The Sidebar Thread

[pmcg76]

Re: First EPO users in the peloton?

"We rode 6 hours on our first spin and I was pretty knackered when it was over. Next day I was stuck to the road and turned back after 2 hours. I felt drained and run down.

Normally I would take my first vitamin injection 3 months into the season, but, damn it, I needed it. So I took it and the next day I felt much better."

This is from a former pro, I am putting it here as it illustrates what a difference a simple legal injection may make to an athlete. Now if a simple B12vitamin injection can make that much of a difference in a day, imagine how much a cyclist may improve in a week if they are being treated regularly with legal products, especially if it was an athlete who was returning to their previous level having been ill. As to the cyclist, see if people can figure out who it is.

Lance Armstring? Dave Stoller? Barry Muzzin?

What is your point inre to this thread?

Because people are arguing that LeMond was one of the first EPO users because of that improvement during the Giro and disregarding the iron shots theory.

If a rider feels a big improvement in one day after a vitamin shot, an improvement over a period of a week taking iron shots doesn't seem outlandish when the problem was a lack of iron, especially when you consider they would be sandbagging with the final stage in mind.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

chapeau! sniper.....i admire your dedication........

Mark L

Agreed! Great read.
sniper is to Lemond as Lemond was to Armstrong.
Do you own a bike brand called sniper? If so, you might wanna start looking over your shoulder.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

For sake of truth in advertising, this thread should be titled LeMond (sic) II. A quite transparent stalking horse.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here, at least with Ryo banned so often. I can't say that I'm overjoyed to have this lad apply to fill the gap.

 

[Robert21]

Re:

It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here

Yes, of course, anyone who dares to criticise even the most lunatic claims of the feminist movement, or who suggests that someone might not actually be guilty of sexism must be a 'misogynist'.

Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women. Rather I don't like the 'mob rule' mentality that usually accompanies any claim that someone has behaved in a 'sexist' way. To point out, for example, that Tim Hunt was treated in a disgraceful way is not evidence of 'misogyny'.

Even more fundamentally, I have deep concerns about the way 'Enlightenment' values such as reason, logic, rationality, empiricism and so on stand for so little in this relativistic, post-modern world, where all that matters is creating and pushing a narrative that serves one's own (often political) ends. George Orwell saw that this was the pathway to totalitarianism, as when even science is held to be just another 'way of seeing the world, no more valid than any other, then the 'truth' is whatever the most influential say it is. In short we live in a world where reason counts for little and much of what happens in the world is based on politically motivated myths. (Even pro bike racing plays this game, explaining unbelievable performances by the myth of 'marginal gains', the 'plucky, honest Brit', and so on.)

It just so happens that when it comes to myth-making and hostility to the 'White western male' values of the Enlightenment, the feminist movement has been one of the most determined and effective.

A good example is the myth that the suffragettes in Britain won ordinary women the vote. The reality is that not even men were granted universal suffrage until 1918, with the suffraggetes such as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst essentially running a terrorist campaign (planting bombs in places such as Westminster Abbey, arson, vandalism, assault and even trying to kill the prime minister with an axe) with the goal of winning the vote for the women of the privileged, land-owning classes, like themselves.

They were not fighting for votes for ordinary women (or men) with the exception of Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of her mother's Women's Social and Political Union for her socialist values. Apart from Sylvia the Pankhurst's were a pretty nasty bunch, running the 'white feather' movement in WWI and being involved in various right-wing and even proto-fascist movements. (For example, Adela Pankhurst was a founder of the Australia first movement.) Biggest irony of all is that women eventually got the vote not because of the suffragettes but because the huge sacrifices made by (mainly) men in WWI made it impossible to deny ordinary people the vote any longer.

Myths are powerful and they persist even when it is widely known that they are false.

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

As a certain German politician once wrote..

