Lance Armstrong and drugs

aurelio_-_banned

k-dog wrote:

The thing I don't get is how people say he came from nowhere and was suddenly great - post cancer and post a couple of years of doping is the implication.

Sure he was a talented one-day rider, but that is a whole different ball-game to being a `natural` Tour winner. Throughout the history of the Tour, at least until the coming of Indurain, those who were dominant in the Tour tended to show their ability very quickly, often winning the Tour the first time they rode, such as Merckx. Then a big change seemed to come along with Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, with riders who were also-rans for years suddenly becoming dominant. Many would argue that it was no coincidence that this change paralleled to coming of Epo and subsequently blood doping.

We all know how Merckx dominated his first Tour, and plenty of other riders have won on their first attempt, Fignon for example whose Tour de France win in 1983 was his first major stage race!

On the other hand in his first Tour in 1993 Armstrong was 81st in the prologue at 47 seconds, lost 6.04 in the stage 9 Lac De Madine TT (59km). On the 10th stage (Serre Chevalier via Galibier) was 86th at 21.42. On the 11th stage (Isola 2000 summit finish) he was 97th at 28.47, after which he abandoned. It’s not really possible to claim that Armstrong was nowhere near the top of his game at this point given he won the world RR championships that year.

In 1994 Armstrong lost 6.23 in the Stage 9 Bergerac TT (64km). On the 11th stage (Flat apart from climb to finish at Hautecam) he was 65th @7.03. On the 12 stage (Luz Ardiden via Tourmalet) he was 55th @ 20.09. On the 13 stage (Albi- flat, bunch finish) he was 45th @ 9 sec. On the 14th stage (Montpellier -one climb ) he was 114th @ 5.56 and on the 15th stage (Carpentras via Ventoux) he did not finish.

In 1995 Armstrong actually managed to finish the Tour, almost one and half hours behind the winner, but his time trial performances in particular were still consistently mediocre, with him again losing 6.24 in the flat TT. In short over 3 years Armstrong showed no signs of ever being a Tour winner . What’s more his consistently poor flat TT performances, and subsequent vast improvement, cannot be explained away by reference to some mythical weight loss post-cancer as in such a discipline weight isn’t really an issue, just power.

Then, with the king of doping doctors Michael Ferrari as his mentor, he comes back after his cancer and not only wins the Tour, he has being miraculously transformed into an almost unbeatable time-triallist, in 2000 setting the fastest ever speed for a Tour TT of over 30 km...

aurelio_-_banned

P.s referring back to that Andreu/ Vaughters instant messenger conversation. I am aware that at the SCA hearing an affidavit from Vaughters was produced where he played down his comments, claiming there were nothing more than `gossip`. He has also claimed that his reference to `hot sauce` refers to vitamins!

Perhaps Vaughters later comments are understandable, if showing a lack of backbone, given the sort of pressure we know the Armstrong camp can bring on those critical of Armstrong. As that taped conversation with Stephanie McIlvain suggests, sufficient pressure can be brought even to persuade people to commit perjury in order to back up Armstrong. Similarly, just look at the way Armstrong threatened Lemond when Lemond questioned `The Armstrong Myth` when he found out that Armstrong was working with Ferrari.

---

Lance Armstrong: "Oh come on, now, you're telling me you never done EPO?"

Greg LeMond: "Why would you say I did EPO?"

LA: "Come on, everyone's done EPO."

GL: "Why do you think I did it?"

LA: "Well, your comeback in '89 was so spectacular. Mine's a miracle, yours was a miracle. You couldn't have been as strong as you were in '89 without EPO."

GL: "Listen Lance, before EPO was ever in cycling, I won the Tour de France. First time I was in the Tour, I was third; second time I should have won but was held back by my team, third time I won it. It is not because of EPO that I have won the Tour, my haematocrit was never more than 45, but because I had a V02 max of 95, yours was 82. Tell me one person who said I did EPO."

LA: "Everyone knows it."

GL: "Are you threatening me?"

LA: "If you want to throw stones, I will throw stones."

GL: "So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know physiology; no amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 max of 82 into one with a VO2 Max of 95 and you have ridden faster than I did."

LA: "I can find at least ten people who will say you did EPO. Ten people who would come forward."

---

As to Landis denying that he had photos of the motorbike with refrigerated panniers. What value can possibly be put on the denials of of serial liar and proven doper like Landis?

blazing_saddles

Interesting observation by Christian VdV on massaging results and "The Bosses" ego:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 364306.ece

treize vents

aurelio wrote:

Throughout the history of the Tour, at least until the coming of Indurain, those who were dominant in the Tour tended to show their ability very quickly, often winning the Tour the first time they rode, such as Merckx. Then a big change seemed to come along with Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, with riders who were also-rans for years suddenly becoming dominant. Many would argue that it was no coincidence that this change paralleled to coming of Epo and subsequently blood doping.

