like his dosages were excessive, it was perfected on what was best for him, correct? 

I think where my veiws on doping is different than yours is that maybe I'm jaded from playing football from pop warner to HS.. I knew guys who used steroids, I really didn't care. Thought it was part of the game. I didn't need to be any bigger(thanks genes) for my position. If I were to get bigger I felt I would loose speed. If there was a drug that would have made 4in taller, I would have considered that. 

Is proper EPO use as safe as Ferrari said? Why not follow h-crit numbers rather than drug test. Can't cheat your number. If its ellevated, you don't race. (Didn't that happen to Pantani?). It upsets me more when the sport is self-destructing by negative media reports rather than policing itself.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Is proper EPO use as safe as Ferrari said? Why not follow h-crit numbers rather than drug test. Can't cheat your number. If its ellevated, you don't race.


Well, maybe EPO is that safe - if the doctor follows proper dosage protocols - if the rider is not medicating with other drugs.

As to the elevated hematocrit, that is the basis of the blood passport program (as far as my non-technical mind can understand it). The idea is to follow a rider over time, measuring a number of blood values, especially hematocrit. If things go wonky, like rising hematocrit during a GT, the rider could be pulled or come under special surveillance.

JSR


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> ... "There is 3 sides to EVERY story", his story, her story, and the truth. Do I believe that he did $hitloads of drugs to win, no. I tend to think the doping stories are exageratted(sp) to prove a point. Clean? No. But no dirtier than any other top pro from his era.


Well put! That's what I've been telling people on this forum about the book "From Lance to Landis". Those who haven't read, think that D. Walsh has some personnal vendetta against LA. 
My conclusion is basically this. Lance did exactly what he had to do to win in a doped up field. He took on the Euros at their game and beat them.
It's too bad that "LA Confidentiel" has not been translated to English. It's also a very good read.

The thing that rubs many people the wrong way, is all this "I'm the most tested athlete" BS or "Believe in miracles" speech he gave in Paris at 2005. And I'm sure many of you can add more "wait I wanna puke" LA stories to the list.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

Good post Digger...


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Bry03cobra said:


> While I don't doubt LA doped, that IM exchange doesn't sound genuine. Sounds very scripted. Also according to that exchange, Floyd was doing what he had to do to defeat the evilness of Lance. Floyd believed that that's how all the teams worked. LA haters, shouldn't ya like Floyd for that?


The linked article doesn't give the context of the chat. Once Lance won his 7th Tour, he was entitled to a multi-million dollar bonus from his contract. The bonus was insured by a company that underwrites such payouts (such as $1 million prize for a hole-in-one at a charity golf outing). The insurance company did not want to pay because of the doping allegations. It went to court, and the chat was subpeonaed from the internet server provider. The two ex-teammates never expected for their personal chat to go public.

I do think that Lance was doping because he believed everyone else was doing it. It was prevalent at that time(s). Hopefully it is not as prevelant today, but that remains to be seen.

Like it has been mentioned in this thread, I also cringe everytime he denies ANY doping; "I'm the most tested athlete in the world", "What am I on? I'm on my bike 6 hours a day.", etc BS.

I don't hate Lance. I just don't have any respect for the person.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

MG537 said:


> Well put! That's what I've been telling people on this forum about the book "From Lance to Landis". Those who haven't read, think that D. Walsh has some personnal vendetta against LA.
> My conclusion is basically this. Lance did exactly what he had to do to win in a doped up field. He took on the Euros at their game and beat them.
> It's too bad that "LA Confidentiel" has not been translated to English. It's also a very good read.
> 
> The thing that rubs many people the wrong way, is all this "I'm the most tested athlete" BS or "Believe in miracles" speech he gave in Paris at 2005. And I'm sure many of you can add more "wait I wanna puke" LA stories to the list.


I think he comes across like a politican. Can't really believe what is coming out of his mouth. The whole "cancer awareness comback" is bs. If he said that he missed competition, and figured this is a good vehicle to raise awareness, that's cool.


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

lookrider said:


> He was nobody to you!
> 
> You don't get it because you're making assumptions that weren't true at that time. The facts are that LA was a star cyclist with a big contract who was sponsored by both Oakley, and Nike. He was 1993 World Road champion and had won some classics and the Tour Du Pont in '96. He was also a contender for two golds in Atlanta.
> 
> ...


good point! "nobody" was of course a little harsh and overexagerated. Should have phrased differently. My point is that he just wasnt the household name that he is today. At least not that I can recall, but again wasnt in cycling at the time so could be wrong. And I do understand the other visitors in the hospital and money. Makes sense. Still confused about the Doc though and the hospital. I can see him being a cash cow to some in attendance but certainly not to the hospital. And the way I read the story it sounded as though this was a staff doc and not someone normally caring for Lance. So what would he have to gain from concealing or at least not coming forth later on. I dont know, starting to agree I should have never posted.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*look at it this way*

A guy who *beats cancer*, a guy who *had less than a 50% chance of living*, *should not comeback and with the TDF

7 times in a row.*


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

MG537 said:


> Nobody in this forum will ever say that Lance's accomplishments were sub-par before 1996.
> All most of us want to point out is that you don't go from a one day race, classics type of cyclist to grand tour winner just on will power.
> 
> Many of today's stars are excellent one day riders, Tom Boonen, Fabian Cancellara to name a couple. Be very suspicious however, if in 2011 or beyond you see any of these win a grand tour.


Both these riders are excellent climbers - FC in particular - he has the P/W ratio to (potentially) win the tour some day - these guys become much better climbers/stage racers as they age. Boonen's chances are not as great. Let's see what FC does this year. He played a huge part in CS TdF win getting him to the base of Alpe Duez (many will say that he is doped too).


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

ttug said:


> A guy who *beats cancer*, a guy who *had less than a 50% chance of living*, *should not comeback and with the TDF
> 
> 7 times in a row.*


...and 7 times in a row they failed to catch him - more evidence that he is guilty...


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Ferrari provided him with expert dosage and timing, things he realized were important during his cancer treatments. It wasn't like he was your basic gym rat, taking tons of stuff blind. I'm pretty sure his regimen was more targeted and refined. That's what he was paying such a large percentage to his "family member" Ferrari for.
> 
> Ferrari had tremendous experience gained in a controlled environment under Conconi, with other athletes, (Moser) and experimenting on himself with Ceccini.


Now this is an interesting analysis - I think this is probably pretty close to how it went down - after the cancer. A very refined, expert and well timed programme - customized to LA - I'd wager it had/has way less dope in it then many think. And I would speculate that Dr. Evil has more than one trick - legal, non-diping trick(s) - up his sleeve when it comes to tuning up his clients. 

...and I will still be labled a LA lover....

Cheers lookrider...


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

*One more post...EPO Increase in performance*

_>> Blood doping improves performance by as much as 20-25%. How much would he have won by if they were all clean?<<_

Let’s look at some hard numbers (again)

In 1959 Charlie Gaul Climbed Mt Ventou in 62'09." Iban Mayo did it in 55'51 in 2003. So Mayo did it about 11% faster – now the bikes weighed about 3-4kg more back then - this represents about 4-5% so Mayo beats Gaul by about 6.5% (assuming they both weigh about 70kg) - not the 20 – 25% alleged here. 

It does not appear that EPO increases performance by 20%. However a 6% increase is pretty substantial. FWIW most distance events (i.e. running) experienced a similar performance increase over the same period. 

Some of us still think that it is possible (not necessarily probable) that this is due to better, equipment, training and nutrition and not (all) attributable to dope.

