I like the part where he admits he never should have sued USADA, that Travis is a great guy. and getting Livestrong lobbyists to use funds meant for cancer to lobby congress to defund USADA was a big mistake

Obviously a hater and didn't read the article! I personally look forward to the day when he's given all his titles back. And yes, a lot of pro cyclists present and past are pushing for it.

Why not read the article instead of posting sarcasm?

Some dopers think he should have his titles back....zzzzzz. Nobody is pushing for it. The sport wants to forget Armstrong, pretend he never existed

What does Kittel think?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kittel-sick-of-armstrong-supporters







He will never get them back. His revisionist history is confirming what we all knew.....He is a lying scumbag that will never change. He is searching for some groupies to sell his latest scam to. He may find a few but most will ignore him

The person who does have any credibility is Kittel. He is among the latest omerta keepers and scam artists who pretend the the doping problem is caused by a few people and the sport has cleaned up. They keep lying about the extent of doping and refuse to allow cycling to deal with the problem using a policy of transparency. They feel it is far easier to lie and blame everything on a few rotten apples rather than a rotten orchard. Nothing will change as long as they continue to con the public.

The next screw job is coming. Wait for the CIRC report to be released and watch the UCI to decide a couple of team managers are not fit and proper people to be involved in cycling while giving a pass to the rest of the managers, who were all just as complicit. Don't hold your breath expecting Cookson to admit that for twenty years pretty much every race of significance was won with the aid of blood vector doping.

If UCI did the part in bold, then I would expect that Roger Goodell would get on stage and say that every Superbowl going back to the undefeated Dolphins run of 1972 was done with anabolic steroids and HGH. Good luck with that happening. There is really no incentive for the UCI to come clean...they have an incentive to come "semi clean" to make it look to fans and sponsors that we are seeing wholesome sport again, and then pull back in the likes of Nike, Citigroup, Nestle <insert your multinational sponsor here> and then move on. Then some superstars in the future will be busted again, they will be thrown under the bus and then it will be business as usual.

Did you ever notice that other than the stupidest athletes like Ben Johnson, the IOC almost NEVER busts marquis super star athletes for doping during the Olympics. they will bust a Tier3 Bulgarian weight lifter, or some 30th place skeleton or luge athletes for some stimulant, but almost NEVER a superstar that will take down sponsor $$$$.

BS. There are plenty of riders who speak up against doping. There is plenty of evidence that the situation has improved greatly, even lance says so.
A few rotten apples? Who is pretending it was just a few rotten apples? Lienders, Ferrari, Ricco, Ullrich, Marti, Di Lucca, Santuccione. The list is bans is endless.

Regardless, this is about Lance trying to court a new batch up suckers to buy his latest scam.

wasn't Kittell in the poo a few years ago for having his blood drawn, treated with UV light ( or whatever) and re-injected? any such actions now would be illegal.

Yup....

Was it illegal at the time? (Honest question, I'm not trying to stir the pot)

"that every Superbowl going back to the undefeated Dolphins run of 1972 was done with anabolic steroids and HGH"
-----------------------------
But everyone already knows and accepts (excepts?) this.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

 

So your saying they should just dismantle all of pro cycling? Remember the top 15 in all of Lance's win years were all implicated in doping. I'm sure you could take that down to the top 30 and beyond. Personally, I don't for a second believe cycling is clean now.

Does Lance or anyone really care if the titles are "returned?" It isn't like we went back and had the race over again. Lance rode into Paris 7 times in the yellow jersey. He still has all 7 yellow jerseys hanging on the wall in his basement. He still won the tour 7 times. Saying he didn't is merely paperwork, it doesn't change what actually happened so I don't think any movements to "give them back to him" are coming because they really can't go back in time to actually take them in the first place.

Another point brought up that is interesting, if Lance has to pay back a bunch of money, should Trek have to pay back millions as well? No chance they have the success they have had without Lance.

dado0583 wrote:

Was it illegal at the time? (Honest question, I'm not trying to stir the pot)

No, it was not illegal

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-rules-uv-light-blood-treatments-in-germany-were-not-doping

When do you start your campaign to get DiLucca, Ricco, Landis, and Hamilton their titles back?

I hadn't heard of it before. Obviously right/wrong is not a easily defined line, but given there were no rules prohibiting it I wouldn't put him in the same category as a number of other riders. He was not cheating, but I guess you could argue that he's not embracing the 'spirit' of competition.

And there it is: The curious type of hater who pretends he is anti doping but is actually anti Armstrong. This type lives in fear that LA will find rehabilitation of his image so they pretend LA was unique instead of recognizing that everyone LA competed with for the Tour was also doping. Thus the paranoia and hysteria that everything LA does or says must be the evil plotting of a mustache twirling super villian.

You should get together with Betsy Andreu. You two would get along famously. You could add to her creepy, LA obsessed Facebook page. And you could swap stories about LA's latest scheme to fool the public and take over the planet.

He's not a villian, just a narcissistic asshole.

I am sorry for you. With your facts is always a tone of bitterness with the occasional venom of a personal attack. For what purpose the insults. I just don't get it.

Isn't the whole moral of this story that Lance himself is a liar who can't be trusted? Why then would his words carry any weight anywhere? He is a competitive sociopath willing to commit career murder (e.g. killing others careers off) to keep his winning cheating ways. I think in his mind it's justified because others were doing it but in the end "they" (the UCI, Directors, etc) took a sport and twisted it so doping was a norm for the podium places. Like most things in the 90s (cellphone, internet, etc) these teams then introduce cutting edge science into the mix and it became an arms race. Sure people were doping in 1912 but the level of sophistication hit an all time high with Lance. Today they are just using different dope I'm sure that's been in the pipeline waiting for EPO to be detectable. Maybe not as effective as EPO but rest assured, doping is happening but on a more controlled basis to prevent the risk of tipping the scales towards the "doper" side of the fence.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

Seeing as how Froome and Porte are climbing as fast as Armstrong, faster in some cases, I have to assume that nothing has changed despite everyone falling over themselves to assure the public that a new era is upon us and it is different this time.

^this.

....and for better or worse, most unforgettable, "never gonna be another ________" - type world-class one-of-a-kind athletes are/will-be/have-always-been. Regardless of the doping, Lance was an absolute freak of nature athletically. That engine he had was something to behold & feared. If he had taken a Hincapie approach to off-the-road rumors, questions, challenges, and speculations, perhaps he wouldn't have been taken down so hard. But, then again, he may not have had as far to fall b/c being dick made him exploit every possible ounce of potential in that superhuman frame.

I really enjoyed the puff interview LAVA did with Michael Weiss. You know, the one where the never asked him any hard questions, let him spew his verious of events, and never really challenged or questioned anything he said.

My opinion of Lava is similar to my criticism of sports journalism in general. Journalists want (and think they need) access to personalies, that if they ever write anything remotely critical of an athlete, they'll lose that access, so they end up being in effect PR mouthpieces for the athletes.

You should get together with Betsy Andreu. You two would get along famously. You could add to her creepy, LA obsessed Facebook page. And you could swap stories about LA's latest scheme to fool the public and take over the planet

Wow! Talk about someone who's obsessed.

Everywhere I log in today (ST, FB, etc) you have posted this. Do you work for Lava or are you that much of a Lance lover? Just curious.

Posted without comment: http://www.theatlantic.com/...ar-pistorius/273248/

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

People wonder why Lance keeps trying to force himself back into the public eye, it is because of people like this. So what if the vast majority of the public find him distasteful there will always be a small group of suckers who will parrot his latest talking points like "Level Playing field" "Witch Hunt" and attack anyone who told the truth because telling the truth sucks

Lance Armstrong, hero of the stupid.

Compared to the average person he had a big engine, compare to the average Pro Cyclist his engine was average.

Lance was a chemical invention. Doping since he was a teenager.

What is your personal stake in the doping discussion and especially the lance issue?

How do you know his engine was average? Other than V02 max, which is only one part of what determines performance, what else about his engine was average?

It has often been reported that Armstrong's Vo2 was 85......but this is a lie. This was an estimate made by Coyle in his fraudulent study. It was only an estimate that he invented and is not based on reality.

The reality is Coyle measured Armstrong's Vo2 at 71.5 in 1999 Below average for a Pro

Here are a few links

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/44515073607/laboratory-measures-of-the-subject-in-our-study
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R077.pdf


Armstrong always was a chemical invention.

Clearly, everyone faster than me is on the Juice. I'm so slow I MUST be clean.

Just give me Lance's 7 Tdf Victories and we can all move on to the next topic :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Interesting article Jordan. Thanks.

This could be extended into many areas...great actors, comedians that rhyme with Rosby, politicians etc. There are many people that achieve greatness at a huge cost to a general sense of morals. I think a good example could be Arnold Schwarzenegger. He achievements are even more remarkable than Lance's in my opinion. If you read about him, you find that he has plenty of demons. He had goals and nothing would stand in his way to achieve those goals...even when there was human consequence. Here is an interesting piece from wikipedia on Arnold and is just one of many..."Arnold Schwarzenegger, stated in the film Pumping Iron that he did not attend his father's funeral, but later retracted this, explaining that it was a story he had appropriated from a boxer to make it appear as though he could prevent his personal life from interfering with his athletic training." Amazing.

One thing that does trouble me though is when people provide a platform to these damaged individuals after it is public how destructive they are. I don't get it. Please don't take this as a poke at you because I am truly trying to understand the behaviour, but I still cannot understand why you would get together with Lance after all the facts are known about him. Surely it must be self serving. Yes, people can be forgiven, but by the people they hurt. What was your skin in the game?

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

This is the latest revisionism by those who are butthurt and embarrassed they were unable to see the obvious. If LA was such a chump and could beat everyone else, all of whom were doping, for seven years straight then think how worthless all those other riders must have been. Without PEDs they must have gotten winded climbing out of bed.

See the obvious? I knew Lance was doping in 1989.

