The ultimate Lance doping thread

aurelio_-_banned

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

Didn't dope - Exceptional inherent, natural physical ability before cancer

That's why he got his ass kicked all over France the first 3 times he rode the Tour, finishing 20-30 minutes down (or abandoning) on the big mountain stages and consistently losing 6 minutes or so in the first flat TT. It took him 3 attempts to finish the Tour and when did manage to finish he came in one and half hours behind the winner...

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

- Nothing to gain from cheating (it's a fantastic enough story that he survived cancer and could even ride a bike again, let alone win)

Come on! Do you really think that he would have amassed the tens of millions he has and got the power he now has if he had remained the also-ran he was in his first 3 Tours rather than 'winning' 7 on the trot?

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

- Was on his deathbed- who would want to risk health, pride... everything like this?? After going through this ordeal, would he really want to launch in to a new life based on a massive lie??

First consider his thirst for 'revenge' on those he felt had written him off. Secondly it is very common for people who have escaped death to adopt a new, much more risk filled life, giving up their old job, taking up skydiving or whatever, feeling that every moment is a 'bonus' that must be lived to the maximum, no matter what the risk.

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

- Focussed everything solely on success at the tour

True enough, but men of limited ability must take care not to over-stretch themselves. Also such a focus left him much freer to dope during his build-ups to the Tour.

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

- Too much to lose for cancer community

The LAF is nothing more than a bloated PR job that spends almost half of every Dollar it raises promoting the LAF and in turn Lance Armstrong himself.

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

- Why make a comeback when he'd made a clean getaway?

The old hatreds he had are still there, what with his desire to ride the Tour again in order to 'Piss off the French' and so on. Plus never underestimate the man's arrogance, nor the size of his ego.

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

Did dope

- Association with Ferrari

- Association with Bruneel (part of the epo generation)

- Weird cagey, defensive attitude to doping investigations and questions

- Smattering of former associates admit individual doping or doping on the team

- Seemingly superhuman dominance

- lots of rivals doped (Jan, Basso, Hamilton, Landis, Pantani etc.)

Plus:

Those positives for Epo in 1999 and his positive for corticoids.

That hospital bed confession.

The USP/Discovery doctor received advanced information about the UCI’s blood tests. Why, if there wasn’t institutionalised doping within the team?

His literally unbelievable transformation from Tour no-hoper to being super-dominant for 7 years.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

aurelio_-_banned

BenBlyth wrote:

When you talk about various drugs that can't be identified, then surely the Blood profiling will highlight the impact these drugs have no?

There are numerous ways that a rider can manipulate their 'parameters' whilst still doping. Blood profiling when done within a team can also be used as a system of doping management, ensuring that the riders can dope whilst at the same time knowing that they won't fall foul of any external tests. Some have even offered profiling services to teams for exactly that purpose:

Spanish doctor Marcos Maynar Mariño sent an email offering comprehensive urinalysis and steroid profiling at 50 euros per athlete to as many as ten professional cycling teams including Gerolsteiner, Milram, CSC and Columbia . Maynar offered to provide a complete analysis consistent with the same control methods used by the International Cycling Union (UCI). The services would be conducted by the Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry at the Faculty of Sciences at the Universidad de Extremadura in Cáceres, Spain (”Dos médicos españoles, acusados de dopar,” July 20).

According to the German television station ARD, Spanish doctor Marcos Maynar offered these services as for internal testing allowing athletes to monitor their doping to ensure that their use of performance enhancing drugs would not be detected by doping controls at the 2008 Tour de France and other pro cycling events.

http://www.steroidreport.com/2008/07/21 ... g-scandal/

Steveen

Just a thought on winning clean: In sport there have been dope takers and none dope takers across the years. There is some evidence to say that some winners have been clean when up against some very serious doping regimes. So can the world produce exceptional athletes, yes it can. Similarly you get the odd artist or scientists who stands out from the pack as an exceptional talent, same in ballet and singing. Perhaps not the best examples but you get the idea.

