Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 13

Sorry, I didnt understand what did you ask, just because my english! I will answer you, but simplify it hehe
No, training is the most important, then drugs come! You cant reach paris without training and without drugs too! There are many other races you cant win or place high without drugs!

Heh we dont know if Millar told all! He just mentioned two years! If you belive him, ok..

Today, doping is nothing so special! EPO is the most popular because its not expensive, its easy to use, it can be found just 72 hours after use, it doesnt make a lot of damage and its not so hard to get it!
And its really nonsense to talk just about lance! Count how many top level riders were cought in previous years! And I think they were unlucky or their doping wasnt organized enough! And there is the difference between them and riders, who were not cought yet! In sport today, drugs are everywhere, specialy in high level sports! Im reading cycling and other sport news every day for about one year now and thats my opinion of what I have read and heard.

What does Millar have to gain by lying about it at this point?

The question was asked do we think that LA is doping ?

My gut tells me that he is.
Why ?
Because I remember seeing a cyclist struggle in the Tour de France between 1992-1996.

I realise that the LA supporters will invoke the change in his physiology following cancer and he near death experience gives him an altered view to training hard etc.

However, I look back at my old Eurosport tapes from 1992-1996 - recorded as the stages took place and unedited - and I see a man who was floundering.
Is this conclusive proof that he does use drugs ?
No.

But it is my opinion.
I look further back and I see how Hinault and even Indurain, at times, look tired when they're on the podium.
Our own Stephen Roche looked like he'd cycled a Tour de France when he won it.

But Armstrong ?
He didn't look tired at all during the 2004 Tour de France.
He looked as fresh as a daisy.
And that's the problem - you ought to look tired when you've cycled huge distances.
You ought to look even mildly uncomfortable going up very steep climbs.
I didn't see any of that.
His expression reminded me of something I had seen many years ago with the East German athletes.
Everyone else looked tired or distraught but the East Germans didn't.

The old tapes and the new tapes show two completely different human specimens.
1992-1996 shows a man trying his best.
1999-2004 shows a man who looks like he aint't trying.
Call me a cynic but I can't explain his improvement.

I like Lance (travelled to Paris to see him kick ass), but I think he's doping.

I also think any cyclist with any degree of success has to be doping too.

Don't care.

I'm asking what it is that qualifies you to make the statement that all cyclists at the level of the Tour de France are doping. Have you ever ridden the Tour de France? Are you close friends to people who have ridden the Tour de France? Are you a coach for riders who are that good, that dedicated and that talented? Why is it that we should believe the statements you made when you said that all riders in the Tour de France are doping?

You presented your opinion as though you had some first-hand information - as though you knew for sure from your own experience. So I'm asking what that experience is.

Unfortunately, when people offer explanations such as the physiology change you mentioned between pre and post cancer, you dismiss it as though it's somehow less of an explanation than the possibility that he's using performance enhancing drugs. So I'll ask you this;


A) The use of illegal performance enhancing drugs.

B) The loss of 20 pounds of upper body weight while maintaining all of the former lower body strength.

Many have already stated that the gains from doping aren't as marked as what you suggest you have observed in Armstrong.

The other flip to the coin is that you believe that Armstrong has gained the ability to "look fresh as a daisy" even in the middle of the Tour de France while other upper-class riders in the peloton appear exhausted and beaten. Yet Ullrich continues to be a force at the very head of the peloton and you continue to avoid any suggestion that to continue to ride near riders who are doping, he must also be doping. Perhaps many riders in the peloton are doping. But if so, I think it's illogical to rule out Ullrich as being among those who are.

Once you adopt the idea that many riders are doping, then you still have them looking beaten and exhausted while Lance looks far less exhausted. So then where do you go? He has better drugs? It just doesn't pan out. If Armstrong is doping then it's obvious from the admissions of those who have been caught that he isn't the only one. Yet he's still crushing those who are. Did we see the Festina team riding dominantly ahead of the pack in 1997? Did they look fresh as daisies well into the race? No, they looked pretty much like the other riders and fared no better. Considering the fact that the whole team was removed from the race for doping in 1998, it's plausible to think that they were doping in 1997. If Lance is doping to beat other riders who are doping, he's still doing so in a decidedly substantial fashion. If, as you contend, his physiological changes are insufficient to explain this, you're still left without an explanation. Drugs alone can't do that. Especially not against other riders who are doping. No matter how you analyze it, unless you decide that only Armstrong is doping, (which we already know isn't the case), then he's still performing at a level which doesn't compare with the observations you make about his pre-1999 performance. That leaves us with the rather substantial changes in his physiology after cancer.

Back to square-one.

In my humble opinion...if Lance ever doped...he's NOT doing it now. He simply has too much to lose. This Texan is much smarter than that. Plus, to be awakened at 2:00am to piss in a cup...I just don't think he would ever take a chance. I DO NOT think Lance is currently doping.

