# Will it ever come out that Lance is a Doper?



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

Armstrong is at the inner most circles of cycling. It is true, he either says your out to destroy cycling or your lying. I believe it will never come out because he has the backing of the cancer community with him. They would all be devasted if they knew he was a cheater..

Read this article http://www.tourdefrancenews.com/tourdefrance/experts/columns/0,3489,s1-9410,00.html

This is one of many that there is about Lance. He is making 25mil a year and is the "boss" of the discovery team and the peloton, when racing. Would it not be possible to get inside intel on when drug tests are coming or which person is administering it? It would be very interesting if anyone would come out and say things 10 - 15yrs down the road once he is retired. Who knows, maybe Tyler might come out and say things. These two were buddies for a long while and I remember reading that Lance and Tyler havent talked very much if at all since Tyler getting the drug affair business... Maybe Lance distances himself from others that get hit with drug charges. Look at what he did with Ferrai... distance... I wonder if he takes calls from David Millar on his cell anymore?


----------



## ScottGa (Sep 15, 2004)

*Of course...*

OK, I'll be the first to take the bait. Yes, of course it will come out. Because I'm sure that you're going to be the one to provide concrete proof, once and for all, that Lance is a big time doper. After all he must be doping since he can beat everyone else on a TT or up a mountain and he's won 6 TDF. This obviously couldn't be explained by the possibility that he trains better/smarter, is more physically talented, and mentally focused than his competitors. OMG, I just realized that Michael Jordan was a big doper too!

Based on your assertion, Lance is the only rider in the pro peloton with advance knowledge of all drug testing. As he and Tyler were such good friends, I bet Lance shared this information with Tyler that he would be tested at the Vuelta and the Olympics. If only Tyler was smart enough to listen to Mafia "Boss" Lance.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I doubt there will ever be definitive proof. I doubt he is still doping, so I don't think he will fail a drug test.
I'd be extremely surprised if reality was that he never doped back in the heyday of undectable EPO use, but how is anyone ever going to prove that?


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Go fishing elsewhere TROLL!


----------



## technocycle (Oct 29, 2004)

cannondale_boy said:


> Armstrong is at the inner most circles of cycling. It is true, he either says your out to destroy cycling or your lying. I believe it will never come out because he has the backing of the cancer community with him. They would all be devasted if they knew he was a cheater..
> 
> Read this article http://www.tourdefrancenews.com/tourdefrance/experts/columns/0,3489,s1-9410,00.html
> 
> This is one of many that there is about Lance. He is making 25mil a year and is the "boss" of the discovery team and the peloton, when racing. Would it not be possible to get inside intel on when drug tests are coming or which person is administering it? It would be very interesting if anyone would come out and say things 10 - 15yrs down the road once he is retired. Who knows, maybe Tyler might come out and say things. These two were buddies for a long while and I remember reading that Lance and Tyler havent talked very much if at all since Tyler getting the drug affair business... Maybe Lance distances himself from others that get hit with drug charges. Look at what he did with Ferrai... distance... I wonder if he takes calls from David Millar on his cell anymore?


I doubt it will ever come out where they have concrete evidence. Looking at all the others that have been popped, not only in cycling, look at MLB, it makes you think. Millar admitted that he was tested numerous times and always beat the test. If you have the $$ to have the best team, best coach and the best of everything else, it only makes you wonder.

I predict in the year 2009, Lance will write a book and be a big whistel blower like Mr. Censaco. Either way, if taking some EPO can earn me $25 million a year and Ms. Crow, then here is my arm, start shooting away......


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I've wondered what is up with Lance... thing is, he is probably one of the most tested athletes in the world. Also, I doubt he would be racing yet again if there was any chance he could be caught with a positive. There are all sorts of people who would just love it if Lance were somehow "dirty." 

It is interesting that he has consistantly won over riders who later tested positive for doping.

It is interesting also how his team has had a revolving door, and no former teammates have come forward with any allegations. If Lance were doping, there is no way he'd be the only one with access to that information. Teammates would be aware.

I find it laughable how MLB is under such scrutiny for steroids. Why is the government even involved with all this if steroid use is already "illegal?"

I'm half inclined to open up sports to doping under medical supervision. Why are some supplements or technologies allowed while others are not?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I've said this before*

if he was still doping he would have retired. after setting the record to continue racing dirty is diminishing return. if he's doping and gets caught he screws his legacy. if he was doping and rides this season 'clean' and can't perform it will only fuel the fire of the sekers.
it's all diminishing return now. 7 TdF's ain't worth the risk, he'd be retired, resting on his laurels unblemished by being busted.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

spookyload said:


> Go fishing elsewhere TROLL!


Seriously? That's my honest opinion, it was in no way a troll. I'm at a loss as to why you would think it was a troll?

Doesn't seem like to me almost ANYONE involved in cycling pre-Festina viewed doping as cheating. It was simply part and parcel of how the game was played and everyone excepted it as such. Lance rode with some distinction in the period of the mid-90's when you could essentially take EPO (the one drug that actually causes a substantial improvement in endurance ability) without any fear of consequences. Could he have been clean? Sure. Would I be at all surprised if he doped like pretty much everyone else? No. 

Once he had the cancer story, the TdF wins, and especially the changed climate where most people outside the sport became aware of doping and viewed it as cheating, could he ever come clean about it if he had doped? No way.

And I agree with the junkie below, no way would he still be doing it, unless he is really brazen. Too much to lose and nothing to gain.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

filtersweep said:


> It is interesting also how his team has had a revolving door, and no former teammates have come forward with any allegations. If Lance were doping, there is no way he'd be the only one with access to that information. Teammates would be aware.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Since we know for a fact that many riders have doped (by their own admission or failed tests), we also know for a fact that teammates either don't know or don't tell.
> ...


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Can you think of a single instance of a rider "outing" another rider? How about the docs or soigneurs (other than Willy Voet)?


Stephen Swart is not a current pro, but he has been very clear about what LA did on the Motorola team. In meetings LA encouraged riders to dope and insisted that only riders on a doping program should be selected for the Tour team. He also insisted that each rider be responsible for getting their own dope and doping advice. He then began his relationship with Dr. Ferrari. At the time Ferrari charged more a consultation than some pros made in a year. There was only one reason to see Dr. Ferrari at that time.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

It DID come out. Lance tested positive during the 1999 TdF for cortisone, a banned substance. Lance's people explained that the positive was caused by a legally prescribed skin creme. Oh, okay.... That's the root of these doping allegations from Emma O'Reilly. She worked for US Postal at the time and claims that Lance was doping.

Lance worked closely enough with Dr. Michele Ferrari--and defended him right up until Ferrari's guilty verdict--that I'd be surprised if Lance didn't dope in the 1990s. But I highly doubt he's done anything in the past five or six years. He's got too much at stake now. Imagine what a positive test would do to his foundation.

