# CERA Positives in Olympics



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4107810

Six athletes of an unknown sport tested positive in bejing. Wonder which. I think there might be some swimmers in there.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

looks like one might be Rebellin....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr29news


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

wiz525 said:


> looks like one might be Rebellin....
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr29news


Just when I was singing his praises for being the Teflon Don of Italian Cycling a few weeks ago 

So what's he been doing since the test for CERA went public? It's not like he had a shabby spring campaign.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Seems the program ran deep at Gerolsteiner.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Possibly more to come in cycling, too


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

I truly hope its not a female or track cyclist.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

So one walker and one cyclist so far.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> Possibly more to come in cycling, too


Maybe more horses, too.



> In addition, there were six doping cases involving horses in the equestrian competition.


----------



## framed (Oct 25, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So what's he been doing since the test for CERA went public? It's not like he had a shabby spring campaign.


Maybe he continued using CERA since he thought he could get away with it but he probably moved on to whatever the latest super-drug is.

So Fabian Cancellara gets the silver and Alexandr Kolobnev the bronze?


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*This is cool...*

I always thought the IOC was the most corrupt of the corrupt - but I applaud their back testing for CERA - - A much more admirable stance than Giro organizers who basically don't want to know anything about how many cheated in their race last year. I can understand not going back and restesting blod from years ago because yea, when would it stop? But the CERA test was developed only a few months after Giro they stillcould have tested the stored blood.. anyway, this is good news that more cheats are getting busted...


----------



## poonworks (Feb 4, 2009)

crazy man. just crazy. every time I hear about a pro testing positive for dope
I just get angry. not sure what else is there to say. depressing.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Source says two cyclists, one weightlifter, and three track and feild. Of those, two were medalists and one of them is a male track and feild athlete who won gold.
There were 7 positives from 6 athletes.
Odds are that one of them won more than one medal if they were tested more than once.
My guess is it's Bolt.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Source says two cyclists, one weightlifter, and three track and feild. Of those, two were medalists and one of them is a male track and feild athlete who won gold.
> There were 7 positives from 6 athletes.
> Odds are that one of them won more than one medal if they were tested more than once.
> My guess is it's Bolt.


Other than Rebellin, Cancellara could very well be the other cyclist.
Bolt wouldn't surprise me one bit. If they do bust him and strip him of his medals plus world records then this may turn out to be the biggest scandal since 1988 when another track athlete got stripped of his world records (both 9.79 in Seoul and the 9.83 he set previously at the world champ's) and gold medal.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*Rember when Armstrong paid half a mill to the UCI for doping research?*

Regulatory organizations outside of the UCI always turn up more positive drug tests. Is it any coincidence that when the AFLD took over testing last year at the Tour that there were more positive tests than in the past 10 years combined? I don't think so. The testing for the Olympics is also not done by the UCI, thank god.

Can you imagine the conflict of interest if a government or an athlete paid the Olympic testing committee half a million dollar "donation" to assist with testing research? No way this would happen, but the UCI is all for accepting monetary donations from athletes. Face it. The UCI is corrupt.


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

rook said:


> Can you imagine the conflict of interest if a government or an athlete paid the Olympic testing committee half a million dollar "donation" to assist with testing research? No way this would happen, but the UCI is all for accepting monetary donations from athletes. Face it. The UCI is corrupt.


Oooh, good job bringing it around to Armstrong. It is like that seven degrees of Kevin Bacon game.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

MG537 said:


> Other than Rebellin, Cancellara could very well be the other cyclist.
> Bolt wouldn't surprise me one bit. If they do bust him and strip him of his medals plus world records then this may turn out to be the biggest scandal since 1988 when another track athlete got stripped of his world records (both 9.79 in Seoul and the 9.83 he set previously at the world champ's) and gold medal.


Apperently only the one of the two cyclists that were positive medaled. So it can't be both Rebellin & Cancellara.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

framed said:


> Maybe he continued using CERA since he thought he could get away with it but he probably moved on to whatever the latest super-drug is.


Doesn't make sense since, IIRC, CERA has a long detection window, much longer than normal EPO.

He probably got caught out by gambling it would be out of his system for the Olympics once he was alerted to the test by Ricco's positive. Hindsight is always 20/20 but looks like he should have opted to stay home.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Doesn't make sense since, IIRC, CERA has a long detection window, much longer than normal EPO.
> 
> He probably got caught out by gambling it would be out of his system for the Olympics once he was alerted to the test by Ricco's positive. Hindsight is always 20/20 but looks like he should have opted to stay home.


Or he could have though that Gerolsteiner's program was better and he wouldn't get popped. It wasn't until October that Schumacher's and Kohl's positives were announced. The Gerolsteiner boys might have thought they had a good thing going.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

So you guys are all for taking new methods and going back and testing samples collected and tested months (or years) ago? Where have the samples been stored in the meantime? 

I'd be much more comfortable if new testing methods were only used for future tests and if samples could only be tested "once" (or in one session or whatever). It would eliminate a lot of possible objections that people use to not trust the current testing protocols (you know, the kind of thing that lets lance's supporters question the results of back testing of ancient samples).

The whole system really needs to be rethought. The timing of the tests, the type of tests, the different testing bodies...Levi was tested twice the other day, out of competition, by two different authorities. That's just ridiculous.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Retroactive testing is the only way to stop these cheats with their new undetectable drugs.


----------



## Pedro (Feb 25, 2006)

would anyone actually be surprised by a Rebellin positive? Certainly not me...


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

jorgy said:


> Apperently only the one of the two cyclists that were positive medaled. So it can't be both Rebellin & Cancellara.


I'm pretty sure the other cyclist that was positive is that female cyclist who went home just before the race. I think she was Spanish, and it was because she knew she was popped already.

For the T&F athlete, hopefully not Shalane Flanagan.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, when was the last time you didn't have a second thought about a really good performance?


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Pedro said:


> would anyone actually be surprised by a Rebellin positive? Certainly not me...


True, but Bettini certainly got lucky. I still think it's rather fishy how he retired last year.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

rook said:


> Retroactive testing is the only way to stop these cheats with their new undetectable drugs.


Well, what's the logic here? It's new enough that we can't even detect it, and we don't even really know what it is yet, but you can't take it because we may decide later that it is indeed "bad" and we will figure out how to test for it, we'll pull your old samples out of, uh, storage, and you can trust us to properly test them yet again and this time see if you've used this substance that we after the fact decided you shouldn't have used months/years ago?

I would think it would be more "fair" to only have something be banned once it is understood enough to be on the banned list. Or is the rule simply: you can't put anything into your body unless you can buy it at the local supermarket (and then not half the stuff on the medicine or vitamin aisle either)?


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

pacificaslim said:


> The whole system really needs to be rethought. The timing of the tests, the type of tests, the different testing bodies...Levi was tested twice the other day, out of competition, by two different authorities. That's just ridiculous.


Pffft...pay me a million bucks a year to ride my bike and you can test me twice a day year round for all I care. Big deal.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Pedro said:


> would anyone actually be surprised by a Rebellin positive? Certainly not me...


I wouldn't be surprised by any pro cyclist testing positive, the only thing that surprises me is that some people are surprised everytime there's a positive test.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

I am willing to bet the Farm Bolt is caught. I said it from day 1 locally. Jamaica is a HAVEN for doping in sports. This is from first hand knowledge.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> I am willing to bet the Farm Bolt is caught. I said it from day 1 locally. Jamaica is a HAVEN for doping in sports. This is from first hand knowledge.


Rashid Ramzi seems to be the guy.


----------



## El Guapo (Dec 10, 2002)

Schumacher is the other positive. Go figure  Gerolsteiner clearly had some form of systemic doping going on...Tin Tin, Schumacher, and Kohl.


