# VN.com:open letter from hampsten re.lemond



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

for the reading pleasure of the <i>lemond is a bitter, jealous washed up ex-pro who couldn't carry LA's water bottle</i> crowd:<br>
Andy Hampsten "<a href="http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6660.0.html">says</a> Greg LeMond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight."


----------



## FatSlowGuy (Jul 17, 2004)

I know I will be attacked for saying this, but Andy Hampsten sounds like he feels he is being left out. On another note, have any of you guys tried talking to Andy? Lance is an angel compared to this a**hole!


----------



## Miles E (Jul 31, 2003)

That was a pretty good letter, and I want to see cycling "clean" as much as the next guy, but a few questions:
-Why didn't LeMond or Hampsten speak up when they were riders?
-Why does Hampsten feel the need to go to great lengths to not implicate riders such as himself (presumably) and LeMond by saying teams were "forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit or become just another obscure rider in the group"? 
-So if we are to believe him the teams wanted a squad of mediocre riders, rather than having their "most gifted racers" become even faster by using EPO?

A step in the right direction, but it could be interpretted as these two ex-pros trying to clear their names, while simulataneously making the feeble suggestion that clean riders (such as they were) can no longer be found today.

I'm sure that if Armstrong could find friends/contemporaries of his own (even retired ones like Kevin Livingston) to back him up, those who believe he dopes would dismiss it in much the same way those who believe he doesn't dope dismiss LeMond and now Hampsten.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Hampsten's support of Lemond*

Its good to see Hampsten stand by and support Lemond. I'm glad they are both actively speaking out and trying to clean up this sport. Hopefully, more riders will speak up against today's worsening drug use and the ways the riders cheat the tests.

I really disliked the way Motorola pushed out the old guys, Hampsten, Anderson, Bauer, even Phinney. Remember it was former teamate Stephen Swart that said that Armstrong was at the forefront of pushing the new doping program at Motorola.


----------



## rendus (Jul 1, 2004)

Ricky2 said:


> Remember it was former teamate Stephen Swart that said that Armstrong was at the forefront of pushing the new doping program at Motorola.


Taken with a grain of salt


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

rendus said:


> Taken with a grain of salt





Add up all the salt grains and you have one pretty big freaking mountain.


----------



## FatSlowGuy (Jul 17, 2004)

But that mountain is built upon opinion, and no proof has been found.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

FatSlowGuy said:


> But that mountain is built upon opinion, and no proof has been found.




Actovegan is not an opininon. Neither is Armstrong's positive test for corticosteroid triamcinolone in 2001, that the UCI *later* sheepishly declared was a negative test.
http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_pre2000/comm_19990721.htm


----------



## Lazywriter (Mar 8, 2002)

*Oh man, here we go again. Ricky*

it really doesn't matter what your "gut feeling" is based on al lthe circumstantial "evidence" you seem to love so much. Bottom line is that Lance is dominating the TDF. They tes him based on the technology available and he is always clean. Period, end of discussion. He is not dodging any tests and why would he risk it? How do you know that the anti doping commision there haven't been developing a test that LA doesn't know about. Once they take his blood, they can do whatever they want with it. 
This whole "guilt by association therefore he must be on dope" is about as legitimate an argument for the existence of God when people say "how else did we get here?". Neither answer the question. \
My question to Lemond and Andy is, why now? Why come forward now? Where were they for all these years? Things is now, it is OK to hate Lance as he is too successful. In the beginning, he was such a heart felt story with the cancer that questioning him would have been a PR disaster, but now it is alright to knock him off his high horse. YOU ARE ALL HYPROCRITES. The day he admits to it or is proven to have doped, then I judge. Until then he deserves his success. 






Ricky2 said:


> Actovegan is not an opininon. Neither is Armstrong's positive test for corticosteroid triamcinolone in 2001, that the UCI *later* sheepishly declared was a negative test.
> http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_pre2000/comm_19990721.htm


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Miles E said:


> -So if we are to believe him the teams wanted a squad or mediocre riders, rather than having their "most gifted racers" become even faster by using EPO?



Miles, I have tried not to toss my opinion on this issue into these discussions in the past, but I will say one thing about what you asked. There is a very good reason for teams to want the lower riders to be doped. I am not going to go into much detail as to what I saw or even what went on in my own team when I was there, but I raced as an amateur on a Div 3 Belgian team in 1993. Now I was a super lowly little ol' American kid who just barely had enough money and talent to take my game overseas. I was nothing. No one special, and didn't stay long. But I saw a whole sh!tload of amphetamine use at the Div 3 and amateur levels then. I saw a little bit of steroid abuse, but nothing more than I would see in the states, and a little bit of pain killer abuse as well. Again, what I saw was nothing more than what someone participating in any sport in the US at a top amateur or lower-level professional level would see. Think college sports or maybe AAA baseball levels. 

But while I was there, there was talk of a lot of serious steroid use with stuff like Clenbuturol and Nandrolone. EPO was still a couple years off, and astronomically expensive for guys in my shoes. But one thing I did see was that teams were much more willing to encourage lowly domestiques and rouleurs to try some performance enhancing drugs. Why? Because first off, if you get caught, you have much less to lose. And more importantly, because it's not the top riders that need the extra boost, it's the guys who are being paid to support them but can't keep up, or don't have the strength and energy to push themselves to that limit every single day that needed the extra help. When I was racing, I knew that some of the guys whose names you wouldn't even remember from some bigger teams were doped. Not like you think of them being doped today, but just using the stuff that most high level racers would accept as the type of drugs you use to get you by. No one thought that if they were using mega amounts of caffeine to give them a kick in mile 88 of a 125 mile race that they were cheating. No one thought that if they got Cortisone injections into their hip or lower back because they couldn't move that they were cheating. No one thought that taking a few Darvocet so they could sleep thru the night without leg cramps that they were cheating. But to the point, the riders who were known to be using "a little something to get them thru the day" were most likely guys you have never and will never hear of or remember their names. It was the unknown guys. They were the ones who could cripple a team if they didn't do their jobs. But the overwhelming thought was it was OK for them to do it because these weren't guys who were trying to win races... they were just the guys who were trying to survive the day in the pack so they could do their jobs. Guys who if they got dropped, nobody was dropping back to get them to bring them back forward. Guys who if they got dropped didn't get the waterbottles to the team leaders when they were supposed to. Guys who if they got dropped in enough races, got dropped from the team and were out of a job.

Those are the guys who were the first to become "doped" as we think of them today. It is a very sad and unfortunate by product of the racing world that the public has come to expect everyday. There is the moral question of if they are cheating or not, but it is confused by the moral obligation that some have to feed their families. See the thing about professional sports across the world is that we overly glamorize our athletes. (And I am not trying to argue right or wrong here) but the consequence of that is that in any sport there are those that use sport as a job... as a means to earn a living. The moral issue for some of you on this board may be simple and clear cut... do drugs, you're a cheat.... but over in Europe where the average cyclist is not a superstar and makes the equivalent of 12 or 13 dollars an hour, cycling is not a glamorous sport, but a way to make a living without having to lay bricks or sod. On the team I was on, our top rider made what would amount in US currency in today's economy to about 28K a year. Not bad, but this was also the top guy on our team and he was in his 30's with a wife and 2 kids. Now before anyone starts the flame wars with attitudes such as "that's too bad, but he's still a cheat" keep in mind two things..... One is that I am not pointing fingers and won't say who was doped and who wasn't because the issue is not always black and white (how do you classify B-12 injections? How do you classify Caffeine? How do you classify NSAIDS) and two, I am offering this little piece of insight up only to help some people understand that the doping issue is not a simple one. If it were, it could easily be fixed. The problem is that it is a fuzzy line with top level riders having a huge advantage as they can afford to use drugs that haven't hit the banned lists yet, thereby staying out of trouble, and some guys ideals that if they aren't trying to win races, but only to do a job that everyone else is doing, then it's also not cheating.

