The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
blackcat said:Race Radio has said Ullrich could not climb at Deutsche Telekom before they had him on epo, said by Udo Bolts.
this question cannot be answered. All these athletes have talent, even said "donkeys" and I am one who buys into the theory of donkey to racehorse, which is contradictory to my point, on "pure talent" in this post.
benlondon said:Well most people seem to agree that Contador is an exceptionally talented cyclist and I think should be able to win GTs clean in the relatively cleaner era of 2012. That's why it's so tragic he chose to dope in the first place.
Basso has never reached anything like his pre-bust form so you have to think he's either clean now or has a useless doctor. Valverde may have tried to ride the 2012 TdF clean but after his relatively p*ss-poor performance there reached straight for the medecine cabinet and is back close to his drugged best at the Vuelta.
The Hitch said:Bassons should be in there no? Moncoutie ? Kimmage keeps talking up this.scanlon lad.
In recent years contador.
Fatclimber said:Que répondez-vous à ceux qui défendent Armstrong en disant que tous les cyclistes sont dopés et donc qu'il reste un grand champion, meilleur que les autres ?
Je peux faire appel à mon expérience personnelle. A Festina, en hiver, je distançais Virenque dans les côtes, j'avais de meilleurs tests que Zülle (champion du monde de contre-la-montre, deux fois deuxième du Tour). Puis, dès que le système se mettait en place, je rétrogradais dans la hiérarchie de l'équipe. Il ne faut pas se voiler la face : un coureur qui carbure à l'EPO se donne l'avantage d'un véritable turbo. Je pense qu'entre un mec clean qui termine dans les quatre-vingts premiers à Paris et le vainqueur qui se charge, il n'y a pas d'écart. Si tu les places sur un pied d'égalité, le quatre-vingtième termine peut-être devant le maillot jaune. Un grand champion n'est de toute façon jamais un sportif qui se dope. Pour l'être, il faut être irréprochable mentalement, physiquement et socialement.
Mstumpf77 said:How do you respond to those who defend Armstrong by saying that all cyclists are doped and therefore that he remains a great champion, better than the others?
I can refer to my personal experience. On Festina, in the winter, I distanced Virenque on the climbs, I had better tests then Zulle (TT world champion, twice second in the Tour). Then, as soon as the system was put in place, I fell in the team hierarchy. One shouldn't hide one's eyes: a rider fueled by EPO gives himself a real turbo advantage. I think that between a clear guy who finished in the top 80 in Paris and the doped winner, there's no difference. If you put them on equal footing, the 80th finishes maybe in front of the yellow jersey. A great champion in any case is never a doping athlete. To be a champion, one must be irreproachable mentally, physically and socially.
Cerberus said:Basso did win a Giro post-ban and he's getting old now. He didn't return to his old form, but he didn't become horribly bad.
Also, it seems to me, you're saying two thing here that indirectly contradict each other. If Contador might win clean that means that the gains of doping are minor - small enough that a talented clean rider can beat a slightly less talented doped rider. If on the other hand the difference between Valverdes Tour and his Vuelta is due to doping, that implies the gains due to doping are still quite large. Well beyond the level where a clean rider could realistically beat doped competitors.
Houndbike said:Who wins with a level playing field?
We Do!
Moose McKnuckles said:This. +1
I do think on an even playing field, we'd be talking about 7 tours for Ullrich.
I think Iban Mayo may have done something special as well.
Cerberus said:Also, it seems to me, you're saying two thing here that indirectly contradict each other. If Contador might win clean that means that the gains of doping are minor - small enough that a talented clean rider can beat a slightly less talented doped rider. If on the other hand the difference between Valverdes Tour and his Vuelta is due to doping, that implies the gains due to doping are still quite large.
Turner29 said:Prior to this program, Armstrong completed one only one of four Tours entered and that was a 36th place finish.
iZnoGouD said:Armstrong would never have won a Tour
babastooey said:So what you are saying is that Lance finished 36th in 1995 without doping and perhaps early stages of cancer?...
thankyou Mstumpf77Mstumpf77 said:How do you respond to those who defend Armstrong by saying that all cyclists are doped and therefore that he remains a great champion, better than the others?
I can refer to my personal experience. On Festina, in the winter, I distanced Virenque on the climbs, I had better tests then Zulle (TT world champion, twice second in the Tour). Then, as soon as the system was put in place, I fell in the team hierarchy. One shouldn't hide one's eyes: a rider fueled by EPO gives himself a real turbo advantage. I think that between a clear guy who finished in the top 80 in Paris and the doped winner, there's no difference. If you put them on equal footing, the 80th finishes maybe in front of the yellow jersey. A great champion in any case is never a doping athlete. To be a champion, one must be irreproachable mentally, physically and socially.
Bicycle said:Impossible to judge. We've really no way of assessing how well the dopers would perform when clean.
sittingbison said:Lance was doped to the eyeballs in 1995. He had already failed numerous T/E and HcG tests (three still extant?), and if you had paid attention for the past six years Betsy and Frankie made sworn depositions in 2006 to him admitting taking every substance known to doping - Testosterone, EPO, Steroids, Insulin etc.
Even juiced to the gills he came in 1hr 28min 6sec behind Big Mig. He was in good company though, Bruyneel came 31st at 1hr 18min 14sec behind. the next three behind him were Georg Totschnig, Udo Bölts and Andrea Tafi lol
Did Bishop see Lance on EPO since 1993?Bishop raced with Lance Armstrong on a professional team from 1991-1993 and for the cyclist who says he's spent his entire career without doping it was frustrating to watch Armstrong and other athletes reap the benefits of an illegal performance enhancing drug called EPO.
"Ultimately I did not get along with Lance on them team and that mentality of win at all costs," Bishop said.
But for this father of two to see Armstrong's titles stripped does give him hope for a better future in the sport.
http://www.fox44abc22yourvoice.com/...=default&clipId=7651832#.UDgQcpZiHfI.facebook
poupou said:...Did Bishop see Lance on EPO since 1993?
sittingbison said:Lance was doped to the eyeballs in 1995.
Because they need evidence of conspiracy to waive the SOL, I'd wager.babastooey said:Watch out there, comrade, if USADA says Lance wasn't doped in 1995, then I guess he wasn't?
I mean, they voided his results back to 1998, and I know they weren't able to retest vials from 1998, because vials from that far back aren't kept. Why didn't they void his results back to 1992??
babastooey said:Watch out there, comrade, if USADA says Lance wasn't doped in 1995, then I guess he wasn't?
I mean, they voided his results back to 1998, and I know they weren't able to retest vials from 1998, because vials from that far back aren't kept. Why didn't they void his results back to 1992??