# To strip or not to strip, the surprisingly complex question



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Velonews article:

From the Pages of Velo: Lance's Void - Page 2 of 2 - VeloNews.com



> So, what then? Strip Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani? How far back does it go? Each of the race’s five-time winners have either admitted to doping (Jacques Anquetil), failed a drug test (Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault), or been suspected of doping (Miguel Indurain). Two-time Tour winner Fausto Coppi was no stranger to amphetamines, yet he is celebrated as one of the race’s legendary winners from a golden era. At what point do we accept the past, for all its deplorable truths? And who is best equipped to make this judgment — governing bodies, fans, or the athletes themselves?


Hinault in particular stands out for ASO's continued use of him.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Stripping them implies that the records being made today are legit.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

You have one of two options in a situation like this.

1. a Truth and Reconciliation committee as I outlined in an old thread with penalties for not coming completely clean..."soldiers" getting passes and those who actually ran or organized doping, "capos" getting bans etc.

2. keep going back and strip others...

The reason is simple. For the rules to have credibility today and to thus be enforced with something resembling credibility, you need to remove the appearance of prejudice. LA did indeed dope like a fiend. However a LARGE part of the reason he was targeted, vs others who were known to dope like fiends, was that others were not vindictive bullies. They smiled for the cameras, came off like nice guys, so people gave them a "pass" so long as their names did not show up in a police file or on a solid dope test.

This is not the way to run a credible system.

Now if you want to draw the line based on doping methods for practical reason...while I don't necessarily think this is the best path, okay. Say draw a line at the late 1980's where EPO came into it's own. I just think that unless we go with option 1, that it is write to draw a line at 1999 and say "Mission Accomplished" if we want the system to be seen as credible.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Stripping them implies that the records being made today are legit.


This year's Tour was 2 Legit 2 Quit.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Should we only enforce laws if we can capture 100% of the crooks?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Should we only enforce laws if we can capture 100% of the crooks?


No but I don't think one should arbitrarily decide when to stop enforcing rules...hence Option number 1


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

The fact that LA was stripped of his titles due to investigations by USADA and not UCI, does not bode well for the credibility of the governing body, for me that is.

But I will still be a supporter of pro cycling and will still be interested in the sport because I know that hard work and dedication is still required to get to the top. Clean or not. And hopefully the governing body is doing whatever they can to do their job properly.

My interest will not diminish even though I know UCI was as guilty as LA in their own way. That is the politics side of the sport and unfortunately politics will always be dirty.

But to answer the OPs question? I do not know.

One side of me thinks LA should not have been stripped ... They were all dopers competing against each other ... but then in the interest of the future of cycling ... ???

Another side thinks all who have been proven to have doped before should have been stripped ... And even for periods when they were not caught as you do not know when they started ... Yup strip them all ... but then?

What about those who did not win anything? Should they have their names removed from the record books? If you stripped LA, then yes ... All should be removed? What about those who are considered suspicious? They will still be in the record books.

Actually, I think if you have the record books with names of riders and thereafter, (doping proven) or (doping suspicious)? Would that not make cycling more credible? At least my little boy, when he is reading the history of pro cycling in 10 yrs time will know who doped or was suspicious and not just have blanks everywhere. 

Apologies. I am just going round in circles ... Past midnight here now ... :wink:


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n said:


> Actually, I think if you have the record books with names of riders and thereafter, (doping proven) or (doping suspicious)? Would that not make cycling more credible?


I think this is a great idea. The TdF entry for 1999, for instance would say, "Winner, Lance Armstrong (admitted doper)." 

Bravo. Excellent idea. I wish all sports would adopt this process for their record books. It's more interesting, more informative, and more realistic than simply ignoring that doping happened.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Everybody cheats.....
.
.
.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

1999 TdF should go to Christophe Bassons.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> No but I don't think one should arbitrarily decide when to stop enforcing rules...hence Option number 1


Nothing arbitrary about it. Riis, Pantani, Indurain, never signed the WADA code. It would be arbitrary if they were pursued using a lower standard of proof or using regulations that were no in place while they were riding


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nothing arbitrary about it. Riis, Pantani, Indurain, never signed the WADA code. It would be arbitrary if they were pursued using a lower standard of proof or using regulations that were no in place while they were riding


But they still violated the anti-doping rules of the time... To use your logic LA should thus at least have is 1999 Jersey since WADA was not founded until November of that year....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> But they still violated the anti-doping rules of the time... To use your logic LA should thus at least have is 1999 Jersey since WADA was not founded until November of that year....


Nope. Hellebuyck case gives precedent to tolling the SOL. Lance signed the code, Indurain did not.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Poulidor would like his TdF wins


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I think the USADA opened a can of worms when they said 'Armstrong was part if organizing a conspiracy to conceal, so the 8 year SOL goes out the window.'

I think either -A) the 8 year SOL should stay. 
B) have to SOLs. 8 years for doping, 16 for doping + conspiracy. 

It's important to get doping 'conspirators' - the managers, Doctors and trainers who are pushing doping out of the sport.

But at a certain point, stripping titles retroactively is ridiculous.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I think the USADA opened a can of worms when they said 'Armstrong was part if organizing a conspiracy to conceal, so the 8 year SOL goes out the window.'
> 
> I think either -A) the 8 year SOL should stay.
> B) have to SOLs. 8 years for doping, 16 for doping + conspiracy.
> ...


Nope. CAS confirmed that tolling the SOL is allowed and WADA hired an independent auditor to review USADA's setting aside the SOL and they found it within the rules


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope. CAS confirmed that tolling the SOL is allowed and WADA hired an independent auditor to review USADA's setting aside the SOL and they found it within the rules


Ummm that case was very different... But you did indeed still dodge the fact that the UCI had bannd substances and practices pre-WADA which would still be applicable. Artfully done sir BUT still obvious.

Basically what you are saying is this. Crime A was a violation of State Law in 1995. It became a violation of Federal Law in 1999. Since he did not violate Federal Law (due to the timing of the statute) you can not prosecute him for a violation of State Law. Horse Hockey.

If any living generation of doper is given a pass it only serves to reinforce the attitude of "Bob got away with it so maybe I can too."

My preferred method BTW would be option 1...a truth and reconciliation committee, but barring that you need to show that the system is impartial and a huge part of that is removing the impression that only asshats, the unlucky and the stupid get punished.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Strip them all. Is this forum really against doping or just against Lance doping? I can't tell sometimes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Ummm that case was very different... But you did indeed still dodge the fact that the UCI had bannd substances and practices pre-WADA which would still be applicable. Artfully done sir BUT still obvious.
> 
> Basically what you are saying is this. Crime A was a violation of State Law in 1995. It became a violation of Federal Law in 1999. Since he did not violate Federal Law (due to the timing of the statute) you can not prosecute him for a violation of State Law. Horse Hockey.
> 
> ...


It is clear you do not understand tolling. You may want to start with the Hellebuyck case, which was the precident USADA used to Toll the SOL for Lance. This was upheld by CAS and WADA. It was also submitted to an independent review and was found to be applicable. 

A key element to tolling is misleading an official investigation. lance did this in 99,00, 01, 02, 05. He also lied under oath in 05. Can you give a similar example for Indurain?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is clear you do not understand tolling. You may want to start with the Hellebuyck case, which was the precident USADA used to Toll the SOL for Lance. This was upheld by CAS and WADA. It was also submitted to an independent review and was found to be applicable.
> 
> A key element to tolling is misleading an official investigation. lance did this in 99,00, 01, 02, 05. He also lied under oath in 05. Can you give a similar example for Indurain?


Ibdo understand tolling. The basis of that case was that, largely, Helle lied before a panel...was acquitted and THEN later confessed to the media. The rationalization used was that his lying before an anti-doping authority panel was enough to get past it. LA had never before been called to answer before an ADA so it is different. Hell back when we had the first SOL case you agreed that this was different enough that it made beating SOL in LA's case not a sure thing.

In 05 he lied in a civil suit outside the ADA's jurisdiction so whether that would be relevant is uncertain. Since he did not fight it we will never know 

BUT AGAIN you dodge that the use of EPO was technically illegal as of at least April of 1997 when they instituted the Hemocrit limit. the expressed purpose of this rule was to stop the use of EPO because they could not detect EPO at the time....so at a minimum you could go after riders up to that date for EPO use quite easily if you chose to. Drawing the line at WADA implementation is a cop out.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is clear you do not understand tolling. You may want to start with the Hellebuyck case, which was the precident USADA used to Toll the SOL for Lance. This was upheld by CAS and WADA. It was also submitted to an independent review and was found to be applicable.
> 
> A key element to tolling is misleading an official investigation. lance did this in 99,00, 01, 02, 05. He also lied under oath in 05. Can you give a similar example for Indurain?


Why do we tap dance around asking Big Mig?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Why do we tap dance around asking Big Mig?


Because he is one of the record holders and most importantly was a nice "gentle giant.". Then if you go after him how can you rationalize not going after the Badger? Then after the Badger the Cannibal? 

Anyone who can't see that part of this is not first "my favorite Champion" let alone "this guy was an asshat... That guys was not.." is either niave or disingenuous.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

badge118 said:


> Because he is one of the record holders and most importantly was a nice "gentle giant.". Then if you go after him how can you rationalize not going after the Badger? Then after the Badger the Cannibal?
> 
> Anyone who can't see that part of this is not first "my favorite Champion" let alone "this guy was an asshat... That guys was not.." is either niave or disingenuous.


Isn't our objective to put an end to doping? So far, the only take home point is that it's alright to dope if you're nice. If nobody is immune ya put more fear into people thinking about doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Ibdo understand tolling. The basis of that case was that, largely, Helle lied before a panel...was acquitted and THEN later confessed to the media. The rationalization used was that his lying before an anti-doping authority panel was enough to get past it. LA had never before been called to answer before an ADA so it is different. Hell back when we had the first SOL case you agreed that this was different enough that it made beating SOL in LA's case not a sure thing.
> 
> In 05 he lied in a civil suit outside the ADA's jurisdiction so whether that would be relevant is uncertain. Since he did not fight it we will never know
> 
> BUT AGAIN you dodge that the use of EPO was technically illegal as of at least April of 1997 when they instituted the Hemocrit limit. the expressed purpose of this rule was to stop the use of EPO because they could not detect EPO at the time....so at a minimum you could go after riders up to that date for EPO use quite easily if you chose to. Drawing the line at WADA implementation is a cop out.


You are confused, lance does not have to lie only to an ADA or the UCI... but he did 

He lied to the UCI when he tested positive for cortisone in 99
He lied to the UCI and the official French investigation into the dumping of drugs and syringes in 2000
He lied to the UCI in 01 and 02 when he had suspicious tests for EPO
He lied in 2005 during the offical investigation into the 99 EPO positives
He lied under oath in 2005 in the SCA case

the list goes on. It is clear that Armstrong actively impeded multiple investigations into his doping


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> So far, the only take home point is that it's alright to dope if you're nice.


Rather simplistic view of the issue. 

The more accurate interpretation is that when the sport does not have adequate oversight and a clearly outlined process then doping is allowed to flourish and sanctioning athletes is hard. Most have seen the significant improvement in the sport since the WADA code came into place


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Stripping them implies that the records being made today are legit.


well they are.. until you can prove otherwise


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> well they are.. until you can prove otherwise


Can't tell if trolling, oblivious, or the best sarcasm on the planet.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused, lance does not have to lie only to an ADA or the UCI... but he did
> 
> He lied to the UCI when he tested positive for cortisone in 99
> He lied to the UCI and the official French investigation into the dumping of drugs and syringes in 2000
> ...


When did he lie under oath to an ADA. Usually in terms of SOL you need this little thing called perjury before a relevant authority. Perjury and lying are different...and again you agreed this was a difference a year ago before the "reasoned decision" was released.

I find it actually rather disingenuous how you go so hard after 1 doper but want others to walk. I wonder....


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Can't tell if trolling, oblivious, or the best sarcasm on the planet.


Well that's how sport works right?

If you win something on the day then you get all the glory and congratulations - then you lose your reputation at a later date be that a few months, weeks, or years later if the relevant authorities find out you were doping to achieve the result. 

oh.. sorry, I forgot for a minute we're talking about cycling.. where you only get the glory 15 years later when retroactive tests come back negative and everyone goes "ahhhhh we were wrong.. I feel kind of bad for that Froome guy now!"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> When did he lie under oath to an ADA. Usually in terms of SOL you need this little thing called perjury before a relevant authority. Perjury and lying are different...and again you agreed this was a difference a year ago before the "reasoned decision" was released.
> 
> I find it actually rather disingenuous how you go so hard after 1 doper but want others to walk. I wonder....


It does not matter if it was only to an ADA, it is about the conspiracy to cover up the doping. Lying under oath qualifies.....but if you insist, prior to WADA the UCI was the ADA. He lied to them in 99, 00, 01, 02, and 05. 

I do not want others to walk, I just know the unfortunately reality of the process. I think Riis especially should be stripped but I know there are limited ways to do so. ADD is currently investigating him and I expect his time in the sport will be over soon.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

badge118 said:


> I find it actually rather disingenuous how you go so hard after 1 doper but want others to walk. I wonder....


I think more than a few people have noticed this. Big Mig has never admitted doping. Didn't that Irish lady say that not saying anything was also a lie? I guess that only applies to Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I think more than a few people have noticed this.


Did you also notice how I have posted multiple times about Indurain's doping? If you actually read what I write you will see that I am talking about the lack of a process in place to sanction Indurain. As much as I would like to see it happen, it isn't going to


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

How is it then that the Italians performed investigations, thus they had a "process", to do this....RTÉ Television - 20 Moments That Shook Irish Sport regarding incidents in 1993. 

At the time they said the SOL would lock them down BUT using your own argument, with USADA managing to use CAS precedence to break the SOL regarding lying, perjury etc.... then one should be able to take the evidence from this Report: Indurain And Banesto Were Conconi Clients | Cyclingnews.com

and under the anti-doping rules of the UCI that Indurain was a signatory too, nail him. The process is there, you just don't want to see it.

