Armstong dopes AGAIN



WINGNUTT

New Member
Jun 13, 2004
337
0
0
Seems to me that most of you are missing the most damning evidence of all. Personally I'd like to believe LA in spite of the L'Equipe allegations, but if there's anything that shakes my confidence it's not necessarily L'Equipe. In all forms of highly competitive racing, winning is accomplished by the slightest of margins. The TDF is no different in this regard from other top forms of racing. 2000+ miles of racing and the margin of victory is always measured by several minutes. Given this characteristic of professional racing, and given that we know for a fact that there is a significant number of racers in the pro peloton that are doping, and further given that doping provides a 20%+ performance gain, how is it possible for any rider to overcome a 20% deficit without also doping?? If you look at any form of professional racing, a 5% advantage would be enough to guarantee victory for anyone in the top 10. If you assume that LA is not doping, why would you say cycling is so different from other forms of racing that those who have a 20% advantage (the dopers) still can't win? If I could answer this question I'd be a lot more confident that Lance is clean.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
A similar argument in the opposite direction goes like this:

If we accept that there was doping in the peloton in 1999

And if we accept that it was substantially reduced in 2000 due to the use of an EPO test

And if we accept that that doping helps performance (though the 20% figure is highly speculative)

And if we add in the fairly undisputed fact that the competition in 2000 was considerably tougher than 1999, due to the presence of Ullrich and Pantani...

Then how do we explain the fact that Armstrong's margin of victory in 2000 was quite a bit better than his margin of victory in 1999? And how was he stronger in 2001, and even stronger in 2002? In 2003 he was sick, but the peloton was asleep and didn't seem to notice. 2004 and 2005 were runaway victories, almost boring.

Sadly, this situation is far too complex to be resolved with simple logical arguments. Too many variables.

There is no positive proof that there was massive doping in 1999. Doubtless there was juicing, but no way to establish how much. Even with due process pitched firmly out the window, that question can't be accurately answered.

20% improvement? Highly dependent upon the drugs being used, and they have different effects. Testosterone, for example, helps you recover faster. Again, a simple answer that doesn't fit a complex question.

Besides, who cares about 1999? 2005, and the WADA-UCI war is far more interesting, with the outcome still unknown. And all sides seem to be hitting below the belt.
 

MJtje

New Member
Feb 6, 2005
1,125
0
0
Well most riders are just on something. Look what cyclinghistorian Benjo Maso said on RBR:

I don't think I changed my opinion much in the last few years, but of course
it's quite possible that in the course of a discussion I made another
impression. I am really deploring the fact that doping exists and is used so
widely that in the last twenty years it has become almost impossible to
compete without using them, but I'm afraid it's a fact of life that we have
to accept. Hoping that a more and more harsh anti-doping policy can be
succesful is IMO a pure illusion.
Forty years ago, when this policy started
the use of doping was child play compared with now. I think the anti-doping
policy has much in common with the Prohibition. full of laudable intentions
(up to a point at least), but practically impossible and doing much more
harm than good. One of these harmful effects is that question of doping is
completely dominating the way bicycle racing is seen (rbr is a nice example)
and IMO it's terrible that it has become impossible for a rider to perform a
spectacular exploit without being immediately suspected of having used
illicit products. Very often rightly so, I'm afraid, but if it's not, it's a
tragedy indeed.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/1e8c8554a2458f1d/f648babbf72064a9#f648babbf72064a9

That's just the way it is........I thought Rabo always had a clean image. Today got revealed that Rory Sutherland tested positive during the deutschland tour:mad:

It seems that every team has riders who are on something.....



JohnO said:
A similar argument in the opposite direction goes like this:

If we accept that there was doping in the peloton in 1999

And if we accept that it was substantially reduced in 2000 due to the use of an EPO test

And if we accept that that doping helps performance (though the 20% figure is highly speculative)

And if we add in the fairly undisputed fact that the competition in 2000 was considerably tougher than 1999, due to the presence of Ullrich and Pantani...

Then how do we explain the fact that Armstrong's margin of victory in 2000 was quite a bit better than his margin of victory in 1999? And how was he stronger in 2001, and even stronger in 2002? In 2003 he was sick, but the peloton was asleep and didn't seem to notice. 2004 and 2005 were runaway victories, almost boring.

Sadly, this situation is far too complex to be resolved with simple logical arguments. Too many variables.

