Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

[tas1978]

Great point.

Today it was reported that Robbie Gordon's team was fined $50,000 for cheating and 25 championship points! Illegal intake manifold.

Somebody else was fined $10,000 for an illegal transmission.

Plenty of cheating in Nascar. It is a money sport too.

btw: Do you think Ridalin or stimulants would be more helpful in Baseball or the Daytona 500?

It's a fair question.

Trick question: Ritalin is a stimulant. But since you think it would help the drivers, they all take it.

Yeah, Robbie's intake tested positive for corticosteroids and Dale Jr.'s pit chief got caught mixing donkey growth hormone in with the transmission fluid.

 

[Flyer]

Trick question: Ritalin is a stimulant. But since you think it would help the drivers, they all take it.

Yeah, Robbie's intake tested positive for corticosteroids and Dale Jr.'s pit chief got caught mixing donkey growth hormone in with the transmission fluid.

The Wall Street Journal reported in a 2004 story of college placement--that a 16 year old girl bought Ridalin in order to improve her ACT score result.

She claimed it worked.

She was not alone in her belief that drug improve performance/concentration.

Question: How is it that a 16 year old knows more about drugs than does a NASCAR pit crew chief or driver?

Answer: They don't, but they do admit to it.

 

[Flyer]

From the Vancouver Sun--yesterday:

The doping disclosures just keep on coming.

March 21, 2005 CanWest News Service

Montreal: Clara Hughes publicly speaks out re: doping in womens cycling.

"In cycling, it started around 1995," she said. "The speed of the races changed, the way athletes looked changed. All of a sudden you'd see someone who looked totally different and had turned into a different racer in a couple of months, and you know that's just not possible. I changed my goals and decided it might only be possible to win one-day races."

"I saw what doping can do to your body and your brain. I saw people destroyed by that. For me that was an eye-opener. To see what I saw was just horrifying, shattering."

Her comments go on and on.

If only mjolnir2K could open his eyes, not roll them---- it would shatter him too.


A telling remark---which corroborates Limerickman's position was, the sudden change in a one-day rider into a stage racer--in just a few months. Drugs can help do this better than a diet or over-training can.

Not only did Lance 1) recovery from the adverse effects of chemo & radiation 2) got normal fitness back 3) gained world class sustainable power greater than know dopers.

Clara Hughes said these things, not some naive poster.

She joins Greg Lemond & Andy Hamspten as credible persons, in the know, warning the public.

You have been so advised.

 

[mjolnir2k]

From the Vancouver Sun--yesterday:

The doping disclosures just keep on coming.

March 21, 2005 CanWest News Service

Montreal: Clara Hughes publicly speaks out re: doping in womens cycling.

"In cycling, it started around 1995," she said. "The speed of the races changed, the way athletes looked changed. All of a sudden you'd see someone who looked totally different and had turned into a different racer in a couple of months, and you know that's just not possible. I changed my goals and decided it might only be possible to win one-day races."

"I saw what doping can do to your body and your brain. I saw people destroyed by that. For me that was an eye-opener. To see what I saw was just horrifying, shattering."

Her comments go on and on.

If only mjolnir2K could open his eyes, not roll them---- it would shatter him too.


A telling remark---which corroborates Limerickman's position was, the sudden change in a one-day rider into a stage racer--in just a few months. Drugs can help do this better than a diet or over-training can.

Not only did Lance 1) recovery from the adverse effects of chemo & radiation 2) got normal fitness back 3) gained world class sustainable power greater than know dopers.

Clara Hughes said these things, not some naive poster.

She joins Greg Lemond & Andy Hamspten as credible persons, in the know, warning the public.

You have been so advised.

God, you just keep making yourself look increasingly desperate. What the HELL does Clara Hughes know about LA? When did she join US postal/ Discovery? So as far as Clara is concerned NO rider can ever go from a one day style rider to a Tour style rider? That's not only idiotic, it's downright untrue.

