Iv'e never failed a drug test

youidiots

I think that most of us followers for the pro peloton over the last 30 years have seen some strange performances.

None has been stranger than that of Lance Armstrong, he has beaten all the the self admitted dopers (you fill in the names). His only defence is the well worn statement used by al the he has never failed a dope control.

Lets discuss this: I know of his cancer comeback but I dont admire him, I feel that David Walsh was correct on his case years ago.

Your comment please but consider the facts before a blind faith reaction.

Thanks

turbo

This opens the old discussion between the Armstrong fans and his distractors. It might be more productive on here to ask a straight question to the forum users, "Do you believe Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs". For the record, I do.

drenkrom

Either this guy doped from the age of 16 onwards, a possibility I won't dismiss, or he was truly a genetic phenomenom, which can't be dismissed either. I was a triathlete as a kid, and I clearly remember Lance Armstrong being one of the greatest Americans ever to compete in the sport. He was giving it good and hard to guys 10 years his senior in a sport where the peak comes around 30-33 years of age. He was without competition, yet he had no real incentive to dope. Triathletes didn't make much money in 1988.

That dominance followed him in cycling, though he took a step down due to his massive upper body and lack of experience. After the cancer, you saw in cycling what we'd seen years earlier in triathlon: complete and utter dominance in races he targeted. That's a side most cycling fans do not know about, and which is often passed over, as if the post-cancer Lance was some kind of mutant compared to pre-cancer Lance. Let's not forget he lost over 15 pounds of body mass during that ordeal.

Despite what it may look like, I am very far from a Lance apologist. I have my (big) doubts as well. But I know Armstrong was performing at a superhuman level way before he had any true incentive to dope. So either he doped all his life, or his performances truly were legit. And we will simply never know. He'll never admit it and there is too much money to be made "finding proof" of Armstrong's doping for me to believe anything but the most bombproof evidence. Still, the laws of statistics would suggest he did dope. What a mess...

turbo

I agree, the whole thing is a mess, and unfortunatley we now have a culture in our sport that means anyone who achieves above the norm will have a cloud of suspicion over them

Julspro

Just for the record - Armstrong has also stated he rode clean for all of his victories, not just that he never tested positive.
This adds a layer - if he is found to have doped, that would mean he told a flat out lie.

Historically, a select few of humans have excelled and surpassed the masses. It is not impossible for Armstrong to have achieved what he did clean. It may be improbable - but it is not impossible.

Because of all the accusations thrown around by a newspaper, no less, I prefer to take what he says at face value until proof of the contrary.

If a fans starts to doubt all riders - well, why watch cycling any more?

Caribbean Soul

homers_double

All you want to do is put him on a pedestal in order to shoot him down.

Cant you just accept that he's damn good?

Stark.

Yes, if he did say 'I never tested positive' it is a strange comment to make and open to misinterpretation. If Armstrong was a freak of nature - a one in a million athlete with natural talents at a level above other riders – did these talents reveal themselves throughout his career?

My knowledge of his pre-cancer cycling record is sketchy, but if he wasn't beating everyone out of sight the suggestion has to be that the illness and/or treatment altered his mental and physical make-up. The question is: Is that a common occurrence?

The other alternative is that he (like countless others it seems) had no qualms about doping. He just didn't get caught, which brings us back to the 'I never tested positive' quote.

JWSurrey

I've read his books, and it sounds like it would be very difficult to fudge a dope test, as he says that they stand over you as you're providing the sample.

However, secretsofthepeleton seem to imply there's some method of altering the sample by using washing powder on your hands - what are they talking about?
I'm curious, as if it is possible to dodge a positive result then that would alter my perception of the whole drugs and testing debate.

thedoctor

Well, he's been tested an enormous number of times and never failed. So either he's got a fantastically good doping regime that's immune to detection, or he's not doping. I personally think it's just huge natural ability, highly specific training and focus on the Tour to the exclusion of all else.
Not a Lance fanboy, by the way. Even in his autobiography he comes across as an arrogant, self-centered prick.

campagchris

IWhy say "I never tested positive" why not I never doped as it has a different meaning to me.the first implies to me that he didn't get caught,the 2nd he didn't dope.Ofcourse with the 2nd he could lie.Basso and Ulrich never tested positive(I think) but were found out by O.P. which was after Armstrongs time,although one of the bags had LAS on it I believe.Now that could have been LAndiS,or has someone got a dog called LASsie :roll:

Moose11

I'm an Armstrong fan and I tend to believe that he was clean. Saying that I can very much see both sides of the argument, it's hard to get your head around 7 wins against guys all doping but there is every posibility that he did do it clean.

Eitherway, on drugs or not, everyone he was up against was on the same shit and he still dominated 7 years running. He was still the best by far out there.

I guess we'll never know unless someone very close reveals some kind of eveidence, but right now the evidence and anything at hand concludes he was indeed clean.

Until he's proved guilty then he has to be seen to be innocent.