We all know how Merckx dominated his first Tour, and plenty of other riders have won on their first attempt, Fignon for example whose Tour de France win in 1983 was his first major stage race!

.

Actually I don't think you have looked carefully at the history of the Tour. I just did. It is true that several Tour winners since WWII have won at what you could call "an early age" or "their first Tour". Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Anquetil, Gimondi, Merckx, Ullrich. That is it. These guys are great champions and were great from early years. But if you are actually talking about the Tour, all the rest of the winners won in what most would call their "mature years", 26 or even much later. Each victory of course is a special case and can be "explained away". But some of these guys are great champions too. I don't think you generalisation holds up, much less that it explains or is explailned by doping. Roche, Coppi, Kubler, Koblet, Bobet, Gaul, Bahamontes, Nencini, Aimar, Pingeon, Janssen, Delgado, Armstrong, Indurain, Ocana, Thevenet, Van Impe, Zootemelk.

All those guys won the Tour after the age of 26. I still think Armstrong used drugs, but let's look at facts when they are available.

Kléber

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Interesting observation by Christian VdV on massaging results and "The Bosses" ego:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 364306.ece

Indeed. Despite a lot of circumstantial evidence, there is no killer fact about Armstrong and doping, so these forums will have similar debates every few weeks and months. Yet one thing has emerged, that is of a portrait of Armstrong as a dictatorial bully*, where mere drive and motivation are abandoned and I see selfishness and cruelty, deceit and arrogance.

* "bully" probably isn't the word, but I can't think of a stronger word. Wanchor will do for the time being.

espoir

I read somewhere that LA/Johan poured away Landis' blood transfusion in a fit of pique.

Is this true or am i making this up?

cougie

I read that somewhere too - wasnt it after he said he wanted to leave the team ?

RichN95.

Aurelio,

I'm no Armstrong defender, but your analysis of his time trial results pre-cancer are just basic facts without context.

1993
Result: 27th @ 6'04
Added context: The previous day Armstrong won the stage from a breakaway

1994
Result: 13th @ 6'23
Added context: Induarin demolished everyone that day. 3rd was @ 4'00, Boardman was 5th @ 5'27

1995
Result: 43rd @ 6'24
Added context: The previous day Armstrong had won the stage from a breakaway. Plus his team mate had died a few days previously.

flattythehurdler

The best description I heard of Armstrong was langerdan describing him as a "weapons grade cock".
In the circumstances, it's not the doping I have a problem with so much as the narcissism and repulsive bullying. I doubt he's na particularly happy individual. He strikes me as deeply insecure. Compare/contrast with big Mig.

aurelio_-_banned

RichN95 wrote:

Aurelio,

I'm no Armstrong defender, but your analysis of his time trial results pre-cancer are just basic facts without context.

1993
Result: 27th @ 6'04
Added context: The previous day Armstrong won the stage from a breakaway

1994
Result: 13th @ 6'23
Added context: Induarin demolished everyone that day. 3rd was @ 4'00, Boardman was 5th @ 5'27

1995
Result: 43rd @ 6'24
Added context: The previous day Armstrong had won the stage from a breakaway. Plus his team mate had died a few days previously.

How about the `context` of those TT`s he dominated post-cancer? Something tells me that he wasn’t laid in bed the previous day whilst the rest of the field were out breaking rocks. In fact I’d wager that his workload in the run up to those TT`s was higher than those he lost over 6 minutes in. Also, so what if Indurain `demolished everyone` in the 1994 TT? Point is he also demolished Armstrong, who non the less rode faster than even Induran had ever done when he made his comeback!

aurelio_-_banned

espoir wrote:

I read somewhere that LA/Johan poured away Landis' blood transfusion in a fit of pique. Is this true or am i making this up?

See the previous page of this thread!

DaveyL

The anti-Lance brigade (and please note I'm on the fence here - I have read from Lance To Landis and accept most of it) love to quote "the hospital bed confession" as part of The Great Indictment Of Lance. Well, if he was on epo, steroids, HGH pre-cancer, what did he do diffrenetly post-cancer to turn him nto a Tour winner? This still has not been adequately answered. It can't be "he lost weight" as the Anti-Lance Brigade have rubbished that one (as purported by the Pro-Lance Brigade), leaving us with, "He started to work with Ferrari - he really knew how to make the drugs work".

So go on guys, we had one thread on this a while back which produced no convincing argument - I'm stll listening.

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

if he was on epo, steroids, HGH pre-cancer, what did he do diffrenetly post-cancer to turn him nto a Tour winner? ...So go on guys, we had one thread on this a while back which produced no convincing argument - I'm stll listening.

DaveyL wrote:

"He started to work with Ferrari - he really knew how to make the drugs work".

There`s one part of your answer!

