Lance Armstrong and drugs

aurelio_-_banned

Milton50 wrote:

if all of the top riders were using drugs then aren't we back to square one anyway?

No, because not all riders benefit to the same degree from doping, and some riders are prepared to push the doping envolope further than others are, a point we have already covered several times. :roll:

Also, not all riders are doped, even if during the Epo era few clean riders got anywhere near the podium in the Tour. Ironically the most likely prospect for a clean Tour contender was Moreau in 2000 when he finished 4th and the word within the peleton was he was racing on `nothing` and with a haemocrit of 39%. I wonder if he ponders on the irony of this fact given he was a central figure in the Festina scandal.

Ramanujan

Moreau had a lot of natural ability.

Most notably due to his extraordinary lung capacity.
However, sucking huge amounts of air into your lungs isn't much use unless you have the h/crit level to transport it to the muscles.

milton50

No, because not all riders benefit to the same degree from doping, and some riders are prepared to push the doping envolope further than others are, a point we have already covered several times

Yes, I acknowledged that in the sentence preceeding the one you quoted. It was a kind of rhetorical question because no one can say who had what advantage.

dave_1

are you guys not bored sh.iteless by this question? He's been retired 3 years...get over it.... even I have got burned out a bit by the endless LA doping threads

Jez mon

C'mon guys, does it matter anymore. This thread died ages ago, why bring it up again? There is evidence against him, and if one puts two and two together it seems likely that he doped. Now for the controversial part, as much as I personally loathe dopers and believe that they should be punished, I think it may well be time to put this to bed totally. If you want to turn a blind eye to some quite convincing evidence that's your lookout! I'm going to believe that he was a doper, but in some small way, he's still my hero...Landis OTOH is SCUM...logical I know!!!

GyatsoLa

Now we know how he did it... through massive consumption of water:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html

(subscription required - here is the full article below)


Champion Cyclist and Now Champion Guzzler of Austin Water
Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

Lance Armstrong’s Austin home, with a swimming pool and an acre of gardens, used 330,000 gallons of water in July.



Article Tools Sponsored By
By JAMES C. McKINLEY JR
Published: August 15, 2008

HOUSTON — Lance Armstrong is one of the favorite sons of Texas and a model citizen known as much for his social conscience as his cycling. So it came as a surprise when it was revealed this week that he is one of the biggest individual users of water in Austin, where he lives.

Say it ain’t so, Lance.

In July, Mr. Armstrong, who won the Tour de France seven times, used a whopping 330,000 gallons of water at his lush Spanish-colonial home, with an acre of gardens and a swimming pool, city water authority officials said.

This tremendous flow of H2O, which is 38 times what the average household in the city uses in the summer, comes as Texas is going through a dry spell and officials are asking people to cut back on watering their lawns. “We are definitely short on rain,” Lisa Rhodes, a spokeswoman for the authority, said with a sigh.

Mr. Armstrong declined to be interviewed. He has been in Colorado and California all summer and only noticed the surge in water use when he saw his bills go up, his spokesman, Mark Higgins, said in an e-mail message. (The bill for July was $2,460.) “Lance and all the folks involved are looking into it and will for sure get it under control,” Mr. Higgins wrote.

The Austin American-Statesman, which broke the story on Friday, quoted Mr. Armstrong as saying he was unaware his water use was so high. “I’m a little shocked,” he told The Statesman. “There’s no justification for that much water.” He added, “I need to fix this.”

But city water records suggested that his home has long been a guzzler of water, using an average of 158,000 gallons a month since January 2007. Then, in June, the cyclist shot ahead of the pack, topping the city’s list of residential water users for the first time, officials said. That month his house and garden drank up 222,900 gallons.

Daryl Slusher, an assistant director of the Austin City Water Authority in charge of conservation, said the city had ruled out a leak. Mr. Slusher offered to scrutinize Mr. Armstrong’s irrigation system and perhaps recommend native species that require less water.

Getting Mr. Armstrong on board with water conservation would be a public-relations boon, Mr. Slusher said, although it was a disappointment that Mr. Armstrong had ended up on the top of the city’s water-gluttons list.

