In view of recent events...lance is clean?
05-10-07, 09:26 PM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,690
Bikes: Serotta Nove
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What do you mean you used to think like me? I guess I am not one of the enlightened few. What does Ullrich's doping plan have to do with what I said? I already said I think they all dope. I will change it to I think they all super duper dope.
My whole point again is I do not think it is unreasonable for people that are not convinced to wait for hard evidence. Think about all of those innocent people that have been convicted, and in some cases executed on the same type of circumstantial evidence. I guess the people on those juries did not want to be accused of having their heads buried in the sand. Admittedly it is a small percentage, but it does happen.
Richard
My whole point again is I do not think it is unreasonable for people that are not convinced to wait for hard evidence. Think about all of those innocent people that have been convicted, and in some cases executed on the same type of circumstantial evidence. I guess the people on those juries did not want to be accused of having their heads buried in the sand. Admittedly it is a small percentage, but it does happen.
Richard
Originally Posted by KramerTC
I used to think like you. But think about it, Ullrich NEVER failed a test. He wasn't just blood doping:
" Ullrich's alleged doping plan
The Suddeutsche Zeitung has published what it claims was Jan Ullrich's doping plan for the first week of the Tour de France 2005, based on information from Operacion Puerto. For the first seven days of the Tour, Dr. Fuentes prepared him a series of hormones, insulin, cortisone, testosterone and blood transfusions, the newspaper alleged. It claimed that there was a "Roadbook" for the Tour 2005, which investigators link to Ullrich.
On the first day, according to the SZ, the hormone HZ was listed, the second day insulin I-3, the hormone TGN and cortisone, the third day TGN and PCH (a testosterone shot), on the fourth day HMG, a hormone mixture, a "rest day" on the fifth day, the sixth day insulin I-3, and on the last day, the re-infusion of his own blood, as well as insulin I-3 and vitamin E.
The newspaper also notes that it is not clear who might have helped Ullrich with possible transfusions, and notes that experts say that Pevenage or Ullrich himself might have managed it. There is no indication that the medical or support personnel of the team were involved, according to the SZ. "
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...l06/jul14news3
" Ullrich's alleged doping plan
The Suddeutsche Zeitung has published what it claims was Jan Ullrich's doping plan for the first week of the Tour de France 2005, based on information from Operacion Puerto. For the first seven days of the Tour, Dr. Fuentes prepared him a series of hormones, insulin, cortisone, testosterone and blood transfusions, the newspaper alleged. It claimed that there was a "Roadbook" for the Tour 2005, which investigators link to Ullrich.
On the first day, according to the SZ, the hormone HZ was listed, the second day insulin I-3, the hormone TGN and cortisone, the third day TGN and PCH (a testosterone shot), on the fourth day HMG, a hormone mixture, a "rest day" on the fifth day, the sixth day insulin I-3, and on the last day, the re-infusion of his own blood, as well as insulin I-3 and vitamin E.
The newspaper also notes that it is not clear who might have helped Ullrich with possible transfusions, and notes that experts say that Pevenage or Ullrich himself might have managed it. There is no indication that the medical or support personnel of the team were involved, according to the SZ. "
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...l06/jul14news3
05-10-07, 09:30 PM
#77
Quarq shill
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,962
Bikes: 08 Felt F4, 05 Fuji Team SL, 08 Planet X Stealth, 10 Kona Jake the Snake, 03 Giant OCR flat bar.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by VT Biker
Those who still want to believe Lance Armstrong was clean want to stick their heads in the sand. Fine, let them. For one, they really want to beleive that Lance was clean. Why? I think it comes down to the fact that they have invested so much emotional energy and time watching Lance's career, that to realize it was all a con and that he cheated would in part be too difficult to take. Plausible deniability is their key. Others, like Patencad, take the opposite view. Well - Lance (if he doped) still beat all the other dopers, so he is still the champion.
