What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

There is absolutely nothing that will convince the doubters that LA is clean. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. A future athelete might offer to have his blood preserved, advocate stricter doping controls, and pass the tests -- to start.

But the bottom line is that as long as there as been cycling there has been dope. It was there in the beginning and the middle. It was there before EPO and before there was a test for EPO and it's still, quite obviously from this last season, with us now. If you have a cycling hero, from Tyler Hamilton to Eddy Merckx, your hero is probably a doper (Yes, the great Merckx had several positives). The doubters have good reason to be skeptical. Cheating is disgustingly prevalent. I'm hopeful things are getting better, but who knows. As for Lance, I like to think that he wins clean. Same with Ulle and Basso and Cunego and Vino and O'Grady and Zabel and Heras and everyone. But who knows.

I'm not sure there is any sane way to watch cycling if you believe that everyone is doping or if you believe your enemies are doping. I assume everyone's innocence until a positive and then try to forget them. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to remember that if it's too good to be true, it might not be true (cf. Santi Perez winning the final TT at the Vuelta).

waxbytes said:

Or any other pro athlete? Many posts have been made on this and other Forums arguing about who is or isn't doping, who said what to whom and why etc. So suspicion is everywhere in spite of test results. From WADA's [censored] Pound on down everyone seems to be intent on proving guilt.

So, what would constitute innocence? What could a winning pro cyclist do to prove his palmares legitimate? What do we want of our athletes?

Or is every pro a doper, with some proven guilty, and others just not caught?

It is what it is. No matter have many TDF victories Lance may be credited with, he is still racing amongst illegally doped athletes. So what does that really mean?

It is not the forums fault that 2003 & 2004 revealed more disturbing premature deaths and confessions, and positive tests. It is not the forums fault that Champion Greg LeMond has proclaimed Lance as a doper and Italian cycle training too medical.

David Miller did more to prove my point than anyone else when after his Team was exposed as advocating dope abuse, he denied it at the top of his lungs. When his roomate, Philippe Gaumont pointed David out as a doper---David lashed out calling Gaumont a "nutter and nobody ought to believe that idiot".

Fast foward 3 months, and the French Police (Paris Unit) finds J&J Eprix (Amgen's licensed EPO) in his own bedroom.

Who was the nutter then? David, David, even children know never to keep their drugs in their bedrooms. But thanks for the fine display.

As a direct result of Festina, TVM, PDM, Cofidis, Kelme, Pantani's death, Millers bald faced lies, dozens of confessions, the only reasonable conclusions are 1) that all (100%) of these guys are on drugs and 2) they all are pathological liars, good ones too.

If there were any non-dopers, would they not have the pride to quit and get away from all the drug addicts?

tcklyde said:

There is absolutely nothing that will convince the doubters that LA is clean. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. A future athelete might offer to have his blood preserved, advocate stricter doping controls, and pass the tests -- to start.

But the bottom line is that as long as there as been cycling there has been dope. It was there in the beginning and the middle. It was there before EPO and before there was a test for EPO and it's still, quite obviously from this last season, with us now. If you have a cycling hero, from Tyler Hamilton to Eddy Merckx, your hero is probably a doper (Yes, the great Merckx had several positives). The doubters have good reason to be skeptical. Cheating is disgustingly prevalent. I'm hopeful things are getting better, but who knows. As for Lance, I like to think that he wins clean. Same with Ulle and Basso and Cunego and Vino and O'Grady and Zabel and Heras and everyone. But who knows.

I'm not sure there is any sane way to watch cycling if you believe that everyone is doping or if you believe your enemies are doping. I assume everyone's innocence until a positive and then try to forget them. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to remember that if it's too good to be true, it might not be true (cf. Santi Perez winning the final TT at the Vuelta).

Your yarn is quite plausible.
But it has one major failing.

ONLY LANCE ARMSTRONG WRITES BOOKS/ARTICLES TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT HE IS CLEAN.

No other cyclist goes out of their way to say black is white.

As Shakespeare said "Me thinketh he protesteth too much".

limerickman said:

Your yarn is quite plausible.
But it has one major failing.

ONLY LANCE ARMSTRONG WRITES BOOKS/ARTICLES TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT HE IS CLEAN.

