My experince with drugs and blood doping

BobHWS

Why take Lemond's word but not Armstrong's? Maybe EPO was not in use during the Lemond era, but steroids, stimulants and and blood doping were around. (BTW, the first time I heard of blood doping was the '76 Olympics when the Finnish double-gold medal distance runner Lasse Viren was accused of doing it.)

I'm not suggesting that Lemond used illegal methods, anymore than I'm suggesting that about Armstrong. I'm just wondering why we should believe Lemond more than Armstrong?

In fact, maybe we should be less inclined to believe Lemond because he raced in an era when testing was very lax and doping was more acceptable. If Armstrong supposedly gets away with doping now then why shouldn't we also believe that Lemond got away with it then. Lemond may be more personable than Armstrong, but he is not more credible.


I don't believe that either Lemond or Armstrong was guilty of doping. But these days it seems that the racer's only credible defense against doping charges is to be the lanterne rouge (last place) in the Tour.

__________________
"The Ventoux is a god of evil, to whom sacrifices must be made. A veritable sun god who reigns over the riders, it never forgives the weak." --Roland Barthes, French philosopher

TiMan

I was racing Cat 1 in the late 80's and it is my opinion that doping was not as common back then.

Why believe Lemond and not Armstrong....well because Lemond didn't make MANY multi day trips to Northern Italy to spend a lot of time with a convicted doping doctor (Ferarri) who said that there is nothing wrong with riders taking epo....he also didn't get caught with a corticosteroid in his system and then produce a doc's script for a saddle cream out of nowhere, and he hasn't had former team mate say that his team WAS NOT clean(motorola)and used EPO because they were getting "creamed" without it.

Speaking of saddle cream...do you really think that any rider, or doctor for that matter, doesn't know EXACTLY what is in every "medicine" they use. They sure the hell would never use a cream with a cortico steriod in it.

BobHWS

So we should believe Lemond's insinuations about Armstrong because:

1. Lemond didn't go see Ferrari (is he the only doctor in the world who knows how to dope riders?)

2. Lemond "didn't get caught" (your words)...

3. No teammates publicly accused Lemond of doping (maybe they were doping too).

Again, I don't believe that either Lemond or Armstrong doped. I can't prove that but I do know that Lemond rode in an era when testing was lax (and blood doping was undetectable) whereas Armstrong rode in the post-1998 Tour doping scandal era when testing was tougher.

TiMan, you will have to come up with some other evidence other than "Lemond said so" to convince me that Armstrong has been doping. Your argument amounts to begging the question:

TiMan: Armstrong is a doper
Bob: How do you know?
Timan: Lemond said so.
Bob: So what?
Timan: I know that Lemond is telling the truth so that proves Armstrong is a doper.

__________________
"The Ventoux is a god of evil, to whom sacrifices must be made. A veritable sun god who reigns over the riders, it never forgives the weak." --Roland Barthes, French philosopher

TiMan

The fact that Armstrong went out of his way to see Fararri on at least 10 occasions and for days at a time is proof enough for me.......Fararri only knows doping and how to beat tests....he doesn't know anything else that isn't also know by every rider, physiologist and trainer out there.

Armstrong was caught with a corticosteroid in his system. This stuff is one of the better drugs available for doping, besides epo, steroids and testosterone.

Ask yourself this bro...why the H did Armstrong go out of his way to see Ferarri, doping guru that he is.....he is an American cyclist that lives in the states and in Spain and not Italty.

holli

Maybe I understood it wrong but Armstrongs visits to Ferrari, Armstrongs positive test (You have to be very stupid to use any cortisone cream as chamois cream because cortisone weakens the skin) and former team mates claims are pretty good proof for me. You are a doper for many people for even smaller issues than what Lance has had.

After 1998 only small things changed and testing etc. has increased only during last couple of years (after 2002) and there's still very long way to go.

I don't like either Lemond or Armstrong because they are "only-tour-riders" and the trend they are creating is terrifying because it is killing other races and transforming cycling more July-boring racing-slow suffering-nothing happening oriented.

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body.

ives

TiMan,

Thanks very much for your post.

I was suspicious when I read your opening post.
I thought: 'hmmm...this sounds too clean cut and easy an argument '.
It sounds to me as if you are making a case against Armstrong by using your own testimony that, as you know, no one can deny.

However, I myself have often wondered about Armstrong . for years after he came back from cancer I was 100% convinced that he was on something. I mean, all the evidence, as you point out, alludes to it. Then I saw him interviewed on the TV for a documentary and I began to have doubts. My impression, and I'm normally very good at detecting liers, is that either he is clean or a very very good lier.

As yet I am undecided, but I think that it would be totally impossible to do what he did, without some kind of help, whatever that may mean.


As an aside, let's say he was using EPO or blood doping. The crit limit is 50% (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Now, in all the pre-Tour tests, I'm sure Armstrong's crit wasn't head and shoulders above everyone else s, so how do we explain his dominance? It can't just be his crit level?

