So what's he on now, lads?
Comments
-
jackhammer111 wrote:He admits his conclusions are debatable. He disagrees with the commission on the problems with the actual test results. That does not mean he's right and they're wrong and the problems with the 99 samples go way beyond that. And he hurts his own credibility when he allows himself to get sidetracked into the Coyle study debate where he's forced to admit his arguments where not good scientifically.
You're missing the point. He's a scientist and always open to debate. If you introduced new evidence to him he would factor it in and then draw a conclusion. It's just a good scientific approach.
I believe the general opinion from the scientific community was that that samples did indeed show EPO in them.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
So if he's doping now, do we think it's some new drug ? It can't be one of the old favourites surely, that would just be suicide.
If he's doping, and I'm not saying he is, it must be something that he's cast iron certain can't be detected in any test, he simply has too much to risk.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Everyone has the same DNA? Really? I think you ought to go and read up on that a bit more before you start arguing on it.Dave_1 wrote:crit levels get manipulated up to 50% and that determines oxygen delivery, everyone has the same DNA, the genetic freak arguement doesn't add up for me and many others .
Are you definitely sure he wasn't just very good at cycling?, very dedicated? And yes, also did what Ullrich and Basso did.., what everyone was forced into IMO...your stance is LA is rubbish and his TDF wins worthless, ...not many will respect you for that on here-I don't. Why are you even on here when you think every win is down to good response to doping. Go find another sport Andy
Fact is...some people are better than others in various sports and jobs in life. Is it this that troubles you guys most?
I didn't say LA wasn't dedicated, in fact I'd argue he was too dedicated and, like many others, stepped beyond what should be acceptable in sport. Risking your health for glory is something I'll never respect.
I'm on here because I love cycling, and the sport of professional cycling is an important part of that. I want my kids to love it too but the sport runs what I think is a real risk of becoming a laughing stock of a sport, akin to WWF wrestling on two wheels, if it doesn't take serious measures to address the cancer that is doping. I applaud Voeckler, a clean rider, for his guts, determination and tactical nous in winning today. A win I can actually trust for once.
Btw, I don't care if you respect me or not. I do have the courage to post under my own name and not hide behind a pseudonym like some, eh Fergus?0 -
iainf72 wrote:jackhammer111 wrote:He admits his conclusions are debatable. He disagrees with the commission on the problems with the actual test results. That does not mean he's right and they're wrong and the problems with the 99 samples go way beyond that. And he hurts his own credibility when he allows himself to get sidetracked into the Coyle study debate where he's forced to admit his arguments where not good scientifically.
You're missing the point. He's a scientist and always open to debate. If you introduced new evidence to him he would factor it in and then draw a conclusion. It's just a good scientific approach.
I believe the general opinion from the scientific community was that that samples did indeed show EPO in them.
I don't know what point I'm missing Ashenden is a credible scientist with an anti lance bias that becomes obvious when he argues the coyle study. (which I don't defend strongly either.)
He is not more credible than Dr Adriaan van der Veen a Dutch scientist who specialized in testing doping labs and their use of the tools involved, who was part of the independent investigation. I repeat.. independent. The WADA problems were exposed, and cleared up regarding long term samples by the way, UCI was embarrassed by the whole mess, which is usually a sign that an "independent" investigation did it's job.
Then there the "So What!" factor. So What if those samples are right. Are you just mad that he won't admit and vigorously defends himself?
The only way you can hate Lance over this is to hate all of Grand Tour cycling for the last ten years.
Come on! Did you see Lance in the split field the other day? Was that dope? Do you see where Johan has five of the top seven riders as of now? Even is Lance doesn't win Astana will. Is that dope?
The EPO era is over. Passport is monitoring blood profiles. Sit back and enjoy the sport.
I'm enjoying seeing Lance bashers squirm.0 -
I don't hate Lance. You make this assumption that people hate him
I think he used doping to win the Tour de France. I also think most other GT winners doped to win.
The passport cannot detect transfusions. Big hole.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I don't hate Lance. .
