Armstrong's numbers

[UnBanProCycling]

Unless you actually take the facts into account. Armstrong lost no weight. He raced in the early 90s at the same weight he did at the end of his career. We know he used EPO in 1999, so coming up with pretzel logic that does not involve doping to explain his unnatural performance gains is ridiculous.

No Frankie Andreu said he bulked up in the mid 1990s. Clearly he was training for power. I don't see why Andreu would lie about that. You're also reading a lot into just two weight recordings.

 

[Izoard]

Fair enough. For the record, I think LA gets alot more grief than he deserves. I think the playing field was/is even. I think alot of posters live to dislike the guy and it's pathetic. Nothing more than that.

OK, so I am not some sort of Armstrong hater. But I would not say the playing field is equal. There is a huge difference between blood doping under serious expertise and with additional meds, and simply using EPO (the latter of which you see some 'lower level' pros being nailed for recently). Also, even if you like Armstrong, it is quite reasonable to understand why he is a polarizing figure and gets some grief.

 

[Race Radio]

This is a different link to the link you gave before. Perhaps this is a different study? The other one said the cyclists were "reasonbly fit" and were Sunday riders. Or is endurance trained just the scientific way of saying the same thing?

Anyway it also only refers to one type of drug. Thanks for sharing it but I don't think this is conclusive to your claim, as I said.

Yes you're right that I can only go from people in the sport and commentators in regards to Armstrong's training. They say his model of periodization training and preperation transformed the way riders prepare for grand tours, and is not the model for everybody. It could all be one big lie but I doubt it. I think more would have been said against it if it was.

These are the sources for the studies referred to in the Sportscientist. You can read the complete studies if you care. The both had the same results. There is a new Australian study that will mimic these, but with athletes that have a minimum Vo2 of 55. This should be out shortly.

All of these studies are supportive of my claim that there is not a level playing field, athletes respond differently to drugs just like all humans. You can ignore this if you like, but you would be wrong as usual.

The idea that Armstrong won because of periodize training is absurd. Riders have been doing this for decades. Lemond did it, Indurian did it. I even did it. Like much of the Armstrong myth it is one big lie.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Which is it? Is Armstrong the rider who was way ahead of his time, winning Pro Triathlons and World Championships....or the immature loser.

What a choice, huh? No he clearly had a lot of talent, but one could perfectly see how his brash shallow personality and difficult character would be holding him back in many respects. Tour rider is a whole different mental game, especially for a whooping chest thumping American. The new EPO drug amongst the very top riders also meant the younger riders couldn't shine to the degree that riders of their age had done so in the past in terms of the tours.

Frankie talks about Lance showing up for training camp with lots of muscle because he was DOPING! Frankie did not suspect some new training plan but saw that Dr.Ferrari had him doping in the off season.

Which proves my point that he put on weight. There was probably dope and of course a new training programme as well - Ferrari is an excellent trainer. He seemed to be training for power at first - that's where he wanted to go. But it wasn't until he lost that weight after the cancer, and had the mental approach that he realised he could compete with the other GC contenders. What is so extraordinary about that?

 

[UnBanProCycling]

These are the sources for the studies referred to in the Sportscientist. You can read the complete studies if you care. The both had the same results. There is a new Australian study that will mimic these, but with athletes that have a minimum Vo2 of 55. This should be out shortly.

Yes I have read them andthey don't back up your claim that Armstrong's success is all down to drugs. GC contenders are quite evenly matched physiology to begin with and are already good responders to training and likely drugs - that's why they are GC contenders in the first place - so it's extremely unrealistic to believe one person would respond so much better than the rest. We also have the history of Armstrong being very consistent over many tours, where its unlikely he used EPO even if you think he doped for all of them. For instance the allegation for the lastest tour is that he had a small blood transfusion, yet he still finished 3rd a 37. If he reacted to one particular drug better than the rest then we just wouldn't have such consistency. No, the evidence points to Armstrong being the better athlete. If there was a 100% clean peloton then he probably would have won 7 tours in any event. It's naive to believe that he magically won 7 tours in a row because he responded so much better to dope - it's not logical or scientific.

The idea that Armstrong won because of periodize training is absurd. Riders have been doing this for decades. Lemond did it, Indurian did it. I even did it. Like much of the Armstrong myth it is one big lie.

