Why LA is not a doper (seriously)

[pmcg76]

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.

Agree completely with you, I too was dissappointed with the Kelly conncetion but after 98, I was not exactly delusional so thus not shocked.

For me, it is not a huge issue whether Lance doped or not, I believe he did. It is more his attitude to the whole doping subject in which he pleaded ignorance on the whole subject, the head in the sand attitude whilst everything was going down around him. Nobody tried to sell the myth of dope free cycling like Lance, he might have got away with it pre-98, not afterwards. As I never tire of pointing out, his run-in with Filippo Simeoni simply went against the idea of trying to clean the sport up.

I understand Lance is more of an icon for non-sporting fans so it is hard to accept that he might have doped. The legend is that he returned from cancer to win the Tour 7 times inspiring millions or cancer survivors and others along the way. Its a human comfort story that loses all credibility and relevance if he was cheating.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Kohl is a liar. This much has been established. So just because he said he's beat the system many times before does not mean he has (necessarily). I mean, is he lying about beating the system to stick his thumb in the eye of the UCI? If not, why not?

I agree with you however when you say the riders are responsible for losing the trust of the cycling community. Having said that I think there is real danger painting everyone with the same brush.

For example, I believe Wiggo raced clean in the TdF. I think it was very smart on his part to release his blood values. In fact I've never seen such a look of pain as Wiggo on Ventoux. Ouch!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I agree - I do think one of the problems with this forum is that often people who support Lance pop in to this side and assume that all we do is discuss LA.

There are countless threads on many riders - even today there is an interesting debate on Iban Mayo on another thread.
The whole proccess behind his positive is being questioned.

The reason there are no heated threads about other riders is because LA carrys a lot of support as this is an English speaking website.

A good example would be Menchov - he gets a pretty hard time this side of the forum but because there is no-one jumping to his defense he hasn't yet merited his own thread.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

Miguel Indurain and Greg LeMond were two great champions who were also considered really good guys and were universally liked by their fellow
pros. The media thought Indurain was boring but that dont make him a ****. You can be a great champion without being a complete tool.

 

[scribe]

I agree - I do think one of the problems with this forum is that often people who support Lance pop in to this side and assume that all we do is discuss LA.

There are countless threads on many riders - even today there is an interesting debate on Iban Mayo on another thread.
The whole proccess behind his positive is being questioned.

The reason there are no heated threads about other riders is because LA carrys a lot of support as this is an English speaking website.

A good example would be Menchov - he gets a pretty hard time this side of the forum but because there is no-one jumping to his defense he hasn't yet merited his own thread.

I'd prefer to not attack any of the riders who have not tested positive or caught with the goods-in-hand. Lance is a ****, with lots of circumstantial evidence against him. But the problems lie with the governing bodies in charge of the sport and in charge of implementing doping controls.

 

[Digger]

It's funny what Doctor wrote because Roche was my hero growing up. I remember where exactly I was when watching the La Plagne stage and the World Championships of the same year. However David Walsh's reporting of his name being in Conconi's files changed it all, and I didn't doubt for one second that he had taken EPO. And this eventhough it was only aliases of Roche which appeared. But either way, one could not escape that Roche had doped, like most of his Carrera teammates.
And that's really it...that's the extent of the evidence against Roche...a link with a known doping Doctor. Roche himself says that he donated the blood for research purposes
In contrast, the evidence against Lance is a mountain in comparison. Yet many still believe him clean and I really wonder about these people. Is it ignorance of the sport, wanting to believe in miracles, lack of common sense, or downright stupidity.
David Walsh says about FLTL: "I find it hard to believe that ANYONE WITH AN OPEN MIND, before reading the book, cannot but come to the conclusion that Lance doped." And that's the key - the open mind. The Lance supporters either don't read the book, and feel qualified to comment on it, or dismiss all of it as a collection of people with an axe to grind. For someone who is heavily involved in education, it is incredibly hard to fathom that people can be so naive, at the very least.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Kohl is a liar. This much has been established. So just because he said he's beat the system many times before does not mean he has (necessarily). I mean, is he lying about beating the system to stick his thumb in the eye of the UCI? If not, why not?

I agree with you however when you say the riders are responsible for losing the trust of the cycling community. Having said that I think there is real danger painting everyone with the same brush.

For example, I believe Wiggo raced clean in the TdF. I think it was very smart on his part to release his blood values. In fact I've never seen such a look of pain as Wiggo on Ventoux. Ouch!

Fair point on Kohl being a liar - he changed his story 3 times, so which one if any is true?

But again you don't have to look too far back as in Jesus Menzano - he was ridiculed by the peloton and everyone associated with cycling.
But when it hit the fan with Operation Puerto he was proven correct.

