# Level playing field?



## matabala (Aug 10, 2004)

EIGHT Astana finishers before ONE Garmin rider crossed the line in today's stage. Normal or not?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

Normal. DiLuca?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

maybe, maybe not normal, but I'd sure love to see LA's blood work over the last 3 days. That rest day was damn near miraculous for him. Maybe Ferrari brought him some orange juice and bread.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Considering todays stage was a long, climbing course and Garmin is full of TT guys and not climbers...it make a bit of sense. Especially when you take into account most of Astana's team is made up of climbers.

The playing field comes down to who you have on your team and it's priorities.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

matabala said:


> EIGHT Astana finishers before ONE Garmin rider crossed the line in today's stage. Normal or not?


Considering 87 other rides finished before the first Garmin rider, I'd say this says a lot more about Garmin than anyone else. Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni-Androni Giocattoli also had eight riders. Lampre had six?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I doubt Armstrong is doping this time around.

Di Luca's performance today was extraordinary. Attacking multiple times and then SOLOING away from 2 good TTers and another grand tour winner who were chasing hard. I guess that's one good thing about riding for a pro-continental team. Drug testing is infrequent.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> maybe, maybe not normal, but I'd sure love to see LA's blood work over the last 3 days. That rest day was damn near miraculous for him. Maybe Ferrari brought him some orange juice and bread.


I wouldn't say miraculous, but I don't think suspicious is far off the mark. I wouldn't be surprised if he got a small oil change on the rest day.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> I doubt Armstrong is doping this time around.
> 
> Di Luca's performance today was extraordinary. Attacking multiple times and then SOLOING away from 2 good TTers and another grand tour winner who were chasing hard. I guess that's one good thing about riding for a pro-continental team. Drug testing is infrequent.


When he first came back I thought he would have to be crazy to dope now. With more revelations and reflection, I think any rational doper would conclude that the system is still very easy to game and if you're smart about it you're still very unlikely to be caught.

The thing to remember is guys like Di Luca, Rebellin, Basso, etc. have probably been doping since they were espoirs if not juniors, when you've gotten away with it for over a decade who figures they're going to get caught. Especially, when seemingly the majority or near majority of catches are not just your run of the mill dope test violations, IOW the tests are still relatively easy to beat.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

With that ride yesterday, maybe he change from the killer to DiRicco


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

Is it kind of surprise that no one has tested positive yet this year? Maybe the time trial will have some guys peaking.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

tron said:


> Is it kind of surprise that no one has tested positive yet this year? Maybe the time trial will have some guys peaking.


The Italian police have also been quiet so far. The problem with dope tests is there is always going to be some time between taking the samples and getting a result. Days if not weeks.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Drug testing during an event is less useful than a full blood/urine drug test 1-2 weeks before an event.

They should have done a blood and urine test for all the GC guys they thought could have a chance at top 10. But meh, maybe it's more fun this way.


----------



## SRV (Dec 26, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> With that ride yesterday, maybe he change from the killer to DiRicco


Come on, cut the guy a little slack. He got away because of superior descending skills, not by easily smoking averyone on a climb.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

There is always the good ole police raid on the racer's hotel


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I think the verdict on LA's rest day activities will be delivered in the TT. I'm betting a repeat of Ullrich's post rest day 2006(?) Giro TT performance.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

At first I also thought LA would probably go clean this time around just because he had nothing left to prove about winning doped. However the whole debacle with his early abortion of his personal dope testing program quickly killed that notion, as did the choice of team and riders on it. Then there's the continued support for known dopers and disparaging remarks for anyone who suggests riders are doped (not to mention his continued assault on Simeoni), the BS reasons for his comeback (if cancer awareness were the top priority he wouldn't have demanded so much appearance $$ from the Giro that it lost TV contracts), the assurances given Contador to get him to stay put when it's pretty clear LA has no intention of being a good teammate but is still win at all costs, and of course after a lifetime on dope he "knows" he can't compete without it (whether physiologically true or not). Seems like I'm forgetting a number of things but that's a start.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

terzo rene said:


> At first I also thought LA would probably go clean this time around just because he had nothing left to prove about winning doped. However the whole debacle with his early abortion of his personal dope testing program quickly killed that notion, as did the choice of team and riders on it. Then there's the continued support for known dopers and disparaging remarks for anyone who suggests riders are doped (not to mention his continued assault on Simeoni), the BS reasons for his comeback (if cancer awareness were the top priority he wouldn't have demanded so much appearance $$ from the Giro that it lost TV contracts), the assurances given Contador to get him to stay put when it's pretty clear LA has no intention of being a good teammate but is still win at all costs, and of course after a lifetime on dope he "knows" he can't compete without it (whether physiologically true or not). Seems like I'm forgetting a number of things but that's a start.


