I’m unclear on what you say has to do with the super responder myth. Even those arguing it out clinically are already fuzzy on details from the moment.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Wow, you really like playing the long odds, don't you? (nb: sarcasm font needed)And I'd be willing to wager Big Mig was doped to the gills throughout his 5 Tour wins.
Ok, I'll bite: let's see the evidence for the millions paid to hide all the positives. I know it's an essential part of the cathecism for some, but the actual proof for the millions is ... what? The $25,000 (2002) and $100,000 (2005) we know the UCI received? That's ... doing the math here ... I make it ... substantially short of "millions".Except there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives.
Should we allow for machine calibration errors? (joke)
FYI, this PDF has the test results in more detail, for those to whom the additional numbers are meaningful.
Does being at altitude - Colorado Springs - add much here?
I find it hard to believe that those two 1991 scores could have been EPO or blood bags.
Personally, I've always understood that LA was doped from the early 90s, his triathlon-to-cycling transition period. The Strock story suggests Carmichael had a rudimentary doping programme (how much of it was hand-me-down knowledge he'd picked up as a pro and how much of it was him being "the greatest coach in the whole history of coaching" is for others to decide) while Wenzel was little better than the old school witch doctors Dumas dismissed decades earlier. If the sort of junk in Carmichael's flight case could push up your haematocrit then that feels like a plausible explanation.
I can't really believe he only started on testosterone in 1995 when during his time with Motorola Swart has suggested cortisone was freely available. Cortisone, testosterone, this was basic doping in the early 90s, had been been commonplace in the sport for a long time by then.
You have to love the certainty of those who live in a black and white world. If you're not a hater you're a fanboy. If only they'd take their blinkers off they might be able to read and even understand what's really being defended.There are Armstrong fanboys around here, who cant go all-in with their fanboyism openly anymore after all that has been revealed but they are trying to defend what is left.
Ok, I'll bite: let's see the evidence for the millions paid to hide all the positives. I know it's an essential part of the cathecism for some, but the actual proof for the millions is ... what? The $25,000 (2002) and $100,000 (2005) we know the UCI received? That's ... doing the math here ... I make it ... substantially short of "millions".
It's odd how the USADA reasoned decision didn't mention these millions paid to hide all the positives, isn't it? Nor does the CIRC report mention them, for that matter.
Are we going with the story told by the mechanic of the bazillions paid personally to Hein Verbruggen to cover up the 1999 positive with a backdated medical note? Can anyone explain to me how a relatively easy positive to cover up cost bazillions, but the Tour de Suisse tests only cost $25k and the Dauphiné ones $100k? Was there a great depression in doping cover-up costs that drove the price down? Was the market flooded with cheap Chinese and Korean imports, is that it?
Anyone know how much Ty had to pay to cover up that "positive" he got hauled into Aigle about? Millions, was it? Funny he forgot to mention that in his book, even as the truth was setting him free...
Claims of "overwhelming proof" need to be backed up with ... well, any proof would be a good starting point.
Do you have anything stating he didn't dope, besides what your dog told you?Wow, you really like playing the long odds, don't you? (nb: sarcasm font needed)
Which is what exactly? That people here are okay with him being a doper, after a decade of denial?You have to love the certainty of those who live in a black and white world. If you're not a hater you're a fanboy. If only they'd take their blinkers off they might be able to read and even understand what's really being defended.
How do you get "he didn't dope" from anything anyone's posted here?Do you have anything stating he didn't dope, besides what your dog told you?
That was my point. FMK asked where i got the "overwhelming proof" i mentioned earlier and you pretty much answered it. How would anyone think he didnt dope with all the evidence out there?How do you get "he didn't dope" from anything anyone's posted here?
It's really not that hard or earth-shaking: the Andreus, Hamilton, etc reported what they heard and saw. The bribes? None of the witnesses saw them. Their source was Armstrong himself, and if he misremembered or misrepresented the facts, well, you can't blame the folks who gave testimony, but you can't take their testimony as gospel either when we have other data that contradicts their statements.
The TdS test was not an actual positive as per the rules. We KNOW this. And we know how much he "donated". Armstrong either believed it was (the likely scenario IMO), or he decided to misrepresent the whole thing for some cred.
"Have any proof that he didn't do this or that" is an an absurd question to pose. You can't prove a negative. It's equally absurd to say there's "overwhelming proof" of something for which there is no proof. Cop to it instead of throwing random jabs at other folks.
I doubt if you would recognise what I am defending.Or something else you're "defending"?
Your original statement was that "there was overwhelming proof that Cancer Jesus doped @ extremely high levels, and that he paid millions to hide all the positives". Acknowledging that Armstrong doped doesn't address at all the "extremely high levels" or "paid millions" claims of which the first one is debatable (there was nothing unusual in his known arsenal vs. the other junkies of his era) and there appears to exist zero proof for these bribes of millions to the UCI.
To acknowledge that semi-clean Armstrong of 1994-95 had to take the full doping program in order to compete against the other dopers also doesn't address at all the question how he would've performed in a clean peloton.
Seems kind of odd he was more than willing to pay ANYONE "$300k to say they saw LeMond dope"(which no one came forward to accept by the way), and he wouldn't pay millions to hide his lies for over a decade? Lol. Believe what you want, like him if you choose, makes no difference to me. I'll continue coming here & posting the hilarious, narccissistic info from anything that guy does.Are you saying 100% you dont believe that he paid millions to hide any positives he had, or there was no overwhelming evidence that he didn't dope at extremely high levels? Or that he ran "the most sophisticated doping program in all of american sports? Do tell
Seems Wonderboy still has loyal fans?
