Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[scribe]

With the amount of enhancement that systematic blood doping affords the user, it is illogical to believe an undoped athlete could compete. You simply do not understand how much better it makes you. If you did, you would realize just how impossible it is for him to have won clean. Everyone around him was dirty, and so was he.

You have a pessimistic point of view coated with a heavy dose of distaste for Armstrong. I don't really mind. But it is the premise from which you work.

Every outstanding champ's ability looks garishly impossible. Merckx was an impossible animal. Lemond, Hinault, Indurain, etc. You can't always explain away domination with physiological limitations.

 

[scribe]

Cycling also has a rich history of doping.

So do lots of contemporary sport. It would be great if controls and consequence would filter it out more thoroughly.

 

[runninboy]

If it is just a contractual dispute, how is that judges and legal professionals allowed this testimony into evidence? It is, in your opinion completely superflous. So why is there?



When most Lance-Haters read any statement in support of Lance with, "Oh God, another one," or insinuate that the person making the statement is flawed or stupid....

Just wanted to point out that you described yourself as the "dumbest of the dumb" which seems to be pretty darned accurate

And again you confuse courtroom procedure with reality.
If you believe that judges are infallible in regards to the relevance of evidence allowed in courtrooms then i suggest you spend more time in a courtroom.

I know i am backtracking here but Al Capone & Lance Armstrong are relevant because you hold up the process as determining absolute truth.
Since Lance has never been convicted or charged he is innocent.
But common sense tells us this is not true, just as we know Al Capone was alot more than a tax cheat.

You still hold up the courtroom as the be all , end all. So if that logic holds true,
O J was not a murderer and Al Capone sold furniture.

dumbest of the dumb
that u are

 

[Izoard]

So do lots of contemporary sport. It would be great if controls and consequence would filter it out more thoroughly.

I agree absolutely, and many worse than cycling, both in history and current efforts to control.

 

[runninboy]

As I stated, an environment of suspicion that taints all results is a poison worse actual doping.

As far as i know i have never heard of a cyclist that died from an overdose of suspicion.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Riddle me this: Armstrong's haematocrit in 1999, when there was no EPO test, but only a 50% haematocrit limit, was constantly around 49%. Now it's 43-44%. There are three possible explanations for that:
1. He rode the 1999 Tour severely dehydrated to the point of near death
2. He rode the 1999 Tour pregnant
3. He rode the 1999 Tour on EPO and blood transfusions
I'd like to see you try to explain that away. Hint: any other possibility other than those three is medically impossible (and it goes without saying that option 2 is as well).

There's the team soigneur (Emma O'Reilly) that testified she found corticosteroids in Lance's luggage. Also that during a massage armstrong said "My haematocrit is 41%, way below the max allowed (50%), so I'm gonna do what everyone does"

That would be hilarious if he rode pregnant. They could give the baby an aerodynamic helmet to stop wind resistance in the time trials for lance. maybe he got pregnant with O'Reilly and Kik (lance's 1stwife) busted them phucking willing rubbing "saddle cream" all other each other. It would explain how lance tested positive to steroids "though it wasn't his fault" and why he split up with Kik. O'Reilly covers the cum up with make up thinking it won't show on lance and her because it covers up the markings.

I think i've worked it all out. See it's not that hard to work out lance's lies.

 

[Anonymous]

You have a pessimistic point of view coated with a heavy dose of distaste for Armstrong. I don't really mind. But it is the premise from which you work.

Every outstanding champ's ability looks garishly impossible. Merckx was an impossible animal. Lemond, Hinault, Indurain, etc. You can't always explain away domination with physiological limitations.

This one is physiologically impossible, and there is a world of difference.

