• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What changed with Armstrong Post-Cancer?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
samb01 said:
As far as blood manipulation goes, his profile from the giro suggests otherwise.

While it's obvious that anyone who genuinely believes Armstrong to be a clean rider is either ignorant or crazy, there is a fair amount of 'having your cake and eating too'-reasoning happening on the other side. In this particular instance, the blood profile from the Tour is used a proof of doping (and I certainly agree with that), while the blood profile from the giro is not considered evidence of being clean.

It's very easy to seize on anything that confirms what you already believe to true and hold it up as additional evidence, while not even consciously registering anything that suggests otherwise. It's called cognitive bias, and most people aren't even aware of to what degree it colours their perception.

Another example of this would be a particular rider doing really well at the beginning of a GT, and people using this as 'even more evidence' that the team he is riding for are up to no good. When that rider fades hard in the second half of the race, the people using him as 'additional evidence' simply won't notice. This is a common pattern.

It's true, I have a preconception of LA and doping. Because like you said I'm not ignorant or crazy. As for the rest, I can only watch the UCI and it's so called war against doping get only more farcical;)
 
Señor_Contador said:
In essence, doping.

All the training and preparation in the world, does not give you the competitive edge in sport of this day and age, if itsn't accompanied by a sophisticated program of PEDs

So doping has become, in the modern era of sport, an essential part of an athlete's preparation. This is what is meant by doping culture. Without it he/she just can't triumph over those who are as well prepared in their training and diet, etc., (and there always are) when they are within close range of physical capacity but doped (and there always are). There is thus a syncronized relationship between an athlete's natural talent, training preparation, sophistication of equipment and the nature of the PEDs he uses, which, when all put together among the best natural athletes in the sport, will provide the best opportunity for any one of them at victory.

It's why the athletes have sought out the best medics (Ferrari, Fuentes, etc.) and labs (BALCO, Human Plasma, etc.) in terms of the science of doping for years, because they know that without their precious help, even among the most talented and prepared individuals, they can't hope to be competative at the most prestigious events. The athletes only hoping, after the services of the best doctor has been established, that they're lucky enough to have bodies which respond particularly well to PEDs.

And in our capitalist and market based society (whether democratic or otherwise), doping has been turned into a huge commercial enterprise, the sheer economic interests of which will make it never go away as long as there is huge money to be made in sport. Thus among the corrupt governing bodies of sport, a strict anti-doping policy facade is put up for the public to hide a reality of cover-ups and selective positives, to manipulate fans into thinking that there are clean champions and that the doping war is being won.

So in LA's case post-cancer, he simply had demonstrated himself the best prepared within this syncronized relationship model and a particularly positive receptor to the PEDs he was on.
 
Aug 31, 2009
26
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
A timeline of Armstrong's doping may help.

Armstrong's teammate, Stephan Swart, said that Armstrong was committed to starting program of EPO in early 1995. Until then Armstrong had not finished a Tour, he dropped out both times. The EPO must have worked as in 1995 he finally finished the Tour and San Sebastian. In late 1995 Armstrong started working with Ferrari.

The change in performance after he started working with Ferrari was huge as Armstrong had his best spring yet.

Tour du Pont (overall, 4 stage wins)
La Flèche Wallonne
2nd, Liège-Bastogne-Liège
2nd, Paris-Nice

By the mid summer it was clear something was wrong and spent the next year fighting cancer.

Returning in 1998, with Ferrari's help he finishes 4th at the Vuelta.

The fact is until Armstrong started taking EPO and working with Ferrari he showed no ability to perform in GT's.

So it sounds like he really ramped up his doping program going into the 1996 season. I wonder what his chances would have been in the Tour that year (without cancer) or in '97 and '98 for that matter. He would have been up against some pretty hopped up competition...
 
East Sycamore said:
So it sounds like he really ramped up his doping program going into the 1996 season. I wonder what his chances would have been in the Tour that year (without cancer) or in '97 and '98 for that matter. He would have been up against some pretty hopped up competition...

What is really amazing is that, with this "ramped up" doping programme and advanced cancer, that no tests came back from the lab, to confirm either.