I will actually disagree with this. If it were 6 months earlier, I wouldn't have. But, I'm learning more about lance every week...and not just from the internet/TV.

Aborting his personal testing program was mainly due to the expense, as the Astana testing was almost as stringent. It was a shady move, though.

His "continued support" and Simeoni crap is because Lance can hold grudges well. He's also not one to blame current dopers because he has nothing to be cheated out of, and he knows his own past. He is racing for "free" and will get big appearance bonuses no matter how poorly he does.

As for Lance not being a teammate to AC: that is too obvious. He has few close friends and his attitude is all about "me." He's always been that way and you can't expect him to lose that...ever.

Also, I still think he can compete well w/o the dope...especially in a cleaner tour of today. Note, compete does not mean win. I think everyone knew deep down inside that he wasn't going to win either the Tour or the Giro.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> Also, I still think he can compete well w/o the dope...especially in a cleaner tour of today. Note, compete does not mean win. I think everyone knew deep down inside that he wasn't going to win either the Tour or the Giro.


i agree with this too

he would have still been a hall of fame type athlete without the 'training programs'

at the TDF i would imagine a top 10 or top 15 result is not unrealistic


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

I will never doubt Armstrong again. He is too crafty to be caught ever. He'll always be a doper and has 7 asterisks next to all of those Tour wins. I'll keep on believing in hope and beating cancer, but no more will I believe that his performances are legitimate.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

rook said:


> I will never doubt Armstrong again. He is too crafty to be caught ever. He'll always be a doper and has 7 asterisks next to all of those Tour wins. I'll keep on believing in hope and beating cancer, but no more will I believe that his performances are legitimate.


lets look at the podiums in lances wins....

2005
Lance Armstrong* 
Ivan Basso*
Jan Ullrich*

2004
Lance Armstrong*
Andreas Klöden* (Pending) 
Ivan Basso*

2003
Lance Armstrong*
Jan Ullrich* 
Alexander Vinokourov*

2002
Lance Armstrong* 
Joseba Beloki*
Raimondas Rumšas*

2001
Lance Armstrong* 
Jan Ullrich* 
Joseba Beloki*

2000
Lance Armstrong* 
Jan Ullrich* 
Joseba Beloki*

1999
Lance Armstrong*
Alex Zülle* 
Fernando Escartín*

Thats alot of asterisks.....yeah Lance is the problem His wins are legit. A _assumed_ doper beat a bunch of caught dopers and 1 assumed/accused doper. If he was the only dirty one racing, I can see the hate. But he wasnt.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*What is your interest in painting this justification?*



iliveonnitro said:


> I will actually disagree with this. If it were 6 months earlier, I wouldn't have. But, I'm learning more about lance every week...and not just from the internet/TV.
> 
> Aborting his personal testing program was mainly due to the expense, as the Astana testing was almost as stringent. It was a shady move, though..


Due to the expense? In the next paragraph you go on to point out his big appearance bonuses. You're right it's shady though. The major problem is that his whole career is under a cloud. Rather than be a model of transparency, his comeback gives the impression that he is still one step ahead of the testers. If you're ok with this, well, what can I say?



iliveonnitro said:


> His "continued support" and Simeoni crap is because Lance can hold grudges well. He's also not one to blame current dopers because he has nothing to be cheated out of, and he knows his own past. He is racing for "free" and will get big appearance bonuses no matter how poorly he does.


That's some indictment which I agree with, however, it seems that you don't characterize these things as reflecting poorly on LA.



iliveonnitro said:


> As for Lance not being a teammate to AC: that is too obvious. He has few close friends and his attitude is all about "me." He's always been that way and you can't expect him to lose that...ever.
> 
> Also, I still think he can compete well w/o the dope...especially in a cleaner tour of today. Note, compete does not mean win. I think everyone knew deep down inside that he wasn't going to win either the Tour or the Giro.


