No longer a Lance fanboy thread

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
pmcg76 said:
A little off-topic, just finished watching the end of ToC live stream, I havent heard P & P for a while now and it seems that Sherwan does most of the the commentating whilst Phil adds the colour now. When did this change happen?
When they finally realised that unlike Liggett, Sherwen actually remembers some of the things he learnt about cycling.
Bavarianrider said:
You are amking a fair point. The fact that Lance spoke out so agressively against drugs, including all his cancer history stuff certainly made many many people believe him. Heck those statements where he said "i had cancer you must be a total fool if you think i would take any drugs after going through this", are just so disgusting, but it made people belive him. What a fraud this man is.
The people who believed those statements never heard of Niklas Axelsson.
Murray said:
If only that were true. Cycling is addressing the problems it used to have. The riders involved are either retired or in the twilight of their careers. In the meantime a rider who has tested positive is leading the Giro. Instead of focusing on what happened 10 years ago they should address what's happening now.

Maybe Contador will confess when he's long retired, but by then it will be too late to matter.
How are we meant to clean up today's péloton when all the DSes, team owners etc are from the bad old days? We have to clean up the problems of yesteryear before we can clean up the problems of today. Otherwise it's pretty arbitrary - "Riis and Armstrong, that was in the past. Let it go." Especially when you consider that Alejandro Valverde was finally suspended in 2010 for an offence dating back to 2004 - a time before the end of the timeframe in the Lance case.

Let's also point out that what is happening now is the UCI's business - but the UCI aren't the ones investigating Lance. Nor are USAC, whose job it is to regulate the sport in the USA. This is the feds. The feds are not here to police cycling, they have no interest in the sport. The feds are here to clear up potential fraud, in the form of people spending what is indirectly taxpayers' money on PEDs. What this means for who won the Tour de France is irrelevant to them. So far the UCI appears to have been content to let the investigation run its own course and get on with its job of policing the sport today, which is what it should be doing. It should be doing the job more competently, granted, but at least it's doing what it should.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Murray said:
If only that were true. Cycling is addressing the problems it used to have. The riders involved are either retired or in the twilight of their careers. In the meantime a rider who has tested positive is leading the Giro. Instead of focusing on what happened 10 years ago they should address what's happening now.
The problems it used to have? Seems to me it's still the same problems.

How do you plan to stop it now if you don't know how it works? ie what is being used, how it's being used, where they're being obtained, etc etc. The future's never going to change if you don't learn from the past.
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
berzin said:
i posted this somewhere else, and it's a rehashing of an older post made a while ago but it begs repeating.

-here is something i heard years ago, i believe it was right after armstrong's first tour win. Armstrong has only one testicle, and can survive just fine with one producing testosterone depending on the physiological circumstances.

Under "medical supervision" a recovering cancer patient like him would be allowed to take up to a ratio of 7:1 in synthetic testosterone to make up for any "deficiencies" in testosterone production.

From what i understand armstrong took advantage of this particular loophole. The uci was notified of this but the information was never made public because it would cause a stir, even with a tue. Plus, it would ruin what was turning into the feel-good story of the year back in 1999. Remember it was the race director at the time who declared that year's race "the tour of redemption", so there was a lot at stake for all concerned parties involved.

If anyone recalls chris boardman suffered from osteoporosis that required hormone therapy which he refused to take while he was riding professionally because he was concerned about the public backlash.

We know the ratio for testing positive for testosterone is 4:1. Armstrong allegedly raced at levels that exceeded this amount. For the apologists, fanboys and weekend armchair physiologists, it is debatable whether testosterone is effective for cycling. Let's just say it is for the sake of argument.

To be allowed to take so much of it explains a lot. It explains armstrong's relationship between he and the tour organizers and the uci. It explains that even amongst dopers, there wasn't a level playing field. This really rips a hole in the argument that "they all doped, so the best rider still won".

This is a common fallacy that is spewed by people who refuse to come to grips with the reality that armstrong is cycling's version of the six-million dollar man.