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed... The primitive simplicity of the minds of the masses renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favours the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

...all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here

Yes, of course, anyone who dares to criticise even the most lunatic claims of the feminist movement, or who suggests that someone might not actually be guilty of sexism must be a 'misogynist'.

Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women. Rather I don't like the 'mob rule' mentality that usually accompanies any claim that someone has behaved in a 'sexist' way. To point out, for example, that Tim Hunt was treated in a disgraceful way is not evidence of 'misogyny'.

Even more fundamentally, I have deep concerns about the way 'Enlightenment' values such as reason, logic, rationality, empiricism and so on stand for so little in this relativistic, post-modern world, where all that matters is creating and pushing a narrative that serves one's own (often political) ends. George Orwell saw that this was the pathway to totalitarianism, as when even science is held to be just another 'way of seeing the world, no more valid than any other, then the 'truth' is whatever the most influential say it is. In short we live in a world where reason counts for little and much of what happens in the world is based on politically motivated myths. (Even pro bike racing plays this game, explaining unbelievable performances by the myth of 'marginal gains', the 'plucky, honest Brit', and so on.)

It just so happens that when it comes to myth-making and hostility to the 'White western male' values of the Enlightenment, the feminist movement has been one of the most determined and effective.

A good example is the myth that the suffragettes in Britain won ordinary women the vote. The reality is that not even men were granted universal suffrage until 1918, with the suffraggetes such as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst essentially running a terrorist campaign (planting bombs in places such as Westminster Abbey, arson, vandalism, assault and even trying to kill the prime minister with an axe) with the goal of winning the vote for the women of the privileged, land-owning classes, like themselves.

They were not fighting for votes for ordinary women (or men) with the exception of Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of her mother's Women's Social and Political Union for her socialist values. Apart from Sylvia the Pankhurst's were a pretty nasty bunch, running the 'white feather' movement in WWI and being involved in various right-wing and even proto-fascist movements. (For example, Adela Pankhurst was a founder of the Australia first movement.) Biggest irony of all is that women eventually got the vote not because of the suffragettes but because the huge sacrifices made by (mainly) men in WWI made it impossible to deny ordinary people the vote any longer.

Myths are powerful and they persist even when it is widely known that they are false.

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

As a certain German politician once wrote..

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed... The primitive simplicity of the minds of the masses renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favours the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

...all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

bet you're a man

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

bet you're a man

Arguing in favour of reason, rationality and empiricism, means I must be a man? Hardly takes Sherlock Holmes does it? Similarly, I guess that one could easily deduce that Sandra Harding was likely to be female, based on nothing more than her claim that Newton's Principa Mathematica is a 'rape manual'.

 

[Robert21]

By the way, I see that Nicole Cooke has come out arguing that the different distances raced by men and women are 'sexist'. I would agree that men and women should ride the same distances on the track, and have a feeling that different distances have been used in the past to make it harder to compare the performances of the elite men and women. How about the road though?

I see that last year's men's RR championship, over nearly 260 km, was run off at 41.6 km/hr, whilst the women averaged 38.1 km/hr over just 129.6 km. Would it really be better to have the women's event also cover 260km, even if the average speed was, say, 35 km/hr? How about the under 23's and juniors? Surely, if the women should be racing over the full distance, shouldn't they?

Of course, if this were done I can see some arguing that it was now 'sexist' to expect women to race the same distance as the men, so failing to pay due regard to the physical difference between men and women. After all, in the name of 'equality' women in the army have to pass less stringent physical tests in order to become officers, the fire service cannot ask recruits to pass physical tests that women tend to find to be too demanding, and so on.

Or is my real problem that, as a man, I expect arguments about 'sexism' to make logical sense?

 

[Robert21]

Re:

Girl power:

Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want
So tell me what you want, what you really, really want
I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want
So tell me what you want, what you really, really want
I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha)
I wanna really, really, really wanna zigazig ah

 

[oldcrank]

Re: Shane Sutton - Team Sky coach

Clinic Exclusive: Shocking Photos Prove Vicky's Claim "Sexism Rife At British Cycling"

 

[Robert21]

Re:

Many statements about poor treatment have been made over many years without the recourse to accusations of sexism, so it's not like they've just plunged in there and played the offended card. A lot of the problem at BC is simply blatant favouritism, but seemingly manifesting itself in some ugly ways.

