# French investigation into Armstrong doping



## CT2 (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm incorrect in believing that the French already investigated Armstrong for doping like two or three years ago and were unable to find anything. If so isn't this herassment by the French gov. You would think that after surving cancer and then winning the tour six times that Lance would have earned some respect.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*Emma O' Reily's "revelations"...*



CT2 said:


> I'm incorrect in believing that the French already investigated Armstrong for doping like two or three years ago and were unable to find anything. If so isn't this herassment by the French gov. You would think that after surving cancer and then winning the tour six times that Lance would have earned some respect.


... in LA Confidential seem to have sparked the new investigation. If I'm not mistaken, she was still with USPS during the first investigation during 2000-2001. Call me cynical but why didn't she come forward at the time? It is claimed that she left USPS under friendly terms so why does she spill her guts to Confidential's authors three-plus years after the fact? I'm on the fence about LA's guilt/innocence but, no matter how one slices it, not a single charge or inquiry has ever turned up anything that could drag him to court. I would have quite a bit more respect had Ms. O' Reily stepped down from USPS and then spoken publicly about her allegations rather than use a journalist as her mouthpiece... Where's All Doped Up for this new twist in the Armstrong saga?


----------



## lspangle (Aug 30, 2004)

*Lance's response*

From The Paceline: http://www.thepaceline.com/members/press_item.aspx?cid=760

Lance Response To French Doping Investigation

Lance Armstrong issued the following statement Thursday, Jan 20 in response to media reports of a French judge's decision to investigate doping allegations made against him last year in a highly publicized book.

"Let me make one thing emphatically clear: I believe in clean and fair competition. As I have said before, I do not use -- and have never used -- performance-enhancing drugs. I am disappointed in the judge's decision to open this investigation without having talked to me first. "

"I will make myself available anytime and anywhere to meet with the investigators in this case. They are also welcome to review my long history of tests for performance-enhancing drugs, which I have never failed. Last year alone I was tested 22 times by ASO, the UCI, WADA and USADA. I will be competing in Paris-Nice in March. I am confident my name will be cleared, and I look forward to racing in France for years to come."

SOURCE: Capital Sports and Entertainment, Austin, TX​

That's a pretty emphatic response if you ask me.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*why is this a surprise?*



lspangle said:


> From The Paceline: http://www.thepaceline.com/members/press_item.aspx?cid=760
> 
> Lance Response To French Doping Investigation
> 
> ...


Of course there will be new investigations. Its a part of riding and having the all time record for TDF overall wins. In this case its an American, so what?

I look forward to the 2005 TDF now because, while others see doping investigations, I see inspiration being generated for Armstrong to win a 7th and possibly 8th consecutive TDF. 

Is he doping? WHO CARES? I hope he wins 10 in a row. Like it or not, Lance will be the "model" for cycliu=sts confronting doping allegations. Regardless if these are accurate allegations or not. The principle here is much more basic. IMO, I think he is being harassed. He is tested the most often of any rider in the peleton today.

IF he dopes, his performances make a mockery of the current testing regimen. IF he isnt doping, good for him, and by the way, he has the bucks to hire an army of flesh eating zombies (lawyers) to make everyones life pure he11. Thats a must see right there.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

CT2 said:


> I'm incorrect in believing that the French already investigated Armstrong for doping like two or three years ago and were unable to find anything. If so isn't this herassment by the French gov. You would think that after surving cancer and then winning the tour six times that Lance would have earned some respect.


Wasn't the earlier investigation of USPS from when they had video of the team cars dropping off bags of syringes, etc. in dumpsters during a tour stage? The now infamous actovegin drug was found but nothing more damning?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*All I remember is they tested*

the whole team and looked at lab results for over a year and came up with nothing.
22 tests in a year is almost 2x a month. I know, I know, becuase of his sponsorship w/ the Pharm comapnies he's using new, super dope that's undetectable.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

he wouldn't have to use new super dope - he could be using autologous blood transfusions and HGH - the latter is widely available and undetectable.

The assumption is always that Armstrong has a rocket fuel that makes him go faster up the mountains. The fact is that riders use PEDs to help them recover better and train more effectively. In an endurance sport the it is the man who recovers best who has the best chance of overall victory. Armstrong admitted at the time of the Actovegin investigation that he had 'Act-something' (how naive for such a hard headed business mano not even know the name of a product he is being investigated for!) and insulin in his medical kit (an admission made on his website, no less) both have PED qualities if viewed as substances that can help swift recovery.

I'm sure this new investigation will come to nothing - but perhaps better for it to prove absolutely conclusively, one way or the other, the truth in the matter


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*most think*

PED's are used during 'training' and only use PED's (EPO, etc) during races when hey have radical drops in H-Crit.(ie Berden in CX). Growth Hormones are detectable, autologous blood doping is even identifiable (they tested for it as well in the Olympics and have since the Eddy B. LA Olympics). So 'rumor' is most is done during training whilst less watchful eyes are upon them. It is why some say, many teams choose to train in S. Africa, Mallorca, etc.. as there is less chance of an inspector dropping by. Racers in the US have to leave their whereabouts with the UCi for said 'drop ins', even while attending Interbike in Vegas, Riders can have a random test. So if this is the case, why would Postal (Discovery) train in the US? (Solvang, Tucson) If they were 'using' they'd go somewhere the odds of random inspections are less. 
I think most of us understand functions of most PEDs. maintaining H-Crit levels is near the top of needs by cyclists and anything that aids recovery, maintains RBC and in turn fights the fatigue of long races will help. So once again 22 tests a year, no positives.
Lets put it in perspective:
Someone thinks you are using Heroin and they have adequate tests to detect it.
You get tested 22 x a year and are clean, how would you feel if everybody called you Junkie.
Look I'm no LA Homer, more of a Backstedt type of guy but I understand what he's going through.


----------



## lspangle (Aug 30, 2004)

*And they're not shy about WHEN they test him, either!*

In his book he talks about how they showed up at his door when he and his wife were getting ready to leave for the hospital because his wife was in labor!

And if he'd have refused the test he'd be considered positive!


----------



## Djudd (Jan 29, 2004)

*This is not a "hang Lance" party...the UCI has no choice...*

but keep reacting to the allegations and testing the leading face in the peloton. I'm sure the amount of testing will go down if Armsrtong doesn't ride the tour. Drug testing has long been a sore spot for the peloton. Remember the defiant Hinault pose when he shut down a stage of (I think) the '79 tour for the extensive doping tests. Bjarne Riis organized a protest that had the entire peloton glass cranking for stage of the tour.
In the end though the UCI must react strongly to accusations or they look impotent. If you want to blame someone for the latest round of investigations include Armstrong friend Tyler Hamilton. His recent positives did nothing for the cause of getting the authorities off Lance's back.
About the inopportune nature of the testing, I'm sure the testers did not wait for the former Ms. Armstrong to go into labor then rush in to test him. He makes a hell of a lot of money for riding his bike, this comes with it.


----------



## CT2 (Feb 19, 2004)

*The real reason nfor the second investigation*

I have finally figured out why the French are investigating Armstrong, again. They have figured out that if they can test him every day then he will not have enough red blood cells to feed his muscles. Also they will have so thoroughly depleated his white blood cells that he will catch every communicable disease know to man that he will newver get out of bed again let alone ride win the tour for a seventh time.


----------



## drevelo66 (Jan 22, 2005)

CT2 said:


> I have finally figured out why the French are investigating Armstrong, again. They have figured out that if they can test him every day then he will not have enough red blood cells to feed his muscles. Also they will have so thoroughly depleated his white blood cells that he will catch every communicable disease know to man that he will newver get out of bed again let alone ride win the tour for a seventh time.


By Jove-you've cracked the case! If they bleed him dry, they may SLOW HIM DOWN. The man can't be stopped!

The Euros, particularly, the French, just can't accept the fact that an American can excel in "so European" a sport, that there HAS to be something underhanded going on...I mean, look at the 2 Americans that have won the Tour: a gunshot victim and a cancer survivor! It's too bad you can't distill the desire to win that these guys have, particularly Lance-why, if you could, the Italians and the French would shoot that up as well...

The French authorities would do better in mopping up the mess they have in their Cofidis team-"Festina 2-Still Doping." Wait-they'll just drag Lance into that scandal, as he was once inked to ride for them (until they foolishly sacked him) and will no doubt be accused of providing drugs to Miller and company....


----------



## poshscot (Dec 14, 2004)

A BRITISH PERSPECTIVE

it has to said that lance is only guilty of doping if he takes something on the banned substance list or gets found with something that they are looking for. lance earns more than our very own david beckham (i'm a brit by the way and he's the king of sponsorship money making this side of the pond) and i'm sure with that kind of money he can buy what he wants including, dare i say it, scientists to invent the latest doping products that WADA havent a hope of knowing about never mind looking for.

you americans have to understand that the rest of the world does respect lance but dont like him because hes a robot with no character, and like michael schumacher and mancherster united hes destroying the sport by removing the competition and possibility of any one else winning. this automatically makes him unlike-able never mind the fact that he persecutes someone like simone on a whim...!

lance should take the fact that half the world doesnt like him on the chin, shut up, keep his opinions to himself and carry on doing what he does best, dominating and destroying le tour.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I thought Robot*

Schumacher made more dough than Beckham by a large measure. Mr Schumacher from what I've read is #1 in the world for Sponsorship $. The thought that all of LA's extra $ is buying him better meds shows your absolute lack of knowledge in how meds are developed and how much it costs and time it takes to test. EPO was an 'accidental find' by cycling, but the amount of $ spent developing it, testing it, etc would crush a bank account 5x Mr Armstrongs. especially here in the US where the FDA makes you run a freaking zillion tests, double blind, etc... or do you believe LA is using untested PED's?
Second is time, you don't develop super drugs in a span of a year or 5 so even if LA had asked for them, they most likely wouldn't exist yet. especially since his account hasn't been FAT for very long, POST third tour 2001 it started to grow.
Third and most importantly what would the payoff for the Pharm comapny be?
They spend all this time and $ developing a drug that they can't sell. Why? They can't advertise. NOW YOU CAN GET WHAT MADE LA THE BEST! see that kind of ad copy 
just isn't going to fly, so Pharm Industry has no $ incentive to develope a drug for one person in secret, it would never pay off.
this is really getting silly, look into the JFK assasination or something if you need a good conspiracy.