 

[Deagol]

I don't know if Gree is still here, but it looks like everyone else has answered his question to me (I am not online during the weekends). I was going to pose more of a "big picture" philosophical response like comparing this drama to the OJ Simpson trial, but someone beat me to it. That analogy is not in comparing LA to OJ as people, not even close (I do like the Darth Armstrong thing though, very amusing). Rather, it is about examining the legal system and it's fallibility. The legal system was created by humans- who I think the last several thousands of years of history has proven occasionally make mistakes. Trust unquestioningly into that with system at your own peril. The point is, as others have stated, that any claim being verified or rejected by a court of law does not mean it is actually true or false. As many lawyers will tell you, the truth is irrelevant.
A few points to be made:
many (most?) of us don't hate LA. I actually admire much of what he has done. I don't hate him at all, seriously!

In conceding the likelihood of LA doping, it does not mean you hate him, or have even singled him out in that regard- quite the contrary. I don't "hate" any rider since I don't know any of them personally. If I had to choose a rider I DISLIKE the most, well, it would probably be Ricco.

The trick to all this is to remove your emotions from the process of examining the evidence- something that probably didn't happen in the OJ case. Upon reading the attitudes of some of the more steadfast LA supporters, there also seems to be emotion involved in the examination of evidence: indignation, anger, and even a bit of fear (fear in that something you believed in so much is under threat). That is why the hate or the love of any rider may sway your interpretation of the evidence. I truly believe that any reasonable person who feels neutral on LA as a person or rider will come to the conclusion that he very probably was a doper at least some point in his past. It is possible to come to that conclusion and not feel any anger towards him at all.

 

[TheArbiter]

People don't hate LA for doping - they often say they like other riders who also probably doped. They hate him because he was so successful and good at what he did on the bike. You tend to get this in all sports - the people that are into the sport the most, feel its too trendy and commersial to like the sports biggest name, like Michael Schumacher in F1, and lapse into cynical sniping. That's just the way is really.

 

[pedaling squares]

People don't hate LA for doping - they often say they like other riders who also probably doped. They hate him because he was so successful and good at what he did on the bike. You tend to get this in all sports - the people that are into the sport the most, feel its too trendy and commersial to like the sports biggest name, like Michael Schumacher in F1, and lapse into cynical sniping. That's just the way is really.

Yeah, no doubt there is some hatred simply because he is good. I am not a Lance fan but I can't figure out how so many people dump on his recent TDF - 3rd place after a layoff is pretty amazing. People hated Schumi not just because he was damn near unbeatable, his poor sportsmanship had a lot to do with it. The same attitude that made him great also made him run other drivers off the track when they got by him. Same with Lance. See the thread on Lance's (apparent) lies to get a bigger picture of why so many people dislike him. He is constantly engaging the media for self-serving reasons. He steps on the throats of people who he perceives have slighted him. His behaviour towards him team leader in the '09 TDF - there are many reasons why some would dislike him. Doesn't mean he is not a fantastic cyclist though.

To address the OP - doubtful that a cancer medication would have left traces of synthetic EPO in Lance's 1999 samples. So yes, he's a doper.

 

[TheArbiter]

Yeah, no doubt there is some hatred simply because he is good. I am not a Lance fan but I can't figure out how so many people dump on his recent TDF - 3rd place after a layoff is pretty amazing. People hated Schumi not just because he was damn near unbeatable, his poor sportsmanship had a lot to do with it. The same attitude that made him great also made him run other drivers off the track when they got by him. Same with Lance. See the thread on Lance's (apparent) lies to get a bigger picture of why so many people dislike him. He is constantly engaging the media for self-serving reasons. He steps on the throats of people who he perceives have slighted him. His behaviour towards him team leader in the '09 TDF - there are many reasons why some would dislike him. Doesn't mean he is not a fantastic cyclist though.

To address the OP - doubtful that a cancer medication would have left traces of synthetic EPO in Lance's 1999 samples. So yes, he's a doper.

The great champions tend to be very single minded people that get everyone around them working for their cause. It's part of the make up. You can either respect that, or hate it.

 

[lean mean &green]

I truly believe that any reasonable person who feels neutral on LA as a person or rider will come to the conclusion that he very probably was a doper at least some point in his past. It is possible to come to that conclusion and not feel any anger towards him at all.