There is no positive proof that there was massive doping in 1999. Doubtless there was juicing, but no way to establish how much. Even with due process pitched firmly out the window, that question can't be accurately answered.

20% improvement? Highly dependent upon the drugs being used, and they have different effects. Testosterone, for example, helps you recover faster. Again, a simple answer that doesn't fit a complex question.

Besides, who cares about 1999? 2005, and the WADA-UCI war is far more interesting, with the outcome still unknown. And all sides seem to be hitting below the belt.
 

mitosis

New Member
Jun 21, 2004
1,539
0
0
scott0425 said:
Just a question from a novice (who has read just about the entire thread)... the whole doping thing....from reading this, it seems many think LA is guilty, but the rest of the top world class riders, i.e. Ulrich, Basso...etc..., are choir boys and shudder at the thought of EPO......am I right? because that is how it sounds to an outsider reading this. Now from what I can figure out by looking at the number of riders who have been suspended in the past few years and the number of seemingly superfit and healthy riders who suddenly drop dead (and I'm not talking the older guys, but guys in their early 20's) EPO is common, if not rampant....so why the disgust and surprise if LA really did use it? I mean, c'mon, the guy is making millions of dollars, is he supposed to, at the height of his career, say, "oh, by the way, I used EPO"????
I wouldn't. I'd say "show me the money, hey Jan, pass the EPO!"........
just my 2cents

You've cheated us with that post. It wasn't worth 2 cents.
 

ilpirata

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
410
4
18
gunn said:
I4. "You can't handle the truth!" as Nicholson yelled. For the sake of argument, assume the most probable, that like Pantani and Hamilton, Armstrong used drugs. Given the reality of cycling, whatever that is, does this make him a devil or that much less extraordinary?

How many champions of the tour de france do we know for sure didn't use drugs?
Where is your proof that Pantani used performance drugs? There was never a retain of his that tested positive for a banned substance.
 

bobke

New Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,134
2
0
limerickman said:
It was L'Equipe that accused Armstrong of doping - not **** Pound.



The test is reliable and was adopted as part of the WADA code in 2004.
We have been over this ground coutless times.
The test is reliable.




2003 is not 2004.

I have already explained to you that the consultative process for the verification, testing and adoption of the EPO test went on for many months prior to the UCI's authorisation to allow WADA access to test, under the auspices of the WADA Code.

The UCI signed the Code, based in part, on being satisfied that all testing, all testing procedures, all testing chains of custody, had been verified and validated by the UCI prior to the UCI adopting the Code.




The lab results are not legally prejudical.
The results were only carried out on the one remaining sample.
The UCI could not, even if it wanted to, impose sanctions on Armstrong under these conditions.

Armstrong must be a relieved that the UCI test in 1999 which giving him a false negative result was destroyed.

blah blah blah blah blah
Please say something that is interesting or correct.
You continue to assert things that are simply wrong.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
hombredesubaru said:
blah blah blah blah blah
Please say something that is interesting or correct.
You continue to assert things that are simply wrong.

What I post is factually correct.

I don't expect you to find it interesting though.
 

thebluetrain

New Member
Jul 31, 2004
1,074
0
0
52
limerickman said:
you most certaininly are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(that's a joke BTW)
This whole thing has just become boring and old to me. Thank God Football season has started.
 

WINGNUTT

New Member
Jun 13, 2004
337
0
0
First, 1999 was his biggest margin of victory at 7:37 (http://www.freep.com/sports/othersports/tour25e_20050725.htm)

2005: 4 minutes, 40 seconds over Ivan Basso.
2004: 6:19 over Andreas Kloden.
2003: 1:01 over Jan Ullrich.
2002: 7:17 over Joseba Beloki.
2001: 6:44 over Ullrich.
2000: 6:02 over Ullrich.
1999: 7:37 over Alex Zuelle.

Second, the reason why these margins didn't change could easily be rationalized by assuming that all the top riders adjusted their doping in 2000, so that the playing field was re-leveled given the new doping controls.

Looking at these margins of victory, if you assume LA was always clean, then why didn't his margin of victory skyrocket in 2000 when the other top pros had to cut back on their EPO use?