But, hell, many great athletes are scummy. Babe Ruth was a womanizer and probably an alcoholic. Magic Johnson got HIV from unprotected sex, and apparently can't identify who gave it to him. Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids (and said someone had spiked his drink). This runner named Stella Walsh set 20 world records beginning in the 1930s and was inducted into the track and field hall of fame in the 1970s. When she died, it was discovered that "she" actually possessed male junk.

Athletes are not superheroes, people. They cheat all the time.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

see 'Breaking the Chain' by Willy Voet - Virenque was very impressed by the good doc but couldn't afford him and felt, anyway, that to work with Ferrari would be too obvious.

Voet's book is a fascinating insight into the psychology of doping and it is difficult to assume that his has simply stopped because there is now an EPO test. There isn't a test for newer forms of EPO, or HGH or autologous blood doping. No rider needs a form of 'super dope' to evade the controls, the controls aren't good enough to detect quite common doping methods. And you only have to get your intervals right with EPO to take it without detection.

One can only assume that Armstrong is more probably riding this season clean since he has been forced to sever his association with Ferrari.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Lances Miracle Brew*

Exactly.

There are too many sketchy instances that Lance has been involved in. I do not dispute that he is a maniac at training, has tremendous talent, and stupid lactate levels; but, to smoke every fricken major contender for six years without a sniff? Sketchy! I know some will rip my head off and say 2003 TDF! 2003 TDF! But if you were going through a divorce and had been caught cheating on your wife, I doubt training would be your main goal.

ATPJUNKIE raises a great question bout his legacy... but lets just say that if Lance does come back clean and rides like ass in the TDF, wouldnt it make you think?

He finally decides to ride the TDF because hes not sure if he can win it or place well clean.
He than tries Paris Nice and learns he stinks without his miracle brew.
He claims he's got a sore throat and throws in the towel!!

Look how a CLEAN Phonak team did at Paris-Nice..... Yup! Sha-Bang!

The only thing you die hard, lemming like, into the fire, Lance fans do is pay hommage to his achievements. 
Look what got him there... his *E* vening *P* rimerose *O *il 

You either agree alittle or hate this a lot.... But I dont care.... I'll take two bottles of Lances miracle brew any day for the local Senior 1/2 races...


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Inaccuracies...*



cannondale_boy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> There are too many sketchy instances that Lance has been involved in. I do not dispute that he is a maniac at training, has tremendous talent, and stupid lactate levels; but, to smoke every fricken major contender for six years without a sniff? Sketchy! I know some will rip my head off and say 2003 TDF! 2003 TDF! But if you were going through a divorce and had been caught cheating on your wife, I doubt training would be your main goal.
> 
> ...


I'd just like to clear up some inaccuracies you made in your post.

Armstrong wasn't cheating on his wife. He was legally separated/divorced by the time he took up with Crow. 

There is a good reason that Armstrong can smoke every major contender for 6 years straight, and something that people keep bringing up time and again. Armstrong is a one trick pony remember? If you took all of your energy, and physical conditioning and targetted it for 3 weeks of July only for you to be at your absolute peak or your riding prowess to win the Tour de France, I'm not saying it would be easy, but to know you don't have to worry about racing and traveling before or after le Tour, that would make it a lot easier to ride it clean and win. Or you could take the flip side of that and say that he only races essentially the Tour every year to avoid doping controls in other races, but this doesn't fly because he gets tested often and unannounced throughout the year.

What about him dropping out of Paris-Nice? A race he has historically not done well at. Also, if you look at the make up of the race; how do shortened 60km stages help you prepare for later races where the racing is longer and possibly faster if you're out there doing 60k/day? This doesn't help much at all, unless you're doing the local crit series in your local parking lot back in the good old USA. For a stage racer, it helps not at all.

Am I a Lance apologist? No. I've been a Jan fan for a long time, and would like to see Jan tear up le Tour again, but there is no denying the force that has become Armstrong. You'll see in July again this year, he'll be ready to rip.

As far as getting busted for doping... I don't think it will ever happen. If it does, I would expect him to NOT make stupid excuses like someone spiked his drink, or something like that, but to admit it like a man, and then quit the sport. This man, since his win at le Tour in 99 has had too much too lose to dope himself and to get caught. You said it yourself, the man makes 25 mil per year as a cyclist, this is completely unheard of. That would all disappear in a second if he got busted, and then you could completely flush his charitable functions down le toilet as well. He's got way too much to lose to even think about it.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Emma O'Reilly went on record to the French Police with her allegations earlier in the year - pretty brave for someone who is facing a law suit brought by Armstrong.

I also wonder why he didn't bother to respond to the allegations made by Walsh and Ballester before they published - thus setting himself up to fail in a subsequent lawsuit.

He does love his lawsuits, doesn't he


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

magnolialover said:


> He's got way too much to lose to even think about it.


And that is why Barry Bonds decided to stop using steroids as soon as he signed his $90 million contract in 2002...


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> I'd just like to clear up some inaccuracies you made in your post.
> 
> Armstrong wasn't cheating on his wife. He was legally separated/divorced by the time he took up with Crow.
> 
> ...


What is your proof that Lance was divorced by the time he was with Crow? Do you know him personally or something? Wheres your evidence? Your word?


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

cannondale_boy said:


> What is your proof that Lance was divorced by the time he was with Crow? Do you know him personally or something? Wheres your evidence? Your word?


If his wife was boinking her running coach, does it really matter when he took up with Sheryl Crone?


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

*The haters just want to hate*

Just let them hate him, they've already drawn a conclusion and will latch onto anything they can to support their beliefs. Lance can take as many tests as possible and it will never convince the haters. Jealousy is a funny thing.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

Lance and Kristin filed for divorce in Sept. 2003. He met Crow at the Grand Slam for Children event in Oct. 2003. (I'm not a Lance freak; it's called Google.)

I love that we are debating who Lance b*ned and when. Don't we have better things to do?



cannondale_boy said:


> What is your proof that Lance was divorced by the time he was with Crow? Do you know him personally or something? Wheres your evidence? Your word?


----------



## soulsurfer104 (Jun 30, 2003)

*lance is mysterious*

any time you see someone whose performance is so much stronger than that of their peers', you get suspicious. while i think that it is perfectly possible to win the Tour six times in a row by simply being smarter and training harder than the competition, i don't think that it is likely. HOWEVER, no matter how unlikely something is, it cannot be called impossible until it is proven to be so. sometimes i think that lance must be on juice, because of his awesome performance, but until it is confirmed by a reliable source, the only thing i can say with any degree of certainty is that he is absolutely and totally clean.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Utah CragHopper said:


> And that is why Barry Bonds decided to stop using steroids as soon as he signed his $90 million contract in 2002...


Nobody cared about baseball players using steroids until a few months ago, and I'm not sure anybody cares about it today, other then some senators getting some spotlight.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

soulsurfer104 said:


> the only thing i can say with any degree of certainty is that he is absolutely and totally clean.


Would you have said that about Virenque up until the point he cracked and finally fessed up, you still think Museeuw was clean?