----------



## poshscot (Dec 14, 2004)

i believe everything you say and you clearly know a lot more about the pharmacy industry than i do.

BUT

remember THG not so long ago!!!

WADA had no idea until a whistle blower stuck his neck out.....

i havent made an accusation but cycling is so badly tainted that i have become a terminal cynic.

sorry but i dont believe that any of them are that good naturally, armstrong included.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*THG is*

untested as far as FDA regulations, but is a 'designer steroid' which means it is just a modified 'roid. Steroids again were originally designed as a medicine that was 'discovered' to have PE properties. I really can't think of any drug that was strictly designed from scratch as a performance enhancer as again research $ would never be paid for. THG like ecstasy and other club drugs were created by slight modifications to get chemical construct outside the FDA's guidelines. They are 'loophole' drugs but their main 'design' is 'lifted' from a tested drug already in existence and banned. it is just a matter of time before the System creates tests and laws against them. Once again it wouldn't justify the massive expense of just staying a step or 2 ahead of the authorities. THG was 'discovered' as there was a smoking gun (most likely US Sprint coach who'd gotten wind of drug) and sent a sample to WADA knowing top rivals were 'on it' (and possibly that his guys had moved on to something else)
there has been no smoking gun in LA's case and from what is written about him and the fact that he's in court w/ a former assistant (if anyone had a grudge and info it would be him and what an easier way to get the half million $ settlement than as hush $).
so once again, I can't condemn someone on heresay.
I have friends that are serious track athletes and they pointed to a bunch of Olympians who went from relative obscurity to Olympic Gold (all the way back to Flo Jo). In short Sprint type events they say no one can make massive leaps in P-R (say half second in 100 meter etc) and that they are cycling roids/ HGH so that they are clean during the Olympics (when they are tested). there were too many Cinderella stories where huge jumps in P-R were made and they say, watch, they'll fade back to semi-obscurity now.
Cyclists on the other hand are tested year round making such things far more difficult.


----------



## drevelo66 (Jan 22, 2005)

poshscot said:


> i believe everything you say and you clearly know a lot more about the pharmacy industry than i do.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


Not to attack you, but another "Posh-Scot," Mr. David Millar-DID get busted, and seems to be the subject of pity and disappointment, whereas Lance is the object of scorn? I detect a hint of "Euro sour grapes."

While I admit that the American "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing" can be abrasive, why do Europeans make winning seem so distasteful? Especially when it's a Yank that's winning? I detect a hint of snobbery! Is it because Lance is, to paraphrase, "Overpaid, oversexed, and over there?" As for Lance being "a robot, with no character-" yes, he is VERY methodical in his strategy, but to attack the man as having no character? I suppose that battling cancer may not pass the British muster of a character-building experience...As for Lance destroying the sport, I believe the same was said of Anquetil and Merckx, and yet the sport is still here-this has always been the battle cry of countries that haven't (or, like England, never did) won "Le Grand Boucle" for some time. As for his running down Simeoni and "keeping his opinions to himself," I wouldn't have bothered with that "wannabe," but like it or not, Lance is the current patron-I don't remember a lot of crying on that side of the pond when Bernard Hinault ran the peloton like a tyrant! Or is it because he's European?

(Note: PLEASE take this with a dose of humour! I enjoy the lively argument, but do not want to offend anybody! Not even the Brits!) 

I, too, am very cycnical, and was very upset when Millar got snagged. I share your pain with the way sport is being destroyed-every year, I dismiss another sport; It has gotten to the point where I will only casually follow American Pro Football, and all it will take is one more outlandish scandal before I drop that as well-cycling is all to me! However, were Lance involved in doping, I would be crushed, but I would STILL follow cycling, because of the drama involved-and by that, I mean the good stories, like Thomas Voekler retaining the yellow jersey just enough days so that he had one for each teammate; Fabien Cancellara, winning the yellow jersey on the first stage of his first TDF-you know what I mean...And that was just last year! There is a great history to this sport that far outweighs the scandal, more than in other sports. 

Thanks for letting me rant...


----------



## Keith Kibler (Nov 29, 2004)

poshscot said:


> A BRITISH PERSPECTIVE
> 
> it has to said that lance is only guilty of doping if he takes something on the banned substance list or gets found with something that they are looking for. lance earns more than our very own david beckham (i'm a brit by the way and he's the king of sponsorship money making this side of the pond) and i'm sure with that kind of money he can buy what he wants including, dare i say it, scientists to invent the latest doping products that WADA havent a hope of knowing about never mind looking for.
> 
> ...


 Since when does one destroy a sport by doing well in it? Did Michel Jordon destroy basketball or Bjorn Borg destroy tennis or or or or......... Are you suggesting that we need more mediocre athletes so everybody can be equal? I thought the point of competition was so that everyone could make everyone better by competing.
That is just this country boy's perspective


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Emma O'Reilly is either incredibly brave or totally foolhardy to go on record and confirm her accusations against the most powerful and wealthy man in the sport when he has a defamation case against her - ex-soigneur v multi million dollar endorsed cyclist - she doesn't have a prayer _unless what she is saying is true_...

still it's all likely to fizzle out and the doubt will remain....maybe one day an investigation will establish the situation _beyond doubt_ and then all of us who agree with Anquetil's assertion that you don't win the Tour on vitamins and mineral water can shut up...


----------



## poshscot (Dec 14, 2004)

Keith Kibler said:


> Since when does one destroy a sport by doing well in it? Did Michel Jordon destroy basketball or Bjorn Borg destroy tennis or or or or......... Are you suggesting that we need more mediocre athletes so everybody can be equal? I thought the point of competition was so that everyone could make everyone better by competing.
> That is just this country boy's perspective


tell me that viewers arent leaving F1 because schumacher has turned it into a procession - LA has done the same to le tour - i didnt say it was his fault - but when some one turns up that is so much better than the rest it does become boring - espcially after 6 six years! we dont get to follow NBA over here but surely youve heard of Manchester United (the richest football club in the world), well they destroyed everyone for years and everyone (execpt man u fans) hates them with a vengence.

i'm afraid it goes with the territory - your fans will love you but the rest will hate you!

as for the country boy comment - thats just a cheap shot, surely you can come up with something better?!


----------



## drevelo66 (Jan 22, 2005)

poshscot said:


> tell me that viewers arent leaving F1 because schumacher has turned it into a procession - LA has done the same to le tour - i didnt say it was his fault - but when some one turns up that is so much better than the rest it does become boring - espcially after 6 six years! we dont get to follow NBA over here but surely youve heard of Manchester United (the richest football club in the world), well they destroyed everyone for years and everyone (execpt man u fans) hates them with a vengence.
> 
> i'm afraid it goes with the territory - your fans will love you but the rest will hate you!
> 
> as for the country boy comment - thats just a cheap shot, surely you can come up with something better?!


What's boring is the fact that the other teams were too timid to attack Lance-remember when he flatted on one stage, after Postal kept a furious pace, and when he stopped to change up, the peloton took a breather? Test the rest of the peloton-for crack! Don't blame Lance for Ulrich losing the passion he had in 2003, for T-Mobile not picking a decisive leader, or for that matter, for teams being to milquetoast in their tactics and too lax in their preparation...

As for Manchester United, we have a similar baseball team, the New York Yankees. They are similar to Real Madrid in terms of buying up the best available talent, and are hated in similar fashion. They lost the World Series this year to the Boston Red Sox, who had a supposed curse; people seemed joyful more for the Yankees losing than for the Sox winning; when Lance finally does lose, it'll be all the sweeter for you haters, so cheer up!


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*Only Armstrong?*



Bianchigirl said:


> Emma O'Reilly is either incredibly brave or totally foolhardy to go on record and confirm her accusations against the most powerful and wealthy man in the sport when he has a defamation case against her - ex-soigneur v multi million dollar endorsed cyclist - she doesn't have a prayer _unless what she is saying is true_...
> 
> still it's all likely to fizzle out and the doubt will remain....maybe one day an investigation will establish the situation _beyond doubt_ and then all of us who agree with Anquetil's assertion that you don't win the Tour on vitamins and mineral water can shut up...


I certainly can't say if Armstrong is doping or not but why is it none of his rivals seem to come under suspicion? Beloki and his asthma medicine or Mayo's too high-hematocrit TdF teammate/EPO-providing team doctor!? Additionally, Ullrich and Vino both come from the former Eastern Bloc sporting program which has a deep history of using PED's and German Champion Kloden's emergence is certainly no more or less suspect than former World Champion Armstrong's first TdF victory. I imagine that there is loads of doping going on but I am just sick and tired of the hoopla surrounding a single rider. The French authorities and press act as if the entire peloton is clean save Armstrong. Please, that is simply so absurd that it's offensive. If you want to trot out Anquetil's assertion about the TdF let's ammend it so that it states "one doesn't *compete* at the Tour on vitamins and mineral water".


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

But no one attacks the Yellow Jersey when he's down and out!!!! How dare you suggest such a thing??!!! Love the way Armstrong has used that outrage on a few occassions...

