# Landis confirms Armstrong's doping to Dugard



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

via <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/">lindsey</a> I found this <a href="http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/site/pp.asp?c=ahKQL8NTE&b=3854793">piece</a> by Martin Dugard containing the following bit of surprisingly buried conversation.

from <i><a href="www.orangecoastmagazine.com">the orange coast</a></i>

I don’t hear that question at my local bike shop because most cycling devotees prefer to believe that doping isn’t prevalent in professional bike racing. Sure, maybe baseball and certainly football, but only addled, borderline cycling pros desperate to save their careers would ever dream of doping. <b>So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” </b>Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge. And I don’t tell them what it’s like at the Tour, where the riders are like rock stars and where groupies camp out in the cheap hotel lobbies in which the teams stay, or the threesome two Italian riders proposed in rather graphic terms in a text message that one such groupie proudly showed me before marching off to find their room.

As lindsey says, this is begging to be further explained. but as it sits currently, it's a direct confirmation by a rather high profile former LA team mate. one of them should probably address it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Here is an email I sent Martin Dugard on Feb 26th 2008.

BTW, my blog name on active.com is chris

_Now that it has become clear that Lance Armstrong was doping, are you going to apologize for manligning Greg Lemond in Chasing Lance?

Selena Roberts editorial in Sports Illustrated has finally broken through to the most important sports magazine in the world and I wanted to know if you and other writers such a Rick Reilly believe that it is your duty to conduct an exhaustive investigation of the greatest sports fraud in history..By that I'm talking of the whole drug cheating era which has destroyed people like Shirley Babashoff?

Personally, I think you're obligated....rather than just kissing up as people all across the spectrum including Ted Kopple and Charlie Rose have done...That is if you care about integrity in sports..._

followed by another I sent the same day

_By the way, I just wanted to inform you that the Lance Armstrong doping controversy, your book, and the Selena Roberts editorial in Sports Illustrated are topics of conversation on the roadbikereview.com doping forum._

This was sent to Martin Dugard on 3/10/08

_I posted this on roadbikereview.com. doping forum. Most of the subscribers believe that Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping based on a mountain of circumstancial evidence, and that people such as Greg Lemond were wronged by him. I was wondering why the mainstream media hasn't been pursuing this story, especially in light of the Roger Clemens ped scandal currently going on.


http://community.active.com/blogs/Ma...3/06/wooden#cf

The Tour de France is in 4 months and everything that Greg Lemond has said about doping has basically come to pass. Cycling is a mess. On that note, when will you apologize to Greg? You even wrote on this website a while back that it was time for Greg to go away. He was after all the one who gave you your intro to the TDF. 

When will you ask Lance Armstrong some hard questions, and treat him like Selena Roberts has been treating him, like someone who has a lot to hide.

A good place to start would be to ask why he claimed Cofidis abandoned him when in fact they paid him 2/3rds of his contract, and he never rode for them..

You write how you're a huge Springsteen fan yet you shy away from the truth and neglect your responsibility in setting the record straight with regard to Greg Lemond, Lance Armstro ng, and doping.

You know "the highway's jammed with broken heroes and all that." One of the things Springsteen is about is the truth. Can you look in the mirror and say the same thing?_


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

"A good place to start would be to ask why he claimed Cofidis abandoned him when in fact they paid him 2/3rds of his contract, and he never rode for them.."

...and promptly cut his medical insurance off, leaving him for dead.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Are you sure that's true,*



davidka said:


> "A good place to start would be to ask why he claimed Cofidis abandoned him when in fact they paid him 2/3rds of his contract, and he never rode for them.."
> 
> ...and promptly cut his medical insurance off, leaving him for dead.


I'm not sure that it isn't but I doubt they did that....

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0498/9804lance_4.html

I found this at a quick search but did not read it carefully. At any rate, after he finished his cancer treatment, he showed up at the Cofidis team presentation in early '97, so I don't think they would have taken his insurance away while he was still under contract. 

They paid him 2/3rds of his '97 salary while he took that year off so I think you are mistaken.

I'd be interested in where you got your info, it wasn't in Armstrong's book, was it?


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

There is no doubt at all....Cofidis cancelled his insurance....

The president of Oakley stepped in. He called his insurance company and made them put Lance on Oakley's insurance.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*All I'm asking is based on what?*



Dave Hickey said:


> There is no doubt at all....Cofidis cancelled his insurance....
> 
> The president of Oakley stepped in. He called his insurance company and made them put Lance on Oakley's insurance.


He was afflicted with cancer on 10/02/96. He was between contracts with Motorola and Cofidis at that time as his Cofidis contract evidently hadn't been finalized and even if it was they had the right to give him a physical.

He was paid $667k by Cofidis for 1997 and did not ride in any races at all.

I'm not saying they definitely didn't cancel his insurance. It just seems unlikely that they would if he would then go on to be paid the amount of money he *was* paid and he was still under contract which the Outside article indicates. Further, as I pointed out before in the link, he showed up at the 1997 Cofidis team presentation in France. 

Even without any other facts, do you really believe LA would show up folllowing his chemo treatments if he had been treated so badly? I don't.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Yes, Cofidis did cancel his insurance*



Dave Hickey said:


> There is no doubt at all....Cofidis cancelled his insurance....
> 
> The president of Oakley stepped in. He called his insurance company and made them put Lance on Oakley's insurance.


in August of *1997.*

excerpt

_Last August, a week after Nichols issued him a clean bill of health and a green light to resume full competitive training, Armstrong was dropped by his French cycling team, Cofidis. Then he offered to race for several other ranked European teams, but received no takers. Finally he landed a spot on the U.S. Postal Service team while Oakley quietly picked up his health insurance, putting him on its payroll to do so.

Yet in the Oakley parking lot I notice Armstrong is wearing his Cofidis uniform, not the red, white, and blue of the Postal Service team. When I point this out, he shrugs: "It's what came out of the bag." Perhaps, but it seems just as likely that he's chosen to wear his former team's rejection as a hair shirt, to help motivate himself to reenter international competition this spring after the humiliation of being dumped as damaged goods.Last August, a week after Nichols issued him a clean bill of health and a green light to resume full competitive training, Armstrong was dropped by his French cycling team, Cofidis. Then he offered to race for several other ranked European teams, but received no takers. Finally he landed a spot on the U.S. Postal Service team while Oakley quietly picked up his health insurance, putting him on its payroll to do so._

here's the link

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0498/9804lance.html

In *It's Not About the Bike* LA made it seem like Cofidis dropped him in 1996 soon after they found out he had cancer and it is clearly not the case. Dave, you know I work for Fedex too, and have some medical legal issues with them, but I wouldn't lie about them, and if I did they would have a case against me. I'm not happy with them but one has to tell the truth.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Why would Oakley lie?


http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/?id=/tech/2007/features/tour_tech_807

_Lance Armstrong has a long history with Oakley that spans nearly two decades, and while most assume Oakley owes Armstrong for so faithfully endorsing its products (which it probably does, and rather handsomely we would gather), the seven-time Tour de France champion may feel otherwise. When the Texan was diagnosed with cancer in 1996 and unceremoniously released by his then-team Cofidis, Oakley put him on its 'payroll' in order to provide the otherwise-abandoned Armstrong with much-needed health insurance. 

We all know how the story turned out at this point, and it should come as no surprise that Armstrong has now teamed up with Oakley to produce two special edition LIVESTRONG sunglasses to raise money for the Lance Armstrong Foundation. For each sale of the black-and-yellow Radar or Flak Jacket glasses, Oakley will contribute US$20 in support of the foundation's mission against cancer. 

"For nearly twenty years, Oakley has been there for me, on and off the bike," said Armstrong. "Now, together with the company's support and those who appreciate the performance of its eyewear technologies, we can help make a difference to millions of those who are living with cancer." 

Oakley has also built a solid 18K gold M Frame (Armstrong's preferred model throughout his illustrious career) that includes a certificate of authenticity signed by Armstrong himself. The one-off creation is being auctioned off during the Tour de France, and all proceeds will be donated directly to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. As of press time, the high bid was a staggering USD $19,200. 

Oakley has also set up a purpose-built page on its web site where visitors can share their experiences with cancer_
As for my employer, I'm not under the same plan as you. My division is 300 employees and has nothing to do with the other companies. I can't speak for how your are treated..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*It's shoddy reporting by Cyclingnews*



Dave Hickey said:


> Why would Oakley lie?
> 
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/?id=/tech/2007/features/tour_tech_807
> ...


Did you read the Outside report from April of '98 with the link I supplied? The only reason I suspected anything was that David Walsh reported that Cofidis told him in interviews that they paid LA $667k for 1997 which meshes with the Outside article that Cofidis dropped him in August of that year, he signed with USPS and Oakley picked up his insurance. USPS signed him for $200k plus bonuses for UCI points. Why USPS wouldn't pay his health insurance, I have no idea....


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

blackhat said:


> via <a href="http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/">lindsey</a> I found this <a href="http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/site/pp.asp?c=ahKQL8NTE&b=3854793">piece</a> by Martin Dugard containing the following bit of surprisingly buried conversation.
> 
> from <i><a href="www.orangecoastmagazine.com">the orange coast</a></i>
> 
> ...


Why should anyone believe anything Landis has to say?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

*It's shoddy reporting from Outside Magazine*



lookrider said:


> Did you read the Outside report from April of '98 with the link I supplied? The only reason I suspected anything was that David Walsh reported that Cofidis told him in interviews that they paid LA $667k for 1997 which meshes with the Outside article that Cofidis dropped him in August of that year, he signed with USPS and Oakley picked up his insurance. USPS signed him for $200k plus bonuses for UCI points. Why USPS wouldn't pay his health insurance, I have no idea....


 There is no mention of the insurance ordeal whatsoever in that article. No good journalist could cover that story and leave that out. Cofidis' insurance would not pay for his treatment. Oakley's president would not have needed to do what he did if that were not true. USPS gladly paid for his insurance after they hired him 6+ months after his treatment.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

wipeout said:


> Why should anyone believe anything Landis has to say?


It's not even that Landis might be lying, it's the complete lack of any precision, or any details. It's like if he had said, "Just so you know, Marty, Lance killed a guy." (Cue the needle scratching across the record sound effect.) Instead of adding any details that might reveal when, where, how, who, and where this information comes from (eyewitness account, or passing along a rumor?), we get NOTHING. He floats a huge statement like a balloon, then pops it in the air by providing zero context and follow up. And someone counts this as confirmation? It's interesting, no doubt, but give me a break. The standard is incredibly low if this counts as confirmation of anything except that Landis isn't a close friend of Lance.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> It's not even that Landis might be lying, it's the complete lack of any precision, or any details. It's like if he had said, "Just so you know, Marty, Lance killed a guy." (Cue the needle scratching across the record sound effect.) Instead of adding any details that might reveal when, where, how, who, and where this information comes from (eyewitness account, or passing along a rumor?), we get NOTHING. He floats a huge statement like a balloon, then pops it in the air by providing zero context and follow up. And someone counts this as confirmation? It's interesting, no doubt, but give me a break. The standard is incredibly low if this counts as confirmation of anything except that Landis isn't a close friend of Lance.


It's almost as if it's saying Landis is a wanker.

I agree with what you said. 

It's not a did Lance do it or didn't he do it but it's the way it's presented.

Hey mohair, wayne does contract killing..... (needle on record...NOW) right.

I'd rather watch Cadel suck(wheels) in races.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Compartmentalization*



uzziefly said:


> It's almost as if it's saying Landis is a wanker.
> 
> I agree with what you said.
> 
> ...


Davidka,

You didn't read the article carefully and I put it in the excerpt too. It's clear Cofidis did not leave LA for dead. He was on Cofidis *10 months after* his diagnosis for cancer, was paid $667k and was dropped in August of 1997. I don't have "It's Not About the Bike" with me, but I believe LA wrote that Cofidis dropped him when he was on his death bed and even from a human perspective this seems ridiculous, especially with LA's current rep for the truth. He *never* rode for Cofidis and had just transferred from Motorola. The Cofidis perspective is in "LA Confidential" and has been linked on the doping forum

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=823151#poststop

Uzzie,

The Floyd Landis "Lance doped" thing is a bombshell. Ever since the Rodney King beating trial, or the OJ trial, people seem to think you need a "smoking gun" or if one piece of evidence doesn't fit in, all of it is thrown out.

Evidence isn't like a chain, where if one link is broken, the whole case falls apart. It's more like a rope with many strands. When you take the recent Landis quote, to a guy (Dugard) who was a major LA cheerleader, it means a lot, *especially with all the other evidence we know about.* Once that dam is broken, there is also the chance that Landis will elaborate.

You also know that in the current pro cycling climate the burden of proof is on the rider. If there is even a whiff of impropriety they are thrown out. With LA there is a stench from about 20 different directions.

But yes, if you compartmentalize all of the accusations, they can be dismissed and explained away. I'm not three years old anymore and don't buy into these childish arguments of LA. 

You know, you have chocolate icing on your fingers and all over your face but you didn't eat the cupcake because you were framed by your little sister who hates you.....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Your reading comprehension is off.....*



davidka said:


> There is no mention of the insurance ordeal whatsoever in that article. No good journalist could cover that story and leave that out. Cofidis' insurance would not pay for his treatment. Oakley's president would not have needed to do what he did if that were not true. USPS gladly paid for his insurance after they hired him 6+ months after his treatment.


LA was diagnosed in October of '96

His treatment was completed at the end of '96.

He showed up at the team presentation in early '97.

He was dropped by Cofidis in August of '97 after they paid him $667k.

It was addressed on the first page of the article.

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0498/9804lance.html

it's all very clear from my previous post



lookrider said:


> in August of *1997.*
> 
> excerpt
> 
> ...


*The Outside article was original reporting form April '98. The Cyclingnews article was published in 2007 and was a rehash of earlier LA propaganda.*


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

For the record, Armstrong signed a two year deal worth 2.5 million with Cofidis. So paying him $667k is a bit of a kick in the ball for him.
Did you read the full article?


"Armstrong seemed determined to resolve the question of his fitness sooner rather than later. In early January, less than a month after leaving the hospital, he flew to France to take part in a media presentation of the new Cofidis team, surprising team officials who hadn't expected him to be there. He trained briefly with the team. Then he returned to Austin, riding hard for up to four hours a day throughout February and March."


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*yes, I read it quickly but I thought I got the gist of it.*



mtbbmet said:


> For the record, Armstrong signed a two year deal worth 2.5 million with Cofidis. So paying him $667k is a bit of a kick in the ball for him.
> Did you read the full article?
> 
> 
> "Armstrong seemed determined to resolve the question of his fitness sooner rather than later. In early January, less than a month after leaving the hospital, he flew to France to take part in a media presentation of the new Cofidis team, surprising team officials who hadn't expected him to be there. He trained briefly with the team. Then he returned to Austin, riding hard for up to four hours a day throughout February and March."


Yes, the contract was terminated 10 months after the diagnosis. 


Sh*t, I injured my back at Fedex going above and beyond(Like I Love Lucy in the candy factory, except with suitcases and heavy boxes) and they said it was my fault even though worker's compensation is no fault. Ironically I get 66 2/3 percent (of my avg.salary for the previous 13 weeks) weekly and Aetna says I can't get short term disability(that Fedex pays for) because I don't have any permanent range of motion loss or neurological deficiency....yet.

Cofidis *could* have screwed him. In fact they didn't. Maybe after dealing with LA and Stapleton for all that time(10 months) they felt like telling him to f*ck himself. By most *truthful* accounts lately they(LA and his cronies) seem like jerkoffs..

USPS gave him such a big break by signing him for $200k plus incentives?

And after all is said and done, it's entirely plausable that the cancer might have been brought on by Carmichael's and Ferrari's bag of tricks. 

When LA signed the contracts I'll bet they had anti- doping provisions in them. 

I believe even LA admitted that Cofidis could have required him to pass a physical also.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

I really do not see why the Landis story is a big deal. Multiple former teamates and support staff have come public and said that Lance admited doping to them and encouraged them to do so as well.