No other cyclist goes out of their way to say black is white.

As Shakespeare said "Me thinketh he protesteth too much".

And those yarns are penned by bio-fiction author Sally Jenkins. Lance was not her first biography masterpiece, there was another in Atlanta Georgia, a certain womens basketball coach.

Later Sally's professional relationship was the subject of some gossip re: whether had she lost her objectivity due to her increasing interest in that subject.

Sally does spin good yarn.

You can't help thinking that an athlete as clean as Armstrong claims to be would volunteer to have his blood frozen for future testing, or publish his haematocrit every time its tested or a whole raft of other measures. You know, lead by example, encourage other riders to be equally transparent. Instead, he chases down riders who dare to criticise him (Simeoni, Bassons - he also went to Bassons' hotel room and asked him to leave the race) and is ever evasive in interviews: when asked whether he dopes/has doped he ritually replies 'I have never tested positive' (and we all know how strong a defence that is). My point is, he hardly leads by example.

Look at the Bassons situation - Armstrong asks the self-styled 'Mr Clean' to get off the race. This he claims to be the 'will of the peloton', and Armstrong himself is furious with Bassons (as he will be with Simeoni). But Armstrong is a strong willed character who rules his team with a rod of iron - why bow to the peloton and the code of omerta? Why not take the opportunity to say that it's time for the sport to clean up and that you support Bassons' stance 100%?

micron said:

You can't help thinking that an athlete as clean as Armstrong claims to be would volunteer to have his blood frozen for future testing, or publish his haematocrit every time its tested or a whole raft of other measures. You know, lead by example, encourage other riders to be equally transparent. Instead, he chases down riders who dare to criticise him (Simeoni, Bassons - he also went to Bassons' hotel room and asked him to leave the race) and is ever evasive in interviews: when asked whether he dopes/has doped he ritually replies 'I have never tested positive' (and we all know how strong a defence that is). My point is, he hardly leads by example.

Look at the Bassons situation - Armstrong asks the self-styled 'Mr Clean' to get off the race. This he claims to be the 'will of the peloton', and Armstrong himself is furious with Bassons (as he will be with Simeoni). But Armstrong is a strong willed character who rules his team with a rod of iron - why bow to the peloton and the code of omerta? Why not take the opportunity to say that it's time for the sport to clean up and that you support Bassons' stance 100%?

Ian Thorpe - the Aussie swimmer has told the authorities that they can retain his blood test samples indefinitely.
This is to allow the testers to catch up with the men in white coats.
Thorpe obviously doesn't dope - and he is sufficiently confident to allow his samples to be retained.
This indicates a clean athlete to me.

Armstrong's drug stance is, at best, ambiguous.

I wonder how many times he is actually tested ?
Forget the propoganda in his book about his alleged testing - I'd like to see UCI/WADA/USCF stats about how often he is tested.
The UCI testing has been proven to be inept - David Millar was never failed at test, yet the French civil authorities were able to find drugs in his home !
So forget the UCI for the moment - their findings are spurious.
I'd like to see an independent agency do the testing.

Did you also notice the mass migration of cyclists from Southern France to Girona ?
As soon as the French civil authorities decided to stop the dopeurs, they all moved to Girona (Spain) where the Spanish civil authorities show less interest
in apprehending dopeurs.
Pity that the Spaniards aren't as interested.

limerickman said:

Ian Thorpe - the Aussie swimmer has told the authorities that they can retain his blood test samples indefinitely.
This is to allow the testers to catch up with the men in white coats.
Thorpe obviously doesn't dope - and he is sufficiently confident to allow his samples to be retained.
This indicates a clean athlete to me.

Armstrong's drug stance is, at best, ambiguous.

I wonder how many times he is actually tested ?
Forget the propoganda in his book about his alleged testing - I'd like to see UCI/WADA/USCF stats about how often he is tested.
The UCI testing has been proven to be inept - David Millar was never failed at test, yet the French civil authorities were able to find drugs in his home !
So forget the UCI for the moment - their findings are spurious.
I'd like to see an independent agency do the testing.