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

> Well, what's the logic here? It's new enough that we can't even detect it, and we don't even really know what it is yet, but you can't take it because we may decide later that it is indeed "bad" and we will figure out how to test for it, we'll pull your old samples out of, uh, storage, and you can trust us to properly test them yet again and this time see if you've used this substance that we after the fact decided you shouldn't have used months/years ago?
> 
> I would think it would be more "fair" to only have something be banned once it is understood enough to be on the banned list. Or is the rule simply: you can't put anything into your body unless you can buy it at the local supermarket (and then not half the stuff on the medicine or vitamin aisle either)?


You can't allow athletes to take drugs to enhance their performance, that should be pretty simple. If they are taking a drug today that is undetectable in current tests, how is that not cheating? 

The only way to discourage this is to store the samples and retest over time as new methods become available. So many athletes have gotten away with doping in many sports because the tests weren't able to keep up with the latest in doping techniques (Marion Jones for example) that it makes no sense to accept your "fair" proposition. Unless you are making the claim that Marion Jones did not cheat? 

You seem to distruct the testing agencies, but what about the athletes? Haven't they proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted not to dope? Evey one of them denies taking drugs, some even after they are caught.


----------



## iamnotfilip (Jul 9, 2007)

pacificaslim said:


> Well, what's the logic here? It's new enough that we can't even detect it, and we don't even really know what it is yet, but you can't take it because we may decide later that it is indeed "bad" and we will figure out how to test for it, we'll pull your old samples out of, uh, storage, and you can trust us to properly test them yet again and this time see if you've used this substance that we after the fact decided you shouldn't have used months/years ago?
> 
> I would think it would be more "fair" to only have something be banned once it is understood enough to be on the banned list. Or is the rule simply: you can't put anything into your body unless you can buy it at the local supermarket (and then not half the stuff on the medicine or vitamin aisle either)?


Overly simplified, but I think you have the right idea. If you come up with a new miracle substance, you can always check with the authorities if it's legal or not before using it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

iamnotfilip said:


> Overly simplified, but I think you have the right idea. If you come up with a new miracle substance, you can always check with the authorities if it's legal or not before using it.


Remembering back to the Actovegin USPS doping story, I believe they at first claimed that it was O.K. to use because it wasn't explicitly banned. However, their story quickly changed to saying it was for their mechanic when someone pointed out that any drug meant to manipulate the blood is banned whether it's explicity named or not.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

iamnotfilip said:


> Overly simplified, but I think you have the right idea. If you come up with a new miracle substance, you can always check with the authorities if it's legal or not before using it.


I would imagine that if one came up with a new era EPO that it would be safe to assume that it is prohibitied for sporting use. Same goes for any "designer steroid". I do not think that this is a grey area or slippery slope towards retroactive testing anarchy. Off the top of my head I cannot recall any recent positives that have involved a substance whose status as a PED has ever been in question (CERA for example). Athletes don't argue the substance for which they test positive - they simply deny that it was in their blood or urine when the test was taken. Guys cast doubt upon the testing because it is an effective means of creating public confusion which often translates into public support for their fight against sanctions. Kohl will disgust me beyond words if he tries to whine his way out of this CERA positive. Rebellin? Guy was literally caught red-handed in 2001. Agreed with earlier poster (somewhere) that Bettini got out in time and retroactive testing should scare the sh*t out of Il Grillo!


----------



## Sojourneyman (Jun 22, 2007)

El Guapo said:


> Schumacher is the other positive. Go figure  Gerolsteiner clearly had some form of systemic doping going on...Tin Tin, Schumacher, and Kohl.


This came as a real surprise...well, only because I didn't know he was in the Olympics.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

serbski said:


> I would imagine that if one came up with a new era EPO that it would be safe to assume that it is prohibitied for sporting use. Same goes for any "designer steroid". I do not think that this is a grey area or slippery slope towards retroactive testing anarchy. Off the top of my head I cannot recall any recent positives that have involved a substance whose status as a PED has ever been in question (CERA for example). Athletes don't argue the substance for which they test positive - they simply deny that it was in their blood or urine when the test was taken. Guys cast doubt upon the testing because it is an effective means of creating public confusion which often translates into public support for their fight against sanctions. Kohl will disgust me beyond words if he tries to whine his way out of this CERA positive. Rebellin? Guy was literally caught red-handed in 2001. Agreed with earlier poster (somewhere) that Bettini got out in time and retroactive testing should scare the sh*t out of Il Grillo!



My bad. I meant Schumacher. He whoops Kohl thoroughly in the cheeseball whining department. Kohl, for the most part, took his medicine (sorry) and named a couple names and took his ban. Schumi had his mommy write a note for his original steroid positive of a couple years back. Let's not forget his "I've got the sh*ts" reason behind his elevated hematocrit at The Worlds the year before. Have any apologists tried to defend this guy? He is an unrepentant old-school rider who just happens to be from the New School.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

And who else rode for Gerolsteiner last year?
Henrich Haussler.
I'm just saying.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> I am willing to bet the Farm Bolt is caught. I said it from day 1 locally. Jamaica is a HAVEN for doping in sports. This is from first hand knowledge.


Willing to bet that Bolt dopes is a much safer bet.
Being caught always depends on whose or what interests are behind the Usain Bolt brand.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

MG537 said:


> Willing to bet that Bolt dopes is a much safer bet.
> Being caught always depends on whose or what interests are behind the Usain Bolt brand.


why would epo be somethign a sprinter would mess with?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> And who else rode for Gerolsteiner last year?
> Henrich Haussler.
> I'm just saying.


Why stop there? Who was Gerolsteiner's team captain for GC in years past?
But guilty by association doesn't cut it.
The only way to implicate the whole rotten bunch is to find a way to break the Omerta. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> Seems the program ran deep at Gerolsteiner.



Glad to see you are coming around:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1025150#poststop


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bas said:


> Glad to see you are coming around:
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1025150#poststop


Again, my appologies.
Must have been having a bad day.
Currently eating humble pie.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

MG537 said:


> The only way to implicate the whole rotten bunch is to find a way to break the Omerta. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.


It does happen somewhat now that you read cyclists saying what you would expect someone to say who is being CHEATED, but then again, it's still just as common to read them (like Levi's statements on Rebellin) saying the same old tired stuff that you'd expect someone to say if they're in the "there but for the grace of god go I" state of mind.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

bas said:


> Glad to see you are coming around:
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1025150#poststop


You remembered that from two years ago and still hold it against him? Holy crap! I guess I should watch what I say. - TF


----------



## KonaSS (Aug 18, 2006)

*Schumacher busted again*

Since Schumacher was popped at the tour last year and the Olympics, does that count as two different infractions? Which would mean he could get 8 years or a lifetime ban?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

KonaSS said:


> Since Schumacher was popped at the tour last year and the Olympics, does that count as two different infractions? Which would mean he could get 8 years or a lifetime ban?


Good question.

I want to say yes, but I'm sure he could argue that he didn't dope after the TdF and it was just left over from the "one" injection.

Then again, he may keep denying it, life and limb.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

iliveonnitro said:


> Good question.
> 
> I want to say yes, but I'm sure he could argue that he didn't dope after the TdF and it was just left over from the "one" injection.
> 
> Then again, he may keep denying it, life and limb.


he cannot have it both ways. If he denies the first ban (and he has) the second test cannot be the leftovers. 
Had he just sucked it up the first time he might have had a case.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> And who else rode for Gerolsteiner last year?
> Henrich Haussler.
> I'm just saying.


he has had a pretty good spring


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

pacificaslim said:


> Well, what's the logic here? It's new enough that we can't even detect it, and we don't even really know what it is yet, but you can't take it because we may decide later that it is indeed "bad" and we will figure out how to test for it, we'll pull your old samples out of, uh, storage, and you can trust us to properly test them yet again and this time see if you've used this substance that we after the fact decided you shouldn't have used months/years ago?
> 
> I would think it would be more "fair" to only have something be banned once it is understood enough to be on the banned list. Or is the rule simply: you can't put anything into your body unless you can buy it at the local supermarket (and then not half the stuff on the medicine or vitamin aisle either)?