Smeggers

I suppose there's also an argument to say LA's dominance was a contributing factor to his contempories doping.

naz-t

some form of doping is in use in most sports now as the rewards are there financally.

as above, even if lance did take drugs (and its entirely possible) for nearly every drug theres a masking agent of some kind if you know your stuff and have a friendly doctor, as an x bodybuilder im only too aware of all the choices out there to lure sportsman onto the dark path.

growth hormone as far as im aware wasnt tested for until very recently and the performance enhancing effects are far superior to your comman anabolic steriods and testing is very difficult and expensive. also testing can be drug specific so may not be as succesful as you might think.

great sportsman are great sportsman in my book drugs or not the races that were won were won by that person and you have to accept that most, if not all of the competition are on the same playing field.

just my two penethworth,

ps for any rugby fans, look closely at the physiques of the al black team and tell me they are not "cheating"

SteveR_100Milers

Who cares anymore? Not as if he can win this year illegal drugs or not. Unless he directly involved with a team in racing then. I guess its only important if you idolise him in some way: I don't (couldnt stand his arrogance) and am suspicious of anyone in cycling let alone one who so utterly smashed everyone else for such a long period of time. As far as I am concerned, they were all doing it, therefore it was arguably a level playing field. It's far from "right" which is why I'm not really interested any more in the history any more.

Max Weber

ps for any rugby fans, look closely at the physiques of the al black team and tell me they are not "cheating"

Never mind the bloody All Blacks, club and university teams around the country are full of players who manage to put on a stone of muscle over the summer break!

naz-t

yea but the all blacks are legendery and heros for many, blatantly full of steriods comapare their physiques to the likes of for example the irish rugby team, they both contain big men but the actaull muscularity of the all blacks is on another level, they all use the gym and are all professionals also look at how easy they jackal ball from other teams - almost like taking candy from a baby? nuff said

Simon L2

Stark. wrote:

My knowledge of his pre-cancer cycling record is sketchy, but if he wasn't beating everyone out of sight ......

He won the Worlds at the age of (IIRC) 21! That's not bad going...

Simon L2

Max Weber wrote:

ps for any rugby fans, look closely at the physiques of the al black team and tell me they are not "cheating"

Never mind the bloody All Blacks, club and university teams around the country are full of players who manage to put on a stone of muscle over the summer break!

I'm not naming names, but you might look at some Rugby Union (and not All Blacks), or Italian footballers and track the shape of their heads over a period of years. Paritcularly their jawlines. There are changes that bear comparison with those in female to male sexchangers (that's the wrong word, but you know what I mean)

naz-t

go on name names lol be interested to see who else has been on the laurance dellaligou diet lol

monnet

Pre Tour wins Armstrong was a pretty decent rider (world champioship, a couple of classics) and was being touted as Jalabert's big rival for the years to come. He was diagnosed with cancer, had a revolutionary treatment that the doctors gave him a 50% survival rating. THe treatment changed is body shape radically, as can be expected. He was determined before he was diagnosed but his treatment by the cycling community was dreadful - especially Cofidis who just dumped him. Consequently he had an even greater drive to prove himself.

Now, that sounds pretty convincing as a case for him not to dope but...

You have a 50% survival rate at best according to the best doctors around, you recover but don't know if you'll survive. Dope, win the tour a few times and secure a future for your kids. I probably would. Win the Tour clean, 7 times. Doping of one sort or another has been universally acknowledged as necessary to complete let alone win the Tour so why was he so different. If everyone else was doping how did he remain invincible almost everyday? Suspicious to me.

He may have been clean to start with but then weren't they all? My view is that he probaly did dope (Christ he worked with Ferrari) like all the others, he just trained more thoroughly than eveyone else in addition.

For the record I admire his acheivements but have no time for him as a face of cycling. As Merckx said 'you are now a great of the tour, but not of cycling' and Hinault as Hinault pointed out 'How many Tours would Merckx have won if he'd concentrated only on the Tour? Nine, ten maybe'

squired

One day we will no doubt find out the answer to this question (although possibly many years from now). However, am I correct in thinking that people who rode on his team have admitted to doping during the Tour? If so, his victories are tainted anyway, given that cycling is a team sport. Much of Lance's success was due to his beast of a team that was seemingly invincible and could drop many of the best GC guys from the peloton before he even took to the front.

slojo

Some detailed, peer-reviewed analysis of Armstrong’s physiology based on tests conducted between the ages of 21 and 28 was published by Edward Coyle in 2005.
It showed that a lot of his physiology – heart rate, lactate threshold, VO-2max – remained unchanged. There was, however, a gradual 8 per cent increase in muscle efficiency and a 7 per cent decrease in body fat.
This combined to create an 18 per cent improvement in his power per kg body weight.
This doesn’t prove that he didn’t dope.
But it does show there was no sudden leap in performance.

pete236uk

well I have to say I am a fan he got me interested in the tour really, I think he rode clean although accept there might be something in the cancer treatment he had but I am now medic.
I do know he has one of the biggest lung capacitys in sport this must add something he then went on and did the new york marathon in a very good time I still think he was clean also he must have been one of the most tested athlete's around so I would have thought something would show up and I am sure the French would have loved to catch him.