_>>The irony of him being supported for his efforts in the cancer field, against the drug allegations, and he may have got the cancer from doping in the first place....<<_
Gut check here – If I understand this sentence right - Dope gave me the cancer that almost killed me the first time so now that I have survived it I am going to dope again! And to wrap it all up in a bow after a 3 year layoff I am going to do it one more time. 

Of course this is because LA is such an arrogant [email protected] and is only doing it to feed his ego – no LA haters here, move along nothing to see, nothing to read - the "truth" is already known...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> _>> Blood doping improves performance by as much as 20-25%. How much would he have won by if they were all clean?<<_
> 
> Let’s look at some hard numbers (again)
> 
> ...


Sounds like you have been reading some of Dr. Ferrari's works of fiction

FYI, Gaul's TT was about 1Km shorter then Mayo's. The building with the Telecom tower was not built until the mid 60's. 1km may not seem like much but that is the steepest 1km of the climb and would add at least 3 minutes, possibly more. Also you would be surprised how light a specialty climbing TT bikes could be back then. Although it was a few years later Merckx's hour record bike was 5.5 kilos. Gaul was a complete freak.....he lived in a cave for years after he retired. Few came close to his times for decades....then suddenly Alp d'Huez times dropped 11% in the 6 years after EPO was introduced, with over 60 riders breaking Coppi's record of 45 minutes in the mid 90's

However you look at it a 10% increase in output in a world class, professional athlete is huge.....imagine if someone suddenly lowered the Marathon record by 13 minutes?


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Sounds like you have been reading some of Dr. Ferrari's works of fiction
> 
> FYI, Gaul's TT was about 1Km shorter then Mayo's. The building with the Telecom tower was not built until the mid 60's. 1km may not seem like much but that is the steepest 1km of the climb and would add at least 3 minutes, possibly more. Also you would be surprised how light a specialty climbing TT bikes could be back then. Although it was a few years later Merckx's hour record bike was 5.5 kilos. Gaul was a complete freak.....he lived in a cave for years after he retired. Few came close to his times for decades....then suddenly Alp d'Huez times dropped 11% in the 6 years after EPO was introduced, with over 60 riders breaking Coppi's record of 45 minutes in the mid 90's
> 
> However you look at it a 10% increase in output in a world class, professional athlete is huge.....imagine if someone suddenly lowered the Marathon record by 13 minutes?


Say what you will about Ferrari - but his work is certainly not fiction and he most certainly is not all about doping.

No sense in arguing exact numbers for all I know Mayo might of had a tail wind... course maybe Gaul did too. 

My point was that one does not get a 20% increase in power - I think we would agree that it is probably in the neighborhood of 5-6%.

Still wondering how Lance - being a somewhat mediocre one day racer according to some - dopes and becomes a 7x TdF champion against other equally doped riders? And please don't use the super responder theory, cause one could just as equally use the "cancer made him better" theory. 

1960 2:15.16 Marathon Record - 2003 2:04.55... Interestingly no huge drops in time during the beginning of the EPO era. But pretty big drops (5%) from ~ 1960 - 1970.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Say what you will about Ferrari - but his work is certainly not fiction and he most certainly is not all about doping.
> 
> No sense in arguing exact numbers for all I know Mayo might of had a tail wind... course maybe Gaul did too.
> 
> ...


I would not agree to 5-6%. That humans respond differently to pharmaceuticals is well documented, that they add 15% to their output because of cancer is not. 

Your marathon times choices are almost comical in your selectivity. In 15 years the record dropped 29 seconds. Once EPO and Blood doping (Carlos Lopes Blood doped) it dropped 4 1/2 minutes. 

Lance went from "somewhat mediocre one day racer" to a 7x champ the same way Riis did, a good doctor, hard work, and responding well to dope. 

If you want to learn more about EPO and its effects on power output read this blog (one of the best), 54% increase, 13% peak power
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
The study was done by this group
http://www.cmrc.dk/index.htm
A key part of their work showed that each athlete responded differently to EPO. They said
*"At greatest effort, the men’s performances improved by 9 to 16 percent"*
Their work was replicated by an Australian group that showed an even greater variance. 

This is a HUGE difference. Two riders of similar weight can hold 400 watts for an hour clean with EPO one will now hold 436 and the other 464.....can you see how that might make a difference? Now what if one of those athletes has exclusive access to the premier doping doctor in the sport and the other just buys EPO from his local pharmacy...think that will make a difference? Now what if one of those athletes also gets advanced notice of OOC testing? 

The EPO study was not the only study to show that athletes respond differently. The recent study of Sildenafil (******) showed a big variance. 
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/00806.2005v1
The difference were so dramatic that the groups were named "Responders and non-responders" some responded as much as 45% and other only 1%
http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/06/15.htm
This same test has been since duplicated with similar results.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> I would not agree to 5-6%. That humans respond differently to pharmaceuticals is well documented, that they add 15% to their output because of cancer is not.
> 
> Your marathon times choices are almost comical in your selectivity. In 15 years the record dropped 29 seconds. Once EPO and Blood doping (Carlos Lopes Blood doped) it dropped 4 1/2 minutes.
> 
> ...


I stand by my figure of 5-6% based upon the exact same study - talk about cherry picking data:

_"Another potential problem with the study is the extrapolation of the data to the elite. These subjects were fit, but clearly not elite. It's likely that in the elite, the improvement would be smaller. For example, you could hardly take an Alberto Contador, who might have a Peak Power Output of 500W and bump it up to 565 (13% increase, see graph above) in 4 weeks! Having said that, if you could take this figure and get it to 515W, that would be a very significant increase at the elite level. Similarly, if you could help an elite cyclist improve his average power output by only 5%, that would represent a major step forward. Whether or not EPO would do this is debatable, but given this study, it would seem that 5% is a pretty conservative guess for how much EPO would improve performance..."_

Study is *fatally* flawed in that it was not BLINDED - a fact you conveniently failed to mention! However there is no doubt that EPO increases performance. 

Regarding marathon times 1969 - 2:08.34 (I doubt doped at all) - 1985 2:07.12 (blood doped not with EPO though). I do not see any period of 15 years with only a 29 second drop, although 1969 - 1981 only went 16 seconds. I don't see how I cherry picked times here as I used roughly the same time periods as my original post 1959/60 - 2003. A 20% increase in time would have made the current marathon record about 1:50.00.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> ...and 7 times in a row they failed to catch him - more evidence that he is guilty...


I like your logic. It is typical of dope forum regulars!


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Sounds like you have been reading some of Dr. Ferrari's works of fiction
> 
> FYI, Gaul's TT was about 1Km shorter then Mayo's. The building with the Telecom tower was not built until the mid 60's.


Gaul rode 21.5 km and Mayo 21.6km, the finish was lower in some years but apparently not in 1958. I might be wrong, but I think Gaul was just as fast as Safety guy said.


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

It's kind of pointless to go around, telling everyone who wants to listen, that you are clean after you test positive for cortisone.

It's kind of pointless to tell everyone that you have always been clean and will always be, hence you have hired a personal doping cop to run a non-compromise test program, and tell that the program starts right after you have finished negotiations over the testing protocol.

It is fairly suspicious when your coach and "coach" both have shady past with doping. And especially if you try to silence, and fail in doing that, people who are witnessing against your coach in law suits.

