When did you realize LA was a cheat?

When did you see the light on LA's doping?

  • Never: I still have my head in the sand!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Feb 25, 2011
101
0
0
Obviously for most of us it was a series of events over time, but my question is when did you cross the 50% mark (no pun intended) and start believing that he more likely doped than didn't dope. I've tried to include all the likely answers.

CORRECTION: 2005 Should include, 1999 Positives for EPO revealed
 
DomesticDomestique said:
Obviously for most of us it was a series of events over time, but my question is when did you cross the 50% mark (no pun intended) and start believing that he more likely doped than didn't dope. I've tried to include all the likely answers.
July 3rd 1999.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
0
0
DomesticDomestique said:
Obviously for most of us it was a series of events over time, but my question is when did you cross the 50% mark (no pun intended) and start believing that he more likely doped than didn't dope. I've tried to include all the likely answers.
I realized that, if not the entire peleton, then at least the entire sharp end was doped before Armstrong won his first Tour, so I guess I realized the second Armstrong became a contender.

BTW, is this supposed to be a poll? It sound like it, but there isn't any.

ETA: Ok, it's there now.
 
DomesticDomestique said:
Obviously for most of us it was a series of events over time, but my question is when did you cross the 50% mark (no pun intended) and start believing that he more likely doped than didn't dope. I've tried to include all the likely answers.
After I first heard rumor, confirmed by the deposition from Swart in the SCA arbitration, that Lance had paid off other riders in the $1m Triple Crown in '93.

At the time, that was a very high profile, and very suspicious accomplishment.

"Q. What was the offer?
A. If my memory serves me right, I think it was $50,000, if we -- like I said, we didn't be aggressive and challenge for the rest of the race and obviously for the final race in Philadelphia."



Dave.
 
Feb 25, 2011
101
0
0
Cerberus said:
I realized that, if not the entire peleton, then at least the entire sharp end was doped before Armstrong won his first Tour, so I guess I realized the second Armstrong became a contender.

BTW, is this supposed to be a poll? It sound like it, but there isn't any.

ETA: Ok, it's there now.
Sorry, took me a while to write the poll, but they posted the thread before I finished. Poll is available now.
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
I don't know if he cheated, and neither does anyone else. That's the bottom line. Everything in this forum is speculation. If a guy performs well he's automatically a cheat here.
 
Pretty much in the late 90's I knew that any tour winner of that era was juicing.

Its why I stopped watching until the last few years.

Cleaner field these days. Not 100% clean, but much much better.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
This process of realization should perhaps be divided in two phases:
1. realizing LA's a cheat
2. understanding the need for some form of justice.

Joining the clinic to me was a real eyeopener, not in terms of realizing LA was a doper (I'm not sure when that happened, probably early 2000s), but in terms of understanding the damage he had done to others and to cycling and, by consequence, the urgency of removing him (as well as his associates) from the sport and bringing justice upon him. :cool:
 
1998 4th at vuelta

After LA's 4th finish at Vuelta I phoned a friend (whose son-in-law had raced in the same pro team as Armstrong) to say how much I was appalled that after going through cancer LA still was ready to put his life on the line for bicycle glory. (At the time I assumed, maybe wrongly, that his cancer had been triggered by drug abuse, HGH, testosterone in particular).

Anyway, for me 1998 was when I first saw that L.A. was one of a kind in the field of doping.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Didn't want to believe for a long time.

The Ashenden interview. Boom, dropped on my head.
 
Well I voted Other before reading this:
CORRECTION: 2005 Should include, 1999 Positives for EPO revealed

That was what did it.....EPO positives from 1999 revealed. Before that I was still drinking the Kool Aid :(
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Didn't want to believe for a long time.

The Ashenden interview. Boom, dropped on my head.
Same exact thing for me. Everything since then has merely confirmed this, especially his actions.
 
I was a sucker for the cadance thing. Because it had actually done great things for me just a year before his first TdF victory. I'd raised my natural LT cadance by a full 10% over a summer, and PLT by 10% in a year. Thought Ullrich was a silly lazy German, etc. Read Lance's first 2 books. Got bored by the worship, but still believed. Wore the stupid bracelet for a few weeks or months, but also then the worship put me off. I'm not one for religion until I kiss an angel and get to introduce her to everyone.