I don't know what you did in the 70s or 80s - since you don't reveal anything about yourself I can't take your claims at face value - but the commentators former pros I have seen said Armstrong took it to a new level, where he would train for the Tour over all other races. Maybe you have some type of personal grudge that stops you from seeing what is obvious. It's a very tough sport - you should resent someone just because they have more talent than you or I.

 

[UnBanProCycling]

People have got to think through the logic of what they're saying here on the LA doping question. If you think of all the pro-cyclists that have used EPO in the last 20 years, is it really credible to say that Armstrong somehow responds better than every single of of these people? Even if there is a range - a range that I imagine would be greatly reduced at that high level where the athlete is already evenly matched in having unsual assets so are prime responders anyway - it doesn't make sense that it would suddenly make Armstrong far above the rest. Speak to Frankie Andreu or Joe Papp who have used EPO - it doesn't magically turn you into a champion, let alone a 7 time winner.

Everyone seems to have gone to bed, so I will too...

 

[Race Radio]

Y GC contenders are quite evenly matched physiology to begin with and are already good responders to training and likely drugs - that's why they are GC contenders in the first place - so it's extremely unrealistic to believe one person would respond so much better than the rest.

I don't know what you did in the 70s or 80s - since you don't reveal anything about yourself I can't take your claims at face value - but the commentators former pros I have seen said Armstrong took it to a new level, where he would train for the Tour over all other races. Maybe you have some type of personal grudge that stops you from seeing what is obvious. It's a very tough sport - you should resent someone just because they have more talent than you or I.

Provide something to back up your claim that all GC contenders respond the same to PED's

Your source of the history of training methods is one guy on TV? Mine comes from 25 years in the sport. I know you don't like to read but read Paul Koechli's book or talk to David's Miller and VDV's coach about it. Indurain, Lemond, Ulrich, Riis,

Your baiting is getting tiresome.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.. Speak to Frankie Andreu or Joe Papp who have used EPO - it doesn't magically turn you into a champion, let alone a 7 time winner.
...

Frankie Andreu went from being a good domestique to being able to drive the peloton up a mountain - the difference EPO.

Joe Papp went from a good amateur racer in the States to being able to join an Italian team and race around the world - the difference PED's.

Lance Armstrong went from being a very good one day rider who lost approx 20 minutes every mountains stage pre 1996 - to [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCIJ2JewPE']this in 1999[/url]....... (i will let you figure out the rest)

 

[Anonymous]

Hardly. Contador breaks all known power records and doesn't release his passport and there is very little talk about him here. I know you're very sensitive about being associated too strongly with some of the people here so I will say that I don't count you are being the worst, but there are a lot of people here who have personality issues with Armstrong and attack him irrationally and unreasonably. They admit to being banned for other forums for their attacks on Armstrong. To pretend they're just trying to get at the truth is nonsense - some are, but there are clearly some hardcore haters here. Lets not pretend otherwise.

Some even try to claim he was doped for the Giro despite Armstrong having absolutely clean numbers no evidence at all to back up this claim.



Oh dear.

.

I doubt it. People seem to quite enjoy having the clinic as an echo chamber where they reinforce each others views and gang up on the outsiders who dare to question the orthodoxy view. There is a cult aspect to it. They don't need somebody putting some basic counter points for this to happen.



Firstly calling Armstrong a "myth" is trollery, of course, since there is no evidence that Armstrong ever did anything that gave him an unfair advantage over his GC competitors. Also it's not true for you to assert that most people here supported Armstrong at one time. I highly doubt that is the case for the likes of TTF, Blackcat and RaceRadio. I doubt Scott SoCal was a fan either - all he does is attack people who disagree with him; he seems to be here more for the gang element than for the sport.



I think your patronising tone and assertions weren't the politest way to start the discussion either.

I wonder how many days you will last under your new handle? The portion in bold above is another lie, UnBan.. err Ban Pro..err Arbiter.. You are pathetic.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

So, there is some guess that a 38 year old off 3 years retirement finished 12th in a GT after a broken collarbone? Get real, with either the charade or the venom. If he didn't dope, give him props. Putting down that performance just proves asshattery.