Then of course it's beyond me how a rider with normal pro cyclist VO2Max can put out FTP that shuould be his VO2Max power.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> I stand by my figure of 5-6% based upon the exact same study - talk about cherry picking data:
> 
> _"Another potential problem with the study is the extrapolation of the data to the elite. These subjects were fit, but clearly not elite. It's likely that in the elite, the improvement would be smaller. For example, you could hardly take an Alberto Contador, who might have a Peak Power Output of 500W and bump it up to 565 (13% increase, see graph above) in 4 weeks! Having said that, if you could take this figure and get it to 515W, that would be a very significant increase at the elite level. Similarly, if you could help an elite cyclist improve his average power output by only 5%, that would represent a major step forward. Whether or not EPO would do this is debatable, but given this study, it would seem that 5% is a pretty conservative guess for how much EPO would improve performance..."_
> 
> ...


You seem to ignore the point of my post. My point was that Athletes respond differently to dope. Both studies make that clear. 

The Marathon record in 1969 was 2:08:34 in 1984 (15 years) it dropped to 2:08:05....29 seconds, then a sudden drop after EPO is introduced. The 10km sees a similar dramatic drop after EPO is introduced, during an almost 20 year period it fell only 26 seconds. After EPO it fell almost a minute in 6 years. Because there is no impact to deal with Cycling is much more efficient then running so the improvement in perfromance is greater.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Both these riders are excellent climbers - FC in particular - he has the P/W ratio to (potentially) win the tour some day - these guys become much better climbers/stage racers as they age. Boonen's chances are not as great. Let's see what FC does this year. He played a huge part in CS TdF win getting him to the base of Alpe Duez (many will say that he is doped too).


His weight is listed as 80 kg (176 lb.) according to his website http://www.fabiancancellara.ch/ch/cancellara/en/fabian.html . While he may one day win Tour of Flanders with relatively short but steep pavé hills (the 'bergs) I somehow don't see him up there for a grand tour. In fact I was very suspicious of his amazing performance at the 2008 TdF despite the fact that I'm a very big fan of his.

Contrast the above information to Cadel Evans, who some believe is a perfectly balanced cyclist between power and weight. According to Wiki his weight is listed as 64 kg (140 lb.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadel_Evans .


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

PhatTalc said:


> Gaul rode 21.5 km and Mayo 21.6km, the finish was lower in some years but apparently not in 1958. I might be wrong, but I think Gaul was just as fast as Safety guy said.


Gaul rode to the Weather station on the lower left, Mayo to the telecom tower. It is the steepest part of the climb and adds a few minutes......go climb it and let me know how much longer it takes you. It has cracked me more then once.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Now this is an interesting analysis - I think this is probably pretty close to how it went down - after the cancer. A very refined, expert and well timed programme - customized to LA - I'd wager it had/has way less dope in it then many think. And I would speculate that Dr. Evil has more than one trick - legal, non-diping trick(s) - up his sleeve when it comes to tuning up his clients.
> 
> ...and I will still be labled a LA lover....
> 
> Cheers lookrider...


I think my post is being misconstrued. I wasn't saying that LA is not a cheat because he didn't gorge himself on drugs. I'm saying that he used medical supervision to get the results he desired. Whatever dosages are required, to create all those watts at threshold, using PED's is still cheating whether it's a refined program, or a program devised by some muscle head at the gym. The only reason LA used Ferrari was for his extensive medical expertise in administering a drug program for endurance athletes.. 

Plain and simple, PED's enabled LA to perform at previously unattainable levels, and allowed his body to recover from those efforts. That's cheating, even if everyone else is doing it and even if you aren't taking as much crap as the muscle head at the gym. Also getting a couple of injections a day during a Grand Tour is pretty crazy. It's just not as crazy as the frequency and amount that someone like Alzado was taking.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> You seem to ignore the point of my post. My point was that Athletes respond differently to dope. Both studies make that clear. .


Agreed - but "super responder" surely LA cannot be the only super responder - he is average in all other ways except this. I just don't buy it. 



bigpinkt said:


> The Marathon record in 1969 was 2:08:34 in 1984 (15 years) it dropped to 2:08:05....29 seconds, then a sudden drop after EPO is introduced. The 10km sees a similar dramatic drop after EPO is introduced, during an almost 20 year period it fell only 26 seconds. After EPO it fell almost a minute in 6 years. Because there is no impact to deal with Cycling is much more efficient then running so the improvement in perfromance is greater.


So with EPO the record falls less than 2% but it falls ~ 5% during a similar time frame 1960 - 67. Also agree with you on the efficieny issue - but I do not know to what degree. 

Again my point is that one does not see a 10, 15, 20 or 25% improvement in marathon, cycling or swimming times (in the epo era) -they all seem to follow a similar pattern of improvement however (and something Dr. Evil points out as well with some of his comparisons)... 

I must also say that pic made my morning


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I think my post is being misconstrued. I wasn't saying that LA is not a cheat because he didn't gorge himself on drugs. I'm saying that he used medical supervision to get the results he desired. Whatever dosages are required, to create all those watts at threshold, using PED's is still cheating whether it's a refined program, or a program devised by some muscle head at the gym. The only reason LA used Ferrari was for his extensive medical expertise in administering a drug program for endurance athletes..
> 
> Plain and simple, PED's enabled LA to perform at previously unattainable levels, and allowed his body to recover from those efforts. That's cheating, even if everyone else is doing it and even if you aren't taking as much crap as the muscle head at the gym. Also getting a couple of injections a day during a Grand Tour is pretty crazy. It's just not as crazy as the frequency and amount that someone like Alzado was taking.


I don't think I am misconstruing your post - in all probability this may indeed be true - I am just saying it has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - by most acceptable, legal (western legal) standards.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

smbrum said:


> thanks for the info. I did google mcilvain. very interesting. Question though. that incident was easy to brush off by LA by simply saying "it never happened" or "they hate me" kind of stuff. He was in a hospital for crying out loud being questioned by staff doctors. Why couldnt someone have spoken to that dr on duty who asked the PED question? Also, he was asking questions for a reason and Im sure had his little chart writing notes as to LA answers. Why couldnt someone get that stuff? I know confidentiality but if it went to a court hearing looks like there could have been a subpoena. Reading that and some other things it smells of a giant conspiracy. But why? Why would there be so many who would have his back. He was nobody back then. Certainly not the international superstar of today. So why would people cover up. I just dont get it.


Lance made a very handsome donation to that hospital in Indiana, to the Oncology department - this is on public records. Craig Nicholls became his doctor AFTER this incident. 
Bill Stapleton, one of Lance's closest aides, was in the room tht day. He testified under oath that no conversation about drugs took place. He is on tape however as accepting that it did in fact take place. Stephanie McIllwain's child suffers with Autism, and had a financial gun put to her head forcing her to testify for Lance, thus keeping Oakley on side. She was in the room that day and is also on tape as admitting that the incident took place.
So now we have FOUR people saying the same thing.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> I don't think I am misconstruing your post - in all probability this may indeed be true - I am just saying it has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - by most acceptable, legal (western legal) standards.


And this is an obvious point.

The question of the thread is, "why are there so many Lance haters."

My answer is, since when is telling the truth hate?

And this is why I bring up the OJ example. Do you think he was guilty of killing Nicole and Ron Goldman?

This isn't a court of law here, it's a court of public opinion.

People who are familiar with the facts of this case,(LA), and the reality of the situation as pertaining to athletic performance, have no reasonable doubt of LA's guilt.

It's your prerogative whether you want to argue legal niceties, but it's my prerogative as to whether I want to keep my eyes open or closed.