He has never competed well in the Tour without dope. Why anyone who knows the deal with this guy is still a fan is beyond me. Other than his charitable work, which is fueled by fraud, his whole life is kind of suspect.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> lets look at the podiums in lances wins....
> 
> 2005
> Lance Armstrong*
> ...


Hope rides again..............





with a syringe!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> lets look at the podiums in lances wins....
> 
> 2005
> Lance Armstrong*
> ...


How are Kloden and Ulrich "Caught" dopers and Armstrong is not?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

alexb618 said:


> i agree with this too
> 
> he would have still been a hall of fame type athlete without the 'training programs'
> 
> at the TDF i would imagine a top 10 or top 15 result is not unrealistic


Really, this is a terrible reflection of sports knowledge, morals, and logic.

At least in MLB, people like Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa and Piazza will most likely, *not* be in the Hall of Fame.

Clemens and Bonds definitely would have been if they had let their careers take a natural progression so they effed up big time.

Piazza's career, like the careers of Pantani, Riis, and *Armstrong* was based entirely on PED's. If you can't see that this is an issue, you need more help than Ullrich or I can give you.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> How are Kloden and Ulrich "Caught" dopers and Armstrong is not?


Hey, you know what keeps me here?

The never ending displays of the moral relativism of large parts of the cycling community.

BTW, your message box is full. The good news is that it saved you from reading my rant.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> How are Kloden and Ulrich "Caught" dopers and Armstrong is not?



I fixed it.  But Im confused...its all but fact here that Lance doped, but Kloden is given a pass til he is suspended??


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Really, this is a terrible reflection of sports knowledge, morals, and logic.
> 
> At least in MLB, people like Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa and Piazza will most likely, *not* be in the Hall of Fame.
> 
> ...


So who should be in the cycling hall of fame??? There is more dopers than non-dopers. Oh wait, maybe it should just be a Greg LeMond shrine. Cause he was and will be the only clean cyclist


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> So who should be in the cycling hall of fame??? There is more dopers than non-dopers. Oh wait, maybe it should just be a Greg LeMond shrine. Cause he was and will be the only clean cyclist


Your logic is way off as usual. 

You would agree that only clean riders should be in the HOF, right? Or is that too much to assume with your apparently shifting moral outlook?


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

Oh look, the big 3 "anti-doping" posters are having another circle jerk.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> I fixed it.  But Im confused...its all but fact here that Lance doped, but Kloden is given a pass til he is suspended??


I don't give Kloden a pass. I was only pointing out that the barrier of proof for Armstrong is much higher then for other riders.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Your logic is way off as usual.
> 
> You would agree that only clean riders should be in the HOF, right? Or is that too much to assume with your apparently shifting moral outlook?


If the podiums of past races didnt look like whos who of dopers, I would agree. But the sport is dirty. I would love it if there was a way to assure everyone is racing clean, but there isnt.

Its funny that every topic gets shifted to a Lance bashfest. He isnt the only past doper, stop acting like he was the cause of all the problems in cycling.


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

Funny, I thought they were trying to break up the ongoing LA sponsored circle jerk/love-fest.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Lance doped, we all know it. Get over it.

Most of them dope. We all know it. Get over it.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

moonstation2000 said:


> Funny, I thought they were trying to break up the ongoing LA sponsored circle jerk/love-fest.


Where were you looking? The doping forum? There is NO Lance love in here.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> If the podiums of past races didnt look like whos who of dopers, I would agree. But the sport is dirty. I would love it if there was a way to assure everyone is racing clean, but there isnt.
> 
> Its funny that every topic gets shifted to a Lance bashfest. He isnt the only past doper, stop acting like he was the cause of all the problems in cycling.


He is not the cause of _all_ the problems in cycling but he is a major force in perpetuating longstanding problems _and_ makeing those problems worse than they would otherwise would be.

I feel bad that you lack hope that things can get better in cycling but you're really not helping anything by joining the chorus that says Armstrong is somehow a worthy champion.