Everyone knew the score in the 90's/00's. whoever responded best to the dope of the day, got the best doctors, and paid off the UCI to look the other way won. Lance did all three. Now he is trying to rally a new group of fools to believe his lies. It appears he will have some success....and it will be fun to watch as he lets them down again

Didn't you chastise me for the last time I tried to explain myself on this? :P

If you are asking non-rhetorically, I'll give as best an answer as I can.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Yes, his VO2 max is below average, but that is only part of what makes an engine.

Agreed. Large amount of drugs, Super response to those drugs, expert guidance from the best doctor, and protection from the UCI played a key roll in transforming a guy who could not finish the Tour into a 7 time loser

so you obviously must theorize that he was doping in high school, as he beat a number of pro triathletes then. Get real.

Rick Crawford started coaching Lance Armstrong at age 15. Google him.

these people are called "sociopaths"

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

He was doping as a teenager.


Lance is a very talent athlete. It is no surprised he was able to succeed in a small, 3rd tier, sport like Tri's were at the time.


Here are some of his early blood and performance test results


http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/C118.pdf


80 Vo2 is very solid.......but 7 x Tour de France winner? No way. his threshold of 75% and the corresponding watts (340-350) were sub par. The testers even noted that he would need about 400 watts to compete at his level in TT. they called it an area to develop. Explosiveness as well.


His Hct was at 49%.....at 19. That is crazy high considering his off season bio passport numbers from 09 had him at 39. Armstrong's triglycerides and total cholesterol were super high high. Bad immune system (abnormally low neutrophils and abnormally high lymphocytes) Strong indicators of Testosterone, steroid, and Cortisone use.


He was a charger from the early days. Chemical invention.

Who are you and what are your sources? You seem to have a lot of 'info' on the topic.

Ahh, the old "super dope" and super responder fantasy. In the 00s bunch of the conspiracy types convinced themselves LA must be on super dope. They spun all sorts of crackpot theories about links between pharma companies, Thom Weisel, and LA, saying that LA must be using experimental drugs that no else had access to. Of course it all turned out to be bullshit. LA was using the standard stuff that everyone else was using: A little anabolics and EPO/transfusions. In fact the evidence shows that LA and his team were using less than other teams. While Kelme was shooting its riders up with a laundry list of drugs that was two feet long, LA and co were using as little as possible. In fact they threw doping resources away when races were well in hand. And they targeted only a few races instead of being full on for the entire season.

Similarly, the conspiracy theorists stories about an exclusive relationship between LA and the UCI turned out to be bunk. Funny how conspiracy theories end that way. Geert Lienders, dope doctor to Rabobank and Sky, was getting special treatment for his riders from the UCI.

(Sorry about inferring above that Lienders was a dope doctor when he worked for Sky. The official story is that Sky hired a renowned dope doctor to treat saddle sores. I am sure it is true. I would never doubt the transformation of riders at Sky into riders who can climb as fast as LA. No one else should either. It is a new era afterall.)

Heck, you cannot even settle on what you think LA's VO2Max is. Sometimes it is barely over 70 and then it is 80. The standard figure is 82 to 85 but LA was not exactly known for diligent training back in the day. He used to brag that he was a training zero but a race hero. He was like a smart kid who barely studies but still aces all his tests. He was not exactly emaciated either.

Sounds like someone has been hitting the Betsy-Race Radio Haterade a bit too much. I am envisioning a wall covered with pics of LA and old news clippings, like something a stalker would have.

"these people are called "sociopaths" "
--------------------
Perhaps we all have a touch of this. We have to be honest when we look in the mirror. I think the challenge is to realize these tenancies and keep it under control. It's tough being human.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

"So maybe we shouldn't be so shocked. But we are. Because we don't want to look at the complexity or costs of achievement. We want to paint our heroes pure, so we can indulge in our happy-fantasy hero-worship without having to feel queasy about it."

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Sweeping it under the carpet? You must be usain in the membrane if you believe that.

---

29 years and counting

What I think he's getting at is that if, for example, someone has a Hct of 35 clean and gets it up to 49 he will gain a lot more than someone who is naturally at say 45 and gets it up to 49. Same is true for a lot of other substances so some athletes might gain a lot more from a doping program than others as you can only push the levels so high. That's why someone of less natural talent but with high potential to improve with drugs could potentially dominate in that environment but not as much in a clean one. It's not necessarily about special drugs.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Regardless of your Lance position, Lava is trying to sell magazines.

Wow, that is impressive amount of Bullshort! Did you invent that all yourself or was it in the latest "Armstrong Apologist" Newsletter?

I never mentioned Weisel and Pharma companies, not sure what you are babbling about. It is clear that USPS more advanced that other teams and they took greater risk

The retro testing shows that USPS was willing to take risks other teams were not. In 1999 teams and riders were scared of getting caught with EPO in France. They all showed up "Glowing" but few took that risk during the Tour.The retro testing supports this. In the 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong Compare that to 1998 where there were 32 positive/questionable samples. It is clear that there was a huge reduction in the use of EPO, except for one team who had a Motoman to bring them drugs


In 2000 Ferrari got inside info on the new EPO test and develop a transfusion program for 3 riders on USPS. What other teams did transfusions in 2000? None

• Boogerd was the first on Rabo to do a transfusion, He did it in 2002. Rassmussen and a few others started in 2003.
• Telekom explored transfusions but felt they were too risky. They finally started in 2004.
• Ullrich start transfusions in 2003
• Manzano said Kelme started transfusions in 2003

Equating Leinders with the level of protection Lance had is so ridiculous even lance would laugh at it

• Weisel and Och worked as money managers for Hein Verbuggen
• Lance had advanced notice of surprise testing
• Lance had multiple questionable EPO tests were ignore. Multiple positives for Test and Cortisone in the 90's were ignore
• Lance and Hein verbruggen formed a company to buy the Tour together. How many people did billion dollar deals with the head of the UCI?
• When the retro testing of the 99 samples proved Armstrong was using EPO Armstrong gave the UCI $100,000 to pay for Virjman report, which was written by Armstrong's agent Bill Stapleton

Armstrong' Vo2 was never 85. The highest measured was 81 when he was clearly juicing. Most of the tests had him in the low to mid 70's. Nothing impressive. Many Pro teams will have a entire Tour squad that averages in the high 70's.


Armstrong was a chemical invention who could not finish a Tour before he met Ferrari.

Which, in my case, they failed to do.

Saw the new issue at the local tri shop, noted the cover and walked on. Absolutely zero interest.

LA is a non-issue now. Even if he was reinstated today, he would not be competitive, IMO. The fact that he is getting cover articles in magazines to this day says more about the state of cycling and triathlon "journalism" than anything else.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

You have incredible knowledge here. Can we know who you are and where you get your info. Would be good to validate what you're saying, otherwise it might just be the ranting of a disgruntled has-been pro.

Looks like the typical Race Radio hater babble. Transfusions have been used in athetic competition since the 70s. They were used in cycling during the 80s. Dr. Fuentes was using transfusions for team ONCE in 1991 Vuelta and undoubtedly much earlier than that. Riis was used three transfusions during the 1996 Tour. Mario Cipollini started on transfusions in 2001 at the latest. Dr. Fuentes used them for Cipo during the year the UCI began testing for EPO and it continued from there. You would have to be a fool or a deranged Armstrong stalker to think that Fuentes and other doctors did not recommend the switch to many other riders. The evidence is pretty clear: Transfusions fell out of favor with the rise of EPO, which was undectable, and when testing for EPO became possible then riders went back to transfusions. This was not Dr. Ferrari figuring out a new and secret doping technique to get around the EPO test.

Yeah, we get it. When all else fails just make stuff up.

Fuentes bringing a cooler full of EPO to the Vuelta suddenly becomes a transfusion. Riis invented a story about transfusions in the 96 Tour to put Tyler at ease with doing transfusions. We already know what Riis was doing at the 96 Tour because Riis' program during the 96 Tour was well documented by team soigneur Jeff d'Hont. Jef had his notes from the Tour and said that Riis took twice as much EPO and HGH then the other riders. 4,000 IUs of EPO every 3 days and 2 doses of HGH. It was not sophisticated, It was about how large a risk a rider was willing to take His Hct was 64%. No need for transfusions.

So Fuentes was using transfusions in the 2002 season. let us know if you find any teams using them in 2000 besides USPS.

Look, we get it. Lance burned you, made you look foolish, but that is not my fault. No need for all the insults

Not directed at you but rather the quote. If "you" have a hero simply because they are good at a sport, I would recommend giving "your" head a nice hard shake and see if that fixes the problem. Heroes are not pro sport athletes.

We get it. You are butthurt by Armstrong so much so that you feel the need to pretend that Armstrong was doping more than anyone else and is responsible for cycling's doping culture, even though it existed for a hundred years before LA turned pro. You have the urge to dismiss everyone else's doping.

Telokom's doctor, Lothar Henrich, experimenting with transfusions in 1998. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Fransesco Moser using transfusions in 1984 to set the hour record. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Team Gis using transfusions in 1984. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Blood bags found in the investigation of Dr Conconi in 1999. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Dr Fuentes, a man who had been doping riders since the mid 80s, flys into the Vuelta in 1991 the day before a critical time time trial with a cooler on his lap, tells curious journalists that inside was the key to the Vuelta, and his rider wins the TT and Vuelta. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Cipollini using transfusions as soon as the EPO testing began in 2001. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Riis telling his riders that he used blood transfusions. Dismissed. Does not involve evil Armstrong.

Joop Zoetemelk admitting to use of transfusions in the 70s. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Admission that transfusions were used on PDM in the late 80s. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

Dr Conconi explaining to Sandro Donati 1981 how Italian Olympic athletes Conconi was training were using transfusions. Dismissed. Does not involve the evil Armstrong.