Sure Pharmstrong gets the spoils of victory. Part of that is that most informed people recognize that his performances weren't attainable unless he used PED's and are free to call bs on them. If he or anyone else doesn't like it, that's too bad. 

The performances aren't believable with everything we know.

You can keep defending him, to the detriment of your own credibility.

Why you guys have to keep pointing out that he's never tested positive, or that it hasn't been proven in a court of law is beyond me. Everyone knows this. Oh, btw, he has tested positive.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Agreed - but "super responder" surely LA cannot be the only super responder - he is average in all other ways except this. I just don't buy it.


I agree Armstrong was not the only person to benefit, in fact the results of much of the 90's and early 2000's are twisted. Riis, Chiapucci, Pantani, Zulle, Rominger, Landis, Rumsas even Ulrich are great examples of riders who show sudden, huge, improvement. In a recent interview Ulrich's former teammate Aldag said that Jan went from being off the back of training rides to almost winning the Tour in a matter of months. Riis was an average domestique, within 18 months he won the Tour.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> I agree Armstrong was not the only person to benefit, in fact the results of much of the 90's and early 2000's are twisted. Riis, Chiapucci, Pantani, Zulle, Rominger, Landis, Rumsas even Ulrich are great examples of riders who show sudden, huge, improvement. In a recent interview Ulrich's former teammate Aldag said that Jan went from being off the back of training rides to almost winning the Tour in a matter of months. Riis was an average domestique, within 18 months he won the Tour.


Boardman said the same when Ullrich was struggling to make it over a bridge overpass in the early season. He said if this guy contends in the Tour, I quit. Ullrich contended, and Boardman was out.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*EPO and amount improvement in cyclists in peer reviewed journal*

A very recent (and well done IMHO) study showed that a modest (unsophisticated) EPO program on cyclists yields increases in performance of 9-16% at max but an incredible 50% increase at sub max levels (that means 2 x's as long as Tempo pace! ie. George Hi driving it up climbs with 7 other posties behind him!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html?pagewanted=print

so yes, it can turn an average pro into a TDF winner.


Nik


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

lookrider said:


> And this is an obvious point.
> 
> The question of the thread is, "why are there so many Lance haters."
> 
> ...


Great Post!
This is the best post for discussing Lance with my non-believing (they think he is clean) sports fan friends. Its always hard to decide what one peice of damning evidence to discuss when it's really more of a preponderance of evidence that gives us the conclusion that there is no way he is clean or rather won his TDF's clean.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> I agree Armstrong was not the only person to benefit, in fact the results of much of the 90's and early 2000's are twisted. Riis, Chiapucci, Pantani, Zulle, Rominger, Landis, Rumsas even Ulrich are great examples of riders who show sudden, huge, improvement. In a recent interview Ulrich's former teammate Aldag said that Jan went from being off the back of training rides to almost winning the Tour in a matter of months. Riis was an average domestique, within 18 months he won the Tour.


I never said others did not benefit - my question still remains - how did he beat ALL of them? One answer is that it was the proper combination of training, nutrition and drugs coupled with the desire and motivation to win. In other words he was BETTER, and not just once but seven times in a row.

And if there is such a perponderence of evidence - why is he still riding? If it is so obvious to all of you in the "know" and those of you who have the "truth" here why don't those controlling agencies read your posts and simply ban him?


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

[/QUOTE]
And if there is such a perponderence of evidence - why is he still riding? If it is so obvious to all of you in the "know" and those of you who have the "truth" here why don't those controlling agencies read your posts and simply ban him?[/QUOTE]


Too much at stake I think. Like it or not Armstrong is the face of Pro Cyling, and of recovery from cancer... 

Also the same reason why Barry Bonds, OJ or Madoff aren't in Jail (well OJ is now). What is obvious to most people with their eyes open is not always easy to prosecute under the law. Dozens of riders were implicated in Puerto but blood tranfusions and EPO weren't illegal in Spain at the time of the bust... almost everyone went free.

Its not like anyone here is in "the know" - Everything laid out in this thread is available to anyone who reads the paper or has an internet connection. Some of what has been posted here is very much out in the open like Ferrari saying EPO is not dangerous and the fact that Ferrari was Lance "advisor" for years.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> I never said others did not benefit - my question still remains - how did he beat ALL of them? One answer is that it was the proper combination of training, nutrition and drugs coupled with the desire and motivation to win. In other words he was BETTER, and not just once but seven times in a row.
> 
> And if there is such a perponderence of evidence - why is he still riding? If it is so obvious to all of you in the "know" and those of you who have the "truth" here why don't those controlling agencies read your posts and simply ban him?


I'm sorry but your posts are so naive. Ferrari is and was the best Doctor for doping athletes. He learned his profession at the hands of Conconi and has never looked back. Lance wouldn't allow him work with his rivals. If you have enough money, which Lance had and has a great deal of, then the amount of doping available to you is huge. Look at the bills which Fuentes was charging. And I hate to burst your bubble, but the main reason he appeared out of nowhere each year for the Dauphine, was that he could dope away, more or less undisturbed for his 'training'. 
Why is he still riding? Again, you pre-suppose that the UCI is a monument of integrity. There are countless examples of their corruption. And I say that as an Irish man, watching an Irish man in charge of that organisation. It is not in the interests of the UCI to prosecute Lance. He is a money making machine, and that organisation is in dire straits, due to the scandals of the last ten years. The two most prominent drug scandals came about as a result of Police work and not the UCI.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*What is your point?*

You're arguing several contradictory points from all sides of the issue. You believe he doped, but then you are arguing against the people that are coming out with various evidence.



safetyguy said:


> I never said others did not benefit - my question still remains - how did he beat ALL of them? One answer is that it was the proper combination of training, nutrition and drugs coupled with the desire and motivation to win. In other words he was BETTER, and not just once but seven times in a row.


You realize that someone has to win the TdF every year? It's basically a math problem here.



safetyguy said:


> And if there is such a perponderence of evidence - why is he still riding?


I'd argue he's still riding because there are many people like you in positions of authority in cycling who are apologists for Armstrong. Go back and look at your posts. You don't take any positions at all. Someone here presents evidence and you dismiss it but you still believe that LA has doped. Based on what then? There *is* a preponderance of evidence. There's so much that we sit here and write about it all the time.



safetyguy said:


> If it is so obvious to all of you in the "know" and those of you who have the "truth" here why don't those controlling agencies read your posts and simply ban him?


Why do you think he doped then? You got your info from somewhere, where then? You're critical of the "haters" who present evidence, but apparently you're even worse because you think LA doped based on basically nothing but your own intuition?

All you do is provide maddening arguments that don't take a stand anywhere because you're arguing everything.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Gaul rode to the Weather station on the lower left, Mayo to the telecom tower. It is the steepest part of the climb and adds a few minutes......go climb it and let me know how much longer it takes you. It has cracked me more then once.


There is a tower and weather station in that pic??? :thumbsup:


----------



## dmar836 (Nov 17, 2007)

Bigpinkt, 
Empty your PMs. Sorry to hijack. Hate on!


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

lookrider said:


> And this is an obvious point.
> 
> The question of the thread is, "why are there so many Lance haters."
> 
> ...


