Andy Hampsten supports GregLeMond

[limerickman]

July 24, 2004

Dear Fellow Cyclists and Cycling Fans

Like many of you, I have read Greg Lemond's recent comments regarding doping in cycling and his interactions with Lance Armstrong. For those not up to speed, see this link for a concise account of Greg’s statements in English:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto613945.shtml

The original complete text in French appears here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-372691,0.html

I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor, and talent.

The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business, and speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.

What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.

Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.

Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist. I saw Greg race as a champion through the 80s, and into the 90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.

Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.

Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.

Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.

Now, in his retirement, Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.

Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.

Thanks for listening,

Andy Hampsten

 

[flintman]

July 24, 2004

Dear Fellow Cyclists and Cycling Fans,

Like many of you, I have read Greg Lemond's recent comments regarding doping in cycling and his interactions with Lance Armstrong. For those not up to speed, see this link for a concise account of Greg’s statements in English:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto613945.shtml

The original complete text in French appears here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-372691,0.html

I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor, and talent.

The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business, and speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.

What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.

Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.

Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist. I saw Greg race as a champion through the 80s, and into the 90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.

Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.

Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.

Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.

Now, in his retirement, Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.

Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.

Thanks for listening,

Andy Hampsten

That about says it all doesn't it?

 

[Dermo]

That about says it all doesn't it?

No it doesnt.

Drug taking was around in Lemond and Hampsten's time. Therefore by the same argument Lemond must have been on drugs because he won a tour de france full of drug cheats.

 

[davidbod]

July 24, 2004

Dear Fellow Cyclists and Cycling Fans,

Like many of you, I have read Greg Lemond's recent comments regarding doping in cycling and his interactions with Lance Armstrong. For those not up to speed, see this link for a concise account of Greg’s statements in English:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto613945.shtml

The original complete text in French appears here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-372691,0.html

I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor, and talent.

The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business, and speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.

What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.

Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.

Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist. I saw Greg race as a champion through the 80s, and into the 90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.

Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.

Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.

Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.

Now, in his retirement, Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.

Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.

Thanks for listening,

Andy Hampsten

For those interested in facts, here is the text of the interview with Dr Ferrari and the French press from Cyclingnews following the incident mentioned above:

"Jean-Michel Rouet: Speaking of EPO, do your riders use it?

Dr Michele Ferrari: I don't prescribe this stuff. But one can buy EPO in Switzerrland for example without a prescription, and if a riders does, that doesn't scandalize me. EPO doesn't fundamentally change the performance of a racer.

J-MR: In any case, (EPO) is dangerous! Ten Dutch riders have died in the last few years.

Dr MF: EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice."

From this interview the press then skewed it into "I support the use of EPO as it is as safe as orange juice".

It should be noted that EPO is used clinically to raise the hematocrit level of a patient which has an abnormaly low level due to anemia. It is safe when used for this purpose. It is not safe however when used to artificially raise the hematocrit level beyond a normal level which occurs when it is abused.

To date Simeoni is the only person claiming that Dr. Ferrari suggested the use of EPO. In fact there are numerous witnesses which have claimed otherwise. The court case against Ferrari is essentially stalled because the DA cannot find corroberating evidence to support Simeoni's claim, and his testimony alone does not appear to have enough weight to push the case forward. This may be because Simeoni received a lighter 3 month ban for admitting doping because of his testimony against Ferrari. If the DA cannot find corroberating evidence it is very likely that the whole matter will be dropped.

Armstrong says he will cut all ties with Ferrari if he is found guilty, but will stand by him in the mean time as he believes he is innocent.

Here is a good article on the whole affair for those interested in facts:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...ari_x.htm?csp=1

 

[gntlmn]

That about says it all doesn't it?

No it doesn't. If you believe Lemond, EPO entered the peloton in 1991, and because of it, Greg was no longer able to keep up with the peloton. But this was the year he discovered he had the muscle wasting disease. How can he be so sure his relative performance was because of the EPO and not the muscle condition?

