Presentation from LeMond on Doping
06-25-09, 06:58 PM
#101
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Minneapolis MN, Jackson Hole WY
Posts: 259
Bikes: LeMond tete de course, Cinelli, Calfee, Crumpton, Richard Sachs, Kirk, Bob Jackson, many more except for Treks
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You should really understand what you write, before you write it. Losing weight has nothing to do with what you are trying to say; what you are saying is that the weight lose redefined him physically as a cyclist. When you hear sport commentators saying this during the race, they are just making the commentary sound interesting by lose facts. He did not go from 120KGs to 60KGs something that would redefine an athelete. He lost some Kilos, but as a pro cyclist your already lean where you need to be. Pre-cancer and post cancer he lost some weight thats all. Dont think that all of a sudden he has new muscle tissue and all of that.
Actually, its funny, IGF does exactly that.....
Your drive to turn pro is stronger than when you are actually pro.
Pre cancer Lance had a hard time finishing the Tour, then after a sudden development of cancer, he comes back to win 7 times in a row, against doped up competitors, and your logical conclusion is that he is clean. Im sorry, but thats plain stupidity. I really dont want to say that, since its a little disrespectful, but the fact is that its just stupid to think that.
What you are forgetting is that after cancer he had a lot of hormone therapy. Having worked with Ferrari, you can guess what he might have done. A good steak and potatoes diet you are most probably thinking.
EPO is not responsible for Lances 7 Tour wins, everybody needs to understand this.
There is a host of next generation hormone/peptide drugs available, some which genetically alter your body composition. Some of these he would have been able to use for his cancer treatment, and some maybe he would have been able to try because his cancer gave him license to seek them.
The bottom line, that EVERYBODY will agree on is this, here are the facts;
Pre-cancer Lance and post cancer Lance are two completely different racers
Pre-cancer Lance, never had major Tour results
Post-cancer lance pretty much destroyed a doped up field.
Post-cancer Lance went through extensive hormone treatment to recover from cancer.
Now, conclude what you want, but those are the facts.
Even if Lance was clean during his 7 Tour wins, his cancer treatment would have redefined his body with use of very, very, very powerful drugs.
Actually, its funny, IGF does exactly that.....
Your drive to turn pro is stronger than when you are actually pro.
Pre cancer Lance had a hard time finishing the Tour, then after a sudden development of cancer, he comes back to win 7 times in a row, against doped up competitors, and your logical conclusion is that he is clean. Im sorry, but thats plain stupidity. I really dont want to say that, since its a little disrespectful, but the fact is that its just stupid to think that.
What you are forgetting is that after cancer he had a lot of hormone therapy. Having worked with Ferrari, you can guess what he might have done. A good steak and potatoes diet you are most probably thinking.
EPO is not responsible for Lances 7 Tour wins, everybody needs to understand this.
There is a host of next generation hormone/peptide drugs available, some which genetically alter your body composition. Some of these he would have been able to use for his cancer treatment, and some maybe he would have been able to try because his cancer gave him license to seek them.
The bottom line, that EVERYBODY will agree on is this, here are the facts;
Pre-cancer Lance and post cancer Lance are two completely different racers
Pre-cancer Lance, never had major Tour results
Post-cancer lance pretty much destroyed a doped up field.
Post-cancer Lance went through extensive hormone treatment to recover from cancer.
Now, conclude what you want, but those are the facts.
Even if Lance was clean during his 7 Tour wins, his cancer treatment would have redefined his body with use of very, very, very powerful drugs.
For those who believe in French conspiracies, it was placed in those samples.
At any rate, he's Pharmstrong.....
BTW, what are the names of these next generation hormone peptide drugs. Would appreciate a link if you have one.
06-25-09, 09:45 PM
#102
Big Blade
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Google IGF-1 LR3. It genetically alters how much muscle tissue you have.
For whatever reason, I suspect that perhaps this might have been one ingredient.
There are others, but i would have to dig for them; some of which have cured a case of HIV now as well.
By the way, Lance is clean. He's will to win was crystallized by cancer.
06-25-09, 10:35 PM
#103
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 445
Bikes: 02' Fuji Team, 85' Miyata ninety SS, 18' Citizen Rome
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Michael Phelps is to swimmers as Lance Armstrong is to Cyclists.
