Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[D-Queued]

My path has been the same from day one. You of many people should know that.
Bro and Hog are latecomers to the party, but I will take it as a compliment.

I have challenged many posters, including RR, who show total bias re anything Armstrong. I am simply applying perspective.

I am sick and tired of how quickly new information on Lance is turned around to attacks on RR.

RR didn't publish the NYT article, and he didn't write it. RR didn't listen to the tapes from John Neal and he didn't provide the interview insights from Hendershot.

Do you think you can play by the rules and stick to the topic of this thread?

If not, can you do us all a favor?

This is very interesting new information. Just when it seems we are close to hearing everything, we have major new insights. How much more is yet to be revealed?

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

Instead of the insults how about addressing what I wrote?

I am not convinced that lance was using EPO in 93. I explained why I felt that the context of the claim was in error. If you feel it is true, that Lance was using EPO in 93, then please share with us why and drop the baiting

Then feel free to go back and edit your originally post, instead of leaving it up and burying the implication with your subsequent babble.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you two dating?

Hi Chris,
No we are not dating, and no that does not mean you can try and hit me up.
I have nothing against people who are gay, but I am heterosexual. Sorry.

Upthread he wrote this:



Now he writes this:



Way to crawfish. From winning the worlds on EPO and destroying troll talking points, to this mealy mouth garbage above.

And, maybe in the spirit of the vortex he can point out these groupies, assumed to be on CN forums, who have been stating LA was not doping prior to EPO.

In the spirit of the vortex I would point out that RR never said the "groupies" said LA was not doping prior to EPO. (You made that up)

 

[the sceptic]

Please Andy, share with us your wisdom. The claim that Lance was using EPO in 1993 is clear bad for Lance.....if I have a "Total bias" against Lance why would I question the veracity of such a claim?

The rest of the article doesnt exactly paint Armstrong as a doping ringleader at motorola does it? Maybe thats why you are now "questioning" your initial slam dunk that Armstrong was on EPO at the worlds and the troll point was dead.

 

[ChrisE]

Isn't that the same rule for everyone?

Anyway, what do you want, for everyone to dismiss it because it's on paper?

No, that's not the rule for everyone. You should strive to be more subjective.

TFF I don't live in a black and white world, especially in the clinic. Things that are published should be taken in context. It's possible he was using EPO before 95, but proving that is false is not my agenda. Proving (believing) it is true is on the agenda of a lot of others in here.

 

[ChrisE]

The rest of the article doesnt exactly paint Armstrong as a doping ringleader at motorola does it? Maybe thats why you are now "questioning" your initial slam dunk that Armstrong was on EPO at the worlds and the troll point was dead.

It actually says doping was ongoing when he arrived.

Yup.

 

[D-Queued]

My path has been the same from day one. You of many people should know that.
Bro and Hog are latecomers to the party, but I will take it as a compliment.

I have challenged many posters, including RR, who show total bias re anything Armstrong. I am simply applying perspective.

Perspective? Hardly.

Here is some perspective:

Neal loved that the national team riders and American pro cyclists knew who he was. Some even called him for advice. In Hincapie’s case: I was stopped by customs with a suitcase filled with EPO and other drugs, what should I do?

The 'oh, so innocent George'. Innocent George who was corrupted by evil Frankie?

Attacking RR, and more efforts to somehow try and frame Frankie?

Absurd.

The truth?

George was smuggling more stuff in his suitcase than could fit into Willy Voet's car trunk.

Of course, in George's case we might not suggest that there was any intent to traffic these substances. So, no, I am not suggesting George was trafficking.

The running jokes about George taking to PEDs like a fish to water just got one more independent corroboration.

And, the latest over-inflated BS from Lance and his ever loyal henchman George just sprung another leak.

Now that is perspective.

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

The rest of the article doesnt exactly paint Armstrong as a doping ringleader at motorola does it? Maybe thats why you are now "questioning" your initial slam dunk that Armstrong was on EPO at the worlds and the troll point was dead.

You need to stop inventing things.

I have never claimed Armstrong was a "Doping Ringleader" at Motorola. In fact I have pointed out clearly there were many elements that influenced riders on the team to start using EPO, only one of them was the team leader wanting it. I have also talked about how riders were doping prior to Lance on Motorola and Postal

The article is a small except of a 480 page book, it hardly touches on this topic.

 

[andy1234]

Please Andy, share with us your wisdom. The claim that Lance was using EPO in 1993 is clearly bad for Lance.....if I have a "Total bias" against Lance why would I question the veracity of such a claim?

Lance the doping ringleader?
Lance turned into tour winner by blood doping?

There might not be any damage for the anti Armstrong crowd with these points, but you clearly back peddled on your original statement about the 93 worlds, when you realised you hadn't weighed up the implications.

The bias was clear to see.