The biggest issue in doping in sport, any sport, is that there is a certain climate surrounding that sport that really favors the athlete looking for that something extra. We expect fast competitive races everyday that we spend our time watching them... but the truth is that not every rider can be competitive all the time... but it is expected by the teams, the sponsors, and most importantly the fans. There is now some anti-doping backlash that has been around since the Festina affair, but the problem is that the climate to accept doping as an integral part of the sporting scene has been around since really the 30's and it is not going to go away in 5 years time. It could take another decade just to dent the surface. I hate the fact that the peloton isn't clean... I have seen much drug use first hand. Does that mean I condone it, or that I think Lance is on EPO...no. And I like the justice concept of innocent until proven guilty, but the truth is that we as a sports viewing public are not quite ready to prove our heroes guilty yet.

Again, I am not writing this to start any flame wars or "so and so is on EPO" and anyone who reads this is free to not believe what I have seen. After all, it's just the internet, and you guys don't know me from any other person on here. But I hope that someone will read this and think a little more about how big and complex of an issue drug use in sport is. Do a little research on the subject. It makes for a great morality debate and some interesting discussion too. I will be happy to talk about this to anyone who wants to talk openly and intelligently about it, but I will not respond to flames or people with preset bias one way or the other. I will also go on record as saying other than drinking a$$-loads of coffee (which I never used to drink, and haven't drank since) and taking way too much Ibuprofen, I never had the chance to try any really good drugs. I just didn't have the money to pay for it all, so luckily I never had to cross that moral bridge.

Guys, when you read this, try to keep an open mind and see the message. This is a complex issue that won't go away anytime soon unless there is a drastic change in attitude about drugs in sport at any and all levels in all sports.


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

russw19,
that is a GREAT post.
thank you.
e-RICHIE


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

Ricky2 said:


> Actovegan is not an opininon. Neither is Armstrong's positive test for corticosteroid triamcinolone in 2001, that the UCI *later* sheepishly declared was a negative test.
> http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_pre2000/comm_19990721.htm



The level was 1/1000 of the limit proposed at the time.

It was a cream he used on his sack due to saddle sores at least that was what was declared.

Does your post have a point? I have seen or met both Lemond and Hampsten and guess what? They are a%%holes. So what? We watch them bike. Thats it.

Every sport has a person who is a prick but was great. Ever try to chat with Ted Williams? or how about the BIGGEST A55HOLE IN THE UNVIVERSE: DAN MARINO?


----------



## Niwot (Jul 16, 2004)

*Presumption of innocence*

Great post, Russ. Thanks for your insight. 

This whole debate would have generated a lot more light than heat if everyone had taken the approach you take, rather than LeMond's unfortunate choice to mingle the anti-drug message with the grudges he bears from his own career and his personal resentment of Armstrong's success.




russw19 said:


> the truth is that we as a sports viewing public are not quite ready to prove our heroes guilty yet.


That's a fact, and it explains a lot of how this issue plays out especially with respect to Armstrong. Americans grow up in a culture that respects individual rights and we accept "innocent until proven guilty" as a truth. In Europe, for better or worse (I happen to think worse, but I'm an American, of course), there is no presumption of innocence. When prosecutors in France, for example, finger a suspect and bring charges, they don't have the same burden of proof that American prosecutors have. We Americans tend to give individuals the benefit of the doubt when unproven accusations are hurled at them. Europeans don't; it's not part of their culture.

So we give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt because there is no proof. Many Europeans, especially those who don't like a self-confident American dominating the Tour, don't give Lance the benefit of the doubt and they probably think he's guilty unless he proves himself innocent. Of course many of these same French cycling fans probably believe their own heroes like Virenque, Brochard, and others were the innocent victims of a conspiracy.

And Lance is a hero to Americans, another reason he gets the benefit of the doubt from us. To many European cycling fans (and LeMond), Lance is an anti-hero and they will always assume his accusers are correct until there is indisputable proof to the contrary.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Hampsten, "I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems"*

Great post Russ. I was in Belgium around the same time. I wonder if we knew any of the same people. Check your PM soon.

I am no fan of Armstrong and I find it really shitty that there are people that will go to the ends of the universe to attack Greg Lemond and Andy Hampsten (the real American pioneers of US Cycling) who are willing to speak out against drug abuse in our sport. Use the words drug and anyone remotely close to Armstrong and you've earned yourself violent threats from Mr. Armstrong himself.

...excerpt from Eurosport News
"Lance was violent and very accusatory," LeMond said, rehashing a July, 2001 phone conversation with Armstrong in which the five-time Tour winner took issue with statements made by LeMond to David Walsh, a sports columnist at London's Sunday Times and co-author of "L.A. Confidential."


----------



## Gator (Mar 14, 2002)

*Blah blah blahbidy blah*

Well, if you read the article, it makes no mention of Lance, or anyone else for that matter. But back (for the millionth freakin' time) to that issue: No proof, no case.

Until there is conclusive:
-Blood evidence
-Physical evidence
-Documentation and/or
-Video or audio

that incriminates Lance, ya got JACK. 

Why are we hearing from these two now? Me thinks they're drinking one too many beers, watching Lance get the impossible sixth, watching the five hundred hours of Only Lance Network, seeing the seven Lance ad campaigns, thinking back to their far less glorious days and feeling a bit left out.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Why NOT now? Drugs are a problem, especially NOW!*



Gator said:


> Why are we hearing from these two now? Me thinks they're drinking one too many beers, watching Lance get the impossible sixth, watching the five hundred hours of Only Lance Network, seeing the seven Lance ad campaigns, thinking back to their far less glorious days and feeling a bit left out.



Did you even read the letter Hampsten wrote? If you did, it would've answered your question. Probably not to your satisfaction though because Armstrong could committ murder and you'd still side with him.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6660.0.html

Hampsten, "Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping."


----------



## Gator (Mar 14, 2002)

Hey partner--news flash. Cyclist have been doping at the Tour since the day it started. Strychnine, booze, meth, EPO: same as it ever was. EPO has been a huge issue since the mid 90s, and if the Festina scandal didn't produce a peep from either of them, you really have to wonder why a few zero-evidence accusations against Lance are producing this firestorm.


----------



## george_da_trog (Feb 12, 2004)

russw19 said:


> Not like you think of them being doped today, but just using the stuff that most high level racers would accept as the type of drugs you use to get you by. .


This pretty much follows what Paul Kimmage said in his book.

george


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Gator said:


> Well, if you read the article, it makes no mention of Lance, or anyone else for that matter. Why are we hearing from these two now?



I get the impression that Hampsten (whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, and he was a very nice guy and generously giving of his time to me when I had the chance to speak to him) isn't making a comment about Lance, but rather he is making a comment that it is time for past riders to speak out against doping in general. Hampsten is not pointing any fingers at Lance, but rather pointing at the whole of the peloton. He's pointing the finger at those who are doped and are getting away with it, and he's pointing the finger to those who know who the doped riders are and are letting them get away with it. He's pointing the finger at the team doctors who are administering the drugs, and the team directors who are allowing doped riders to ride. 

