Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 50

Respect is to earned on this forum.

So it's your contention that I need to "earn" having you make civilized, productive response to a perfectly reasonable set of questions from someone interested in the topics discussed here? And until I "earn" that, I'm deserving of that kind of response and treatment from you?

Lurkers include numerous attorneys on retainers as well as paid shills for endorsed riders.

Look, maybe there's something I don't know about this forum, about your battles, etc. I stumbled onto cycling forums because I was doing some googling around looking for information on the current status of the Hamilton saga, wound up at a CyclingForums thread, found the entire "Doping" header, and read. I'm not an attorney or shill for a rider. I raced when I was younger. I got turned off to the Tour following the doping scandals, and finally this year rekindled my interest in following the race, mainly because I thought there was a half a chance there were finally going to be a number of competitors to the point there would be true combat. I grew tired of the Indurain/Armstrong formula, which destroyed what I loved of the Tour back when Hinault rode with real panache.

You build a reputation over time and we'll see where it takes you here.

I don't know where you get off, but I don't have "earn" decency and respect from you. If I ask a simple question and you'd like to tell me to go pound sand, that's your prerogative. It's also my prerogative to draw my own conclusions about what kind of person would respond that way.

Why don't you post some of your doping reseach for our edification?

I'm sorry, for me, this is nowhere near the level personal importance it is to you. I have other "crusades". However, I am interested enough to try and be fully educated, because I have a nephew who one day might wind up on the bike, and I'd like to be as educated as possible. I have actually done some googling around, but not surprisingly, I don't find anything that you haven't already written about in spades. It's not all that easy for someone who's relatively new to this to come up with new information that you haven't found after your years and years of digging.

Honestly, I don't understand your high-handed attitude or your hostility. I'm here to learn, not get crapped on. If all you're about is the latter, then you'll succeed in driving off one of the very few people in the universe who actually stumbles onto this thread and who gives a damn enough to read through your voluminous posts.

You write like a poser.

Again, I have no idea who you are, or what the basis of your paranoia is. But I have done nothing to earn name-calling or be characterized the way you have.

Me thinks you know much more than you suggest. Your playful inquiries are very odd. Very rare indeed.

Yes, perhaps in your shouting and sniping wars on these boards, my presence is "rare indeed", having no interest in that. My inquiries, however, are neither "playful", nor "very odd". I'm not here to engage in some childish game. In other words, I'm not interested in that kind of "play". If I ask a question, it's because I'm interested in learning the answer, not because I'm out to engage in some kind of ego-driven cyber game of message board joust. Nor is it "odd" for someone who's suddenly confronting an entirely new reality about the status of riders they admired, to be asking questions about them, like I did about LeMond and Hampsten. Nor is it odd for someone to try and square some of the apparent contradictions in the statements you've made in your posts.

Again, I am interested in your answers to the questions in my original post. Can you not understand that someone who was introduced to cycling in the Hinault-LeMond era, who romanticized the Tour, might now want to know where it all stood? And might need some help sorting out the seeming contradictions? I don't mean this to offend you, but my interest here is not in YOU, but rather my own personal emotional investment in cycling. If you can set aside making this about you, you might find it easier to understand why I'm asking the perfectly reasonable questions that any person who just read your posts and is trying to absorb and understand them would ask.

Now, you were very specific in claiming LeMond had accused Armstrong of using EPO. If he'd done that it's very simple ... where can I find the quote? If Greg LeMond made that kind of direct accusation, it's hard for me to believe it wouldn't have been printed, and that there wouldn't be a reference to it somewhere on the web. And his discussion of this in LeMond ... apparently you read this? Where can I find it. I'd like to read it too.

Also ... please understand, I have read through your posts on this and other threads. I do NOT need you to simply repeat ad nauseum the very same statements. I know nearly by heart every one of your claims having read them repeated over and over. As I said, I don't know you from Adam, but if you make a statement and it's true, then surely you can point me to where I can find a reference.

I don't have any interesting in being beaten about the head with the same battering ram as though it will lead me to a religious conversion.

Nor am I interested in the kind of crap suggesting "well anyone who knows about cycling knows that" or "just talk to a Grand Tour winner and they'll tell you".

Obviously, if I knew a Grand Tour winner, I wouldn't be left typing messages on this board as a way to gain information. So please, spare me the obsequious battering ram. If you'd like me to "get it", then be honest and forthright and provide me the information that will enable me to "get it."

