# What would you ask Lance?



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

As a number of members have posted, David Walsh wrote an open letter to Oprah, with his 10 questions. 

10 questions Walsh would ask Lance Armstrong | Cycling News

If you could ask Armstrong any questions, what would you ask?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bluenote said:


> As a number of members have posted, David Walsh wrote an open letter to Oprah, with his 10 questions.
> 
> 10 questions Walsh would ask Lance Armstrong | Cycling News
> 
> If you could ask Armstrong any questions, what would you ask?


What would be the point, there's no indication yet he'd be anything other than dishonest.

That being said, assuming honesty, I'd like to know when he started doping with various agents. What he thinks transformed from a mediocre stage racer to a TdF winner (was it really just a better doping program, competing at a lower weight, some combination).

I'd like some insight into whether he's a sociopath or a psychopath. That is, does he have any feelings at all for the unethical way he's treated people.

Kind of goes with the first question but I'd like to know the extent of his doping after his comeback and for his foray into triathlon.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

Probably not the deepest question in the whole scheme of things, but I'd start off by asking him what he had to say to Emma O'Reilly at this point. His answer would reveal much about how truly apologetic and remorseful he was, or whether he was just saying what he had to say so he could compete again.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'd ask him if he would have been nicer to people if he knew they'd eventually bring him down. If Vino can keep his Vuelta, clearly LA needs to work on some personal skills.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

I have a problem with #3. There were no rivals that raced clean.


----------



## bballr4567 (Jul 17, 2012)

Lots of questions loaded with hostility there. 

We already know #2 from Hamiltons book. 

#3. It was an era of abuse throughout the world. Just look at the most recent baseball hall of fame inductees, oh wait. 

#5 is fairly freaking obvious. 

#7 has to be a joke. Of course he sued to shut them up. 

#10 Really? lol


Personally, I'd ask him if he feels it was all worth it in the end. Of course, he will say no, but I'd like to hear how he puts it.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

I would ask him why people should believe anything he says now, since it appears he is only doing so for selfish reasons.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

My questions would probably get me a week off from Coolhand.  :blush2:

They'd focus on Sheryl. 

Not much else he could tell me that I don't already know.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

I would ask if he could do his life over again, what would he change?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I'd ask him why he's such a tool... I'd also ask him if he has as much disdain for his fanbois as I do and have had since the beginning.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I'd ask him: boxers? or briefs?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

I'd ask him if he ever raced with spade2you?


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

1 - I'd ask him if he has ever been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

2 - Do you agree with George Constanza when he said "It's not lie... if YOU believe it"?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

whether he is still wired man. 
Lance Armstrong Nike Parody - YouTube


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> I'd ask him if he ever raced with spade2you?


OMG, good one!!!!!!!!! Durrrr hurrrrr!


----------



## Squrkey (Mar 24, 2012)

Lance, when cycling solo is it OK to wear earphones?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Come on guys. I expected this to show up looooooong before this.

"Does Trek make good bikes?". :wink:


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

sir duke said:


> I'd ask him if he ever raced with spade2you?


That's hilarious.


----------



## octobahn (May 30, 2012)

Id ask him what a twatwaffle is


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

octobahn said:


> Id ask him what a twatwaffle is


I didn't see that flavor of Honey Stinger.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

I'd just ask him if he still got money and wants to hit up lunch after his Oprah interview, and bring along Oprah. 

While everyone's salty about the fraud we already know he is, I'll be asking him to pass the salt while we're in a fancy restaurant hanging out with Oprah. We can talk about Texas, and Treks.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Ventruck said:


> I'd just ask him if he still got money and wants to hit up lunch after his Oprah interview, and bring along Oprah.
> 
> While everyone's salty about the fraud we already know he is, I'll be asking him to pass the salt while we're in a fancy restaurant hanging out with Oprah. We can talk about Texas, and Treks.


If Oprah's coming, don't volunteer to pick up the check.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

love4himies said:


> I would ask if he could do his life over again, what would he change?


He'd have been nicer to Landis.

He wouldn't have let Pantani win on Ventoux in 2000.

That's all I got.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

mpre53 said:


> Come on guys. I expected this to show up looooooong before this.
> 
> "Does Trek make good bikes?". :wink:


Repped.

Or..Ever ridden a Lemond bike? I hear they were quite good.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

"Would you tap Oprah?"

"If you never forgave your father, why should anyone forgive you?"

"How does it feel knowing your entire career, your relationships, and your reputation are built on fraud?"

"Given that you have shown absolutely no remorse up to this point, don't you think it's a little soon for us to expect the words coming out of your mouth to be sincere?"

"Regardless of what others were doing, do you think you were wrong to dope?"

"Are you Dr. Falsetti?"


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I'd ask him if he ever sat down and smoked a big fattie with Sheryl Crow, and I'd ask if he has an aluminum, carbon fiber, or steel nut where his other one used to be. Just wondering if it was harsh for her, compliant, or soaked up the bumps...


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

"whether he was just saying what he had to say so he could compete again. "
-dude, he is so much "admitting" to what he never did just so he can go dominate the triathlon. just accept it.


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

Beatles or Stones.


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

Does he really like Richardson Bike Mart, or just says so cuz they give him stuff, and does he really prefer that little Cycle Spectrum that used to be across the street?


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

wow - this is hitting me now - he is getting totally honest: campy or shimano?


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

but SRSLY - he sp ermbanked his stuff before cancer treatment - i have assumed his two kids with his wife were from doping her ut erus with that stuff - but then he showed up with this third kid with a girlfriend - did he thaw more out for just a girlfriend - is he marriage-averse but wanted more kids? or is the one post-cancer tes ticle enough to get the job done?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Two things.

1. I'd ask him if he still likes his credibility.

2. And then I'd ask if maybe he has a pair of Dura Ace brifters in his garage that he's, you know, maybe not using. And maybe a rear derailleur. Doesn't have to be new or anything.