Good post...yours along with digger and another one or two were the best at providing an argument that he has doped. As the OP'r I was really looking for some of the folks who have been so convinced he doped to explain why they felt like they did..since I have never seen where LA had been caught or suspended or whatever. A lot of these things made sense and I can see why there would be so much suspicion of his results. Appreciate your post. I wanted to believe he was clean and some of the reasoning from him camp for his improved performance. Unfortunately, it is becoming moer difficult for me to maintain the faith !!!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

smbrum said:


> Good post...yours along with digger and another one or two were the best at providing an argument that he has doped. As the OP'r I was really looking for some of the folks who have been so convinced he doped to explain why they felt like they did..since I have never seen where LA had been caught or suspended or whatever. A lot of these things made sense and I can see why there would be so much suspicion of his results. Appreciate your post. I wanted to believe he was clean and some of the reasoning from him camp for his improved performance. Unfortunately, it is becoming moer difficult for me to maintain the faith !!!


Armstrongs relationship to the governing bodies is akin to Enron's relationship with Arthur Andersen. 

If you're paying me millions of dollars each year, am I going to tell you that you look like $hit for all the world to see?

I was someone who believed LA was clean. I took the opinions of the skeptics seriously and looked into their accusations. When they turned out to be so voluminous they turned into a mountain, I'd have to be stupid to still believe Pharmstrong's weak denials.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

There's a quote I feel belongs in this thread. I believe it to be a very powerful one in relation to this issue. Stephanie McIlvain claims on tape that she was pushed by Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley, to deny that the hosptal room took place. 'There are certain ways to get around it', he said. 
She says, "I definitely wouldn't lie about the hospital room because it's public knowledge. A lot of people know about it you know. AND THE PART THAT PISSES ME OFF ABOUT THE WHOLE THING, EVEN IF WE (LANCE AND HERSELF) WERE CLOSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE HE HAS GIVEN FALSE HOPE TO, AND I THINK THAT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING THING EVER FOR SOMEONE TO DO. From somebody who has a child with a handicap, you look up to people who've gone through the same thing, and you look for hope and you look for strength and for him to be doing that to those poor people who look up to him and honestly think that he's doing this 'cause he's superman....it kills me."


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

Digger where is this quote from? The SCA Promotions trial record? Link/reference?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I don't care about his doping or not doping. I just think Lance is a tool. From the way he's treated his girlfriends to his insults to fellow riders.... he may be a great rider, but he's a pr!ck.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Old_school_nik said:


> Digger where is this quote from? The SCA Promotions trial record? Link/reference?


It is (or was) posted on several internet sites. I can't find a link, but I do have a copy of it in MP3 format. Send me a PM with an email, and I'll email you a copy.

It is from a secretly taped phone call between LeMond and Stephanie about the hospital "confession" by Lance. Lemond wanted to know if she would testify about it if it went to court. Stephanie agreed on the call that she heard it and would testify, but later at the trial denied that she heard the confession. It is commonly thought that LA put the squeeze on Stephanie through Oakley because she needed her job with Oakley to help take care of her disabled son (benefits, work from home, etc).


----------



## smbrum (Jul 9, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> There's a quote I feel belongs in this thread. I believe it to be a very powerful one in relation to this issue. Stephanie McIlvain claims on tape that she was pushed by Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley, to deny that the hosptal room took place. 'There are certain ways to get around it', he said.
> She says, "I definitely wouldn't lie about the hospital room because it's public knowledge. A lot of people know about it you know. AND THE PART THAT PISSES ME OFF ABOUT THE WHOLE THING, EVEN IF WE (LANCE AND HERSELF) WERE CLOSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE HE HAS GIVEN FALSE HOPE TO, AND I THINK THAT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING THING EVER FOR SOMEONE TO DO. From somebody who has a child with a handicap, you look up to people who've gone through the same thing, and you look for hope and you look for strength and for him to be doing that to those poor people who look up to him and honestly think that he's doing this 'cause he's superman....it kills me."


yes but think about this...all those people who have that hope he is superman, why would that change. I'm involved in cycling and up until I posted this and read some others, I was also convinced he was clean. Mainly because I wanted to believe in an American hero or superman that overcame such a terrible disease. I wanted to believe that that type of performance and domination was possible after near death. Plus, he hadnt been caught. So, I think most people suffering from cancer or some other life threatening illness who looks up to Lance as inspiration, will continue to do so. There is no reason to think their hopes will be destroyed, unless of course he is caught. That of course would be devestating to that cause. With all the apparent cover ups and efficiency of their system to conceal, its hightly unlikely that undisputed evidence will surface. So, if thats what pisses you off more than anything, then why wouldnt we let those folks continue to cling to that hope, that he is superman, and anything is possible. If thats what pisses you off more than anything, seems that you wouldnt want him to get caught. I mean, perhaps there is something bigger at stake here than exposing a fraud and a cheat. If Landis gets caught...kick him out, who cares. Contador, kick him out, who cares. But if LA is exposed beyond reasonable doubt then cancer victims across the world who have believed in him, see their hopes crushed. Perhaps that is why there is so much protection and cover up...Could it be that the consequences to millions of cancer victims and to the fundraising his name brings to the cause are to great to let him fall. I think thats a possibility and if so I hope he is able to go out and win some more races...clean or not. Personally, I am not concerned as much with his intentions as I am the outcome. If his intentions are to win and bring glory to himself or to make more money or whatever...but the outcomes are increased awareness of cancer and more funding for research and hope to 10 year old kids, is that really so bad???


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

smbrum said:


> yes but think about this...all those people who have that hope he is superman, why would that change. I'm involved in cycling and up until I posted this and read some others, I was also convinced he was clean. Mainly because I wanted to believe in an American hero or superman that overcame such a terrible disease. I wanted to believe that that type of performance and domination was possible after near death. Plus, he hadnt been caught. So, I think most people suffering from cancer or some other life threatening illness who looks up to Lance as inspiration, will continue to do so. There is no reason to think their hopes will be destroyed, unless of course he is caught. That of course would be devestating to that cause. With all the apparent cover ups and efficiency of their system to conceal, its hightly unlikely that undisputed evidence will surface. So, if thats what pisses you off more than anything, then why wouldnt we let those folks continue to cling to that hope, that he is superman, and anything is possible. If thats what pisses you off more than anything, seems that you wouldnt want him to get caught. I mean, perhaps there is something bigger at stake here than exposing a fraud and a cheat. If Landis gets caught...kick him out, who cares. Contador, kick him out, who cares. But if LA is exposed beyond reasonable doubt then cancer victims across the world who have believed in him, see their hopes crushed. Perhaps that is why there is so much protection and cover up...Could it be that the consequences to millions of cancer victims and to the fundraising his name brings to the cause are to great to let him fall. I think thats a possibility and if so I hope he is able to go out and win some more races...clean or not. Personally, I am not concerned as much with his intentions as I am the outcome. If his intentions are to win and bring glory to himself or to make more money or whatever...but the outcomes are increased awareness of cancer and more funding for research and hope to 10 year old kids, is that really so bad???


That's a very slipperly slope you're talking about. The truth deserves to be told.

BTW, for Lance to get back on his bike and be able to ride 20 miles after what he went through is all the miracle that cancer patients need imo. What Lance did is absolutely amazing even considering the great likelihood of his PED use, it really is unbelievable to get back into the peleton. Winning the TdF isn't necessary imo to say he should be an inspiration from that point of view. But it's important that his use is illuminated imo.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> That's a very slipperly slope you're talking about. The truth deserves to be told.
> 
> BTW, for Lance to get back on his bike and be able to ride 20 miles after what he went through is all the miracle that cancer patients need imo. What Lance did is absolutely amazing even considering the great likelihood of his PED use, it really is unbelievable to get back into the peleton. Winning the TdF isn't necessary imo to say he should be an inspiration from that point of view. But it's important that his use is illuminated imo.