To ask why other riders don't come under scrutiny is to miss the point. No one assumes that Beloki or Ullrich or any of the others are riding clean and nor do they endlessly pontificate to that effect. What some observers find galling (and I count myself among them) is the faux naivety of a professional bike rider who claims he doesn't know what EPO is, who has never heard of 'Acto-something' even though his support staff are taking great pains to dump it at dead of night? That's what nobody's buying - especially when he is then seen to publicly enforce the code of silence by chasing down Simeoni - what do you think the zipped lips sign was about?


----------



## poshscot (Dec 14, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> But no one attacks the Yellow Jersey when he's down and out!!!! How dare you suggest such a thing??!!! Love the way Armstrong has used that outrage on a few occassions...
> 
> To ask why other riders don't come under scrutiny is to miss the point. No one assumes that Beloki or Ullrich or any of the others are riding clean and nor do they endlessly pontificate to that effect. What some observers find galling (and I count myself among them) is the faux naivety of a professional bike rider who claims he doesn't know what EPO is, who has never heard of 'Acto-something' even though his support staff are taking great pains to dump it at dead of night? That's what nobody's buying - especially when he is then seen to publicly enforce the code of silence by chasing down Simeoni - what do you think the zipped lips sign was about?


thank you bianchigirl.

is it true that someone can defend themselves TOO rigorously?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*uh LA not heard of EPO?*

if you check, EPO is standard meds for Cancer patients to help rebuild RBC's depleted from Chemo. (it's original intent). I think LA was on EPO (admittedly) while undergoing chemotherapy. So I doubt he's ever acted 'dumb' on this one.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yeah, you are wrong*



Bianchigirl said:


> But no one attacks the Yellow Jersey when he's down and out!!!! How dare you suggest such a thing??!!! Love the way Armstrong has used that outrage on a few occassions...
> 
> To ask why other riders don't come under scrutiny is to miss the point. No one assumes that Beloki or Ullrich or any of the others are riding clean and nor do they endlessly pontificate to that effect. What some observers find galling (and I count myself among them) is the faux naivety of a professional bike rider who claims he doesn't know what EPO is, who has never heard of 'Acto-something' even though his support staff are taking great pains to dump it at dead of night? That's what nobody's buying - especially when he is then seen to publicly enforce the code of silence by chasing down Simeoni - what do you think the zipped lips sign was about?


Armstrong has stated publicly and in his first book that while undergoing chemo, he did indeed use EPO as part of that recovery.Its standard. 

Additionally, he also stated explicitly, and provided a docs statement that the cream he used/was using was a corticoid and that the amount he tested positve for was literally hundreds of times smaller than what is not legal and for that matter released for public review. In short someone leaked his test results.This was in 99.

So, I would find it highly improbable that he would forget chemo recovery and using cream due to a blister on his scrotum. Those things tend to be memorable.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

he used a cream to treat a saddle sore although prior to the stage he had declared that he wasn't using any medications. Interesting that this type of cortisone can only be injected...

and yes, poshscot, to misquote Shakespeare 'methinks he doth protest _way_ too much'


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> Growth Hormones are detectable, autologous blood doping is even identifiable (they tested for it as well in the Olympics and have since the Eddy B. LA Olympics)...So once again 22 tests a year, no positives.


There is no test for HGH. WADA has been promising one for a while but it is a no show so far. There is no test for autologous blood doping. Again WADA has said one is coming. Homologuos blood doing can supposedly be detected but the validation of the test looks like it was done with a very skimpy amount of test data. Insulin is also safe from detection. 

Not testing positive means absolutely nothing. The existing tests don't even work very well for the stuff that is detectable, there is a huge range of stuff that is known to be used but is undetectable, and undoubtedly a lage range of stuff that is not yet on WADA's radar.

It is a given that any pro who raced through the mid-nineties and continued to get contracts used EPO during that time.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> EPO was an 'accidental find' by cycling, but the amount of $ spent developing it, testing it, etc would crush a bank account 5x Mr Armstrongs. especially here in the US where the FDA makes you run a freaking zillion tests, double blind, etc... or do you believe LA is using untested PED's?


Illegal drugs do not have to go through the whole FDA waterfall of development and testing. D'oh! It is not too hard to make designer steroids. Victor Conte has claimed there are hundred of BALCOs in the U.S. Although, I would tend to think the others are mostly suppliers of existing products and there would not be too many that would be making their own roids, BALCO found it profitable to do so.

Aside from tweaking existing steroids so they don't trip current testing, there were a huge number of substances that were tested by the german and the american militaries. The vast majority of these were never manufactured as medical products, and most would only be detected by current tests if they happen to run afoul of a test meant for a similar substance. The research has already been done for you.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*didn't the olympics*

say they could detect autologous blood as the 'older' blood retransfused had some marker they could detect? was that just scare tactics? I assume than HGH test a similar scare?
so 22 tests and he goes clean while some athletes still get popped (latest Berden)
so how does he keep escaping? is it once again his super hi tech drugs?
as for protesting too much
may be it's better to say: thou accusith too much. I'm sure he'd shut up if they left him alone until they had SOME PROOF.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

serbski said:


> I imagine that there is loads of doping going on but I am just sick and tired of the hoopla surrounding a single rider. The French authorities and press act as if the entire peloton is clean save Armstrong. Please, that is simply so absurd that it's offensive.


When you need facts to back up your beliefs, just make them up. Seems to be the USA way.

The French are quite cynical about the entire peloton. You would certainly have to look hard to find a Flat Earther like ATP who thinks doping is not endemic to the entire sport, from the top to the bottom.

The other top tour riders--the ones who were not busted or exposed like Hamilton, Rumsas, Garzelli, Simoni, Perez, Virenque, Pantani, Riis, Rominger, Chiappucci, Bugno, Riis, Casagrande, VDB, etc.--do not have as high of a public profile as Armstrong, so they do not attract as much attention. They also do not have former teammates recounting how they encouraged the use of EPO and decided that anyone who wasn't on a drug program would not be part of their '96 Tour team.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Is that true?*



Bianchigirl said:


> he used a cream to treat a saddle sore although prior to the stage he had declared that he wasn't using any medications. Interesting that this type of cortisone can only be injected...
> 
> and yes, poshscot, to misquote Shakespeare 'methinks he doth protest _way_ too much'


Can that form of Cortisone only be injected, B-Girl?

Methinks you should look into what rider medical waivers one(Livestrong disco child) has with the organization that controls this for cycling for each rider.

This info should be public as an additional detterent to doping in a more scrutinized cycling world.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I think you'll find that he 'didn't have a clue' what EPO was pre-cancer. Didn't have a clue? When the mid 90s were the apotheosis of EPO use in the peloton? I doubt it took cancer treatment for Armstrong to realise what EPO was - if you believe his Motorola teammate and ex-USPS doctor, he was more than well aware of what EPO was at the start of his career - despite giving interviews where he said things like 'EP what?'

Ask yourself - this is a man with enormous business savvy, who rules his teams with a rod of iron, who advises the appalling dubya, for god's sake, who is absolutely meticulous in his race preparation and claims to have enormous respect for the traditions of the Tour and its history - and this smart, sharp, meticulous man has no clue that doping exists in the peloton or what doping products are? Please, do me a favour...


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*nice Ad Hom*

so this French Cynicism also explains why Phonak gets the boot yet Cofidis doesn't right?
look I'm a cynic and a known conspiracy thinker and also not an LA fan though I did meet him at a cx race this year and he was unlike what many who've never met him say about him. Here's my problem with the whole LA scenario.

A) he's still testing clean while others are still getting caught, so he's either
1-lucky
2-using super drugs or maskers
3-tipped off when random testers are coming months ahead of time so he can do a cleanse
A-addendum) the same above goes for his team who's tested clean as well and as we saw last TdF, his doms were stronger than most GC Honch's.

So the problem is these are all pretty improbable scenarios

B) after breaking the all time record for TdF Victories if he was aided by PED's
1-why would he continue to compete and risk detection which would ruin his legacy
2-If I was dope dependent for my victories, I'd quit while I was radically ahead
3- Detection besides ruining his place in cycling history would kill his earnings

it is therefore more logical and actually makes no logical sense in converse that if he was dirty he would have retired after last TdF. He has far too much to risk by continuing if he's dirty. Really think about it, what would you do with his status if you were cheating.
Retirement and a nice gig w/ Nike and collect fat checks. 

C) he could do this next season(s) 'clean'
1- he becomes average which only adds to speculation he was dirty (see track and field)

so as you can see, it really just doesn't 'make thense' (South Park Johnny Cochrane)
when you analyze the situation logically.

so as you can see, my opinion is based on logical analysis of the situation not some naivete, idol worship or plain flat earth ludditism.
on the contrary I know your vitriol against him comes from a personal vendetta you have against him. all we have to do is go back to this time last year.
and I expect you'll disappear once he starts whuppin' ass in the Tour like last year.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yes, you are wrong yet again*



Bianchigirl said:


> he used a cream to treat a saddle sore although prior to the stage he had declared that he wasn't using any medications. Interesting that this type of cortisone can only be injected...
> 
> and yes, poshscot, to misquote Shakespeare 'methinks he doth protest _way_ too much'


The form he used can be absorbed through the skin. A waiver was presented at the start of the TDF stating that he had been using the cream all along. I love the story of cream on a mans scrotum during a sporting event, its breath taking really........  

By the way, try some Chaucer, "how sad it is to me that he should have a boil upon his knee." Chaucers cute way of pointing out that a man should not have VD, oh well. IF they had a cream, I am certain he would have used it.