Yes, poor treatment, blatant favouritism, even bullying do seem to have been rife in British Cycling. Not sure that it amounts to true 'sexism' though, even if those who are aggrieved are using this 'toxic' term, knowing this is the surest way to cause the maximum impact and amount of damage.

It does your case no good at all either to not acknowledge that there are many different interpretations and viewpoints within feminism as well, just like any philosophical, social or political ideology, and not all of these viewpoints define sexism, misogyny and all the other terms you've got into a state about the same way.

I think this must be directed at me. Yes, as I said, some who would call themselves feminists even recognise that evolutionary biology has a lot to tell us about gender roles. That said, the vast bulk of the feminist movement is, one way or another, faithful to the constructs of relativism and post modernism, and express an intrinsic hostility to science and reason. Like religious fundamentalists they know they must adopt this standpoint if they are to argue that ''gender is nothing but a social construct" and so on. Even Germain Greer's hostility to trans individuals arises from this faith, as to her women are socially constructed, not products of their genetic makeup. This same underlying faith underpins the vast majority of the feminism pushed in publications such as the Guardian newspaper, so the position I am critical of is still pretty much mainstream, even if there are a few voices of reason even within the feminist movement itself.

I also pointed out that the sort of social constructivism I am critical of is not confined just to the feminist movement. Trying to influence others with carefully fabricated narratives that serve one's interests but might bear only a passing resemblance to objective reality is very much 'the name of the game' these days.

 

[Robert21]

Anyhow, I am still trying to work out Vicky P's take on 'sexism'. Isn't the sexual objectification of women supposed to be one of the greatest crimes of 'sexism'. So how does that tie in with her doing near-naked photo shoots for lads mags?

 

[Robert21]

Re:

she is free to objectify her body if she wants and god bless her for that

Yes, I am aware that my real problem is expecting the whole gender debate to make any sort of consistent, logical sense.

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

 

[Robert21]

Re:

you should know full well you don't need to be a feminist (in the definition you use, which seems to only apply to some of the more radical strains thereof) to find something sexist

What I am saying is that it tends to be the 'radicals' who define the debate, and so influence what everybody else thinks, as is their intention.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Anyhow, I am still trying to work out Vicky P's take on 'sexism'. Isn't the sexual objectification of women supposed to be one of the greatest crimes of 'sexism'. So how does that tie in with her doing near-naked photo shoots for lads mags?

So if a person chooses to display themselves in a manner of *their* choosing, it's alright to treat them poorly? Since that photo was taken, it'd be okay for Sagan to walk up to her and grab her ass!? What about being paid less and getting less support than the men on the team even if you're way more successful?

Objectification has nothing to do with how a person dresses or behaves. It has to do with treating that person as anything other than a person. Despite appearing nude in an ad, you'd never get a journalist walking up to someone like Cippolini and discussing their shoes or who they're dating. Women *still* deal with that crap and on a daily basis.

John Swanson

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Shane Sutton - Team Sky coach

I had to check my calendar to make sure it is not the 50s--the 1850s. This thread reads like a parody of white male privilege, maybe even a black comic version of it. Either that or it is a shocking look inside the mind of a neanderthal. If British women cyclists have to put up with even a fraction of what is on display here then no wonder they are aggrieved.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women.

No, I've read your long-winded, pompous, and pretentious contributions and on that evidence I'm pretty sure that your problem is with women.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Many statements about poor treatment have been made over many years without the recourse to accusations of sexism, so it's not like they've just plunged in there and played the offended card. A lot of the problem at BC is simply blatant favouritism, but seemingly manifesting itself in some ugly ways.

