• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement)

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 29, 2016
261
19
3,060
I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof Big Miggy doped, oh and Hinault as well. It's been going on weeks now, wonder why no one's posted it as of yet? Would it be because Neither exists?(AGAIN for those reading, remember, it's got to be something CREDIBLE/VERIFIABLE...
Is Greg LeMond's opinion about the impossibility to win in 1991 and later good enough proof that Big Mig doped for you?
 
Do you understand that the EPO test didn't arrive until 2001, so proof of EPO use for ANY rider who retired before then (or before 1998, when retroactive testing was applied) is almost impossible to come by? Even the HT test only came into use in 1997 (shortly after Indurain retired).

Why do we know that Riis doped? Because he admitted it.

Why do we know that Ullrich, Pantani and LA doped? Because their careers extended into a period when WADA had a fighting chance of catching them.

In fact, of all the riders who won the TDF, Giro or Vuelta in the 1990s, everyone except Mauri either: a) was sanctioned for doping; or b) retired before the HT and EPO tests were used. We don't know about Mauri, but his Veulta win came early in the decade, 1991, and was at the least the product of considerable luck, including being a member of a very strong TTT, and having a key mountain stage cancelled because of wealther.

Asking for the same standard to be applied to Indurain as was applied to riders like LA and Ullrich is totally inappropriate. It can't be. What we can conclude is that he rode during a period when we know there was heavy use of EPO; virtually all of the GT winners of that period who were still around when the HT or EPO test became possible were shown to have doped. There is very strong reason to believe that Indurain, who dominated GT s more than any other rider in that decade, was not clean, and had he not retired when he did, there was a good chance of this being established with a positive test.

Apologists for presumed dopers routinely hide behind the false premise that if there is no positive test, then we can't conclude anything about doping, and must let the matter rest. In fact, reams of evidence make it very clear that the the default conclusion has to be doping until proven otherwise. Just because WADA demands a very rigorous standard to sanction someone doesn't mean that we on a forum can't use logic and strong if circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion that doping is far more likely than not.
Good post! I agree.
 
Aug 29, 2016
261
19
3,060
Umm, maybe. Have a link?
It is well known that LeMond thinks that EPO increased speeds post-1990 so much that he couldn't compete, but it is in the book "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle where LeMond tells the following specifically:
I look 1991 as the crossroads in EPO use... There were propably sixty or seventy guys that year on EPO. I looked at my team, who'd won the race overall the previous year, and the difference between us and the dopers got more and more pronounced as the race went on...
When you take the spread between a guy whose [Hct] level drops to thirty-eight percent, compared to a guy who's racing at fifty-five per cent, and then run that over a three-week race - where the difference becomes increasingly pronounced - no matter how talented the first rider is, there's no way he's able to compete against the guy who's taking EPO.
Funny that you described a person with those views as "a wonderboy troll" earlier when you didn't know it was LeMond whose opinion I was referring to.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI and yaco
And I'd be willing to wager Big Mig was doped to the gills throughout his 5 Tour wins.
How much is riding on this bet, offered only a couple of months ago?

This really does begin to look like 86TDFWinner is just trolling the forum, disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, or for the sake of stopping the attempts to compare the doping of others with that of Armstrong.
 
To try and bring this back to Armstrong;
That Lance Armstrong was the biggest, baddest doper in the whole history of doping, how about we start showing some evidence to support this. Putting aside a century and a half of history, let's focus for now solely on the Gen-EPO era, how does Armstrong's doping compare to Indurain, for instance? The Texan, he had Ferrari, the Spaniard, he had Padilla. Now I do seem to recall that Ferrari was allowed to freelance with riders on other teams even while he was Armstrong's go-to guy, but you know I don't recall Banesto ever letting Padilla go work with anyone other than their riders. So, when it comes to an unlevel playing field, Ferrari's a bit of a divot while Padilla's a whole ha-ha, wouldn't you agree?
That was the question I asked at the end of August. This is part of the reply it elicited:
Also, Do you have any CREDIBLE/verifiable proof that Indurain doped?
Since then, we've been visiting the Upside Down. But how 'bout we take this back to what was asked: Sabino Padilla versus Michele Ferrari.

Padilla had studied sports science in the 80s and had focused on the key area of the time, aerobic and anaerobic abilities, the entry point into the world of O2 vector doping. Before Padilla came along, Reynolds/Banesto/Movistar had been getting advice from Ferrara, from Conconi himself. After Padilla left, Reynolds/Banesto/Movistar publicly talked about going back to Ferrara, to some of Conconi's apprentices.

Having the right skills at the right time for O2 vector doping, some can dismiss that, as they can the sources of knowledge before and after Padilla's time. The Davy testimony, however, that seems to tell us that Padilla did dope his riders. Commonsense, well that tells us that Reynolds/Banesto/Movistar was not a clean team, there's a through line from Ángel Arroyo to Alejandro Valverde. Indurain himself, he's reached the point where he doesn't deny doping, he just bats the question away like a mosquito.

Padilla and Ferrari, they had comparable skillsets. Ferrari, he had other clients as well as Armstrong/USPS. Padilla, though, he was pretty much limited to Reynolds/Banesto/Movistar, wasn't he? There was a marathon runner, Martín Fiz, who I think was at some stage investigated for doping (anyone know the outcome and who was his doc at the time?). There was also a basketball club he was involved with for a season. But in order to work outside of Reynolds/Banesto/Movistar's riders, he left and joined Athletic Bilbao (any soccer fans know if there was any proven doping during his time there?)