It could go on and on but let's just leave transfusions in cycling with the words of Bernhard Hinault: "Moser made use of auto-transfusion. So he was playing with his own blood. He did no more no less that the Finnish athletes, Lasse Vir�n and the others. It suffices to take some of one's own blood during the Spring when it is rich, hyper-oxygenated, and to re-inject it when one is fatigued. Is that really doping? Maybe not, except if the blood is placed into a machine to re-oxygenate it to the maximum."

This whole thing would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. The hater crowd is actually trying to make a distinction between blood doping with EPO and blood doping with transfusions, not only trying to blame Armstrong for transfusions in cycling but portraying EPO users as doping less than transfusion users.

This sounds too much like Betsy Andreu's dodge, where she tries to play down her husband's EPO doping by saying he did not dope with transfusions. Thanks, Frankie. You are a saint. Clean athletes everywhere will rejoice that you doped with EPO instead of your own blood.

Actually you have that completely backward but keep yelling to the empty room.

---

Twitter
Instagram

What motivates you to lie?


If you told the whole truth you would talk about not only how Telekom's doctors explored transfusions in 98, but decided they were too risky and did not actually use them for another 6 years. Odd that you left that key part out. Perhaps becuase it proves that lance was using transfusions 4 years prior to his top competitors?


Why is it that you pretend Cipo used transfusions in the 2001 season when it is clear he did not use them until the 2002 season? Are you trying to show Lance only had a one year head start instead of 2 years?


Funny how you ignore the results of the 1999 Tour. Even you would admit that lance having the vast majority of positives is hardly "Everyone was doing it"


You would also leave out the fact folks like Moser using transfusions for one day races or track events is vastly different from a 3 week stage race. Odd that you would pretend that they were the same


I have already show you that Riis was lying about using transfusions in 96, why do you repeat the lie?


PDM did not take transfusions. The riders on the team have talked in detail about the wide variety of drugs the team took. One of the team doctors even wrote a book about their doping. Zero mention of transfusions. Then a reporter finds the notebook of a dead soigneur that talks about Saline drips and this is twisted into a transfusion.


It is odd that you deliberately leave out key elements of the story and fill your posts with insults. What motivates this?

Nah, I am right.

Armstrong is a national joke. His talking points about a level playing field and witch hunt have been exposed time and again as a revisionist invention. As small group of groupies might buy into it but most can see through the campaign

Ok

---

Twitter
Instagram

serious question - what is your point? is it that everyone should hate lance because he used transfusions for 2-4 tours more than others, despite an established doping culture in pro cycling? If you are arguing that lance fabricated the existing doping culture as an excuse then I would be very surprised.

if you did a quick google - you might see your arguments aren't so absolute as you make them :

Re : PDM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...ns-in-cycling-part-3

So what do we know about PDM's use of blood transfusions in the 1988 Tour? Based on what was revealed by De Volksrant we know that PDM are said to have acquired the knowledge of transfusions from Italy. As for their use, all we have is an entry in team doctor Bertus Fok's diary for 11 July 1988, at the end of the stage from Nancy to Strasbourg, showing that Steven Rooks, Gert-Jan Theunisse and J�rg M�ller all received blood, on top of the other products Fok was administering (which included testosterone and cortisone).

Re : Riis

Tyler Hamilton - the secret race :

Bjarne told me how, in his 1996 Tour de France victory, he'd done three transfusions: one just before the Tour started, and one on each of the two rest days. He explained the reasons they worked so well; how, unlike the slow rise in haematocrit created by EPO, transfusions provided an instant boost of around three points, which correlated to a three percent increase in power. They were like a fountain of youth."

Moser :

you must deliberately not be seeing the link in that

Telekom :
two doctors from the Freiburg University Clinic ran an organised doping programme for the enormously successful German Telekom/T-mobile squad from 1995 to 2006
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/...reiburg_report_may09

So Julian, why are you right? What inside info do you have? Why should anyone believe you? Your only purpose on ST is to comment on doping stories, what's up with that?

My point is very simple, the playing field was not level. Even if we ignore the preferential treatment from the UCI Armstrong was clearly ahead on doping. As I have already posted the re-testing of the 99 samples prove what many riders and staff have said, After Festina Teams were clearly afraid to bring EPO into France. That is why in the 83 samples tested after the Prologue there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong. Clearly NOT everyone was doing it in 99.


As I have shown, Ferrari was 2-4 years ahead of other teams when it comes to transfusions.


To answer your specific points. The idea that transfusions were used in Grand Tours is complete nonsense


PDM: The facts do not support Volksrant's interpretation of a dead sogniuer's notebook. Rooks, for example, wrote a book on how he doped throughout his career. He went into detail on using EPO, Cortisone, Test. He says there were never any transfusions. Why would he admit to taking an entire pharmacy but not admit transfusions? Andy Bishop also rode that Tour, says it was complete nonsense. One PDM team doctor wrote a book detailing the doping program, zero mention of transfusions. The only "Evidence" is one line in a notebook. Not one member of the team supports it, even though they admit to taking drugs their entire career


Riis did not take transfusions in the 1996 Tour. Tyler had lied to him, said had never done a transfusion and Riis wanted to put him at ease about a disturbing practice that was new. We already know what Riis was doing at the 96 Tour because team soigneur Jef d'Hont wrote a book on it. Jef said that Riis' program was simple, he took twice as much EPO and HGH as the other members of. 4,000 IUs of EPO every 3 days and 2 doses of HGH. Got his Hct to 64% Why would he need transfusions if he had EPO?


Moser used transfusion's for his hour record, not for the Giro. In fact his doping doctor, Conconi, wrote a book about preparing Moser called Moser's Hour Records: A Human and Scientific Adventure. He said they used transfusions for the hour record but they were too risky for Grand Tours.


Telekom absolutely had a program, but even they thought transfusions were too risky which is why they did not use them until 2004. The conservative nature of their program led Ullrich to seek on Fuentes and start transfusion in the 2003 season, three years after Lance


Lance, and his followers, want people to think that there was a level playing field. That everyone was doing the same thing and had the same response. This has no basis in reality

Assuming that all you say is true. What difference does it make? All it means is that Lance was better at cheating than the other cheaters.

Does that make it worse?

"Hey, I am cheating. But he's cheating more and smarter."

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

what is your point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=773E6GPll3A

Floyd: Doyle, I KNOW I gave him four THREES. He had to make a SWITCH. We can't let him get away with that.
Doyle Lonnegan: What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?

His collusion with the UCI and USAC was certainly worse. Nobody had that kind of protection. It distorted the sport. As for doping he is ethically in the same boat as the others but he won because he cheated better and responded better to the cheating, not because he was a better athlete.

And this would be the UCI's sin.

Yeah, Lance colluded with them, but he's just an athlete.

They are in charge of the sport. They are supposed to make them play fair. That's infinitely worse.

But Lance is the bad guy.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Somehow you have the inside scoop on exactly what everyone was using? Perhaps they should put you in charge of the doping violations. Who would you dismiss from the current peloton? We all know Sky is squeaky clean. right?

Oh, I agree with you. Verburggen, Ferrari, Lefevre, Bruyneel, Siaz, McQuiad. They are all worse then Lance.

Data please and thank you

---

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand

His point is that Lance is da evil. Funny how he keeps lying about the extent of doping in order to put more blame on LA. Heck, he is even lying about Cipollini not using transfusions in 2001 even though Gazzetta dello Sport reported Cipo's program for his build up to the 2001 Giro. (9 consecutive days of EPO followed by a transfusion followed by more EPO plus HGH and a transfusion on the first day of the race.)

Then there Michael's--I mean Julian's--admission that Moser used transfusions for his hour record but denial that it was more than that even though Moser's team, Gis, was using them. Again it is a way to put more blame on LA instead of admitting that cycling was a cesspool of doping before Lance won the Tour. PDM's own soigneur says he was giving transfusions to riders in 1988 but that is dismissed because no riders have admitted it. Uh huh. We all know that riders would never lie about their doping and we should take there word for it rather than contemporaneously written records about what was being given to riders on the team.

It is just bizarre. With incomplete information but clear evidence that transfusions were used before 2000 and clear evidence that transfusions were used after 2000, he comes to the conclusion that Lance must have been the only one using them and had an advantage. This looks like the typical hater fantasy being promoted by Race Radio, that cycling was about to clean itself up after the Festina affair but Lance--all by himself--dragged an unwilling sport back into doping in 1999. Hey, wasn't there a wily French refugee from Festina named Virenque who rode the 1999 Tour? Nah, couldn't be. Even if there was I am sure he did not continue doping.

Every single person who ever doped is a liar. Every single doper is a competitive sociopath. Every doper cheated, lied, and did things you are not aware of to keep their dirty secrets. Pretty much every single pro rider doped in this era, probably still doing it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Lance was convicted of being an a-hole. We don't like a-holes, especially if we believe they haven't changed.

Froome has broken some of Armstrong's records in training. The Madone is the best example, but his efforts in races seldom come close unless it is on a seldom used climb or a cherry picked section.

Take a climb like Alp d'Huez, which is climbed almost every year. The most recent time in the top 30 of all time is from 9 years ago. Froome was 5 minutes slower then the record. He was 3 minutes slower then the record on Ventoux. Regardless there is a high likelihood Froome is doping

Some folks like to say nothing has changed, but it clearly has. Climbing times are down across the board. In 1997 over 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez. In 2013 about 10 did.

You mean aside from Stephen Rooks, Gert-Jan Theunisse, Jorg Muller, Joop Zoetemelk, Franseco Moser, Barne Riis, etc.


Disregarding the evidence that many riders used transfusions in GTs, let me get this straight. In a sport drenched in doping, riders discovered that transfusions worked when Moser captured the hour record using them and the US Olympic team cleaned up while using them, Dr Conconi was using them for Italian Olympic athletes but no cyclist ever decided that he should give transfusions a shot during a grand tour. You know, the same riders who risked death (and lost in some cases) during the early years of EPO experimentation were too squeamish or too scared to try transfusions. Wow. The real question should be what type of dope are you on because it must be some seriously mind bending shit.