Lastly, looking at these margins of victory kind of proves my original point in my first post, which is this - Lance's 2005 winning time was 86h 15m 2s (5175 minutes), and his margin of victory was 4m 40s (0.165%). There were 20 riders within 33 minutes of his winning time. This means that Lance was 0.63% faster than 20th place and 1.9% faster than 50th place (who was 1h 43m behind). With such fractional time differentials, it stretches credibility to say that there were some in this top group of 20 or even 50 that had a 15-20% advantage over others in the same group. With results this close, it seems that NOBODY in the top 20 has a 15-20% advantage over anybody else, meaning that the playing field is level. For the playing field to be level, you have to believe that they are either all doping, or none of them are doping. I don't know which one it is, but does anyone really believe that the results can be this close with some riders having such a massive advantage over the others??

JohnO said:
A similar argument in the opposite direction goes like this:

If we accept that there was doping in the peloton in 1999

And if we accept that it was substantially reduced in 2000 due to the use of an EPO test

And if we accept that that doping helps performance (though the 20% figure is highly speculative)

And if we add in the fairly undisputed fact that the competition in 2000 was considerably tougher than 1999, due to the presence of Ullrich and Pantani...

Then how do we explain the fact that Armstrong's margin of victory in 2000 was quite a bit better than his margin of victory in 1999? And how was he stronger in 2001, and even stronger in 2002? In 2003 he was sick, but the peloton was asleep and didn't seem to notice. 2004 and 2005 were runaway victories, almost boring.
 

Bjorn P.Dal

New Member
Apr 29, 2005
294
0
0
Well, I think youre simplyfing things a bit WINGNUTT.

"2005: 4 minutes, 40 seconds over Ivan Basso.
2004: 6:19 over Andreas Kloden.
2003: 1:01 over Jan Ullrich.
2002: 7:17 over Joseba Beloki.
2001: 6:44 over Ullrich.
2000: 6:02 over Ullrich.
1999: 7:37 over Alex Zuelle."

One can make out almost anything from these numbers. But if one goes into detail, things like the fact that Zuelle lost 6 minutes on the causeway in 99 blurs the 7:37 gap quite a bit. Then again Zuelle wasnt being marked in the same way as he would if he had been within a couple of minutes come the mountains. As the leader you lose incentive to go on the attack when your lead becomes big enough, so you cant really say, "hey, why wasnt the winning gap 12 mins if he's that good!?". Maybe you could when Merckx was around, but not today.

Also, calculating the percentage of the winning time margin vs total time is not really that giving either. Say how big a part of the race are the GC contenders sitting shielded in the peleton with heart rates similar to sunday strides? If you did the same calculations based on totale time from only climbs and TT it would be more interesting.

just my .02
 

WINGNUTT

New Member
Jun 13, 2004
337
0
0
Your points are well taken, but to play the devil's advocate once again, how can a leader build up so much of a lead that he can give up going on the attack, when several of those around him have a 15-20% advantage? Also, strange incidents like the one you describe could affect a rider or two here or there, but that's why I was looking at the top 20 to 50 riders throughout the 7 years. That said, your comments admittedly do have some merit, they just don't fully explain the close gaps, and the consistency.

Seems to me the three possible explanations are:
1.) Many are doping, including LA, Basso, Ullrich, etc
2.) None are doping
3.) Some are doping, but LA is not one of them

ALthough all three are possible, I think #2 has been proven to be false. Of choices 1 and 3, I want to believe desperately that 3 is the correct answer, but given all the smoke that has appeared, and given the competitiveness of the pro field as evidenced by time gaps, logic makes me question #3. If all the riders were annonymous and I had no emotional attachment to any of them, I think I might tell you #1 is obviously what is happening. Now I'm forced to ask myself this - what is it about LA that makes him so credible that I should discard a perfectly logical explanation in favor of a "miracle" (his language, not mine).

For now I'll say I believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he has been proven guilty yet, but if someone had an envelope with the correct answer in it, I wouldn't be placing any bets.

Bjørn P.Dal said:
Well, I think youre simplyfing things a bit WINGNUTT.

One can make out almost anything from these numbers. But if one goes into detail, things like the fact that Zuelle lost 6 minutes on the causeway in 99 blurs the 7:37 gap quite a bit. Then again Zuelle wasnt being marked in the same way as he would if he had been within a couple of minutes come the mountains. As the leader you lose incentive to go on the attack when your lead becomes big enough, so you cant really say, "hey, why wasnt the winning gap 12 mins if he's that good!?". Maybe you could when Merckx was around, but not today.