I have no problem with this view per se, but I do have a problem with worshipping and holding in high regards LA. I will admit, he was the best of the dopers during this era (1990 - 2006). But to try to hold him up at the same level as we did even 3 years ago is rediculous. All of the antecdotal and circumstantial evidence points to the fact that he must have cheated. I would be more inclined to give Lance a pass if he was a champion of say the Classics or other 1 day races, where perhaps, genetics alone could allow you to "give it your all" and push through to win. But the TdF is just too rediculously hard on the body for a human to compete at that level (against KNOWN dopers) and not only compete, but WIN 7 TIMES IN A ROW.
My question for Patencad and the rest of them is how many times are you willing to defend these guys only to get burned? Are you that naive about this sport? Is just too tough to admit that all of these guys have cheated? Are you that in love with LA that you cannot/will not find fault with the guy?
Also - Velonews had an interesting article where a Pro rider even stated that those who defend NOT using DNA and fighting that level of testing are the ones who are guilty. They mentioned Paolo Bettini as a rider agruing against the invasion of privacy. So now even other riders are finally stepping to the plate and basically telling the public: anyone who fights more testing is cheating.
So let me ask Patencad and others: Do you think Bettini is clean?
FONT]
I have no problem with this view per se, but I do have a problem with worshipping and holding in high regards LA. I will admit, he was the best of the dopers during this era (1990 - 2006). But to try to hold him up at the same level as we did even 3 years ago is rediculous. All of the antecdotal and circumstantial evidence points to the fact that he must have cheated. I would be more inclined to give Lance a pass if he was a champion of say the Classics or other 1 day races, where perhaps, genetics alone could allow you to "give it your all" and push through to win. But the TdF is just too rediculously hard on the body for a human to compete at that level (against KNOWN dopers) and not only compete, but WIN 7 TIMES IN A ROW.
My question for Patencad and the rest of them is how many times are you willing to defend these guys only to get burned? Are you that naive about this sport? Is just too tough to admit that all of these guys have cheated? Are you that in love with LA that you cannot/will not find fault with the guy?
Also - Velonews had an interesting article where a Pro rider even stated that those who defend NOT using DNA and fighting that level of testing are the ones who are guilty. They mentioned Paolo Bettini as a rider agruing against the invasion of privacy. So now even other riders are finally stepping to the plate and basically telling the public: anyone who fights more testing is cheating.
So let me ask Patencad and others: Do you think Bettini is clean?
FONT]
Lance may or may not have doped. But so far I have not heard that he tested positive. To infer that he just miraculously became this champion rider is also a bit of a stretch. Seems like the genetics have been there quite a while.
05-10-07, 09:32 PM
#78
Quarq shill
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,962
Bikes: 08 Felt F4, 05 Fuji Team SL, 08 Planet X Stealth, 10 Kona Jake the Snake, 03 Giant OCR flat bar.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Blaireau
Incorrect. Your response is nonsense, and you are just displaying you utter ignorance. Anyone who knows anything about pro cycling, knows that Lance doped. They may choose for whatever reason not to publicize this conviction, but that's another story.
Of course its true that a "clean" rider could not compete and crush doped riders like lance did. But it goes well beyond that; a clean rider cannot, I repeat cannot shoot for a podium spot in the TdF. Everyone in the peloton knows that -- regardless of whether they are doping or not. Wake up dude!
Of course its true that a "clean" rider could not compete and crush doped riders like lance did. But it goes well beyond that; a clean rider cannot, I repeat cannot shoot for a podium spot in the TdF. Everyone in the peloton knows that -- regardless of whether they are doping or not. Wake up dude!
Prove it.
05-10-07, 09:34 PM
#79
Carpe Diem
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MABRA
Posts: 13,149
Bikes: 2007 CAAD9; 2014 CAADX; PedalForce CG1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by cslone
You mean like winning an Iron Kids triathlon at age 13, becoming a PRO Triathlete at age 15, making the US Olympic team at age 17, 8th stage of the 93 TdF, 93 US Pro Championships, World Road Championships, 18th stage of the 95 TdF, Paris-Nice Stage 5, 5 Stage wins in the 1996 Tour DuPont, Fleche-Wallone?(all previous to cancer diagnosis)
Lance may or may not have doped. But so far I have not heard that he tested positive. To infer that he just miraculously became this champion rider is also a bit of a stretch. Seems like the genetics have been there quite a while.