I would say that, post 1999, the development within his teams of a system of sophisticated (and untraceable) autologous blood-doping program was probably the biggest single factor. Secondary factors include having a very strong team at his disposal which was also willing to dope in order to help him to `win`. (As some ex-members have now admitted).

aurelio_-_banned

DaveyL wrote:

The anti-Lance brigade (and please note I'm on the fence here - I have read from Lance To Landis and accept most of it)

P.s. How can you be on the fence if you accept `most` of From Lance to Landis? Does this not mean you must actually accept that Armstrong doped? What parts don`t you accept and why?

aurelio_-_banned

treize vents wrote:

I don't think you have looked carefully at the history of the Tour. I just did. It is true that several Tour winners since WWII have won at what you could call "an early age" or "their first Tour". Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Anquetil, Gimondi, Merckx, Ullrich. That is it. These guys are great champions and were great from early years. But if you are actually talking about the Tour, all the rest of the winners won in what most would call their "mature years", 26 or even much later. Each victory of course is a special case and can be "explained away". But some of these guys are great champions too. I don't think you generalisation holds up

It`s actually not my generalisation, I was basing what I said on research by Christoper Thompson, associate professor of history at Ball State University in Indina and writer of the book The Tour de France: A Cultural History. Thompson argues that until the coming of Indurain (and the coming of Epo...) few Tour champions first rode as also-rans. Some may not have won at their first attempt but were they were serious contenders. Indurain, Riis and Armstrong were all exceptions to this, and all rode in the very same period of Tour history!

aurelio_-_banned

P.s we know Riis `won` the Tour due to the use of Epo afer being a Tour also-ran. There is ample evidence that Armstrong, another rider who showed no sign of being able to one day win the Tour, was transformed into a multiple `winner` by the use of Epo and autologous blood doping. However, there is also evidence that Indurain really does follow the same pattern. For example, at the Festina Trial Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court "In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision," also confirming that `everybody` on the team used it. Ramin Minovi of the ABCC has written that on one occasion when the Banesto team’s haemocrit levels were tested every member of the team had a haemocrit of between 48.5 to 49.5, `a situation impossible in nature`. Also, Armand de Las Cuevas, a team mate of Indurain, was caught red handed transporting human growth hormone and Epo.

aurelio_-_banned

Kléber wrote:

one thing has emerged, that is of a portrait of Armstrong as a dictatorial bully*, where mere drive and motivation are abandoned and I see selfishness and cruelty, deceit and arrogance.

That`s probably a fair summary of Armstrong `the man`. I have also thought it remarkable that so little comment was passed when `cancer hero` Armstrong announced his break up with Sheryl Crow (who he was due to marry in the Spring of 2006) on 6 Febuary 2006, given that Crow then underwent breast cancer surgery on 22 February 2006.

Still, all this is not that relevant to the doping issue, other than in relation to the way Armstrong intimidated and bullied riders like Bassons and Simeoni for speaking out on the doping issue / testifying against Ferrari. Odd actions for someone suppsedly committed to clean sport. :roll:

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

That`s probably a fair summary of Armstrong `the man`. I have also thought it remarkable that so little comment was passed when `cancer hero` Armstrong announced his break up with Sheryl Crow (who he was due to marry in the Spring of 2006) on 6 Febuary 2006, given that Crow then underwent breast cancer surgery on 22 February 2006.

But Armstrong did contact Seb Joly when he was diagnosed and asked if there was anything he could do. And didn't make a song and dance about it - The first I'd heard of it was when Seb mentioned it

Not sure what the point around Sheryl is though?

dirk_van_gently

iainf72 wrote:

And didn't make a song and dance about it

He was leaving that to Cheryl

blazing_saddles

I think there's a big difference between Armstrong: "the Man" and Armstrong: "the Cancer victim". His experience has made him into a totally different character; generous and compassionate, towards fellow sufferers.
On a bike, he just wanted to create suffering.

Adieu wrote:

Why can't we have a lance style, turn back, look into evans's face and then just blast up the mountain likes its downhill?

On the other hand, having just experienced Ricco rocket climbing, then uniformally condemned for his "methods", we still have those who believe in the above being down to diet and exercise.

Cunobelin

There is ample evidence that Armstrong, another rider who showed no sign of being able to one day win the Tour, was transformed into a multiple `winner` by the use of Epo and autologous blood doping

Now that is interesting...

I suggest contacting magazine@lequipe.presse.fr immediately as they will pay you a fortune for any of the evidence you claim to hold!

lwilks

Two questions

1 Has anyone commenting on Armstrong's use of drugs got any hard evidence?

2 Has anyone commenting on Armstrong's use of drugs had testicular cancer?

My experience having had testicular cancer, seven lots of surgery, chemotheraphy and radiotheraphy makes me think that anyone who can survive the multiple spread of cancer that Armstrong had has enough will power to redefine the word determination.