I'm not saying there is enough circumstatial evidence for me to say Armstrong has doped, but there is certainly enough that I don't know how anybody could say with any degree of confidence that he is or has always been clean.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*I win*



team_sheepshead said:


> Lance and Kristin filed for divorce in Sept. 2003. He met Crow at the Grand Slam for Children event in Oct. 2003. (I'm not a Lance freak; it's called Google.)
> 
> I love that we are debating who Lance b*ned and when. Don't we have better things to do?


IT WAS LANCE! 
IT WAS LANCE! 
IT WAS LANCE!


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Would you have said that about Virenque up until the point he cracked and finally fessed up, you still think Museeuw was clean?
> 
> I'm not saying there is enough circumstatial evidence for me to say Armstrong has doped, but there is certainly enough that I don't know how anybody could say with any degree of confidence that he is or has always been clean.


Amen to that!

I just love posting pointed comments that people get so bent out of shape about. I don't even believe half the stuff I am writing, but people just get nuts defending their idols. Besides the slight edge someone has when doping, being a racer, I can only imagine the pain they feel when riding a climb up Mont Ventoux at race speed. Don't forget guys, doping does not stop the pain.

I'm not jealous, I admire the bastard for beating cancer, period, more than 20 TDF titles.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*you guysq*

Beyond ALL your speculation kids, even assuming Lance is doped (which he isn't) doping does not give you an advantage of 7 f#cking minutes in the TDF year aftter year 

EPO and others do NOT give you that kind of benefit. You can NOT take 2 minutes out of Ivan Basso on an uphill TT because of dope. You can NOT drop EVERYONE and ride up A.D.huez like he did in the 2001 TDF because of dope you crackers. Dope helps but not like that. 

Millar on dope never even did that well other than the prolouge. It shaves seconds off your time but not minutes. By the way, what is this BS about Lance recommending dope during Motorola......damn I thought I had heard it all

let it go.......Lance is a better champion than the rest anyway. He does more for cancer than anyone else and that alone should give him a free pass in your ""paranoid skeptical" minds. Give him the benefit of the doubt scrubs. Don't you even want to believe he doesn't or are you all just drama queens who like the rest of the Amrican public can't get through your day without knowing some kind of misery about someone who helps more people in a day than most of us do in months


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Seriously? That's my honest opinion, it was in no way a troll. I'm at a loss as to why you would think it was a troll?
> 
> Doesn't seem like to me almost ANYONE involved in cycling pre-Festina viewed doping as cheating. It was simply part and parcel of how the game was played and everyone excepted it as such. Lance rode with some distinction in the period of the mid-90's when you could essentially take EPO (the one drug that actually causes a substantial improvement in endurance ability) without any fear of consequences. Could he have been clean? Sure. Would I be at all surprised if he doped like pretty much everyone else? No.
> 
> ...


I was referring to the origional post. Someone comes in and tosses a topic in the fire that has been dicussed to death. He is doing nothing but stirring up trouble. If he really cared what people thought, he would have used the search function and found volumes of info on this subject.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Why jealousy? I don't want to be a top pro, so I can't see I'm jealous of that; I don't find the man physically attractive so no jealousy there - oh and I don't think he's a very nice human being so, no, can't see any way shape or form in which I'm jealous of the man.

On the contrary, I admire his cancer charity work. But being a hypocrite and a cheat can easily sit side by side with decent impulses (Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian - not for an instant to compare the 2, but you should be able to draw an analogy)


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> Beyond ALL your speculation kids, even assuming Lance is doped (which he isn't) doping does not give you an advantage of 7 f#cking minutes in the TDF year aftter year
> 
> EPO and others do NOT give you that kind of benefit. You can NOT take 2 minutes out of Ivan Basso on an uphill TT because of dope. You can NOT drop EVERYONE and ride up A.D.huez like he did in the 2001 TDF because of dope you crackers. Dope helps but not like that.
> 
> ...


what most PEDs like EPO and blood packing do is aid recovery and increase endurance - and that's not going to give someone an edge in a GT? It's fairly common knowledge that GT winners are the riders who can recover best and thus perform better day after day. Every other TdF contender has a bad day - through sickness or not recovering well after a tough stage - and Armstrong had plenty of those pre cancer, now he never has an off day.


----------



## chasgator (Feb 9, 2005)

I don't think I'll take the bait on the previous post. 

Like him or not, you have to admire him for what he has done. If it ever turns out to be true that he was dirty, condemn him then. If you do not like his personality, or nationality, or personal life, or that "your guy" hasn't defeated him, or whatever....use that to criticize him. Rolling out the spectre of doping if he's never tested positive lessens the validity of your argument and groups you with the conspiracy theorists that "see" conspiracies everywhere when there is none to be found.

Baseball reference....I never liked Barry Bonds, always thought he was a jerk, bad team guy etc. I respected the hell out of what he did, just didn't like him at all. And, honestly I wished that his success belonged to another player, a good guy. Now with the BALCO thing, I feel vindicated that I disliked him...BEFORE there was any hint of steroids etc. As far as the record book goes...if its proven that he was using; I'd expect...no DEMAND, that his records be notated as "chemically enhanced" or stricken alltogether. Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth's legacies deserve no less.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

chasgator said:


> I don't think I'll take the bait on the previous post.
> 
> Like him or not, you have to admire him for what he has done. If it ever turns out to be true that he was dirty, condemn him then. If you do not like his personality, or nationality, or personal life, or that "your guy" hasn't defeated him, or whatever....use that to criticize him. Rolling out the spectre of doping if he's never tested positive lessens the validity of your argument and groups you with the conspiracy theorists that "see" conspiracies everywhere when there is none to be found.
> 
> Baseball reference....I never liked Barry Bonds, always thought he was a jerk, bad team guy etc. I respected the hell out of what he did, just didn't like him at all. And, honestly I wished that his success belonged to another player, a good guy. Now with the BALCO thing, I feel vindicated that I disliked him...BEFORE there was any hint of steroids etc. As far as the record book goes...if its proven that he was using; I'd expect...no DEMAND, that his records be notated as "chemically enhanced" or stricken alltogether. Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth's legacies deserve no less.


If you are going to tag his record with a chemical enhancement code, make sure you go back in history and find everyone who was on drugs to play. I am talking back when cocaine was fluent in the early 1900's. I imagine babe ruth could really pop the ball with a few lines up his nose. Same in the 1970's. How hard would it have been to play injured if the whole drug store was open for use of Codine and morphine? Drugs, recreational and enhancing have affected the outcome of more games than we will ever know in baseball. To start labeling somenone now without looking to the past is wrong.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

cannondale_boy said:


> I just love posting pointed comments that people get so bent out of shape about. I don't even believe half the stuff I am writing, .


The very definition of a troll.

Thanks for wasting bandwidth and our time.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

cannondale_boy said:


> HEY GUYS THIS IS ROADBIKEREVIEW.COM NOT BASEBALLREVIEW.COM!!
> 
> If you want to talk about the US's boring pastime I suggest leaving this crap out of this site....
> 
> BEAT IT!!


