# could lance have done it without the dope?



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

ok, before you guys hang me. im new.yes i knew a "little' about him during his "wins" success etc. but i never followed cycling at all really.

so my question is. arguably, do you think he could have won all of them or any of the tdf without the drugs?

just from an outsiders perspective i think maybe? im just thinking that the level is so elite, that roids will not make a good cyclist great enough to win the tour....

im not defending him, just wondering.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

No, highly doubt it. I read somewhere where he stated that when he made his return, everyone was so much faster. We all know that the whole pelaton basically was doping. Now if everyone was clean, it could be possible.


----------



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

i used to joke at work that he had a carbon fiber nut with some kind of steroid mix that released when he squeezed it...... maybe? lol 

also, i guess deep down thats why i never hated on him to bad after getting exposed. after learning how many and how bad the dope game is in cycling at that level....


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

No chance. Before cancer he never finished a tour.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> No chance. Before cancer he never finished a tour.


^^ this. 

Some people respond better to dope, blood transfusions, etc... Individual sensitivity and all that. Armstrong isn't / wasn't a "great cyclist" - he was just "great" at responding to dope.


----------



## rcharrette (Mar 27, 2007)

He ushered in the era of focusing only on The Tour. He spent the season pre-riding key mountain stages (no one did this at the time) and his team was drilled to perfection with only one goal " keep him safe"! On a level field( no one doping) I believe he put in the training time, effort and attention to detail to win most if not all of them. If he had not doped and the others did (as has been proven) I don't think he could have beat them clean.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

That's what he would have you believe.


----------



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

imho. when there is that much money at stake i believe these companys/riders will keep finding new ways to "cheat" . new dope, etc. etc.

by money, im talking about product sales. there is no way lance did it un provoked. his marketing power was bar none the best in the world. nike, trek etc. etc. whether you were buying because of him, or subliminaly because you kept seeing the stuff plastered everywhere you go. im not closed minded enough to think that some of the huge corps. (nike, trek etc) dont have "unofficial" employees that might help/bribe/aid the process along. now thats just me and my conspiracy theories.... lol. but we are talking about mega, mega money here.....


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

With the rest of the Peloton on "Jet Fuel" ... not a chance, he wouldn't have even been a good domestique.

With a level playing field where nobody was doping (one can dream) ... it's really, really hard to say. Given that people respond differently to doping, he could have benefited more or less than others. However, I think there was a lot more to his victories than doping (total anal preparation and dedication to winning the Tour, route knowledge and pre-riding, food prep, control of every aspect of team preparation leading up to the Tour, etc.).

He was never a clean rider and nobody he competed against was ever really clean ... so saying he was a crappy Tour rider before Cancer is pretty much meaningless because he was doping before cancer as well ... self admitted.

The reality is we will never know ... so why dwell on it? What we do know is he beat all the other dopers, regardless of what the books now say and in the end that's all that counts


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

rcharrette said:


> He ushered in the era of focusing only on The Tour. He spent the season pre-riding key mountain stages (no one did this at the time) and his team was drilled to perfection with only one goal " keep him safe"! On a level field( no one doping) I believe he put in the training time, effort and attention to detail to win most if not all of them. If he had not doped and the others did (as has been proven) I don't think he could have beat them clean.


......and because he was focussed on teh tour and not doing many other races he could dope till the cows came home without ever being tested. doping allows he to train harder and more often.


----------



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

well put wookie..... didnt they try to give one of his wins to the next guy down and he busted for dope also? or something like that?

i also agree with you. its a lot more than dope. its not the magic solution to instantly make you a great rider/racer tour winner. its insane when you think about it, how much those guys train and commit their lives to it and still have to have the dope edge to win.......


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> With the rest of the Peloton on "Jet Fuel" ... not a chance, he wouldn't have even been a good domestique.
> 
> 
> The reality is we will never know ... so why dwell on it? What we do know is he beat all the other dopers, regardless of what the books now say and in the end that's all that counts



One thing you have to realise about dopers, they are realists, not fantasists. Like all cheats, they have enough self-awareness to know that they will NEVER be the best, that they will NEVER be good enough.
Once that point is reached it simply is a matter of reconciling yourself to the fact that if you want to pursue your dreams, satisfy your ego, and claim that which you know will never rightfully be yours, you will have to CHEAT.
I don't think Lance wasted too much time pondering 'what if's'. He got on with the job of winning BY ANY MEANS NECCESSARY. He was professional, goddammit he was the best cheat there ever was. Now whether you think that's something worth defending is entirely up to you and your morality. I certainly don't hate Lance for doing what he did to win. He wasn't the first, he won't be the last. But where I get off the train is with the lies, intimidation and legal moves he used on people with the smarts to see through the facade. Now that he's busted he has to live with the fact that ultimately he accomplished NOTHING.

Edit: Lance answered the question himself early on in the Oprah interview with a categorical 'no'. One of the few statements he made that wasn't BS.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Not chance in hell he ever wins a GT clean even if everyone else is clean.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Of course he could not have won dope free. Why do you think he doped? At least he made enough money to pay the lawyers for the 'race' indoors.


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

rcharrette said:


> He ushered in the era of focusing only on The Tour. He spent the season pre-riding key mountain stages (no one did this at the time) and his team was drilled to perfection with only one goal " keep him safe"! On a level field( no one doping) I believe he put in the training time, effort and attention to detail to win most if not all of them. If he had not doped and the others did (as has been proven) I don't think he could have beat them clean.


I agree. Lance did a number of things different in how he approached the tour that give him and edge. He he not doped and run against dopers he probably would not have won. However in fully clean field? I would believe he had shot, but we will never know.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm with those who believe that dope doesn't automatically turn any also-ran into a winner. You have to be superb already. The dope just gives you a slightly better chance of putting yourself on the podium. In other words, I think Lance Armstrong was already a world-class rider. Yes, the dope might have contributed to his remarkable TdF win streak, but if it were only the dope that did it, hell, me and creakyknees could've been TdF champs, too!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

c.rod said:


> well put wookie..... didnt they try to give one of his wins to the next guy down and he busted for dope also? or something like that?
> 
> i also agree with you. its a lot more than dope. its not the magic solution to instantly make you a great rider/racer tour winner. its insane when you think about it, how much those guys train and commit their lives to it and still have to have the dope edge to win.......