In what way is three posters considering the possibility that Armstrong might not have done much blood preparation before the Giro, either a charade or venomous? All of these posters indicate that other doping could still have gone on. I fail to see why anyone should 'give him props', unless their personal feeling was that it was an impressive performance. Also, did you notice that 2 of the posters indicated they were more interested in the possible implications for the rest of the peloton that Armstrong? Is that the bit that's 'asshattery' in your view?

But does this mean, as has been suggested, that Armstrong was probably clean during the giro? And if so, how far could a clean rider in his prime and highly talented, go in that race?

But it does look like he prepared differently for both races, and it is likely this was done with maximum performance at the Tour in mind. This would give credibility to the idea that his Giro performance came close to a clean performance.

I said this before. On the other hand we can not just assume that because the blood values look clean that he is not doing HGH. I am not sure how much boost that is but it probably played a big factor after the collarbone accident. Having said that, many on this forum feel like recuperation meds are a must for a Grand Tour. Maybe topic for another thread.

It does give some support to the idea that he didn't do much blood doping for the Giro. The most interesting part to me is it might give some idea of the potential un-blood-boosted performance level of a 37 year old with interrupted training (collar-bone/3 years off) who never showed promise as a GT rider in his early 20s.........which in turn gives an inkling about what could be achieved by other riders, although of course no other riders have a heart the size of a fiat bambina.

And as for this bit:

...I just don't buy a 38 yr old can finish 12th in a GT 3 years out of retirement and losing training due to a broken collarbone 1 month prior.....Somebody posted that somewhere else about the giro, and I find it laughable. Nothing more than that...

I like to challenge my own assumptions (e.g. that all or almost all the top riders are doping) by investigating questions that could indicate a contrary view. The fact that you find such a process laughable says something about you.

It hasn't escaped my attention that you have started posting the day that BPC got banned. Hopefully you will demonstrate this is merely an unfortunate co-incidence, by keeping the antagonism to a minimum.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Thanks lads. A far better read than the morning papers.
Another night, another troll, well,....maybe not another.

Anyhow, I like the idea of a bit of Contador bashing.
Of course, no one past a comment over his recent, world beating ITTing exploits.

Should become quite popular, especially when he's signed up for Shackman's arch enemy at Garmin.

So, if BPC, UBPC, Arbiter, Wonderlust, Chris E and whatever manifestation Dr Hombre next chooses, can be bothered to spin up a trollcrafted defence, I'm sure the rest up us will dig up as much dirt as possible.

Of course, it doesn't work like that.
They want we doping realists to write the fanboy rhetoric, so they can vent their collective spleens in the direction of the guy who beat the shit out of their object of manlove.

Then the have the gaul to complain that we don't play fair!

 

[ChrisE]

A$$clown, the $2.5 was for two years. Armstrong was with Cofidis for less then a year. Armstrong said he was paid nothing.

Sorry, I thought it was bikecentric making these claims. You said upthread:

"He also had a Salary of $600,000 per year with Cofidis....which they paid him 75% of, contrary to Armstrong's claim".

Your link says he had $2.5 million for 2 years, which jives with the above. I'm game if you can show me how any of this works out. Thanks.

 

[ChrisE]

It hasn't escaped my attention that you have started posting the day that BPC got banned. Hopefully you will demonstrate this is merely an unfortunate co-incidence, by keeping the antagonism to a minimum.

Look at my join date. Nice try.

 

[ChrisE]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16226502/Lance-Armstrong-Doping-History
This article quotes Armstrong as saying the "donation" was "six figures". It is on page 22, but the rest makes pretty good reading too.

OK, I'll bite. Please link where he "admitted donating 6 figures". I can only find a German UCI lady saying that.

I've googled the pis out of it and I can't find it. I have just found he admitted in SCA deposition it was $25k (not 50 like I said earlier). Betsy (I assume Betsy Andreu) posted that gem on podiumcafe.....while stating LA's mechanic said it was $500k per Kathy Lemond. The mechanic then denied that in an affidavit.