Obviously, if a drug is designed for pharmaceutical use (i.e. by presciption use only) then an athlete has no business taking it. If he is, then he has to fill out apporpriate paperwork BEFORE taking the drug. For example: a new EPO drug is on the market that isn't yet on the banned list. Can the athlete take it? Hell no! No excuses. An athlete that doesn provide paperwork BEFORE taking the drug, can and should get busted after retroactive testing takes place.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*Between Armstrong and anybody else, I'm betting Armstrong...*

Bolt might be a doper. We have no credicle evidence other than the fact that Jamaica has had alot of athletes test positive. That's alot of unfair criticism for an athlete that hasn't had 
multiple trainers call him out (USPS masseuse & physical therapist)
former teammates call him out (Stephen Swart, Frankie Andreu, Jemison)
former team docs call him out (Dr. Prentice, USPS team phsyician)
former doctor that was busted for supplying EPO (Dr. Michele Ferrari)
former teammates busted for taking EPO (Hamilton, Landis)
yes, there is more.
Oh dear god! And yet, we give Lance Armstrong the free pass even though he has had ALL of the above and more in the way of multiple people testifying to his illicit drug use. Take of the yellow sunglasses people!


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

rook said:


> Bolt might be a doper. We have no credicle evidence other than the fact that Jamaica has had alot of athletes test positive. That's alot of unfair criticism for an athlete that hasn't had
> multiple trainers call him out (USPS masseuse & physical therapist)
> former teammates call him out (Stephen Swart, Frankie Andreu, Jemison)
> former team docs call him out (Dr. Prentice, USPS team phsyician)
> ...


Try to stay on topic rook.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

rook said:


> Bolt might be a doper. We have no credicle evidence other than the fact that Jamaica has had alot of athletes test positive. That's alot of unfair criticism for an athlete that hasn't had
> multiple trainers call him out (USPS masseuse & physical therapist)
> former teammates call him out (Stephen Swart, Frankie Andreu, Jemison)
> former team docs call him out (Dr. Prentice, USPS team phsyician)
> ...


Get off your high horse. Lance didn't race the olympics, yet your pathological obsession with him has yet again brought his name into the fold.

We know he doped.

We don't care.

He didn't race the Olympics.

So therefore, he isn't part of the discussion. 

Get over it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Get off your high horse. Lance didn't race the olympics, yet your pathological obsession with him has yet again brought his name into the fold.
> 
> We know he doped.
> 
> ...


A lot of people don't know he doped. Look at his twitter page.

I would venture to guess that most people _*do*_ care. That is why the Armstrong public relations and legal teams are always in overdrive.

He raced what, 3 Olympics, two of which we know he was dirty for. Actually he was probably on extract of cortisone in '92. Isn't there like an Olympic charter and code and these guys pledge to compete clean? Marion Jones was a big medalist in Sydney, and LA took what, bronze, silver? Can't remember. Anyway if Armstrong does go down in a scandal, and he makes a deal, a la Marion Jones, don't you think he'll be stripped of his Olympic medal? *After all, as you say, we know he doped.*

He's always part of the discussion because he'll always be the 800lb Gorilla in the room. He should have gone quietly if he didn't want to be part of the discussion. Actually he should have never cheated in the first place.


Is Pathological Obsession a personal attack?

Are you a psychiatrist?


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

lookrider said:


> A lot of people don't know he doped. Look at his twitter page.
> 
> I would venture to guess that most people _*do*_ care. That is why the Armstrong public relations and legal teams are always in overdrive.
> 
> ...


You guys (you know who you are) need your own "I hate everything about Lance" forum.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

BuenosAires said:


> You guys (you know who you are) need your own "I hate everything about Lance" forum.


Really, how does this have anything to do with him. And how does a (supposedly) rational mind make a connection of LA to the Olympics that he never took part in and a drug that was released 2-3 years after he retired? 
YOU HATE LANCE. WE GET IT ALREADY!
Seriously, get a job.
Can we not have one discussion here without it coming back to how dirty LA was or how Lemond was the last "clean" winner?
There has never been a clean winner, there never will be a clean winner. Everyone has, and will continue to dope.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> There has never been a clean winner, there never will be a clean winner. Everyone has, and will continue to dope.


Hope rides again! 

Cycling according to mtbbmet, no pulse, no brainwaves, dead.

Will you continue to discuss anything cycling or sports related? If so, why bother?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> You guys (you know who you are) need your own "I hate everything about Lance" forum.


You fellas are like little girls. Everything is about love and hate.

When Indurain rode he sad, "I am the reference, if they beat me, they win."

Cycling is LA, he's the reference, and he's a fraud, therefore, cycling is a .........

It doesn't bother you that Armstrong is as much of a champion as John Cena?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Really, how does this have anything to do with him. And how does a (supposedly) rational mind make a connection of LA to the Olympics that he never took part in and a drug that was released 2-3 years after he retired?
> YOU HATE LANCE. WE GET IT ALREADY!
> Seriously, get a job.
> Can we not have one discussion here without it coming back to how dirty LA was or how Lemond was the last "clean" winner?
> There has never been a clean winner, there never will be a clean winner. Everyone has, and will continue to dope.


Best post ever posted on the doping forum. I'm going to steal that last paragraph for a sig.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

lookrider said:


> It doesn't bother you that Armstrong is as much of a champion as John Cena?


No, it really doesn't.

And John Cena is a hell of a funny guy.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You fellas are like little girls. Everything is about love and hate.
> 
> When Indurain rode he sad, "I am the reference, if they beat me, they win."
> 
> ...


Actually you're wrong. Vince McMahon basically told the world that wrestling was staged years ago. So if the script writers over at the WWE say that John Cena is champion until the end of March, then so be it.
Vince even admitted to having used steroids himself.

UCI on the other hand is sticking to the "just a few bad apples" theory.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> You fellas are like little girls. Everything is about love and hate.
> 
> When Indurain rode he sad, "I am the reference, if they beat me, they win."
> 
> ...



But Indurain doped. So why is he not the reference still? Why is Indurain any less of a fraud as LA, or Anquitil, or Coppi? They have always done it, and have (till Flandis anyway) gotten away with it. Why do you single out LA as the only person to have ever doped? Especially since pretty much everyone who podiumed behind him has been popped too? Is lance more guilty of sporting fraud than they are? Has Ullrich given back all his prize money and Olympic medals? Has Hamilton?
You isloating LA as the core of the problem is personal vendetta, nothing more. It makes you look petty, childish, and mostly it makes you look lonely.


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> But Indurain doped. So why is he not the reference still? Why is Indurain any less of a fraud as LA, or Anquitil, or Coppi? They have always done it, and have (till Flandis anyway) gotten away with it. Why do you single out LA as the only person to have ever doped? Especially since pretty much everyone who podiumed behind him has been popped too? Is lance more guilty of sporting fraud than they are? Has Ullrich given back all his prize money and Olympic medals? Has Hamilton?
> You isloating LA as the core of the problem is personal vendetta, nothing more. It makes you look petty, childish, and mostly it makes you look lonely.


+1. Even the great Eddy Merckx was CAUGHT doping. I guess he's a fraud too.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Wow. Everybody calm down. I don't hate Armstrong or Usain Bolt. I was only making a comparison to Bolt and Armstrong because some other people were saying that Bolt doped because lots of Jamaicans dope. Bolt isn't even a cyclist so even if he was in the Olympics, this is a cycling forum, but whatever. Armstrong is a cyclist so I brought him up to compare. It's foolish to say that Bolt doped because there is no evidence to support that, unlike Armstrong who has more evidence than even Barry Bonds does supporting the fact that Lance doped. So, if we put the asterik on Bonds, then by the same logic, we should put the asterik on Lance as well. 