The only "justice" was that they didn't hand his GT win to another rider. Almost everyone in the top 10 had been caught at one point or another or were under strong suspicion. 

They gave Jan's '05 3rd to Mancebo, who was also a doper who got busted. 

Quite a mess. I'm under the opinion that destroying Lance is a simple distraction since doping continues.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

sir duke said:


> One thing you have to realise about dopers, they are realists, not fantasists. Like all cheats, they have enough self-awareness to know that they will NEVER be the best, that they will NEVER be good enough.
> Once that point is reached it simply is a matter of reconciling yourself to the fact that if you want to pursue your dreams, satisfy your ego, and claim that which you know will never rightfully be yours, you will have to CHEAT.
> I don't think Lance wasted too much time pondering 'what if's'. He got on with the job of winning BY ANY MEANS NECCESSARY. He was professional, goddammit he was the best cheat there ever was. Now whether you think that's something worth defending is entirely up to you and your morality. I certainly don't hate Lance for doing what he did to win. He wasn't the first, he won't be the last. But where I get off the train is with the lies, intimidation and legal moves he used on people with the smarts to see through the facade. Now that he's busted he has to live with the fact that *ultimately he accomplished NOTHING*.


He did beat cancer. 

Of course he used drugs for that too so it doesn't really count. But who can beat cancer clean?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> He did beat cancer.
> 
> Of course he used drugs for that too so it doesn't really count. But who can beat cancer clean?



Not only did he use drugs to beat cancer, he bullied cancer.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

A real hero could beat cancer without drugs or being a bully.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> He did beat cancer.
> 
> Of course he used drugs for that too so it doesn't really count. But who can beat cancer clean?


Yes he did. He obviously wanted it enough. Cancer only kills those too lazy and lacking motivation to fight it. Jeez.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Wookiebiker said:


> .... With a level playing field where nobody was doping (one can dream) ... it's really, really hard to say.


Professional cyclist without dope?!?! Would they also not have bicycles... maybe just run the races on foot? Bicycle racing... _grown men racing bicycles for a living_... is entertainment sport. The cycling game was played... as it was played. Drugs has always been a part of bicycle racing. 

Whatever you think of the sport or Lance.... he is one of the sports greatest champions. And a drug using cheater.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

Dave Cutter said:


> Whatever you think of the sport or Lance.... he is one of the sports greatest champions. And a drug using cheater.


^^This. Cutter cuts to the chase...


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Slartibartfast said:


> ^^This. Cutter cuts to the chase...


IOW a 'champion cheat'...if we _really_ wanna cut the crap.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> IOW a 'champion cheat'...if we _really_ wanna cut the crap.


Careful lest your boy get caught or blamed for doing the same. We are to assume that only LeMond, Hampsten, and Evans were the only clean GT winners for the last 30 some years.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Careful lest your boy get caught or blamed for doing the same. We are to assume that only LeMond, Hampsten, and Evans were the only clean GT winners for the last 30 some years.


Well ... some assume, not all :aureola:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> Well ... some assume, not all :aureola:


There's the possibility you're right. I'd hate to think all the effort to strip Lance and all the talk of LeMond being the Mother Theresa of cycling is also a lie.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

c.rod said:


> ok, before you guys hang me. im new.yes i knew a "little' about him during his "wins" success etc. but i never followed cycling at all really.
> 
> so my question is. arguably, do you think he could have won all of them or any of the tdf without the drugs?
> 
> ...


I was just saying to myself "Hmmm....we need yet another freaking Lance thread! There have only been 10 per week since the Oprah show. I wish someone would post an all-lower-case, semi-intelligible new topic about Lance!"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rcharrette said:


> He ushered in the era of focusing only on The Tour. He spent the season pre-riding key mountain stages (no one did this at the time) and his team was drilled to perfection with only one goal " keep him safe"! On a level field( no one doping) I believe he put in the training time, effort and attention to detail to win most if not all of them. If he had not doped and the others did (as has been proven) I don't think he could have beat them clean.


That era existed for over a decade before lance did it. Indurain, leMond, Riis, Ullrich, all focused on the Tour and would recon stages. 

Lance created many myths. The clean one was the most promoted but the "Trained harder" babble was just that, babble. 

The variance in response to oxygen vector doping is massive. The level of risk, and protection from risk, each rider was willing to take varied greatly. Lance paid Ferrari well over $1,000,000....this was not simple stuff. 

Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Lance.....None would have won the Tour if there was a level playing field.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Lance admitted in his interview with Oprah that he probably couldn't have won without doping. 


Spade, I hope you're not insinuating that Mother Teresa was a model, saintly person. She was an enormous fraud and probably a bigger jerk than Lance.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

Looking at it from an odd angle...if you take 5 guys and they all dope...wouldn't the best still be the best? Modify 3 cars, one with 50hp, one with 100 and another with 150 and part for part, the 150 will always come out on top.

I know this is a generalization of something extremely complicated but in a field of dopers, he either was the best...or doped the most. To be honest...I'm not sure which it was.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Typetwelve said:


> Looking at it from an odd angle...if you take 5 guys and they all dope...wouldn't the best still be the best? Modify 3 cars, one with 50hp, one with 100 and another with 150 and part for part, the 150 will always come out on top.
> 
> I know this is a generalization of something extremely complicated but in a field of dopers, he either was the best...or doped the most. To be honest...I'm not sure which it was.


The short answer is no. The longer answer is that that isn't how doping works.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Not exactly. 

Let's say riders A and B are equal as cyclists. They're the same size and can climb the mountain at the same speed. But A's hematocrit is 45 and B's is 40. 