Look towards the bottom.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/comments/2007/7/1/1347/40340/8

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, so BPC/UBPC is gone. Now we have the vaunted ChrisE from DPF sliming the forum with his "Armstrong doped but so what and you guys don't understand that he was a pauper 1999 in fact he lived in squalor and you guys are all stupid because Armstrong just did what everyone did and he is still an amazing cyclist and you guys talk about him too much even though he is the only real topic of my posts too and Contador is a doper too and everyone else is a doper and you guys should devote as much time to them even though you do talk about the other cases I cannot understand why every thread isn't about another doper even though it was amazing for Armstrong to take 12th in the Giro and you guys are all just stupid to only talk about this stuff even though that is all I talk about" rants. Wow, I actually wish we had BPC back if this is the new guy we have to deal with. BPC was a much better troll. At least he had style.

 

[Jonathan]

..Now we have the vaunted ChrisE from DPF sliming the forum with his "...it was amazing for Armstrong to take 12th in the Giro..." rants.

Well he has a point there. Taking 12th place at the giro was pretty good, considering that he had broken his collarbone and was likely preparing to be in top form for the Tour (regardless of how this preparation went). Easy to admit, if it makes ChrisE feel better.

What I believe he should understand that it is important to have a clear idea about when and how Armstrong doped, and to demystify his performance. If anything, it's tracing history.

Wow, I actually wish we had BPC back if this is the new guy we have to deal with. BPC was a much better troll. At least he had style.

Careful what you wish for!

 

[Mellow Velo]

OK, I'll bite. Please link where he "admitted donating 6 figures". I can only find a German UCI lady saying that.

Stop splitting hairs and accept the fact that Lance was well off.
Regardless of the figure he admits to:
a) Making the "donation" without making the fact known.
b) That the sum involved was considerable.

http://static.bikeradar.com/news/article/armstrong-funded-uci-doping-research-8299/?mp=1

So, if he was poor, as you claim.
You would have to ask why he was handing over large amounts of cash, he could ill afford, to the UCI, without making it public and for an undisclosed reason?
An extremely odd priority, if not downright baffling, given such circumstances.

Or

He was financially secure and simply making a sound investment in his own future.
Quite common practice, in business circles, apparently.

 

[Galic Ho]

Sorry, I thought it was bikecentric making these claims. You said upthread:

"He also had a Salary of $600,000 per year with Cofidis....which they paid him 75% of, contrary to Armstrong's claim".

Your link says he had $2.5 million for 2 years, which jives with the above. I'm game if you can show me how any of this works out. Thanks.

You've made quite some noise today. What I don't get is how you missed the point of the article you were given a link to. It said LA had a two year contract worth $2.5 million. You're math and arithmetic skills aren't too crash hot are they?

You also questioned teammates not being paid their dues. JV was owed $6000 for 1/7 of his share from the 1999 TdF for finishing 3 out of the 21 days. Money he never received. Then there is the crap that happened to Kevin Livingstone and Franky Andreu. Underpaying one for his contract and not paying a $20K bonus to the other because he knew he wouldn't be back next year to race. It doesn't pay to be loyal to LA. He only has his own back, maybe making an exception for the Hog. The man is a tight ****. He revises the unwritten laws on team winnings when its in his interest not to pay. When its in his interest to poach more money, the rules change. But does this surprise anyone?

Here is the data on Lance's Cofidis contract. If you want the monetary value, convert it yourself. Should be no problem with your math skills ChrisE.

12 September 1996 signed contract for two years with Cofidis worth 6 million francs. Thats 3 million per year. Signed three weeks before cancer detected, ie: around 9th October. LA, Francoise Migraine, Alain Bondue and Cyrille Guimard were there for the negotiations 5 weeks prior to signing. LA claimed in his book that "Cofidis paid less than a third of the original two year contract and required an out clause for 1998." Not true. The contract revision between Stapleton and Bondue had provisions for 1998. A second contract was finalised on December 31 1996 and negotiated by Stapleton. For 1997 $99K gross salary for first 6 months. 2nd half of year $15K for gross salary plus $15K for endorsements and a scale of premiums indexed for UCI points. This contract also included 1998 $14K gross salary, $26K for endorsements and the same indexed premiums for UCI points.

Here is where it gets interesting. Stapleton and LA do a number on Cofidis. Michel Provost the team doctor was in correspondence with LA's doctors regarding LA's health. Cofidis contract stipulate a medical exam. Simple really. All he needed was a doctors certificate, simple medical files. He was never given them, despite Stapleton agreeing they'd be sent. Do the math and you can wonder why...they were scewing Cofidis who had no idea that LA could or would ever race again.