If He was able to win 8 Gold medals and hold 7 world records while taking a drug that is suppose to make him slower why can't Lance win the TDF 7x against a buncha dopers? lol don't take this too seriously haha
If He was able to win 8 Gold medals and hold 7 world records while taking a drug that is suppose to make him slower why can't Lance win the TDF 7x against a buncha dopers? lol don't take this too seriously haha
06-25-09, 11:38 PM
#104
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Minneapolis MN, Jackson Hole WY
Posts: 259
Bikes: LeMond tete de course, Cinelli, Calfee, Crumpton, Richard Sachs, Kirk, Bob Jackson, many more except for Treks
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have mentioned it several times now.
Google IGF-1 LR3. It genetically alters how much muscle tissue you have.
For whatever reason, I suspect that perhaps this might have been one ingredient.
There are others, but i would have to dig for them; some of which have cured a case of HIV now as well.
By the way, Lance is clean. He's will to win was crystallized by cancer.
Google IGF-1 LR3. It genetically alters how much muscle tissue you have.
For whatever reason, I suspect that perhaps this might have been one ingredient.
There are others, but i would have to dig for them; some of which have cured a case of HIV now as well.
By the way, Lance is clean. He's will to win was crystallized by cancer.
Supposedly the stuff promotes hyperplasia, the splitting of muscle fibers.
It also can increase susceptibility to certain CANCERS.
https://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/321/7265/847
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637140
Insulin-like growth factor 1 and prostate cancer risk: a population-based, case-control study.Wolk A, Mantzoros CS, Andersson SO, Bergström R, Signorello LB, Lagiou P, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D.
Department of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Alicja.Wolk@mep.ki.se
BACKGROUND: Recent epidemiologic investigations have suggested an association between increased blood levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and increased risk of prostate cancer. Our goal was to determine whether an association exists between serum levels of IGF-1 and one of its binding proteins, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3), and prostate cancer risk. METHODS: An immunoradiometric assay was used to quantify IGF-1 levels and IGFBP-3 levels in serum samples as part of a population-based, case-control study in Sweden. The study population comprised 210 patients with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer and 224 frequency-matched control subjects. Data were analyzed by use of unconditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: The mean serum IGF-1 level for case patients (158.4 ng/mL) was significantly higher than that for control subjects (147.4 ng/mL) (P = .02); corresponding mean serum IGFBP-3 levels were not significantly different between case patients (2668 ng/mL) and control subjects (2518 ng/mL) (P =.09). We found a moderately strong and statistically significant (P = .04) positive association between serum levels of IGF-1 levels and risk of prostate cancer (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.0-2.26 per 100 ng/mL increment); the association was particularly strong for men younger than 70 years of age (OR = 2.93; 95% CI = 1.43-5.97). No association was found between serum IGF-1 levels and disease stage. Serum IGFBP-3 levels were not significantly associated with increased risk of disease, and adjustment for IGFBP-3 had little effect on the association between IGF-1 levels and risk of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: Elevated serum IGF-1 levels may be an important predictor of risk for prostate cancer. However, our results do not support an important role for serum IGFBP-3 as a predictor of risk for this disease.
PMID: 9637140 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Also, if LA's taking this stuff, he's not clean in any sense of the word.Department of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Alicja.Wolk@mep.ki.se
BACKGROUND: Recent epidemiologic investigations have suggested an association between increased blood levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and increased risk of prostate cancer. Our goal was to determine whether an association exists between serum levels of IGF-1 and one of its binding proteins, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3), and prostate cancer risk. METHODS: An immunoradiometric assay was used to quantify IGF-1 levels and IGFBP-3 levels in serum samples as part of a population-based, case-control study in Sweden. The study population comprised 210 patients with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer and 224 frequency-matched control subjects. Data were analyzed by use of unconditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: The mean serum IGF-1 level for case patients (158.4 ng/mL) was significantly higher than that for control subjects (147.4 ng/mL) (P = .02); corresponding mean serum IGFBP-3 levels were not significantly different between case patients (2668 ng/mL) and control subjects (2518 ng/mL) (P =.09). We found a moderately strong and statistically significant (P = .04) positive association between serum levels of IGF-1 levels and risk of prostate cancer (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.0-2.26 per 100 ng/mL increment); the association was particularly strong for men younger than 70 years of age (OR = 2.93; 95% CI = 1.43-5.97). No association was found between serum IGF-1 levels and disease stage. Serum IGFBP-3 levels were not significantly associated with increased risk of disease, and adjustment for IGFBP-3 had little effect on the association between IGF-1 levels and risk of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: Elevated serum IGF-1 levels may be an important predictor of risk for prostate cancer. However, our results do not support an important role for serum IGFBP-3 as a predictor of risk for this disease.
