Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[gree0232]

Evidence? And I need ten characters

Well, I would just watch 'The Road to Paris'. Probably more enjoyable than just skimming through articles on the subject. But I am certain a google search will provide plenty of articles that go both ways on the subject.

That is why what you can prove, not what you suspect, must be the standard.

 

[Digger]

I did, all three have been convicted of some sort of doping violation, and Lance trounced them all.

Those names were part of my arguement for that exact reason. Well, that and they were on Hautacam.

Michele Ferrari told his athletes that his 'regime' could give you thirty percent performance gains. Considering the performance benefits of EPO and blood doping, how do you maintain he was so good, that he still trounced them while clean?
Allen Lim, believes 6.7 Watts/Kilo, is not possible, unless we've 'morphed into horses'. Lance regularly produced this figure...You believe this is possible clean?

 

[Digger]

Well, I would just watch 'The Road to Paris'. Probably more enjoyable than just skimming through articles on the subject. But I am certain a google search will provide plenty of articles that go both ways on the subject.

That is why what you can prove, not what you suspect, must be the standard.

Road to Paris

Unless you;ve seen the training the other riders have done, then you cannot comment on his training being better. Seriously, do you not think other cyclists at that level don't all train at a serious level.

Road to Paris....Brilliant!!!

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

gree:

I'm on no crusade to convince people LA is a doper. I think that there are many elements to form an opinion, and they all have been exposed many times over. I think adding all those elements leaves very little margin: it is my opinion. And considering the topic of discussion, I do not feel I need to take extra-precautionary measures to form one.

Now if I was the one in charge of deciding whether or not I should strip Armstrong of its titles, that would be a different story: despite the deep conviction that I may have, I will agree that there's still a small shadow of doubt.

 

[Digger]

And Victor won how many Grand Tours?

In relation to Victor, the point I was making, doping in general allows athletes to train harder due to the recovery aids involved. This is a general rule of all doping. So to say that doping is used by athletes who don't train as hard, is absolute bulls&&&. And Victor Conte is alot of things, but he knows his PEDs. Secondly, the drugs that Victor was using on his athletes were by and large the same used as in cycling: EPO, testosterone, HGH.

SCA trial was all about contract law...If you don't know this much, then seriously we may as well forget it. But Lance, in his media statement after the trial, made it about being exonerated of doping. He wasn't.

 

[Digger]

The second is not proof that Lance doped. If true, then the entire peloton from that period must be found to have committed doping violations and sanctioned as a result. That would include riders that we KNOW were riding clean at those speeds, even if they were not at the front of the pack of dopers.

Evidently riders were clean and got out of the sport, due to not being able to keep up with the insane speeds. Christophe Bassons, said to be the most naturally gifted French cyclist since Hinault, spoke up against doping in 1999. The person who told him to f*** off out of cycling? Lance.

 

[gree0232]

Michele Ferrari told his athletes that his 'regime' could give you thirty percent performance gains. Considering the performance benefits of EPO and blood doping, how do you maintain he was so good, that he still trounced them while clean?
Allen Lim, believes 6.7 Watts/Kilo, is not possible, unless we've 'morphed into horses'. Lance regularly produced this figure...You believe this is possible clean?

Ferrari was convicted of doping riders, and when that was so, Lance broke his relations with the Doctor.

You are assming that Lance knew in advance, and then deliberately sought out Ferrari specifically to get drugs. Doctors do not offer the same regimine to every patient, or Dr. Fuentes's gynocological patients got FAR more then they bargained for when they went in for an exam.

Prior to be accussed, there is absolutely no reason for Lance not go check out a doctor who promises significant increases in ability. Given his public anti-doping stance, there may have never been a discussion about drugs at all. In fact, given the veracity of Lance's defense of Ferrari, there is a safe bet that Lance did not get drugs from him or he simply would have distanced himself immediately upon hearing the accusations to allay doubts.

Lance defended Ferrari right up until he was convicted, and then broke ties.