I am certain that if your way of making a living and character were being skewered, you would never shut up. I know I wouldnt.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Former USPS Doc*

was with team before LA's tenure so his 'testimony' has already been proven bogus.
and no UCH I don't think PED usage is top to bottom anymore. the fact that large portions of the peloton gets dropped on climbs in GTs (where 10 years back when dopin was more prevalent was rare) gives more creedence to this side of ther arguement. Both Phil and Paul have used the same point numerous times. I'm not naive enought to believe it isn't possible and I won't be horrified if it proves so, I just don't buy that everybody is doped.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> But no one attacks the Yellow Jersey when he's down and out!!!! How dare you suggest such a thing??!!! Love the way Armstrong has used that outrage on a few occassions...
> 
> To ask why other riders don't come under scrutiny is to miss the point. No one assumes that Beloki or Ullrich or any of the others are riding clean and nor do they endlessly pontificate to that effect. What some observers find galling (and I count myself among them) is the faux naivety of a professional bike rider who claims he doesn't know what EPO is, who has never heard of 'Acto-something' even though his support staff are taking great pains to dump it at dead of night? That's what nobody's buying - especially when he is then seen to publicly enforce the code of silence by chasing down Simeoni - what do you think the zipped lips sign was about?


\\

No, I don't think that I have missed the point. Equal justice and scrutiny for all of the peloton (or team leaders to narrow down testing). Following your logic would you have less of an issue with Armstrong if he was "quiet" like Ullrich, Beloki et al? Hell, I hope Cunego or Basso win a few straight Tours so that those poor sods can take some hammering from the world's message boards! God help Basso should he win because I imagine that you will be all over him for having Riis (Gewiss anyone?) at the helm...


----------



## X'd Out (Feb 15, 2004)

*That not correct*



Bianchigirl said:


> he used a cream to treat a saddle sore although prior to the stage he had declared that he wasn't using any medications. *Interesting that this type of cortisone can only be injected...*
> and yes, poshscot, to misquote Shakespeare 'methinks he doth protest _way_ too much'


Bianchigirl , you are not correct Lance found to have traces of Triamcinolone in his urine which is a corticosteroid that is often found in a topical form ( i.e cream)( it is also available in an injectable form). In the topical format Triamcinolone is used to treat the itching, redness, dryness, crusting, scaling, inflammation, and discomfort of various skin conditions. It is also used to relieve the discomfort of mouth sores. It is marketed in the USA under the name Aristocort cream and Kenalog cream.

Lance was using a Spanish made Triamcinolone cream called CEMALYT.

Please also note we are talking about a Corticosteroid here and not an Anabolic steroid which is whatthe body builder etc use.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Kenalog / CEMALYT*

was/ is also used for treatment of eczema. granted not same as body building type steroid but but corticasteroids common in Pot Belge mix. used for joint stiffness if memory serves me right. This is where WADA gets all over riders when traces show up.
Vaughters needed corticasteroid shot for bee sting as well I think. Couldn't take it as it's banned. 
I was thinking about my 'legacy' argument and Museeuw came to mind. Now most of us were suspicious of him due to the era he came from. Some think he used EPO to prolong career and may have had clean period, but the result is the same. Now that we KNOW he used it tarnishes his legacy to many and will have $ effects on his career post cycling. 
So if LA needs to use PED's why again would he continue when detection would have massive consequences. after 6 TdF's, continuing w/ PED's is diminishing returns and makes no fiscal or competitive sense. I think if he really was 'dirty' he'd have quit while ahead.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> it is therefore more logical and actually makes no logical sense in converse that if he was dirty he would have retired after last TdF. He has far too much to risk by continuing if he's dirty. Really think about it, what would you do with his status if you were cheating.
> Retirement and a nice gig w/ Nike and collect fat checks.


Who are you? Mr. Spock? Live long and prosper, Dude. I can see it now. ATP, Internet Lawyer, stands up in court and pleads, "Your honor, I ask that all charges be dismissed. Logic clearly dictates that he could not have committed the crime; the punishment is harsh enough that he would not have risked it."

With that sort of thinking we wouldn't convict anyone of murder now, would we? It is assinine to use psychoanalysis of supposed motives to devine whether or not someone is guilty. What's more, it only takes a quickest glimpse around to see how faulty your "logical analysis" is?

Let us see. Just confining ourselves to cycling, we come across the case of Pantani. After winning the Giro-Tour double and becoming a demigod in Italy, why did he continue to dope? How about Hamilton? Instead of taking his gold medal, making an excuse about being in too poor of form to contest the Vuelta, and kicking back in the states to collect endorsement contracts, he showed up in Spain--knowing full well that the UCI suspected him. Why did he do it? How about Museuuw? Why did he dope in 2003? The list goes on and on. 

You seem to have created an elaborate straw man of "super drugs". Maybe you are just thick, so let's go over things one more time. HGH is undetectable. Insulin is undetectable. Autologous blood doping is undetectable. Those are techniques that we know are being used but cannot be tested for. Riders still get regularly busted for substances that can be detected. And riders still get busted for things like EPO, which have a very small windows of detectability. Then there are a range of products which are not yet known to be used and undetectable, like the newly discovered designer steroid DMT.

In short you can divide products into four categories:

1) Known products that have reasonably good tests.
2) Known products that have unreliable tests.
3) Known products that have no tests.
4) Unknown products that have no tests.

You can make an argument that it is logical to use category 3 and 4 products, given the amount of money/fame/whatever-motivates-you that could be gained. Given the number of riders who keep getting busted for EPO, clearly there are a lot of riders who think category 2 substances are worth the risk of taking. And Pot Belge has hardly disappeared.

> A-addendum) the same above goes for his team who's tested clean as well and 
> as we saw last TdF, his doms were stronger than most GC Honch's.

Yeah, that's normal and doesn't look suspicious at all. Where have we seen that before? Couldn't be Team Gewis, '94 Fleche Wallonne, could it?

>so as you can see, it really just doesn't 'make thense' (South Park Johnny 
>Cochrane) when you analyze the situation logically.

Your argument comes off more like the Chewbacca Defense. If ewoks live on Endor, this does not make sense. If someone does something illogical, this does not make sense. They must be innocent. Just because you wouldn't choose to continue, does not mean others won't make irrational decisions. If I were a drug king pin, I'd retire as soon as I made a big enough of a score to invest my way to financial indepence. That doesn't mean drug lords, embezzlers, swindlers, and dons of crime families are not regularly sent to prison for life after making enormous sums of money.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> I was thinking about my 'legacy' argument and Museeuw came to mind. Now most of us were suspicious of him due to the era he came from. Some think he used EPO to prolong career and may have had clean period, but the result is the same. Now that we KNOW he used it tarnishes his legacy to many and will have $ effects on his career post cycling.
> So if LA needs to use PED's why again would he continue when detection would have massive consequences. after 6 TdF's, continuing w/ PED's is diminishing returns and makes no fiscal or competitive sense. I think if he really was 'dirty' he'd have quit while ahead.


Oh, that's rich, pointing to an example that clearly refutes your argument and trying to spin it as support. Talk about reverse homerism. Just why did Museeuw continue to dope? Vulcans everywhere would like to know.

What's more, now you were suspicious of Museeuw because of the era he came from, and yet Armstrong, who came from the same era AND told Lemond that EPO was no big deal, everyone does it AND led meetings at Motorola to encourage EPO use and agreed that anyone who was not on a doping program would not be on their '96 Tour team AND contemporaneously started to see the number one dope doc in cycling, well, gosh, there's no way you could suspect him. Looks like your bias is showing.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*missing the point*

and actually I was/am far more a Museuw fan than LA. (once again I like the classics)
regarding LA's Motorola days, hell I'm not contending then am I? I'm equally suspicious of his usage then as anyones (I do believe most riders in the early to mid 90's doped). 
which would include Big Mig I guess but he never got busted so his legacy is intact. 
(my point) Johann rode probably a year too long especially if he was doping. It's possible he started doping or re-doping to further a career on the downslide. He may have had some clean years, once again it was all speculation (as is LA, Mig and every rider in the 90's peloton). Getting busted isn't speculation, so when Johann got caught most went from
'he was probably doping back then' to 'he was doping back then'. See how it smears a career. Had Johann retired 2 years ago, his superfans could have existed in a happy state of denial (if that's what you want to call it) instead he has 'cheater' permanently inserted next to his moniker. Once again, he failed to properly weigh the cost of getting caught
against the losses it was up against. I just personally think LA far too shrewd a businessman for that. So no, my bias isn't there. I'll give you a list of Disco guys I like to see well (Hicapie, Hammond, Van Heeswick and Slava (though I think he was doped as a younger athlete by the East Bloc sport machine).


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

poshscot said:


> A BRITISH PERSPECTIVE
> 
> it has to said that lance is only guilty of doping if he takes something on the banned substance list or gets found with something that they are looking for. lance earns more than our very own david beckham (i'm a brit by the way and he's the king of sponsorship money making this side of the pond) and i'm sure with that kind of money he can buy what he wants including, dare i say it, scientists to invent the latest doping products that WADA havent a hope of knowing about never mind looking for.
> 
> ...



First off, I'll take this as a bonehead's perspective, not a British perspective.
Lance never complains about testing. He's proud of the testing he goes through because time and time again, it comes out as a big fat negative. The rest of the world has every right to dislike him, but the individual country's laws prevent people from publishing outright lies and false accusation. Lance's piss and blood can speak for him when it comes to tests, but he has to rely on the judicial system to speak for him when it comes to fiction writers with an agenda and a gullible audience of people like yourself. 

If Lance had a private Dr. Evil-style team of chemists and a private chemicals factory, do you honestly think all his former teammates would know about it? He's the highest profile cyclists, yet he's able to keep the biggest secret in the history of sports? Why don't you sell that idea to Walsh for his next Tolkien fantasy book? 