You'd have to say that on results those that have doped have won more than those who have not.

I know some complete so and so's who have won clean at the highest level and some right nice people who cheated and lost. One common thing about high flyers, they are all barking to some degree..,

Kléber

Guys like Moncoutié can win clean, it's just they don't win as often.

In a sport like cycling (or running, XC skiing too), blood doping or EPO can give such enormous benefits, you can add 10%, maybe 15% to your wattage. With additional steroids and hormones, maybe a doped rider is on 20% more watts than a clean one. That's practically the difference between first and last in a grand tour.

Remember, the distribution of VO2 Max/Threshold FTP/Power to Weight ratio etc is, like any other biological factors, Normal or Gaussian. It's like the tallest people in the world, you find a few at the margins but you don't then find someone 20% taller than everyone else. All these pros are already elite of the elite after all.

All this means that the widespread doping means it has not just become harder to win, it has become harder to take part. Whereas a few "freaks" might challenge for the win, there have been, maybe 50 guys in the bunch capable of Merckx-like wattages. So your average clean rider, the little guy from Francaise des Jeux, is getting knackered in week 1 of a grand tour, even before the mountains arrive.

aurelio_-_banned

BenBlyth wrote:

So are you saying all the Brit riders are on juice (I'm not saying this just because they are British), Jens Voigt, Ballan, Gilbert, Sastre?

I'm just curious because if you are not saying these are all doped then does that not disprove the theory that everyone else must be doped.

I can't really follow your argument here! All the negatives seem to equate to the statement 'Even if some riders are clean, this doesn't mean that the rest are also clean!'

Whatever, going by all the estimates one reads as many as 30% of the peleton might be more or less clean these days. I would go out on a limb and say that Bradley Wiggins and the great majority of the French riders are in that 30%.

finchy

aurelio wrote:

Look at another way, modern doping is so effective that even if 'only' 20% of the field were doped, the other 80% might as well resign themselves to being also-rans. In short the consequences of NOT doping are far too serious to be contemplated by very many riders.

Yes, but if you consider what some of the clean riders have done in the age of blood doping - Mottet, Boardman, Gilbert - then being an "also-ran" in cycling isn't really such a bad deal.

CyclingBantam

aurelio wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

So are you saying all the Brit riders are on juice (I'm not saying this just because they are British), Jens Voigt, Ballan, Gilbert, Sastre?

I'm just curious because if you are not saying these are all doped then does that not disprove the theory that everyone else must be doped.

I can't really follow your argument here! All the negatives seem to equate to the statement 'Even if some riders are clean, this doesn't mean that the rest are also clean!'

Whatever, going by all the estimates one reads as many as 30% of the peloton might be more or less clean these days. I would go out on a limb and say that Bradley Wiggins and the great majority of the French riders are in that 30%.

That is what happens when you get distracted mid post! I was meaning that is you are saying some of the above riders are clea, then that proves that you can compete clean. To me, this discussion over the last few pages indicates that sure, some dope and get away with it but not all.

Some of the sources used seem to be hardly impartial observers. The last that springs to mind if German TV. Now they would be more than happy to sling a bit more mud at Cycling at the moment.

It is a very interesting debate and I do hope some are proved to be wrong and the sport is getting cleaner. I do agree with Aurellio (I think) who made the good point about retrospective testing. The only issue I see with that is the storage etc has to be absolutely top notch. If I was a clean rider, I think I would still have some concerns that I could be 'proven' to have doped x number of years ago but have no way of defending myself. How would I know what (legal) suppliments etc I might have been taking at the time.

CyclingBantam

aurelio wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

So are you saying all the Brit riders are on juice (I'm not saying this just because they are British), Jens Voigt, Ballan, Gilbert, Sastre?

I'm just curious because if you are not saying these are all doped then does that not disprove the theory that everyone else must be doped.

