Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[scribe]

I guess that I ride with a majority of a minority then. I know some think he has and continues to use EPO - I know a lot more that either do not care enough to have seriously considered the matter OR actually believe it is entirely possible that he road clean, at least since 2000 (note: I am not riding with uneducated morons either since I suspect you will probably think that).

He meant to say that the majority of fans who frequent this forum think Armstrong was doping. Otherwise, the majority of fans aren't armed with enough information to formulate a real opinion other than Armstrong has raced his entire career without sanction and returns at the sport's highest level, giving blood and urine, without sanction.

 

[poupou]

I have not said that I do not believe he was clean from 2000 and on - I have stated I do not know and neither does anyone else since there are no positive samples. As for why he might not have continued to use PEDs - 1) there was a test out for EPO in 2000; 2) his team had gotten stronger; 3) he started focusing a lot more time in targeting the Tour with a lot of equipment and bike position testing; and, 4) he had fully recovered his strength after cancer.

Before Lance met Ferrari, his output power were slightly under 400W, he was a good TT but not able to come close of Indurain ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs ). On mountain passes he struggled within gruppetto, he was never a mountain goat.
After a TT he confessed he hoped to reduce his 5/6 mn delay on Indurain by 1 or 2 minutes in the next years.
To do slight physical improvement in sport on a short period it's difficult, especially after have been out of sport for more than one year.
How could he have got a 450W engine in around a year?
There is alot of studies that give a "20%" improvement with EPO
( http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html ), is it an hazard that Lance improvement are similar of its use?
Of course, we can assume that some technical improvements are the reason of a part of his increased speed on TT but on mountain there is nothing technical that can explain to cut his climbing time as he did.

 

[Sprocket01]

Before Lance met Ferrari, his output power were slightly under 400W, he was a good TT but not able to come close of Indurain ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs ). On mountain passes he struggled within gruppetto, he was never a mountain goat.
After a TT he confessed he hoped to reduce his 5/6 mn delay on Indurain by 1 or 2 minutes in the next years.
To do slight physical improvement in sport on a short period it's difficult, especially after have been out of sport for more than one year.
How could he have got a 450W engine in around a year?
There is alot of studies that give a "20%" improvement with EPO
( http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html ), is it an hazard that Lance improvement are similar of its use?
Of course, we can assume that some technical improvements are the reason of a part of his increased speed on TT but on mountain there is nothing technical that can explain to cut his climbing time as he did.

Even if you think he used EPO he would unlikely have done so for all of his tour podium wins - the allegation in the last one, for instance, was a small blood tranfusion. It doesn't explain his legendary abilities.

But it's true that not doping in the early 1990s probably held him back, just as it held Greg Lemond back during that period. Doping probably brought Armstrong up to his true level.

 

[Sprocket01]

He wasn't going for GC during that period though, just as Wiggins didn't attempt GC until this year, so it's hard to make the comparison. They were saving themselves for particular stages.

 

[scribe]

All cycling pros have a curve. Since we are talking about indurain, have a looksee at his early career results.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain

 

[RTMcFadden]

The vast majority of cycling fans know[/B] that Armstrong doped and continues to.

The vast majority of cycling fans can't tell the difference between thinking and knowing.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

The vast majority of cycling fans can't tell the difference between thinking and knowing.

Every single professional cyclist now and over the last 10 years knows that Lance doped and dopes.

 

[Sprocket01]

Every single professional cyclist now and over the last 10 years knows that Lance doped and dopes.

That's a bit of a silly statement. They know no such thing.

Do you think Armstrong would be the guest of honour for the Tour presentation if this were the case...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-to-join-guests-at-tour-route-presentation

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

That's a bit of a silly statement. They know no such thing.

Do you think Armstrong would be the guest of honour for the Tour presentation if this were the case...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-to-join-guests-at-tour-route-presentation

The fact that the b*stard is almost universally admired by his peers is one of the reasons why we have had 52 positives already this year.

How many pros have you ridden with recently?

The vast majority of pro riders know that Lance being exposed as a liar and a cheat would flush their profession down the toilet for good. Hence the silly yellow bracelets on show and the a*se licking.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's a bit of a silly statement. They know no such thing.

Do you think Armstrong would be the guest of honour for the Tour presentation if this were the case...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-to-join-guests-at-tour-route-presentation

Do you think Armstrong would have been allowed ride in the Tour de France this year if Patric Clerc - who is very anti-doping - was in charge of the ASO?

 

[Ferminal]

Even if you think he used EPO he would unlikely have done so for all of his tour podium wins - the allegation in the last one, for instance, was a small blood tranfusion. It doesn't explain his legendary abilities.
.

It's highly unlikely during 1999-2005? Despite all the anecdotal evidence? Good version of highly unlikely, are you a meteorologist? It's highly unlikely it will rain in the next week in the UK?