Yes, poor treatment, blatant favouritism, even bullying do seem to have been rife in British Cycling. Not sure that it amounts to true 'sexism' though, even if those who are aggrieved are using this 'toxic' term, knowing this is the surest way to cause the maximum impact and amount of damage.

It does your case no good at all either to not acknowledge that there are many different interpretations and viewpoints within feminism as well, just like any philosophical, social or political ideology, and not all of these viewpoints define sexism, misogyny and all the other terms you've got into a state about the same way.

I think this must be directed at me. Yes, as I said, some who would call themselves feminists even recognise that evolutionary biology has a lot to tell us about gender roles. That said, the vast bulk of the feminist movement is, one way or another, faithful to the constructs of relativism and post modernism, and express an intrinsic hostility to science and reason. Like religious fundamentalists they know they must adopt this standpoint if they are to argue that ''gender is nothing but a social construct" and so on. Even Germain Greer's hostility to trans individuals arises from this faith, as to her women are socially constructed, not products of their genetic makeup. This same underlying faith underpins the vast majority of the feminism pushed in publications such as the Guardian newspaper, so the position I am critical of is still pretty much mainstream, even if there are a few voices of reason even within the feminist movement itself.

I also pointed out that the sort of social constructivism I am critical of is not confined just to the feminist movement. Trying to influence others with carefully fabricated narratives that serve one's interests but might bear only a passing resemblance to objective reality is very much 'the name of the game' these days.

Postmodernism isn't really a live descriptor anymore (sort of like deconstruction) unless you're talking about burger/steak/ brewery, etc. wars in Bermondsey, Bethnal Green et. al.

I'm sure many here could give you bibliographies an arm or two long, but I wonder, for example, how just these two books (and their authors more generally--neither of whom is a postmodernist in whatever senses it was meant to mean) might inflect your reading of this "problem." Leaving aside more overt and heavy going reads that deal strictly with domination and the production of power

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Love-Intimacy-Genealogy-Carnality/dp/0822338890

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691136211/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687762&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=069102989X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0GYVGW3900TND3NZTMMM

Neither author is by any means hostile to science, history or reason. Although both are very good about asking "whose reason?" "To which end?"

Maybe this might be more at the heart of things

http://www.amazon.com/Preliminary-Materials-Young-Girl-Semiotext-Intervention/dp/158435108X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461709303&sr=1-1&keywords=tiqqun+preliminary+materials+young+girl

but be careful, it's dangerous for some readers who identify with it too superficially (and obviously unsettling for others) because although seemingly misogynist, the "young girl" in the title isn't gendered, but stands for anyone consuming and collaborating with the culture in which they find themselves determined and thereby conditioned to try and master--or at least maintain their conditions. So "sexism" becomes a weapon that cuts both ways, and you can't really assign biased expectations of "equivalence" by that logic. It never worked that way before.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I am tending to annoyance no one on this board has been able to astablish a very close link between the introduction of rEPO and Switzerland.

See the Hampsten vs. Lemond thread. At least in the early 90s Switzerland was the place to get your EPO without prescription. You're saying it was a hotspot already in the mid/late-80s? Interesting thought.

For the record, Hampsten 88 could've been EPO, I've mentioned that possibility plenty of times.
Testa would've been able to get his hands on it easily.

People, almost everything is on Dopeology. EPO was easier than blood transfusions.

yes, EPO came to replace blood transfusions, which were quite widespread in the 70s and 80s.

Instead of stating guys like Hampsten were blood transfusing -

Who is stating this? I would say EPO, but whether blood bags or EPO is a bit of a moot point. Hauptsache: blood boosting.
And you'll agree, if Hampsten was doing this, so was Lemond.

btw, what about Hampsten in 86?
Lemond and Hampsten on EPO in 86 certainly seems possible.

the logistics in the eighties were not sufficient for that I can assure you - look better.

