• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 594 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The sense of deja-vu, feels like we are back in the early days of the forum in 09-10 when this was pretty much the main topic discussed.

As I thought, he had a chance to keep most of his titles, but chose not to co-operate with USADA so got nobody to blame except himself for that. Plenty of other riders have had titles stripped, so this idea only poor Lance was singled out is rubbish. Cannot believe there are people who still try to defend him. I see riders getting hate today for various reasons, but all I have to do is think of the incident with poor Simeoni and I say, yep he was the biggest *** in cycling who deserved whatever he got.
 
Santiago Botero: 'For me Armstrong is the winner of the seven Tour de France'


"...What do you think of Armstrong?

In my opinion, despite his confession about prohibited substances, he still would have won the Tour de France. It is a perception as a cyclist, not as a fan. I also don't judge the fan who points him out as a cheater. But, for me, Armstrong is the winner of the seven Tour de France...."
Disappointing by Botero. He's ruined my opinion of him. As a cyclist who rode against him I have no idea how he can make that claim knowing what we now know. Just bizarre.
 
Saw the trailer for upcoming Ullrich documentary ( drama) and King Lance is included praising Jan. I am guessing, seems sort of obvious, Armstrong is not going on camera for anyone, at any price at this point in life unless he has creative control. Again a guess, would think that Lance gets ultimate approval for his image on screen.More negative depictions of Armstrong may still be to come, but guaranteed anything really nasty will be produced without his participation or endorsement. If you follow LA internet presence, his podcast has multiple outings that include Jan Ulrich one notable is all the usual suspects sitting around drinking wine,beer and water in Mallorca. And there are multiple videos and interviews were Armstrong, often emotional professed his love for Ullrich.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MuJCEgI4PXo&pp=ygUXamFuIHVsbHJpY2ggZG9jdW1lbnRhcnk%3D

Feel manipulated?
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dUIYDJC_nTQ&pp=ygUXamFuIHVsbHJpY2ggZG9jdW1lbnRhcnk%3D

Does this help pro bike racing!!?
 
Montgomery Subaru aka Weasels first major venture into his future shenanigans. That's funny. To the bolded. You trained them? We must know each other

I meant that non-doping riders from Montgomery-Suburu and Motorola beat him in specific events, including TTs. As a junior and espoir racer he was beaten by most of the National team juniors that we trained. They were all clean. Is that specific enough?
That they were clean and were aware enough to understand what the demands were in Europe and those teams meant most of them elected not to race there or quit altogether.
Ask Jonathan Vaughters, for one. As a junior amateur he beat Lance who was a pro.
I will state this as known fact.. Armstrong was not a better bike racer than Jonas or Jamie, Mike McCarthy, Steve Hegg or Thurlow Rodgers and probably others when he was under Eddie B at Subaru Montgomery.. There was little special about him.. He actually had another stone in his shoe named Kenny Souza ..who himself got popped.. Thinking it was near or before EPO..

 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldermanish
I will state this as known fact.. Armstrong was not a better bike racer than Jonas or Jamie, Mike McCarthy, Steve Hegg or Thurlow Rodgers and probably others when he was under Eddie B at Subaru Montgomery..
I don't disagree with you, but you are comparing an 18 yr old to a couple guys 10 yrs his senior and a couple track riders that weren't much more than crit racers and Lance sucked at crit racing. McCarthy was a talent for sure, but another track specialist.
 
Anyone? Obviously I can only speak for myself, but post Festina there has always been doubt (even today) in the back of my mind that what I see 'unfolding on the road' is not real.

And no, I do not believe that same riders would be at the top regardless of the level of doping in the sport.
I think you too are using a different definition of “real”: you’re using “not real” to mean fraudulent, but we also use real to mean “what I saw with my own eyes.” So Cobo’s win will seem “real” to some and not to others.

But hey, ChatGPT and successors will make real a moot point in the future anyways ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManicJack
They all doped, but only one doper was a business partner with Pat McQuaid, the head of the UCI and Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin, the voice of the TDF at least in the English speaking world. Only one doper gave monetary "gifts" to the UCI, and as far as we know only one doper had positive tests covered up.
Yes, in this sense Lance wasn’t just “doing what everyone else was,” because he wielded more power/influence in cycling.
Somewhat related but never backed up, were questions about whether LA might have had access to doping products not on the market or yet medically approved, things other riders couldn’t get their hands on.

