Lemond vs Trek suit

blazing_saddles

No. Just apathy towards the age old debate.

As for LA's natural ability. I haven't seen much in the way of folks saying he was never able.

Maybe this will be of interest. From US Cycling:

USA Cycling says Lance Armstrong's return to competition can be thanked for its growth to a record 66,600 licensed bike racers this year. The figure represents a 5% increase over 2008. "There is no way to say exactly why we have had such an increase, but common sense lets us figure that one of those factors is certainly Lance Armstrong," says Andrea Smith, USA Cycling's director of communications. About 45,000 members race in road, cyclocross or track events, with the remainder including mountain bikers, coaches and officials. USA Cycling is the governing body of bike racing in America.

Arkibal

Slightly OT, but a good read

http://cyclingintro2.webs.com/CyclingIntro6.pdf

micron

Here's another old one but interesting one http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news ... farce/full

I don't think even the most casual observer of the sport doesn't realise that to ride the Tour you have to be the best of the best - that's obvious to all - but only a handful are there to contest for the overall. And Armstrong did not always manifest his talent in terms of a GT winner, let alone one who would win the race 7 times, in the way that most other GT winners (let alone multiple winners) have done. And that does seem to be open to debate

As for 10 minutes of Bruyneel - I'd rather open a vein, thanks

moray_gub

micron wrote:

MG, if you can provide facts that are as compelling as the 6 (actually 9) failed tests from the 99 TdF then I, for one, will certainly reconsider my position - but I'm talking hard scientific facts that refute those samples (after all, even Armstrong concedes that they're his and that they tested positive) not the whitewash of the Vrijman report or vague cries of a nebulous 'French conspiracy'.

.

Armstrong admitted they were his and they contained EPO ? must have missd that admission.

micron

Armstrong never denied that they were his samples - as he had handed over the code that was used to match them I suppose it would have been rather foolish to deny that they were his. He also never explicitly denied the presence of EPO but simply repeated the 'French Conspiracy/Most Tested Athlete' line. I don't think even Vrijman denied the presence of EPO in the samples.

Like I say, if you can signpost me to evidence that shows that there couldn't have been EPO in those samples then I'd be more than happy to consider my position.

dennisn

micron wrote:

Armstrong never denied that they were his samples - as he had handed over the code that was used to match them I suppose it would have been rather foolish to deny that they were his. He also never explicitly denied the presence of EPO but simply repeated the 'French Conspiracy/Most Tested Athlete' line. I don't think even Vrijman denied the presence of EPO in the samples.

Like I say, if you can signpost me to evidence that shows that there couldn't have been EPO in those samples then I'd be more than happy to consider my position.

Just to be my old contrary self I would have to say that NOT DENYING something is not the same as ADMITTING something. Sort of like NO COMMENT. Doesn't mean or prove a thing.

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Armstrong never denied that they were his samples - as he had handed over the code that was used to match them I suppose it would have been rather foolish to deny that they were his. He also never explicitly denied the presence of EPO but simply repeated the 'French Conspiracy/Most Tested Athlete' line. I don't think even Vrijman denied the presence of EPO in the samples.

Like I say, if you can signpost me to evidence that shows that there couldn't have been EPO in those samples then I'd be more than happy to consider my position.

The onus is on you to show that they were his samples though and given the shambolic nature of the whole episode thats hasnt been proved He didnt admit they were his and he didnt admit they were his and had EPO in them.So they may have been his and they may not have been his so really thats it you can surmise all you want but he has admitted nothing at all and it hasnt been shown that he commited a doping violation . I dont suppose you would too happy to be accused of something on that kind of shambolic evidence trail.

moray_gub

dennisn wrote:

micron wrote:

Armstrong never denied that they were his samples - as he had handed over the code that was used to match them I suppose it would have been rather foolish to deny that they were his. He also never explicitly denied the presence of EPO but simply repeated the 'French Conspiracy/Most Tested Athlete' line. I don't think even Vrijman denied the presence of EPO in the samples.

Like I say, if you can signpost me to evidence that shows that there couldn't have been EPO in those samples then I'd be more than happy to consider my position.

Just to be my old contrary self I would have to say that NOT DENYING something is not the same as ADMITTING something. Sort of like NO COMMENT. Doesn't mean or prove a thing.

