The ultimate Lance doping thread
Comments
-
Tempestas wrote: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 these so called professionals.
(My rather direct post is the result of a bad result at the weekend and a late night)....
In the nicest possible way then, don't post in 'Pro-Race'.0 -
aurelio wrote:
True enough, but do you really think that the achievements of such riders would have been enough for Lance 'The Ego' Armstrong?...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.
Fair point. I thought that you were talking about cyclists in general, and suggesting that they had the choice of doping or never winning anything. But obviously I got the wrong end of the stick.0 -
BenBlyth wrote:Tempestas wrote: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)....
In the nicest possible way then, don't post in 'Pro-Race'.
Fair point, edited my post.
May also be worth changing the forum title from Pro Race, to Pro Chemistry
just to clarify what the content is. 0 -
Is it likely that Lance will be fall foul of the dope catchers this time around? I see that Schumacher is still in denial about his CERA. Surely he isn't just saying that as front but honestly believes he can get away with it.
Go into any gym and you can spot guys who take gear. It is readily available and no-one bats an eyelid. Many do not compete in any sport or body building but take them cosmetically
Many of the posters on this forum are/have been amateur racers. Do the forumites think that PEDs have found their way into the amateur ranks over here?0 -
DaveyL wrote: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:
Yeah, you've really screwed up now. You and I of all people, but I really did like the comparison to the moon landing. Sorry, I won't agree with you any more.
Dennis Noward0 -
Well, as they say even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while
Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I didn't specify whether I was referring to you or me! Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Aurelio-
You say it's clear to see he's cheating to those who have an open mind? I'm trying to be open minded about this and looking at all sides but i feel it's impossible from what i know to make a judgment one way or the other. There are things to suggest he didn't dope, and things to suggest he did- No-one knows for sure, thats why we're trying to trash things out on here. You seem sonvince though- why are you so closed minded about it?
You refuse to give armstrong even a smiggen of human morality.. Why is this? I'm just saying if he did cheat - he'd have to be one seriously messed up personality with his priorities all fucked- and this isn't the type of character Armstrong seems to be from the way he talks, his attitude in his books, interviews etc.
If he was such a money grabbing, power craving, whatever-the-cost bastard this whole time, he presumably doped during his youth also? (it was the 90's so he could have potentially been jacked to the eyes with epo no?) And so; If he was doping before and after cancer, then would his results have been more consistent if not better than his later post cancer victories??
Presuming, as you say that he precured no physical advantage from his new post cancer body- then we must believe his amazing displays were achieved solely through performance enhancing substances, that US postal and Johan had some crazy NASA developed drugs which were capable of making Lance produce performances NOT just on the level of his pre-illness self, but strikingly better?! Surely if these wonder drugs were so effective they could have given them to big george hincapie or poppo or checcu and they'd won the tour by a country mile? Surely these guys would respond even more positively to the juice than some bitter and twisted half-dead texan, straight out of the kimo ward? Why Lance?
And if it has to be Lance then why make a big song and dance about his survivorship and his dedicated work for cancer? Why would everyone entertain this mans irresponcilble fancies? Surely laying low and not shouting that you're the saviour would be safer, easier and less guilt ridden. Taking drugs to win the tour de france is one thing, taking drugs to win the tour and build a shining beacon of false illusion and hope for millions of cancer sufferers and survivors is fucking unforgivable.
Think about it, if the conspiracy is a big as you seem to think what are the motives?
Money? Fame? Revenge? Pa! Theres absolutely no need to live a lie to achieve any of these things.
And I'm sorry i don't buy your bullshit about him pocketing the livestrong money.. He makes hundreds of millions from advertising- I doubt very much he'd worry about scrabbling around in the LAF donations tin.0 -
Duplicate post removed. :oops:0
-
Where to start? His treatment of Bassons and Simeoni would be one place.gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:You refuse to give armstrong even a smiggen of human morality.. Why is this?
Eh? Armstrong is probably best described as being a natural born 'killing machine', willing to do anything - anything - in order to win.gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:I'm just saying if he did cheat - he'd have to be one seriously messed up personality with his priorities all farked- and this isn't the type of character Armstrong seems to be from the way he talks, his attitude in his books, interviews etc.
