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?