“I was surprised he was No. 1,” Mr. Slusher said. “But his response is very encouraging.”

milton50

are you guys not bored sh.iteless by this question?

Not really. It's my first time discussing it and since he was one of the main reasons I got into cycling it does matter to me in some ways. I don't see what the problem is. If people want to discuss it then why not? We're not really getting anywhere though.

andyp

Milton50 wrote:

Not really. It's my first time discussing it and since he was one of the main reasons I got into cycling it does matter to me in some ways. I don't see what the problem is. If people want to discuss it then why not? We're not really getting anywhere though.

You summarise it all in one posting. There are those that believe Saint Lance couldn't possibly have doped and those that believe he obviously did. You'll never get anywhere unless Armstrong confesses and that isn't going to happen as he has too much to lose by doing so.

aurelio_-_banned

Jez mon wrote:

C'mon guys, does it matter anymore.

It does continue to matter for a number of very good reasons. (To repeat what I said much earlier in this thread!).

Firstly, many of those determined to defend the `Armstrong Myth` do so by attacking the labs, WADA, riders who speak out on the issue of doping and just about anyone else whose fight against doping in anyway undermines Armstrong’s claim to have raced `clean`. By doing this they play into the hands of today’s dopers and help to ensure the problem will continue. Plus many of those implicated in Armstrong’s `alleged` doping are still in the sport, and once again those who defend Armstrong inevitably also provide a level of protection to the likes of Bruyneel.

Also, Armstrong has not been slow to come to the support of dopers himself. Just look at the way he spoke out in defence of Landis, saying that he believed Landis was innocent of doping and, supposedly like him, simply a `victim` of `shoddy` work by the LNDD or even some imaginary anti-American conspiricy.

Of course this would have worked out quite well for Armstrong had Landis being acquitted, but now Landis has been proven to be a doper the implication that the LNDD is actually perfectly competent (if at times a little slack on its housekeeping) and that `The French` are simply determined to expose dopers and are not involved in some sort of `Anti-American conspiracy` seem to have been ignored. (Especially by Armstrong who after shouting his mouth off in support of Landis refused to comment on his conviction saying "I would love to answer that question but unfortunately I'm out of that business.").

In any case it must surely be worth establishing once and for all whether Armstrong staged the `greatest comeback` in sport, or merely the `greatest fraud`, as Lemond put it.

I would say that the right and proper time to stop talking about how Armstrong achieved his Tour `wins` is the day people stop talking about Armstrong and his Tour record altogether...

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

I would say that the right and proper time to stop talking about how Armstrong achieved his Tour `wins` is the day people stop talking about Armstrong and his Tour record altogether...

But you may as well write off the entire sport from 1991 until now.

It is what it is. That's the era and that's what happened. If Merckx, Coppi or Hinault had ridden in the 90s or 00's they would've all used EPO and blood transfusions.

Constantly looking backwards is not going to sort anything out.

aurelio_-_banned

andyp wrote:

You'll never get anywhere unless Armstrong confesses and that isn't going to happen as he has too much to lose by doing so.

The forthcoming Trek/Lemond case just might see the crap finally hit the fan. Apparantly Lemond has some very interesting tapes of conversations with members of Armstrong`s inner circle that he is prepared to produce in court, and the case may well see witnesses Armstrong would rather see silenced called to testify.

---

Cycling giants Lance Armstrong, Greg LeMond in contract-law proxy war

Now the ongoing LeMond vs. Armstrong battle has finally found a venue - the federal court system. The two cycling giants (LeMond has three Tour titles; Armstrong has seven) may not be suing each other directly, but this contract-law proxy war might be the next worst thing. The case is still young, but the suit appears to have the potential to drag some of Armstrong's skeletons out of the closet, maybe with the help of secretly taped phone calls involving one of his biggest supporters.

Last month LeMond Cycling, the Minnesota bike company LeMond owns, served a summons and complaint on Trek Bicycling Corporation, a family-owned Wisconsin company with close ties to both men.

Early court filings refer to the possible existence of secretly taped phone calls between LeMond and Trek's chief executive officer John Burke - discussions that appear to have revolved on Armstrong, performance-enhancing drugs, and media relations.

"Mr. LeMond has stated that he taped one or more of these conversations without Mr. Burke's knowledge or consent," Trek's lawyers acknowledged in an April 14 court filing...

...LeMond wants those documents, and many more; the discovery request attached to his suit demands any internal documents from Trek that relate to the statement that appeared on Aug. 15, 2001. LeMond's attorneys also demand anything related to Ferrari, doping allegations, or any telephone calls Burke made on Aug. 13, 2001.

If that doesn't resurrect some of the ghosts in Armstrong's past, he can be sure that should the case go to trial, it has the potential to draw in adverse witnesses from across the cycling world...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... _lemo.html

aurelio_-_banned

iainf72 wrote:

Constantly looking backwards is not going to sort anything out.

I would argue that exposing Armstrong would help to stop to his disciples whining on about imaginary `Anti-American conspiracies` and constantly trying to put the boot into the testing labs, WADA, whistle blowers and those fighting for a cleaner sport (like Lemond). That could only be a good thing for the future of the sport.

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Constantly looking backwards is not going to sort anything out.

I would argue that exposing Armstrong would help to stop to his disciples whining on about imaginary `Anti-American conspiracies` and constantly trying to put the boot into the testing labs, WADA, whistle blowers and those fighting for a cleaner sport (like Lemond). That could only be a good thing for the future of the sport.

And I'd argue that focusing on Armstrong is the wrong approach. As we've learnt time and time again over the last few years everyone was doing the same. Let's think for a minute he was unmasked - What would the net result be? Any effect? Well, what happened after Operation Puerto? The square root of sod all. The very same TdF was as full of doping as ever. T-Mobile stopped Ullrich from riding and 2 days later people piled into a car to Frieberg to get blood transfusions.

I suspect this is more to do with revenge than wanting to reclaim the "sport" part of cycling.

Got that Herbie Sykes book yet?

Jez mon

aurelio wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

C'mon guys, does it matter anymore.

It does continue to matter for a number of very good reasons. (To repeat what I said much earlier in this thread!).

Firstly, many of those determined to defend the `Armstrong Myth` do so by attacking the labs, WADA, riders who speak out on the issue of doping and just about anyone else whose fight against doping in anyway undermines Armstrong’s claim to have raced `clean`. By doing this they play into the hands of today’s dopers and help to ensure the problem will continue. Plus many of those implicated in Armstrong’s `alleged` doping are still in the sport, and once again those who defend Armstrong inevitably also provide a level of protection to the likes of Bruyneel.

Also, Armstrong has not been slow to come to the support of dopers himself. Just look at the way he spoke out in defence of Landis, saying that he believed Landis was innocent of doping and, supposedly like him, simply a `victim` of `shoddy` work by the LNDD or even some imaginary anti-American conspiricy.

But exposing the Armstrong Myth would be terrible for the sport and also unhelpful. What would we do, scrub his name from the list and make Son of Rudy the four time winner? Surely it's best not to antagonize him, which means no costly lawsuits, which means more money left over for better drug testing. Unfortunately exposing lance, taking away his yellow jerseys and as much money as possible would still be bolting the stable door after the horse had run away. Sure Lance stands up for dopers, but few people believe the anti-American conspiracies and Lance may one day learn that such things are making him look ridiculous.

Arkibal

Ok Aurelio, your ranting about LA is very tiring.
Your "everyone would use chemo if it was helping" etc statements are really, really disturbing, since you clearly have no idea what cancer or chemo is about...
Just shows how ridiculous you are.

LeMond rode for Le via Claire(or however that's spelled), that was hardly a clean team, so praising him as a clean one is as ridiculous as your posts here.

I'm stunned of your obsession towards LA, he does so much good work for cancer, why the need to bring him down? Did he steal your victory? By riding clean?

Patrick1.0

aurelio wrote:

Many of Armstrong`s physical parameters have been published and non of them indicate that he was in any was more gifted or `fitter` than those he was riding against. Quite the opposite in fact...