Lance is the King of Cycling, is there any dispute to that? For those who know what's going on, it's like being the King of Bodybuilding and that's a very fringe "sport." More like a freak show. Cycling is on the cusp of being a freak show at this point in time, if it isn't already.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> Oh look, the big 3 "anti-doping" posters are having another circle jerk.




Does your avatar represent your moral outlook?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Lance is the King of Cycling, is there any dispute to that? For those who know what's going on, it's like being the King of Bodybuilding and that's a very fringe "sport." More like a freak show. Cycling is on the cusp of being a freak show at this point in time, if it isn't already.


Lance is only the "Kind of Cycling" currently, however the history of cycling is riddled with dopers including: Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Hinault, etc...They were all dopers on one level or another...Lance, though never a positive test, is just the latest in a long, long, long history of dopers.

He's just the current flavor that people like to point to...eveidence or not...however people don't like to bring up their childhood "Hero's" in discussions of doping...and Lemond...well, I think he falls into the catagory of "never turned a positive test"


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Lance is only the "Kind of Cycling" currently, however the history of cycling is riddled with dopers including: Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Hinault, etc...They were all dopers on one level or another...Lance, though never a positive test, is just the latest in a long, long, long history of dopers.


Very true. He himself recognized the necessity for transparency and look at the route he took.



Wookiebiker said:


> He's just the current flavor that people like to point to...eveidence or not...


Evidence or not? Who have the anti doping people indicted without any evidence?



Wookiebiker said:


> however people don't like to bring up their childhood "Hero's" in discussions of doping...and Lemond...well, I think he falls into the catagory of "never turned a positive test"


What evidence do you indict LeMond on?

Strange you're rolling your eyes. You've only succeded in not saying much of anything here.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> What evidence do you indict LeMond on?
> 
> Strange you're rolling your eyes. You've only succeded in not saying much of anything here.


The same circumstantial evidence everybody else uses toward Lance....which is...everybody he beat was doping, therefore he has to be doping.

Pretty much everybody Lemond beat was a doper...so either Lemond was literally a "GOD" or he was a doper...pretty simple actually. However, he never turned a positive test...and he was from a time where is was pretty much impossible to be caught blood doping...so there isn't any trail back to him so he can always take the "Moral High Ground" and he has his followers.

Given the long, long history of cycling and doping I don't think there has ever been a champion that was actually "Clean". They have all looked for ways to get a leg up on other riders whether it actually worked or not.

Doping discussions and cyclists are pretty much stupid in the end it's just a circular argument that ends with the fact that all cyclists have doped on one level or another...just some got caught, some didn't.

So when people like to look toward Lemond as a "Clean" cyclist all I can do is


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> The same circumstantial evidence everybody else uses toward Lance....which is...everybody he beat was doping, therefore he has to be doping.


That's the extent of the evidence against LA? I've disavowed that kind of stuff myself as being evidence.

There's mountains of real evidence against LA, none against LeMond. Any evidence against Hampsten? Mottet?

Being that this premise is flawed, I'll wait for something more substantive from you.

It's also extremely unfair for you to smear guys based on nothing at all.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> It's also extremely unfair for you to smear guys based on nothing at all.


Funny...show me a positive test on Lance. I don't want to hear about "He said, she said"...that's circumstantial evidence...I want you to show me "ACTUAL PROOF" of a positive test.

If you can't then anything you say toward Lance would be "Smearing based on nothing at all".

Again...just look at the history of cycling and doping. It's riddled with doping, the only thing that separates the dopers from the non dopers is that the "Dopers" were caught.

My personal opinion on Lance is that he's a doper like the rest of them...but then I feel the same about Lemond. Show me any pro athlete in pretty much any sport and you will be showing me a doper on one level or another....even golf...LOL.

Yes, I'm cynical...but at least I recognize the truth of professional athletics.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Funny...show me a positive test on Lance. I don't want to hear about "He said, she said"...that's circumstantial evidence...I want you to show me "ACTUAL PROOF" of a positive test.
> 
> If you can't then anything you say toward Lance would be "Smearing based on nothing at all".




Faulty premise again. 

Actually the '99 test for corticoids was posted on these forums and was recognized by the UCI as positive. So you're wrong even with your faulty reasoning.

Circumstantial evidence often provides very powerful "ACTUAL PROOF" of guilt in criminal trials in Courts of Law all over the U.S. and other civilized countries. Hundreds of thousands of people are sitting in prisons around the world because of cases relying on totally or largely circumstantial evidence. 