Frankly, you've made tons of claims about "inside knowledge", yet you've never once been willing to provide any information that would help someone to whom you are otherwise a perfect stranger, a basis for having a handle on that. People have asked you whether your knowledge is because you raced in Europe, know racers personally or what.

The most you've offered is that you met an Italian pro in a bar and he shared information with you, that you took a tour in Italy and there were people on the tour who doped and/or shared stories, and that you race domestically on a team with some others who have doped and explained to you how its done.

Some of the rest of us don't have those experiences and aren't going to be in a position to have them. I left racing long ago. I have no one to ask, and I know no one who dopes. So here I am asking you because you seem willing to talk about it openly.

Is doping going on, yeah this fact

Is Lance doping, yeah this speculation

Bisc-

Your questions are on point ... understand though that no one wins from solid answers and the speculation drives the sport in many ways ... for example, if the entire peloton is proved to be full of dopers ... cycling loses ...

If I can speak for Flyer for a second, he is super-passionate about his perspective on the issue and he sees Armstrong as the main antagonist ... he has his facts and he stands behind them 110 percent ... For example, he believes that the 38yo Frenchman in question was driven to cancer by the pressure of the professional peloton - yet, others will emphatically deny the correlation--- and the heated argument drives on and forever ...

I believe that most of the "regular" cycling fans stand more in the middle, perhaps leaning to one side based on their experiences and interactions ... regular cycling fans probably question the numbers on the TV ... they've been jaded enough to view the "big show" of cycling as being as much marketing as it is sport ...

Getting caught up in the questions of a sport's integrity is almost a personal issue ... you take a side and somehow stay there ... I've decided to refuse to take a side ... real or fake, I love to watch these guys push the crap out of their machines ...

I've always liked Armstrong- doper or not! If nothing else, I like to watch cycling and he's a major part of it ... maybe I'm utterly silly and selfish, but I don't really care to dig into his personal life and his morality ... the images of him on his bike often motivate me to ride - and that's enough for me ...

Being new to cycling (not new to the sporting world) I was not an Armstrong fan before, but now watching the Tour de France for the first time, I have to say I respect him for his desire and effort.

3_days, What you wrote hits it perfectly for me too.

I don't care to know much more about Lance or any of the other guys. I just watch and appreciate their effort and if I can walk away with motivation then it is even better.

It's amazing to me that so many are willing to ring the bell and announce Armstrong guilty of doping when he is still known as "the most tested rider in cycling" and has never tested positive for any banned substance or for any indication of blood doping.

In fact, Armstrong not only advocates drug testing but helps the UCI to pay for it's testing equipment. If Armstrong were excluded from the testing, one might assume that the financial aid provided to the UCI to fight doping was, in reality, an elicit exchange program but this is clearly not the case. Armstrong is tested at least as often as any other rider and by most assessments, more often. OLN announced that at the beginning day of the 2005 Tour de France, a surprise drug test was announced just before the actual race started. A single rider's name was selected, "at random", and those of us who see the extreme prejudice Armstrong faces had little trouble guessing who the "random" rider would be. As expected, Lance stepped up, arms extended and told them, "test me". Of course, he tested clean as he always has.

For those not so jaded and biased as to believe in their own, weakly supported suspicions more than the evidence, a short article on the contributions Armstrong has made to drug testing can be found here...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...l05/jul01news3

I think that if a rider wanted to beat the tests, he could. I suspect that the tests are there to reassure people rather than to catch the dopers out. When riders do test positive, it tends to be for something silly like steroids in eye drops or hay fever treatments, rather than for anything that would actually boost the performance of a fit, healthy athelete. Riders are caught out when the coaches car is searched rather than when their urine is screened.
I am not taking part in the actual poll because there is only the yes/no option. Like a lot of other people I would prefer to answer "don't ask".

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

Beast:

I'm not taking a side - I hope Armstrong is 100% clean ... but I also understand the pressure put on a competitive cyclist - the margin between good and great is so high up on the curve, even a little improvement means a whole lot at their level. At Armstrong's level, every single move he makes, all day, every day MUST be designed to gear up his cycling level.

... and I'm not saying Armstrong is dirty ... for the UCI's purposes, as of today, he's 100% clean!

But there are arguments out there with facts to support either side - I've viewed both sides, got my head spinning and decided to refrain from making any judgment.

I simply watch them ride.

I agree with what you say about Flyer. I respect the passion that he has with regard to the doping issue. But frankly that doesn't make it okay for him to act like an indignant ass and to treat anyone that "dares to question him" with complete condescednece and disrespect. Biscayne did nothing more than ask Flyer a simple question and for that our "resident doping expert" belittled him and called him names. It's childish and it serioulsy takes away from Flyer's credibility.