There are others who have said the same thing privately for years but are not willing to go public as they will be attacked by his cult of followers who continue to hope that the myth is true.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

lookrider said:


> And after all is said and done, it's entirely plausable that the cancer might have been brought on by Carmichael's and Ferrari's bag of tricks.



Ignorance is bliss.....What a stupid statement

congratulations, I've been on RBR since 2000 and I've never put anyone on my ignore/block list.......................................until now..............


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> Ignorance is bliss.....What a stupid statement
> 
> congratulations, I've been on RBR since 2000 and I've never put anyone on my ignore/block list.......................................until now..............


To be fair there are several medications/drugs that can cause cancer. Being I have no idea what he took, there is no way to prove that it didn't cause his cancer (or cause his cancer). Have their been other pro cyclists to come down with testicular cancer?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> Ignorance is bliss.....What a stupid statement
> 
> congratulations, I've been on RBR since 2000 and I've never put anyone on my ignore/block list.......................................until now..............


Actually no, It is not a stupid statement. There is evidence linking excessive cortisone use to testicular cancer. There have always been questions as to how Lance's cancer was able to spread so fast.....Lance even quotes his doctors saying this in his book. 

HGH and Testosterone both promote the rapid growth of cells, this is why riders use them as it helps them recover. 

Lance admitted using cortisone, HGH, and Testosterone...........You draw your own conclusions


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dave Hickey said:


> Ignorance is bliss.....What a stupid statement
> 
> congratulations, I've been on RBR since 2000 and I've never put anyone on my ignore/block list.......................................until now..............


he's not the first or the last person to float that speculation. I don't know enough about the science to make an educated defense of it, but it's hardly something Look pulled out of the blue.

edited to add SI link. 
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/09/12/armstrong/


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Lance recieved no medical insurance from Cofidis for his cancer treatment. No insurance for a guy riddled with cancer=1 dead guy. 

Oakley's President was able to get Lance covered and saved his life.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> The Floyd Landis "Lance doped" thing is a bombshell. Ever since the Rodney King beating trial, or the OJ trial, people seem to think you need a "smoking gun" or if one piece of evidence doesn't fit in, all of it is thrown out.
> 
> Evidence isn't like a chain, where if one link is broken, the whole case falls apart. It's more like a rope with many strands. When you take the recent Landis quote, to a guy (Dugard) who was a major LA cheerleader, it means a lot, *especially with all the other evidence we know about.* Once that dam is broken, there is also the chance that Landis will elaborate.


See, this is the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that makes so many people look so foolish. There are lots of people who say Lance doped. Ex-teammates, journalists, race organizers, Dick Pound, etc. Everyone knows the stories by now, and there are very few surprises. 

So how does Floyd saying "Lance doped" with zero context rise to the level of "bombshell?" I mean, come on, have some perspective. It's not a bombshell--It's just one more thing to throw on the heap. In fact, it's so meaningless, it's not even worthy of throwing on the heap. It adds no new information. Without details or context, it confirms nothing.

A bombshell would be Floyd saying "I saw Lance dope." A bombshell would be "I helped Lance dope." A bombshell would be "I put a needle in Lance's ass and shot him up with dope." A bombshell would be "Lance and I did dope together."

Perspective. Hyperbole. Your words for the day. Learn them. Live them.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> In fact, it's so meaningless, it's not even worthy of throwing on the heap. It adds no new information..


Im with you on the "not a bombshell" part but I think you're deluding yourself if you think it's meaningless. the fact that landis is a high profile former mate who's alleged to have photos of the mule makes any non disputed confirmation like this noteworthy. Landis has certainly read the article, he's yet to dispute the quote afaik. it's just sitting out there.
Beyond that, the larger narrative that lindsey highlights of a former LA (and landis) defender not only seeing the light but fessing up to participating in the coverup is as big of a story if not bigger. Dugard knew LA was doping, apparently, while he was defending him yet he continued to push the false narrative of "miracle lance". both the landis quote and Dugards bamboozlery are new info.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

It's in one of the chapters of From Lance to Landis, in reference to Strock and another young cyclist who sued coach Wenzel and got a settlement of $250k. Strock allegedly got a settlement from Carmichael early on for $20k. I have seen other speculation similiar to what Blackhat provided.

page 26 From Lance to Landis

_Point thirty-four of Greg Strock's first amended complaint in his case against USAC and Wenzel states, "Medical studies have concluded that this virus [human parvovirus B19] has an 85% correlation with testicular cancer." The complaint was filed in September 2000, four years after Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Whether the connection with testicular cancer was innocently made or meant to raise questions about the source of Armstrong's cancer is arguable, but it ensured that the then two time winner of the Tour de France was mentioned in many of the reports about Strock's lawsuit._


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

davidka said:


> Lance recieved no medical insurance from Cofidis for his cancer treatment. No insurance for a guy riddled with cancer=1 dead guy.
> 
> Oakley's President was able to get Lance covered and saved his life.


It's very interesting that Oakley stepped in, in August of 1997. I don't see how this saved LA's life. Jeez, I think LA would have received treatment regardless. He was worth a couple of million at the time and had just moved into a million dollar home in Austin.

You're being a little melodramatic here. Is your only source LA's book?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Do you really think I would come out*



Dave Hickey said:


> Ignorance is bliss.....What a stupid statement
> 
> congratulations, I've been on RBR since 2000 and I've never put anyone on my ignore/block list.......................................until now..............


saying PED's may cause cancer with nothing to back it up? First of all, basically everyone with even a little knowledge of PED's knows that they are extraordinarily powerful drugs. Then with stuff like Lyle Alzado who attributed his brain cancer to steroids, epo users dropping dead due to high viscosity of blood, Then Flo Jo dropping dead at the ripe old age of 38.

But I didn't rely on speculation, I saw various expert opinion here and there....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Here's the reason I think it's a bombshell. Does anyone think they've heard the last from Floyd Landis? When the LA doping questions come up, what is he going to say, 'no comment'? 

Now he has to answer because he was close to LA and no comment is an affirmative to the question..


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

lookrider said:


> It's very interesting that Oakley stepped in, in August of 1997. I don't see how this saved LA's life. Jeez, I think LA would have received treatment regardless. He was worth a couple of million at the time and had just moved into a million dollar home in Austin.
> 
> You're being a little melodramatic here. Is your only source LA's book?


 Where do you get the idea that Oakley stepped in in August 1997? Oakley's supporting him by forcing their insurance company to cover him is not a rumor, it's a fact. The president of the company recieved a humanitarian award for it. Being worth "a couple million" means nothing in the face of these medical costs. How much has your back injury cost you? (now I'm being a little melodramtic..)

I never listed a source but his book would suffice. You are the first and only person I have ever encountered that has disputed the insurance issue. LA Confidential hasn't even been printed in english. Please...

All this "evidnece" and no action whatsoever, like Landis would confirm that the conversation ever took place. I'm still trying to figure out why the haters are so hurt by all this? Do you feel cheated? If you believe he doped then do you think he beat clean athletes to win? It's time to get over it and enjoy watching racing again or become a fan of some other sport where there is no doping (good luck with that).


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> LA Confidential hasn't even been printed in english. Please...


Part One
http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1160407274
Part two
http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1160409927
Part three
http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1161207545
Part four
http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1164801149



davidka said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why the haters are so hurt by all this? Do you feel cheated? If you believe he doped then do you think he beat clean athletes to win? It's time to get over it and enjoy watching racing again or become a fan of some other sport where there is no doping (good luck with that).


If you do not understand how the culture of doping, that Lance was one of the leaders of, , has damaged the sport then perhaps you have not been paying attention.


----------



## lemond2001 (Nov 22, 2001)

You guys are killing me with he said, they said...lol I will just call Lance myself and get the correct answer.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> See, this is the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that makes so many people look so foolish. There are lots of people who say Lance doped. Ex-teammates, journalists, race organizers, Dick Pound, etc. Everyone knows the stories by now, and there are very few surprises.
> 
> So how does Floyd saying "Lance doped" with zero context rise to the level of "bombshell?" I mean, come on, have some perspective. It's not a bombshell--It's just one more thing to throw on the heap. In fact, it's so meaningless, it's not even worthy of throwing on the heap. It adds no new information. Without details or context, it confirms nothing.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it any better. +1


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> Part One
> http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1160407274
> Part two
> http://eposino.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1160409927
> ...


 That is not print, not a published edition being sold. It's just a translation on the internet. It has not been printed because it's authors know they will be sued for every euro they made selling it in French. You can't print and sell unsubstantiated speculation in a first world country without consequences.

I am very aware of the damage doping has done but to say Lance is a leader of the culture is #1 speculation and #2 is a long stretch of probably 50 years or more. Doping has been there all along and likely it will continue to be there for some time to come. As long as cycling can pay good wages, riders will cheat to make more. All this crying about it is'nt doing anthing to stop it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> That is not print, not a published edition being sold. It's just a translation on the internet. It has not been printed because it's authors know they will be sued for every euro they made selling it in French. You can't print and sell unsubstantiated speculation in a first world country without consequences.


Thanks to the internet the definition of "published" has expanded greatly. Most, if not all, of "LA confidential" was included in "From Lance to Landis" .....no lawsuits, in the US, France, or anywhere else.



davidka said:


> I am very aware of the damage doping has done but to say Lance is a leader of the culture is #1 speculation and #2 is a long stretch of probably 50 years or more. Doping has been there all along and likely it will continue to be there for some time to come. As long as cycling can pay good wages, riders will cheat to make more. All this crying about it is'nt doing anthing to stop it.


luckily many to don't share your fatalistic view and are making an effort to bring a change to the culture of cycling that allowed people like Armstrong/Bruyneel/Ferrari to flourish for so long. Calling out dopers is not crying, it is the right thing to do. Ignoring it, pretending it doesn't exist, and denying the obvious are cowardly ways to address the problem.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

lookrider said:


> It's very interesting that Oakley stepped in, in August of 1997. I don't see how this saved LA's life. Jeez, I think LA would have received treatment regardless. He was worth a couple of million at the time and had just moved into a million dollar home in Austin.
> 
> You're being a little melodramatic here. Is your only source LA's book?


In the US even destitute people get treatment as long as they seek it. Maybe not the best cutting edge treatment but they get treated.

And just to add another twist to the arguement which may be mentioned in some of the links, I didn't read them. Cycling contracts typically start January 1. I don't know why Cofidis' would have been responsible for Armstrong's medical insurance in the fall of '96. It should have been whatever team (Motorola?) he was under contract with at the time. Right?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Q. and where do you get the idea that*



davidka said:


> Where do you get the idea that Oakley stepped in in August 1997? Oakley's supporting him by forcing their insurance company to cover him is not a rumor, it's a fact. The president of the company recieved a humanitarian award for it. Being worth "a couple million" means nothing in the face of these medical costs. How much has your back injury cost you? (now I'm being a little melodramtic..)
> 
> I never listed a source but his book would suffice. You are the first and only person I have ever encountered that has disputed the insurance issue. LA Confidential hasn't even been printed in english. Please...
> 
> All this "evidnece" and no action whatsoever, like Landis would confirm that the conversation ever took place. I'm still trying to figure out why the haters are so hurt by all this? Do you feel cheated? If you believe he doped then do you think he beat clean athletes to win? It's time to get over it and enjoy watching racing again or become a fan of some other sport where there is no doping (good luck with that).


Oakley stepped in immediately to pay his costs for treatment of cancer in late '96.

A.from LA in his book _It's Not About the Bike._

*The Outside magazine link is a source if you would open your eyes....*

I read that book and accepted the story without question until I saw a magazine story where Walsh spoke to the Cofidis people. The story was in LA Confidential. I've read a lot of the stuff LA has put out and a lot of the stuff others have said about LA and the stuff from multiple sources paints a not very nice portrait of LA and his cronies to say the least. Look at his marriage and how he portrayed his wife in the first book. They have three little kids through in vitro (difficult circumstances) and he's cheating on her? You know how great LA was saying his wife is. They're married less than 5 years, he's busy training and running his growing empire, and charitable foundation and he has the time to screw around? The story he painted was dishonest. It was out there that his father in law wanted to kill him, I don't know about literally..

I sent an email to Suzanne Halliburton at that time asking if LA was gay and she comes back with what a wonderful guy he is and that he loves his kids more than anything in the world. Really, he's running around South Beach in the clubs with Mc Conaughy, and all of this crap if he loves his kids more than anything? Who on this forum (working person) has 3 little kids and is clubbing it up all around the world. I'm single and I barely do that sh*t, occasionally. I mean, gimme a break. This LA has created a lie. Read From Lance to Landis and your mind will be blown. A new book is coming out about Pantani. The number of injections these guys were getting was unbelievable. When Pantani was eulogized friends of his were complaining about the "glory" tapes of Pantani's greatest moments in the Giro and the Tour. They called it pornography. This Sh*t is like Professional Wrestling or Bodybuilding...

This stuff was going on with Strock when he was an amateur one year behind LA. Strock was receiving injections as standard operating procedure and they told him it was extract of cortisone. The theory of Strock's illness and perhaps LA's was that the cortisone suppressed their immune systems leaving them open to all kinds of illnesses people with intact immune systems could fight off. Strock was found to have a parovirus which 60 to 80 percent of the population have and it's a usually a very minor illness. Strock was laid up for a year, and couldn't come back to his previous level. He was in his early 20's. This parovirus is suspected of causing testicular cancer.....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*You're generally correct,*



Dwayne Barry said:


> In the US even destitute people get treatment as long as they seek it. Maybe not the best cutting edge treatment but they get treated.
> 
> And just to add another twist to the arguement which may be mentioned in some of the links, I didn't read them. Cycling contracts typically start January 1. I don't know why Cofidis' would have been responsible for Armstrong's medical insurance in the fall of '96. It should have been whatever team (Motorola?) he was under contract with at the time. Right?


My point after doing some reading is that he wasn't abandoned by Cofidis, he was going ahead with his treatment, he was going to get it regardless. He might have been between contracts because Motorola left the sport and he was going to Cofidis at the beginning of the year???

At any rate, if he had not made it, it wouldn't be because of these melodramatic insurance issues LA mentioned in his book, and that Davidka has seized on.

Oh yeah, Davidka, my case is going to mediation and I will get very little in comparison to what Fedex would have to pay if they did the right thing. In 2000 shortly before Clinton left office OSHA introduced work rules which would require both UPS and Fedex to use 2 people per each truck to load. UPS and Fedex do use different procedures for loading, however, before I was injured I was loading 2 trucks and helping on a third very busy truck. In the NY Times, and I can supply the links, Fedex estimated the new Osha rules would cost them 6 billion and UPS 20 billion to implement. When the election was resolved and GWB got in, the new rules were shelved and industry lobbyists were placed in just about every regulatory agency. This is what is meant by the fox guarding the henhouse..... 

Basically according to the prospective OSHA rules I was doing the work of 5 people. The new rules were a little bit of overkill but even when I fell behind and was yelling that I needed help, they blamed me for not being able to keep up. When I was injured they blamed me for lifting a 133lb rolled up carpet.

Why didn't I ask for help they said. LMAO.

Very similiar situation to what LeMond encountered when he was trying to keep up with epo fueled athletes in '91 He was in better shape than either '89 or '90 and he couldn't keep up and he was blamed by people who didn't understand what the heck was going on. 

I'm being blamed by people who can't even carry my jockstrap and wouldn't be capable of doing half the work I was doing..Of course I make 40 to 50k a year and my back is shot for that kind of work. Who cares?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

lemond2001 said:


> You guys are killing me with he said, they said...lol I will just call Lance myself and get the correct answer.



The only reason you'd be calling LA is to schedule a match in the octagon...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

lookrider said:


> Oakley stepped in immediately to pay his costs for treatment of cancer in late '96.
> 
> A.from LA in his book _It's Not About the Bike._
> 
> ...