Lets see, you start a thread that has been discussed to death here, put Lance Armstrong and drugs in the title and get mad when it gets off YOUR target of Lance. If you really care, use the search function and you will find pages of opinions on this topic. The drug world is much bigger than Lance Armstrong at the moment. There are real people who are about to be caught. Or was the point just to come here and get the Lance fans fighting against the Lance haters?


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

Old,isnt it. I belive LA has to be one of the most tested in the TDF. Isnt that good enough. Geez.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> doping does not give you an advantage of 7 f#cking minutes in the TDF year aftter year
> 
> EPO and others do NOT give you that kind of benefit. You can NOT take 2 minutes out of Ivan Basso on an uphill TT because of dope. You can NOT drop EVERYONE and ride up A.D.huez like he did in the 2001 TDF because of dope you crackers. Dope helps but not like that.
> 
> Millar on dope never even did that well other than the prolouge. It shaves seconds off your time but not minutes. By the way, what is this BS about Lance recommending dope during Motorola......damn I thought I had heard it all


I nominate this guy for president of the Flat Earth Society (ATP gets demoted to consilgere). This reminds me of baseball fans who swear up and down that steroids will not help a baseball player. Laughable on its face.

As for Motorola, go read L.A. Confidential. Or google up some interviews with Stephen Swart. It's far more convincing than LA's laughable "EP what?" to the press (after spending years as a client of Dr. Ferrari).


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*Never had a bad day?*



 Bianchigirl said:


> Every other TdF contender has a bad day - through sickness or not recovering well after a tough stage - and Armstrong had plenty of those pre cancer, now he never has an off day.


Never had a bad day in the Tour? Beg to differ! Check out the 1999, 2000 and 2003 editions...


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

agreed - and what you're not grasping Carbon is that doping that helps you recover better helps you train more intensively - ever wondered why Armstrong can train as hard as he does? When Armstrong first came to the Tour he talked about what a step up it was from anything he had known, how hard he had to work, how intensely he had to train - to lose 5+ minutes to Indurain in every TT he completed in the Tour before 1999.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

From L.A. Confidential:

According to Swart, a select few Motorola riders made the decision
early in 1995 to get on a doping programme and make use of the
benefits offered by EPO. "My memory is that there wasn't that much
debate about EPO in 1994, it was mostly the following year. Of course
1994 wasn't a good year for the team and there was a question of how
long our sponsors would stick around. Phil (Anderson) and Andy
(Hampsten) left the team at the end of '94, a few others were let go
and new faces came in.

"I think it was after Milan-San Remo in March, I went back to Como for
a couple of days. Lance and Frankie Andreu and Kevin Livingston and
George Hincapie were all living there, as was Max Testa. I hung out
for a couple of days there, staying at a hotel. We were out training
one day; this was at a time when we were thinking seriously about how
we were going to deal with this situation. At the time the mood was
swinging more and more in favour of getting on a (doping) programme.
The feeling was we had to take control. We just had to do something.
As I remember it, what we agreed on that training ride was that anyone
who was going to ride the Tour de France had to be on the programme.

"The younger guys, Kevin and George, weren't brought into the
decision. It was more the decision of the senior guys. We were just
talking talking amongst ourselves, deciding what had to be done. Lance
was very much part of the discussion and his view was that we had to
do it. The pressure was mounting on Jim [Ochowicz] from the sponsors
and we knew if we were to get results, there was only one way and that
was to get on a programme. I don't know if the other guys were doing
it prior to this but they let on they weren't."

Swart's allegation that senior Motorola riders, including Armstrong,
agreed to go on a doping programme in 1995 is delivered in a low key,
matter-of-fact way. His memories of what subsequently happened are
sharp.

[edited for fair use]


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*haha*

ooooooo fiction can be fun!

The odds are more in favor of this being BS than actually being true my man


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Did you look at the questions asked. I do investigations, and the questions were ludicrous. You aren't supposed to tell the person the answer when you ask the question. That is called leading the question. What it does do though is allow the person who answered a way out legally if there were to ever be legal action. That is why an interviewer doesn't do it. The person never answered the question, he just agreed to what you said.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

*Amen!*



shokhead said:


> Old,isnt it. I belive LA has to be one of the most tested in the TDF. Isnt that good enough. Geez.


This topic has been discussed AD NAUSEUM. Really, isn't there anything else that can be discussed here? How 'bout that Bobby J? Thought he was washed up 2 yrs ago. Now he becomes the 1st EVER American winner of Paris-Nice. Go figure....


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> A doped cat 5 racer isn't going to go from 5-cat1 because of dope. It doesn't work that way. EPO isn't going shave 5 minutes of your time


Let's see. One 50K time trial with an average grade of 0.03. A rider capable of sustaining 400W does it in 5025 seconds. Dope and increase power by 5%, it now takes 4888 seconds. 2:17 difference for one stage. Another case solved.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> ooooooo fiction can be fun!


Yeah, they are all liars or out to destroy cycling.

"After making public his dislike of Lance Armstrong's trainer and
confidante Michele Ferrari in an interview with The Sunday Times in
July 2001, Greg LeMond expected the telephone call. Not only had
LeMond, a three-time winner of the Tour de France, criticised Dr.
Ferrari, he offered an opinion that would become the central question
in the story of Lance Armstrong. "If it is true," said LeMond, "it is
the greatest comeback in the history of sport; if it is not, it is the
greatest fraud."

Two weeks after expressing his doubts, LeMond travelled to London to
meet representatives of the multi-national oil company Conoco who were
planning to sponsor cycling. On August 1 he returned on a direct
flight to Minneapolis-St Paul and was met by his wife Kathy. As he
climbed into the driver's seat of Kathy's Audi station wagon his
mobile telephone rang. Realising whom it was, LeMond mouthed "it's
Lance" to his wife.

Greg LeMond refuses to be interviewed about the conversation that
followed as he has agreed with Trek, a major sponsor of the US Postal
Service cycling team and the distributor of LeMond Bikes, not to speak
publicly about his fellow American. There is nothing to stop his wife
speaking about what she overheard and what she wrote down as they
travelled from the airport to their home outside Minneapolis-St Paul.

"While the call was going on I took notes of everything that was said
by Greg," says Kathy LeMond, "and then recapped with Greg the comments
by Lance immediately after the conversation was over. Some of his
words I could hear because he was so loud while talking to Greg.
Afterwards I pieced together the principal elements of what was said
between them."

LA: "Greg, this is Lance."

GL: "Hi Lance, what are you doing?"

LA: "I'm in New York."

GL: "Ah, okay."

LA: "Greg, I thought we were friends."

GL: "I thought we were friends."

LA: "Why did you say what you said?"

GL: "About Ferrari? Well, I have a problem with Ferrari. I'm
disappointed you are seeing someone like Ferrari. I have a personal
issue with Ferrari and doctors like him. I feel my career was cut
short, I watched a team-mate die, I saw the devastation of innocent
riders losing their careers. I don't like what has become of our
sport."