Who knows, maybe Lance was a very early adopter of lugworm blood boosting ;) :)
 
I don't disagree with you, but you are comparing an 18 yr old to a couple guys 10 yrs his senior and a couple track riders that weren't much more than crit racers and Lance sucked at crit racing. McCarthy was a talent for sure, but another track specialist.
For sure apples to apples at the time. Sort of shows the weaknesses of the system, especially now. Cycling News story about expanding calendar for gravel and you get many desirable things, first less drafting, longer distances and some climbing. You get a calendar that is semi coordinated and has 25 races. When Lance was coming up more so than now distance and elevation gain were always difficult with most things on the calendar crits, or crits w an attitude that were classified as circuit races. Armstrong started to shine when he was in races 4,5,6 times the typical distances in the US. Also lots of racing in Belgium, Northern Germany, Holland is relatively flat and Americans don't have experience w the 3 criticals, keeping a wheel, echelons, really the importance of hiding from the wind and going bal!s out for the first 30-45 minutes, exactly the opposite of American racing. Armstrong has an apt student and he made progress that others struggled with.
Thurlow I consider a good all arounder..he is nearing 100-150 years old and still puts down some serious painful wattage.
Steve Hegg was great all around bicycle racer, his body is quiet, and still ,legs like a sewing machine, and if he wanted you back, or if race was too much ebb and flow he could explode from 1-2 kilometers at a pace few could match. He held his own on hills, definitely not a stand out.
I know that there is a ton of anti Lance but the guy always had something, before he was fully gased. There was a Wednesday ride in San Diego that looped through Camp Pendleton.. Often w the best at that time.. and pro triathletes..Scott, Molina, Tinley and others all in Lance's wheelhouse and he could ride with anyone if motivated.
I see lots of great American racers developed outside the system.. and my basic observation is Armstrong made it despite our system.. And not sure what he would say now, or Lemond..but I would guess that for young racers, the Armstrong model of essentially bypass or fully ignore the American system and race in Europe as early as possible.. In my opinion Armstrong didn't learn much of anything from racing in the states. Sadly looks about the same.. I think gravel will show some diamonds because you can't fake 100+ miles w some climbing. Again completely personal opinion even with Grand Canyon sized character flaws I still think Lance could help US bike racing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManicJack
How does that validate that Armstrong won 7 tours or was the best. You don't know what was the effect of doping. Nobody knows as every rider responds differently.
Good point. Individual variability is an important factor with rEPO given the dose & frequency of use, and the percentage increase of Hct/Hgb.

Gewiss-Ballan had a systematic doping program (rEPO) in the mid-90s under infamous doping doctor Michelle Ferrari. Go to the doping link & see some of the rider's Hct pre-doping (baseline) to their peak in-competition levels.

For example, Riis goes from a baseline Hct of ~41 (Dec-94) to ~56 (May-95). When he first put on the Yellow in the 95 Tour, he was at ~56 Hct. No data available on what his level was in when he won the 96 Tour, but suffice to say it was probably at least in this same range.


IDK if you remember the presentation that Armstrong gave several years ago to a sports ethics class at Colorado University. He talked about the difference in the performance boost of the "low-octane" doping products that he says produce a ~1% boost (e.g., testosterone, anabolic steroids, HGH, corticosteroids) vs the "high-octane" rEPO that he says produces a minimum ~10% boost across the board:

View: https://youtu.be/dVvoZ_Y8nDw?si=fA7b3VLmI1YXB6TB


Armstrong paid a million smackers to Ferrari for his rEPO program. There's evidence that he had a low baseline Hct to begin with - and whose to say he didn't boost well over the UCI 50% Hct safety level that was in place back in his time period (I'm sure Ferrari could figure ways to get it around it). Clearly, IMO, Armstrong was a high responder to O2-vector doping. Sure, he had uncanny luck never crashing out of any of those 7 Tours, but his response to O2-vector doping was the name of his game.

If it wasn't for the ABP (the greatest anti-doping tool IMO), there's no telling how many "high-responders" would be dominating the Grand Tours these days.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ManicJack
Good point. Individual variability is an important factor with rEPO given the dose & frequency of use, and the percentage increase of Hct/Hgb.

Gewiss-Ballan had a systematic doping program (rEPO) in the mid-90s under infamous doping doctor Michelle Ferrari. Go to the doping link & see some of the rider's Hct pre-doping (baseline) to their peak in-competition levels.