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

I think this whole thread could give me cancer.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> Bigpinkt, I do not mean to say that doping should be ignored or that testing should stop. I mean to say that the organizing bodies are wasting way too much of their limited time harping on the issue and smearing themselves in the media. Test and investigate behind the scenes, catch riders and suspend them without all the emoptional BS about dirty this and cheating that. There is so much speculation about who is and isn't doping that the sport is continually in the gutter.
> 
> There are two teams competing at the highest level with NO title sponsors! Astana is getting blackballed over suspicion despite the fact that they have a sponsor that is willing to pay the bills for a top notch program. A smarter organization would have them continuing to compete to avoid scaring off potential sponsors for the other two commited programs. They need to better manage the fight against doping (at least in the media) so that they can get back to talking about the racing. Paris-Nice was AWESOME! They need to refocus their efforts into making the sport attractive to sponsors. No sponsor wants to invest in something with no guarantee of return.


The reason for all of the public BS is because of the dopers efforts to confuse the issue and the public. The lies of Lance, Tyler, Basso, Ulrich, and Landis have forced the governing bodies to defend themselves. Despite the absurdity of the excuses of the dopers there is still a large group willing to confuse the issue and donate to their various legal defense funds.

A smart organization does its best to cleanse itself of what is killing the sport. To pretend that Astanta is not an issue is myopic. Letting Astana race sends a clear message to the dopers that as long as you lie and confuse the issue you will still be able to race. Sponsors do not want this because if you ignore these issues they will just explode again in your face.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*As always,*



davidka said:


> Oakley stepped in immediately to pay his costs for treatment of cancer in late '96.
> 
> Wrong, this situation was common knowlege long before LA's book came out. The fact that it is completely ignored in the Outside magazine discredits it's validity.


I could be wrong. However, you say, "common knowledge." Are you an LA insider? If so the credibility of your statement is obviously in doubt.

Where could I find this "common knowledge." If you have any links or references my mind is open.



davidka said:


> Bigpinkt, I do not mean to say that doping should be ignored or that testing should stop. I mean to say that the organizing bodies are wasting way too much of their limited time harping on the issue and smearing themselves in the media.


Wasting their time? The corruption is up to their gills. Armstrong is the biggest fraud in the history of sport and that issue hasn't even been resolved yet.




davidka said:


> Test and investigate behind the scenes, catch riders and suspend them without all the emoptional BS about dirty this and cheating that. There is so much speculation about who is and isn't doping that the sport is continually in the gutter.


this is the fault of the regulatory bodies and the organizers.. You seem to want cycling to be high profile, but the controversies will be kept secret? Say A-Rod has been juicing and is caught by MLB. He is suspended for a year with no reason given. What would you say the probability of that would be?



davidka said:


> There are two teams competing at the highest level with NO title sponsors!


Yeah, because the sport is on par with bodybuilding and pro wrestling. Who would want to sponsor that.



davidka said:


> Astana is getting blackballed over suspicion despite the fact that they have a sponsor that is willing to pay the bills for a top notch program.


Look at Astana's history? What did they replace that history with? 



davidka said:


> A smarter organization would have them continuing to compete to avoid scaring off potential sponsors for the other two commited programs.


Aren't they in somewhat of a quandary? Their marquee event hasn't been won by a clean rider in at least 13 years! If Indurain was doping that's 18 years. I'd like to think LeMond was clean. We know about Delgado. Roche? Hinault?



davidka said:


> They need to better manage the fight against doping (at least in the media) so that they can get back to talking about the racing.


Manage the media? What is this 1984? That's why we have most of these problems. These ruthless bastards like LA and Bruyneel have managed the fight with intimidation, and threats. What they need is *absolute* transparency. Not management...



davidka said:


> Paris-Nice was AWESOME! They need to refocus their efforts into making the sport attractive to sponsors. No sponsor wants to invest in something with no guarantee of return.


Maybe the sponsors are part of the problem. Vaughters was right, cycling is a hard sport and you can't win every year like *"Discovery."* Vaughters actually mentioned Discovery in that context at the Slipstream team presentation. The problem is that a lot of these sponsors want a guarantee of ROI by any means necessary. They are not fans of sport and competition. They are greedy and fans of money....


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

This is silly. The common knowlege can be found in early 1997, when it happened. We're not lawyers and this is not a court.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*It's a blog*



davidka said:


> This is silly. The common knowlege can be found in early 1997, when it happened. We're not lawyers and this is not a court.


I'd like to know what the truth is and it's possible that you may have had it.

The Outside article did not have that "common knowledge" on the first page of the article. In fact that article clearly contradicted the "common knowledge" which surprised me, but was backed up somewhat by Walsh bringing to light Armstrong's "abandonment" by Cofidis which never happened...

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0498/9804lance.html

_Last August, a week after Nichols issued him a clean bill of health and a green light to resume full competitive training, Armstrong was dropped by his French cycling team, Cofidis. *Then he offered to race for several other ranked European teams, but received no takers. Finally he landed a spot on the U.S. Postal Service team while Oakley quietly picked up his health insurance,* putting him on its payroll to do so.
_

What's silly is that you don't have to participate here, and you can either back up your assertions or at least admit you're not sure of them. We don't have to be lawyers, but all of us who participate here are literate to one degree or another. Actually I'm semi-literate..

Anyway, I've encountered this type of argument numerous times on RBR, if someone doesn't have the winning side, they diminish, dismiss or change the discussion..This ego stuff baffles me as this is only an internet forum.

Actually as another poster pointed out, It's "common knowledge" among cocktail party goers, that LA is a miraculous cancer surviving 7time TDF winner who was/is clean and wouldn't dream of touching PED's after his brush with death..


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Lookrider,
Just a heads up, there is more information on the internet on this subject other than the Outside article you keep going back to. In fact, I don't consider Outside magazine to be a reliable source of cycling reporting anyway.
How long have you been following this sport? The fact that it's not common knowledge to you does not mean it's not to the rest of the world. LA doped. Everyone doped.
Here's a quote from Les Woodland.

"The last suspicion-free winner of the Tour was Greg LeMond in 1990. Take out Lucien van Impe and Bernard Hinault, neither caught in tests, and there hasn't been a shadow-free winner since Federico Bahamontes in 1959, which was before dope-testing started [in 1966 - ed.] Of 273 riders who have made the Tour podium in Paris, 138 have been at some time implicated in doping, says the Annuaire de Dopage."

I personally think that Lemand doped. EPO was in human trial as early as 1986 and got FDA approval in 1988. In fairly certain that it was in use in the 1988 TdF, if not earlier.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> I personally think that Lemand doped. EPO was in human trial as early as 1986 and got FDA approval in 1988. In fairly certain that it was in use in the 1988 TdF, if not earlier.


You must not have seen the Versus/OLN special on Greg Lemond.

He wondered how everyone was getting faster.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

So EPO was being used in '89 and '90. But Lemond was still able to pull out the win against a bunch of Dopers running hematocrtis well above 50%. But then not able to beat the dopers the following year? I think Greg was just starting to get old and slow.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Lookrider,
> Just a heads up, there is more information on the internet on this subject other than the Outside article you keep going back to. In fact, I don't consider Outside magazine to be a reliable source of cycling reporting anyway.
> How long have you been following this sport? The fact that it's not common knowledge to you does not mean it's not to the rest of the world. LA doped. Everyone doped.
> Here's a quote from Les Woodland.
> ...


FDA approval EPO in 1989


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bas said:


> You must not have seen the Versus/OLN special on Greg Lemond.
> 
> He wondered how everyone was getting faster.


According to Greg Lemond.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

How is Armstrong a dirty cheating lying dopey doper, but Lemond is as pure and innocent as the driving white snow?
Is it cause he said he was clean? So did Lance.
Is it cause he gets mad when you question his dominant performance. So does Lance.
Is it because he is outspoken on doping? So was Lance. Remember when he donated crap piles of money to WADA to come up with better testing?
They are both dirty, just like everyone else who has won the Tour.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> Remember when he donated crap piles of money to WADA to come up with better testing?



I remember that, but not in the same way that you do, apparently. As for LeMond, he's different because there's no credible evidence (or incredible for that matter) that he was doping. Bring something to the table and Ill listen, until then it appears you're just trying to legitimize LA's doping through the tired "everyone else did too" method.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> I remember that, but not in the same way that you do, apparently. As for LeMond, he's different because there's no credible evidence (or incredible for that matter) that he was doping. Bring something to the table and Ill listen, until then it appears you're just trying to legitimize LA's doping through the tired "everyone else did too" method.


There isn't a lot of evidence for most riders of that era, but many people, including Lemond, claim that everyone was doping. Why does Lemond get a free pass? Because 1) he claims he didn't dope, and 2) we want to believe him. That's not good enough for me. I think Lemond should face the same scrutiny as everyone else and be subject to the same assumptions made about everyone in his era. Let's not forget that he turned in some miraculous performances against riders that are generally considered to be dopers (Delgado, Roche, et. al). And let's face it, riders of that era weren't tested anywhere near as often as they are now, and the testing itself was very limited in what they could detect. I think it is very plausible that Lemond is just as guilty as all the rest, and I find it laughable that someone claims he is the only clean winner since 1959!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> According to Greg Lemond.


According to the statistics

Average speed 1987 Tour de France 36.645 Kph
Average speed 1992 Tour de France 39.504 Kph


But I am sure this was just because of the huge improvement in bikes during that 5 year period :idea:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> There isn't a lot of evidence for most riders of that era,


I guess you have never read Paul Kimmage "Rough Road"



mohair_chair said:


> Why does Lemond get a free pass? Because 1) he claims he didn't dope, and 2) we want to believe him.


You miss one important part. There has ever been a hint of evidence that Lemond doped. All of his former teammates and support staff swear up and down he was clean. The same can not be said of many other riders



mohair_chair said:


> That's not good enough for me. I think Lemond should face the same scrutiny as everyone else and be subject to the same assumptions made about everyone in his era.


Lemond has faced the same scrutiny, but is has not turn up anything....if there was evidence I am sure you would have posted some evidence beyond your unfounded accusations. 




mohair_chair said:


> Let's not forget that he turned in some miraculous performances against riders that are generally considered to be dopers (Delgado, Roche, et. al)


Roche's Conconi doping files were found, and were from a period after Greg retired Delgado tested positive at the tour. Where are Greg's positive tests and doping files?




mohair_chair said:


> And let's face it, riders of that era weren't tested anywhere near as often as they are now, and the testing itself was very limited in what they could detect.


Lets face it, the PEDs available at the time did little more then help you recover and mash the pedals in the classics. Until EPO came along it did not make a huge difference in the riders performance of the rider. It is entirely possible that Greg could have won clean prior to 1990.....it is not likely that anyone won clean after that.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Why does Lemond get a free pass? Because 1) he claims he didn't dope, and 2) we want to believe him.


3)there's no evidence of doping other than "he was fast". 
Im not saying there's no way he doped. I do think it's incredibly unlikely he doped with EPO, but it's possible. He may have been doping with something less effective, which would include all other available forms of doping at that point, but no one who would be in a position to know this has alleged it. Beyond that, just comparing the amount of evidence that LA doped to the complete lack of evidence that greg did, you'd have to be willing to suspend reason to draw the conclusion that they were equally dirty.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> According to the statistics
> 
> Average speed 1987 Tour de France 36.645 Kph
> Average speed 1992 Tour de France 39.504 Kph
> ...


Those are useless statistics, carefully chosen to emphasize a totally flawed argument. If they raced the same course, under the same conditions, every year, you might have a point. But you know very well that they don't, so year to year comparisons are worthless. But when you see what you want to see and ignore anything you don't like, it's not hard to twist anything into the proof you need.

Here's some statistics you conveniently left out:

1985 4109 km 36.232 kph 22 stages
1986 4094 km 37.02 kph 23 <--- Lemond wins
1987 4231 km 36.645 kph 25
1988 3286 km 38.909 kph 22
1989 3285 km 37.487 kph 21 <--- Lemond wins
1990 3504 km 38.621 kph 21 <--- Lemond wins
1991 3914 km 38.747 kph 22
1992 3983 km 39.504 kph 21
1993 3714 km 38.709 kph 20 

So Lemond wins the 1990 tour at an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year it runs at almost the same speed, and in 1992 the tour runs less than 1 kph faster. What about in 1993 when it slowed and ran almost the same speed as 1990? What was Lemond's excuse for not winning that one? Oh yeah, he didn't race it. Is a 0.1 kph increase in speed over three years evidence of mass doping?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I don't claim he is dirty. I just question why he gets a free pass and nobody else does. I think that's mostly because we desperately WANT him to be clean. Whether he was or not, we'll probably never know, but I'm not going to take his word for it. We've been burned way too often by riders saying they were clean when they weren't.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Those are useless statistics, carefully chosen to emphasize a totally flawed argument. If they raced the same course, under the same conditions, every year, you might have a point. But you know very well that they don't, so year to year comparisons are worthless. But when you see what you want to see and ignore anything you don't like, it's not hard to twist anything into the proof you need.
> 
> Here's some statistics you conveniently left out:
> 
> ...


I chose those years as they represent the area of Lemond and the start of the EPO doping era. The difference is even more extreme when you compare years like 1984 (35.88 kph) and 2005 (41.654) To attribute that extreme change to the course is short sighted at best, willfully ignorant at worst.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I don't claim he is dirty.


So when you wrote that Greg should "be subject to the same assumptions made about everyone in his era" what did you mean? 

When you wrote "he turned in some miraculous performances against riders that are generally considered to be dopers" what were you insinuating?




mohair_chair said:


> I just question why he gets a free pass and nobody else does. I think that's mostly because we desperately WANT him to be clean. Whether he was or not, we'll probably never know, but I'm not going to take his word for it. We've been burned way too often by riders saying they were clean when they weren't.


He has not gotten a free pass. Many people, like yourself, have insinuated that he is not clean. Others, like Lance, have directly accused him of taking EPO

The challenge is that unlike Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ulrich, Riss, Lance, Landis, etc. there has not been one shred of evidence that he is anything but clean.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> I chose those years as they represent the area of Lemond and the start of the EPO doping era. The difference is even more extreme when you compare years like 1984 (35.88 kph) and 2005 (41.654) To attribute that extreme change to the course is short sighted at best, willfully ignorant at worst.


When the 1993 tour is run at almost the same speed as the 1990 tour, you aren't representing anything except your willingness to deceive. I've proved that your argument is bogus.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> When the 1993 tour is run at almost the same speed as the 1990 tour, you aren't representing anything except your willingness to deceive. I've proved that your argument is bogus.


no you have not proven anything, you have just chosen to ignore the evidence you do not like. The differences between 1984 and 2005 are too extreme to ignore

How would you explain that these guys, going a bloc, would lose 4 minutes to Pantani and Armstrong....on the same 14 km climb?






It is even more extreme if you compare the times in 1986, then you are talking over 10 minutes


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

So what? That has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I never mentioned Armstrong, or Pantani, or 1984, or 2005 (or 1989 as shown in that video). You can try to change the subject all you want, but I'm not going to bite.

I have dealt strictly with your bogus argument about the difference in speed between 1987 and 1992, which you state is significant and therefore proof of doping (and tangentially that Lemond was clean and couldn't win the Tour anymore.) A look at ALL the statistics during that time period indicates fluctuating speeds (up and down) and incremental increases at best, which is insiginificant. Interesting how you chose 1992 as your upper bounds, when the speed DECREASED in 1993. That's deceptive, and it the deceit underlines the fatal flaw in your argument.

Now I don't doubt that EPO started showing up in the early 1990s, but your argument trying to prove it with average speeds in the "Lemond era" just doesn't work.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

For what it's worth, FDA is US, this or something like it could've been available sooner in Europe.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*NO kidding*



mtbbmet said:


> Lookrider,
> Just a heads up, there is more information on the internet on this subject other than the Outside article you keep going back to. In fact, I don't consider Outside magazine to be a reliable source of cycling reporting anyway..


Other than LA's say so in his book I haven't found anything affirming what he claims. Outside is a National mag and the story was big in that issue. I questioned this stuff because of Walsh. If you can provide a reference other than LA or some cycling news retread of the propaganda, of course I'd like to see it.




mtbbmet said:


> How long have you been following this sport?..