LA: "Oh come on, now, you're telling me you never done EPO?"

GL: "Why would you say I did EPO?"

LA: "Come on, everyone's done EPO."

GL: "Why do you think I did it?"

LA: "Well, your comeback in '89 was so spectacular. Mine's a miracle,
yours was a miracle. You couldn't have been as strong as you were in
'89 without EPO."

GL: "Listen Lance, before EPO was ever in cycling, I won the Tour de
France. First time I was in the Tour, I was third; second time I
should have won but was held back by my team, third time I won it. It
is not because of EPO that I have won the Tour, my haematocrit was
never more than 45, but because I had a V02 max of 95, yours was 82.
Tell me one person who said I did EPO."

LA: "Everyone knows it."

GL: "Are you threatening me?"

LA: "If you want to throw stones, I will throw stones."

GL: "So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know physiology; no
amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 max of 82 into
one with a VO2 Max of 95 and you have ridden faster than I did."

LA: "I can find at least ten people who will say you did EPO. Ten
people who would come forward."

GL: "That's impossible. I know I never did that. There is no one that
can come forward and say that. If I had taken EPO, I would have had a
haematocrit higher than 45. I never did. And if I have that accusation
levelled against me, I will know it came from you."


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Let's see. One 50K time trial with an average grade of 0.03. A rider capable of sustaining 400W does it in 5025 seconds. Dope and increase power by 5%, it now takes 4888 seconds. 2:17 difference for one stage. Another case solved.


or lose ~20lbs to cancer and get the same change in power output per Kg.
who in the hell is going to pick up 20 freaking watts anyway (when they are already maxed at 400)?
knowing only a little physiology is dangerous.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

LeMond:

".important point, that pedaling rapidly improves your endurance. But all 
that means is an improvement of 0.5-1.0%. I knew the subject very well, and 
I was ready to discuss it with any doctor. I looked at my wife and I said to 
her: 'He can't say that. It isn't possible that Lance improves from fortieth 
place in the general classification of the Tour de France (36th in 1995, his 
best result before 1999) by improving the pedaling cadence.' If that all it 
took, many riders would train at higher RPMs in order to win the Tour."

After he made this point, a number of doctors gathered around 
Greg. Some wanted to ask him questions, others asked him for an autograph. 
Eddie Coyle was among them. "Eddie, I need to speak with you, can you wait 
around?" The crowd dispersed, the two men were left alone.

"Eddie," said Greg LeMond, I would like to discuss your study: I 
think it is wrong."

"What?" responded Coyle.

"This increased rate of cadence, it doesn't work that way. That 
is not the key. Imagine if you will a runner in a 10000m race. If you said 
to him, "move your legs faster" what would happen?

"Well, the runner would go into oxygen debt."

"Exactly. It's the same thing with cycling. The body of the 
cyclist will demand more oxygen. The only thing that will allow him to go 
faster: more oxygen.

"So, what is your explanation?"

"You're the doctor, aren't you?"

Kathy LeMond remembers the end of the conversation. "When Greg 
told him, 'You're the doctor, aren't you,' all Eddie Coyle could come up 
with was, 'well, I don't have an explanation." Greg pursued it further: 
"Why don't you ask Michele Ferrari?" and Eddie repeated: "He is with 
Ferrari?" "That is what I hear," Greg responded. We could see that Eddie was 
completely taken aback. He went white. "That makes me sick," was all he had 
to say. We then took the elevator together, and Eddie had one last comment. 
"I feel like vomiting' I will never forget that."


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

nwilkes said:


> who in the hell is going to pick up 20 freaking watts anyway (when they are already maxed at 400)?


Yeah, how _are_ they going to pick up 20 watts?


----------



## Silver222 (Aug 5, 2004)

So what was LeMond on then? After all, he's still got the fastest TT in history, even with equipment advances of the last 10 years.

I just don't get it: If LeMond was clean, then surely results like Lance's aren't unreasonable for a clean rider.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*huh?*



Utah CragHopper said:


> Let's see. One 50K time trial with an average grade of 0.03. A rider capable of sustaining 400W does it in 5025 seconds. Dope and increase power by 5%, it now takes 4888 seconds. 2:17 difference for one stage. Another case solved.


Did you just pick random numbers out of a hat? Dope has a different effect on evey rider, who is having a bad, who isn't, temp drop or increase, style of riding, training specialty, blah blah blah

Your making BROAD generalizations on: things you don't know anything abouteople you don't anything about:evidence that is MORE Than skeptical:the worst wiitch hunt since Ken Starr!!

Utah, there is a search party looking for you from the Hospitol =))


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> Did you just pick random numbers out of a hat? Dope has a different effect on evey rider, who is having a bad, who isn't, temp drop or increase, style of riding, training specialty, blah blah blah


You are the one making utterly rediculous assertions that doping wouldn't give a rider seven minutes over the course of a three week tour. There is a reason why the whole european peloton started EPO use by the mid nineties. The performance increases are so great that no one could compete without it. Perhaps you will tell us it's all placebo effect and the increases are imaginary; care to give any references for that?

Those numbers show what a good rider could gain in a single 50K time trial if power can be increased by 5%. L.A. Confidential is full of calculations that show the power required for various time trials and climbs, often with comparisions of what other riders produced in previous years. For example, in the Metz time trial of 1999 Armstrong produced enough power to beat Indurain at his very best by more than two minutes. Previously LA would lose five and six minutes to Indurain. Care to calculate the increase in power in an already exquisitely trained athlete that must have taken place to produce that change? 

EPO increases VO2 Max by 5 - 10% depending on what studies you read. There are no studies that show what taking EPO in combination with an excruciatingly hard workout regimen and using steroids, HGH, and insulin for recovery will do, but we can assume the combination will lead to significantly better results than EPO alone. 

Are you going to tell us that Riis or Pantani would have won the Tour without drugs?

Methinks the Flat Earth Society's zoo has an escaped ostrich.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*nice history, UCH*

I have heard there is a positive from 92 that is about to surface.

It was swept under the rug by the US, kinda like Carl Lewis's positve from Olympic trials.

Kiss that 5MM bonus goodbye.


----------



## MPH74 (Dec 3, 2002)

*Utah*

Utah, i thought LA confidential wasn't published in english yet... did I miss something? are you translating these from french yourself or did you find them somewhere? thanks


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*hmmmmmmmmmm*

""You are the one making utterly rediculous assertions that doping wouldn't give a rider seven minutes over the course of a three week tour. There is a reason why the whole european peloton started EPO use by the mid nineties""

WHy Utah, what an ugly thing to say =)

""For example, in the Metz time trial of 1999 Armstrong produced enough power to beat Indurain at his very best by more than two minutes. Previously LA would lose five and six minutes to Indurain""

You mean you don't know what happened to LA in the years previous to 1999? Cmon, you know thise one....OK, here is a hint, he was diagnosed, he lost some weight, changed his training,.......Lance was winning BIG races long before 1999 in the Pro peloton.