----------



## QED (Aug 11, 2011)

Every time I see Lance I think of my favorite quote by TS Eliot: _Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm, but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves._ 

I don't believe any of the questions I want to ask him would get answered truthfully. IMO, he is a liar, cheater, and absolutely unethical. Just because he is on Oprah isn't going to make him any different. She's just fluffing him up.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I would ask him if it was Chris Carmichael's coaching skills that helped separate himself from the rest of the peleton.

Then I would go on to ask him if Trek carbon frames can essplode in the sun lights.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

QED said:


> Every time I see Lance I think of my favorite quote by TS Eliot: _Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm, but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves._
> 
> I don't believe any of the questions I want to ask him would get answered truthfully. IMO, he is a liar, cheater, and absolutely unethical. Just because he is on Oprah isn't going to make him any different. She's just fluffing him up.


I *REALLY* don't want to see this broadcast if Oprah is going to be "fluffing" him....


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

I'd ask him how long he's been shaving without a mirror.


----------



## thegock (May 16, 2006)

Besides agreeing with Platypus above, I would ask him if he thinks his reputation is better than Joe Pedterno's


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

I would not ask Lance anything unless he were under oath. Even then, I probably would not believe it. If Lance were willing to answer the hard questions, he would not be making his confession debut with Oprah. In any interrogation session, it is not the initial questions such as the ten listed by the Times, but the follow ups to the initial evasive answers and justifications that are important. I don't see Oprah doing any follow ups or cross examining him with anything. If I were doing an Oprah-type interview, I think that I would make Armstrong watch video clips of things like the Nike commercial and his various emphatic statements that he did not dope and then beat him up with them.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Big-foot said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1. I'd ask him if he still likes his credibility.
> 
> 2. And then I'd ask if maybe he has a pair of Dura Ace brifters in his garage that he's, you know, maybe not using. And maybe a rear derailleur. Doesn't have to be new or anything.


While your at it, ask him if he's got an extra USPS Trek lying around, or if he sold em all back in the day for...you know...training stuff? Cause I'd really love to have a Trek...I'm told they make good bikes and stuff, ya know.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Next on Oprah - Spade!*



spade2you said:


> OMG, good one!!!!!!!!! Durrrr hurrrrr!


Spade - if you ever did, for god's sake don't confess! Guilty by association you know.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

"What was it like being King of the cycling world? Being able to defraud thousands of cycling fans as well as the American public who treated you like the Second Coming? 
Do you think it was smart of Conti to drop your sorry butt on that mountain and foil Johan's and your plans for that Tour - cause your fanboys still hate him for that. 
You had lots of Hollywood friends back in the day - have they stuck by you in your time of need? 
Are Treks really good bikes or were you just paid to say that?"

Then I'd ask him for his autograph, cause I'm soft like that.


----------



## shoemakerpom2010 (Apr 25, 2011)

"Would you tap Oprah?"

Awsome! LOL!


----------



## thegock (May 16, 2006)

"Lance, do you wave to other cyclists?"


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

I'll go with MarkS on all, the Oprah venue is the giveaway. 

That written, and assuming there's a book in the works to offset the cost of his sudden 180, my single question would be if there is a quid pro quo with Ms. Winfrey as to when his new book hits her Book Club list.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

nOOky said:


> I'd ask him if he ever sat down and smoked a big fattie with Sheryl Crow, and I'd ask if he has an aluminum, carbon fiber, or steel nut where his other one used to be. Just wondering if it was harsh for her, compliant, or soaked up the bumps...


I hear Trek makes good prostheses. Laterally stiff but vertically compliant.


----------



## thegock (May 16, 2006)

"Lance, do you think Coolhanz should move the Doping Forum above the the Pro Cycling Forum?"


----------



## Rip Van Cycle (Jun 11, 2012)

PJay said:


> Beatles or Stones.


Well, it ain't gonna be the Stone*s*.

In the words of Judy Tenuta, "it's raw- but you live for it!"


----------



## kjdhawkhill (Jan 29, 2011)

Will you take a polygraph?
Can anyone as self absorbed as you pass a polygraph?

How many times were you tested? And how many times did you really pass?

Do you regret being so aggressive in your defense, attempting to destroy and belittling anyone who spoke against you?

What was your favorite bike of all the ones you rode during your career?


----------



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

Rip Van Cycle said:


> Well, it ain't gonna be the Stone*s*.
> 
> 
> _Trails In the Sand_ by Huan Hung Lo


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I would ask Lance two things:

"Is it alright to wear a pro team kit or W.C. jersey on a group ride?"

"Are Bikes Direct Bikes good bikes?"

Then a follow up: "How are Bikes Direct so cheap price wise?"


----------



## mustang1 (Feb 7, 2008)

Lance, do you think what you have done pales into insignificance what the bankers and politicians have done in the current financial crises in USA, Greece, Spain, and so forth?

Do you think if you were a politician or banker, would you have done as much harm to the world than if you were a mere professional cyclist?

Do you think professional cyclists are singled out in a world where drugs dominate other far more popular sports?

Are you annoyed that people think no other sports professionals dope and even though you did, you still gave so much hope to all those people who suffer with cancer?

Do you feel it's immoral that the law allows you to sue to shut people up?

Can you teach me how to give.... The Look?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I'd ask him if he literally [email protected] his pants when the USADA released their Reasoned Decision.

Maybe I'd count how many times he said 'me' or 'cancer.' But honestly, his motivations are pretty clear and I'm not fascinated by guys like him. 

I'd be skeptical if much that came out if his mouth, given his track record. Even if he names names, I think it has limited use. A first year law student knows to put Armstrong on cross exam and say 'we're supposed to convict someone on your testimony.' Unless he had like bank records or something, I don't think his testimony is worth much.


----------



## mtnroadie (Jul 6, 2010)

Are you familiar with Seppuku? Oh wait you are no samurai and have no honor, nevermind.