That means A's blood is 45% red blood cells, carrying oxygen, and B's is doing the same performance with 40% red blood cells. Thus, B's body is making due with less oxygen and is more efficient than A's body. Something about B's phsyisiology (maybe the V02 max, musclulature, or something else) is superior to A's physiology. 

So if they both take EPO and boost their hematocrit to 50% (the limit at the time Armstrong raced), A will go from 45 to 50 and B goes from 40 to 50. Given that they have different starting points, when A goes up 5 points and B goes up 10 points, who will win on the new "level playing field"?


----------



## LeMond1 (Jul 17, 2008)

c.rod said:


> ok, before you guys hang me. im new.yes i knew a "little' about him during his "wins" success etc. but i never followed cycling at all really.
> 
> so my question is. arguably, do you think he could have won all of them or any of the tdf without the drugs?
> 
> ...


Not Lance............ but one American did, his name is Greg LeMond.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Careful lest your boy get caught or blamed for doing the same. We are to assume that only LeMond, Hampsten, and Evans were the only clean GT winners for the last 30 some years.


Spade, you should know by now that I don't assume much when it comes to dopers. Think back a little to some of the assumptions you've made about Lance getting paid by Oprah, Wiggins obviously being on the juice because he led out Cavendish on the Champs. I could go on...
As I've said before, if Wiggins is busted then he'll get no sympathy or excuses from me.
Again you seem to assume too much about me. Maybe others here would be better disposed toward your prattlings if you left your overweening belief in your own righteousness at the door.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Careful lest your boy get caught or blamed for doing the same. We are to assume that only LeMond, Hampsten, and Evans were the only clean GT winners for the last 30 some years.


Assume what you like, you usually do...

Evans, I wouldn't bet a brass farthing on him being clean. After all, yer man Hincapie helped him all the way to Paris and we know how clean _he_ is. So we must assume Evans is dirty, mustn't we?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

sir duke said:


> Assume what you like, you usually do...
> 
> Evans, I wouldn't bet a brass farthing on him being clean. After all, yer man Hincapie helped him all the way to Paris and we know how clean _he_ is. So we must assume Evans is dirty, mustn't we?


But, but, but, Big George stopped doping in 2006, like everyone else. Says so right in the USADA affidavit.


----------



## Kalel (Mar 17, 2013)

Lance would not win because everyone else was obviously doping. His main rivals were doping. And I doubt Lemond was clean. Cheating was around during the merkx era. Saying lemond was clean is just as bad as saying lance was clean just because he never tested positive.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

mpre53 said:


> But, but, but, Big George stopped doping in 2006, like everyone else. Says so right in the USADA affidavit.


Oh yeah. Sorry about that, I'd incorrectly assumed Big George was still juiced, maybe he also persuaded Batman to ride clean for his comeback, since we're assuming stuff.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Kalel said:


> Lance would not win because everyone else was obviously doping. His main rivals were doping. And I doubt Lemond was clean. Cheating was around during the merkx era. Saying lemond was clean is just as bad as saying lance was clean just because he never tested positive.


Ah this sad tired old song again eh. Lance was dirty so everyone else ESP Lemond MUST be. Actually all evidence points to Lemond being clean. And sounds like Lance tested + but was able to have those covered up. Add to that with everyone clean Lance would still not win likely would not even be top 10 in a GT he was a one day rider.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Didn't he say during his interview with Oprah that he couldn't have done it without doping? Am I making this up?


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

sir duke said:


> One thing you have to realise... Like all cheats, they have enough self-awareness to know that they will NEVER be the best, that they will NEVER be good enough.


In cycling the *fact* that many other cyclists *are* cheating makes it pretty obvious you won't be "the best" unless you also cheat... the idea that you can overcome similiarly gifted riders who are cheating, without cheating yourself, is a pipe dream... sadly.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

One thing is for sure, nobody will never be able to say with 100% accuracy who was the best cyclist or who would have won because we can't turn back time and have a redo with all the riders clean. 



ph0enix said:


> Didn't he say during his interview with Oprah that he couldn't have done it without doping? Am I making this up?


Yes, because everybody else was doping, so in order for him to win, he doped.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Our dopers beat their dopers - now, let me get back to WWE wrestling


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

It's a pity he doped. Because he might have won 7 TDFs without doping!


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

nolight said:


> It's a pity he doped. Because he might have won 7 TDFs without doping!


There was no chance of that apparently.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Spade, you should know by now that I don't assume much when it comes to dopers. Think back a little to some of the assumptions you've made about Lance getting paid by Oprah, Wiggins obviously being on the juice because he led out Cavendish on the Champs. I could go on...
> As I've said before, if Wiggins is busted then he'll get no sympathy or excuses from me.
> Again you seem to assume too much about me. Maybe others here would be better disposed toward your prattlings if you left your overweening belief in your own righteousness at the door.


Yes, do go on how Team Sky did more than US Postal and how Wiggo was on form for the warmup stage races even longer than 'ol Lance was. Yet, tell us how it's NOT suspicious. I know, cooling down after races, 20 minute threshold, and the new chainrings. Nothing to see here, right?


----------



## T-K (May 17, 2013)

nolight said:


> It's a pity he doped. Because he might have won 7 TDFs without doping!


Not a chance, he was a great one day rider before his illness, he'd have stuck to that and been successful in that but he got greedy and went big. Same as Riis - Donkey to race horse are the words that come to mind with certain responders to EPO.

Great shame though - the fact that the Livestrong brand is ultimately founded on a lie.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

T-K said:


> Not a chance, he was a great one day rider before his illness, he'd have stuck to that and been successful in that but he got greedy and went big. Same as Riis - Donkey to race horse are the words that come to mind with certain responders to EPO.
> 
> Great shame though - the fact that the Livestrong brand is ultimately founded on a lie.


He was likely using EPO and other drugs in the early days, too. 

"Most advanced doping program in the world of all time" hoopla aside, I think he was simply probably one of the best responders, as was Big Mig. 

Based on my own blood values, I'd think I wouldn't respond much to EPO without hitting dangerous hematocrit levels. Someone with a much lower H&H would likely respond much more than I would.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

I recall watching some special on LA on the Discovery channel (I think) a few years ago and they were going on about how he's naturally/genetically predisposed to being a great athlete and how his lactic threshold is so much higher when compared to an average person. They supposedly hooked him up to some fancy machines and ran a bunch of scientific tests to determine all that. Was it all pure BS or does EPO and other dope actually help with that stuff? 
Tells you how much I know about doping.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ph0enix said:


> I recall watching some special on LA on the Discovery channel (I think) a few years ago and they were going on about how he's naturally/genetically predisposed to being a great athlete and how his lactic threshold is so much higher when compared to an average person. They supposedly hooked him up to some fancy machines and ran a bunch of scientific tests to determine all that. Was it all pure BS or does EPO and other dope actually help with that stuff?
> Tells you how much I know about doping.


The BS was very thick in that one. It's hard to say since there haven't been too many tests comparing performances clean and on EPO. Even then, the body can be pretty variable and the same exercise routine could yield different results at different times. 

I think he had good natural talent, as did everyone in the peloton. It's unfortunate that so few chose the high road.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

ph0enix said:


> I recall watching some special on LA on the *Discovery channel* (I think) a few years ago and they were going on about how he's naturally/genetically predisposed to being a great athlete and how his lactic threshold is so much higher when compared to an average person. They supposedly hooked him up to some fancy machines and ran a bunch of scientific tests to determine all that. Was it all pure BS or does EPO and other dope actually help with that stuff?
> Tells you how much I know about doping.



View attachment 280877


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

What Lance has helped me with is I can't watch the Giro or the TOC without believing they're all doped.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> View attachment 280877


True. I forgot about that.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

That he has superior genes to you, me, and 98% of the general population is a given. It's the fact that nothing in his results pre-1999 suggests that he had superior genes to the top riders, that raised questions almost from the get-go. Same with Mig pre-1991, and arguably, Mig had better max O2 uptake numbers than LA. I'm not so sure that I place a lot of cred in Mig's supposed 28 bpm resting heart rate.

If you look at all of the great multi-year champions of the recent past---Anquetil, Eddy, Fignon, Hinault, LeMond---they contended right from the start. Mig and LA came from the middle of the peloton to the top step of the podium and did it in consecutive years.


----------



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

mpre53 said:


> That he has superior genes to you, me, and 98% of the general population is a given. It's the fact that nothing in his results pre-1999 suggests that he had superior genes to the top riders, that raised questions almost from the get-go. Same with Mig pre-1991, and arguably, Mig had better max O2 uptake numbers than LA. I'm not so sure that I place a lot of cred in Mig's supposed 28 bpm resting heart rate.
> 
> If you look at all of the great multi-year champions of the recent past---Anquetil, Eddy, Fignon, Hinault, LeMond---they contended right from the start. Mig and LA came from the middle of the peloton to the top step of the podium and did it in consecutive years.


also, without searching. didnt he "destroy" the field sometimes by huge gaps? making it even more suscpicious?


----------



## HanSol000 (May 18, 2013)

Could he have won without dope and everyone else still doped? Obviously not. He probably wouldn't make the team.

If dope never existed, could he have won? No one knows, but since most of the guys were using, I think it's fair to say that he would have been in the hunt.

Btw: since EPO has a nasty side-effect (death) doesn't that automatically create a ceiling for dosage? If so, that would mean that most of the guys were running near the limit, meaning one can't argue that Lance was taking 50 times the dosage of someone else.

From reading Tyler's book and other info, the Lance doping program wasn't all that different than other teams. So if he was using the same dope etc... then without it, the results wouldn't be that different.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

HanSol000 said:


> Btw: since EPO has a nasty side-effect (death) doesn't that automatically create a ceiling for dosage? If so, that would mean that most of the guys were running near the limit, meaning one can't argue that Lance was taking 50 times the dosage of someone else.


The danger zone for death seems to be when HCT levels are 70%+. But practically, there was a ceiling for dosage when UCI set a HCT limit of 50%.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

From what I got from Tyler's book, Michele Ferrari was in another class than most of the "sports doctors" out there (like Fuentes). It's not like there is a universal formula for PED use, and (as has already been mentioned in this thread) not everyone responds the same way or to the same extent to their use. 

Better racer? Up for debate, although most say no (including Lance). Better doper? I'd say yes.

Let the myth die.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yes, do go on how Team Sky did more than US Postal and how Wiggo was on form for the warmup stage races even longer than 'ol Lance was. Yet, tell us how it's NOT suspicious. I know, cooling down after races, 20 minute threshold, and the new chainrings...
> 
> Show me where I've said that Wiggo was some special case exempt from questioning. I've previously stated on this forum that Chris Froome is highly suspicious. Wiggo's palmares count in his favour at this stage, even though his climbing ability curiously improved. You make the mistake of assuming that I harbour some kind of nationalistic schadenfreude over Lance. Lance gets singled out because he told the biggest lies for the longest time. If your happy memories of Tex stomping the Eurodopers every July for seven years are sour, well too bad. Pointing the finger at Sky won't fix that. Come up with something more than sour grapes and I'll take you seriously. Your hard won insights from the peloton have yet to convince me you know any more than all the other pundits on this forum.
> It's kind of ironic that the only time I got neg rep on this forum was for expressing satisfaction that Sean Yates was shown the door by Sky. Yep, that very same cheating Brit Sean Yates. Sky and Brailsford deserve all the questioning they got for having Yates and the dodgy doctor on their payroll. The about face they performed by insisting all team members come clean about their doping was ill-considered window dressing and I highly doubt they would have done it unless they felt a need to show the world they were clean. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Their performances do deserve scrutiny, for the simple reason that ANY team who can boss a Grand Tour for 3 weeks must be up to no good. And we know why that is, don't we?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perhaps it is simply because I am racist against Her Majesty?