I thought, according to the fanboy bible, cancer was the reason he suddenly morphed from a one day specialist, into a Grand Tour supremo.
Can't have it both ways.
 
My apologies if this has been mentioned, but a patient who loses a testicle to testicular cancer can take up to 7 times the normal ratio of testosterone produced by a healthy male.

If Armstrong did indeed take this route this would make sense in terms of his remarkable power increase post cancer, whereas before he was never the climber or time trialist he became starting in the Vuelta of 1998. He also has the added benefit of having a medical excuse for the use of testosterone.

Add the use of HGH(which is undetectable), and it becomes a very potent cocktail for strength/recovery. It has been the anecdotal opinion of many that HGH use does not help in cycling, but I believe they are wrong.

Imagine being able to do a hard, intense workout and then getting up the next morning and being able to do it again no problem. That is what HGH can do for you. HGH is a powerful drug that works.

The EPO microdosing and blood transfusions become high-octane gasoline for an extremely potent engine.

This is not me hating, just putting the puzzle together as to how he was able to become the rider he never was, and dominating disciplines he never showed any propensity in as a one day and small stage racer.

Where did the power and ability to recover so quickly come from? How did it increase to such an extent? I believe the answer lies in what I stated.

Conjecture on my part, yes. But my personal experience with PED's tells me that this is the combination that was at the forefront to his metamorphosis. To me, judging on his riding style(relentless, powerful attacks in the mountains and TT prowess) the focal point is the testosterone/HGH. You cannot convince me that he was able to produce MORE power while his body is churning out LESS natural testosterone. No way.
 
Aug 31, 2009
26
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
My apologies if this has been mentioned, but a patient who loses a testicle to testicular cancer can take up to 7 times the normal ratio of testosterone produced by a healthy male.

If Armstrong did indeed take this route this would make sense in terms of his remarkable power increase post cancer, whereas before he was never the climber or time trialist he became starting in the Vuelta of 1998. He also has the added benefit of having a medical excuse for the use of testosterone.

Add the use of HGH(which is undetectable), and it becomes a very potent cocktail for strength/recovery. It has been the anecdotal opinion of many that HGH use does not help in cycling, but I believe they are wrong.

Imagine being able to do a hard, intense workout and then getting up the next morning and being able to do it again no problem. That is what HGH can do for you. HGH is a powerful drug that works.

The EPO microdosing and blood transfusions become high-octane gasoline for an extremely potent engine.

This is not me hating, just putting the puzzle together as to how he was able to become the rider he never was, and dominating disciplines he never showed any propensity in as a one day and small stage racer.

Where did the power and ability to recover so quickly come from? How did it increase to such an extent? I believe the answer lies in what I stated.

Conjecture on my part, yes. But my personal experience with this tells me that this is the combination that was at the forefront to his metamorphosis.

In his books David Walsh mentions that the labs should have definitely caught the early warning signs of testicular cancer, but never did. Points to bad testing or masking agents.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that LA has or had a TUE for testosterone (or anything else, except maybe a backdated one for corticosteroids).

I'm still left wondering though - all of the things mentioned in this thread so far were also available to the people that stood on the lower steps in Paris for 7 years (and most of them have actually been proven to have used them). It still doesn't answer what it was that set LA apart. Was Ferrari really that much better than the other team doctors? One of the posts above mentions the strong team he always had, but clearly teams like T-Mobile and others were taking every possible advantage as well.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
Visit site
sars1981 said:
Who cares what these fools say? Personally, I can only laugh at the shere stupidy of what they say. They are refuted and dispatched in just about every thread.

i can laugh as well and used to. it doesn't even wind me up, especially not now i don't read what they say anymore. but there is so much space filled, so many extra pages to browse through, it becomes a hassle to follow the topic. so i just don't bother. and so the armstrong apologists/cócksuckers get what they want.
 
Berzin said:
My apologies if this has been mentioned, but a patient who loses a testicle to testicular cancer can take up to 7 times the normal ratio of testosterone produced by a healthy male.

...

Add the use of HGH(which is undetectable), and it becomes a very potent cocktail for strength/recovery. It has been the anecdotal opinion of many that HGH use does not help in cycling, but I believe they are wrong.