How about doing professional cycling some good, clean up house and take out the rest of the trash with you?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

What I would like is for SOMEONE to finally come clean as to when they started. Listen most intelligent people know Lemond is full of ****. Not that he did or did not dope per se but in perpetuating a myth that doping did not start until he missed a few years while he was recovering from being shot. 

All of the greats going back to the origin of the sport doped with something. Coppi, Anquetile, Merckx and the stories first got into the lime light when in 1924 Henri Pélissier said 



> You have no idea what the Tour de France is,"... "It's a Calvary. Worse than that, because the road to the Cross has only 14 stations and ours has 15. We suffer from the start to the end. You want to know how we keep going? Here..." He pulled a phial from his bag. "That's cocaine, for our eyes. This is chloroform, for our gums."


hell the sport was so dope infested then that in the 30's the head of the TdF told the trade teams NOT that dope was not allowed BUT that it would not be provided by the race organization.

So what we essentially need is This generation to rat on those in the LA generation...those oif the LA Generation to rat on those in the Lemond generation...those in the Lemond to rat on the Hinault and then the Hinault to rat on the Merckx etc.

Doping did NOT start with EPO. Until the sport via this method comes completely clean with it's past there is NO prayer in heaven or heck of it moving forward.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

badge118 said:


> What I would like is for SOMEONE to finally come clean as to when they started. Listen most intelligent people know Lemond is full of ****. Not that he did or did not dope per se but in perpetuating a myth that doping did not start until he missed a few years while he was recovering from being shot.
> 
> All of the greats going back to the origin of the sport doped with something. Coppi, Anquetile, Merckx and the stories first got into the lime light when in 1924 Henri Pélissier said
> 
> ...


I get tired of reading this kind of thing. Lemond never said that doping started with EPO, or that his generation was clean, or anything of the kind. He was outspoken against doping (why would he have been, if there was none?), he was paranoid about people slipping things into his food or drinks that could cause a positive test, he knew what was going on. Everyone who was in a position to know has said they were sure Lemond rode clean, and the same goes for Hampsten. Most people have read up on the fact that the dominant means of doping prior to the spread of EPO in the early 90's (amphetamines and steroids) were not useful enough in the long stage races to be a determining factor. The people who raced through that era are pretty much unanimous on that--there are many accounts of top pre-EPO-era racers expressing shock at the phenomenon of big-bodied former roleurs like Riis blowing away climbers in the mountains and of having to struggle to hold the wheel of mediocrities. Lemond was far from the only top rider to relate experiences like that. EPO was a game changer where long stage races were concerned and, surprise, surprise, that's what LA focused on.

It's really not that complicated. I just get tired of reading these distortions over and over again.


----------



## wagg (Aug 11, 2012)

I would ask him how he explained to his kids why his Tour titles were stripped


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

wagg said:


> I would ask him how he explained to his kids why his Tour titles were stripped


He'll just tell them everyone who matters knows he really won.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Fireform said:


> I get tired of reading this kind of thing. Lemond never said that doping started with EPO, or that his generation was clean, or anything of the kind. He was outspoken against doping (why would he have been, if there was none?), he was paranoid about people slipping things into his food or drinks that could cause a positive test, he knew what was going on. Everyone who was in a position to know has said they were sure Lemond rode clean, and the same goes for Hampsten. Most people have read up on the fact that the dominant means of doping prior to the spread of EPO in the early 90's (amphetamines and steroids) were not useful enough in the long stage races to be a determining factor. The people who raced through that era are pretty much unanimous on that--there are many accounts of top pre-EPO-era racers expressing shock at the phenomenon of big-bodied former roleurs like Riis blowing away climbers in the mountains and of having to struggle to hold the wheel of mediocrities. Lemond was far from the only top rider to relate experiences like that. EPO was a game changer where long stage races were concerned and, surprise, surprise, that's what LA focused on.
> 
> It's really not that complicated. I just get tired of reading these distortions over and over again.



You are missing the forest for the trees my friend. The point is this...

1. doping has evolved with the sport from it's inception.

2. there is a myth that is perpetuated, that doping did not really begin until EPO. Did EPO have an effect? Yes BUT the whole mindless focus on EPO EPO EPO EPO to justify ones fading from the top has contributed to a myth that doping is something new. 

Do I say Lemond doped? No of course not. What I say is that his near myopic focus on the doping in the twilight of his career and largely ignoring the doping in the peloton during his career contributes to this myth.

3. The only PRAYER of cleaning up the sport is to do away with the myth. The only way you can do away with the myth is by throwing the previous generation under the bus. 

People did NOT just wake up in the late 80's early 90's and say "hey there is this new thing called EPO lets start using PEDs for the first time." The culture was already firmly entrenched in the sport and you do NOT change a culture by simply saying...today we have a fresh start. Even if there is to be no penalties, one needs to expose the skeletons in the closet and dispel the myths. Only then do we have a prayer at a fresh start.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

badge118 said:


> You are missing the forest for the trees my friend. The point is this...
> 
> 1. doping has evolved with the sport from it's inception.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but you keep insisting that there are people out there who say that doping started with EPO. Who are these people? Not me, ever. Not Lemond, ever. No one I know, ever. This is a strawman argument, and it's nonsense. If you're going to dispel myths, start with this one.

You also seem to be saying that EPO is just another form of doping like all the others that came before. Here is another myth. Does it bother you at all that the pros who raced through the era where EPO came on the scene, to a man, don't see it that way? The effects of EPO are distinctive, like other forms of doping have distinctive effects, and it's effects are specifically to make you a better climber, faster in recovery and faster after multiple sustained hard efforts. In other words exactly what you need in a grand tour. And other types of doping don't provide that.

Now, it is true that blood transfusions have been going on in endurance sports since long before the EPO era, I'll give you that much. But until it became detectable EPO was a lot less messy, easier to administer and had much less to go wrong. It would be interesting to know how much of a role transfusions really played in the stage races before the EPO era--there's not much information out there, and the perception is that the pros fell back on that when EPO became detectable and had to be microdosed.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Just two questions

1) Do you feel bad about beating those 10's of clean riders.