Now I'm going to back off, because I have made my point, and don't think anyone should become a whipping boy....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The rest of the article doesnt exactly paint Armstrong as a doping ringleader at motorola does it? Maybe thats why you are now "questioning" your initial slam dunk that Armstrong was on EPO at the worlds and the troll point was dead.

See, this is built on straw - the 'ringleader' comment was initially directed at Frankie by George, that was argued here and if someone pointed out that it was not or unlikely not FA and you introduced the affidavits that show LA was vocal - that it means that LA was definitely the ringleader. Straw.

This was a bunch of guys on a team, most were already doping, probably using products ion their own or (as the new piece says) through a soigneur. They were getting kicked by teams who were on an organised program run by Doctors. Thats what they were discussing, and I have little doubt that LA lead that, but most if not all agreed.

 

[Race Radio]

Lance the doping ringleader?
Lance turned into tour winner by blood doping?

There might not be any damage for the anti Armstrong crowd with these points, but you clearly back peddled on your original statement about the 93 worlds, when you realised there might be some implications.

The bias was clear to see.

Now I'm going to back off, because I have made my point, and don't think anyone should become a whipping boy....

If the bias is so clear then you,and others, would not have to resort to insults and baiting and could address the topic

Where have I said Lance was a "Doping Ringleader"? Link please?

What implications? You are claiming that I don't believe he was using EPO in 93 this is becuase of some bias......What bias? If it is true then he is lying again

. In Motorola, we had not in 1993. It’s well documented that we did make that switch in 1995, but in the years before, we were low-octane

Armstrong confirmed later he took testosterone for the first time in 1996

DB: Did you win that world championships in Oslo, 20 years ago, on [taps glass of water] clean?

LA: That’s the detail I can’t get into. It was still low-octane.

You are trying to pretend there is some kind of conspiracy but the reality is that I don't believe it but it does not fit with the facts I have

 

[Eshnar]

I am sick and tired of how quickly new information on Lance is turned around to attacks on RR.

Me too.
So I suggest you all concentrate on LA instead of RR.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

A constant trait of Armstrong's over the decades is the simple observation that the rules don't apply to him. It's likely whomever he's paying is exploiting the weaknesses in the law to Armstrong's benefit. A reflection of "the rules don't apply to me."

The rule of law is subordinate to the purity of his quest.

I had to have a shower after watching that, there was slime oozing out of my computer....

I'm Frank Zappa, and I approved this message.

 

[D-Queued]

Lance the doping ringleader?
Lance turned into tour winner by blood doping?

There might not be any damage for the anti Armstrong crowd with these points, but you clearly back peddled on your original statement about the 93 worlds, when you realised you hadn't weighed up the implications.

The bias was clear to see.

Now I'm going to back off, because I have made my point, and don't think anyone should become a whipping boy....

It is well established, through multiple sworn depositions along with a multitude of other facts, that Lance Armstrong was the instigator and initiated the watershed moment when everyone was advised that to compete that they had to get on the program. Multiple witnesses have testified that this meant EPO.

Prior to that, as we again know from multiple sworn depositions, there had been a pattern of two groups within the team that were being treated differently. The in-crowd received 'white bags' containing doping products, where as others (e.g. CVV) did not.

What is not yet well established is the extent of doping by one Lance Armstrong prior to the 'hospital incident'.

Certain witnesses have claimed that Lance cited EPO, along with Testosterone and other substances, during that Hospital incident.

We now have further evidence that support his use of EPO prior to the moment he instructed all of his teammates to get on the program.

Are you arguing with the evidence? If so, you are wrong and your bias is clear to see.

He was the ringleader. Possibly with the full complicity of one J Bruyneel, but we don't yet have all the facts on that one.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Me too.
So I suggest you all concentrate on LA instead of RR.

Thanks!

Dave.

 

[ChrisE]

Me too.
So I suggest you all concentrate on LA instead of RR.

I agree. Discussing a poster [...edited by mod...] should be off limits.

Let's get back to bashing LA.

 

[KingsMountain]

Eshnar, that edit of ChrisE's post is ridiculous. His comment was quite correct and IMO on topic.

 

[Eshnar]

Eshnar, that edit of ChrisE's post is ridiculous. His comment was quite correct and IMO on topic.

Maybe. But I get angry if I give a general warning and someone answers by doing, between the lines, the exact thing I said to NOT do.

 

[red_flanders]

Don't worry Andy, you will be the first person I call.

The claim is not a positive one for Lance, it would mean he is lying again..... but that does not mean I think it is 100% accurate.

It would throw a pretty major wrench in the works of what Armstrong has implied and what a lot of us have believed to be true, that his transformation from one-day rider to GT winner was due in large part to EPO Ferrari. If it's true, it gets a good bit more murky. It would certainly challenge my own understanding about what transpired.