+1

in feeling neutral they are much less motivated to post

it is no stretch to say that they are under-represented in the forum and that forums in general misrepresent popular opinion as a result

watch how our "neutral" posts go ignored

 

[Digger]

This piece one Youtube is one of the reasons I have such a huge problem with Lance Armstrong. The blatant hypocrisy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw

 

[workingclasshero]

maybe he got pregnant with O'Reilly and Kik (lance's 1stwife) busted them phucking willing rubbing "saddle cream" all other each other. It would explain how lance tested positive to steroids "though it wasn't his fault" and why he split up with Kik. O'Reilly covers the cum up with make up thinking it won't show on lance and her because it covers up the markings.

anyone else got a semi? i'm sure totally_lance (the one posting homoerotic pics of lance) does

 

[TheArbiter]

This piece one Youtube is one of the reasons I have such a huge problem with Lance Armstrong. The blatant hypocrisy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw

Well, what's he supposed to say? I think there was a defense in there when he says that doping has always gone on. The way, I think, he looks at it is as a sportsman you can only do what everybody else is doing at that period of time, and play the cards that are dealt to you. I think if there was a way to completely stamp out doping then he would be completely fine with that. That would be the mindset.

 

[ProTour]

People don't hate LA for doping - they often say they like other riders who also probably doped. They hate him because he was so successful and good at what he did on the bike. You tend to get this in all sports - the people that are into the sport the most, feel its too trendy and commersial to like the sports biggest name, like Michael Schumacher in F1, and lapse into cynical sniping. That's just the way is really.

This really is the the fuel behind the fire when it comes to all the anti-Lance propaganda.

As long as all his tests are officially clean, and they all have been up till this point, I'll assume he never cheated, though I remain open to opposing evidence. Lance deserves this respect, after 7 tour wins in a row, for what he has done for the growth of cycling in the world(probably more than anything any cyclist has ever done in history), and for the inspiration he has provided many cancer patients.

Look at his recent 3rd place finish in the TdF. Amazing, after a 3 year layoff. Many people think he is riding clean, yet also think he was doping when he won when he was in his prime, and that everyone was doping back then. Makes no sense. The times weren't any slower for this years tour, so it's not like the peleton is going any slower than it was when Lance was in his prime. If he was doping then and was clean now, I don't think he would be as competitive after a 3 year layoff.

Bottom line: What part of "never failed a drug test" do you not understand?

 

[issoisso]

Well, what's he supposed to say?

He's supposed to dig himself into a hole like he did years ago on Leno

"People accuse me of this and that, but it's actually pretty simple:

If the guys who finished behind me, second, third, fourth, etc. have all been busted, and I beat them, then.......*gesticulates with his hand*......then.......*looks shocked as he just now realizes he took the wrong detour on his reasoning......*
.....
.........

*Leno cuts in quickly to save the situation* "Hey Lance you never tested positive, right?"
"No, never!"


Oh how I wish I'd saved that clip. It's been months since I last saw it.

 

[Digger]

Well, what's he supposed to say? I think there was a defense in there when he says that doping has always gone on. The way, I think, he looks at it is as a sportsman you can only do what everybody else is doing at that period of time, and play the cards that are dealt to you. I think if there was a way to completely stamp out doping then he would be completely fine with that. That would be the mindset.

Hypocrisy:
He employed the most notorious doping doctor of the past twenty years.
His 'coach' and friend CC doped atheletes.
He speaks about out of competition testing, yet he dumped Catlin.
He says you can't do anything to change a test in 24hrs...complete and utter bullsh**.
He himself was being given prior warning about his out of competition tests, so no wonder he is a big fan.
And finally, in 1999, the sport was at a crossroads due to Festina. If there had been a will, change could've come about. However he was at the forefront in keeping onto the old system of Omerta.

