Lance's program was superior? The evidence

[ergmonkey]

I don't believe this hem assist is enough to make him the force he was during his potent tour years.

Fair point, though I think you'll see that I pretty much agree with you.

When I look at Lance's performances through the year's, I see true cycling and racing talent--and so do certain commentators like Eddy Merckx...

I don't believe that some concoction of less-potent-than-EPO drugs made Lance better than Jan Ullrich, either.

But, I do believe that Lance still needed to be a first-class doper to compete as he did--not head-and-shoulders above all other doping programs out there, but certainly first-class. That was my point. Lance exhibits most of the good (cycling and racing mentality) qualities that his fans see, and he also exhibits most of the bad (drug use, abusive personality, and extreme self-absorption) qualities that his detractors see.

And before anyone gets the urge to crucify me, I don't think 'the ends justify the means' here--no free pass for Lance.

 

[BotanyBay]

I don't believe this hem assist is enough to make him the force he was during his potent tour years.

But DO you believe he'd at least attempt to road test it and "give it a whirl"?

 

[flicker]

You're absolutely right.

The EPO they found in his pee, and his whacked T/E ratios probably helped as well.

Even if you are dead on correct, how could Lance kill Iban Mayo. If you want to compare, look at their records. I know Mayo is a nutter but he was an epiclly enhanced receptor and an incredibly talented rider. He should have smoked Armstrong. Same with Ullrich. Olympic and world champion. Getting busted for using ecstasy, in my mind one of the more dangerous drugs out there tells me Jan would pretty much use whatever is out there to make him fast on bike. Basso probably hadn't reached his prime yet when he battled Armstrong, heck even Armstrong admitted that.

Still Basso paced Armstrong, he could not attack him.

 

[BotanyBay]

Getting busted for using ecstasy, in my mind one of the more dangerous drugs out there tells me Jan would pretty much use whatever is out there to make him fast on bike.

 

[ergmonkey]

I know Mayo is a nutter but he was an epiclly enhanced receptor and an incredibly talented rider. He should have smoked Armstrong. Same with Ullrich. Olympic and world champion.

I agree with what you're saying about Mayo and Ullrich being huge talents--I just don't see who's got the magic talent stick so as to be able to measure these guys and conclude that they were/are so much more talented than Lance.

Sure, there's the 'Lance was a Classics rider' argument; though, I'm not sure how convincing that one really is, as it tends to neglect to mention that Lance was coming from multi-sport, was incredibly young, and was racing the Ardennes classics against uphill sprinters and GC contenders--not exactly Paris-Roubaix.

Then there's Lance's own "admission" that Ullrich was more talented--which can easily be seen as Lance just trying to get inside Ullrich's head.

Then again, there's plenty to suggest that Lance has some very rare talent of his own.

Tough thing to measure. Maybe those guys do have more talent. Especially with extreme cases like Armstrong and Ullrich, though, I'm reluctant to start an assertion by assuming that one has more talent than the other.

 

[flicker]

Sorry I was just making a joke. Like the one I heard out on a group ride saying Lance took whatever it took to win. They say Lance did not care if he lived or died. Hey could be, I wasn't there.

No matter what the major detractors say, I don't think it is true. If it were Lance would be sick or dead. He doesn't have epstein Barr desease, is not depressed etc.

Take a look at the guy, his palmares his new companion, his children.

Tell me Lance is a guy who wants to die.

 

[ergmonkey]

Tell me Lance is a guy who wants to die.

When you think you're invincible, imminent death doesn't tend to be a concern.

 

[BotanyBay]

Tell me Lance is a guy who wants to die.

I think he's a self-hating narcissist. So dysfunctional on an emotional level, he's not making healthy choices.

 

[ergmonkey]

Tell me Lance is a guy who wants to die.

Now, a somewhat more earnest response to the above argument:

Lance has always cared about more than just his health. Even when he was knocking on death's door, he rejected his doctors' judgment in favor of a less promising chemo regimen that would not compromise his cycling as much if the regimen were successful.

