# Is Lance Sandbagging??



## JBergland (Feb 13, 2004)

Anyone think Lance is sandbagging?? Riding domestique for a teammate (or two) sure is a great way to hide the form. 

JB


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*thursday will tell*



JBergland said:


> Anyone think Lance is sandbagging?? Riding domestique for a teammate (or two) sure is a great way to hide the form.
> 
> JB


I think so , BUT lets see what happens Thursday at Ventoux. His LAST try on that mountain.....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

JBergland said:


> Anyone think Lance is sandbagging?? Riding domestique for a teammate (or two) sure is a great way to hide the form.
> 
> JB


Maybe I'm misinformed as to the definition of sandbagging but it seems like to me this more appropriately falls under the category of paying back a loyal teammate who has probably sacrificed some of his own glory for Armstrong. If you're sandbagging you don't finish at the front in the prologue and announce to the world that you're basically on good form.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

JBergland said:


> Anyone think Lance is sandbagging?? Riding domestique for a teammate (or two) sure is a great way to hide the form.
> 
> JB


I'm sure he's holding back a little, but sandbagging? Hardly. I don't think he intends to win the overall. He may go for the Ventoux stage and/or the time trial, and if he wins both, he could walk away with the overall. Otherwise he is there for training purposes only. He learned a few years ago (as did Iban Mayo last year) that going for it in June can hurt you in July.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Remember........*

two years ago one of the things that he attributed his (relativly) poor showing in the TDF to was the fact that he "Dug into his reserves" too much to win the Dauphine Libre. Last year when Mayo blew him away on Venteaux in the Libre, everyone was worried. The truth was that he was using the Dauphine to guage his fitness in order to focus his training between then and the tour. I suspect he's doing the same thing this year.

Is he "managing" the info to the press (and therefor his competitors)? Absolutly
Sandbagging......I don;t think so.

Len


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Well, he says:

"Today I was conservative in the climb, and then there was a lot of headwind
in the finish."
"I'm not really specialized in prologue any more"
"It's a short explosive effort and when you get old, you know what happens,"
Armstrong later revealed that one of his feet unclipped from one of his
pedals as he rode up the tough 1.9km climb which the 160-strong field had to
negotiate immediately. 

Given how short the course was, this may be the most excuses per kilometer ever.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Excuses...*



Utah CragHopper said:


> Well, he says:
> 
> "Today I was conservative in the climb, and then there was a lot of headwind
> in the finish."
> ...


At least this time his brake wasn't rubbing, and he didn't get taken out by a yellow bag...

I don't think he's "sandbagging" though. If he takes the TT and the Ventoux stage, he'll take the overall, simple as that. As someone else mentioned before. Why go all out in such a short prologue anyway? The time differences were very small between the 1st rider, and the last in such a short race against the clock. Finishing top 5 assures him a place near the top. We'll have to wait and see what happens later on this week.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Excuses...LMAO*

It's just a perfectionist analyzing everything he can about his ride. His mentality is analytically focused. Something your prejudices prevent you from doing.


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

Sandbagging doesn't apply to the pro level. If a pro cyclist is "sandbagging", then he/she should be in their own pantheon of cycling gods cuz us mere mortals aren't worth it.




Lance never shows his true form until the Tour, as he does every year. It should be no surprise to anyone, anymore that he isn't the "strongest" before le Tour. 


He's just saving himself for the only race that matters to him.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*4th overall right?*

before todays stage. not bad for a sandbagger. after tomorrows TT most likely in 1st or so.
i think he was hooking george up, getting some good hard leg work and giving notice.
my guess is he'll be tops or near tops in the ITT and will do well in the climb.

last prediction: LA will mak sure George crosses line 1st in TTT if they are leading. let the only guy who's been there for the entire time have a day or 2 in yellow.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

wzq622 said:


> Lance never shows his true form until the Tour, as he does every year. It should be no surprise to anyone, anymore that he isn't the "strongest" before le Tour.
> He's just saving himself for the only race that matters to him.