And by the way, Lance wasn't the only one to SMASH Indurains former TTs. Besides you can't really compare TTs unless they take place on the same day due to, well you know, weather, the race leading up to the TT, etc etc and different training, different routes

""EPO increases VO2 Max by 5 - 10% depending on what studies you read"" Quote me a study since you enjoy copying and pasting. 

What happened before 1999 in Europe (outside of Lance) isn't part of this conversation. Yes people doped but we are talking about LA Confidential, your vivid imagination and these random numbers you keep bringing...where are they from again? 

My guess is Walsh couldn't balance his check book much less calculate power and VO2 equations.

Now your accusing Lance of not only EPO but roids and blah blah. Sure Pantani and Virenque and Riis and alot of others doped. So? A few bad apples doesn't mean the rest did. Lance was gifted before '99 he didn't just all of a sudden start wining major races. His numbers are amazing and his Hema. level would only improve ever so slightly with the help of EPO.

Maybe you didn't know but epo and the like only benefit you when your H.crit levelse are really low, they don't make you super human. 

This isn't Dr.Jeykl and Mr. Lance

Your reaching my friend with your implications and so is Walsh. Maybe this si why no one is taking it serious. Is it no surprise that he released the book during the TDF? Money money money

Utah, are you or have you ever been addicted to Cocaine? It has a tendancy to leave its victims with a ""high awareness" that the rest of us call paranoia


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Whose this talking about himself in 1992, Carbon? 'Physically I'm not more gifted than anyone else but it's just this desire, this rage'. It has suited the Armstrong myth to have his story ghosted in the most glowing and revisionist terms but, frankly, all this 'he's more gifted/he lost so much weight in chemo (in fact, he didn't lose any weight over the last 2 cycles)/has better numbers than anyone else' is revisionist bollocks. He was already worried about the bulk in 1991, already losing it and toning it down, training hard by 1992. Of course he was already looking to work with Ferrari and was doing so by 1993.

I notice you also still persist in the myth that EPO couldn't have helped Armstrong. It certainly helped him when it was used as part of his recovery treatment - and that's what EPO does, it doesn't make you fly for one race, you use it at set intervals so that you can train and recover at a level you can only dream of without it. Sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp this concept. And your assertion that doping is done by just a few bad apples is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Presumably the Festina affair and its fallout never happened and you, like your hero, truly believe that doping in the peloton has been 'finito' since 1999 and can truly answer 'EP what?' to questions about drug taking - the latter is particularly spurious when he was given the stuff therapeutically - what, a supposedly intelligent man had no clue as to what drugs were being used in his cancer recovery?

But, like Armstrong, you clearly enjoy your fairytales of a 'clean' peloton


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Bianchi*

Bianchi my sweet, I never asserted there wasn't alot of dopers. I am not naive. EPO is used in cancer treatment as I understand it. How Lance rode and raced pre 1998 is entirely different than post. 

Stop comparing Lance and Indurain. That is totally inappropriate for obvious reasons. I can barely compare myself as a racer to who I was 2 years ago before my accident. 

What is laughable is that you guys think all of a sudden he started (again) doping and USPS under the advice of Johan said "hey lets get Armstrong, dope him up, and win the the TDF" BS. His training and the allowance his sponsers gave him to just focus on the Tour in addition to having more support than any other riders, discipline, the right training he is always on form in July. No pressure until July

It isn't a surprise he can do what he does in July when that is what is expected of him. He doesn't need dope to do it. Sh!t a few other riders have tried to do the same thing and succeded in performing better than ever by focusing on the TDF only. The guy is never over weight, his strength training is superb, altitude training is superb,among other things but he doesn't need dope to do it

I grasp the concept honey very well, I just don't understand why you guys selectively use information to imply he is doping based on his performances. 

Bianchi this statement was just lame and your above it so do better please-""Presumably the Festina affair and its fallout never happened and you, like your hero, truly believe that doping in the peloton has been 'finito' since 1999 and can truly answer 'EP what"" 

Oh and one other thing, he has never been busted so now you can lay on me that he is using something no one knows about, that keeps him under the radar, that some private phar. company gave him to win win win!!! 

I mean it wasn't enough to have ALMOST died once, lets roll the dice some more to win a bicycle race by jacking his body up with drugs

Drug controls are better than what they used to be and he gets tested more than any other bike racer.....so convince me guys Lance is a cheater I am open minded to this belive me. But CONVINCE me with an arugument that is worth listening to not one I jsut "want to belive" because I am comparing apples and oranges from one rider 10 years ago to one rider that races today


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*It's me, the TROLL!*

Were not going to just sit here and change view points in a discussion group. But it is very interesting about what Utah has posted. I bet last year at this time if I said Tyler Hamilton was a doper there would be people throwing their hands up and calling me an idiot. Fact is, all you Lance believers have the better hands. He hasn't been convicted and there is only evidence and speculation. That said, if he does come out and get accused and charged I will be the first person calling on people like carbon 110 for their replies to my post.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Right on*

Absolutely! Very good point Cann. BOy.

If Lance gets busted for doping it will be a sad day indeed. I like the guy; I like how he rides, what he does for concer, how he composes himself in the press most of the time, what he has done for cycling in USA I like his bikes and love having a kick ass American cycling team that rules in some Europe races. All that would change if he got busted

So far the "evidence" is not convincing that is all. Especially coming from Walsh of all people

He isn't Maguire going before Congress and pleading the 5th like some over paid, over doped cheaky monkey, he is saying NO!! Straight out


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

What's the gripe with Walsh? That he exposed an ill judged association with Ferrari that Arkmstrong would rather not have had exposed? David Walsh is a highly distinguished journalist who is sport's editor for the Times - a broadsheet not a tabloid - and well respected enough in his professions to have won the highest accolades achievable and to enjoy the respect pof his peers. You don't like him because what, he questions the probity of your precious Lance? 

I like your 'one trick pony' argument up to a point - but would also point out that focussing on one race gives you every opportunity to prepare with EPO, HGH (no test) and/or autologous blood doping (no test) and, by getting your intervals right, evading tests with ease. There's no super dope needed. It's a tiresome argument, but riders like Millar and Museeuw never tested positive for EPO - and, when Millar used it was highly effective (remember his World TT title)? And positive tests have long been surpressed - the USA having a particularly fine record in that department. 

What would make a huge difference in the sport would be complete medical transparency - when USPS were caught with insulin and Actovegin they claimed they were for use by a support staff member. This has long been the rationale for the massive pharmacopeae that teams carry with them but doesn't it just present a perfect cover for drug misuse? Interestingly, the Actovegin was in plasma based form, yet it was claimed it was used for treating sores produced by diabetes - in which case it would have been utilised in a cream.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

"Hear Ye! Hear Ye! By order of the King, the Earthe is flat!"


Never mind Columbus (the explorer, not the tubing).