Dabbling in doping is one thing. Being a part of a properly managed doping program run by an acknowledged expert in doping like Ferrari is something else altogether. (Also check out the story at the top of the page - some coincidence!).gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:If he was such a money grabbing, power craving, whatever-the-cost bastard this whole time, he presumably doped during his youth also? (it was the 90's so he could have potentially been jacked to the eyes with epo no?) And so; If he was doping before and after cancer, then would his results have been more consistent if not better than his later post cancer victories??
Doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton
The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.
Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peleton is caught in the grip off.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html
Having a naturally strong response to a professionally managed doping program is no less a genetic 'gift', and a freak of nature, than having a high V02 or a high level of response to training.gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:Surely these guys would respond even more positively to the juice than some bitter and twisted half-dead texan, straight out of the kimo ward? Why Lance?
The 'cancer halo' effect makes criticism of him all the harder, and he exploits this to the full. Plenty of others see this, including his former personal representative with Oakley, Stephanie McIlvain. Listen to the following:gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:And if it has to be Lance then why make a big song and dance about his survivorship and his dedicated work for cancer?
http://www.filesavr.com/gregstef
They want to believe in the Armstrong myth? They have fallen victim to the power of Armstrong's PR machine? There is one born every minute?gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:Why would everyone entertain this mans irresponcilble fancies?
I fully agree.gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:Taking drugs to win the tour de france is one thing, taking drugs to win the tour and build a shining beacon of false illusion and hope for millions of cancer sufferers and survivors is ******* unforgivable.
I didn't say that he was ' scrabbling around in the LAF donations tin'. (Although I have read that, at one time at least, he used to draw a salary from the LAF). What I said was the the start money for the Tour Down Under did not go the the LAF, as was originally claimed, instead it went in Armstrong's bank account, as Armstrong himself has confirmed:gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:And I'm sorry i don't buy your bullshit about him pocketing the livestrong money.. He makes hundreds of millions from advertising- I doubt very much he'd worry about scrabbling around in the LAF donations tin.
Armstrong to receive $1 million appearance fee?
The office of South Australian Premier Mike Rann would neither confirm nor deny reports that Lance Armstrong will be paid US$1 million for his appearance at next week’s Tour Down Under.
Instead Lachlan Parker, from the Premier’s media department, said any monies paid to the seven-time Tour de France winner would go to the Livestrong charity.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/a ... -fee-19941
Armstrong also dismissed reports that the appearance fee he has been paid to contest Tour Down Under will go to the charity. Earlier in the week South Australian Premier Mike Rann's media department told Cyclingnews that any monies which may have been paid to Armstrong will go to the Livestrong charity.
"That's not true," he said. "In the past few years I've spent most of my time speaking all over the world just like President Clinton, or Al Gore. I'm not getting paid to race, is there a fee for other things? Yes. But that's not any different to what I've done in the last three or four years."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2009/ja ... conf_jan090 -
Yea man- i see your point about the 'cancer halo'- perhaps the more there is to lose for everyone, the more people are willing and needing to protect the vast web of lies. Maybe he doesn't get caught purely because the reality would be catastrophically damaging- and not even damaging for Armstrong, damaging for the tour, the UCI, France, America, Discovery channel, Nike, Cancer community, Cycling, whatever...
But i still think if this was true, the scale a conspiracy capable of keeping such a secret safe, would have to be so deep that it all just seems more fantastical than the 'no dope' story.
Can't we even entertain the notion that he achieved what he did as a result of a combination of '1 in a million physiology', renewed outlook on life, renewed appreciation of 'physical gift', new perspective of pain suffering etc, superior team, tactics, training and so on?
I mean i can even believe that the USPS team used transfusions in the early tours- maybe justifying this to themselves as 'necessary medical treatment' for recovery, injury or whatever but its a stretch to get to the malicious "killing machine" you make him out as- deeply focussed and competitive, grudge bearing even- but this is a proud man not some sort of reborn cyborg money making cycling machine...
Or is he?
By the way, sorry about the LAF donations misquote- just thought it was a stretch he was stealing from a charity- didn't know about the Tour Down Under money before though.
Is there any more info about his spats with Bassons and Simeoni? Has lance ever talked about the incidents? It'd be interesting to see how he'd justify them.0 -
With regards Simeoni, Armstrong has recently being involved in another bit of Orwellian revisionism, denying that he even chased Simeoni down!gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:Is there any more info about his spats with Bassons and Simeoni? Has lance ever talked about the incidents? It'd be interesting to see how he'd justify them.