Isn't it about time for you to start ranting and raving about Armstrong getting a federal investigation shut down along with fingering the Clintons for doing the deed? That is the usual tinfoil hat stuff you promote on Cycling News' forum.

If is funny how you just double down on the lie.

There is zero evidence that any teams but USPS were using transfusions in 2000. If there was you might present it but so far nothing. You want to pretend that using transfusions during the Tour was common place but the only thing you can provide as evidence is a 27 year old notebook? You need to do better then that.

It is funny how you ignore the EPO retro tests from 1999 that show very few positives for EPO after the Prologue. The majority of them belonging to one rider, lance Armstrong.

With all of the insults and denial of reality it is clear this is very personal for you. Sorry your heart was broken, not my fault



It

 
Do you have any idea how dangerous and difficult it was to keep blood safe and successfully replace it in the athlete? I find it highly unlikely this was as common practice as early as you suggest cosidering the ease and relative safety (both from a health and lack of detection perspective) with which other forms of PEDs could be used. Your arguments come over as being weaker with little evidence while ignoring evidence presented to you. I have nno dog in this fight, but that's just my perspective and it seems more personal for you.

Even if I hated someone with every fiber of my being, I would not devote so much time to researching them and posting on a internet forum.. You seem angry and hurt and it seems that you have a personal interest here. Why? Did Lance hurt you in some way?

Especially during the 70's/80's in France in the middle of July. It is just a way to deflect from truth. The playing field was not level. Lance never would have won a Tour if the playing field was level. In fact he never finished a Tour until he started working with Ferrari.

• Doping, especially oxygen vector doping, effects each rider differently
• The retro testing proves that very few riders besides Lance, were using EPO during the 1999 Tour
• No rider had the level of protection Armstrong had from the UCI
• Armstrong paid Ferrari over $1,000,000 for his services. Very few riders could afford this
• There is zero evidence that any teams but USPS were using transfusions in the 2000 Tour. We have lots of evidence that show many teams were several years behind

With the insults and attempts to deflect the discussion to what a track rider was doing 30 years ago it does appear for some the topic is more personal then factual

Thanks, that was my recollection.

---

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand

You keep on lying about Cipollini because it shows just how ludicrous your theory of Armstrong being 2-4 years ahead of everyone else is. Cipo switched to transfusions the same season that EPO testing began in cycling: 2001. Dr. Fuentes did not need to wait years and years then decide his clients had to follow Armstrong's lead.

Again. You keep dodging the question. Blood doping with EPO versus blood doping with transfusions? One makes you a worse doper than the other? Which one?

Riders switched from transfusions to EPO in the late 80s and early 90s because EPO is easier to use. The logistics are simpler. It is safer. The athletes don't lose training after a blood withdrawals. Riders changed back to transfusions when EPO testing began. It really is that simple. It did not take a genius dope doctor to figure it out. The athletic benefits of transfusions have been known and used in international competition since the early 70s.

The affidavits in the action against Armstrong are very clear. Postal was using the same stuff everyone else was. There was nothing revolutionary. EPO, transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids. Not only that, the team limited the number of riders on the full program and the limited the amount of product used, a far cry from the free wheeling dope everyone for everything that was used by teams like Kelme and Liberty Seguros.

Keep plugging away at that dry hole, trying to prove to yourself that Armstrong was on a unique program that excuses you for buying into his story.

Yet you have zero evidence of this and prefer to talk about track riders.

In the 83 samples tested after the Prologue in 1999 there were only 9 positive for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong Compare that to 1998 where there were 32 positive/questionable samples. If everyone was using EPO in 1999 why did most of the positives, plus several near positives, belong to Lance?

You mention Kelme. Manzano said Kelme started using Transfusions in the 2003 season, 3 years after USPS. Telekom though they were too risky and did not start them till 2004, 4 years after USPS. The vast majority of riders never used transfusions, why do you pretend that everyone was doing when clearly this is a lie?

Please try to respond without insults and personal attacks. No need for that

Who said it was common? The evidence is clear that transfusions were used. Joop Zoetemelk admitted using transfusions for the 1976 Tour. Moser used blood transfusions in the winter of 1984 then went on to have a knockout season on the road for team Gis, winning the Giro and Milan - San Remo. Roger de Vlaeminck was offered the chance to use transfusions on the Gis squad in the mid 80s. A PDM soigneur wrote in his records that he used transfusions for three of the team's riders in 1988.

It does not mean teams were transporting blood around in July heat like Michael--I mean Julian--implies. They could have juiced up before events and left it at that. It certainly defies belief to think that after a rider like Moser discovered transfusions that he would not use them again.

Maybe I've forgotten my history, but weren't the distance runners blood doping in the 70/80's? I thought that was around the times of Lasse Viren.

And do people know who Julian D is? He keeps avoiding the question. He obviously has some serious pent up rage on the topic of doping and lance.

Good of you to admit that the idea that riders were using transfusions at the Tour back in the day is crazy. We both know it was not happening. Some track riders and one day guys may have done it but even Conconi said it was too risky for stage races.

Now back to my question. Why were there so few EPO positives in the retro testing of the 1999 samples if "Everyone was doing it"? Most of them belonged to one rider, lance, and the other 4 positives likely belonged to the other riders on his team that were using Motoman.

Not exactly.

Joop was ordered by his doctor to take a transfusion after he lost a lot of blood in a crash and became anemic. He did not do it during the Tour and he said he hated it and would never do it again.

Moser used transfusions for his hour record attempt, a one day event on the track

The riders on PDM used all kinds of drugs. They wrote books on the drugs they took. None mentioned transfusions

All this talk of transfusions in the 80's is just deflection. Share with us the evidence of a team besides USPS using transfusions in the 2000 Tour. Explain to us why there were so few riders in the 1999 Tour who used EPO during the race if "everyone was doing it"

And please, try to explain it without resorting to personal attacks and insults

Very few people hate lance because he doped.

They hate him because of every other thing he did to cover it up.

Just a hypothesis. But my guess is the answer is Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Dean

One thing that I have always had trouble reconciling was the claim that everyone was doing epo, testosterone, and transfusions during the Tour, yet the USPS bus incident is so memorable and treated as an unusual, isolated, memorable event to those who took part. That would imply that transfusions, at least during the Tour, were not an everyday, every team occurrence, but that USPS with motoman and his refrigerated panniers were managing something extraordinary.

Somehow you have the inside scoop on exactly what everyone was using?

It's not an inside scoop when it's public information. Just because most people are uninformed doesnm't mean the info isn't out there.

Stop lying. I have only mentioned Moser's hour record.

You keep dodging the use of transfusions immediately after the EPO test became available. Here let's get back to reality rather than neurotic hate.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...re-2003-giro-ditalia

"On Sunday, Gazzetta reported more details of what it says was Fuentes' programme for Cipollini, who is said to have gone under the code name �Maria�. The build-up to the 2001 Giro d'Italia included nine consecutive days of EPO, followed by a blood transfusion, growth hormone and more EPO � for a total of 13,000 units of the latter. Further, according to the notes, the sprinter received a transfusion on May 19, the first stage of the race."

You also keep ignoring the evidence of transfusing in the 80s on the Gis and PDM teams. Here is a refresher course.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...ns-in-cycling-part-2

Interviewed by Daniel Friebe for his Eddy Merckx biography, The Cannibal, Roger de Vlaeminck made reference to the use of blood transfusions when he was a member of Moser's 1984 Gis-Tuc Lu squad. "They spoke to me about blood transfusions." De Vlaeminck told Friebe. "When I was riding for Francesco Moser, they asked whether I wanted to give half a litre of blood to put in the fridge. I said no�"

That the Gis squad may have made use of blood transfusions in 1984 is hardly a surprise. We know that Moser had used transfusions to set the Hour record in January, he did eventually confess to this fact, in 1999. Whether the Italian used the procedure at other times, especially in the Indian Summer of his career in 1984 when he won Milan-Sanremo and the Giro d'Italia, remains unknown. Part of the reason suspicion surrounds these victories is that it seems crazy to imagine that transfusions, their effectiveness having been proven, wouldn't have been used again and again and again. Another part of the reason is that, in 1984, Michele Ferrari started working with Moser's Gis team.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...ns-in-cycling-part-3

So what do we know about PDM's use of blood transfusions in the 1988 Tour? Based on what was revealed by De Volksrant we know that PDM are said to have acquired the knowledge of transfusions from Italy. As for their use, all we have is an entry in team doctor Bertus Fok's diary for 11 July 1988, at the end of the stage from Nancy to Strasbourg, showing that Steven Rooks, Gert-Jan Theunisse and J�rg M�ller all received blood, on top of the other products Fok was administering (which included testosterone and cortisone).

You are the one deflecting by trying to make doping all about transfusions while ignoring EPO use. Again, what makes blood doping with transfusions worse than blood doping with EPO?

You go further than that by asserting that since you only have information about Armstrong then he must be the only one doing something. You do this repeatedly for everything from help by the UCI to doping. Sorry, it does not work that way. Lack of information about others means lack of information about others. You don't get to pick and choose what other riders were doing depending on whether it supports your world view or not. What they did is unknown.

If you want to guess about what others were doing then you need to take other evidence into account. What we know about transfusions is that Armstrong was using them in 2000, Dr. Fuentes' riders started using them in 2001 at the latest, and riders had used them prior to 2000. From that you conclude that Armstrong must be the only on using transfusions in 2000. But a more reasonable conclusion is other riders began switching to transfusions at the same time and for the same reason that Armstrong did, the announcement that an EPO test would be available for the 2000 Olympics. Regardless, even if they held out for a year until the UCI to begin using the test, so what? They were still blood doping with EPO.

Transfusions go back to at least the 1972 Finnish track and field team. At least one athlete and a team doctor have confirmed this, even though Lasse Viren never came clean.

Then you have the well documented 1984 Olympic US Cycling Team using transfusions, before the practice is finally banned in 1985.