I can't really follow your argument here! All the negatives seem to equate to the statement 'Even if some riders are clean, this doesn't mean that the rest are also clean!'

Whatever, going by all the estimates one reads as many as 30% of the peloton might be more or less clean these days. I would go out on a limb and say that Bradley Wiggins and the great majority of the French riders are in that 30%.

That is what happens when you get distracted mid post! I was meaning that is you are saying some of the above riders are clea, then that proves that you can compete clean. To me, this discussion over the last few pages indicates that sure, some dope and get away with it but not all.

Some of the sources used seem to be hardly impartial observers. The last that springs to mind if German TV. Now they would be more than happy to sling a bit more mud at Cycling at the moment.

It is a very interesting debate and I do hope some are proved to be wrong and the sport is getting cleaner. I do agree with Aurellio (I think) who made the good point about retrospective testing. The only issue I see with that is the storage etc has to be absolutely top notch. If I was a clean rider, I think I would still have some concerns that I could be 'proven' to have doped x number of years ago but have no way of defending myself. How would I know what (legal) suppliments etc I might have been taking at the time.

CyclingBantam

aurelio wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

So are you saying all the Brit riders are on juice (I'm not saying this just because they are British), Jens Voigt, Ballan, Gilbert, Sastre?

I'm just curious because if you are not saying these are all doped then does that not disprove the theory that everyone else must be doped.

I can't really follow your argument here! All the negatives seem to equate to the statement 'Even if some riders are clean, this doesn't mean that the rest are also clean!'

Whatever, going by all the estimates one reads as many as 30% of the peloton might be more or less clean these days. I would go out on a limb and say that Bradley Wiggins and the great majority of the French riders are in that 30%.

That is what happens when you get distracted mid post! I was meaning that is you are saying some of the above riders are clea, then that proves that you can compete clean. To me, this discussion over the last few pages indicates that sure, some dope and get away with it but not all.

Some of the sources used seem to be hardly impartial observers. The last that springs to mind if German TV. Now they would be more than happy to sling a bit more mud at Cycling at the moment.

It is a very interesting debate and I do hope some are proved to be wrong and the sport is getting cleaner. I do agree with Aurellio (I think) who made the good point about retrospective testing. The only issue I see with that is the storage etc has to be absolutely top notch. If I was a clean rider, I think I would still have some concerns that I could be 'proven' to have doped x number of years ago but have no way of defending myself. How would I know what (legal) suppliments etc I might have been taking at the time.

aurelio_-_banned

johnfinch wrote:

if you consider what some of the clean riders have done in the age of blood doping - Mottet, Boardman, Gilbert - then being an "also-ran" in cycling isn't really such a bad deal.

True enough, but do you really think that the achievements of such riders would have been enough for Lance 'The Ego' Armstrong?...

aurelio_-_banned

BenBlyth wrote:

I was meaning that if you are saying some of the above riders are clean, then that proves that you can compete clean.

Sure you can 'compete'. Just don't expect to win any Grand Tours! Or even to get on the podium...

richard wants a baum

aurelio wrote:

BenBlyth wrote:

I was meaning that if you are saying some of the above riders are clean, then that proves that you can compete clean.

Sure you can 'compete'. Just don't expect to win any Grand Tours! Or even to get on the podium...

Cadel Evans ???

gregssmirkingrevenge

aurelio wrote:

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

Didn't dope - Exceptional inherent, natural physical ability before cancer
That's why he got his ass kicked all over France the first 3 times he rode the Tour, finishing 20-30 minutes down (or abandoning) on the big mountain stages and consistently losing 6 minutes or so in the first flat TT. It took him 3 attempts to finish the Tour and when did manage to finish he came in one and half hours behind the winner...

