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

[Semper Fidelis]

Sometimes I get bored. You have room to talk with your ongoing arguments with the resident wingnut in the politics forum.

Man you're not making any friends around here with that screech regarding "Captain America" post. haha. nice

Apro likes to come in and drive by once and a while.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I feel like Captain Obvious here, but isn't it generally assumed that at some points in his career Hinault was charged with cortisone and uppers, courtesy of Dr. Mabuse? And isn't it also pretty much assumed that while on La Vie Claire the team was clean (or virtually so), including Hinault's wins in the Tour and Giro?

That movie about Lance, uh...hmmm. I'll pass on the good used bike, thank you. At least they are apparently making him out in the film to look like a complete tool. So at least that part's going to be factually correct.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Sometimes I get bored. You have room to talk with your ongoing arguments with the resident wingnut in the politics forum.

Sometimes I get bored too.

But I perk up when, time-to-time, various posters wad you up in a pile of your own crap. Please don't slink off the forum this time because your yard sales are epic.

 

[doperhopper]

looks like The Badger is so mad at Dopestrong not because he doped but because he confessed and "created unwanted media attention" (that casts shadow at His Badgesty)

 

[Oldman]

I feel like Captain Obvious here, but isn't it generally assumed that at some points in his career Hinault was charged with cortisone and uppers, courtesy of Dr. Mabuse? And isn't it also pretty much assumed that while on La Vie Claire the team was clean (or virtually so), including Hinault's wins in the Tour and Giro?

That movie about Lance, uh...hmmm. I'll pass on the good used bike, thank you. At least they are apparently making him out in the film to look like a complete tool. So at least that part's going to be factually correct.

All of that history was pretty much acknowledged as minor league stuff but definitely in practice. The Badger's upset because Lance's profile makes the whole charade of dope-free cycling what it is: a charade. That and Lance has tried to imply that Lemond and Hinault had to dope to win.

 

[Benotti69]

looks like The Badger is so mad at Dopestrong not because he doped but because he confessed and "created unwanted media attention" (that casts shadow at His Badgesty)

I would guess that the Ol badger is more angry that Monkeymouth 'spat in the soup' and brought negative attention upon ASO, Bernie's employers.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Also, I wonder why ignore the part about doping being part of the Le tour from early days.

Blood doping was revolitionary. It turned quite a few donkeys into grand tour race horses. Hinault's era of doping and earlier was nothing like it.

 

[Bluenote]

Greg Lemond got his.
Think Hinault has one, too?

http://www.nonprocycling.com/2013/09/23/pretty-funny-greg-lemond/

 

[ChrisE]

Blood doping was revolitionary. It turned quite a few donkeys into grand tour race horses. Hinault's era of doping and earlier was nothing like it.

Cite?

Is there a controlled study where a group of athletes, doped up on uppers and roids over a period of time with zero OOC testing and not nearly the scrutiny as present day, is compared to an EPO or blood doping routine?

I didn't think so. I would say it this point maybe you and the clinic posse should STFU, but that won't happen.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Cite?

Is there a controlled study where a group of athletes, doped up on uppers and roids over a period of time with zero OOC testing and not nearly the scrutiny as present day, is compared to an EPO or blood doping routine?

I didn't think so. I would say it this point maybe you and the clinic posse should STFU, but that won't happen.

Consider this: the peloton didn't move from uppers and roids to EPO and blood doping because the former worked better for them.

Plus, you don't need nearly the amount of acne medicine, so win/win.

 

[MarkvW]

Cite?

Is there a controlled study where a group of athletes, doped up on uppers and roids over a period of time with zero OOC testing and not nearly the scrutiny as present day, is compared to an EPO or blood doping routine?

I didn't think so. I would say it this point maybe you and the clinic posse should STFU, but that won't happen.

It never really was an either-or kind of situation. EPO was folded into the mix along with steroids, etc. It is beyond dispute that EPO enhances performance in ways that steroids do not.

The same dirty peloton just got a new doping tool, that's all.

 

[ChrisE]

Consider this: the peloton didn't move from uppers and roids to EPO and blood doping because the former worked better for them.