Except he was recreated with doping products and protection from testing positive by the governing bodies. The elevated levels of testosterone, along with the epo/hemassist that initially made his new "higher cadence" and improved power-to-weight possible. It wasn't because he had dropped 15 or 20 pounds of weight while he was being treated with chemo.


-fanboyism doesn't adequately explain the suspension of belief required when it comes to the physiological metamorphosis armstrong underwent to become a tour champion. The higher cadence, loss of weight, hard work and determination-this is what armstrong and his people were selling, and his fans bought it. People wanted to believe that through sheer hard work one could achieve anything. This is part of the american dream that will not die regardless of what details get exposed. The fleas will just move on to another host once the armstrong carcass has been stripped of all credibility.

There is something sick and twisted about the whole ruse that beggars belief, which is why i feel it's so important. I just want to hear it all. It was the drugs that made him, it was the uci that protected him, and it was his fans that propped him up. Now that we are on the cusp of actual charges being filed, let's hear it all. Let them all come forward. It will do much to help us understand exactly how he did it.

great post, b!
 
ChrisE said:
Why didn't any other top GT threats get busted at the TdF from 99 thru 2005?

Maybe they never tested positive!!! Lance only tested positive the once so maybe he never tested positive before or after 2001, it seems the positive in 2001 came about because Armstrong was pig-headed even though he had been warned about the improved test. Still he knew he could just buy them off.
 
Mar 17, 2009
157
0
0
VeloCity said:
... if you don't know how it works? ie what is being used, how it's being used, where they're being obtained, etc etc. The future's never going to change if you don't learn from the past.

I agree.... we should learn from the past. However, I doubt the how's, where's, and what's of 2011 and beyond are not the same as they were in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Murray said:
I agree.... we should learn from the past. However, I doubt the how's, where's, and what's of 2011 and beyond are not the same as they were in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
I bet you that a lot of the same people are still involved. Ferrari, for eg.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
There is 3 explanations why Armstrong performed better on dope than others:
1.) Because of being covered up by the UCI, he just had no boundaries to take care of, like hct max. 50%, no max. Testo-Level.
Plus he is a psychopath (see other thread; one sign is recklessness of own safety; his other disorders as sign of being a psychopath are described pretty well there too), thus having no borders to take whatever it takes. It´s good explained by the hospital conversation where he admitted very cool to have taken everything.
2.) He is one of the best responders to Epo/Blood-Doping in the peloton like Indurain and Rijs (someone explained very good how Skibby got down in the rankings while Rijs got up during the 90s, even tough both took Epo and Skibby was way better than Rijs Pre-Epo). Some say that´sa possible because it seems Armstrong showed how well his body responds to drugs, surving spread cancer.
3.) Sounds like a big conspiracy, but everything seems possible with Armstrong (remember he´s a psychopath):
He never had cancer (yes a minority truly believes this), he made it up to be allowed to take everything possible to gain advantage over opponents. It sounds crazy, but it happened with at least one other rider. A german amateur rider got (or tried to get) a bribed medical certificate that he suffers from cancer, so that he could dope with no boundaries. I don´t have a link for that, but if you search in german cycling newspapers you will find it. I think it was like 2 years ago.

Whatever it is, Ullrich just wasn´t sick enough to match this arms race (never being above 42% hct, as KL said), being satisfied with 2nd but not risking his life, even tough he was wayyy more talented than Armstrong. That might also be true with Zülle, Rominger and Basso, etc...
 
Berzin said:
The evidence is in the performances, as I've stated a million times.

What part of the Tour 1999-2005 did you miss that this little detail completely goes over your head?

The testosterone is what gave him the brute strength, climbing while seated as his rivals were all over their bikes, supposedly while on the same PED program as Lance.

For people like you, it's one of two ridiculous scenarios-

1) They were all doped using the same dope, and Armstrong was still better, therefore he was always a more talented rider and worked harder than anyone else.

