# Inside the Postal Bus - Michael Barry



## jlandry

Currently reading this and it's very good. Great inside scoop on the workings of a pro team.

My problem is, while reading the stories, there's always that little doubt in the back of my mind about what's REALLY going on inside the bus. Lance of course, and Floyd are in most of the stories. Makes the reading experience a little annoying.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Well that's the issue, no? Everyone now knows how important doping was to the game but we still haven't been given too much insight into how it was played.


----------



## saird

Probably similar things to whatever was happening elsewhere. Take it or leave it I suppose.


----------



## vetboy

Wait a sec... are you suggesting Lance doped? :devil:


----------



## Chris-X

*Pharmstrong witness*



jlandry said:


> Currently reading this and it's very good. Great inside scoop on the workings of a pro team.
> 
> My problem is, while reading the stories, there's always that little doubt in the back of my mind about what's REALLY going on inside the bus. Lance of course, and Floyd are in most of the stories. Makes the reading experience a little annoying.


It's very good? How's that?

Just a little doubt about what's going on?

How much time does Postal spend in the bus and how much time does it take to transfuse 9 riders?

If there are not extended conversations about timing and dosage and avoiding the controls, don't you think the book is essentially a lie?

Is lying good? Who is still a Lance fan?

Are these valid questions?

I think the most important question is what Michael Barry saw and participated in and whether he is or will be a witness against Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I thought the book was actually a little light on relevations about the Postal bus, doping or otherwise. Given that the book was written during the Omerta era, I didn't expect any major doping stories.

After I got over the shock of accepting that my heroes of that era were doped to the gills, I'm pretty much done with getting all upset one way or another. Doped or not, Armstrong was/is a gifted athlete. I wish I could have seen him ride clean in a clean peloton, but I might as well be wishing I was ProTour caliber myself. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Chris-X

Alaska Mike said:


> I thought the book was actually a little light on relevations about the Postal bus, doping or otherwise. Given that the book was written during the Omerta era, I didn't expect any major doping stories.
> 
> After I got over the shock of accepting that my heroes of that era were doped to the gills, I'm pretty much done with getting all upset one way or another. *Doped or not, Armstrong was/is a gifted athlete.* I wish I could have seen him ride clean in a clean peloton, but I might as well be wishing I was ProTour caliber myself. Ain't gonna happen.


How do you know that? He was doped since he was 18.


----------



## cda 455

Alaska Mike said:


> Doped or not, Armstrong was/is a gifted athlete. I wish I could have seen him ride clean in a clean peloton, but I might as well be wishing I was ProTour caliber myself. Ain't gonna happen.





Chris-X said:


> How do you know that? He was doped since he was 18.


Interesting point you two bring up.


Here's my question regarding that:

If LA doped; How is it that he won seven straight TDF's yet there are other dopers that only get a few podiums, a Classic and such (Based on the dopers that were caught)?

I'm going to guess that doping in the peloton is like doping in Major League Baseball: In baseball; doping doesn't make a player hit better, it just makes you hit further. In the peloton; if you already have super physical, as well as skilled and natural ability, doping just furthers your ability to TT, climb, endure, etc.

My point is: One has to have the natural super physical and mental ability first in order for doping to work to its fullest. 

Judging how Greg LaMond did against a doper (Laurent Fignon) in the final stage of the '89 TDF; if Greg were to dope, he would have been unbelievably super-human.


----------



## Chris-X

*My point is*



cda 455 said:


> Interesting point you two bring up.
> 
> 
> Here's my question regarding that:
> 
> *If LA doped;* How is it that he won seven straight TDF's yet there are other dopers that only get a few podiums, a Classic and such (Based on the dopers that were caught)?
> 
> I'm going to *guess* that doping in the peloton is like doping in Major League Baseball: In baseball; doping doesn't make a player hit better, it just makes you hit further. In the peloton; if you already have super physical, as well as skilled and natural ability, doping just furthers your ability to TT, climb, endure, etc.
> 
> *My point is: One has to have the natural super physical and mental ability first in order for doping to work to its fullest.*
> 
> Judging how Greg LaMond did against a doper (Laurent Fignon) in the final stage of the '89 TDF; if Greg were to dope, he would have been unbelievably super-human.


...that you have no idea whatsoever if Armstrong has those abilities as he's been cheating since he was 18 years old.

Statements like these indicate more about the abilities of the person making them than those of the subject of them.

There's a very good possibility that the drugs created Armstrong's "success" and that he responded better to them than others and that he would have never even come close to winning without them.

"If LA doped?" 

The only thing we know for sure is that Armstrong used PED's copiously. 

Everything else is just speculation. The *only* thing you're doing here is guessing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cda 455 said:


> Interesting point you two bring up.
> 
> 
> Here's my question regarding that:
> 
> If LA doped; How is it that he won seven straight TDF's yet there are other dopers that only get a few podiums, a Classic and such (Based on the dopers that were caught)?
> 
> I'm going to guess that doping in the peloton is like doping in Major League Baseball: In baseball; doping doesn't make a player hit better, it just makes you hit further. In the peloton; if you already have super physical, as well as skilled and natural ability, doping just furthers your ability to TT, climb, endure, etc.
> 
> My point is: One has to have the natural super physical and mental ability first in order for doping to work to its fullest.
> 
> Judging how Greg LaMond did against a doper (Laurent Fignon) in the final stage of the '89 TDF; if Greg were to dope, he would have been unbelievably super-human.


How many of his competitors paid off the UCI? Got advanced notice of testing? Had a private jet to fly their drugs around on? Had access to experimental drugs?


----------



## Mike T.

cda 455 said:


> Judging how Greg LaMond did against a doper.


By that, I assume, you know that Lemond didn't dope. Who said so, Lemond?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Mike T. said:


> By that, I assume, you know that Lemond didn't dope. Who said so, Lemond?


Not just Greg, but all of his former teamates, DS's and support staff all say he not only did not dope but was vocally against it his entire career. 

Some appear confused about the effects of different forms of dope. Comparing Cortisone and Test with EPO is absurd. There were multiple teams and riders in the 80's who placed well in GT's without doping.....in the late 90's &00's there were none.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Chris-X said:


> How do you know that? He was doped since he was 18.


That's an interesting claim, and one I hadn't heard before. That would have him start doping in... '89? While I expect that he was experimenting pre-Ferrari, the usual dates I hear thrown around are '94 or '95 for EPO/Ferrari, but I could certainly see it some interesting palmares in '93 that might indicate some sort of manipulation. Then again, it could have been that he was still racing more or less "clean", using more traditional Belgian methods. What's your source?


----------



## Mike T.

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not just Greg, but all of his former teamates, DS's and support staff all say he not only did not dope but was vocally against it his entire career.


He was up against the likes of Hinault, Kelly, Roche, Fignon etc etc etc and he was the only one doing it natural? Errr yeah ok.


----------



## kbwh

cda 455 said:


> Judging how Greg LaMond did against a doper (Laurent Fignon) in the final stage of the '89 TDF; if Greg were to dope, he would have been unbelievably super-human.


Fignon had a mutha saddle sore and was "riding with one leg". LeMond didn't have to be super human. He didn't need those tribars either.

/off topic


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Mike T. said:


> He was up against the likes of Hinault, Kelly, Roche, Fignon etc etc etc and he was the only one doing it natural? Errr yeah ok.


Always the same, LeMond doped because well, he just had to have doped, no evidence but yeah he definitely doped. 

They seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s, even though he doped himself.

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope?

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean? Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard. Hampsten won clean, 

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO? There are countless riders who have said the exact same thing, that it was possible to ride and win clean prior to EPO. Charly Mottet, Giles Delion, Christophe Bassons, Nicolas Aubier, Chris Boardman, Eric Caritoux,


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Alaska Mike said:


> That's an interesting claim, and one I hadn't heard before. That would have him start doping in... '89? While I expect that he was experimenting pre-Ferrari, the usual dates I hear thrown around are '94 or '95 for EPO/Ferrari, but I could certainly see it some interesting palmares in '93 that might indicate some sort of manipulation. Then again, it could have been that he was still racing more or less "clean", using more traditional Belgian methods. What's your source?


89 was when he was working with Crawford. He was racing Tri's and showed up looking ripped, like a bull. For those who do not know Rick talk to David Clinger....who will tell you about how Rick tried to get him to be a "Coaching" customer, all he needed was $10,000 for EPO and a blood spinner to check his HCT

Most know that Chris Carmichel doped the Junior national team when Lance was on it. It would be surprising if Strock and Ketter were the only ones to get "Extract of Cortisone" His teammates say he was using EPO in 1994 and working with Ferrari in 1995. After working with Ferrari he showed a huge leap in form. 

Armstrong is a hugely talented rider. On a level playing field he would have been a very strong classics rider, but no way he wins even one Tour. It is hard to ignore that from an early age he has been strongly connected with doping.


----------



## MerlinDS

Where can I read this about the jr nat team?


----------



## Alaska Mike

MerlinDS said:


> Where can I read this about the jr nat team?


Six years later, Strock case comes to court


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MerlinDS said:


> Where can I read this about the jr nat team?


Strock Speaks

No surprise that Armstrong, Lechuga, Strock, and Keiter all came down with health issues with a strong correlation with HPV, something that can be triggered by an immunosupressent like Cortisone.


----------



## Alaska Mike

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 89 was when he was working with Crawford. He was racing Tri's and showed up looking ripped, like a bull. For those who do not know Rick talk to David Clinger....who will tell you about how Rick tried to get him to be a "Coaching" customer, all he needed was $10,000 for EPO and a blood spinner to check his HCT


I don't know if I'd consider Clinger a great witness, given his own interesting history, but if half of what I've heard and read about Crawford is true, well...

I was figuring he was on HGH or something similar in the earlier days, with maybe a few "extracts" here or there. I would have thought regular blood doping was a little beyond his means until he signed his first good contract.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most know that Chris Carmichel doped the Junior national team when Lance was on it. It would be surprising if Strock and Ketter were the only ones to get "Extract of Cortisone" His teammates say he was using EPO in 1994 and working with Ferrari in 1995. After working with Ferrari he showed a huge leap in form.


I guess you could say Ferrari was worth every penny if he turned Lance into a single day and stage winner with his "training advice". I've always believed Lance had incredible physical gifts, among them the ability to respond to said "training advice". Not everyone turns into a GT winner just by working with the right doctor.

Given the state of the era that Lance came up in, is it any wonder that he saw no issue with enhancing his performance? The guys who created that environment and mindset are pretty much getting a free ride here. I guess this is where the gangsta in me says something about not hating the playa or something, except I'm not exactly hep to that sort of cool jive. 

I blame Eddy Merckx. If only he hadn't introduced Lance to Ferrari...


----------



## cda 455

Alaska Mike said:


> I blame Eddy Merckx. If only he hadn't introduced Lance to Ferrari...


The irony.

Isn't Eddy a three-time doper?


----------



## jlandry

Chris-X said:


> *It's very good? How's that?*Just a little doubt about what's going on?
> 
> How much time does Postal spend in the bus and how much time does it take to transfuse 9 riders?
> 
> If there are not extended conversations about timing and dosage and avoiding the controls, don't you think the book is essentially a lie?
> 
> Is lying good? Who is still a Lance fan?
> 
> Are these valid questions?
> 
> I think the most important question is what Michael Barry saw and participated in and whether he is or will be a witness against Lance Armstrong.


How's that? It is a book that I am reading and I enjoy it. ????????


----------



## Chris-X

jlandry said:


> How's that? It is a book that I am reading and I enjoy it. ????????


Is it in the Fiction or Non-Fiction category or is Pro cycling commonly understood to be fictitious?

How do you enjoy it? For Barry's creativity or for his journalistic accuracy?:idea:


----------



## Chris-X

*Maybe..*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> 89 was when he was working with Crawford. He was racing Tri's and showed up looking ripped, like a bull. For those who do not know Rick talk to David Clinger....who will tell you about how Rick tried to get him to be a "Coaching" customer, all he needed was $10,000 for EPO and a blood spinner to check his HCT
> 
> Most know that Chris Carmichel doped the Junior national team when Lance was on it. It would be surprising if Strock and Ketter were the only ones to get "Extract of Cortisone" His teammates say he was using EPO in 1994 and working with Ferrari in 1995. After working with Ferrari he showed a huge leap in form.
> 
> *Armstrong is a hugely talented rider.* On a level playing field he would have been a very strong classics rider, but no way he wins even one Tour. It is hard to ignore that from an early age he has been strongly connected with doping.


but can it conclusively be said that Armstrong is more talented than say....Danny Pate, or Bassons or any of hundreds of "talented" riders?

My contention is no. Therefore the competition is rendered essentially meaningless. 

This is something someone like JV is completely blind to.


----------



## lemonlime

Chris-X said:


> How do you know that? He was doped since he was 18.


Seriously? Because he won (7x) one of the most difficult sporting endeavor. And he did it against other (gifted cyclists) who were doped to their eyeballs.


----------



## Chris-X

lemonlime said:


> Seriously?


Do you seriously think he was clean? I forgot, he's 1 in a million!



lemonlime said:


> Because he won (7x) one of the most difficult sporting endeavor.


No, because there is too much evidence to ignore.



lemonlime said:


> And he did it against other (gifted cyclists) who were doped to their eyeballs.


That's the justification he used to Emma O'Reilly and Mike Anderson. JV found out it wasn't true when he went to Credit Agricole.

It's also the universal justification for kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar, 'everybody does it!':mad2:

So to reiterate, Lance was jacked to the sky at 18.


----------



## Cableguy

^ Chris-X you're missing the point. Even if Lance was "jacked to the sky" at birth, at age 0, it doesn't change the fact he needed to be an incredibly gifted athlete to not only win the TdF, but win it 7 times in a row and make it look rather easy, against the best cyclists in the world many of which would have also been cheating similarly. That's why it's not hard to say he was more talented than many of the _hundreds of other talented riders_. And "talent" isn't just about power and VO2max numbers, but also mental strength and strategy. You can argue he was just an ordinary rider who responded unusually well to doping, but that is a stretch... and IMO a lame copout to avoid giving him credit for his abilities.


----------



## Mike T.

^^^^ This. Best post I've read on the subject.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> ^ Chris-X you're missing the point. Even if Lance was "jacked to the sky" at birth, at age 0, it doesn't change the fact he needed to be an incredibly gifted athlete to not only win the TdF, but win it 7 times in a row and make it look rather easy, against the best cyclists in the world many of which would have also been cheating similarly. That's why it's not hard to say he was more talented than many of the _hundreds of other talented riders_. And "talent" isn't just about power and VO2max numbers, but also mental strength and strategy. You can argue he was just an ordinary rider who responded unusually well to doping, but that is a stretch... and IMO a lame copout to avoid giving him credit for his abilities.


By "Strategy" you mean paying off the UCI and having an exclusive with Ferrari right?

Lance's numbers were not even the best on his own team, VDV's were. Ferrari turned him down at first because his Vo2 was not high enough, he had to use Merckx to lobby for him 

Armstrong's key strategic moves were his willingness to take extreme doping risk and aligning himself with the key people in the sport (Verbuggen, Weisel, Stapleton)


----------



## Chris-X

*Hilarious!*



Cableguy said:


> ^ Chris-X you're missing the point..


And you know the "point" other than the obvious point that the performances are a fraud?:idea:




Cableguy said:


> Even if Lance was "jacked to the sky" at birth, at age 0, it doesn't change the fact he needed to be an incredibly gifted athlete to not only win the TdF,.


Fact?:lol: To a .100 hitter a .250 hitter may appear to be incredibly gifted. I don't know if you noticed, but most pros are not all that impressed with Armstrong's accomplishments and his supposed gifts. 

I’m sick of this “I train harder” thing

There are a few, very few, riders that have it in their ability to do these special things. I’ve only ever ridden against/with one in my lifetime. 

That is Greg LeMond. He could have won the Tour de France when he was a junior. I saw him do so many unbelievable things on a bike, I couldn’t even begin to list them. I raced with Fignon, Hinault, Van der Poel, Pascal Richard, and a ton of other “champions”. Lance Armstrong also. Greg made these guys look like amateurs when he set his mind to it. Now I witness on a constant basis, riders doing these special things. Sorry, but there aren’t that many Greg LeMonds around. ​


Cableguy said:


> but win it 7 times in a row and make it look rather easy, against the best cyclists in the world many of which would have also been cheating similarly.


And many of whom weren't cheating as JV found out when he left Postal. Please read me the Armstrong talking points about how he was able to go from a mediocre pre cancer Tour rider to the dominant force he became. You see how absurd the story is without spinning it like a top?



Cableguy said:


> That's why it's not hard to say he was more talented than many of the _hundreds of other talented riders_.


It's not hard to say anything these days because NOTHING needs to be tethered to reality anymore. What you're saying is that it's not hard for YOU to say it. Unfortunately for you, the hero worship doesn't mesh with the objective reality which is being uncovered everyday as the investigation progresses.