Since Boyer....




mtbbmet said:


> The fact that it's not common knowledge to you does not mean it's not to the rest of the world. LA doped. Everyone doped...


Not to most people. Another poster on this forum even noted that when he told people at cocktail parties that LA doped they were not comprehending....Look at stuff from Charlie Rose, Ted Koppel, and the Face the Nation guy, sunday morning show., Bob Schiefer. 



mtbbmet said:


> Here's a quote from Les Woodland.
> 
> "The last suspicion-free winner of the Tour was Greg LeMond in 1990. Take out Lucien van Impe and Bernard Hinault, neither caught in tests, and there hasn't been a shadow-free winner since Federico Bahamontes in 1959, which was before dope-testing started [in 1966 - ed.] Of 273 riders who have made the Tour podium in Paris, 138 have been at some time implicated in doping, says the Annuaire de Dopage.".


I agree but you do understand Velonews is a niche magazine. Most people have no idea who Les Woodland is.

Actually he's with Pro Cycling and that's from the UK. I actually have the LeMond issue.




mtbbmet said:


> I personally think that Lemand doped. EPO was in human trial as early as 1986 and got FDA approval in 1988. In fairly certain that it was in use in the 1988 TdF, if not earlier.


I dont', look at his history. Conconi was just testing the sh*t out at that time. Gewiss's one-two-three at Fleche Wallone in '94 was the big realization that EPO had taken over. After that race Ferrari did his infamous interview about 10 liters of orange juice is dangerous and epo is only dangerous if abused.

When Conconi was 59 year old his hematocrit was 57 and he was burning it up the Stelvio Pass in a time trial. This is from Lance to Landis page 47.

In the mid 80's the preferred method was blood doping like the US Olympic '84 team and Conconi and Ferrari training Moser for the hour record..


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> So what? That has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I never mentioned Armstrong, or Pantani, or 1984, or 2005 (or 1989 as shown in that video). You can try to change the subject all you want, but I'm not going to bite.
> 
> I have dealt strictly with your bogus argument about the difference in speed between 1987 and 1992, which you state is significant and therefore proof of doping (and tangentially that Lemond was clean and couldn't win the Tour anymore.) A look at ALL the statistics during that time period indicates fluctuating speeds (up and down) and incremental increases at best, which is insiginificant. Interesting how you chose 1992 as your upper bounds, when the speed DECREASED in 1993. That's deceptive, and it the deceit underlines the fatal flaw in your argument.
> 
> Now I don't doubt that EPO started showing up in the early 1990s, but your argument trying to prove it with average speeds in the "Lemond era" just doesn't work.


You need to go back and read what you wrote in post #50

I have addressed your bogus claim of Lemond being the only source for speeds increasing in the peloton. The fact is that the average speeds of the tour increased greatly over a 20 year period. In the 20 years from 1964 to 1985 the average speed increased .44 Kph....that is about 1/2 a Km per hour In the years from 1984 to 2005 the speed increased almost 6 Kph. What happened?

The speeds up Alp d Huez increased greatly as well. You may choose to ignore that suddenly riders were climbing at a much faster rate, but it is a fact. 

This fact was noticed by much more then Lemond, many journalist have written of the two speed peloton. The advent of VAM and wattage meters has helped journalist and fans alike compare the performance of riders from different times. One thing is clear from these measurements, around 1990 things changed and riders were riding and climbing dramatically faster. Lemond was correct.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*How long have you been following the sport?*



mtbbmet said:


> So EPO was being used in '89 and '90. But Lemond was still able to pull out the win against a bunch of Dopers running hematocrtis well above 50%. But then not able to beat the dopers the following year? I think Greg was just starting to get old and slow.


Old and slow, He had just turned 30 in '91. I guess he thought the sea change happend in '91. He's the expert and he said he was in the best shape of his career in '91. I love how some of you people attack him personally, especially in light of *everything* he has said has proven correct.....

In addition it's been mentioned in Pro Cycling that he and Hinault climbed l' alpe d' huez in 48 minutes in '86 and they're doing under 38 now...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*reference*



mtbbmet said:


> How is Armstrong a dirty cheating lying dopey doper, but Lemond is as pure and innocent as the driving white snow?
> Is it cause he said he was clean? So did Lance.
> Is it cause he gets mad when you question his dominant performance. So does Lance.
> Is it because he is outspoken on doping? So was Lance. Remember when he donated crap piles of money to WADA to come up with better testing?
> They are both dirty, just like everyone else who has won the Tour.


Paul Kimmage. David Walsh is very good friends with Kimmage, and he is also on good terms with LeMond. If Kimmage suspected LeMond was doping it's doubtful that Walsh would give LeMond so much weight..


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

davidka said:


> For what it's worth, FDA is US, this or something like it could've been available sooner in Europe.


What I don't understand is all of the speculation. Up until a year ago I believed LA was clean, but when you start looking into all of the accusations from every different direction, doubt has to enter your mind.

If you're that interested, why don't you read the LA Confidential links provided, and From Lance to Landis as a starting point. Then you realize that there is just too much evidence from too many people who were jeopardizing their careers to tell what they said was the truth.

Why would anyone do this?

LeMond's VO2 max was at least 92 and could have been as high as 95 or 96.. Those types of readings are freakish. His hematocrit was never above 45. The guy won at every level by a lot. He was riding with pro's at like 15 years old. Not competing in triathlons. The guy won the tour of the future by 15 minutes..

anyway he was much more of a prodigy than LA ever was. 

Also it's widely known that amphetamines don't work so well in hot weather....And steroids and corticoids can help with recovery somewhat but as Willy Voet pointed out they don't increase your capacities, and he should know. They enable you to ride at the best of your ability but they don't increase your ability like r-epo. That's a paraphrase from Voet from Walsh's writing...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> In addition it's been mentioned in Pro Cycling that he and Hinault climbed l' alpe d' huez in 48 minutes in '86 and they're doing under 38 now...


Again, this is playing with statistics. Lemond and Hinault did 48 minutes in 1986, but this wasn't anywhere close to the fastest time up Alpe d'Huez at the time. So who cares?

The record in 1986 was a very respectable time of 45:22 in 1952 by Fausto Coppi! That's pretty damn good considering his equipment and the fact that the road was barely improved. Coppi beat Lemond/Hinault by almost 2 1/2 minutes! I'm fairly certain that Coppi was not on EPO. Imagine what Coppi could do with today's equipment and today's road surface. They upgraded the road in 1968, but now it's even better. I've broken an hour, twice!

Laurant Fignon did 42' 15 in 1989, with 7 other riders breaking 45 minutes. That's a long way from 48 minutes, but it's not as dramatic a comparison for Pro Cycling magazine.

http://grimpee.alpe.9online.fr/references.html


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Again, this is playing with statistics. Lemond and Hinault did 48 minutes in 1986, but this wasn't anywhere close to the fastest time up Alpe d'Huez at the time. So who cares?
> 
> The record in 1986 was a very respectable time of 45:22 in 1952 by Fausto Coppi! That's pretty damn good considering his equipment and the fact that the road was barely improved. Coppi beat Lemond/Hinault by almost 2 1/2 minutes! I'm fairly certain that Coppi was not on EPO. Imagine what Coppi could do with today's equipment and today's road surface. They upgraded the road in 1968, but now it's even better. I've broken an hour, twice!
> 
> ...


You call it "Playing with statistics" I call it facts. The difference between Fignon's 42' 15" and Pantani's 36' 40" in the space of 5 years is HUGE. it cannot be attributed to road surface or bikes.
I supposed you do not read French but the article you link to supports what I have been saying all along.

_Avec la décénnie 90 (et peut-être l'aide des produits oxygénants ), les records vont tombés et devenir accessibles à la majorité du peloton : en 1997 l'année des meilleures performances, plus de 60 coureurs gravissent la montée de l'Alpe d'Huez en dessous des 45' fatidiques._

It basically says that in the 90's, when riders started using oxygen products, the records started falling. In 1997 over 60 riders were under 45

When Coppi's record stood for many years and then suddenly is broken by hundreds of riders something is up. In the 2004 TT alone almost 70 riders beat Coppi's time. 

These figures only further support Lemonds position that the peloton sped up after 1990


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> The record in 1986 was a very respectable time of 45:22 in 1952 by Fausto Coppi! That's pretty damn good considering his equipment


Coppi's bike weight around 22 pounds, or about 6 pounds more then Pantani's. This is 2.7 kilos. If you use the RIis method for weight and VAM this will give you a saving s of about 2 minutes....it does not explain the almost 10 minute differences between Coppi and Pantani

Here is a good article on VAM and how weight effects your climbing, there are many more ut there
http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/climb.htm


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> I agree but you do understand Velonews is a niche magazine. Most people have no idea who Les Woodland is.
> 
> Actually he's with Pro Cycling and that's from the UK. I actually have the LeMond issue.


What are you talking about? Who brought up Velonews?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Using average speed over the years as proof that Lemond was clean is idiotic. The speed of the tour has changed over the years, that cannot be debated. But to say that it's evidence of EPO use in the peloton is silly at best.
The course changes every year, bikes get lighter, bikes get more aero, roads get paved, training techniques become more refined. The start of the 90's is also when more riders started using heart rate monitors in training and racing.
But take a look at other races. Look at a race where road conditions have not changed too dramatically over the last 40 years. Like, say, Paris Roubaix. The avg speed of that race has remained largely unchanged for the past 40 years. In fact, the fastest ever PR was 1964. Almost 5km/hr faster than Cancellara's dry condition win. We all know that a certain Lion of Flanders was pretty doped up durring his career, so since the Tour's speed went up do to EPO, surely PR's speed also went up. Oh wait, it didn't.
And to further illustrate that avg speeds mean nothing.
1923 tour was run at 24.23km/hr, and the 1933 race was won at 29.82km/hr for a 5.59km/hr difference over a decade.
The 1983 tour was run at 36.23km/hr, and the 1993 race was won at 38.71km/hr for an increase of 2.48km/hr. So even though EPO was introduced to the peloton durring this time the increase is speed is less than half of what it was 6 decades earlier when these guys were just using cigarettes, wine, anphetamines, and blow.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*This is just silly.*



mohair_chair said:


> See, this is the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that makes so many people look so foolish..


Hyperbole? Disgraced TDF drug cheat Floyd Landis and LA confidant says "Lance doped"



mohair_chair said:


> There are lots of people who say Lance doped. Ex-teammates, journalists, race organizers, Dick Pound, etc. Everyone knows the stories by now, and there are very few surprises. ..


And he has succesfully brushed off all of those accusations. Just because *you're* not surprised, doesn't mean a lot of other people won't be.



mohair_chair said:


> So how does Floyd saying "Lance doped" with zero context rise to the level of "bombshell?"..


Zero context? Just because FL doesn't give his biographical history every time he utters something, doesn't mean there is zero context. The context is his personal history with LA.



mohair_chair said:


> I mean, come on, have some perspective.


We're on an internet blog spending time arguing about something that we may not have much influence on so perspective is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. However, influential people involved in this stuff may view these forums and try to get a pulse on the public opinion...I would argue that most people on this forum don't have your cherished "perspective."



mohair_chair said:


> It's not a bombshell--It's just one more thing to throw on the heap.


If *I* say it, it's just one more thing to throw on the heap. Floyd Landis has broken the _omerta_ and he is obviously in a position to know much more.



mohair_chair said:


> It adds no new information. Without details or context, it confirms nothing..


This is such a silly argument it's ridiculous. I'll give you an example and it's kind of sad I have to spell out this basic thinking to you.

If I say GWB is a criminal, it obviously would carry much less weight than if Tony Snow, Ari Fleisher or the current chick say *the exact same thing.* That's a bombshell. They don't need to say anything else for it to be a bombshell, because once that crack is there *any* professional journalist will follow up on it.

So, when Johan Bruyneel gives a press conference about why the heck Astana is not in the TDF he is going to issue a no comment in regard to Floyd's statement? He'll never be back at the TDF because you've seen the current climate where anyone with even a whiff of impropriety is excluded...

If I say the exact same thing as Susan Atkins, "there's a lot more bodies up at Barker Ranch they haven't found yet" obviously it carries much more weight when she lets it slip that they are buried up there, and that was almost 40 years ago...*Everyone* knows the context in which Susan Atkins makes a statement like that. You as a detective on the case dismiss that information because she didn't spoon feed it to you? Obviously some dumb a$s did dismiss that little bit of info and as a result we'll probably never know what happened other than the general info that Manson had something to do with their deaths.



mohair_chair said:


> A bombshell would be Floyd saying "I saw Lance dope." A bombshell would be "I helped Lance dope." A bombshell would be "I put a needle in Lance's ass and shot him up with dope." A bombshell would be "Lance and I did dope together.".


God, I've said this a couple of times, how many people are in prison because of circumstancial evidence. This immature nonsense that we have to have a certified, notarized videotape(or some other type of smoking gun) to have damning evidence is absurd.. They even had that in the Rodney King case and the cops got off. We need to go to Richard Pryor for that one "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes."

We all know who Floyd is and he made an on the record comment to a widely known journalist, about the greatest sporting fraud in history. This is on the record *forever.* Do you thing this thing is now over? Now we just wait for the other shoe to drop. Do you think we'll never hear from Floyd again? Any time he goes anywhere or if he rides again *everyone* knows what the first question will be. Why do you think Dugard waited so long to drop this *bombshell.* Because it *is* a bombshell.

What about when LA makes an appearance? Because LA might throw a fit no one should ask him this question..

Can he appear with Charley Rose, Ted Koppel, or Bob Scheifer and they are just going to suck up to him? While they might not want to ruin their "in" with him, I understand that breaking a story first is also very competitive, am I wrong?




mohair_chair said:


> Perspective. Hyperbole. Your words for the day. Learn them. Live them.


You're not an investigative journalist, detective, or lawyer by any chance? You'd be starving if you were.

Or you were one of the people who was convinced by the defense explanation of the Rodney King case.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Using average speed over the years as proof that Lemond was clean is idiotic. The speed of the tour has changed over the years, that cannot be debated. But to say that it's evidence of EPO use in the peloton is silly at best.
> The course changes every year, bikes get lighter, bikes get more aero, roads get paved, training techniques become more refined. The start of the 90's is also when more riders started using heart rate monitors in training and racing.
> But take a look at other races. Look at a race where road conditions have not changed too dramatically over the last 40 years. Like, say, Paris Roubaix. The avg speed of that race has remained largely unchanged for the past 40 years. In fact, the fastest ever PR was 1964. Almost 5km/hr faster than Cancellara's dry condition win. We all know that a certain Lion of Flanders was pretty doped up durring his career, so since the Tour's speed went up do to EPO, surely PR's speed also went up. Oh wait, it didn't.
> And to further illustrate that avg speeds mean nothing.
> ...


How do you explain the dramatic increase in speed for climbing Alp d'huez? In the space of 5 years what used to be the record was suddenly common place. 

It is a rather simple formula to figure out the watts a rider is producing on a climb. It factors in many of the weight related points you are talking about. How is it that for years a rider that would win the tour would be the one who could average 400-410 watts for 1/2 hour....suddenly in the 90's you have riders like Armstrong and Ulrich averaging 490?!?

It is widely considered that it was 93,94,95 when EPO hit the entire peloton. Prior to this only select riders where using it. When you have the entire group on the juice the improvement is rapid. 1994 is 38.383 2005 is 41.654. The Paris Roubiax course changes every year, and often the tail wind and number of Pave sections and length can have a huge effect on it. Equipment weight and blood related doping has less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race. I would not say this is a good analogy. 

The explanation is not in the road surface....or bikes as Lemond was riding a 18 pound carbon Calfree in 1989.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Good Lord*



mtbbmet said:


> What are you talking about? Who brought up Velonews?


Nobody other than the small community who follow cycling know who Les Woodland is. Now is it clear what I'm talking about? Spare me the pedantics. Most people outside of forums like this think LA is pure as the driven snow, and you bring up Les Woodland to demonstrate that *everybody* knows LA's dirty? 