Imagine being able to do a hard, intense workout and then getting up the next morning and being able to do it again no problem. That is what HGH can do for you. HGH is a powerful drug that works.

The EPO microdosing and blood transfusions become high-octane gasoline for an extremely potent engine.

...

...Conjecture on my part, yes. But my personal experience with PED's tells me that this is the combination that was at the forefront to his metamorphosis. To me, judging on his riding style(relentless, powerful attacks in the mountains and TT prowess) the focal point is the testosterone/HGH. You cannot convince me that he was able to produce MORE power while his body is churning out LESS natural testosterone. No way.

Interesting point of view. I have two comments about it:

1- But who in this side of the Forum (The Clinic) has said that the HGH don't work? I understand that HGH is a key med in the "Portfolio of Doping Products" for a cyclist. Very important for recuperation. And many on this forum have said that.:confused:

2- Are you an active bicycle rider, ex-pro? It is nice to have active or ex-riders sharing their experiences with us.:)
 
BanProCycling said:
Not sure what you mean by that. I've heard the remaining testicle becomes more efficient, and there is something about that in the Science of LA documentary.

The one testicle becoming more efficient is physiologically impossible. "The Science of Lance Armstrong" is propaganda and myth-building. It's not "science" in any way, shape or form. Was Dr. Ferarri interviewed for that particular piece? No? Then I rest my case.

BanProCycling said:
But haven't heard it produced 7 times as much.

It doesn't.

BanProCycling said:
Or do you mean he is allowed to take that much artificial testosterone?

That's exactly what I mean. I'm not saying a patient post-testicular cancer would NEED 7 times the normal testosterone secreted by a normal, healthy male-I'm saying anyone who has suffered from this disease is allowed to take UP TO that much to compensate for the loss.


BanProCycling said:
I don't think that was the case - he wasn't allowed to take anything like that. Even if your body is not producing test at all (Chris Boardman) you're still not allowed to take anything to make up for it.

Chris Boardman could have gotten a medical dispensation, but his stance was very much anti-doping or anything that could have been perceived in such a light. He decided not to fight it and retire, that was all.
 
East Sycamore said:
In his books David Walsh mentions that the labs should have definitely caught the early warning signs of testicular cancer, but never did. Points to bad testing or masking agents.

It still doesn't answer what it was that set LA apart. Was Ferrari really that much better than the other team doctors? One of the posts above mentions the strong team he always had, but clearly teams like T-Mobile and others were taking every possible advantage as well.

Yes, masking agents is the most logical/probable reason.
Ferrari is.........well.....the Ferrari of doping docs, no question, but that much better than the rest? I don't think we are ever likely to have a direct comparison!

As for synthetic testosterone, clearly it's use was widespread.
Of that, we do have evidence.
Kessler, having left T Mobile, for Astana, went down for using it.
Floyd, having left USPS, for Phonak, went down for using it.
Both T Mobile and USPS/Disco have had more than their fair share of dopers caught, although, I'm sure BPC will argue that the latter have none.
 
BanProCycling said:
If Armstrong had been allowed to take artificial testosterone for the last ten years then I think we would have heard about it by now. Thanks for the contribution anyway.

All he has to do is keep it below 4:1 and he is in the clear. As long as the UCI have the medical documentation required, he won't get busted and the information need not be made public. Just like his real riding weight or his actual power output numbers that have been skewed in the past and have, if I'm not mistaken, never been honestly revealed.

BanProCycling said:
There is some good stuff about cycling science in that doc - don't knock it.

Like I said, the only "science" behind Lance Armstrong is Dr. Ferrari and his doping regimen. Anything else is quackery and propaganda. And you're right-the video DOES have some great stuff-pity many pro teams don't incorporate some of these tactics to their benefit.
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
Mellow Velo said:
[...]Floyd, having left USPS, for Phonak, went down for using it.[...]

I know hindsight is always 20/20, but I remember Floyd and how he rode that day when he tested positive, I mean, drinking water like a man who just went through a week's hike through the Sahara... I don't know, I always found it rather odd.

When he tested positive for testosterone that day the first thing that came to mind is "Aha!! Diuretics!!"

By the by, Landis' positive does not change, one iota, my perception of him as a cyclist. I still think he's an amazing athlete.
 