Cableguy said:


> And "talent" isn't just about power and VO2max numbers, but also mental strength and strategy..


I think the intangibles here are like the yada, yada, yada, episode from Seinfeld where George asks his girlfriend where she got the luxurious watch! "Well, I was in Sach's 5th Avenue, went to the jewelry counter, tried on the watch, and yada, yada, yada, here it is on my wrist." 

What we're finding out about Armstrong's supposed "mental strength" and "strategy" is that the "yada, yada, yada" came out of vials, creams, patches, pills, and blood bags.



Cableguy said:


> *You* can argue he was just an ordinary rider who responded unusually well to doping, but that is a stretch... and IMO a* lame copout to avoid giving him credit for his abilities*.


He was an ordinary rider and one can bow down to him and be an autograph seeking, celebrity worshipping, idolator if they'd like. Don't let the facts and evidence get in the way of an emotional attachment to the Armstrong cult of personality, which is a fabrication also.

BTW, maybe you can tell me what about this guy isn't a lie?




Mike T. said:


> ^^^^ This. Best post I've read on the subject.


:yikes:


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> By "Strategy" you mean paying off the UCI and having an exclusive with Ferrari right?
> 
> Lance's numbers were not even the best on his own team, VDV's were. Ferrari turned him down at first because his Vo2 was not high enough, he had to use Merckx to lobby for him
> 
> Armstrong's key strategic moves were his willingness to take extreme doping risk and aligning himself with the key people in the sport (Verbuggen, Weisel, Stapleton)


Jeez, I forgot about the bribery and the threats of financial ruin to the opposition and his former teammates! :lol:

Also the transportation network for the drugs on his own private jet! Moreau had his own private jet, right?:mad2: That's right, he's French, they give up easily as opposed to the All American, true blue, Father of the Year, Lance Armstrong! Truth, Justice, and the American Way will prevail!

BTW, how many times have you covered all of these points????


----------



## jlandry

Eddy Merckx - "You can't make a thoroughbred out of a jackass."


----------



## Chris-X

jlandry said:


> Eddy Merckx - "You can't make a thoroughbred out of a jackass."


He wasn't talking about EPO, was he?


----------



## Cableguy

To Chris-X, wow you're unable to separate "Lance cheated and sucks" with *any* topic related to Lance apparently... you can't have an intelligent conversation about him. Nothing personal.

To Doctor Falsetti, see above  But I'll give you credit, you did comment on Lance's test numbers. However, you must realize that just because he did not have the best test numbers (you provided one example) does not discredit the point he was very talented... And not trying to make this hard on you, but test numbers are not equivalent to talent for a variety of reasons. Side question: how were Cavendish's test numbers?


----------



## Cableguy

Mike T. said:


> ^^^^ This. Best post I've read on the subject.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cableguy said:


> To Chris-X, wow you're unable to separate "Lance cheated and sucks" with *any* topic related to Lance apparently... you can't have an intelligent conversation about him. Nothing personal.
> 
> To Doctor Falsetti, see above  But I'll give you credit, you did comment on Lance's test numbers. However, you must realize that just because he did not have the best test numbers (you provided one example) does not discredit the point he was very talented... And not trying to make this hard on you, but test numbers are not equivalent to talent for a variety of reasons. Side question: how were Cavendish's test numbers?


I never said he was not talented, in fact I said he was very talented....just not GT winner talented. There was nothing in his first 6 years as a professional athlete that pointed to him being able to climb or TT with the best. Nothing. It was not until he started using EPO (94) and working with Ferrari (95) that he discovered this "talent"

Lance very smartly align himself with key people that he could dope to the extremes and not be concerned by the normal issues like testing. He has tested positive multiple times for Testosterone, Cortisone, and EPO, yet no sanctions...wonder why? 

His team was owned by Thom Weisel.....who is Thom? 
Tour de Farce - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly

Armstrong partnered with Hein Verbruggen with a billion dollar deal to buy the Tour. How many other riders were the head of the UCI's business partner?
Once he dominated - now Lance could own the Tour - Sport - smh.com.au

It should be no surprise that Armstrong's personal manager, business partner, and fellow indictee, Bill Stapleton, was also on the IOC's ethics committee.

You can pretend that my posts are just "Lance cheated and he sucks" but we both know that is an inaccurate description.

On Cavendish, his numbers are excellent. While his power numbers are not huge nobody can produce as much as he can while maintaining such a low profile....that is how he wins races


----------



## Chris-X

Cableguy said:


> To Chris-X, wow you're unable to separate "Lance cheated and sucks" with *any* topic related to Lance apparently... you can't have an intelligent conversation about him. Nothing personal.
> 
> To Doctor Falsetti, see above  But I'll give you credit, you did comment on Lance's test numbers. However, you must realize that just because he did not have the best test numbers (you provided one example) does not discredit the point he was very talented... And not trying to make this hard on you, but test numbers are not equivalent to talent for a variety of reasons. Side question: how were Cavendish's test numbers?


Your comments about Lance are intelligent? In what way? They ARE devoid of any factual material other than the fact that he is recognized as a 7x TdF champ, whatever that is worth.

It's obvious that the guy has enough talent to be a pro, but even with that being said, the FACT is that he was using very potent drugs before he even was a full time cyclist. You can praise LA all you want but the FACT is that no one knows what his level would be without PED's. Tragically, least of all, Lance Armstrong.

You can go on and on all you want that the majority of pro's were doped, but the fact is that many talented riders were NOT doped, and people of Armstrong's ilk drove them out of the sport and threatened their livelihoods both overtly and covertly.

Why you seem so intent on praising Armstrong is beyond me. Especially with the revelations that in addition to being a drug cheat, he's a pretty lousy human being.

At the very least, his sporting accomplishments have been conclusively proven to have little or no merit.

I don't even know if you read what is written because it was very clear that Dr. Falsetti wrote that Armstrong had a lot of talent, which I believe is questionable.

Seeing that Armstrong was jacked on hormones at 18, please let me know why you feel so strongly that he has this tremendous talent? Who can say for sure?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Looks like the link spammers have been hitting the Doping Forum for some strange reason. I have cleaned it up- if you see more, hit the reported post icon and I will take care of it. 

:thumbsup:


----------



## lemonlime

Chris-X said:


> Do you seriously think he was clean? I forgot, he's 1 in a million!
> 
> 
> 
> No, because there is too much evidence to ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the justification he used to Emma O'Reilly and Mike Anderson. JV found out it wasn't true when he went to Credit Agricole.
> 
> It's also the universal justification for kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar, 'everybody does it!':mad2:
> 
> So to reiterate, Lance was jacked to the sky at 18.


Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression I think he's lilly white, or even thundercloud grey, just that if two racers are doped (and all other things being equal) the stronger rider is most likely to win.

It seems your position is that he was not ever any good, and all his success can be attributed to dope. I disagree. Such is life. <gallic shrug>

I'm not an LA fan, apologist, supporter or whatever and certainly don't care for his public persona. And I am as certain as I can be that he cheated in his sport.

Most talented? Probably not. Clean? Almost certainly not. But the guy was physically talented.


----------



## Chris-X

lemonlime said:


> Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression I think he's lilly white, or even thundercloud grey, just that if two racers are doped (and all other things being equal) the stronger rider is most likely to win.
> 
> *It seems your position is that he was not ever any good, and all his success can be attributed to dope.* I disagree. Such is life. <gallic shrug>
> 
> I'm not an LA fan, apologist, supporter or whatever and certainly don't care for his public persona. And I am as certain as I can be that he cheated in his sport.
> 
> Most talented? Probably not. Clean? Almost certainly not. But the guy was physically talented.


What success on what level are you talking about. Just becoming a Pro makes you a suucess on some level and means you have talent at some level.. 

You see Bull Durham? Just making it to "the Show" means you have tremendous talent. Even guys in Triple A are very talented. But a .250 hitter in MLB is by no means a Hall of Famer.


Is Danny Pate successful? Is he physically talented? Is Armstrong more talented than Pate? The answer to the last question has to be that we just don't know because Armstrong has used drugs his whole career.

Armstrong is not even in the same ballpark of talent as guys like LeMond or Merckx but because of his fraud, many people believe he is..


----------



## davidka

Chris-X said:


> Is Danny Pate successful? Is he physically talented? Is Armstrong more talented than Pate? The answer to the last question has to be that we just don't know because Armstrong has used drugs his whole career.
> 
> Armstrong is not even in the same ballpark of talent as guys like LeMond or Merckx but because of his fraud, many people believe he is..


All but a few riders in history would readily concede that Lance is/was more talented then they are/were. They all doped. Look at the scoreboard. 

That the dope got better over time doesn't make cheating any worse, that's just a cop-out to somehow elevate LA above the previous generation's cheaters.

Merckx got popped for doping 4 times in his career. If he were racing today he'd have a far less impressive record because his career would've been ended early with a lifetime ban. It could be argued that the older generations had the unfair advantage in record building because of lenient punishments.


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> All but a few riders in history would readily concede that Lance is/was more talented then they are/were. They all doped. Look at the scoreboard.
> 
> That the dope got better over time doesn't make cheating any worse, that's just a cop-out to somehow elevate LA above the previous generation's cheaters.
> 
> Merckx got popped for doping 4 times in his career. If he were racing today he'd have a far less impressive record because his career would've been ended early with a lifetime ban. It could be argued that the older generations had the unfair advantage in record building because of lenient punishments.


I don't know if you've noticed but a lot of riders are saying that LA was completely ordinary. Even from the start people like Phil Anderson were saying it as if it really needed to be said anyway.

The stuff Merckx used doesn't make the rider a different person, as was evidenced with Armstrong. The before cancer and after cancer riders were two different human beings.

The fact is that LA took cheating, bribery, PED trafficking, Systemic doping, and fraud to unheard of levels.


----------



## davidka

Chris-X said:


> I don't know if you've noticed but a lot of riders are saying that LA was completely ordinary. Even from the start people like Phil Anderson were saying it as if it really need to be said anyway.
> 
> The stuff Merckx used doesn't make the rider a different person, as was evidenced with Armstrong. The before cancer and after cancer riders were two different human beings.
> 
> The fact is that LA took cheating, bribery, PED trafficking, Systemic doping, and fraud to unheard of levels.


I haven't heard of one single rider saying anything of the sort. I remember countless riders saying the opposite. He was recognized as the best American talent in his generation as a teenager and turned pro (with a big contract) immediately after the Olympics. He was groomed to be Motorola's team leader immediately and he delivered big wins early in his career. Nobody anywhere in the sport saw him as ordinary.

The stuff Merckx used was the best and most advanced he could acquire. He did everything possible to win and he is the winningest road cyclist of all time. His cheating is no less significant than anyone else's. These were the conditions of the sport and despite being caught repeatedly I do not know of other pros in his time commenting that they felt cheated by him.

Lance took his earning potential to unheard of levels, the rest of those things are pure speculation. I don't get the impression that any of his primary competition felt cheated, just beaten. He was an athlete, not an inventor.


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> *I haven't heard of one single rider saying anything of the sort*. I remember countless riders saying the opposite. He was recognized as the best American talent in his generation as a teenager and turned pro (with a big contract) immediately after the Olympics. He was groomed to be Motorola's team leader immediately and he delivered big wins early in his career. Nobody anywhere in the sport saw him as ordinary.
> 
> The stuff Merckx used was the best and most advanced he could acquire. He did everything possible to win and he is the winningest road cyclist of all time. His cheating is no less significant than anyone else's. These were the conditions of the sport and despite being caught repeatedly I do not know of other pros in his time commenting that they felt cheated by him.
> 
> Lance took his earning potential to unheard of levels, the rest of those things are pure speculation. I don't get the impression that any of his primary competition felt cheated, just beaten. He was an athlete, not an inventor.


I named one. Ferrari didn't think much of him either until Eddy talked to him. Before '98 not one professional rider thought Lance was a Tour rider. And if you noticed, after he began his Tour reign he never challenged in the classics or WC.

As for the competition pointing out LA's fraud, look what happened to those who did so, they were ruined. Look what happened to LeMond.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> I haven't heard of one single rider saying anything of the sort. I remember countless riders saying the opposite. He was recognized as the* best American talent in his generation as a teenage*r and turned pro (with a big contract) immediately after the Olympics. He was groomed to be Motorola's team leader immediately and he delivered big wins early in his career. Nobody anywhere in the sport saw him as ordinary.
> 
> The stuff Merckx used was the best and most advanced he could acquire. He did everything possible to win and he is the winningest road cyclist of all time. His cheating is no less significant than anyone else's. These were the conditions of the sport and despite being caught repeatedly I do not know of other pros in his time commenting that they felt cheated by him.
> 
> Lance took his earning potential to unheard of levels, the rest of those things are pure speculation. I don't get the impression that any of his primary competition felt cheated, just beaten. He was an athlete, not an inventor.


BS, where do you think the term "Wonderboy" came from? His teammates on the national team. 

In order to keep your job the coaches had to tell their bosses they had the next Greg Lemond. Roy Knickman, Lance, Bobby, VDV....all were "Next" People who saw the real numbers were sick of the hype and started calling him "Wonderboy" 

Most talented American rider of the last 20 years? Horner followed by VDV, Landis, Bobby, and a bunch of other guys who did not want to play the game and walked away from the poison, like Chopper

Pretending there was a level playing field is absurd. One thing Armstrong's positives at the 99 Tour show is he doped more then others (Most of the positives were his) and the Festina affair did not slow down his consumption.

Armstrong was certainly not ordinary....but he was also certainly not a GT winner without a huge amount of drugs and protection


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> BS, where do you think the term "Wonderboy" came from? His teammates on the national team.
> 
> In order to keep your job the coaches had to tell their bosses they had the next Greg Lemond. Roy Knickman, Lance, Bobby, VDV....all were "Next" People who saw the real numbers were sick of the hype and started calling him "Wonderboy"
> 
> Most talented American rider of the last 20 years? Horner followed by VDV, Landis, Bobby, and a bunch of other guys who did not want to play the game and walked away from the poison, like Chopper
> 
> Armstrong was certainly not ordinary....but he was also certainly not a GT winner without a huge amount of drugs and protection


Nobody in the last couple of generations was a GT winner without a huge amount of drugs. He lived up to the hype and won things no American ever did, pre-cancer. We know that drug use in the peloton was prolific at the time so I don't think it's part of the argument. 

None of them are as talented as LA. We know that one of them got a couple of years to compete against him on the sauce (Landis), it didn't go too well for him. He went on to win a Tour against the "what's left" of the peloton. I notice VDV coming up a lot. Have a look at his team history.


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> Nobody in the last couple of generations was a GT winner without a huge amount of drugs. *He lived up to the hype and won things no American ever did, pre-cancer*. We know that drug use in the peloton was prolific at the time so I don't think it's part of the argument.
> 
> *None of them are as talented as LA.* We know that one of them got a couple of years to compete against him on the sauce (Landis), it didn't go too well for him. *He went on to win a Tour against the "what's left" of the peloton*. I notice VDV coming up a lot. Have a look at his team history.



What did he win that no American hadn't won? Fleche Wallone?

How do you know who has talent and who doesn't as a pro? Answer, you don't.

How can you say the 2006 TdF field had less talent than the jacked and fraudulent/criminal Armstrong? You can't.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Nobody in the last couple of generations was a GT winner without a huge amount of drugs. He lived up to the hype and won things no American ever did, pre-cancer. We know that drug use in the peloton was prolific at the time so I don't think it's part of the argument.
> 
> None of them are as talented as LA. We know that one of them got a couple of years to compete against him on the sauce (Landis), it didn't go too well for him. He went on to win a Tour against the "what's left" of the peloton. I notice VDV coming up a lot. Have a look at his team history.


How many paid off the UCI? Were business partners with Verbuggen? Had Thom Weisel to protect them at USA cycling? Had access to experimental drugs? 

Armstrong's Vo2 was average for a Pro Cyclist, nothing special. Much less then VDV, Lemond, Merckx. Bassons, and many, many others. 

Armstrong's great talent was his ability to align himself with the key people and consume an absurd amount of dope. There were so many ridiculously talented riders whose careers went nowhere because they refused to do the same


----------



## davidka

Chris-X said:


> I named one. Ferrari didn't think much of him either until Eddy talked to him. Before '98 not one professional rider thought Lance was a Tour rider. And if you noticed, after he began his Tour reign he never challenged in the classics or WC.
> 
> As for the competition pointing out LA's fraud, look what happened to those who did so, they were ruined. Look what happened to LeMond.


Phil Anderson also calls LA a Phenomenon in the next question (I assume you refer to a 2011 interview) we could twist the context all day..

What happened to Lemond? He shot his mouth off without a stake in the game and crashed his brand. Doesn't matter if he was right or wrong, the public sided with LA and stopped buying stuff with his name on it (stores don't clearance price merchandise that is in demand). Besides, he is far from ruined. He's made $MILLIONS$ in lawsuits that he initiated. Look up the Big Sky club.



Chris-X said:


> What did he win that no American hadn't won? Fleche Wallone?
> 
> How do you know who has talent and who doesn't as a pro? Answer, you don't.
> 
> How can you say the 2006 TdF field had less talent than the jacked and fraudulent/criminal Armstrong? You can't.


Answer: everyone knows. I say again. Look at the scoreboard. All of it. He was held back from going pro just to race Olympics. He then went pro with a big contract and led Motorola as a 20 year old, won world's at 21. Flechce Wallone, San Sebastian and was Jalabert's primary rival at a few 1-week stage races. All before he got sick. No other American rider approached that level of success early in their career since GL and please stop looking at the other American talents of that time like they were helpless puppies. They were all winners with huge motivation to succeed. Motorola focused on the talent. That was clearly Armstrong.

As for the 2006 Tour had far less talent than the mid 90's up to then. Landis won it doped. He struggled for a top-10 prior to that Tour when Basso, Ullrich, LA, Vinokourov, etc. were there. Dr. F, I hope even you would back me on this.I think 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> How many paid off the UCI? Were business partners with Verbuggen? Had Thom Weisel to protect them at USA cycling? Had access to experimental drugs?
> 
> Armstrong's Vo2 was average for a Pro Cyclist, nothing special. Much less then VDV, Lemond, Merckx. Bassons, and many, many others.
> 
> Armstrong's great talent was his ability to align himself with the key people and consume an absurd amount of dope. There were so many ridiculously talented riders whose careers went nowhere because they refused to do the same


He openly donated to the UCI. I think it was a sum far to small to achieve what you insinuate. I don't know why LA would need Thom Weisel's protection from USA cycling during his career. If anything I could see USAC protection LA themselves. I think you give him far too much credit and not enough at the same time. 

No amount of drugs turns a donkey into a thoroughbred. Average+dope=above average, how can that beat exceptional+dope?

As for the riders who were unwilling, we'll never know for sure but I don't believe the upper echelon of the sport was occupied by mediocre talents who were enhanced. Jan Ullrich was identified as a kid (as was LA) as a top-level talent by his national federation (pharmacy). Those who chose not to partake I truly feel sorry for. They should not have had to walk away but it was a condition of the whole sport, not a few athletes.

And again, please look at VDV's employment history.


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> Phil Anderson also calls LA a Phenomenon in the next question (I assume you refer to a 2011 interview) we could twist the context all day...


Was referring to a much earlier interview. Contemporaneous with Armstrong's miracle transformation to a Tour rider.



davidka said:


> What happened to Lemond? He shot his mouth off without a stake in the game and crashed his brand. Doesn't matter if he was right or wrong, the public sided with LA and stopped buying stuff with his name on it (stores don't clearance price merchandise that is in demand). Besides, he is far from ruined. He's made $MILLIONS$ in lawsuits that he initiated. Look up the Big Sky club..


The point is that Lance is so nuts and he even TRIED to ruin LeMond. Just because LeMond wasn't ruined doesn't change anything. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER ANYONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG. This is where YOU'VE completely lost it.




davidka said:


> Answer: everyone knows. I say again. Look at the scoreboard. All of it. He was held back from going pro just to race Olympics. He then went pro with a big contract and led Motorola as a 20 year old, won world's at 21. Flechce Wallone, San Sebastian and was Jalabert's primary rival at a few 1-week stage races. All before he got sick. No other American rider approached that level of success early in their career since GL and please stop looking at the other American talents of that time like they were helpless puppies. They were all winners with huge motivation to succeed. Motorola focused on the talent. That was clearly Armstrong.
> 
> As for the 2006 Tour had far less talent than the mid 90's up to then. Landis won it doped. He struggled for a top-10 prior to that Tour when Basso, Ullrich, LA, Vinokourov, etc. were there. Dr. F, I hope even you would back me on this.I think
> 
> 
> 
> He openly donated to the UCI. I think it was a sum far to small to achieve what you insinuate. I don't know why LA would need Thom Weisel's protection from USA cycling during his career. If anything I could see USAC protection LA themselves. I think you give him far too much credit and not enough at the same time.
> 
> No amount of drugs turns a donkey into a thoroughbred. Average+dope=above average, how can that beat exceptional+dope?
> 
> As for the riders who were unwilling, we'll never know for sure but I don't believe the upper echelon of the sport was occupied by mediocre talents who were enhanced. Jan Ullrich was identified as a kid (as was LA) as a top-level talent by his national federation (pharmacy). Those who chose not to partake I truly feel sorry for. They should not have had to walk away but it was a condition of the whole sport, not a few athletes.
> 
> And again, please look at VDV's employment history.



Lance was doped from 18 on. You know there are many thoroughbreds, literally, that never win a horse race. They are average amongst the horses at Belmont or wherever. Same as Lance. No one, not even Lance knows how good he really is. He might have won some local races and Iron Kids clean. After that, who knows?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Phil Anderson also calls LA a Phenomenon in the next question


On the SBS 2009 Tour coverage Phil Anderson said in the early 90's Armstrong couldn't climb, couldn't timetrial and wasn't even considered a tour hopeful, but was okay in some of the classics. Mike Tomalaris then said something to Phil Anderson about the Astana truck being searched and how Armstrong always says, they won't find anything because there is nothing to find, his clean. 

Phil Anderson looked down and got this huge smile across his face and looked to be holding back the laughter. Almost couldn't contain himself. For a moment there I thought he was going to say what a load of crap and spill the beans.



davidka said:


> What happened to Lemond? He shot his mouth off without a stake in the game and crashed his brand


LeMond did not shoot his mouth off, he had a couple quotes in 7 years. Because LeMond dared question the myth Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear him, told a room full of people he would get Trek to screw him, set out to paint him as crazy. 

Greg was right. Armstrong's attempt to ruin him backfired, and will continue to do so



davidka said:


> He openly donated to the UCI. I think it was a sum far to small to achieve what you insinuate.


No, He did not. There was no public mention of it until it was going to break in the press. Armstrong and the UCI then lied about the amount. Armstrong told at least 4 teammates and staff that it was $500,000. Since then the figure has ranged from $25-$125,000. 

There is no doubt Armstrong received special access. From Johann being able to visit the lab in Switzerland and review Lance's EPO positive to the advance notice he received of "Surprise" testing. 

You assume that the pay off was the only commercial relationship between Armstrong and Verbuggen, it was not. Far from it. 



davidka said:


> I don't know why LA would need Thom Weisel's protection from USA cycling during his career. If anything I could see USAC protection LA themselves. I think you give him far too much credit and not enough at the same time.


Tour de Farce - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly



davidka said:


> No amount of drugs turns a donkey into a thoroughbred.


Nobody is saying this, nice strawman though



davidka said:


> As for the riders who were unwilling, we'll never know for sure but I don't believe the upper echelon of the sport was occupied by mediocre talents who were enhanced.


Riis was a mediocre pro talent who was almost unemployed. He hooked up with Ferrari's former research partner, Cecchini, and two years later he won the Tour



davidka said:


> Jan Ullrich was identified as a kid (as was LA) as a top-level talent by his national federation (pharmacy).


Jan was a bunch sprinter, not a climber. When he got on the Telekom program the change was ridiculous. It shocked the entire team



davidka said:


> And again, please look at VDV's employment history.


I am far more aware of VDV's history then you are. When 4 riders on Postal were told "Take the shot are you do not start tomorrow" VDV was the only one who stood up and asked what was in the shot. True, he eventually caved to the pressures of predators like Johan the facts are his test numbers clean were far beyond Armstrong's. Bassons were as well as many others who retired instead of taking the shot


----------



## Chris-X

*Great post*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> On the SBS 2009 Tour coverage Phil Anderson said in the early 90's Armstrong couldn't climb, couldn't timetrial and wasn't even considered a tour hopeful, but was okay in some of the classics. Mike Tomalaris then said something to Phil Anderson about the Astana truck being searched and how Armstrong always says, they won't find anything because there is nothing to find, his clean.
> 
> Phil Anderson looked down and got this huge smile across his face and looked to be holding back the laughter. Almost couldn't contain himself. For a moment there I thought he was going to say what a load of crap and spill the beans.
> 
> 
> 
> LeMond did not shoot his mouth off, he had a couple quotes in 7 years. Because LeMond dared question the myth Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear him, told a room full of people he would get Trek to screw him, set out to paint him as crazy.
> 
> Greg was right. Armstrong's attempt to ruin him backfired, and will continue to do so
> 
> 
> 
> No, He did not. There was no public mention of it until it was going to break in the press. Armstrong and the UCI then lied about the amount. Armstrong told at least 4 teammates and staff that it was $500,000. Since then the figure has ranged from $25-$125,000.
> 
> There is no doubt Armstrong received special access. From Johann being able to visit the lab in Switzerland and review Lance's EPO positive to the advance notice he received of "Surprise" testing.
> 
> You assume that the pay off was the only commercial relationship between Armstrong and Verbuggen, it was not. Far from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Tour de Farce - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying this, nice strawman though
> 
> 
> Riis was a mediocre pro talent who was almost unemployed. He hooked up with Ferrari's former research partner, Cecchini, and two years later he won the Tour
> 
> 
> Jan was a bunch sprinter, not a climber. When he got on the Telekom program the change was ridiculous. It shocked the entire team
> 
> 
> 
> I am far more aware of VDV's history then you are. When 4 riders on Postal were told "Take the shot are you do not start tomorrow" VDV was the only one who stood up and asked what was in the shot. True, he eventually caved to the pressures of predators like Johan the facts are his test numbers clean were far beyond Armstrong's. Bassons were as well as many others who retired instead of taking the shot


as usual!:thumbsup:

What's really crazy is how people aren't realizing how absolutely ridiculous the lying and the behavior of the apologists is.


----------



## peabody

Doctor Falsetti said:


> O


so why was pharmstrong given all this access to good drugs back before he was sick?
he had to have some promise, also his "program" to win 7 tours was that much more advanced then guys like basso/ullrich? i do believe he is dirty no doubt, but did he have that much more access to these things then the other top guys?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

peabody said:


> so why was pharmstrong given all this access to good drugs back before he was sick?
> he had to have some promise, also his "program" to win 7 tours was that much more advanced then guys like basso/ullrich? i do believe he is dirty no doubt, but did he have that much more access to these things then the other top guys?


Who of his top competitors got advanced notice of Out of Competition testing? How many were business partners with Verbruggen? How many GT guys hand an exclusive arrangement with Ferrari? Ulrich certainly would have appreciated advance notice when he tested positive for recreational drugs in 2002. Would have saved him millions.

It is silly to pretend there was a level playing field, it never existed.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, He did not. There was no public mention of it until it was going to break in the press. Armstrong and the UCI then lied about the amount. Armstrong told at least 4 teammates and staff that it was $500,000. Since then the figure has ranged from $25-$125,000.
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying this, nice strawman though
> 
> 
> Jan was a bunch sprinter, not a climber. When he got on the Telekom program the change was ridiculous. It shocked the entire team
> 
> 
> I am far more aware of VDV's history then you are. When 4 riders on Postal were told "Take the shot are you do not start tomorrow" VDV was the only one who stood up and asked what was in the shot. True, he eventually caved to the pressures of predators like Johan the facts are his test numbers clean were far beyond Armstrong's. Bassons were as well as many others who retired instead of taking the shot


Since I can't seem to break up the quotes I'll number:

1. I remember LA saying on television that he donated to the UCI to help the fight against doping during his career. I think he claimed "$500,000 of my own money". Not saying I believe one way or another where the money actually went, just that he was open about it.

2. You are saying LA beat far more talented riders than him with his doping. When the more talented riders have doping programs too, that's not possible, hence my donkey comment.

3. Jan did a dominant ride to 2nd place behind Riis at 22, won at 23. Dope + talent=performance. He was just maturing so what he did as a kid can't be a true measure of what he would become. His sprint sucked as a pro.

4. If LA was on the sauce by 18 (as you say), then his "clean" numbers were never compared to anyone's. If VdV's numbers were far beyond Armstrong's, then we never would have heard of Armstrong. Again, not a donkey..



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who of his top competitors got advanced notice of Out of Competition testing? How many were business partners with Verbruggen? How many GT guys hand an exclusive arrangement with Ferrari? Ulrich certainly would have appreciated advance notice when he tested positive for recreational drugs in 2002. Would have saved him millions.
> 
> It is silly to pretend there was a level playing field, it never existed.


I would guess any of the guys that didn't get caught were getting advanced notice. The exclusive with Ferrari? Why is that important? Seems like there were plenty of dope-docs to go around.

Maybe Jan should have avoided crashing his Porsche too while out partying.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> 1. I remember LA saying on television that he donated to the UCI to help the fight against doping during his career. I think he claimed "$500,000 of my own money". Not saying I believe one way or another where the money actually went, just that he was open about it.


You "Remember" Incorrectly. 

Armstrong did not say anything about the payoff until over 4 years after it happened. He went public because the media had heard of the story. I first heard about it almost 10 years ago so it is not surprising that others had. 

He said at the time that the donation was $25,000. Later, under oath at the SCA trial, he pretended he did not know the amount. The UCI first said the figure was $100,000 then said it was $125,000. They forgot to mention the multiple business deals that Verbruggen and Armstrong were also involved in



davidka said:


> 2. You are saying LA beat far more talented riders than him with his doping. When the more talented riders have doping programs too, that's not possible, hence my donkey comment.


Yes, I am saying that. You are under the misguided assumption that all doping programs are the same, all riders react the same, and all rider are tested the same. This is clearly not the case. Save the Donkey stuff, I have never called Lance a donkey



davidka said:


> 3. Jan did a dominant ride to 2nd place behind Riis at 22, won at 23. Dope + talent=performance. He was just maturing so what he did as a kid can't be a true measure of what he would become. His sprint sucked as a pro.


Jan was dropped in training camp his first year, 6 months later he is the strongest rider at the Tour. Everyone on the team was shocked (I have talked to plenty of them)

You are under the misguided assumption that GT riders do not show their abilities until late in their careers. The fact is prior to EPO and doping doctors riders showed their ability to climb, TT, and recover early in life. 




davidka said:


> 4. If LA was on the sauce by 18 (as you say), then his "clean" numbers were never compared to anyone's. If VdV's numbers were far beyond Armstrong's, then we never would have heard of Armstrong. Again, not a donkey..


Again, I have never called him a donkey, that is your strawman. You are under the misguided assumption that all dope is the same, all programs are the same, all riders react the same to dope. This is wrong on many levels. 



davidka said:


> I would guess any of the guys that didn't get caught were getting advanced notice. The exclusive with Ferrari? Why is that important? Seems like there were plenty of dope-docs to go around.


Again, you are under the misguided assumption that all doping doctors are the same. They are not. Lance required that Ferrari could not work with other GT contenders. It is clear that he knew Ferrari was the best. Armstrong paid Ferrari millions of $$$. Please tell us how a Neo-Pro affords this? Do they all have a private jet to fly their drugs and blood bags around on? 

I have never heard of Basso, Ulrich, etc getting advanced notice of testing, do you have a link? Pantani sure did not get it as he was surprised with the testers showed up and his HCT was 51. The person who gave Armstrong advanced notice of testing also ran the UCI lab in Valencia. He was arrested last year. Who was it that gave Basso and Ulrich advanced notice? Did their business manager sit on the IOC board? 

You are welcome to pretend there was a level playing field but nothing supports this myth


----------



## Alaska Mike

Why, oh why do you love cancer?

I personally can't wait for the Contador hearing, so at least we have something else to talk about here than Lance.


----------



## davidka

Dr.F, we're crossing streams here a little. The donkey comments are for Chris X who contends that Lance is not talented.

I am not under any misguided assumptions. You are taking the position that Lance had interstellar doping technology and 2nd place had a tarot card reader and a bottle of all purpose tonic. I am sure Telekom had a top level program. They were all on drugs and most never turned a positive test. If LA was the only one getting tips then how can this be? 

I think you have a misguided perception about EPO. It is not the only effective doping drug and it doesn't transform anything except for one's ability to produce more red blood cells. I can agree that a guy with 35% HCT stands to gain more than a guy with 46% but 50% is 50%. They've caught many riders of all levels with the stuff. It's easily available to anyone and for a long time it was easy to use and not be caught.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Dr.F, we're crossing streams here a little. The donkey comments are for Chris X who contends that Lance is not talented.
> 
> I am not under any misguided assumptions. You are taking the position that Lance had interstellar doping technology and 2nd place had a tarot card reader and a bottle of all purpose tonic. I am sure Telekom had a top level program. They were all on drugs and most never turned a positive test. If LA was the only one getting tips then how can this be?
> 
> I think you have a misguided perception about EPO. It is not the only effective doping drug and it doesn't transform anything except for one's ability to produce more red blood cells. I can agree that a guy with 35% HCT stands to gain more than a guy with 46% but 50% is 50%. They've caught many riders of all levels with the stuff. It's easily available to anyone and for a long time it was easy to use and not be caught.