2) If you could get away with it, would you try to have Floyd Landis killed?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Well in a way you did say it when you brought up the argument "EPO was a game changer". I could go back and find all the quotes from when the first LA and SOL arguments started but the basic refrain was...

"EPO was so earth shattering a little Meth or a weight loss thing doesn't matter". 

In essence they want to draw an arbitrary line based on what is "real" PED and "pseudo peds". These arguments are ALL OVER these forums and usually get brought up when people start naming the favorite 80's and earlier stars. All you really need to do is a search.

The mind set of the doping athlete did not start with EPO it started back in the 20's. As such everything has to be on the table. Hell there are now studies that even question whether EPO is a Game Changer...

Academic study claims no evidence that EPO boosts performance of elite cyclists | road.cc | Road cycling news, Bike reviews, Commuting, Leisure riding, Sportives and more

Again though the issue is the attiude that needs to be conquered and getting trapped in an argument about pre and current EPO eras hurts and does not help change.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Well in a way you did say it when you brought up the argument "EPO was a game changer". I could go back and find all the quotes from when the first LA and SOL arguments started but the basic refrain was...
> 
> "EPO was so earth shattering a little Meth or a weight loss thing doesn't matter".
> 
> ...


You do know that study was so flawed that a high school science class could do better, right?

EPO changed cycling. Stop apologizing for the transgressions of the last 20 years by claiming "it's always been the way!"


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

No, I did not say that "in a way" or at all. Stop the strawman stuff. 

Fignon dabbled in other forms of doping but realized that whatever as going on in the early 90's was a different order of magnitude. Hampsten said plainly that before epo you could ride clean and win, but not after. That makes it a game changer. You can argue otherwise if you want but I think the people who were there know better than you.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

thegock said:


> "Lance, do you think Coolhanz should move the Doping Forum above the the Pro Cycling Forum?"


There's a Pro Cycling forum???


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

Most of the top 10 questions were closed-ended questions. You would have to change them to open ended questions to get any answer other than "yes" or "no".

I would asked what went through his head when he decided to make his comeback.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> You do know that study was so flawed that a high school science class could do better, right?
> 
> EPO changed cycling. Stop apologizing for the transgressions of the last 20 years by claiming "it's always been the way!"


Actually on looking at the study it is not flawed, as to what it was actually studying. The study was not looking at whether or not at the top end an extra small % is the difference to winning and losing. The study, as it could be applied to sport is only regarding the draft horse to race horse question. The other thing that is useful in the study is the health consequences angle. TBH saying "ZOMG this stuff really works we have to ban it" is a BAD way to handle things from a psychological point of view. You in essence just begged every athlete looking for an edge to use it. On the other hand "ZOMG there is only anecdotal evidence that it REALLY works, but people think it does AND it can seriously hurt you" see the difference?

It is a study that needs to be done as well. It is largely assumed that EPO was a game changer because of results and anecdotal statements but there were numerous other doping substances coming into their own at the same time. Certain sterioids, synthetic testosterone, HGH all of the PEDS started coming into the endurance arena. At the same time far more scientific training methods, new philosophies on rider position, and materials science. So which of all of these things was the game changer? Were they all? Was it something else? 

The reason this is important is because there are plenty of doping methiods that are potentially dangerous AND have even less conclusive evidence of working. UV doping and a few others are examples. I can guarentee that there are riders saying their performance is better just because they exposed their blood to ozone or UV light. It's junk science but they will be saying "omg I did 3 more watts." The mind is almost as power a PED as anything out there and so the statement of the rider is something you should relie on the least.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Actually on looking at the study it is not flawed, as to what it was actually studying. The study was not looking at whether or not at the top end an extra small % is the difference to winning and losing. The study, as it could be applied to sport is only regarding the draft horse to race horse question. The other thing that is useful in the study is the health consequences angle. TBH saying "ZOMG this stuff really works we have to ban it" is a BAD way to handle things from a psychological point of view. You in essence just begged every athlete looking for an edge to use it. On the other hand "ZOMG there is only anecdotal evidence that it REALLY works, but people think it does AND it can seriously hurt you" see the difference?
> 
> It is a study that needs to be done as well. It is largely assumed that EPO was a game changer because of results and anecdotal statements but there were numerous other doping substances coming into their own at the same time. Certain sterioids, synthetic testosterone, HGH all of the PEDS started coming into the endurance arena. At the same time far more scientific training methods, new philosophies on rider position, and materials science. So which of all of these things was the game changer? Were they all? Was it something else?
> 
> The reason this is important is because there are plenty of doping methiods that are potentially dangerous AND have even less conclusive evidence of working. UV doping and a few others are examples. I can guarentee that there are riders saying their performance is better just because they exposed their blood to ozone or UV light. It's junk science but they will be saying "omg I did 3 more watts." The mind is almost as power a PED as anything out there and so the statement of the rider is something you should relie on the least.


If you think that study wasn't flawed, god help anyone who asks you for advice interpreting any kind of data. 

That study neglected the relationship between VO2max and FTP as a % of VO2 max, it negated the part of racing where winning moves occur (supra-threshold efforts) and it had few (if any) studies reviewed that tested their hypotheses on ELITE level athletes. Joe schmoe doesn't count towards research in the pro peloton.

Again, stop the apology train. You're constantly saying "but they've always doped, so we can't stop them." The excuses are getting old.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

I'd ask him if he started Livestrong to help cancer patients or just to pad his image.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> If you think that study wasn't flawed, god help anyone who asks you for advice interpreting any kind of data.
> 
> That study neglected the relationship between VO2max and FTP as a % of VO2 max, it negated the part of racing where winning moves occur (supra-threshold efforts) and it had few (if any) studies reviewed that tested their hypotheses on ELITE level athletes. Joe schmoe doesn't count towards research in the pro peloton.
> 
> Again, stop the apology train. You're constantly saying "but they've always doped, so we can't stop them." The excuses are getting old.