pete236uk

Oh and I forgot that when he was being treated he used conventonal and non conventonal ie drinks of green veg YUK but it worked.
I would say if anyone had gone through that with less than a 50/50 chance of survival would you take drugs after that !!!

notanotherhill

Some balanced arguments here guys but let me put this to you.
Im not going to quote anyone, but it's been said here that everyone is doping and indeed not just to win but to survive.
I'm sorry but i don't accept that. Chris Boardman was one of the most prolific TT riders certainly of the modern era. It was widely accepted that he was as clean as a whistle. Why is this relevant. Because the type of drugs being used are of no benefit in short events. Thats why Boardman couldn't win stage races.
If everyone (and im speaking hypothetically here) was doping the odds are that the Armstrongs of the world would still win, even with all the riders using the same drugs. By equal measure if no-one doped, the Armstrongs of the world would still win.
No one is doubting that LA was (and quite probably) still is an exceptional athlete.
No one is doubting that he had physiological advantages (so did Indurain, a 1.5 above normal lung capacity and a resting heart rate of 29).
The eternal question here is " Did he or Didn't he". Unlike some, I doubt we will get to the truth. Armstrong is wealthy enough to fight long legal battles over this and we on this side of the Atlantic shouldn't underestimate the support he has as an athlete and an individual in the US.

Tarmacadam

one thing i'd like to say here is that i know many a bodybuilder, i know many a bodybuilder on steroids, i know some who have abused em and i know that genetics in the pros have a bigger part to play than steroids because the guys with the potential don't need much drugs and the guys that abuse don't get anywhere.

This is different to the drugs used in cycling as i'm not so familiar with them( familiar as in read up on, most certainly NOT experienced in) but i'd guess they make the most diff when like in vinos case you done em for that race!

My point GENETICS do play a part...

notanotherhill

Im sorry to disagree with you Tarmacadam, but i don't think LA is a good advertisement for the sport. Simple as that

Tarmacadam

m sorry to disagree with you Tarmacadam, but i don't think LA is a good advertisement for the sport. Simple as that

What is a good advertisement?

I think young kids who seen their first tour aged lets say six and followed the tour for the next seven years and followed LA to seven tour wins will have had more inspiration to go out and ride a bike and more belief in the sport than your wee six or seven year old looking into the sport just now.

They're also a hell of a lot less cynical than all us.

notanotherhill

Maybe so Tarmacadam, and maybe we just have a different view on this.
If you look past the did he/didnt he drugs issue, I still dont believe LA was a good advertisement for the sport. He was often arrogant in interviews and if I can look beyond that, having read both his own books, and literally everything in print about the guy, I still find him obnoxious. A simple case in point was his refusal to speak french for a lot of years. The guy was living there and making his living there. Its ignorant to expect an entire nation to speak english because he was too opinionated to learn their language.
Anyway Tarmacadam, thats my rant over your a lancie and im not and i dont think we will change each other

Tarmacadam

OK DOKY, fair enough, just when i was gettin on ma soapbox as well

NlEDERMEYER

monnet wrote:

Pre Tour wins Armstrong was a pretty decent rider (world champioship, a couple of classics) and was being touted as Jalabert's big rival for the years to come. He was diagnosed with cancer, had a revolutionary treatment that the doctors gave him a 50% survival rating. THe treatment changed is body shape radically, as can be expected. He was determined before he was diagnosed but his treatment by the cycling community was dreadful - especially Cofidis who just dumped him. Consequently he had an even greater drive to prove himself.

Now, that sounds pretty convincing as a case for him not to dope but...

You have a 50% survival rate at best according to the best doctors around, you recover but don't know if you'll survive. Dope, win the tour a few times and secure a future for your kids. I probably would. Win the Tour clean, 7 times. Doping of one sort or another has been universally acknowledged as necessary to complete let alone win the Tour so why was he so different. If everyone else was doping how did he remain invincible almost everyday? Suspicious to me.

He may have been clean to start with but then weren't they all? My view is that he probaly did dope (Christ he worked with Ferrari) like all the others, he just trained more thoroughly than eveyone else in addition.

For the record I admire his acheivements but have no time for him as a face of cycling. As Merckx said 'you are now a great of the tour, but not of cycling' and Hinault as Hinault pointed out 'How many Tours would Merckx have won if he'd concentrated only on the Tour? Nine, ten maybe'

Cofidis didn't just dump him - they offered him a different contract as he would be unable to fulfil the marketing responsibilities of his Cofidis contract. His Cofidis contract was $1,000,000 a year - at the time Lance had not ridden for them or performed any 'duties' whatever. Lance received $660,000 from Cofidis in spite of this (hardly 'just dumped). His manager negotiated win bonuses into the USPS contract that Cofidis couldn't match, and Armstrong chose this latter option and left Cofidis.

Even if Lance did not dope (laughably unlikely in view of the leaked Chatenay tests on anonymous samples fom the 1999 tour) then what is certain that he got his victories in nio small measure due to the strength of the USPS team which completely controlled the races - and Andreu has confessed personally and stated publicly of the doping regime extant in the team. It's like winning a gold medal in the 4x400 when even if you are clean the other 3 are dripping with testosterone and steroids.