If you rule out blood bags, then Hampsten 86 seems a plausible candidate for early EPO, together with Greg. tated that he never felt better than in 86.

That said, I wouldn't rule out blood bags for the early/mid-80s.
For one-day races we know they were common place.
The question of logistics of course relates only to GTs.
If refrigeration was problematic, a tinfoil hat theory of mine is that riders may have brought family members to GTs to donate fresh blood on rest days. It's basically what Eddie B. did with his riders in 84, so that method certainly wasn't unheard of.

 

[sniper]

And you kept that Montgomery investment all for yourself?

Yep, because it is not interesting at all.

Come again?
He gets accused from several sides of using and/or introducing EPO.
Turns out he invested in Montgomery, who in turn was responsible for taking Amgen public.
And you say it's not interesting?
If that's not interesting, then what *is* interesting?
You ever looked at Weisel's palmares from 1989 onwards, trained by Eddie B?
Lemond knew Weisel through Eddie B.
If none of that interests you, I can only assume you're not interested in the topic of Lemond and EPO in the first place. Which is fair enough, mind. You're under no obligation to discuss or even consider that angle.

I can make a timeline too with everyone involved with anyone and then say one and one is two, but, for a matter of fact, one and one is often not two, only if you WANT it to be two.

I agree.
But if you think Sastre, Wiggins, Cancellara, and Ciochiolli doped, because 1+1 =2, you gotta tell me why you think Lemond is clean, i.e. why, in his case, 1+1 isn't 2. If you claim the exception, you carry the burden of evidence. C'est la vie.
Now, I haven't heard a single plausible piece of evidence yet as to why 1+1 wouldn't make 2 in the case of Lemond. Last argument I heard was "well, Lemond said he was appalled by PDM". Lol. That's not even a rumor of a rumor. That's from the horse's friggin mouth. What else was he going to say, when asked about it anno 2014? If that's evidence, we might as well declare the whole peloton anno 2016 clean. They're all appalled by doping.

Another argument I heard was, "well, Phil Andersen said Lemond was clean". Which is funny at best. Give me one reason why Phil "missed test" Andersen would say anything negative about Lemond.
(on a side, did you know about Phil's missed test as well? If so, why not post it?)

So. Any arguments left why Lemond would be different from all other GT contenders? Never tested positive, springs to mind. But I bet there is more, and I'd be eager to discuss it. Until that time I see no reason to treat Lemond any differently from other GT winners.

For instance, do you think Esosfina got doped by Vanmol? He was on the same team.

Whether Esafosfina doped, I don't know. It's pretty inconsequential to the case of Lemond.
Esafosfina wasn't very sure about Lemond, you may remember.
And Esafosfina wasn't getting the three course meal. The top dogs were.

On the topic of Esafosfina, he's been pretty open on this board and I respect him for that, big time.
I also understand why he's hesitant to return here.
It's not pretty what happens to whistleblowers.
And I definitely wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the guy who blows the whistle on Lemond.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Sniper, I found it the topic!

Ask l"arriviste'' what my message was when I was digging through the Dutch archives and found 'the Phil Anderson files', a rider who was a, perhaps, my hero - together with Robert Miller and Eric Vanderaerden - in my youth.

Nevertheless, I admire your digging, yet, there is not much is it? Warned you about it, a few times I think?

But, to think Hampsten was blood doping in 1988 is a step too far. That really is ludicrous, insane.

Dont worry about Colin, he is fine.

*EDIT: did I ever say LeMond was clean? Dont think so. I would just like to see some sources more than I found who say he introduced EPO into the peloton, which is, to be frankly, bullscheisse*

 

[sniper]

Re:

Ask l"arriviste'' what my message was when I was digging through the Dutch archives and found 'the Phil Anderson files', a rider who was a, perhaps, my hero - together with Robert Miller and Eric Vanderaerden - in my youth.

why ask l'arriviste if you're here? i'm interested in those files. can you tell me what's in them and/or where to find them?