I wrote a post above about just what I have personally seen in a short 4 month stint in Europe, but from my own eyes, it's not just a rider issue. It's the whole of sport. And not just the whole of cycling, but of all sports. Anytime you have competition you will have competitive people.... and that leads to victory and loss, winners and losers, and ultimately cheaters who will win at any cost rather than suffer the humility of defeat. I liked what Hampsten said in his letter. He doesn't say that the riders are at fault, but rather seems to imply what I beleive and that is that the system as a whole is at fault. It's to the point now where drugs (legal and the underground kind) are so interwoven into sport that it is hard to clean up the sport because the lines are no longer black and white. Like I mentioned in my above post, how can you state that taking a pain killer like Darvocet is wrong, but you allow cortosone shots directly into sore muscles and joints? How can we also label the cheats as cheaters just because they were either unlucky enough or stupid enough to get caught when everyone knows that there are top level riders who happen to spend enough money on drugs to stay ahead of the testing curve?

I have always found one gigantic loophole in the drug testing rules, and it's just like cops and criminals in real life. The guys taking the drugs are ALWAYS going to have the advantage.... they know exactly what is on the banned list and what the acceptable limits are for those drugs. All you need to do is find a drug that works wonders that is not on the list. Until it gets put on the list, it's as legal as B-12 injections.For several years that drug was EPO. Now that it's on the list, who knows what the next one will be. But it will be all the rage in underground circles until it is put on the list too. The problem for those trying to clean up the sport is that you can only take action against a rider who tests for something on the list. Like cops and criminals... the crooks know that the cops MUST follow the law, but the crooks don't have to. So if you are unscrupulous or just don't think you are doing anything wrong, you have the upper hand. (Think Pedro Delgado in 1988)

The sad thing is that I tend to think one of the only ways this will ever end is if it becomes OK in society to call someone a cheat because you know they are one... even if you can't show the rest of the world the proof. (That is not a comment against Lance so don't take it as such!) Unless those that are truely clean are willing to come forth and name names, then the cheats will continue to fly just under the radar doing what they do.

At least that is some more of my opinions on drugs in sport... feel free to disagree.

Russ


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

I am glad a few of you guys found that post interesting... I just reread it, and it's sort of sloppy in its writing and flow. I may rewrite it and clean it up some so it's more clear and repost it, but in the meantime, I think the main point is clear. I didn't proofread that post very well and banged it out real quick while my GF was cooking dinner for me, so I wrote it a little fast and it shows in some sloppiness. But again, I think my point about how drugs in sport is a much deeper issue than we all want to accept is clear enough. I tend to think that we as the race fans and we as the consumer buying what the racers and their sponsors are selling us are also partly to blame for the drug culture in sport. Until we as the fans are willing to not put up with this anymore, it will continue to happen. I like seeing Virenque getting his 7th Polka Dot jersey and I believe that he suffered his share for his wrong doings, but the fans are the ones who ultimately cheer him on and are absolving him of his misdeeds. When the time comes that a rider caught doesn't get a 2nd chance is when we as fans make headway against the drug issue. I just hope it happens before it consumes another generation of riders. And THAT is why I fully support what Andy Hampsten had to say in his letter. He isn't speaking out against Lance, but he is speaking out for the kids. And that you have to admire whether you like the guy or not.

Russ


----------



## Gator (Mar 14, 2002)

Oh, I have nothing against what Hampsten said; I found it quite positive, in fact. And truth be told, while I admire him for his focus and his battle against cancer, I'm not a huge Lance fan. 

And while I hear what you're saying Russ, you just can't "know" someone is on drugs and condemn them. Certainly, it seems LIKELY that Lance dopes and he may simply be injesting tons of drugs that are either new or undetectable. But maybe he's not, and until ANYONE has ANY credible evidence, you HAVE to give him the benefit of the doubt. As our buddy Al pointed out tonight, Wilt Chamberlin once scored 100 points one game back in the 1970s. Does it seem suspect, impossible?Sure, but as far as I know, he was just a phenomenal player. Maybe Lance just IS this good. Scary, but possible.


----------



## Lazywriter (Mar 8, 2002)

*[email protected], you are such a Lance basher that*

is just yearning to find some dirt. Your bias is just as bad as someone who would unconditionally accept a known doper. BUT THE THING IS THAT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE AN A$$HOLE IS THAT YOU USE THE WORD DOPING AND LANCE AS IF THEY GO HAND IN HAND. You take heresay and TOTAL SPECULATION to try and your point which is unfounded. You even read into Andy's statement as support for Lance being a doper. Fact is that Lemond has been a whiner for a long time and if he had any proof whatsoever on LA, he would have used it. Not being a LA fan is fine, but constantly implying that he is on drugs with no proof other than your hope that he is makes you look pathetic. 






russw19 said:


> I get the impression that Hampsten (whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, and he was a very nice guy and generously giving of his time to me when I had the chance to speak to him) isn't making a comment about Lance, but rather he is making a comment that it is time for past riders to speak out against doping in general. Hampsten is not pointing any fingers at Lance, but rather pointing at the whole of the peloton. He's pointing the finger at those who are doped and are getting away with it, and he's pointing the finger to those who know who the doped riders are and are letting them get away with it. He's pointing the finger at the team doctors who are administering the drugs, and the team directors who are allowing doped riders to ride.
> 
> I wrote a post above about just what I have personally seen in a short 4 month stint in Europe, but from my own eyes, it's not just a rider issue. It's the whole of sport. And not just the whole of cycling, but of all sports. Anytime you have competition you will have competitive people.... and that leads to victory and loss, winners and losers, and ultimately cheaters who will win at any cost rather than suffer the humility of defeat. I liked what Hampsten said in his letter. He doesn't say that the riders are at fault, but rather seems to imply what I beleive and that is that the system as a whole is at fault. It's to the point now where drugs (legal and the underground kind) are so interwoven into sport that it is hard to clean up the sport because the lines are no longer black and white. Like I mentioned in my above post, how can you state that taking a pain killer like Darvocet is wrong, but you allow cortosone shots directly into sore muscles and joints? How can we also label the cheats as cheaters just because they were either unlucky enough or stupid enough to get caught when everyone knows that there are top level riders who happen to spend enough money on drugs to stay ahead of the testing curve?
> 
> ...


----------



## cyclist1969 (Jun 25, 2004)

*my 2 cents*

Russ, well said. I don't believe AH to be vindictive or "rushing in" to defend Lemond's statements. Based on what I read he just seems to be making a point about drug use in the peloton in general. I would like to add though, its not like this is any new problem. Where were these statements when he was riding? Lemond? Not that the statements now have any less validity. Just a question. 

If the UCI sets hematocrit levels at 50% (fairly arbitrary) and you come in under 50%, did you "dope?" What if one rider who is naturally 44% and uses EPO to get up to 48% and another does the same thing with an altitude tent.......? Why is it that when say Payton Manning gets a cortizone injection in the middle of a game (just an example) for severe pain in order to continue playing, he is called "tough," "heroic," etc, etc.? A cyclist uses a medicated cream for a saddle sore (horribly painful), and he is a cheater.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*Lazy fools*



Lazywriter said:


> is just yearning to find some dirt. Your bias is just as bad as someone who would unconditionally accept a known doper. BUT THE THING IS THAT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE AN A$$HOLE IS THAT YOU USE THE WORD DOPING AND LANCE AS IF THEY GO HAND IN HAND. You take heresay and TOTAL SPECULATION to try and your point which is unfounded. You even read into Andy's statement as support for Lance being a doper. Fact is that Lemond has been a whiner for a long time and if he had any proof whatsoever on LA, he would have used it. Not being a LA fan is fine, but constantly implying that he is on drugs with no proof other than your hope that he is makes you look pathetic.