Fast forward. Prepared a large (multi-mullion) dollar Livestrong donation sale deal, the typical spinbike scheme, a very unique product that could only be launced in such a charital scheme. I'd only break even myself along with a partner (in crime, it would have meant). Not knowing what I do know, got stupid lucky (maybe there is a god) to not manage the project to my own standards in time for his comeback 2.0, and backed out before we presented it. That's a few milllion not going to Livestrong but to proper charities and sound economy.
Anyway, I saw the light after a while of reading The Clinic for a while. I was astonished at the careless tone and uhum about supposed dopers, like it was etched in stone. Until I realized The Clinic actually saw things clearer than I did. The conversion was then snappy. It fitted right in with my growing desire for truth and clarity. So I am an even fiercer anti-doping crusader now. Thanks to The Clinic, backed by a little bit of actual knowledge this time, which helps. Thanks to you all here, trolls included.
 
Jun 2, 2011
155
0
8,830
Suspicions raised by L'Equip article 2005; cemented by interviews with Walsh, Ashenden and Betsy on Competitor Radio; reinforced by the amazing resource that is The Clinic (many thanks to The Clinic stalwarts).
 
I think seeing Bjarne Riis and the tour he won helped me understand the real difference EPO could make ... He made some very talented riders look very ordinary. I always knew there was doping in cycling but it was from that point that it became clear that anyone who could just leave the field for dead at will was likely doing it through doping.

So seeing LA in his first TdF win and how he left people in his wake on key climbs had my eyebrows raised.

Never thought he was clean. It's a shame but true. :(

(ps I think it's changing or changed ... The sport is cleaner. AND there is still plenty of doping going on... It's a journey :) )
 
Sep 14, 2011
8
0
8,530
Another Other for the 'Anonymous' 1999 EPO Samples

Longtime fan, though never a fanboy, before I was always a bit 'hmmm, I hope not' about the accusations.

Read the first book, including reading between the lines that Lance was very loyal to his friends (and therefore a jerk to everyone else) Loved the Paceline blog (and wonder what those people really think now?)

Any doubt was removed when the 1999 samples were found to have EPO and Armstrong's excuse was that those samples were supposed to be anonymous.

I was frustrated about Armstrong (and others) doping, but I wouldn't say I was outraged until the Floyd revelation about the failed Swiss test and bribe.

I find the 'X must be doping' threads silly, but I don't really care. Most of the fanboy posts and LA innuendo just insult my intelligence so I've learned which forum names to skip past. I did laugh reading someone's comment elsewhere that he would bet his house on Wiggins being clean. I hope so, but I wouldn't bet the extra t-shirt in my car trunk.
 
First time I suspected was in '99 when I saw him speaking at a press conference, and while watching him deny doping, was struck with "Oh. He just lied." Convinced myself I must have gotten it wrong.

Hautacam in 2000. Showing the video to a friend who just started laughing out loud watching him destroy everyone. Not a cyclist my friend, just a no nonsense former Army Sergeant. I felt a bit silly for a bit, then started thinking yeah, he might have something there. Vilification of Pantani ensued online, and I became distracted.

Ferrari in 2001. Whoa, that's not good. But that didn't clinch it for me even then! Until I heard the story about how the Hour Record BS was invented to submarine Walsh's story, I'd still been hanging on to some...Hope. That ended it.

Everything after has fallen directly in line with what I found out then.
 
Agravaine said:
Longtime fan, though never a fanboy, before I was always a bit 'hmmm, I hope not' about the accusations.

Read the first book, including reading between the lines that Lance was very loyal to his friends (and therefore a jerk to everyone else) Loved the Paceline blog (and wonder what those people really think now?)

Any doubt was removed when the 1999 samples were found to have EPO and Armstrong's excuse was that those samples were supposed to be anonymous.

I was frustrated about Armstrong (and others) doping, but I wouldn't say I was outraged until the Floyd revelation about the failed Swiss test and bribe.

I find the 'X must be doping' threads silly, but I don't really care. Most of the fanboy posts and LA innuendo just insult my intelligence so I've learned which forum names to skip past. I did laugh reading someone's comment elsewhere that he would bet his house on Wiggins being clean. I hope so, but I wouldn't bet the extra t-shirt in my car trunk.

It was my house and I still stand by my bet! :) ... Froome and others no idea but Wiggins clean. His performance has a totally different character to Armstrong, Riis and other dopers - he is not roaring off up the road like they did. It's more like Evans and other 'grinders' ... And I know many have a different opinion.

But with reference to the original question ... It's why I thought LA was doping as well as one of the reasons I don't think Wiggins is.

T
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY