Lance Armstrong and drugs
Comments
-
Now, I don't know if there is any scientific facts behind this, I'm just guessing but when he had cancer therapy including chemo, his muscles were eaten away to almost 0 right? Wouldn't this have given him the ability to grow them back at top efficiency, along with his naturally high lung capacity, thus giving him the edge over other riders?0
-
Adieu wrote:Now, I don't know if there is any scientific facts behind this, I'm just guessing but when he had cancer therapy including chemo, his muscles were eaten away to almost 0 right? Wouldn't this have given him the ability to grow them back at top efficiency, along with his naturally high lung capacity, thus giving him the edge over other riders?
There is a bit of truth to that. Prior to the cancer he still had whwt was basically a triathlete's body, with quite a lot of upper body strength. I think that this helped him develop into one of the best one day riders of the early 90's.
After the cancer interlude hed had lost most of his upper body musculature and had probably dropped 10 or possibly 15 kilos.
With his previous body shape he would have needed a 500cc engine rather than EPO to get over the Galibier with the front group.
I don't if he doped or not, but he was never caught. It is now history lets's leave it.We\'ll kick against the darkness \'till it bleeds daylight0 -
When you look at his wins and see the riders Armstrong defeated, you see names like Ullrich, Basso, Vinokourov, Mayo, and Hamilton, and a veritable who's who of riders implicated in Operacion Puerto. But that's not evidence, just the coincidental look and quack of a duck.0
-
Stupid, pointless argument based on half truths and innuendo.
I for one have loved watching his victories and have enjoyed reading his two autobiographies and until I see something concrete to prove otherwise I will happily live in ignorance. Those that don't believe his victories are entitled to believe that but you are going to have to do a whole lot better to convince those of us that just accept things for what they are.
Seems that in this climate the best thing to aim for is mediocrity.0 -
Can't stand the guy myself but would someone who had stared death in the face (80% chance of dying) really take anything?'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
Neil Gaiman0 -
If Armstrong reckoned Ullrich was the most naturally talented rider around, and he's now known to have doped, LA and JB's tactics must have been absolutely astonishing to help a clean LA beat Jan+EPO+blood year in year out.
This is enough circumstantial evidence for me. But then, some people still question anthropogenic climate change because the alternative is too hard to bear, so I guess I can see why there are those who still think LA raced clean.
And to think, I promised myself in late '05 to NEVER AGAIN contribute to a C+ 'was he clean?' thread :roll:___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
[quote
="cougie"]Sheryl Crow/ Celine Dion - close enough for me.[/quote]
Sha?ging a bird and listening to her albums is not the same thing. I used to fancy both the birds in ABBA but listen to their music, no thanks0 -
mandie wrote:Adieu wrote:Now, I don't know if there is any scientific facts behind this, I'm just guessing but when he had cancer therapy including chemo, his muscles were eaten away to almost 0 right? Wouldn't this have given him the ability to grow them back at top efficiency, along with his naturally high lung capacity, thus giving him the edge over other riders?
There is a bit of truth to that. Prior to the cancer he still had whwt was basically a triathlete's body, with quite a lot of upper body strength. I think that this helped him develop into one of the best one day riders of the early 90's.
After the cancer interlude hed had lost most of his upper body musculature and had probably dropped 10 or possibly 15 kilos.
With his previous body shape he would have needed a 500cc engine rather than EPO to get over the Galibier with the front group.
I don't if he doped or not, but he was never caught. It is now history lets's leave it.
He doped and has left the cycling scene like a scared little dog.
Forget all the he lost this amount or he lost that amount so what. He dropped a doped Ullrich like he was standing still. My main gripe is that he insulted clean athletes to protect himself and other dopers, not a nice person in my book. He obviously didn't calculate what would happen in 2006 and now looks very stupid with his i never failed a test b******.0 -
In reality the codes were not `accidentally leaked`. What’s more the required rider codes were officially released by the UCI`s own medical chief! The only skullduggery is that the journalist who broke the story didn’t tell the UCI the whole truth as to why he wanted those codes...Cunobelin wrote:
Would that be the anonymous samples where someone accidentally leaked an unconfirmed list of the bar codes, that happened to coincide with an equally unauthorised and leaked list matching riders to the bar codes?Take, as an example, traces of EPO found in a number of his urine samples from the 1999 Tour. He's never explained that one away and instead made accusations of a French conspiracy that's out to get him.
As to the effects of ageing. Deterioration may well lead to the break down of a doping product so that it cannot be detected any more, but it is hardly likely to synthesise what was never there to start with!0 -
calvjones wrote:If Armstrong reckoned Ullrich was the most naturally talented rider around, and he's now known to have doped, LA and JB's tactics must have been absolutely astonishing to help a clean LA beat Jan+EPO+blood year in year out.
This is enough circumstantial evidence for me. But then, some people still question anthropogenic climate change because the alternative is too hard to bear, so I guess I can see why there are those who still think LA raced clean.
And to think, I promised myself in late '05 to NEVER AGAIN contribute to a C+ 'was he clean?' thread :roll:
Anti-doping controls now mean that you don't have to fail a test to be convicted of doping, unusual performances and changes in blood parameters could in future mean a ban.0 -
Absolute nonsense! According to the data collected by Ed Coyle Armstrong`s post-cancer racing weight was within 2 kg of his weight when he won the world RR Championships! Armstrong is on record as saying that he started his Tours in the `low seventy-fours`. (That is kg). His weight when he won the world RR Champs (a whole different ball-game to winning the Tour) was 75.1 kg.mandie wrote:After the cancer interlude hed had lost most of his upper body musculature and had probably dropped 10 or possibly 15 kilos.0 -
calvjones wrote:If Armstrong reckoned Ullrich was the most naturally talented rider around, and he's now known to have doped, LA and JB's tactics must have been absolutely astonishing to help a clean LA beat Jan+EPO+blood year in year out.
I have thought that the tactics of Telekom and Ullrich, over the years, have been incredibly stupid.
"Naturally talented" gives you second and first in the the first two Tours. Then you have to train a little more and not get fat every year.
Anyway, if Ullrich used drugs and Lance used drugs and Lance beat Jan, then either he was better at drugs, teams, tactics, mentality or training. Maybe all of them. And if "they" all used drugs, and he still won, then he was better at something. Like winning or cheating.
And above all, he still had to pedal for three weeks. Even if he used drugs, which many people think is a proven case, even though it is not.0 -
treize vents wrote:calvjones wrote:If Armstrong reckoned Ullrich was the most naturally talented rider around, and he's now known to have doped, LA and JB's tactics must have been absolutely astonishing to help a clean LA beat Jan+EPO+blood year in year out.
I have thought that the tactics of Telekom and Ullrich, over the years, have been incredibly stupid.
"Naturally talented" gives you second and first in the the first two Tours. Then you have to train a little more and not get fat every year.
Anyway, if Ullrich used drugs and Lance used drugs and Lance beat Jan, then either he was better at drugs, teams, tactics, mentality or training. Maybe all of them. And if "they" all used drugs, and he still won, then he was better at something. Like winning or cheating.
And above all, he still had to pedal for three weeks. Even if he used drugs, which many people think is a proven case, even though it is not.
Why are people defending Armstrong just because he won 7 tours, i can't see what that has to do with it. If you understand cycling and physiology and what is possible you will watch those DVD's and think that is just not possible.0 -
philak wrote:This thread got me looking for more info and i came across the article below. It's something of a revelation to me. I had no idea about most of this stuff whilst i was watching Armstong win the tour, probably because i wasn't an active road cyclist at the time and wasn't looking at forums like this one.
Of particluar interest is his retirement from competitive cycling after his cancer surgery and dropping out of a race through exhaustion, and his reappearance as a tour winner.
http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html
comments on arpuerta ...
"Armstrong was a medium-notable young rider, among many such others"
Actually I think most people would say he was obviously developing into one of the finest one days riders around and already had been world champion, the youngest ever.
"At that point, Armstrong went into seclusion with coach Chris Carmichael and emerged the next year to win the Tour de France. In the space of a few months, he had gone from collapsing by the side of the road to handily winning one of the top three cycling races in the world."
Actually in this time he also finished fourth the Vuelta, which is often seen as the turning point.
"The charges, of a criminal nature and carrying hefty prison sentences, were dropped for reasons of lack of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Actually this is an American re-write, that is not the concept in France. It was simply the case that after two years of trying the "prosecutor" had no evidence to present. this is called "being innocent", although it could be "a guilty person getting off" as well. No one knows.
"Ever since, Armstrong and the Tour have been basically married to each other, the fate of one clinging to the fate of the other one."
Until Lance quit and then they "leaked" the epo story from 1999 to L'Equipe. And ended up doing an obvious revenge job on Astana, paying back Johan and Lance.
And I am pretty sure he used drugs. But I really do find the arguments too casual and full of holes. And sad that I have time to write this. It's over.0 -
I'm not an LA fanboy or a hater. He may or may not have doped. I don't know.
I do know that in many interviews in 1999 he categorically stated that he didn't dope. The journos kept on asking the same questions so the answer changed to 'I've been tested a gazillion times and not been shown positive'.
As for the 'Ullrich's the most talented...' comments, that was just psychological warfare. One of the things that LA did best0 -
One, back in those days it was the UCI who called the shots regarding doping, and it is clear that the UCI / Verbruggen were determined to protect their icon of `global` cycling. For example it was the UCI who accepted a post-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticoids, and it was Verbruggen who commissioned that hatchet job on the LNDD in order to ensure nothing further could come of those retrospective `positives` for EPO. (The Vrijman report, described by WADA as being `so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical`). Similarly the UCI forced the ASO to allow Virenque to ride the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal, even though Leblanc wanted to ban him. In short, the hands of the ASO were tied by the UCI, something which has helped to precipitate the current split.feersumendjinn wrote:Armstrong may be very litigious fellow but does anyone think that if LEquip/ASO had really good evidence about 1999 they wouldn't have been happy to go to court, after all they ain't exactly short of cash & lawyers themselves..