Lazywriter. You really are a piece of "work". I'm reading Hampsten's letter and I'm agreeing on all points. Guys like Russ have been there and seen the widespread level of doping in this sport. I'm siding with the others in the minority who don't think Armstrong is the pristine angel you so desire. Hell, I'll even go further and my opinion is the same as your hateboy Ricky and a couple others. He's not clean. Your MO is to attack a person rather than debate an argument. And I've noticed that you have a few that you pick on that stick to the topic, while you turn it into a war on spitfest. YOU are the pathetic fool, not others. Either debate the point of view of the forum user, or get the **** out. And this is in defense of Lemond and any other person on this forum that speaks out against drugs AND who has an opinion that may not conform to yours!


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Then Armstrong lied on the Pre-Tour form*



cyclist1969 said:


> Why is it that when say Payton Manning gets a cortizone injection in the middle of a game (just an example) for severe pain in order to continue playing, he is called "tough," "heroic," etc, etc.? A cyclist uses a medicated cream for a saddle sore (horribly painful), and he is a cheater.



Its total hearsay that Armstrong used a "medicated cream" for a saddle sore and then tested positive for triamcinolone. On the other hand, there is personal knowledge of a witness (Emma O'Reilly) who states that the prescription for triamcinolone was fabricated after Armstrong's positive test. Armstrong's answer on the Pre-Tour questionnaire that year supports O'Reilly's claim. Armstrong's written answer on the questionnaire states "none" as to whether he was not using any prescription or non-prescription medication.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*yep*



Ricky2 said:


> Its total hearsay that Armstrong used a "medicated cream" for a saddle sore and then tested positive for triamcinolone. On the other hand, there is personal knowledge of a witness (Emma O'Reilly) who states that the prescription for triamcinolone was fabricated after Armstrong's positive test. Armstrong's answer on the Pre-Tour questionnaire that year supports O'Reilly's claim. Armstrong's written answer on the questionnaire states "none" as to whether he was not using any prescription or non-prescription medication.



Good point. Unlike some dolt Lance Fan Club Members, let's stick to the topic. If Armstrong did, in fact, lie on the Tour Form, why does he get off clean when other riders don't. I don't think the Tour Prez, Leblanc, wants to know the truth.


----------



## cyclist1969 (Jun 25, 2004)

*Once Again*



Ricky2 said:


> Its total hearsay that Armstrong used a "medicated cream" for a saddle sore and then tested positive for triamcinolone. On the other hand, there is personal knowledge of a witness (Emma O'Reilly) who states that the prescription for triamcinolone was fabricated after Armstrong's positive test. Armstrong's answer on the Pre-Tour questionnaire that year supports O'Reilly's claim. Armstrong's written answer on the questionnaire states "none" as to whether he was not using any prescription or non-prescription medication.


you missed the point, stand up on your soapbox and dole out the same tired blibble blabble as you always do. Yes, we all know how much you hate LA. I personally don't care. Though I used the "cream" analogy, it was used to illustrate a larger point. Thankfully, not everybody is as single-focused as a few. 

Oh yea.........SIX!


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*****! Dude, here's your link.*



cyclist1969 said:


> you missed the point, stand up on your soapbox and dole out the same tired blibble blabble as you always do. Yes, we all know how much you hate LA. I personally don't care. Though I used the "cream" analogy, it was used to illustrate a larger point. Thankfully, not everybody is as single-focused as a few.
> 
> Oh yea.........SIX!



You're the one that brought up the "cream" analogy. Not me. And no, I did not make up the Lance "lie" on the Tour form either. Its been reported already on most of the cycling mags out there. Here's your citation:
"What is more, in the official report that followed the test, Lance Armstrong had written under the heading "Drugs Taken" - Nothing."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml - There! Damn! I have to link freaking everything for the Lance can do no Wrong crowd!


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Gator said:


> And while I hear what you're saying Russ, you just can't "know" someone is on drugs and condemn them.


Oh I absolutely 100% agree! My point was simply that barring an atmosphere where something like that happens, you will always have some sort of cheating in all sports. Be it performance enhancing drug use, point shaving, foul play, or just bending the rules when you can get away with it. Which leads me to resign that with sport you get cheating. Not that I am cynic, with sport you get amazing and inspirational stories of triumph and defeat, and that is all that makes sport good... but the downside is that there will always be a downside to sort of deflate all the highs of sport.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Lazywriter said:


> is just yearning to find some dirt. Your bias is just as bad as someone who would unconditionally accept a known doper. BUT THE THING IS THAT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE AN A$$HOLE IS THAT YOU USE THE WORD DOPING AND LANCE AS IF THEY GO HAND IN HAND. You take heresay and TOTAL SPECULATION to try and your point which is unfounded. You even read into Andy's statement as support for Lance being a doper. Fact is that Lemond has been a whiner for a long time and if he had any proof whatsoever on LA, he would have used it. Not being a LA fan is fine, but constantly implying that he is on drugs with no proof other than your hope that he is makes you look pathetic.



Lazy, is this directed at me? What brought this on? And what is up with your personal attacks? Calling people a$$holes because they don't beleive the same things you do? I even totally explained that what I said was just my opinion.. if you don't share it, that's great, but what's up with the personal attacks? For Christ's sake I even made it a point to say nothing in my post was a statement against Lance.

And if this isn't directed at me, why did you quote my post while going on your tirade? Even if you really meant this for Ricky2, again, why the need for personal attacks? He hasn't called you anything derogatory in this thread. 

WTF?


----------



## reklar (Mar 15, 2003)

Ricky2 said:


> You're the one that brought up the "cream" analogy. Not me. And no, I did not make up the Lance "lie" on the Tour form either. Its been reported already on most of the cycling mags out there. Here's your citation:
> "What is more, in the official report that followed the test, Lance Armstrong had written under the heading "Drugs Taken" - Nothing."
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml - There! Damn! I have to link freaking everything for the Lance can do no Wrong crowd!


Do you really think LA thought of a topical cream as a drug? I certainly wouldn't have.


----------



## superguy (Jul 25, 2004)

*My 2 cents...*

This is my 2 cents on this whole bull. 

Lance has said he has never taken performance enhancing drugs. Well, he is lying. Why, EPO is a cancer drug. It is given to EVERY single cancer patient out there. It is used to rebuild red blood cells after chemo. Something Lance went through. So, for him to say he hasn't taken them, he is wrong. Or, is he saying that he never used them while racing? Honestly, I don't believe him. I also know that LeMond has admitted to using things in the past, what I don't remember, but it's in writting. He also said that his team was bribbed to lose certain races as well as he him self was told he would get money if he lost. Now, Hampsten I am not sure about. 

For everyone to be saying that Lance is clean is dumb. There are tons of drugs out there that are not detectable yet! Just because alot of riders don't test positive for drugs on the banned list, does not mean they are not taking something. It just means they haven't gotten caught and they have a good drug that the testers are not aware of yet.

Look at Balco, hell, they never knew about those drugs until someone came forward told them about it and designed tests to test for the drugs Balco was making. 

I personally think Lance is an arragant ASS. I have met him personally being in the industry. He was not even remotely nice to myself and the others around. And I didn't even want anything! All I did was say hello! I wasn't bugging him, talking to him, getting stuff for him to sign or anything. I happened to be walking next to him and said hey and the others around use talked to him a bit and weren't aksing for anything, they just asked how he was doing and when he was getting back to racing. This was in 1999, right after the cancer. So, maybe he had roid rage, maybe he was tired, l don't know. But, when you are a celebrity and you act like an ass, you should expect people to treat you like that back. I have met alot of famous people, Merckx, Colnago and others, and every single one of them was beyond accomidating. Hell Merckx was flirting with my wife!