If you read the Freiburg report , or talk to the riders, you would know that the Telekom program was far more conservative then anything Lance was on. Kevin Livingston was shocked that it was not mandatory or pushed like Postal. It was more for recovery then the "Top Fuel" Ferrari program. It is no surprise that Ullrich had one of his best seasons in 2003, when he was not with Telekom. He was working with Ferrari's research partner Cecchini and despite the 50% rule produced performances on par with 1997. If he did not have food poisoning and lose 90 seconds on the Alp he would have won. 

50% is not "50%" when you have access to HemAssist. It's key benefit is boost the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity without the thickening caused by EPO. Dr. Robert Przybelski, an associate professor at Wisconsin who was the director of hemoglobin therapeutics at Baxter in the late '90s, He said * "If somebody was going to design something better than EPO, this would be the ideal product,"* Did Ulrich have a board member of his foundation secure access to Baxter and HemAssit? Nope

There is no comparison in the treatment Ulrich received in comparison to Armstrong. While the US media believed every absurd French Conspiracy and USA cycling ignored the obvious the BDR and the German media hunted Ulrich. While Armstrong was rarely tested out of competition, 1-2 times per year, Ulrich was a consistent target

No matter how many strawmen you toss out you cannot ignore the fact that Armstrong's program and protection were far better then his competitors.


----------



## davidka

Dr. Robert Przybelski also said: 
“I could not imagine a cyclist using HemAssist or any HBOC day after day ... I would imagine that such a product would be used selectively for a most difficult mountain stage,” Przybelski wrote in a follow-up e-mail to the AP.

“But of course,” he added, “I don’t believe these products were ever used.”

Przybelski, who oversaw HemAssist’s early development for Baxter, maintained in a subsequent phone interview with The Associated Press that the drug could have improved sports performance, although he added that no direct studies were done to prove that theory.

Baxter abandoned trials in 1998. You believe that a pharmaceutical company would continue to make a drug that they would never mass produce for 7-8 years, just for an athlete? 

This article says Baxter was spending $60/yr. developing it. Lance never have that kind of cash.

Baxter Drops Its Hemassist Program - Chicago Tribune


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Dr. Robert Przybelski also said:
> “I could not imagine a cyclist using HemAssist or any HBOC day after day ...* I would imagine that such a product would be used selectively for a most difficult mountain stage,” *Przybelski wrote in a follow-up e-mail to the AP.
> 
> Baxter abandoned trials in 1998. You believe that a pharmaceutical company would continue to make a drug that they would never mass produce for 7-8 years, just for an athlete?


Who said they would have to mass produce it? Lance is only one guy. Great way to recoup some costs of a drug that was not going to be launched. Lance told multiple teammates about the drug, he bragged about it. 

Lets review


Payoff to UCI
Business partners with Verbuggen
Exclusive, multi million dollar deal with Ferrari
Private jet to fly the dope and blood bags in
Advanced notice of surprise testing
Multiple positives ignored
Limited testing by USA cycling
Unquestioning, clueless media
Access to experimental drugs

The level playing field never existed


----------



## aclinjury

I used to admire LA's ability when I was watching the TdF casually, mainly as a passive observer.
Now that I've begun cycling more, I question his natural ability, a lot, and no longer admire LA in such light.

What got me questioning LA were several observations:

1) he was a different different beast pre- and post- cancer. When you have cancer, any type of cancer, it's pretty amazing that you can get back to where you were. But in LA's case, he excelled! I don't believe in supernatural strength.

2) I also question why a man his age would get cancer so early. Yes, it could be just genetic. But cancer is an illness that one usually get later in his life (due to aging). A young and athletic getting cancer should be seen as a red flag, somewhat. This is like seeing young track & field athletes or bodybuilders suddenly developing heart condition. Red flag that unnatural chemistry is happening in their bodies.

3) LA basically only raced in the TdF. If he is such a superbly clean athlete, then surely he must think it as a challenge to race in other big tour races too. But LA was mainly hiding and restricting himself and his abilities in the TdF. 

4) LA peaked at the tail end of his career. Most pro-athletes in physical sports peak early in their career and then plateau and then decline. This is not the case of LA at all. The human body and aging just doesn't work like that. And if one use the argument that LA was superhuman because he peaked later, then why didn't he use this superhuman skill to dominate other big tour races too? why limit yourself mainly in the TdF?

In conclusion, the progression of Armstrong's physical ability does not seem like a natural aging body, and couple that with cancer, and I'm quite convinced that he was quite juiced up. Then you throw in all the other behind the scenes stories and interests and deals, then it's becoming more and more apparent that Armstrong was far far from an honest and clean player that what most Americans think.

Should Armstrong's health deteriorate dramatically in the next 10-15 years, then I don't think there much doubt left as far as questioning his extensive use of dope during his career.

Note that I'm not saying that he didn't have some physical ability.


----------



## jlandry

Look what my little thread has become. : )

Back to the book:
I was going to say that, I'm a big reader and my favorites are books on cycling. When I started with the cycling books, I thought nothing of doping, (back when "It's not about the bike" came out) and as the years and evidence of doping go by, whatever book I read on the subject, is tainted with my suspicions about doping.
Sucks to be jaded.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I'm a big reader of just about anything cycling-related, and I'm right there with you. I'm just tired of thinking too much about it, since there's nothing I can do about it (other than not dope myself) and it seems that the peloton is at least marginally cleaner than it once was.

Guess I better get on my trainer and work on cadence.


----------



## davidka

aclinjury said:


> I used to admire LA's ability when I was watching the TdF casually, mainly as a passive observer.
> Now that I've begun cycling more, I question his natural ability, a lot, and no longer admire LA in such light.
> 
> What got me questioning LA were several observations:
> 
> 1) he was a different different beast pre- and post- cancer. When you have cancer, any type of cancer, it's pretty amazing that you can get back to where you were. But in LA's case, he excelled! I don't believe in supernatural strength.
> 
> 2) I also question why a man his age would get cancer so early. Yes, it could be just genetic. But cancer is an illness that one usually get later in his life (due to aging). A young and athletic getting cancer should be seen as a red flag, somewhat. This is like seeing young track & field athletes or bodybuilders suddenly developing heart condition. Red flag that unnatural chemistry is happening in their bodies.
> 
> 3) LA basically only raced in the TdF. If he is such a superbly clean athlete, then surely he must think it as a challenge to race in other big tour races too. But LA was mainly hiding and restricting himself and his abilities in the TdF.
> 
> 4) LA peaked at the tail end of his career. Most pro-athletes in physical sports peak early in their career and then plateau and then decline. This is not the case of LA at all. The human body and aging just doesn't work like that. And if one use the argument that LA was superhuman because he peaked later, then why didn't he use this superhuman skill to dominate other big tour races too? why limit yourself mainly in the TdF?
> 
> In conclusion, the progression of Armstrong's physical ability does not seem like a natural aging body, and couple that with cancer, and I'm quite convinced that he was quite juiced up. Then you throw in all the other behind the scenes stories and interests and deals, then it's becoming more and more apparent that Armstrong was far far from an honest and clean player that what most Americans think.
> 
> Should Armstrong's health deteriorate dramatically in the next 10-15 years, then I don't think there much doubt left as far as questioning his extensive use of dope during his career.
> 
> Note that I'm not saying that he didn't have some physical ability.


You have a poor understanding of athletic performance and sporting business.

1. He was a different beast but he never won a major one-day race again.

2. Children and babies get cancer. Testicular cancers are more common in younger men than older men.

3. He's a professional. The TdF is bigger than the rest of bike racing combined. If you can win it, then you concentrate on it. Contador learned that lesson this year.

4. Armstrong peaked early. He, Jan and Contador were some of the younger winners in recent history. Grand Tours are usually better for older riders with deeper endurance and experience. LA won his first at 26. When he returned to racing he struggled to 3rd place against guys that he dropped easily earlier in his career, just like an older guy would.

Dr. F, your list is a little off. Ferrari is a coach. There are many like him. The private jet does not get LA anything except faster transit unless he owns the airports too (any/all can be searched), the media was not unquestioning, Lance just refused to give face time to any that he felt would portray him in a negative light which any of us is free to do. The experimental drug thing well, have fun with that.

The reverse fanatic/idolatry thing is fascinating. He is being elevated to something much greater than he really was by people who are actually against him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> 4. Armstrong peaked early. He, Jan and Contador were some of the younger winners in recent history. Grand Tours are usually better for older riders with deeper endurance and experience. LA won his first at 26. When he returned to racing he struggled to 3rd place against guys that he dropped easily earlier in his career, just like an older guy would.
> 
> Dr. F, your list is a little off. Ferrari is a coach. There are many like him. The private jet does not get LA anything except faster transit unless he owns the airports too (any/all can be searched), the media was not unquestioning, Lance just refused to give face time to any that he felt would portray him in a negative light which any of us is free to do. The experimental drug thing well, have fun with that.
> .


Comedy gold, So much wrong with this post I don't know where to start

Armstrong won his first GT 1 month prior to his 28th birthday. He had been a full time athlete for over a decade. Prior to EPO it was extremely rare for a rider to show GT ability late in his career. Armstrong showed zero ability as GT rider prior to using EPO

Bernard HinaultTour de France 1st Age 23years 8months
Laurent FignonTour de France 1st Age 22yrs 11months
Greg LeMondTour de France 3rd Age 23yrs 1Month
Stephen RocheTour de France 13th Age 23yrs 8months
Pedro DelgadoTour de France 15th Age 23yrs 3months
Andy HampstenTour de France 4th Age 24yrs 4months
Robert MillarTour de France 14th Age 24yrs 10months
Peter WinnenTour de France 5th Age 23yrs 10months

Ferrari is a hematologist, not a coach. He wrote his doctorate on blood, not training. He was a doping doctor who will be spending a long time in prison because of it. As Virenque said



> teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing.


The US media bought the Armstrong myth for a decade. To pretend anything different is absurd. 

I suggest you wait until after the charges are filed before you dismiss the utility of a private jet in doping. It played a key role.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Comedy gold, So much wrong with this post I don't know where to start
> 
> Armstrong won his first GT 1 month prior to his 28th birthday. He had been a full time athlete for over a decade. Prior to EPO it was extremely rare for a rider to show GT ability late in his career. Armstrong showed zero ability as GT rider prior to using EPO
> 
> Bernard HinaultTour de France 1st Age 23years 8months
> Laurent FignonTour de France 1st Age 22yrs 11months
> Greg LeMondTour de France 3rd Age 23yrs 1Month
> Stephen RocheTour de France 13th Age 23yrs 8months
> Pedro DelgadoTour de France 15th Age 23yrs 3months
> Andy HampstenTour de France 4th Age 24yrs 4months
> Robert MillarTour de France 14th Age 24yrs 10months
> Peter WinnenTour de France 5th Age 23yrs 10months


Only two of those data points are wins? 3 never won the Tour. SR won at 28.

The Armstrong point confuses me. Do you believe he doped early in his career or not? Your claim indicates the latter.

The average age of TdF winners is 27.8 (also known as 28).

Here is a list of winners, their ages and average speeds.

Tour de France winners and their average speeds


----------



## aclinjury

davidka said:


> You have a poor understanding of athletic performance and sporting business.


But I'll bet all of LA's dope doctors with access to all those labs sure know a thing or two about doping and masking the dope.

I find it strange that a dominant athlete is so involved in so much wheelin and dealin with dope doctors.

Armstrong's amazing dominant later in his career reminds me of the female sprinter Flojo in the 1988 Olympic. She was a good sprinter. But in '88 she took her game to a whole 'nother level at the Games. Her body looked like those mythical Greek statues. I really admired her. A year (or some time) later, she died of heart failuer in her sleep. Doctor said autopsy revealed she died of a "natural death". Today, I don't think anyone bought it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Only two of those data points are wins? 3 never won the Tour. SR won at 28.
> 
> The Armstrong point confuses me. Do you believe he doped early in his career or not? Your claim indicates the latter.
> 
> The average age of TdF winners is 27.8 (also known as 28).
> 
> Here is a list of winners, their ages and average speeds.
> 
> Tour de France winners and their average speeds


You can pretend to not understand, and toss out data points with zero correlation to the topic but that does not change the fact that prior to EPO riders showed their ability at GT early in their career. 

The post war greats all showed their ability at an early age. Armstrong dropped out of this first couple of Tours and exhibited zero ability to climb, TT, or recover at the level needed to win a Grand Tour. 

If you look at rider after rider the greats showed their GT ability early. It was not until EPO and doping doctors like Ferrari that riders like Riis, Armstrong, Indurian, Rominger, etc showed sudden ability to ride for the GC on a GT after an early career of low placings


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You can pretend to not understand, and toss out data points with zero correlation to the topic but that does not change the fact that prior to EPO riders showed their ability at GT early in their career.
> 
> The post war greats all showed their ability at an early age. Armstrong dropped out of this first couple of Tours and exhibited zero ability to climb, TT, or recover at the level needed to win a Grand Tour.
> 
> If you look at rider after rider the greats showed their GT ability early. It was not until EPO and doping doctors like Ferrari that riders like Riis, Armstrong, Indurian, Rominger, etc showed sudden ability to ride for the GC on a GT after an early career of low placings


These guys are avoiding the truth like a group of single men jumping out of the way of a garter thrown by an ugly maid of honor.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You can pretend to not understand, and toss out data points with zero correlation to the topic but that does not change the fact that prior to EPO riders showed their ability at GT early in their career.
> 
> The post war greats all showed their ability at an early age. Armstrong dropped out of this first couple of Tours and exhibited zero ability to climb, TT, or recover at the level needed to win a Grand Tour.
> 
> If you look at rider after rider the greats showed their GT ability early. It was not until EPO and doping doctors like Ferrari that riders like Riis, Armstrong, Indurian, Rominger, etc showed sudden ability to ride for the GC on a GT after an early career of low placings


Fine, but it does not support the assertion that LA doped his whole career. Given the change in LA's particular abilities you're talking about a clean, average athlete pre cancer and a doped, super athlete post cancer.


----------



## Chris-X

*The garter hit you in the hands for goodness sake!*



davidka said:


> Fine, but it does not support the assertion that LA doped his whole career. Given the change in LA's particular abilities you're talking about a clean, average athlete pre cancer and a doped, super athlete post cancer.


AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES - 01.24.11 - SI Vault

After Armstrong's cancer diagnosis, former teammates say, even Ferrari questioned his methods. "I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that," says Landis. (Ferrari, again, declined to talk to SI for this story.)


----------



## davidka

Chris-X said:


> AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES - 01.24.11 - SI Vault
> 
> After Armstrong's cancer diagnosis, former teammates say, even Ferrari questioned his methods. "I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that," says Landis. (Ferrari, again, declined to talk to SI for this story.)


Do you not see how you are contradicting yourselves? Aggressive doping pre-cancer, no hint of GT potential, post-cancer, GT god. Didn't show GT potential young, GT god once older.

Landis has proven to be such a liar at this point it'd be hard to believe him if he told you he was awake. SI is irresponsible to quote him, as well as glomming onto the Hemassist story. Read about that stuff somewhere other than SI and learn what it is. It is not a substitute for EPO, it is a blood substitute.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Do you not see how you are contradicting yourselves? Aggressive doping pre-cancer, no hint of GT potential, post-cancer, GT god. Didn't show GT potential young, GT god once older.
> 
> Landis has proven to be such a liar at this point it'd be hard to believe him if he told you he was awake. SI is irresponsible to quote him, as well as glomming onto the Hemassist story. Read about that stuff somewhere other than SI and learn what it is. It is not a substitute for EPO, it is a blood substitute.


You do realize there is a large difference between a Ferrari directed oxygen vector program and Cortisone/Testosterone right? If it helps maintain the myth for you then by all means keep pretending that "Doping" is a universal product. 

In case you haven't be paying attention multiple people have confirmed many of Landis' claims, besides this moved far beyond Floyd a long time ago


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize there is a large difference between a Ferrari directed oxygen vector program and Cortisone/Testosterone right? If it helps maintain the myth for you then by all means keep pretending that "Doping" is a universal product.
> 
> In case you haven't be paying attention multiple people have confirmed many of Landis' claims, besides this moved far beyond Floyd a long time ago


What does the difference between these two things have to do with anything? You say LA was doped from 18 and that Landis' claims are confirmed, are you then saying Ferrari was giving Cort/Test before, space age program after cancer? Why would a hematologist do a simple cort/test program? 