The fact that he won the race does not indicate that he was physically better than the rest to you?

aurelio_-_banned

Arkibal wrote:

Your "everyone would use chemo if it was helping" etc statements are really, really disturbing, since you clearly have no idea what cancer or chemo is about...

I was been ironic. I would also say, given the true nature of cancer and chemotherapy, that the really `disturbing` statements in all this are those emanating from the Armstrong camp claiming that it was his cancer treatment which turned him from a Tour also-ran into a multiple Tour `winner`.

Many also find the way he has cynically used his survival from cancer to insulate himself from doping allegations rather disturbing. For example, Stephanie McIllvain...

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

aurelio_-_banned

Patrick1.0 wrote:

The fact that he won the race does not indicate that he was physically better than the rest to you?

I have no doubt that he was stronger than those he raced against. The question is where that strength came from, mother nature or Epo and regular transfusions of `800 ml of packed cells`...

aurelio_-_banned

Jez mon wrote:

But exposing the Armstrong Myth would be terrible for the sport and also unhelpful. What would we do, scrub his name from the list and make Son of Rudy the four time winner?

No neither he nor Riis nor anyone else should be erased from the record of the Tour. As with Riis all that is needed is an asterix next to his name indicating that his wins were achived with the aid of Epo and `800 ml of packed cells`autologous blood doping, along with an end to the lying and the attacks on the labs, WADA and anyone else brave enough to question the validity of The Armstrong Myth.

Jez mon wrote:

Surely it's best not to antagonize him, which means no costly lawsuits, which means more money left over for better drug testing.

I don`t feel that people should be allowed to get away with their `crimes` simply because they are rich and powerful enough to get away with bullying others into submission. This is especially the case given that so many other riders have been forced to face the consequences of their actions.

aurelio_-_banned

Arkibal wrote:

LeMond rode for Le via Claire(or however that's spelled), that was hardly a clean team, so praising him as a clean one is as ridiculous as your posts here.

I haven`t praised Lemond for being clean, I have praised him for speaking out against doping. If Armstrong were to come clean and take a similar stance I would have a lot of repect for him as well for doing so.

Arkibal wrote:

I'm stunned of your obsession towards LA

I wouldn`t say that I am obsessed, I do like a good argument though and mentioning Armstrong`s `alleged` doping habits is a sure fire way to rattle a few peoples cages.

micron

An interesting take on the way Armstrong sought to silence his critics - and the way he's always been economical with the truth:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... e_arm.html

'Armstrong announced most of the suits at a Maryland press conference on June 15, 2004. His indignation that day seemed to ease the minds of Discovery Channel, which had just signed an enormous sponsorship deal with Armstrong's team, and probably didn't want to see their brand tainted by the sleaze Walsh and Ballester had uncovered.

"In France, we say it had l'effet d'annonce," says Paris attorney Thibault de Montbrial, who defended the book's publisher and authors. "He makes the announcement, but when the emotion goes away, no one realizes that he didn't go to court."

Indeed, it's a little-known fact that in the fall of 2005, a year and a half after the Maryland conference, Armstrong quietly withdrew his claims before a trial could begin....

In 2007, Walsh was able to publish the claims from L.A. Confidential - plus a whole lot more - in the United States under the title "From Lance to Landis." By then Armstrong was retired, and apparently much less inclined to unleash the dogs of law.

Rather than sue the book's publisher - Ballantine Books, a division of Random House - Armstrong simply issued another statement, putting a little topspin on the facts of the L.A. Confidential defamation case when he claimed to have "won every court case."'

aurelio_-_banned

micron wrote:

An interesting take on the way Armstrong sought to silence his critics - and the way he's always been economical with the truth:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... e_arm.html

Er, the reason I came back to this thread about 10 pages ago was to post a link to this very story!

Ste_S

aurelio wrote:

Arkibal wrote:

LeMond rode for Le via Claire(or however that's spelled), that was hardly a clean team, so praising him as a clean one is as ridiculous as your posts here.

I haven`t praised Lemond for being clean, I have praised him for speaking out against doping. If Armstrong were to come clean and take a similar stance I would have a lot of repect for him as well for doing so.