All that matters in this whole thing is that the drug makers stop making their ****. It is ruining the sport, one that l have been in since 84. I have raced, been a pro mechanic, parts maker and store owner. I hate watching racing now. It isn't fun. I was so happy to hear about Thomas Voekler this year. I was glad to see someone new kicking ass! 

l will leave everyone with this, LeMond was minutes from death, -Lance, years possibly. LeMond had more aggressive rivals, and many more of them, basically the entire pelton,-Lance, maybe 3 real rivals. LeMond, innovator,- Lance, copy cat. LeMond, gratious and polite, - Lance, rude--the reports have said so many times!

I do have to say that Lance is a hero. He has made cycling popular again. But if the media was more gun-ho in 1986, LeMond would have been the King of the World with his literal brush with death. But do you really think the Tour Directors would give up the opportunity to make cycling popular again by letting Lances test results come back positive? I don't think so. Look at the sponsors, Coke, Trek, Nike---three of the LARGEST companies in the world. If Lance came back positive, they would lose money hand over hand. No one ever thinks of it that way!


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

FatSlowGuy said:


> I know I will be attacked for saying this, but Andy Hampsten sounds like he feels he is being left out. On another note, have any of you guys tried talking to Andy? Lance is an angel compared to this a**hole!



You must have caught him on a very bad day. I've met both Andy and Greg, both are a couple of the nicest guys you'd ever hope to meet. One of the wrenches at the shop went to Italy and rode with Andy for 2 weeks, and had nothing but praise for him as a person, a rider, and a cook. In his 40s, he could still rip the legs off of anyone on this board, but he'd rather just ride and chat, and drink some wine afterward.

Both LeMond and Hampsten are speaking out. That's good. One of the biggest problems is the "law of silence" that surrounds drug use in sport. The organizations aren't any help, the bad publicity would cut into their profits. The athletes won't talk, for fear of loosing their jobs. It's left to the ones who've made their money and retired to speak, because they have nothing to loose. And if anybody thinks speaking out about drug use in cycling is easy or safe, they should ask Paul Kimmage. He got death threats after his book came out.

Now that some time has passed, we're starting to hear admissions from some of the stars. Fignon and Roche come to mind. Lack of a positive test result simply means that the athlete hasn't tested positive. It doesn't mean that they're clean. Just ask David Millar.

For the record, I believe Lance is clean. Perhaps that's because I don't want him to be dirty, but I don't think he's doping. But to say that Lemond and Hampsten are simply jealous of Lance's success is too easy. Both of them have more money than they could ever hope to spend, both of them are legends in the sport, and without them, Lance would never have gotten to race in Europe. They were there, they know all of the players, and they know the game better than anyone here. I don't pretend to know their motivations, but I doubt jealousy is it.

I for one am glad they're not being quiet. I could wish they had been saying these things when they were still racing, but better late than never.

--Shannon


----------



## Duane Gran (Feb 3, 2004)

I applaud the sentiment of what Andy says, concerning cleaning up the sport and promoting a safe environment for athletes, but I don't think we will get there by defaming the character of top athletes. LeMond effectively accused Armstrong of doping without any concrete evidence. I find it hard to believe that the sport will be cleaned up through witch hunting tactics.


----------



## 7eap4a (Sep 4, 2003)

*Damn*

Ricky man, try decafe. You need to chill. Sorry if I let my mind wander while you go on with your incoherent psycobabble.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

blackhat said:


> for the reading pleasure of the <i>lemond is a bitter, jealous washed up ex-pro who couldn't carry LA's water bottle</i> crowd:<br>
> Andy Hampsten "<a href="http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6660.0.html">says</a> Greg LeMond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight."


If the entire pro peloton is "doped", how is it that Greg Lemond still holds the record for the fastest time trial in Tour history? This record was set on a bike, that while somewhat aerodynamic, possessed a fraction of the aerodynamic advantage that modern TT bikes posess....

If the entire peloton is "doped" (Lance included), they it would be reasonable to have expected Lance (in at least ONE of is 9 or so Tour TT victories) to shatter Lemond's TT record...


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

so what if lance used EPO when he had cancer? the guy was next to dead! it was hardly performance enhancing in that context. that is the intended use for EPO after all. I'm not so naive to think Lance never took anything. Maybe he did. Just that now nobody has proof or is willing to name names. And I think that is uncool. If Lance is cheating then somebody should out him and he should pay the price. If not I feel sorry for him with all these doubters and accusers coming forward and questioning his integrity.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

*pot, meet kettle*



Ricky2 said:


> I am no fan of Armstrong and I find it really shitty that there are people that will go to the ends of the universe to attack Greg Lemond and Andy Hampsten


whereas you (and a few others) will go to the ends of the universe to attack LA. whats the difference?


----------



## superguy (Jul 25, 2004)

Lance was far from next to death. A very well respected cancer specialist at one of the Worlds top hospitals flat out told me that the cancer he had was the best kind to have. It is the most easily cured. Now, I am not saying good for him for having cancer or anyone else for that matter. I dont wish illness on anyone. But again, LeMond was literally minutes from death, Lance had alot longer than minutes.

As for EPO, again, do you really think that the Tour is going to tell everyone in the World, that a guy who had cancer, on a US team, with US sponsors, on a US bike companies bike, with some of the largest companies in the world, not to mention the US Friggin Government backing the team, that he is doping!? It would kill cycling forever! And all of the cancer patients would be crushed to boot!

He is a hero, for giving people hope, but I don't believe for a second, that he did it clean.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

superguy said:


> This is my 2 cents on this whole bull.
> 
> Lance has said he has never taken performance enhancing drugs. Well, he is lying. Why, EPO is a cancer drug. It is given to EVERY single cancer patient out there. It is used to rebuild red blood cells after chemo. Something Lance went through. So, for him to say he hasn't taken them, he is wrong. Or, is he saying that he never used them while racing?


i believe he admits to using EPO for cancer treatment.


superguy said:


> For everyone to be saying that Lance is clean is dumb. There are tons of drugs out there that are not detectable yet! Just because alot of riders don't test positive for drugs on the banned list, does not mean they are not taking something. It just means they haven't gotten caught and they have a good drug that the testers are not aware of yet.


whoa, how are they dumb? just because there are things that arent tested for yet does not mean that everyone is taking them. your logic is flawed. yes, he may be on drugs that are ahead of the curve. but, he may also be clean. to provide a definitive answer either way is questionable without proof. to call people dumb for saying he is clean is rude.


----------



## Gator (Mar 14, 2002)

*We have no one but ourselves to blame.*

As far as Lance and doping, we can yammer on forever, but until there's tangible, credible proof, no of us will ever know--for sure--that he's juiced. And while we all condemn the peloton for doping, and Bush has his cornball steroid crusade going on, I think we really have to look to ourselves for the reason this crap goes on.

Truth is, I don't think the public REALLY wants drug-free sports. I think we BELIEVE we do, and no one, save the most crazed fan, wants to see anyone kill themselves to improve performance. But I'm not sure most sports fans are ready for the reality of drug-free sports.

With cycling, let's forget the practical side for a moment: that 90% of the sport's money would have to go to testing and that there might be three races a year, since it would take a month to test every rider in the race for every performance-enhancing drug known. Plus, you'd never get them all, anyway.

But let's suppose the sport is now 100% squeaky clean. This would mean, in all likelihood, that no current record will ever be broken. It will mean that performance will decrease dramatically, that careers will be much shorter. You'll find that pros are riding at a level that's not much better than your local crit hammer. You'll be looking at maybe 35-40% of the riders even finishing the great stage races. It's pure, it's fair, but is it exciting? Is it what the public wants to see? Is it what SPONSORS want to see? I'm not so sure.

