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

[MonsterCyclist]

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

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.

Yeah I agree he was probably using EPO from 95. That's what I said, isn't it? Are you still claiming it was Ferrari's doping magic that won seven tours, even though no other rider he has helped, pre LA or after, has won the tour? And lets not forget, Armstrong got third at 37, after a long period of retirement, dispite not having an exclusive contract with Ferrari any longer.

It is possible to be against doping and tax cheating, whilst thinking LA definitely deserves to be regarded as as great of his era.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?

Then start acting sensibly.
Check out how a clean Hampsten did against LA in the early 90's.

 

[Berzin]

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.

Please don't repeat this outside the Cyclingnews community. It ruins the "awesomeness" factor that Armstrong wears like a halo.

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.

Ah, another self-appointed "expert" in the field of doping.

 

[Race Radio]

Yeah I agree he was probably using EPO from 95. That's what I said, isn't it? Are you still claiming it was Ferrari's doping magic that won seven tours, even though no other rider he has helped, pre LA or after, has won the tour? And lets not forget, Armstrong got third at 37, after a long period of retirement, dispite not having an exclusive contract with Ferrari any longer.

It is possible to be against doping and tax cheating, whilst thinking LA definitely deserves to be regarded as as great of his era.

Wrong. Ferrari worked with Pantani when he won the double.

The best example of Ferrari's work is Gewiss. After he started working with them they completely dominated the 1994 season. His pharmacology, couple with the limited access to EPO for the rest of the field, made them winners

But of course you know this as you have used the same garbage to troll this forum for years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yeah I agree he was probably using EPO from 95. That's what I said, isn't it? Are you still claiming it was Ferrari's doping magic that won seven tours, even though no other rider he has helped, pre LA or after, has won the tour? And lets not forget, Armstrong got third at 37, after a long period of retirement, dispite not having an exclusive contract with Ferrari any longer.

Its what you said BPC, not what I said - I believe he would have been on EPO prior to that.

Yes, until LA started working with Ferrari in 1995 he showed no sign of being able to ride consistently in a GT.

It is possible to be against doping and tax cheating, whilst thinking LA definitely deserves to be regarded as as great of his era.

Ok then - he's is the greatest tax cheater and doping cyclist of his era.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

babble

I am saying you are a troll because you have been banned here over 200 times and continue to return with the same garbage that has been disproven 100's of times

On this we can all agree

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Then start acting sensibly.
Check out how a clean Hampsten did against LA in the early 90's.

Check paragraph above.

 

[Berzin]

The best example of Ferrari's work is Gewiss. After he started working with them they completely dominated the 1994 season. His pharmacology, couple with the limited access to EPO for the rest of the field, made them winners

But of course you know this as you have used the same garbage to troll this forum for years.

Wasn't Ferrari also with the Ariostea team in 1993, the year Riis came in 5th and was riding with the top climbers for the first time in his life in a grand tour?

I always thought the EPO era began with a certain Claudio Chiapucci at the 1990 Tour de France, the beginning of the so-called Italian "Renaissance" in pro cycling.

A certain washed-up Moreno Argentin also began working with Ferrari sometime in the early 1990's. Argentin credits Ferarri with putting him on a proper program, but never to my knowledge went into details about PED use.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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

There is a good chance that they will be indicted or named as unindicted co-conspirators. LOL! Homage to Tricky ****(Richard)

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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?

Or maybe Lemond would have been the honest, realistic pro that Hampsten was.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Wrong. Ferrari worked with Pantani when he won the double.

The best example of Ferrari's work is Gewiss. After he started working with them they completely dominated the 1994 season. His pharmacology, couple with the limited access to EPO for the rest of the field, made them winners

But of course you know this as you have used the same garbage to troll this forum for years.

You didn't need to include that last sentence. Adds nothing to the discussion.

Did Ferrari have an exclusive contract with Pantani? He couldn't have won without that.

The case of Gewiss is rather different. As you point out, access to EPO was limited to the rest of the field in this period. A rider could be transformed - there wasn't even a 50% hematocrit rule. It shows you what a young rider like Armstrong was up against in the tours. It must have been a difficult choice for all young riders of the period if they wanted to succeed in the sport.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

That's what I thought I had read before, while skimming these worn out "arguments".

I thought he started using Ferrari in 95, so why didn't he win the tour in 94 or 95 since EPO made him a racehorse from a donkey?

Also, why did GL start losing in 91 if EPO wasn't prevalent until 95? I thought the EPO doped peloton was his kryptonite? You guys are all over the map, and a year ago in a thread everybody was twisted up into knots trying to say EPO wasn't around so AH could still perform, but it was around because GL could no longer perform lol.