Plus, you don't need nearly the amount of acne medicine, so win/win.

It's a cocktail, as your buddy notes.

So, what if EPO came first? Roids and uppers would not have been used? Doubtful.

Do you think roid and uppers, with no OOC testing especially, were effective? How much? What do you base that upon?

Fact is there are no controlled studies done comparing any type of doping regime, or a combination of doping regimes. All we have are anecdotes from riders at the onset of the EPO era, and yes the times are quicker. But, those times include other forms of doping in the bodies of the riders, not just EPO.

Times decreased with all of these drugs in their systems, ergo if they were just on EPO and then incorporated roids in addition to EPO their times would have also decreased.

 

[86TDFWinner]

It's a cocktail, as your buddy notes.

Was it? Cite? Thought EPO was more blood driven, as in it was used more prevelant than just a "cocktail", Dopestrong made a career of using it for his blood and to boost his blood levels.

So, what if EPO came first? Roids and uppers would not have been used? Doubtful.

What if Dopestrong never doped, would he have placed better than 36th in the Tour, much less won 7 times? DOUBTFUL.

Do you think roid and uppers, with no OOC testing especially, were effective? How much? What do you base that upon?

Maybe you should contact Merckx and others who've used them, and ask? Did they have OOC testing at the time he and others were using?

Fact is there are no controlled studies done comparing any type of doping regime, or a combination of doping regimes. All we have are anecdotes from riders at the onset of the EPO era, and yes the times are quicker. But, those times include other forms of doping in the bodies of the riders, not just EPO.

Hmm, You don't think USADA hasn't thought of this, or doesn't have one? Surely there"Dopestrong ran the most sophisticated drug program ever" response he gave, was more than simply some "anecdote", right? Do you have inconclusive evidence stating otherwise, or refuting his statement? please share.

Times decreased with all of these drugs in their systems, ergo if they were just on EPO and then incorporated roids in addition to EPO their times would have also decreased.

This is your opinion, or fact? because as we've seen, EPO HELPS increase times, not decrease them. But by all means, please post your factual proof that what you say above is true? No riders who have ever doped didn't do so to boost/enhance their times/results? why dope in the first place then if all it does is "decrease your times" like you claim?

 

[MarkvW]

It's a cocktail, as your buddy notes.

So, what if EPO came first? Roids and uppers would not have been used? Doubtful.

Do you think roid and uppers, with no OOC testing especially, were effective? How much? What do you base that upon?

Fact is there are no controlled studies done comparing any type of doping regime, or a combination of doping regimes. All we have are anecdotes from riders at the onset of the EPO era, and yes the times are quicker. But, those times include other forms of doping in the bodies of the riders, not just EPO.

Times decreased with all of these drugs in their systems, ergo if they were just on EPO and then incorporated roids in addition to EPO their times would have also decreased.

I think many fans want to describe cycling in terms of the "golden age" before EPO and the cleanish era after EPO. In this new myth-making scheme, Lance becomes the demonic symbol of the EPO-era--and the past that we have now left behind.

In other words, the "new generation must be given a chance"; cycling has "turned the page;" and "clean riders can win now." That's all bullshit. Cycling is just as dirty now as it ever was. The dirt is just a different color.

Denialists want to argue that the pre-EPO era was somehow better because the riders rode slower before EPO. That's an unreasonably narrow frame of reference. I'm not sure that former riders who abused amphetamines, pot belge, strychnine, and steroids--to their massive long-term health detriment--would agree that their era was any better than the EPO-era. I suspect top tier cyclists are a little healthier now in the Microdosing Era, but I also suspect that below that top tier the would-be pros are doping as usual in their attempt to make it to the top rank.

Hinault's just mad at Lance because Lance didn't just spit in the soup--he vomited into it. That's all really quite silly because the soup has never, ever, been drinkable.

 

[veganrob]

I think Dr Ferrari has done all the studies on doping. He's just not sharing.

 

[MarkvW]

I think Dr Ferrari has done all the studies on doping. He's just not sharing.

Well said.

 

[Merckx index]

Cite?