In case you haven't been paying attention, nobody with anything left to lose has confirmed any of Landis' claims.

It has been some time since I cared whether Lance doped. I'm still mystified by how the fringe hate him so much that they'll believe anything that suits their evil empire fantasy. I'll say it again, you can't turn a donkey into a Thoroughbred, no doping program can.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> What does the difference between these two things have to do with anything? You say LA was doped from 18 and that Landis' claims are confirmed, are you then saying Ferrari was giving Cort/Test before, space age program after cancer? Why would a hematologist do a simple cort/test program?
> 
> In case you haven't been paying attention, nobody with anything left to lose has confirmed any of Landis' claims.
> 
> It has been some time since I cared whether Lance doped. I'm still mystified by how the fringe hate him so much that they'll believe anything that suits their evil empire fantasy. I'll say it again, you can't turn a donkey into a Thoroughbred, no doping program can.


Sorry, you continue to confuse the doping Armstrong did early on with what he did with Ferrari. It is clear to most rational people who understand the sport that Armstrong's sudden ability to TT and Climb came through Ferrari's doping program, not new dedication to training or whatever the myth of the day is 

It appears you are also unaware that Hincapie has confirmed Landis' description of transfusions and getting drugs from Armstrong. You also ignore that Jorgi Muller confirmed the incident where Armstrong took drugs into Switzerland on his jet. 

Again, you are welcome to pretend that landis is the only person talking....this is far from true.


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> Answer: everyone knows. I say again. Look at the scoreboard. All of it. He was held back from going pro just to race Olympics. He then went pro with a big contract and led Motorola as a 20 year old, won world's at 21. *Flechce Wallone*, San Sebastian and was *Jalabert's primary rival at a few 1-week stage races*. All before he got sick. No other American rider approached that level of success early in their career since GL and please stop looking at the other American talents of that time like they were helpless puppies. They were all winners with huge motivation to succeed. Motorola focused on the talent. That was clearly Armstrong.
> 
> 
> *No amount of drugs turns a donkey into a thoroughbred.* Average+dope=above average, how can that beat exceptional+dope?





davidka said:


> Do you not see how you are contradicting yourselves? Aggressive doping pre-cancer, no hint of GT potential, post-cancer, GT god. Didn't show GT potential young, GT god once older.
> 
> Landis has proven to be such a liar at this point it'd be hard to believe him if he told you he was awake. SI is irresponsible to quote him, as well as glomming onto the Hemassist story. Read about that stuff somewhere other than SI and learn what it is. It is not a substitute for EPO, it is a blood substitute.


Fleche Wallone and Paris Nice where he was 2nd to Jalabert were in '96 when he was 24 years old going on 25.. He started working with Ferrari in the offseason of '95-'96'. Andreu said when LA came back in '96 he was so big and powerful it defied belief. I found it odd that you spoke of LA challenging Jaja because that's the Andreu quote from the back dust cover of _From Lance to Landis._ Then he was diagnosed with cancer 6 months after winning Fleche Wallone.

You seem so hung up on this thouroughbred thing. You realize that there are scores, dozens, actually literally hundreds of thorougbreds that never win a thing and yet are incredibly fast and beautiful animals? 

The numbers are similiar with bike racers and you have some kind of problem with the math. Even if you are one of the top 500 in ANYTHING you are pretty talented. How many people have run a 4 minute mile? Literally hundreds, all thoroughbreds. How many of their names do you know?

Lance was a professional rider, of course he's a big talent compared to mere mortals. Extraordinary on a pro level? Absolutely not. A GT rider? Again no. I'm sure you'll continue to obfuscate because in spite of all the evidence, and all the timelines, and all the witnesses, you have some kind of attachment to the idea that Armstrong is genuine.

What are you going to do after the Armstrong myth is completely debunked by Hincapie? He's a liar too? I kind of have an idea that you'll continue to engage in this type of self delusion. Too bad.

edit, the problem with your attacks on Floyd is that the issue isn't that he's a liar. The issue, as Dr. Falsetti pointed out, is that what FL said has been corroborated, and now LA's doping may be the least of his problems.


----------



## davidka

Chris-X said:


> You seem so hung up on this thouroughbred thing. You realize that there are scores, dozens, actually literally hundreds of thorougbreds that never win a thing and yet are incredibly fast and beautiful animals?
> 
> The numbers are similiar with bike racers and you have some kind of problem with the math. Even if you are one of the top 500 in ANYTHING you are pretty talented. How many people have run a 4 minute mile? Literally hundreds, all thoroughbreds. How many of their names do you know?


How many runners who could not even run a 4:30 mile midway into their career ever became one of the best runners in history, with or without drugs? None, because it's not possible. This is what you're saying happened with LA. Ferrari was never so much better than anyone else at "developing" athletes that he could achieve that. Lance would have remained "ordinary" among Ferrari's other super athletes if this were the case.


----------



## Chris-X

*Wrong*



davidka said:


> How many runners who could not even run a 4:30 mile midway into their career ever became one of the best runners in history, with or without drugs? None, because it's not possible. This is what you're saying happened with LA. Ferrari was never so much better than anyone else at "developing" athletes that he could achieve that. Lance would have remained "ordinary" among Ferrari's other super athletes if this were the case.


and is it wrong intentionally?

Why not go for the guys who were 4:01 milers to 4:05 milers? They might equate for Armstrong in cycling, BUT WE DON'T KNOW because Ferrari was advertising a 30%improvement.

Let me give you three names that Pharmstrong may be analogous to.

Flo Jo, Michelle Smith, Mike Piazza.

Piazza actually was the equivalent of a 4:30 miler. Another MLB player when asked on a scale of 1-10, what were the chances Piazza was jacked, responded, 13 to 14, or some other ridiculous numbers. Other players referred to Piazza as "power from nowhere."

Lance Armstrong, Power from nowhere, well, a blood bag, a vial, a patch, a capsule,pill....

edit. BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Deadspin: Mike Piazza: The Back Acne Was The Least Of It

sorry the number given was 12 or 13.


----------



## aclinjury

I think your problem, Davidka, is that you hero-worship Mr LA too much, to a point where in your mind you have already set up a mental barrier to any notion of him doping & cheatin'. And your mental barrier also seems to block your mind from ingesting and processing all information presented to you by Chri-X and Dr Falsetti. It's getting a little comical having to read how many times Dr. Falsetti has to emphasize the *pre-EPO* and *post-EPO* periods of the doping of LA, and that there is a big difference in pre- and post- EPO (ie, EPO is a game changer)... but yet you have difficulty internalizing this. Pre- and post- EPO differences is the foundation of Dr. Falsetti's argument to how LA was transformed.
And because you don't believe in the power of EPO, you continue to hang to the notion that "you can't turn a donkey into a thoroghbred".

Chris-X,

Flojo is a perfect example. She was a good sprinter, but at the 1988 Olympic Games, she was another beast. Pretty amazing to watch that a sprinter can be transformed like that at the *tail-end of her career*. I'm a track sprinter myself in college and it was pretty amazing to me to watch her transformation. Unheard of if you're that age at the tail-end of your career. But I guess doping/juicing can do wonder. No wonder top athletes in all physical sports use them! About a year later after the Olympics, she died of a heart failure. Doctor said it was "natural death". But nobody is buying it today.

Another phenomenal track athlete that did come clean eventually was Jackie Joyner Kersey. For years and years she was the enduring symbol of perseverance. Many athletes look up to her for aspirations. She got away with it for many years, but finally fessed up at the tail-end of her career. Her problem is she retired too late. Had she retired a little earlier and walk away, nobody would have known she's a doper. Mr Armstrong is much more calculating than her. Mr Armstrong walked away from it all just at the right time, and so far he is able to get away with it.. so far.


----------



## Alaska Mike

To be completely fair, Davidka has acknowledged that Lance was doped, and he'd probably agree it was to the hilt. At what point that doping started and to what extent that he was as compared to his competition is really the only point of contention at this point. In my book, that doesn't exactly make him one of the hardcore Armstrong faithful, just someone who believes that Lance was stronger than his peers, drugs or no drugs. The true yelow bracelet army will never admit Lance is a doper.

It's gotten to the point that we're at a "Fox News vs MSNBC" standstill in the debate, where everyone is so polarized that anyone who may have an apathetic or "moderate" opinion is immediately painted as being a fanboy or cancer-lover. I've been accused of being both, because I fully believe that Lance was doped to the gills but don't think there will be a positive outcome of this investigation for cycling in this country. Dopers and their enablers will still be around, but will the sponsors? I'd rather keep the lights on for the next generation, and let Lance and the rest of the peloton from that era slowly fade into oblivion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

This is just the evolution of the myth. 

For years it was all a French Conspiracy. Anyone that questioned the myth was just a hater. The "Never tested positive" quote was spewed daily. 

As it has become clear that Armstrong doped, tested positive multiple times, and actively smeared anyone that questioned the myth the groupies have struggled to adapt the myth to reality. The "Level Playing Field" is the latest attempt to pretend that Armstrong's career was legit. 

I too wish Armstrong and his buddies would go away. Unfortunately that is not going to happen. We are looking at 2-3 years of increasingly absurd attempts at deflection before he eventually works out a plea deal. His legacy will continue to poison the sport. 

On the positive side he is Triathlon's problem now. While his legal issues will be doping focused that is old news so expect the foundation to be a media, and legal, focus. That story could eclipse the doping one. 

The sport is already distancing itself from Armstrong's toxic legacy. He will continue to fade into irrelevancy. Sponsors will not be able to ignore events like the Tour of Colorado. Millions of spectators.....none of them there to see Armstrong.


----------



## Chris-X

*Doesn't work that way, sorry.*



Alaska Mike said:


> To be completely fair, Davidka has acknowledged that Lance was doped, and he'd probably agree it was to the hilt. At what point that doping started and to what extent that he was as compared to his competition is really the only point of contention at this point. In my book, that doesn't exactly make him one of the hardcore Armstrong faithful, just someone who believes that Lance was stronger than his peers, drugs or no drugs. The true yelow bracelet army will never admit Lance is a doper.
> 
> It's gotten to the point that we're at a "Fox News vs MSNBC" standstill in the debate, where everyone is so polarized that anyone who may have an apathetic or "moderate" opinion is immediately painted as being a fanboy or cancer-lover. I've been accused of being both, because I fully believe that Lance was doped to the gills but don't think there will be a positive outcome of this investigation for cycling in this country. Dopers and their enablers will still be around, but will the sponsors? I'd rather keep the lights on for the next generation, and let Lance and the rest of the peloton from that era slowly fade into oblivion.


False equivalency. How about just letting the truth come out and have faith that the people will be able to put it in perspective?

I'd rather have bike racing, football, football/soccer put in their proper places, not be the insane money making machines that the "mature adults" ie. money suckin parasites, perpetuate to satisfy their money hoarding tendencies..

BTW, did you see the arrival of PSU football at Beaver Stadium today? Throngs of idolaters looking on as the elephants made their way into the "Coliseum." We've become a sick society, and to paraphrase Kimmage, we just can't remove part of the tumor, the cancer is still with us.

Too many people benefitted from Armstrong fraud which created a sickness. Although on a much smaller, more benign scale, isn't the Armstrong "disease" similiar to the Paterno situation. A "cult of personality."

As an aside, here's thoroughbred Pharmstrong getting overtaken by alltime great Nicolas Lebrun.

Nicolas Lebrun overtakes Lance Armstrong on the Bike! - YouTube


----------



## peabody

Chris-X said:


> False equivalency. How about just letting the truth come out and have faith that the people will be able to put it in perspective?
> 
> I'd rather have bike racing, football, football/soccer put in their proper places, not be the insane money making machines that the "mature adults" ie. money suckin parasites, perpetuate to satisfy their money hoarding tendencies..
> 
> BTW, did you see the arrival of PSU football at Beaver Stadium today? Throngs of idolaters looking on as the elephants made their way into the "Coliseum." We've become a sick society, and to paraphrase Kimmage, we just can't remove part of the tumor, the cancer is still with us.
> 
> Too many people benefitted from Armstrong fraud which created a sickness. Although on a much smaller, more benign scale, isn't the Armstrong "disease" similiar to the Paterno situation. A "cult of personality."
> 
> As an aside, here's thoroughbred Pharmstrong getting overtaken by alltime great Nicolas Lebrun.
> 
> Nicolas Lebrun overtakes Lance Armstrong on the Bike! - YouTube





I think it's kind of funny when Armstrong is clean he can't even run with
local pros at some of these Colorado local xc races


----------



## aclinjury

Chris-X
I agree with you, but the way I see it, when there's money involved, then the desire to cheat the system will be there, oh yeah bet on it. I'm still new to cycling, but I used to follow track & field a lot and I see a lot of similarities between the 2 sports when it comes to doping. I felt a little "hurt" and cheated myself for looking up to Pharmstrong as an inspirations to get into cycling. Oh well, at least I'm enjoying cycling (now that I can't run anymore due to a blown knee).

And looking at the youtube video, I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for LA having to struggle hard like that. But if he's doing it clean, then I will respect him for doing it clean. Also, looking at the comments left on Youtube, you see some people asking like "what happened to Lance" (these are probably the casual observers who doesn't know about this doping program and just buys into the "Livestrong" image),.. and then you have a few people commenting "Lance is missing his Ferrari engine.." and "..Did Lance get his refills.." Pretty comical stuff!!

Now he just needs to fess up about this cycling legacy, which won't happen without a fight from LA.


----------



## davidka

aclinjury said:


> I think your problem, Davidka, is that you hero-worship Mr LA too much, to a point where in your mind you have already set up a mental barrier to any notion of him doping & cheatin'. And your mental barrier also seems to block your mind from ingesting and processing all information presented to you by Chri-X and Dr Falsetti. It's getting a little comical having to read how many times Dr. Falsetti has to emphasize the *pre-EPO* and *post-EPO* periods of the doping of LA, and that there is a big difference in pre- and post- EPO (ie, EPO is a game changer)... but yet you have difficulty internalizing this. Pre- and post- EPO differences is the foundation of Dr. Falsetti's argument to how LA was transformed.
> And because you don't believe in the power of EPO, you continue to hang to the notion that "you can't turn a donkey into a thoroghbred".
> .


Can you hear my eyes rolling? I am no particular fan of LA any more though I really enjoyed his hey-day and still believe that in the end he'll have done more good than harm. I don't believe in the "power of EPO" because I understand what it is. It cannot transform an non-competitive athlete into a champion, especially when everyone else has access to it.

The flaw in Dr. F's pre and post EPO argument is that he and most believe EPO was part of the LA program well before he was diagnosed w/cancer. It's an argument that changes the point he's looking to support at a given time. Was there EPO in the Motorola days or not? If not, then many of the LA accusers fabricated that part. If not, then the transformation explanation is shot down. 



Chris-X said:


> BUT WE DON'T KNOW because Ferrari was advertising a 30%improvement.


huh? If you believe that any drug program can make an athlete 30% better then you know nothing. If Ferrari could return medical results like that, he'd be one of the richest people in the world, not playing with impoverished athletes.

That's it, you're out.



peabody said:


> I think it's kind of funny when Armstrong is not training he can't even run with
> local pros at some of these Colorado local xc races


Fixed that for ya'.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Strawman argument.


If you actually read my posts you will see that I never say, or even infer, it is all down to EPO.

Exclusive access to the complete Ferrari program, Experimental medicine, Preferential treatment by the governing bodies, positive response to various pharmaceuticals, willingness to take greater risk.......all contributed to Armstrong's metamorphosis.


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> Can you hear my eyes rolling? I am no particular fan of LA any more though I really enjoyed his hey-day and still believe that in the end he'll have done more good than harm.
> 
> 
> 
> huh? If you believe that any drug program can make an athlete 30% better then you know nothing. If Ferrari could return medical results like that, he'd be one of the richest people in the world, not playing with impoverished athletes.
> 
> That's it, you're out.
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for ya'.


How many tours did Armstrong even finish before cancer? He was batting like .250 in just finishing the thing. Clearly you don't have a clue what EPO can do. It increases absolute performance in addition to tremendously aiding recovery..

If you're not a fan of Armstrong, why are you employing these ridiculous arguments in his defense when it's very clear what Armstrong was doing and when he was doing it. I also didn't say I BELIEVED the 30% number, that was what was claimed. At any rate, EPO confers a gigantic advantage which Armstrong employed from 1995 till the end of his career.

Also it was Cecchini , who was claiming up to a 30% improvement, depending on the rider's physiology. My mistake although it's somewhat irrelevant here anyway because Ferrari was a well known big proponent of EPO..

.


----------



## davidka

Pulled these names from Ferrari's Wikipedia page, only one of whom managed a mid-career transformation, all of whom raced into the period when EPO was in use (except maybe Argentin). All on the econo program?