Now it is 95 to support the LA argument of the day and to dismiss any suspicion about another squeaky clean American hero that performed in the EPO era, but got his azz kicked except in 2 GT's in 86 and 88, prior to it's introduction. Yes, natural talent whose career got derailed by EPO lol.

I'm sure Romminger wasn't on EPO in 93 or whatever year that was he was pushing Indurain. 1995 lol.

There is so much fail in your post RR it is even below your standard level of fail. Still looking forward to your's and hog's predictions about news early this week.

 

[Race Radio]

That's what I thought I had read before, while skimming these worn out "arguments".

I thought he started using Ferrari in 95, so why didn't he win the tour in 94 or 95 since EPO made him a racehorse from a donkey?

Also, why did GL start losing in 91 if EPO wasn't prevalent until 95? I thought the EPO doped peloton was his kryptonite? You guys are all over the map, and a year ago in a thread everybody was twisted up into knots trying to say EPO wasn't around so AH could still perform, but it was around because GL could no longer perform lol.

Now it is 95 to support the LA argument of the day and to dismiss any suspicion about another squeaky clean American hero that performed in the EPO era, but got his azz kicked except in 2 GT's in 86 and 88, prior to it's introduction. Yes, natural talent whose career got derailed by EPO lol.

I'm sure Romminger wasn't on EPO in 93 or whatever year that was he was pushing Indurain. 1995 lol.

There is so much fail in your post RR it is even below your standard level of fail. Still looking forward to your's and hog's predictions about news early this week.

Chris....do you really need to ask these questions, they have been answered so many times?

 

[Velodude]

Yeah I agree he was probably using EPO from 95. That's what I said, isn't it? Are you still claiming it was Ferrari's doping magic that won seven tours, even though no other rider he has helped, pre LA or after, has won the tour? And lets not forget, Armstrong got third at 37, after a long period of retirement, dispite not having an exclusive contract with Ferrari any longer.

It is possible to be against doping and tax cheating, whilst thinking LA definitely deserves to be regarded as as great of his era.

Ferrari was banned from providing professional services to athletes for life as a result of a 2002 Italian court decision. No reason for any athlete to trumpet Ferrari's benefits or that it be known Ferrari was behind any sporting success or that an exclusive contract existed.

It has recently been claimed through visuals and phone taps that Armstrong still was in contact with Ferrari but only in defense as "friends". The "training" association is with Ferrari's son who is claimed to operate the 53x12 website.

Remember that in March 2009 Armstrong breached dope testing rules by delaying his drug testing by having a shower while his assistants disputed the drug testers credentials. Enough time to neutralise/mask any presence of a PED. Only LA could have got away with such behavior.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Check paragraph above.

Seeing as you haven't checked out the early Tours, let me help you make a sensible observation.

Tour 1993 - the one where LA knew he would be going home after the Alps so he was able to leave it all on the road.

How did he do against Hampsten?

Stage 10
1st Rominger 5h 28'52
4th Hampsten @ 1'13.
...
86th Armstrong @ 21'42

Stage 11
1st Rominger 5h 41'03
9th Hampsten @ 3'06
....
97th Armstrong @ 28'07.

 

[Benotti69]

Chris....do you really need to ask these questions, they have been answered so many times?

Some feel safety in numbers. Polish is away with the fairies but now new recruits have arrived......

 

[ChrisE]

Chris....do you really need to ask these questions, they have been answered so many times?

You are the one that stated something stupid like EPO started being widespread in 95, to the bane of AH.

No, I know the answers just like you do. I was just asking them to point out the absurd inconsistencies used just to smear LA on your part.

 

[MonsterCyclist]

That's what I thought I had read before, while skimming these worn out "arguments".

I thought he started using Ferrari in 95, so why didn't he win the tour in 94 or 95 since EPO made him a racehorse from a donkey?

Also, why did GL start losing in 91 if EPO wasn't prevalent until 95? I thought the EPO doped peloton was his kryptonite? You guys are all over the map, and a year ago in a thread everybody was twisted up into knots trying to say EPO wasn't around so AH could still perform, but it was around because GL could no longer perform lol.

Now it is 95 to support the LA argument of the day and to dismiss any suspicion about another squeaky clean American hero that performed in the EPO era, but got his azz kicked except in 2 GT's in 86 and 88, prior to it's introduction. Yes, natural talent whose career got derailed by EPO lol.

I'm sure Romminger wasn't on EPO in 93 or whatever year that was he was pushing Indurain. 1995 lol.

There is so much fail in your post RR it is even below your standard level of fail. Still looking forward to your's and hog's predictions about news early this week.

Excellent points. There are lots of different ways of looking at these events and fitting them into grander narratives. It's just a shame some are so closed minded they can only tolerate their own view and believe their opinions to be superior, even though their views are not based on anything remotely consisting of hard logical analysis. I wouldn't mind if I was proposing some kooky outside the box theory, and what they were saying was grounded in indisputable evidence. But that quite obviously is not the case.

