Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[BroDeal]

Case in point re. reading comprehension. Shouldn't take you long, given my low post count, to find any post of mine that even vaguely defends Armstrong.

Your previous incarnations said enough.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That would help escape detection. But if you take Rasmussen, who got caught by providing false whereabouts, he likely doped for most of his career but he didn't win a string of tours. If he hadn't been caught I doubt he would have won the tour again. Neither did Basso. You can't deny Armstrong had something most of these other riders did not, just as Contador has something most other dopers do not. I think we can recognize this whilst also condemning Armstrong for cheating and making money off tax avoidance. Reality is complex.

Rasmussen should have gone to Ferrari then.
Actually unlike Armstrong at least Rasmussen could climb.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Rasmussen should have gone to Ferrari then.
Actually unlike Armstrong at least Rasmussen could climb.

But he couldn't TT. It would have been a waste of money unless he got an exclusive contract.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you think he was on EPO before 95? Highly doubtful. A doping doctor would only tweek a rider already doping. You wouldn't see the change in performance achieved by Armstrong if he was already doping to any sort of reasonable level.

As I say, we don't have to exaggerateto make him look worse. The case against him should stand on the truth and the truth alone. It would be terrible if we looked as dishonest as he is.

Yes, I do believe he was taking EPO before Ferrari.
You say a doping doctor would only tweak a rider already doping, EPO is a blood booster, that is why you go to hematologist.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But he couldn't TT. It would have been a waste of money unless he got an exclusive contract.

And Armstrong couldn't TT or climb before Ferrari.

 

[aphronesis]

Your previous incarnations said enough.

jumping at shadows there big guy. i'm not that person. i read this thread because i have an interest in seeing how the entire situation is going to play out legally, socially and culturally. at a certain point it goes beyond tedious when all the usuals rehearse the same banal and dehumanizing invectives in lieu of any fresh information. it wasn't interesting when we were children, it isn't now. you feel me "homer?"

 

[Smera1]

And Armstrong couldn't TT or climb before Ferrari.

Ditto. And here is the proof : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Yes, I do believe he was taking EPO before Ferrari.
You say a doping doctor would only tweak a rider already doping, EPO is a blood booster, that is why you go to hematologist.

Is there any evidence he was using EPO before 95? Much harder to come by in those years and very expensive. Performance wise isn't doesn't seem credible. I think you need to pretend he was to makeout he was a rubbish cyclist to make his cheating look even worse than it was.

You don't need a hemotologist to take EPO. It doesn't take a lot of training to use a needle.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Ditto. And here is the proof : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

But Induran was on EPO and Armstrong was not.

This logical flaw in thinking seems quite wide spread. Because Armstrong was only able to beat people on EPO after he started taking EPO, does not mean he could not climb or TT. It just means he wasn't taking EPO.

Update. But it's true that he wasn't training in the same way preFarrari. Tyler Hamilton claimed in his confessional interview that Ferrari transformed the way he trained seperate to dope.

 

[Berzin]

Do you think he was on EPO before 95? Highly doubtful. A doping doctor would only tweek a rider already doping. You wouldn't see the change in performance achieved by Armstrong if he was already doping to any sort of reasonable level.

As I say, we don't have to exaggerate to make him look worse. The case against him should stand on the truth and the truth alone. It would be terrible if we looked as dishonest as he is.

Hey fanboy, do yourself a favor. Before talking about something you know absolutely nothing about, get away from your computer and travel the world a bit.

There is perspective waiting for you out there.

Case in point-a certain Alvaro Mejia, Colombian rider who rode with Armstrong in his early days, will tell you with no uncertainty that Armstrong was just as doped as anyone else while riding for Motorola, pre-cancer and pre-1996 or whenever it was he got sick.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Is there any evidence he was using EPO before 95? Much harder to come by in those years and very expensive. Performance wise isn't doesn't seem credible.

It was readily available without prescription in Switzerland.

No evidence that LA was on EPO in 95 - but it would be quite amazing for a rider to start doping and go straight to the best doping Doctor.

I think you need to pretend he was to makeout he was a rubbish cyclist to make his cheating look even worse than it was.

Sorry, BPC, I never said he was rubbish - just not a Tour winner until Ferrari and paying off others.

You don't need a hemotologist to take EPO. It doesn't take a lot of training to use a needle.

Exactly - its easy to learn how to use a needle, I wounder why Ferrari could charge so much for that? Hmm.

 

[Race Radio]

Troll Babble

Just in time for the charges BPC emerges with another ip address

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Hey fanboy, do yourself a favor. Before talking about something you know absolutely nothing about, get away from your computer and travel the world a bit.

There is perspective waiting for you out there.

Case in point-a certain Alvaro Mejia, Colombian rider who rode with Armstrong in his early days, will tell you with no uncertainty that Armstrong was just as doped as anyone else while riding for Motorola, pre-cancer and pre-1996 or whenever it was he got sick.

Ignoring your adhom, we had already discussed 1995 as a starting point for EPO. Reports from within the team say it was about this time there was a team decision to start using EPO to make it to the other side of the two-speed peloton. But I'm sure he was using testosterone along with everyone else to improve recovery before then, but that is not going to bring large improvements in performance.

 

[Polish]

And Armstrong couldn't TT or climb before Ferrari.

Using the vaunted "Lance could not climb or TT" gambit.
Well played. Ouch. Game Over.

Oh wait, but Lance Never Tested Positive!
Ah ha. Take that! You Fail sorry

 

[MonsterCyclist]

It was readily available without prescription in Switzerland.