Did you also notice the mass migration of cyclists from Southern France to Girona ?
As soon as the French civil authorities decided to stop the dopeurs, they all moved to Girona (Spain) where the Spanish civil authorities show less interest
in apprehending dopeurs.
Pity that the Spaniards aren't as interested.

US riders started moving to Gerona in the EARLY 90s, have you ever been there?
Probably the ONLY city in Europe I would live in (San Sebastian being the other).

The problem with “conspiracy theory” mentality is that is goes against human nature, if there was some secret doping conspiracy out there, it would go against human nature that it would remain secret indefinitely, someone would eventually talk, its just human nature (just look at how many criminals get caught because someone talks).

Lance is guilty because you WANT him to be guilty, shows the moral relativism of you euro scum. It must suck to have to live out a miserable life of cynicism.

micron said:

You can't help thinking that an athlete as clean as Armstrong claims to be would volunteer to have his blood frozen for future testing, or publish his haematocrit every time its tested or a whole raft of other measures. You know, lead by example, encourage other riders to be equally transparent. Instead, he chases down riders who dare to criticise him (Simeoni, Bassons - he also went to Bassons' hotel room and asked him to leave the race) and is ever evasive in interviews: when asked whether he dopes/has doped he ritually replies 'I have never tested positive' (and we all know how strong a defence that is). My point is, he hardly leads by example.

Look at the Bassons situation - Armstrong asks the self-styled 'Mr Clean' to get off the race. This he claims to be the 'will of the peloton', and Armstrong himself is furious with Bassons (as he will be with Simeoni). But Armstrong is a strong willed character who rules his team with a rod of iron - why bow to the peloton and the code of omerta? Why not take the opportunity to say that it's time for the sport to clean up and that you support Bassons' stance 100%?

Lance's blood and urine, as well as the entire USPS team, WAS frozen from the 2000 TdF. Then the inquiry occured about actovegin from 2000 onwards, the entire team's samples were subjected to all new tests not available in 2000, e.g. EPO etc, and all were clean.

So deal with it.

Espada9 said:

The problem with “conspiracy theory” mentality is that is goes against human nature, if there was some secret doping conspiracy out there, it would go against human nature that it would remain secret indefinitely, someone would eventually talk, its just human nature (just look at how many criminals get caught because someone talks).

People have talked and as I recall it is you that mentioned Virenque's confession in another thread (just an example). Other than that your perception of human nature is rather flawed as there is hardly any proof for your claim above...

Quoted post said:

Lance is guilty because you WANT him to be guilty, shows the moral relativism of you euro scum. It must suck to have to live out a miserable life of cynicism.

The fact that you would only live in Girona out of all European cities shows that you know [censored] about Europe and Europeans so it would be best if you kept such biased comments to yourself

LA statement from Jan 20, 2005 - categorical denial of ever having used performance enhancing drugs and tested 22 times during the 2004 season alone. Also what happens to the samples that ASO, UCI, WADA and USADA take. Surely they are kept for some period of time, perhaps years, and could be available as future tests come on-line.

"Let me make one thing emphatically clear: I believe in clean and fair competition. As I have said before, I do not use -- and have never used -- performance-enhancing drugs. I am disappointed in the judge's decision to open this investigation without having talked to me first."

"I will make myself available anytime and anywhere to meet with the investigators in this case. They are also welcome to review my long history of tests for performance-enhancing drugs, which I have never failed. Last year alone I was tested 22 times by ASO, the UCI, WADA and USADA. I will be competing in Paris-Nice in March. I am confident my name will be cleared, and I look forward to racing in France for years to come."

davidbod said:

LA statement from Jan 20, 2005 - categorical denial of ever having used performance enhancing drugs and tested 22 times during the 2004 season alone. Also what happens to the samples that ASO, UCI, WADA and USADA take. Surely they are kept for some period of time, perhaps years, and could be available as future tests come on-line.

"Let me make one thing emphatically clear: I believe in clean and fair competition. As I have said before, I do not use -- and have never used -- performance-enhancing drugs. I am disappointed in the judge's decision to open this investigation without having talked to me first."

"I will make myself available anytime and anywhere to meet with the investigators in this case. They are also welcome to review my long history of tests for performance-enhancing drugs, which I have never failed. Last year alone I was tested 22 times by ASO, the UCI, WADA and USADA. I will be competing in Paris-Nice in March. I am confident my name will be cleared, and I look forward to racing in France for years to come."