The more I look at this "let's stop at LA" the more I am reminded of a President, standing on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier saying "Mission Accomplished." They were empty and essentially false words them and they are now in this context.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

badge118 said:


> The more I look at this "let's stop at LA" the more I am reminded of a President, standing on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier saying "Mission Accomplished." They were empty and essentially false words them and they are now in this context.


I'm not a super-serious student of doping, but to me it seems like post Reasoned Decision/Oprah there have been more revelations and admissions than ever before. My impression is that the ball is rolling now, but maybe just not as fast as we'd like. I don't sense a mission-accomplished attitude -- maybe a bit of a breather, but not mission accomplished. Lots of dudes are losing their jobs and reputations, and not just the a-holes, either... Oh, wait... There was only one a-hole, and they already got him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> How is it then that the Italians performed investigations, thus they had a "process", to do this....RTÉ Television - 20 Moments That Shook Irish Sport regarding incidents in 1993.
> 
> At the time they said the SOL would lock them down BUT using your own argument, with USADA managing to use CAS precedence to break the SOL regarding lying, perjury etc.... then one should be able to take the evidence from this Report: Indurain And Banesto Were Conconi Clients | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> ...


Again, you are confused. An investigation into Indurain is not stopping because I do not want it. I have no control over it. As I have mentioned several times, Indurian is a doper. He should be stripped. Compare Sandro talking to a newspaper 15 years is not remotely close to this Cycling Investigation | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) any investigation and sanction would have to be done by the UCI....good luck with that

As far as Roche goes, the SOL refers to Italian law. Not CAS, Not WADA, not US law. Italy has some of the most absurd SOL laws in the world.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> I think more than a few people have noticed this. Big Mig has never admitted doping. Didn't that Irish lady say that not saying anything was also a lie? I guess that only applies to Lance.


I like a good dose of schadenfraude as much as the next guy but this forum should have a name change "Lance Haters and other doping infractions"
They all doped, I think the better riders responded better to it. The results would have been the same had they all been clean. Lance was a bully and an a hole, had he not gone so aggro against his detractors and stayed retired the first time he most likely would have been up on the podium with Mig, Lemond, Hinault and Merckx.

All I can say is, I guess it pays (for once) to be nice


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

re: Big Mig
well the Spanish have always been so super awesome at doping investigations @ home....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> The results would have been the same had they all been clean.


Really? Riis would have won the Tour if everyone was clean? Lance could not even finish the Tour until he used EPO, he would have won too?


----------



## american psycho (Jul 21, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Should we only enforce laws if we can capture 100% of the crooks?


apparently the consensus is only enforce if you're an a-hole (which in the slacker dictionary means 'driven to win'),


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As I have mentioned several times, Indurian is a doper. He should be stripped. .


All the winners were dopers, so everyone should be stripped and have no winners?
I think its dumb to have LA stripped, I'm glad everything came out and he should be
sanctioned but all this stripping of titles is dumb.....who won the races then?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? Riis would have won the Tour if everyone was clean? Lance could not even finish the Tour until he used EPO, he would have won too?


Weren't you the one who informed us that he had been using EPO the whole time I'm the 1990s?


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Weren't you the one who informed us that he had been using EPO the whole time I'm the 1990s?


yes that's the big mystery. He was using EPO in the 90's and couldn't finish,
so what changed that suddenly he could dominate, what else was he doing?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

High cadence and losing weight.


----------



## ZoomBoy (Jan 28, 2004)

Chris Carmichael


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

american psycho said:


> apparently the consensus is only enforce if you're an a-hole (which in the slacker dictionary means 'driven to win'),


Is Tyler an A-Hole? He had his results stripped and is serving an 8 year ban


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

peabody said:


> yes that's the big mystery. He was using EPO in the 90's and couldn't finish,
> so what changed that suddenly he could dominate, what else was he doing?


No he was not. He started taking EPO in 95. Prior to that he did not finish the Tour in 2 attempts


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is Tyler an A-Hole? He had his results stripped and is serving an 8 year ban


That 8 year ban wasn't quite Lance's fault, unless Lance was the mastermind behind Rock Racing.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

It's in the Bible you know:

"Lance Armstrong is the root of all evil"
First Hesitations 3:11


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Velonews article:
> 
> From the Pages of Velo: Lance's Void - Page 2 of 2 - VeloNews.com
> 
> ...



Curious. What dirt do you have on Hinault? AFAIK he never failed a test like Eddy did.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The Tedinator said:


> It's in the Bible you know:
> 
> "Lance Armstrong is the root of all evil"
> First Hesitations 3:11


What is Lance squared?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No he was not. He started taking EPO in 95. Prior to that he did not finish the Tour in 2 attempts


You are confused 1995 right in the middle of the 90's? Do you have a source as to when he started taking EPO or using testosterone?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No he was not. He started taking EPO in 95. Prior to that he did not finish the Tour in 2 attempts


.......and Lances team partaking in EPO was in response too....wait for it.....other teams already on the program.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

88 rex said:


> .......and Lances team partaking in EPO was in response too....wait for it.....other teams already on the program.


Like T-Kom who had a team wide program going while LA was in the hospital

and a doped Ullrich beat a doped team mate Riis both using doped domestiques

the following year a doped Pantani beat a doped Ullrich and Doped Julich. Meanwhile a doped Zabel won another green jersey. Oh and a FRENCH team got busted for dope for the WHOLE FRIGGING TEAM including darling and multi polka dot winner a doped Virenque

Let's see, who else Tafi, Jalabert, Cippolini, Saachi, Mazzoleni, Durand, Olano, Pantani. Beltran, Livingstone (OMG BEFORE LANCE and Johann!) 

and the list of 'suspicious' it's a regular who's who of the peloton. My guess is, pretty much everyone they tested


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> That 8 year ban wasn't quite Lance's fault, unless Lance was the mastermind behind Rock Racing.


Who said it was lance's fault?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> You are confused 1995 right in the middle of the 90's? Do you have a source as to when he started taking EPO or using testosterone?


I have plenty, mostly guys who rode with him at that time.....but he also said it on Oprah. 

Not sure what Test has to do with it. Not even in the same league as EPO


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> My guess is, pretty much everyone they tested


No exactly. The 99 tests had 50% of the positives that the 98 tests had. After the 2nd week almost all the positives belonged to lance as most riders were scared to take drugs into France. 

How many riders in 2002 Tour got a transfusion in the 3rd week? Everyone was doing it right?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No exactly. The 99 tests had 50% of the positives that the 98 tests had. After the 2nd week almost all the positives belonged to lance as most riders were scared to take drugs into France.
> 
> How many riders in 2002 Tour got a transfusion in the 3rd week? Everyone was doing it right?


What would you attribute the decrease of positives to? I would imagine to better doping techniques designed to evade detection? Because anything else would just seem preposterous to me... Clearly doping was rampant at least to 2006 based on recent revelations, and the evidence stops there for only one reason - the legal statute of limitations.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> What would you attribute the decrease of positives to? I would imagine to better doping techniques designed to evade detection? Because anything else would just seem preposterous to me... Clearly doping was rampant at least to 2006 based on recent revelations, and the evidence stops there for only one reason - the legal statute of limitations.


