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

[nevele neves]

Current history aside you're welcome to the generalized opinion.
When I reference the opinions or confirmations from riders that I know, trained/raced with, coached or represented in contract negotiations I have a real sense of their honesty. There are riders that went an entire pro career without doping and there are current riders that are clean. The two Americans on Jumbo are among them according to guys around here that raced with them. I can tell you that they displayed their true talent when they were juniors so I'm going to "suggest" that they aren't suspicious until someone like you puts in the research to prove otherwise. 86TDF may have another path, though. Not sure.

That is a very narrow way to think about cycling considering the history of it all.
Sad that you mention how you know these guys are clean and then talk about poloticians in another thread as most have doped. Its the exact same thing No?

 

[aphronesis]

You Wonderboy disciples are some butthurt folks.

Feel free to keep supporting him. I can't believe some here are still trying to defend him & what he did.

Your choice. I'm just going to continue posting Wonderboy related articles and so forth here.

Time to move on.

By all means you should post new information. It’s not clear what anything else you say has to do with the “post” “confession” situation.

Like a few others on this board I’d suggest you spend time with the concepts of repression, projection and identification. But hey

 

[Oldermanish]

That is a very narrow way to think about cycling considering the history of it all.
Sad that you mention how you know these guys are clean and then talk about poloticians in another thread as most have doped. Its the exact same thing No?

You again have problem with deductive analysis. I believe Lemond did not dope based on reliable people. I couldn't prove either way whether he didn't or did. Nor can you so this is a waste of one of our time. fmk_Rol was absolutely correct about noteworthy clean riders. Still you find no room for belief and no possible knowledge or proof to back it up. You do seem capable of cut/paste responses.

When I spoke of politicians actions I wasn't speaking about one person, a race, a nationality or gender. I was joking about a group of public figures that occasionally are forced to admit they are the same as everyone else. Although one disappointing guy admitted to "smoking...pot...but not inhaling". A cowardly and stupid admission.

In any case; one example was based on personal experience and analysis. The other case was a lame attempt at a joke about no particular person so, no. Not the same thing.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Chesterton: "the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it."

 

[86TDFWinner]

By all means you should post new information. It’s not clear what anything else you say has to do with the “post” “confession” situation.

Like a few others on this board I’d suggest you spend time with the concepts of repression, projection and identification. But hey

Thanks for your advice....time to move on.

I'm sure you find it difficult to figure stuff out that's posted here, so that's not at all surprising.

 

[Aragon]

The cyclist who implicitly thought that Indurain was on EPO was Greg LeMond quoted in Bad Blood by Jeremy Whittle.

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.

 

[aphronesis]

It’s true. I do struggle with legal adults who say things like “butthurt” and pass it off as discourse. But that really says more about them than me.

Michelob Was Really Early to This Whole Marketing 'Beer as Wellness' Trend

From an organic beer to collaborating on custom sneakers for the New York City marathon.

www.google.com

 

[Unchained]

Aphro..as an enormous favor to me. One that is not owed to me in any way..
please elaborate on when,where and why you listened to someone say "butthurt" . On additionally..no matter the facts..please tell me it was somewhere in Brooklyn. Preferably Park Slope or Prospect Heights..
Do tell.

 

[aphronesis]

Some tough guy upthread.

 

[42x16ss]

Right and I don't believe a word any one of them says.
I only started watching cycling because of the current clean era , for example wiggans and frooms.

Wigans and Froome? Cleans?

For a second I thought you were a Wonderlance impersonator, lol.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Wigans and Froome? Cleans?

For a second I thought you were a Wonderlance impersonator, lol.

Lmao! None of those three are the cleans

 

[86TDFWinner]

Wigans and Froome? Cleans?

For a second I thought you were a Wonderlance impersonator, lol.

Lmao! None of those three are the cleans

It’s true. I do struggle with legal adults who say things like “butthurt” and pass it off as discourse. But that really says more about them than me.

Michelob Was Really Early to This Whole Marketing 'Beer as Wellness' Trend

From an organic beer to collaborating on custom sneakers for the New York City marathon.

www.google.com

I believe you struggle with more than just that as a functioning adult.

 

[hrotha]

What kind of twisted measuring stick allows you to ridicule the notion of Froome or Wiggins being clean while indignantly asking for proof that Indurain doped?

 

[nevele neves]

Thanks for your advice....time to move on.

I'm sure you find it difficult to figure stuff out that's posted here, so that's not at all surprising.

Time to move on? Maybe take ones own suggestion?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Time to move on? Maybe take ones own suggestion?

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).

Feds chasing Lance Armstrong's ex-manager in Spain for $1.2 million

The U.S. government is trying to collect a $1.2 million judgement against Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong's ex-manager who is now living in Spain.

www.usatoday.com

 

[86TDFWinner]

What kind of twisted measuring stick allows you to ridicule the notion of Froome or Wiggins being clean while indignantly asking for proof that Indurain doped?

Do you have proof neither have? I dont know either way myself, so i can't give you something I don't have, but i wouldnt be at all surprised if either were or did. They've had Wonderboy type excuses and explanations for their results IIRC. 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, not something your best friends, sisters, cousins, step uncle in law told you @ a family gathering, something we can easily look up and verify)

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Seeing as I'm usually slow on the uptake when it comes to cycling -

May I ask where this thread is going and what the point of it is right now?

(Thought it had to do with Lance?)

 

[Oldermanish]

Seeing as I'm usually slow on the uptake when it comes to cycling -

May I ask where this thread is going and what the point of it is right now?

(Thought it had to do with Lance?)

It seems to have left Austin w/o Lance and is in a constant loop. Jacked by someone?

 

[Merckx index]

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?

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.

 

[Aragon]

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?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Is Greg LeMond's opinion about the impossibility to win in 1991 and later good enough proof that Big Mig doped for you?

Umm, maybe. Have a link?

 

[86TDFWinner]

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.

 

[Aragon]

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.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.