Escarabajo said:
Interesting point of view. I have two comments about it:

1- But who in this side of the Forum (The Clinic) has said that the HGH don't work? I understand that HGH is a key med in the "Portfolio of Doping Products" for a cyclist. Very important for recuperation. And many on this forum have said that.:confused:

My apologies-I was not talking about anyone in the Clinic, who seem more informed than most about such things. I was talking about the average punters who don't really know much yet remained convinced of their beliefs.

Escarabajo said:
2- Are you an active bicycle rider, ex-pro? It is nice to have active or ex-riders sharing their experiences with us.:)

I have been involved in the amateur scene in Mexico, Central and South America and train with riders from these countries here in the states. It has given me quite an education on how riders prepare themselves for races.
 
Sep 5, 2009
7
0
0
Visit site
Another thing to consider with Lance Armstrong's improbable rise to domination is past winners of the Tour. Merckx won his first. Hinault won his first. Fignon won his first. LeMond was 3rd in his first, 2nd (and could have won) in his second, and wins his third.

My point is that I'm not aware of too many Tour de France winners in the modern era who weren't overall contenders from the beginning until we get to guys like Delgado, Indurain, and ultimately Armstrong.
 
Aug 12, 2009
74
0
0
Visit site
grayrogers said:
Another thing to consider with Lance Armstrong's improbable rise to domination is past winners of the Tour. Merckx won his first. Hinault won his first. Fignon won his first. LeMond was 3rd in his first, 2nd (and could have won) in his second, and wins his third.

My point is that I'm not aware of too many Tour de France winners in the modern era who weren't overall contenders from the beginning until we get to guys like Delgado, Indurain, and ultimately Armstrong.

It is quite interesting to see that a lot of "mature" riders suddenly started to do well in the 1990's.
Guys, who had been struggling for years all of a sudden ripped up the field with Riis being the best example, Gianetti and Ugromov are other examples of nobodies and cart horses all of a sudden turned into pure breeds.
Obviously, being a good responder to the pharmaceuticals and being on a medical programme, are important factors.

But I think that some of the less genetically but more experienced riders got good results due to:
1) longer experience with getting the doping right
2) being willing to take greater risks or able to take greater risks because of a better understanding of the medical plan.
3) being good "patients" - that is, being able to intelligently communicate with the doctors on health/training issues. Cecchini and Riis always seemed to be pretty close and in good understanding with each other.
 
Aug 26, 2009
38
0
0
Visit site
Food for thought.

This interesting discussion, especially the idea of the Armstrong-Bruyneel-Ferrari triangle, which brought a couple of questions in my mind:
1. Why were several riders who left USP / Discovery caught doping when they rode for other teams? Did they lack the know-how of masking agents, or the expert monitoring of dosages?
2. Why are Astana riders going to RadioShack? To stay within the triangle?
Nobody has mentioned outright Armstrong's "donation" (or apple for the teacher) of a half-million dollars made to the UCI. Of course UCI ought never to have accepted it, but that donation was what turned me into a cynic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Are you guys serious?

I find it quite interesting all the Lance-Non-Believers in this thread...

I mean, many of you question the ability of someone being able to transform from a one day racer to a grand tour rider, but in fact, this is not such a major thing in cycling.

Did merckx not win one day classics? Lemond? Any world championships won by those guys? They also won grand tours right?

Armstrong is no different to guys like Evans (mtb), Valverde, Schlecks who have been extremely competitive in one day races at the start of their careers, and moulded their bodies into 3 week races.

Take Wiggins at this year's tour, 4km pursuit champion, to 4th in a 3 week tour... It's not THAT unbelievable, if you lose some weight, and change your training program

What about stuart o'grady. Used to be competiting for the green jersey (4 times runner up) and now he's a super domestique, pull for sastre/schlek in the mountains the last two years.

What about athletics? 5000/10000 metre runners move up to the marathon all the time... Gebraselassie, Bekele (soon). What about triathlon? OLympic distance move up to half/full ironman all the time...