For example, Riis goes from a baseline Hct of ~41 (Dec-94) to ~56 (May-95). When he first put on the Yellow in the 95 Tour, he was at ~56 Hct. No data available on what his level was in when he won the 96 Tour, but suffice to say it was probably at least in this same range.


IDK if you remember the presentation that Armstrong gave several years ago to a sports ethics class at Colorado University. He talked about the difference in the performance boost of the "low-octane" doping products that he says produce a ~1% boost (e.g., testosterone, anabolic steroids, HGH, corticosteroids) vs the "high-octane" rEPO that he says produces a minimum ~10% boost across the board:

View: https://youtu.be/dVvoZ_Y8nDw?si=fA7b3VLmI1YXB6TB


Armstrong paid a million smackers to Ferrari for his rEPO program. There's evidence that he had a low baseline Hct to begin with - and whose to say he didn't boost well over the UCI 50% Hct safety level that was in place back in his time period (I'm sure Ferrari could figure ways to get it around it). Clearly, IMO, Armstrong was a high responder to O2-vector doping. Sure, he had uncanny luck never crashing out of any of those 7 Tours, but his response to O2-vector doping was the name of his game.

If it wasn't for the ABP (the greatest anti-doping tool IMO), there's no telling how many "high-responders" would be dominating the Grand Tours these days.
“He talked about the difference in the performance boost of the "low-octane" doping products that he says produce a ~1% boost (e.g., testosterone, anabolic steroids, HGH, corticosteroids) vs the "high-octane" rEPO that he says produces a minimum ~10% boost across the board”

He can speak for himself of course, but I would never take at face value anything he says about doping efficacy. It will always be in part a smokescreen, that slightly obscures reality to his benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightclimber
I will state this as known fact.. Armstrong was not a better bike racer than Jonas or Jamie, Mike McCarthy, Steve Hegg or Thurlow Rodgers and probably others when he was under Eddie B at Subaru Montgomery.. There was little special about him.. He actually had another stone in his shoe named Kenny Souza ..who himself got popped.. Thinking it was near or before EPO..

Sousa used to come out on the Montrose (Cal.) ride sometimes where he would try to win the sprint to Sierra Madre by leading out all the way up the 5% 500 meter rise. He never was successful but he was a hell of a lead out. If I'm not mistaken he was suspended for entering races for 2 years without a valid license not for doping.
 
Good point. Individual variability is an important factor with rEPO given the dose & frequency of use, and the percentage increase of Hct/Hgb.

Gewiss-Ballan had a systematic doping program (rEPO) in the mid-90s under infamous doping doctor Michelle Ferrari. Go to the doping link & see some of the rider's Hct pre-doping (baseline) to their peak in-competition levels.

For example, Riis goes from a baseline Hct of ~41 (Dec-94) to ~56 (May-95). When he first put on the Yellow in the 95 Tour, he was at ~56 Hct. No data available on what his level was in when he won the 96 Tour, but suffice to say it was probably at least in this same range.


IDK if you remember the presentation that Armstrong gave several years ago to a sports ethics class at Colorado University. He talked about the difference in the performance boost of the "low-octane" doping products that he says produce a ~1% boost (e.g., testosterone, anabolic steroids, HGH, corticosteroids) vs the "high-octane" rEPO that he says produces a minimum ~10% boost across the board:

View: https://youtu.be/dVvoZ_Y8nDw?si=fA7b3VLmI1YXB6TB


Armstrong paid a million smackers to Ferrari for his rEPO program. There's evidence that he had a low baseline Hct to begin with - and whose to say he didn't boost well over the UCI 50% Hct safety level that was in place back in his time period (I'm sure Ferrari could figure ways to get it around it). Clearly, IMO, Armstrong was a high responder to O2-vector doping. Sure, he had uncanny luck never crashing out of any of those 7 Tours, but his response to O2-vector doping was the name of his game.

If it wasn't for the ABP (the greatest anti-doping tool IMO), there's no telling how many "high-responders" would be dominating the Grand Tours these days.
From everything I have read EPO provded between 5 and 15% boost to FTP. But I would disregard anything Armstrong claims which is always self serving .
 