Jump forward to August and Stapleton goes to meet Bondue and Migraine at the team headquarters. Demands LA be looked after for 1998. Cofidis guarantee this, they have a contract after all that says they will. Lots of letters are sent between Migraine and Stapleton in September 1997. Stapleton requested a revaluation of the salary and uci points index whilst informing Cofidis that LA would receive an offer from US Postal. Stapleton went as far as faxing a signed letter at the beginning of October stating Lance would begin procedures for his return to Cofidis for 1998. Another fax from Stapleton confirmed LA would race for Cofidis and Bondue acknowledged this by returning a fax.

The new contract on October 6th 1997 for 1998 racing season. Fixed salary of $1700 per month. Bonus $1700 per race finished. Endorsement contract of $51K for first race appearance. $250 for every UCI point up to 150th and $765 for every point after. Implication is that he would get the outlay of the original contract back if he raced. Plus his disability insurance paid $20,000 per month. He was out for 16 months. Cofidis were then screwed. Stapleton sent a fax the next day claiming Postal were offering $500 up to the 150th UCI point and $1000 every point after. You can imagine that Cofidis couldn't and wouldn't compete. Hardly the story painted in the LA fan club bible.

All up LA was paid 4,437,118 francs or $676,630 US dollars at the time by Cofidis. All after tax. He failed to send a simple doctors report to honour his initial contract and latter revised contract, despite promises he would. He also failed to work a single day (I won't hold this against him). How many grieviously ill workers in the world can claim to be so fortunate? Given this amount of money and the contract details set above for US Postal it is more than fair to assume LA was a millionaire by 1999 (a claim you rejected ChrisE). His contract with Postal would certainly have been revised after 1998. Is that good enough for you ChrisE? The above remuneration from Cofidis is 73.95% of his original contract and certainly greater than the "less than a third" spruiked by LA in his book. So unless you care to discredit David Walsh and his book LA Confidential, from which the above infro comes from, I suggested you bite your tongue and sit down.

 

[Escarabajo]

OK, I'll bite. Please link where he "admitted donating 6 figures". I can only find a German UCI lady saying that.

I've googled the pis out of it and I can't find it. I have just found he admitted in SCA deposition it was $25k (not 50 like I said earlier). Betsy (I assume Betsy Andreu) posted that gem on podiumcafe.....while stating LA's mechanic said it was $500k per Kathy Lemond. The mechanic then denied that in an affidavit.

Look towards the bottom.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/comments/2007/7/1/1347/40340/8

This is all I found.

From PezCycling News

Lance’s Anti-Doping Fight
Lance Armstrong has always fought to defend himself against slurs on his reputation as a clean athlete but less well known is his fight against doping itself behind the scenes. UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash. He didn't want this to be known but he did it". Armstrong did not make this knowledge public and when questioned about the contribution said that “If I've donated money to the UCI to combat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my job to issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the right thing to do.” Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".

The Guardian:

Pound's comments came on the same day that Schenk, Verbruggen's fiercest critic, claimed Armstrong was receiving special treatment from the UCI. "Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," said Schenk. Schenk is also concerned that Armstrong made a personal donation to the UCI to help fight doping. The gift coincided with the publication of the controversial book LA Confidential by the Sunday Times journalist David Walsh that linked Armstrong with using performance enhancing drugs without uncovering conclusive evidence. "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong," Schenk said

VeloNews:

Sylvia Schenk (former UCI member)
• "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,"
Schenk added. "The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - to my knowledge 500,000 dollars - and now
there is speculation that there are financial connections to
Armstrong, as well as the American market.”
-Velonews, Sept 2005

$500,000 is still a lot of money.
.......................................................

 

[Race Radio]

You've made quite some noise today. What I don't get is how you missed the point of the article you were given a link to. It said LA had a two year contract worth $2.5 million. You're math and arithmetic skills aren't too crash hot are they?

