Chris_E said:is it true he's been banned from these here forums?
Yes, he is gone at least for now.
Chris_E said:is it true he's been banned from these here forums?
hombredesubaru said:Agree with above posts. You'd think they would go back and test Pantani's. What they don't say or explain is how he kept getting better and better from 1999 through 2001 after the EPO test came out. They just can't stand it. And of course Lance has no way of refuting it, it just smears him without any recourse. They identified twelve positives according to l'Equipe, but of course named only Lance's not the other alleged positives.
Way to go L'Equipe.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/aug05/aug23news2
jhuskey said:I was also thinking of him. I bet he is reading this stuff and going into seizures about right now.
We will probably hear about it on the evening news.
whiteboytrash said:I do note that the LA fans have gone from 'he doesn't dope' to 'so what he is still the best rider and everyone else is doing it'.......
He made $20million a year on his story of a clean rider and now we know its not true.... I'd be ****** if I was you....... he sucked you in !
No, WADA stated in late 1999 early 2000 that they have a test for EPO but they need more time to develop it so it was water tight. They made an announcement that they would be retrospectively back dating their testing from 1999 onwards. The UCI adopted this policy as well and made a statement to the same effect. This is probably why he didn't test positive in 2000 because he knew there was a valid EPO test.davidbod said:I think one telling factor here is that 6 other rider's samples tested positive, yet they are not named? Witch Hunt.
Should we now go back as far as there are available urine samples and retest every sample in inventory?
jhuskey said:Yes, he is gone at least for now.
MJtje said:He still reads these forums and clearly it's ironic that this now happens.....maybe people should believe flyer a bit more.....But he also has troubles at dailypeloton doping forum.....everywhere he goes the mods don't like what he says.....
There are suddenly a lot of newbies on this forum site posting like they've been here a while. Perhaps one of them is Flyer with a new identity.jhuskey said:I assumed he was still keeping an eye on the forum. It must be tough on him not getting to reply.
meehs said:Did Flyer get banned because he continually attempted to turn every single thread into a doping debate? I mean despite the fact that he was very repetative and it really bacame annoying, I never knew him to be truly offensive. Does anyone know the circumstances that led up to him being banned?
whiteboytrash said:This is probably why he didn't test positive in 2000 because he knew there was a valid EPO test.
QUOTE]
If that theory holds true, and Lance was doping in 1999 but not 2000 because the EPO test was available, then we should see a substantial change in performance in 2000.
And in fact, we do. Trouble is, it's in the wrong direction. In 1999, the big guns were out of the TDF and he won. In 2000, Ullrich and Pantani were in the tour, and riding as well as they ever have, and Lance still won, convincingly so.
From this, should we conclude that EPO was actually hurting Lance's performance? I'm confused...
Don Shipp said:There are suddenly a lot of newbies on this forum site posting like they've been here a while. Perhaps one of them is Flyer with a new identity.
jhuskey said:I know that he had been asked to moderate his post and stick to doping threads when posting about doping, but beyond that I don't know.
kennf said:No way. You can spot his style a mile away.
But here's a question: if they wanted to validate the accuracy of the new EPO test, why in the world wouldn't you test the frozen samples of the '98 peloton (which probably would have turned up 150 positives)? Or, why wouldn't you just have test subjects use EPO and test their urine, rather than testing six-year-old frozen urine samples.
whiteboytrash said:Because the announcement was made in relation to the new 'pact' in response to the 1998 Tour. When the test was finally developed in 2000 they said they would retrospectively test from 1999 onwards. They chose 1999 as it was consider to be the new era and the clean start to a new way of running the sport.
whiteboytrash said:Because the announcement was made in relation to the new 'pact' in response to the 1998 Tour. When the test was finally developed in 2000 they said they would retrospectively test from 1999 onwards. They chose 1999 as it was consider to be the new era and the clean start to a new way of running the sport.
whiteboytrash said:Because the announcement was made in relation to the new 'pact' in response to the 1998 Tour. When the test was finally developed in 2000 they said they would retrospectively test from 1999 onwards. They chose 1999 as it was consider to be the new era and the clean start to a new way of running the sport.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.