Perhaps Ms. Hughes was not able to make such a switch. Perhaps she is only capable of winning one day races...but that has NO bearing on everyone else.
Gee, I guess because Clara couldn't do it Lance MUST be doping. Yessiree, that's the truth of it. If she couldn't NO-One CAN!

More of Your desperate attempts to paint LA a user. It's very sad.

 

[micron]

God, you just keep making yourself look increasingly desperate. What the HELL does Clara Hughes know about LA? When did she join US postal/ Discovery? So as far as Clara is concerned NO rider can ever go from a one day style rider to a Tour style rider? That's not only idiotic, it's downright untrue.

Perhaps Ms. Hughes was not able to make such a switch. Perhaps she is only capable of winning one day races...but that has NO bearing on everyone else.
Gee, I guess because Clara couldn't do it Lance MUST be doping. Yessiree, that's the truth of it. If she couldn't NO-One CAN!

More of Your desperate attempts to paint LA a user. It's very sad.

mjolnir - your increasingly specious arguments cf 'was she ever on USPS/Discovery?' are beginning to sound ever more desperate. Ms Hughes does not make any inference about Armstrong, as you imply she does, that inference is Flyer's. Yet she must be discredited because in your paranoia, you assume that her revelations must make Armstrong culpable.

What she is saying is that she has witnessed rapid improvements due to drugs and that she felt compelled to specialise because she didn't want to dope and felt she could only win one day races without it. If your fervid imagination makes her an accuser of your hero Armstrong, then I suggest that you have the problem not anyone else.

 

[mjolnir2k]

mjolnir - your increasingly specious arguments cf 'was she ever on USPS/Discovery?' are beginning to sound ever more desperate. Ms Hughes does not make any inference about Armstrong, as you imply she does, that inference is Flyer's. Yet she must be discredited because in your paranoia, you assume that her revelations must make Armstrong culpable.

What she is saying is that she has witnessed rapid improvements due to drugs and that she felt compelled to specialise because she didn't want to dope and felt she could only win one day races without it. If your fervid imagination makes her an accuser of your hero Armstrong, then I suggest that you have the problem not anyone else.

No, you miss the point of my post. I am not arguing with Mrs. Hughes I am simply stating that her experience does not neccessarily mean that it is acroos the board and an indictment of LA as is suggested by Flyer (not Mrs. Hughes). He CLEARLY intended that post to insuinuate that it is proof that LA could not have made the jump from day racer to stage racer without dope.

No paranoia on my part b/c I have nothing to be paranoid about. I am simply refuting Flyer's inceasant attempts to connect every dope issue in the press to LA.

 

[Flyer]

No, you miss the point of my post. I am not arguing with Mrs. Hughes I am simply stating that her experience does not neccessarily mean that it is acroos the board and an indictment of LA as is suggested by Flyer (not Mrs. Hughes). He CLEARLY intended that post to insuinuate that it is proof that LA could not have made the jump from day racer to stage racer without dope.

No paranoia on my part b/c I have nothing to be paranoid about. I am simply refuting Flyer's inceasant attempts to connect every dope issue in the press to LA.

Delusion and paranoia is your whole being. It's all you have to work with. The facts counter your entire "work-ethic" theme. It's work + drug therapies = International results. Not fish & flaxseed oils.

Your understanding of cycling and it history is lacking, and your beliefs are bizarre.

I am not sure which drugs Clara Hughes was referring to in 1995 (maybe EPO & blood boosting) but anabolic steroids were firmly is use decades ealier.

I know that at least one (probably all three) of the womens Road Podium was on steroids in the 1983 World Road Champion race in Switzerland.

That was the exact year that Greg Lemond won his first of two World Road Races.

Were only the women doping that year---or was Greg's race doped too?


And mjolnir---the doping does go on year round---but not at the precise same level---or super-dosing for specific performances---like a time trial effort or an Oympic effort.

Da!

All year long these guys or either building or maintaining the aerobic engine. They build up and add intesity as they approach a goal. They then go full bore with additional drugs, as needed, to win or achieve their goal.

I doubt HBOCs are used on a daily basis, 365 days per year. Might be used daily for mountain stages in the TDF however---and time trials for the contenders only. This helps explain why vasodilators and thinners and albumin were found in Rumsas car and ***** Voet's Festina stash too.