TiMan

There is more to it than a high hematocrit bro....there are many other drugs. AND.....everyone responds differently to drugs bro and to different crit levels.

ie: if Armstrongs natural crit is 40% and he boosts it to 50% he will experience more power increase than a man that has a natural crit of 45% that also goes up to 50%.

TiMan

Originally Posted by 3_days
Timan: Why'd you stop using/infusing? And after you quit, how far off did your training regimen fall?





I quit because I didn't like myself for doping.....I always wondered about the guys in the back of the pack....if they doped would they be kicking my ass.

I only fully doped for one season in an attempt to get a pro contract....it never happened so I decided to stop. I did blood dope with my own blood prior to that season though.

As I mentioned.... on the epo my sustainable power output went from 350 to 420 in three months and it peaked at around 440 watts....in other words I could do a 40 K tt at near 440 watts!!!

When I stopped my crit went down slowly over the weeks to my normal, which is about 43%. After stopping the testosterone it took about a month before my natural test levels returned to my normal, and a typical normal of 550nd/dl. I took clomid, an estrogen blocker, after stopping the testosterone, and this helped "kick start" the testes. I learned this form a bodybuilder. So my testosterone levels rebounded pretty quickly. But I did feel a little fatigued and my sex drive wasn't good for a few weeks while I waited for my natural testosterone level to return. I felt crappy on the bike at this time.

I was able to keep some of the power gain that I got from the epo and testosterone. I slowly dropped down to a sustainable power output close to 400 watts, which I then held with proper lactate threshold work on the bike. So the drug use did have some lasting effects on my body.

The testosterone allowed me to recover from repeated HARD workouts....four a week on a steady long term basis.

Some guys that do only testosterone or a steroid like Equipoise(EQ) see an increase in their hematocrit up to 50% or so but it takes a long time and this gain isn't seen in all men using these drugs. EPO works fast and in all men and you can take your crit WAY UP ...like Riis did for his tour win (almost 60%) a-la his name "Mr. 60%".

But as I said epo use is tricky and done wihtout strict monitoring it can kill you. NEVER ever go above 54-55% and 52 would be best. Check your crit weekly, drink all the time, never ever get even slightly dehydrated on the bike, never squat down for long, never cross your legs while sitting and take an aspirin a day to help prevent blood cell clumping.
I have to yell this bro's NEVER USE EPO UNLESS YOU CAN TEST YOUR HEMATOCRIT WEEKLY AT LEAST.....and twice a week is better. Portable testers can be bought for $300 US.

BY THE WAY.....in my opinion their is nothing differnet between using an altilude tent to get your crit up to 48-50% and using epo to do the same thing. BOTH methods offer an unfair advantage. Not everyone can afford an altitude tent...so it's unfair.
ALSO, altitude tents have MORE side effects than epo use so long as you don't push your crit too high with the epo use. Alitude tents make you feel tired all the time as you are sleeping in a hypoxic environment mimicing 12,000 plus feet in order to push your crit high enough to do anything.

Also, I don't think most men can get their crits up to even 50% with an altitude tent. Most men have a crit of about 41-44% and they would be lucky to get to 47-48% with a tent.

MJtje

But lets get this straight it's not a level-playing field, right?........yet what do you say they all dope only some riders use better products and react better to certain products then others........Does that mean they are more guilty? Is LA more guilty then other riders? (don't really see the logic of only bashing LA then......oke he won it 7 times, but will you say the same when basso will win it now the next 4/5 years!!)

TiMan

Ya it's not a level playing field as everyones body responds differently to drugs.....and yes some have better drugs.

As far as the Armstrong thing goes....I guess you are right... but he is bashed a lot because he is not as personable as a guy like Lemond or Basso.....it makes most of us mad that he was able to win seven tours and beat the tests, save for the corticosteroid one.

ives

So. we are saying that all (or most) riders dope, yet some, for whatever reason, respond better to the stuff than other riders and that's just their good fortune. Now, are we saying that Armstrong responds better than the rest and that's why he's 'the best' or is it that he's on some new stuff that Ferrari got hold of ?

Back in the day it was common knowledge (in France at least) that all riders dope. Even the general public knew. And what's more they accepted that, since they knew it was impossible to ride events like the TDF and the Giro without help. It was physically impossible to race those events at those speeds without pharmaceutical help. The riders and the public knew and it was accepted to be normal so that the show of pro cycling could go on. People knew that Maertens would be the best sprinter and Kelly the best classics rider without dope,but that they all had to use it to keep the playing field level.

Now my question is that tacit assumption correct? i.e. that with them all doping (with the exception of Lemond, who for some reason I believe when he says he was clean) is the playing filed level. i.e. if everyone was clean, would Armstrong still be the best Tour rider of his day?