Wow, you were ripping into me last year. Something about a mother who survived cancer watching her daughter get married because being inspired by LA enabled her to overcome the disease. 

You accused me in kind of vitriolic terms of trying to take her hope away.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Old_school_nik said:


> Digger where is this quote from? The SCA Promotions trial record? Link/reference?


Hey...as is posted below, it is a widely available quote, in light of the SCA trial. However, my specific reference for the quote is page 267 of From Lance to Landis.
It's on tape, and Walsh has offered the tape to the two guys on Competitor Radio to prove it's authenticity.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Wow, you were ripping into me last year. Something about a mother who survived cancer watching her daughter get married because being inspired by LA enabled her to overcome the disease.
> 
> You accused me in kind of vitriolic terms of trying to take her hope away.


Link?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

smbrum said:


> yes but think about this...all those people who have that hope he is superman, why would that change. I'm involved in cycling and up until I posted this and read some others, I was also convinced he was clean. Mainly because I wanted to believe in an American hero or superman that overcame such a terrible disease. I wanted to believe that that type of performance and domination was possible after near death. Plus, he hadnt been caught. So, I think most people suffering from cancer or some other life threatening illness who looks up to Lance as inspiration, will continue to do so. There is no reason to think their hopes will be destroyed, unless of course he is caught. That of course would be devestating to that cause. With all the apparent cover ups and efficiency of their system to conceal, its hightly unlikely that undisputed evidence will surface. So, if thats what pisses you off more than anything, then why wouldnt we let those folks continue to cling to that hope, that he is superman, and anything is possible. If thats what pisses you off more than anything, seems that you wouldnt want him to get caught. I mean, perhaps there is something bigger at stake here than exposing a fraud and a cheat. If Landis gets caught...kick him out, who cares. Contador, kick him out, who cares. But if LA is exposed beyond reasonable doubt then cancer victims across the world who have believed in him, see their hopes crushed. Perhaps that is why there is so much protection and cover up...Could it be that the consequences to millions of cancer victims and to the fundraising his name brings to the cause are to great to let him fall. I think thats a possibility and if so I hope he is able to go out and win some more races...clean or not. Personally, I am not concerned as much with his intentions as I am the outcome. If his intentions are to win and bring glory to himself or to make more money or whatever...but the outcomes are increased awareness of cancer and more funding for research and hope to 10 year old kids, is that really so bad???


I'll tell you one thing above all else that pisses me off about him. I don't care who disagrees with me, be it the whole forum or whatever. He absolutely does hide behind the cancer issue. Another example of this was the press conference at the bike show introducing Catlin. Lemond pressed Catlin, Lance whipped away the microphone, and says that this is about 'Global Cancer Awareness'. Rubbish.
And if you want to believe in a myth, become a pagan. That way the myth is untouchable.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*look closer*



safetyguy said:


> ...and 7 times in a row they failed to catch him - more evidence that he is guilty...



No, thats not the point.

The point is, 

A guy, a *very capable gifted athlete, gets cancer, right?*

The *same guy, again, very gifted athletically, has a sub 50% chance of survival*...so far you with me?

Same guy, *comes back*, survives, and then........

WINS THE TDF 7 TIMES IN A ROW.


So, you got a choice, which, is a choice because lets face it, how many other cancer survivors come back and literally dominate their sport, specifically, a very intensive sport like cycling. The choice is, 

*he cheated or he did not.*

Its not, oh he won, therfore he cheated. That logic kind of nukes any GT winner.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

'Cancer Awareness' rather assumes that we're all ignorant pillocks, doesn't it? That we wouldn't know cancer if it stood up and bit us on the balls. I live in a country with an extremely good public health service, funded by the Government. Health services across Europe are also pretty good - the French health service, largely publicly funded, is exceptional and rates of discovery and cure for cancer are amongst the best in the world. Public money is used to fund public health campaigns at all levels. So the assumption that we are all'cancer ignorant' is laughable, based presumably on the assumption that all health services are as appalling as the American one.

This comeback is all about ego and the most public and pathetic midlife crisis imaginable. Instead of parading his stringy old man's body he should be getting out to countries where the health care is every bit as third world as that of the US - oh, but then that wouldn't give him the opportunity to pocket a million dollars and swank around in luxury, would it?

I totally agree with you, Digger - the cancer awareness stuff is simply smoke and mirrors and because he knows a procycling ignorant public will lap it up. He reminds me of Princess Di hugging AIDS victims - such great PR, isn't it?


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

*Flame on*

The basic problem with the anti-LA camp is that you all fail to see the potential pitfalls to your arguments. First and foremost is the basic fact that LA has never tested positive nor has he been he been sanctioned - and this makes you all go bat sh!t. IMPORTANT NOTE – this does not mean that he is not guilty of doping but it does MEAN that it has not been proven (so stick the OJ argument back in its briefcase lookrider).

So we have all of these allegations but not one of them has stuck – not ONE! You guys just keep pointing to the same old allegations without presenting the other side of the story. 

What is LA supposed to do: 
“Geez, you got me guys – those 1999 samples, yea the ones frozen for 6 years with no controls, no blind tests, god knows what kind of protocol used or how they were handled at the prestigious LNDD, yea the ones where no one was supposed to know who’s they were and there was no chance it could, much less would, be leaked to the press – yea those one. Me culpa - I did it – here take my jerseys’ back, ya got me.” 

Seems to me LA has factually done an excellent job of defending himself each and every time. I say “factually” because he is once again in the peleton racing.

I think the difference is that Swift and others like he and I have stated on this forum that we are reserving our judgment until such a time as he is factually found to be guilty – imagine that. The anti-LA crowd will just say that it doesn’t matter and that they and they alone are the keepers of real truth and knowledge. 

As an example I listened to Greg and Stef chat it up quite some time ago and was unimpressed to say the least. I just went back and listened again and now realize why so many of you point to that conversation. There isn’t even one hint or shred of evidence that LA is a doper – not even a smoking gun but you all seem to hang on every word.

So it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you don’t even question why such a conversation is taped in the first place. Greg is clearly trolling for someone to help him bolster his paranoid perception that LA is after him – he keeps asking Stef if she will testify – this is clearly the only reason he has called her. As for Stef she clearly will say anything to anyone to stay on their good side. I like how she says that she and LA are like best friends but then says what a complete tool he is. She even manages to throw Hincape under the bus about how his kid is going to be a ********* because of drug use. We all know how her-under-oath-testimony turned out eh? I especially like the part of the tape where she asks if the conversation is being taped. Seems to me we have two people who are not exactly truthful – both on the same tape. I’d like to hear from the anti-LA crowd why this conversation was taped and to what end (and whether or not taping phone conversations is even legal)? 

As for the SCA case and testimony. I like how the whole case is built on the question of drug use – and then they completely cave. You guys then say – well it was just a matter of case law. If it was just a matter of case law why did the SCA make it about drug use? Were their attorneys so incompetent that they didn’t realize this before they began building their case? Fact is they were crushed and they knew that NONE of their evidence was credible and promptly handed LA and Co. a check for $7.5m (2.5 more than had they just paid the guy up front). So go ahead and say there was no finding of fact – but finish it off by saying there was no finding of fact BECAUSE the SCA attorneys were begging to settle for ONLY $7.5m. They made a good deal too because if a finding of fact came out they would have been in the hole $15m! 