Feel free to provide ANY circumstantial evidence LeMond doped. Hampsten or Mottet either. Actually, most of the evidence is to the contrary and there are no witness statements either as most people believe they were clean.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Faulty premise again.
> 
> Actually the '99 test for corticoids was posted on these forums and was recognized by the UCI as positive. So you're wrong even with your faulty reasoning.
> 
> ...


However, this isn't a court of law is it?

Many riders are allowed to take banned substances with a physicians release and corticoids if I remember correctly are used to treat saddle sores...which many racers get and was the case with Armstrong.

How many pro cyclists are asthmatic and use inhalers? I mean seriously, some of the fittest athletes with some of the highest VO2 Max's in the world and the majority have asthma? Yet they all have a release to use them....LOL

Any and all evidence toward Armstrong is circumstantial....If it wasn't he would have been banned for using illegal substances, wouldn't he? Seem like aside from Cancer he had a rather uninterrupted career  

I'm still waiting for that "Clear Proof" of Armstrong doping.....


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

alexb618 said:


> i agree with this too
> 
> he would have still been a hall of fame type athlete without the 'training programs'
> 
> at the TDF i would imagine a top 10 or top 15 result is not unrealistic


I don't doubt he can compete at a reasonable level clean either, my point was that HE has doubts. Psychological dependency can be worse than physiological.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Any and all evidence toward Armstrong is circumstantial....If it wasn't he would have been banned for using illegal substances, wouldn't he? Seem like aside from Cancer he had a rather uninterrupted career
> 
> I'm still waiting for that "Clear Proof" of Armstrong doping.....


Please read this interview with Micheal Ashenden. Make sure to read his follow up points 
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Please tell us how is this evidence "circumstantial"? in Any court of Law Armstrong would be convicted. 

If your only defense is that the UCI, one of the most incompetent and corrupt organizations in sport, has not sanction him then your position is very weak.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Please read this interview with Micheal Ashenden. Make sure to read his follow up points
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> 
> Please tell us how is this evidence "circumstantial"? in Any court of Law Armstrong would be convicted.
> ...


To be clear here...as it would appear you haven't read all of my posts on this thread...*I believe Armstrong doped *ever since he turned pro (including all 7 tours he won), in fact there is no doubt in my mind he did.

With that said, all evidence out there is circumstantial...it's not whether he would be convicted in a court of law or not because they/we are not dealing with a court of law. Evidence is a positive test that gets him banned for 2 years...which to this point has never happened.

My point is that there has "Never" been a "Clean" champion...including Lemond. The history of cycling can not be told without a large part of it devoted to doping...from the very beginning. That's my point.

Lemond gets a pass because there are no "Back Samples" to go back and test and the people around him are loyal enough to not break the code of silence that surrounds cycling. He may not have been doing EPO (though he could have), but likely was blood doping among other things.

Just remember...if you say something enough times people will believe it to be the truth...and if you tell yourself it enough times, you will believe it to be true.

There are two types of pro cyclist (or pro athlete in general)...those that have been caught doping and those who have yet to be caught.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> To be clear here...as it would appear you haven't read all of my posts on this thread...*I believe Armstrong doped *ever since he turned pro (including all 7 tours he won), in fact there is no doubt in my mind he did.
> 
> With that said, all evidence out there is circumstantial...it's not whether he would be convicted in a court of law or not because they/we are not dealing with a court of law. Evidence is a positive test that gets him banned for 2 years...which to this point has never happened.
> 
> ...


I do not believe that all Pro's dope, I know there are a growing number who do not. 

I understand that you think that Armstrong and other riders doped, but to classify the evidence against him as circumstantial would be wrong. Overwhelming would be a better description.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

SRV said:


> Come on, cut the guy a little slack. He got away because of superior descending skills, not by easily smoking averyone on a climb.


Sorry, figured since him and Ricco share doctors, maybe the doc gave him some of the Magic juice.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Many riders are allowed to take banned substances with a physicians release and corticoids if I remember correctly are used to treat saddle sores...which many racers get and was the case with Armstrong..