Lance may or may not have doped. But so far I have not heard that he tested positive. To infer that he just miraculously became this champion rider is also a bit of a stretch. Seems like the genetics have been there quite a while.
__________________
"When you are chewing the bars at the business end of a 90 mile road race you really dont care what gear you have hanging from your bike so long as it works."
ΛΧΑ ΔΞ179 - 15% off your first Hammer Nutrition order!
"When you are chewing the bars at the business end of a 90 mile road race you really dont care what gear you have hanging from your bike so long as it works."
ΛΧΑ ΔΞ179 - 15% off your first Hammer Nutrition order!
05-10-07, 09:36 PM
#80
NorCal Climbing Freak
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Recent events mostly just confirm what I already thought.
A short summary of the strong, though admittedly circumstantial evidence, ought to give even the most ardent supporter pause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Count me in as someone who believes he took substances to enhance his performance, but really doesn't care. It's pretty clear that he, and others at the top of the sport, are beasts without the extra help. It's just hard to ask someone to compete at that level without something to assist recovery.
A short summary of the strong, though admittedly circumstantial evidence, ought to give even the most ardent supporter pause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Count me in as someone who believes he took substances to enhance his performance, but really doesn't care. It's pretty clear that he, and others at the top of the sport, are beasts without the extra help. It's just hard to ask someone to compete at that level without something to assist recovery.
05-10-07, 09:37 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I thought that by quoting you I made it clear. If an athlete didn't fail a test then the athlete was clean. That was my reasoning. But if the athlete is suspected of doping, accompanied with circumstantial evidence, then the negative tests don't seem so conclusive. I'm not claiming to be any more enlightened than you or anyone in this forum. We interpret what we see and read differently?
05-10-07, 09:43 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,690
Bikes: Serotta Nove
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
How do we see if differently? I agree with you. Did you read my posts on this topic? I have several.
Where we evidently disagree is whether reasonable people can come to an opposite conclusion faced with no hard evidence. I think they can.
Richard
Where we evidently disagree is whether reasonable people can come to an opposite conclusion faced with no hard evidence. I think they can.
Richard
Originally Posted by KramerTC
I thought that by quoting you I made it clear. If an athlete didn't fail a test then the athlete was clean. That was my reasoning. But if the athlete is suspected of doping, accompanied with circumstantial evidence, then the negative tests don't seem so conclusive. I'm not claiming to be any more enlightened than you or anyone in this forum. We interpret what we see and read differently?
05-10-07, 09:46 PM
#83
Raising the Abyss
Originally Posted by Blaireau
Merckx was suspended for doping for a season: does that fit your definition of clean ?!? 
See "Setbacks and lesser days": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
__________________
"...in Las Vegas where -the electric bills are staggering -the decor hog wild -and the entertainment saccharine -what a golden age -what a time of right and reason -the consumer's king -and unhappiness is treason..."
"...in Las Vegas where -the electric bills are staggering -the decor hog wild -and the entertainment saccharine -what a golden age -what a time of right and reason -the consumer's king -and unhappiness is treason..."
05-10-07, 09:46 PM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No idea if he's clean or not but I will say this: I've never met a cancer survivor who was willing to take chances with things like steroids and GH that carry a possible risk of more cancer (I believe GH has been loosely linked to leukemia?). Lance may have doped but if so, he was an idiot - or just didn't care if his cancer came back or he got another type.
05-10-07, 10:02 PM
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Is this wrong on wikipedia, in the personal statistics section?
"Weight: 165 pounds (75 kg) in 1993, 174 pounds (79 kg) in 1999"
I thought post cancer he came back much lighter?
"Weight: 165 pounds (75 kg) in 1993, 174 pounds (79 kg) in 1999"
I thought post cancer he came back much lighter?
05-10-07, 11:17 PM
#86
Señor Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hardy, VA
Posts: 17,926
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked 1,096 Times
in
642 Posts
Originally Posted by grebletie
Recent events mostly just confirm what I already thought.
A short summary of the strong, though admittedly circumstantial evidence, ought to give even the most ardent supporter pause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Count me in as someone who believes he took substances to enhance his performance, but really doesn't care. It's pretty clear that he, and others at the top of the sport, are beasts without the extra help. It's just hard to ask someone to compete at that level without something to assist recovery.