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*hahah*

""EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT AM I ON? WHAT AM I ON? I'M ON MY BIKE BUSTING MY ASS SIX HOURS A DAY, WHAT ARE YOU ON?"

L.Armstrong

By the way AJS I love your avatar =)


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> By the way AJS I love your avatar =)


Thank-ee.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

and so are other top flight GC contenders. However, this doesn't answer the couple of questions Id love to know your views on:

a) what is your gripe against Walsh, of all people? Your tone suggests you know him - I only know the quality of his work for the Times, his excellent book 'Inside the TdF' and the awards he has won. Am interested to know the reasons for your dislike.

b) I raised a question about transparency - does it not strike you as starange that teams need hundreds of different medical products, many with PED qualities, many that can't be tested for. Would be interested to know your views on this, instead we get a well worn quote.

Forgive me, I thought this was a forum for debate not a place for boys to shout down views they don't agree with without a modicum of argument. How wrong I was - now I'll leave you peurile Lance Lovers in peace.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Give me some more Utah*

I love the posts by Utah! I would love some more translations buddy!

With that said, bianchi girl u are very knowledgable about the drug doping going on in Europe and how each form of drug works. Just curious, are you in the drug industry? 
Where are you getting this information? I'm not calling you out, I just want to maybe read the same sites that your reading.

I agree 100% of your posts. There is too much **** going on to not raise suspicion that this sort or crap is going on. 
For Hamilton to call out his dead dog's name and his wife name and say he didnt do the blood tranfusions is terrible, down right scary. 

All this blood doping aside, I lost respect for Lance when he went up the road against Simeoni. He used the TDF as a stage to protest this guy and that was wrong. I mean come on, just because you are the race leader doesn't mean you have to do that. What interests do you think he was trying to protect? The dopers? Ferrari? 
You choose.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

C Boy - lived in France from 97 to 04 so followed the Festina affair/USPS Actovegin affair through local press, national press, Equipe, conversations with ex pros in bars. Not in the drug industry at all but have loved road racing and everything around it since I accidentally saw a stage of TdF aged 4...I like to be well informed about the sport and I guess doping is, and always has been, just part and parcel of that.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

I find Greg's tale to be especially convincing, and no, I don't think he told it just for the purpose of wrecking LA's career. I do think GL is genuinely concerned about doping, as it might apply to youngsters entering the sport. Let's also not forget: in all of the publicity that LA has gotten about his cancer fight, that there was a time when GL was in quite a bad way from that gunshot and the complications he suffered after.


----------



## AmateurBiker (Feb 28, 2005)

cannondale_boy said:


> All this blood doping aside, I lost respect for Lance when he went up the road against Simeoni. He used the TDF as a stage to protest this guy and that was wrong. I mean come on, just because you are the race leader doesn't mean you have to do that. What interests do you think he was trying to protect? The dopers? Ferrari?
> You choose.


He wasn't trying to protect anything, buddy. He was out to seek revenge on the one spitting in the soup. If you lost respect for Armstrong, how about the USPS guys spitting on Simeoni afterwards? How about all the **** from people like Guerini? Simeoni might be an ******* for all I know, but he didn't deserve that.


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

How many times does a person need to win the TDF and how many times do you need to get tested with no positives to prove your no doper? Just wondering because it must be more then 6 and 100's?


----------



## mgp (Feb 3, 2004)

I've gotta ask, how did the great Eddy Merckx dominate the competition for a decade? Clearly, based on some of the above, it can't be training and diet. So what was it? 

Also, just how did Lemond come back from a shotgun wound to the chest, a few dismal seasons, and then miraculously win the Tour AND set a speed record that still stands today?


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Silver222 said:


> So what was LeMond on then? After all, he's still got the fastest TT in history, even with equipment advances of the last 10 years.
> 
> I just don't get it: If LeMond was clean, then surely results like Lance's aren't unreasonable for a clean rider.


The TT was short. I don't think there has been that short of a non-mountain TT since. The overall course was downhill. There was also a tail wind. The best time trial performance in a TT longer than 25 km is held by Armstrong.

A shiny gold star if you can explain why the comparison to the Gewiss squad is so interesting:

*[cutdown here- please quote and link please]*

In order to draw a comparison, how about other riders? 
"According to our studies, few Tour riders were capable of maintaining an 
average of 450 watt for more than seven minutes. Lance Armstrong's maximum 
power output in the Metz time trial was 520 watts, a number never exceeded. 
If we extrapolate our calculations, we show that Miguel Indurain, even at 
his zenith, would have been relegated to 2 minutes and 20 seconds that day, 
and Jan Ullrich to 2 minutes. Another comparison, on that same Metz course, 
assuming that the riders all started at the same time, Bassons would have 
been 6 km behind Armstrong at the end, Brochard 5.5 km, Boardman 2.8 km, who 
was the hour record holder with a speed of 56.375 km/hour!" During this 
time trial, the second of the Tour, Armstrong's output of watts was such 
that all he would have done is easily broken Boardman's first hour record! 
Armstrong 'plays' with his wattage output. But he did 'worse' in the Tour 
of 2000, in the individual time trial which took place just before the end 
of the Tour (18th stage, Friboug-Mulhouse, sure 58.5 km,) continues Antoine 
Vayer. "He won this race by riding at an average of 54km/hour (53.986 
exactly,) covering the distance in one hour and 5 minutes, one second 
without looking tired. As reference, he thus rode alone at about the same 
average speed as the record time of a team time trial, that of the notorious 
Gewiss-Ballan group. (Mayenne-Alencon, 1995, 54.930 km/hour over a stage of 
67 km.) This record was established by nine riders relaying each other, 
right at the start of the Tour, when the riders were fresh. Is he a God, or 
what?"

The Internet Site of the Tour de France related without fanfare 
that he it was 'the best average speed ever realized in a Tour de France 
time trial longer than 25 km.'"


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> Yes people doped but we are talking about LA Confidential, your vivid imagination and these random numbers you keep bringing...where are they from again?


Go to analyticcycling.com and plug in some numbers yourself. It is easy to demonstrate the time gain you can get for various increases in power. It takes a trivial amount of effort to shoot down your witless assertion that doping cannot get you seven minutes during the course of a three week tour.



CARBON110 said:


> Now your accusing Lance of not only EPO but roids and blah blah.


I have never accused Armstrong of using EPO. I have just pointed out the obvious: The sport is corrupt, doping is rampant, and you have to reside somewhere on the spectrum between naivete and foolishness to believe that any given rider is clean because he is your hero, countryman, or both.



CARBON110 said:


> Utah, are you or have you ever been addicted to Cocaine? It has a tendancy to leave its victims with a ""high awareness" that the rest of us call paranoia


Why don't you just go all the way and call me a nazi or whatever suffices as the ultimate insult beneath the rock you live under.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Looks to me that Antoine Vayer has given the true answer to: "What was LA doing hanging with the likes of Dr. Ferrari?"


----------



## Silver222 (Aug 5, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> The TT was short. I don't think there has been that short of a non-mountain TT since. The overall course was downhill. There was also a tail wind.