It was clearly due to the police raids in 98. This, along with the new laws in France criminalizing doping, scared many riders out of taking dope into France. The test results reflect this, all the samples from the 1st stage tested positive but most of the positives from the 3rd week belong to lance.

The polices actions did not scare Lance, Maybe because he was not at the 98 Tour and did not witness the chaos first hand. He hired his gardener to drive a moto filled with drugs around the France. If it was a level playing field, where "everyone was doing it", then where are the other teams "Motoman"?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It was clearly due to the police raids in 98. This, along with the new laws in France criminalizing doping, scared many riders out of taking dope into France. The test results reflect this, all the samples from the 1st stage tested positive but most of the positives from the 3rd week belong to lance.
> 
> The polices actions did not scare Lance, Maybe because he was not at the 98 Tour and did not witness the chaos first hand. He hired his gardener to drive a moto filled with drugs around the France. If it was a level playing field, where "everyone was doing it", then where are the other teams "Motoman"?


I want to make sure that I understand what you're saying: 

Sometimes negative tests show that the peloton was clean.
AND
Sometimes negative tests do not show that the peloton was clean.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

They should strip everybody and ask for the prize money to be returned and add to that a public shaming and 50 whiplashes on a public square. Even if caught 15 years after.

that would give cold sweat nigths to all the Sky black swans rrr:


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

*If he won he must have cheated.*

Is this seriously what it has come to with you all? As far as I know, Hinault has never been suspected of cheating, aside from the fact that he was a really good racer. "Nevermind! He won the tour 5 times! Let's just put his name in the list of caught and punished drug cheats like Lance and Big Mig and all the others from the EPO era!"

This is sad, its one thing for a bunch of clowns in the doping forum to go so far off base, but someone from _Velonews?!?!_ As fans do we really deserve better sports heros?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

foto said:


> As fans do we really deserve better sports heros?



Sports figures shouldn't be heroes.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> What would you attribute the decrease of positives to? I would imagine to better doping techniques designed to evade detection? Because anything else would just seem preposterous to me... Clearly doping was rampant at least to 2006 based on recent revelations, and the evidence stops there for only one reason - the legal statute of limitations.


yes better masking, more elaborate ways to evade
funny as most the riders I mentioned had doping issues years later (Ullrich for example and all the riders involved in Puerto, ONCE/Liberty Seguros, Rabobank)
This whole "everyone else got clean except US Postal" defies history and reeks of pure haterade.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

If dope use is documented, strip away.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

LostViking said:


> If dope use is documented, strip away.


Anquetil defiantly admitted to it, so as I said "Poulidor would like his TdF's please"


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

atpjunkie said:


> Anquetil defiantly admitted to it, so as I said "Poulidor would like his TdF's please"


Agreed - until Poulidor is documented!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Seeing Eddy got busted, they should strip all five of his TdF's too?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> Seeing Eddy got busted, they should strip all five of his TdF's too?


Where they can prove he doped, why not?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> This whole "everyone else got clean except US Postal" defies history and reeks of pure haterade.


Nonsense. 

I am talking about the 99 Tour. There was defiantly a pause in the doping that year. After Lance and his boys made it clear they were not going to change it was full gas. The test results support me. The riders who rode that year (I know several) would say the same.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Coolhand said:


> Seeing Eddy got busted, they should strip all five of his TdF's too?


Eddy only admits to one positive test, of the 3 he had. None of them occurred during the TdF. He disputes the controls used for testing in his Giro positive to this day.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Ohhh stop that nonsense ATP, that was all L.A.'s fault. 

- They should just leave the past "winners" in the books and put an asterisk by their names. Let us not forget that the cheating, all types of cheating has taken place since i believe the 3rd edition of the Tour.

All of these guy's who cheated in the past just need to be punted out of the sport (it's been happening too!) and then we may have a chance to move forward with at least one "clean" sport.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

I think your own koolaid has gone to your head Dr.
The teams/directors/doctors involved in the cheating of many years prior kept doing what they were doing. They just got serious about it like Lance & his director/doctors.

It's now time to ask you to pull your head from the sand as you've accused others regarding doping during this era. 

It has been proven that doping/cheating was ingrained in our beloved sport. STOP trying to pin it on 1 guy. It's making you look foolish and I do not believe you are a foolish man.....

Time to move along.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> I think your own koolaid has gone to your head Dr.
> The teams/directors/doctors involved in the cheating of many years prior kept doing what they were doing. They just got serious about it like Lance & his director/doctors.
> 
> It's now time to ask you to pull your head from the sand as you've accused others regarding doping during this era.
> ...


Hardly trying to pin it on one guy, just pointing out the "Level Playing Field' is nonsense. 

As I have pointed out over, and over, and over, the issues in the sport are far more then just Lance, Johan, and Ferrari. 

Riis is an especially toxic element. His win in 96 was the result of pushing doping to the extremes. When a donkey like Riis wins the Tour the message is clear, dope to the top or get the **** out of the sport. 

If we are looking to place blame I would put Riis, Lance, Bruyneel, Ferrari, Siaz, Verbruggen, Schmidt, Lefevre, and Pevenage, as the primary forces in the Pre WADA era.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> yes better masking, more elaborate ways to evade
> .


What methods did riders use to mask EPO usage in 99? Why would they try to mask EPO usage, there was no test and most thought there would never be a test


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

foto said:


> *If he won he must have cheated.*
> 
> Is this seriously what it has come to with you all? As far as I know, Hinault has never been suspected of cheating, aside from the fact that he was a really good racer. "Nevermind! He won the tour 5 times! Let's just put his name in the list of caught and punished drug cheats like Lance and Big Mig and all the others from the EPO era!"
> 
> This is sad, its one thing for a bunch of clowns in the doping forum to go so far off base, but someone from _Velonews?!?!_ As fans do we really deserve better sports heros?


I wouldn't go so far to say that there aren't "suspicions" about Hinault, but the fact of the matter is, he has no positive test results that I'm aware of. Nor has he ever, unlike Fignon, admitted doping. But I would agree that he was perfectly capable of winning his 5 without popping a few uppers along the way. Whether he did or not, methinks he'll take that to the grave. :wink:

Uppers are pretty easy to conceal from your teammates, too. You don't have to walk around with a thermos, or sport bruises from an IV.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

LostViking said:


> Where they can prove he doped, why not?


They can't 'prove' Lance doped on all his tours but they stripped him of all 7


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

mpre53 said:


> Eddy only admits to one positive test, of the 3 he had. None of them occurred during the TdF. He disputes the controls used for testing in his Giro positive to this day.


Even Gimondi said Eddy's positive @ the Giro was a set up


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I am talking about the 99 Tour. There was defiantly a pause in the doping that year. After Lance and his boys made it clear they were not going to change it was full gas. The test results support me. The riders who rode that year (I know several) would say the same.