Or else he time's his peak well, which is different than having the ability to win and holding back.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Please re-read...*



dagger said:


> It's just a perfectionist analyzing everything he can about his ride. His mentality is analytically focused. Something your prejudices prevent you from doing.


Please re-read my post again, as I was making some assertions that he had in the past, those were excuses he had used as to why he was not feeling good in certain stages of le Tour in the past. The bag, the rubbing brake...

And then I went on to say how I thought he was going to throw it down in the TT, probably take the Ventoux stage as well, and then possibly win the overall, unless, as others have mentioned he's trying to save up a little for le Tour. 

So if that's prejudice, I'd say it was a pro-Lance prejudice. Once again, let me repeat, for those of you who haven't picked up on this yet, I'm not anti-lance. I'm anti-lance everything posts (as we've seen in the past). Now that he's racing, you can talk all you want about him, no more fluff posts about Lance. Now we can discuss racing, tactics, and the results.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

magnolialover said:


> no more fluff posts about Lance.


Hey, did you see that contrary to earlier reports, Lance and Sheryl are still together?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2...ndex.php?id=stage2/cycling-dauphine_libere-31


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*Nice thought, but*



atpjunkie said:


> last prediction: LA will mak sure George crosses line 1st in TTT if they are leading. let the only guy who's been there for the entire time have a day or 2 in yellow.


Remember, this years Tour starts with a 19km TT. Lance will have to go all out on that so the option to give george the YJ after the TTT will not be an option.

Now, since George rode fairly early in the prologue at the Dauphine and Lance was the last rider to start, it is entirely possible that if he was in position to win that prologue based on time splits he may have backed off and claimed having pulled a pedal on the climb. Not saying this is what he did, I'm just sayin'.

As for what Lance does during the Dauphine, I would not be surprised to see him win it, 2003 be [email protected] He says he is going for the win in the TT as he has had few opportunities for a long TT in competition and he wants to win at the top of the Ventoux once in his career. He made a point of this a couple of years ago. Sure, he would have much preferred to win there during the Tour, but he isn't going to get that opportunity again, and this week's Dauphine is his last chance.

My prediction: Lance gets the win in the Dauphine by virtue of the TT and the Ventoux climb.

Also, to the point of sandbagging, that would mean that Lance is in the wrong category and needs to upgrade!


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Or else he time's his peak well, which is different than having the ability to win and holding back.



right, that too. After 6 six consecutive years of winning the Tour, he knows how to train in order to reach his peak for July.


----------



## jbrumm (Aug 8, 2004)

Yes!

Of course he is sand bagging. You don't win the Tour 6 years in a row and then all of a sudden down play your odds. Nobody and I mean nobody is more experienced at preparing for an event than LA and Chris Carmichael. Do you really think LA is concerned that he hasn't done enough TT's. He's done enough TT's in the last week alone. He give's himself away in his own words. He wants to win the opening TT and take the jersey. But he doesn't want Jan or anyone else to be overly motivated to beat him either. So he says that he doesn't have enought TT races this year. Ha HA HA! Whatever.

I wouldn't exactly characterize what Lance is doing as sandbagging though. I would more accurately say that it was psyching out Jan Ullrich.


----------



## BugMan (Feb 16, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Hey, did you see that contrary to earlier reports, Lance and Sheryl are still together?


...and according to eurosport.com today, "There were rumours circulating earlier this week that [Lance and Sheryl] had seperated, but judging by their obvious chemistry this morning, I think that is far off the truth."

Good stuff - I can't wait for the wedding date announcement 

I think there's also some kind of race going on today - they called it a time trial


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Probably so*



magnolialover said:


> Please re-read my post again, as I was making some assertions that he had in the past, those were excuses he had used as to why he was not feeling good in certain stages of le Tour in the past. The bag, the rubbing brake...
> 
> And then I went on to say how I thought he was going to throw it down in the TT, probably take the Ventoux stage as well, and then possibly win the overall, unless, as others have mentioned he's trying to save up a little for le Tour.
> 
> So if that's prejudice, I'd say it was a pro-Lance prejudice. Once again, let me repeat, for those of you who haven't picked up on this yet, I'm not anti-lance. I'm anti-lance everything posts (as we've seen in the past). Now that he's racing, you can talk all you want about him, no more fluff posts about Lance. Now we can discuss racing, tactics, and the results.