I do
I've got his picture on a dart board and a his voodoo doll on a bike.."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
jackhammer111 wrote:Kléber wrote:
Sorry, you're wrong there. His 1999 samples came back positive for EPO. These samples were tested for research purposes so he can't be sanctioned but read the Ashenden interview linked above for more on this. If you're new to cycling, you'll soon see that the testers are behind the cheaters. A simple example, there simply was no test for EPO in 1999.RedJohn wrote:Has Armstrong ever been tested for EPO or anything else performance enhancing?
(Er, yes, maybe once or twice ...)
Has he ever been found to have taken anything he shouldn't?
(err, no ...)
Like I say above, read the Ashenden interview in full, invest the time in it, and then come back and we can debate matters.
Ahhh.. the Ashenden interview. Lance haters treat this like Moses coming down from the mountain.
He is one person with a scientific opinion. That doesn't mean it's Holy and there are no other "scientific opinions" on the matter.
Yes, read it.
Including at the end where he says, " I expect people to challenge my interpretation of the science, and rightly so".
and: "Comparison of pre vs. post cancer performance. Apparently some readers have objected that my comparison lacked scientific credibility. I accept that criticism as justified."[/quote
Trust the Lance Lubbers to be selective in what information is included, you tell us of Moses coming down but how did he get up there in the first place?0 -
iainf72 wrote:I don't hate Lance. You make this assumption that people hate him
I think he used doping to win the Tour de France. I also think most other GT winners doped to win.
The passport cannot detect transfusions. Big hole.
Bashing has become the fashionable word as of today, keep up.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I don't hate Lance. You make this assumption that people hate him
I think he used doping to win the Tour de France. I also think most other GT winners doped to win.
The passport cannot detect transfusions. Big hole.
Yes, they can. You can't transfuse without it showing in your crit. Passport monitors patterns in your blood levels.
In theroy it would be possible to make small gains with small amount of blood without having a big spike in crit level. It would be risky and the benifits would be unclear since you're only messing with a point or 2 of crit increase.
Doping your own blood is a complicated process. Centrifuges and very cold freezers are required and blood bags are.. well, you've seen blood bags.. not easy to hide... must be stored at stable temperatures.. mess it up and you end up in the hospital and the doctor knows exactly why you are there. These days it's harder and harder to slip away to some whereabouts to take blood and it would be crazy for the teams to be involved. If the teams are no longer in on it it becomes harder to explain away needle marks.
If any Astana rider were to but busted Astana will be gone forever. Many many teams are in that spot. Sponsors are fed up. Columbia and Garmin have built their franchises on an anti-doping stance. A doping infraction would probably doom either one. Teams monitor blood levels too. Astana fired a rider last year on suspicious levels knowing it would cost them millions in the wrongfully termination lawsuit they lost, but it was better than having that rider get busted and Astana banned.
This is the spot Passport is trying to put riders in. Risks greater than reward.
Sorry if I accused you wrongly of being a Lance hater but most people that talk about 99 are lance bashers.0 -
mididoctors wrote:Fastlad wrote:As for the black socks? totally fine,
you kinding yeah?
What gets me is LA has stolen my identity :evil: I wear a black n yellow helmet, nearly always black socks especially when mtbing, my bikes have black n yellow colour schemes and I've a gud few black n yellow jerseys :evil:
I hate him more now
'Collapse the Light into Earth'0 -
Fastlad wrote:Why do so many of you so called cyclists dislike Lance? I think the guy is great!! Talented, a master tactician, a personality, total dedication and a love of riding the bike!!! Road race champion at 21. Nobody can take that away from him!! Cancer survivor who recovered and resumed his career, albeit more successfully!!! Lets be honest here...the guy has put in the work and he is extremely talented even still at 38, look at Malcolm Elliot ffs at 49!!! still riding very strongly in competition!!!! As for the black socks? totally fine, you've got to move with the times!! Bravo Lance 8)
So called because I have bikes and ride them. Why would I like him? That would be quicker.