OMG, Team Sky got rid of all ex dopers on staff? OMG, they must be clean now. 

Again, I draw most of my comparisons with US Postal and T-Mobile in case you forgot. Perhaps I'm just a bitter German.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Perhaps it is simply because I am racist against Her Majesty?
> 
> OMG, Team Sky got rid of all ex dopers on staff? OMG, they must be clean now.
> 
> Again, I draw most of my comparisons with US Postal and T-Mobile in case you forgot. Perhaps I'm just a bitter German.



Her Majesty is almost as much German as she is British in any case. You do realise she opens her presents on Christmas Eve, in German fashion, rather than on Christmas Day, the traditional English practice. Please note that being a Brit does not automatically mean standing up for 'God Save The Queen'. I'm much more offended that you should think me a Royalist, I am not, never have been, never will be. Couldn't give a rat's arse about Wiggo's knighthood or that for Chris Hoy. I very much doubt Her Maj would tear herself away from her corgi's or Horse and Hound long enough to watch a bicycle race- a 'plebian' sport if ever there was one, and not the kind of thing a blue-blood would involve oneself in.

As you sarcastically put it, Team Sky are 'clean' because they instigated a no-dopers policy. As I pointed out, that PR failure naturally invites the kind of scepticism you employ. Not much I can do about that. Sooner or later we will know the truth. Meantime Wiggin's less-than-stellar performances in the Giro might persuade me that a) he was a one-hit wonder as far as Grand Tours go, b) he was doped for his Tour win but is now clean, c) just couldn't deal with the wet roads as well as others, had sh!tty luck and a crisis of confidence d) all, any or none of the above are true. It's going to be interesting to see how he and Froome tackle Le Tour, I don't think either of them will win it, but I'm guessing we'll learn more about Froome as a potential GC contender than we will about Wiggins. 
To be honest, Lance, Wiggo, and 'Frandy' are all sideshows to a greater or lesser extent, the real cheats in the sport are Team U.C.I. It's a moot point whether Armstrong would have won clean against a clean peloton, just wishful thinking that maybe a few people like to use to bolster their disappointment now that their dream is in tatters. He said 'no' when asked on Oprah and who would know better than he himself?
A few people are tired that threads about Lance are still cropping up. Simple, the whole sorry saga is not at an end, the people who contributed to the Lance era are still running the sport. We have yet to get a definitive answer on what went on with U.S Postal since Bruyneel has yet to have his arbitration, Ferrari is still pleading his innocence, the 'qui tam' case is pending and SCA still want their money back. Armstrong plays a fast and loose PR game of image rehab whilst hanging on to his pot of gold. What has changed? As long as this state endures Armstrong will be a hot topic. Don't like it? Blame him.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doping existed well before Lance and will continue to thrive. There will be cat and mouse battles between dopers and testers, but the UCI more or less is pretty responsible. Lance is a jerk, which made it easy to focus all anger and rage on him alone with everyone else being victims. It's all just sleight of hand to make us feel like we've cleaned up cycling and distract us from any past or future doping. 

This is the part where you again refute that the Yellow Jersey doing the final lead out is no big deal because you have all done that before. Funny how most people who used to race back in the day were all Cat 1s. All people who went to the Ivy League had a full ride scholarship. Everyone I've ever met who went to a music conservatory also had a full ride. I used to actually believe people. Not so much these days.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

sir duke said:


> As you sarcastically put it, Team Sky are 'clean' because they instigated a no-dopers policy. As I pointed out, that PR failure naturally invites the kind of scepticism you employ...


I think most of us have a hard time believing in their "no dopers" policy simply because it's impossible for Sky to have not known several of their hired employees (both riders and staff) had a doping history.
Not saying they're not clean now... but then, I'm not saying they are either.



sir duke said:


> I very much doubt Her Maj would tear herself away from her corgi's or Horse and Hound long enough to watch a bicycle race- a 'plebian' sport if ever there was one, and not the kind of thing a blue-blood would involve oneself in.


Well, "Her Maj" should do what my wife and I do- watch cycling WITH our Corgis!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

RRRoubaix said:


> I think most of us have a hard time believing in their "no dopers" policy simply because it's impossible for Sky to have not known several of their hired employees (both riders and staff) had a doping history.
> Not saying they're not clean now... but then, I'm not saying they are either.


Totally agree, that's why it came across as expedient and a P.R. failure. Sky made a rod for their own back. Any team trying to press the reset button on their past legacy with doping riders and directeurs sportif is inviting ridicule. If you are in the sport of cycling you know dopers, coach dopers, or were/are a doper yourself. Vaughters, for all his faults, has been much more pragmatic/realistic in this regard than Brailsford.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Cableguy said:


> In cycling the *fact* that many other cyclists *are* cheating makes it pretty obvious you won't be "the best" unless you also cheat... the idea that you can overcome similiarly gifted riders who are cheating, without cheating yourself, is a pipe dream... sadly.


I think in the years before EPO and blood doping it _was_ possible to take on the less talented cheat and still win. Mercx, Anquetil, and Coppi were 'the best' because they were the best. They were probably using all the same stuff the also rans used just to finish a gruelling stage race, but they were demonstrably the best in the peleton, rode the Grand Tours and the classics, rode on the track, did TT's and crits. Of course, a doped Mercx would probably beat a clean Mercx. All the anecdotal evidence from riders in the EPO years points the same way, a carthorse _could_ become a contender overnight and after that it was just escalation. People like Riis and Armstrong would have been pack fodder back then.


----------



## HanSol000 (May 18, 2013)

"Better racer? Up for debate, although most say no (including Lance)"

We all agree if everyone else was doping he couldn't win. But I think the far more interesting question is if there was NO dope, ie. even playing field - what happens then? 