No evidence that LA was on EPO in 95 - but it would be quite amazing for a rider to start doping and go straight to the best doping Doctor.


Sorry, BPC, I never said he was rubbish - just not a Tour winner until Ferrari and paying off others.


Exactly - its easy to learn how to use a needle, I wounder why Ferrari could charge so much for that? Hmm.

Yes, that's why I heard as well - no evidence out there to support your claim, and it doesn't make sense from the records either.

As to not being a tour winner until he starting using EPO and changed training. Is that a reason to think he was not good enough to be a tour winner given he was catching up with riders already taking EPO? However much we dislike the business of doping, particularly rife as it was at that time, and we dislike avoiding tax, I see nothing to contradict my original claim he was one of the greats of his era.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Just in time for the charges BPC emerges with another ip address

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm sorry you have taken a dislike to me, but do you have a point to make on the subject matter? I always like to keep it on the issues and keep personal talk out of it. I suspect this forum has rules on that anyway, so best be careful.

 

[MrMaillot]

Using the vaunted "Lance could not climb or TT" gambit.
Well played. Ouch. Game Over.

Oh wait, but Lance Never Tested Positive!
Ah ha. Take that! You Fail sorry

Many people didn't test positive but later were found to have doped. Hence, your argument is invalid. Just because you don't test positive for a banned substance, it does not mean that you haven't doped.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'we had already dismissed 1995 as a starting point for EPO.'...'

Surely we can all agree that someone needed to fix that for you.

 

[Race Radio]

Troll baiting

His teammates say 1994 as when Armstrong started using EPO in addition to his already large doping regime. We also know that clean riders with real GT talent, like Andy Hampsten, were competitive until 1995-96 when EPO became pervasive in the sport

But of course you know this as you have used the same tired bait to troll this board 100's of times.

 

[Velodude]

Hey fanboy, do yourself a favor. Before talking about something you know absolutely nothing about, get away from your computer and travel the world a bit.

There is perspective waiting for you out there.

Case in point-a certain Alvaro Mejia, Colombian rider who rode with Armstrong in his early days, will tell you with no uncertainty that Armstrong was just as doped as anyone else while riding for Motorola, pre-cancer and pre-1996 or whenever it was he got sick.

Also, Stephen Swart, NZ rider with Motorola, testified in a court of law that LA and himself were on EPO in 1995.

Additionally, Betsy & Frankie Andreu gave evidence they witnessed LA admitting to a doctor in the University of Indiana Hospital that prior to contracting cancer he had been on a cocktail of PEDs including EPO.

In 2005 LA claimed he personally made a donation of $1.5m to the same university that coincided with the hospital being unable to identify the doctor(s) in the room that day for the SCA tribunal hearing.

Shades of donations to the UCI.

 

[Velodude]

I agree I beat the horse more than once. Just think it's silly that right away the collusion thing starts rearing up,about how much the UCI is an equal partner in Lance's past. Probably true but if the US feds are going after them in parallel this thing is going to take way longer than 8 years. The people who own the race would be the ones to change the results not an American judge. If it turns out that Lance's partner in crime was the UCI letting one partner go unpunished is an injustice as large as any other. This is a case with no winner,certainly not cycling fans.

So how do you think the UCI should be joined in these expected criminal proceedings by the Feds v LA?

 

[Polish]

Many people didn't test positive but later were found to have doped. Hence, your argument is invalid. Just because you don't test positive for a banned substance, it does not mean that you haven't doped.

But just because you do test positive does not mean you dope.

Several clean riders have never tested positive.
A couple at least.

Hence, YOUR argument is not valid.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ignoring your adhom, we had already discussed 1995 as a starting point for EPO. Reports from within the team say it was about this time there was a team decision to start using EPO to make it to the other side of the two-speed peloton. But I'm sure he was using testosterone along with everyone else to improve recovery before then, but that is not going to bring large improvements in performance.

Reports from within the team... around this time??
Actually those 'reports' were from 1996:

In 2001 Steffen told Irish reporter David Walsh that in 1996 U.S. Postal riders Jemison and Tyler Hamilton had approached him during the Tour of Switzerland looking for information about illegal doping products.

So his own team-mates were well behind LA on the doping front.

I think we can all agree that Lance was on his own separate doping programme with Ferrari by then - so it would also make sense that he was doing EPO before Ferrari, because as you said earlier you wouldn't go to a hematologist just to learn to use a needle.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

His teammates say 1994 as when Armstrong started using EPO in addition to his already large doping regime. We also know that clean riders with real GT talent, like Andy Hampsten, were competitive until 1995-96 when EPO became pervasive in the sport

But of course you know this as you have used the same tired bait to troll this board 100's of times.

You're telling me the experimentation with a blood booster started just one year before the year I stated, yet you're saying this means I'mn a troll? If you can't argue without calling people names to disrupt the discussion, there maybe something wrong with your line of reasoning.

The problem with the anecdotes about this or that rider being competitive, proving Armstrong is not a great rider, is there are other anecdotes that contradict this. Greg LeMond was a great tour winner until EPO came along, but he then struggled terribly. If his career happened a little later, at the same period as Armstrongs, you might well be saying he was crap.

All I'm saying is we have to be sensible about this. There was a two-speed peloton in the early 90s - EPO did not even have a 50%hct rule - that made it very hard for any young rider to compete at the highest level. We should be able to condemn tax avoidance and doping without exaggerating simply to make his wrongdoing look even worse. That only makes us look dishonest as well. Is there anything here that you disagree with?

 

[Topangarider]

Indictments soon

Why is this the received wisdom of the week? Have no reason to doubt it but haven't seen anything to substantiate it either.