Again, its not that unbelievable.. A change in training plan can yeild very different results, maybe some of you should get out on the bike and you'd soon realise, if you spent a couple of months doing short intervals and squats, you'd be a good sprinter, and then 2-3 months of exclusively hitting the hills, and you'd be a decent climber

It's so easy to point the finger and say drugs drugs drugs, but that's just your individual mind not believing in the human side of sport
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mountain Goat said:
I find it quite interesting all the Lance-Non-Believers in this thread...

I mean, many of you question the ability of someone being able to transform from a one day racer to a grand tour rider, but in fact, this is not such a major thing in cycling.

Did merckx not win one day classics? Lemond? Any world championships won by those guys? They also won grand tours right?

Armstrong is no different to guys like Evans (mtb), Valverde, Schlecks who have been extremely competitive in one day races at the start of their careers, and moulded their bodies into 3 week races.

Take Wiggins at this year's tour, 4km pursuit champion, to 4th in a 3 week tour... It's not THAT unbelievable, if you lose some weight, and change your training program

What about stuart o'grady. Used to be competiting for the green jersey (4 times runner up) and now he's a super domestique, pull for sastre/schlek in the mountains the last two years.

What about athletics? 5000/10000 metre runners move up to the marathon all the time... Gebraselassie, Bekele (soon). What about triathlon? OLympic distance move up to half/full ironman all the time...

Again, its not that unbelievable.. A change in training plan can yeild very different results, maybe some of you should get out on the bike and you'd soon realise, if you spent a couple of months doing short intervals and squats, you'd be a good sprinter, and then 2-3 months of exclusively hitting the hills, and you'd be a decent climber

It's so easy to point the finger and say drugs drugs drugs, but that's just your individual mind not believing in the human side of sport


Another troll to ignore. But before I do, be sure that I don't believe in the miracles The Uniballer purports to believe in. See, I can read.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Mountain Goat said:
I find it quite interesting all the Lance-Non-Believers in this thread...

I mean, many of you question the ability of someone being able to transform from a one day racer to a grand tour rider, but in fact, this is not such a major thing in cycling.

Did merckx not win one day classics? Lemond?

Lemond never won a classic.

Boonen, Museeuw, Tafi, Bartoli, VDB, .....the list of classic's guys who never became Tour riders is long.

Indurain, Riis, Ulrich, Pantani, all never won a classic.....although if EPO had not turned Ulrich into a climbing monster he could have been a dominate classics guy.
 
BanProCycling said:
You're right that nothing credible has come up - no special way of taking drugs that would see that much improvement from already taking the same drugs, even if done more professionally. The scenario I have highlighted seems the most credible.

1. He didn't shine in the Tour earlier due to the EPO two tier peloton, but he was world champion at 22 and won stages so he clearly had bags of talent.

2. He probably started doping in the mid 1990s which helped him catch up a bit, but he still hadn't got the mental focus and was training for power rather than power to weight ratio. After cancer he matured mentally and lost weight and trained for tours rather than stage racing, and thus this changed the game for him in the long tours, finally able to compete on a level playing field and show he was rightfully the best.

3. People really can't have it both ways. Either EPO changed cycling in the early 90s and held back a lot of riders like Armstrong who weren't signed up to it yet, or it did not change the game. EPO didn't start in 1999.


Based on your statements-could you explain why the fastest records in speed on the TDF are achieved during the LA's era?(2004 is the fastest)---According to you, he was just "catching up" on the 90's EPO-drug-Abusers crew, right? Can't have it both ways!!!
 
Aug 16, 2009
600
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Another troll to ignore. But before I do, be sure that I don't believe in the miracles The Uniballer purports to believe in. See, I can read.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Why don't you want to engage in an active discussion and why are you encouraging others not to?
 
Aug 16, 2009
600
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Lemond never won a classic.

Indurain, Riis, Ulrich, Pantani, all never won a classic.....although if EPO had not turned Ulrich into a climbing monster he could have been a dominate classics guy.

But these riders did very well in the Olympics and World Championships, both classics style races.

Lemond also was second in Lombardia and San Remo.

Riis won Amstel in 1997

I can't be bothered listing the rest as you will probably just choose to ignore me and the facts. Do you research and come back to the discussion when you're ready.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Mountain Goat said:
Did merckx not win one day classics? Lemond? Any world championships won by those guys? They also won grand tours right?