Obviously we don't know, but I think he would still be in the hunt if no one was on the dope.

Another way to look at it, if everyone on his team doped, why was he so much better? 

Let's say you're #2 or #3 on his team and think you're better than Lance, I would go to the same doc and ask, "hey what's he taking I want the exact same regiment". 

In that case, if the guys were taking similar levels, and he was still far superior, then again we go back to the conclusion that he was an above average pro.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

HanSol000 said:


> "Better racer? Up for debate, although most say no (including Lance)"
> 
> We all agree if everyone else was doping he couldn't win. But I think the far more interesting question is if there was NO dope, ie. even playing field - what happens then?
> 
> ...


You did not read the rest of the thread did you?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You did not read the rest of the thread did you?


You can always tell if someone is a noob on the Doping Forum.

* Attention Doping Forum newbies. Using the statement below shall flag you as a complete and utter noob:

*"A clean Lance would have been better than the rest because the rest was also doping.."
*
- there was never a clean Lance
- not every doping program is the same
- not every person responds the same
- blah blah blah. Use the search feature of the forum to find futher details about "the myth".


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mpre53 said:


> That he has superior genes to you, me, and 98% of the general population is a given. It's the fact that nothing in his results pre-1999 suggests that he had superior genes to the top riders, that raised questions almost from the get-go. Same with Mig pre-1991, and arguably, Mig had better max O2 uptake numbers than LA. I'm not so sure that I place a lot of cred in Mig's supposed 28 bpm resting heart rate.
> 
> *If you look at all of the great multi-year champions of the recent past---Anquetil, Eddy, Fignon, Hinault, LeMond---they contended right from the start. Mig and LA came from the middle of the peloton to the top step of the podium and did it in consecutive years.*


I don't know how much more I can agree with the bolded. I find that in life, usually the "gifted", whether be in academic or sport, they usually show their ability very early on and then continues to advance very fast to their climax. Examples of other gifted athletes are the likes of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. They showed talents early on and then continue to pile on. All of the great minds of humanity usually show their greatness at a very early age, from philosophers to music composers to mathematicians; usually by early 20s they are already well acknowledged they they had something special.

When a person suddendly starts to show gifted ability after cancer, after well his "spurring years", then hellya that's something to be suspicious.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

sir duke said:


> Her Majesty is almost as much German as she is British in any case. You do realise she opens her presents on Christmas Eve, in German fashion, rather than on Christmas Day, the traditional English practice. Please note that being a Brit does not automatically mean standing up for 'God Save The Queen'. I'm much more offended that you should think me a Royalist, I am not, never have been, never will be. Couldn't give a rat's arse about Wiggo's knighthood or that for Chris Hoy. I very much doubt Her Maj would tear herself away from her corgi's or Horse and Hound long enough to watch a bicycle race- a 'plebian' sport if ever there was one, and not the kind of thing a blue-blood would involve oneself in.
> ...
> ...



And how do we know you're not saying this in front of a mainly Yanky audience to garner our trust? I'll bet you know it doesn't take much to have our good side in your pocket with a little reverse psychology talk, huh, huh! What if you're really a British mole on RBR?! I wanna see your wallet mister. Just want to make sure you don't have the Queen's pic and Team Sky membershipcard in there 

And BTW, I'm neither German nor English, and not even Christian, but I do give myself a big Xmas present every year. And I don't plan to break this tradition. This year I plan on giving meself an XCr stainless steel bike. Can't wait for Xmas 2013!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> This year I plan on giving meself an XCr stainless steel bike. Can't wait for Xmas 2013!


Well, let's hope it's Sheffield steel...



> And BTW, I'm neither German nor English, and not even Christian


I like you already...thanks for playing.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

HanSol000 said:


> "Better racer? Up for debate, although most say no (including Lance)"
> 
> We all agree if everyone else was doping he couldn't win. But I think the far more interesting question is if there was NO dope, ie. even playing field - what happens then?
> 
> ...


Except that it's not how pro cycling works. It's a team sport. The #2 or #3 rider isn't there to fight the team leader for the top step of the podium. Especially when the team IS the leader. 

Besides, they were all using the same doctor and methods. :wink:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Besides, they were all using the same doctor and methods. :wink:


So, the media insisting that the most sophisticated doping program of all time, past, present, and future was an exaggeration? If so, what else has the media lied about???


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> If so, what else has the media lied about???


Pretty much anything that will sway your beliefs to what they want it to be.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> Pretty much anything that will sway your beliefs to what they want it to be.


Kinda sad. I really started to notice it during the 2nd to last US election. 

To be honest, I've worked for a few people over the years. A few things happened, but final reports said something entirely different. 

I realize that the forum thinks he's the worst person on the planet. I just have a gut feeling that riders weren't being totally honest about how much of a victim they were.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> So, the media insisting that the most sophisticated doping program of all time, past, present, and future was an exaggeration? If so, what else has the media lied about???


We're America. We do everything better. And our Postal Service---they deliver. :lol:

Although not necessarily for less.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

considering all the people he shared the podium with were dopers, if they all went clean I'd think LA would beat them. He defeated them on a dirty playing field, he'd probably defeat them on a clean one


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

atpjunkie said:


> considering all the people he shared the podium with were dopers, if they all went clean I'd think LA would beat them. He defeated them on a dirty playing field, he'd probably defeat them on a clean one


That's the "it's just a different level playing field" fallacy.

It would only be the case if responses to doping are equal amongst everyone (they are most definitely not), and that everyone had the same level of access to and use of doping technologies, techniques, substances and assistance (they most definitely didn't).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> considering all the people he shared the podium with were dopers, if they all went clean I'd think LA would beat them. He defeated them on a dirty playing field, he'd probably defeat them on a clean one


Lance spent over $1,000,000 with Ferrari....how many Neo Pro's have that kind of cash? 