One of my law professors always said, " It's not what you say, but how you say it that counts". So I am probably misinterpreting what you are saying just by your choice of words, which I think has happened on several occasions. When you choose the word "excuses" then you are immediately throwing up an image of negativity.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

jbrumm said:


> Nobody and I mean nobody is more experienced at preparing for an event than LA and Chris Carmichael.


No.

First of all, Chris Carmichael has little if anything to do with Armstrongs training, trust me on this one. Also, how could you possibly sandbag when *everyone* knows your the man to beat, after 6 years of domination no amount of soft pedaling is going to fool anybody into thinking that your not going to be there in July.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Possibly so..*



dagger said:


> One of my law professors always said, " It's not what you say, but how you say it that counts". So I am probably misinterpreting what you are saying just by your choice of words, which I think has happened on several occasions. When you choose the word "excuses" then you are immediately throwing up an image of negativity.


But are excuses ALWAYS negative? I don't think so. They are just that, excuses. Sometimes they're valid sometimes they're not. We all use them in the world of cycling, hell, I'm probably one of the biggest abusers of using them to describe my lack of fitness, but for the most part, I've given up on using them myself, I just chalk up my bad performances on the bike to "I suck". Lance uses excuses, as does just about everyone else I guess was my point.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no, not really*

Actually, saying you dont use excuses and asking if they are always negative is an implicit excuse to the person you state it to.

Excuses are part of all spoken languages so, the idea that any person would preclude themselves (excuse) from using such a device must involve the usage of an excuse. How ironic.

In short, you have an excuse for not using excuses.  

Cycling wise, uh, its time for the ghost of lumpy hugs to visit. There are no excuses within the actions observed. Winning 6 TDFs in a row kind of removes the making excuses result(not getting a task done.) 

Now of course, I am obliged to let the whole world know that I am not a Lance fan nor do I hold a calendar pic of him with one hand while showering....The bottom line is results speak for themselves and the results are, 6 TDF overall victories in a row. 

Moving on........


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

OnTheRivet said:


> No.
> 
> First of all, Chris Carmichael has little if anything to do with Armstrongs training, trust me on this one. Also, how could you possibly sandbag when *everyone* knows your the man to beat, after 6 years of domination no amount of soft pedaling is going to fool anybody into thinking that your not going to be there in July.


 Just curious, how do you know this?


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

......why listen to Carmichael when you have a Ferrari?


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Been covered...*



BuenosAires said:


> Just curious, how do you know this?


This has been covered time and again, and Lance has said it himself. Ferrari, up until his most recent conviction, was the primary coach for Armstrong. Carmichael was second in command, but Ferrari is the brains behind Armstrong for pretty much everything as far as training, and as far as coaches go (other than his penchant for cheating and or prescribing performance enhancing drugs to some of his athletes), Ferrari is the best out there and the best in the business. He really knows what he's doing.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> Lance uses excuses, as does just about everyone else I guess was my point.


He is not asking us to overlook his bad performance or to ignore it based on those points he made. He is giving us reasons. Reasons and Excuses are not interchangeable. Reasons are facts and excuses are attempts to exclude the truth.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Absurdity.*



magnolialover said:


> , but Ferrari is the brains behind Armstrong for pretty much everything as far as training.


OMG...Magnolia...that is absurd. Carmichael has been so involved with Armstrong since 1999, that he probably knows more about Armstrong's physiology than God himself. At the end of each day Carmichael can tell you to the beat how many times Lance's heart has beat in the last 24 hours, the exact amount of calories, milliliters of fluid, miligrams of food, etc. And he tailors Lance's daily workouts on an almost daily basis on the biofeedback he receives each day. I have never seen Ferrari at any of Lance's TDF victories or seen a photograph of them together. Ferrari's consulting with US POSTAL was as a DOCTOR, not trainer. His "official" involvement was advising USPS on altitude training effects and diet. NOT training.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Hook, line and sinker. you my friend have been marketed to.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Fine..I will believe you*



OnTheRivet said:


> Hook, line and sinker. you my friend have been marketed to.