This is Pro Race that kind of logic tends not to apply in here.

calvjones

If the samples weren't his, why didn't he sue? Or threaten to?

moray_gub

calvjones wrote:

If the samples weren't his, why didn't he sue? Or threaten to?

So because he didn't sue that means the samples were his ?

iainf72

calvjones wrote:

If the samples weren't his, why didn't he sue? Or threaten to?

Because they'd do a DNA test and establish they were his. So if that happened he'd need to explain how EPO got into the samples and when you read about how hard it would be to get EPO into them, then you'd just be digging a hole.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

If the samples weren't his, why didn't he sue? Or threaten to?

Because they'd do a DNA test and establish they were his. So if that happened he'd need to explain how EPO got into the samples and when you read about how hard it would be to get EPO into them, then you'd just be digging a hole.

I will need to remember that the next time though that when a person doesnt sue he is confirming guilt. I always thought there were other ways of determining guilt but this will be handy reference tool in the future.

iainf72

Moray Gub wrote:

I will need to remember that the next time though that when a person doesnt sue he is confirming guilt. I always thought there were other ways of determining guilt but this will be handy reference tool in the future.

I didn't say he confirmed guilt. All I'm saying is if he had sued, the samples would've been proven to be his.

And I think he never even hinted the samples might have not been his.

andyp

MG - I suggest you go and read about it before you embarrass yourself. There is no doubt that the samples were Armstrong's.

frenchfighter

I see Lightweight is out and kicking.

dennisn

Moray Gub wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

If the samples weren't his, why didn't he sue? Or threaten to?

Because they'd do a DNA test and establish they were his. So if that happened he'd need to explain how EPO got into the samples and when you read about how hard it would be to get EPO into them, then you'd just be digging a hole.

I will need to remember that the next time though that when a person doesnt sue he is confirming guilt. I always thought there were other ways of determining guilt but this will be handy reference tool in the future.

mfin

It was Armstrong that provided the code that confirmed they were his samples. Unless that is completely made up. That's what's documented. There was no Epo test going on in 99, just the '50% red' limit, which everyone knows you can dose epo and keep below 50%, thats what everyone was doing. 'Not testing positive' is easy when you're referring to a drug there was no test for!

The argument can only really be over the validity of the retrospective 99 tests, there's no evidence to suggest that samples are not fit for testing when kept for 5 years, its more a paperwork and conditions issue ...and the fact that there's no second samples to test. Its the same piss though in A and B bottles taken at the same time.

I dont find what's shocking about this... he took EPO, loads of them were taking it, plenty have been caught. I do wish he had been too so cycling could be 'reset' ...I couldnt care less myself if we lost 10 years of TDF results to being void, its the future of cycling thats at stake.

I dont mind people liking him though, I think he was very strong minded, very gifted and very attacking (yes, that's on the bike) at times. Think he's also got repelling character traits and the moneymaking cancer thing makes me very uncomfortable, but I suppose there are a lot worse people in the world than people on bikes who've doped.

He knows he doped, we know he doped. Can't really expect him to have taken a steadfast and clear stance against doping, that would have been far too difficult for him. Cycling can move on now really.

calvjones

I just thought it interesting that LA never mentoned legal action on the 99 samples whereas he at least started legal action against Walsh and a number of others.

At the time he said he couldn't be arsed as he'd left procycling, which seemed unlikely then, even less so now he's back. If somebody baldly accused me of cheating to win my 1st tdf I'd damn well sue (if clean) and all the sarcasm in the world can't obscure this basic point, can it MG?

mfin

calvjones wrote:

I just thought it interesting that LA never mentoned legal action on the 99 samples whereas he at least started legal action against Walsh and a number of others.

At the time he said he couldn't be arsed as he'd left procycling, which seemed unlikely then, even less so now he's back. If somebody baldly accused me of cheating to win my 1st tdf I'd damn well sue (if clean) and all the sarcasm in the world can't obscure this basic point, can it MG?

Absolutely agree

moray_gub

calvjones wrote:

I just thought it interesting that LA never mentoned legal action on the 99 samples whereas he at least started legal action against Walsh and a number of others.

At the time he said he couldn't be arsed as he'd left procycling, which seemed unlikely then, even less so now he's back. If somebody baldly accused me of cheating to win my 1st tdf I'd damn well sue (if clean) and all the sarcasm in the world can't obscure this basic point, can it MG?