PMID: 9637140 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
https://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=148252
BTW, some guy named "GEAR" recommended this $hit to a guy calling himself "c5529." At the time "c5529" started taking this stuff he was 5'6" tall and weighed 224lbs. He's finally broken 230lbs. Oy veh!
I hope the guy makes it to 40 years old.
Last edited by Reid Rothchild; 06-25-09 at 11:47 PM.
06-26-09, 02:28 AM
#105
Velo Club La Grange
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MDR, CA
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Your tarot cards are failing you. Which claim are you making: did he or did he not use EPO before 1995?
06-26-09, 07:55 AM
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,104
Bikes: Too many to count
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Michael Phelps is to swimmers as Lance Armstrong is to Cyclists.
If He was able to win 8 Gold medals and hold 7 world records while taking a drug that is suppose to make him slower why can't Lance win the TDF 7x against a buncha dopers? lol don't take this too seriously haha
If He was able to win 8 Gold medals and hold 7 world records while taking a drug that is suppose to make him slower why can't Lance win the TDF 7x against a buncha dopers? lol don't take this too seriously haha
I think the more appropriate analogy is...
Barry Bonds is to basball players as Lance Armstrong is to cyclists.
Both druggies.
06-26-09, 08:16 AM
#108
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Minneapolis MN, Jackson Hole WY
Posts: 259
Bikes: LeMond tete de course, Cinelli, Calfee, Crumpton, Richard Sachs, Kirk, Bob Jackson, many more except for Treks
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
At any rate, what I wrote really isn't hard to understand. In 1995 Steven Swart says that the members of Motorola, including LA, decided to take EPO. They had a centrifuge and during the race, tested their Hct. Swart says his 47 was one of the lower numbers. An Hct of 47 at the end of a Grand Tour doesn't occur naturally.
LA didn't start seeing Ferrari until the fall of '95. He kept that a secret until 2001. His lack of transparency from that time until now doesn't trouble you at all? His association with Ferrari is innocent?
Rather than attacking me, why don't you read up on these matters? The information is out there.
06-26-09, 09:44 AM
#109
Velo Club La Grange
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MDR, CA
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you really think I'm Greg, you should have a little more respect for my knowledge.
At any rate, what I wrote really isn't hard to understand. In 1995 Steven Swart says that the members of Motorola, including LA, decided to take EPO. They had a centrifuge and during the race, tested their Hct. Swart says his 47 was one of the lower numbers. An Hct of 47 at the end of a Grand Tour doesn't occur naturally.
LA didn't start seeing Ferrari until the fall of '95. He kept that a secret until 2001. His lack of transparency from that time until now doesn't trouble you at all? His association with Ferrari is innocent?
Rather than attacking me, why don't you read up on these matters? The information is out there.
At any rate, what I wrote really isn't hard to understand. In 1995 Steven Swart says that the members of Motorola, including LA, decided to take EPO. They had a centrifuge and during the race, tested their Hct. Swart says his 47 was one of the lower numbers. An Hct of 47 at the end of a Grand Tour doesn't occur naturally.
LA didn't start seeing Ferrari until the fall of '95. He kept that a secret until 2001. His lack of transparency from that time until now doesn't trouble you at all? His association with Ferrari is innocent?
Rather than attacking me, why don't you read up on these matters? The information is out there.