Also, it fails to note that if EPO has been fueling pro cycling since 1991, Greg is calling Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Armstrong dopers. Yet now he only points the finger at Armstrong. Why? This seems like a matter of jealousy, not EPO.

 

[davidbod]

If you read the letter with no bias you will see that Andy is attempting to stand up fo Greg and rescue him from the public outcry which is going against him for his comments. The only mention of Armstrong and Andy's feelings regarding him in the letter are in the following paragraph.

"The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg's personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business. Speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping."

I think his letter is a rescue attempt of Greg's reputation and an attempt to refocus the debate on doping and away from Lance and Greg's personal relationship, Which as another poster put it so well is where the debate should have been focused in the first place.

 

[flintman]

No it doesn't. If you believe Lemond, EPO entered the peloton in 1991, and because of it, Greg was no longer able to keep up with the peloton. But this was the year he discovered he had the muscle wasting disease. How can he be so sure his relative performance was because of the EPO and not the muscle condition?

Also, it fails to note that if EPO has been fueling pro cycling since 1991, Greg is calling Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Armstrong dopers. Yet now he only points the finger at Armstrong. Why? This seems like a matter of jealousy, not EPO.

Well Shipmate, I was referring to Hampsten's comments on the matter. The way I see his comments is that he was supporting Lemond for speaking his mind and trying to bring about some change to the sport. He didn't "condemn" Armstrong as such. I agree with AH, there is still a real problem with doping in professional cycling, regardless of which stars are/are not doing it. I stand by my original observation. His comments does about say it all.

Just step back and think about it objectively. If there wasn't a problem with doping in cycling, then this conversation wouldn't be happening. It doesn't matter if it's the winner of the TDF or the last place finisher that is doping, if any are, then there is a real problem. THG wasn't even known by authorities, and thereby detectable until a whistle blower tipped them about it. Who knows what other similar type things may be out there? I see it as a terrible stain attached to cycling, and I don't know how it can be erased anytime soon, not to mention the real health issues that such use can bring on.

 

[gntlmn]

Well Shipmate, I was referring to Hampsten's comments on the matter. The way I see his comments is that he was supporting Lemond for speaking his mind and trying to bring about some change to the sport. He didn't "condemn" Armstrong as such. I agree with AH, there is still a real problem with doping in professional cycling, regardless of which stars are/are not doing it. I stand by my original observation. His comments does about say it all.

Just step back and think about it objectively. If there wasn't a problem with doping in cycling, then this conversation wouldn't be happening. It doesn't matter if it's the winner of the TDF or the last place finisher that is doping, if any are, then there is a real problem. THG wasn't even known by authorities, and thereby detectable until a whistle blower tipped them about it. Who knows what other similar type things may be out there? I see it as a terrible stain attached to cycling, and I don't know how it can be erased anytime soon, not to mention the real health issues that such use can bring on.

I'm totally opposed to doping for sports performance. We're in the same camp in that regard. I do take issue with this Armstrong bashing, as it seems that Lemond is doing. He talks as if he knows, but if he has any real evidence, why doesn't he bring it forward? Likewise, Hampsten makes generalized comments, but he has no evidence either. And you make comments about what is possible as regards doping. The difference between what an athlete might possibly do and what he actually does can be a very large gap. Focusing on generalities instead of specifics only clouds the issue.

In other words, I think that neither Lemond nor Hampsten have a leg to stand on by making generalized comments without proof. If they want to clear up doping, if it is going on, they need to do get away from gossip and get some evidence.

 

[Ted B]

In other words, I think that neither Lemond nor Hampsten have a leg to stand on by making generalized comments without proof. If they want to clear up doping, if it is going on, they need to do get away from gossip and get some evidence.

This is absolutely correct, and it is Hampsten's realization of this that urged him to post his statement in an attempt to divert attention to a more generalized picture.

To say that doping has been a problem in cycling is an irrefutable fact.

To say that doping continues to be a problem in cycling equally justifiable (given the recent Millar debacle).