2) There is no "proof" he was on a better doping program.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your line of reasoning nor do I respect it. At this stage of the game, it's always going to be people like you who will go off a cliff like a lemming with yet another manner in which to excuse Armstrong, but some of us aren't so willfully gullible.

No, I just prefer not to draw conclusions without better facts. I don't hate LA so much that I will stretch the facts to conclude that he must have had an advantage above and beyond the doping that others were using. I'm certainly open to the possibility that he might have. Unlike you and some others, I won't maintain that without better evidence.

The only evidence for that I know of is a) he wasn't a GT type rider early in his career, whereas most multiple Tour winners were; and b) he seems to have had an exclusive contract with Ferrari. Those points are consistent with a doping advantage, but certainly don't prove it. Anyone who thinks they prove it, case closed, is just being closed minded.

Let's look at your assertion. If all it takes to turn a one-day racer into a climber is testosterone, why haven't other riders figured that out? Prior to the early part of this century, the only test for it was the T/E, easily masked with epitestosterone. Though the IRMS test was then added, it's only used if the rider fails the T/E test, so it's still possible to beat it. Or if a rider doesn't want to chance it, there are other substances like HGH.

So why didn't Boonen, say, or Cancellara, just shoot themselves up with T or HGH and turn into a GT contender? Why don't we see them climbing while seated through brute strength (btw, for someone who claims to have watched all the details of the Tours 99-05, you seem very unaware of the fact that LA frequently stood up on the pedals. Try looking at ADH, after he gave the look to Jan. He even stood up in flat TTs). Why wouldn't you at least see riders like this caught as positives in this test more? Why are riders more likely to be caught positive for EPO? Why the emphasis on the blood passport?

When Floyd's case was being discussed, many argued that testosterone wouldn't have helped him that much. That's debatable, but the point is, people didn't come pouring out of the woodwork screaming, Of course it helps! It can turn a one day racer into a climber! I never heard anyone make that claim. Now suddenly you make it, without any evidence whatsoever, except that you "heard" LA "might" have been able to take all the T he wanted.

This is a textbook example of what we see so commonly in religious fervor--starting with a view you want to support, then creating ideas that support the view. May I suggest you start the other way around? First provide evidence that testosterone can really turn a one-day racer into a climber, then use that as a reason for believing that LA might have done that. LA's performance is what we're trying to explain here, so you can't use that as evidence of an idea that has nothing else to support it.
 
Merckx index said:
This is a textbook example of what we see so commonly in religious fervor--starting with a view you want to support, then creating ideas that support the view. May I suggest you start the other way around? First provide evidence that testosterone can really turn a one-day racer into a climber, then use that as a reason for believing that LA might have done that. LA's performance is what we're trying to explain here, so you can't use that as evidence of an idea that has nothing else to support it.

looks to me that you're excelling in that worship - and BTW whoever said LA turned into a GT rider by having higher Testosterone levels alone is a tool-that I agree with you- his edge is the combination of many illegal routes he took to attain that level. I hope you get your eyes open soon enough before you sink along with him.
Good luck
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
There is 3 explanations why Armstrong performed better on dope than others:
1.) Because of being covered up by the UCI, he just had no boundaries to take care of, like hct max. 50%, no max. Testo-Level.
Plus he is a psychopath (see other thread; one sign is recklessness of own safety; his other disorders as sign of being a psychopath are described pretty well there too), thus having no borders to take whatever it takes. It´s good explained by the hospital conversation where he admitted very cool to have taken everything.
2.) He is one of the best responders to Epo/Blood-Doping in the peloton like Indurain and Rijs (someone explained very good how Skibby got down in the rankings while Rijs got up during the 90s, even tough both took Epo and Skibby was way better than Rijs Pre-Epo). Some say that´sa possible because it seems Armstrong showed how well his body responds to drugs, surving spread cancer.
3.) Sounds like a big conspiracy, but everything seems possible with Armstrong O(remember he´s a psychopath):
He never had cancer (yes a minority truly believes this), he made it up to be allowed to take everything possible to gain advantage over opponents. It sounds crazy, but it happened with at least one other rider. A german amateur rider got (or tried to get) a bribed medical certificate that he suffers from cancer, so that he could dope with no boundaries. I don´t have a link for that, but if you search in german cycling newspapers you will find it. I think it was like 2 years ago.