First again, the study was not looking at what you are talking about. It was basically studying, in layman's terms, whether EPO can have the same effect as certain steroids. Some steroids have PROFOUND effects on the human body. What you are harping about is the effect it has on the small differences, that 1 or 2% extra that can be the difference between winning and losing. The study even specifically states this. The press has talked it up as something it isn't.

Also no one is apologizing for goodness sake, at least I am not. What I am saying is that most everyone was a **** head. The main difference between LA being a **** head and others was his success and attitude. He needs to be punished BUT unlike many here I see what enforcement only programs do everyday. Enforcement only programs do NOTHING to break the cycle you lock up one criminal and they are quickly replaced by another.

What breaks the cycle is by changing the community in which the cycle lives. You can not simply move on by saying "that was then this is now, you must change." You must acknowledge your past as dark as it may be. Damn you have to own it. Once you are honest with that then you can move on. That is why Truth and Reconciliation programs are used after some of the most heinous civil wars. In those conflicts few if any have "clean" hands and all involved need to be honest about their involvement. Whether you shot a prisoner or just guarded the gate, used EPO or just a diuretic, whether it was "back in the day" or last month. The veil needs to be drawn back. 

It has nothing to do with apologizing. It has to do with simply having basic understandings in psychology and sociology and how they effect change in communities. You are no more apologizing here by acknowledging and wanting the lid off the doping culture in Cycling that lead to our modern dopers than you apologize for a criminal when you acknowledge that socioeconomic status and upbringing have an effect on criminal behavior. You still do what you have to do when it comes to law enforcement but acknowledging the realities and addressing them directly can help reduce the number of people who have to be targets of enforcement more than any punishment.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> First again, the study was not looking at what you are talking about. It was basically studying, in layman's terms, whether EPO can have the same effect as certain steroids. Some steroids have PROFOUND effects on the human body. What you are harping about is the effect it has on the small differences, that 1 or 2% extra that can be the difference between winning and losing. The study even specifically states this. The press has talked it up as something it isn't.
> 
> Also no one is apologizing for goodness sake, at least I am not. What I am saying is that most everyone was a **** head. The main difference between LA being a **** head and others was his success and attitude. He needs to be punished BUT unlike many here I see what enforcement only programs do everyday. Enforcement only programs do NOTHING to break the cycle you lock up one criminal and they are quickly replaced by another.
> 
> ...


"Blah blah blah. Lock him up but it won't do anything."

Sounds like an apology to me.

You want to change the sport? Make it career ending to be caught for doping. When the pallor of the grim reaper comes over you as you make that decision, many will choose not to risk being caught.

Now, further on the study, even the amateur athletes they reviewed literature on give them a tenuous hold on their hypothesis. At best. The bottom line is EPO works; we've all seen it, and we understand the physiological action of it. Just because some journal does a lit review to the contrary doesn't make it so. Egg yolk debate anyone?

And explain to me where I said ANYTHING about socioeconomic status of criminals? Another strawman. You're really lacking in debate skills.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> "Blah blah blah. Lock him up but it won't do anything."
> 
> Sounds like an apology to me.
> 
> You want to change the sport? Make it career ending to be caught for doping. When the pallor of the grim reaper comes over you as you make that decision, many will choose not to risk being caught.


No one is saying "it won't do anything" a guilty man was brought to justice. It needed to be done. In the end though I could give a **** about getting 1 guy or 20. I want to actually reduce problems.

WADA themselves said they will NEVER win the war. The profit motive is too great. Just like in real world crime, 20, 30 year, hell even life or death sentences are not real deterents to crime. You need to involve more comprehensive solutions. Punative action alone has been proven ineffective in EVERY attempt to control human nature through out history. You believe somehow that the Cycling world will be different? 

Apparently you live is a black and white dream world. I hope for your sake reality never comes knocking on your door. You will be in for one HELL of a wake up.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

badge118 said:


> Apparently you live is a black and white dream world. I hope for your sake reality never comes knocking on your door. You will be in for one HELL of a wake up.


Why does this stuff so frequently turn personal? Why can't we just talk doping and Lance, make our points and agree to disagree? 

I think it's a stretch to take a point someone made in a debate and then assume to know their whole world view. 

Both of you have made good points. It would be a shame for the dialogue to descend into a personal thing.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> No one is saying "it won't do anything" a guilty man was brought to justice. It needed to be done. In the end though I could give a **** about getting 1 guy or 20. I want to actually reduce problems.
> 
> WADA themselves said they will NEVER win the war. The profit motive is too great. Just like in real world crime, 20, 30 year, hell even life or death sentences are not real deterents to crime. You need to involve more comprehensive solutions. Punative action alone has been proven ineffective in EVERY attempt to control human nature through out history. You believe somehow that the Cycling world will be different?
> 
> Apparently you live is a black and white dream world. I hope for your sake reality never comes knocking on your door. You will be in for one HELL of a wake up.


WADA will never win the war because they are handcuffed by the system. When you have Hein and Fat Pat covering up positive tests for the profit side of things, when you have national federations excusing riders on "political" grounds, how can you effectively do your job?

The "profit motive" is significantly reduced when there's a real chance of losing your livelihood due to a positive test. That's furthered by more frequent testing of more riders (which requires funding, I understand that.)

However your asinine little suggestion of having a group hug and saying "guys, we don't like what we've become, we need to change" isn't going to help. Stop coddling these fools, drop the gavel on them and get rid of them. That includes directors, riders, federations, etc. Remove the UCI's role in testing, remove the Federation roles in sanctioning. Everything should go through the WADA, no questions asked. 

While we're at it, remove cycling from the IOC umbrella. That would remove some of what the UCI is catering to.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> The "profit motive" is significantly reduced when there's a real chance of losing your livelihood due to a positive test. That's furthered by more frequent testing of more riders (which requires funding, I understand that.)