Ultimately its for the accuser to prove and they failed to do so by recognised means so he maybe felt he didnt need to bother litigating. Who knows the reasons there could be any number maybe he did dope maybe he didnt but to infer guilt because he didnt litigate is a nonsense it really is. Look at Greg Lemond to see how a serial litigator comes across.........great rider but head full of so many issues.

dennisn

mfin wrote:

He knows he doped, we know he doped. Cycling can move on now really.

I would make a few changes. "He knows IF he doped" "We THINK we(whomever this we is) know he doped. Most of you guys have convinced yourselves(and I'm still wondering why you're all so "involved") that he's doped, but that's about as far as it goes. Can't recall too many people telling any of you that you've "shown them the light".
As for "cycling can move on now", I don't even know what that means. When did it STOP? What is the hold that this one man has over you?Your anger with him is appearant. He's controlling you. Sort of like the old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you". Strange you would let someone do this.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

What is the hold that this one man has over you?Your anger with him is appearant. He's controlling you. Sort of like the old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you". Strange you would let someone do this.

You really do prefer to see the world your way, don't you? Have you noticed it's not only Lance people get in a strop with?

This is a cycling forum. There is a lot of evidence the man who won the biggest event in cycling did so by less than honest means. If you can't see why that might get up people's crack then there is little point in discussing anything. You can choose to argue about the evidence or even not accept that. That's fine.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What is the hold that this one man has over you?Your anger with him is appearant. He's controlling you. Sort of like the old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you". Strange you would let someone do this.

You really do prefer to see the world your way, don't you? Have you noticed it's not only Lance people get in a strop with?

This is a cycling forum. There is a lot of evidence the man who won the biggest event in cycling did so by less than honest means. If you can't see why that might get up people's crack then there is little point in discussing anything. You can choose to argue about the evidence or even not accept that. That's fine.

Dennis in having an alternative opinion to Iainf72 shocker !

iainf72

Moray Gub wrote:

Dennis in having an alternative opinion to Iainf72 shocker !

Not quite. You have an opinion. Dennis has a rubber fish covered in mustard.

moray_gub

quote="mfin"]
He knows he doped, we know he doped. Cycling can move on now really.[/quote]



This cycling can move on is the biggest load of balderdash and poppycock going. Cycling is what it is and has been the last 110 years its never stopped to await the end of the doping era it continues on its merry way doping cases or not.It will do so long after Lance is gone so accept that he still rides deal with, let it eat you up like it clearly does and you will lose interest in this beautiful sport and end up following the likes of this



now do you really want that ?

afx237vi

Moray Gub wrote:

Dennis in having an alternative opinion to Iainf72 shocker !

Alternative opinions are fine. You have an alternative opinion and are willing to engage and debate with the other forum users you disagree with. All well and good.

On the other hand, I have no idea what dennis's opinion is of anything pro-cycling related because he doesn't offer one. He seems to have lots of opinions on the motivations of other forum users, though, and seems amazed that we spend a lot of time discussing cycling. On a cycling forum. It's very puzzling.

mfin

Right... couple of points... I have no anger towards LA cycling-wise, I actually said I admire points about his determination and the way he attacked. As for me saying 'cycling can move on' ...its just a phrase, if anyone wants read into what I mean by it as something i don't mean then maybe I should be more clear.... Its just my opinion that whether he doped or not, even though I believe he did, that he is no longer the dominant cyclist he was and hence the issues are now not at Lance's feet like they used to be... if anyone wants to think I have issues with him and what Im saying here 'isn't what Im saying either' then nevermind.

I know everyone views him differently, no problem, hero to some, villain to others and loads of 'in-between' and 'don't cares'. Im actually 'in-between' ...to me he was just the dominant dirty cyclist in a bunch of dirty cyclists, he's not evil in my mind, it was a way of competing when EPO was rife. There was no test for EPO in operation in the bulk of his winning years, thats fact, its also fact that a lot of riders have been caught for it. Plus, I believe it to be true that loads of riders have got away with it. Now we have Cera apparently being widely used, microdosing, transfustions etc... and still have high profile riders being caught. 'Cycling can move on' ...I mean move on from it being 'all about the Lance'.

Its only opinion, we all can have one, Ive read enough to have formed mine. Yes, the cancer issues have aspects that morally disgust me but I keep that completely separate to the cycling stuff.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What is the hold that this one man has over you?Your anger with him is appearant. He's controlling you. Sort of like the old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you". Strange you would let someone do this.

There is a lot of evidence the man who won the biggest event in cycling did so by less than honest means. If you can't see why that might get up people's crack then there is little point in discussing anything.

Now you've got it. You're 100% right. I "can't see why that might get up people's crack".You tell me why it does. Fill me in. I'm serious. I've been asking WHY for ages. And don't tell me it's about the doping. If it was about the doping you guys would hate every pro athelete(biker or not). I don't believe for a second that it's about the doping.
Look a little deeper into your reasons than that.

mfin

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What is the hold that this one man has over you?Your anger with him is appearant. He's controlling you. Sort of like the old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you". Strange you would let someone do this.

There is a lot of evidence the man who won the biggest event in cycling did so by less than honest means. If you can't see why that might get up people's crack then there is little point in discussing anything.

Now you've got it. You're 100% right. I "can't see why that might get up people's crack".You tell me why it does. Fill me in. I'm serious. I've been asking WHY for ages. And don't tell me it's about the doping. If it was about the doping you guys would hate every pro athelete(biker or not). I don't believe for a second that it's about the doping.
Look a little deeper into your reasons than that.

I can only say from my point of view, Im sure you'd think id just irrationally hate the bloke, but I don't, he bugs me a little, and here's why....

The singlemost thing for me is his stance AGAINST anti-doping. Lets say for sake of argument the guy has always been 'clean as a cucumber' (I know common sense will make this very hard to imagine, but please try to keep a straight face and give it your best shot). Do you think his attitude towards anyone that's spoken out is wrong for a 'hero' of the sport with such a high profile? ...its not in the imagination, he does these things... plus, if its not to people who are speaking out, how about the way he defended Landis against his non-admission of guilt after positive testing? ...or his attitude to returning dopers? These are the things that I find a bit much.

Oh... and this is actually pretty much what the thread is about! ...Armstrongs attitude to someone who's spoken out. You've got to agree with Greg's spark of a statement that his story is either this incredible thing or the biggest of sporting frauds ...there's nothing wrong in that to me.

Now is that particularly odd? or am I allowed to have these points of view, feel free to persuade me out of them if you like.

moray_gub

mfin wrote:

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

What is the hold that this one man has over you?Your anger with him is appearant. He's controlling you. Sort of like the old saying "He who makes you angry, controls you". Strange you would let someone do this.

There is a lot of evidence the man who won the biggest event in cycling did so by less than honest means. If you can't see why that might get up people's crack then there is little point in discussing anything.

Now you've got it. You're 100% right. I "can't see why that might get up people's crack".You tell me why it does. Fill me in. I'm serious. I've been asking WHY for ages. And don't tell me it's about the doping. If it was about the doping you guys would hate every pro athelete(biker or not). I don't believe for a second that it's about the doping.
Look a little deeper into your reasons than that.

I can only say from my point of view, Im sure you'd think id just irrationally hate the bloke, but I don't, he bugs me a little, and here's why....

The singlemost thing for me is his stance AGAINST anti-doping. Lets say for sake of argument the guy has always been 'clean as a cucumber' (I know common sense will make this very hard to imagine, but please try to keep a straight face and give it your best shot). Do you think his attitude towards anyone that's spoken out is wrong for a 'hero' of the sport with such a high profile? ...its not in the imagination, he does these things... plus, if its not to people who are speaking out, how about the way he defended Landis against his non-admission of guilt after positive testing? ...or his attitude to returning dopers? These are the things that I find a bit much.

Oh... and this is actually pretty much what the thread is about! ...Armstrongs attitude to someone who's spoken out. You've got to agree with Greg's spark of a statement that his story is either this incredible thing or the biggest of sporting frauds ...there's nothing wrong in that to me.

Now is that particularly odd? or am I allowed to have these points of view, feel free to persuade me out of them if you like.

Well what would you expect him to say in the Landis case especially after Landis himself didnt admit guilt ? I dont get this at all if Landis isnt going to admit guilt then why should Lance admit it for him., thats like expecting me to admit and crticticse something one of my friends has done just to appease other people............just not gonna happen i often wonder why some of you guys think cyclists are in a different planet to the rest of us when it comes to normal human behaviour.