1999 Points Zabel and O'Grady dopers
Mountains - Virenque doper
Escartin, Olano, Casero , Zulle......

thinking the 99 tour was clean makes me suspect you are on substance
you are NOT being logical


2) Zulle - admitted use, part of Festina
3) Escartin - teammate spilled the beans of Kelme's systemic doping programme
4) Dufaux - like Zulle, part of Festina
5) Casero - Fuentes Op Puerto
6) Olano - Ferrari / ONCE Saiz and Puerto
7) Nardello - Mapei doping programme
8) Virenque, doper Festina
9) Belli - Festina
10) Peron ONCE Saiz and Puerto

and folks Saiz - ONCE, Liberty Seguros, Astana was arrested in Puerto. He also pulled team ONCE from the 98 Tour, hmmmmm wonder why?

yeah 99, that was a clean tour


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> 1999 Points Zabel and O'Grady dopers
> Mountains - Virenque doper
> Escartin, Olano, Casero , Zulle......
> 
> ...



LA wasn't doing anything different then the rest of them....he was just more brash about it, the others laid low.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

peabody said:


> LA wasn't doing anything different then the rest of them....he was just more brash about it, the others laid low.


Lance was a cocky a hole and a bully. Which is why all the hate goes to him.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

atpjunkie said:


> Lance was a cocky a hole and a bully. Which is why all the hate goes to him.


And an American to boot...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> They can't 'prove' Lance doped on all his tours but they stripped him of all 7


They did indeed prove he doped on all his Tours.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> 1999 Points Zabel and O'Grady dopers
> Mountains - Virenque doper
> Escartin, Olano, Casero , Zulle......
> 
> ...


You did not read what I wrote did you? 

I wrote that the tests support the riders contention, and mine. There were 50% less positives. Riders and teams were scared to bring drugs into France. That fear did not last long but teams still went to great measures to avoid French police. From driving to Germany and Spain for transfusions to having motorhomes follow them.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> Lance was a cocky a hole and a bully. Which is why all the hate goes to him.


If that were a crime, several past bosses and a few profs I had back in the day should be in jail.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You did not read what I wrote did you?
> 
> I wrote that the tests support the riders contention, and mine. There were 50% less positives. Riders and teams were scared to bring drugs into France. That fear did not last long but teams still went to great measures to avoid French police. From driving to Germany and Spain for transfusions to having motorhomes follow them.


in other words, they got more sophisticated in their doping practices and became less brazen
they doped in Spain, Switzerland, Italy. etc...
They still doped


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

atpjunkie said:


> They can't 'prove' Lance doped on all his tours but they stripped him of all 7


Didn't he admit to doing so? A confession is pretty solid evidence.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

LostViking said:


> Didn't he admit to doing so? A confession is pretty solid evidence.


I think the evidence is "there" for a lot of riders. Too bad nobody really wants to look.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They did indeed prove he doped on all his Tours.


can you post those positives?

other than Lance's admission. He should have done a Zabel


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

LostViking said:


> Didn't he admit to doing so? A confession is pretty solid evidence.


other than the confession. I'm talking about actual positive tests


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> can you post those positives?
> 
> other than Lance's admission. He should have done a Zabel


Could you post Valverde, Ulrich, Scarponi, and Basso's positives? 

Thanks


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Could you post Valverde, Ulrich, Scarponi, and Basso's positives?
> 
> Thanks


Curious.....are you hear to argue for arguing's sake? It would appear that your utter hate for Lance (are you Betsy?) supersedes the fact that others dope. I don't think you really care about doping all that much really, just Lance.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

88 rex said:


> Curious.....are you hear to argue for arguing's sake? It would appear that your utter hate for Lance (are you Betsy?) supersedes the fact that others dope. I don't think you really care about doping all that much really, just Lance.


hello....agreed....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Curious.....are you hear to argue for arguing's sake? It would appear that your utter hate for Lance (are you Betsy?) supersedes the fact that others dope. I don't think you really care about doping all that much really, just Lance.


What part of post not poster do you not get?

If you cared to look any anything more then just the Lance threads here then you would see I have written often on Riis, Ullrich, Valverde, McQuaid, Verbruggen, etc. But those guys are not your hero so you ignore them and focus on one banned doper


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> If that were a crime, several past bosses and a few profs I had back in the day should be in jail.


Oh and I forgot, Johann 'the hawg' Bruynneel was a rider for ONCE


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> Oh and I forgot, Johann 'the hawg' Bruynneel was a rider for ONCE


Yes, once he was a rider for ONCE.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> other than the confession. I'm talking about actual positive tests


That's something he can use to keep warm when his pockets are empty and his arse is in jail. You really do like hanging out with that dead horse, don't you?


----------



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

personally, i think they shouldnt have stripped him. the evidence of doping being rampant in the sport is overwhelming. just like in baseball during the mcguire/canseco/bonds era where those guys were jacking up homers like crazy. their records stand but they come with an asterisk. and for most people that record doesnt hold much weight, but it isnt entirely ignored as if it never happened.

i think pro cycling is glad to have a single face for this era of the sport (armstrong). it makes it easier to say "we've moved on from this". you compartmentalize it, let one guy take the brunt of the fallout and then claim that you have changed. alot harder to do that if you have to address the systemic problem ie. the corruption that extends to the governing bodies of the sport and their complicity in the coverup.

let the man keep his titles and his shame.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

you guys need to stop calling the Dr a "Lance hater" and that he onlys mentions about Lance and none of the other dopers. Oh yes he does mention about the other dopers, and he keeps telling you guys to read his other posts, but amazingly a lot of you choose to ignore it.

Is it the Dr's fault that Lance was the biggest ahole, the biggest bully, and ran the biggest doping scheme in the history of sports? When Lance has that much dirt on him, when he has a ton of dirt more than the next dopers, then does it not make sense that he will be discussed and be in the news more than the other more obscure or lying low dopers? Is this logical?

Well if you guys want, you can start digging dirt on Ulrich, Big Mig, Eddy, etc.. too and come back here and post your stories.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> If that were a crime, several past bosses and a few profs I had back in the day should be in jail.


Law school faculty offices would be a medium security prison.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Law school faculty offices would be a medium security prison.


LOL, most guitarists, singers, and a few regulars here might be in jail, too. Man, don't drop the soap in the showers.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What part of post not poster do you not get?
> 
> If you cared to look any anything more then just the Lance threads here then you would see I have written often on Riis, Ullrich, Valverde, McQuaid, Verbruggen, etc. But those guys are not your hero so you ignore them and focus on one banned doper



Lol.....you're a piece of work. There you go with the "hero" stuff again. Carry on.


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

The question was asked " can you list the positives?"

There were a lot of negatives which apparently doesn't equal no positives but I'm positive all the negative testing was not eliminating the positives but ... what was the question?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Here is a link to the entire French Senat report, over 700 pages in French

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r12-782-2/r12-782-21.pdf

It is interesting to note that in 99 only 12 of the 100 samples tested positive for EPO. 6 of those 12 belonged to one rider, Lance Armstrong. 