Armstrong's acomplishments are impressive, but I don't understand how he escapes scrutiny time and time again when other athletes like Bolt don't. That's it. Puleeze relax folks!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Remember the Doping Forum motto: They all doped, _except the guy I liked_. He magically did not. Even if his teammates and other teams around him were institutionally doping (think Pre-Festina). If I dislike the guy, _he's a doper for sure_.

If you keep this in mind, navigating the tricky waters of the Doping Forum is easy. If this aspect irritates you, I suggest deploying the *ignore* feature in the forum software. Cause the posters here aren't going to change.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Bolts name was used before we found out who was positive. The leak said that it was a male track and feild gold medal winner. I know that there are alot of T&F events but ones thoughts always go to performances that were beyond belief when talking about doping. So he was a logical choice. Personally I'm surprised a certain American swimmer got by round two.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Wow. 
No mention of LA or GL in that post.
See how easy it is?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> They all doped, _except the guy I liked_.


Never been my motto, I know for a fact some of my favorite riders doped and I strongly suspect the rest did/do as well.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

At the risk of keeping this thread on topic, apparently Italian media has dug up the old tapes and videos indicating why Rebellin should be considered the Teflon Don of cycling. He was basically caught red-handed in 2001 and 2005 but was never sanctioned. When we keep in mind he was only caught now because for once the dope-testers put one over on the dopers, it once again raises the question of the effectiveness of the dope testing. Presumably, Rebellin would just have gone back to his old proven doping methods once the CERA test went public.

http://www.repubblica.it/2009/04/sp...oping-rebellin-2001/doping-rebellin-2001.html


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Remember the Doping Forum motto: They all doped, _except the guy I liked_. He magically did not. Even if his teammates and other teams around him were institutionally doping (think Pre-Festina). If I dislike the guy, _he's a doper for sure_.
> 
> If you keep this in mind, navigating the tricky waters of the Doping Forum is easy. If this aspect irritates you, I suggest deploying the *ignore* feature in the forum software. Cause the posters here aren't going to change.


Hey Coolhand. Allow me to question your wisdom here for a second. 
As moderator of the "doping forum" shouldn't you be interested in the topic of doping? It seems to me that this post and some of your recent ones in this forum treats many of us "non believers" as a bunch of paranoiacs.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:
 

> But Indurain doped..


Yup




mtbbmet said:


> So why is he not the reference still?..


He's been retired 13 years. No one is racing against him anymore.



mtbbmet said:


> Why is Indurain any less of a fraud as LA, or Anquitil, or Coppi?.


Regarding doping alone he's not. Also Indurain remained silent on doping while Coppi and Anquetil admitted to it.



mtbbmet said:


> They have always done it, and have (till Flandis anyway) gotten away with it.


Who's they?




mtbbmet said:


> Why do you single out LA as the only person to have ever doped? .


I do? Show me where I said he's the only one who has ever doped. I never said anything about FL or TH doping?



mtbbmet said:


> Especially since pretty much everyone who podiumed behind him has been popped too? Is lance more guilty of sporting fraud than they are?


Yes, more counts of sporting fraud. It's seven with the TdF alone, so yes, he's committed more fraud.



mtbbmet said:


> Has Ullrich given back all his prize money and Olympic medals?


I don't believe he has. He's retired and in hiding for the most part. He's not rubbing the authorities faces in it either.




mtbbmet said:


> Has Hamilton?


Tyler Hamilton is obviously a very sick guy.



mtbbmet said:


> You isloating LA as the core of the problem is personal vendetta, nothing more..


The other guys aren't using a charitable movement to hold people's hopes hostage.

As I said, he's the reference. If you topple him, a lot of the problems go away. You should always go for the biggest fish rather than taking the cowardly way out and only go for the weaker guys.

It's kinda like going after Martha Stewart for fraud rather than the big investment banks. Cowardly.





mtbbmet said:


> It makes you look petty, childish, and mostly it makes you look lonely.


Your arguments make you look sycophantic and illogical.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> If you topple him, a lot of the problems go away.


DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!
We have a winner!
This is easily the most redonkulous thing written in this board. Ever.
Do you honestly think that busting Lance would change anything? Really? You think that?
You're saying that if LA gets done for doping that everyone else would stop. That the sport would clean up? That is truely niave. So why did doping exist after he retired? Or before he was born?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!
> We have a winner!
> This is easily the most redonkulous thing written in this board. Ever.
> Do you honestly think that busting Lance would change anything? Really? You think that?
> You're saying that if LA gets done for doping that everyone else would stop. That the sport would clean up? That is truely niave. So why did doping exist after he retired? Or before he was born?


The Lance haters think he has one of these to supply the dopers from the past........


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

i hate cancer!

whoops! wrong topic...


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

lookrider said:


> I don't believe he has. He's retired and in hiding for the most part. He's not rubbing the authorities faces in it either.



Actually, I think Ulrich has announced a couple weeks ago that is is out of retirement and training again for a return to racing. I don't think we'll see any Armstrong vs Ulrich battles because I think Ulrich's best days are really behind him now. Maybe Ullrich can be cometitive in the smaller races.

I'm not a big Lance supporter either. I definitely don't hate the guy, but at the same time, I don't wish him well in the results because I know that he's gotten away with a ton of stuff and does unethical stuff all the time, which is not good for sport. It's too much to talk to those who have a man crush on Lance because they fail to listen to anything unless it comes from an Armstrong tweeter message or delivered via the Armstrong Foundation website.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!
> We have a winner!
> This is easily the most redonkulous thing written in this board. Ever.


Everyone has opinions.




mtbbmet said:


> Do you honestly think that busting Lance would change anything? Really? You think that?
> You're saying that if LA gets done for doping that everyone else would stop..


You're logically challenged. I didn't say everyone would stop. Nice leap. Let me ask you, Do you think busting Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod has changed anything in MLB? I say it has. 



mtbbmet said:


> That the sport would clean up? That is truely niave. So why did doping exist after he retired? Or before he was born?


Are you saying the sport is as equally dirty in 2007 and 2008, as it was in 1998 and 1999?

I believe it's cleaner. The only way we'll know that is if LeMond's ideas on power output are examined and implemented. But you go on ragging LeMond.. You give up and watch WWE. I'll keep pushing for a cleaner sport.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> The only way we'll know that is if LeMond's ideas on power output are examined and implemented.


Is there a short, clear version of what Lemond's ideas are somewhere online that I can read? 'cause it either sounds like he's saying "anyone faster than me must be doping," or proposing testing the athletes and determining what they are possible of before the season and then if any of them do better than that, they're guilty of doping. Might as well just hand out the trophies without running the races then.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

pacificaslim said:


> Is there a short, clear version of what Lemond's ideas are somewhere online that I can read? 'cause it either sounds like he's saying "anyone faster than me must be doping," or proposing testing the athletes and determining what they are possible of before the season and then if any of them do better than that, they're guilty of doping. Might as well just hand out the trophies without running the races then.



I don't think what people want is a witch hunt. We just want cleaner sport. Not just cycling, but all sports. It's just that cycling is, by far, the most dope-laden sport out there. There's just no integrity anymore. Every year, there are positive dope tests at the Tour. You see the younger movement trying to make a change and supporting dope-free competition, but still there is work to be done.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Is there a short, clear version of what Lemond's ideas are somewhere online that I can read?


http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2008/interviews/?id=greg_lemond_oct08



pacificaslim said:


> 'cause it either sounds like he's saying "anyone faster than me must be doping," or proposing testing the athletes and determining what they are possible of before the season and then if any of them do better than that, they're guilty of doping. .