When you show me the evidence. I don't buy into conspiracy theories, myths, legends. I have to see proof and you may be able to show me. I have an open mind and am willing to learn.

Carmichael and Armstong actually began their relationship back when Lance became a member of the national team in 1990 and Carmichael became his primary coach in 1991. 

This relationship is a fact and is well documented.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

I can tell you that I heard it first hand from someone who used to ride around in Postal kit.


----------



## izibo (Jul 2, 2004)

JBergland said:


> Anyone think Lance is sandbagging?? Riding domestique for a teammate (or two) sure is a great way to hide the form.
> 
> JB


Do I think Lance is sandbagging it? No

Do I think he is pushing his body to the absolute limits in order to win? No

I think it is somewhere in between. I think it is obvious that he is putting forth some major efforts, I just don't think he is digging as deep as he could. You don't get 3rd in a TT by sandbagging it though, that is for sure.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Even if...*



dagger said:


> OMG...Magnolia...that is absurd. Carmichael has been so involved with Armstrong since 1999, that he probably knows more about Armstrong's physiology than God himself. At the end of each day Carmichael can tell you to the beat how many times Lance's heart has beat in the last 24 hours, the exact amount of calories, milliliters of fluid, miligrams of food, etc. And he tailors Lance's daily workouts on an almost daily basis on the biofeedback he receives each day. I have never seen Ferrari at any of Lance's TDF victories or seen a photograph of them together. Ferrari's consulting with US POSTAL was as a DOCTOR, not trainer. His "official" involvement was advising USPS on altitude training effects and diet. NOT training.


Look, I know you have been marketed to, as someone else mentioned, but seriously, from a friend of mine who coaches under the CTS umbrella, so he/she shall remain nameless, Carmichael himself has done very little coaching and program structuring ever. Ferrari is the brain behind Lance's training plans, and coaching, and physiology testing, and essentially, Ferrari is known worldwide as "THE MAN" when it comes to getting the most out of elite endurance athletes. He is the end all be all de facto guy. So all of those things you quote that Carmichael should know, I'm betting that he doesn't, but Ferrari does, or well, did. 

You haven't seen Ferrari at any of Lance's victories mostly because of PR. Michele has been under a cloud of suspiscion for doping his athletes for years, and seeing how Lance is so anti-doping, it would not be good PR to be seen around Ferarri all of the time, which would, by proxy, condone what he may or may not have done in the past (Ferrari not Armstrong just so we're straight here). I've also read somewhere recently that there was a guy, I think he used to write for Outside magazine, who did a book on Armstrong and the year in the life of a pro bike racer, and he said that all of the time when Armstrong was training, and working out, Ferarri was there, poking and prodding, testing, getting the most out of him. 

With all of the Lance-love going on here in the past, and how everyone claims that he spends the most to get the best, this is true with his coaching as well. Hands down, Michele Ferarri is the best coach/trainer out there in the business, and if you don't think Lance isn't going to have the best, I think you might be incorrect there. Carmichael and CTS, that's just a money making venture, and it's working. CTS has great coaches and trainers and everything else under their umbrella, but Carmichael ain't it, Ferrari is the poop.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*For those who doubt...*

So for those who doubt Ferrari's involvement with Armstrong, check out this book, and bear in mind, it's not some hatchet job by some hack journalist, it's just the truth as he saw it hanging out with the man himself:

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/

Disclaimer: I have no connection to the book author or the book itself...


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

If Tommy D is the jealous type then Dagger must be driving him crazy right about now.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Here you go...*



dagger said:


> When you show me the evidence. I don't buy into conspiracy theories, myths, legends. I have to see proof and you may be able to show me. I have an open mind and am willing to learn.
> 
> Carmichael and Armstong actually began their relationship back when Lance became a member of the national team in 1990 and Carmichael became his primary coach in 1991.
> 
> This relationship is a fact and is well documented.