You seem intent on smearing LeMond with innuendo and trivialities. Everyone here is interested in whether LeMond doped or not. If you have any evidence naming him in any way, present it.

If you have any proof that Cofidis abandoned LA (besides LA's book) and cycling news articles (11 years after the fact), present it. I am just as curious as everyone else...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Nobody other than the small community who follow cycling know who Les Woodland is. Now is it clear what I'm talking about? Spare me the pedantics. Most people outside of forums like this think LA is pure as the driven snow, and you bring up Les Woodland to demonstrate that *everybody* knows LA's dirty?
> 
> You seem intent on smearing LeMond with innuendo and trivialities. Everyone here is interested in whether LeMond doped or not. If you have any evidence naming him in any way, present it.
> 
> If you have any proof that Cofidis abandoned LA (besides LA's book) and cycling news articles (11 years after the fact), present it. I am just as curious as everyone else...


Honest question: why are you so obsessed with this?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Honest question: why are you so obsessed with this?


Honest question: why do you care how people spend their time?

You're in medical school? Don't you have better uses for your time than arguing trivialities. I've seen you argue sh*t to death so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

How many posts do you have? I have about 1,200. There're people here with over 10,000. WTF does that have to do with anything? Either participate in the discussion or don't and save the bs veiled attacks on the motivation of the participants. And also save the insulting psychological analysis....

WTF does that have to do with anything...

Go study, I wouldn't want you to f%ck someone up because you're wasting time here...

Addendum,

Honest answer, the reasoning of other people interests me. It's like doing a crossword puzzle. The word "obsessed" pi$$ed me off. That's why I reacted the way I did above.....My reasoning ability and whatever honesty I have may be my stock in trade in the future, I've already said too much....


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Honest question: why do you care how people spend their time?
> 
> You're in medical school? Don't you have better uses for your time than arguing trivialities. I've seen you argue sh*t to death so you don't have to admit you're wrong.
> 
> ...


Um, study breaks? Don't worry about my grades, school is going just really well.  

I meant it as an honest question to understand where this was coming from but you've just made me lose complete interest in that. I mean, you actually thought he was clean and now you're full of vitriol. 

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. :thumbsup: 

Unsubscribe.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Um, study breaks? Don't worry about my grades, school is going just really well.
> 
> I meant it as an honest question to understand where this was coming from but you've just made me lose complete interest in that. I mean, you actually thought he was clean and now you're full of vitriol.
> 
> ...


Unsubscribe ok. I did over react but the word obsessed is judgemental and offensive.

I offered an addendum as to my motivation, and that will have to suffice. 

People here seem to be so self satisfied that they can delve into the motivation of others so freely. It's out of bounds imho..

Do you think I'll destroy LA? I doubt it, and usually what happens in this life is that you destroy yourself.. I'm interested in the truth actually. If you don't like the back and forth of the arguments you're always free to back out. But I've noticed you've defended more than one *untenable* position in your time here...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> The Paris Roubiax course changes every year, and often the tail wind and number of Pave sections and length can have a huge effect on it.


Wait a minute. I said the TDF course changes every year and you dismissed it. Now you say the PR course changes every year and it's important. Well that's not exactly true. The bulk of the PR course is the same, every year, making the historical speed values FAR more significant and useful. Any changes to the PR course are far less significant, year to year, than the wholesale changes to the TDF course. The fact that the speed of the race has remained reasonably constant underlines this point.

I don't see how you can make any comparison between the 2007 TDF course that started in London and went clockwise around France, to the 2006 course that started in Strasbourg and went counter clockwise.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Wait a minute. I said the TDF course changes every year and you dismissed it. Now you say the PR course changes every year and it's important. Well that's not exactly true. The bulk of the PR course is the same, every year, making the historical speed values FAR more significant and useful. Any changes to the PR course are far less significant, year to year, than the wholesale changes to the TDF course. The fact that the speed of the race has remained reasonably constant underlines this point.
> 
> I don't see how you can make any comparison between the 2007 TDF course that started in London and went clockwise around France, to the 2006 course that started in Strasbourg and went counter clockwise.


It appears math and cycling history are not your strong suits. Speed of a one day race over a flat course is going to be effected little over the years. Weather condition's, like wind and rain, on that one day can effect it greatly. The Paris Roubaix course has changed every year over the years....it doesn't even start in Paris anymore. In the 60's the race almost died because the traditional roads were disappearing and you had less pave then ever. The farming trials were being replaced by real roads.

luckily in 1979 Les Amis de Paris Roubaix came along to help preserve the pave and keep the race viable. Since their involvement the amount of Pave has increased, but the speeds do not fall....wonder why?

http://www.lesamisdeparisroubaix.com/

Contrast this to a 21 stage race like The tour. Weather becomes less of a factor, one day could be hot, the other cold, the other windy. It all blends together. There might be slightly more km's one year, slight more, or less, climbing, the next. it all averages out over the 21 stages. an extra 10 km of climbing has little effect over a race that lasts for over 21 days and 90 hours, an extra section of Pave or the direction of the wind can make a huge difference in a 5 hour race.

You still have not provided an explanation as to how the climbing speeds got faster and watts got higher...during a short period of time. I say that Lemond was right, it was because of doping. What do you think?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> You still have not provided an explanation as to how the climbing speeds got faster and watts got higher...during a short period of time. I say that Lemond was right, it was because of doping. What do you think?


I am not disputing that speeds got faster because of doping. I believe that is true, certainly starting around 1995. I also believe that there are other factors at work, and the increase in speed is not exclusively the result of doping. Equipment DID get better. Conditioning DID get better. Specialization came in. Trying to pin it all on dope is myopic.

I have disproved your example of the speed increase between 1987 and 1992 by listing ALL the speeds from 1985 to 1993 that it wasn't much of a trend. You used that as an example of why Lemond had to be clean, and it doesn't work. Lemond might be the choir boy of the peloton, but it's ridiculous to try to prove it using incomparable statistics that don't even back up your point. I think you'll find, surprisingly, that I agree with many of your opinions, but what I can't stand is when people use bogus science or cherry picked statistics to "prove" their point. I'll refute that every time I see it.

So let's look at some numbers that have been thrown around and consider why they might be misleading. Why did it take Hinault/Lemond 48 minutes to climb Alpe d'Huez when Coppi did it faster 35 years before on a worse road and with lesser equipment? Could it be because they Hinault/Lemond had distanced their challengers, weren't threatened, and didn't NEED to go au bloc to the finish? Could they have gone up faster and turned in a more respectable time? Sure they could. They had a HUGE lead over the rest of the race and didn't need to worry too much about time. Urs Zimmerman came in 5:15 behind in third place! So what does this tell us? That the race context has a lot to do with how fast mountains are climbed.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I am not disputing that speeds got faster because of doping. I believe that is true, certainly starting around 1995. I also believe that there are other factors at work, and the increase in speed is not exclusively the result of doping. Equipment DID get better. Conditioning DID get better. Specialization came in. Trying to pin it all on dope is myopic.


I agree....but I would say that 90% of the increase was due to doping. Bikes and training did not improve much in 5 years, but climbing speeds did.



mohair_chair said:


> I have disproved your example of the speed increase between 1987 and 1992 by listing ALL the speeds from 1985 to 1993 that it wasn't much of a trend.


I agree, overall speeds prior to 1993 are no the best measurement. but if you look at a 20 year span it is the greatest increase in the modern era. Post 1946. After that, when doping was widespread and speeds march upward it is obvious. For the years prior to 1993 you have to look at the front of the field, climbing speeds increased greatly for the top guys....and that is the part of the field where Lemond was.



mohair_chair said:


> So let's look at some numbers that have been thrown around and consider why they might be misleading. Why did it take Hinault/Lemond 48 minutes to climb Alpe d'Huez when Coppi did it faster 35 years before on a worse road and with lesser equipment? Could it be because they Hinault/Lemond had distanced their challengers, weren't threatened, and didn't NEED to go au bloc to the finish? Could they have gone up faster and turned in a more respectable time? Sure they could. They had a HUGE lead over the rest of the race and didn't need to worry too much about time. Urs Zimmerman came in 5:15 behind in third place! So what does this tell us? That the race context has a lot to do with how fast mountains are climbed.


I agree, that is what happened and the reason for the slow time. That is why I did not use it as an example. I posted the Youtube clip to show that in 1989 they were going all out....and still would have been 6 minutes behind Pantani 5 years later. This was because of dope, not equipment.....or race context because the stage Pantani set the record was brutal in the run up to the Alp.

Remember the reason for our discussion. I think that Lemond was correct as well as not the only source for the theory that around 1990, 91, 92, 93 speeds at the front of the peloton got suddenly, dramatically faster. This increase in such a short period of time was because of dope, not equipment, training, or road conditions.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> blood related doping has less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race. I would not say this is a good analogy.



WTF?
That is the stupidest thing I've heard in this thread. Which is saying something. How could that possibly make sense to you. If you are going at threshold, you're going at threshold. It makes no difference to your cardiopulmonary system if you are on a 15% grade or a section of Pave if you are going flat out.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Remember the reason for our discussion. I think that Lemond was correct as well as not the only source for the theory that around 1990, 91, 92, 93 speeds at the front of the peloton got suddenly, dramatically faster. This increase in such a short period of time was because of dope, not equipment, training, or road conditions.


So how do you explain the speed increases in the 20's, or 30's, or 60's???

Your argument is weak. No one is saying that the riders were clean. But you can't use useless numbers like avg speed to prove it, or prove that Lemond was clean.

Does anyone know what Pantani's W/kg was compared to Lemond, or LA, or Ullrich, or Coppi?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Equipment weight and blood related doping has less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race. I would not say this is a good analogy.
> 
> The explanation is not in the road surface....or bikes as Lemond was riding a 18 pound carbon Calfree in 1989.






mtbbmet said:


> WTF?
> That is the stupidest thing I've heard in this thread. Which is saying something. How could that possibly make sense to you. If you are going at threshold, you're going at threshold. It makes no difference to your cardiopulmonary system if you are on a 15% grade or a section of Pave if you are going flat out.


mtbbmet,

Do you really want to stand on these statements?



Think about it.....


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Absolutely 1000% yes! I stand behind that. If you are using EPO you will go faster whether you are going up hill or on a flat. To say that people who do one day races don't benefit from blood doping is idiotic. Or that EPO only helps climbers. So why would a TT specialist like Millar use EPO? Why would Museeuw use EPO if it did not help him in PR?
Climbing has everything to do with power to weight ratios. If you dope you will go faster period, uphill or on a flat. But if you dope, and weigh 10lbs more than a guy who also dopes and can put out the exact same power as you, he will kick your ass up that mountain by a couple of minutes.
Debate me on this some more. Go ahead, make yourself look stupid. Your call.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Take a breath...or a quaalude....*



mtbbmet said:


> Absolutely 1000% yes! I stand behind that. If you are using EPO you will go faster whether you are going up hill or on a flat..


True.



mtbbmet said:


> To say that people who do one day races don't benefit from blood doping is idiotic. Or that EPO only helps climbers...


I don't think he said that. I think he said that the advantages conferred upon the EPO users were more stark in the mountains.



mtbbmet said:


> So why would a TT specialist like Millar use EPO? Why would Museeuw use EPO if it did not help him in PR?...


You're missing the nuance of his argument. Obviously EPO would benefit you more in a time trial, than a road race because there is no drafting... It obviously helped Museeuw, but not by as much as could be demonstrated in the mountains..



mtbbmet said:


> Climbing has everything to do with power to weight ratios. If you dope you will go faster period, uphill or on a flat. But if you dope, and weigh 10lbs more than a guy who also dopes and can put out the exact same power as you, he will kick your ass up that mountain by a couple of minutes.
> Debate me on this some more. Go ahead, make yourself look stupid. Your call.


*NO one is debating this.....except you.*

Originally Posted by bigpinkt
Equipment weight and blood related doping has less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race. I would not say this is a good analogy. 

The explanation is not in the road surface....or bikes as Lemond was riding a 18 pound carbon Calfree in 1989. 

I think bigpinkt wrote *less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race*.

He did not say there was absolutely no influence on a flat race.

Here's a clue, Does a lightweight bike have more of an influence in a flat race or a climbing race?

Does an aero bike have more of a difference in a climbing race or a flat race?

What is the nature of most of the resistance which must be overcome in a flat race?

What is the nature of most of the resistance that must be overcome in a climbing race?

What percent can the wind resistance be nullified by a rider's position in the group on the flats or on climbs?

If you double the speed on the flat, how much more energy does that require? If you double the speed on a climb of any given degree how much energy does that require?

Drafting is tremendously less of a factor on steep mountains than on flat roads, am I wrong?

Focus on the different resistances both on the flats and climbing and the amount of energy that must be supplied to increase speed an incremental amount on each.

I may be wrong but aren't most flat races decided in a bunch sprint, with most of the riders having the *same time.*


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Here are some numbers for you.
1905 Pottier goes up Ballon d'Alsace doing 380W(5.8W/kg) 
1958 Bahamontes goes up Ventoux @ 6.1W/kg
1997 Pantani goes up L'Alp doing 388W(6.8W/kg)
1999 LA does L'Alp @ 5.7W/kg
2001 LA does L'Alp @ 6.4W/kg
2001 Ullrich goes up @ 6.1W/kg
I have read that even tough Lemond's VO2 was 92, he could only put out about 380-400W. Any idea what lemond weighed when he was winning?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> To say that people who do one day races don't benefit from blood doping is idiotic. Or that EPO only helps climbers.


I never said that, nor do I believe it. But the fact is that EPO helps climbers more the changes in speed will be most obvious in the climbs.

It is a fact that climbing times dropped dramatically during a 5-7 year period. The changes happen first at the front of the peloton then became more obvious when riders in 70th place were climbing faster than the champions of the sport This would support Lemond's position that in the early 90's riders suddenly were riding faster.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

We are getting so far off track here. Let's regroup.
So far stetments have been made that EPO came into the peloton and the Avg speed went up. True.
Someone stated that this increase in speed is due directly to EPO use, the reason Lemond could never win the Tour again, and that it was evidence that he was clean. All of that is untrue.
It was reasoned that the increase in speed at the tour is nothing new, and that there were bigger increases 60 or 70 years ago that cannot be explained by EPO use. It was also put forward that if increases in speed at the tour were due to doping, the it's reasonable to assume that other races would have seen this increase as well. This was disproven by the reference to Paris Roubaix which has remained largely unchanged for 100 years.
It was then stated that "blood related doping has less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race", which is stoopid.
Then Lookrider started taking about drafting and bunch sprints and aero bikes? What?
Can someone please explain to me how your body responds differently when going a bloc on cobbles or up Ventoux? That's right, as I stated before, your power at LT is your power at LT. The power output is the same whether you are going up hill or on the flat.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Someone stated that this increase in speed is due directly to EPO use, the reason Lemond could never win the Tour again, and that it was evidence that he was clean. All of that is untrue.


Wrong. Explain how the record up Alpd Huez dropped 6 minutes in the 5 years from 89 to 94? How much did bikes and training change in those 5 years?



mtbbmet said:


> It was reasoned that the increase in speed at the tour is nothing new, and that there were bigger increases 60 or 70 years ago that cannot be explained by EPO use.


This may come as a surprise but there was a huge difference in bikes from 1930-1940. The difference from 1989-1999 was minimal, certainly not enough to have 150 guys rider faster then Fignon. 



mtbbmet said:


> t was also put forward that if increases in speed at the tour were due to doping, the it's reasonable to assume that other races would have seen this increase as well. This was disproven by the reference to Paris Roubaix which has remained largely unchanged for 100 years.


this is wrong and has already been explained why it s wrong




mtbbmet said:


> It was then stated that "blood related doping has less of an influence on a flat race then a climbing race", which is stoopid.


The only stupid part would be to not understand hat this is true



mtbbmet said:


> Then Lookrider started taking about drafting and bunch sprints and aero bikes? What?
> Can someone please explain to me how your body responds differently when going a bloc on cobbles or up Ventoux? That's right, as I stated before, your power at LT is your power at LT. The power output is the same whether you are going up hill or on the flat.