I do believe there are clean cyclists within the Pro peloton - guessing the number would be just speculation.

However over the last year the foot has been taken off the gas by the UCI ASO/EPA on the anti-doping strategy - and if nothing gets questioned than nothing changes.
That does a great disservice to the riders who are clean.

 

[pmcg76]

I'd prefer to not attack any of the riders who have not tested positive or caught with the goods-in-hand. Lance is a ****, with lots of circumstantial evidence against him. But the problems lie with the governing bodies in charge of the sport and in charge of implementing doping controls.

No ****, Paul Kimmage told us this 20 years ago in his book A Rough Ride. Of course he is just another Lance hater. We know the authorities are responsible for the situation, it does not excuse if Lance were doping.

 

[Digger]

No ****, Paul Kimmage told us this 20 years ago in his book A Rough Ride. Of course he is just another Lance hater. We know the authorities are responsible for the situation, it does not excuse if Lance were doping.

And good old Pat McQuaid said at the time about Rough Ride that it was the typical story of an average cyclist who could never make it big. Paul has been vindicated many many times, Pat has been shown to be a joke even more often.

 

[pmcg76]

It's funny what Doctor wrote because Roche was my hero growing up. I remember where exactly I was when watching the La Plagne stage and the World Championships of the same year. However David Walsh's reporting of his name being in Conconi's files changed it all, and I didn't doubt for one second that he had taken EPO. And this eventhough it was only aliases of Roche which appeared. But either way, one could not escape that Roche had doped, like most of his Carrera teammates.
And that's really it...that's the extent of the evidence against Roche...a link with a known doping Doctor. Roche himself says that he donated the blood for research purposes
In contrast, the evidence against Lance is a mountain in comparison. Yet many still believe him clean and I really wonder about these people. Is it ignorance of the sport, wanting to believe in miracles, lack of common sense, or downright stupidity.
David Walsh says about FLTL: "I find it hard to believe that ANYONE WITH AN OPEN MIND, before reading the book, cannot but come to the conclusion that Lance doped." And that's the key - the open mind. The Lance supporters either don't read the book, and feel qualified to comment on it, or dismiss all of it as a collection of people with an axe to grind. For someone who is heavily involved in education, it is incredibly hard to fathom that people can be so naive, at the very least.

I am Irish, Kelly and Roche are our legendary riders, they have tenous links with doping at the best(far less than Lance) but would I ever come on here and say there was absolutely no way they were doping. No way and that is what irks me about the Lance fans, this notion that no way would he have doped.

I would like to believe the current generation of Irish guys are clean and would be sad if they were even rumours concerning doping. I wouldnt defend them just because they are the guys I like best in pro cycling.

 

[Eva Maria]

I'd prefer to not attack any of the riders who have not tested positive or caught with the goods-in-hand.

Armstrong has done both multiple times

 

[scribe]

No ****, Paul Kimmage told us this 20 years ago in his book A Rough Ride. Of course he is just another Lance hater. We know the authorities are responsible for the situation, it does not excuse if Lance were doping.

Not looking for excuses. Just separating those who can't get enough discussing their distaste for Lance, from those who would like to just get doping out of the sport altogether.

 

[TheArbiter]

I am Irish, Kelly and Roche are our legendary riders, they have tenous links with doping at the best(far less than Lance)

Tenous? A court found Roche has taken EPO. That's more evidence than Lance.

I really don't think people should criticise Armstrong to the extent that they do. All his main rivals were just as doped, if not more so, than he was, so the guy is still a legend either way. Why can't we all just recognize that?

As experienced cycling fans you know full well that Armstrong can never admit to this because the ignorant public would think he only won because he doped, and his good work for cancer would bite the dust. So why do you persecute him? He's an inspiration.

 

[TheArbiter]

My own view is, it would be pretty hard for LA to continually dope for seven tours and not have some mud stick, so he probably dropped doping from 2002 onwards, or at least massively cut it back.

 

[Digger]

I am Irish, Kelly and Roche are our legendary riders, they have tenous links with doping at the best(far less than Lance) but would I ever come on here and say there was absolutely no way they were doping. No way and that is what irks me about the Lance fans, this notion that no way would he have doped.

I would like to believe the current generation of Irish guys are clean and would be sad if they were even rumours concerning doping. I wouldnt defend them just because they are the guys I like best in pro cycling.

Nicholas is meant to be very much anti-doping in fairness.
I liked Jan Ullrich for example, but the guy absolutely doped. And again there is actually far less evidence against him that Lance.

 

[pmcg76]

Tenous? A court found Roche has taken EPO. That's more evidence than Lance.