Certainly not a new technique. It was just that EPO made it obsolete until a test was finally created. It seems likely that USPS was ahead of the curve in getting back to transfusions. They are messy and require more sophisticated logistics.

I'm not sure what the two of you are really arguing about though. Is it just whether LA had a doping advantage over the other dopers? Seems likely he did.


..

Yes, it is clear that Lance had a doping advantage over the other dopers. I have provided many examples why that is true but it appears Arch would prefer to talk about track riders.

Oh well.

Beyond the fact that the retro testing proves that few riders outside of USPS were using EPO during the 1999 Tour and there is zero evidence that any other teams besides USPS were using transfusions in 2000 there is also the very real issue that very talented riders were pushed from the sport because they refused to dope.

Edwig van Hooydonck won Flanders twice before he was 25. He retired from the sport at 28, pushed from the sport because he would not take EPO. Lance likes to pretend everyone was doing it but the reality is many extremely talented riders left the sport because they did not want to use EPO. The vast majority of Pros never did transfusions.


Some like to pretend Lance won a level playing field but that is clearly nonsense.

It is clear you have no interest in facts so I am not sure why you ask for them. I gave you the figures from the 1999 Retro testing that show that few riders besides Lance were using EPO. You ignore them and rant about track riders

When you can explain the retro testing from 1999 in a rational way, without insults, let us know.

What is public isn't the full picture. Mr 60% only managed to win 1 tour, yet Lance was supposedly light years ahead of the entire peloton in his doping program? How high and good were his drugs that it wasn't a level playing field against folks that were able to beat Mr 60%.

What was your doping program in 99? What did you witness during those years?

The 2nd or 3rd fastest Kona amateur bike split in 2013, 4:29 I think, was an up-and-comer domestic talent in the late 90s, early 00s who went to race in Europe. Learned what was going to be necessary to advance further. Came home and pursued a different career instead. A dozen years later is outsplitting all but less than 10, pros included, at the most prestigious triathlon in the world. I'm sure there's plenty of talent like this out there the world has never heard of because they wouldn't dope.

I've heard stories of refrigerated panniers and bags from picture hooks and broken down buses. All USPS stories. I've never heard stories of how other teams managed to pull it off in the years of higher scrutiny post Festina. Are there stories, but I just haven't seen them? I'm pretty well informed on this subject.

Would LA have won 7 tours in the era of Indurain, Riis, and 60+% hematocrits? I highly doubt it. Lance won 7 tours after scrutiny got higher and teams left it to the athletes to handle the doping on their own, rather than systemic, team-sponsored and managed doping like in the heyday of the mid 90s.

So he had an advantage. Many riders rode fast on USPS without testing positive, left for other teams, rode slower and got busted. From which I deduce Postal were using better drugs, or the same drugs in a better manner, or managing to get positives squashed. Whichever it is, it's not the fastest of equal cheats. As RONDAL points out, Armstrong is trying to kid himself and others that he's just a doper like so many others. Had he not gone to such extremes to cover his tracks, I'm guessing he would have been busted, banned, returned, busted again and banned for life by 2003 at the latest, same as he is now but with ~$100m less personal fortune.

well... i mean if you are going to cheat you might as well be smart about it. they were certainly all cheating for the same goal and using the same methods to do so; someone had to be the best at it. if he had gotten caught by testing positive would everyone like him?

There is no way to know for sure. Indurain managed to win 5. Lance won many against Ulrich as his main rival who finished 2nd to Mr 60%. So who knows. I certainly wouldn't say I highly doubt it.

You're right for sure. But, as of 1996, LA was showing no indications of being anywhere near the level of Big Mig. Far from it, in fact. And he was 3 years into using EPO at that point. It wasn't until after cancer that he increased his cadence and found his potential.

Watch this starting at 3:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGPGm38wt5g

Indurain was definitely clean.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Lance's palmares for the first five years of his career, 1991-1995, blow Miguel Indurain's results from the first five years of his career out of the water.

Bullshort

At 18 Indurain was the youngest winner of the national amateur road championship. He won his first professional race, a time trial in the Tour de l'Avenir. He came in 2nd in the prologue of his first Grand tour and then took the leaders Jersey of the Vuelta, the youngest rider ever to wear it. He won a stage Tour and wore the KOM jersey. By 1990 he was 10th at the Tour but would have been top 7 if he had not waited for Delgado.

Lance was unable to finish a Grand Tour before he worked with Ferrari.

No... that was reindeer milk! :-)

Additionally, off the top of my head I know Alberto Cova blood has confessed to it. Many others certainly were..

Well said Julian! Lately top four on Armstrong's apologists' list:

1. "Everyone was doing it so it was OK for Lance to dope as well."
2. "He has done so many good things for cancer patients, we should let him race again as a result."
3. "Who are you to judge him? Have you never done anything wrong in your life?"
4. "NFL, MLB etc are all doing it so why not the pro cyslists?"

I think I will give a pass to cyclists who are clean and pretend that cycling was almost all clean except for a few "bad apples" because they are in strict orders from their Team Directors or have their own foresight about how sponsorship world works, so they won't lose sponsors/fans. But it is hypocrisy to the nth degree when they really know what was going on, they were a part of the problem and now look us in the eye and deny what happened

Now you're just being willfully ignorant. In his first five years as a professional Indurain finished two Tours, in 97th place and and 47th place. He withdrew from his first three Tours. He won almost zero races during his first five years as professional.

Lance Armstrong was also the winner of that national amateur road championship. In his first five years as a professional he won over 20 road races, including the US national championship road race, the world championship road race, two stages of the Tour, a stage of Paris-Nice, several other European one-day races, a first and a second at the Clasica San Sebastien, first at Fleche Wallone second at Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and second overall at Paris Nice.

Lance also finished the 1995 Tour, his third, in 36th place.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I really don't, but it doesn't help your case when your "facts" have no basis in reality. Lance was a much more accomplished rider in his first five years as a professional than Indurain was in his first five years. To suggest that Lance just came out of nowhere in 1999 is absurd.

Are you really trying to compare the Tour du Pont to the Vuelta? The Thrift drug classic? Really? Do you know how important a race the Tour de l'Avenir was? Let me guess, you have never heard of it. While lance was racing industrial park crits Indurian was wearing the leaders jersey in Grand Tours. While Lance was dropping out of Grand Tours Indurain was finishing them, winning stages, wearing jerseys, and starting multiple Grand Tours each year

KNY's point was clear, Indurian showed far more promise as a Grand Tour rider then Lance did. That is clearly a true statement. Winning Kmart West Classic does not change that fact.

Lance was certainly a talented young rider but there was zero indication he would ever win the Tour

Indurain won a time trial in the Tour de l'Avenir, which is a race for young professionals and amateurs. He led the Vuelta because he finished second in the prologue and the person who finished first lost time on the next stage and Indurain finished in the bunch. He finished the race 84th overall. Lance Armstrong won a road stage in the Tour de France his third year as a pro. He also won the US National Road championship and the world road championship that same year. He won several road races in Europe his first two years as a pro. Armstrong's palmares for the first five years of his career are easy to find. You've done nothing to refute them or to show that Indurain was more accomplished during the first five years of his career. The fact that you choose the Tour DuPont and the Thrift Drug classic to pull out of all the races that Armstrong won says as much about you as I need to know. The fact that you say he was racing "industrial park crits" when he was, in fact, racing and winning road stages of the Tour, the US national road championship, the UCI world road championship, the Clasica de San Sebastien, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, Paris-Nice, and La Fleche Wallone shows how truthful you are being. If this is your level of intellectual honesty, then I know how seriously we should take your other claims in this thread.

Intellectual dishonesty? You mean like listing one day races as an indicator of success in Grand Tours? What's next, are you going to say Romans Vainsteins showed promise as a GT rider?

Indurain, at the age of 20 in his first year as a professional finished 2nd in the Prologue of a Grand Tour. He didn't get lucky by getting in a break or attacking while the favorites were looking at each other he crushed a TT. That is a sign of a huge engine. Grand Tours are won in the mountains and in TT's. While Indurain was winning/podium major TT's Armstrong was off the back. While Indurian was wearing the KOM jersey early on Armstrong was dropping out early on

The facts remain. Armstrong showed no promise in Grand Tours early on. He dropped out of every Tour he rode until he started working with Ferrari. Indurain however showed huge promise as a grand Tour rider and was consistently touted as the next big Spanish stage race talent from the age of 18.

Now you're changing what my original statement was. I didn't say that Armstrong's early palmares indicated success in Grand Tours. I said, "Lance's palmares for the first five years of his career, 1991-1995, blow Miguel Indurain's results from the first five years of his career out of the water."

Indurain was not "winning/podiuming major TTs." He finished second in one prologue time trial, and won some stages at a race for young riders. You can cherry pick Indurain's early results all you want (though there aren't many to choose from), but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

And, FYI, Lance finished the 1995 Tour de France, and he didn't even meet Ferrari until the end of that year. So, you can stop saying that he didn't finish a grand tour until he starting working with Ferrari, too.

There's enough dirt on Lance that it's pretty easy to attack him honestly. Your desperation is showing, and I'm anything but a Lance apologist.

Every tour until Ferrari? He was 36th in his 3rd tour. Indurain dnf'd his first 3 tours then finished 97th. He only finished 2 of his first 6 tries at the vuelta. So you are basing his promise on a single 10min TT prologue? Not much to hang your hat on.

Come on. Everyone knows that winning the prologue and leading the first couple of stages of a grand tour is the best predictor of grand tour ability. That's why Fabian Cancellara has won so many grand tours. It's just a good thing that Indurain never used the services of an Italian doping doctor* before he started having his grand tour success, or this whole argument would be really silly.

* Just make sure you don't Google "Indurain and Conconi," if you want to hold onto this fallacy.