Moreno Argentin
Eugeni Berzin
Lance Armstrong
Tyler Hamilton
Paolo Savoldelli
Mario Cipollini
Gianni Bugno
Giorgio Furlan
Pavel Tonkov
Cadel Evans
Tony Rominger
Abraham Olano
Ivan Gotti
Claudio Chiappucci
Filippo Simeoni
Patrik Sinkewitz
Eddy Mazzoleni
Floyd Landis
Levi Leipheimer
Axel Merckx
Alexandre Vinokourov
Michael Rogers

You should think about easing back on the experimental medicine thing and read up on what Hemassist is. It is not the rocket fuel you're hoping that it is.


----------



## aclinjury

When a weekend warrior wants to run a 6k, he trains a little.
When he wants to run a marathon, he trains a lot lot more.
When people wanna do something, they ususally prepare for it, in some ways.
Most people hate to lose and love to win when they compete.

For anyone to expect Armstrong, a professional athlete for most of his life, accustomed to training (and sadly doping) to just walk into an event he wishes to place high in, and not train... well when will the hero-worship excuse will end? Oh jeesh.

How about we say this: a lack of training and a lack of doping puts him above average, but not exceptional, on the local circuit?

(..waiting to hear superman excuses from the fanboys now..)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Pulled these names from Ferrari's Wikipedia page, only one of whom managed a mid-career transformation, all of whom raced into the period when EPO was in use (except maybe Argentin). All on the econo program?
> 
> Moreno Argentin
> Eugeni Berzin
> Lance Armstrong
> Tyler Hamilton
> Paolo Savoldelli
> Mario Cipollini
> Gianni Bugno
> Giorgio Furlan
> Pavel Tonkov
> Cadel Evans
> Tony Rominger
> Abraham Olano
> Ivan Gotti
> Claudio Chiappucci
> Filippo Simeoni
> Patrik Sinkewitz
> Eddy Mazzoleni
> Floyd Landis
> Levi Leipheimer
> Axel Merckx
> Alexandre Vinokourov
> Michael Rogers
> 
> You should think about easing back on the experimental medicine thing and read up on what Hemassist is. It is not the rocket fuel you're hoping that it is.


Not sure what your point is...The list is not accurate but notice how none of the GC guys worked with Ferrari from 1999-2005. 

As far as your claim that "only one of whom managed a mid-career transformation" You clearly do not know the career of Argentin, Tonkov, Rominger, Bugno, Gotti, and others who saw a sudden huge jump in form after starting working with Ferrari. Rominger's career took off when he was 31 YEARS OLD, just after he started working with Ferrari


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not sure what your point is...The list is not accurate but notice how none of the GC guys worked with Ferrari from 1999-2005.
> 
> As far as your claim that "only one of whom managed a mid-career transformation" You clearly do not know the career of Argentin, Tonkov, Rominger, Bugno, Gotti, and others who saw a sudden huge jump in form after starting working with Ferrari. Rominger's career took off when he was 31 YEARS OLD, just after he started working with Ferrari


The list has no dates, many of the riders who are claimed to have worked with Ferrari were on Lance's team at points during that time.

Tony Rominger turned pro at 26, in 1986. Starting that late, how soon was the breakthrough to come?

Tonkov turned pro in 1992, won the Giro in 1996, Suisse and KOM in 1995.

Argentin turned pro in 1981, was inside the top 10 at the Giro that year and improved steadily until 1985, when he began to score big wins all the way through 1994 (in classics, he seemed to lose his taste for GT's).

Gotti got 5th at TdF in his 4th year as a pro then won two Giro after that.

None of these career paths look like mid career transformations unless it is expected for riders to win big in their first years as pros. Not saying they weren't on dope, just not the transformation (Lance's) that is being credited solely to Ferrari. Why only him?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> The list has no dates, many of the riders who are claimed to have worked with Ferrari were on Lance's team at points during that time.
> 
> Tony Rominger turned pro at 26, in 1986. Starting that late, how soon was the breakthrough to come?
> 
> Tonkov turned pro in 1992, won the Giro in 1996, Suisse and KOM in 1995.
> 
> Argentin turned pro in 1981, was inside the top 10 at the Giro that year and improved steadily until 1985, when he began to score big wins all the way through 1994 (in classics, he seemed to lose his taste for GT's).
> 
> Gotti got 5th at TdF in his 4th year as a pro then won two Giro after that.
> 
> None of these career paths look like mid career transformations unless it is expected for riders to win big in their first years as pros. Not saying they weren't on dope, just not the transformation (Lance's) that is being credited solely to Ferrari. Why only him?


Thanks for proving my point. All of these riders had a huge increase in form as soon as they started working with Ferrari. Most were retired by the time Armstrong suddenly discovered he could climb and TT

You do know that both Ferrari and Armstrong confirmed in Dan Coyle's book that he had an exclusive deal?

You are making less sense with each post. You are welcome to ignore Armstrong getting advanced notice of testing, preferential treatment from the UCI, exclusive access to the best doping doctor in the world. If it helps you continue to believe the myth then please continue to ignore the obvious.....just don't expect anyone else to.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. All of these riders had a huge increase in form as soon as they started working with Ferrari. Most were retired by the time Armstrong suddenly discovered he could climb and TT
> 
> You do know that both Ferrari and Armstrong confirmed in Dan Coyle's book that he had an exclusive deal?
> .


Is that how you see it? I have shown that none of the riders that Ferrari have had the "transformation" that Armstrong apparently had. They all began to emerge 4-5 years into their career which is fairly normal. 

I am well aware that LA secured Ferrari's services exclusively. I don't care because it's not nearly as important as you believe it is. My last post demonstrates that clearly. You are the one failing to make sense.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Is that how you see it? I have shown that none of the riders that Ferrari have had the "transformation" that Armstrong apparently had. They all began to emerge 4-5 years into their career which is fairly normal.
> 
> I am well aware that LA secured Ferrari's services exclusively. I don't care because it's not nearly as important as you believe it is. My last post demonstrates that clearly. You are the one failing to make sense.


Your last post only shows that your knowledge of the sport outside of Armstrong is limited. 

You are welcome to pretend that Argentin, Tonkov, Rominger, Berzin, Furlan etc. did not have a sudden, extreme, jump in form when they worked with Ferrari in the early 90's, but those that actually followed the sport then, and do not rely on Google, know that this is not the case. 

I lived and raced in Europe in the early 90's. I know the shock everyone in the sport had when they saw Furlans's attack on the Poggio (He still holds the record). By LBL it became absurd. I watch Berzin win the Giro from the side of the road. He was track rider before he worked with Ferrari....and went back to being an unknown soon after Ferrari left the Gweiss team. 

You need to learn to use Google better. Rominger was 24 when he turned Pro with Cilo-Aufina. He was in his 7th year as a Pro when he suddenly won the Vuelta and had a 5 year run as one of the Worlds best GT riders.

The facts remain. It was not until Armstrong started working with Ferrari that he became a GT winner. The combo of an advanced doping program, advanced notice of testing, preferential treatment from the UCI, etc are what made Armstrong a champion, not hard work and better genetics


----------



## worst_shot_ever

What's all this talk about LA being a wonderkind at 18, or drugged up at 18? Who cares about 18. You have each clearly forgotten that Phil already deemed Lance a "wonderboy" at 15:

Lance age 15 at 1987 Bermuda triathlon - YouTube 

... at 1:00.

Also, you've gotta love the exchange b/w Lance and Pigg at 3:15 or so, where LA apparently violates a centerline rule and tells Pigg to F off when Pigg complains. (I guess the lovers will say there's proof LA was crazy strong out of the cradle, and the haters will say here's video proof LA was willing to break the rules from an early age).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

worst_shot_ever said:


> What's all this talk about LA being a wonderkind at 18, or drugged up at 18? Who cares about 18. You have each clearly forgotten that Phil already deemed Lance a "wonderboy" at 15:
> 
> Lance age 15 at 1987 Bermuda triathlon - YouTube
> 
> ... at 1:00.
> 
> Also, you've gotta love the exchange b/w Lance and Pigg at 3:15 or so, where LA apparently violates a centerline rule and tells Pigg to F off when Pigg complains. (I guess the lovers will say there's proof LA was crazy strong out of the cradle, and the haters will say here's video proof LA was willing to break the rules from an early age).


Classic video

A buddy of mine was at that race, and in the video. I think this might have been the first I had heard of Lance. When my friend came home he was going off about this Jacka$$ kid. Still remember the story, after the race Lance went to a bar, sat alone in the corner, and got $hitfaced drunk. He took the empty beer cans and built a pyramid on the table.


----------



## nedbraden

It's interesting how many of the comments defending Lemond are the same things that were said for years about Armstrong.

It's also interesting how certain posters will take unproven allegations and repeat them over and over as if they are fact...while denouncing Armstrong supporters who do the exact same thing.

(I am so bummed that Falsetti has me on ignore as his responses are usually comedy gold)


----------



## Chris-X

nedbraden said:


> It's interesting how many of the comments defending Lemond are the same things that were said for years about Armstrong.


Which comments are they? Obviously, the Armstrong coverup was pretty effective. He could just confess and cooperate with the investigation and it will be over more quickly. Oh, I forgot, it's a witch hunt.:idea:



nedbraden said:


> It's also interesting how certain posters will take unproven allegations and repeat them over and over as if they are fact...while denouncing Armstrong supporters who do the exact same thing.


The problem is that Armstrong supporters don't realize that they can't corroborate their own opinions and predjudices. IOW, making $hit up isn't evidence.



nedbraden said:


> (I am so bummed that Falsetti has me on ignore as his responses are usually comedy gold)


He's not ignoring you. I just wanted to let you know that your "offerings" don't really merit a response.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Chris-X said:


> Which comments are they? Obviously, the Armstrong coverup was pretty effective. He could just confess and cooperate with the investigation and it will be over more quickly. Oh, I forgot, it's a witch hunt.:idea:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Armstrong supporters don't realize that they can't corroborate their own opinions and predjudices. IOW, making $hit up isn't evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> He's not ignoring you. I just wanted to let you know that your "offerings" don't really merit a response.


I did have him on ignore, but thanks for quoting him or I would have missed such an insightful post 

If someone wants to talk about their LeMond Obsession they really should start a new thread and not high jack this one. 

Back on topic...... don't hold your breath on an indictment soon. The more they dig the more dirt is uncovered. I doubt we will see anything this year.


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


> Which comments are they? Obviously, the Armstrong coverup was pretty effective. He could just confess and cooperate with the investigation and it will be over more quickly. Oh, I forgot, it's a witch hunt.:idea:


If you know half as much about cycling as you try to make people think you do then it's pretty obvious which comments.
Then you move on to the M.O. of the obsessive anti-LA crowd: Refuse to hear anything that does not say LA is evil incarnate and then make the poster you are responding to sound like they said something they did not. (Where did I mention a witch hunt? I merely commented on a fact in this thread.)




> The problem is that Armstrong supporters don't realize that they can't corroborate their own opinions and predjudices. IOW, making $hit up isn't evidence.


Nice response, had to go on the attack instead of answering the actual comment I made. Not surprised since you get very worked up when a critical comment hits the mark.




> He's not ignoring you. I just wanted to let you know that your "offerings" don't really merit a response.


1) Sorry, but he has claimed to have me on ignore. Just another example of you posting without thinking.

2) If my "offerings" "don't merit a response" then what does it say about you that you are responding?!?!?!

You see, that's the funny thing about you guys, you like to say things but your actions rarely back them up. Wait a minute, that was exactly the point I made in my previous post and you simply proved me correct...again! Thanks.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I did have him on ignore, but thanks for quoting him or I would have missed such an insightful post


Typical Falsetti, immediately go on the attack against the poster.



> If someone wants to talk about their LeMond Obsession they really should start a new thread and not high jack this one.


Very hypocritical, but then we have established your M.O. already. I am curious to know what my obsession is with Lemond. I don't recall posting any hate for him, to be honest this simply sounds like you being angry about my comments about your LA obsession by taking a random shot at me that badly missed the mark.

Oh, I wasn't the one who brought up Lemond. You really need to get some facts before you speak.



> Back on topic...... don't hold your breath on an indictment soon. The more they dig the more dirt is uncovered. I doubt we will see anything this year.


I would say that if they had a solid case they would have already produced an indictment...unless they are going after someone much bigger then LA.


----------



## aclinjury

worst_shot_ever said:


> What's all this talk about LA being a wonderkind at 18, or drugged up at 18? Who cares about 18. You have each clearly forgotten that Phil already deemed Lance a "wonderboy" at 15:
> 
> Lance age 15 at 1987 Bermuda triathlon - YouTube
> 
> ... at 1:00.
> 
> Also, you've gotta love the exchange b/w Lance and Pigg at 3:15 or so, where LA apparently violates a centerline rule and tells Pigg to F off when Pigg complains. (I guess the lovers will say there's proof LA was crazy strong out of the cradle, and the haters will say here's video proof LA was willing to break the rules from an early age).


If Lance was a wonderboy at 15, and given that at age 15 a typical teenage boy is just beginning his growth.. then it is too much to question why that he didn't do anything much from 18 to 27,.. until he under went special doping?

I just think Lance peaked early but that his peak was not a dominant peak, until he doped.

How else would you explain the lack of continuous dominant growth from 18 to 27? but then suddently resumed at 28? Sorry but natural human physiology doesn't progress like that.


----------



## Chris-X

*Devoid of Substance.....*



nedbraden said:


> If you know half as much about cycling as you try to make people think you do then it's pretty obvious which comments..
> 
> Then you move on to the M.O. of the obsessive anti-LA crowd: Refuse to hear anything that does not say LA is evil incarnate and then make the poster you are responding to sound like they said something they did not. (Where did I mention a witch hunt? I merely commented on a fact in this thread.
> Nice response, had to go on the attack instead of answering the actual comment I made. Not surprised since you get very worked up when a critical comment hits the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but he has claimed to have me on ignore. Just another example of you posting without thinking.
> 
> If my "offerings" "don't merit a response" then what does it say about you that you are responding?!?!?!
> 
> 
> You see, that's the funny thing about you guys, you like to say things but your actions rarely back them up. Wait a minute, that was exactly the point I made in my previous post and you simply proved me correct...again! Thanks.
> 
> 
> Typical Falsetti, immediately go on the attack against the poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Very hypocritical, but then we have established your M.O. already. I am curious to know what my obsession is with Lemond. I don't recall posting any hate for him, to be honest this simply sounds like you being angry about my comments about your LA obsession by taking a random shot at me that badly missed the mark.
> 
> Oh, I wasn't the one who brought up Lemond. You really need to get some facts before you speak.
> 
> 
> I would say that if they had a solid case they would have already produced an indictment...unless they are going after someone much bigger then LA.


----------



## orange_julius

aclinjury said:


> If Lance was a wonderboy at 15, and given that at age 15 a typical teenage boy is just beginning his growth.. then it is too much to question why that he didn't do anything much from 18 to 27,.. until he under went special doping?
> 
> I just think Lance peaked early but that his peak was not a dominant peak, until he doped.
> 
> How else would you explain the lack of continuous dominant growth from 18 to 27? but then suddently resumed at 28? Sorry but natural human physiology doesn't progress like that.


LA did do quite a bit in that age range, just not what would lead one to think he's a GC contender. He won the road worlds, San Sebastian, and la Fleche Wallonne, along with a stage or two in the grand tours. But nothing to suggest he's a GC contender. 

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, or any other thread on this sub-forum, this is a key point that is often missed, which is the transformation of his performance, before Ferrari and after Ferrari.


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


>


Just the usual response from the usual suspects when called out for their hypocrisy..


----------



## Chris-X

nedbraden said:


> Just the usual response from the usual suspects when called out for their hypocrisy..


We'll call it a draw!:lol:


----------



## Chris-X

*duplicate post*

duplicate post


----------



## worst_shot_ever

Doctor Falsetti said:


> [clip]
> Still remember the story, after the race Lance went to a bar, sat alone in the corner, and got $hitfaced drunk. He took the empty beer cans and built a pyramid on the table.


Whether that was hyperbole from your friend or not, that is an awesome story. I can readily picture a 15yo Texan with an attitude like LA making a beer-can pyramid. Too funny.


----------



## Fogdweller

kbwh said:


> Fignon had a mutha saddle sore and was "riding with one leg". LeMond didn't have to be super human. He didn't need those tribars either.
> 
> /off topic


Yet fignon didn't have an off day. He was third on the stage.


----------



## Chris-X

worst_shot_ever said:


> Whether that was hyperbole from your friend or not, that is an awesome story. I can readily picture a 15yo Texan with an attitude like LA making a beer-can pyramid. Too funny.


Kind of endearing actually.. One of pharmstrong's more human sides..:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

worst_shot_ever said:


> Whether that was hyperbole from your friend or not, that is an awesome story. I can readily picture a 15yo Texan with an attitude like LA making a beer-can pyramid. Too funny.