Your power output will be the same, but you need to factor in wind resistance. The faster you go the more this becomes a factor. You hit a point of diminishing returns because aerodynamics becomes a much larger factor at 30 mph then at 12 mph. the amount of additional energy to increase speed from 30 to 31 mph is much larger then to increase from 11 to 12, so naturally the increase will be more obvious on a climb then on the flat


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Thanks,*



bigpinkt said:


> This may come as a surprise but there was a huge difference in bikes from 1930-1940. The difference from 1989-1999 was minimal, certainly not enough to have 150 guys rider faster then Fignon.


Also as has happened in women's marathoning, the racing has become more competitive. Look at the huge improvements in winning times initially, 30 to 35 years ago. The improvements have gotten much smaller with increased competition among women who are more physiolgically suited to the event.




bigpinkt said:


> The only stupid part would be to not understand hat this is true


Thanks again, he's arguing apples, oranges, and grapefruits.

mtbbmet,

plug some numbers in and you may get the idea...

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Wrong. Explain how the record up Alpd Huez dropped 6 minutes in the 5 years from 89 to 94? How much did bikes and training change in those 5 years?


 Well, it didn't drop by 6 min. Fignon Broke the record in '89 to set it at 41.50.
Pantani set it at 37.35 in 1997 for a difference of a little over 4 min over 8 years.
Hinault and Lemond went up in 1986 in 48min. Coppi went up 33 years earlier in a time of 45.22. This further illustrates that using Lemond's time in this debate is useless. Coppi beat them on a 25lb bike on a gravel road.





bigpinkt said:


> This may come as a surprise but there was a huge difference in bikes from 1930-1940. The difference from 1989-1999 was minimal, certainly not enough to have 150 guys rider faster then Fignon.


Can you show me the results that have 150 guys finishing faster than Fignon? You can't, cause it never happened.




bigpinkt said:


> this is wrong and has already been explained why it s wrong


And then I explained why you are wrong. I think I did a better job.



bigpinkt said:


> The only stupid part would be to not understand hat this is true


Wow, good come back. Instead of coming up with evidence to demonstrate your point, you use that gem. Nice one.




bigpinkt said:


> Your power output will be the same, but you need to factor in wind resistance. The faster you go the more this becomes a factor. You hit a point of diminishing returns because aerodynamics becomes a much larger factor at 30 mph then at 12 mph. the amount of additional energy to increase speed from 30 to 31 mph is much larger then to increase from 11 to 12, so naturally the increase will be more obvious on a climb then on the flat


 OK, but gravity also increases. Actually, it's static. But if you are going up a 14% climb it would take more energy to increase your speed from11-12mph than it would to increase it to 31 from 30 on the flat.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

I did it for you.
To go from 30 to 31 mph on a flat you would require 39W additional
To go from 11 to 12 mph on a 14% grade you would have to put out 52W more.

This is too easy.

Next


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

A 14% grade is hardly common. A more representative value would be 7%.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Well, it didn't drop by 6 min. Fignon Broke the record in '89 to set it at 41.50.
> Pantani set it at 37.35 in 1997 for a difference of a little over 4 min over 8 years.
> Hinault and Lemond went up in 1986 in 48min. Coppi went up 33 years earlier in a time of 45.22. This further illustrates that using Lemond's time in this debate is useless. Coppi beat them on a 25lb bike on a gravel road.



Fignon went 42:15 in 89. Pantanti went 36.40 in 94. The 94 is actually a bit fast because they took the time from foot of the climb instead of the roundabout, but it still add up to about 5 minute in 5 years. Also Coppi's time is for 13.8 km to the village, not the 14.5 to where they finish today



mtbbmet said:


> Can you show me the results that have 150 guys finishing faster than Fignon? You can't, cause it never happened.


read what I wrote, from I was referring to a decade of time. In 1997 alone 60 guys broke 45 minutes. at the TT alone 30 guys beat it.. It is easy to assume that over a 10 year period 150 guys were faster then Fignon


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> I did it for you.
> To go from 30 to 31 mph on a flat you would require 39W additional
> To go from 11 to 12 mph on a 14% grade you would have to put out 52W more.
> 
> ...


Nice try, but Alp d huez, and pretty much every other major climb in the tour is 7-8% not 14%

You would also need to look at it as a percentage of speed. an 10% increase would be from 30 to 33, on a climb a 10% increase would be from 10 to 11.

If EPO provides a 10% increase in Watts it would be more obvious in a climb then a flat race

this is too easy

Next


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*ok*



mtbbmet said:


> I did it for you.
> To go from 30 to 31 mph on a flat you would require 39W additional


Right, that's for the guy on the front to increase his speed. How about for the guys drafting? 10 or 12 watts less...The riders behind don't have to expend as much energy as the guy in front to keep up. The advantage of being stronger is somewhat negated by drafting.




mtbbmet said:


> To go from 11 to 12 mph on a 14% grade you would have to put out 52W more.


Ok, each guy on a climb has to produce that much more power to increase their speed 1mph. No one can "cheat" the wind and no one can "cheat" gravity. Therefore to climb is more of a test of strength to weight than to suck a wheel...

Right, all the riders climbing a mountain have to rely on their own power and not drafting to both hold a rate of speed and increase it. The steeper it gets, the less drafting comes into play because you're going slower...Any increase in speed will translate into a discrepancy between riders who can generate more power per weight. On the flats, an increase in speed with an increase in power, part of that power is helping the guy behind him.

The point is, that it's obvious that everything else being equal, an increase in power manifests itself more in a climbing race than a flat race. It's inescapable.



mtbbmet said:


> This is too easy.


For you to prove yourself wrong?




mtbbmet said:


> Next


ok


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Dude, I was just using your numbers to prove you wrong. You then go and change your numbers to prove me wrong. Pick an argument and stick to it, don't start changing values to satisfy your point.

AdH is in fact only 8% avg. But it spikes at 14%. It is these spikes where attacks come and you need to increase your speed. That is why I chose 14%.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*your % speed increase was different*



mtbbmet said:


> Dude, I was just using your numbers to prove you wrong. You then go and change your numbers to prove me wrong. Pick an argument and stick to it, don't start changing values to satisfy your point.
> 
> AdH is in fact only 8% avg. But it spikes at 14%. It is these spikes where attacks come and you need to increase your speed. That is why I chose 14%.


from the flats to the mountains, as bigpinkt pointed out. 11 to 12 mph is 9% increase in speed.

30 to 31mph is 3.3%

to go from 30 to 33mph would require over 100 watts more...126 to be exact.

52 watts on a 14% climb to go from 11 to 12mph..


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Dude, I was just using your numbers to prove you wrong. You then go and change your numbers to prove me wrong. Pick an argument and stick to it, don't start changing values to satisfy your point.
> 
> AdH is in fact only 8% avg. But it spikes at 14%. It is these spikes where attacks come and you need to increase your speed. That is why I chose 14%.


 You do realize this post does nothing to support your argument?

Lets look at it this way. Alp d Huez is a 40 minute climb that averages 8%. How much would you need to increase your average watts up that climb to take 10% (4 minutes) off your time? Now contrast that to a flat TT at 30 Mph. How much would have to increase your average watts to ride 4 minutes faster?...You do the math

My argument has been the same since the beginning

EPO helps more on a climb then then on the flats
Climbing speeds increased greatly in the 90's

You have done nothing to disprove either of these 

Next


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> So what? That has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I never mentioned Armstrong, or Pantani, or 1984, or 2005 (or 1989 as shown in that video). You can try to change the subject all you want, but I'm not going to bite.
> 
> I have dealt strictly with your bogus argument about the difference in speed between 1987 and 1992, which you state is significant and therefore proof of doping (and tangentially that Lemond was clean and couldn't win the Tour anymore.) A look at ALL the statistics during that time period indicates fluctuating speeds (up and down) and incremental increases at best, which is insiginificant. Interesting how you chose 1992 as your upper bounds, when the speed DECREASED in 1993. That's deceptive, and it the deceit underlines the fatal flaw in your argument.
> 
> Now I don't doubt that EPO started showing up in the early 1990s, but your argument trying to prove it with average speeds in the "Lemond era" just doesn't work.


Just did a quick armchair statistical analysis in Excel. Plugged in the average speed from every year, then did some charts with trendlines.

The slope over the entire history of of the tour is .1566km/h per year.

As others have discussed, the pre-WWII time frame is tough to compare as the race was drastically different. So I looked at the slope for post WWII, and it came out to .1232. Not surprising, it was a bit lower as it didn't account for the years before large improvements in bicycles, roads, and peloton size.

So, if we're using that .1232 as a reasonable benchmark for tour speed increases, how about we see how it compares to the years from 1985 to 1998? While there was definitely doping in 1985, I think we can be pretty confident that EPO was not being used. While in 1998, I think we can be highly confident that EPO was being used regularly during the race. The slope of improvement for this period is .21, much higher than what we've observed for the post-war period as a whole.

So what other factors could account for this?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> So what other factors could account for this?


Better tires and High cadence pedaling? :thumbsup:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I think you are a few posts behind. I don't dispute that EPO had an impact on racing speeds in the mid to late 1990s. However, there are definitely other factors that come into play that I think are taken too lightly by a lot of people:

1. There were technological advances in bike technology (aerobars, TT helmets, skinsuits, carbon, gearing changes, etc.). Integrated shifting replaced downtube levers. Bikes and wheels got a lot lighter. TT positions and bikes were refined in wind tunnels. Vast improvements in general technology (computers, computer aided design, manufacturing, etc.) led to lighter and faster bikes and better components. 

2. There were advances in sports science. Heart rate monitors, power meters, better nutrition and training. The era of "ride lots" was over. Scheduled targeted training became the norm, in addition to lighter racing schedules. This, coupled with specialization meant top contenders showed up at the Tour in better form and with less fatigue in their legs.

3. Specialization arrived. In 1985, Lemond was 4th at Paris-Roubaix and 2nd at the TDF. In 1986, he was 2nd at Milan-Sanremo and won the Tour. Who even tries to win <u>all</u> these races anymore? It's no longer possible. Moving the world's in 1995 made the season even longer and forced top riders to make choices. You could no longer race the classics, try to win the Giro, win the Tour, and win the Worlds, so you had to choose which was more important.

Now, how do I weight these things? I think #2 and #3 had a fairly significant impact on cycling that is probably equal to the use of EPO. I think #1 had an impact on certain aspects of the race, but interestingly, despite all the advances, it took 16 years to break Lemond's TT speed record. Armstrong got close, but only Zabriskie could beat it.

There are other minor things to consider, too. There was no team time trial from 1995 to 1999. This is usually a reasonably long stage (70K) run at fairly high speed, which should skew the average speed upward. Has anyone considered how the new lame TTT timing rules come into play? Teams riding pretty slow were probably credited with much faster times, which will affect the average speed of the race.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

I would contend that #2 and #3 are just fronts for improved doping methods.

Look at what Fuentes was doing. You couldn't possibly submit yourself to that kind of doping regimen and be competitive all season long. Some parts of the season would have to be very training intensive, so blood could be drawn and then saved for the peaks.

Whenever I read old pieces on Lance saving himself in the Dauphine and then showing up at the Tour with better form than the guys who overextended themselves, I just think of how a Fuentes doping schedule would cause that. Sure you can lose form in a few weeks, but the turnaround in 2004 was absurd.

I think we all understand that training has improved, but why was Iban Mayo (a guy who professed to ride by feel alone) competitive in 2003 against systematic riders like Ullrich, Hamilton, and Armstrong?

I think #1 is relevant but only in the sense that it takes care of the expected increase that we've seen over the past 50 years. Has there been such an explosion in bike technology in the past 20 years?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> I think you are a few posts behind. I don't dispute that EPO had an impact on racing speeds in the mid to late 1990s. However, there are definitely other factors that come into play that I think are taken too lightly by a lot of people:
> 
> 1. There were technological advances in bike technology (aerobars, TT helmets, skinsuits, carbon, gearing changes, etc.). Integrated shifting replaced downtube levers. Bikes and wheels got a lot lighter. TT positions and bikes were refined in wind tunnels. Vast improvements in general technology (computers, computer aided design, manufacturing, etc.) led to lighter and faster bikes and better components.
> 
> ...


It appears you have read Lance Armstrong's new book "Why Europeans are lazy and backward and I am not"

I rode my first race in Europe in 1983. At that time there were plenty of riders who studied training methods and plenty who just rode lots. Periodization, intervals, even heart rate, was all used. I have yet to see any methods, beside doping, that are greatly different then what I grew up on.

there are so many great riders today who do none of this stuff. Oscar Friere, Carlos Sastre , Mayo, peter van petegem...the list goes on forever. In fact if you look back to the 90's, when speed accelerated the fastest, the majority of riders were still training in the " old fashion Way'.... No SRM, HRM, just with a little boost from a needle.

The TTT??? are you serious? 70km of race of 2000 km is the difference?

Lemonds TT has been explored endlessly. It was downhill, in one direction. with the wind at his back. It was also super short. It has as much relevance as the 48 minute time up the Alp


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> I would contend that #2 and #3 are just fronts for improved doping methods.


Perhaps, but even if we could guarantee a clean peloton, I don't think targeted training and specialization is going away. These are proven methods, exclusive of doping. Besides, riders don't have to earn their living off of prize money anymore, so they don't have to wear themselves out racing all year.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I agree on the assessment of #2 and 3. Looking at how Conconi, et al trained their athletes the EPO doses were highest during periods of specialized training, so I think the more compelling argument is that doping was the cause of increased specialization and periodization. Scaling up during set aside training phases to maximize training load and response and then cutting back during competition to lessen risk of detection.
--------

"I've seen you argue sh*t to death so you don't have to admit you're wrong." Then the medical training is apparently going well and effectively producing the traditional suite of traits among practitioners.

What bugs me the most about LA's medical mythology is the his machine has understated the importance of his going out of his way in locating the best doctors in the country for his treatment. The standard treatment at the time, and the one recommended by the first oncologist he saw, would have destroyed any possible athletic future. He may have survived as much as anything due to luck, but surviving to win a bike race again was entirely due to his refusal to accept the standard medical practice and taking an active role in deciding his course of treatment. Talking about support, attitude, early diagnosis (for which he is the most deficient example possible) and the rest are all well and good but it completely ignores the most significant factor in his later success, and I think that is a great disservice to cancer patients.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

In fact, the Alpe d'Huez spikes nowhere near 14%. I have ridden it countless times and the max gradient is 12% in the first ramps.

But more to the point ... I am surprised at the blinders that many "fans" of the sport seem to be wearing. For those who have been following the sport since the 70's and 80's, and those of us who have raced in Europe over the 80's and 90's, the changes are manifest and are linked to the apparition of EPO (at least in the upper ranks of the sports). 

One RBR poster has the following quote in their signature line:

"Reality is that which remains, even after you stop believing in it"

We can already see much of the reality of the 90's being confirmed through doper confessions -- let's give it a few years and see what the big picture "really" was in the peleton of the 2000's.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Sorry, this is going to be long.
OK, I'll state this again.

I am in no way saying that EPO was/is not prevalent in the peloton.
What I am saying is that you cannot look at the average speed of the Tour and use that as proof that EPO was in use.
Someone stated this....

"The TTT??? are you serious? 70km of race of 2000 km is the difference?"
And also stated this.....
"EPO helps more on a climb then then on the flats"

How many km of climbing are there in the avg Tour? It's early, and I don't feel like punching numbers, but it makes sense that if EPO will boost your performance 10% that will give you 2km/hr on a climb of average tour gradient. So there is roughly 300km of climbing in a 3500km race.

So if this was said earlier.

"Average speed 1987 Tour de France 36.645 Kph
Average speed 1992 Tour de France 39.504 Kph
But I am sure this was just because of the huge improvement in bikes during that 5 year period"

So how does increasing your speed by 2km/hr over 9% of a race equate to a 3km/hr increase over 3983km (92 TdF)?
As stated earlier, there are many more factors at play that just doping.
These two tours were used as evidence that there were huge increases in speed due to EPO and this was ignored....