Is there a controlled study where a group of athletes, doped up on uppers and roids over a period of time with zero OOC testing and not nearly the scrutiny as present day, is compared to an EPO or blood doping routine?

The 1990s are a pretty good approximation. Check out the times up Alpe, e.g. We don’t know how much blood doping has helped, in fact, it’s different for different riders, but that it has been a game-changer is pretty much beyond dispute. There have also been studies of non-elite riders. I’m very sure no steroid ever improved a rider’s time to exhaustion by 54%.

as we've seen, EPO HELPS increase times, not decrease them. But by all means, please post your factual proof that what you say above is true? No riders who have ever doped didn't do so to boost/enhance their times/results? why dope in the first place then if all it does is "decrease your times" like you claim?

Do you understand that decreasing times means going faster? Time = Distance/Speed.

 

[ralphbert]

LA referred to it as low octane and high octane in regards to anabolics and EPO. Its pretty clear blood manipulation is much more effective than anabolics. In my opinion blood manipulation is also less"fair" than anabolics because with the 50hct ceiling some riders have more scope than others to improve their performance. So you really do have donkey to race horse going on.

 

[Bluenote]

Cite?

Is there a controlled study where a group of athletes, doped up on uppers and roids over a period of time with zero OOC testing and not nearly the scrutiny as present day, is compared to an EPO or blood doping routine?

I didn't think so. I would say it this point maybe you and the clinic posse should STFU, but that won't happen.

Woah there. What's MarkVW gonna think of your 'over the top vulgar attack?'

Put a bitcoin in the Clinic swear jar, buddy.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Denialists want to argue that the pre-EPO era was somehow better because the riders rode slower before EPO.

Wonderboy and the faithful are trying very hard to make every era the same such that wonderboy remains 'a champion' instead of the donkey he actually was.

I have to wonder if Hinault has inside-circ information. It would explain the sudden change in opinion. That's a crazy guess.

 

[MarkvW]

Wonderboy and the faithful are trying very hard to make every era the same such that wonderboy remains 'a champion' instead of the donkey he actually was.

I have to wonder if Hinault has inside-circ information. It would explain the sudden change in opinion. That's a crazy guess.

Lance was a faster bike racer than everybody else at the height of the EPO era. He was faster because he presented the most effective combination of dope, effort, and physical ability. Lance may have been a donkey before the dope, but after the dope he was anything but.

Lance was a champion, albeit a perverted one. In an era rife with undetectable dope cheats, he was the fastest dope cheat. Note that when EPO was undetectable, Lance was dominant.

Whether Lance had "natural ability" or not is irrelevant. The pro peloton was rigged from the outset. A doper was going to win the TdF, the Giro, and the Vuelta in the EPO era. All of the major contenders were dopers. The only question was "Which doper is going to win?"

Your fundamental mistake is that you keep struggling to pretend that professional cycling is a sport, rather than the filthy circus that it actually is.

 

[ChrisE]

The 1990s are a pretty good approximation. Check out the times up Alpe, e.g. We don’t know how much blood doping has helped, in fact, it’s different for different riders, but that it has been a game-changer is pretty much beyond dispute. There have also been studies of non-elite riders. I’m very sure no steroid ever improved a rider’s time to exhaustion by 54%.

C'mon MI...you read what I wrote. I am aware of the faster times after the introduction of EPO.

If EPO had come first, then riders started taking other PEDs in addition to EPO, would that have been a game changer? Surely you can admit times would have been faster after those subsequent PEDs were introduced into their bodies, in addition to EPO. We know that would be true, else why the cocktail of the modern doping regime?

I wrote "controlled studies". What I would find very interesting is the study of 4 groups, showing the progression from clean performance to any increases after introduction of (1) roids (2) EPO (3) roids then add EPO and (4) EPO then add roids.

Do you understand that decreasing times means going faster? Time = Distance/Speed.

PSA: MI reads the screeching, so we don't have to.

 

[ChrisE]

Lance was a faster bike racer than everybody else at the height of the EPO era. He was faster because he presented the most effective combination of dope, effort, and physical ability. Lance may have been a donkey before the dope, but after the dope he was anything but.