As to you wondering if I find his "lack of transparency" with Ferrari troubling: well, first, I don't find anything troubling about his so-called lack of transparency. Lance is under no moral obligation to disclose, to me, the full nature of his association with Ferrari; it's not really any of my business, nor is it, quite frankly, any of my concern. So honestly, I don't give it much thought. But that being said, his association with Ferrari does raise understandable questions as to the means by which he arrived at his high level of fitness and to the veracity of his claims of being a "clean racer."
I don't begrudge anyone for believing that Lance Armstrong doped; so long as they recognize that, until proven otherwise, they really are just beliefs. People who act as if they omnipotent on the subject and go around mocking others simply because they require more than accusations from former employees and ex-teammates before they are willing to accept that Lance is guilty of doping are themselves, to me, a joke.
If it turns out that Lance doped in his "pre-cancer" days, I would not be at all surprised. If it turns out that he doped during his seven Tour victories, well, I have to admit I would be a lil' surprised and a lil' let down.
06-26-09, 12:10 PM
#110
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Minneapolis MN, Jackson Hole WY
Posts: 259
Bikes: LeMond tete de course, Cinelli, Calfee, Crumpton, Richard Sachs, Kirk, Bob Jackson, many more except for Treks
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let's start of with you whining about me attacking you. It's really easy to understand: don't start none, won't be none--be respectful in tone and word, and you will be treated in kind, otherwise get comfortable with whining about being "attacked."
As to you wondering if I find his "lack of transparency" with Ferrari troubling: well, first, I don't find anything troubling about his so-called lack of transparency. Lance is under no moral obligation to disclose, to me, the full nature of his association with Ferrari; it's not really any of my business, nor is it, quite frankly, any of my concern. So honestly, I don't give it much thought. But that being said, his association with Ferrari does raise understandable questions as to the means by which he arrived at his high level of fitness and to the veracity of his claims of being a "clean racer."
I don't begrudge anyone for believing that Lance Armstrong doped; so long as they recognize that, until proven otherwise, they really are just beliefs. People who act as if they omnipotent on the subject and go around mocking others simply because they require more than accusations from former employees and ex-teammates before they are willing to accept that Lance is guilty of doping are themselves, to me, a joke.
If it turns out that Lance doped in his "pre-cancer" days, I would not be at all surprised. If it turns out that he doped during his seven Tour victories, well, I have to admit I would be a lil' surprised and a lil' let down.
As to you wondering if I find his "lack of transparency" with Ferrari troubling: well, first, I don't find anything troubling about his so-called lack of transparency. Lance is under no moral obligation to disclose, to me, the full nature of his association with Ferrari; it's not really any of my business, nor is it, quite frankly, any of my concern. So honestly, I don't give it much thought. But that being said, his association with Ferrari does raise understandable questions as to the means by which he arrived at his high level of fitness and to the veracity of his claims of being a "clean racer."
I don't begrudge anyone for believing that Lance Armstrong doped; so long as they recognize that, until proven otherwise, they really are just beliefs. People who act as if they omnipotent on the subject and go around mocking others simply because they require more than accusations from former employees and ex-teammates before they are willing to accept that Lance is guilty of doping are themselves, to me, a joke.
If it turns out that Lance doped in his "pre-cancer" days, I would not be at all surprised. If it turns out that he doped during his seven Tour victories, well, I have to admit I would be a lil' surprised and a lil' let down.
It's just a fact that if LeMond is speaking to you, It's as obvious as frigging day, that he knows a hell of a lot more than you do.
I really couldn't give a $hit how you address me, but you're so effing arrogant that you think you know more than LeMond would know. You've also bought into all this bs disseminated by Armstrong that LeMond is bitter and a whiner. I'll repeat again what LeMond said after Walsh revealed in 2001 that Armstrong had been working with Ferrari for six years.
"It's either the greatest comeback in sports history, or the greatest fraud." Pretty tame considering that it's almost a universally held belief among people in the know, (and that would be LeMond among others) that Armstrong's 7 wins were based on doping. In '99 his climb up Sestriere was literally laughed at by people in the European press.
Secondly, yur boy Amstrong was the one that proclaimed he would be transparent becuase he took it upon himself to silence the doubters. Nobody asked him to come back and if his life wasn't such a frigging mess, with the Olsen twins and other such bs, he would never have come back.