Arkibal wrote:

I'm stunned of your obsession towards LA

I wouldn`t say that I am obsessed, I do like a good argument though and mentioning Armstrong`s `alleged` doping habits is a sure fire way to rattle a few peoples cages.

Lemond has never come clean though has he ?

aurelio_-_banned

Ste_S wrote:

Lemond has never come clean though has he ?

Perhaps this is because he didn`t dope! There certainly isn`t the sort of evidence indicating Lemond doped as there is in the case of Armstrong. Unlike Armstrong Lemond also had the sort of natural physical capacity -especially his V02 max - which made him a born Tour winner.

I would accept that Lemond quite possibly used products which were legal at the time but which were later added to the UCI`s banned list. However, if the `legal` use of products which are later banned is to be included in our definition of what constitutes doping, Armstrong must be similarly condemned, as with the use of Actovegin by USP. *

---

*The active components in Actovegin® promote glucose uptake by cerebral and skeletal muscle and other cells and stimulate intrinsic glucose transport by regulating glucose carrier GluT1; Actovegin® activates piruvate-dehydrogenase (PDH) and thereby leads to increased utilization of glucose by cells and formation of energy-rich substances ("insulin-like·effect). (Oberermaier-Kusser et al. 1989;) Actovegin® also increases uptake and utilization of oxygen by hypoxic tissues and cells (which can be proven by Warburg's test) via promoting mitochondrial respiratory function and decreases formation of lactate...)

http://www.nycomed.com.cn/english/wmdcp/awz/biaoti.html

Ste_S

If you're Howard Peel, you'll remember a chunk of info relating to his time at ADR.

You seem to have painted Lemond as an angel, and Armstrong as the devil when in reality they're just differing shades of gray

Jez mon

aurelio wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

But exposing the Armstrong Myth would be terrible for the sport and also unhelpful. What would we do, scrub his name from the list and make Son of Rudy the four time winner?

No neither he nor Riis nor anyone else should be erased from the record of the Tour. As with Riis all that is needed is an asterix next to his name indicating that his wins were achived with the aid of Epo and `800 ml of packed cells`autologous blood doping, along with an end to the lying and the attacks on the labs, WADA and anyone else brave enough to question the validity of The Armstrong Myth.

The asterix thing isn't especially helpful though, he's still got away with it to a large extent. Besides, you are going to have to put an asterix down next to a whole load of names. Why not just put an asterix next to the whole era saying during this period EPO and packed cells were prevalent. Lance is not the only cyclist who has lied to his fans and to WADA.

Jez mon wrote:

Surely it's best not to antagonize him, which means no costly lawsuits, which means more money left over for better drug testing.

I don`t feel that people should be allowed to get away with their `crimes` simply because they are rich and powerful enough to get away with bullying others into submission. This is especially the case given that so many other riders have been forced to face the consequences of their actions.[/quote]

Unfortunately, taking Lance on is just to costly and as you pointed out above, rewriting history is impossible, so we are going to have to let him get away with his crimes anyway, he'll always be a 7 times tour winner. Proving his drug taking would therefore do little but cost a lot. It's not morally good that a person can bully and pay their way to being innocent, but it's a fact of life.

mjhale

Problem is that if you want to avoid accusations of a witch hunt then you have to go after many more riders than armstrong.

Aurelio's quaint notion that EPO/blood doping is some how worse than what went on before (which also included blood doping) just isn't credible. In fact to my mind it is worse because it is grossly hypocritical.

Cunobelin

[Troll] Of course by this argument there is only one possible explanation for the rise to prominence of the Team GB cycling team...... No wayy they can have achieved this through training, fitness and skill.........[/Troll]

Patrick1.0

Let's remember though, Lance trained smarter and harder than his opponents, that is pretty much accepted, so whatever people say about his abilities or lack of, he just was the boss. It doesn't matter whether you think he doped or not, he was the winner year after year and not because he had some unfair advantage others didn't have.

Gazzaputt

At the end of this Lance never had a positive dope test of that there is no denying.

All the allegations and hearsay are just that.

Maybe just maybe Lance was a physical phenomenon.

I for one believe in him