Nevertheless, I admire your digging, yet, there is not much is it? Warned you about it, a few times I think?

there isnt much to suggest 1+1 isn't 2.
there is plenty suggesting he doped and used epo.

as for epo: we have
(a) the montgomery connection
(b) the geographic connection
(c) kidney issues
(d) anemia
(e) the iron shots
(f) the rumors
(g) the baffling inconsistencies in his stories
(h) the transformations in 89 and 90.

I think him *using* EPO is pretty hard to deny. Whether he *introduced* it, is a different question.
But somebody must have introduced epo into the peloton. Thus far, the available evidence points at him. Sorry, but that's an objective statement.
Can you think of a better candidate? If so, show me some evidence. I'll be happy to review it.

But, to think Hampsten was blood doping in 1988 is a step too far. That really is ludicrous, insane

There is reasonable suspicion. Testa. Switzerland. The results. The timing.

*EDIT: did I ever say LeMond was clean? Dont think so.

no you didn't. And therefore i'm unsure why u seem rather dismissive of some of the discussion and presentation of info. There is no harm done in discussing and sharing info, is there?

I would just like to see some sources more than I found who say he introduced EPO into the peloton, which is, to be frankly, bullscheisse

Again, somebody must have introduced it. If you know a better candidate, let's discuss.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

I think him *using* EPO is pretty hard to deny. Whether he *introduced* it, is a different question.
But somebody must have introduced epo into the peloton. Thus far, the available evidence points at him. Sorry, but that's an objective statement.
Can you think of a better candidate? If so, show me some evidence. I'll be happy to review it.

But, to think Hampsten was blood doping in 1988 is a step too far. That really is ludicrous, insane

There is reasonable suspicion. Testa. Switzerland. The results. The timing.

*EDIT: did I ever say LeMond was clean? Dont think so.

no you didn't. And therefore i'm unsure why u seem rather dismissive of some of the discussion and presentation of info. There is no harm done in discussing and sharing info, is there?

I would just like to see some sources more than I found who say he introduced EPO into the peloton, which is, to be frankly, bullscheisse

Again, somebody must have introduced it. If you know a better candidate, let's discuss.

I think all this is getting a bit much to your head Sniper. '' I'll be happy to review it.'' is such a funny line, you have build a theory around a rumour in the peloton - probably brought into it due to Jan Gisbers who still has to start suing LeMond for his slanderous comments after he left Pills Drugs and Medicine - about someone introducing it to the peloton based on what exactly?

* he came from the US where the drug was developed
* he invested in a company
* he was trained by Eddy B. and has been nice to Eddy afterwards

Etc etc.

Your theory is nothing but that: a theory.

So, lets theorize. When did LeMond introduce EPo to the peloton? 1984? 1985? 1986? 1987? 1988? 1989? 1990?

All we know is some riders used it in 1990, maybe even prior to that, see the Hermans admission. That could have been 1988. So, how did Caja Rural get hold of the drug? Did leMond tip off Fuentes that year? Or perhaps 1987? The year he got shot while visiting his family in California, yep, the geographical connection!

And then, the theory about blood doper Hampsten, come on. I dont know if you were around at the time but if Hampsten was blood doping it sure as hell didnt do him any favours.

Same goes for 'the transformation' in 1989 and 1990. If you had seen that tour you would have seen LeMond was wheelsucking all the time, he clearly wasnt on par with his 1985 - 1986 level, Fignon was much stronger and if he hadnt had that thing on his balls in the last TT he would have won it, deservedly so too. LeMond on epo would have been cool to watch, Fignon too by the way.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

she is free to objectify her body if she wants and god bless her for that

Yes, I am aware that my real problem is expecting the whole gender debate to make any sort of consistent, logical sense.

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

Pendleton's prior actions have no connection with accusations of systemic discrimination, and alleging otherwise is the very worst kind of victim-blaming.

 

[Bronstein]

Why has this thread been stickied?