Numerous doping products are required when you screw with mother nature blood chemistry. (bovine-based polymerized products alter chemistry. Other blood components must be added as well; platelets, cryoprecipitate, and FFP. Firtehr, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatose, lactate dehydrogenase, calcium and albumin may be artifactually incresed or decreased as necessary.


Greg Lemond, Andy Hamspten, Clara Hughes, Philippe Gaumont, Jesus Manzano, Alex Zulle, Stephen Swartz, et al....

Your jealously lying, self-serving roster is expanding each week now. Soon you will be alone.

Go back to your alternate universe of misunderstood cycling history.


www.biopure.com

Home of Hempoure and Oxygen Solution; a Jesus Manzano endorsed blood booster at Kelme.

 

[johnny2012]

Have been reading on all of this, Hamilton, etc. for 2 days.
What occur to me are a few things:
1. Armstrong chose not to race in '04 Olympics, where Hamilton was caught for homologous transfusion(s).
2. Armstrong's script (we all have scripts) seems to center on "I've never tested positive/I don't use performance enhancing DRUGS."
3. Human blood is not a drug, yours nor someone else's.
4. Only in '04 have the agencies begun testing for homologous transfusions. It seems there isn't a way to look for autologous transfusions. (Except crit levels, etc.?)
5. Armstrong is contractually obligated to race TdF in '05, but not after. He is already downplaying the importance of #7. (but to be fair, that's always a part of his psy-ops campaign.)
6. If Armstrong has to receive homologous and/or autologous transfusions to maintain his performance level, will he not have to stop now if these tests will be performed at TdF05?

I don't know. With all this worry over Tyler Hamilton, the injustice of it all, etc., I'm a little ill. It's sports. These are rich white guys. I just can't feature all the clinging.

I think our culture is equally to blame. We NEED these heroes. I'm amazed at LA's cancer recovery. Does anyone think that was faked? Aren't the pictures of him wasted away with drill holes in his head public domain?

Evolution of physiology is a violent and dangerous process. As far as keeping secrets, our gov't keeps enormous secrets from us daily. The peleton is just acting as gov'ts do. We mere mortals don't have a 'need to know.' We can't possibly understand the stakes.

I was wounded nearly fatally in Iraq last year. I used to be a fitness freak. I relate to LA's struggle to get back on the bike. Nearly dying takes such a chunk out of your will. It can really take the fight out of you. But, in time, it's restored.

We want to watch acts of superhumanity from the couch. But we want these athletes to use the same garbage fuel that we do. Isn't it interesting that Texas is the home of Lance Armstrong and also the home of the most obese population on the face of the Earth? The obesity rate of schoolkids in Texas is approaching 50%? What is happening here?

If you want to watch racers who don't 'cheat,' I guess, go watch racers who don't do it for a living.

Erik
ex-Army
Texas

 

[JohnO]

Hamilton was warned in the spring 04 that his blood tests looked funny, and that he was very close to the 50% hematocrit level. Armstrong was not, because his tests did not look funny. Lance uses altitude training to condition his blood, so he really wouldn't benefit from transfusions without crossing the 50% threshold.

I remember many principles I learned when serving in the military, the idea being that if you were going to get killed for them, you should know what they are. One was the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If you follow the 'lance is doping' discussions around here, and see some of the absurd linkages that are brought up (he knew Tyler, so he must be blood doping, because we all know blood dopers hang out with each other), you can see the value of that principle.

The irony is, as ridiculous as some of the ideas floated around are, the thought that ridersl ike Lance, Jan, Ivan, Joseba, and Alex are just dedicated, hard training cyclists is considered the most absurd of all. Perhaps we should replace professional cycling with professional nihilism.

 

[Catabolic Jones]

If you are familiar with the history of Le Tour (Wheatcroft's book is an excellent start) and you make some simple inferences, you will discover that the tour was always doped. It was conceived originally as a circus show, a freak act of endurance, in order to raise publicity for a newspaper. It is simply an INHUMAN act of endurance. This fact is then compounded in today's age of high demand for super-spectacle; if human physiology cannot evolve over a century or so, then what can we deduce?