Ummm when the league minimum is so ridiculously low that a drone answering phones in a cubical can make as much money and the difference between that minimum and a "real" salary is a shot... guess what the shot is likely going to win because they are not losing their livelyhood, that kind of livelyhood is easily replaced.



> However your asinine little suggestion of having a group hug and saying "guys, we don't like what we've become, we need to change" isn't going to help.


If that is the case why was it that WADA and the USADA suggested it and the UCI initially shot it down saying the rules did not permit it (odd since WADA who wrote the rules jointly proposed it.) 

WADA president suggests doping amnesty could be introduced to clean up sport - Mirror Online

USADA wants probe to restore cycling's name | thetelegraph.com.au

Did you not first come here saying the UCI was the great big bad boogie man? So that means that "group hug" is a good thing using your own logic. The only reason WADA and the USDA aren't signing up to the UCI-IC one is because they are seriously questioning the true independance of the body. 

Again though I hope your warm and snuggy black and white world remains seperate from the one the rest of us live in.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Ummm when the league minimum is so ridiculously low that a drone answering phones in a cubical can make as much money and the difference between that minimum and a "real" salary is a shot... guess what the shot is likely going to win because they are not losing their livelyhood, that kind of livelyhood is easily replaced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your first point is BS. These guys don't want a desk job: they want to ride their bike. Otherwise they'd get a desk job that's more profitable. Being banned and unable to race is not a pleasant thing for these riders. Or don't you get that?

Second point, you finally figured it out. The UCI will not deal with the "group hug" because there's too much at stake if people talk. THEY are the problem. They need to be removed from the equation. It's very black and white: remove the cancer that's eating the sport from the inside (the UCI) and replace it with a some other governing body/board/conglomeration/etc. There needs to be accountability in the sport, and the UCI is doing their damnedest to prevent that from happening.

That's pretty black and white, despite what apologists like you believe.


----------



## spuds (Jun 6, 2012)

Hey Lance....
Wanna go to the skatepark?

View attachment 273939


----------



## 202cycle (Sep 13, 2011)

I would like to know exactly when he began taking drugs. Was it in High School during his Triathlon days, was it when he made the jump over to the bike racing world? I would like to see him give over his 1990 Junior National TT gold medal to its rightful owner.


----------



## lbkwak (Feb 22, 2012)

1. Helmet or no helmet?

2. What's your RBR ID?

3. What's your recipe?

4. Did you really ride TREK when you were competing?

5. Were you doping when you were banging those young girls?

6. Shimano or Sram?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Your first point is BS. These guys don't want a desk job: they want to ride their bike. Otherwise they'd get a desk job that's more profitable. Being banned and unable to race is not a pleasant thing for these riders. Or don't you get that?
> 
> Second point, you finally figured it out. The UCI will not deal with the "group hug" because there's too much at stake if people talk. THEY are the problem. They need to be removed from the equation. It's very black and white: remove the cancer that's eating the sport from the inside (the UCI) and replace it with a some other governing body/board/conglomeration/etc. There needs to be accountability in the sport, and the UCI is doing their damnedest to prevent that from happening.
> 
> That's pretty black and white, despite what apologists like you believe.


Your denial of financial incentive pretty much shows you r either trolling or in denial. Also funny how you manage to dodge my main point regarding WADA and USADA support. No sense in arguing with a wall. Ciao.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Your denial of financial incentive pretty much shows you r either trolling or in denial. Also funny how you manage to dodge my main point regarding WADA and USADA support. No sense in arguing with a wall. Ciao.


Dodging the question?

At what point did your brain shut down and you didn't understand that WADA/USADA refuse to do the "grouphug" because the UCI is full of crap? 

Financial incentive has nothing to do with pack fodder doping. They're doping to keep up with the leaders so they can keep the job they love (but pays absolute sh*t.) If they didn't love cycling, they wouldn't dope up just to earn less than a barista at Starbucks. No, money is NOT the main antagonist for 99% of the peloton's doping. Sorry your world is too black and white to see that. Maybe you should dabble in shades of gray?


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

Do you think you would be sitting here today, if you had helped Floyd Landis get a job in the peloton after his suspension was over?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Fireform said:


> The effects of EPO are distinctive, like other forms of doping have distinctive effects, and it's effects are specifically to make you a better climber, faster in recovery and faster after multiple sustained hard efforts. In other words exactly what you need in a grand tour. And other types of doping don't provide that.
> 
> *Yes they do. Steroids, HGH, and blood transfusions all do that. EPO certainly brought a higher level of effectiveness, especially during training cycles but to point to pre and post EPO generations as somehow different levels of morality is disingenuous. Cheating is cheating and they've always done it as effectively as possible.*





robdamanii said:


> EPO changed cycling. Stop apologizing for the transgressions of the last 20 years by claiming "it's always been the way!"


It has always been that way. The drugs used are irrelevant.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Did Lance intentionally take a dive in that last Tour, when his pedal hit the curb and he did that long slide? 
So he could have an excuse for not winning?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> No, money is NOT the main antagonist for 99% of the peloton's doping


I'd agree, most dope not to win, but to keep their place on the the team, to do what they love.

Money isn't an incentive for the guys I see doping at the gym either. They do it to be one of the "in" crowd, like the riders.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Wouldn't somebody just just to the end... and ask the one question everyone avoids. 

_Lance... who is it that decided... who was going to win which races?_


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

I'd ask if he thinks the dope (testosterone) caused his cancer to begin with.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

davidka said:


> It has always been that way. The drugs used are irrelevant.


The thing is everyone has "their" hero. The eras of Lemond, Hinault, Merckx, all the back to the first Tour had dope. The difference is not whether riders doped but WHO. Heaven forbid the kid who fell in love with cycling back then has to say "my hero was a **** too."