More information for you on the relationship between Armstrong and Ferrari, from the following link: 

http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/characters.html

Nicknamed Dr. Evil, the controversial Italian has been Armstrong’s trainer since 1995. During the 2004 season, the two followed their usual program: one week together each month, and together the entire month before the Tour. 

On October 1, 2004, an Italian court convicted Ferrari of two doping-related offenses, sporting fraud and the unlawful distribution of medicines. Later that day, Armstrong officially ended his nine-year relationship with Ferrari. Photo by Nico Casamassima/AFP/Getty Images

The Latest: There are rumors that Ferrari might not have completely quit working with his favorite client. A Girona hotel keeper, Francisco Troyano, told me that Ferrari had stayed in his establishment for a week in mid-March, just after Armstrong returned to Girona after abandoning the Paris-Nice stage race. But Ferrari's presence, it must be said, proves nothing. As Troyano put it, “Perhaps Ferrari likes vacationing in Girona.” 

Also from the same above link:

Chris Carmichael

Advising Armstrong since 1990, Carmichael is founder and co-owner (with Armstrong) of Carmichael Training Systems, a personal-coaching company built on a system of analyzing training data sent over the Internet (the method by which he coaches Armstrong). He also works as a commentator on the Outdoor Life Network, a team sponsor. 

So does it surprise you really that Armstrong, being co-owner with Carmichael of CTS would make sure it was Carmichael that got a lot of the credit for his wins and such when Ferrari is really the brain behind it all? It's just good business, and there aren't many weekend warriors who would be able to afford Ferrari's coaching services.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*LoL.*



Utah CragHopper said:


> If Tommy D is the jealous type then Dagger must be driving him crazy right about now.


That is funny......

But back to the discussion...Give me facts. Don't give me some book written to be scandalous. Just the FACTS.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*What??*



dagger said:


> That is funny......
> 
> But back to the discussion...Give me facts. Don't give me some book written to be scandalous. Just the FACTS.


This book was written not to be scandalous. This book was written to show what Armstrong is like on a day to day basis being a top pro cyclist, and the author was given unfettered access to Armstrong and his inner circle for an entire year. The book was properly vetted by Armstrong himself before publication, so this isn't a book that was written without his knowledge and or say-so. This is just how it is. These aren't made up stories or anything. Does your predjudice blind you from the truth? Armstrong works almost exclusively, or did, with Ferarri. This is not some urban legend, it's what happens, or happened, or is still happening. It's not a bad thing, as Ferrari is hands down the best cycling coach out there.


----------



## purplepaul (Nov 21, 2002)

Geez, magnolia, you're so wrong here. Haven't you seen Chris sharing his top training secrets on OLN?

If what you're saying is true, how would Lance know that he has to drink fluids on hot days, eat a balanced diet or that a circus clown bike isn't as aerodynamic in a tuck as a custom made TT bike?

Open your mind and recognize the genius who is Chris.




magnolialover said:


> This book was written not to be scandalous. This book was written to show what Armstrong is like on a day to day basis being a top pro cyclist, and the author was given unfettered access to Armstrong and his inner circle for an entire year. The book was properly vetted by Armstrong himself before publication, so this isn't a book that was written without his knowledge and or say-so. This is just how it is. These aren't made up stories or anything. Does your predjudice blind you from the truth? Armstrong works almost exclusively, or did, with Ferarri. This is not some urban legend, it's what happens, or happened, or is still happening. It's not a bad thing, as Ferrari is hands down the best cycling coach out there.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Facts...Give me facts....Don't give me hearsay.*



magnolialover said:


> but seriously, from a friend of mine who coaches under the CTS umbrella, so he/she shall remain nameless.


Come on.....Carmichael has Lance's training logs all the way back to 1990. If he isn't responsible for his training then tell me why in the hell does he have data all the way back to 1990. Carmichael trained Lance and Lance consulted with Ferrari in areas that Carmichael didn't have expertise. Training and consulting are two different things. Telling me that you have friends at CTS and USPS don't carry weight. Like I said, let's deal in facts.