So much for the "Everyone was doing it" nonsense


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

did Lance fail a test? The healthy approach to this is to accept the fact that cycling was driven by dope. Cycling should have done what major league baseball did with Balco. If anybody's name shows up on [not our Dr. F.]Dr Ferrari's records or Puerto's records, suspend them. Allow for the fact that it probably isn't going to change materially, and enjoy the racing. We know the order of finishes in the past races, so judge them as you wish.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

DV - not only did he admit to doping, he did indeed fail or return suspicious test results.
The French Senate just released a report naming Lance as testing positive for doping.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

David Loving said:


> did Lance fail a test?


yes. 1999


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Positive for cortisone. Produced a prescrition for it for saddle sores. Does not appear to have obtained a TUE prior to it, though.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Here is a link to the entire French Senat report, over 700 pages in French
> 
> http://www.senat.fr/rap/r12-782-2/r12-782-21.pdf
> 
> ...


Hmm interesting thought...though logically flawed if we are to only take the testimony against LA at face value...that USPS had the most sophisticated team wide doping program in sport. At a minimum then that whole team was doping. Telekom at the time also basically had a team wide program. The Lemond narrative is he started going off the back because "everyone" was doing EPO. We also know a few other riders that were doping in the same time frame (either caught or admitted). I think a number of the things above are things you yourself said in the past.

You are not a dumb guy. You know this is more likely a on effect of the 1998 raids and others simply doped less aggressively. In essence here you contradict entirely the narrative you have championed for some time...that in the late 80s the "EPO Generation" began. Well to use what you just note there was no EPO generation....there was no problem and people created a crisis where none existed. Or you are just pissed off that the issue did not end with LA and now people want to widen their net to include all dopers...and this doesn't fit with your agenda/narrative.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Hmm interesting thought...though logically flawed if we are to only take the testimony against LA at face value...that USPS had the most sophisticated team wide doping program in sport. At a minimum then that whole team was doping. Telekom at the time also basically had a team wide program. The Lemond narrative is he started going off the back because "everyone" was doing EPO. We also know a few other riders that were doping in the same time frame (either caught or admitted). I think a number of the things above are things you yourself said in the past.
> 
> You are not a dumb guy. You know this is more likely a on effect of the 1998 raids and others simply doped less aggressively. In essence here you contradict entirely the narrative you have championed for some time...that in the late 80s the "EPO Generation" began. Well to use what you just note there was no EPO generation....there was no problem and people created a crisis where none existed. Or you are just pissed off that the issue did not end with LA and now people want to widen their net to include all dopers...and this doesn't fit with your agenda/narrative.


You clearly have not read what I have written, or know what was happening in the sport for the last 20 years

I have seen no indication that the "EPO Generation" started in the late 80's. Riders were still winning clean in 1990. It took several years to perfect it's use. Most point to this race, the 1994 Fleche Wallone, as a key inflection point. 

Fleche Wallonne 1994 (Gewiss EPO Attack) - YouTube

It only got worse when Riis won the Tour. Not only was it mandatory but it became clear that whoever pushed the limits the most, and responded the best, could make a lot of money. 

The police raids in 98 clearly changed things. The introduction of longitudinal testing for French riders and criminalization of doping in France made riders far less willing to take drugs into France. The test results support this. Few riders doped in the 3rd week of the 99 Tour, where a rider can get the most benefit from an increase in Hct. It is clear to most that from 99 on there was a “peloton à deux vitesses” 

The Frieburg report made it clear Telekom did NOT have a team wide program. Far from it. Only selected riders were allowed in, just like USPS. How is "Everyone doing it" when only 3 guys on the 99 USPS team allowed in the special camper to get Motoman's products? 

Was "everyone" doing transfusions? Really? Zabel did it once. VdV never did a transfusion, and was left off the Tour team because he was not part of the transfusion program. 

Armstrong paid over $1,000,000 to Ferrari....can "everyone" afford that? Of course not. 

Yes, USPS had the most advanced program. Even if you chose to ignore the decade of special treatment they got from the UCI it is hard to ignore to expertise of the program. Fuentes had a former MTB racer, Alberto Leon, performing transfusions. His other assistant had Alzheimer so badly he would mix up blood bags and was ruled incompetent and did not have to testify at the Puerto Trial. Contrast this with who Lance had doing the transfusions at USPS, Dr. Dag Van Elslande.....whose 2nd job was as a UCI doping control chaperon.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Frieburg report made it clear Telekom did NOT have a team wide program. Far from it. Only selected riders were allowed in, just like USPS. How is "Everyone doing it" when only 3 guys on the 99 USPS team allowed in the special camper to get Motoman's products?
> 
> Was "everyone" doing transfusions? Really? Zabel did it once. VdV never did a transfusion, and was left off the Tour team because he was not part of the transfusion program.
> 
> ...


Just for clarification, USPS was not a team wide doping program, and was not any more sophisticated than Telekom or any other program, YET you say it was the most advanced? 


Why do you believe Zabel only transfused once?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Just for clarification, USPS was not a team wide doping program, and was not any more sophisticated than Telekom or any other program, YET you say it was the most advanced?
> 
> 
> Why do you believe Zabel only transfused once?


Yes, the USPS program was more sophisticated then Telekom. They were far more conservative then USPS, which is why Jan ditched them and went on his own, eventually hooking with with Fuentes in 2003. 

A key element of Armstrong's program was the preferential treatment USPS got from the UCI. Telekom did not get advanced notice of OOC test. Jan would have loved that as he was suspend for 6 months after testing positive for ecstasy in an OOC. How many of his competitors were allowed to submitted back dated TUE's for 4 positives? 


Did Telekom ever get this? 

Tour de France 2009: Drug testers gave 'privileged treatment' to Lance Armstrong's and Alberto Contador's Astana - Telegraph

Jan paid Fuentes 83,000 Euros in 2006. Lance paid Ferrari $456,000 for the 2005 season. Maybe lance just likes to overpay for inferior services? 

Given that the vast majority of Professional cyclist never did a transfusion it would not be surprising if Zabel only did it once


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Fleche Wallonne 1994 (Gewiss EPO Attack) - YouTube


Good video. They ride like a "clean" Lemond!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Good video. They ride like a "clean" Lemond!


This weird obsession of yours is getting ponderous 

In 1989 Fignon dropped the entire field on the Poggio in MSR. He set a new record of 6:48. In 1994, 3 weeks prior to the Fleche video, Furlan rode 5:22 on the Poggio. The record still stands today. 

The chemical performances produced by the Gweiss team resemble nothing from the 80's


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The chemical performances produced by the Gweiss team resemble nothing from the 80's


It wasn't due to a lack of trying.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Was "everyone" doing transfusions? Really? Zabel did it once. VdV never did a transfusion, and was left off the Tour team because he was not part of the transfusion program.
> 
> Armstrong paid over $1,000,000 to Ferrari....can "everyone" afford that? Of course not.


Certainly not "everyone" can afford $1M. We can probably agree that Lance spent more than anyone else.

Can we also agree that in the context of O2 vector doping in a grand tour, when we say (or a doper says) "everyone" we don't literally mean EVERYONE? We mean the GC contenders and their key domestiques, don't we? So when Lance says "everyone," he really means only his close rivals -- like Ullrich, Pantani, Zulle, Basso, and of course himself, and key domestiques...