And on that short, downhill, tailwind aided time trial, LeMond put 58 seconds into Fignon.

So, what was LeMond on?


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Silver222 said:


> And on that short, downhill, tailwind aided time trial, LeMond put 58 seconds into Fignon.
> 
> So, what was LeMond on?


Lemond had a great day. Fignon had a very bad one in addition to having more drag. 

Who's to say Lemond wasn't on something?


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

I have friends that do dope,i dont. I have friends that do all kinds of crap that i dont do.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*so let it be written*

Its amazing how many doping experts there are in this forum alone. Makes the mind just wonder. So, I ask, where were you when you could have stood up and made a diff. I mean hey, there appear to be all of these (true insider stories, only by Geraldo!!!!)

The real deal is sorta, actually, very sad. If you didnt have the talent you wanted, you blame it on doping. If a rider beats a known doper, they must be doping etc etc etc etc 

However, it always boils down to that where was your talent, or for that matter honesty when all of this was happening? Talk about that lack of credibility issue again huh?If you cant stand the answers, dont ask the questions. If you dont have the talent, go home, nobody cares.Try enjoying yourself and stop being bitter really. I am sure with all of the medical acumen here, there is no possible room for jealousy, greed, that moment of fame and of course that rare necromancer. Nothing but honesty by those in the know who JUST SO HAPPEN to have the inside scoop when it goes south.

All so real....


----------



## AmateurBiker (Feb 28, 2005)

ttug said:


> However, it always boils down to that where was your talent, or for that matter honesty when all of this was happening? Talk about that lack of credibility issue again huh?If you cant stand the answers, dont ask the questions. If you dont have the talent, go home, nobody cares.Try enjoying yourself and stop being bitter really.
> 
> All so real....


Perhaps there is something true about your hypothesis. People who post critical postings towards Armstrong are bitter a) due to their own lack of talent or b) on behalf of their favored riders who have all been anhilated by Armstrong the last 6 years in the tour, or c) they simply don't like the dude.

I would just like to point out that even if you DO belong to one of these groups, there is still a chance that your assumptions might be true, even if your credibility is low. 

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Lance _did _ load himself full of HGH, testosterone derivatives and epoetin alfa before the 98 tour. (don't think darbepoetin alfa was around back then) Can you blame him? I mean, the dude had _cancer_. Do you think he couldv'e kept on with pro cycling if he didn't recover fast? 

I don't know what the dude is taking now, or if he has parmacological advantages over his opponents. But I do think it is strange when you consider a) how long it took Armstrong to get to a decent level before he fell ill. b) How much the muscles, and especially the heart muscle (which takes the longest to develop, and is a major factor in maxVO2) atrofies during inactivity, not to mention a tough cancer regimen. 

The original question of the thread is the interesting part: _will it come out_ Well it already has, but the evidence isn't there. No matter who comes forward, _the evidence_ is lacking. And that is the crucial part.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*ummmm*

Utah-""Why don't you just go all the way and call me a nazi or whatever suffices as the ultimate insult beneath the rock you live under.""

Wha...huh...who...how..the...fuc...nazi?...."bleeep" #$%@! #*&%$! "bleeep" LOL

ahahahah

Leave my rock alone!!! Just because my rock doesn't dope and can beat your rock when it rolls doesn't mean I think your German! But I tell you what, you sing Duetche Land Uber Allies for me and where one of those funny hats and some high leather boots... I'll call you anything you want ok?!

One more question, so everyone who has won a race must dope right? Vinokoruv, Freire, Ullrich, Beloki, Bettini, Boonen, Cipo, Horner, Wells, Njis, Barney Rubble, Tom and Jerry, and anyone else who worked at one time for Warner Brothers!

By the way, the whole "cacaine" thing was a joke...I mean it was sarcasm, I mean it was a jest, I mean it was humor, I mean it was..............taking ourselves a litttle to seriously here

""what are you playing at Tyrone? you could land a F#$%ing jumbo jet in that parking space""
From the motion picture Snatch

=)


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Carbon, don't get your blood pressure up over Utah. He is a known lance hater. He did nothing but pronounce all thanks the people that would crush him in the tour last year, and when it went the opposite way and all of his contenders went DNF he quit posting in this forum for a while. He is a true Lance hater to the point of calling people like me a fan-boy for recognizing his talent. People who truely hate him will do anything to find a reason for his success. People in general are so jaded these days to other peoples success that it has become second nature to second guess why they are doing well. 

As for the Simeoni affair...that was the will of the peloton what happened. Even Simeoni's teammates didn't help him when that happened. If it wasn't the will of the peloton, do you really think they would have let the race leader fly up the road to amass a huge lead? No. He is a finger pointer who is trying to use his position in the peloton to get noteriety instead of his talent. Have you ever heard of him till that happened? No, you would likely never have heard of him had that not happened.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

spookyload said:


> Carbon, don't get your blood pressure up over Utah. He is a known lance hater. He did nothing but pronounce all thanks the people that would crush him in the tour last year, and when it went the opposite way and all of his contenders went DNF he quit posting in this forum for a while. He is a true Lance hater to the point of calling people like me a fan-boy for recognizing his talent. People who truely hate him will do anything to find a reason for his success. People in general are so jaded these days to other peoples success that it has become second nature to second guess why they are doing well.
> 
> As for the Simeoni affair...that was the will of the peloton what happened. Even Simeoni's teammates didn't help him when that happened. If it wasn't the will of the peloton, do you really think they would have let the race leader fly up the road to amass a huge lead? No. He is a finger pointer who is trying to use his position in the peloton to get noteriety instead of his talent. Have you ever heard of him till that happened? No, you would likely never have heard of him had that not happened.


As a team director or team sponsor why would anyone just carry this guy around? I mean, come on, he must have some talent? I remember him winning a stage but before he crossed he got off his bike and proclaimed that a clean rider can win stages too. Maybe he is a good rider but just fed up with the doping and having to compete against it? Or maybe out of some strange instances he is part of a small regime that is trying to bring about change in the peloton? 
As most of these guys havent even finished high school, why would this guy risk his lively hood? What he is doing is very risky and he must have some backing by people or they wouldnt sign him to another pro contract!
Someone likes him or he has some usable talent.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

_This is an unacceptable attack on a board member. Maybe you didn't read the forum rules before you made your 16 posts here. This whole reply is exactly what it takes to get a thread locked and I am just guessing here, but I imagine Francois will be adding a quote and putting the padlock on it very shortly. Nice job. 

You just posted this yesterday. Looks like you changed your mind.[/QUOTE]_


We all have our own opinions about Lance Armstrong and doping. It was never my intention to get to a point where facts would disappear and insults would ensue. If francois decides to lock this thread out, I am in full support of this because it is making for some very bad reading.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

And with the personal attacks (and overuse of other's copyrighted materials) this thread has seen better days. Please review the Forum Guidelines regarding personal attacks if you have any questions. Lockdown.


----------