And don't give us that crap about the rest of the world respecting Lance. Why on earth would you respect a sportsman who you think it the biggest cheat in the history of the sport?

Explain to me how Lance is preventing everyone else from winning? Is he hiring prostitutes to visit them in the night and cut off their hair, sapping them of their power? Is he sabotaging their equipment? Lance is only guilty of empowering himself to win. Jan gets fat. Tyler crashes. Some sign onto teams that don't support them or have DS's who give them bad advice. Other's simply quit. What other cyclists do or don't do is not his fault. Do you think some other cyclists deserves to win more? Who? What have they done to deserve to win more than Lance? Should the Tour or any other sporting event set a limit on how many times you are allowed to win? The Tour is designed to show who is the best.If you want to watch an event that's designed to guarantee a different face on the podium each year, start your own plastic surgery olympics. Think about what you're saying and stop embarrassing yourself.

His detractors say Lance wins because he only races the Tour. His detractors say Lance only wins because he has a team that has no goals other than to help Lance win. Other teams say he wins because of USPS's big budget? Which is it? Maybe they'd have a better chance of winning if they spend less time making excuses for losing and more time copying Lance's proven methods. 

The Tour has every right to change the rules if they want to try to prevent Lance from winning. Maybe they can put a cap on the team's budgets. Maybe they can force contendors to pick their tour teammates out of a random lottery. Maybe they can force contendors to race and compete in all three grand tours. The Tour isn't going to do this because they know Lance is not going to win forever. When he's gone, they won't have to worry about another rider dominating or "ruining" their event the way Lance has because a quality rider like him comes around only one in many lifetimes. 

Maybe the rest of the world should take Lances victories on the chin, shut up, keep their opinions to themselves, and carry on doing what they do best, finishing second to Lance.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*well put*

but by the display USPS put on last Tour, you'd have to guess he's SHARING his secret drugs as USPS doms were finishing before many teams leaders. (Floyd, Azevedo, etc..)
hell Le Tren Bleu would have 6 guys left and they'd have chewed the peloton down to under 20. Funny thing they all tested clean, so it must be super drugs and super masking agents. I have to disagree about the once in a lifetime thing. Dominant Tour riders show up every decade, so the next 'Lance' is probably already out there (Cunego?) or some neo pro we don't know yet. Afterall Lance (00's) is the next Big Mig(90's), who was the next Badger (80's), who was the next Cannibal (70's) who was the next Anquetil.(60's)


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

First, why super drugs when autologous blood transfusions and human growth hormone cannot be detected - you can buy HGH on the Internet with ease, nothing very super or secret there - both will do the job without you getting caught. But, of course, in the light of the latest undetectable designer steroids, whose to say what potions are out there? My point is, there are plenty of known PEDs for which there is no test.

Second, systematic doping in teams shock! please, Telekom were doing it through the 90s as were ONCE (you think Bruyneel was clean?) as were any team who wanted to stand a chance in the peloton. To think Festina were an isolated case is to have your head firmly in the sand. I recall Armstrong declared in 1999 that doping in the peloton was 'finito' - you only have to look at 2004 to see that _that_ is very far from the case.

Thirdly, the Tour de France has its reputation because its the oldest of the 3 GTs - it has long since ceased to be the hardest. I think it was Roche who said that, when he did the triple, winning the Tour and the Worlds was a piece of cake because he'd already done all the hard work in winning the Giro. Now that the ProTour means that the Vuelta and Giro are assured of a quality field, I think we'll see which is the real showcase Tour. 

Fourth, every team with a real GC contender has tried preparing them the 'Armstrong Way'. As Kloeden protested in a recent interview, Armstrong claims to have the monopoly on hard work and preparation and this simply isn't true. What works for one rider does not automatically work for another - that's a spurious point. Compare Armstrong's total GT wins - he has a way to go to catch Hinault (10) or Merckx (11). Anquetil, Merckx and Hinault all won all 3 GTs. These riders raced a full season and used racing miles to prepare for their GT wins. That worked for them - spending all their time at training camp may well not have done. So you could argue that Armstrong is preventing other riders from winning by persuading them to follow a training regime that simply doesn't suit them

Lastly, Armstrong a 'once in a lifetime' rider? I presume you've heard of Coppi, Bartali, de Vlaeminck, van Looy, Kelly, Roche etc etc - the list of amazing riders with palmares to make Armstrong look like a club rider is endless. Basically he's won the French club run 6 times - until he wins a few real Classics and achieves a GT double, he's not even top 10.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Giro premier tour?*

with all that piano pacing on flat stages? when Giro winners aren't even top 10 in the TdF?
c'mon, seriously or do you think all those Italian Sprinters that finish the other GT's but drop out of the Tour is for some other reason? Tour is the hardest now, every stage is a career maker so pace is just higher, just look at average speeds. Both Giro and Vuelta have steep, nasty climbs but lack the #'s nor the distance or av. speed in the stages.
HGH? designer steroids? uh those don't help your H-Crit which is what is gonna win ya a tour. besides I've yet to see the cranial morphing in cyclists. HGH may help recovery, but that's speculative. homologous blood doping, possible and as relaible and effective as altitude tents.
I believe there is systematic doping, but to punish Phonak before it is proven is sentencing before conviction. Festina was busted because the Soignier was caught, as for Cofidis, we don't know as we don't know with Phonak. Lets sentence them after we've found beyond a reasonable doubt there was systematic doping going on.
as for LA being once in a lifetime, agreed. see my above post.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

but PED use in cycling is _all_ about recovery - and my point about designer steroids was not that cyclists would be using anabolic steroids but that if there are doping products out there that are undetectable and of use in cycling then you can bet your life someone is using them.

as for the Giro - have a little look at the race history, why don't you? As I pointed out, the Tour will always be held in highest regard as it's the oldest but it doesn't have the terrain to be as interesting/explosive/suspensful as the Giro or Vuelta (and please don't cite Lemond beating Fignon on the Champs Ekysees - you'd have to have been a halfwit not to think that Lemond would best Fignon in that TT).


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> First, why super drugs when autologous blood transfusions and human growth hormone cannot be detected - you can buy HGH on the Internet with ease, nothing very super or secret there - both will do the job without you getting caught. But, of course, in the light of the latest undetectable designer steroids, whose to say what potions are out there? My point is, there are plenty of known PEDs for which there is no test.
> 
> Second, systematic doping in teams shock! please, Telekom were doing it through the 90s as were ONCE (you think Bruyneel was clean?) as were any team who wanted to stand a chance in the peloton. To think Festina were an isolated case is to have your head firmly in the sand. I recall Armstrong declared in 1999 that doping in the peloton was 'finito' - you only have to look at 2004 to see that _that_ is very far from the case.
> 
> ...


First, even if they come up with a test for transfusions and growth hormone, and Lance tests negative, you'll still say he's using something else that's not detective. So, basically, you'll never run out of doping fantasy scenerios. 

You say the Tour has long since ceased to be the hardest. How do you explain Simoni, Angel Casero, Garzelli, Heras, Aitor Gonzalez, and the endless list of winners and contenders of the other grand tours, not even being able to be slightly competative in the Tour? Ask every pro who's ridden them and even they will tell you there's no comparison. What do you know that they don't? 
Simoni admitted he's learned that the Tour is a complete race that requires special attention.

"It's not that the climbs of the Tour are harder than the Giro," Simoni was quoted in the Italian wires. "The French race is won on the flat stages, the descents and the time trials and not only in the big mountains." 

And even you admit that it took the creation of the Protour to make the other races as competiative as the Tour. It's the competition that makes the TDF the hardest, and Lance has beaten the toughest compeition year in and year out. Every year, people like you tried to minimize his accomplishment by saying, "Pantani wasn't there, Ullrich wasn't there, etc." Well he beat them all, the best of them. 

You could argue that Armstrong is preventing other riders from winning by persuading them to follow a training regime that simply doesn't suit them. But your arguement would make you look foolish. First off, if he was winning when they weren't following his program, why in the hell would he "persuade" them to follow his program? Secondly, it was the other riders who lost, and persuaded themselves or let their DS persuade them to change programs. Armstrong doesn't give a sh!t what program they follow. Time and time again he expresses disappointment when contenders either don't show up, or are hurt. He wants to prove he's the best and is never happier than when he gets a chance to prove it when the competition is at their best. That's the main thing people like you will never be able to understand. 

Are you going to try to argue that Alfredo Binda is the second greatest Giro sprinter of all time? He must be because he's won more Giro stages than Petacchi.Calling the Tour a French club run shows how ignorant you've become on the subject. 

Lastly, Armstrong is a once in a livetime rider. Who else in anybody's lifetime has won the Tour six straight times?


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> *homologous blood doping, possible and as relaible and effective as altitude tents.*


Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't sustained or frequent blood doping eventually cause these cyclists to come down with one of the porphyrias? If it looks like the whole peleton is wearing yellow jerseys because they are all jaundiced something may be rotten in France besides the cheese.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> but PED use in cycling is _all_ about recovery - and my point about designer steroids was not that cyclists would be using anabolic steroids but that if there are doping products out there that are undetectable and of use in cycling then you can bet your life someone is using them.
> 
> as for the Giro - have a little look at the race history, why don't you? As I pointed out, the Tour will always be held in highest regard as it's the oldest but it doesn't have the terrain to be as interesting/explosive/suspensful as the Giro or Vuelta (and please don't cite Lemond beating Fignon on the Champs Ekysees - you'd have to have been a halfwit not to think that Lemond would best Fignon in that TT).


I don't get it. They both have mountains and flat stages. What terrain does the Giro have that makes it more suspenseful or interesting than the Tour?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I simply made the point that Armstrong _could_ be using well known products and techniques - as could the rest of the peloton. Just to reiterate that Virenque and Millar to name but two never tested positive for EPO but later admitted to its use.