Oh and Flyer... you can go ahead and respond by listing the names of dead riders and sign-off with "Tous Dope" if you want (in fact it's expected). But just to be clear I'm not a doping apologist and I don't disageee with many of the points you continue to make. I'm just a guy that would like to see you stop behaving like a childish dink.

As I've come to expect, meehs, this is very well stated and I couldn't agree more. In any situation where evidence exists which supports both sides, any hard-headed acceptance of either side requires an act of pure denial to the evidence for one side, combined with blind acceptance of evidence on the other side. Simply stated; it requires an unsupported bias.

That's not to say that I don't have my personal bias. I'm aware that with the level of doping in the sport, Lance may well be involved. But to systematically dismiss the evidence to the contrary and proclaim any true knowledge concerning his guilt or innocence should instantly be recognized as nothing but pure personal bias and be treated with an appropriate level of credibility.

I hope to never discuss names about anyone unless I was there and personally saw the needle in the glute with my own eyes. I do not like to go by hear say. Like most of you, I agree that PED'S are used in general, but until I know for sure I will not nor do I hope to ever name specific names.

Here is the reason.
I think by now most of you know of my former involvement with anabolics.
I can stand up and say to you that I used and if someone wants to call me a low life cheater than fine. I can accept that, but since I did have a involvement and I used to be around top level athletes I can say that there were a few that were not using drugs and yet they were accused. Knowing them personally I can't tell you how badly that hurt their emotions.

Case in point. I shared an apartment with two females and both had the rarest of genetics. One is currently an IFBB Pro bodybuilder and the other has set world weightlifting records a few years ago. The pro bodybuilder did not use drugs at that particular time and used to preach at me all the time for using, but when we would go out in public everyone pointed at her and some were bold enough to accuse outloud in public, "she must be on steroids."

I used to watch her cry for hours in the apartment because of those false accusations. She was just blessed with the best genetics for building muscle. Same story for the other female and she had to take blood tests to compete in international weightlifting competitions throughout the year, but in the public there were constant jealous accusations against her and I saw her cry for hours. I guess it doesn't hurt the person(s) dishing out accusations, but it sure does hurt those who receive them. For me when people accused me I would simply say, "when you can squat your own bodyweight I will listen to you." It didn't bother me because the accusations were true, but it really pissed me off when I heard the false accusations against my friends.

I don't say this to stiffle the agenda here, however my method is a bit different. I try to compassionately divert people from becoming users. I tell them of the things that happened in my past with hopes they will decide not to use. If they decide to go forward that is their choice and I don't condemn them.

Hey, that's a good story. But why don't you tell us the one about the time you took on ten secret service ninjas as they tried to force you to drink Gatoraid and feed you twinkies! Oh wait, I love the one about you being a top cat 4, or was it 3 racer who won the tour de STUPID a record ten times straight!

I would urge anyone who is tempted to believe the blatant lies spread by Flyer to do their own research before believing anything he posts. Firstly, he knows nothing of where I live or, for that matter, what I believe other than what has been discussed on this forum.

Secondly, anyone who looks into the supposed illegal substance abuse he blatantly refers to as, "testing positive for illegal drugs", in 1999, by Armstrong was nothing of the sort. Flyer is well aware that the only wrong-doing was that the paperwork to be filed by the team doctor was filed after medication rather than before. Lance had developed a saddle-sore and medicated cream was applied so that he could continue to ride. The amount that turned up was one-fifth the allowable limit so there was nothing about the blood test which showed anything in Armstrong's blood that would have been any kind of violation. The only violation regarded the paperwork.

This is a classic example of why Flyer's credibility continues to plunge. He won't allow himself to see anything at an objective level. Anything which might be considered circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is instantly converted to proof of guilt in Flyer's mind and that seems to be the only way he can present anything. Nothing seems to escape the spin he places on any and every point he brings forward.

It's everywhere you look -- Armstrong has never tested positive for any illegal substance in his blood. That doesn't mean he's never used any substance or any procedure which would cause him to be disqualified, but nothing of the sort has ever been detected. In some countries, no evidence means a presumption of innocence. In Flyer's mind, it's as good as a conviction.

Just to show what good knock down, kick a** debates use to take place I though to would bump this thread back to life, if only for a brief moment.
I really do miss some of this old crap.

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

some cyclist do drugs because it makes them perform better than those who don't

and there are the knowns - testing follows the drug (window of free use)

and the known unknowns - so we will never wholly trust any winner again