Your Lance mini cv is a delight but the realms of fantasy page closes a 6pm to try and reduce The Walter Mittys chances of self harming. Lances self charming episode are very funny to watch and quite lap uppable if that is your thing, comedic farce.
He does save me a lot of time and money, anything he is into I opt out of, the crux being how to avoid during the tour de France.
Look at Elliot, yes it is possible to do that but he lives slightly differently from the charm filled world that our strung out friend inhabits. It is therefore possible to appreciate his performances until we get indications stating otherwise.0 -
Jackhammer, the passport is helping but there's still a chance to infuse the blood before a stage and use saline or other products to keep the haematocrit count artificially low if the UCI vampires appear wanting to measure a doper's blood count. As Michael Ashenden puts it ina new interview, "it's clear riders have learned to dope within the passport".
So I think you're being optimistic if you think doping is vanishing but it's hopefully reducing. Still, Katusha's had two positive tests, Rebellin has been rumbled and there have been other riders caught. And that's for the detectable stuff, there is still no test for blood doping, HGH and IGF-1. Meanwhile people say Dr Ferrari's plying his trade in St Moritz.0 -
Kléber wrote:Meanwhile people say Dr Ferrari's plying his trade in St Moritz.
Ya, but what if I say he isn't and write an article on it and post it on the Internet? Does that make it true or untrue or anything else? "People say" lots of things. There was an article recently about "the famous Mr. Ed", the talking horse, of long ago TV fame. It was a very well done article claiming that he really wasn't a horse, but a trained and painted Zebra. The article explained how they did it, with all kinds of detail. Plenty of people bought into it. It was great. I told some friends about it and they almost fell for it.
0 -
dennisn wrote:Kléber wrote:Meanwhile people say Dr Ferrari's plying his trade in St Moritz.
Ya, but what if I say he isn't and write an article on it and post it on the Internet? Does that make it true or untrue or anything else? "People say" lots of things. There was an article recently about "the famous Mr. Ed", the talking horse, of long ago TV fame. It was a very well done article claiming that he really wasn't a horse, but a trained and painted Zebra. The article explained how they did it, with all kinds of detail. Plenty of people bought into it. It was great. I told some friends about it and they almost fell for it.
What was I just saying, Malter Witty?0 -
Heh, Heh, Heh.......Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0
-
Isn't 'the 'most tested/targeted' a myth which came from LA himself - he says, people believe, not true.Rokkala wrote:Right, so if we assume for a minute that LA did dope on the '99 tour. Why from '00-'05, despite being the most targeted and tested individual in cycling, did he not fail tests at the time/samples come under suspicion/any action taken either at the time or retrospectively?
Black socks were popular for a short while with marathon runners in the early 2000s. Maybe LA’s taste in socks subconciously indicates the era which his mind, if not locked into, reminiscences about.mididoctors wrote:
you kinding yeah?Fastlad wrote:As for the black socks? totally fine,0 -
andyp wrote:
Everyone has the same DNA? Really? I think you ought to go and read up on that a bit more before you start arguing on it.Dave_1 wrote:crit levels get manipulated up to 50% and that determines oxygen delivery, everyone has the same DNA, the genetic freak arguement doesn't add up for me and many others .
Are you definitely sure he wasn't just very good at cycling?, very dedicated? And yes, also did what Ullrich and Basso did.., what everyone was forced into IMO...your stance is LA is rubbish and his TDF wins worthless, ...not many will respect you for that on here-I don't. Why are you even on here when you think every win is down to good response to doping. Go find another sport Andy
Fact is...some people are better than others in various sports and jobs in life. Is it this that troubles you guys most?
I didn't say LA wasn't dedicated, in fact I'd argue he was too dedicated and, like many others, stepped beyond what should be acceptable in sport. Risking your health for glory is something I'll never respect.