You also questioned teammates not being paid their dues. JV was owed $6000 for 1/7 of his share from the 1999 TdF for finishing 3 out of the 21 days. Money he never received. Then there is the crap that happened to Kevin Livingstone and Franky Andreu. Underpaying one for his contract and not paying a $20K bonus to the other because he knew he wouldn't be back next year to race. It doesn't pay to be loyal to LA. He only has his own back, maybe making an exception for the Hog. The man is a tight ****. He revises the unwritten laws on team winnings when its in his interest not to pay. When its in his interest to poach more money, the rules change. But does this surprise anyone?

Here is the data on Lance's Cofidis contract. If you want the monetary value, convert it yourself. Should be no problem with your math skills ChrisE.

12 September 1996 signed contract for two years with Cofidis worth 6 million francs. Thats 3 million per year. Signed three weeks before cancer detected, ie: around 9th October. LA, Francoise Migraine, Alain Bondue and Cyrille Guimard were there for the negotiations 5 weeks prior to signing. LA claimed in his book that "Cofidis paid less than a third of the original two year contract and required an out clause for 1998." Not true. The contract revision between Stapleton and Bondue had provisions for 1998. A second contract was finalised on December 31 1996 and negotiated by Stapleton. For 1997 $99K gross salary for first 6 months. 2nd half of year $15K for gross salary plus $15K for endorsements and a scale of premiums indexed for UCI points. This contract also included 1998 $14K gross salary, $26K for endorsements and the same indexed premiums for UCI points.

Here is where it gets interesting. Stapleton and LA do a number on Cofidis. Michel Provost the team doctor was in correspondence with LA's doctors regarding LA's health. Cofidis contract stipulate a medical exam. Simple really. All he needed was a doctors certificate, simple medical files. He was never given them, despite Stapleton agreeing they'd be sent. Do the math and you can wonder why...they were scewing Cofidis who had no idea that LA could or would ever race again.

Jump forward to August and Stapleton goes to meet Bondue and Migraine at the team headquarters. Demands LA be looked after for 1998. Cofidis guarantee this, they have a contract after all that says they will. Lots of letters are sent between Migraine and Stapleton in September 1997. Stapleton requested a revaluation of the salary and uci points index whilst informing Cofidis that LA would receive an offer from US Postal. Stapleton went as far as faxing a signed letter at the beginning of October stating Lance would begin procedures for his return to Cofidis for 1998. Another fax from Stapleton confirmed LA would race for Cofidis and Bondue acknowledged this by returning a fax.

The new contract on October 6th 1997 for 1998 racing season. Fixed salary of $1700 per month. Bonus $1700 per race finished. Endorsement contract of $51K for first race appearance. $250 for every UCI point up to 150th and $765 for every point after. Implication is that he would get the outlay of the original contract back if he raced. Plus his disability insurance paid $20,000 per month. He was out for 16 months. Cofidis were then screwed. Stapleton sent a fax the next day claiming Postal were offering $500 up to the 150th UCI point and $1000 every point after. You can imagine that Cofidis couldn't and wouldn't compete. Hardly the story painted in the LA fan club bible.

All up LA was paid 4,437,118 francs or $676,630 US dollars at the time by Cofidis. All after tax. He failed to send a simple doctors report to honour his initial contract and latter revised contract, despite promises he would. He also failed to work a single day (I won't hold this against him). How many grieviously ill workers in the world can claim to be so fortunate? Given this amount of money and the contract details set above for US Postal it is more than fair to assume LA was a millionaire by 1999 (a claim you rejected ChrisE). His contract with Postal would certainly have been revised after 1998. Is that good enough for you ChrisE? The above remuneration from Cofidis is 73.95% of his original contract and certainly greater than the "less than a third" spruiked by LA in his book. So unless you care to discredit David Walsh and his book LA Confidential, from which the above infro comes from, I suggested you bite your tongue and sit down.

Thank you Galic for the complete analysis. Some may chose to split hairs over the 73.95%/75% but that would further evidence of blind fandom. As for the $500,000 I trust Silvia on this one. She is a board remember of the UCI. She is the head of the Ethics committee, I do not think she is lying. Armstrong on the other had has a long history of lying and already has been caught lying about when the donation was made and what it was for.

ChrisE is not BPC, I have seen him on other forums. He is however playing stupid. He knows the answer to all of these questions as he has been an active participant in the same discussions at DPF.