The spinning on your part is where we differ.




pacificaslim said:


> Might as well just hand out the trophies without running the races then.


More spin.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

On the one hand, I'd welcome Lemond's ideas because it would do away with the terribly intrusive current random testing programs that curtail the riders abilities to have a normal life. But...I just don't like the idea that scientific tests can tell us who is allowed to legally win a race and who isn't.

Let's put a few of Lemond's words up here:

_"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."_

_"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."_


The history of sports, and our appreciation of it as fans, is the history of people doing things that we mere mortals believed were _"statistically and mathematically impossible to do"_! Be it Roger Banister's 4-min mile or one of the most magical things I ever saw in my life: Lemond averaging 54.545 km/h to make up 58 seconds and beat Fignon.

How does he expect this VO2 Max testing to take place? Is it assured that a riders max in a lab in December or whatever has any solid connection to his abilities in top condition in, say, July in a race when adrenaline is jacked and mind is ruling body?

Basically what he is saying is that it is not possible for a clean athlete to "rise above" and do things that aren't "normal". He's saying lab testing can tell us exactly how well a human is capable of performing. If we are to agree with that, then we've just given up on the magic of sports. 

Why even watch it? We could get the list of VO2 max in the spring, and then if someone lower beats someone higher, it'd be because the top guy lost, the top guy was just dogging it, and never because the lower guy rose above his standing and did something amazing. 
The day that comes, is the day I don't even bother following it anymore.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> On the one hand, I'd welcome Lemond's ideas because it would do away with the terribly intrusive current random testing programs that curtail the riders abilities to have a normal life. But...I just don't like the idea that scientific tests can tell us who is allowed to legally win a race and who isn't.
> 
> Let's put a few of Lemond's words up here:
> 
> ...


I'm not going to dissect your post, but generally what you are doing is engaging in semantics and taking things out of context.

I'll counter what you're saying to a certain degree but will not rely on absolutes as you have.

LeMond was speaking in an interview. Surely these things will have to be worked out and standardized. But, that being said, is it really possible for a human to approach 8 watts per kg.?

What's wrong with using sealed SRM's to get complete power numbers for riders? We know how many riders rely on those numbers for training. Armstrong was talking about complete transparency. LeMond posed the questions and Armstrong professes to want to dispel all doubts. We know Armstrong uses an SRM extensively and we know previously that he and Ferrari believed a rider had to approach 6.7 watts per kg to be competitive in the Tour. 

What kind of power numbers is Armstrong producing now? Why won't he reveal them. Remember, it was Armstrong who wanted to convince us he is and was clean.

You tell me, is there transparency in the case of Armstrong?

I think you want to remain in the dark about questions that *will* be answered in the not too distant future. 

A lot of the things you're addressing are ethical and philosophical considerations, but I believe there will still be enough intangibles involved in the competition for the foreseeable future even if we know many of the physical capacities of the riders.

Things like recovery and durability are hard to measure and play a decisive role in the outcome even if we know some of the most important physical capacities.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> But, that being said, is it really possible for a human to approach 8 watts per kg.?


That's the question, isn't it? Once upon a time, performance levels that are today quite common (amongst clean athletes) were considered to be impossible. It'd be a shame to try to draw a line once and for all and say that no "clean" human will ever surpass it.

I'll ignore all the talk about Armstrong because it's not very interesting to me. He'll be gone soon enough so we should stick to the big picture considerations.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

pacifica, I'm gonna have to go with lookrider on this one. You can't take what Greg is saying in one interview like that and put it into the context that you are purporting. You have a decent point, but it isn't what Greg is saying at all.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

pacificaslim said:


> That's the question, isn't it? Once upon a time, performance levels that are today quite common (amongst clean athletes) were considered to be impossible. It'd be a shame to try to draw a line once and for all and say that no "clean" human will ever surpass it.
> 
> I'll ignore all the talk about Armstrong because it's not very interesting to me. He'll be gone soon enough so we should stick to the big picture considerations.


I don't think Lemond was referring to the 8W/KG figure as impossible. Rather he meant that a sudden hike in ability was suspect. Most advances in sport are incremental. Athletes edging towards a record are what fits normal progress in my opinion. Sudden leaps make me suspicious.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

rook said:


> pacifica, I'm gonna have to go with lookrider on this one. You can't take what Greg is saying in one interview like that and put it into the context that you are purporting. You have a decent point, but it isn't what Greg is saying at all.


I asked for info on Lemond's plan and that's what I got. If there is another source out there, the one that shows you that what he says in the two quotes of his I posted is not "what Greg is saying at all," then I'd be happy to read it. I'm trying to get my head around his plan because it makes no sense to me, both on a practical measurement level and on an enjoyment of sport as a fan level.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*ok, I'll dissect it for key loaded words.*



pacificaslim said:


> On the one hand, I'd welcome Lemond's ideas because it would do away with the terribly intrusive current random testing programs that curtail the riders abilities to have a normal life. But...I just don't like the idea that scientific tests can tell us who is *allowed* to legally win a race and who isn't..


I'm highlighting the words you use to incorrectly draw conclusions. As another poster said "_ a sudden hike in ability was suspect._"






pacificaslim said:


> The history of sports, and our appreciation of it as fans, is the *history of people doing things that we mere mortals believed* were _"statistically and mathematically impossible to do"_! Be it Roger Banister's 4-min mile or one of the most magical things I ever saw in my life: Lemond averaging 54.545 km/h to make up 58 seconds and beat Fignon...


So the standard is a mistaken* belief* by fans? In the two feats you point to both Bannister and LeMond, logically believed they could accomplish them. In the early 50's people actually *believed* that a 4 minute mile could kill a person.



pacificaslim said:


> How does he expect this VO2 Max testing to take place? Is it assured that a riders max in a lab in December or whatever has any solid connection to his abilities in top condition in, say, July in a race when adrenaline is jacked and mind is ruling body?...


Jacked on Adrenaline? Maybe something else which is useful. Anyway, there could be two time periods each year where VO2 max could be tested. Oxygen consumption has never been shown to change all that much with training anyway. This whole idea LA has perpetuated, that your level can change that dramatically is a lie. Only with PED's is this possible.



pacificaslim said:


> Basically what he is saying is that it is not possible for a clean athlete to *"rise above"* and do things that aren't *"normal."* He's saying lab testing can tell us *exactly* how well a human is capable of performing. If we are to agree with that, then we've just given up on the *magic* of sports. .


No one can *"rise above"* their absolute limits. That's a mistaken assumption you have. We just don't know what their exact absolute limits are. We can get an idea though.

When Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet that wasn't normal but it was obviously possible. He never even jumped 28 feet again.

LeMond did not say that lab testing could tell us *"exactly"* how well a human is capable of performing. *"Exactly"* is your word and is very loaded in this context.

*"Magic"* undermines your whole argument. It may be *"magic"* how these guys climb a mountain to you, but to a professional cyclist it's completely explicable, and a necessary requirement for them to do it is often to visualize the feat themselves before they do it. They have to *believe* it's possible.

*"Magic"* itself is totally explicable and in fact, there is nothing magical about it. It's a trick of hiding the required components, that you're not taking into account. Therefore, *magic!*




pacificaslim said:


> Why even watch it? We could get the list of VO2 max in the spring, and then if someone lower beats someone higher, it'd be because the top guy lost, the top guy was just dogging it, and never because the lower guy *rose above* his standing and did something amazing.
> 
> The day that comes, is the day I don't even bother following it anymore.


Amazing to you maybe!

Your conclusion is based on false premises. VO2 max is important, but it's not the be all end all, and there are many other factors. Right now, having that measure, would help keep the authorities one step ahead of the cheats. 