I thought the same thing, and I said so to my friend. I don't remember his exact words but It was something along the line of 

"You don't get it, he was sitting* by himself*, getting hammered. The kid has some serious issues"

BTW, I may have been wrong on the race. Maybe it was St. Croix. It was a long time ago. 

I had a strong background in both running and cycling. I had surfed most of my life. In the late 80's Triathlons were growing so fast. There was a lot of money flowing to it and you did not need much talent to place well. It was filled with B level runners and swimmers. 1/2 through a season I was placing in the top 20 of some very big races and trying to race full time with a good group of friends. 

One thing we often talked about was how the sport did not really understand what REAL athletes were. All of us were good runners,cyclists, or swimmers but we had been getting our a$$es kicked our entire careers. People do not understand how deep Pro Cycling or Div 1 running or swimming is. It kills Tri's

We all used to talk about what would happen when a "Real" athlete took up the sport. We had been getting killed by real athletes our entire life. Lance was the real deal. Everyone was happy when he moved toward cycling, one less guy to lose to and one less jacka$$ in the sport.....I do remember it sucked because that meant no more Linda at races. She was young, like 30, and certainly the hot mom. 

I ditched the sport around the same time. Never did like riding a bike in a Speedo


----------



## davidka

aclinjury said:


> If Lance was a wonderboy at 15, and given that at age 15 a typical teenage boy is just beginning his growth.. then it is too much to question why that he didn't do anything much from 18 to 27,.. until he under went special doping?
> 
> I just think Lance peaked early but that his peak was not a dominant peak, until he doped.
> 
> How else would you explain the lack of continuous dominant growth from 18 to 27? but then suddently resumed at 28? Sorry but natural human physiology doesn't progress like that.


"Until he doped"? When was that exactly? This is typical of all the "Lance is the root of all evil" standpoints here. Some assert that Lance was doped from 18 on, most agree that the whole peloton was doped. Suddenly Lance gets the mix right and wins TdF 7 times and he's worse then the rest? Will someone spell out what cheating is acceptable and ok and where the line is crossed where it is no longer acceptable (I'm guessing that line is on the Champs Elysees). 

I guess I'll never get the hypocrisy of bashing one guy who cheated in a dirty sport for winning.

I'd like to see the bar where a 15yr old was served enough beer to build a pyramid..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> "Until he doped"? When was that exactly? This is typical of all the "Lance is the root of all evil" standpoints here. Some assert that Lance was doped from 18 on, most agree that the whole peloton was doped. Suddenly Lance gets the mix right and wins TdF 7 times and he's worse then the rest? Will someone spell out what cheating is acceptable and ok and where the line is crossed where it is no longer acceptable (I'm guessing that line is on the Champs Elysees).
> 
> I guess I'll never get the hypocrisy of bashing one guy who cheated in a dirty sport for winning.
> 
> I'd like to see the bar where a 15yr old was served enough beer to build a pyramid..


How many others paid off the UCI? How many others harassed and smeared anyone who told the truth or questioned the myth? How many others had advanced notice of surprise tests?

You are welcome to pretend this is all about dope.....but we both know it is not


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How many others paid off the UCI? How many others harassed and smeared anyone who told the truth or questioned the myth? How many others had advanced notice of surprise tests?
> 
> You are welcome to pretend this is all about dope.....but we both know it is not


You don't know the answers to those questions, you certainly don't know the "truth", but I would bet my bikes the answer isn't none. So what if he had these things, is he worse because he cheated "better" than others?

Why don't you hate Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Marco Pantani, Richard Virenque, and all the other known dopers as much as Lance? They used their greater resources to their advantage and they all cheated, the degree doesn't matter.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> You don't know the answers to those questions, you certainly don't know the "truth", but I would bet my bikes the answer isn't none. So what if he had these things, is he worse because he cheated "better" than others?
> 
> Why don't you hate Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Marco Pantani, Richard Virenque, and all the other known dopers as much as Lance? They used their greater resources to their advantage and they all cheated, the degree doesn't matter.


You may want to actually read my post. Doping is not the sole measure of a person. Some of my best friends doped. Good people dope, bad people dope. 

Good people do not harass those that question the myth. Harassing people who dare to question the myth has been a Wonderboy tactic for well over a decade. 

Bill Mitchell, the founder of Cyclingnews was a victim of an agressive attack by Armstrong and his groupies back in 1999. After he ran this story about Armstrong testing positive for Corticoids after Stage 1The harassment began. Sponsors were urged to stop advertising. His employer was called by dozens of groupies. Typical bully stuff. 

A few days later he wrote this



> In recent days, a number of American readers have written abusive emails to me because I have tried to present the diversity of views about the allegations of doping by Tour leader Lance Armstrong. I have not given my own view on the European press approach. But I do think it is part of a free society to allow all views to be expressed. Then we can (as adults) make up our own minds on the balance of information. That is what freedom is all about. For those who want to censor views because they don't agree with them think about that.


This only increased the harassment. Eventually he had to sell Cyclingnews, his life's passion. He sold it for almost nothing to Gerrard Knapp, who later sold it for $5,000,000 to Future Publishing. In his parting message, which Cyclingnews yanked off the site after yet more complaints from the Groupies, he wrote this. 



> I also received a lot of antagonism for daring to have an opinion - mostly from US readers. I could not understand why people (only a small minority), who grew up in the so-called land of freedom were so intent on repressing free speech. After all it was your choice to click the link and there was no charge for doing so. But still I received many threatening and nasty E-mails on a regular basis. My employer (the University) was harassed. And lately these nasty types have been trying to encourage my sponsors to stop supporting the site. I guess these types wear white hoods around the place at times too. It made me understand how McCarthyism thrived in the USA. Lucky I live in a free society I thought


 The list of people harassed by Armstrong is long, I could go on...but even you get the point


----------



## davidka

So it's because he's the one rider with enough money and influence to push back at people who seek to damage him?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> So it's because he's the one rider with enough money and influence to push back at people who seek to damage him?


As usaul you ignore the content and leap to protect your hero. Bill did not attempt to damage him, He did his job as a reporter. It is not Bill's fault that Lance is a doper. 

You are ok with harassment and intimidation, most are not. Most do not see harassing Mike Anderson until he has a seizure and has to move to New Zealand as a positive thing. 

Most would not defend his treatment of Simeoni. Chasing him down, having your teammates spit on him, defaming him, and demanding he is not allowed to start the Giro (even though he was the current Italian national champion) 

the list is endless. You are OK with it, most are not.


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may want to actually read my post. Doping is not the sole measure of a person. Some of my best friends doped. Good people dope, bad people dope.
> 
> The list of people harassed by Armstrong is long, I could go on...*but even you get the point*


Well, you'd like to think that.:lol:

I'd pay good money for someone to explain the denial dynamic.


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may want to actually read my post. Doping is not the sole measure of a person. Some of my best friends doped. Good people dope, bad people dope.
> 
> Good people do not harass those that question the myth. Harassing people who dare to question the myth has been a Wonderboy tactic for well over a decade.
> 
> Bill Mitchell, the founder of Cyclingnews was a victim of an agressive attack by Armstrong and his groupies back in 1999. After he ran this story about Armstrong testing positive for Corticoids after Stage 1The harassment began. Sponsors were urged to stop advertising. His employer was called by dozens of groupies. Typical bully stuff.
> 
> A few days later he wrote this
> 
> 
> 
> This only increased the harassment. Eventually he had to sell Cyclingnews, his life's passion. He sold it for almost nothing to Gerrard Knapp, who later sold it for $5,000,000 to Future Publishing. In his parting message, which Cyclingnews yanked off the site after yet more complaints from the Groupies, he wrote this.
> 
> 
> 
> The list of people harassed by Armstrong is long, I could go on...but even you get the point


Your presenting this as if Lance and his groupies harassed him out of Cyclingnews.
Which is incorrect if you read his entire goodbye letter. Time to say move on ...

_I lead a very busy life. I am a full professor at a University in Australia. I am a director of a research centre at the University. I still have hopes as a bike racer and train around 3 hours a day. I am someone's partner and that above all means everything to me. Put together it doesn't leave much time for anything. And then cyclingnews.com came along ... or whatever it did. With the growth of the WWW site and the amount of data it now pushes out daily it is becoming impossible for me to continue to do everything to the level that I desire ... flat out! Something had to give. It has been a hard decision to make but I am now bowing out of cyclingnews.com and handing it over to a new team. From today!_

The antagonism is only mentioned in one short paragraph of the entire long letter and he even considers it a minor issue considering "the warmth that I have received from readers all around the world."


----------



## covenant

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What you posted was "One short Paragraph"
> 
> Bill has made it clear that he was harassed by the groupies. Sponsors were pressured into dropping their business, his employer was called and harassed. If it was not important he would not have included it in his final statement.....and the new owners would not have yanked it off the site as soon as they saw it.


Confirmation bias noted.

See you in a year when (or if) the indictments come down. :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

covenant said:


> Your presenting this as if Lance and his groupies harassed him out of Cyclingnews.
> Which is incorrect if you read his entire goodbye letter. Time to say move on ...
> 
> _I lead a very busy life. I am a full professor at a University in Australia. I am a director of a research centre at the University. I still have hopes as a bike racer and train around 3 hours a day. I am someone's partner and that above all means everything to me. Put together it doesn't leave much time for anything. And then cyclingnews.com came along ... or whatever it did. With the growth of the WWW site and the amount of data it now pushes out daily it is becoming impossible for me to continue to do everything to the level that I desire ... flat out! Something had to give. It has been a hard decision to make but I am now bowing out of cyclingnews.com and handing it over to a new team. From today!_
> 
> The antagonism is only mentioned in one short paragraph of the entire long letter and he even considers it a minor issue considering "the warmth that I have received from readers all around the world."


What you posted was "One short Paragraph" 

Bill has made it clear that he was harassed by the groupies. Sponsors were pressured into dropping their business, his employer was called and harassed. If it was not important he would not have included it in his final statement.....and the new owners would not have yanked it off the site as soon as they saw it. 

Always amazed at some peoples willingness to excuse Armstrong's toxic behavior. It is desperation to use the percentage of a fair-well letter as a weak effort to justify it.


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What you posted was "One short Paragraph"
> 
> Bill has made it clear that he was harassed by the groupies. Sponsors were pressured into dropping their business, his employer was called and harassed. If it was not important he would not have included it in his final statement.....and the new owners would not have yanked it off the site as soon as they saw it.
> 
> Always amazed at some peoples willingness to excuse Armstrong's toxic behavior. It is desperation to use the percentage of a fair-well letter as a weak effort to justify it.


Similiar to davidka's rationale that LeMond wasn't ruined even though LA did his darnedest to ruin him. 

I'm becoming less amazed at this kind of thing honestly. It's sad.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What you posted was "One short Paragraph"
> 
> Bill has made it clear that he was harassed by the groupies. Sponsors were pressured into dropping their business, his employer was called and harassed. If it was not important he would not have included it in his final statement.....and the new owners would not have yanked it off the site as soon as they saw it.
> 
> Always amazed at some peoples willingness to excuse Armstrong's toxic behavior. It is desperation to use the percentage of a fair-well letter as a weak effort to justify it.


Like your choice to see, even create Lance's actions in the worst possible light, you also project your views onto others participating in the conversation. Nobody is rushing to Lance's "rescue", he doesn't need it and we don't care that much. That's you building your own adversary attempting to make your crusade more important.

As for Lance's alleged "harassment" of others (seizure and moving to NZ, you really think someone moved to the other side of the planet because of Lance?), there is a schoolyard saying that's as old as schoolyards, "he pushed me first". LA pushed back at everyone who spoke out against him, as anyone with anything to protect would.

He's just an athlete. You've built him up into something far more than he is in your mind.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Like your choice to see, even create Lance's actions in the worst possible light, you also project your views onto others participating in the conversation. Nobody is rushing to Lance's "rescue", he doesn't need it and we don't care that much. That's you building your own adversary attempting to make your crusade more important.
> 
> As for Lance's alleged "harassment" of others (seizure and moving to NZ, you really think someone moved to the other side of the planet because of Lance?), there is a schoolyard saying that's as old as schoolyards, "he pushed me first". LA pushed back at everyone who spoke out against him, as anyone with anything to protect would.
> 
> He's just an athlete. You've built him up into something far more than he is in your mind.


So Simeoni choosing to tell the truth under oath is "Pushing" him? Should he have lied? He never even mentioned Lance's name, Lance went after him because he told the truth about Ferrari. 

Betsy and Frankie told the truth under oath and were smeared for it....did they "push" as well? Should they have committed perjury? 

Mike is a quality individual. Harassment is one many words that accurately describe what Armstrong did to him, however in the end Mike wins. He has a good life and his former boss is going to prison. 

Do you leap to defend all bullies or is it just Lance?


----------



## Chris-X

davidka said:


> Like your choice to see, even create Lance's actions in the *worst possible light,* you also project your views onto others participating in the conversation. *Nobody is rushing to Lance's "rescue", he doesn't need* it and we don't care that much. That's you building your own adversary attempting to make your crusade more important.
> 
> As for Lance's alleged "harassment" of others (seizure and moving to NZ, you really think someone moved to the other side of the planet because of Lance?), there is a schoolyard saying that's as old as schoolyards, "he pushed me first". LA pushed back at everyone who spoke out against him, as anyone with anything to protect would.
> 
> *He's just an athlete. You've built him up into something far more than he is in your mind*.


David, why don't you put LA's actions in a good light for us?

He's spending $M's on legal fees and is doing spin control all over the place with his lackeys. You don't think he needs to be rescued?

I didn't know Lance was being unfairly "pushed."

Doctor Falsetti has built Pharmstrong into a potential Governor of Texas and maybe POTUS? A guy who hobnobs with Presidents and foreign leaders from France and Italy to Australia? I did not know that.:mad2:



Doctor Falsetti said:


> So Simeoni choosing to tell the truth under oath is "Pushing" him? Should he have lied? He never even mentioned Lance's name, Lance went after him because he told the truth about Ferrari.
> 
> Betsy and Frankie told the truth under oath and were smeared for it....did they "push" as well? Should they have committed perjury?
> 
> Mike is a quality individual. Harassment is one many words that accurately describe what Armstrong did to him, however in the end Mike wins. He has a good life and his former boss is going to prison.
> 
> Do you leap to defend all bullies or is it just Lance?


----------



## nedbraden

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may want to actually read my post. Doping is not the sole measure of a person. Some of my best friends doped. Good people dope, bad people dope.
> 
> Good people do not harass those that question the myth. Harassing people who dare to question the myth has been a Wonderboy tactic for well over a decade.
> 
> Bill Mitchell, the founder of Cyclingnews was a victim of an agressive attack by Armstrong and his groupies back in 1999. After he ran this story about Armstrong testing positive for Corticoids after Stage 1The harassment began. Sponsors were urged to stop advertising. His employer was called by dozens of groupies. Typical bully stuff.
> 
> A few days later he wrote this
> 
> 
> 
> This only increased the harassment. Eventually he had to sell Cyclingnews, his life's passion. He sold it for almost nothing to Gerrard Knapp, who later sold it for $5,000,000 to Future Publishing. In his parting message, which Cyclingnews yanked off the site after yet more complaints from the Groupies, he wrote this.
> 
> 
> 
> The list of people harassed by Armstrong is long, I could go on...but even you get the point


Two comments:

1) The good doctor talks about attacks by LA's "groupies" but never once acknowledges that for every "groupie" posting attacks on forums and websites their is at least one posting attacks against LA and against anyone who does not agree 100% with everything they say. The extremists are here on both sides, yet people like good doctor choose to only see one group and make them out to be the evil ones. Simply another example of the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.

2) Doping is not the "sole measure of a person" but cheating does speak volumes about ones character and morals. Unfortunately some choose to pick and choose which of these people they attack and which they defend, usually arbitrarily.

3) It's also interesting to see what the good doctor chose to avoid, what he chose to spin and what he chose to highlight. Nothing new for anyone who has read this forum for a while.

I am eagerly anticipating the attacks that will come from the usual suspects, despite the fact I have said nothing about LA being innocent or guilty in any of my posts...because I did not buy into what they say 100%.


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


> David, why don't you put LA's actions in a good light for us?
> 
> He's spending $M's on legal fees and is doing spin control all over the place with his lackeys. You don't think he needs to be rescued?
> 
> I didn't know Lance was being unfairly "pushed."


What person, with the financial resources necessary, would not spend as much money as they feel they need and do "spin control" when faced with a legal situation that could have grave consequences?

Would you not spend every penny you have and do "spin control" if you were publicly accused something that would ruin your career and future?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The list of "haters" keeps growing. How are the groupies going to smear George? Levi? VDV?
Anyone who tells the truth is evil, bitter, hater. 