Actually, you don't recall correctly as Armstrong got a backdated prescription. This was after he repeatedly denied that he had a TUE or was taking anything. This is when he uttered his famous quote, "Mr Le Monde, are you calling me a liar or a doper," after he was asked about his previous denials of having a TUE.



Wookiebiker said:


> How many pro cyclists are asthmatic and use inhalers? I mean seriously, some of the fittest athletes with some of the highest VO2 Max's in the world and the majority have asthma? Yet they all have a release to use them....LOL..


Yes, while this is also probably bs, these guys have their ducks in a row and have TUE's, as opposed to LA's situation in '99.



Wookiebiker said:


> Any and all evidence toward Armstrong is circumstantial.........


First of all it's not true as I've pointed out, and second of all, so what? You equate circumstantial with weak, and on top of that you have no doubt LA is a doper, so what's your point? Your point seems that you can then smear guys who have not one scintilla of evidence against them.



Wookiebiker said:


> If it wasn't he would have been banned for using illegal substances, wouldn't he?


As we have seen, that's not necessarily true either, especially when you pay off the authorities.




Wookiebiker said:


> I'm still waiting for that "Clear Proof" of Armstrong doping.


Why, to prove something to yourself you have no doubt of anyway? This is the kind of thinking that acquitted Simpson and the Rodney King Cops.



Wookiebiker said:


> To be clear here...as it would appear you haven't read all of my posts on this thread...*I believe Armstrong doped *ever since he turned pro (including all 7 tours he won), in fact there is no doubt in my mind he did.


What kind of previously recognized form of logic are you using here?

As to this;



Wookiebiker said:


> With that said, all evidence out there is circumstantial...it's not whether he would be convicted in a court of law or not because they/we are not dealing with a court of law. Evidence is a positive test that gets him banned for 2 years...which to this point has never happened..


Many athletes are facing *criminal charges* over sporting fraud which results in getting their titles stripped. So circumstantial evidence is very relevant here. Because of the criminal charges she was facing, and copping a plea because of the *circumstantial evidence against her *Marion Jones was stripped of her Olympic medals. Whether this happens to Armstrong or not is irrelevant.

'I know OJ killed his wife but until they show me a videotape of him chopping his wife's head off they don't have "Clear Proof." Then of course the videotape can be doctored.
Until that time I'll go with the Colombian drug dealers doing it.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Please read this interview with Micheal Ashenden. Make sure to read his follow up points
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
> 
> Please tell us how is this evidence "circumstantial"? in Any court of Law Armstrong would be convicted.
> ...




- ONCE again Pinky. Did Ashenden test those 99' B samples against the A samples to prove there was rEPO in those 5-year-old-samples they used to "prove" their test "worked".

Does one with simple reading comprehension NOT see the bunk science used in this "proof" that the test "works" ????? 

For the 1st question, a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice. Feel free to free-lance (no pun intended) your answer to the 2nd question. I know you will.

And, for the record, I think along similar lines as Wookie..... I don't doubt that the Pro's dope(d). ALL of them at some point. It's the part about being caught legitemately that really matters. NONE of these J-As*es in "Professional" sports should be looked up-to as hero's or idol's... it's stricktly entertainment. :thumbsup:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - ONCE again Pinky. Did Ashenden test those 99' B samples against the A samples to prove there was rEPO in those 5-year-old-samples they used to "prove" their test "worked".
> 
> Does one with simple reading comprehension NOT see the bunk science used in this "proof" that the test "works" ?????
> 
> ...


You may want to read the entire interview as Asheden addresses this. He feels that the testing was accurate and provided proof that Armstrong doped. If you want to perpetuate the myth by dismissing it as "Bunk Science" because of a procedural technicality then you are welcome to........ most rational people would not agree with you.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

This is what I love about those tests:



bigpinkt said:


> Asheden addresses this. *He feels *that the testing was accurate and provided proof that Armstrong doped.


Well...*I feel *that Lemond doped based on the fact that others around him were doping and he was beating them. However just because I feel something doesn't mean it's right. There is a very good chance his test was flawed, however....he feels....that they were accurate.

It's always good to have a feeling, but they don't always pan out to be true regardless of how much research, energy, testing, etc. you put into it.