The most important elements of success during the Armstrong era were

*Have the most sophisticated program
*Respond well to it
*Take as much risk as possible
*Mitigate that risk with "Donations"


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance spent over $1,000,000 with Ferrari....how many Neo Pro's have that kind of cash?
> 
> The most important elements of success during the Armstrong era were
> 
> ...


this is it, the difference with Lance post cancer was that he became filthy rich and could afford the best doctor and the best program, and could buy off othe riders, the uci and anyone else that stood in his way. 

no other rider had the resources to to blow $1m on peds.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Nobody can win the tour without the dope imo. Ever. Reason being that the peleton will never be clean, so therefore you must dope to win the TdF.

100 years ago it was this dope

50 years ago it was that dope

Today it is EPO and probably something else we have yet to ever hear of...

The best pro cyclists are the best dopers..AKA the ones that never get caught


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

No way.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance spent over $1,000,000 with Ferrari....how many Neo Pro's have that kind of cash?
> 
> The most important elements of success during the Armstrong era were
> 
> ...



and how much did Jan, Ivan etc... spend with Fuentes? How much did Pantani spend with his Docs? NeoPros don't have the needed ingredients to become elite. All the doping Tom Danielson did never won him a GT, nor Levi, etc...
All the doping George did never made him beat a doped Museeuw or Knavren. Dope won't make pack fodder into the elite. It will make pack fodder faster but the elite are still the elite. 
Look, they were all racing with H Crits under 50. I would say the majority were receiving some 'help' in recovery, including all the top contenders. Clearly the Doms are getting help as well. Lance was not privvy to some special dope that other riders couldn't get their hands on. Ferrari's contract wasn't exclusive. 
I agree he responded well to the dope, as did Jan, Ivan, Vino, Marco ad nauseum. Why? Because they all had elite level motors to begin with


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> and how much did Jan, Ivan etc... spend with Fuentes? How much did Pantani spend with his Docs? NeoPros don't have the needed ingredients to become elite. All the doping Tom Danielson did never won him a GT, nor Levi, etc...
> All the doping George did never made him beat a doped Museeuw or Knavren. Dope won't make pack fodder into the elite. It will make pack fodder faster but the elite are still the elite.
> Look, they were all racing with H Crits under 50. I would say the majority were receiving some 'help' in recovery, including all the top contenders. Clearly the Doms are getting help as well. Lance was not privvy to some special dope that other riders couldn't get their hands on. Ferrari's contract wasn't exclusive.
> I agree he responded well to the dope, as did Jan, Ivan, Vino, Marco ad nauseum. Why? Because they all had elite level motors to begin with


Wrong on many counts.....this has been covered many, many times

Doping effects each rider differently. Riis, Ulirch, lance, never would have won the Tour 

If you take two riders, both with a natural Vo2 of 80 and each can raise their Hct to 50 which one responds better, the rider with a natural Hct of 39 or the rider with a 47?

Lance's agreement with Ferrari was exclusive. No other GT riders could work with him

Yes, Armstrong had access to drugs nobody else had. Baxter pharmaceuticals. 

There are hundreds of riders who said no to transfusion. Hundreds. Instead of entering the 3rd week of the 2003 Tour with a 35 Hct lance had a 48.5.....do you think that this is a level playing field? 

Did those other riders get advanced notice of OOC testing? Positives ignored? Jan sure didn't, he was suspended for an OOC positive

The level playing field is a myth


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong on many counts.....this has been covered many, many times
> 
> Doping effects each rider differently. Riis, Ulirch, lance, never would have won the Tour
> 
> ...


it is not level amongst all riders, it was roughly level amongst the top
Had Lance never returned it would have been the era of Jan
When Lance won his first TdF his program was no more heavily financed than any other top GT rider. 
A rider with a 47 Hct would gain little from ePo since a 2 pt increase is all they can get w/out setting off warnings.
Baxter and HemAssist? The drug that killed a good number of people who used it in trials? The one that never got FDA approval because it never produced the intended results? Yeah, that's the magic bullet. Look Armstrong was a doper and an a hole bully. Don't let any hostility you have for him fog your typically decent opinions.

Yes Ferrari didn't work for anyone else.... Hamilton, Alessandro Bertolini, Gianluca Bortolami, Mario Cipollini, Gianni Faresin, Ivan Gotti, Andreas Kappes, Kevin Livingston, Eddy Mazzoleni, Axel Merckx, Thomas Dekker, Abraham Olano (GT/ Vuelta Winner), Daniele Pontoni, Paolo Savoldelli (Giro Winner), Filippo Simeoni, Pavel Tonkov (GT rider) and Beat Zberg.... because any businessman limits his clients because he doesn't want to make $$$. Lance would have shelled out a helluva more than a million $s if he'd have had an exclusive deal for 6 years.

and all those labeled blood bags as Fuentes office were there because no other riders was doing transfusions

He did play the system better i will admit that. He was a cunning SOB, but he had no special dope that separated him from his doped up podium mates


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> He did play the system better i will admit that. He was a cunning SOB, but he had no special dope that separated him from his doped up podium mates


..but but but, WORLD'S MOST SOPHISTICATED DOPING PROGRAM EVAR!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> ..but but but, WORLD'S MOST SOPHISTICATED DOPING PROGRAM EVAR!


yeah except when the Rabobank program was exposed and showed it all to be business as usual

How much $ was spent on Jan's doping. How much did the DDR invest from his childhood to early adult ages....
same goes for all the EAst Bloc riders.....

Lance is the anti Indurain. Everybody likes Miguel


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> yeah except when the Rabobank program was exposed and showed it all to be business as usual
> 
> How much $ was spent on Jan's doping. How much did the DDR invest from his childhood to early adult ages....
> same goes for all the EAst Bloc riders.....
> ...


LOL, I've joked once or twice that it's not about doping, but Lance being a horrible person. 