Yea, true enough but...
- He was only like 20 in his first tour, and as far as i know wasn't aiming for any overall success in the race in these early years
- He is obviously a very different person post cancer, both in his character and his physiology. Pre cancer Armstrong is arrogant, brash and immature- which can only have an adverse influence on riding style and his race tactics.
Post cancer we see a much more grounded and focussed Armstrong with an ambitious young director sportif with grand tour plans and a rich American sponsor.
Physically Lance's body changed as a result of his illness, he lost a load of body mass which maybe enabled him to stay lighter post recovery- helping him in the mountains where he was maybe previously too heavy. I read somewhere that muscle has incredible memory and can quickly return to previous strengths even after some time.. Maybe as Lance could regain some or most of his previous muscle strengths through his training but without the added bulk of his younger self... I don't know, just a thought- but maybe this could account for some of his new climbing ability? I mean the guy does naturally have a freakishly big heart and lungs and V02 max and all that.

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

- Was on his deathbed- who would want to risk health, pride... everything like this?? After going through this ordeal, would he really want to launch in to a new life based on a massive lie??
First consider his thirst for 'revenge' on those he felt had written him off. Secondly it is very common for people who have escaped death to adopt a new, much more risk filled life, giving up their old job, taking up skydiving or whatever, feeling that every moment is a 'bonus' that must be lived to the maximum, no matter what the risk.

Ha! yea i suppose that is another perspective! I just find it hard to believe that this guy almost dies but when he miraculously survives- he is not happy to be alive and savour every moment of his newly gifted life, but instead he is so twisted by revenge that he decides to lend his body to untested, potentially life shortening substances in every effort to win a race he is not naturally capable of winning (allegedly) all in the name of getting rich and getting his own back on a couple of ney sayers? I don't know man.. I don't believe that if that was his attitude then he would risk flying the flag so shamelessly for cancer survivorship, Livestrong etc. It'd just be too big a bomb if it came out.

richard wants a baum

gregssmirkingrevenge

I read somewhere that muscle has incredible memory and can quickly return to previous strengths even after some time..

Sometimes i wonder if they put this in just to stir up poor ol' aurelio :roll:

aurelio_-_banned

richard wants a baum wrote:

gregssmirkingrevenge

I read somewhere that muscle has incredible memory and can quickly return to previous strengths even after some time..

Sometimes i wonder if they put this in just to stir up poor ol' aurelio :roll:

Nah, some people just swallow all the crap put out by Armstrong's corporate-backed PR machine hook, line and sinker. Another favourite is 'he lost a load of body mass which maybe enabled him to stay lighter post recovery- helping him in the mountains where he was maybe previously too heavy.' In reality his post cancer Tour racing weight was within a kilo or so of his his weight when he won the World RR championships, and that is based on figures put out by Armstrong lackies like Catlin!

aurelio_-_banned

gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:

I don't believe that if that was his attitude then he would risk flying the flag so shamelessly for cancer survivorship, Livestrong etc. It'd just be too big a bomb if it came out.

'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The fact that Armstrong doped is out there for all to see. All who have an open mind anyhow...

As to Armstrong's dedication to ' flying the flag so shamelessly for cancer survivorship', (whatever that means) I would say that the only person Armstrong is truly dedicated to serving is Lance Armstrong. Tell me where did all the money go that he got for his 'cancer awareness raising' ride in the Tour Down Under? The answer is his own back pocket.

Armstrong simply uses the 'cancer' thing in order to deflect criticisms. Just listen to what Stephanie McIlvain, his former personal representative with Oakley has to say on this point.

http://www.filesavr.com/gregstef

DaveyL

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Kléber

If you don't like it DaveyL, don't read it but others, maybe some newcomers, might like to debate things? The forum is full of repeated questions, "triple or compact", "tub or clincher", "titanium or carbon" etc but there's every need for people to discuss these.

DaveyL

" 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The fact that Armstrong doped is out there for all to see. All who have an open mind anyhow... "

Debate?

CyclingBantam

DaveyL wrote:

" 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The fact that Armstrong doped is out there for all to see. All who have an open mind anyhow... "

Debate?