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*I can't believe I'm gonna say this..*



dagger said:


> Come on.....Carmichael has Lance's training logs all the way back to 1990. If he isn't responsible for his training then tell me why in the hell does he have data all the way back to 1990. Carmichael trained Lance and Lance consulted with Ferrari in areas that Carmichael didn't have expertise. Training and consulting are two different things. Telling me that you have friends at CTS and USPS don't carry weight. Like I said, let's deal in facts.


But I'm with Magnolia on this one in regards to Lance.

Shudder! 

Carmichael has been an advisor to Lance since Lance's time on the Junior National scene. But come on, Carmichael the mastermind of Lance's career? Not a chance. Go back a few years and read interviews and reports on Lance and his training (not reports thru CTS), Ferrari is there, not Carmichael. As Magnolia says, it was always Ferrari. When Bruyneel would call a coach while Lance was climbing an alpine pass DURING the TdF, did he call Carmichael? No, he called Ferrari. It's right there, in the old Cyclingnews archives, you'll just have to dig.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

dagger said:


> Like I said, let's deal in facts.


Mag Lov produced some facts. Lets see you do the same.

Links and documented references, please.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*It is so well documented...*



dagger said:


> Come on.....Carmichael has Lance's training logs all the way back to 1990. If he isn't responsible for his training then tell me why in the hell does he have data all the way back to 1990. Carmichael trained Lance and Lance consulted with Ferrari in areas that Carmichael didn't have expertise. Training and consulting are two different things. Telling me that you have friends at CTS and USPS don't carry weight. Like I said, let's deal in facts.


Everyone, well just about everyone, knows for a fact that Lance is trained by Michele Ferrari. Carmichael might have Lance's training logs all the way back to 1990, but that just proves that he has Lance's training logs back to 1990. Ferrari rolled onto the scene with Armstrong in 1995, and has been there ever since. Last year when Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud, Lance said his relationship with Ferrari was now considered severed, and he was sorry for that because he had a great relationship with him, but he was being trained by Ferrari right up until that conviction was handed down. Bear in mind also that Lance has always said that Ferrari was there as his trainer, and he has never disavowed being trained by Ferrari. He did disavow that he and Ferrari ever talked about doping, or that it was ever mentioned to Armstrong by Ferrari. He has always said that yes, he does indeed work with Ferrari, I mean, this was never a question. Why do you have such a hard time with this? I'm just saying he was coached and trained by Ferrari, not that he did anything wrong by doing that. As I mentioned before, Ferrari is known as a genius for training and is very highly scientific, and he is hands down the best. As far as who I know at CTS, I know one person there, who works with Carmichael quite a lot, and they say, he's not very good at the coaching thing, but his staff is top notch, which is where all of the coaching comes from anyway. I never said I knew anyone on Postal, that was someone else.

Read the book I pointed out, it tells you everything you need to know, and that Ferarri is around a whole heck of a lot more than Carmichael, and I dare say that without Michele, Armstrong probably would not have won 6 Tours. As someone else mentioned, during le Tour, when Johann wants to consult with someone, who does he call? Carmichael? Nope. Ferrari. Sorry man, it's the truth.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*One more link...*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/oct04/oct02news

Story about Michele's conviction, and right underneath it the response from Armstrong ending his affiliation with Ferrari.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

magnolialover said:


> He did disavow that he and Ferrari ever talked about doping, or that it was ever mentioned to Armstrong by Ferrari.


How can anyone believe this? You mean Armstrong never even asked about EPO in the mid to late '90s when guys were breaking records on climbs left and right (some of which have yet to be eclipsed)? Maybe against good sense I can believe that Armstrong hasn't doped since his comeback from cancer, but to believe that he was racing on "water alone" when he was winning the Fleche Wallone, Tour de France stages, San Sebastian at the height of the EPO era in cycling just defies logic.