The time is approaching when genes will be engineered and sporting feats are not going to matter in any meaningful way anyway so you really won't be able to amuse yourself with this stuff anyway. Aren't sports really just kids stuff in the end? Then we all grow up and put them in perspective.

You realize that while a mediocre magician may impress you, a master can see right through them. This is one reason LeMond is so dogged in pursuing this doping issue. He can tell what's real because he knows the factors involved, and you can't because you don't know what to look for.

Which all points to the genius of this song. Highlighting applicable parts.

"All You Need Is Love"

Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.

*There's nothing you can do that can't be done.*
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
*Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game*.
It's easy.

*Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy.*

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

*Nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.*

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.


Real profound stuff, eh?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> That's the question, isn't it? Once upon a time, performance levels that are today quite common (amongst clean athletes) were considered to be impossible. It'd be a shame to try to draw a line once and for all and say that no "clean" human will ever surpass it.


Not one person has said to draw a line. Not one. This is your interpretation and spin.



pacificaslim said:


> I'll ignore all the talk about Armstrong because it's not very interesting to me. He'll be gone soon enough so we should stick to the big picture considerations.


It's not very interesting to you because it's a primary example of the hypocrisy you're trying to whitewash.

Armstrong said he was going to be transparent. If he's a genetic freak, if he has 12 cylinders, if he can accomplish things no one else can because he is more physically gifted, why is he not demonstrating that for all the world to see.? That would be transparency.

He doesn't subscribe to the saying, 'keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.'

He could've shut up both LeMond and Walsh, in the time from when he came back to the TdF, very easily by being transparent. LeMond spoke to Catlin right after the infamous Interbike press conference about the stuff like VO2 max, wattage testing and the CO test.

Are you saying that LA didn't have the time to incorporate LeMond's suggestions thru Catlin, and Ed Coyle with Michael Ashenden observing and Walsh documenting the stuff.

That's what I'd do, if I wanted to be transparent. In addition to transparency it would show up all the doubters, wouldn't it?

I'm curious if there is any truth to the rumor that Catlin is working with the AFLD.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Well, it's quite clear from your posting style that you like to dissect things down to the molecular level and that's how you want to view bike racing as well. Fine for you.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

WOW this thread was about the CERA positives in the olympics, now its another Lemond is god:aureola: , Lance is the devil:devil: thread


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Bry03cobra said:


> WOW this thread was about the CERA positives in the olympics, now its another Lemond is god:aureola: , Lance is the devil:devil: thread



No dude. It would be great if people thought that. This thread and topics like it go the way of the Armstrong fan club members trashing Lemond. You won't find any logical discourse here except for those that take the time.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

pacificaslim said:


> Well, it's quite clear from your posting style that you like to dissect things down to the molecular level and that's how you want to view bike racing as well. Fine for you.



Come on pacifica. Lookrider just took the time and dissected what you asked him to. You wanted him to show you what parts of what you said were used to support your alleged fabricated argument. IMO, he put up irrefutable evidence and even quotes of yours. You can't just take something a person says and put it into a completely different context like you have.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Oxygen consumption has never been shown to change all that much with training anyway. This whole idea LA has perpetuated, that your level can change that dramatically is a lie. Only with PED's is this possible.


You should pick up the latest issue of Velonews. There is an interview/article in it about Lemonds comeback after being shot. In it he states that when he returned to racing in Europe his VO2max was in the basement and he was really struggling with the pace in the Giro. Struggling enough to consider retirement. Then his trainer/songinor/DS (I can't remember who it was, but it was someone affiliated with the team) gave him an Iron shot and it made him feel completely different.
So even your man Lemond, who thinks that it doesn't change without doping, just recently said that his dropped dramatically but he was able to bring it back up. I suppose he did it cleanly too. This was a recent interview too, not old stock.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> You should pick up the latest issue of Velonews. There is an interview/article in it about Lemonds comeback after being shot. In it he states that when he returned to racing in Europe his VO2max was in the basement and he was really struggling with the pace in the Giro. Struggling enough to consider retirement. Then his trainer/songinor/DS (I can't remember who it was, but it was someone affiliated with the team) gave him an Iron shot and it made him feel completely different.
> So even your man Lemond, who thinks that it doesn't change without doping, just recently said that his dropped dramatically but he was able to bring it back up. I suppose he did it cleanly too. This was a recent interview too, not old stock.


Mtbmet,
Your wasting your breath(or should I say fingertips). There could be video of LeMond doping and some here wouldn't believe it. Those guys want me to think that the only clean TDF winner over the last 30 years was king Greg. There was doping long before LeMond. There will be doping long after Lance. It won't stop. With all that I have read here, do I think GL used EPO? probably not it wasn't around yet. Blood doping? Maybe. Who would know other than him? Not a crazy "program" the guys use today. Doping in 2009 is much different than in 1985. Probably much easier to leave no evidence then than now. Testing was also much more lax. We will hear how much GL is and was against it. How is is such a nice guy. Everyone who has met Tyler Hamilton says he is a nice guy too. Even our favorites and good hearted riders dope. Sadly its a part of cycling. There isn't a cyclist today that would surprise me if he was caught doping, in fact I'm more surprised when someone is clean. Millar hasn't done anything clean. Look at Floyd, he isn't risking another failure. Has to pay his bills, he hasn't done anything. I prefer to look at the positives in pro cycling. It entertains me. I look at doping like a penalty in football. If someone gets busted, bye-bye. Watching Ricco blaze up the mountains in the TDF was fun, as was the battle between the Chicken and AC the year before. Enjoy the good in cycling. But expect the worst, I'm much happier then those beating the anti-Lance drum.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> You should pick up the latest issue of Velonews. There is an interview/article in it about Lemonds comeback after being shot. In it he states that when he returned to racing in Europe his VO2max was in the basement and he was really struggling with the pace in the Giro. Struggling enough to consider retirement. Then his trainer/songinor/DS (I can't remember who it was, but it was someone affiliated with the team) gave him an Iron shot and it made him feel completely different.


Ah, because he was anemic......

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/understanding-anemia-basics

You're aware that your body can't consume oxygen if oxygen isn't being delivered to the muscles and organs by the ahhhhh, blood?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Ah, because he was anemic......
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/understanding-anemia-basics
> 
> You're aware that your body can't consume oxygen if oxygen isn't being delivered to the muscles and organs by the ahhhhh, blood?


And why was he anemic?

"America's successes at Los Angeles were coloured by revelations that riders had blood transfusions before their events, a practice known as blood-doping. The transfusions were to increase red blood cells in riders' blood. That would take more oxygen to their muscles. They received the blood of others with similar blood types.[6]

The French coach and former world champion, Daniel Morelon, told the sports paper L'Equipe that American medical treatment was "extremely elaborate". He added: "I didn't say they were taking drugs but on the other hand we and many others were still at the stage of trying our little vitamins."[7] Steve Hegg won a gold and a silver; Rebecca Twigg, Pat McDonough and Leonard Nitz won silver medals. They were identified in the subsequent inquiry as having had transfusions. The others were John Beckman, Mark Whitehead and Brent Emery. The rest of the team refused.[6]

Fraysse, who had brought Borysewicz's appointment as national coach, said: "We've been looking into this stuff for years and years and years. We weren't gonna fall behind the Russians or East Germans any more."[6] The practice was not against Olympic rules although Games medical guidelines discouraged it. Borysewicz and a colleague, Ed Burke, set up a clinic in a Los Angeles motel room and four of the seven athletes who had transfusions won medals. [8] The US federation banned blood-doping in January 1985. Borysewicz and Burke were fined a month's pay. Fraysse was demoted from first to third vice-president. [9]"

And who is the Eddie B?
Lemond's coach and mentor.
But that all has nothing to do with this.