It's fairly simple to explain why winners of the Giro have not been competitive in the Tour de France - you are talking about riders who already have one incredibly hard GT in their legs being competitive against someone who has raced sparingly and has trained to peak solely for 3 weeks in July. 

The hypothetical argument that one [/I]could_ argue this was in response to your argument that all GT contenders should adopt Armstrong's tried and tested method of winning a Tour - I was simply pointing out that what suits Armstrong may not suit another rider and therefore, one _might_ argue...

The ProTour will bring back the best teams to the Giro - aren't you excited at the prospect of the Discovery team appearing in a full season of Classics and all 3 Grand Tours. If you bother to read up on your Giro history, you'll see that the big teams staying away from the race is a quite modern phenomena - when Indurain was winning the Giro (Giro/Tour double 92 & 93) he was racing against riders of the calibre of Rominger and Berzin (both GT winners themselves). 

Which brings me to the question of Armstrong's competition at the Tour. If you look back to the Indurain years you will be astonished at how much stronger the TdF competition was - Indurain, Merckx, Anquetil et al regularly competed against riders with complete palmares. Who does Armstrong compete against? Beloki - 3 pro wins? Ullrich and Pantani's palmares bear greater scrutiny, but as you point out yourself, they haven't always been present in the Tour. As for your hero being disappointed because other riders get sick and injured - well, my heart bleeds for him.

As for Binda - 2nd greatest sprinter? Since Petacchi and Cipollini have never actually won the Giro and Binda did it 5 times, taking the KoM in his last win in 1933 - well, we're just being silly, aren't we?

Lastly, Armstrong has never won a GT double, which Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault and Indurain all achieved, as did Coppi (who won the Giro 5 times). In terms of total Tours won, let's compare and contrast shall we? Armstrong has 6. Coppi and Indurain won 7. Anquetil won 8 (he was the first man to win all 3 Tours). Hinault won 10 and Merckx 11. And I won't even begin to bore you with their achievements in terms of stages won and jerseys held - surely, with your superior knowledge of all things Tour de France related you will know all about Merckx's 69 Tour, for example (5 stages, all 3 jerseys - oh and he won Milan - San Remo, Tour of Flanders, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, Paris-Nice and 4 stages in the Giro that year)._


----------



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

No doubt that Armstrong is super athlete who may or may not be drugged. The fact remains that he chickens out every year by riding just one race, and does it against questionable competition, as Bianchigirl has enumerated. Ok, so he wins another two, three tours. In the end, people will look at his palmares and say "wow, 7 tours..." and then look at Merckx et al. and say case closed. Good post Bianchigirl (seems like we've trying to convince others of this for a while)


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*agreed*

I've never argued anything but ( Lance's humble place in the pantheon of greats) both Coppi and Merckx also dominated on the track as well. Binda, yes I'd have to put at #1
but in Binda's era riders were less specified. When was the last time a sprinter won a KOM (well Merckx did it in 69 but I wouldn't consider Eddy a sprinter)?
and lets not forget Bartali, had his career not been interupted by a war (goes for Coppi as well) what would these 2 have accomplished?
but this is a sidebar isn't it?


----------



## poshscot (Dec 14, 2004)

P-Quoddy said:


> First off, I'll take this as a bonehead's perspective, not a British perspective.
> Lance never complains about testing. He's proud of the testing he goes through because time and time again, it comes out as a big fat negative. The rest of the world has every right to dislike him, but the individual country's laws prevent people from publishing outright lies and false accusation. Lance's piss and blood can speak for him when it comes to tests, but he has to rely on the judicial system to speak for him when it comes to fiction writers with an agenda and a gullible audience of people like yourself.
> 
> If Lance had a private Dr. Evil-style team of chemists and a private chemicals factory, do you honestly think all his former teammates would know about it? He's the highest profile cyclists, yet he's able to keep the biggest secret in the history of sports? Why don't you sell that idea to Walsh for his next Tolkien fantasy book?
> ...


bonehead eh, touch a nerve did i ??

i ve been following pro cycling for 20 years and indurain's dominace didnt do much for the tour but at least he seemed humble, and as for lemond - he was my hero! so i havent got anything against americans but LA is just unlikeable. sorry if that hurts you.

oh and i never accused LA of cheating - only suggested that tests do not always tell the truth - i see that another new PED not tested for was outed by a whistle blower this week.

oh and on your last point i dont ever remember any of "the rest" doing anything other than taking LA's victories on the chin,shutting up and keeping their opinions to their selves - its the cyclingfans who have something to say.

this does seem like a never ending thread - those who love LA wont have their minds changed and those who dont certainly wont either.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I simply made the point that Armstrong _could_ be using well known products and techniques - as could the rest of the peloton. Just to reiterate that Virenque and Millar to name but two never tested positive for EPO but later admitted to its use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

Armstrong raced sparingly? If you say it enough you may start to believe it. He raced as frequently as his competition. 
Most people realize the Tour is more difficult now than it was in Merckx day. Everyone is racing full out on each and every stage. Breakaways are no longer allowed to stay away thanks to race radios. More and more contenders finally learned from Armstrong the importance of battling to stay in the front of each stage. The Tour has two mountain ranges to cover, sweltering heat of Massive Centrale, sprint stages, time trials that all count, the skill of the team time trial, and the pressure of the entire world looking on. 
I've explained why I think the Tour is the hardest, You still haven't explained why you think the Tour is easier than the other grand tours. 

"Ullrich and Pantani's palmares bear greater scrutiny, but as you point out yourself, they haven't always been present in the Tour."
Whenever they're present, they get beat by Lance. Whether they've raced the Giro or whether they've been as well rested as Lance, the outcome has been the same. 
Stage races are the ultimate test of the completeness of a rider. 
I never said he was the cyclist of all time. Lance has beaten the best riders the of his time, six years in a row in the hardest and biggest stage race. Something Merckx, Indurain, Hinault, etc. tried to do, but failed. That makes Lance a once-in-a-lifetime rider._


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

wayneanneli said:


> No doubt that Armstrong is super athlete who may or may not be drugged. The fact remains that he chickens out every year by riding just one race, and does it against questionable competition, as Bianchigirl has enumerated. Ok, so he wins another two, three tours. In the end, people will look at his palmares and say "wow, 7 tours..." and then look at Merckx et al. and say case closed. Good post Bianchigirl (seems like we've trying to convince others of this for a while)


Lance only rides one race, eh? Do I need to list all the other races on his schedule? These are just his notable finishes, and doesn't even include all the races he starts. 
2004 
1st Tour de France, six stage wins including the Team Time Trial
1st Tour of Alrgarve stage win, 5th overall
1st Tour de Georgia, two stage wins
1st Midi Libre stage win, 6th overall
3rd Criterium International
4th Dauphine Libere
23d Tour of Murcia

2003 
1st Tour de France, two stage wins including the Team Time Trial
1st Dauphine Libre, one stage win
8th Amstel Gold
20th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
8th End of year world ranking

2002 
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Midi Libre
1st Dauphine Libre, one stage win
2nd Criterium Internantional
3rd Championship of Zurich
4th Amstel Gold
6th San Francisco Grand Prix
2nd End of year world ranking

2001 
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Tour of Switzerland, two stage wins
2nd Amstel Gold
2nd Classique des Alpes
8th Setmana Catalana
12th Tour of Aragon
4th End of year world ranking

2000 
1st Tour de France, one stage win
1st GP Eddy Merckx 2-man TT with "Eki" Ekimov
1st GP des Nations
2nd Paris-Camembert
3rd Dauphine Libere, one stage win, King of the Mountains winner
3rd Olympic Time Trial
3rd Classique des Alpes
4th GP Gippingen
7th GP Miguel Indurain
13th Olympic Road Race
4th End of year world ranking

1999 
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Dauphine Libere stage win, 8th overall
1st Circuit de la Sarthe stage win
1st Route de Sud stage win
2nd Amstel Gold
2nd Ride for the Roses criterium
7th Tour of Aragon
7th End of year world ranking

1998 
1st Tour of Luxembourg, one stage win
1st Rheinland Pfalz Tour
1st Ride for the Roses criterium
1st Cascade Classic
2nd First Union Invitational
4th USPro Championship
4th Tour of Holland
4th Vuelta Espana
4th World Time Trial Championship
4th World Road Race Championship
25th End of year world ranking

1997 Lance joins Team USPS

1996 
1st Fleche Wallone
1st Tour DuPont, five stage wins
1st Fresca Classic stage win
2nd Paris-Nice
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd GP Eddy Merckx
2nd Tour of Holland
4th Leeds Classic
4th GP Suisse
6th Olympic Time Trial
8th GP Harelbeke
11th Milan - San Remo
12th Olympic Road Race
14th San Sebastian Classic
17th Amstel Gold
9th End of year world ranking

1995 
1st stage win Tour de France, 36th overall
1st San Sebastian Classic
1st Tour DuPont, three stage wins
1st Paris-Nice stage win
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, one stage win
1st Tour of America race series
2nd Thrift Drug Classic
5th CoreStates USPro Championship
6th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
15th End of year world ranking

1994 
1st Thrift Drug Classic
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd San Sebastian Classic
7th Tour of Switzerland
7th World Road Race Championship
25th End of year world ranking

1993 
1st World Road Race Championship
1st Tour de France stage win
1st CoreStates USPro Championship
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Tour of Galicia
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, two stage wins
1st Tour of America series
* Winner of $1 million Thrift Drug Triple Crown
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
3rd Tour of Sweden, one stage win
5th Leeds Classic
9th Paris-Nice
14th Championship of Zurich
21st End of year world ranking

1992 
1st First Union Grand Prix
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Trittico Premondiale second leg
1st La Primavera Tour, three stage wins
1st Settimana Bergamasca stage win
2nd Championship of Zurich
8th Coppa Bernocchi
12th Tour DuPont
14th Tour of Galicia, one stage win
14th Olympic Road Race
17th GP Teleglobe
* Signed with Motorola following Olympics

1991 * Signed with Subaru-Montgomery
1st US Amateur Championship
1st Settimana Bergamasca

1990 
5th US Amateur Time Trial Championship
11th World Amatur Championship

Questionable competition? Are you calling Pantani and Ullrich questionable? What other competition would remove any questions?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

sorry to have to repeat GRAND TOUR DOUBLE quite so forcefully, but perhaps you'll finally get the point? To joe public he might be the greatest but until Armstrong rides for and wins a GT double to afficionados of the sport he will always be the man that won 6 but never raced anything else. 