 

[red_flanders]

Me too.
So I suggest you all concentrate on LA instead of RR.

Are you saying that when a poster says something and is queried on it, that's an attack on that poster?

It seems this only applies to RR, while someone like Dr. Mas can query and pick apart every statement.

Let's have some consistency here one way or the other. I read RR's Worlds comments exactly as ChrisE did. Inconsistent and backtracking. Since he is in the know, it would seem all the more reason to probe further when cryptic comments are made, and when people are called trolls in those cryptic comments.

 

[Race Radio]

It would throw a pretty major wrench in the works of what Armstrong has implied and what a lot of us have believed to be true, that his transformation from one-day rider to GT winner was due in large part to EPO Ferrari. If it's true, it gets a good bit more murky. It would certainly challenge my own understanding about what transpired.

It might..... but there is still Hemmassit, Ferrari, and UCI protection. There are many elements. Plenty of riders used EPO but it took doctors like Ferrari to prefect a program that yields the best results. The best example is Gwiess in 1994. Plenty of riders were using EPO that year but the riders on the Ferrari program were head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

[Race Radio]

Are you saying that when a poster says something and is queried on it, that's an attack on that poster?

It seems this only applies to RR, while someone like Dr. Mas can query and pick apart every statement.

Let's have some consistency here one way or the other. I read RR's Worlds comments exactly as ChrisE did. Inconsistent and backtracking. Since he is in the know, it would seem all the more reason to probe further when cryptic comments are made, and when people are called trolls in those cryptic comments.

no, Chris was attempting to twist what I wrote to fit some supposed agenda.....again.

Instead of polluting this thread with more of this perhaps you could take it somewhere else?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you saying that when a poster says something and is queried on it, that's an attack on that poster?

It seems this only applies to RR, while someone like Dr. Mas can query and pick apart every statement.

Let's have some consistency here one way or the other. I read RR's Worlds comments exactly as ChrisE did. Inconsistent and backtracking. Since he is in the know, it would seem all the more reason to probe further when cryptic comments are made, and when people are called trolls in those cryptic comments.

I pick apart peoples statements - I don't pick apart the poster., unless of course they make it personal. Then its game on.

And just in case there is any misunderstanding, you have been IMO sniping at a lot of my posts, if you have a problem with me, then step up.
If not then do not bring me in to something that I am not involved in.

 

[Berzin]

So he was taking EPO at least four years before cancer. I'm not surprised, but this deepens the mystery of how he became such a good climber, and a better TTer, after cancer. RR and some others think he was a high responder, and it does appear he has a naturally low HT that would have allowed him to get a larger benefit from EPO than many other riders.

But why did the benefit not really become apparent until after cancer? If being a high responder is what enabled him to win all those Tours, why could he do nothing in GC in four tries before cancer? Other alleged high responders, like Ulle and Pantani, seemed to reach their GC potential much sooner. Even Riis was a better climber than Armstrong at that time.

Was it Ferrari? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that Ferrari + EPO made a bigger difference in his GC performance over EPO alone than EPO alone did over no EPO. All EPO seemingly did for him is make him a much better one day racer. For four years. Then boom, suddenly he can climb, not just better, but he goes from a total non-climber to the best in the world. Was Ferrari's program really that good?

Excellent post with many pertinent questions. Here are my thoughts on the subject-

Pre-cancer, Armstrong was probably taking mass quantities of cortisone, testosterone and HgH, moreso in relation to the EPO. You can tell from his physique and his then-modest goal of being a good one-day, short stage racer.

When he came back in 1998, his ambitions changed along with his training and doping regimens. Ferrari probably got him on a plan where he used testosterone for recovery as opposed to recovery AND muscle building.

When used as recovery agents, you can go very light on the HGH and testosterone and still get results, but the results are going to be different than if you are hitting these products hard.

From what I understand Armstrong may have quit using HgH post-cancer, but no one really knows for sure because he hasn't stopped lying about anything even after he got busted.

The other thing about Ferrari was the exclusivity clause he had with Armstrong. The good doctore was not allowed to service any other riders who were gunning for the Tour, so who else got to benefit from his expertise in the peloton for the Tour? No one. And this wasn't just for the Tour. Ferrari wasn't treating any of Armstrong's Tour rivals in any other races from what I can tell. They all had to go elsewhere. And as we have seen, if Ferrari was the # 1 doping guru, whoever was #2 was a sad second indeed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It would throw a pretty major wrench in the works of what Armstrong has implied and what a lot of us have believed to be true, that his transformation from one-day rider to GT winner was due in large part to EPO Ferrari. If it's true, it gets a good bit more murky. It would certainly challenge my own understanding about what transpired.

Well, that would depend on what you believe transpired.

For me, the new piece appears to fit with how I have always viewed things.
In fact I don't really think there was anything particularly controversial about it.