To accuse any specific rider without condemning physical evidence in hand (e.g. failed test, seized banned materials) is as bad a practice as doping itself. It would be far better to have one guilty rider slip through undetected than to wrongfully incriminate one who is innocent of any wrongdoing. As for speculation about who may or may not be doping, it's nothing more than lipshit.

It has never been tougher to dope, and it has become even more difficult as of the past month or two as better tests have been approved for use. Where the most statistically prevalent substance (EPO) is concerned, if you aren't bouncing the hematocrit threshold, then what are you really getting out of it anyway? And as for the animal hemo claimed to be in use by certain Spanish riders, you may recall the first one to publicly alert UCI officials to this practice was none other than the most scrutinized, most tested man in the peloton himself.

Lemond and Hampsten share the same views as the rest of us. Lemond simply tripped over his own d**k and Hampsten had to come to the rescue.

 

[antoineg]

To say that doping has been a problem in cycling is an irrefutable fact.

To accuse any specific rider without condemning physical evidence in hand (e.g. failed test, seized banned materials) is as bad a practice as doping itself. It would be far better to have one guilty rider slip through undetected than to wrongfully incriminate one who is innocent of any wrongdoing.

The problem is that it is so easy to evade the tests that a realist has to assume that the occasional whistleblowers from within the sport are correct, and that doping is present within most of the pro teams.

These riders destroy the faith of everyone in the purity of their accomplishments. It's real hard to root for anyone when you have to ask yourself "are they one of the few who are not doping?"

Dopers destroy the sport from within.

 

[DiabloScott]

If Lemond were doing something about doping in general, or promoting clean pro cycling he wouldn't be in such deep ****. But he's smearing Armstrong specifically and he's offering no proof. Hampsten was more careful but by defending Lemond he's walking on shakey ground.

 

[antoineg]

But he's smearing Armstrong specifically and he's offering no proof.

Did you people even read the article? Lemond never said "Lance is absolutely doping." What he did was recount a conversation they had, and then he said most of the peloton started using when EPO came along, then he says indirectly that everyone (including Lance) says they don't use. Indirectly I suppose it's a "mild smear" but you people act as if Greg Lemond shouted from the rooftops "LANCE USES DRUGS!!!!! AND I KNOW IT!!!!"

He didn't. He's not on thin ice, and as a former pro cyclist I think he's way better qualified than a lot of the internet yahoos on this forum to comment on the state of the pro peleton.

You Lance hero-worshippers have got to take off your blinders for a second and ask yourself what the reality of the situation is, and not focus on the minor details of "he-said, she-said."

Again, here are the details that matter to me:

1) it's probably indisuptable that a good number of pro riders dope. Majority? dunno and can't prove it either way.
2) If you think that #1 is false, I have 4 words for you: Cofidis Kelme Lampre Festina.
3) LA's defending a doctor of his that has been quoted as taking a mild eye (to say the least) towards EPO.
4) same doctor, in a sworn statement, is accused of involvement with EPO with a current rider (Simeoni).
5) several others, in a published work, have accused Lance of doping based on their own experiences -- not secondhand.

I could give half a **** about Lance before cancer or after cancer, or weight loss, or the Magic Lactate Solution, or high cadence, or whatever. The items above are what concern me.

 

[limerickman]

It has never been tougher to dope, and it has become even more difficult as of the past month or two as better tests have been approved for use. Where the most statistically prevalent substance (EPO) is concerned, if you aren't bouncing the hematocrit threshold, then what are you really getting out of it anyway? And as for the animal hemo claimed to be in use by certain Spanish riders, you may recall the first one to publicly alert UCI officials to this practice was none other than the most scrutinized, most tested man in the peloton himself.

QUOTE]

This is complete and utter rubbish.

The plethora of drugs being used which are undetectable is not quantifiable.
However you can take it as a working assumption that the use of illegal drugs
is prevalent - if not more prevalent now than at any other time.


An example :

Vincent Conte owner of Balco, developed the performance enhancing drug,
THG.
THG was in use since 1996 and was used by various US athletes.