He can speak for himself of course, but I would never take at face value anything he says about doping efficacy. It will always be in part a smokescreen, that slightly obscures reality to his benefit.
Valid point. But that's why I fall back on the O2-vector doping research that was conducted by Ferrari & Conconi - the pioneers of rEPO doping. Again, Armstrong paid Ferrari a million bucks to oversee his doping program. He was high-responder & you saw the way he toyed with his competition in the high-mountains & TTs of all those Tours. C'mon man...a natural climber of diminutive statue also doped to the gills could barely keep up with him on Ventoux. Lol. He made a mockery of his competition. High-responder to rocket fuel. Lol.
 
Last edited:
“He talked about the difference in the performance boost of the "low-octane" doping products that he says produce a ~1% boost (e.g., testosterone, anabolic steroids, HGH, corticosteroids) vs the "high-octane" rEPO that he says produces a minimum ~10% boost across the board”

He can speak for himself of course, but I would never take at face value anything he says about doping efficacy. It will always be in part a smokescreen, that slightly obscures reality to his benefit.
I think the stark difference serves in his narrative as validation of his natural talent. Afaik, he has only admitted to high-octane doping after he became world champion in Oslo.

While I think he likely was on EPO then, it doesn't necessarily mean that his rough estimates are off ofc.
 
For sure apples to apples at the time. Sort of shows the weaknesses of the system, especially now. Cycling News story about expanding calendar for gravel and you get many desirable things, first less drafting, longer distances and some climbing. You get a calendar that is semi coordinated and has 25 races. When Lance was coming up more so than now distance and elevation gain were always difficult with most things on the calendar crits, or crits w an attitude that were classified as circuit races. Armstrong started to shine when he was in races 4,5,6 times the typical distances in the US. Also lots of racing in Belgium, Northern Germany, Holland is relatively flat and Americans don't have experience w the 3 criticals, keeping a wheel, echelons, really the importance of hiding from the wind and going bal!s out for the first 30-45 minutes, exactly the opposite of American racing. Armstrong has an apt student and he made progress that others struggled with.
Thurlow I consider a good all arounder..he is nearing 100-150 years old and still puts down some serious painful wattage.
Steve Hegg was great all around bicycle racer, his body is quiet, and still ,legs like a sewing machine, and if he wanted you back, or if race was too much ebb and flow he could explode from 1-2 kilometers at a pace few could match. He held his own on hills, definitely not a stand out.
I know that there is a ton of anti Lance but the guy always had something, before he was fully gased. There was a Wednesday ride in San Diego that looped through Camp Pendleton.. Often w the best at that time.. and pro triathletes..Scott, Molina, Tinley and others all in Lance's wheelhouse and he could ride with anyone if motivated.
I see lots of great American racers developed outside the system.. and my basic observation is Armstrong made it despite our system.. And not sure what he would say now, or Lemond..but I would guess that for young racers, the Armstrong model of essentially bypass or fully ignore the American system and race in Europe as early as possible.. In my opinion Armstrong didn't learn much of anything from racing in the states. Sadly looks about the same.. I think gravel will show some diamonds because you can't fake 100+ miles w some climbing. Again completely personal opinion even with Grand Canyon sized character flaws I still think Lance could help US bike racing.
He did spark interest and numbers of newbies, like Lemond. I was in on some of those Pendleton rides, earlier than Lance's time and have a different take on his skills. Maybe talk later on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManicJack
I think the stark difference serves in his narrative as validation of his natural talent. Afaik, he has only admitted to high-octane doping after he became world champion in Oslo.

While I think he likely was on EPO then, it doesn't necessarily mean that his rough estimates are off ofc.
I think Juliet Macur is pretty much the only journalist, who has claimed that Lance was on EPO in 1993, and even she flip flops about whether he took it for the first time in 1995 as David Walsh, Reed Albergotti and his teammates maintain.
 
I think the stark difference serves in his narrative as validation of his natural talent. Afaik, he has only admitted to high-octane doping after he became world champion in Oslo.

While I think he likely was on EPO then, it doesn't necessarily mean that his rough estimates are off ofc.
I'd be surprised if testosterone were only a 1% boost. In men it has a big effect on hematocrit, so much so that men on TRT have to get tested and donate blood if it's over a certain limit. That's on top of the obvious benefits to recovery. If a rider were allowed unlimited test during the TDF, their performance on day 20 would be improved by VASTLY more than 1%.
 

TRENDING THREADS