I dearly hope Armstrong was/is clean and until hard evidence proves otherwise I choose to believe he was clean and continue to use him as a role model to make me a strong rider and person.

Kléber

Iwilks, if people could win the Tour on willpower alone, then the race would be full of cancer survivors, war veterans and others who've been through massive tests.

As for the drugs, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence but no "smoking gun".

So you keep your role model if it helps you. But it's a choice you make and it requires a certain leap of faith.

doyler78

Kléber wrote:

Iwilks, if people could win the Tour on willpower alone, then the race would be full of cancer survivors, war veterans and others who've been through massive tests.

As for the drugs, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence but no "smoking gun".

So you keep your role model if it helps you. But it's a choice you make and it requires a certain leap of faith.

And what choice have you made? To attribute guilt based on "circumstantial evidence". Is that the same sort of evidence which has seen many innocent people go to prison over the years? If the innocent can be imprisoned because of "circumstantial evidence" then I think your over confidence is misplaced however I doubt your opinion will change.

chuckcork

I'm minded of the Dodgy Dossier: released by the Blair Government, later found to have been mostly plagiarised from unattributed and unreliable sources and heavily slanted to "get the desired result"; but good enough to sway public opinion at the time to invade a country and kill I don't know who many people.

Except unlike the WMD's people are still looking for evidence to back their so far unproven theories?

chuckcork

doyler78 wrote:

To attribute guilt based on "circumstantial evidence". Is that the same sort of evidence which has seen many innocent people go to prison over the years? .

Actually its enough in real life, to get people found in the wrong place into Gitmo for years on end or onto death row (in the US).

disgruntledgoat

Anyone seen this?


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

Floyd's got pictures!

lwilks

Kléber

I will keep role model and you can obvioulsy keep your opinion. :-)

I didn't say the tour is won on willpower alone I just asked if anyone commenting had any experience of what Armstrong under went to survive his illness.

I've experienced the same illness and it radically changed me as a person so I would not be suprised if it changed Armstrong to.

The truth is all the acusations are unproven whereas just getting on a bike after having sufferred the level of illness Armstrong did is impressive and proven.

Kléber

doyler78 wrote:

And what choice have you made? To attribute guilt based on "circumstantial evidence". Is that the same sort of evidence which has seen many innocent people go to prison over the years? If the innocent can be imprisoned because of "circumstantial evidence" then I think your over confidence is misplaced however I doubt your opinion will change.

Luckily, I'm not a judge, doping isn't a crime and Armstrong isn't on trial in my courtroom. Still, you can have imperfect courtroom trials. OJ Simpson's innocent, yes?

Do you think Pantani was clean? He never tested positive and was only once caught with a high haematocrit, he could have been dehydrated. Was Jan Ullrich clean too?

Besides, if Armstrong was ever prosecuted, it might be possible to subpoena many witnesses and to force them to talk. Most clam up.

Here's an exercise: If you polled 100 cycling journalists and asked them if they thought Armstrong rode on bread and water or did what most other pros were doing and doped, where you do think the vote would go?

doyler78

Kléber wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

And what choice have you made? To attribute guilt based on "circumstantial evidence". Is that the same sort of evidence which has seen many innocent people go to prison over the years? If the innocent can be imprisoned because of "circumstantial evidence" then I think your over confidence is misplaced however I doubt your opinion will change.

Luckily, I'm not a judge, doping isn't a crime and Armstrong isn't on trial in my courtroom. Still, you can have imperfect courtroom trials. OJ Simpson's innocent, yes?

Do you think Pantani was clean? He never tested positive and was only once caught with a high haematocrit, he could have been dehydrated. Was Jan Ullrich clean too?

Besides, if Armstrong was ever prosecuted, it might be possible to subpoena many witnesses and to force them to talk. Most clam up.

Here's an exercise: If you polled 100 cycling journalists and asked them if they thought Armstrong rode on bread and water or did what most other pros were doing and doped, where you do think the vote would go?

I think they would probably vote the way you expect them to vote. Just because you think something is so doesn't make it so is the point that I am making and just because a lot of people just don't understand how any person could be so much better than his rivals, including the vast majority who doped, doesn't mean that he did dope. Yes it does take some explaining however if you are that person who hasn't doped how do you prove everyone wrong. It is easier to sling the mud but how do you as that person fight against the allegations.

I think his battle with cancer did make him an extraordinary person and because of that I have suspended my suspicions that I would have had had this been any other rider. I have nothing of the counter arguments which makes a compelling argument and with the very great number of people out there that would love to prove him a doper I think the lack of actual evidence is somewhat more telling for me. After all he has been dogged with these allegations from early in his winning streak of the tdf so there was plenty of time both as a pro and since for people to bring that evidence to us but still all we get is conjecture.