That's a completely personal choice which I believe only someone faced with that predicament can truly understand. I don't judge Lance negatively for making that choice.

But, I am very reluctant to now believe that Lance would be totally unwilling to do anything that might compromise his health. Lance has always wanted to do more than just live--he has wanted to win, and he has been willing to take risks to do so.

 

[flicker]

I think he's a self-hating narcissist. So dysfunctional on an emotional level, he's not making healthy choices.

Typical of many cyclists, tri guys and gals and runners. It comes with the territory.

Also downhill skiers same thing.

 

[Sanitiser]

Self-hating narcissist is an oxymoron.

He's just a narcissist. Like most successful athletes.

 

[Sanitiser]

Wrong forum

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok - I will attempt to answer your questions - but I have cut to the main points (if there is anything you feel needs to be brought up then let us know)

<snipped for brevity>
Yet when I ask someone, anyone to back up these claims, there is nothing substantial. Ferrari? As you say, it's hard to believe he was that much more knowledgeable than other doping docs. And I still haven't received a good answer to why Ferrari would have been willing to work exclusively (if indeed he really did) with a cancer survivor who had shown no prior GT potential. Money? So LA before the 99 Tour had more money than any other rider in the peloton?

Someone else brought up that there is nothing to compare to - this is wrong, as we know from Willy Voets book what was going on in Festina.
Their own DS & Doctor put in a limit of 55% HCT for the riders for health concerns.
In the Festina team they gave their Doctor the nickname Dr. Punto - in reference to how far he was behind Dr. Ferrari.

<
I'm not saying that none of these things is possible. I'm just saying that given how flat-out certain many posters in this forum seem to be that LA had advantages that his rivals did not--that "they were all doing it" does not go far enough--I'm a little astonished that when the question of evidence is put to them point blank, they have so little to say.

It has been answered before - but I realize it can get lost in the different threads here.

Simply put, Ferrari was Conconis top student, remember unlike Ceccini he is a hematologist, understanding blood is his specialty. Also, Ferrari admitted that he would spend 1 week out of every four with LA in the early part of the season.

Exclusivity:
No-one is suggesting that when Meckx called Ferrari in 95 for Lance that it was immediately exclusive.
In Matt Rendels book 'The Death of Marco Pantani' he cannot get to the bottom of who ran Pantani's 'programme' but it is strongly suggested it was Ferrari.
Then in Dan Coyles 2004 book 'Lance Armstrongs War' it quote Ferrari:

A few moments later Ferrari is ticking off his victories. "Nine Giros, six Vueltas, all of the spring classics, two Paris Roubaix, five Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and of course 6 Tour de France."
Six, Armstrong had only won five, right?
"Ahh yes," Ferrari said, delighted. "Even Lance does not know about this one. We should all have secrets, no?"

As we know Pantani was thrown off the Giro in 99 and his career spiralled downwards. So it is likely that any exclusive arrangement came in after Tour 99. It should also be noted that the 'exclusivity' was also extended to those on USPS also (Landis, Livingston, Hamilton) willing to pay and other non GT contenders.

 

[blutto]

When you think you're invincible, imminent death doesn't tend to be a concern.

...here is strange tale about elite athletes and death...

...back in 76 just before Montreal was to host the Olympics a group applied for and got a grant to do a psychological profile/assessment of the Canadian team...the intent was to figure out what made an elite athlete tick...now keep in mind Canada's best and most successful athletes at the time were in hockey, a winter sport, and the Olympics weren't quite the turbo-charged money machine it is now...it was more like you win here and you will be the best in the world, you will have the adulation of a nation for about two weeks but then its was back to the salt mines....

...anyway...buried in the questionnaire was the following question...if you could take a pill that would guarantee you a gold medal and kill you in five years would you take the pill ( or words to that effect...I heard about this by listening to a CBC Radio sports show that interviewed the authors of the report...and much of the discussion pertained tthat particular question..like whether the athletes took the question seriously and as a result whether they answered truthfully )...well, the bottomline was, the yeas polled about 79%...which I found astounding and I really didn't allow myself to believe this at the time...but this number was brought up again during a conversation with a national level coach who used this to illustrate how difficult it was to get elite athletes to slow down and recover or taper ( which at time was a newish idea that was just starting to gain respectability )...the problem was the incredible focus required to get to the top and how that focus demands that you exclude a lot of what are normal responses to reality...as in I want to live kinda stuff...