Armstrong is no different to guys like Evans (mtb), Valverde, Schlecks who have been extremely competitive in one day races at the start of their careers, and moulded their bodies into 3 week races.

Take Wiggins at this year's tour, 4km pursuit champion, to 4th in a 3 week tour... It's not THAT unbelievable, if you lose some weight, and change your training program

What about stuart o'grady. Used to be competiting for the green jersey (4 times runner up) and now he's a super domestique, pull for sastre/schlek in the mountains the last two years.

What about athletics? 5000/10000 metre runners move up to the marathon all the time... Gebraselassie, Bekele (soon). What about triathlon? OLympic distance move up to half/full ironman all the time...

Again, its not that unbelievable.. A change in training plan can yeild very different results, maybe some of you should get out on the bike and you'd soon realise, if you spent a couple of months doing short intervals and squats, you'd be a good sprinter, and then 2-3 months of exclusively hitting the hills, and you'd be a decent climber

It's so easy to point the finger and say drugs drugs drugs, but that's just your individual mind not believing in the human side of sport

OK, this is so full of holes it is unbelievable unless you are truly trolling. Firstly, the classics-GT riders you mentioned were all winning classics and GTs in the same year, not classics for three years and then come back later and then win GTs. Big difference. Same big difference between Armstrong and Valverde, Evans and the Schlecks (particularly as none of these riders has won a GT and only Valverde and Andy have won classics). O'Grady was never a sprinter on the road - he was always a strong man who mixed it up at the end of a race. No big transformation there. But now look at the most recent rider who was a classics rider and THEN became a GT contender and winner: DiLuca. How did he do it? Doping.

Armstrong never lost weight. That is a myth started by Coyle's paper and then perpetuated by Armstrong's PR machine. However, here are the only actual objectively recorded body weights for Armstrong pre- and post-cancer (third-fifth rows of Table 2 from Coyle's paper):

Picture1-1.png


Also note that there is minimal difference in power-to-weight ratios between 1992 and 1999: approximately 6% from 1992 to 1999 and 1.6% from 1993 to 1999. So BPC, you can stop your misinformation and lies right there unless you can provide verifiable proof to the contrary.

And can you seriously compare progressing from a track long distance running event to a marathon as being the same as a one-day classic to a three-week stage race? That's just moronic. Try a sprinter transforming into a marathon runner and you'll be closer to the mark.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
OK, this is so full of holes it is unbelievable unless you are truly trolling. Firstly, the classics-GT riders you mentioned were all winning classics and GTs in the same year, not classics for three years and then come back later and then win GTs. Big difference. Same big difference between Armstrong and Valverde, Evans and the Schlecks (particularly as none of these riders has won a GT and only Valverde and Andy have won classics). O'Grady was never a sprinter on the road - he was always a strong man who mixed it up at the end of a race. No big transformation there. But now look at the most recent rider who was a classics rider and THEN became a GT contender and winner: DiLuca. How did he do it? Doping.

Armstrong never lost weight. That is a myth started by Coyle's paper and then perpetuated by Armstrong's PR machine. However, here are the only actual objectively recorded body weights for Armstrong pre- and post-cancer (third-fifth rows of Table 2 from Coyle's paper):

Picture1-1.png


Also note that there is minimal difference in power-to-weight ratios between 1992 and 1999: approximately 6% from 1992 to 1999 and 1.6% from 1993 to 1999. So BPC, you can stop your misinformation and lies right there unless you can provide verifiable proof to the contrary.

And can you seriously compare progressing from a track long distance running event to a marathon as being the same as a one-day classic to a three-week stage race? That's just moronic. Try a sprinter transforming into a marathon runner and you'll be closer to the mark.

You make some good points.

It is comical to see people try to use Armstrong's average classics career as evidence of future Tour dominance. Prior to EPO he was nothing as a climber and TT rider he was not a dominant classic's rider. For an American he was good but he was no Museew.

Ballan, Cancellara both have MUCH bigger careers then Lance ever did. Would the sport start asking big questions if they suddenly won 7 Tour in a row?

The reality is this is just more pot stirring by a troll and his sockpuppet disparate for attention. His willingness to embarrass himself is the only thing impressive about his posts.