Best Wishes,
Vector7

Honestly, I dont know! I think that you cant do so much km per year, racing three weeks more than 150 km per day, climbing over all these "cols" and all that with speed they are doing without doping! I heard from some riders here how is with doping in U23+ level and I can just foresse what is happening in highest level of cycling, where all is much harder and on much professional level! Human body just cant do all that!

And remember all doping affairs in last years! Do you think that others, as good as riders which were cought, are not doing the same?

Well I have never contended that the other cyclists were clean.

The fact of the matter is that the rate of improvement apportioned to LA, makes me think that he has improved through doping.
It's the improvement in his form which I cannot allocate to better physiology
(and I know that this riles his fans but that's my view).

In a sport riven with drugs, I look to those who have had the most consistent performers and am prepared to give them the benefit of a very large doubt.
It's LA improvement which makes me suspicious of LA.

Beastt - we have been over this territory before as you well know.
I'm too tired to really argue this entire subject again !

Perhaps the point to look at is that human bodies are doing that. Whether through doping or through tremendous training, the riders are doing what we see them doing. People sometimes want to place performance enhancing drugs in the realm of magical potions. Certainly they can help to improve strength and/or endurance, but the athlete using them is still forcing his body to produce that strength and to endure the wear and tear.

I've seen suggestions that Lance couldn't just simply be training that much harder than the other riders because the human body can only train so hard before it begins to break. Certainly it is correct that beyond a certain limit, the body will start to fail. Every joint, every muscle and every organ has a weak point and if pressed beyond that, injury, failure or illness will result. But that doesn't change just because someone uses performance enhancing drugs. Lance is doing what we see him doing. He got there somehow and pushed his body to a point where it can do these things better than the bodies of the other riders. If that level of training can be achieved through the use of performance enhancing drugs, then it can be obtained without them. It takes longer, requires an extreme mental focus and an absurd ability to withstand pain, but the structural integrity of the body doesn't change due to the drugs, they simply make it easier to push harder for longer - to push beyond the point where pain and suffering would normally cause a rider to lessen his efforts.

In other words, the drugs don't change the breaking point of the human body. They just make it easier - less painful - to push to that point.

Many are suggesting that the reason the testing doesn't reveal the use of these drugs is because the riders only use them during training and then stop taking them before the race, allowing sufficient time for the traces of the drugs to be removed from their system so that testing won't show their use. If this is the case, then the same level of training can be accomplished through shear will-power. The kind that Lance has shown us over and over that he possesses.

Beast, can I ask you about your opinion? What do you think about doping in cycling? Because I didnt see it yet..

That's untrue. EPO increases oxygen delivery and hence causes up to a 10% rise in peak aerobic power. Thus the breaking point is extended. PFC, Avanesp, HBOC and 'blood doping' also enhance oxygen delivery. Oxygen delivery is a primary limiting factor in endurance exercise - increase the limiting factor, increase the breaking point.

HGH, IGF, testosterone and steroids aid in recovery and muscle retention/building. The ability to recover faster means you can train harder the day after a difficult session - increasing the breaking point.

Corticosteroids reduce soreness and inflammation, encourage weight loss and lipolysis and stimulate energy systems.

Insulin can be used to promote lipolysis and glucose uptake.

Traditional stimulants like amphetamines, caffeine, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine also act in various ways to reduce fatigue and increase the breaking point.

Performance enhancing drugs can increase sustainable power, training volume and recovery and also reduce mental and neuromuscular fatigue. Increasing the breaking point of the human body is exactly what drugs do.

That's interesting information and you seem to be very well informed on the topic, so I respect what you're saying here Roadie_Scum. You and antoineg have really made some good arguments in this thread in my opinion.

But if a top pro like Millar who has admitted to using EPO in competition and has also (presumably) raced clean says that PED's don't have a significant enough impact to elevate a rider like Armstrong from "good" to "great" and that it's likely that Armstrong would still be winning whether he's clean or not, I would tend to believe him.

The information your siting appears to be taken form test results on various substances. "Real world" results and tests results are often very different. Since Millar has firsthand experience, I'd tend to put more stock in what he's saying.

All that being said, I know that Millar considers Armstrong a friend so his comments may have (at least in part) been slanted to make his friend look good. And while I try to be as objective as I can, I admit that my view is probably a bit biased in favor of Armstrong. Although probably not as biased as you might think.

But you forgot that EPO is not the only drug! Its just the most popular and practical! You have plenty of other drugs (and a lot more effective) and if you want to know more about them read that! In the bottom there are links for all his articles! I recommende to all of you to read all his articles! They make you think! He explained a lot of drugs, I think about 25..

Roadie summarized it well enough. Personally, after using some of the mentioned PED's and living with someone that was/is addicted to an entire medicine cabinet assortment, I found more than a 10% increase. BUT, it was the PSYCHOLOGICAL effect(s) that truly scared me. Das Uber Mensch, baby. Frightening increases across the graph in absurdly short periods of time! You actually feel super-human. I suppose that the testing on the psychological effects is minimal. But man, those freakin drugs are darn addictive!
Like the Raven said: "NEVER MORE".