He's under no moral obligation? Good grief! Of course he's not unless he wants to prove to rational thinking people that he's not doping. Nobody told him to set up a program with Catlin which he of course backed out of.
You conveniently don't give a lot of stuff much thought, because if you did, you'd see the Ferrari association as being damning to a guy you have a lot invested in for whatever reason.
A respected journalist with a 1.000 Batting average came out with a whole books worth of evidence which would destroy Armstrong in a court of law and you just dismiss it.
06-26-09, 12:32 PM
#111
Banned.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The point here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that Lance has doped but because of an objective alliance between him and the UCI among others, Lance has always tested negative.
Ultimately, I think the powers that be (i.e., the UCI and ASO, Sponsors in general, and the media in the US at least) have all seprately come to the conclusion that proving that Lance doped would be bad for cycling. They are right in the short term; it would be a P.R. nightmare. However, I am of the opinion that the wound should be disinfected before we move on. And that for the long term health of pro-cycling out and out cheaters like Armstrong should be unmasked.
06-26-09, 01:08 PM
#112
Light Makes Right
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Green Mountain, Colorado
Posts: 1,520
Bikes: Gianni Motta Criterium, Dean Hardtail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
06-26-09, 01:16 PM
#113
Velo Club La Grange
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MDR, CA
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
First of all, I'm not whining!
It's just a fact that if LeMond is speaking to you, It's as obvious as frigging day, that he knows a hell of a lot more than you do.
I really couldn't give a $hit how you address me, but you're so effing arrogant that you think you know more than LeMond would know. You've also bought into all this bs disseminated by Armstrong that LeMond is bitter and a whiner. I'll repeat again what LeMond said after Walsh revealed in 2001 that Armstrong had been working with Ferrari for six years.
"It's either the greatest comeback in sports history, or the greatest fraud." Pretty tame considering that it's almost a universally held belief among people in the know, (and that would be LeMond among others) that Armstrong's 7 wins were based on doping. In '99 his climb up Sestriere was literally laughed at by people in the European press.
Secondly, yur boy Amstrong was the one that proclaimed he would be transparent becuase he took it upon himself to silence the doubters. Nobody asked him to come back and if his life wasn't such a frigging mess, with the Olsen twins and other such bs, he would never have come back.
He's under no moral obligation? Good grief! Of course he's not unless he wants to prove to rational thinking people that he's not doping. Nobody told him to set up a program with Catlin which he of course backed out of.
You conveniently don't give a lot of stuff much thought, because if you did, you'd see the Ferrari association as being damning to a guy you have a lot invested in for whatever reason.
A respected journalist with a 1.000 Batting average came out with a whole books worth of evidence which would destroy Armstrong in a court of law and you just dismiss it.
It's just a fact that if LeMond is speaking to you, It's as obvious as frigging day, that he knows a hell of a lot more than you do.
I really couldn't give a $hit how you address me, but you're so effing arrogant that you think you know more than LeMond would know. You've also bought into all this bs disseminated by Armstrong that LeMond is bitter and a whiner. I'll repeat again what LeMond said after Walsh revealed in 2001 that Armstrong had been working with Ferrari for six years.
"It's either the greatest comeback in sports history, or the greatest fraud." Pretty tame considering that it's almost a universally held belief among people in the know, (and that would be LeMond among others) that Armstrong's 7 wins were based on doping. In '99 his climb up Sestriere was literally laughed at by people in the European press.
Secondly, yur boy Amstrong was the one that proclaimed he would be transparent becuase he took it upon himself to silence the doubters. Nobody asked him to come back and if his life wasn't such a frigging mess, with the Olsen twins and other such bs, he would never have come back.
He's under no moral obligation? Good grief! Of course he's not unless he wants to prove to rational thinking people that he's not doping. Nobody told him to set up a program with Catlin which he of course backed out of.
You conveniently don't give a lot of stuff much thought, because if you did, you'd see the Ferrari association as being damning to a guy you have a lot invested in for whatever reason.
A respected journalist with a 1.000 Batting average came out with a whole books worth of evidence which would destroy Armstrong in a court of law and you just dismiss it.
06-26-09, 02:12 PM
#114
Wheelsuck
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If taking EPO is all you have to do to win the Tour, why didn't everyone else win?
Look, I don't defend Lance. He did or didn't do whatever. It doesn't have any effect on me. I believe about 75% of the riders dope right now, and in the past that number is only goes up. So in the worst case scenario (of doping), he was essentially on a somewhat even footing with his competitors. They might have not done as thorough of a job as he did, but they had the same access.
Here is something to consider even if you believe Lance himself was clean. Most of the guys riding for him were doped. So he was PED aided even if he was clean as a whistle.
Having said all this, I don't care. He's still a hell of a cyclist that is an awesome competitor. Those of you looking for 'a fair fight' are suckers. I'll stack the deck against you as often and as deeply as I can.
Look, I don't defend Lance. He did or didn't do whatever. It doesn't have any effect on me. I believe about 75% of the riders dope right now, and in the past that number is only goes up. So in the worst case scenario (of doping), he was essentially on a somewhat even footing with his competitors. They might have not done as thorough of a job as he did, but they had the same access.
Here is something to consider even if you believe Lance himself was clean. Most of the guys riding for him were doped. So he was PED aided even if he was clean as a whistle.
Having said all this, I don't care. He's still a hell of a cyclist that is an awesome competitor. Those of you looking for 'a fair fight' are suckers. I'll stack the deck against you as often and as deeply as I can.
06-26-09, 02:14 PM
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Carlisle, MA
Posts: 209
Bikes: old Merlin, Santana Beyond, & a mommy bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
ohmygosh. This thread is still going? I thought it was dead long ago. 
FWIW. I have met and ridden with GL. He really is a bitter man. This is not up for debate.
FWIW. I have met and ridden with GL. He really is a bitter man. This is not up for debate.
Last edited by bikinggrrrl; 06-26-09 at 02:19 PM.
06-26-09, 03:47 PM
#116
Banned
I hate to say it, but you are wrong. There was a lawsuit, as you should know since we've read the same book, and... Lance got off.
The point here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that Lance has doped but because of an objective alliance between him and the UCI among others, Lance has always tested negative.
Ultimately, I think the powers that be (i.e., the UCI and ASO, Sponsors in general, and the media in the US at least) have all seprately come to the conclusion that proving that Lance doped would be bad for cycling. They are right in the short term; it would be a P.R. nightmare. However, I am of the opinion that the wound should be disinfected before we move on. And that for the long term health of pro-cycling out and out cheaters like Armstrong should be unmasked.
The point here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that Lance has doped but because of an objective alliance between him and the UCI among others, Lance has always tested negative.
Ultimately, I think the powers that be (i.e., the UCI and ASO, Sponsors in general, and the media in the US at least) have all seprately come to the conclusion that proving that Lance doped would be bad for cycling. They are right in the short term; it would be a P.R. nightmare. However, I am of the opinion that the wound should be disinfected before we move on. And that for the long term health of pro-cycling out and out cheaters like Armstrong should be unmasked.
06-26-09, 04:58 PM
#117
Big Blade
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You are however, very, very naive.
Lance could have used next generation genetic altering drugs during and after cancer treatment with a free license to do so.
I hate to say it, but you are wrong. There was a lawsuit, as you should know since we've read the same book, and... Lance got off.
The point here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that Lance has doped but because of an objective alliance between him and the UCI among others, Lance has always tested negative.
Ultimately, I think the powers that be (i.e., the UCI and ASO, Sponsors in general, and the media in the US at least) have all seprately come to the conclusion that proving that Lance doped would be bad for cycling. They are right in the short term; it would be a P.R. nightmare. However, I am of the opinion that the wound should be disinfected before we move on. And that for the long term health of pro-cycling out and out cheaters like Armstrong should be unmasked.
The point here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that Lance has doped but because of an objective alliance between him and the UCI among others, Lance has always tested negative.
Ultimately, I think the powers that be (i.e., the UCI and ASO, Sponsors in general, and the media in the US at least) have all seprately come to the conclusion that proving that Lance doped would be bad for cycling. They are right in the short term; it would be a P.R. nightmare. However, I am of the opinion that the wound should be disinfected before we move on. And that for the long term health of pro-cycling out and out cheaters like Armstrong should be unmasked.
And dont forgrt all the broken hearted fans like Cat4Lifer
06-26-09, 05:05 PM
#118
Wheelsuck
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Strangely enough, though, your hypothesis vindicates Armstrong. If chemicals A, B, C and D are illegal and he was taking 'E', then by the rules he is competing under, he's clean. While he might be doing something that is not morally wrong, that is different from doing something legally (by the rules of competition) wrong. Case closed.
06-26-09, 05:08 PM
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,104
Bikes: Too many to count
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Cat4Lifer, owned. Please do some research on Armstrong EPO doping allegations before you keep proving yourself wrong. Thank you.
06-26-09, 05:23 PM
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 445
Bikes: 02' Fuji Team, 85' Miyata ninety SS, 18' Citizen Rome
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There is no research on the internet enough to prove that he did either. If there was enough evidence then he would've be striped of his 7 TDF victories. Its just enough to assume that he did but not enough to prove that he did.
06-26-09, 05:28 PM
#121
Big Blade
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
OK, insert XXXXXX for EPO. It doesn't change the sentiment of what I wrote. I still don't care. There is no reason why Lance would have had access to some magical mystery drug that no other cyclist could have obtained. I do know that I don't see a lot of cyclist improving their game by taking chemotherapy drugs on the sly. Not a big market there.
Strangely enough, though, your hypothesis vindicates Armstrong. If chemicals A, B, C and D are illegal and he was taking 'E', then by the rules he is competing under, he's clean. While he might be doing something that is not morally wrong, that is different from doing something legally (by the rules of competition) wrong. Case closed.
Strangely enough, though, your hypothesis vindicates Armstrong. If chemicals A, B, C and D are illegal and he was taking 'E', then by the rules he is competing under, he's clean. While he might be doing something that is not morally wrong, that is different from doing something legally (by the rules of competition) wrong. Case closed.
And yes, my feeling is that Lance was clean for the most part (most probably on EPO, which is a given, and would make no difference since they are all on it), but his comeback was facilitated by some power drugs.
That is cheating.
06-26-09, 05:47 PM
#122
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Any ways, most people for the most part do not believe Lance cheated, that is the general census among average people who don't pay much detailed attention to the sport, and the many Lance fans out there.
Even if he did cheat, then that means a lot of other people were probably cheating, so how did he still win? Also Ulrich definitely tested positive, so he was definitely cheating all those years and yet Lance was still able to beat him all those times? Lemond's conference definitely pointed out something that shouldn't be overlooked...genetics plays the biggest role, and Lance's genetics was a cut above everyone elses.
Last edited by DenisMenchov; 06-26-09 at 05:51 PM.
06-26-09, 06:23 PM
#123
Banned
That's the issue. What bothers me is if he cheated for so long then there should be definitive unquestionable proof, not just circumstantial evidence and a bunch of he said she said type of deal.
Any ways, most people for the most part do not believe Lance cheated, that is the general census among average people who don't pay much detailed attention to the sport, and the many Lance fans out there.
Even if he did cheat, then that means a lot of other people were probably cheating, so how did he still win? Also Ulrich definitely tested positive, so he was definitely cheating all those years and yet Lance was still able to beat him all those times? Lemond's conference definitely pointed out something that shouldn't be overlooked...genetics plays the biggest role, and Lance's genetics was a cut above everyone elses.
Any ways, most people for the most part do not believe Lance cheated, that is the general census among average people who don't pay much detailed attention to the sport, and the many Lance fans out there.
Even if he did cheat, then that means a lot of other people were probably cheating, so how did he still win? Also Ulrich definitely tested positive, so he was definitely cheating all those years and yet Lance was still able to beat him all those times? Lemond's conference definitely pointed out something that shouldn't be overlooked...genetics plays the biggest role, and Lance's genetics was a cut above everyone elses.
06-26-09, 06:32 PM
#124
Senior Member
possibly most Americans, but I'd be very surprised if the cycling aware and the cycling fans in other parts of the world are of the same faith.
06-26-09, 10:01 PM
#125
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,872
Bikes: Trek Domane SLR 7 AXS, Trek CheckPoint SL7 AXS, Trek Emonda ALR AXS, Trek FX 5 Sport
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked 1,730 Times
in
1,007 Posts