Also, calculating the percentage of the winning time margin vs total time is not really that giving either. Say how big a part of the race are the GC contenders sitting shielded in the peleton with heart rates similar to sunday strides? If you did the same calculations based on totale time from only climbs and TT it would be more interesting.

just my .02
 

MJtje

New Member
Feb 6, 2005
1,125
0
0
Read what cyclinghistorian Benjo Maso got to say on RBR about it in 1999 after LA won his first tour:

The estimate of 90 % is not only Voet's. Read the books of Erwann Mentheour,
of Kimmage, interview with many ex-pro's (Lecroq for instance). They all
agree: riders who never use doping are very rare, and they cannot be found
among the top riders. I'm convinced the estimate of 90 % is on the rather
conservative side. That's of course the reason why there are so much
innuendo's about Armstrong right now. Riders simply don't believe that one
of them can be the best without the use of performance enhancing drugs. In
their view it might have been possible in the times of amphitamine,
cortisone, etc., but not in the times of EPO, PFC, growth hormones, etc. In
the pro cycling world everybody is assumed to be guilty, until he he is
proved to be innocent. Which is a very realistic view.

And this is a post from a few days ago on RBR:

I am really deploring the fact that doping exists and is used so
widely that in the last twenty years it has become almost impossible to
compete without using them, but I'm afraid it's a fact of life that we have
to accept. Hoping that a more and more harsh anti-doping policy can be
succesful is IMO a pure illusion. Forty years ago, when this policy started
the use of doping was child play compared with now. I think the anti-doping
policy has much in common with the Prohibition. full of laudable intentions
(up to a point at least), but practically impossible and doing much more
harm than good. One of these harmful effects is that question of doping is
completely dominating the way bicycle racing is seen (rbr is a nice example)
and IMO it's terrible that it has become impossible for a rider to perform a
spectacular exploit without being immediately suspected of having used
illicit products. Very often rightly so, I'm afraid, but if it's not, it's a
tragedy indeed.

So wingnutt back to youre points: it's point 1....most riders dope (more then 90%!)........


WINGNUTT said:
Your points are well taken, but to play the devil's advocate once again, how can a leader build up so much of a lead that he can give up going on the attack, when several of those around him have a 15-20% advantage? Also, strange incidents like the one you describe could affect a rider or two here or there, but that's why I was looking at the top 20 to 50 riders throughout the 7 years. That said, your comments admittedly do have some merit, they just don't fully explain the close gaps, and the consistency.

Seems to me the three possible explanations are:
1.) Many are doping, including LA, Basso, Ullrich, etc
2.) None are doping
3.) Some are doping, but LA is not one of them

ALthough all three are possible, I think #2 has been proven to be false. Of choices 1 and 3, I want to believe desperately that 3 is the correct answer, but given all the smoke that has appeared, and given the competitiveness of the pro field as evidenced by time gaps, logic makes me question #3. If all the riders were annonymous and I had no emotional attachment to any of them, I think I might tell you #1 is obviously what is happening. Now I'm forced to ask myself this - what is it about LA that makes him so credible that I should discard a perfectly logical explanation in favor of a "miracle" (his language, not mine).

For now I'll say I believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he has been proven guilty yet, but if someone had an envelope with the correct answer in it, I wouldn't be placing any bets.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep18news2

The UCI anti-doping chief Dr Leon Schattenberg announced in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, that it was him who gave one of the 1999 Tour de France doping control protocols to a journalist of L'Equipe, who used it to reveal Lance Armstrong's alleged use of EPO in the paper on August 23.

Schattenberg said that the journalist came to the UCI headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland just a few days before the 2005 Tour de France ended.
According to the Dutchman, the journalist wanted to know whether Armstrong was allowed to use testosterone after his illness with cancer.
The Federation replied that this was not the case; and to prove it, Armstrong himself allowed the journalist to see one of his doping test protocols - of which the code number was used by L'Equipe to identify one of the positive samples tested retrospectively by the French laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
So we now know the sample sheets are fully certified and correct therefore the positive results must also be certified.... funny how Armstrong didn't mention this when the story first broke...... the guy is more and more guilty as each day goes on...... no wonder he is afraid to sue L'Equipe... he would prove his own guilt ! Now how did I tell the kids he is a cheater ?


limerickman said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep18news2

The UCI anti-doping chief Dr Leon Schattenberg announced in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, that it was him who gave one of the 1999 Tour de France doping control protocols to a journalist of L'Equipe, who used it to reveal Lance Armstrong's alleged use of EPO in the paper on August 23.