The Tour is not the only Grand Tour Indurain finished the Vuleta at 21. That Prologue result is hardly Indurain's only early result. He was a TT machine

Indurain did not only finish 2nd prologue the Vuelta in his 1st year but also podiumed TT's at Tour of Burgos ,Ruta del Sol,Midi-Pyr�n�es Tour of the EEC Tour (Also won the points classification) Tour of Murcia de l'Oise 2nd Spanish Championship, Midi-Libre Tour of the Basque Country, GP Navarre,Tour of Galicia in his first 2 years.

What climbing/TT success did Lance have at 20 year old? What Grand Tour's did he finish at 21?

If you were to look at both riders at the end of their 2nd season it is clear who showed the most potential as a Grand Tour rider

No way Indurain would have been passed like this at 21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

This... Cycling is as dirty as ever. Contador is as dirty as Lance and is still allowed to ride. They are all doping scum bags.

"Julian" has convinced himself that Lance barely had the talent to make it above Cat 1. This, of course, presents a bit of a problem: How did such an athletic chump beat the elite of the elite, all of whom were doping. The answer apparently is super dope. Lance must have doped more than everyone else or was on some secret drugs no one else had access to or some other hand waving about Lance being ahead of everyone else.

Thus we get the cockamamie theory that Armstrong invented blood transfusions in cycling. Apparently since LA was using transfusions in 2000 and little information exists about what other riders were doing that year, LA must have been the only one. This, of course, ignores that transfusions were used before 2000; there was no reason to switch to transfusions in 2000 because EPO was undetectable; and the next year (2001), when EPO testing by the UCI began, even sprinters were using transfusions.

He still refuses to deal with the question why would it matter if Armstrong did use transfusions a year earlier than some other riders, who were using EPO instead. Riders switched from transfusions to EPO in the first place because EPO is far easier to use. It is safer. It does not have the same problems with storage and transport, A rider does not suffer days of sub par training after a blood withdrawal. It could be used year round. It is not at all clear that Lance had an advantage by using transfusions in 2000. Given the advantages of EPO, he may have been at a disadvantage.

Allegations of other drugs that were not available to other riders also proved to be fanciful. The USADA affidavits are clear. Postal used the same drugs that everyone else was using. Not only that, the team was quite conservative compared to other teams. Key riders like Landis did not even get anything until he was scheduled to ride the Tour. This was not an operation that doped everyone to the gills with three dozen drugs like what was used at Spanish teams like Kelme, Liberty Seguros and, presumably, Euskatel.

The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Instead of being a hopeless rider who used super dope to beat the elite, it is far simpler to accept that LA was super talented and doped, just like everyone else. He was also very very lucky. Seven Tours with no punctures and no crashes; what are the chances of that? As Landis said, Lance was a badass bike racer. He beat the dopers at their own game.

Yup. Pointing to LA's first Tours as an indication of potential is just stupid. While Indurain's job was to support his teammate's GC chances, Armstrong was not even trying to do that. He was never trying for GC. He was only trying for stage wins.

What also needs to be considered is that back then it was believed that putting a young rider through a grand tour would be detrimental to long term development. When Lance rode his first Tour, it was planned that he would be pulled part way through. His goal was to gain experience and try to win a stage, which he did. Not many young riders win a stage at their first Tour. Second Tour he did not finish. Third Tour he won a stage. Fourth Tour was a few months before finding out that his abdomen and lungs were riddled with cancer that had also spread to his brain. Really, that Tour is being used as a sign of GT potential?

Not sure why you lie, I have said several times that Lance was a very talented rider. He would have likely won multiple one day classics. He did not show the abilities critical to success at a Grand Tour (climbing, TT, recovery) until he started working with Ferrari


Armstrong did transfusions several years earlier then his key rivals. His key rivals were not using EPO in 2000 due to the new EPO test, the same reason Ferrari started them on transfusions


Postal did, Lance didn't. Even on Postal not everyone was on the same program. Dave Z never did transfusions. Christian VdV never did transfusions. He was left off the Tour team because of it. In Hamilton's book he talks about how he always suspected Lance had something different from the rest of the team that enabled him to see a sudden jump in power right before the Tour. Perhaps it was Hemmassit? Lance bragged to Marty Jemison that he found Baxter Pharmaceuticals all by himself and gained access to their experimental drugs. Landis has talked about Lance having access to experimental insulin drugs

Instead of twisting and lying how about telling us why the 83 samples tested after the Prologue in 1999 there were only 9 positives for EPO and 5 belonged to Armstrong? How is this possible if "Everyone was doing it"? Funny how you ignore that fact over and over and instead twist what others write

This guy has been posting his bile for fifteen years on forums and for years on Twitter. The language, arguments and style are exactly the same as the well known Lance hater, Race Radio. It is RR's whole life. Julian Dean, the NZ cyclist, announced his first time registering for Twitter last year. Curiouser and curiouser. Is this a sly way to argue from phony authority.

Look at the budget of the USPS team...seems logical they could afford a unique program, don't you think? Seems logical to me.

How effective was Floyd Landis in his doping program when he had to do it without the budget size Lance had?

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Thanks for the heads up.

The playing field was certainly not level when it came to budget. Lance paid over 1,000,000 to Ferrari in bank transfers alone. Mike Anderson, Armstrong's assistant, also described how Armstrong would also pay large amounts in cash



How is it a level playing field if the entry fee for Lance's doping program starts at 1,000,000? How does a Neo Pro afford that?

Makes the "level playing field" argument laughable. Yet Lance keeps referring to it and gullible people lap it up.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Weird how he was saying all of this stuff way before it was public, and was proven correct..

Anyhow, you're either Lance, someone close to him, a paid talking points guy or a serious fan, so can you tell me - how true are the rumors about Lance's drinking? Is he really turning into his bioligical dad, or is it being exaggerated?

I think nobody is beyond help, but Lance seems to be cutting it fine.

Interesting the lack of payments from 1998-2001. Do you think they happened but just weren't documented, or does Ferrari kick into high gear in 2002 because EPO test is available and life gets more sophisticated?

Likely because the money came from the team or other avenues. Armstrong's former assistant has talked about Armstrong being paid large quantities of cash in appearance fees and that being used to pay Ferrari. Mike also said Armstrong had Swiss bank accounts that Lance used. He used to fly up for meetings with the bankers and Verburggen USPS was also selling team bikes for cash to pay for drugs.

Why? You don't think the other GC contenders had the same resources?

Absolutely not. This seems obvious to me. Lance was a money making machine. Money pens doors. He is worth $125M and this is just from cycling.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Really? Lance had $125 million in '96 or '99 or '02? You don't think Ullrich had resources and funding to pay 100k a year for doping expenses. That wasn't 1million per year, that was over multiple years. Lots of riders had the resources to pay 50-100k a year for doping. At the time it was just a smart investment in your profession.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/...-hincapie-net-worth/

Not every GC contender had the same financial resources. Not to mention the guys who might have been "GC contenders" if they had been able to spend that much money on drugs and doctors.

Regardless, I don't know of any other cyclist, GC contender or otherwise, who was making six-figure "donations" to the UCI.

It was not a level playing field.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Doesn't anyone find it strange to be debating how level the playing field was among the dopers? I'm sure everyone agrees that it wasn't level when you consider the people who refused to dope. But, among the dopers, why is one better or worse because of how aggressively they tackled doping? They all willfully cheated. There is never a level playing field in the sense of everyone being the same. But, with doping, they all had access to the resources if they were willing to go after them. Lance didn't have a secret research lab with a billion dollar budget. He started out as a young pro with access to the same doping info as everyone else. All the other riders have been given a free pass in the doping fight. Lance's teammates got off by testifying to the minimal amount of doping that would get them off and get Lance convicted. I don't believe for a second that any of them really told the full story.

Wait, I thought you were arguing before that Lance was below average for pro cyclist?

It does not appear that Lance was using any drugs that were not available to other riders, compared to something like BALCO where custom drugs were developed. Lance did have the advantage of Ferrari, Ferrari really did know how to use the drugs correctly. Like a good coach that is able to balance the right training load and right recovery for maximum adaptation, Ferrari combined that coaching with a deep knowledge of how using drugs influences that training load and recovery, with a knowledge of the glow time (how long the drugs would show up during a drug test).

Nope.

Hamilton paid Fuentes $50k and got a much lower level of service. Ferrari had his doctorate in Hematology, Fuentes was a Gynecologist. Armstrong had his transfusions performed by Dr. Dag Van Elslande who was the UCI's head of anti-doping in the Flemish region for over a decade. Compare this to Fuentes assitant who was so impaired by dementia that he mixed up blood bags and was rendered incompetent to stand trial.

What you rider can afford $1,000,000? Those who do not know the history of the sport forget that prior to EPO and million dollar doping doctors it was common for riders in their early 20's to not only podium in Grand Tour but win them. If it is a "Level Playing Field" how does a Neo-Pro afford $1,000,000 for a program? How does a Neo-Pro gpay the UCI $100,000 to make positives go away and get them to write scam reports clearing retro positives?

So I guess a question could be how did Armstrong get to work with Ferrari in the early days? Was that something that was uniquely available to Lance, or did others have the exact same opportunity and just didn't take it?

I don't see anyone saying that one was better or worse ethically. What people are saying is that Lance never, ever, would have won the Tour if there was a level playing field.

It clear that there are massive differences in each riders response to doping, especially blood vector doping.

Clearly all they did not all have "Access to the resources" Ferrari's deal with Armstrong was exclusive. How many riders made $150,000 donations to the UCI?

Do you really think Armstrong and Ullrich had the same protect from the UCI? Really? The UCI actively fought and obstructed USADA's investigation. McQuaid told witnesses not to participate. The filed intentionally misleading supporting documents in Armstrong's Federal case against USADA. They fought an absurd jurisdiction fight that had zero basis in reality.

Compare this to how the UCI pursued Ullrich for a decade. They had a fraction of the evidence but pushed through two CAS appeals before they finally guy him 6 years after he retired. How is that a level playing field?

Did every team get advanced notice of "Surprise" out of competition tests?

Good question.