I just can't get my head around Lance Armstrong giving an interview where he outlines his suggestions for cleaning up the sport, when he was the most successful beneficiary of doping in the first place.

 

[Digger]

This really is the the fuel behind the fire when it comes to all the anti-Lance propaganda.

As long as all his tests are officially clean, and they all have been up till this point, I'll assume he never cheated, though I remain open to opposing evidence. Lance deserves this respect, after 7 tour wins in a row, for what he has done for the growth of cycling in the world(probably more than anything any cyclist has ever done in history), and for the inspiration he has provided many cancer patients.

Look at his recent 3rd place finish in the TdF. Amazing, after a 3 year layoff. Many people think he is riding clean, yet also think he was doping when he won when he was in his prime, and that everyone was doping back then. Makes no sense. The times weren't any slower for this years tour, so it's not like the peleton is going any slower than it was when Lance was in his prime. If he was doping then and was clean now, I don't think he would be as competitive after a 3 year layoff.

Bottom line: What part of "never failed a drug test" do you not understand?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
You say you are open to opposing views.

And in relation to your first point...Did it ever occur to you that he was doping BOTH then and now?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know if Gree is still here, but it looks like everyone else has answered his question to me (I am not online during the weekends). I was going to pose more of a "big picture" philosophical response like comparing this drama to the OJ Simpson trial, but someone beat me to it. That analogy is not in comparing LA to OJ as people, not even close (I do like the Darth Armstrong thing though, very amusing). Rather, it is about examining the legal system and it's fallibility. The legal system was created by humans- who I think the last several thousands of years of history has proven occasionally make mistakes. Trust unquestioningly into that with system at your own peril. The point is, as others have stated, that any claim being verified or rejected by a court of law does not mean it is actually true or false. As many lawyers will tell you, the truth is irrelevant.
A few points to be made:
many (most?) of us don't hate LA. I actually admire much of what he has done. I don't hate him at all, seriously!

In conceding the likelihood of LA doping, it does not mean you hate him, or have even singled him out in that regard- quite the contrary. I don't "hate" any rider since I don't know any of them personally. If I had to choose a rider I DISLIKE the most, well, it would probably be Ricco.

The trick to all this is to remove your emotions from the process of examining the evidence- something that probably didn't happen in the OJ case. Upon reading the attitudes of some of the more steadfast LA supporters, there also seems to be emotion involved in the examination of evidence: indignation, anger, and even a bit of fear (fear in that something you believed in so much is under threat). That is why the hate or the love of any rider may sway your interpretation of the evidence. I truly believe that any reasonable person who feels neutral on LA as a person or rider will come to the conclusion that he very probably was a doper at least some point in his past. It is possible to come to that conclusion and not feel any anger towards him at all.

Great post - and also the posts after it.
I think you hit on a great point here. A lot of Lance supporters would feel tremendously let down if they knew the full facts.

And of course I know how they feel!
My hero growing up was Sean Kelly - I have met him countless times, I have ridden with him and even had a beer with him in a bar in Belgium.
For years I held out the hope that he didn't dope - and then he has a positive in 84. But even then I read in a book - written by David Walsh!- that suggested it was an oversight which made sense as the PED was not really performance enhancing.
Then of course came 98 and after Willy Voets book I couldn't possibly ignore what he wrote - it didn't crush me, but my view on the sport - the Pro side - and the heroic displays changed completely.

I wasn't surprised when Lance finished 3rd this year - and that is saying something about the guy. Age 37, been away for 3 years (38 & 4 years if you listen to Versus) and right back up at the top. And he didn't go his 'normal' route to Tour either by doing the Giro.

I have followed Lance from the early days - ya, I guess I was a fan. But I have been around too long now and if something looks suspicious or warrants closer scrutiny then I will irrespective of the rider.
I am still very passionate about this sport - but when I want to get my fix of exciting cycling I go and watch the local Juniors because I know that they haven't yet fallen victim to the system.