Secondly, despite the publication of `From Lance to Landis`, and numerous cases of people directly accusing Armstrong of doping he has become rather quiet on the libel suit front. This may well be because so much new evidence has entered the public arena since he won his one and only legal case (the libel case against The Sunday Times and David Walsh) that he knows he would probably lose.
Anyhow, the Trek/ Lemond case may end up being the one where the proverbial hits the fan. Apparently Lemond has some very interesting taped conversations. On the subject of which the following taped conversation is worth a listen. It was made be Lemond when his business interests were being threatened after he spoke out regarding Armstrong and doping. In it Stephanie McIlvaine clearly states that yes, she did hear Armstrong confess to using Epo, steroids and all the rest, despite later denying this when she was threatened with losing her job if she didn’t back up Armstrong at the SCA hearings.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp30 -
NJK wrote:
Why are people defending Armstrong just because he won 7 tours, i can't see what that has to do with it. If you understand cycling and physiology and what is possible you will watch those DVD's and think that is just not possible.
I for one never "defend" Armstrong. I just try to point out bad arguments with little actual evidence, casual reasoning, and the like. "I think he could not have done that without drugs" is not what I would call a great "argument". Since I got into real cycling on real roads, what I can do and what others I actually know or ride with can do constantly amazes me. For me that is cause for celebration.
I still think he most likely took drugs. He certainly had very good advisors.0 -
eh, of course he used drugs, he had cancer for crying out loud!! I have no idea of the amout of drugs he had to use to battle the cancer, but I'd expect it was a huge amount.
Wheter he used them after he was cured and returned back to cycling, i have no idea, and until there is solid proof of that I'll keep my innocent until proven guilty-stance.0 -
How `solid` do you want your proof? There`s plenty of convincing if mainly circumstantial evidence in `From Lance to Landis` for example.Arkibal wrote:Wheter he used them after he was cured and returned back to cycling, i have no idea, and until there is solid proof of that I'll keep my innocent until proven guilty-stance.
Also worth a look: http://www.investigatelance.org/0 -
Arkibal wrote:eh, of course he used drugs, he had cancer for crying out loud!! I have no idea of the amout of drugs he had to use to battle the cancer, but I'd expect it was a huge amount.
Wheter he used them after he was cured and returned back to cycling, i have no idea, and until there is solid proof of that I'll keep my innocent until proven guilty-stance.
If you've ever seen a cancer patient in the middle of chemo, you would hardly call it "performance enhancing"...
epo could certainly be given to cancer patients to counteract the chemotherapy drugs, but this would only be to bring their red blood cell count back up to normal. I wouldn't imagine many "Mr 60%"s walk out of the cancer wards...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
aurelio wrote:
How `solid` do you want your proof? There`s plenty of convincing if mainly circumstantial evidence in `From Lance to Landis` for example.Arkibal wrote:Wheter he used them after he was cured and returned back to cycling, i have no idea, and until there is solid proof of that I'll keep my innocent until proven guilty-stance.
Also worth a look: http://www.investigatelance.org/
That is ridiculous. It's rumours, and he said she said. Far from concrete proof.
And you know that as well.0 -
Except 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 claims. 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, such as Bruyneel, and once again in defending Armstrong these people are also offered a level of protection.RichN95 wrote:My opinion is that he's retired and has nothing to do with cycling anymore - so there's no point bothering about it. We may as well debate whether Eddy Merckx was doping.
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`.0 -
How about some eye-witness testimony to back it up?Arkibal wrote:That is ridiculous. It's rumours, and he said she said. Far from concrete proof.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp30 -
in a similar vein do you think we will ever get a conviction in the 'jack the ripper' case
or find lord lucan?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
I see the thread has degenerated into the usual naive myths and legends of Mr Lance Cleanstrong versus the more pragmatic "juice the juicer" brigade.
As I said a while back, I really don't care any more.
For me, it's always been a certainty that he doped. He's different, but not that different.
Does it matter, after all his opposition has been indited, one after another? Only if you remain angry that he got away with it and they didn't.
For others, it wouldn't matter if the ASO announced the whole Tour peloton positive, tomorrow, LA would remain cleaner than Mr McQuaid's dance card with Christian Prudhomme.
My only concern is: How many more years is this debate going to infect cycling forums?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:My only concern is: How many more years is this debate going to infect cycling forums?
As with all the great conspiracy theories it will feed on itself for years.You will never reconcile the two sides so i doubt forums will ever be safe from it0