...and this need to win with its attendant focus is one of the things that almost guarantees there will be cheating and doping as long as there is competitive sort...Worlds, Olympics, Masters races and/or your local Wednesday nite world championships...you name it, it has cheating and/or doping...and the higher the stakes the bigger the problem...I mean once life is off the table what are your options?...

...so yeah...youse guys here can fight the good fight here for a drug free sport...bravo...I commend you for your efforts...just don't hold your breath waiting for the nirvana you are looking for..face it all our sports are really just one big collage of WFF type bread and circuses ....its just different costumes...and the show must go on and on and on...as they say in Vegas, thanks for playing err coming , come again...and Vegas never closes...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Maxiton]

...here is strange tale about elite athletes and death...

...back in 76 just before Montreal was to host the Olympics a group applied for and got a grant to do a psychological profile/assessment of the Canadian team...the intent was to figure out what made an elite athlete tick...now keep in mind Canada's best and most successful athletes at the time were in hockey, a winter sport, and the Olympics weren't quite the turbo-charged money machine it is now...it was more like you win here and you will be the best in the world, you will have the adulation of a nation for about two weeks but then its was back to the salt mines....

...anyway...buried in the questionnaire was the following question...if you could take a pill that would guarantee you a gold medal and kill you in five years would you take the pill ( or words to that effect...I heard about this by listening to a CBC Radio sports show that interviewed the authors of the report...and much of the discussion pertained tthat particular question..like whether the athletes took the question seriously and as a result whether they answered truthfully )...well, the bottomline was, the yeas polled about 79%...which I found astounding and I really didn't allow myself to believe this at the time...but this number was brought up again during a conversation with a national level coach who used this to illustrate how difficult it was to get elite athletes to slow down and recover or taper ( which at time was a newish idea that was just starting to gain respectability )...the problem was the incredible focus required to get to the top and how that focus demands that you exclude a lot of what are normal responses to reality...as in I want to live kinda stuff...

...and this need to win with its attendant focus is one of the things that almost guarantees there will be cheating and doping as long as there is competitive sort...Worlds, Olympics, Masters races and/or your local Wednesday nite world championships...you name it, it has cheating and/or doping...and the higher the stakes the bigger the problem...I mean once life is off the table what are your options?...

...so yeah...you can fight the good fight here for a drug free sport...bravo...I commend you for your efforts...just don't hold your breath waiting for the nirvana you are looking for..face it all our sports are really just one big collage of WFF type bread and circuses ....its just different costumes...and the show must go on and on and on...as they say in Vegas, thanks for playing err coming , come again...and Vegas never closes...

Cheers

blutto

+1. Top post. Sport doesn't have to be about "bread and circuses," but in our current society, that's about all it can aspire to, or in any event that's all it will end up being. Case in point, the Olympics.

Back when it was just amateurs and more or less commercial-free, the Olympics seemed like a pure thing. Cut to today, where the amateur restriction has been eliminated, hugh commercial interests and commercial dollars are involved, and it's referred to, mysteriously, as a "movement": you can now see, easily, just how corrupt and filthy the Olympics is. It was probably always that way, but maybe to a lesser degree. But in any event, bread and circuses to the max.

In this context, too, you can see how the whole anti-doping thing in cycling is just a pretense, really - something to restore the sport's credibility in the eyes of fans (and sponsors), but not necessarily with the goal of eliminating doping.

In an interview with someone a few years back, while discussing doping in sport, Lance Armstrong recommended that people look at cycle sport as mere entertainment. Not a noble idea, really, nor for that matter very entertaining - in fact it's kind of despicable sounding - but that may be the way it is.

 

[ergmonkey]

...here is strange tale about elite athletes and death...