"Of particular concern is athletes taking iron in the hopes of increasing their performance and developing iron overload, eventually experiencing the above complications. In 1999, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) began systematically testing athletes in the wake of the doping scandals uncovered in the 1998 Tour de France. Four times a year, all professional cyclists were required to submit to a battery of blood tests. The most glaring abnormality found in these tests was a high ferritin level, indicating high iron stores. The upper normal limit of ferritin is 300 ng/ml, and the average ferritin value in the 1000-plus athletes tested was 342 ng/ml. Almost half the cyclists had ferritin levels over 300 ng/ml, and one fourth had levels over 500 ng/ml. Iron supplementation has long been practiced by cyclists in the belief that iron enhances performance by increasing red blood cells. This actually is true only in iron deficiency anemia. Two concerns were raised: First, high levels of iron storage cause organ damage and the high levels persisted even after supplementation ceased. Second, excessive iron supplementation is linked with blood doping. The use of EPO to boost red blood cell production increases the body’s need for iron. The good news is that average ferritin values have decreased by 33% between 1999 and 2002.(Deugnier 2002, Zotter 2004)."


So explain to me why Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari is so damning, but Greg's relationship with Eddie B is not?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Ah, because he was anemic......
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/understanding-anemia-basics
> 
> You're aware that your body can't consume oxygen if oxygen isn't being delivered to the muscles and organs by the ahhhhh, blood?


So next your going to state that his anemia was caused by the shooting. Could it been a result of blood doping? What ever cause, he was using a outside substance to bring his body to a unatural (for him) level. Lance had cancer, he needed epo to increase his blood cells after chemo, what's the difference?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Bry03cobra said:


> So next your going to state that his anemia was caused by the shooting. Could it been a result of blood doping? What ever cause, he was using a outside substance to bring his body to a unatural (for him) level. Lance had cancer, he needed epo to increase his blood cells after chemo, what's the difference?


I will tell you what the response will be.
Iron was/is not a banned substance so it was not cheating. Also blood doping was still legal, but frowned upon, so that too was not doping. I'm pretty sure that EPO was no on the banned list in '89 but it was still cheating.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> I will tell you what the response will be.
> Iron was/is not a banned substance so it was not cheating. Also blood doping was still legal, but frowned upon, so that too was not doping. I'm pretty sure that EPO was no on the banned list in '89 but it was still cheating.


Your probably right. 

Kinda sad that Im really not anti LeMond, I just question how clean he actually was. 

Is it cheating if it wasnt a banned substance? 

HGH wasnt banned in baseball, was Bonds cheating? I say yes. Should he be banned/records taken away for using, No. If LeMond was blood doping using his own blood _technicaly_ he wasnt cheating. 

Feel the same about Lance as I do LeMond. But if you show any support for Lance you are forced to pick sides here. But the Lemondians wont even consider that it was possible that Greg had some "help".


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> So explain to me why Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari is so damning, but Greg's relationship with Eddie B is not?


Becuase Lemond did not have a relationsip with Eddie B. Like pretty much every other rider at the time Greg thought Eddie was missing a few screws and went years without talking to him. 

You are going to have to try harder then that.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*This is like extracting teeth.*



Bry03cobra said:


> Kinda sad that Im really not anti LeMond, I just question how clean he actually was.


Why? Based on what? Any sources, evidence?



Bry03cobra said:


> Is it cheating if it wasnt a banned substance?


Yes, because I believe there is a catch all. 



Bry03cobra said:


> HGH wasnt banned in baseball, was Bonds cheating? I say yes.


You have very strong opinions for being so uninformed. HGH wasn't the only thing Bonds was taking. He was also using the Clear, which was an old steroid that never came to market, norbolethone. When that became detectable, Victor Conte's chemist, Patrick Arnold, created a new Clear which Catlin uncovered and named THG.

In this article they discuss all the stuff Bonds was taking.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/1.html



Bry03cobra said:


> Should he be banned/records taken away for using, No.


Not knowing what you're talking about doesn't stop you from having those convictions, does it?



Bry03cobra said:


> If LeMond was blood doping using his own blood _technicaly_ he wasnt cheating.


IOC rules at the time forbade blood doping generally but not specifically.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1119061/2/index.htm

_The coaches had a loophole. Boosting was against USOC medical policy, but it wasn't against the rules. The IOC's doping policy bans "any physiological substance taken in abnormal quantity or taken by an abnormal route of entry into the body, with the sole intention of increasing in an artificial and unfair manner performance in competition...." That seems a clear enough condemnation of blood boosting, but the IOC had never seen fit to outlaw it specifically..........

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1119061/3/index.htm

Not so, says Dardik: "It's absolute that this was unethical, unacceptable and illegal as far as the USOC was concerned. All [this discussion of] questionable legality to me [is] immaterial."​_
At any rate, by '86 I believe, blood doping was specifically outlawed by most everyone.

If LeMond was blood doping?????? Nice recrimination based on absolutely nothing.

First of all, blood doping was used by some members of the '84 Olympic cycling team which Carmichael was a member of and LeMond was *not.*



Bry03cobra said:


> Feel the same about Lance as I do LeMond.


Because you're not too concerned with things known as facts and evidence.



Bry03cobra said:


> But if you show any support for Lance you are forced to pick sides here.


Explain this? Why are you forced to pick sides?




Bry03cobra said:


> But the Lemondians wont even consider that it was possible that Greg had some "help".


Of course it's possible. Now show some evidence it happened. How about innuendo or rumor. Oh, the iron shots. Anything else? Anything? Jeez, I pointed this out the other day that a lot of things are _possible._ WTF does that mean? It's possible Bry03cobra is a serial killer. Ok, boys, pick him up. That's crazy thinking but you subscribe to that kind of logic.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> So next your going to state that his anemia was caused by the shooting.


Bro, you don't even know the facts, now you're going to try to read minds?

I'm not a doctor, so I have no idea of what the lingering after effects are of an almost fatal shooting which is accompanied by massive blood loss.

Is it possible? That seems to be your favorite query. Well, now that you ask, I guess it's possible.




Bry03cobra said:


> Could it been a result of blood doping?


Maybe, but is there any indication LeMond was blood doping?




Bry03cobra said:


> What ever cause, he was using a outside substance to bring his body to a unatural (for him) level.


Unnatural? How do you know he was bringing his body to an unnatural level? Anemia is a dysfunction. Iron isn't banned and apparently LeMond was using it therapeutically.



Bry03cobra said:


> Lance had cancer, he needed epo to increase his blood cells after chemo, what's the difference?


Isn't EPO banned? Do you think EPO is indicated in Pharmstrong when his hematocrit is 41? What doctor prescribed it for Pharmstrong in '99? He'll be getting his license revoked.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Is it possible? That seems to be your favorite query. Well, now that you ask, I guess it's possible.
> 
> .


That's all I was asking, thank you. 

I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you are. I don't spend every waking moment obsessing about Lance and Lemond. I casually follow "the debate". If I happen to see an article I will read it, I don't search obsessively for anything against Lance. Obsessing about someone elses success is sad. 

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that more pro cyclists dope than do not. I keep hearing about the Lance EPO failures from ........10years ago...let it go!!!! 

Go for a ride, go for a swim, make love to your wife/husband/partner, enjoy life. Life is too short to obsess on the negitives. I could care less if either one of them doped or not. If Lance was caught, the only thing I would be sad about is that Nike/10-2 stuff will dissapear. I actually hope Lance really does deceide to do an Ironman.....I like Nikes stuff, would love to see some Nike Tri gear......


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Becuase Lemond did not have a relationsip with Eddie B. Like pretty much every other rider at the time Greg thought Eddie was missing a few screws and went years without talking to him.
> 
> You are going to have to try harder then that.


 Was he, or was he not Greg's coach?
Did he or did he not implement a blood doping program with the national team?