Wouldn't it be great to listen to what Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter, David Francis & Gerrik Latta had to say?

A rebuttal perhaps?

Rene Wenzel, Chris Camicael & Angus Fraser were all in the hotel rooms togeher when the 3-4 injection a day were required.

On August 22, 1990, Greg implies that Carmichael injected him personally.

Greg implies because he is NOT permitted to use Carmichael or Lance's name in this doping of 17 & 18 years old juniors. Settlement requirements.

Check it out at: (corrected link)

www.velonews.com/news/fea/79.2.html

Or if you only prefer to read corporate scripts--the abovementioned quotations are perfect for the blissfully ignorant.

DV1976 said:

People have talked and as I recall it is you that mentioned Virenque's confession in another thread (just an example). Other than that your perception of human nature is rather flawed as there is hardly any proof for your claim above...

The fact that you would only live in Girona out of all European cities shows that you know [censored] about Europe and Europeans so it would be best if you kept such biased comments to yourself

I’ve spent plenty of time in Europe and I still think for the most part is sucks ass, oh sure there is the nice “history” part and the fact that unlike the US, you’re on your own to due what you want (too many laws and “safety” precautions in the US).

But I think for the most part Europe is about 40 years behind the US politically and your standard of living in most countries is one step above cave men!

Espada, by all means construct an argument as to why we cycnical Europeans should learn to stop worrying and belive Armstrong - but to think we all envy you Bush and living in a country that despise blacks, gays and women and tolerates sporting heroes, like Carl Lewis and Barry Bonds, who are blatant dopers - Espada, you're welcome to it.

If he would say that his doctors are few steps before anti doping organisations and that`s why substances he`s using are not banned yet and so he`s officialy clean!
That would convince me..😄

tcklyde said:

I'm not sure there is any sane way to watch cycling if you believe that everyone is doping or if you believe your enemies are doping. I assume everyone's innocence until a positive and then try to forget them. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to remember that if it's too good to be true, it might not be true (cf. Santi Perez winning the final TT at the Vuelta).

Quite the contrary. If you presume as the French say and write; Tous Dope! "They're all doped" then your expectations are congruent with reality.

You will not be disappointed when your favorite rider gets busted at a border check, or threatens to kill his wife, like Frank Vanderbrucke did recently, or commits suicide, like Thierry Claveyrolet did after retirement, or go bankcrupt like Eddie Planckaert just did, or get a 4-ban/suspensions like Jo Planckaert & Johan Museeuw just got, or die alone at age 34 like Marco Pantani did, the last man to win the TDF, not named Armstrong!

Lowering your expectations of elite athletes to what is reasonable means enjoying the action without any childish assumptions about "work ethics".

They all work hard, play hard, and dope hard.

There are winners and losers, but always profits for the sponsors, organizers, and drug companies.

It is what it is.

Flyer said:

You will not be disappointed when your favorite rider gets busted at a border check, or threatens to kill his wife, like Frank Vanderbrucke did recently, or commits suicide, like Thierry Claveyrolet did after retirement, or go bankcrupt like Eddie Planckaert just did, or get a 4-ban/suspensions like Jo Planckaert & Johan Museeuw just got, or die alone at age 34 like Marco Pantani did, the last man to win the TDF, not named Armstrong!

Lowering your expectations of elite athletes to what is reasonable means enjoying the action without any childish assumptions about "work ethics".

On the contrary, no matter what I think about performance enhancing doping, I will always be disappointed in situations like the ones you mention. You don't need to dope to threaten your wife, go bankrupt, or be a depressed and possibly suicidal cocaine addict. Was I disappointed when Pantani died? Yes, and a lot more. It was a great tragedy. But he didn't die because he used EPO. He died because he was depressed and addicted to an extremely dangerous drug. It was almost certainly an awful death.

I will never lower my expectations of athletes. I expect them to perform clean. I expect vigorous testing. And I support harsh bans. "Tout dope" is a sad attitude (but not suprising I guess, considering France's run of luck). It's rationalization. And while it may have been depressingly true in 1998 or 1997 or even 1990 or 1970, I for one, think the cycling has become more serious about testing.