Cheers

blutto

Well, great minds think alike, Blutto. No bs, I had that study in my mind when I wrote that post.

 

[flicker]

Something about Lance, we(my compatriots agree ) is that while Lance may not be translucent he tells small truths, which like Eddy and Jan lead to the greater truths.
Like me there is a lot of BS and make of it what you like. It is good when you call us liars, because it makes you look at yourself and demands that you self improve, look at yourself.
The cycling thing is popular among artists, cinematographers and the like.
I mean the controversial artists and cinematographers. (Salvador Dali, Louis Malle)
Mis-understood but deep thinkers.
You may think that someone like Lance is a douche. Or Pat the Irishman who might like to tipple a bit.
All I can say is look at the gray the black and white and the rainbows and you will see the whole picture in cycling.
If life were a perfect day like Ansel Adams had when he photographed Half-Dome in Yosemite we might not appreciate the less than perfect days.

As far as the Olympics go they are a sham. Cycling is much more true, Lance and Landis understand that. For some reason LeMond does not get it.

 

[ergmonkey]

Something about Lance, we(my compatriots agree ) is that while Lance may not be translucent he tells small truths, which like Eddy and Jan lead to the greater truths.
Like me there is a lot of BS and make of it what you like. It is good when you call us liars, because it makes you look at yourself and demands that you self improve, look at yourself.
The cycling thing is popular among artists, cinematographers and the like.
I mean the controversial artists and cinematographers. (Salvador Dali, Louis Malle)
Mis-understood but deep thinkers.
You may think that someone like Lance is a douche. Or Pat the Irishman who might like to tipple a bit.
All I can say is look at the gray the black and white and the rainbows and you will see the whole picture in cycling.
If life were a perfect day like Ansel Adams had when he photographed Half-Dome in Yosemite we might not appreciate the less than perfect days.

As far as the Olympics go they are a sham. Cycling is much more true, Lance and Landis understand that. For some reason LeMond does not get it.

My sympathy for this sort of a perspective ends as soon as the truth-tellers are harrassed, bullied, extorted, tampered with as federal witnesses, etc.

If the above sentiment is really true, then it should be possible for Simeoni, Walsh, Kimmage, LeMond, Andreu, Landis, et al to speak out about doping while only "enhancing" all of those beautiful shades of grey, the complexities of that elusive truth.

Instead, the cycling world Lance Armstrong wants you to see has nothing to do with the sort of introspection and non-conventional glimpses of truth that would captivate a Dali or a Malle. Instead, Lance Armstrong is selling you a fairy tale. A simple, wonderful, ridiculous fairy tale. Remember his 2005 Tour farewell speech? He feels sorry for you if you can't believe in (his version of) cycling.

 

[Race Radio]

Ferrari is a smart guy. He knows that each rider is willing to take different levels of risk and each rider responds differently to a doping program.

When he saw Wonderboy get 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 he knew he had turned a donkey into a thoroughbred.

 

[flicker]

My sympathy for this sort of a perspective ends as soon as the truth-tellers are harrassed, bullied, extorted, tampered with as federal witnesses, etc.

If the above sentiment is really true, then it should be possible for Simeoni, Walsh, Kimmage, LeMond, Andreu, Landis, et al to speak out about doping while only "enhancing" all of those beautiful shades of grey, the complexities of that elusive truth.

Instead, the cycling world Lance Armstrong wants you to see has nothing to do with the sort of introspection and non-conventional glimpses of truth that would captivate a Dali or a Malle. Instead, Lance Armstrong is selling you a fairy tale. A simple, wonderful, ridiculous fairy tale. Remember his 2005 Tour farewell speech? He feels sorry for you if you can't believe in (his version of) cycling.

Lance saw his heirs to his throne in the 2005 tdf awards as ulrich and basso.

ulllrich got in trouble quit. basso got in trouble vacation. contador well who knows? lance knew how good contador was. He tried to beat contador in 09 to protect his 7. We all know it wasn't about cancer, lance is a competitor, same as LeMond. Now get thisro cycling mag.pre tour 2003 interview hinault, I was stronger than LeMond 86 tour. Interview LeMond" Bull****."
These guys never bury the hatchet, it is as if they were still racing. Funny!