As Dr. Lim has made a claim, other doctors disagree with the good doctor. I also think that the 6.7 mark can be met, but the key would be duration of time it can be held. Sprinters produce wattages in excess of 1000 watts, easily breaking the 6.7 watt per kilogram threshold.

Where does the line between physiology, psychology, and doping lie in a general and individual sense. I do not think that Dr. Lim has produced an answer to that question that is valid enough to proceed with Anti-doping sanction. The strongest evidence of this Greg LeMond, who publically accussed Alberto of doping this year based on his suspected wattage report.

Unless you can remove all variables, including wind direction, the friction of tires, etc. you cannot arrive at a conclusion with accurate enough scientific results to reach the threshold of an anti-doping violation. If we could, WADA would have already adopted this method which has been strongly recommended. They have not.

Again, suspicion is one thing, it must create a testable method to verify, and that standard has not been met.

 

[gree0232]

In relation to Victor, the point I was making, doping in general allows athletes to train harder due to the recovery aids involved. This is a general rule of all doping. So to say that doping is used by athletes who don't train as hard, is absolute bulls&&&. And Victor Conte is alot of things, but he knows his PEDs. Secondly, the drugs that Victor was using on his athletes were by and large the same used as in cycling: EPO, testosterone, HGH.

SCA trial was all about contract law...If you don't know this much, then seriously we may as well forget it. But Lance, in his media statement after the trial, made it about being exonerated of doping. He wasn't.

Well, a contract that was trying to be gotten out of based on false performance? Wouldn't that be doping? The idea that doping wasn't a part of that contract dispute is silly. Certainly the parts that got into the press were entirely about doping, and not about the fine print of a contract.

Again, I did not say that ALL dopers did not train hard, Basso pops into mind, just that he ones lined up against Lance at key moments in his career weren't exactly on par with Lance dispite their doping.

You are trying to apply specifics to generalities, and that just does not work.

 

[Digger]

Ferrari was convicted of doping riders, and when that was so, Lance broke his relations with the Doctor.

You are assming that Lance knew in advance, and then deliberately sought out Ferrari specifically to get drugs. Doctors do not offer the same regimine to every patient, or Dr. Fuentes's gynocological patients got FAR more then they bargained for when they went in for an exam.

Prior to be accussed, there is absolutely no reason for Lance not go check out a doctor who promises significant increases in ability. Given his public anti-doping stance, there may have never been a discussion about drugs at all. In fact, given the veracity of Lance's defense of Ferrari, there is a safe bet that Lance did not get drugs from him or he simply would have distanced himself immediately upon hearing the accusations to allay doubts.

Lance defended Ferrari right up until he was convicted, and then broke ties.

.

So the biggest doping doctor of his generation, a guy who is not a trainer, is simply a doctor, doped many many other riders, and he didn't dope Lance? Are you for real? Why did Lance keep it secret that he was working with him? What about the secret training camps each year in the Alps? The ones where only a handful of people were present. Not even most of his team knew. What about the meetings at roadside camper vans belonging to the good old doctor?

Incidentally what about the USP workers dumping bags containing Activogen?

 

[keen_but_slow]

gree ... I said earlier you were on the LAS payroll, I accept now that probably isn't true, there are some spelling mistakes in your posts which would've been picked up by a spellchecker if you were being paid to write them, and you've drifted too far away from prepared statement (the first long post did look like a copy/paste). Your comment comparing sprinters' outputs to alpine climbs was pretty naive so I'm sure you don't have a background in science or cycling.

However, you do seem to have experience of the law. I asked you a question earlier: Given the amount of bold statement on this site that LAS doped, why does he not sue the publisher and have all the facts out in court for once and for all?

Is it because the case would damage him even if he were successful because of what the truth would do to the sport and those who make a living from it, or is there some other reason, such as the idea that his fans know nothing of his character and he wants to keep it that way? There's a groundswell of conjecture that will eventually interfere with a political career if he doesn't nip it in the bud now, surely?

 

[Digger]

Well, a contract that was trying to be gotten out of based on false performance? Wouldn't that be doping? The idea that doping wasn't a part of that contract dispute is silly. Certainly the parts that got into the press were entirely about doping, and not about the fine print of a contract.