Furthermore, he was being trained by an expert on EPO use and a guy we know doped US juniors.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*This also...*



Dwayne Barry said:


> How can anyone believe this? You mean Armstrong never even asked about EPO in the mid to late '90s when guys were breaking records on climbs left and right (some of which have yet to be eclipsed)? Maybe against good sense I can believe that Armstrong hasn't doped since his comeback from cancer, but to believe that he was racing on "water alone" when he was winning the Fleche Wallone, Tour de France stages, San Sebastian at the height of the EPO era in cycling just defies logic.
> 
> Furthermore, he was being trained by an expert on EPO use and a guy we know doped US juniors.


...is common knowledge, the thing you mentioned. But I was just parroting the Armstrong party line that he and Ferrari never talked about doping and all. Do I PERSONALLY believe that? Heck no. Just like there were WMDs in Iraq that George W told us about. I didn't believe him either. Both of them being from Texas, well, is it just a coincidence? Yeah, probably. But anyway, I'm sure doping was discussed ad nauseum in the Armstrong camp pre cancer, and post cancer.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/oct04/oct02news
> 
> Story about Michele's conviction, and right underneath it the response from Armstrong ending his affiliation with Ferrari.


This article does not say that Lance was being "TRAINED" by Ferrari. I can't find anywhere where Ferrari TRAINED anyone. He has been referred to as a trainer in a couple of articles...But you know if it doesn't look like a duck, quack like a duck, nor act like a duck he ISN"T a duck. He acted in the compacity as "MEDICAL DOCTOR & MEDICAL ADVISOR". He was PRESCRIBING "which is what a doctor or pharmacist does" Since when do TRAINERS prescribe. 

You guys would never last a second in court.

I am not LA loving, just need the damn facts only the facts. 

You been sold innuendo and have bought it.


----------



## JBergland (Feb 13, 2004)

dagger said:


> You guys would never last a second in court.


Court?? Something has to be proven in court in order for it to be true??

JB


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*I give up...*



dagger said:


> This article does not say that Lance was being "TRAINED" by Ferrari. I can't find anywhere where Ferrari TRAINED anyone. He has been referred to as a trainer in a couple of articles...But you know if it doesn't look like a duck, quack like a duck, nor act like a duck he ISN"T a duck. He acted in the compacity as "MEDICAL DOCTOR & MEDICAL ADVISOR". He was PRESCRIBING "which is what a doctor or pharmacist does" Since when do TRAINERS prescribe.
> 
> You guys would never last a second in court.
> 
> ...


Just go and read the book I cited before. Ferarri is a doctor who can prescribe, but he's a doctor of physiology and exercise who also happens to be an MD. He's Armstrong's trainer (or was I should say). It's really that simple. Sorry you actually don't believe the facts as they have been presented to you. Most team doctors are also the trainers for the riders, because most team doctors have a background in exercise and physiology, so they can prescribe drugs for their riders, and write up their training programs. This is not something new, it's been done for years on end in Europe. 

You my friend have been sold the Carmichael fantasy that he's the de-facto coach for Armstrong. It just ain't true. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not. I'm sorry that you don't actually believe the truth. I would bet that if you were to sit across from Lance and ask him yourself if Ferrari trained him, he'd tell you yes, most definitely.

Here's one more link and the last bit of proof that I'm going to provide (for now):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/features/diaries/ferrari.php?id=ferrari0410#13

Read the top of the page on the exchange between Ferrari and Armstrong, not to mention how Ferarri is introduced as former trainer of Lance Armstrong. I'm sorry dude, they were in "cahoots" if you choose to see it that way. Meaning, he trained Armstrong.

Why do you have such a strong doubt about Ferarri training Armstrong? 

You would probably ask why do I have such a strong non-doubt, and why do I keep trying to explain it to you? Well, it's because it's the truth. I just want you to know where the training knowledge and expertise comes from so you know a little more about the cycling world.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Just about*



JBergland said:


> Court?? Something has to be proven in court in order for it to be true??
> 
> JB


Because our courts are the standard for seeking the truth. Sometimes when you leave the decision up to people who don't look at the facts, because of what they believe, hear, resent, etc, then there are exceptions.


----------