So in that sense, "everyone" really was doping.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I assumed that Armstrong paid for exclusivity with Ferrari.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Slartibartfast said:


> Certainly not "everyone" can afford $1M. We can probably agree that Lance spent more than anyone else.
> 
> Can we also agree that in the context of O2 vector doping in a grand tour, when we say (or a doper says) "everyone" we don't literally mean EVERYONE? We mean the GC contenders and their key domestiques, don't we? So when Lance says "everyone," he really means only his close rivals -- like Ullrich, Pantani, Zulle, Basso, and of course himself, and key domestiques...
> 
> So in that sense, "everyone" really was doping.


No, "everyone" was not doping. There are over 1,500 licensed Pro's. 190 ride the tour. A small fraction of them used transfusions. 

They were contenders because they said yes when so many said no. No way Levi, Tyler, Riis, Ricco, Rumsas, Mancebo, IGG, Armstrong, etc would have been Grand Tour contenders unless they said yes. 

How about the riders who said no? 

Gilles Delion won Lombardy and the white jersey in his 1st year as a Pro. Refused to take EPO and was out of the top level of the sport 3 years later

Would the sport have been different if Eddy Bouwmans, white jersey winner, chose to stay on a program instead of walking away from the sport? 

How many more Tour of Flanders would Edwig van Hooydonk have won if he said yes? 

Bassons had a higher Vo2 then Armstrong. What would have happen if he said yes? What would VDV's career been like if he said yes to transfusions when so many riders were saying no? 

How much better would USPS have been if they rode the Tour with a clean Scott Mercier instead of a doped up Hincapie? 

How much better would the sport have been if there were more directors like Paul Kochli and fewer like Bruyneel, Siaz, and Riis?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The police raids in 98 clearly changed things. The introduction of longitudinal testing for French riders and criminalization of doping in France made riders far less willing to take drugs into France. The test results support this. Few riders doped in the 3rd week of the 99 Tour, where a rider can get the most benefit from an increase in Hct. It is clear to most that from 99 on there was a “peloton à deux vitesses”
> 
> The Frieburg report made it clear Telekom did NOT have a team wide program. Far from it. Only selected riders were allowed in, just like USPS. How is "Everyone doing it" when only 3 guys on the 99 USPS team allowed in the special camper to get Motoman's products?
> 
> Was "everyone" doing transfusions? Really? Zabel did it once. VdV never did a transfusion, and was left off the Tour team because he was not part of the transfusion program.


The recent doping confessions all clearly refute this:

USADA Suspends Andreas Klier For Six Months | Cyclingnews.com

According to a statement from USADA, Klier "admitted using prohibited substances including erythropoietin (EPO), human growth hormone and cortisone, as well as the use of the prohibited method of blood transfusion, from 1999-2006."

Your statement about Zabel is also incorrect:

Erik Zabel admits to 'doping for many years' and resigns from PCC | Sport | The Guardian


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> The recent doping confessions all clearly refute this:
> 
> USADA Suspends Andreas Klier For Six Months | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> ...


The recent doping confessions clearly support what I wrote 

VDV did not do transfusions, he was left off the Tour team becuase of it. What I wrote about Zabel is correct, he did a transfusion once, prior to the 2003 Tour. Dave Z never did a transfusion

Zabriskie Reflects On His Past | Cyclingnews.com



> "I came in and saw Levi and Floyd playing with each other's blood once. That was pretty gruesome and I really didn't want to do that kind of stuff. That was a really strange scene, walking in and seeing that. You're not thinking much because your mind is just blown away by what you've seen.


the vast majority of Pro's never did a transfusion. There was clearly a 2 speed peloton from 98 on.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

So everyone was going EPO but not everyone was transfusing?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The recent doping confessions clearly support what I wrote
> 
> VDV did not do transfusions, he was left off the Tour team becuase of it. What I wrote about Zabel is correct, he did a transfusion once, prior to the 2003 Tour. Dave Z never did a transfusion
> 
> ...


You are misreading the Zabel Süddeutsche Zeitung interview. He clearly says that he did "an awful lot of doping" and stated that he SPECIFICALLY did the 2003 transfusion. Nowhere does he say that this was his only transfusion and it's pretty clear in his interview that he admits to doping pretty much anything that would make him perform better. 

I'm also having trouble with your distinction between transfusion and Epo... one replaced the other because of testing. How does that make it any less cheating?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I think Dr. F is not the confused party here.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This weird obsession of yours is getting ponderous


post not poster


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Zabel's admission regarding the blood transfusions also strikes me as quite disingenuous for another reason: You can't just "decide" to get a blood transfusion. You would have to plan it out months ahead of time, removing the blood also months earlier and keep it stored until used in competition. Not exactly a spontaneous decision.

To me the admission that sprinters are doing all this makes it even more unlikely the GC contenders aren't. As in zero percent likely.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> You are misreading the Zabel Süddeutsche Zeitung interview. He clearly says that he did "an awful lot of doping" and stated that he SPECIFICALLY did the 2003 transfusion. Nowhere does he say that this was his only transfusion and it's pretty clear in his interview that he admits to doping pretty much anything that would make him perform better.
> 
> I'm also having trouble with your distinction between transfusion and Epo... one replaced the other because of testing. How does that make it any less cheating?


No, I am not misreading it. He is very clear in the original interview. 



> And after 2002?
> 
> Epo no more, the tests were just too good to me now. It was swirled with us in the team on an alternative: blood transfusions. And I have to say, 2003, I received a re-infusion before the Tour de France.
> 
> ...


I also asked the reporter who did the interview, Andreas Burkert, to clarify if Eric had only transfused once in 2003 and he confirmed this 

Interesting that Zabel gives a lot of detail about his doping but says 



> 99 took no Epo


As for EPO vs. Transfusions. I am not saying one is better or worse I am pointing out that while there are periods where most riders were on EPO the same is not the case for transfusions. Most riders did not transfuse


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> Zabel's admission regarding the blood transfusions also strikes me as quite disingenuous for another reason: You can't just "decide" to get a blood transfusion. You would have to plan it out months ahead of time, removing the blood also months earlier and keep it stored until used in competition. Not exactly a spontaneous decision.
> 
> To me the admission that sprinters are doing all this makes it even more unlikely the GC contenders aren't. As in zero percent likely.


You didn't read the interview did you? 

Here it is. He goes into detail about the transfusion process, how it disrupted his training etc. 

Das große SZ-Interview mit Erik Zabel - Sport - Süddeutsche.de


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You didn't read the interview did you?
> 
> Here it is. He goes into detail about the transfusion process, how it disrupted his training etc.
> 
> Das große SZ-Interview mit Erik Zabel - Sport - Süddeutsche.de


I don't know how else to say it: he doesn't say that that was the only transfusion he received, only that he received it because the team switched to this method because EPO was too likely to be detected. As I said, they are both doping so it makes very little difference. To me his interview reads very much like an Armstrong-esque legally sanitized confession stating half truths. I'd point out that Zabel decided to "think" about his confession for several days before doing this interview. My guess is he spoke to an attorney about what he could or could not say.

His answer regarding the effect of blood transfusions clearly shows that he was intimately familiar with the process. I find it laughable that he would stop the transfusion after having one, especially considering he finished third on points that year.

My point regarding the planning of the transfusion is just that - it requires a significant amount of premeditation.

I find the next paragraph after the transfusion admission even more strange - that he never had a systematic doping plan or expert help. How the hell do you do transfusions by yourself without any real medical knowledge? It's absurd.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> I don't know how else to say it: he doesn't say that that was the only transfusion he received, only that he received it because the team switched to this method because EPO was too likely to be detected. As I said, they are both doping so it makes very little difference. To me his interview reads very much like an Armstrong-esque legally sanitized confession stating half truths. I'd point out that Zabel decided to "think" about his confession for several days before doing this interview. My guess is he spoke to an attorney about what he could or could not say.
> 
> His answer regarding the effect of blood transfusions clearly shows that he was intimately familiar with the process. I find it laughable that he would stop the transfusion after having one, especially considering he finished third on points that year.
> 
> ...


I am not sure why you are confused. He is clear that he says he did a transfusion once for the 2003 Tour, did not like the process, and stopped. The process is distasteful. Many riders did not do it, or only did it a few times, because of this. 

Zabel's confession is hardly like lance's. Unlike lance, who sued USADA, Ete has already met with NADA for 2 1/2 hours and will meet with them more in the future. He is also coporating with the re-opened Federal investigation into the Freiburg clinic. 

Why would he give so much detail about using a wide verity of drugs for a decade, give evidence to multiple investigations, but lie about how many transfusions he took? 

His statements are consistent with many Pro's at the time: transfusions were a complex, dangerous, distasteful, hassle, that most riders did not want to do


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not sure why you are confused. He is clear that he says he did a transfusion once for the 2003 Tour, did not like the process, and stopped. The process is distasteful. Many riders did not do it, or only did it a few times, because of this.


You are hanging together a bunch of statements he made. This paints an incorrect picture of his individual statements. He said he did a transfusion in 2003. He NEVER states that this was his only transfusion. He could have transfused in all of 2003 and this still would be congruent with his statements, which I think is very likely. Of course that is assuming that there is any truth to his story at all and it isn't wonderfully fabricated like it probably is.

As for why, let me recall his doping confession of 2007 where he stated he doped ONCE for a week with EPO. Why did he say he did it once then? Because it paints himself as the victim. It's incredibly obvious that this is EXACTLY what he's trying to do here 6 years later. You have to realize he is being lambasted by the German press and needs to spin this debacle in his favor somehow.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Regarding Andreas Klier, it would be interesting to know how many times he would admit to blood transfusions since he was on the same team as Zabel. He admits doping up to 2006, I'd bet it was a lot more than one! So the entire team did blood transfusions from 2003-2006, but Zabel didn't? I guess he's just more ethical that way...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> So the entire team did blood transfusions from 2003-2006, but Zabel didn't?



There is zero evidence the intire team did transfusion from 2003-2006. In fact Patrik Sinkewitz has testified only Andreas Klöden and Matthias Kessler went with him to Freiburg for transfusions prior to the 2006 Tour


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

There wasn't organized team doping with T-Mobile. LOL.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is zero evidence the intire team did transfusion from 2003-2006. In fact Patrik Sinkewitz has testified only Andreas Klöden and Matthias Kessler went with him to Freiburg for transfusions prior to the 2006 Tour


How about 2004 and 2005? I don't think anyone has fessed up the exact dates, probably because they're getting close to the statute of limitations for criminal or civil trials. Sinkewitz already pushed the doping envelope to 2007.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> You are hanging together a bunch of statements he made. This paints an incorrect picture of his individual statements. He said he did a transfusion in 2003. He NEVER states that this was his only transfusion. He could have transfused in all of 2003 and this still would be congruent with his statements, which I think is very likely. Of course that is assuming that there is any truth to his story at all and it isn't wonderfully fabricated like it probably is.
> 
> As for why, let me recall his doping confession of 2007 where he stated he doped ONCE for a week with EPO. Why did he say he did it once then? Because it paints himself as the victim. It's incredibly obvious that this is EXACTLY what he's trying to do here 6 years later. You have to realize he is being lambasted by the German press and needs to spin this debacle in his favor somehow.


How does detailing 10 years of a wide range of doping methods get reduced by saying he did not like transfusions? The only way he "Spins" his way out of this is by working with NADA and telling the truth.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> How about 2004 and 2005? I don't think anyone has fessed up the exact dates, probably because they're getting close to the statute of limitations for criminal or civil trials. Sinkewitz already pushed the doping envelope to 2007.


Nope, Tolling of the SOL (Aussetzung der Verjährungsfrist) is allowed in Germany and by NADA. CAS has affirmed the precedent and as the SOL dates to the start of the Fed investigations......it is not an issue.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope, Tolling of the SOL (Aussetzung der Verjährungsfrist) is allowed in Germany and by NADA. CAS has affirmed the precedent and as the SOL dates to the start of the Fed investigations......it is not an issue.


I don't believe this is currently true in Germany, although they are trying to change the rule for exactly this reason. To wit:

Doping: ?Verjährung erst nach 20 Jahren? :: Homepage - Sport - Regensburg - Sport aus der Region Regensburg :: Mittelbayerische Zeitung :: www.mittelbayerische.de

The WADA text on page 39

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_deutsch.pdf

Eight years. Now I am no lawyer and I'm sure there are ways to get around this, but that doesn't change the code.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> I don't believe this is currently true in Germany, although they are trying to change the rule for exactly this reason. To wit:
> 
> Doping: ?Verjährung erst nach 20 Jahren? :: Homepage - Sport - Regensburg - Sport aus der Region Regensburg :: Mittelbayerische Zeitung :: www.mittelbayerische.de
> 
> ...


There are absolutely ways around it for NADA. 

WADA confirmed tolling with the Hellebuyck case. It's use was upheld by CAS and by an independent auditor hired by WADA. It was used by USADA in the USPS case. Given the large number of riders, and staff, who lied to the Freiburg investigation I doubt they would have any issue with it


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There are absolutely ways around it for NADA.
> 
> WADA confirmed tolling with the Hellebuyck case. It's use was upheld by CAS and by an independent auditor hired by WADA. It was used by USADA in the USPS case. Given the large number of riders, and staff, who lied to the Freiburg investigation I doubt they would have any issue with it


Again I am no lawyer, but there is a difference between extending the offense period to strike results like in the Hellebuyck case and what we are talking about now, including the USPS case, which WOULD indeed set that precedent for financial liability. Ullrich is also facing such a legal case right now. I think the hurdle to jump in the USPS case is very high, and the likelihood of an outright win is very low. I would imagine some sort of settlement will in fact occur.

In any case clearly there are rules in place that have a statute of limitation and AFAIK no one has been held criminally or financially liable for offenses prior to the statute of limitations. 

This discussion has gone off topic and I thank you for your input. It is going to be interesting watching the legal wrangling for the next year or two.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> Again I am no lawyer, but there is a difference between extending the offense period to strike results like in the Hellebuyck case and what we are talking about now, including the USPS case, which WOULD indeed set that precedent for financial liability.


The USPS case I am referring to is the USADA case. They were successful in tolling the SOL using the Hellebuyck case as precedent. WADA confirmed it's use as did an independent auditor. Would expect NADA to do the same, if needed.


----------