I'm on here because I love cycling, and the sport of professional cycling is an important part of that. I want my kids to love it too but the sport runs what I think is a real risk of becoming a laughing stock of a sport, akin to WWF wrestling on two wheels, if it doesn't take serious measures to address the cancer that is doping. I applaud Voeckler, a clean rider, for his guts, determination and tactical nous in winning today. A win I can actually trust for once.
Btw, I don't care if you respect me or not. I do have the courage to post under my own name and not hide behind a pseudonym like some, eh Fergus?
Big deal, I joined 5 years ago and way bac then in 2004 I posted with an alias..IDd myself to people who PMd or I PMd...so what. At least I did a little more investigation of the sport than you (are you jealous...I can claim i was shit, you didn't get beyond sportifs so are truly bottom of the ladder in race experience)-, raced with all those guys you probably don't look up to ,i got dropped, finished some, hors delay in others...faced the facts unlike you! And I realised some people are better than others, something you clearly never faced up to. If you think racing against a 50 year old Stephen Roche gives you some kind of unqiue insight...you're dreaming.. Go down to some sportif , that's all you know about beyond what you've watched on TV..eejit.0 -
Kléber wrote:Jackhammer, the passport is helping but there's still a chance to infuse the blood before a stage and use saline or other products to keep the haematocrit count artificially low if the UCI vampires appear wanting to measure a doper's blood count. As Michael Ashenden puts it ina new interview, "it's clear riders have learned to dope within the passport".
So I think you're being optimistic if you think doping is vanishing but it's hopefully reducing. Still, Katusha's had two positive tests, Rebellin has been rumbled and there have been other riders caught. And that's for the detectable stuff, there is still no test for blood doping, HGH and IGF-1. Meanwhile people say Dr Ferrari's plying his trade in St Moritz.
The body sets its own blood volume. You can take on unneeded blood and you will pass water until the volume come back down, but your crit is higher. If you take unneeded blood and dilute it the volume goes even higher and the same will happen and quickly. You would have to take on blood and the expander and get tested before you pass the extra volume as urine. So, it's not as easy as all that.
The real point is that the EPO era supposedly gave the 10 to 20 percent increase in performance that made it impossible to compete if you didn't do it.
That era is OVER.
Thank you VERY much for the link to that article. Very intersted. Everyone should read it. Like when it says: "it appears the Tour peloton he has returned to is cleaner than it has been for a long, long time." As clean as it was in the late 80's and early 90's.
Ashenden says:"It's clear that riders have learned to dope within the passport," it's manipulating transfusions and mini-doses of EPO.
Small transfusions don't give much kick. nor does small does of EPO.
High risk/low reward.
We have an even playing field where nobody will have that 20 percent kick so we'll be able to believe the rests are fair.
Call it a doping aroud the edges system of doping the riders are stuck with now.0 -
jackhammer111 wrote:Yes, they can. You can't transfuse without it showing in your crit. Passport monitors patterns in your blood levels.
In theroy it would be possible to make small gains with small amount of blood without having a big spike in crit level. It would be risky and the benifits would be unclear since you're only messing with a point or 2 of crit increase.
One of the team who analyses the passport results, ie, Ashenden says that they'd hope it would show up tranfusions and while it does in a manner it's not sufficient to use for a doping case.
Crit is a very blunt instrument and from most of the analysis I've read it's not the primary thing they look at for evidence is blood doping.
Just to confirm, I don't believe Lance and will defend that position. But don't use the word "hate" - It makes it sound like it's unreasonable behaviour. Which it isn't.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Big deal, I joined 5 years ago and way bac then in 2004 I posted with an alias..IDd myself to people who PMd or I PMd...so what. At least I did a little more investigation of the sport than you (are you jealous...I can claim i was shoot, you didn't get beyond sportifs so are truly bottom of the ladder in race experience)-, raced with all those guys you probably don't look up to ,i got dropped, finished some, hors delay in others...faced the facts unlike you! And I realised some people are better than others, something you clearly never faced up to. If you think racing against a 50 year old Stephen Roche gives you some kind of unqiue insight...you're dreaming.. Go down to some sportif , that's all you know about beyond what you've watched on TV..eejit.