Lance was a champion, albeit a perverted one. In an era rife with undetectable dope cheats, he was the fastest dope cheat. Note that when EPO was undetectable, Lance was dominant.

Whether Lance had "natural ability" or not is irrelevant. The pro peloton was rigged from the outset. A doper was going to win the TdF, the Giro, and the Vuelta in the EPO era. All of the major contenders were dopers. The only question was "Which doper is going to win?"

Your fundamental mistake is that you keep struggling to pretend that professional cycling is a sport, rather than the filthy circus that it actually is.

Cue the "B-b-b-b-b-ut, UCI coverup!" card.

Heads up, it will be incoming!

I at least (maybe you?) believe that the UCI coverup and blind eye towards doping started before 99 and continued after his retirement, with a few token exceptions. I have said all along here and elsewhere that the prevailing tendency would be to not catch dopers, due to the adverse affect on the sport vs no AAFs. People want to say that LA had an advantage due to UCI cover....I doubt it because my theory holds water whether we include him or not. Doping = bad press = NG for the public perception of the sport = loss of revenue. Did any other dopers get caught in races that he won, that were competitive? How would that have looked if he was winning 'clean', while his competition he just beat failed tests?

That makes no sense, unless there was this grand coverup we haven't heard about that the whole peloton couldn't dope except LA. One would have to be stupid to think he was the only doper during that era. Even TH and FL I don't believe have stated that LA had an unfair advantage because of UCI.....all we know is LA alerted them to TH and Mayo I believe, and even after that TH has not gone any deeper with the conspiracy. They have both praised LA's ability on the bike as well.

 

[D-Queued]

Lance was a faster bike racer than everybody else at the height of the EPO era. He was faster because he presented the most effective combination of dope, effort, and physical ability. Lance may have been a donkey before the dope, but after the dope he was anything but.

Lance was a champion, albeit a perverted one. In an era rife with undetectable dope cheats, he was the fastest dope cheat. Note that when EPO was undetectable, Lance was dominant.

Whether Lance had "natural ability" or not is irrelevant. The pro peloton was rigged from the outset. A doper was going to win the TdF, the Giro, and the Vuelta in the EPO era. All of the major contenders were dopers. The only question was "Which doper is going to win?"

Your fundamental mistake is that you keep struggling to pretend that professional cycling is a sport, rather than the filthy circus that it actually is.

Cue the "B-b-b-b-b-ut, UCI coverup!" card.

Heads up, it will be incoming!

...

I've got a different, or possibly complementary, angle.

Did the payola stop with the Triple Crown?

That doesn't make sense.

Especially not with the coinage he generated, and was expecting through SCA. And, not with how much each incremental success was worth, which was far, far more to him than anyone else. Kind of like the Triple Crown all over again, only many more times as valuable.

Thus, it seems hard to believe he didn't pay off Basso, for example. That Alpe d'Huez TT was embarrassing.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Cue the "B-b-b-b-b-ut, UCI coverup!" card.

Heads up, it will be incoming!

I at least (maybe you?) believe that the UCI coverup and blind eye towards doping started before 99 and continued after his retirement, with a few token exceptions. I have said all along here and elsewhere that the prevailing tendency would be to not catch dopers, due to the adverse affect on the sport vs no AAFs. People want to say that LA had an advantage due to UCI cover....I doubt it because my theory holds water whether we include him or not. Doping = bad press = NG for the public perception of the sport = loss of revenue. Did any other dopers get caught in races that he won, that were competitive? How would that have looked if he was winning 'clean', while his competition he just beat failed tests?

That makes no sense, unless there was this grand coverup we haven't heard about that the whole peloton couldn't dope except LA. One would have to be stupid to think he was the only doper during that era. Even TH and FL I don't believe have stated that LA had an unfair advantage because of UCI.....all we know is LA alerted them to TH and Mayo I believe, and even after that TH has not gone any deeper with the conspiracy. They have both praised LA's ability on the bike as well.

Yeah. The UCI cover-up card. Really proves that professional cycling isn't a circus, doesn't it?