"So Lemond wins the 1990 tour at an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year it runs at almost the same speed, and in 1992 the tour runs less than 1 kph faster. What about in 1993 when it slowed and ran almost the same speed as 1990? What was Lemond's excuse for not winning that one? Oh yeah, he didn't race it. Is a 0.1 kph increase in speed over three years evidence of mass doping?"

Later, the same poster who ignored that wrote this....

"It is widely considered that it was 93,94,95 when EPO hit the entire peloton."

So why are you using 92's numbers if it is "widely considered" that EPO was not in use.
Is it because the 93 tour was run slower than the 88 tour? Cause it was. The 90 tour that Lemond won was run @ 38.621, the 94 Tour ( when it is "widely considered" that EPO was in use) was raced at 38.383.
You picking up what I'm puttin down here? Your argument is heavily flawed. Avg speed cannot be used as evidence of doping. Period. It also proves that despite what Lemond says, people were not going faster. He was going slower. Which was my initial point.

Also, back to PR. Drafting has much less to do with that race than you are placing on it.
Quite often it is won solo, or by a small elite group. Drafting will help, but when you are pounding through the cobbles and mud wind resistance is a VERY small part of total resistance that must be overcome. 
But, like everything else that does not fit into your argument, you chose to ingnore this.
I would also like to appologize for using 14%. It was an extreme example.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Has there been such an explosion in bike technology in the past 20 years?


Not that I'm arguing that speed increase is 100% to do with bikes, but I think equipment advances in that time have greatly increased speed.
In the last 20 years there have been huge changes in wheels, STI was developed, bikes are lighter, position/frames/wheels are tested in wind tunnels, bikes are stiffer allowing for better power transfer, aero helmets are being used, aero bars are used even in prologues. There was none of this 20 years ago. For the most part it was steel frames and box section rims, the same as it had been for 40 years before that.
I also think that rider apparel has added to it as well. I think that current technologies in fabrics are often overlooked. Compare a jersey now to one of 20 years ago. Go for a ride on a hot day in a new jersey and think about jerseys of old. How much cooler are you now. If you are cooler, your heart rate is lower for a given power output.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Sorry, this is going to be long.
> OK, I'll state this again.
> 
> I am in no way saying that EPO was/is not prevalent in the peloton.
> ...


Your post is a bit confusing as you are trying to link things that I wrote with points that other posters made and confusing the authors.

I think that Silas in post #105 gave the best info as to the change in eras. Very easy to pick apart individual years but hard to explain the dramatic increase over 20 years, especially if compared to other 20 year periods. 

You still have not addressed the sharp increase in climbing speeds or the reasons for large numbers of riders suddenly climbing faster then the legends of the sport.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

I took the time to punch some numbers, cause I'm bored. They illustrate your point more than mine. Kind of, I think we agree that they mean nothing. But here they are anyway.
From 1903-05 the avg was 26.494
From 1923-25 it was 24.43
1947-49 it was 32.325
1963-65 it was 36.132
1983-85 it was 36.114
2003-05 it was 41.05

"You still have not addressed the sharp increase in climbing speeds or the reasons for large numbers of riders suddenly climbing faster then the legends of the sport."

Uh, yeah I have. Bikes are lighter and stiffer, riders are better trained and no longer smoke, roads are better, drugs are better, stages are no longer an average of 300km. Coppi set that record at the end of 266km of racing on a steel bike with 3 gears on a gravel road. Pantani beat it doped up, on a smooth road, with a light bike on a stage that was 60km shorter.
Pantani and Coppi are two of the greatest climbers the sport has ever seen. All things being equal, Pantani may have beat Coppi in '52 had heen been alive and racing then.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> "You still have not addressed the sharp increase in climbing speeds or the reasons for large numbers of riders suddenly climbing faster then the legends of the sport."
> 
> Uh, yeah I have. Bikes are lighter and stiffer, riders are better trained and no longer smoke, roads are better, drugs are better, stages are no longer an average of 300km. Coppi set that record at the end of 266km of racing on a steel bike with 3 gears on a gravel road. Pantani beat it doped up, on a smooth road, with a light bike on a stage that was 60km shorter.
> Pantani and Coppi are two of the greatest climbers the sport has ever seen. All things being equal, Pantani may have beat Coppi in '52 had heen been alive and racing then.


Fignon rode 42:15 in 1989, Pantani rode 36:40 5 years later.....it this because Pantani stopped smoking?

Sure Pantani's bike was better then Coppi's, but was it better then Lemonds Carbon Calfree from a few year earlier? The facts are bikes did not change much year to year in the early 90's, yet large number of riders climbed dramatically faster year to year. Fignon was one of the greatest riders in the sport, yet within a few years his climbing speeds were exceeded by guys in the middle of the pack....this is not because in 5 years bikes and training suddenly were made better.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

"Fignon rode 42:15 in 1989, Pantani rode 36:40 5 years later.....it this because Pantani stopped smoking?"

No, it's because Pantani was one of the best climbers the sport has ever seen. Plus he was doped up. You absolutely cannot compare the climbing skills of Pantani to Fignon.

I'm unsure how many times I have to write this. I AM NOT SAYING THAT EPO WILL NOT MAKE YOU CLIMB FASTER. I AM SAYING THAT USING AVG SPEEDS OF THE TOUR AS EVIDENCE OF EPO USE IS WRONG. THERE ARE MORE FACTORS AT PLAY THAN EPO.
You still haven't explained this.
How does increasing your speed by 2km/hr over 9% of a race equate to a 3km/hr increase over 3983km (92 TdF)?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Is this because Pantani stopped smoking? You know, that's just a stupid thing to say. If you would consider anything other than your rigid ideology, you might find discover that other people have points. And we all know that Pantani = EPO. We get it. He was a phenomenal climber who was doped to the gills and unapologetic about it. He set a blistering time that was as much the result of his doping as anything else. That makes him an extreme example, not a representative example.

Since you are the self-proclaimed expert on the subject, please tell us what the magical number is for the amount of time it should take a non-doped top climber to climb Alpe d'Huez in 2008. Obviously you have a number, over which a rider must be doping. Keep in mind that according to the "La grimpée de l'Alpe d'Huez" site, the amateur record is 41' 30". Go ahead, enlighten us so we can end this discussion.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Is this because Pantani stopped smoking? You know, that's just a stupid thing to say. If you would consider anything other than your rigid ideology, you might find discover that other people have points. And we all know that Pantani = EPO. We get it. He was a phenomenal climber who was doped to the gills and unapologetic about it. He set a blistering time that was as much the result of his doping as anything else. That makes him an extreme example, not a representative example.
> 
> Since you are the self-proclaimed expert on the subject, please tell us what the magical number is for the amount of time it should take a non-doped top climber to climb Alpe d'Huez in 2008. Obviously you have a number, over which a rider must be doping. Keep in mind that according to the "La grimpée de l'Alpe d'Huez" site, the amateur record is 41' 30". Go ahead, enlighten us so we can end this discussion.


I did not introduce the "Riders stopped smoking" position, only responded to it.

I would not use the amateur record as a guide, remember there was bunch of riders busted at Maratona dles Dolomites two years ago and Rumsas is tearing up the Grand Fondo circuit right now. Remember Joe Papp's testimony at the Landis trial? He was riding on an "amateur" Grandfondo team and they had an organized doping program. The Marmotte 2 years ago was won by one of Pantani's ex domestiques. Pantani was unapologetic about doping? 

Just because I, and most cycling writers and observers, disagree with your position does not mean I am ridged. While it may be possible to find "explanation" for some variance on a year by year basis, if you look at it like Silas did it is hard to explain such a dramatic increase in speeds over a 20 year segment of time by bikes alone.

As for how EPO helps increase average speeds you need understand were time is made up during the race. Next years stage 16 will have about 2 hours of climbing ...stage 17 will have almost 3 hours. There are 2 other stages that will have at least 2 hours. That is 9 hours, or 10% of the total race time, in just 4 stages. Add in the TT's and the fact that you used to have 10-15 guys fighting it out in the high mountains and in then the late 90's you would have 50-60 it completely changes the dynamics of the entire race. Instead of a few guys chasing across the valley you have entire teams keeping the race together until the last climb.....A large reason why you have so many large finishes now is that riders do not get dropped on a climb and are able to hang in for a Chipo, Petachii, Boonon, train into the finish.....more riders together, for more of the race, equals faster times.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't ever recall 50-60 guys fighting it out in the high mountains. Usually by the second last climb there are 30-35, by the first km of the last climb there is usually a dozen. I don't recall ever seeing 60 guys ride up a mountain together unless the climb was easy or in the first part of a stage.
And the smoking thing? Come on, that's fact. These guys used to smoke durring the race. Even into the 60's and 70's there were still guys smoking after the race. Anquetil smoked and drank his way through the tours.
And teams keeping the race together has 95% to do with radio use and 5% to do with strategy.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> g?"
> 
> No, it's because Pantani was one of the best climbers the sport has ever seen. Plus he was doped up. You absolutely cannot compare the climbing skills of Pantani to Fignon.


You can compare the doping programs.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Maybe it's just me


It is just you, this has been commented on endlessly. Postal/Disco alone would often have 9 guys in the runup to the last climb. Even in the La Vie Clare or Renault/Elf days this did not happen



mtbbmet said:


> And teams keeping the race together has 95% to do with radio use and 5% to do with strategy.


Radios? How does a radio get a guy over a 3,000 foot climb with the leaders?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

In this discussion, my positions are:

1. Tracking average speeds in and around the Lemond era is a silly exercise that proves absolutely nothing about Lemond being clean, about when EPO usage began, etc.

2. Doping is not the ONLY reason for increases in speed over time. 

For #1, I don't need you to agree with me. I am right. 

For #2, you are pretty adamant that it is 90% doping, which doesn't leave room for much else. I don't have a number, but if I did, it would be significant, but it would be less. On this point, we disagree. 

As for the rest, well, a lot of the old school guys only see things through old school glasses. In pubs all over Europe, old guys sit around and say things like "If 50 guys didn't make the last climb when Eddy Merckx was racing, then it shouldn't happen now, either." I find that kind of thinking rather "limited." Racing has changed. As an example, currently there are threads about how radios have ruined the races and made them predictable, and have made it harder for breaks to escape or succeed. Hmmm. No, that can't be significant in this discussion. Bike racing is a rather complex thing, and complex problems rarely have simple answers. You prefer the simplest answer and reject all other possibilities. We disagree. 

Face it, racing has evolved, and it will keep evolving. It will get faster. It will happen in a completely clean peloton. It will happen in a doped up peloton.

I have said my final words in this discussion.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> You can compare the doping programs.


Expand on this please?
How can you compare a guy who is doped up on EPO and a pure climber, to a guy who is a marginal climber who set a record years before EPO was developed?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Postal/Disco alone would often have 9 guys in the runup to the last climb.
> Radios? How does a radio get a guy over a 3,000 foot climb with the leaders?


Postal rarely if ever had a full team at the start of the last climb. But that's not the point. Armstrong/postal/disco spent alot of money making sure he was at the front with more than a couple teammates with him to set tempo. The team was packed with pure climbers with a couple of TT guys thrown in to defend on the flats. LA surrounded himself with guys who on any given day could challenge for a GT win themselves. Doped, or not doped, alot of teammates went on to win there own GT's.

And don't play stupid with the radio thing. It's not going to help a guy up a hill, but it will help chasing down on the flats.

Do you actually watch cycling, or do you just think that we don't?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Expand on this please?
> How can you compare a guy who is doped up on EPO and a pure climber, to a guy who is a marginal climber who set a record years before EPO was developed?


Fignon's 42.15 ride was not years before EPO was developed, it was already available and there is a good possibility he was on it in 89. Fignon was a client of Conconi from early on. Also much has been made of how EPO would help a rider like Fignon, Armstrong, Ulrich, Riis, Indurain, more then a pure climber. 

Riders use of EPO has changed much over time. In the early days riders would take it throughout the race, until they figure out it could have an adverse effect as you body was spending too much energy making new blood cells. There were always rumors that one of the reasons Fignon lost on the final was an ill timed shot.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> In this discussion, my positions are:
> 
> 1. Tracking average speeds in and around the Lemond era is a silly exercise that proves absolutely nothing about Lemond being clean, about when EPO usage began, etc.


But the increased climbing speeds do prove this as do the big percentage jump in speeds from one era (20 years) to the next



mohair_chair said:


> For #2, you are pretty adamant that it is 90% doping, which doesn't leave room for much else. I don't have a number, but if I did, it would be significant, but it would be less. On this point, we disagree.


Ouch, we wasted all this time and it appears that we only disagree on the percentage?? OK, maybe it is less then 90%. Bikes, radios, all helped...as well as overall growth of the sport which has made the top level much broader and high quality. I still think the increase is 70-90% due to dope.




mohair_chair said:


> As for the rest, well, a lot of the old school guys only see things through old school glasses. In pubs all over Europe, old guys sit around and say things like "If 50 guys didn't make the last climb when Eddy Merckx was racing, then it shouldn't happen now, either." I find that kind of thinking rather "limited."
> .


I am saying nothing of the sort. I am not saying that it should not happen, I am merely commenting on why it is happening. I always found it entertaining to watch 3-4 teams going all out trying to set up their guy at the foot of a major climb. 

As for "Old School' ....it is those old school guys who insured that EPO permeated the peloton. Old School to me is a syringe


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> There were always rumors that one of the reasons Fignon lost on the final was an ill timed shot.


Or a well timed one by Lemond.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Or a well timed one by Lemond.


Any evidence of that? Nope

Plenty of documents and statements linking Fignon, and many others, to Dr. Conconi. You would think with all the hatred directed at Lemond someone would come up with something.....nothing yet.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The Pantani record is a poor example of speed increase. That stage was dead flat with only one climb-up the Alp d' Huez. It was ridden at a pace that allowed him to pull over to the side of the road and get a special lightweight climbing bike with no risk of being dropped by the peloton. The very much larger Jan Ullrich holds a top 5 time up the Alpe I believe. 

"Any evidence of that? Nope"

Yes, there is. He won. If his competitors were doping (EPO is not the only "dope" by the way) and it's effects were so dramatic then there is no possible way that any physical gift he possesed could have overcome that. His winning against doped athletes has to be considered evidence after all the things that have been justified on this thread. You would think with all the hatred towards Armstrong and "evidence collected" he would've been sanctioned by now, he hasn't.

Another EPO point, oxygen uptake is a bigger advantage in the mountains because the air is thinner than at low altitude. While I don't know either way, I can see how EPO would present a bigger advantage to a climber because of the condidtions they make their race in.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> "Any evidence of that? Nope"
> 
> Yes, there is. He won. If his competitors were doping (EPO is not the only "dope" by the way) and it's effects were so dramatic then there is no possible way that any physical gift he possesed could have overcome that. His winning against doped athletes has to be considered evidence after all the things that have been justified on this thread. You would think with all the hatred towards Armstrong and "evidence collected" he would've been sanctioned by now, he hasn't.


It was a few years before the methods for using EPO were perfected. Beyond the issue of figuring out you could not take right before you had a heavy day in a tour there was that small problem of riders dying in their sleep. I do not believe you saw the real effects until 1990 and beyond.

The problem with your theory that Lemond doped becuase he beat dopers is two fold

-The primitive doping methods used at the time did not offer significant help to Grand tour riders. It was not until EPO, and other Oxygen vector methods were perfected that you saw substantial improvements along with the lower likelihood for a non doped rider to be competitive.

-While there is long list of former teammates and team staff that say that Lance doped, there is none of this for Lemond. While 6 of Lances samples from the 99 tour tested positive for EPO and he tested positive for cortisone, Lemond has never tested positive for anything. While Lance worked with the most famous doping doctor in the sport who did Lemond work with? If there was any real evidence, or even a whisper that Lemond doped people would know. So far nothing. 



davidka said:


> Another EPO point, oxygen uptake is a bigger advantage in the mountains because the air is thinner than at low altitude. While I don't know either way, I can see how EPO would present a bigger advantage to a climber because of the condidtions they make their race in.