I really don't think people should criticise Armstrong to the extent that they do. All his main rivals were just as doped, if not more so, than he was, so the guy is still a legend either way. Why can't we all just recognize that?

As experienced cycling fans you know full well that Armstrong can never admit to this because the ignorant public would think he only won because he doped, and his good work for cancer would bite the dust. So why do you persecute him? He's an inspiration.

The same way a court found Ferrari was doping his athletes thus giving credence to Filippo Simeoni, the main witness who Lance tried to bully to make him stop talking. A judge stated that he believed (based on the evience) Carrera were doping their riders including Roche but this case never finsihed and there was no convictions, the same as the Lance evidence. Of course it was Roche but there was a Rossi on Carrera at the same time, Roche was never named directly but similar aliasis were used so how do we know if it was Roche or Rossi. The assumption is it was Roche and I believe this.

Lance made more than any other cyclist from his career, so that is why he faces the highest scrutiny. As somebody pointed out earlier, Lance came along in 99, the Tour of Redemption, the chance to change the tide against doping the way the French were trying to do. Instead of going forward the sport went back to the dark ages and the figurehead of the sport was Lance.

 

[Digger]

Tenous? A court found Roche has taken EPO. That's more evidence than Lance.

I really don't think people should criticise Armstrong to the extent that they do. All his main rivals were just as doped, if not more so, than he was, so the guy is still a legend either way. Why can't we all just recognize that?

As experienced cycling fans you know full well that Armstrong can never admit to this because the ignorant public would think he only won because he doped, and his good work for cancer would bite the dust. So why do you persecute him? He's an inspiration.

Roche never tested positive - LA did. So for me that's more evidence that an alias being on a file.
Evidence for rivals being even more doped?
LA has done mightily well from his 'good work' for cancer. The Austrailian PM would certainly like to see more of this good work, for the amount of money he received.

 

[Digger]

My own view is, it would be pretty hard for LA to continually dope for seven tours and not have some mud stick, so he probably dropped doping from 2002 onwards, or at least massively cut it back.

His performances, figures, average speeds etc certainly don't indicated this. He was even more dominant in 04 and 05.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Tenous? A court found Roche has taken EPO. That's more evidence than Lance.

I really don't think people should criticise Armstrong to the extent that they do. All his main rivals were just as doped, if not more so, than he was, so the guy is still a legend either way. Why can't we all just recognize that?

As experienced cycling fans you know full well that Armstrong can never admit to this because the ignorant public would think he only won because he doped, and his good work for cancer would bite the dust. So why do you persecute him? He's an inspiration.

Lance coming back to ride in the Pro peloton in Paris Nice in 98 after cancer was an amazing achievement.
But that doesnt earn superstar status - nor indeed does winning classics for his home audience.

Winning the Tour does - and imo it is incomprehendable that he would ever have won a Tour without getting involved in the 'Arms Race".

 

[TheArbiter]

Roche never tested positive - LA did. So for me that's more evidence that an alias being on a file. .

LA never tested positive. The trace elements of cortisoid steriods were not enough for a positiive test - they were a cream - and cyclists have never used cortisoids so the case is closed on that issue.

Roche's team mate said he saw him dope - nobody has ever said that about Armstrong.

 

[TheArbiter]

His performances, figures, average speeds etc certainly don't indicated this. He was even more dominant in 04 and 05.

I'm sure the previous years of doping helped him know how to train to get the best out of him. He also had the best team. The idea that some put forward that a cyclist can never improve over their career doesn't fly with me. Sports science moves on outside of just doping. As each year passes the equipment gets better, they learn how do train more effectively and use the best techniques of taking carbs and whatnot.

 

[TheArbiter]

Lance coming back to ride in the Pro peloton in Paris Nice in 98 after cancer was an amazing achievement.
But that doesnt earn superstar status - nor indeed does winning classics for his home audience.

Winning the Tour does - and imo it is incomprehendable that he would ever have won a Tour without getting involved in the 'Arms Race".

He wasn't that far off this year at nearly 38 and no seriously believes he was on major dope. That tells its own story.

Look at how Wiggins has completely transformed and his blood profiles are clean. It is doable.

 

[pmcg76]

Roche's team mate said he saw him dope - nobody has ever said that about Armstrong.

I missed this, which of Roches team-mates said that and when.

 

[Anonymous]

LA never tested positive. The trace elements of cortisoid steriods were not enough for a positiive test - they were a cream - and cyclists have never used cortisoids so the case it closed on that issue.

Roche's team mate said he saw him dope - nobody has ever said that about Armstrong.

"Just so you know, Lance doped"
Floyd Landis

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

The trace elements of cortisoid steriods were not enough for a positiive test

Do you have a source about the exact results, apart the UCI telling it was "minimal"?
Was curious to see this.