I fell in love the year I saw a certain former speed skater put on the stars and stripes in my home town. As I grew older I saw that the greatest heroes of the sport were racing on something other than bread and water. It doesn't make it right but if you aren't a coward it is something you need to acknowledge. If you don't all you are doing is coming up with bull **** rationalizations to justify personal bias.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Your first point is BS. These guys don't want a desk job: they want to ride their bike. Otherwise they'd get a desk job that's more profitable. Being banned and unable to race is not a pleasant thing for these riders. Or don't you get that?
> 
> Second point, you finally figured it out. The UCI will not deal with the "group hug" because there's too much at stake if people talk. THEY are the problem. They need to be removed from the equation. It's very black and white: remove the cancer that's eating the sport from the inside (the UCI) and replace it with a some other governing body/board/conglomeration/etc. There needs to be accountability in the sport, and the UCI is doing their damnedest to prevent that from happening.
> 
> That's pretty black and white, despite what apologists like you believe.


I have been trying to avoid this but you have a major issue with critical thinking skills. it not only blinds you to the realities of human psychology but your own inherent contradictions. You defend WADA and the USADA and beat down on the UCI, yet it is WADA and th USADA who want what you disparage as a "group hug" and the UCI who says it is outside the rules. You put down the UCI for this saying they need to be removed from the equation (on this we agree) but engage in complete avoidance of the WADA and USADA support of the group hug you disparage. Where is your rage against the apologiusts what WADA and USADA are, by your definition?


Or are you just trolling to get up your post count so you get more clicks to you blog/business? Hmmmm.....


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> I have been trying to avoid this but you have a major issue with critical thinking skills. it not only blinds you to the realities of human psychology but your own inherent contradictions. You defend WADA and the USADA and beat down on the UCI, yet it is WADA and th USADA who want what you disparage as a "group hug" and the UCI who says it is outside the rules. You put down the UCI for this saying they need to be removed from the equation (on this we agree) but engage in complete avoidance of the WADA and USADA support of the group hug you disparage. Where is your rage against the apologiusts what WADA and USADA are, by your definition?
> 
> 
> Or are you just trolling to get up your post count so you get more clicks to you blog/business? Hmmmm.....


You really are impaired if you can't see the difference here.

WADA and USADA want a truth and reconciliation. This does not equate to "aww, it's ok, we're a bunch of bad boys, we need to change." 

They want to ask those with evidence to come forward to bring down those who would propagate doping in the peloton. Guys like Ferrari. Team managers, doctors, DSs that not only allowed it, but encouraged it. This isn't about forgiveness. It's about a purge. That's a hell of a lot different than a group hug.

You have this stupid idea that if people say "you know, we're bad for doping, we shouldn't do that" then it will magically come true. It won't. I'd expect better logic from a cop.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> The thing is everyone has "their" hero. The eras of Lemond, Hinault, Merckx, all the back to the first Tour had dope. The difference is not whether riders doped but WHO. Heaven forbid the kid who fell in love with cycling back then has to say "my hero was a **** too."
> 
> I fell in love the year I saw a certain former speed skater put on the stars and stripes in my home town. As I grew older I saw that the greatest heroes of the sport were racing on something other than bread and water. It doesn't make it right but if you aren't a coward it is something you need to acknowledge. If you don't all you are doing is coming up with bull **** rationalizations to justify personal bias.


So Lemond doped then?

Because that's what you're implying. Back it up with facts, big guy.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> So Lemond doped then?
> 
> Because that's what you're implying. Back it up with facts, big guy.


Some people are not troubled much with facts. Makes it easier to think yourself a genius.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> So Lemond doped then?
> 
> Because that's what you're implying. Back it up with facts, big guy.


No I am not implying that at all. I use LeMond to define an era because he did just that in the mind of an American. Fignon however is a part of that doping cycling by his own admission and is a part of that generation (as an example.)

You are quie ready to jump to unjustified conclusions simply because people aren't patting you on the back saying what a swell guy you are.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> No I am not implying that at all. I use LeMond to define an era because he did just that in the mind of an American. Fignon however is a part of that doping cycling by his own admission and is a part of that generation (as an example.)
> 
> You are quie ready to jump to unjustified conclusions simply because people aren't patting you on the back saying what a swell guy you are.


I know very well people don't consider me a "swell guy." I'm fine with that. You're the one who's grasping at straws with your armchair psychology of the peloton schtick, pretending you have any clue what makes a guy ride their bike for a living.

Try again and back up your arguments with facts. When did Lemond dope?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> I know very well people don't consider me a "swell guy." I'm fine with that. You're the one who's grasping at straws with your armchair psychology of the peloton schtick, pretending you have any clue what makes a guy ride their bike for a living.
> 
> Try again and back up your arguments with facts. When did Lemond dope?


Did you READ what I said. I said I am NOT implying LeMond Doped. Calling that Era of Cycling the LeMond era is like calling the period of british history "The Victorian" era because Queen Victoria was Monarch. 

However Fignon and others that Lemond raced against tested positive and/or admitted to using PEDs. As such you can not find an era in cycling where most/many of the champions were not doping. It has been an endemic problem and you can not say that just because one person did not dope that the era was clean and that we should give it a pass.

You are actually proving the point I was trying to make btw. You are so fixated on defending Lemond that you are ignoring all the doping that went on around him and how that contributed directly to the issues of the EPO era. Defending an innocent person is not a bad thing. Missing the forrest for the tree you are trying to defend is.

In order for cycling to move on we have to stop the bullshit double standard. Merckx is sitting there saying he is disappointed in Lance? That is the most hypocritcal thing I ever saw from a guy who tested positive himself more than once. We need to have Lance roll on his "mentors" that doped, then those people on their "mentors" we need to stop with this simply defending the Champions of the past as an automatic reaction. 

You are right to say "prove Lemond doped." However saying that over and over again does not me I should not call Fignon, Merckx, Delgado etc etc on their bullshit. You seem to want us to go to 1990 and just stop. You can't do that and deal with the problem effectively because a lot of the people are still involved in the sport in one way or the other and it is not good for the sport if it is really trying to sort itself out.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Did you READ what I said. I said I am NOT implying LeMond Doped. Calling that Era of Cycling the LeMond era is like calling the period of british history "The Victorian" era because Queen Victoria was Monarch.
> 
> However Fignon and others that Lemond raced against tested positive and/or admitted to using PEDs. As such you can not find an era in cycling where most/many of the champions were not doping. It has been an endemic problem and you can not say that just because one person did not dope that the era was clean and that we should give it a pass.
> 
> ...