 

[El Imbatido]

RIP 'The Arbiter/BanProCycling/UnBanProCycling' you will be missed.

Here is my sort of eulogy toward the great man known to most as 'BanProCycling':

Whilst I am a regular poster on this forum, most topics in the clinic were/are a bit technical and scientific for me and as a result there are not too many posts by myself in this section of the forum but i enjoyed the way you defended your point of view until the last key was typed by you.

You livened this place up after the not-so-high of the Tour de France and during this lull until july next year (or whenever your god decides to compete again? Vuelta a Castila a leon?, ToC?, Daupine? maybe, who knows?) when this forum will once again be overrun by many a person like you.

But the major difference between you and many of your brothers was that you to a certain extent saw through some of the Armstrong myth and some of the garbage he spun and at times even stated you believe he doped pre cancer and I think you even considered he may have (may being the key word here) have had his hand in the cookie-jar so to speak post cancer.

What most of us here see as your strength was your absolute stubborn-ness and complete dis-regard for facts and this at-times brought vented frustratedness toward you. That is what set you apart from the legions of others that have never heard of the 'Giro' or 'Tour of Ireland' or 'Tour Down Under' before this year.

No doubt you will be back again at some stage (UnBanProCycling is a testament to this, although his posts have already been removed) and i wish you the best in the life after the CN forums and hope that you will find a way back to help brighten the day of people (such as people like me) who have been bitten by reality only to hop on their PC's and find you in the 'Clinic' and then engage in friendly never-ending banter with you that brings a smile to their face and a WTF to their mouth everytime.

Cheers buddy, hope you succeed in your endevours.......and to borrow a slogan from your hero 'LIVESTRONG'.

RIP BanProCycling now added to my sig. Thanks

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Frankie Andreu went from being a good domestique to being able to drive the peloton up a mountain - the difference EPO.

Joe Papp went from a good amateur racer in the States to being able to join an Italian team and race around the world - the difference PED's.

Lance Armstrong went from being a very good one day rider who lost approx 20 minutes every mountains stage pre 1996 - to [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCIJ2JewPE']this in 1999[/url]....... (i will let you figure out the rest)

Which is no different to Wiggins before he trained specifically to do GC. If you want to get through the tour and target certain stages then you don't waste the energy. That is the basics of Tour riding. Also if EPO was rampant amongst the top guys in the early 90s, this would have held Armstrong back in the tours until he was able to compete on a level playing field. That is logical - people can't have it both ways.

But lets say there is a range on EPO that varies every ten people or so. I doubt its that extreme, but that still leaves countless other riders that were as good as Armstrong pre cancer that would benefit from it in the same amount as he is claimed to have done. It's not logical or scientific that Armstrong would uniquely benefit from EPO usage when the range is this small. Think about it, there would still be many dozens of riders out there that would have improved to the same extent as he did. And in any event, even the people that claim he doped all the way through still know its doubtful Armstrong used EPO through all of his tours - the allegation in the latest tour is he had a small blood transfusion. So clearly it's not some wonder drug that did it, it was the rider. Whatever you think of him personally, this is one of the great tour champions and rightfully so. That's where the evidence points to. That's why I think so much of the criticism of him is unfair. It's a very hard sport that requires huge time and effort to master, so to have people running your name through the mud is all the more wrong.

 

[Izoard]

UBPC - what's going on with your posts

...

Hey there, so why have many of your posts on another thread just disappeared?

 

[Anonymous]

Well that didn't last long...again.

I just wondering how desperate one must be...

 

[UnBanProCycling]

Can I just say that it's extremely unfortunate that some moderator appears to have been bullied into removing all my posts and replies from the site. I thought we had worked out our problems and were now having a reasonable discussion based on points and counter points, the way it should be. Yes my first post was a bit direct against the more unreasonble anti Armstrong fanatics but that was where the conversion was already at in the thread - by targeting me this only rather proves my point about the group-thnk mentality here. People who insult and swear, and do everything to disrupt threads they don't like by going off-topic, are not sanctioned, but those of us who merely disagree are hounded out and bullied. Doubtless this mean this will probably be my "last post", but if you think this strategy of heavy handed censorship and intimidation will shut down dissent, leaving free reign for the smear merchants, you can think again.