'I did not chase Simeoni down,” Armstrong said. “I was simply following his wheel. That is the truth of the matter. I never bridged across to Simeoni. He was in front of me, people were attacking, he accelerated, and I stayed on the wheel. We have footage of the race that will back that up. There was never more than bike length between us. There was no gap closed. There’s a big difference between following wheels and closing a gap.'
http://www.velonews.com/article/84947
http://forum.velonews.com/read.php?f=2& ... 5&t=321902
Of course the video of the event tells a rather different story...
As to the details of the original incidents, much information has been erased from the web, especially relating to the way Simeoni was spat on during the final stage. However, if you do a search I am sure you will still find much of interest, such as the way Armstrong gathered together a few other riders dedicated to the preservation of the doping omerta and then led them in a chorus of shouting 'Bastard, Bastard' at Simeoni. For example:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 845407.ece0 -
The office of South Australian Premier Mike Rann would neither confirm nor deny reports that Lance Armstrong will be paid US$1 million for his appearance at next week’s Tour Down Under.
Instead Lachlan Parker, from the Premier’s media department, said any monies paid to the seven-time Tour de France winner would go to the Livestrong charity.
Jeezz i hate to say this but i wouldnt take it as fact that Mike Rann had his ducks in a row he does tend to make a habit of saying thinigs that end up not being the chase. Its possible he thought he was paying LA a donation to his foundation but what had actaully been arranged was something more like an appearence fee. Having said all that the LAF isnt a non-for profit organisation and some of the points still stand.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
Whatever, the bottom line was that whilst followers of the race had their awareness of cancer raised (whatever that is supposed to mean...), Armstrong pocketed perhaps a million Dollars. So, 'everyone's a winner'. It's just that one particular person seemed to have 'won' the jackpot whilst cancer charities, including the LAF, didn't get a cent.richard wants a baum wrote:Its possible he thought he was paying LA a donation to his foundation but what had actaully been arranged was something more like an appearence fee.0 -
That's certainly an 'entertaining' idea, but also one that has been comprehensively debunked. See for example the chapter 'One in a million?' in 'From Lance to Landis'.gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:Can't we even entertain the notion that he achieved what he did as a result of a combination of '1 in a million physiology', renewed outlook on life, renewed appreciation of 'physical gift', new perspective of pain suffering etc, superior team, tactics, training and so on?0 -
aurelio wrote:
Whatever, the bottom line was that whilst followers of the race had their awareness of cancer raised (whatever that is supposed to mean...), Armstrong pocketed perhaps a million Dollars. So, 'everyone's a winner'. It's just that one particular person seemed to have 'won' the jackpot whilst cancer charities, including the LAF, didn't get a cent.richard wants a baum wrote:Its possible he thought he was paying LA a donation to his foundation but what had actaully been arranged was something more like an appearence fee.
To be honest im still waiting to see when that boost in awareness of cancer is going to kick in. Its been almost two months since the TdU and im pretty sure everyones as aware of cancer as before. I dont have a problem with the whole cancer crusade idea i just dont think theres alot of that going on, what has actually been done since he announced his un-retirement? He may have had good intentions but so far it seems he really just wanted to race again and the cancer thing was a good excuse?Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
But for many people the 'secret' is well and truly out of the bag already. (Perhaps less so in the US where a determined effort has been made to keep publications such as LA Confidentiel out of the hands of the public).gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:Maybe he doesn't get caught purely because the reality would be catastrophically damaging- and not even damaging for Armstrong, damaging for the tour, the UCI, France, America, Discovery channel, Nike, Cancer community, Cycling, whatever... But i still think if this was true, the scale a conspiracy capable of keeping such a secret safe, would have to be so deep that it all just seems more fantastical than the 'no dope' story.
As to there being a 'conspiracy', I would suggest that the only people to be involved in anything worthy of the name have been the UCI. Beyond that who would even be party to what he was up to? Only Bruyneel, Ferrari and a few others closely associated with USP/ Discovery - and a sizable number of those who have worked with Armstrong can hardly be accused of being part of a 'cover up' when they have already 'gone public' about what they saw when they worked for Armstrong!0 -
As I said, I would love to know what 'raising awareness of cancer' is supposed to mean, and exactly what benefits are supposed to arise from it for cancer sufferers.richard wants a baum wrote:To be honest im still waiting to see when that boost in awareness of cancer is going to kick in.0 -
aurelio wrote:
As I said, I would love to know what 'raising awareness of cancer' is supposed to mean, and exactly what benefits are supposed to arise from it for cancer sufferers.richard wants a baum wrote:To be honest im still waiting to see when that boost in awareness of cancer is going to kick in.
