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 Flèche 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.