Like I said guys like eddy, lance, pat tell the truth. Come on I heard a brit cycling fan rubbish pat today. Telling thing brit rubbishing an irishman.

 

[ergmonkey]

When he saw Wonderboy get 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 he knew he had turned a donkey into a thoroughbred.

Maybe it's just a turn of speech to reflect the massive improvements from doping, but "donkey" still feels over-the-top to me.

I especially don't like the no-talent-Lance argument because I actually think it can help Lance win the current PR battle that I desperately hope he will lose. Just try convincing the American public that Lance was only a "donkey."

21-year-old donkey world champ:

donkey Fleche Wallone champ:

I think a much more convincing line of argument is simply going to be: Lance used lots and lots of drugs; Lance lied about it, repeatedly; Lance engaged in a massive, illegal cover-up; Lance defrauded a lot of people.

Well, that, and the straightforward argument that Lance is utterly loathsome:

 

[Race Radio]

I am talking about this Donkey. The one who could not climb or TT until he met Ferrari

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ifX50GytY

 

[ergmonkey]

I am talking about this Donkey. The one who could not climb or TT until he met Ferrari

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ifX50GytY

Funny thing about Lance and Big Mig: both won their first Tours at age 27. I guess Big Mig was suffocating by riding under Delgado, while Lance was a complete and utter donkey. I'm sorry, but as a sports fan it's pretty easy to look at that video clip and just say 'young talent takes a beating from the absolute best rider on the planet at that point in time--BFD'

Also, you can pull up that tt as much as you like. You can also show Lance riding plenty of solid tt's before cancer. Same level as post-cancer? No, of course not. "Donkey"? Definitely not that, either, and good luck trying to convince the general public of it. All Fabiani has to say is: "youngest world champion ever." Lance couldn't climb? Easy enough to spin that one, too: he went from winning races with lots and lots of big hills to winning races with a couple of big mountains; he always had the ability to go uphill, blah blah...

It's a lot tougher for Fabiani to explain why EPO was in Lance's urine, why he needed a backdated TUE, why his team staff drove 30km to throw away trash bags full of illegal drugs, why he lied about his notorious doctor, etc.

 

[blutto]

Well, great minds think alike, Blutto. No bs, I had that study in my mind when I wrote that post.

..appreciate the comment...wasn't really sure if I should drop that bomb...glad to see others were on that wavelength ...and if I may say this...thank you...

...and very glad to see other people know about that study because sometimes that study is like an episode of The Twilight Zone, its unreal...and unreal to the point where sometimes I really don't want to believe it or be in an ethos where it has a resonance...but as other posters have said cycling and especially bikeracing is so darn beautiful you can't help but be drawn to it despite stuff that literally gives me the shivers...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

Funny thing about Lance and Big Mig: both won their first Tours at age 27. I guess Big Mig was suffocating by riding under Delgado, while Lance was a complete and utter donkey. I'm sorry, but as a sports fan it's pretty easy to look at that video clip and just say 'young talent takes a beating from the absolute best rider on the planet at that point in time--BFD'

Also, you can pull up that tt as much as you like. You can also show Lance riding plenty of solid tt's before cancer. Same level as post-cancer? No, of course not. "Donkey"? Definitely not that, either, and good luck trying to convince the general public of it. All Fabiani has to say is: "youngest world champion ever." Lance couldn't climb? Easy enough to spin that one, too: he went from winning races with lots and lots of big hills to winning races with a couple of big mountains; he always had the ability to go uphill, blah blah...

It's a lot tougher for Fabiani to explain why EPO was in Lance's urine, why he needed a backdated TUE, why his team staff drove 30km to throw away trash bags full of illegal drugs, why he lied about his notorious doctor, etc.

Please show us a solid TT prior to 1994 when he started using EPO. Certainly Indurain's sudden improvement had nothing to do with him working with Padilla and Conconi....


Of course you know that Lance is not the worlds youngest world champion, not even the 2nd youngest.