I know what it means but what good does it do in first world countries that already have extensive awareness of the issues surrounding cancer, now if he was going to countries that do need to be better aware of causes for cancer all well and good but Australias pretty aware of what cancer is and does indeed have an extensive research program for cures and treatments so i failed to see the point.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
The LAF does give some money to research and community projects for cancer patients, so you could say that it helps, even if the "raising awareness" bit doesn't really make much sense in wealthy countries.
In the first world, the only thing that people need to be aware of is how to recognise the symptoms and how to lead a healthier lifestyle to minimise the risk of cancer in the first place.
In poorer countries, it would be fantastic to see sports stars and other celebrities warn young people about the dangers of smoking, as cigarette companies get away with murder over there - remember them using Beckham's image to promote smoking in SE Asia before the 2002 World Cup (without his permission, obviously)?0 -
Not necessarily sticking up for LA, but the wealthy countries are the ones who can commit huge pots of money to cancer research and patient care (not to make too obvious a point) so if you're campaigning to get money committed to a cause, it's the way to go - rather than if you were just campaigning to highlight an issue. It also explains why his meetings with leaders are given much more of a high profile than the meetings he's had with those on the health side of the equation.
I'm not saying this is the best way to go about tackling the problem of cancer, but it seems to be his way.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Who's the Astana rider in the last picture with a wry smile behind Armstrong's back? Is he laughing at the "lancer" or at his visual joke?
Cars don\'t kill people.
Motorists do.0 -
At the Interbike press conference when Lemond was interviewed, he spoke of autologous blood transfusions. I realise this involves the individual's own blood but what does this mean?
1. REPLACEMENT of an athletes blood with pre-stored blood, or as an ADDITION to their own blood?
2. Does this mean the blood as a whole, or only specific components of it such as red blood cells?
Presumably, like EPO, the aim is purely to increase the haematocrit level. If you assume some pro cyclists have similar training schedules and similiar physiology (I understand LA's VO2 max has been quoted at aroud 83 ml/kg/min which is not exceptional at the pro level, and the major benefits of his fast cadence have been questioned), and that autologous blood boosting does go on, does this not create a level playing field and prevent domination by an individual? Or is there another factor?0 -
I realise this is pretty dry but I wouldn't mind the odd person's view on this. Bump.0
-
Yes, the stored blood is added to the blood already circulating in the rider's body.zammmmo wrote:I realise this is pretty dry but I wouldn't mind the odd person's view on this. Bump.
Usually only the red cells are injected after been separated from the plasma. Hence talk of the injection of '800 ml of packed cells', as was the 'alleged' practice at Armstrong's USP/Discovery team. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
Such practices do not 'create a level playing field'. Far from it. A rider with a naturally high haemocrit level will benefit from blood doping far less than someone with a naturally low haemocrit level, and the response to any medical practice or drug varies from individual to individual. For example a rider with a natural haemocrit level of 39 has more to gain by boosting it to the UCI- approved limit of 50 than someone whose natural haemocrit level is already 47. Of course many riders take their haemocrit levels way beyond the UCI's limit but there is only so far you can go before you risk dropping dead of a heart attack, and the simple principle of 'the lower you are to start with, the more you have to gain' still applies.0 -
Gotta love that IM - every word's the gospel;
"hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%"Le Blaireau (1)0 -
What do you reckon Ullrich might have boosted it to when he 'won' in 97?DaveyL wrote:Gotta love that IM - every word's the gospel;
"hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%"0 -
Yes, but what makes an individual stand out if you assume there might be at least some riders in the pro peleton who have? :
a) similar VO2 max, lactate threshhold etc
b) haematocrit just below 50 (whether boosted or at a natural level) but above this value temporarily at times through manipulation
c) similar training regimes
d) similar motivation
e) been designated a team leader
There are obviously other factors but as far as I can see, a dominant rider has to be the one who ticks THE MOST of the above boxes, or there is another factor pertinent only to him.0