So before we go and vilify the racers and promoters, I think we might want to look in the mirror first.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

superguy said:


> Lance was far from next to death. A very well respected cancer specialist at one of the Worlds top hospitals flat out told me that the cancer he had was the best kind to have. It is the most easily cured. Now, I am not saying good for him for having cancer or anyone else for that matter. I dont wish illness on anyone. But again, LeMond was literally minutes from death, Lance had alot longer than minutes.


the drs(the "very well respected cancer specialists at one of the Worlds top hospitals") who actually treated him seemed to disagree that he was far from death. yes, he had more than minutes, but he was still close.


----------



## jschrotz (Feb 3, 2004)

*LeMond's TT*



James OCLV said:


> If the entire pro peloton is "doped", how is it that Greg Lemond still holds the record for the fastest time trial in Tour history? This record was set on a bike, that while somewhat aerodynamic, possessed a fraction of the aerodynamic advantage that modern TT bikes posess....
> 
> If the entire peloton is "doped" (Lance included), they it would be reasonable to have expected Lance (in at least ONE of is 9 or so Tour TT victories) to shatter Lemond's TT record...



LeMond's TT record was set on a short course, something like 25k in length. I also remember LeMond saying that when he was warming up for that ride that there was a tailwind that day and he didn't think he'd be able to make up all that time on Fignon because of it.


----------



## thegarzacomplex (Jul 8, 2003)

"I was so happy to hear about Thomas Voekler this year. I was glad to see someone new kicking ass! "


Didn't you hear Voelkler is a doper...how else could he kicked ass like that...Basso too. Hell, the whole tour was probably on dope, which leveled the playing field, and Lance still ended up in first place.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Code of Silence*

I agree in this in the peloton. I also believe it's been there as far as I can remember. Anquetil spoke about it, etc... But I do find it lame that guys (retired, who've made their money, fame, etc..) probably with whatever was available during their era (US Olympic Centrifugal blood doping, etc..) have to bash the present. If you are going to say "all guys are doping now but we were clean" I find your testimony BS, at least Fignon had the decency to admit his usage and that it was his choice and he'll pay the long-term consequences. If you want a clean sport, you should have spoken about it then, by doing so now especially while denying any involvement that could shed light on it is just biting the hand that fed you.


----------



## reklar (Mar 15, 2003)

superguy said:


> This is my 2 cents on this whole bull.
> Lance has said he has never taken performance enhancing drugs. Well, he is lying. Why, EPO is a cancer drug. It is given to EVERY single cancer patient out there. It is used to rebuild red blood cells after chemo. Something Lance went through. So, for him to say he hasn't taken them, he is wrong. Or, is he saying that he never used them while racing? Honestly, I don't believe him. I also know that LeMond has admitted to using things in the past, what I don't remember, but it's in writting. He also said that his team was bribbed to lose certain races as well as he him self was told he would get money if he lost. Now, Hampsten I am not sure about.


So you think that since Lemond has admitted that he cheated in the past, he's more credible than Armstrong? That logic doesn't make sense...


superguy said:


> For everyone to be saying that Lance is clean is dumb. There are tons of drugs out there that are not detectable yet! Just because alot of riders don't test positive for drugs on the banned list, does not mean they are not taking something. It just means they haven't gotten caught and they have a good drug that the testers are not aware of yet.


Sure, but unless he tests positive or there is credible evidence against him, he's clean. Otherwise you can claim that the entire peleton is on drugs, etc. The degrees of separation are too small (the whole peleton has raced with David Millar, so they must have doped too.). There has been no credible evidence that Armstrong has doped. And if you look at his results, they are more consistent than any of those who have doped in the past. Look at David Millar or Pantani. Their performance would vary wildly...


superguy said:


> Look at Balco, hell, they never knew about those drugs until someone came forward told them about it and designed tests to test for the drugs Balco was making.


Of course. There will always be a war between the evil docs and the good docs. That doesn't mean LA has been using drugs.


superguy said:


> I personally think Lance is an arragant ASS.


What does this have to do with the price of eggs in china?


superguy said:


> Hell Merckx was flirting with my wife!


And you consider this a good thing?


superguy said:


> All that matters in this whole thing is that the drug makers stop making their ****.


It is supply and demand. If there were no demand for it, they'd stop. There are cheaters out there however...e.g., Pantani, David Millar, etc.


superguy said:


> It isn't fun. I was so happy to hear about Thomas Voekler this year. I was glad to see someone new kicking ass!


As the previous poster said, by your rationale Voeckler must be doped too.


superguy said:


> l will leave everyone with this, LeMond was minutes from death, -Lance, years possibly. LeMond had more aggressive rivals, and many more of them, basically the entire pelton,-Lance, maybe 3 real rivals. LeMond, innovator,- Lance, copy cat. LeMond, gratious and polite, - Lance, rude--the reports have said so many times!


Why was Lemond so pro-armstrong until armstrong eclipsed him? Couldn't be sour grapes, could it? Nah...


superguy said:


> I do have to say that Lance is a hero. He has made cycling popular again. But if the media was more gun-ho in 1986, LeMond would have been the King of the World with his literal brush with death. But do you really think the Tour Directors would give up the opportunity to make cycling popular again by letting Lances test results come back positive? I don't think so. Look at the sponsors, Coke, Trek, Nike---three of the LARGEST companies in the world. If Lance came back positive, they would lose money hand over hand. No one ever thinks of it that way!


Okay Oliver Stone...Nike is now influencing independent testing labs all over the world? I don't think so. If Armstrong is doping (and I don't think he is) it is likely that what he is using is undetectable.by current methods. It has nothing to do with corporate conspiracies or marketing dollars. You know this.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*don't forget the team*

look at their placings. considering they were working for the boss, they all must be doped to destroy the peloton like that. we have doms with higher placings than high paid GC honches!
concerning DRUGS ARE....NOW! let's see Tom Simpson OD'd on Ventoux what year?
Anquetil told the press " you don't race 300 days a year without help" (paraphrase)
East German Female (and Male) Swimmers having all kinds of health issues from the 'vitamin shots' given to them in the 60's-early 80's.
so in reality drugs are a problem now more than ever because 'your guy' got his A$$ whupped now more than ever and you need some sort of excuse "now more than ever" as you can't believe that somebody and his WHOLE FREAKIN" TEAM ame better prepared for this Tour "Now more than ever". I'm neither a fanboy nor a hater but some of you 'haters' motivations are so transparent it's painful. It's the same as stated earlier, Lemonds LA support until he was eclipsed. we always gotta ask, why now and what's the motivation? as stated buy no German wine this year as the harvest is full of SOUR GRAPES. get over it, ya lost. your unsupported vitriol makes you more of an A-hole than LA has ever been and makes you out to be a sad, pathetic, bitter person. I've only ever met Zabel (who was nice, but could have been 'public' personality) so since I 'know' none of these guys I don't attach myself to them. I don't give a rats A$$ about their personalities, I find it fun to watch them race. All of you with an axe to grind to STRANGER either need to ride more or find another hobby. You take this stuff way too seriously.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

Now there is a post I can support without hesitation!  Well said!


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

*Suspected dopers amoung us!*

Ricky2 and Manhatten,

Although I tend to disagree with you guy you have both made some really good points and did a wonderful job with the writing as well.

Not just in this thread but in many!

Are you guys taking performance enhancing drugs?


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

coreyb said:


> the drs(the "very well respected cancer specialists at one of the Worlds top hospitals") who actually treated him seemed to disagree that he was far from death. yes, he had more than minutes, but he was still close.