Whatever it is, Ullrich just wasn´t sick enough to match this arms race (never being above 42% hct, as KL said), being satisfied with 2nd but not risking his life, even tough he was wayyy more talented than Armstrong. That might also be true with Zülle, Rominger and Basso, etc...

Didn't realise you were such an expert. So how are the ped's and cancer drugs similar? Response to one shows how you'll respond to the other?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
It´s just a summary of opinions i gained in many years.

I personally think Lance is such a psychopath that he really don´t care about his health. That´s what i think since 1999; he doped to the max. while others had inner boundaries.
 
Feb 22, 2011
462
0
0
Merckx index said:
No, I just prefer not to draw conclusions without better facts. I don't hate LA so much that I will stretch the facts to conclude that he must have had an advantage above and beyond the doping that others were using. I'm certainly open to the possibility that he might have. Unlike you and some others, I won't maintain that without better evidence.

The only evidence for that I know of is a) he wasn't a GT type rider early in his career, whereas most multiple Tour winners were; and b) he seems to have had an exclusive contract with Ferrari. Those points are consistent with a doping advantage, but certainly don't prove it. Anyone who thinks they prove it, case closed, is just being closed minded.

Let's look at your assertion. If all it takes to turn a one-day racer into a climber is testosterone, why haven't other riders figured that out? Prior to the early part of this century, the only test for it was the T/E, easily masked with epitestosterone. Though the IRMS test was then added, it's only used if the rider fails the T/E test, so it's still possible to beat it. Or if a rider doesn't want to chance it, there are other substances like HGH.

So why didn't Boonen, say, or Cancellara, just shoot themselves up with T or HGH and turn into a GT contender? Why don't we see them climbing while seated through brute strength (btw, for someone who claims to have watched all the details of the Tours 99-05, you seem very unaware of the fact that LA frequently stood up on the pedals. Try looking at ADH, after he gave the look to Jan. He even stood up in flat TTs). Why wouldn't you at least see riders like this caught as positives in this test more? Why are riders more likely to be caught positive for EPO? Why the emphasis on the blood passport?

When Floyd's case was being discussed, many argued that testosterone wouldn't have helped him that much. That's debatable, but the point is, people didn't come pouring out of the woodwork screaming, Of course it helps! It can turn a one day racer into a climber! I never heard anyone make that claim. Now suddenly you make it, without any evidence whatsoever, except that you "heard" LA "might" have been able to take all the T he wanted.

This is a textbook example of what we see so commonly in religious fervor--starting with a view you want to support, then creating ideas that support the view. May I suggest you start the other way around? First provide evidence that testosterone can really turn a one-day racer into a climber, then use that as a reason for believing that LA might have done that. LA's performance is what we're trying to explain here, so you can't use that as evidence of an idea that has nothing else to support it.

I missed where any riders other than Lance had their checks cashed by the UCI.
 
looks to me that you're excelling in that worship - and BTW whoever said LA turned into a GT rider by having higher Testosterone levels alone is a tool-that I agree with you- his edge is the combination of many illegal routes he took to attain that level. I hope you get your eyes open soon enough before you sink along with him.
Good luck

I missed where any riders other than Lance had their checks cashed by the UCI.

When I see evidence not simply of monetary donations, but of preferential treatment on tests, then I will add that to the list. I haven’t seen that evidence yet. Not by any means saying it doesn’t exist, just that it hasn’t come out in an obvious way. The Tyler/Floyd statement about TdS is very suggestive but I will wait till that's confirmed.