Welcome back, lookrider has had his hands full. I think he might have given up a little bit.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Was he, or was he not Greg's coach?
> Did he or did he not implement a blood doping program with the national team?
> 
> Welcome back, lookrider has had his hands full. I think he might have given up a little bit.



I can understand how lookrider would be frustrated if all that is written is based on invention and not fact.

He was not Greg's coach. He was the the National team coach. The blood doping happened at the 84 Olympics with Track riders only. Lemond was already a Pro and had not been on the national team for years by that time. 

Greg's coach for much of his career was Paul Koechli. Hampsten, Lemond, and Bauer all have talked about how Koechli was anti dope and searched out riders who felt the same way. He introduced many of the HR based training methods that are still being used today. 

It would be hard to find a rider from the 80's who Eddie B did not claim to coach. Even Lance. When Carmichel (Mr. "Extract of Cortisone") tried to take credit for Armstrong Eddie B said in his normal chopped English/Polish

_*"Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product." *_


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Thing about Greg Lemond was that he was a very good rider as a junior and even in the long Tours before he became a champion. There was a natural progression in his progress. There are no substantiated rumors at all about any drug usage with Lemond. Lemond was on PDM and he even stated 1989 that the PDM team pressured him to dope and was slow with his comeback after his hunting accident. Lemond refused to dope, left PDM and joined the much smaller Coors Light/ADR team.

Armstrong called up Greg one night and threatened to ruin his bike business and destroy his good reputation as a cyclist if he didn't retract from the comments that Armstrong shouldn't train under Dr. Michele Ferrari. Well, Armstrong was successful at destroying Lemond's bike business, but was not successful in planting drug rumors about Greg. I think it must have bothered Armstrong immensely that many people, former teamates, employees, doctors, trainers, etc have come out and spoke against Armstrong, but nobody other than Armstrong and his business associates would speak ill will about Greg Lemond.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Lance was a terrible junior, he didn't do anything :rolleyes5:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> That's all I was asking, thank you.


You're welcome.



Bry03cobra said:


> I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you are.


No need to apologize. I'm an idiot anyway.



Bry03cobra said:


> I don't spend every waking moment obsessing about Lance and Lemond...


Well, I don't either, but I do spend too much time here. Mtbbmet made reference to me giving up a little. Yeah, "just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in." 



Bry03cobra said:


> I casually follow "the debate". If I happen to see an article I will read it, I don't search obsessively for anything against Lance.


For me this forum is a pastime, akin to doing a crossword puzzle. Maybe with slightly more importance than a crossword puzzle, but only slightly more.

What interests me the most is the form of argument taken. The same style of argument/ presentation takes place in the political arena and in the workplace. Words like "liberal" and "welfare" take on negative connotations because of relentless lies and spin by certain groups.

In the workplace, the hierarchy lords over you and if you open your mouth your livelihood is threatened. It's wrong, but most everyone goes along with it. Listen to John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" and you'll understand why a lot of people in authority may have wanted him dead.



Bry03cobra said:


> Obsessing about someone elses success is sad.


Even in the simplest statements, you make unfounded assumptions and conclusions. Just consider this question, if LA did cheat, as it appears he did, should he be considered successful? He's already tested positive for 2 different drugs on at least 7 occasions and has admitted taking a lot of stuff early in his career.

The guy definitely isn't "succesful" in his personal life. How do you define success?



Bry03cobra said:


> I would bet dollars to doughnuts that more pro cyclists dope than do not. I keep hearing about the Lance EPO failures from ........10years ago...let it go!!!!


This is the argument of a child, 'everybody else is doing it.' The Feds aren't letting the Clemens case go, he's never tested positive, and that case goes back to '98.



Bry03cobra said:


> Go for a ride, go for a swim, make love to your wife/husband/partner, enjoy life. Life is too short to obsess on the negitives. I could care less if either one of them doped or not..


I'm enjoying life but it appears you are having trouble reconciling the truth with what you want to believe.



Bry03cobra said:


> If Lance was caught, the only thing I would be sad about is that Nike/10-2 stuff will dissapear. I actually hope Lance really does deceide to do an Ironman.....I like Nikes stuff, would love to see some Nike Tri gear......


I'd be sad about a hero with clay feet crumbling. I saw that Marion Jones admission and it was not pretty.

I agree with you on the Nike gear. I got great prices on the old Discovery chamois and also the shoes from my LBS. Everybody wants the stylish Assos stuff but I was getting a pair of shorts for $30 bucks. I got 3 pairs of Nike shoes with carbon soles for like $80 each. I like them better than the Sidi's.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Lance was a terrible junior, he didn't do anything :rolleyes5:


Of course Armstrong was a prodigy.

Not on the the same level as LeMond though.

LeMond was the Tiger Woods of his time. Armstrong more closely resembles Sean O'Hair. That's not a knock on Armstrong. O'Hair is a star but is not Tiger Woods.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> The guy definitely isn't "succesful" in his personal life. How do you define success?
> 
> 
> 
> This is the argument of a child, 'everybody else is doing it.' The Feds aren't letting the Clemens case go, he's never tested positive, and that case goes back to '98.


The only sucess are his wins and finanical status. He does come across as a douch. Somebody with his drive usually is a mess in their personal life. I have met Floyd, came across as a pretty nice dude. I know you probably think differently with how he treated GL. He was backed into a corner, did something $hitty talking about GL's secret. 

Baseball is a whole different story, I know I brought it up. Many people came back to baseball with the Sosa/Maguire HR battle. Baseball was in a bad place, can be argued that those two saved baseball. Now MLB is bashing them for using PED's. Can't have it both ways, do they want the 500ft HR's that bring the fans fill the owners pockets, or empty stadiums with clean players. 

Pro Athletes come from a different mold. Willing to die to win. The pros I have come across working have seemed to have a screw loose. (Eric Lindros is the first one to come to mind)


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Pro Athletes come from a different mold. Willing to die to win. The pros I have come across working have seemed to have a screw loose. (Eric Lindros is the first one to come to mind)


I don't follow hockey much but that Lindros must be a real jerk. Most journalists seem to be on the side of the athletes if the athlete gives them the time of day. Lindros was a big talent that got a lot of criticism. Didn't he get hit in the head an awful lot? Maybe he really does have a screw loose.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Yeah, it's not right that the Feds are all over Clemens and Bonds. Those guys' most damaging allegations made against them are by their former trainers. Armstrong has TONS of people that have made worse drug allegations on him from former teamates, to former team physicians, trainers, physical therapists, etc. and yet the Feds won't even touch Armstrong.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

rook said:


> Yeah, it's not right that the Feds are all over Clemens and Bonds. Those guys' most damaging allegations made against them are by their former trainers. Armstrong has TONS of people that have made worse drug allegations on him from former teamates, to former team physicians, trainers, physical therapists, etc. and yet the Feds won't even touch Armstrong.


Armstrong is an amazing politician. He has so many friends in high places it's ridiculous. From GWB, to Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Bono and many world leaders.

It'll take the Pope to bring him down, and his organization is awfully dirty too.

When he runs for Texas Gov. it's going to be the dirtiest, nastiest, campaign ever. We'll start to see an new phenomenon known as the sporting/political refugees if LA becomes Governor of Texas..


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

There are tons of stories about him and his father, who was his agent. I have first hand knowledge of his lack of simple common sense. Boy in a mans body. Loaded with talent from the neck down. Also rumors of him and a teamates wife, causing the team to trade a fan fav. And yes he had a BUNCH of head injuries.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

*Bry03cobra and lookrider, you two are going to have to settle down! This is starting to look like a reasonable thread in which ideas are exchanged and differences discussed. *

*You two clearly don't have the Spirit of the Doping Forum!*

*JSR*


----------