A short summary of the strong, though admittedly circumstantial evidence, ought to give even the most ardent supporter pause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Count me in as someone who believes he took substances to enhance his performance, but really doesn't care. It's pretty clear that he, and others at the top of the sport, are beasts without the extra help. It's just hard to ask someone to compete at that level without something to assist recovery.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
05-10-07, 11:30 PM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KramerTC
Is this wrong on wikipedia, in the personal statistics section?
"Weight: 165 pounds (75 kg) in 1993, 174 pounds (79 kg) in 1999"
I thought post cancer he came back much lighter?
"Weight: 165 pounds (75 kg) in 1993, 174 pounds (79 kg) in 1999"
I thought post cancer he came back much lighter?
https://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/6/2191
Total body weight during laboratory testing ranged from 76 to 80 kg from 1992 through 1997 as well as during the preseason in 1999. However, when competing in the Tour de France in 1999–2004, body weight was reported by the subject to be 72–74 kg. Lean body weight was 70 kg during the period of 1992–1997 (Table 2). His height was 178 cm.
05-11-07, 04:18 AM
#89
Je pose, donc je suis.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 1,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bdcheung
Nobody can prove that Lance was "dirty". Ergo, he is clean.
05-11-07, 04:53 AM
#90
Quarq shill
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,962
Bikes: 08 Felt F4, 05 Fuji Team SL, 08 Planet X Stealth, 10 Kona Jake the Snake, 03 Giant OCR flat bar.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by gcl8a
Flawed logic.
05-11-07, 04:59 AM
#91
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times
in
12 Posts
Originally Posted by celticfrost
Just to clarify ---- Merckx was NOT suspended for an entire season.
See "Setbacks and lesser days": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
See "Setbacks and lesser days": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
05-11-07, 05:32 AM
#92
Banned.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ATX, Ex So Cal
Posts: 11,058
Bikes: Ridley Noah-Scott Addict-Orbea Ordu
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Vinokurtov
I am one of the ten best athletes in the world. The other eight or nine are 8-10% better through doping.
I beat the pants off them.
Seven times in a row.
I rode 21 weeks of the one of the toughest events devised by man and had one or two mediocre days.
The "proof" is soooo blatantly obvious.
I see smoke. Heat burns my eyes and flesh. I see red/orange flames rising high into the sky. Cinders burn holes into my clothes. Wood disappears into ashes before my eyes. But unless some scientist comes forward and verifies this is a fire, I'm reserving judgment. The sand, BTW, is warm and comforting around my head.
I beat the pants off them.
Seven times in a row.
I rode 21 weeks of the one of the toughest events devised by man and had one or two mediocre days.
The "proof" is soooo blatantly obvious.
I see smoke. Heat burns my eyes and flesh. I see red/orange flames rising high into the sky. Cinders burn holes into my clothes. Wood disappears into ashes before my eyes. But unless some scientist comes forward and verifies this is a fire, I'm reserving judgment. The sand, BTW, is warm and comforting around my head.
For me I believe that Lance doped. I believe that the majority of the top 30-40% dope. Until this started to affect the credibility of cycling and dominate the headlines I could have cared less. The racing was phenomenal, these guys were awe inspiring to watch. Now I just want them to clean up the mess and let us get back to racing.I had a very interesting talk with a guy yesterday that has known Mike Anderson for over 20 years. He says Mike is one of the most honest and straight forward people he's ever known. He fully believes that Mike is telling the truth. FWIW Mike is now living in Fuji and owns a bike shop...
I hope Smoothie chimes in on this thread, he has some very interesting points on Lance and doping.
Last edited by El Diablo Rojo; 05-11-07 at 05:38 AM.
05-11-07, 06:40 AM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VT Biker
Richard,
I just think to deny the high, high, and (let me say again) extremely high probability that Lance and Bettini cheated or are cheating now because there is no HARD proof is either naive or delusional. I just wish more people who take a step back and stop praising Lance. Fine, he was the best of his era. But he cheated, lied to the public, and used that to advance himself financially.
I think a lot of us wish that the Lance worshipping cycling community would have an "emperor has no clothes on moment”, and Lance can sink back into his abode in Austin to never be heard of again. Instead, the guy still is used by corporate America, all the while, the public has been led to believe that this guy was the most amazing cyclist in history. I guess I am more interested in the truth than hero worship.
I just think to deny the high, high, and (let me say again) extremely high probability that Lance and Bettini cheated or are cheating now because there is no HARD proof is either naive or delusional. I just wish more people who take a step back and stop praising Lance. Fine, he was the best of his era. But he cheated, lied to the public, and used that to advance himself financially.
I think a lot of us wish that the Lance worshipping cycling community would have an "emperor has no clothes on moment”, and Lance can sink back into his abode in Austin to never be heard of again. Instead, the guy still is used by corporate America, all the while, the public has been led to believe that this guy was the most amazing cyclist in history. I guess I am more interested in the truth than hero worship.
+1
05-11-07, 06:47 AM
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by celticfrost
Just to clarify ---- Merckx was NOT suspended for an entire season.
See "Setbacks and lesser days": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
See "Setbacks and lesser days": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
05-11-07, 06:50 AM
#95
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,304
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked 728 Times
in
373 Posts
Bottom line is Armstrong was never caught using PED's. Now, any rational thinker would have to conclude that there is a very high probability he did. However, he was never proven to have violated the rules, and that's the end of the story.
05-11-07, 06:55 AM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by grebletie
Recent events mostly just confirm what I already thought.
A short summary of the strong, though admittedly circumstantial evidence, ought to give even the most ardent supporter pause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Count me in as someone who believes he took substances to enhance his performance, but really doesn't care. It's pretty clear that he, and others at the top of the sport, are beasts without the extra help. It's just hard to ask someone to compete at that level without something to assist recovery.
A short summary of the strong, though admittedly circumstantial evidence, ought to give even the most ardent supporter pause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
Count me in as someone who believes he took substances to enhance his performance, but really doesn't care. It's pretty clear that he, and others at the top of the sport, are beasts without the extra help. It's just hard to ask someone to compete at that level without something to assist recovery.
The debate should really be: Lance doped, do you care or not? Why?
05-11-07, 07:08 AM
#97
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times
in
12 Posts
Originally Posted by Blaireau
Though I disagree with you on the doping issue, I think your stance on the issue is way more intellectually honest than those who deny the reality of rampant dope usage in the peloton.
The debate should really be: Lance doped, do you care or not? Why?
The debate should really be: Lance doped, do you care or not? Why?
05-11-07, 07:15 AM
#98
Banned.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ATX, Ex So Cal
Posts: 11,058
Bikes: Ridley Noah-Scott Addict-Orbea Ordu
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
Bottom line is Armstrong was never caught using PED's. Now, any rational thinker would have to conclude that there is a very high probability he did. However, he was never proven to have violated the rules, and that's the end of the story.
05-11-07, 07:22 AM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by El Diablo Rojo
Okay using that logic, had OP never taken place Basso would have never been caught either, therefore he never doped. The same holds true for Millar, he never tested positive yet we know he doped. Richard Viranque (sp) never tested positive but we know he doped. The list goes on.
Implication: the cycling federations, the UCI are not doing what needs to be done to catch dopers. I.e., they are dropping the ball and are complicit with the whole doping entreprise -- though of course they are the first ones to throw their arms up in the air with indignation if someone does get caught. Kind of like the directeurs sportifs.
05-11-07, 07:28 AM
#100
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,304
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked 728 Times
in
373 Posts
Originally Posted by El Diablo Rojo
Okay using that logic, had OP never taken place Basso would have never been caught either, therefore he never doped. The same holds true for Millar, he never tested positive yet we know he doped. Richard Viranque (sp) never tested positive but we know he doped. The list goes on.
So, did Armstrong dope, very probably. does Armstrong get to keep his 7 TDF wins, yes, does Armstrong get to keep the money, yes. As a practical matter, he either didn't dope (unlikely) or didn't get caught (likely). Either way its largely irrelevant as a practical matter.
And I'm pretty confident there are a number of other successful cyclists who were fortunate enough to have retired without ever getting caught.