That's your answer to every challenge isn't it? Just because you rode a few amateur races in Europe it makes you the expert and anyone who challenges your views is clearly an idiot because they don't have that experience. It's risible. As is your view that anyone who isn't good enough to be a pro is automatically jealous and resentful of those who did get that opportunity. If anyone on here demonstrates those traits, I'd contend it was you.
I don't claim any unique insight, rather I enjoy discussing cycling and all it's aspects with other people. I've raced a fair bit, I've ridden the mountains a lot and I enjoy that and sharing my experience with others. For me, one of the beautiful aspects of cycling is that it's possible for someone who hasn't ridden much to ride an event over the same course as the professionals and share that experience. I think that's fantastic, you think that's something to mock.0 -
andyp wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Big deal, I joined 5 years ago and way bac then in 2004 I posted with an alias..IDd myself to people who PMd or I PMd...so what. At least I did a little more investigation of the sport than you (are you jealous...I can claim i was shoot, you didn't get beyond sportifs so are truly bottom of the ladder in race experience)-, raced with all those guys you probably don't look up to ,i got dropped, finished some, hors delay in others...faced the facts unlike you! And I realised some people are better than others, something you clearly never faced up to. If you think racing against a 50 year old Stephen Roche gives you some kind of unqiue insight...you're dreaming.. Go down to some sportif , that's all you know about beyond what you've watched on TV..eejit.
That's your answer to every challenge isn't it? Just because you rode a few amateur races in Europe it makes you the expert and anyone who challenges your views is clearly an idiot because they don't have that experience. It's risible. As is your view that anyone who isn't good enough to be a pro is automatically jealous and resentful of those who did get that opportunity. If anyone on here demonstrates those traits, I'd contend it was you.
I don't claim any unique insight, rather I enjoy discussing cycling and all it's aspects with other people. I've raced a fair bit, I've ridden the mountains a lot and I enjoy that and sharing my experience with others. For me, one of the beautiful aspects of cycling is that it's possible for someone who hasn't ridden much to ride an event over the same course as the professionals and share that experience. I think that's fantastic, you think that's something to mock.
Is this like top trumps? I’ve raced in France and Spain and Belgium and not just crits either. Ive done Sportives all over the place and whilst I enjoyed all of it (sometimes retrospectively) I can honestly say that at no point did I want to be a pro. Which is perhaps as well because I wouldn’t have had much of a career.
I’ve thought about the drugs thing too and if I had to ride for a living, I’m convinced I would have used them. Not that that means I think everyone is therefore automatically using but frankly forget about the ideals of sport this is a results orientated business and drugs are a tool. As are lawyers. And if you cant be found guilty you haven’t cheated or broken the rules. Though of course you have but this is a PROFESSIONAL sport like Football rugby etc etc0 -
What's your point? Isn't the debate made up of the following:
1. Not getting caught doesn't mean you aren't doping
2. Not failing dope controls isn't - in the light of cycling doping scandals since the 1990s - proof of not doping
3. Just because it's a professional sport it doesn't excuse cheating, that's why there are rules presumably.
We are going to wander off into philosophy of ethics if we aren't careful........
Dave_1 - cut out the ridiculous personal attacks please.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:andyp wrote:
Everyone has the same DNA? Really? I think you ought to go and read up on that a bit more before you start arguing on it.Dave_1 wrote:crit levels get manipulated up to 50% and that determines oxygen delivery, everyone has the same DNA, the genetic freak arguement doesn't add up for me and many others .
Are you definitely sure he wasn't just very good at cycling?, very dedicated? And yes, also did what Ullrich and Basso did.., what everyone was forced into IMO...your stance is LA is rubbish and his TDF wins worthless, ...not many will respect you for that on here-I don't. Why are you even on here when you think every win is down to good response to doping. Go find another sport Andy
Fact is...some people are better than others in various sports and jobs in life. Is it this that troubles you guys most?