Again, I did not say that ALL dopers did not train hard, Basso pops into mind, just that he ones lined up against Lance at key moments in his career weren't exactly on par with Lance dispite their doping.

You are trying to apply specifics to generalities, and that just does not work.

You don't know about the trial or the nuances of same. Take time to read about it, and not just press releases. And yes you will see that it all came down to contract law. Whether you believe that or not is your problem. You are living in a fantasy world.....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I did, all three have been convicted of some sort of doping violation, and Lance trounced them all.

Those names were part of my argument for that exact reason. Well, that and they were on Hautacam.

Let me help you out here

You speak as if he is already convicted. I will grant you that alone does not make you a Lance-Hater, but it does seem a bit pre-mature. It is true that Lance dropped nearly everyone on Hautacam, including Zulle, Pentani, and Ullrich, all of whom are acknowledged dopers.

A couple of facts:

1. Ulrich was just getting back to the Tour after missing the previous year. He also famously struggled with his weight that year.

2. Marco Pentani was also coming off a lengthy abscence, and his prowess in both the Tour and the Giro that year were yo-yo-ish to be accurate. Hautacam was the first real climb in that year's Tour, and, just like the Giro, Pentani struggled up the climb -- in sharp contrast to Ventoux.

3. Zulle was on the tail end of his career and was clearly not at his best that year.

4. Conversely, Lance Arsmrtong had revolutionized Training. He trained for fitness, rather raced into fitness like many riders of the day. His training regimen was notoriously grueling, and, now, unlike then, is now the training standard for cycling.

What Hautacam proves is that discipline coupled with targetted training and hard work will allow you to beat comparatively lazy dopers.

Again, the fact that Lance beat dopers is not, in and of itself, and anti-doping violation.

I will grant that there is suspicion of it, and if proof of doping is found, I will follow the preponderance of the evidence and change my opinion.

To date, despite all the suspicions, every body capable of rendering a decision has exonerated Lance. There are no anti-doping convictions despite nearly a decade of trying to convict him.

That is as strong a proof of innocence as our system (The Western system) allows, and I will remind you that the burden of proof must be 50.1% in order turn suspicion into guilt.

Pantani - was suspended from the 1999 Giro for 'health concerns' - he received no sanction!!!
Ulrich - he was given a sanction for taking an E tablet. For his involvement in Operation Puerto he received no sanction!!
Of the 3 riders you mention only Zulle was hit with a doping sanction - not because he was caught by a test - but because he admitted to doping when questioned by Le Gendarme.

Three riders who you agree doped and not one of them was caught through traditional testing.

 

[Kennf1]

Road to Paris

Unless you;ve seen the training the other riders have done, then you cannot comment on his training being better. Seriously, do you not think other cyclists at that level don't all train at a serious level.

Road to Paris....Brilliant!!!

If you don't have a film crew (paid for by Nike) that films you training, then you are not training. It's kind of like quantum theory.

 

[Kennf1]

As Dr. Lim has made a claim, other doctors disagree with the good doctor. I also think that the 6.7 mark can be met, but the key would be duration of time it can be held. Sprinters produce wattages in excess of 1000 watts, easily breaking the 6.7 watt per kilogram threshold.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The 6.7 number is for sustained climbing power, as in a 15-20 minute effort (or longer). Anyone posting on this forum could beat 6.7 w/kg. for a sprint. Well, hopefully.

Honestly gree, you crack me up. You think people go to hematologists to get interval training plans, and Lance had no idea of Ferrari's notorious reputation until he was convicted. Do you know who mentored Ferrari? Hint: it wasn't Chris Carmichael.

 

[Roninho]

Also, the Green Jersey proves the point. Zabel was beaten on individual stages, as was Armstrong, but for six years he was the most consistant of riders, even while lined up against dopers. Zabels' training regimen is also famously tough, and the consistancy was the reward for that effort.

Imo it doesn't prove the point. There have been only 2 or 3 situations in those 7 years that Armstrong wasn't the strongest on a Mountain or time-trial stage (the individual time trial of 2003 comes to mind). He didn't win them all because of tactics and non interest in stage wins, but he was the strongest on most.

Zabel has been beaten by fellow-sprinters more then he won stages even though he gave all to win. Also sprinters like Cipo and Petachi had little interest to try reach paris (did Mario even make it past 1 week in the tour?). Zabel was indeed known for his training attitude, and this probably had an positive impact on his ability to survive the mountains, but couldn't this also be that he was more build to ride mountains then for example Cippolini?

Armstrong was the best climber and TT in those 7 years. Zabel wasn't always the best sprinter in those years, just the most consistent and resilient. I wouldn't call Hushovd the best sprinter in this Tour as well.

Armstrong ran a very tough training regime, and i do think that Ullrich could have won more if he'd had a better regime with being overweight all the time and getting in trouble due to quick weight loss in the weeks before the tour. But i have never seen any evidence or even indications that LA trained harder then someone like Beloki or Basso.

 

[mikkemus23]

gree ... I said earlier you were on the LAS payroll, I accept now that probably isn't true, there are some spelling mistakes in your posts which would've been picked up by a spellchecker if you were being paid to write them, and you've drifted too far away from prepared statement (the first long post did look like a copy/paste). Your comment comparing sprinters' outputs to alpine climbs was pretty naive so I'm sure you don't have a background in science or cycling.

However, you do seem to have experience of the law. I asked you a question earlier: Given the amount of bold statement on this site that LAS doped, why does he not sue the publisher and have all the facts out in court for once and for all?

Is it because the case would damage him even if he were successful because of what the truth would do to the sport and those who make a living from it, or is there some other reason, such as the idea that his fans know nothing of his character and he wants to keep it that way? There's a groundswell of conjecture that will eventually interfere with a political career if he doesn't nip it in the bud now, surely?

+1

I still think this is LAS own Comical Ali or something. BYO123? It doesnt work, but that kind of goes w/o saying.

 

[Anonymous]

I haven't posted on the tread yet, and it looks like there is some back and forth regarding the issue. Let me help all of you: Yes, Lance doped, seriously.

 

[Eva Maria]

Ferrari was convicted of doping riders, and when that was so, Lance broke his relations with the Doctor.

You know when you repeat Lance's lies you just looked foolish

Postal/Disco issued a press release saying they were severing ties with Ferrari and that none of their riders would use him in the future. Many of their riders, including Lance, continued to use him.

In the book "Lance Armstrong's War" the Author Colye writes about how after the press release Ferrari still stayed at the same hotel as him right around the corner from Lance's apartment in Girona. Lance, and Levi were spotted training with Ferrari in the Canaries. Ferrari clients Popo, Danielson, Rodgers, Sinkewitz, and Gasperato were all picture training with Ferrari.

You may want to use better sources then Armstrong press releases, the guy will let you down every time.

 

[Deagol]

…Ferrari clients Popo, Danielson, Rodgers, Sinkewitz, and Gasperato were all picture training with Ferrari….

Danielson, huh? Darn….
Life is full of disappointment (I was a fan for certain reasons, well I guess I still am but maybe less so).

 

[Deagol]

You know, after reading hundreds (or thousands?) of posts here since this forum started, I have to say this and I will try to say it in the nicest possible way: There are some attitudes on here that cling to this idea that LA was clean and will find any angle conceivable to defend that belief. After all the evidence is continually piled higher and higher, that belief begins to look more like desperation than objectivity

For the record: I am neither a LA-hater or an LA-lover.

 

[keen_but_slow]

Deagol is right. This only goes away when LAS gets politically active and someone with the financial resources to face him down in court states that he used EPO to win the TdF and hopes that LAS rises to it so the dirty laundry is aired in public.

 

[gree0232]

You know, after reading hundreds (or thousands?) of posts here since this forum started, I have to say this and I will try to say it in the nicest possible way: There are some attitudes on here that cling to this idea that LA was clean and will find any angle conceivable to defend that belief. After all the evidence is continually piled higher and higher, that belief begins to look more like desperation than objectivity

For the record: I am neither a LA-hater or an LA-lover.

Simple question: If there is SOOO MUCH evidence that LA is doper, why hasn't it ever been proved? In every case that has been brought before some sort of panel, court, etc., the allegations have been found to be false. In many cases, the evidence itself tainted.

So, simple question, if Armstrong did ride clean, how does he prove it? Riddle me that rather than insulting those of us who have done our homework on the subject.

And, for the record, **** Pound, WADA, ACS all had plenty of dough and time to go after Lance. All failed.

But please step up and fill the void. Prove that LA doped.

 

[Digger]

Simple question: If there is SOOO MUCH evidence that LA is doper, why hasn't it ever been proved? In every case that has been brought before some sort of panel, court, etc., the allegations have been found to be false. In many cases, the evidence itself tainted.

.

Specify the evidence being tainted and secondly specify the 'every case before panel, court etc' where the allegations have found to be false.

 

[gree0232]

Let me help you out here



Pantani - was suspended from the 1999 Giro for 'health concerns' - he received no sanction!!!
Ulrich - he was given a sanction for taking an E tablet. For his involvement in Operation Puerto he received no sanction!!
Of the 3 riders you mention only Zulle was hit with a doping sanction - not because he was caught by a test - but because he admitted to doping when questioned by Le Gendarme.

Three riders who you agree doped and not one of them was caught through traditional testing.

His hemocrit level was over 50, that is considered a anti-doping violation and he was tossed out of the Giro. What do you think those health concerns were? At the time, the evidence wasn;t conclusive enough to prodce a sanction and we have the forced rest. NOW, if your hemocrit is over 50, you will be banned for two years.

Ullrich's blood was tested and found to present in the Operation Puerto blood bags, the same legal standard that was used to convict Basso. As he retired, there is no need to seek a sanction, should he attempt to return to racing ....

Zulle admitted that he took EPO. That also qualifies as an ant-doping violation.

Now, are you trying to say that these men were innocent of doping, but Lance was not? I find it very strange that you will split hairs for every other rider, including admitted dope users, while applying generalities to Lance.

For teh record, the standard is committing and anti doping violation, proven, whether sanction is issued as a result of a PROVEN anti-doping violation ....

So, you tell me, why 2005 when Lance Armstrong suppossedly tested positive, do we not have an official anti-doping violation? Why is there no sanction, despit ethe fact that he has returned to racing? Why did Basso recieve punishment for his trangression, but Lance not at roughly the same time?

Why is Lance, a confirmed doper apparently, riding in the Tour, why are his results still on the books?

The evidentiary standard that has never been met, is that Lance committed an anti-doping violation.

Now, YOU show me a rider with seven legitimate EPO positives that has not been sanctioned? Yet for some reason, Lance hasn't, and the Verijman report is a pack of lies....

Yep Lance is both so stupid that he would flee Spain for France to avoid .... anti-doping laws, and simultaneously so nefariously smart that he, and he alone, can outwit the entire world and avoid sanctions by bending evidence, intimidating witnesses, bribing officials, and by fabricating TUE's, medical records, and even the levels of cortisone to stay within the elam consistant with using cortisone cream.

For the record, you also use cortizone cream to treat poison ivy, which I have done, and somehow didn't win a grand tour by doing so. Amazing. I must also have benefitted from a vast criminal conspiracy.

So, to be clear here, there is vast criminal conspiracy that Darth Armstrong is the head of, that has left behind no evidence of activity like bribes, witness intimidation, alternation of records, etc., and despite this mountain of evidence that apparently exists but has never resulted in a conviction it is easier to conclude that vast conspiracy exists then to consider the possibility that Lance is telling the truth?

While splitting hairs for Pantani, Ullrich, and Zulle, as he rode up Hautacam in 2000. Intersting.

 

[gree0232]

Specify the evidence being tainted and secondly specify the 'every case before panel, court etc' where the allegations have found to be false.

Go back to page 3 all there.