When is the tipping point? When do the last hold outs abandon their suspension of rational thought and admit the obvious? Right now even Hiroo Onoda is laughing at them


----------



## nedbraden

An interesting response that does nothing but:

1) Avoid the points made.

2) Prove that the good doctor is playing loose with the truth claiming he has me on ignore.

Neither is a surprise!


----------



## Chris-X

nedbraden said:


> What person, with the financial resources necessary, would not spend as much money as they feel they need and do "spin control" when faced with a legal situation that could have grave consequences?
> 
> Would you not spend every penny you have and do "spin control" if you were publicly accused something that would ruin your career and future?


Spin control - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of SPIN CONTROL

: the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others <political spin control> 


Regarding your questions, isn't there an option to just tell the truth?


----------



## Alaska Mike

I seriously doubt anyone of any real staying power is going to smear George. Levi and VDV are possibilities, but I think most people are going to let it slide for the bit players when/if a public guilty verdict of any real significance comes down. Lance may hold a grudge, but his ability to influence/intimidate will be severely hampered. If anyone is going to bear the brunt of the blame, it's going to be Floyd.. and maybe somehow Contador will be implicated in the vast conspiracy to bring Lance down. It doesn't have legs, though, if Lance goes down.


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


> Spin control - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Definition of SPIN CONTROL
> 
> : the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others <political spin control>
> 
> 
> Regarding your questions, isn't there an option to just tell the truth?


Thanks for that definition, I didn't already know what it was. 

Who said anything about not telling the truth? You are pretty naive if you think that, in the situation I discussed, simply telling the truth will make everything work out the way you want it to work out. Watch the news every day and you will see many cases of innocent people being let out of prison after long stays caused by the prosecution doing enough to convince the jury of guilt.


----------



## Chris-X

*Good Lord!*



nedbraden said:


> Thanks for that definition, I didn't already know what it was. .


You put the phrase in quotes. I thought you were taking exception to it.



nedbraden said:


> Who said anything about not telling the truth? You are pretty naive if you think that, in the situation I discussed, simply telling the truth will make everything work out the way you want it to work out. Watch the news every day and you will see many cases of innocent people being let out of prison after long stays caused by the prosecution doing enough to convince the jury of guilt.


This is where "spin control" comes in. Making sure Armstrong's "truth" is interpreted the right way.

Pay attention, we're not talking about "people" on this thread. We're specifically talking about Armstrong.

So, you're saying Armstrong is innocent?:mad2:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Alaska Mike said:


> I seriously doubt anyone of any real staying power is going to smear George. Levi and VDV are possibilities, but I think most people are going to let it slide for the bit players when/if a public guilty verdict of any real significance comes down. Lance may hold a grudge, but his ability to influence/intimidate will be severely hampered. If anyone is going to bear the brunt of the blame, it's going to be Floyd.. and maybe somehow Contador will be implicated in the vast conspiracy to bring Lance down. It doesn't have legs, though, if Lance goes down.


When the various charges, in various countries, come down the other riders will be only side stories. The main focus will be Lance. With the large number of former teammates saying the same thing the "Attack the messenger" technique will no longer work, 

Levi may have some other issues related to more recent doping but if those revelations are bundled with Armstrong charges then it could get lost in the media shuffle. George, VDV, JV and Z will be lost in the shuffle. 

With so many statements from direct witnesses confirming what others have said most rational people will see the "Bitter, Hater" mantra is invalid. Hopefully that side story will be explored, how anyone who questioned the myth was smeared and who in the media enabled it. 

The statements of multiple former teammates, staff, and friends, coupled with the revelations about the charity, will make the spin useless


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


> You put the phrase in quotes. I thought you were taking exception to it.


No, I put it in quotes because you are using it in a way that tries to make it sound like you have all of the facts...which none of us on this forum do.






> This is where "spin control" comes in. Making sure Armstrong's "truth" is interpreted the right way.


Yes, which is done in any case that becomes very public...by both sides.



> Pay attention, we're not talking about "people" on this thread. We're specifically talking about Armstrong.


Do you believe that using examples from outside of Armstrong to make a very valid, logical point is not relevant in any way? That is what you seem to be saying. The only other thing I can think of is that you have no logical response to my example but can't accept anything that does not fit your agenda so you must dismiss it. I hope it is the former rather then the latter but, like the good doctor I am betting it is more of the latter.



> So, you're saying Armstrong is innocent?:mad2:


I said nothing of the sort. Please don't sink to the extremist level from both sides where you assign beliefs to the people who don't just say your side is 100% correct about everything.


----------



## worst_shot_ever

I'm still not sure I know the theory of prosecution that survives the statute of limitations on which the GJ investigation is premised. Unless we are talking rico (using mail or wire fraud or money laundering predicates I guess?) or bank fraud, the govt is stuck with activities within the last 5 years. So I guess it is a RICO case with the team or else Livestrong as the enterprise?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

worst_shot_ever said:


> I'm still not sure I know the theory of prosecution that survives the statute of limitations on which the GJ investigation is premised. Unless we are talking rico (using mail or wire fraud or money laundering predicates I guess?) or bank fraud, the govt is stuck with activities within the last 5 years. So I guess it is a RICO case with the team or else Livestrong as the enterprise?


SOL is not an issue. An effort to cover up the crime allows for tolling, essentially resetting the time frame. 

RICO is more of a challenge but it does appear they have enough witnesses to show the organization that ran Postal/Disco/Radioshack were involved in an "Ongoing Criminal Enterprise" that stretched a decade

Tyler, Hincapie, Jorgy, Jeff, and others covered the early 00's. Levi has talked about the fun of Disco, Astana, and RS. Also expect multiple charges of witness intimidation and 
obfuscation


----------



## Chris-X

:lol:


nedbraden said:


> No, I put it in quotes because you are using it in a way that tries to make it sound like you have all of the facts...which none of us on this forum do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, which is done in any case that becomes very public...by both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that using examples from outside of Armstrong to make a very valid, logical point is not relevant in any way? That is what you seem to be saying. The only other thing I can think of is that you have no logical response to my example but can't accept anything that does not fit your agenda so you must dismiss it. I hope it is the former rather then the latter but, like the good doctor I am betting it is more of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing of the sort. Please don't sink to the extremist level from both sides where you assign beliefs to the people who don't just say your side is 100% correct about everything.


What valid point are you trying to make? BTW, no one ever has ALL the facts. I don't even know what logical points you are making because it never seems that you make any.

Just hoping that Armstrong is innocent here is completely naive. Most informed people are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong has doped for all of his pro career and 3 years before that.

Hope rides again!


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


> :lol:
> 
> What valid point are you trying to make? BTW, no one ever has ALL the facts. I don't even know what logical points you are making because it never seems that you make any.


I guess you prove my points quite thoroughly (again) with this "response." Pretending you have no idea what my points are (despite the fact I have made them very clear), then going on the attack claiming I never make any points (when they are points you don't want to see it's easy to ignore them)

If you admit nobody has all the facts then why do you constantly post as if you know the facts? The extremes on both sides do it all the time.

It's amusing how often both extremes resort to these kinds of responses when faced with logic and actual facts. Keep spinning, ignoring and digging that ole deeper.



> Just hoping that Armstrong is innocent here is completely naive. Most informed people are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong has doped for all of his pro career and 3 years before that.Hope rides again!


Again resorting to implying that somewhere I claimed LA was innocent while avoiding what was actually being discussed. Is it due to being afraid to stick to what I am discussing because you know it will only make you look foolish or is it simply an inability to stay focused?


It's too bad the extremes like you, Falsetti and a few of the pro-LA guys here have sold out so completely as I think you might offer some interesting discussion on the topic if you guys could get away from the usual rhetoric and obsessive love/hate. Usually at this point I'd say "think about it for a second," but when it comes to the extremes in this argument I know that can never occur.


----------



## Chris-X

*What points?*



nedbraden said:


> I guess you prove my points quite thoroughly (again) with this "response." Pretending you have no idea what my points are (despite the fact I have made them very clear), then going on the attack claiming I never make any points (when they are points you don't want to see it's easy to ignore them)
> 
> If you admit nobody has all the facts then why do you constantly post as if you know the facts? The extremes on both sides do it all the time.
> 
> It's amusing how often both extremes resort to these kinds of responses when faced with logic and actual facts. Keep spinning, ignoring and digging that ole deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Again resorting to implying that somewhere I claimed LA was innocent while avoiding what was actually being discussed. Is it due to being afraid to stick to what I am discussing because you know it will only make you look foolish or is it simply an inability to stay focused?
> 
> 
> It's too bad the extremes like you, Falsetti and a few of the pro-LA guys here have sold out so completely as I think you might offer some interesting discussion on the topic if you guys could get away from the usual rhetoric and obsessive love/hate. Usually at this point I'd say "think about it for a second," but when it comes to the extremes in this argument I know that can never occur.


Are you familiar with the thing about shooting fish in a barrel?

So the answer is in the middle? Kind of like a Basso, was contemplating doping type of thing?

There is no hate involved here, just the fact that Lance started doping at 18, started using EPO at 23, went to Ferrari to refine his program at 24, probably helped give himself the awful birthday gift of cancer at 25, learned thru chemotherapy from an expert that timing and dosage are everything with very powerful drugs. Made good contacts in the pharmaceutical world with purveryors of trial drugs during his convalescence. Came back at 26 with an even more refined program that transformed him into a GT rider. Did the Beta test at the Vuelta. Had the Hog and Stapleton put his criminal enterprise in place and recognized that bags of money speak volumes in sports. Kept one step ahead of the authorities and paid them off when they caught up. Established a propaganda program creating a mythology with the credulous uninformed masses and political leaders who operate the same way he does. Attempt to destroy anyone who gets in the way of the machine. And then the downfall, started believing his own bs and forgetting that he's a fraud.

I can't wait till the Armstrong movie comes out. They still have Matt Damon or Jake? Going to be a real thriller. I hope they don't bog it down with the courtroom stuff.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

As the myth crumbles it appears some are having trouble dealing with it

Stages of grief

1. Denial and Isolation
2. *Anger*
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

It appears some have moved from Denial to Anger


----------



## Veloflash

davidka said:


> Dr. Robert Przybelski also said:
> “I could not imagine a cyclist using HemAssist or any HBOC day after day ... I would imagine that such a product would be used selectively for a most difficult mountain stage,” Przybelski wrote in a follow-up e-mail to the AP.
> 
> “But of course,” he added, “I don’t believe these products were ever used.”
> 
> Przybelski, who oversaw HemAssist’s early development for Baxter, maintained in a subsequent phone interview with The Associated Press that the drug could have improved sports performance, although he added that no direct studies were done to prove that theory.
> 
> Baxter abandoned trials in 1998. You believe that a pharmaceutical company would continue to make a drug that they would never mass produce for 7-8 years, just for an athlete?
> 
> This article says Baxter was spending $60/yr. developing it. Lance never have that kind of cash.
> 
> Baxter Drops Its Hemassist Program - Chicago Tribune


Can you direct me to studies of EPO during its clinical field trial period before approval that proved it had performance enhancing benefits? It was developed for clinical ethical use only. No doubt Coconi et al (includes Ferrari) could see the PED benefits.

Armstrong's problem with HemAssist is that the Feds are investigating if he was in possession of an unapproved drug that had not been approved by the FDA.

Whether it possesses PED attributes is irrelevant if he is indicted. Possessing an unapproved drug is a Federal crime.


----------



## Veloflash

worst_shot_ever said:


> I'm still not sure I know the theory of prosecution that survives the statute of limitations on which the GJ investigation is premised. Unless we are talking rico (using mail or wire fraud or money laundering predicates I guess?) or bank fraud, the govt is stuck with activities within the last 5 years. So I guess it is a RICO case with the team or else Livestrong as the enterprise?


Livestrong is possibly in the mix. Livestrong announced the IRS were undertaking a "routine" investigation to last all of calendar 2010. Indications suggest they were still there mid 2011.

IRS do not undertake "routine" investigations. They undertake target suspect activity..

Livestrong enriched Armstrong in the Demand Media deal (sale of Livestrong.com & sub-licensing "Livestrong" brand). Livestrong paid two "bribes" amounting to $2m to medical organisations to keep them away/produce false affidavits for the 2005 SCA Tribunal.

Armstrong cannot run Livestrong as his own fiefdom.

Livestrong have not published their 2010 financial statements on their website. Livestrong claim LA made the largest single donation of $6m allegedly in 2010. Deduct $6m from receipts and you have a foundation out of comparative industry whack and on a downward spiral.

RICO indictments are expected. Novitzky would not be interested in the 2002-2004 USPS contract years and Floyd Landis if there was the usual SOL restrictions.

Plus the clock is still running after LA first tampered with propspective witness Hamilton then witness Anderson


----------



## nedbraden

Chris-X said:


> Are you familiar with the thing about shooting fish in a barrel?
> 
> So the answer is in the middle? Kind of like a Basso, was contemplating doping type of thing?
> 
> There is no hate involved here, just the fact that Lance started doping at 18, started using EPO at 23, went to Ferrari to refine his program at 24, probably helped give himself the awful birthday gift of cancer at 25, learned thru chemotherapy from an expert that timing and dosage are everything with very powerful drugs. Made good contacts in the pharmaceutical world with purveryors of trial drugs during his convalescence. Came back at 26 with an even more refined program that transformed him into a GT rider. Did the Beta test at the Vuelta. Had the Hog and Stapleton put his criminal enterprise in place and recognized that bags of money speak volumes in sports. Kept one step ahead of the authorities and paid them off when they caught up. Established a propaganda program creating a mythology with the credulous uninformed masses and political leaders who operate the same way he does. Attempt to destroy anyone who gets in the way of the machine. And then the downfall, started believing his own bs and forgetting that he's a fraud.
> 
> I can't wait till the Armstrong movie comes out. They still have Matt Damon or Jake? Going to be a real thriller. I hope they don't bog it down with the courtroom stuff.


Fantastic post! 

1) Once again you avoid, ignore and spin. It's an incredibly cowardly way to go about having a discussion...but typical of both extremes in this case.

2) You claim things as facts that you have no proof that they are facts

3) You can't stay away from personally attacking LA showing your hate for him.

(I love how the good doctor keeps on playing loosely with the truth, claiming he has me on ignore.)


----------



## Chris-X

nedbraden said:


> Fantastic post! .


Thanks! I tried to make it concise. I think the indictment will read a lot longer.



nedbraden said:


> Once again you avoid, ignore and spin. It's an incredibly cowardly way to go about having a discussion...but typical of both extremes in this case..


What have I avoided? Let me know and I'll do my best to answer it. Courage!



nedbraden said:


> You claim things as facts that you have no proof that they are facts.


Witness statements don't count? There are a lot of witnesses. Plus LA has tested positive for Cortisone and 6 times positive for EPO, or was it 7 times? Anyway, lots of positives.



nedbraden said:


> You can't stay away from personally attacking LA showing your hate for him..


I don't hate him at all. I think he has kind of a sad life to tell you the truth. I have friends that take steroids and I don't hate them. It doesn't stop me from telling them that their muscles are fake though. I kinda feel bad for him. I probably wouldn't mind hanging out with him but I wouldn't take any of his $hit either.:lol: I'm single and I hear he lives like he's single so we'd hit South Beach and have a ball.



nedbraden said:


> (I love how the good doctor keeps on playing loosely with the truth, claiming he has me on ignore.)


Really? I think he's the most knowledgable poster in this forum. What truth is he playing loosely with. Maybe you can get me to change my opinion of him if you expose his falsehoods?


----------



## jlandry

Now we know what *really *happened "Inside the Postal Bus".

LOL


----------



## Cableguy

jlandry said:


> Now we know what *really *happened "Inside the Postal Bus".
> 
> LOL


The question is, how did all of Lance's evil teammates manage to do all those PEDs behind his back... inside the postal bus no less? Crazy that they got away with all that stuff without him knowing. They were all under pressure to not let the big man down and yet ultimately they did, didn't they? I can't imagine how shocked Lance is to hear all this.


----------



## hawker12

I still have this book and really enjoyed it. Now it sure rings hollow.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jlandry said:


> Now we know what *really *happened "Inside the Postal Bus".
> 
> LOL


But what happened to Ned Braden?


----------



## MaddSkillz

Cableguy said:


> The question is, how did all of Lance's evil teammates manage to do all those PEDs behind his back... inside the postal bus no less? Crazy that they got away with all that stuff without him knowing. They were all under pressure to not let the big man down and yet ultimately they did, didn't they? I can't imagine how shocked Lance is to hear all this.



You're joking, right?


----------



## Cableguy

Chris it's kind of bizarre you're quoting and commenting on the exact same stuff from almost a year ago again... that you already responded to... in almost the same way... a year ago :lol:


----------



## Cableguy

MaddSkillz said:


> You're joking, right?


Wait wait wait you think Lance was in on it too?










*Yes I'm joking lol


----------