 

[pedaling squares]

Bottom line: What part of "never failed a drug test" do you not understand?

I guess the part about steroids and synthetic EPO in his 1999 TDF samples.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This really is the the fuel behind the fire when it comes to all the anti-Lance propaganda.

As long as all his tests are officially clean, and they all have been up till this point, I'll assume he never cheated, though I remain open to opposing evidence. Lance deserves this respect, after 7 tour wins in a row, for what he has done for the growth of cycling in the world(probably more than anything any cyclist has ever done in history), and for the inspiration he has provided many cancer patients.

Look at his recent 3rd place finish in the TdF. Amazing, after a 3 year layoff. Many people think he is riding clean, yet also think he was doping when he won when he was in his prime, and that everyone was doping back then. Makes no sense. The times weren't any slower for this years tour, so it's not like the peleton is going any slower than it was when Lance was in his prime. If he was doping then and was clean now, I don't think he would be as competitive after a 3 year layoff.

Bottom line: What part of "never failed a drug test" do you not understand?

I must admit I find the portion I have highlighted above quite contradictory.
How can you remain open to opposing evidence if you already assume anyone hasn't cheated because they haven't failed a drug test.

Bernard Kohl - as the most recent example - admitted that he had been cheating for years and had never failed until he started using CERA.

This is not Anti Lance propaganda- this is about anti doping.
The history of cycling has shown us time and again the way the riders, Doctors, teams have beaten and abused the system.

Every rider deserves our respect - they are all accomplished athletes.

However it is because the riders doped that they lost the trust of the cycling community. We as cycling fans have a right to question any suspicious activity and the systems that protects them.

 

[scribe]

I must admit I find the portion I have highlighted above quite contradictory.
How can you remain open to opposing evidence if you already assume anyone hasn't cheated because they haven't failed a drug test.

Bernard Kohl - as the most recent example - admitted that he had been cheating for years and had never failed until he started using CERA.

This is not Anti Lance propaganda- this is about anti doping.
The history of cycling has shown us time and again the way the riders, Doctors, teams have beaten and abused the system.

Every rider deserves our respect - they are all accomplished athletes.

However it is because the riders doped that they lost the trust of the cycling community. We as cycling fans have a right to question any suspicious activity and the systems that protects them.

I have highlighted the text above that has been bothering me. I think the Lance connection with people's passions about doping are a little too convenient. Nothing wrong with disliking the guy. I'll admit he is a ****. So what? Imma a **** too! I want some threads about me! But if you guys want to express your disgust for doping, it is better to handle it as a separate issue. There are no heated threads directed toward the entities/organizations that develop and maintain doping controls. They are the ones who are falling flat on the sport. Not just individual cyclists.

These governing bodies must find a way to combat doping in the sport for it to have any credibility with the wider audience. If Lance has doped, you can bet it is more out of the competitive environment that doping culture has grown into. If all the guys are getting away with it, you have to do it to survive. I think we can all agree with this logic. Stem the ability of the peloton to get away with it, and the doping goes away.

 

[elapid]

Lance deserves this respect, after 7 tour wins in a row.

Winning 7 TdFs is an amazing feat. But he doesn't get my respect because of his riding abilities and talent. He earns my disrespect for:
- Supporting the Omerta by chasing Simeoni, shouting at Bassons, etc
- Manipulating the media so only pro-Lance journalists were allowed to interview him
- Doping in the 1999 TdF and making a mockery of the post-Festina Tour of Redemption
- Immature open criticism and twitters during the 2009 TdF
- For not acting like a champion

Lance deserves this respect, after 7 tour wins in a row, for what he has done for the growth of cycling in the world(probably more than anything any cyclist has ever done in history).

I will make a bold step and presume you are American. No disrespect, but cycling was well established in many countries other than the USA prior to Lance. Look at the thread in the Racing Forum on the top 10 cyclists from each nation. The European countries have an extremely rich and long history in cycling, Australia goes back to the 1890s, and Americans only started on the scene in the late 1970s and early 1980s. So Lance has done a lot for the growth of cycling, but only in North America.