At first Ferrari refused to work with Armstrong. Thought his numbers were not good enough. Lance had Eddie Merckx, who was providing the team with bikes at the time, reach out to Ferrari and convinced him to take him on. They worked out a deal with Ferrari took a portion of Lance's salary, 15%. Remember Lance had more resources then the average young rider as he had the payout from Thrift drug race fraud. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...x-1993-race-win.html

After 1999 Armstrong increased his payout to Ferrari and mandated that he could not work with any other GC riders

Did Floyd also have an entourage of people that could tap into information and find out when testers were coming and give Lance advance notice. Of course not. It took a lot of money to keep the Lance train moving. Let's also not forget Lance was very influential by his personality alone. He had the perfect mix.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Who were those riders that won the TdF in their early 20's back in the day? I count 9 under 25 between 1930 and now. EDIT: looking at the age of each riders first win in the TdF, there is very very slight trend for the age to be getting older. To me, that makes sense given the increased depth in the sport making it harder for a new rider to break through.

Sure, Merckx, Hinault and Fignon won before age 25. So did Ullrich, Contador and Shleck. Indurain, won his first at 27. How is that possible, he showed the most promise of anyone in the history of grand tour racing.

And can we stop skewing the facts. Armstrong didn't have a million dollar program as a neo-pro. That amount includes the time he was in a 3x tour winner, far away from his neo-pro days. Can you post his expenses for doping in the early 90's pre cancer? Is the other moral of the story that Hamilton should've taken his doping more seriously and spent the money on a real program instead of wasting 50k on the 2nd tier?

i have only this to add to a fascinating thread. arch, i don't think julian is the person you think he is. i'm not saying i agree with tha julian is posting or, at least, not necessarily entirely. a lot of good points are made by both sides and the two foils - arch stanton and julian - are each extremely knowledgeable and well read.

FWIW, to any who might think or assume so i also don't see any evidence that julian was himself personally involved in doping, as a user or as a facilitator.

i think the CIRC report might eventually show who is closer to being "right" between you two. now, with that, i will sit back and watch two compelling people write with a level of understanding i lack. of course, it would be nice if each of you toned down the vitriol, but that might prove too tall an ask.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The point (I think?) is that the "it was a level playing field" excuse used by Armstrong is not correct.

As far as everyone else being given a free pass, there were the cases involving Heras, Hamilton, and Landis (among others) where the dopers weren't given a free pass. As far as some of Armstrong's teammates being given a break for admitting to their own doping while testifying against Armstrong, I agree. But they didn't get off without any punishment (as meaningless as their punishment was in some cases).

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

That is a point I disagree on. I think they were all doping and if they chose, had the option to do the same as Armstrong. The fact that many either didn't know a better way or decided it was too risky or dangerous, doesn't in my mind suggest that the playing field wasn't level. They were all willfully cheating and doping, the degree to which they cheated doesn't make me think that the playing field wasn't level.

How much was Indurain paying Conconi?

I suggest you read what I actually write instead of twisting it to fit your agenda

It is clear that prior to EPO Grand Tour riders show their ability to TT, Climb, and recover early.

Merckx won the Giro at 22
Fignon won the Tour at 22
Lemond podium of the Tour at 23
Hinault won the Tour and the Vuelta at 23

Armstrong did not need a lot of money to dope in the early/mid 90's. Success during that time was due to how much risk you were willing to take and how your body responded to the drugs. Riis was willing to take twice as much EPO and HGH as his teammates. His Hct was 64%. As soon as the 50% rule came into effect he went from dominating the Tour to barely cracking the top 10

Once the 50% came into effect, followed by the EPO test and increased OCC testing the game changed. Money, protection by the UCI and response to doping became critical. Lance had all three. He also was willing to bring EPO into France in 1999 when the other teams were not.

Compare how the UCI went after Ullrich with how they protected Lance. McQuaid obstructed USADA's investigation. He told witnesses not to testify and he filed absurd jurisdictional challenges. He allowed Armstrong's lawyer to write the report that "Cleared" him from the 1999 EPO positives. With Ullrich on the other hand the UCI pursued relentlessly. They filed 2 CAS appeals when their sanctions did not succeed. They chased him for close to a decade before they succeeded in sanctioning him 6 years after he retired. Can you really say that was a level playing field? Really?

Not sure you understand the topic. Lance is trying to convince people that everyone was doing the same thing he was, it effected everyone the same way, and the playing field was level. Using this rationality he claims he is the rightful winner of those 7 Tours.

It is clear there were many riders more talented then Lance who said no to doping, no to transfusions. It is clear in 1999 and 2000 that everyone was not doing the same thing he was. It is clear the not everyone had the same level of protection from the UCI. It is clear that not every rider had $1,000,000 to pay the best doping doctor who gave lance his exclusive services.

A lot.

To be clear, Indurain had a huge TT motor but no way he ever wins a Grand Tour. Maybe a podium but winning would need a special route.

Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, Levi, Berzin, all chemical inventions. On a level playing field the only one I would see winning a GT is Landis.

I'm responding to the topic of a level playing field amount the dopers. To me, a level playing field means they all started with the same opportunity. The decisions Armstrong made could've been made by any of the other riders. They decided to dope and cheat, from there it was a level playing field. He didn't start out rich. He took huge risks and for 15years reaped the rewards of those risks. The ones who decided not to dope obviously were at a massive disadvantage.

The argument about who responds better to doping is silly in my opinion. That isn't something anyone can change. It's no different than people who respond differently to training.

I really don't see the point in ranking the dopers based who took more risks, or paid more money or responded better. He was the fastest in the doper category. No one will ever know who would've won if the entire field was clean. Who would've won if Merckx and Indurain were clean?

It's possible that Daniele Nardello would've been the best tour rider of the Lance era without drugs.

The first part of Armstrong's argument is "I doped, they doped, I won, it was fair". The corollary is "If they hadn't doped and I hadn't doped, I would have won too. It's a witch hunt, so unfair etc etc" I think most people feel that judging by the lengths he went to both to dope and to conceal his actions, that latter is demonstrably false.

This is interesting and I'm wondering how accurate. We know after Festina and French police actually throwing people into jail that teams backed off active management and control of doping and forced riders to go underground and do it themselves. But, for those that did continue with it, did they treat racing in France differently than Spain, Italy, or Belgium? Would you have seen a lot more positive retroactive EPO sample from 1999 from Giro and Vuelta, but not France because riders were scared of being arrested?

Equating doping to training is comical. Take 2 experience Pro's in the prime of their career. Please tell me a training method that these Pro's could use that results in one getting a 2% increase and the other getting a 15% increase.

Armstrong bragged to teammates that he had the UCI in his pocket because they ignored his elevated HCG levels and that led to his cancer spreading. Did everyone rider have that opportunity?

When Armstrong tested positive for Cortisone in the 1999 Tour the head of the UCI helped him figure out a way to avoid a sanction. Did every rider get that opportunity?

The argument you put forward is not Lance's argument. He is saying everyone was doing the same thing, which they clearly were not, and therefor he is the rightful champion. It is clear to anyone reading this thread that Armstrong's claim has little basis in reality.

Damnit, you are full of interesting stuff. I long ago wondered about the HCG levels from his cancer and had forgotten about it. His cancer should have been detected through his doping tests back in 1996 yet wasn't for some reason. It never occurred to me that this would be leverage LA had on UCI in later years. Interesting, interesting, interesting.

That is a nice theory. Except Armstrong did not walk off the stage with a million dollar novelty check, deposit in his bank account, and then years later pay Dr Ferrari more than any young rider could afford. That million dollars was paid out as a $600K lump sum payment. Taxes were withheld. The cycling federation took their cut. Team Coors got 50K for the Philadelphia race. If you believe Roberto Gaggioli then he cheated his own team by getting an additional $100K for letting LA get away from the break at Phil. The Europeans in the break at Philidelphia were paid. What was left over was then divvied up between the members of Motorola who did the three races, fifteen or so people. When everything was said and done, that million dollars became, according to Phil Anderson, $15K.

This race series, ridden in 1993, also argues against your contention that Lance was an underperforming, below average schmuck who was at the bottom of the pro talent pool. The series took place before LA met Dr. Ferrari. During the first race, a long loop, LA destroyed the peloton, nearly lapping the field. In the second race, he rode off the front with another rider and the field never caught the two. The much talked about deal with team Coors only came about because Armstrong convincingly won the first two races. In fact Stephen Swart contends that LA was so dominant during the series that he did not need a deal.

Go back a two years earlier and I recall Lance at Park City during amateur road nationals. He bided his time while the break burnt itself out then killed the rest of us. It was not even funny.

We know that in the 1998 retro testing that there were 42 positves for EPO. After the Prolouge in 1999 there were only 9. Of those 9 the majority came from one rider, Lance Armstrong, who had 5. The other 4 likely came from members of his team who had access to Motoman

Lance moved from France to Spain in 1999 in order to escape the new doping laws.

I know, but how much of the difference between 1998 and 1999 was teams backing off from active management and control of "medical programs" and how much was due to fear of bringing EPO into the country? Not sure that can ever be quantified. Unless, we had retroactive testing of Giro and Vuelta samples from 1998 and 1999 to compare against the TdF delta from those years.

Are you implying Lance got a 15% increase from using EPO but others would only gain 2%? How could you know this?

I didn't equate doping and training. I compared the response to both considering that both are inherent traits of an individual.

You've listed a bunch of things that happened long after lance started doping and somehow you think that means he had unfair opportunities. You stated that ferarri didn't want to work with lance, but he obviously pushed ahead and made it happen. Why didn't anyone else do the same? Were the Europeans that keen to help a brash American that they turned down other riders?

And, I never said I was trying to justify lances claims. I'm only discussing the idea that dopers weren't on a level playing field. Lance was top among the dopers, doesn't matter if he was doing more or less, bribing people or responded better to doping.

Going after Ullrich probably backfired a bit on the UCI, since it really decreased the popularity of pro cycling in Germany. Especially if the theory is that Armstrong got extra protection to increase the popularity of road cycling in the United States, to increase the power of the UCI.

The UCI created this enviroment for people like Armstrong to thrive.

Yes, you did equate training with doping.

Again, the topic is Lance's 7 Tours not his "win" at Fl�che Wallon. Armstrong thinks everyone was doing the same thing he was doing. I have shown over and over that is a lie

It appears we agree. Lance crossed the line first because he was the best cheater, not the best bike racer

Again, I equated the response to doping and training. Don't twist my words to suit your needs.

Thank you for identifying the only topic that is allowable in this thread. Now, the topic I responded to was in regards to the level playing field. You claim he had advantages over other dopers. That is obviously true, but doesn't mean the playing field wasn't level. In the big picture, all dopers were doing the same thing as lance, they were willingly cheating. The cheated the clean riders, not the other dopers. Do you think Ullrich was cheated out of your wins by lance?

We don't agree. You can't know the answer to that question, I don't think anyone can.

What is a fact is that he was the fastest rider in 7 TdF. So, in the doping category at those races, he was the first person across the line. To make any other claims is just making things up. You can have any number of theories about his physical potential and that of others, but you really have no idea who was the best in a pure 100% natural state.

I don't know the answer, but I'm going to hypothesize that Thom Weisel's ego played a role in getting his GC rider the best that money could buy. Bruyneel, Armstrong, Weisel and the fallout from 1998 generated the perfect storm.

Oh brother.....equating the response to doping to the response to training is ridiculous. If you find a training method that gives a seasoned Pro as massive a difference in response as Oxygen vector doping please let us know.

What aren't you understanding here. People talk about Lance responding to doping better than other cyclists. His natural % was in the low 40's instead of high 40's, etc etc. I'm talking about the individual's response to doping. People respond differently. Some are very trainable and others aren't. Some respond to drugs with huge improvements and others don't. Understand now? Point is that the response to training or doping is an inherent trait of each individual athlete.
Edit: I would agree that most of the people who don't respond to training are likely never going to make event the top amateur levels.

We do know how Lance would ride without Ferrari. He would drop out.

Yes, Lance was the best cheater. No doubt. He won the cheating category. He, and his co-conspirators, developed the best program. Travis was right

Quote:

The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.

But that is not what Lance is saying. Lance is saying everyone was doing the same thing, which we know is a lie

We are not talking about average people. We are talking about full time, established, Professional, athletes. Sure, Joe Blow will make large gains but what Pro, riding 30 hours a week, gets a 15% return from a training method when his training partner gets 2%?

See how equating the response to training with the response to doping is silly?

We are clearly having two completely separate discussions here. You seem intent on 'proving' that Lance was a hack pro that would never have finished the tour without drugs. Why do you feel his claims of 'they were all doing the same thing' are his most vile lies from his illustrious history of lies? Yes, Lance was a liar and a cheater. We all agree. The fact that he threatened and bribed people to cover his doping doesn't give any support to your claims that he was a hack pro who would never finish the tour.

They were all doing the same thing. They were all cheating and doping. It was a level playing field for the dopers and Lance won that race. The people that were cheated were the clean athletes, not the other dopers.

I think what Jctriguy is trying to say is that no doping rewards people with a certain set of genes and when doping was "allowed" it just rewarded a different set of genes. The fact that some people responded more to doping is not what makes it non-level playing field. The fact that UCI clearly treated different riders differently in order further some political agenda is what made the playing field non level.

So if there was an out and back race and the top 5 finishers cut the course short. But first place cut the course short significantly more than the others... you would consider that a level playing field?

..

Not sure why you try to twist my words. To be very clear

Lance was a bad ass bike racer. While he did not have the engine to factor in the GC of a Grand Tour his tactical skill would have allowed him to win many one day races

I have never said that "Everyone was doing it" was his "his most vile lies from his illustrious history of lies". His attempt to revise history is disturbing but not as disturbing as what he did to LeMond and the Andreu's

Again, they were not all doing the same thing. It is clear that in at least 1999 and 2000 this was not the case

Yes, certainly twisting your words.

Thanks for summarizing.

Interesting discussion about the UCI playing favourites. Certainly seems like they had a huge political agenda in the background. Lance didn't create that, but he without a doubt took full advantage of the situation and pushed the boundaries with the UCI relationship.

I think you might be confusing the concept of a level playing field with an outcome that was fair. In your example, the race wasn't completed fairly but it was a level playing field. Everyone had the same opportunity to cheat and cut the course short.

Do you think the UCI would have worked so hard to protect a rider from Botswana? Really?

Again, I am discussing the significant advantage Armstrong had over other dopers. He says the outcome was fair. It wasn't The ethics discussion is difficult to quantify.

Thank you for admitting that, please do not do it again

As I'm sure you are aware, that was sarcasm in my post. You are as bad as anyone for taking this out of context or changing the meaning to suit your needs.

I'll step out now, back to your discussion with arch.

No, I just think your definition of a level playing field is strange.

Imagine first place paid a course marshal to help him cut the course the shortest and look the other way. It is still a level playing field for you because others could do the same.

Then imaging first place arranges for a rival to get food poisoning. Still a level playing field because others could do the same.

I can see the confusion, as I'm pretty sure you are the only one using this definition of level playing field.


..

First, I'm talking about the level playing field among the dopers/cheaters. So in your situations, I would have a hard time paying attention to someone who protested the race results based on paying off an official, when the person protesting had also knowingly cut the course.

A level playing field in my mind, probably better referred to as equal opportunity, means that there is no advantage conferred to anyone based on their individual traits. "Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences".

The challenge I see in this discussion of a level playing field, is the number of irrelevant topics that are included. Money is not relevant here. Everyone had access to the same pots of money, the fact that some gained more benefit from that money isn't relevant. The fact that some are better able to attract that money and work those relationships isn't relevant. The fact that some respond better to doping is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Based on the above definition, the only area that I'd soften my view would be the UCI treatment of Armstrong and the possible motives behind that. I don't think it is a simple discussion, since it depends on how and why that protection started. To me, it would be significantly different if Armstrong put everything in motion and pulled the UCI onto his side vs the UCI seeing the expansion of the USA market as a huge plus and Armstrong as the person to bring in the market. Was Armstrong more willing to take risks with doping because he had protection? Or, was he naturally a risk taker and would've pushed the limits regardless of the protection? He started doping very early in his career and seemed more willing than others to increase his doping program. I'd suspct that it was a bit of both, his willingness to push the boundaries and his willingness to bring the UCI on board for protection.

Who do you mean by "everyone?" If by "everyone" you mean the top 10 or so GC guys, then, yes, maybe. Most top teams have benefactors with big pockets, probably willing to spend big on the top few guys on their teams. But there are ProTour teams that are relatively destitute, who struggle to just make basic payroll month to month. And then there are the Continental teams who often race big races who are even more destitute.



I disagree. It's quite relevant. Because it requires skilled personnel in black marketeering. Moving large sums of money around surreptitiously, and often illegally. Entering that black market "playing field" is outside the transparently stated legitimate avenues of competition. It requires people skilled in illegal acquisition and transport of prescription drugs. This, to me, is little different than engaging the UCI bureaucracy for competitive advantage. It's "not level" because those things are against either the publicly stated rules of the UCI or actual criminal law. What the top doping teams did was create a second set of secret de facto rules contrary to the publicly stated rules. You might argue that the second set of rules was open to anyone willing to take those risks and develop those types of relationships. But I disagree with that. Strongly. Because when you sign your name to the official set of rules, that means something to me. Agreeing to a public, transparent, common set of rules is the essence of sport. It defines the playing field.

Interesting debate so far�.

To a certain degree I agree with one of your previous posts�..something along the lines of "does anyone think this is odd that we are discussing "level playing field within the context of cheating" Not a direct quote from you but I would agree.

Sort of like discussing who was the best 1920-1930's gangster or who is the best current bank robber, or why has the street level drug dealer been denied opportunity over that "Nights templar" guy in Mexico.

No dog in this fight, honestly don't really care. I would be interested if someone had V02 info on LA post early 90's. In 1991 (according to Julian D link) he had a VO2 max of 6.2L I find it curious how he fluctuated between 6.2 and 5.2L IIRC Indurain (internet speculation) had total of 7L which is very high for a cyclist (I think highest).

6.2L is pretty good for a 20 year old�.although he was 180cm at 80kg.

With doping and weight loss it isn't unreasonable that he could get to 6.7L or so at�.what was his tour weight? 72-75kg

Anyways, I know you and JD disagree but it has been a great thread so far.

Maurice

You're a complete retard! Not partial! Complete!! Feel proud!

Sure, whatever training method Greg Lemond was using to beat all those dopers.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I recently watched "Stop at Nothing. The Lance Armstrong Story". I have always felt he got punishment exceeding others who cheated... BUT, after watching that movie, and the words that came out of HIS mouth... well, he is a $%&*-hole of a human being. I personally don't need to read anymore articles.

---

Colorado Triathlon Company, CO2UT 2021, Crooked Gravel 2022, Steamboat Gravel 2022

I took BLEP's statement to mean the dopers of THAT time (meaning maybe pre EPO but they were using something else. Unless you are saying everyone was clean back then

I know what you are suggesting. I do not buy into the "massive talent overcomes rampant cheating" fairy tale.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Greg did beat Laurent who later admitted doping

There are limits to just how level a playing field ever is. Is everyone riding the same bike, using the same wheels? Unless you can fix every variable it's never truly level in that respect. But when you consider that everyone has equal opportunity, then it's just as level as training opportunity. Not everyone has to or is willing to train as hard either.

What about when LeMond used aero bars in a TT when no one else did. What that a level playing field?

There are age group folks getting busted for doping, just how hard do you think it is? It's not some James Bond movie stuff.

would like to know the circulation numbers for this issue, versus others

Lol, you are like a comic book character. Everything you say is hilarious, in this thread and every other you post in.

Honestly, this thread is just a bunch of dogs barking at each other