To be honest DaveyL for a change this has been an interesting debate without pointless posts that add nothing to discussion, until yours.

Like someone said, if you don't like it, why go to the 10th page and bother linking a pointless image. Just pass it over!

Kléber

DaveyL wrote:

" 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. The fact that Armstrong doped is out there for all to see. All who have an open mind anyhow... "

Debate?

Join in, give us your insights, your links to documents or interviews etc.

Imagine a pub, there might be a table where you find the conversation boring but where people are engaging with each other. Does this mean you wade in and go "this is sooo boring guys" or do you look for another table?

DaveyL

Perhaps when you've been sat there every night for a couple of years and the crackpot in the corner brings up his theory about the moon landings for the 54th time, you might, tongue-in-cheek, make some loud snoring noises...

DaveyL

BenBlyth wrote:

To be honest DaveyL for a change this has been an interesting debate without pointless posts that add nothing to discussion, until yours.

Like someone said, if you don't like it, why go to the 10th page and bother linking a pointless image. Just pass it over!

I guess you missed the English nationalism detour that went on for several pages then?

Likewise, if you don't like my posts you are as free to ignore them as you are to comment on them. Standard internet forum tactic I know, but it does work both ways.

Tempestas

DaveyL wrote:

Perhaps when you've been sat there every night for a couple of years and the crackpot in the corner brings up his theory about the moon landings for the 54th time, you might, tongue-in-cheek, make some loud snoring noises...

+ 1

LA did this, did that bores the sh1t out of me now. I say just enjoy your own riding/racing and watch the pro riders for what they are.

dennisn

Tempestas wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Perhaps when you've been sat there every night for a couple of years and the crackpot in the corner brings up his theory about the moon landings for the 54th time, you might, tongue-in-cheek, make some loud snoring noises...

+ 1

LA did this, did that bores the sh1t out of me now. I say just enjoy your own riding/racing and watch the pro riders for what they are.

+2 "crackpot in the corner..... for the 54th time"

Dennis Noward

DaveyL

I am resistant in the face of all rational argument but I now realise I'm in the wrong as Dennis is agreeing with me. :oops:

Kléber

That's fine if you find it boring. But it's still a live issue that concerns rider health. Some might enjoy the show of pro cycling but it shouldn't be the case that riders have to risk their health with unlicenced doping products just to do this.

So don't stick your head in the sand. Maybe debating Armstrong is boring for some but his return, for example the aborted work with Catlin, his links to Ferrari or ideas like retrospective testing, all this is still relevant for debate.

Tempestas

Many things that are harmful to the body are consumed daily, should we not discuss stuff we may actually have a chance of sorting out?

It's their choice to do drugs and the quicker they get effected by the side effects the better, it may sound harsh but deaths bring awareness and if they are stupid enough to risk taking drugs for a result then they deserve what they get. There should be investigations into all suspect deaths and the results publicised, not covered up or forgotten about.

Do you honestly think by going over and over the same thing on a forum such as this actually makes a difference to what a pro rider chooses to do?

All it does for me is bore me now, I want to get back to riding and forget about the DRUGS THESE so called professionals TAKE.

(My rather direct post is the result of a bad result at the weekend and a late night)....

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

So don't stick your head in the sand. Maybe debating Armstrong is boring for some but his return, for example the aborted work with Catlin, his links to Ferrari or ideas like retrospective testing, all this is still relevant for debate.

All that proves is yours truely should be a journo :shock:

DaveyL

Kléber wrote:

That's fine if you find it boring. But it's still a live issue that concerns rider health. Some might enjoy the show of pro cycling but it shouldn't be the case that riders have to risk their health with unlicenced doping products just to do this.

So don't stick your head in the sand. Maybe debating Armstrong is boring for some but his return, for example the aborted work with Catlin, his links to Ferrari or ideas like retrospective testing, all this is still relevant for debate.

It was more a reflection of my boredom with the preceding post (and its various copy n paste predecessors) to mine than the subject in general.