Trevor Graham, Vincent Conte's business partner, has stated to the USADA
that due to a commercial disagreement with Conte, he decided to bring the use of this drug to the attention of the doping authorities.
USADA, WADA and IOC drug testing facilities in Lausane had not aware of THG and it's performance enhancing qualities, nor were they aware of it's use
for the past 7 years.
Trevor Graham, provided a test to detect THG's usage and this test has formed the basis for the detection, prosecution and banning of British athlete
Dwaine Chambers and is currently the basis of a prosecution against US athletes Marion Jones and other notable US athletes.
Tevor Graham has also provided sworn testimony to USADA that several
bio-technology companies have developed or are developed drugs that are
used in endurance sports.

Fianlly this other statistic about Armstrong being the most tested athlete on the planet.
Where are you getting the "fact" from ?
Are you using his books as a reference for this "fact" ?

 

[Ted B]

Vincent Conte owner of Balco, developed the performance enhancing drug,
THG. THG was in use since 1996 and was used by various US athletes.

And now that the Balco records have been opened, how many cyclists have been linked to Balco? <pauses while crickets chirp>

My point (which you completely missed as usual) is the fact that testing has never been more sophisticated, and is becoming only more so as time passes. And while game of cat & mouse will continue, it isn't getting easier for the 'mice'.

And finally, one cyclist was recently very vocal about certain new techniques making their way around, but we all know what happens to you when you see his name mentioned...

 

[Ted B]

Did you people even read the article? Lemond never said "Lance is absolutely doping."

Maybe you should have another look...?

"Lance is ready to do anything to keep his secret," LeMond told France's Le Monde newspaper. "I don't know how he can continue to convince everybody of his innocence. I was a big supporter of Lance the first year that he won the Tour, but with all these stories it's difficult to stay a supporter."



http://www.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/07/15/cycling.armstrong/

 

[limerickman]

And now that the Balco records have been opened, how many cyclists have been linked to Balco? <pauses while crickets chirp>

My point (which you completely missed as usual) is the fact that testing has never been more sophisticated, and is becoming only more so as time passes. And while game of cat & mouse will continue, it isn't getting easier for the 'mice'.

And finally, one cyclist was recently very vocal about certain new techniques making their way around, but we all know what happens to you when you see his name mentioned...

You claimed that it was harder to dope.

I disagree - I think that doping is still going on and I suggest that Balco
shows that drugs have been used which we undetectable.
To conclude that doping is getting harder, doesn't make sense given that
none of us can quantify how many drugs are going undetected.

 

[Ted B]

To conclude that doping is getting harder, doesn't make sense given that none of us can quantify how many drugs are going undetected.

Testing has become more thorough, more sophisticated. There are only so many analogs of banned compounds, so many ways to dope. As for what and how much is going undetected, it brings us back to that all-familiar-word that describes a great deal of what is posted in this forum - "speculation".

 

[limerickman]

Testing has become more thorough, more sophisticated. There are only so many analogs of banned compounds, so many ways to dope. As for what and how much is going undetected, it brings us back to that all-familiar-word that describes a great deal of what is posted in this forum - "speculation".

I never denied that testing had become more thorough.

THG proves that there are other drugs being developed and used
which went undetected for 7 years.

Not knowing how many drugs are being developed and used - for which there are no tests - makes, in this instance, your statement speculative.

 

[Ted B]

Not knowing how many drugs are being developed and used - for which there are no tests - makes, in this instance, your statement speculative.

Likewise, not being able to prove just who in the peloton is doping, whether it be anyone or everyone, renders many of your assertions, assumptions, and accusations purely speculative.

Pot, meet kettle...

 

[limerickman]

Likewise, not being able to prove just who in the peloton is doping, whether it be anyone or everyone, renders many of your assertions, assumptions, and accusations purely speculative.

Pot, meet kettle...

I have stated repeatedly that none of us are with these people 24/7.
But I have also stated that the reasons that Armstrongs gives for his
improvement do ring true either.

Of course, we're speculating - all posts here are speculative.
But based on what we know, we can form an opinion.

You have your opinion.
I have my opinion.