But even if it did happen, while it certainly adds to the fraud, it doesn't necessarily explain why he won all those Tours. Prior to 06, Ulle skated, Basso skated, Vino skated, many others skated. If LA was paying UCI, what was the money buying him? A different criterion for a positive? Prove it. But don’t say advance warning of tests, because while that may have happened, it turned out it didn’t make any difference if his rivals weren’t getting busted. It only would have helped if it eliminated rivals from big races. Mayo maybe, but he probably was never a real threat, anyway.

I think the problem some of you here have is that you think that if you allow for the possibility that LA was not taking anything that his rivals weren’t taking, he isn’t any worse than they are. A rationalization for leaving him alone, burying the past.

I don’t see it that way. The fact that he won 7 Tours, and used the cancer story the way he did, puts him in a different class regardless of whether “they were all doing it”. His doping under those circumstances is a far bigger deal than Ulle or Basso, etc. Not to mention, of course, the possible criminal charges that may yet emerge from the investigation. As I said, I remain open to the possibility that he had a doping advantage, but it really is not necessary to believe that to feel that he needs to be exposed.

The idea that I will “sink” regardless of what happens to LA, of course, is ludicrous, and again suggests some people are going overboard on all this.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Epo, ever heard of? :rolleyes:

But you said that he showed how well he responded surviving spread cancer. Epo doesn't treat cancer, does it? Did response to chemo drugs mean he'd respond well to epo? Or are you saying that he learned that he responded well to epo during cancer treatment? Wouldn't that make more sense?
And you say he's a psychopath. Are you qualified to make that diagnosis? You may be a doctor, or maybe these things are just your opinion? :rolleyes:
 
Merckx index said:
When I see evidence not simply of monetary donations, but of preferential treatment on tests, then I will add that to the list. I haven’t seen that evidence yet. Not by any means saying it doesn’t exist, just that it hasn’t come out in an obvious way. The Tyler/Floyd statement about TdS is very suggestive but I will wait till that's confirmed.

Then you're waiting for irrefutable proof, not evidence. That's fine, but let's be clear. Their statements about this are in fact testimonial evidence.

So there is evidence of monetary donations. Maybe not enough to convince you 100%, but evidence it surely is.
 
TERMINATOR said:
Hincapie has been part of the Omerta since the beginning. For you to say he's the only credible guy says something about your intelligence. The only reason these guys are ratting each other out now is because lying to a federal agent will send you to jail and the feds will not hesitate to prosecute them for that. This isn't Europe with their little "suspended jail sentence" games they play.

The loyalty to Lance ends with the threat of a jail sentence for lying to a federal agent. Hincapie would have taken this secret to his grave if not for the federal investigation. Hincapie also doesn't want Lance to know he ratted him out because then he'd be faced with a mountain of hate from Lance's PR donkeys.

I agree w/ your statements concerning Hincapie.

He would gladly keep that very big house, the very nice European luxury autos, the cycling clothing company - all earned w/ $$$ secured via contracts that were based on EPO-enhanced performances.

What bugs me is the hypocrisy in absolutely mauling someone like Floyd (PR/media/public response) while talking about Hincapie now as if he's some kind of moral beacon. Meanwhile, the only difference b/w the two is that, ummm, Landis did what he was supposed to do as the Patrón of the peloton and defended his case after winning the Tour, and now he's flat-broke and out of the game. And Hincapie keeps his money.
 
red_flanders said:
Then you're waiting for irrefutable proof, not evidence. That's fine, but let's be clear. Their statements about this are in fact testimonial evidence.

So there is evidence of monetary donations. Maybe not enough to convince you 100%, but evidence it surely is.

No, I'm not disputing the evidence of monetary donations. That is very clear, LA and McQuaid have admitted that, even if they "can't recall" the exact amounts. The evidence that I'm waiting for is that the monetary donations were for preferential treatment wrt testing that could have made a difference in races. So far, we have the TdS allegations, and the shower incident in 2009. Are there more? Was LA getting this advantage throughout his career, in all his big races?

