Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 48

Irrespective of the time commitment to training, an athlete's ability to train hard is limited by their ability to recover. Mindset cannot overcome the perils of overtraining.

Tour de France is won in the mountains and ITT's. No team presence in individual time trials nor can a team member assist in overcoming the forces of gravity in the mountains. A team member climber, Like Roberto Heras, was used to keep the pace high to prevent other teams from attacking his team leader.

All riders had to put out the wattage required (rider + bike weight) to maintain the speed of the bunch so as not to be dropped. Wheel sucking in the mountains only has a slight benefit if the pace is high. You don't see riders calling someone to do a turn or complain later that a rider benefited cos he sat on a wheel all the way up the mountains.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Of course he uses doping: his doctor Michele Ferrari has given doping to dozens of riders.

(1) to date, at least over 700 registered users feel the same way i do... armstrong is a doper - [assuming that everyone answered honestly].

(2) question: any of you out there have the opinion that armstrong is:
(a) basically just another arrogant texan ?
(b) in no way shape or manner measures up to the real greats of cycling ?

Well how does it feel to be wrong?…I’m sure there are 700 registered users out there who believe in alien abductions too…With out evidence you are just puffing in the wind my friend…

Don't the people who now say that Lance is doping also say that all the other greats were on it as well? Drugs have been in the sport for a hundred years.
If Lance wins this one it won't be because he is on better dope than the others, or a better bike.

__________________
"Boudreaux pissed me off, what should I do?"
"Nothing, just shut up and take his advice."

http://www.stolenunderground.com/doper_of_the_month

So you are saying....you think Lance does dope.
But seriously, is he being allowed to use, as legitimate cancer treatment, a drug which gives him such an advantage?
There really is only one argument that still exists in my mind to counter all your claims: the number of injections required each day would eventually destroy the veins that they inject into. The physical damage of all those jabs could not remain concealed. Whatever doping is going on, it must be at a lower level than you say.

__________________
"Boudreaux pissed me off, what should I do?"
"Nothing, just shut up and take his advice."

I don't believe he has taken any cancer treatments in years, but I could be wrong.
I haven't really researched it. This is just what I remember hearing.

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

Let me re-phrase. I don't believe Lance is taking any thing to "Treat his cancer".

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

I certainly would not want to examine his crotch, and I wouldn't want to stick a needle in my own.
People who inject themselves on a regular basis, either because they are addicts or because they are on medication, suffer chronic damage to their veins. Make up couldn't disguise it, not if they are injecting on the scale that you indicate. Also, the risk of infection would be very high however much care they were taking, riders would be dropping out with blood poisoning all along the way.
How many times a day do you think that needles are being driven into the rider's blood vessels, over how many days?

__________________
"Boudreaux pissed me off, what should I do?"
"Nothing, just shut up and take his advice."

Late....but WOW, just wow. I cant beleive how many think he DOES NOT dope.

*shakes head*. Do I hold less respect for him or the top riders? No way, but Im not gonna pretend they dont dope. How naive can you be?
and yes, ive heard straight from top amateur and some pro riders all about doping.

Many athletes dope in all kinds of sport. Some sports, it is needed to compete/win and cycling is one of those sports, plain and simple!

I've never been to prudish about the use of illegal substances- to me, it's your body. I understand pro sports' interest in "protecting the integrity of the game" and arguably, not sending the wrong message to junior or developing riders.

I suppose the above argument is a good one but I find myself taking issue with it after reading many of your posts - the most powerful argument against the "no drug" policy stems from the information from medical experts who support the use of various drugs for intense endurance athletes. I've always wondered (but never researched) what the long-term protective effect of many UCI illegal drugs might be. Our goal is to protect the athletes, correct?

It doesn't make sense to me that a governing body would sanction events and courses which, according to medical experts, are ultimately harmful to the human body - and subsequently ban substances which would protect the riders' health.

Truth is, cycling does not analogize well with most sports due to its intensity and physical demands (baseball, for example, comes immediately to mind). I have read literature which supports the argument that the long term effects of endurance training at the highest levels is very likely and seriously detrimental. It would appear that the riders who DON'T dope are crazy, not vice-versa.

Does the UCI even acknowledge such medical evidence?

I don't see cyclist who don't dope as crazy, I see them as having morals. Cyclists who dope are cheats. Pretty simple really.

Isn't it great that there are some people left in the world who do have standard.

One point that Flyer and others are making is that a good cyclist who dopes will beat a good cyclist with morals 10 times out of 10.

__________________
"Boudreaux pissed me off, what should I do?"
"Nothing, just shut up and take his advice."

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Maybe that is why people are so upset.