Your point is stupid. The PED usage around Lemond gave NONE of the advantage that EPO/HGH/Testosterone/Autologous transfusion gave to those who followed shortly after him. NONE. The two eras are not even comparable. The very IDEA that you try to compare them proves how pathetic your knowledge of doping in cycling is.

You say we "have to have lance roll on his mentors who doped." You think that being nice to him will lead to that? Whatever you've been smoking, I'd love a bit of it. I could use a good hit right about now.

I said it before, you want a cleaner sport? Kick out EVERYONE who test positive or has been linked to PED use. EVERYONE. Rebuild the sport from the ground up. Great example is Frank Schleck. He tested positive 6 months ago, and we still have no verdict. He tested positive, he should have a month to get his affairs in order and mount a defense or just disappear. Same with Contador (dragging this out for 2 years? Really?) Riis? Gone. Vaughters? Gone. Vino? Gone. Anyone who had a name on Ferrari's records? Gone. 

Clean the house. Start fresh. If 60% of the peloton ends up banned for life, you're damn sure that they'll take notice and curb their crap.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Thanks for hijacking my thread, which was actually kind of fun, taking it off topic and throwing lots of elbows at each other.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Your point is stupid. The PED usage around Lemond gave NONE of the advantage that EPO/HGH/Testosterone/Autologous transfusion gave to those who followed shortly after him. NONE. The two eras are not even comparable. The very IDEA that you try to compare them proves how pathetic your knowledge of doping in cycling is.


No your complete lack of understanding the history of doping and human nature is the problem.

Doping is an Arms race. The arms race started almost a century ago. Do you actually believe that If the sport never had doping SUDDENLY out of no where people would have started shooting up EPO? 

The correct answer is No by the way. People started using EPO because it was the latest and greatest. Omerta and the culture of using PEDS already existed. The adoption of EPO was so rapid in the peleton specifically because this culture was already in existance. If we use your logic then in 20 years when we have gene doping people will be saying 



> The PED usage around Armstrong gave NONE of the advantage that Gene doping gave to those who followed shortly after him. NONE. The two eras are not even comparable. The very IDEA that you try to compare them proves how pathetic your knowledge of doping in cycling is.


Also your knowledge of blood doping is a tad "off". transfusions were used in the early-mid 80s. Hell when I was in high school I knew high school students doing it in track and field events. 

You sir are a freaking hypocrite. You go on and on about how doping is wrong, how it is cheating, how everyone who gets nailed for it needs to be just kicked out of the sport whole sale. You make yourself look like the great principled defender of virtue. THEN we enter an Era of the "Legends" of Cyling and suddenly your virtue goes into the sewer. Well done sir on demonstrating your complete moral bankruptcy, well done.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Bluenote said:


> Thanks for hijacking my thread, which was actually kind of fun, taking it off topic and throwing lots of elbows at each other.


Don't blame me. I said I wanted LA to dime out his "mentors" in doping and get the dominos going backwards. The hypocrite on the other hand apparently has some favorite rider who he is afraid would get caught out....I wonder who.... hmmmm


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> No your complete lack of understanding the history of doping and human nature is the problem.
> 
> Doping is an Arms race. The arms race started almost a century ago. Do you actually believe that If the sport never had doping SUDDENLY out of no where people would have started shooting up EPO?
> 
> ...


Just like a stubborn beat cop. Always thinks he's right, even when he's not.

Why don't you point out the exact words where I excused the doping in any other era? That's right, you can't. Because I didn't. However, I'm intelligent enough to understand that the EPO years and the amphetamine years were completely different things. 

You're the one who's unable to understand that. Too bad. You had promise, even if you're just a stubborn beat cop. And yet you still think that holding hands and singing "cumbaya" is going to save the sport. Laughable. Just like every argument you've made in this forum in support of your pathetic theories.

Here's the explanation that you can't seem to grasp:


Fireform said:


> I get tired of reading this kind of thing. Lemond never said that doping started with EPO, or that his generation was clean, or anything of the kind. He was outspoken against doping (why would he have been, if there was none?), he was paranoid about people slipping things into his food or drinks that could cause a positive test, he knew what was going on. Everyone who was in a position to know has said they were sure Lemond rode clean, and the same goes for Hampsten. Most people have read up on the fact that the dominant means of doping prior to the spread of EPO in the early 90's (amphetamines and steroids) were not useful enough in the long stage races to be a determining factor. The people who raced through that era are pretty much unanimous on that--there are many accounts of top pre-EPO-era racers expressing shock at the phenomenon of big-bodied former roleurs like Riis blowing away climbers in the mountains and of having to struggle to hold the wheel of mediocrities. Lemond was far from the only top rider to relate experiences like that. EPO was a game changer where long stage races were concerned and, surprise, surprise, that's what LA focused on.
> 
> It's really not that complicated. I just get tired of reading these distortions over and over again.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Why don't you point out the exact words where I excused the doping in any other era? That's right, you can't. Because I didn't. However, I'm intelligent enough to understand that the EPO years and the amphetamine years were completely different things.
> 
> You're the one who's unable to understand that. Too bad. You had promise, even if you're just a stubborn beat cop.


Internet 101. Start a response with an ad hominem attack when the rest of the response is morally and logically untenable.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Internet 101. Start a response with an ad hominem attack when the rest of the response is morally and logically untenable.


Says the beat cop who can't form an argument to begin with.

So tell me again where I excused Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, et al?

Yeah, I didn't think you could. Care to try again with more spunk?


----------



## cchristanis (Jul 15, 2012)

Oprah already asked him that.



carbonLORD said:


> I'd ask if he thinks the dope (testosterone) caused his cancer to begin with.


----------