I would not agree with the altitude point. With the exception of the Galibier most of the tours climbs spend little time over 5-6,000 feet, besides it is an element that everyone is effect by, not just climbers.

Many have said that the use of EPO and blood doping, has lead to the death of the pure climber, in fact Cyclesport had a good article about this about 3-4 months ago. The theory that has gained the most traction is that while EPO helps in many ways, the most obvious is it helps deliver oxygen to the muscles better. Because of this it helps a rider with greater muscle mass then a 120 pound pure climber with little muscle. Many point to this with the emergence of riders like Ulrich, Armstrong, Indurain, Riis, etc. who are able to stay with, or even drop, smaller climbers and then slay them in the TT's. It is not going turn Thor into a climber but it could help a rouler/TT rider into a much better climber.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Having raced at 5000ft I can say from experience that it's a pretty big difference from racing at sea level to 1000ft. At 8000 ft there is 24% less oxygen in the air, I don't know what the reduction is at lower altitudes. I was pointing more towards the idea that a climber could extract a greater advantage over another climber at altitude with EPO/blood doping since they are making their race at altitude, not to compare them to larger all arounders, who generally find themselves survivingin the mountains. 

The point that larger riders with more oxgen hungry, larger muscles can seize great advantage is certainly plausible too.

I also think that you never hear about doping suspicion around Lemond is that nobody talked about it then. Nobody viewed it as cheating in the pro ranks because it was assumed everyone was doing it or it was not considered by fans. If nobody feels cheated then nobody speaks up. 

I do not defend Lance as the sole clean champion of the sport, it can't be denied that there is suspicion all around but at best he won clean and there are many jealous people that feel they should've earned more in their careers, at worst he beat a field of riders that did no less than he did with a team of the best riders money could buy. I find it a little sad that Lance would be condemned when he did not do anything that his competition didn't do except for be the best rider of the era.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Sources? Moral relativism...*



davidka said:


> I also think that you never hear about doping suspicion around Lemond is that nobody talked about it then. Nobody viewed it as cheating in the pro ranks because it was assumed everyone was doing it or it was not considered by fans. If nobody feels cheated then nobody speaks up. .


If you have one shred of evidence from anywhere, you should really offer it up. If you don't......



davidka said:


> I do not defend Lance as the sole clean champion of the sport, it can't be denied that there is suspicion all around but at best he won clean and there are many jealous people that feel they should've earned more in their careers,.


Jealous people? Seems like an LA strategy.



davidka said:


> at worst he beat a field of riders that did no less than he did with a team of the best riders money could buy..


yeah, he was a prince..:yikes: :yikes: 



davidka said:


> I find it a little sad that Lance would be condemned:mad5: when he did not do anything that his competition didn't do except for be the best rider of the era.


:mad5: :mad5: :mad5: 

That's what you find sad? That's sad.:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :frown2: :sad: :sad: :cryin: :cryin: 

We've fallen very far...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I haven't fallen anywhere. If you'd like to claim moral higher ground then be my guest. Just make sure you name every suspected dirty cyclist, not just the one that won in July. You obviously feel duped and are now hanging on to Lemond because there isn't any evidence (oh, other than his domination of a field of dopers...). I don't need any evidence, his success in the era he rode in is sufficient and I don't condemn him either. It's a condition of the sport's past. I can live with it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

davidka said:


> I haven't fallen anywhere. If you'd like to claim moral higher ground then be my guest. Just make sure you name every suspected dirty cyclist, not just the one that won in July. You obviously feel duped and are now hanging on to Lemond because there isn't any evidence (oh, other than his domination of a field of dopers...). I don't need any evidence, his success in the era he rode in is sufficient and I don't condemn him either. It's a condition of the sport's past. I can live with it.


Ok, we're all human here. I honestly think that because this is all academic here, one has to aspire to fair play, honesty etc. I hope you feel that way, I think most people aspire to be honest and do the right thing. Sometimes we fall short, give in to temptation.

I don't think LA is being unfairly accused. There's just too much evidence against him...

I never bought into this argument about the domination over a field of dopers, even with LA.

But you say you don't need any evidence about LeMond, and that your intuition is enough. So without one shred of evidence from anywhere this is enough to slander someone?

For me the problem isn't that these guys cheat.

The problem for me is the relativism employed when this is a clear instance that moral absolutes are demanded. 

Wrongdoing is condemned and there is a price to pay, even if that is just public humiliation.

I can live with any of these guys cheating. What I can't live with is the watering down of standards based on stuff like "everybody was doing it."

I haven't claimed the moral high ground. You've ceded it...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The rules say you can't do it and obviously many do. To say "everybody was doing it" is not watering down the standards it is simply recognizing the standards. 

Your right, you did not bring Lemond's domination over afield of dopers into it, I did. It is just as questionable as any other speculation of cheating is. Either Lance won clean against all odds, against dopers, with lots of false acusations, or he won fair and square, against athletes with all the same advantages he had.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Oh, nandralone and HGH both offer HUGE benefits to stage racers. They improve an athlete's ability to recover dramatically. These pre-date EPO and cannot be dismissed as minor forms of doping. Again, if Lemond was clean, how could he have beaten riders using these after 3 weeks of racing?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

davidka said:


> The rules say you can't do it and obviously many do. To say "everybody was doing it" is not watering down the standards it is simply recognizing the standards. .


If that's your opinion fine. Please don't say I've claimed the moral highground as if I'm being sanctimonious. I will point out that in their stated opinions, very few pro cyclists share your opinion, and those accused of it never adopt your pragmatic view publicly. They either admit guilt, or fight the charges. Dopers sneak around the standards that say it is cheating and dishonest to dope. The standard is, it's *wrong.* You know it, I know it, and Lance Armstrong and every other athlete knows it....



davidka said:


> Your right, you did not bring Lemond's domination over afield of dopers into it, I did..It is just as questionable as any other speculation of cheating is.


It's much more questionable. After all, it is speculation. Someone swearing an oath in a deposition isn't speculation. Taped conversations and testimony aren't speculation either, they are evidence..You are basing your opinion of GL doping on pure speculation, nothing else.

A lot of people brought it up and Henry Porter said that I ignored that as being the most obvious evidence of LA doping. I wouldn't accuse anyone of doping on that basis exclusively.



davidka said:


> . Either Lance won clean against all odds, against dopers, with lots of false acusations, or he won fair and square, against athletes with all the same advantages he had.


So to a certain degree, whoever has the best medical program is a fair and square winner??? 

If you're ok voicing that opinion, what can I say..


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> Either Lance won clean against all odds, against dopers, with lots of false acusations, or he won fair and square, against athletes with all the same advantages he had.



<img src="http://periopeak.com/dasblog/content/binary/head%20in%20the%20sand.bmp">


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

How would my considering the possibilities come across as hiding? What's your opinion of all of it blackhat? Do you think LA had medical advantages that nobody else had? Spell it out in detail instead of posting silly pictures.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

davidka said:


> How would my considering the possibilities come across as hiding? What's your opinion of all of it blackhat? Do you think LA had medical advantages that nobody else had? Spell it out in detail instead of posting silly pictures.


it's not "hiding", it's having your "head in the sand".
My opinion is well documented here. LA doped. LA had exclusive access to ferrari during his run to design his doping/masking programs. So yes, he certainly had medical advantages that nobody else had.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

So nobody else had such a program and Ferrari is the only "dirty doc" in the sport? If that's so then they (LA's competition) are all clean and wrongly accused? Very few of them ever turned in a positive test. If you think that then I think you posted a self protrait a couple posts ago.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

blackhat said:


> it's not "hiding", it's having your "head in the sand".


Yeah, however your head is up something else.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> So nobody else had such a program and Ferrari is the only "dirty doc" in the sport? If that's so then they (LA's competition) are all clean and wrongly accused? Very few of them ever turned in a positive test. If you think that then I think you posted a self protrait a couple posts ago.


Ferrari is recognized as the best in his field. He took what he learned as Conconi's apprentice and took it to another level. Lance had an exclusive deal with Ferrari, he was not allowed to advise another Tour contender while he was working with Lance.

If you look at Ferrari's competition it pales in comparison. Chechini outsourced much of his services to Fuentes. After 1998 the doctors running team organized doping at Telekom began to pull back from what they offered and who they offered it too. This is what is believed to have driven Ulrich to Fuentes in 2001 as he was not able to get the same level of services.

The "Everyone was doing it" defense simply does not work. Doping effects athletes in different ways. Super responders like Armstrong and Riis benefit more the others. It also does not take into account the athletes who do not dope, either because of ethics or lack of access. Christophe Bassons would certainly question your position that the playing field was level.

Very few of them were positive??? This has to be a joke, right? The list of Armstrong competitors who have been caught doping is long.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*hey, I'm out....*



bigpinkt said:


> Ferrari is recognized as the best in his field. He took what he learned as Conconi's apprentice and took it to another level. Lance had an exclusive deal with Ferrari, he was not allowed to advise another Tour contender while he was working with Lance.
> 
> If you look at Ferrari's competition it pales in comparison. Chechini outsourced much of his services to Fuentes. After 1998 the doctors running team organized doping at Telekom began to pull back from what they offered and who they offered it too. This is what is believed to have driven Ulrich to Fuentes in 2001 as he was not able to get the same level of services.
> 
> ...





bigpinkt said:


> The "Everyone was doing it" defense simply does not work..


Honestly, I can't even believe that we have to argue the above point.. And at this point I won't anymore.

It speaks volumes about anyone who would argue "Everyone was doing it." It's really quite simple...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

bigpinkt said:


> Ferrari is recognized as the best in his field. He took what he learned as Conconi's apprentice and took it to another level. Lance had an exclusive deal with Ferrari, he was not allowed to advise another Tour contender while he was working with Lance.
> 
> If you look at Ferrari's competition it pales in comparison. Chechini outsourced much of his services to Fuentes. After 1998 the doctors running team organized doping at Telekom began to pull back from what they offered and who they offered it too. This is what is believed to have driven Ulrich to Fuentes in 2001 as he was not able to get the same level of services.
> 
> ...


 I did not say "were positive" I said "tested positive". Our friend blackhat referenced masking as part of the alleged program. I point to the number of actual positive tests as evidence that the doping programs of the competition must've been every bit as good.

As for the rest of this post, I don't even know what to say. That's all pretty far reaching. Now not only is LA supposedly getting things no other cyclist can get (He was Ferrari's sole TdF customer? You're kidding now, right?) but in addition, he is also a "super responder" to doping. How did you come up with that? 

This has become ridiculous.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

davidka said:


> I did not say "were positive" I said "tested positive". Our friend blackhat referenced masking as part of the alleged program. I point to the number of actual positive tests as evidence that the doping programs of the competition must've been every bit as good.


Heras-positive EPO
Ulrich-DNA Match with Blood Bags at Dr. Fuentes office
Alexandre Vinokourov-Positive Blood doping
Ivan Basso- DNA Match with Blood Bags at Dr. Fuentes office
Raimondas Rumsas-positive EPO
Tyler Hamilton-Positive Blood doping
Mayo-positive EPO
Marco Pantani- Tested "Non Negative" for Hct over 50%. Suspended from racing

Of course this is just a small list of Lances main competitors who have been caught out by a test. many, many more were caught by various police actions (OP, Miller, Oil for Drugs)



davidka said:


> (He was Ferrari's sole TdF customer? You're kidding now, right?) but in addition, he is also a "super responder" to doping. How did you come up with that?
> 
> This has become ridiculous.


Yes, Lance was Ferrari's sole Tour de France contender customer. Lance demanded this as he knew Ferrari was the best. Lance and Ferrari both confirmed this in Coyle's book "Lance Armstrong's War"...it is not something I made up.

super responder is a common term not just in doping but in drug trials. They will use it as well when you have one patent respond better to a drug then another. You give two riders the same products and they often react differently. It is the same with sprinters, Tim Montgomery is a good example. According to Ferrari's own doping records that were presented at his trial Lance's natural Hct was 41. He was able to increase this to 48.5 before his tour wins, just below the 50% limit. If your natural Hct is 46 you are going to benefit less from then someone who is able to increase from 41.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

davidka said:


> I did not say "were positive" I said "tested positive". Our friend blackhat referenced masking as part of the alleged program. I point to the number of actual positive tests as evidence that the doping programs of the competition must've been every bit as good.
> 
> As for the rest of this post, I don't even know what to say. That's all pretty far reaching. Now not only is LA supposedly getting things no other cyclist can get (He was Ferrari's sole TdF customer? You're kidding now, right?) but in addition, he is also a "super responder" to doping. How did you come up with that?
> 
> This has become ridiculous.


"They archly wondered why Armstrong kept Ferrari on exclusive contract (Ferrari can work with other riders, provided they are not Tour contenders), page 113 LA's War.

Davidka,
How come you can speculate on anything with no sources, but what others say is labeled ridiculous and they actually _have_ sources? When do you close up shop on your arguments? Where does one come about a philosophy where there are no moral standards and one can say anything authoritatively despite all evidence to the contrary? How can one have such huge blind spots and remain confident in their assertions? When do you admit you're wrong?


----------



## bikejunkie223 (Apr 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> When LA signed the contracts I'll bet they had anti- doping provisions in them.


No way there were anti-doping clauses in any cycling contracts for any team in 1996- high tech blood doping (EPO) was still relatively new to performance athletes and was undetectable, and the teams really didn't care- they wanted results and didn't care how they got them- this is why so many riders have been and continue to be compelled to cheat. Results = contract No results = you're out. Why wouldn't you take the needle under a team doctor's supervision if you knew that was the price to pay to get paid and there was no real fear of getting caught? I'm not saying it's right, but I just don't know how anyone can think any of those guys were clean. So LA doped. Big deal- just about everyone from that era until now has cheated and there is a long history of cheating in the TDF from the beginning, from riding trains and taking shortcuts, to amphetamine and corticoid use, to blood doping and designer 'roids. That's my $0.02


----------



## samh (May 5, 2004)

hickey, mohair, porter, uzziely are all doping protectors. They are "in the dark," probably from another planet.

People have gone to prison without a smoking gun. See circumstantial evidence.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Hard to get out of this pastime*



samh said:


> hickey, mohair, porter, uzziely are all doping protectors. They are "in the dark," probably from another planet.
> 
> People have gone to prison without a smoking gun. See circumstantial evidence.


Landis confirms Armstrong's doping to Dugard 

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=124556

This was the original post.

Say you're at work, and your partner of 2 or 3 years states to your boss, that you've done something unethical. This unethical behavior is very prominent on the world stage and involves tens of millions of dollars. 

What happens? Are there questions? Followup?

You do understand that our participation here is akin to tiddlywinks. 

I would think one of the few constraints here is reality.

That being said, what is your point?


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

davidka said:


> I did not say "were positive" I said "tested positive". Our friend blackhat referenced masking as part of the alleged program. I point to the number of actual positive tests as evidence that the doping programs of the competition must've been every bit as good.
> 
> As for the rest of this post, I don't even know what to say. That's all pretty far reaching. Now not only is LA supposedly getting things no other cyclist can get (He was Ferrari's sole TdF customer? You're kidding now, right?) but in addition, he is also a "super responder" to doping. How did you come up with that?
> 
> This has become ridiculous.


It certainly has. I didn't know there were still people who deny Armstrong and every other TdF contender were not doped to the eyeballs willing to show their opinions on open cycling forums. Most of the true believers are holding the fort, like Davey Crocket at the Alamo, over at the Paceline.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*a lot more people read sports illustrated*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> It certainly has. I didn't know there were still people who deny Armstrong and every other TdF contender were not doped to the eyeballs willing to show their opinions on open cycling forums. Most of the true believers are holding the fort, like Davey Crocket at the Alamo, over at the Paceline.


than cycling forums.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/06/16/lance/index.html


----------