The doctors and my alma mater (Indiana University School of Med.) who actually treated him seemed to disagree with Dr. Superguy. Testicular cancer does respond well to treatment in many cases but anytime you have metastisis to the lungs and brain you are looking at a pretty poor prognosis. Was he minutes from death? Probably not. And really, is this some kind of contest to see who was closer to death?


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

jschrotz said:


> LeMond's TT record was set on a short course, something like 25k in length. I also remember LeMond saying that when he was warming up for that ride that there was a tailwind that day and he didn't think he'd be able to make up all that time on Fignon because of it.



Yeah, but big deal... If Lance was "doped", he should have smashed the record...


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> If the entire pro peloton is "doped", how is it that Greg Lemond still holds the record for the fastest time trial in Tour history? This record was set on a bike, that while somewhat aerodynamic, possessed a fraction of the aerodynamic advantage that modern TT bikes posess....



Nope, wrong. Lemond's TT bike was probably more aero than modern TT bikes. Aero tubing, discs, and a smaller front wheel. The UCI instituted the rule that says that bikes have to have the same sized wheels on both ends to try to level the playing field. It didn't work out that way, but that's why they did it. "Funny bikes" didn't go away because they don't work, they went away because they were banned.

And don't forget the position aspect, as the rider is the biggest contributor to drag. Lemond on a conventional road bike was more aero than most riders on aerobars. He was also one of the few riders able to produce maximum power with his hands in front of his face. Boone Lennon developed the aerobar by adapting the extremely aerodynamic body position of downhill skiers to the bicycle. DH skiers use their hands to "fair" their heads, splitting the air smoothly around one of the least aerodynamic parts of the body. What he didn't consider was that this constricts the chest, compromising breathing and power output for most riders. Plus, I think UCI banned the position.

Much of the money that Lance has spent on wind tunnel testing over the past few years was spent to try to recover some of the areodynamic advantage that rule changes in the mid 1990's took away. I don't know to what extent he succeded, but a seat-o'-the-pants guess says that, at best, it's a wash.

I seem to recall something a few years back that said that Lemond on his Bottechia was the most aerodynamic rider / bike combo ever seen in the wind tunnel, until Chris Boardman's "superman" bike. Watch old videos of Lemond riding ITTs. His position and mechanics are flawless, regardless of the bike.

--Shannon


----------



## bigriderblack (Jan 27, 2004)

*Classy post !!*



russw19 said:


> Miles, I have tried not to toss my opinion on this issue into these discussions in the past, but I will say one thing about what you asked. There is a very good reason for teams to want the lower riders to be doped. I am not going to go into much detail as to what I saw or even what went on in my own team when I was there, but I raced as an amateur on a Div 3 Belgian team in 1993. Now I was a super lowly little ol' American kid who just barely had enough money and talent to take my game overseas. I was nothing. No one special, and didn't stay long. But I saw a whole sh!tload of amphetamine use at the Div 3 and amateur levels then. I saw a little bit of steroid abuse, but nothing more than I would see in the states, and a little bit of pain killer abuse as well. Again, what I saw was nothing more than what someone participating in any sport in the US at a top amateur or lower-level professional level would see. Think college sports or maybe AAA baseball levels.
> 
> But while I was there, there was talk of a lot of serious steroid use with stuff like Clenbuturol and Nandrolone. EPO was still a couple years off, and astronomically expensive for guys in my shoes. But one thing I did see was that teams were much more willing to encourage lowly domestiques and rouleurs to try some performance enhancing drugs. Why? Because first off, if you get caught, you have much less to lose. And more importantly, because it's not the top riders that need the extra boost, it's the guys who are being paid to support them but can't keep up, or don't have the strength and energy to push themselves to that limit every single day that needed the extra help. When I was racing, I knew that some of the guys whose names you wouldn't even remember from some bigger teams were doped. Not like you think of them being doped today, but just using the stuff that most high level racers would accept as the type of drugs you use to get you by. No one thought that if they were using mega amounts of caffeine to give them a kick in mile 88 of a 125 mile race that they were cheating. No one thought that if they got Cortisone injections into their hip or lower back because they couldn't move that they were cheating. No one thought that taking a few Darvocet so they could sleep thru the night without leg cramps that they were cheating. But to the point, the riders who were known to be using "a little something to get them thru the day" were most likely guys you have never and will never hear of or remember their names. It was the unknown guys. They were the ones who could cripple a team if they didn't do their jobs. But the overwhelming thought was it was OK for them to do it because these weren't guys who were trying to win races... they were just the guys who were trying to survive the day in the pack so they could do their jobs. Guys who if they got dropped, nobody was dropping back to get them to bring them back forward. Guys who if they got dropped didn't get the waterbottles to the team leaders when they were supposed to. Guys who if they got dropped in enough races, got dropped from the team and were out of a job.
> 
> ...



Russ - I think you should be commended for taking the time in trying to broaden the viewpoints and scope of this immense and troubling issue. There are some people on this board (LONEFRONT, DOUG SLOAN, DAVE HICKEY, C-40) just to name a few who use this forum trying to educate and promote the sport of cycling. I believe you all do this because you love the sport and have for a long time. There are others who use it to puke biased,uninformed and frankly asinine drivel on us all. I, like you have had the privelage of being a partcipant (very briefly) and exposed to pro level sports and athletes.This is a very complex issue with far reaching ramifications across the entire sports landscape as we know it.It would do some of us well to read this post again. Doping in sports is a serious issue/problem, but not everything about it is as "black and white" as some would like to make it out to be. It's not all about Lance,or Barry, or Marion. Like racisim, it won't even begin to get better until we can have an intelligent, rationale conversation about it.

well done man !


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Which witch hunt etc etc*



Lifelover said:


> Ricky2 and Manhatten,
> 
> Although I tend to disagree with you guy you have both made some really good points and did a wonderful job with the writing as well.
> 
> ...



There is an excellent point being made here. The idea of blame. BUT, who is to blame. How about the athlete? 

The point brought up that fans are not ready for a clean sport is valid. Look at baseball. Fans want long balls, bleachers getting pocked and 400+ foot home runs. Might as well have the "THG is fine by Me" sign in the outfield. By and large, folks do not care. If they did,dont you think the fans would walk and say hey, clean it up?

Boxing, another example. You take folks with known mental/emotional issues who are medicating. Then, you turn them lose on some poor ******* who wants to box. The result, parts of ears get bitten off, cheap shots, near psychotic interviews etc etc. BUT, wow, the fans are still there.

As to the they must be doping because they beat dopers, thats very flawed. The assumption is that dopers will always perform better. Thats not true. Again, taking a substance is not a magic bullet the work still needs to happen.

 

Lifetime bans, legal punishment these dont work Look at Bo Hamburger,Richard Virenque or baseballs Daryl Strawberry. The doping stops when the desire to win at any cost stops and sorry, thats going to be around a long long time.....


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

tube_ee said:


> Nope, wrong. Lemond's TT bike was probably more aero than modern TT bikes. Aero tubing, discs, and a smaller front wheel. The UCI instituted the rule that says that bikes have to have the same sized wheels on both ends to try to level the playing field. It didn't work out that way, but that's why they did it. "Funny bikes" didn't go away because they don't work, they went away because they were banned.
> 
> And don't forget the position aspect, as the rider is the biggest contributor to drag. Lemond on a conventional road bike was more aero than most riders on aerobars. He was also one of the few riders able to produce maximum power with his hands in front of his face. Boone Lennon developed the aerobar by adapting the extremely aerodynamic body position of downhill skiers to the bicycle. DH skiers use their hands to "fair" their heads, splitting the air smoothly around one of the least aerodynamic parts of the body. What he didn't consider was that this constricts the chest, compromising breathing and power output for most riders. Plus, I think UCI banned the position.
> 
> ...