I think you're right, Flyer, to be angry and disgusted about doping (though I disagree with making LA the focal point). We need to be angry, especially after last year. Keep the pressure on. Let the cheaters know that they will not get fan support. But I also support recognizing and enjoying the athletes who work hard and test negative. I'm not ready to believe my heros, O'Grady, Zabel, Ekimov, etc., and yes, LA, are dopers. As long as they continue to test clean, I'll have faith and save my scorn for people like Hamilton.

tcklyde said:

On the contrary, no matter what I think about performance enhancing doping, I will always be disappointed in situations like the ones you mention. You don't need to dope to threaten your wife, go bankrupt, or be a depressed and possibly suicidal cocaine addict. Was I disappointed when Pantani died? Yes, and a lot more. It was a great tragedy. But he didn't die because he used EPO. He died because he was depressed and addicted to an extremely dangerous drug. It was almost certainly an awful death.

I will never lower my expectations of athletes. I expect them to perform clean. I expect vigorous testing. And I support harsh bans. "Tout dope" is a sad attitude (but not suprising I guess, considering France's run of luck). It's rationalization. And while it may have been depressingly true in 1998 or 1997 or even 1990 or 1970, I for one, think the cycling has become more serious about testing.

I think you're right, Flyer, to be angry and disgusted about doping (though I disagree with making LA the focal point). We need to be angry, especially after last year. Keep the pressure on. Let the cheaters know that they will not get fan support. But I also support recognizing and enjoying the athletes who work hard and test negative. I'm not ready to believe my heros, O'Grady, Zabel, Ekimov, etc., and yes, LA, are dopers. As long as they continue to test clean, I'll have faith and save my scorn for people like Hamilton.

Well said.

Have a great weekend.

You can't be serious about these comments Micron. Yes there are racists, bigots and sexists in the USA but you are a fool if you think it is isolated to America. Show me a country that doesn't have racists, bigots, and sexists and I will tell you that country is located on the moon. In other words that country doesn't exist.
America tolerates? Again which country doesn't???? Ummm let me see...Virenque is a freakin' national hero in France, Pantani was/is idolized by the Italians. Shall I continue the list cause I can and it would be a LONG list and would probably be represented by athletes from every country. Does this mean all citizens of France and Italy feel this way? NO.
If you are going to make comments like this than Micron you are a pot calling the kettle black. Oh great, I used a colloquialism that has no racial connotation whatsoever, however because it has the word "black" in it and I am an American you are probably going to call me a racist.

micron said:

Espada, by all means construct an argument as to why we cycnical Europeans should learn to stop worrying and belive Armstrong - but to think we all envy you Bush and living in a country that despise blacks, gays and women and tolerates sporting heroes, like Carl Lewis and Barry Bonds, who are blatant dopers - Espada, you're welcome to it.

Flyer said:

Wouldn't it be great to listen to what Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter, David Francis & Gerrik Latta had to say?

A rebuttal perhaps?

Rene Wenzel, Chris Camicael & Angus Fraser were all in the hotel rooms togeher when the 3-4 injection a day were required.

On August 22, 1990, Greg implies that Carmichael injected him personally.

Greg implies because he is NOT permitted to use Carmichael or Lance's name in this doping of 17 & 18 years old juniors. Settlement requirements.

Check it out at: (corrected link)

www.velonews.com/news/fea/79.2.html

Or if you only prefer to read corporate scripts--the abovementioned quotations are perfect for the blissfully ignorant.

Hey Flyer that was a response to the posts about LA not categorically denying doping and the one asking how many times he actually is tested in a year. I find your arguement a little puzzling though. Most people who argue that LA is doped point to his so called mediocre palmeres before cancer and how he dominated after cancer as the basis for their conjecture. You seem to claim that he has doped all along from day one. If so then how do you explain the difference pre to post cancer, or do you think his comeback is not out of the norm or unusual. Its kind of an either or thing; either he doped all along and something else must explain his miraculous comeback or he only doped after he faded during his initial comeback in 98'. Maybe you and Lim could argue this point as you seem to have contradicting arguements.