Basically....those that hate Armstrong will use it to convict him, those that support him will show that the tests were flawed and we remain in a circular argument....Armstrong convicted based on a "Feeling"....LOL

When all the people who have Lemond stuck on their jocks, and a vendetta against Armstrong because of this....just give up and realize the peloton has never been clean and never will be...we all will be able to move forward and realize this is entertainment and advertisement, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> This is what I love about those tests:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Asheden position is based on decades of research, it not based on a feeling. He goes into great detail of how the testing was not flawed and how it was performed correctly. 

You may want to actually read the interview as it appears your "Feelings" are getting in the way of rational thought.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

i think its possible lance doped, most likely with epo. his association with ferrari is pretty damn hard to explain. however, look at his early career and make an argument as to when he started. at age 16 he was beating professional triathletes, at age 18 he was the national sprint course champion and by 22 he was winning european day races. to me, his history allows for the possibility that he didnt dope. i highly doubt he was using epo between 16-19yo and he was well ahead of most tri pros at that time.


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

loudog said:


> i think its possible lance doped, most likely with epo. his association with ferrari is pretty damn hard to explain. however, look at his early career and make an argument as to when he started. at age 16 he was beating professional triathletes, at age 18 he was the national sprint course champion and by 22 he was winning european day races. to me, his history allows for the possibility that he didnt dope. i highly doubt he was using epo between 16-19yo and he was well ahead of most tri pros at that time.


And most people agree that he was clean or relatively clean throughout the early stages of his career. In "From Lance to Landis" it is clearly stated that Lance was one of the last people to turn to the "dark side" of cycling (to start using/abusing EPO). The ????? need to be asked when someone goes from winning a World Championship and GT stages to winning 7 GTs in a row. Could you imagine if Ballan or Boonen won the Tour this year and for 6 years after that? There's no logical progression. Not saying either of those riders are exactly fitting examples though. I'm not a Lance hater like many on here; I DO check out his twitter and I don't have a problem saying that he is what got my interested in the cycling, but I can (though not as well as many on here) put the pieces together and see why many people are at the very least skeptical of Lance's achievments.

And most pro cyclists were beating up on much older and much more experienced riders/racers from the first time they threw their leg over a bike. Contador, Hincapie, Dave Z are all examples of how top pros are born (not just made). Physiologically, pro cyclists are superhuman to average joes in many, many ways. Through training, many people can become strong/good cyclists. But not everyone can become a pro. A 12 year old Contador or Lance or whoever could totally shred me without any training.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> You may want to read the entire interview as Asheden addresses this. He feels that the testing was accurate and provided proof that Armstrong doped. If you want to perpetuate the myth by dismissing it as "Bunk Science" because of a procedural technicality then you are welcome to........ most rational people would not agree with you.


- You may want to read about Kohl's thoughts on how effective the testing is that our dear Dr. Ashenden has so much faith in. I guess he, the UCI, and WADA should have tested their test better. Those pesky "procedural technicalities" you mention actually do have merrit when you follow them.......


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - You may want to read about Kohl's thoughts on how effective the testing is that our dear Dr. Ashenden has so much faith in. I guess he, the UCI, and WADA should have tested their test better. Those pesky "procedural technicalities" you mention actually do have merrit when you follow them.......


Ashenden has been very upfront about the limitations of the Passport and has often said that the dopers will likely remain ahead of the testers. The good news is that some of the governing bodies are realizing that in order to solve the problem they need to look outside the artificial limitations of the past. 

In what way does Kohl's comment's negate the 99 positives? There is NO evidence of false positives, only that there are many methods for getting around a positive. 
:idea:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Ashenden has been very upfront about the limitations of the Passport and has often said that the dopers will likely remain ahead of the testers. The good news is that some of the governing bodies are realizing that in order to solve the problem they need to look outside the artificial limitations of the past.
> 
> In what way does Kohl's comment's negate the 99 positives? There is NO evidence of false positives, only that there are many methods for getting around a positive.
> :idea:


Again, it boils down to who want's to believe what. You believe the tests are sound and will catch users. It's apparent the athletes don't and are not scared of them, thus the continued doping and apparent systematic doping of teams.

If you don't believe those that are using the dope and getting away with it then you won't listen to anybody at any time unless they have a test that imperially shows it works, even when it doesn't.