That being said I still believe that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence regarding LAs performance - but really there isn’t even a smoking gun here, a growing list of troubling allegations -YES - for now that is all it is. 

And the FACT remains that despite all this evidence LA is today in the peleton, RACING. It won’t matter to you anti-LA’ers though as you are convinced you have the truth - the one thing you most certainly do not - nor do I - have.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

ttug said:


> No, thats not the point.
> 
> The point is,
> 
> ...



I find it laughable that you don’t realize that I am using that statement sarcastically to illustrate how some on this forum use the fact that he won 7 times (even against other dopers) as evidence that he must have doped.

I do STRONGLY agree with you that the choices are he either DID or DIDN’T dope (cheat). This seems reasonable – but heck I bet some might even argue with me on this point. 

Apparently evidence in the form of a positive A and B sample with - no credible explanation or appeal - would be asking for to much from the crowd that frequents this forum.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> 'Cancer Awareness' rather assumes that we're all ignorant pillocks, doesn't it? That we wouldn't know cancer if it stood up and bit us on the balls. I live in a country with an extremely good public health service, funded by the Government. Health services across Europe are also pretty good - the French health service, largely publicly funded, is exceptional and rates of discovery and cure for cancer are amongst the best in the world. Public money is used to fund public health campaigns at all levels. So the assumption that we are all'cancer ignorant' is laughable, based presumably on the assumption that all health services are as appalling as the American one.
> 
> This comeback is all about ego and the most public and pathetic midlife crisis imaginable. Instead of parading his stringy old man's body he should be getting out to countries where the health care is every bit as third world as that of the US - oh, but then that wouldn't give him the opportunity to pocket a million dollars and swank around in luxury, would it?
> 
> I totally agree with you, Digger - the cancer awareness stuff is simply smoke and mirrors and because he knows a procycling ignorant public will lap it up. He reminds me of Princess Di hugging AIDS victims - such great PR, isn't it?


Air travel to Europe for medical treatment is pretty empty compared to travel from Europe to America...

Shucks, how did us Yanks ever mange to beat the British much less the Huns... best I go back to scratching my (pea)nuts and growing tobacco... good thing my blood sample is going to the LNDD and not the mayo clinic for cancer testing - wonder if them Frenchies know what epo is I might be need'n it. Hook'em horns....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yup*



safetyguy said:


> I find it laughable that you don’t realize that I am using that statement sarcastically to illustrate how some on this forum use the fact that he won 7 times (even against other dopers) as evidence that he must have doped.
> 
> I do STRONGLY agree with you that the choices are he either DID or DIDN’T dope (cheat). This seems reasonable – but heck I bet some might even argue with me on this point.
> 
> Apparently evidence in the form of a positive A and B sample with - no credible explanation or appeal - would be asking for to much from the crowd that frequents this forum.


No argument here. However, as a rather, laughable side point, Virengue never tested positive. He just had a change of heart right?


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

ttug said:


> No argument here. However, as a rather, laughable side point, Virengue never tested positive. He just had a change of heart right?


I am pretty convinced that the test is rather flawed (cough, cough) - about equally in both directions. Kind of makes us arguing over it rather silly. 

Do a little more research and one will see that it has a subjective element to it too (as there are for other drugs as well). Next time you are down under find out why the test is the way it is - as well as the 50% limit.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Link?



Believe me, you were. What happens after I find the link? Do you apologize? You, yourself are always taking offense over some minor little thing.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Digger28 said:


> I'll tell you one thing above all else that pisses me off about him. I don't care who disagrees with me, be it the whole forum or whatever. He absolutely does hide behind the cancer issue. Another example of this was the press conference at the bike show introducing Catlin. Lemond pressed Catlin, Lance whipped away the microphone, and says that this is about 'Global Cancer Awareness'. Rubbish.
> And *if you want to believe in a myth, become a pagan*. That way the myth is untouchable.


Umm..... I'm pagan.

http://www.pagan.us


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> That's a very slipperly slope you're talking about. The truth deserves to be told.
> 
> BTW, for Lance to get back on his bike and be able to ride 20 miles after what he went through is all the miracle that cancer patients need imo. What Lance did is absolutely amazing even considering the great likelihood of his PED use, it really is unbelievable to get back into the peleton. Winning the TdF isn't necessary imo to say he should be an inspiration from that point of view. But it's important that his use is illuminated imo.


The truth deserves to be told now, but it didn't deserve to be told last May?

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1463771#post1463771




Henry Porter said:


> I'm not talking about post counts but rather obsessive arguments about the same subject over and over. Over something that most cyclists don't care about it anymore, let alone the general public. But hey, I'm devoting my life to fixing people while you're seemingly hell bent on trying to destroy a man you've never met.




http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1431964#poststop



Henry Porter said:


> How about some woman who finds out she has breast cancer and uses Lance's "story" as motivation and inspiration to help see her daughter walk down the aisle. The mental process is very important in the fight for health and if you think Lance using EPO is more important than that, well, we have completely different morals.
> 
> People make money off immoral stuff all the time, spend your time on fighting something that does damage to people.


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1432502#poststop



Henry Porter said:


> Very people here give him a free pass. It's pretty clear that he doped but most of us have the world experience to realize that while it is bad there are much worse things in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> The truth deserves to be told now, but it didn't deserve to be told last May?
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1463771#post1463771
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1431964#poststop
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1432502#poststop


Thank you for taking the time to dig that up. I feel like that thread got a bit out of control with you being wound up and perhaps me unintentionally riling you up. I didn't mean to from what I remember but took offense at your reaction to my honest question. Looking back it seems like you are pretty heavily emotionally invested and that's what I was reacting to. But for you to hold a grudge this long, I'm sorry that it hurt your feelings so badly.

In response to your question quoted the glaring obvious change is that Lance is now back professionally racing. I think that opens up the door but didn't earlier since he had been retired for awhile and no new evidence had come up. Obviously now with him competing again, perhaps against "cleaner" competitors it becomes more important now, imo.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*what argument?*



safetyguy said:


> I am pretty convinced that the test is rather flawed (cough, cough) - about equally in both directions. Kind of makes us arguing over it rather silly.
> 
> Do a little more research and one will see that it has a subjective element to it too (as there are for other drugs as well). Next time you are down under find out why the test is the way it is - as well as the 50% limit.



I am agreeing with you WTF is the problem?

IMO, they all dope, regardless of which direction you go.

Is this flawed, yes. However, up til we see a savior, who steps up and says WOW, here is how you beat a dope test, I doped, BAM, sorry.

Armstrong is visible, so by default, the questions are there. Do I hate these folks, no. However, sorry, cancer survivor does not a 7 time champion make.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

safetyguy said:


> First and foremost is the basic fact that LA has never tested positive nor has he been he been sanctioned - and this makes you all go bat sh!t. IMPORTANT NOTE – this does not mean that he is not guilty of doping but it does MEAN that it has not been proven (so stick the OJ argument back in its briefcase lookrider)


What about the 1999 positive for cortisone?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Thank you for taking the time to dig that up.





Henry Porter said:


> I feel like that thread got a bit out of control with you being wound up and perhaps me unintentionally riling you up.


Here's my issue. We're discussing a certain thing that in the overall scheme of things may not be that significant. If one wants to participate, they should do so. But if a person is uninformed, they should criticize the person who is informed, for taking the time to gain the knowledge?????

Why are you obsessing?

Why do you spend so much time on this?

Those kinds of things are illegitimate slights, with "obsessing" suggestive of a psychological impairment. 