The point about all of this is relatively trivial, it's about the notion of a mythical level playing field, and whether an unlevel field is more level where the knowledge is being shared around a bit (Ferrari) or less level when it's being corralled in one team (Padilla). It doesn't excuse Ferrari or make light of his contribution to doping. It asks us to really consider how unlevel people like Padilla made the field.
 
Nah, This is an Armstrong thread, here you go Wonderboy fanboi! More Wonderboy goodness. Remember, He didn't dope, honestly, how come? He "was on his bike 6 hours a day & was tested 947 times & never 1 positive. He could get 10 people to say you doped too Greg"(upon offering up the princely sum of $300k I believe it was to ANYONE who'd say they saw him(Greg)dope too- no one took him up on his generous offer-it was crickets chirp from everyone, including his dog).

You might want to seek counseling for this.
 
Do you have a source for Walsh saying Wiggins was clean? I have a source for Walsh saying he was a cheat.
Back before he was a cheat. Walsh was on board with the clean team right? After that he jumped on the pummel wagon. I'm talking pre. that point where his opinion shifted. I like to ignore him doing that to clean wiggins. I think walsh only did that so he could keep up appearances.

Walsh is such a beacon and champion for integrity of journalism.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
[Padilla] left and joined Athletic Bilbao (any soccer fans know if there was any proven doping during his time there?)
There's not any firm evidence of team-wide doping at Athletic as far as I know, but in 2002, with Padilla at the head of the team's medical services, their player Carlos Gurpegi tested positive for nandrolone. He eventually received a two-year suspension. Both the team and Padilla vehemently defended Gurpegi until the very end and he returned to the team after his ban.

Given the state of antidoping controls in football and Padilla's pre-existing reputation*, this is usually interpreted by Spanish analogues of The Clinic as a sign that there was team-wide doping at Athletic around that time.

*He didn't earn his nickname Sabino Pastilla ("pill") for nothing.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
To try and bring this back to Armstrong;


The point about all of this is relatively trivial, it's about the notion of a mythical level playing field, and whether an unlevel field is more level where the knowledge is being shared around a bit (Ferrari) or less level when it's being corralled in one team (Padilla). It doesn't excuse Ferrari or make light of his contribution to doping. It asks us to really consider how unlevel people like Padilla made the field.
Add to your insight was the unbalanced team budgets that allowed one team to lock down much of the competition as domestiques (think of Floyd riding away from Armstrong). Add to that a very cozy UCI relationship and you have a completely unbalanced situation. Revisionists don't want to complicate their theories with the historical facts.
Current day programs are much harder to manage after the fall of Lance. The singular benefit of his participation IMO.
 
Lets see it?
You're one hell of an act. You pivot from damning Indurain for doping to demanding of others proof for your own claim he doped. Now you can't work out how to use a hyperlink.

How 'bout we get back to the topic(s) you keep trying to derail? (Padilla versus LA's doping doc, or the legal supplement you accuse your Betty Noor of using, L-Carnatine. You choose.)
 
You're one hell of an act. You pivot from damning Indurain for doping to demanding of others proof for your own claim he doped. Now you can't work out how to use a hyperlink.

How 'bout we get back to the topic(s) you keep trying to derail? (Padilla versus LA's doping doc, or the legal supplement you accuse your Betty Noor of using, L-Carnatine. You choose.)
I do? I've asked FROM THE BEGINNING of your nonsense, to asking you(or ANYONE) to please provide any credible/verifiable source(s) that show or prove Indurain and LeMond have doped @ ANY time in their careers, and its been nothing but silence and deflection from you and everyone else.

I'll ask AGAIN, Please provide 1/any credible/verifiable source(s) claiming either doped? Times, dates, who administered said drugs, dosages, when, where, etc?


AGAIN, You or whomever can PM that info to me if you prefer. Stop ignoring/deflecting and provide what I've asked you for at least 6 times now. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Lets see it? I believe you on this.
Lmao! You cant help yourself can you, youre either trolling or youre just not smart enough to let it go. You have to keep responding to this, so I'll do us both a favor and say this will.be my last post on the subject.

Please provide the info I've asked you for 7 times now, we both know you wont, because you don't have said info, likely because neither happened to neither rider & that would confirm what I've mentioned earlier.


Please move on from the thread, or at the very least, stop responding to MY posts. It keeps things simple that way. Keep responding? You'll get no answer from me going forward, so you'd be essentially proving my point that you're a troll and that you'd be wasting your time.

I'm tired of talking to you about this, as it's obvious you just want to troll & refuse to provde any of the info I've asked you for.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: fmk_RoI
It is well known that LeMond thinks that EPO increased speeds post-1990 so much that he couldn't compete, but it is in the book "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle where LeMond tells the following specifically:

Funny that you described a person with those views as "a wonderboy troll" earlier when you didn't know it was LeMond whose opinion I was referring to.
Even funnier, is that you equate that second quote from me, i never posted that.

Instead of trying to one up me, why not try quoting what I actually DID say before posting?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS