Poll on EPO generation & Lance

plectrum

Here are three questions - you can answer 3 times, so please answer once to 1.2.3, once to A/B/C and once to x/y/z

The aim is to get an overall view about Lance's position within it.

As with any polls I am sure there are flaws to it but please try and answer it the best you can.

Thanks

ddraver

Uncertain
Uncertain
Don't Know



:P

Manc33

1. You had to be on dope to win a GT.
A. If there was no dope Lance still would have been a major competitor.
y. Prior to the 1st TDF win, Lance was part of it but equal to numerous other personnel and teams.

Regarding the middle answer, Lance did finish 3rd in the 2009 TdF and he claims he wasn't on anything then.

Or maybe he was on dope in the 2009 and 2010 Tours and he thinks he can wriggle out of it for those two years. Judging from the way he was talking in the Oprah interview, I would have to assume he was probably doping to finish 3rd in 2009.

The guy is a pathological liar.

phreak

I think the US statute of limitations is 8 years, hence why he probably admitted to doping up until 2005 but not after.

Manc33

phreak wrote:

statute of limitations.

"I don't understand". :P

So you mean to say as long as he doesn't get caught for doping on the 2009/10 tours, up until say August 2013 (8 years past the 2005 Tour de France) he cannot be liable for it in a legal sense but he can be banned even further etc by the governing body/bodies?

Dude! How was he "retroactively" caught out by them now sampling his blood from 1999? I mean the one found to have EPO that was not tested for in 1999 but now it has been. Thats 14 years ago!

If there is a "statute of limitations" with 8 years for this sort of crime, then how are they now prosecuting him for the 1999 one etc? Or are they not even prosecuting him at all for any of this and they are just saying hey, look, his blood from 1999-2005 has EPO in it? So then its not a police matter, its the body that bans him?

JackPozzi

I think the statute of limitations is 5 years. He perjured himself in a court case in 2005 by claiming under oath that he hadn't taken performance enhancers, so he can admit to that now without risking prosecution.

TMR

JackPozzi wrote:

I think the statute of limitations is 5 years. He perjured himself in a court case in 2005 by claiming under oath that he hadn't taken performance enhancers, so he can admit to that now without risking prosecution.

It's 3 years.

alihisgreat

Don't really see the point in this pole? what are you trying to achieve?

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

This thread is not fully formed without a Scotch Egg.

Scotch Eggs are ten sorts of awesome.

plectrum

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Don't really see the point in this pole? what are you trying to achieve?

It's just a poll with a quite transparent aim and as such I'm not that interested in being goaded into a pointless argument.

Matchstick Man

Manc33 wrote:

Dude! How was he "retroactively" caught out by them now sampling his blood from 1999? I mean the one found to have EPO that was not tested for in 1999 but now it has been. Thats 14 years ago!
?

The day after LA won his 7th title, L'Equipe ran with "The Armstrong Lie"
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R036.pdf so the EPO test was done over 7 years ago not recently as you seem to think
Which formed the basis for the SCA case where he lied under oath. People just didn't want to hear that he tested positive so just bleated about the jealous French. The Vrijman report commissioned by the UCI that exonerated LA looks like the steaming pile of shit it always was.
The NY Velocity interview with Ashenden in 2009 was fairly unequivocal in saying LA used EPO in 1999 but still people didn't (want to) listen.

The information that LA doped ha been out in the public arena for years yet people resolutely ignored it and just believed the steaming pile of horse manure coming out of his mouth.

Matchstick Man

I'd say the EPO generation was 1990 onwards with the arrival of riders like Chiappucci who turned from journeyman pros to GT contenders and Classic winners. Indurain's arrival in the 1990 Tour winning on Luz Ardiden against the reigning world champion and defending Tour champion who was visibly shorter and smaller by a good few kg's was, looking back, when it really became apparent.
The reason I've picked 1990 was because (a) Lemond won his final Tour and I believe him to be one of the few clean Tour winners and (b) because Marco Giovanetti won the Vuelta. From memory Willy Voet named him as having won that race clean and then turned to drugs afterwards although ironically he never hit those heights again.

Also this points to 1990

former Belgian cycling champion Eddy Planckaert confessed taking EPO in 1991, and said that during the last 2 years of his career (1990 and 91) many riders were using EPO. Along with the performance benefits of EPO, however, came a spate of controversial deaths among top-level cyclists. Between 1987, when EPO became available in Europe, and 1990, 18 Dutch and Belgian cyclists died suddenly, raising suspicions that naive users did not realize they were playing with fire.

http://www.pfitzinger.com/labreports/epo.shtml

cogidubnus

2
A
Y

zammmmo

ddraver wrote:

Uncertain
Uncertain
Don't Know



:P

What were the options again?

gattocattivo

Matchstick Man wrote:

I'd say the EPO generation was 1990 onwards with the arrival of riders like Chiappucci who turned from journeyman pros to GT contenders and Classic winners. Indurain's arrival in the 1990 Tour winning on Luz Ardiden against the reigning world champion and defending Tour champion who was visibly shorter and smaller by a good few kg's was, looking back, when it really became apparent.
The reason I've picked 1990 was because (a) Lemond won his final Tour and I believe him to be one of the few clean Tour winners and (b) because Marco Giovanetti won the Vuelta. From memory Willy Voet named him as having won that race clean and then turned to drugs afterwards although ironically he never hit those heights again.

Also this points to 1990 "former Belgian cycling champion Eddy Planckaert confessed taking EPO in 1991, and said that during the last 2 years of his career (1990 and 91) many riders were using EPO. Along with the performance benefits of EPO, however, came a spate of controversial deaths among top-level cyclists. Between 1987, when EPO became available in Europe, and 1990, 18 Dutch and Belgian cyclists died suddenly, raising suspicions that naive users did not realize they were playing with fire."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing withthis, but maybe 1991 rather than 1990. Chiappucci was aided significantly in the 1990 Tour by getting in that early break that gained ten minutes or so. And Indurain was a phenomenon who was always likely to excel once freed from the shackles of looking after Delgado, so that stage win wasn't that eye-raising at the time.

Anonymous

1
B
Y

prawny

1
B
Z for me.

Don't know if he really kick started the epo thing again after festina, maybe it was only testosterone that won him the worlds. I don't believe a word he says though. After watching the Oprah thing I'm not even sure if he doped. Slippery little fecker.