If this happened only once, let along many times, it would be a serious offense, IMO probably worthy of jail time. But the question I'm asking here is, would it have helped him win races? If his main rivals were beating doping tests without help from UCI, what difference would it make if LA received a pass on those tests?

Here is one possibility. After the EPO test was developed, riders beat it by micro-dosing. While micro-dosing is effective, it probably does not provide as much PE as being able to take as much EPO as you want, whenever you want. Was LA able to do this, by taking advantage of advance warning? And likewise, when he began transfusions, as I have little doubt he did, was he able to transfuse more than other riders, again because he knew when he would be tested?

Stuff like this could be a game changer. But it would take more than one or two dismissed positives or advance warnings. There would have to be a long standing pattern of this. Was there? As I said before, I'm open to the possibility, just haven't seen the evidence yet. It would probably have to include getting a pass on HT tests, too.

What bugs me is the hypocrisy in absolutely mauling someone like Floyd (PR/media/public response) while talking about Hincapie now as if he's some kind of moral beacon. Meanwhile, the only difference b/w the two is that, ummm, Landis did what he was supposed to do as the Patrón of the peloton and defended his case after winning the Tour, and now he's flat-broke and out of the game. And Hincapie keeps his money.

I pretty much agree with this. Floyd is a pretty sleazy character, but like all of us, he's a mixture of good and bad. Had he never tested positive, his worst side presumably would not have come out. I still can't forget what he did to Greg, and the FFF, but who knows what some other TDF rider would have done if stripped of his title? Like LA.

Which is why I don't worry much about whether LA had a doping advantage, whether he would have won clean Tours clean. What happened to Floyd is exhibit A of what LA avoided through lying. Doping wise, LA at a minimum did what Floyd did, and far more often, yet he is a hero while Floyd's life was pretty much ruined. He lost his career, his life savings, his home, his marriage, and his father-in-law, while Tyler lost his marriage and apparently his mental stability.

Saying they all did it doesn't cut it. It ignores that most who did it got away with it, while a few, mostly through bad luck, had their lives ruined. Even those who didn't fight back, like Ulle and Basso, were forced into retirement or lost years of their prime. If doping in the past was no big deal, what do you say to them?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Really good blog post from a lance fan, and cancer survivor.

http://phoenixonceagain.blogspot.com/2011/05/may-21-2011.html

That's obviously not a problem for the guy. Think how many times the guy has gone to a hospital to visit a terminally ill child, knowing he is a fraud, while banking on the child, child's family, the hospital ward, the hospital telling everybody what a guy he is and that all adds up to donations.
 
Benotti69 said:
That's obviously not a problem for the guy. Think how many times the guy has gone to a hospital to visit a terminally ill child, knowing he is a fraud, while banking on the child, child's family, the hospital ward, the hospital telling everybody what a guy he is and that all adds up to donations.

This is the part the kills me. We all know Pro-Cyclists dope but this but breaks me. Words cannot explain how sick this is.
 
Jul 18, 2010
707
0
0
Let the fire sale begin!
showproduct.php
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mrs John Murphy said:
For some people this is the 'say it ain't so Joe' moment. Which is fair enough. People have been lied to, some didn't see it, some chose not to see it. The people who deserve the abuse are the liars and the aiders and abettors. Pretty much every cycling journalist with a few exceptions like Walsh and Kimmage needs to be given a kicking.

I am working hard on twitter to do just that. No mods, so I get to open up the engine a little and express myself more profanely. Great fun.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bavarianrider said:
You are amking a fair point. The fact that Lance spoke out so agressively against drugs, including all his cancer history stuff certainly made many many people believe him. Heck those statements where he said "i had cancer you must be a total fool if you think i would take any drugs after going through this", are just so disgusting, but it made people belive him. What a fraud this man is.

Not just that, but he also said things like "turning donkeys into race horses" and the like about other dopers. He deserves nothing but disdain.
 

Latest posts