I guess this happens when people only hang around with those that agree with them about everything.

 

[ChrisE]

Some feel safety in numbers. Polish is away with the fairies but now new recruits have arrived......

Yes, I am a new sock puppet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Excellent points. There are lots of different ways of looking at these events and fitting them into grander narratives. It's just a shame some are so closed minded they can only tolerate their own view and believe their opinions to be superior, even though their views are not based on anything remotely consisting of hard logical analysis. I wouldn't mind if I was proposing some kooky outside the box theory, and what they were saying was grounded in indisputable evidence. But that quite obviously is not the case.

I guess this happens when people only hang around with those that agree with them about everything.

Well you could certainly help the highlighted if you provided some of your "hard logical facts" - but I have never seen you produce any.

Yes, I am a new sock puppet.

Nah, you're an old sockpuppet

 

[MonsterCyclist]

Seeing as you haven't checked out the early Tours, let me help you make a sensible observation.

Tour 1993 - the one where LA knew he would be going home after the Alps so he was able to leave it all on the road.

How did he do against Hampsten?

Stage 10
1st Rominger 5h 28'52
4th Hampsten @ 1'13.
...
86th Armstrong @ 21'42

Stage 11
1st Rominger 5h 41'03
9th Hampsten @ 3'06
....
97th Armstrong @ 28'07.

Thanks, but the LeMond example I gave gives a great example. Riders are different. For some riders they find it very difficult to ride their own race against opposition that is much better due to doping. Even without dope, LeMond's talents should have seen him a high place finished in the early 90s, but he suffered much worse than his natural position. Despite LA's arrogant image, I think he is a confidence rider psychologically deep down - it really winds him up if he is not the best.

We also often see great riders collapsing - look at Evans a few years ago. What's more, you're comparing neopro with someone very experienced - these direct comparions with performance can be very misleading. You don't know what type of training they were doing or anything. A great rider like LeMond, who was massively overtraining to try to be competitive, saw his performance collapse.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, I am a new sock puppet.

a sockpuppet and a tired old argument......

 

[Race Radio]

You are the one that stated something stupid like EPO started being widespread in 95, to the bane of AH.

No, I know the answers just like you do. I was just asking them to point out the absurd inconsistencies used just to smear LA on your part.

Zero inconstancy.

Most who have followed the sport for years know that EPO was not widespread in 91, 92, even 93. The few who had access to it saw huge benefits and were suddenly at the head of the field. Clean Riders who were on the podium were suddenly 10th. This had little effect on riders like Armstrong who could not even finish the race.

Ferrari developed innovative doping programs that combined not only the oxygen carrying capabilities of EPO but also the ergogenic capabilities of hormones and steroids. The sudden domination of Gweiis show what access to this doping program could do.

I have not seen anyone say that it was only EPO that made Armstrong win Tours after not being able to finish them. It is clear that he responded very well to Ferrari's doping schedule.

Before some fool starts saying it was all hard work and intervals remember what Virenque said

teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing.

 

[Polish]

Thanks, but the LeMond example I gave gives a great example. Riders are different. For some riders they find it very difficult to ride their own race against opposition that is much better due to doping. Even without dope, LeMond's talents should have seen him a high place finished in the early 90s, but he suffered much worse than his natural position. Despite LA's arrogant image, I think he is a confidence rider psychologically deep down - it really winds him up if he is not the best.

We also often see great riders collapsing - look at Evans a few years ago. What's more, you're comparing neopro with someone very experienced - these direct comparions with performance can be very misleading. You don't know what type of training they were doing or anything. A great rider like LeMond, who was massively overtraining to try to be competitive, saw his performance collapse.

Good points except the part about Greg massively overtraining in the early 90's.
I seem to recall him getting a bit chunking and losing focus.
Maybe undertraining. Sick too.

And he started racing his mountain bike in that time frame.
What the heck was that about?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks, but the LeMond example I gave gives a great example. Riders are different. For some riders they find it very difficult to ride their own race against opposition that is much better due to doping. Even without dope, LeMond's talents should have seen him a high place finished in the early 90s, but he suffered much worse than his natural position. Despite LA's arrogant image, I think he is a confidence rider psychologically deep down - it really winds him up if he is not the best.

We also often see great riders collapsing - look at Evans a few years ago. What's more, you're comparing neopro with someone very experienced - these direct comparions with performance can be very misleading. You don't know what type of training they were doing or anything. A great rider like LeMond, who was massively overtraining to try to be competitive, saw his performance collapse.

LeMond finished 7th in 91 and he did not ride 93, so there can be no comparison.