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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It does not mean teams were transporting blood around in July heat

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.

nickwisconsin wrote:

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?

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

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"

dogmile wrote:

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.
.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.