Do a favour for your trustworthiness and read the links before using flawed paraphrased quotations. The article is only about one trio of races of which the bonus was one million, but you imply that Ochowicz paid "million(s)" to win one million which (as usual) Armstrong pocketed instantly and got the discounted present value of something like $600.000 over the stream of future payments.Here's your messiah talking about how Jim Ochowicz "paid million(s)to have them lose all three races in favor of Wonderboy".
You took the words right out of my mouth.Believe what you think, makes no difference to me.
This is a fair summary of where I'm from, I'd say. I care more about doping than I do about those who doped.To summarise my position and interest in the case: I "like" Armstrong in the same manner as someone "likes" the commandants of the Majdanek extermination camp if he/she points out to someone that the initial and widely circulated body toll of 1.38 million is wrong and too high and the current estimate is around 78.000 death people.
It is easy to see that David Walsh didn't fully understand what Donati meant when the Irishman focused heavily on his story about Lance Armstrong (a task that took occasionally much more courage than people today can even imagine).David Walsh met Sandro Donati one time, early into the pursuit of Armstrong:
"Sandro told me something important: going after Lance Armstrong couldn't be what it was all about because the bigger picture was what mattered. Cycling was far more important than one competitor and if you pursue one and become too associated with that pursuit, that is not good."
Walsh's contributions to the doping debate are invaluable: so much was learned through his articles, so much was learned through LA Confidentiel and From Lance to Landis. Betsy Andreu, Jonathan Vaughters, they probably would have found someone else to tell their stories to had Walsh not come along, but that does not take away from his contributions (Stephen Swart had already told his tale before Walsh came along, and little good did that do). The way he used Emma O'Reilly I'm still not sure how I feel about. But in the early and mid-noughties convincing the many who believed that the few who didn't were not crazy wasn't easy and neither side followed Marquess of Queensberry rules. Liberties had to be taken.It is easy to see that David Walsh didn't fully understand what Donati meant when the Irishman focused heavily on his story about Lance Armstrong (a task that took occasionally much more courage than people today can even imagine).
Walsh was the one breaking the norms of accepted behaviour more so than Armstrong was. And for this I do salute him, even as I criticise him."When the detective in a police romance stands alone, and somewhat fatuously fearless amid the knives and fists of a thieves' kitchen, it does certainly serve to make us remember that it is the agent of social justice who is the original and poetic figure, while the burglars and footpads are merely placid old cosmic conservatives, happy in the immemorial respectability of apes and wolves. The romance of the police force is thus the whole romance of man. It is based on the fact that morality is the most dark and daring of conspiracies."
Armstrong was outright vindictive; even if it eventually did not create some equivalency for his "legacy". He still throws that common usage comparison out in space like he didn't have both the UCI and a huge budget advantage in his pursuit of doped wins. Hamilton, Landis had the audacity to challenge his primacy by going to other teams. He really couldn't help himself....that's where his self-belief was his undoing.Walsh's contributions to the doping debate are invaluable: so much was learned through his articles, so much was learned through LA Confidentiel and From Lance to Landis. Betsy Andreu, Jonathan Vaughters, they probably would have found someone else to tell their stories to had Walsh not come along, but that does not take away from his contributions (Stephen Swart had already told his tale before Walsh came along, and little good did that do). The way he used Emma O'Reilly I'm still not sure how I feel about. But in the early and mid-noughties convincing the many who believed that the few who didn't were not crazy wasn't easy and neither side followed Marquess of Queensberry rules. Liberties had to be taken.
That said, I've somewhat nailed my colours to the mast on Walsh and subsequent contributions from him - Inside Team Sky and ghosting Froome's chamoir - suggest that understanding the difference between Walsh 1.0 (the nouvelle Éire era) and Walsh 2.0 (after the Fall) are necessary. In many ways, the man has reverted to type. And he himself, even more so in recent years than during his dogged pursuit of Armstrong and Armstrong alone, has painted a picture of doping beginning and ending with the American. That is where he really missed Donati's advice: Donati was able to go after Conconi without it feeling like it was all about Conconi, Walsh - then and now - has made it feel like it was all about the Texan, that Armstrong was the alpha and the omega of doping.
Walsh and Armstrong, they are linked in the morality angle you offer. GK Chesterton wrote this about detective fiction and in many ways it is appropriate to Walsh and Armstrong:Walsh was the one breaking the norms of accepted behaviour more so than Armstrong was. And for this I do salute him, even as I criticise him.
On the morality of Armstrong's actions, a book worth looking out for in a library is Doping in Elite Sports – Voices of French Sportspeople and their Doctors 1950-2010 , by Christophe Brissonneau and Jeffrey Montez de Oca (it's one of those shockingly expensive academic books). It looks, in part, at the social structures surrounding doping and anti-doping, makes the point (similar to Chesterton's above) that those who doped were simply playing by the rules of the game, the unwritten ones (let's accept that pre-Festina, and possibly even up to Cofidis or Puerto, the authorities weren't really fighting doping, they were simply trying to make it look like they were fighting doping). The level playing field. But - and this is important - while Armtrong's doping may be characterised as having been a level playing field his defence of it most certainly was not and, for many people, it is and always will be the manner in which Armstrong sought to cover up his doping that was a far bigger crime than the doping itself.
Here, then, I would question whether Armstrong dropping the dime on Hamilton and others was really morally acceptable. He hadn't become a rebel and changed sides, he wasn't doing like Jesús Manzano (the man who birthed Operación Puerto), taking up arms. On that one, I think you have to judge him by his motivations (which were not morally good) rather than the (morally good) outcomes they may have produced.
That is most certainly not what I am doing and represents a complete misreading of the recent conversation here.we're debating the fine points in an attempt to redefine the era's strongest riders.