Bottom line: What part of "never failed a drug test" do you not understand?

1. Cortisone - failed. Claimed a TUE in retrospect.
2. hCG is a marker for testicular cancer. The normal levels in an adult male are < 0.5. Lance's level at the time of his diagnosis was 109,000. He was tested multiple times by the UCI in the months leading up to his diagnosis and his hCG levels would have been markedly increased in all of these tests. So why didn't he fail this test? Masking agents or coverups? Regardless, direct proof that "I've never failed a test" is just a completely BS argument.

Then there are the likes of Kohl who admits he should have tested positive more than 100 times but never did; Schumacher, Kohl and Rebellin who were not caught by the biological passport system; Dwayne Chamberlain in his autobiography stating how he beat the doping controls; the fact that cyclists like Ullrich and Basso have never tested positive (even Valverde for that matter) but all have been caught by being exposed in affairs like Operation Puerto; and finally that no one, even Lance, will test positive to HGH or autologous blood transfusions because there are no effective tests for these forms of doping yet.

Most of us have formed an opinion based on reading and listening to all the available information and critically processing this information. Then there are people like you and Gree who cannot argue the facts and preponderance of evidence intelligently because you cannot think for yourselves or critically and persist in believing Lance didn't dope because he never tested positive. You are living in your CNN world of sound bites, accepting everything you are told, and you're welcome to it. Enjoy bathing in your blissful ignorance.

And +1 for Deagol's post. Hit the nail on the head with that one.

 

[Cobber]

Winning 7 TdFs is an amazing feat. But he doesn't get my respect because of his riding abilities and talent. He earns my disrespect for:
- Supporting the Omerta by chasing Simeoni, shouting at Bassons, etc
- Manipulating the media so only pro-Lance journalists were allowed to interview him
- Doping in the 1999 TdF and making a mockery of the post-Festina Tour of Redemption
- Immature open criticism and twitters during the 2009 TdF
- For not acting like a champion



I will make a bold step and presume you are American. No disrespect, but cycling was well established in many countries other than the USA prior to Lance. Look at the thread in the Racing Forum on the top 10 cyclists from each nation. The European countries have an extremely rich and long history in cycling, Australia goes back to the 1890s, and Americans only started on the scene in the late 1970s and early 1980s. So Lance has done a lot for the growth of cycling, but only in North America.


1. Cortisone - failed. Claimed a TUE in retrospect.
2. hCG is a marker for testicular cancer. The normal levels in an adult male are < 0.5. Lance's level at the time of his diagnosis was 109,000. He was tested multiple times by the UCI in the months leading up to his diagnosis and his hCG levels would have been markedly increased in all of these tests. So why didn't he fail this test? Masking agents or coverups? Regardless, direct proof that "I've never failed a test" is just a completely BS argument.

Then there are the likes of Kohl who admits he should have tested positive more than 100 times but never did; Schumacher, Kohl and Rebellin who were not caught by the biological passport system; Dwayne Chamberlain in his autobiography stating how he beat the doping controls; the fact that cyclists like Ullrich and Basso have never tested positive (even Valverde for that matter) but all have been caught by being exposed in affairs like Operation Puerto; and finally that no one, even Lance, will test positive to HGH or autologous blood transfusions because there are no effective tests for these forms of doping yet.

Most of us have formed an opinion based on reading and listening to all the available information and critically processing this information. Then there are people like you and Gree who cannot argue the facts and preponderance of evidence intelligently because you cannot think for yourselves or critically and persist in believing Lance didn't dope because he never tested positive. You are living in your CNN world of sound bites, accepting everything you are told, and you're welcome to it. Enjoy bathing in your blissful ignorance.

And +1 for Deagol's post. Hit the nail on the head with that one.

+1.... If I was awake enough to put together coherent sentences, I would have said something like this as well. Great post!