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 Virén 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 Jörg Müller 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.