I simply cannot comprehend how people are not compelled to make up their own mind after doing their own research. Fair enough if you've never seen the 1999 data, or the IM convo, but how can a sound person simply reject and disregard things like this with no explanation.

Although I don't know why I bother, because your selective manipulation and fabrication shows that you actually know all the information, but are destined to contradict it. "A small blood transfusion"... In a normal debate a person wouldn't use the word "a small transfusion" because it's totally incorrect (i.e. a transfusion is a transfusion, pint thereof) but here you use it as part of your constant manipulation of what is presented. Same with "legendary abilities" completely irrelevant to the discussion but again, you feel compelled to manipulate your argument.

 

[MrContador]

Even if you think he used EPO he would unlikely have done so for all of his tour podium wins...

Then how do you explain the six positives from 1999?

 

[Sprocket01]

Do you think Armstrong would have been allowed ride in the Tour de France this year if Patric Clerc - who is very anti-doping - was in charge of the ASO?

Of course. Why ever not?

 

[Sprocket01]

Then how do you explain the six positives from 1999?

There is a discussion about the reliability of those tests in this thread, of course, but you'll note that 1999 is a single year. 1999 does not mean ten years. You'll get the hang of it.

 

[Ferminal]

There is a discussion about the reliability of those tests in this thread, of course, but you'll note that 1999 is a single year. 1999 does not mean ten years. You'll get the hang of it.

It's not his fault your sentence didn't read well so don't troll him for it, were you implying that "It's highly unlikely that he doped for every one of his podium wins".

 

[Sprocket01]

"A small blood transfusion"... In a normal debate a person wouldn't use the word "a small transfusion" because it's totally incorrect

I'm not convinced at all Armstrong doped this year - in fact I find it unlikely - but the allegation is that it was a relatively small blood tranfusion. His crit hardly changed so he certainly wasn't jacked out of his mind. We should be honest about this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course. Why ever not?

Well your hero doesn't agree - as he admitted that if Patrick Clerc was in charge of the Tour in 2009 he wouldnt have been invited.

.....And why ever not, you ask? Because Clerc was firmly anti-doping.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm not convinced at all Armstrong doped this year - in fact I find it unlikely - but the allegation is that it was a relatively small blood tranfusion. His crit hardly changed so he certainly wasn't jacked out of his mind. We should be honest about this.

I'm not debating whether he did or didn't - I'm not convinced either.

I'm debating the manipulative semantics you use in attempt to validate your case. There is no such thing as a "relatively small blood transfusion". Freiburg doesn't do 1500mL transfusions and JB only 250mL, all transfusions are the same volume, around a pint (500-600mL).

 

[Sprocket01]

Well your hero doesn't agree - as he admitted that if Patrick Clerc was in charge of the Tour in 2009 he wouldnt have been invited.

.....And why ever not, you ask? Because Clerc was firmly anti-doping.

I find that astonishing. How could they block one of the great riders of all time who has never tested positive? Even if he had tested positive there are plenty of others who have done so and are allowed back. It would be extraordinary. It must be some personal issue. Lance tends to get into those.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is a discussion about the reliability of those tests in this thread, of course, but you'll note that 1999 is a single year. 1999 does not mean ten years. You'll get the hang of it.

Yes - 1999 was a single year - in fact it is the only year that we got a look under the lid of his samples - and guess what was found!

 

[Sprocket01]

I'm not debating whether he did or didn't - I'm not convinced either.

I'm debating the manipulative semantics you use in attempt to validate your case. There is no such thing as a "relatively small blood transfusion". Freiburg doesn't do 1500mL transfusions and JB only 250mL, all transfusions are the same volume, around a pint (500-600mL).

It's not semantics it's the only way I know of describing a blood transfusion that doesn't jack your crit up to 50%.

 

[Ferminal]

It's not semantics it's the only way I know of describing a blood transfusion that doesn't jack your crit up to 50%.

What's a big blood tranfusion? Who are some notable users of large transfusions? I think what you are referring to is the absolute majority of transfusions. Transfusion is a medical, not a doping term.

 

[Sprocket01]

Yes - 1999 was a single year - in fact it is the only year that we got a look under the lid of his samples - and guess what was found!

EPO was standard protocal for GC back in the 1990s - there was no test. It by no way means he used EPO all the way through when their was regular testing for these substances. In his later tour wins he did less attacks and became more strategic - I'm pretty sure he played it clean for the most part.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.......

...Because they know he doped.
Previous Director Leblanc admitted, we have been "fooled".

 

[Ferminal]

EPO was standard protocal for GC back in the 1990s - there was no test. It by no way means he used EPO all the way through when their was regular testing for these substances. In his later tour wins he did less attacks and became more strategic - I'm pretty sure he played it clean for the most part.

Do you think Ullrich was clean up until 2006?