Wrong, huh? Well thanks for setting me straight... 

But I think you missed my point - if Lance was/is "doped", it wouldn't matter what the aerodynamic advantage was... Lance should have been able to beat his record...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*How did you get that*



James OCLV said:


> Wrong, huh? Well thanks for setting me straight...
> 
> But I think you missed my point - if Lance was/is "doped", it wouldn't matter what the aerodynamic advantage was... Lance should have been able to beat his record...


Again, the faulty assumption here is he had to be doping because why??????

Doping does not by fiat mean you will perform better.Gregs machine was (as was rightly pointed out THANK GOD) far more aero than a machine the UCI will allow today. Dont think so? Great. Take a look at a machine Trek made called the Y foil. Banned from TT's and Triathalons at the moment. Too aero.

Another thing FORM (Greg had perfect form on that machine). Check out the UCI specs on a legal TT machine . FORM KILLER. It aint pretty.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

ttug said:


> Again, the faulty assumption here is he had to be doping because why??????
> 
> Doping does not by fiat mean you will perform better.Gregs machine was (as was rightly pointed out THANK GOD) far more aero than a machine the UCI will allow today. Dont think so? Great. Take a look at a machine Trek made called the Y foil. Banned from TT's and Triathalons at the moment. Too aero.
> 
> Another thing FORM (Greg had perfect form on that machine). Check out the UCI specs on a legal TT machine . FORM KILLER. It aint pretty.


Well, I don't think that I really "assumed" anything... Many people (Lemond included) are using Lance's performance at Les Tours as evidence of his "doping" (i.e. he dominated the race AGAIN, therefor he MUST be doping). What I'm saying is that if he's so super-human (as a result of doping), and doping makes him so "superior", why is it that he was never superior enough to beat Lemond's (a supposedly "clean" athlete) record?

The point is, why is it OK to assume that Lemond is super-human and clean, and Lance is only super-human as a result of performance-enhancing drugs?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*A bit clearer shall we*



James OCLV said:


> Well, I don't think that I really "assumed" anything... Many people (Lemond included) are using Lance's performance at Les Tours as evidence of his "doping" (i.e. he dominated the race AGAIN, therefor he MUST be doping). What I'm saying is that if he's so super-human (as a result of doping), and doping makes him so "superior", why is it that he was never superior enough to beat Lemond's (a supposedly "clean" athlete) record?
> 
> The point is, why is it OK to assume that Lemond is super-human and clean, and Lance is only super-human as a result of performance-enhancing drugs?


It is not OK. You have a very valid point.

However, its also NOT valid to say, had to be dope. Thats all there is to it. Why? Check out the 2003 TDF. Lemonds record would have gone ta ta in the final TT if Ullrich had not wrecked. They were way ahead of pace. This was in the rain on an easy course. Fun Huh?

Its a tad more difficult to perform at that level by dismissing it as take a pill and fly. Sorry.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*you're both missing a significant difference*



ttug said:


> It is not OK. You have a very valid point.
> 
> However, its also NOT valid to say, had to be dope. Thats all there is to it. Why? Check out the 2003 TDF. Lemonds record would have gone ta ta in the final TT if Ullrich had not wrecked. They were way ahead of pace. This was in the rain on an easy course. Fun Huh?
> 
> Its a tad more difficult to perform at that level by dismissing it as take a pill and fly. Sorry.


between lemond and LA. lemond didn't have people lining up to corroborate doping allegations. lemond didn't continue (or start for that matter) his association with a known supplier of doping products and methods of defeating controls. lemond wasn't associated with the covert disposal of actovegin and lemond didn't test positive for a banned substance. lemond isn't trying to intimidate a witness in a doping trial....to just look at relative performance without the albeit circumstantial evidence is dancing around an enormous elephant in the room.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and..................*



blackhat said:


> between lemond and LA. lemond didn't have people lining up to corroborate doping allegations. lemond didn't continue (or start for that matter) his association with a known supplier of doping products and methods of defeating controls. lemond wasn't associated with the covert disposal of actovegin and lemond didn't test positive for a banned substance. lemond isn't trying to intimidate a witness in a doping trial....to just look at relative performance without the albeit circumstantial evidence is dancing around an enormous elephant in the room.


It is circumstantial and as such, means squat. Does that mean I think everyone is clean, HELL NO. But thats my opinion, so what?

If you want to say a good rider would have done a b or c thats great too.

Why didnt Greg speak out while he was riding? None of them have thus far. Thats fine too. But its a 2 way street that we can say because we dont happen to have their huge set of demands and pressures in our lives.Again, this is a so what?

The fallacy here is that somewhere some how, some person must be doping. WE DO NOT KNOW. Armstrongs positive test was in the limit and guess what, he was allowed to ride anyway. Another so what.

Pantani was found dead in a hotel room amidst drugs he never tested positive for. So, for now, until alot more people die, or riders speak out, we are back in the land of so what?


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

ttug said:


> Pantani was found dead in a hotel room amidst drugs he never tested positive for. So, for now, until alot more people die, or riders speak out, we are back in the land of so what?


Irrelevant. Cocaine is nearly undetectable in a drug test after a couple of days. I'm sure Pantani used it recreationally and laid off before riding for long enough for it to clear from his system. Pot, on the other hand, stays in your system for a month or so. So someone who smokes a joint a week before a race could test positive. Someone who snorts a ton of coke the same night would not.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

ttug said:


> It is not OK. You have a very valid point.
> 
> However, its also NOT valid to say, had to be dope. Thats all there is to it. Why? Check out the 2003 TDF. Lemonds record would have gone ta ta in the final TT if Ullrich had not wrecked. They were way ahead of pace. This was in the rain on an easy course. Fun Huh?
> 
> Its a tad more difficult to perform at that level by dismissing it as take a pill and fly. Sorry.


LOL!! I think that at the end of the day you and I are agruing the same point - I personally think Lance is clean (as was Lemond)... I'm actually dissapointed in Lemond for making the assumption that Lance is doped.... If it's proven otherwise, I'll change my opinion... but untill then I have to believe that Lance is a clean athlete...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*really?*



Bocephus Jones said:


> Irrelevant. Cocaine is nearly undetectable in a drug test after a couple of days. I'm sure Pantani used it recreationally and laid off before riding for long enough for it to clear from his system. Pot, on the other hand, stays in your system for a month or so. So someone who smokes a joint a week before a race could test positive. Someone who snorts a ton of coke the same night would not.


Thats right, Marco died of boredom.

Cocaine was not the only drug found.

Additionally, you can test for Cocaine usage after a few days but there is always the fallback of gosh I went to my dentist recently I swear. Gee, then you would have to perform further tests that dont work.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

ttug said:


> Lifetime bans, legal punishment these dont work Look at Bo Hamburger,Richard Virenque or baseballs Daryl Strawberry. The doping stops when the desire to win at any cost stops and sorry, thats going to be around a long long time.....



Daryl Strawberry used to live right down the street from me. Well, a few miles down the street, but same street.... he lived at a place called The Gainesville Correctional Facility.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Andy well-liked and respected, hardly what you say he is.*



FatSlowGuy said:


> I know I will be attacked for saying this, but Andy Hampsten sounds like he feels he is being left out. On another note, have any of you guys tried talking to Andy? Lance is an angel compared to this a**hole!



Totally ridiculous. Andy is one of the most soft-spoken guys that this sport has ever had. Nobody would consider him an a**hole. His letter in defense of Greg was an honest, well-written piece that hopefully will open some eyes and minds to the worsening problems of drug use in our sport.


----------