So Armstrong has beaten the best riders of his time in _one race_ - I'm not aware that he's beaten those riders in Liege-Bastogne-Liege or Amstel Gold. And he couldn't beat Ullrich in either the road race or TT at Sydney, despite Ullrich having ridden the Tour that year. In fact he couldn't even beat his own teammate.

I'm not going to plough through my extensive library to fend and prove exactly why the preceding eras were a damned sight harder than anything Armstrong has faced but you have identified one of the factors that has made road racing considerably easier - the radio. When Merckx et al were racing, they made their decisions on the road, they had split seconds to decide whether to chase or not. They certainly didn't have the luxury of a voice in their ear telling them whether to ride or not. You do know that Bruyneel controls Armstrong to the extent that he tells him when to get out of the saddle on a climb? That's not being a great racer, that's being a remote controlled robot - and surely you would concede that, though all teams now have access to the same technology, it is USPS who have used it most effectively.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and while Lance's Laundrty list looks impressive*

do the same for merckx or hinault and you'd need 2 or 3 posts. also there wouldn't be so many seconds and thirds. also LA's Tour Palmares besides the 6 wins are still 3rd or 4th.
uh eddy took a year off, won a couple other GT's, a handful of major classics and set the hour record. I'm neither an LA fan nor hater, but when people go waving the banner of best of the best I see where the haters get their attitude as it shows a very limited knowledge of the history of the sport. and I'm sorry, racing multiple GT's (and winning 2-3) with a load of race victories from Feb to October is far more difficult than training for 1 race and the other races which you either win or come close are part of the training schedule.


----------



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

Hey P-Quoddy,
Great to see that you can clip and paste with the best of them. I'll concede the Tour of Algarve, but I would not exactly call Tour de Georgia or Midi Libre class 1 races. Hmm, is Pantani still racing...(may he rest in peace). Both he and Ullrich are great riders, but neither of them are huge competition when one is banned because of drugs and the other can't "buy" a team like USPS. The Armstrong team is like the Yankees or the Orioles. But that's ok, you have the right to love Armstong, I just can't stand the guy.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*like steroid use*

use of EPO causes the body to stop 'natural' production. this causes levels to crash when not using and what causes racers to 'need' more EPO. I think Pantani was a classic example of this. when he broke his leg his H-Crit dropped from close to 60 to close to 15, until his team doctors showed up. It's why IMHO the big time users get caught. they have to keep using which ups their odds of detection.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

and don't forget the way that USPS brought up the opposition like Heras...


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*hey now*

Ullrich has a fine team. he actually has had more of a star riddled team than Lance has ever had. USPS is more like the patriots, unified in their cause (lance) where as Ullrichs T-Kom is not. Look, his best year against LA was w/ Bianchi where team was built more around him a la USPS. Postal isn't the only one buying up talent, they all do it so that point is moot. Heras can't win a TdF because he can't TT and his Vuelta record w/ Postal is far beyond (so far) what he achieved w/ anyone else. 
Now I wonder, why do you hate him sooo much? Do you know him, did he wrong you somehow? I neither hate nor love any cyclist or sporting star as I don't know any of them
nor do they affect my life in anyway. I assume to hate one rider is because you love another, can be the only reason and therefore smells of bitterness.
Personally the only Pro's I've met are Zabel, Lance and Tony Cruz, (plus a brief hullo to Floyd) and all were quite nice. I've never had enough personal interaction with any to be a lover or hater.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

wayneanneli said:


> Hey P-Quoddy,
> Great to see that you can clip and paste with the best of them. I'll concede the Tour of Algarve, but I would not exactly call Tour de Georgia or Midi Libre class 1 races. Hmm, is Pantani still racing...(may he rest in peace). Both he and Ullrich are great riders, but neither of them are huge competition when one is banned because of drugs and the other can't "buy" a team like USPS. The Armstrong team is like the Yankees or the Orioles. But that's ok, you have the right to love Armstong, I just can't stand the guy.


I just thought you needed to see the other wins to see that saying Lance only races the Tour is a stupid thing to say. 
Lance has beat Jan more times than I thought possible. He beat him when he was not banned. He beat him when Jan had a stronger team. Last year, Jan's team was so good, his own teammate finished second to Lance and the team beat USPS in the team competition. 
The Orioles? WTF?


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> do the same for merckx or hinault and you'd need 2 or 3 posts. also there wouldn't be so many seconds and thirds. also LA's Tour Palmares besides the 6 wins are still 3rd or 4th.
> uh eddy took a year off, won a couple other GT's, a handful of major classics and set the hour record. I'm neither an LA fan nor hater, but when people go waving the banner of best of the best I see where the haters get their attitude as it shows a very limited knowledge of the history of the sport. and I'm sorry, racing multiple GT's (and winning 2-3) with a load of race victories from Feb to October is far more difficult than training for 1 race and the other races which you either win or come close are part of the training schedule.


Don't misunderstand me. I think Merckx is the best ever. I'm just saying I don't think you'll see another rider win 6 Tours in a row, in this lifetime. Maybe I'm playing semantics, but that's what the term "Once in a lifetime" means. It doesn't mean the best ever.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> Postal is far beyond (so far) what he achieved w/ anyone else.
> Now I wonder, why do you hate him sooo much? .


Maybe I'm off base, but I have to throw out a theory. Drevelo66 hit on it.
She and Poshscot are British. Its either a love of David Walsh or a bitterness at having David Miller, the only Englishman with a chance at any notoriety, self destruct so spectacularly and so completely. Why should Miller get buster while Lance gets off?


----------



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

P-Quoddy said:


> I just thought you needed to see the other wins to see that saying Lance only races the Tour is a stupid thing to say.
> Lance has beat Jan more times than I thought possible. He beat him when he was not banned. He beat him when Jan had a stronger team. Last year, Jan's team was so good, his own teammate finished second to Lance and the team beat USPS in the team competition.
> The Orioles? WTF?



Yeah, the Orioles statement was way off the top (I knew I would get blasted for that one)... its true that Jan's team was great last year. One on one, Lance seemed to just dominate Jan at every turn. A couple of weeks ago, they had a piece on Lance showing him in that famous "over the shoulder look" at Jan from a few years ago, that was classic. I agree with a lot you say, maybe its because I'm one those guys on Lance overload.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

wayneanneli said:


> Yeah, the Orioles statement was way off the top (I knew I would get blasted for that one)... its true that Jan's team was great last year. One on one, Lance seemed to just dominate Jan at every turn. A couple of weeks ago, they had a piece on Lance showing him in that famous "over the shoulder look" at Jan from a few years ago, that was classic. I agree with a lot you say, maybe its because I'm one those guys on Lance overload.


And don't get the idea that I think Lance is perfect. I'll agree with people who say his heavy security style is putting distance between riders and the fans. And he does tend to bully other riders with the Elephantino comment and the unnecessary Simeoni incident. And I'll admit that Americans don't seem to have the capacity to adore a rider unless he's winning. We adored Lemond until Lance came around. Now Lemond is a villain and a joke to many. 
Maybe it took Lance some time to realize that his singular focus on the Tour can be seen as a lack of respect for the rest of cycling. At least it appears that he's willing to try to change that. I see it as a credit to his courage and competativeness that he's taking the risk and leaving the safe secure, tried and true routine of Tour only training before he retires.


----------



## wayneanneli (Jul 8, 2004)

P-Quoddy said:


> And don't get the idea that I think Lance is perfect. I'll agree with people who say his heavy security style is putting distance between riders and the fans. And he does tend to bully other riders with the Elephantino comment and the unnecessary Simeoni incident. And I'll admit that Americans don't seem to have the capacity to adore a rider unless he's winning. We adored Lemond until Lance came around. Now Lemond is a villain and a joke to many.
> Maybe it took Lance some time to realize that his singular focus on the Tour can be seen as a lack of respect for the rest of cycling. At least it appears that he's willing to try to change that. I see it as a credit to his courage and competativeness that he's taking the risk and leaving the safe secure, tried and true routine of Tour only training before he retires.


Everybody loves a winner, be it in team sports or individual pursuits. Here in Sweden, the national handball team is going through a transition with a lot of younger players getting the chance to show their stuff. But a world championships this year, it looks like Sweden will finish last in its group. People are crying in their soup comparing this year's team to the winning teams of the past, when Sweden was winning all major tournaments. Lance is a winner, no doubt about that. Maybe people like me should stop trying to compare him to great riders of the past and applaud what he has accomplished today and now in his own era. Certainly winning the TDF is no small achievemenet. Most riders will never even win a stage let alone the the tour. 
Cheers, Wayne


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I think that just comes across as the easy option, though - he'll retire probably after next season so there's this sudden mad scramble to make his palmares begin to match up to those of Merckx, Hinault etc (I think he's about 200 pro wins behind Hinault?). If he had ridden a fuller season, been competitive once the Tour finished, won Olympic gold, even tried for that GT double...Again, it can come across like he's ticking boxes, not as if he has sometimes developed some great remorse for the fact that his Tourcentric attitude might seem 'disrespectful' or whatever.