Personally, I think destroying Lance was more of a PR stunt than anything. We feel good that we've stopped doping and cleaned up cycling. Yet, Big Mig is a nice guy, so that was ok. ?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> LOL, I've joked once or twice that it's not about doping, but Lance being a horrible person.
> 
> Personally, I think destroying Lance was more of a PR stunt than anything. We feel good that we've stopped doping and cleaned up cycling. Yet, Big Mig is a nice guy, so that was ok. ?


Same goes for Barry Bonds. Doped no more than any of the rest, but people didn't like him.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> Same goes for Barry Bonds. Doped no more than any of the rest, but people didn't like him.


Exactly who I was thinking of.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> LOL, I've joked once or twice that it's not about doping, but Lance being a horrible person.
> 
> Personally, I think destroying Lance was more of a PR stunt than anything. We feel good that we've stopped doping and cleaned up cycling. Yet, Big Mig is a nice guy, so that was ok. ?


Agreed. Lance being a jerk was essentially his undoing. Simple as that. Well...also, he should not have won so many times.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> Agreed. Lance being a jerk was essentially his undoing. Simple as that. Well...also, he should not have won so many times.


The funny/sad thing is that there was a list of 50 of the worst athletes, mostly NFL, MLB, and NBA. 'Ol Lance didn't even make that top 50 and some of the stuff these guys were doing was just turrible. These guys were thugs and felons, but Lance somehow was about the only one to "lose it all". Strange world we live in.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> The funny/sad thing is that there was a list of 50 of the worst athletes, mostly NFL, MLB, and NBA. 'Ol Lance didn't even make that top 50 and some of the stuff these guys were doing was just turrible. These guys were thugs and felons, but Lance somehow was about the only one to "lose it all". Strange world we live in.


Lance being the "Michael Jordan" of cycling garnered much more attention than many of those "worst athletes". Maybe he should have only won 5 times....haha.

There are so many double standards in pro cycling today I don't even know what to think any more.

Example: You have to dope to win....so dope. If you win, you are legendary...just make sure to cover your tracks so you don't get caught as a doper. If you do get caught, then your legendary status turns to "schmuck". But hey...it is all about how you handle this "schmuck-phase". If you come off as "sorry and likeable", then you are welcomed back with opened arms and are somewhat "legendary" again.

Yes, Spade....weird indeed.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> Lance being the "Michael Jordan" of cycling garnered much more attention than many of those "worst athletes". Maybe he should have only won 5 times....haha.
> 
> There are so many double standards in pro cycling today I don't even know what to think any more.
> 
> ...


In the end, it's not like we're competing against the UCI racers. I simply view it as something to pass the time when doing my base. I more or less started doing this after the 2009 Giro, where some day Sastre will have won that one.  

It's amazing how much cycling fans care about doping while other pro sports simply don't care.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

spade2you said:


> In the end, it's not like we're competing against the UCI racers. I simply view it as something to pass the time when doing my base. I more or less started doing this after the 2009 Giro, where some day Sastre will have won that one.
> 
> It's amazing how much cycling fans care about doping while other pro sports simply don't care.


In sports such as bodybuilding and football and baseball and hockey....we have always seen doping as mass building/muscle building bulk enhancing. It is old news. Since the days of Arnold, I think anyone with half a brain could see those guys and giggle and say "Yeh...right!?"

I think that doping for endurance is a fairly new concept for many casual onlookers/fans. For this reason, it is getting more attention as a "new story" in the press.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> it is not level amongst all riders, it was roughly level amongst the top
> Had Lance never returned it would have been the era of Jan
> When Lance won his first TdF his program was no more heavily financed than any other top GT rider.
> A rider with a 47 Hct would gain little from ePo since a 2 pt increase is all they can get w/out setting off warnings.
> ...


Lots of words.....but wrong

After 99 Armstrong had an exclusive with Ferrari. Ferrari told Dan Coyle about it in his book "Lance Armstrong's War" and wrote about how Tyler was dropped by Ferrari as soon as he left USPS. 

Hemassit did not kill people, people who were already dying died. What is Hemassit?



> Dr. Robert Przybelski, an associate professor at Wisconsin who was the director of hemoglobin therapeutics at Baxter in the late '90s, although he adds that he doesn't know of any missing quantities. What would a cyclist want with the drug? "If somebody was going to design something better than EPO, this would be the ideal product," says Przybelski. DCLHb would certainly give the endurance-starved cyclist a push in the Pyrenees. "[Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers] do everything they want EPO to do without the potential side effects of increased blood viscosity and strokes," says Przybelski. "And it doesn't last long [in the body], 12 to 24 hours, which is ideal for an event."


Jan started using Fuentes in 2003. Fuentes often had his assistant perform the transfusion....even though his assistant had dementia so badly that he would mix up blood bags and was not able to testify at the trial. Who did the transfusions for USPS? Dr. Dag Van Elslande, a UCI doping inspector. 

Former Armstrong doctor Van Elslande also worked as doping control inspector

It is fun to pretend that every team had a similar program and everyone was transfusing but we all know that is not true

How many riders got a review of how the EPO test works from the UCI?
How many riders "Donated" Money to the UCI?
How many riders had a private jet to fly drugs, blood bags, and escape drug testers? 

The "Level Playing field" is just another myth


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

It's too bad other riders couldn't afford his program. ...er wait, they probably shouldn't have been doping, either.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Watching Falsetti debate with a casual member is becoming predictable. It's like watching a lobsided political debate where one person comes in all swinging with questions (while providing zero facts)... but only to have the other side calmly and cooly throw facts to quench the fire.

Dr Falsetti knows his stuff. Everything else in here is a rehased sideshow.

I'll bet 5 years from now, some noob will come along the Doping Forum and will pose the same questions trying to defend Armstrong.

Falsetti is right though, "leveled playing field" is a myth. Just exactly how many pro cyclists have the kind of cash and pulls to bribe the officials like Armstrong? Armstrong dominated cycling by putting the doctors and officials in his corner. He left nothing to chance. The Bernie Madoff of the cycling world.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Lance didn't start off wealthy. It's easy to think he was the sole mastermind.


----------