I didn't say LA wasn't dedicated, in fact I'd argue he was too dedicated and, like many others, stepped beyond what should be acceptable in sport. Risking your health for glory is something I'll never respect.
I'm on here because I love cycling, and the sport of professional cycling is an important part of that. I want my kids to love it too but the sport runs what I think is a real risk of becoming a laughing stock of a sport, akin to WWF wrestling on two wheels, if it doesn't take serious measures to address the cancer that is doping. I applaud Voeckler, a clean rider, for his guts, determination and tactical nous in winning today. A win I can actually trust for once.
Btw, I don't care if you respect me or not. I do have the courage to post under my own name and not hide behind a pseudonym like some, eh Fergus?
Big deal, I joined 5 years ago and way bac then in 2004 I posted with an alias..IDd myself to people who PMd or I PMd...so what. At least I did a little more investigation of the sport than you (are you jealous...I can claim i was shoot, you didn't get beyond sportifs so are truly bottom of the ladder in race experience)-, raced with all those guys you probably don't look up to ,i got dropped, finished some, hors delay in others...faced the facts unlike you! And I realised some people are better than others, something you clearly never faced up to. If you think racing against a 50 year old Stephen Roche gives you some kind of unqiue insight...you're dreaming.. Go down to some sportif , that's all you know about beyond what you've watched on TV..eejit.
You're just twitter and blistered.0 -
dave, everyone doesn't have the same dna, and it's a shame both that you think they do, and then go off on your occasional rant when you're challenged.0
-
Well, LA got tested yesterday so we will find the results out soon enough. If he fails the test then all the haters will be happy, if he passes the test then all the haters will still think it is a conspiracy and LA originated from area 51 and actually has 4 hearts, 6 lungs and 2 sets of extra invisible legs with a force field around them to shield him away from us mere mortals... :P
At the end of the day go race and enjoy the sport for what it is 0 -
avoidingmyphd wrote:dave, everyone doesn't have the same dna, and it's a shame both that you think they do, and then go off on your occasional rant when you're challenged.
Thanks for the education, you're writing from your Ivory towers at uiversity I assume?...I always thought we humans were all fairly similar, and look so..seemed to be so when I raced and the ones who trained hardest and made good tactical decisions, hung on, were uusually the winners, but you know otherwise! Perhaps time you go back to get on with the PhD you broadcast you're on..0 -
-
Dave_1 wrote:Big deal, I joined 5 years ago and way bac then in 2004 I posted with an alias..IDd myself to people who PMd or I PMd...so what. At least I did a little more investigation of the sport than you (are you jealous...I can claim i was shoot, you didn't get beyond sportifs so are truly bottom of the ladder in race experience)-, raced with all those guys you probably don't look up to ,i got dropped, finished some, hors delay in others...faced the facts unlike you! And I realised some people are better than others, something you clearly never faced up to. If you think racing against a 50 year old Stephen Roche gives you some kind of unqiue insight...you're dreaming.. Go down to some sportif , that's all you know about beyond what you've watched on TV..eejit.
TBH, that seems like a Willhub-esque level of debate. Very poor.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:avoidingmyphd wrote:dave, everyone doesn't have the same dna, and it's a shame both that you think they do, and then go off on your occasional rant when you're challenged.
Thanks for the education, you're writing from your Ivory towers at uiversity I assume?...I always thought we humans were all fairly similar, and look so..seemed to be so when I raced and the ones who trained hardest and made good tactical decisions, hung on, were uusually the winners, but you know otherwise! Perhaps time you go back to get on with the PhD you broadcast you're on..
I don't think you need a university education to know that everyone on the planet has unique DNA make-up.
Secondly, get the chip off your shoulder will you; it's tiresome in the extreme to have to read through your playground taunts to get to, what may be, a sensible discussion. If you're paranoid about not having a university education, go and get one - I'm sure there is something out there to suit whatever you do. If you don't fancy it at least do us the favour of hiding your silly, old fashioned prejudice.0