Schattenberg said that the journalist came to the UCI headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland just a few days before the 2005 Tour de France ended.
According to the Dutchman, the journalist wanted to know whether Armstrong was allowed to use testosterone after his illness with cancer.
The Federation replied that this was not the case; and to prove it, Armstrong himself allowed the journalist to see one of his doping test protocols - of which the code number was used by L'Equipe to identify one of the positive samples tested retrospectively by the French laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry.
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
limerickman said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep18news2

The UCI anti-doping chief Dr Leon Schattenberg announced in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, that it was him who gave one of the 1999 Tour de France doping control protocols to a journalist of L'Equipe, who used it to reveal Lance Armstrong's alleged use of EPO in the paper on August 23.

Schattenberg said that the journalist came to the UCI headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland just a few days before the 2005 Tour de France ended.
According to the Dutchman, the journalist wanted to know whether Armstrong was allowed to use testosterone after his illness with cancer.
The Federation replied that this was not the case; and to prove it, Armstrong himself allowed the journalist to see one of his doping test protocols - of which the code number was used by L'Equipe to identify one of the positive samples tested retrospectively by the French laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry.

And now for the rest of the story:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8926.0.html

I don't think **** Pound is going to survive this one. My bet would be that the lab is going to suffer also.
 

micron

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
598
2
0
davidbod said:
And now for the rest of the story:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8926.0.html

I don't think **** Pound is going to survive this one. My bet would be that the lab is going to suffer also.

David, you place a touching amount of faith in Hein Verbruggen and the UCI to be above reproach. Verbruggen is chiefly concerned with covering up doping in the sport - I can't imagine **** Pound being questioned during the Festina affair about questionable practice.

You obviously haven't seen the news about the UCI's poor welcome at the World's - if the knives are out for anyone in cycling it's Mr Verbruggen.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
micron said:
David, you place a touching amount of faith in Hein Verbruggen and the UCI to be above reproach. Verbruggen is chiefly concerned with covering up doping in the sport - I can't imagine **** Pound being questioned during the Festina affair about questionable practice.

You obviously haven't seen the news about the UCI's poor welcome at the World's - if the knives are out for anyone in cycling it's Mr Verbruggen.
All bar one of the members of the 17-strong International Cycling Union (UCI) management committee left Madrid on Monday and will boycott Tuesday's opening ceremony in protest at what they call "the hostile attitude" of the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC).
In the latest round of the struggle for power in world cycling, the RFEC has begun legal action which has effectively prevented UCI president Hein Verbruggen from presiding over the annual congress which was is due to take place in Madrid on Friday to elect his successor.

The RFEC argues that Verbruggen should not continue as president because of what it calls "manipulation of the electoral process" to choose his successor, justifying its decision to resort to legal action by a desire to "ensure the elections are impartial ."

The political in-fighting has diverted attention from the action on the streets of Madrid which will see some of the world's best specialists against the clock compete in Thursday's 44-km time trial and the one-day experts fight it out in the 273-km road race on Sunday.

Italy's Alessandro Petacchi is the hot favourite for the road race after winning five sprint-finish victories in the recent Tour of Spain, including Sunday's final stage which took in part of the route for the world championship.

But Petacchi does not like the finish which includes a hazardous hairpin bend around 600 metres from the line and believes the race will be more open than most people expect.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
- Saunier Duval have said that they are in advanced negotiations with Britain’s David Millar and are expecting to sign the Scot to a contract once he completes a two-year ban for EPO use in June 2006. The Spanish team have also said that David Cañada has been successfully operated on for a heart problem that forced him to quit the Vuelta last week.

micron said:
David, you place a touching amount of faith in Hein Verbruggen and the UCI to be above reproach. Verbruggen is chiefly concerned with covering up doping in the sport - I can't imagine **** Pound being questioned during the Festina affair about questionable practice.

You obviously haven't seen the news about the UCI's poor welcome at the World's - if the knives are out for anyone in cycling it's Mr Verbruggen.