Again Ashenden "Feels" his testing is great, even if he says it has limitations...but apparently the testing isn't worth the paper he writes the results on.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Again, it boils down to who want's to believe what. You believe the tests are sound and will catch users. It's apparent the athletes don't and are not scared of them, thus the continued doping and apparent systematic doping of teams.
> 
> If you don't believe those that are using the dope and getting away with it then you won't listen to anybody at any time unless they have a test that imperially shows it works, even when it doesn't.
> 
> Again Ashenden "Feels" his testing is great, even if he says it has limitations...but apparently the testing isn't worth the paper he writes the results on.


Weak straw man argument.

Everyone knows the tests and the process have limitations and loopholes that the athletes and teams exploit......but there is no evidence of false positives, only that riders are getting off. 

If you bother to read the Ashenden interview you will see what he says is based on much more then a feeling. He addresses the procedure, the test, and the likelihood of tampering. Read the interview and tell us why Ashenden has it wrong.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> but apparently the testing isn't worth the paper he writes the results on.


But there are two, often distinct sides to that coin, false positives and false negatives. Practically every indication we have is that the doping tests suffer horrendously from a high false negative rate and I'm not sure we have a single case where there is good reason to believe there has been a false positive?

IOW, they have a high specificity (if they catch a rider you can be be pretty damn sure he was doping) and low sensitivity (if the don't catch you that's not a good reason to believe a rider isn't doping).


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> In what way does Kohl's comment's negate the 99 positives? There is NO evidence of false positives, only that there are many methods for getting around a positive.
> :idea:


- Did you not read the part where Kohl is quoted as saying he had at least 100 tests that SHOULD have come back positive? This show's how reliable the test(s) is/are. He was NOT even trying to get around the tests. THAT'S what's wrong with the test Ashenden developed, but he feel's it Ok.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Did you not read the part where Kohl is quoted as saying he had at least 100 tests that SHOULD have come back positive? This show's how reliable the test(s) is/are. He was NOT even trying to get around the tests. THAT'S what's wrong with the test Ashenden developed, but he feel's it Ok.


Do you understand the issue, or are you just trolling? 

How does a high number of false negative have anything to do with a false positive? It doesn't. You would have a point if the test was turning up false POSITIVES but it isn't. Ashenden, and others, have talked many times about how dopers are getting away with it because the window to test positive is so narrow and the levels needed are artificially high.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> ...but there is no evidence of false positives, only that riders are getting off.


What would a false positive look like?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Do you understand the issue, or are you just trolling?
> 
> How does a high number of false negative have anything to do with a false positive? It doesn't. You would have a point if the test was turning up false POSITIVES but it isn't. Ashenden, and others, have talked many times about how dopers are getting away with it because the window to test positive is so narrow and the levels needed are artificially high.


Again, it's just a matter of believing what you want to believe...nothing more, nothing less.

They can't even catch riders that are ignoring the test, not even trying to beat the test...yet they can all the sudden go back and test blood samples 4 or 5 years old and get a positive test? Sure....:idea: 

As I've said...I believe Armstrong was/is a doper (just as I believe Lemond was and every other chapion for that matter), I just don't believe they have any test that works well enough to actually catch riders and it's more than obvious the actual riders don't believe they do. 

I'm not even positive they really want to catch riders doping other than keeping the sports name in the paper (the old adage of any press is good press). Basically get one or two big names a year to make some news, especially before the tour so it looks like it will be a clean tour....then get more people watching it under the premise of it's been cleaned up...LOL

In the end I take it for what it is....entertainment, just like all other sports, TV, movies, etc.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> They can't even catch riders that are ignoring the test, not even trying to beat the test...yet they can all the sudden go back and test blood samples 4 or 5 years old and get a positive test? Sure....:idea:


The answer to your question is an easy, and obvious one. 

In 99 a test for EPO did not exist. Many thought it never would. Because of this riders were free to use EPO at will, as long as they kept their HCT under 50%. Once the EPO test came in 2000 the riders modified their practices to the limitations of the test (3-5 day testing window). That is why you saw relatively few EPO positives once the test was introduced, yet when they tested the samples from 98 & 99 they found a bunch. Because the riders were, once again, ahead of the testing it does not invalidate positive tests. 

The same is true of CERA.


----------