But that's just my perspective, because I think the whole USPS 'leave nothing to chance' style has had a fundamental effect on the way the Tour is ridden and has made a race where you once saw serious GC contenders go for the exploit and the breakaway win a race where the peloton won't attack til the last 6kms of the last climb. Some find that great because they are guaranteed a win by their man. I find it the dullest racing I've ever seen. But each to their own, right? At least the new crop - Sanchez at the TDU, Mayo when he gets back to full fitness, Cunego etc etc - really excite me with the prospect of racing in the post Armstrong era.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*racing style*

and lack of attacks at the Tour really just gives credit to the USPS Team. There's a few interviews with top climbers in the new cycle sport and they all admit USPS ran such a fast pace there were very little opportunities to attack. When a 190 rider peloton is whittled down to 30 and 9 postal riders are in the group it says something. Levi Leipheimer says that basically Lance and Basso just rode away from everyone who was left. he said he had one of the only chances in the entire tour to take a flyer. 
You still this possible in the Giro as pace tends to be a bit more 'piano' across the flats.
Pace is definitely a tad less aggressive which allows climbers ability to take that flyer off the front.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

trouble is, 9 USPS riders blowing out the best opposition in the world, genuine climbers etc etc, does tend to make people point the finger, doesn't it? I mean you can see why observers might think they're gassed - especially if believe Kloeden's assertion that other teams train just as hard and are just as methodical...


----------



## jumpstumper (Aug 17, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> trouble is, 9 USPS riders blowing out the best opposition in the world, genuine climbers etc etc, does tend to make people point the finger, doesn't it? I mean you can see why observers might think they're gassed - especially if believe Kloeden's assertion that other teams train just as hard and are just as methodical...


What a TROLL.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

just pointing out how these rumours can start. Thought this was a free and frank discussion about issues surrounding Armstrong's alleged doping. No frredom of speech when it comes to being at all critical of Armstrong then...


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> trouble is, 9 USPS riders blowing out the best opposition in the world, genuine climbers etc etc, does tend to make people point the finger, doesn't it? I mean you can see why observers might think they're gassed - especially if believe Kloeden's assertion that other teams train just as hard and are just as methodical...


It does raise suspicion. But you get less suspicious when you remember that the team scouts out most of the routes, more than any other team.
Most of their season has been built around conforming to Lance's goal. They have the added motivation and confidence that comes from being the stop team working for the top leader. And it's not like the riders kick ass while on Postal, then their performance suddenly drops off when they leave. Heras, Hamilton, and Levi are examples of that. Johan simply has an excellent eye for young talent. And quality riders WANT to ride for Postal to gain knowledge and work with a quality team that won't self-destruct. 

And when you furthermore remember that it isn't the entire nine riders who are blowing out the best opposition. Look at the final GC results. Floyd and Ace are able to take turns both on a single stage, and day to day. If one isn't feeling quite well, he'll pull and pull out early on. But they're all working for Lance each and every day. Nobody's working for mountain, sprint, young rider, or most aggressive honors.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*actually should kill the rumor*

as 9-9 test clean for the entire Tour and season. Heras leaves USPS says to the press "you don't have to train as hard as he does and be competitive" and gets his a$$ handed to him in the Tour.
Why every rider who joins the team seems to improve (Azevedo prime example)
if it was systematic doping, the riders leaving the team would have the knowledge and pass it on to their new team and their and their teams overall level would improve.
If you actually look at it as a whole it indicates more of LA amd Johann's training and strategy than anything else.
if it was 'better meds' we should have seen a more dominant Liberty Seguros (Heras)
Rabobank (Leipheimer)
CSC's dominance I clearly have to give to Bjarne. He's the King of rehabbing underachieving cyclists and he and Johann IMHO are the 2 best DS's out there.

Watch Vuelta's and see how USPS and CSC destroy squads in crosswinds as a fine example. Johann using the cobbled stages and his Big Motors (George and Eki) to ruin the climber threat early was another pure stroke of genius.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> Why every rider who joins the team seems to improve (Azevedo prime example) if it was systematic doping, the riders leaving the team would have the knowledge and pass it on to their new team and their and their teams overall level would improve.


That would only work if the soigneur or DS told the riders what they were given. If they were just told, "Here. Take this mystery pill and it will make you faster," they wouldn't know what to tell their next DS, so the record doesn't prove or disprove anything.

For the record, I don't see any reasonable evidence that USPS/Disco have every systematically used dope. Personally, I believe USPS got the record it did through hard work, clean living, and natural talent.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

the Museeuw text messages give you pause for thought though - seems he quite easily evaded a WADA control. I just can't see how any team is squeaky when one of the biggest names in the sport was doping. Still find that 'didn't test positive' defense the least credible.

But all good luck to them if hard training and clean living is truly the secret to their success - to me it doesn't quite ring true but, like I say, I'm a cycnic who believes that the majority of the peloton are doped.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Mystery Pill*

well I don't know about you guys but I don't take a darn thing that I don't know what it is.
DS, Soigniers don't normally disburse meds that would be for the doctor and I doubt anyone would ingest on blind faith, maybe do it because Lance does. But then again, if that ws the case there'd be ex posties looking for same drug. There'd be a tech somewhere that would hook them up for the right $. And this theory again point s to the
"LA and his friends at Bristol Meyers have a secret drug program' which is silly. A Top Secret doping program that only they are privvy to, doubtful. If it was the case, a Heras or a Leipheimer, Hamilton, etc.... would have leaked it by now or any person with a grudge or competing against.
I once again go to LA's present lawsuit with his assistant. If anyone had the skinny it would have been this guy, and if he did LA would have settled out of court because the guy would have been dangling it over his head. It just doesn't add up. Look at the evidence, or lack therof and you'll see there are a 1000 better reasons than some Top Secret Drug program.


----------



## poshscot (Dec 14, 2004)

P-Quoddy said:


> First off, I'll take this as a bonehead's perspective, not a British perspective.
> 
> bonehead eh, did i touch a nerve?
> 
> ...


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> And this theory again point s to the "LA and his friends at Bristol Meyers have a secret drug program' which is silly. A Top Secret doping program that only they are privvy to, doubtful. If it was the case, a Heras or a Leipheimer, Hamilton, etc.... would have leaked it by now or any person with a grudge or competing against.


There he goes again. Pounding on his strawman of super secret drug programs and conspiracies with Bristol Meyer. The next thing you know, ATP is going to tell us how Museeuw's couldn't have been doping because the thought of a secret research program between him and Merck is ludicrous, but Museeuw used common products that already exist, including products that can be tested for--sort of. Better throw out that strawman and invent another.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Fredke said:


> Personally, I believe USPS got the record it did through hard work, clean living, and natural talent.


Yeah, that's the ticket. The euro weenies just don't work hard enough. They are lazy slobs with no talent. If only they were born in america. They wouldn't have those socialist--and probably, red commie--tendencies. Then they might be worthy of respect from a god fearing, red blooded, meat eating, freedom loving, flag waving American, such as yourself.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

LMAO Utah - how right you are


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> It just doesn't add up. Look at the evidence, or lack therof and you'll see there are a 1000 better reasons than some Top Secret Drug program.


No argument from me, but I still say that your argument doesn't *prove* anything. 

The fact is that we can't prove whether or not Lance took dope. I'm the kind of guy who gives people the benefit of the doubt because you can't prove that you didn't dope and it's unfair to put people in the position of being judged guilty until proven innocent. 

I worry that pseudo-proofs of innocence tend not to actually prove anything, but make people imagine that innocence can be proved, which raises the bar on anyone under suspicion to somehow prove his innocence.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Yeah, that's the ticket. The euro weenies just don't work hard enough. They are lazy slobs with no talent. If only they were born in america. They wouldn't have those socialist--and probably, red commie--tendencies. Then they might be worthy of respect from a god fearing, red blooded, meat eating, freedom loving, flag waving American, such as yourself.


Dude! Stop drinking the Discovery Team Kool Ade! I didn't see Americans dominating the Giro, the Vuelta, the spring classics. All the king's horses and all the king's men don't seem to be able to put Hincapie on the podium at Roubaix, after all. Last time I checked euro-weenies won those events through---you guessed it---hard work, clean living, and natural talent. Same as Lance.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Fredke said:


> Last time I checked euro-weenies won those events through---you guessed it---hard work, clean living, and natural talent. Same as Lance.


Please, someone help a brother out and hook me up with their mineral water supplier. I could use some of that clean living.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Please, someone help a brother out and hook me up with their mineral water supplier. I could use some of that clean living.


I'd send you a case of Gerolsteiner water if it would help. In my case, the problem is that all the clean living in the world won't make up for lack of the other two components!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*strawman*

it ain't mine. it's all the tinfoil wearing conspiracy theorists. I'm just pointing to how it isn't very plausible given what we KNOW. since you seem to think it is better to base things on
RUMOR and SPECULATION and guilty until proven innocent I'll go back to my point last year. Afterall I heard this rumor from a reliable source.
You live under a bridge with a collection of Ken Dolls dressed in T-Mob kits (which you
made yourself) which you use for ononastic adventure. You prefer the company of gerbils
as they don't talk back so much.
Guilty: now disprove.


----------



## moving up (Feb 18, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> But no one attacks the Yellow Jersey when he's down and out!!!! How dare you suggest such a thing??!!! Love the way Armstrong has used that outrage on a few occassions...



On the other hand, I do remember LA holding back for Jan when Ullrich decided to go 4wheeling in the creek after missing a turn a few years back.


----------