I didn't get riled up so much because I was offended. I got riled up because you apparently thought there was no problem using the loaded term "obsessing." 



Henry Porter said:


> I didn't mean to from what I remember but took offense at your reaction to my honest question.


The question was more like, 'why are you crazy?'



Henry Porter said:


> Looking back it seems like you are pretty heavily emotionally invested and that's what I was reacting to.


I'm not heavily emotionally invested at all. We're talking about Armstrong, his honesty or lack thereof, and his cancer foundation. You seemed to think the ends justified the means and I very strongly objected to that. I don't think his fraud should be excused because of his charitable work and you called my morals into question because of that. 



Henry Porter said:


> But for you to hold a grudge this long, I'm sorry that it hurt your feelings so badly.


Hold a grudge? You're funny! I have a good memory and your current opinion is diametrically opposed to what you stated last year. You were arguing the same thing smbrum is arguing in this thread. 



Henry Porter said:


> In response to your question quoted the glaring obvious change is that Lance is now back professionally racing. I think that opens up the door but didn't earlier since he had been retired for awhile and no new evidence had come up.


So, if I work for Merrill Lynch and commit fraud but then retire, I'm immune from prosecution unless I come back to work?

If I commit a murder, and there's evidence but the current DA doesn't think there's enough to prosecute, but a new DA comes in and thinks there's sufficient evidence without uncovering any new stuff, he can't prosecute?



Henry Porter said:


> Obviously now with him competing again, perhaps against "cleaner" competitors it becomes more important now, imo.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Doesn't mean mine counts any less because I'm "obsessing" about it.:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Here's my issue. We're discussing a certain thing that in the overall scheme of things may not be that significant. If one wants to participate, they should do so. But if a person is uninformed, they should criticize the person who is informed, for taking the time to gain the knowledge?????
> 
> Why are you obsessing?
> 
> ...


1) I didn't think obsessing was a loaded term.
2) I think comparing Lance's doping to murder means this thread might be heading the way of the other one and I'll bow out now. I really don't take this place as seriously as it appears you do. Lance's guilt is plain to see for me even before I followed cycling but it will never equate to the fraud of taking someone's money or life. I don't think I've ever implied that your opinion counts less than mine and your comment in another thread over the past week implied the grudge remark.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> The basic problem with the anti-LA camp is that you all fail to see the potential pitfalls to your arguments. First and foremost is the basic fact that LA has never tested positive nor has he been he been sanctioned - and this makes you all go bat sh!t. IMPORTANT NOTE – this does not mean that he is not guilty of doping but it does MEAN that it has not been proven (so stick the OJ argument back in its briefcase lookrider).
> 
> So we have all of these allegations but not one of them has stuck – not ONE! You guys just keep pointing to the same old allegations without presenting the other side of the story.
> 
> ...


Yup, Lance and OJ!:yikes: :ciappa:


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

ttug said:


> I am agreeing with you WTF is the problem?
> 
> IMO, they all dope, regardless of which direction you go.
> 
> ...


ttug - I think you and I are on the same page here - I am kind of using your message for all who are reading - so it is not really just meant for you (I'd send you a pm if it was).

cheers...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> 1) I didn't think obsessing was a loaded term.


It is!



Henry Porter said:


> 2) I think comparing Lance's doping to murder means this thread might be heading the way of the other one and I'll bow out now.


We have a moderator on the other forum who said that Geoheogan was a hanger on to Floyd and that Floyd never threatened LeMond. Why are you so worried about appearances anyway?

I wasn't comparing the crimes here. I was alluding to the findings by a court of law. All of the LA apologists keep saying that there is no smoking gun and he hasn't been found to be a doper by the authorities. My thought is that I don't think many of these same apologists are defending OJ because he was found not guilty, and I'm sure many freely expressed their opinion that he was guilty despite the verdict. Jay Leno got many years of material out of just that kind of thing. I didn't hear too many people picking a fight with Leno because he was impugning OJ's character. Here it goes on all the time. How dare you say that about Lance, why you're a hhhhaaaatttterrrr. HAAAAAAA



Henry Porter said:


> I really don't take this place as seriously as it appears you do. .


You mean that's phony outrage you express all the time when someone has insulted you?:lol: 



Henry Porter said:


> Lance's guilt is plain to see for me even before I followed cycling.


I'd love to hear that explanation. It wasn't clear to LeMond before he heard of the Ferrari connection.




Henry Porter said:


> but it will never equate to the fraud of taking someone's money or life. .


Lance has taken people's money by fraud and misrepresentation. He's also threatened people's careers. Of course murder is the ultimate crime. That's very easy for anyone to see, however I wasn't comparing LA's crimes with OJ's. I was just pointing out that neither one was found criminally liable for anything (before LV) and the hypocrisy of many that would throw OJ under a bus but will protest forever that LA never tested positive or been suspended.



Henry Porter said:


> I don't think I've ever implied that your opinion counts less than mine and your comment in another thread over the past week implied the grudge remark.


In one of the threads you said "IMO." This whole forum is just that, a public forum where people express their opinions. It's pretty funny that people feel so constrained by legal conventions here. In the same way I can express my opinion that GWB is a crook and murderer. See, there....:wink: :yesnod: 

Link?:lol:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Air travel to Europe for medical treatment is pretty empty compared to travel from Europe to America...
> 
> Shucks, how did us Yanks ever mange to beat the British much less the Huns... best I go back to scratching my (pea)nuts and growing tobacco... good thing my blood sample is going to the LNDD and not the mayo clinic for cancer testing - wonder if them Frenchies know what epo is I might be need'n it. Hook'em horns....


It seems that America leads in cutting edge research. A lot of that research filters its way to other countries. It doesn't help one if they don't have insurance and can't afford treatment though.

http://www.mercatus.org/MediaDetails.aspx?id=22238

Interesting link.

_Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count ''giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there'' as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better._

Link for medical tourism.

http://www.europeanmedicaltourist.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> I stand by my figure of 5-6% based upon the exact same study - talk about cherry picking data:
> 
> _"Another potential problem with the study is the extrapolation of the data to the elite. These subjects were fit, but clearly not elite. It's likely that in the elite, the improvement would be smaller. For example, you could hardly take an Alberto Contador, who might have a Peak Power Output of 500W and bump it up to 565 (13% increase, see graph above) in 4 weeks! Having said that, if you could take this figure and get it to 515W, that would be a very significant increase at the elite level. Similarly, if you could help an elite cyclist improve his average power output by only 5%, that would represent a major step forward. Whether or not EPO would do this is debatable, but given this study, it would seem that 5% is a pretty conservative guess for how much EPO would improve performance..."_
> 
> ...


By the way, a certain Michele Ferrari has been telling his athletes that the gains are close to 30%...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*LeMond McIlvaine tape back up.*



smbrum said:


> thanks for the info. I did google mcilvain. very interesting. Question though. that incident was easy to brush off by LA by simply saying "it never happened" or "they hate me" kind of stuff. He was in a hospital for crying out loud being questioned by staff doctors. Why couldnt someone have spoken to that dr on duty who asked the PED question? Also, he was asking questions for a reason and Im sure had his little chart writing notes as to LA answers. Why couldnt someone get that stuff? I know confidentiality but if it went to a court hearing looks like there could have been a subpoena. Reading that and some other things it smells of a giant conspiracy. But why? Why would there be so many who would have his back. He was nobody back then. Certainly not the international superstar of today. So why would people cover up. I just dont get it.


http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3


----------