Obviously they are doped. The question is what and how much? Flyer is continuously after the riders and their doctors and DS's; what of the public? What of the very nature of the spectacle itself? I think expectation and appetite first have to change. The very nature of Le Tour would have to change. The public, the cycling fans, have to change just as much as the doped-up riders.

The question then, to me, is how to bring the change? The uber-vigilance of a **** Pound? Draconian measures? I don't feel this is the best way. This will merely lead to more furtive measures, and, hence, more guilt, which will lead to more use. Simple addictive cycle. I don't have the answers, but I have to reject current measures.

 

[tomUK]

Not sure if this has been noted, however, I would suggest Mr Armstrong is much more likely to be comfortable with EPO post cancer as this very drug, no doubt, had an enormous effect on his ability to recover.

Why become scared of something that saved your life? Lance is smart at what he does and he gets away with it. Oh, wouldn't it be joyous to see pro cycling return to what it should be? Chance of that happening. Zero.

 

[Flyer]

Many readers of this post are in fact unfamiliar with cycling history. They may not even be aware that the last rider to win a Tour de France, not named Lance is dead. Dead at age 34!

Some forum readers have reconciled--or not--that whist World and Classic Champions David Millar, Oscar Camenzind, Eddie Merckx, Eddie Merckx, Francesco Moser, Freddy Maertens admitted to doping universally--and Lance stood on the podium with Richard Virenque, Alex Zulle and Raimundas Rumsas---dopers all, somehow Lance only used mineral water and power bars combined with a work ethic.

Go figure!

I have commented on the general public role in all of this too---but that really brings out the heat!

John Q Public does not want the microscope pointed at them---despite the fact that it is their wallets that underwrite the entire fraud/spectacle/funeral!

Cable TV fees, advertising validation thru purchases, ticket sales and product placemements.

And most importantly, the general public does benefit from the tremendously powerful trauma and anemia medicines developed by cyclists and their researchers and Schumi's---should they ever need them.

Pharmacies on wheels and Angels with dirty faces!

It's a wacky and wonderful world, ain't it?

If you are familiar with the history of Le Tour (Wheatcroft's book is an excellent start) and you make some simple inferences, you will discover that the tour was always doped. It was conceived originally as a circus show, a freak act of endurance, in order to raise publicity for a newspaper. It is simply an INHUMAN act of endurance. This fact is then compounded in today's age of high demand for super-spectacle; if human physiology cannot evolve over a century or so, then what can we deduce?

Obviously they are doped. The question is what and how much? Flyer is continuously after the riders and their doctors and DS's; what of the public? What of the very nature of the spectacle itself? I think expectation and appetite first have to change. The very nature of Le Tour would have to change. The public, the cycling fans, have to change just as much as the doped-up riders.

The question then, to me, is how to bring the change? The uber-vigilance of a **** Pound? Draconian measures? I don't feel this is the best way. This will merely lead to more furtive measures, and, hence, more guilt, which will lead to more use. Simple addictive cycle. I don't have the answers, but I have to reject current measures.

 

[VeloFlash]

If you are familiar with the history of Le Tour (Wheatcroft's book is an excellent start) and you make some simple inferences, you will discover that the tour was always doped. It was conceived originally as a circus show, a freak act of endurance, in order to raise publicity for a newspaper. It is simply an INHUMAN act of endurance. This fact is then compounded in today's age of high demand for super-spectacle; if human physiology cannot evolve over a century or so, then what can we deduce?

Obviously they are doped. The question is what and how much? Flyer is continuously after the riders and their doctors and DS's; what of the public? What of the very nature of the spectacle itself? I think expectation and appetite first have to change. The very nature of Le Tour would have to change. The public, the cycling fans, have to change just as much as the doped-up riders.

The question then, to me, is how to bring the change? The uber-vigilance of a **** Pound? Draconian measures? I don't feel this is the best way. This will merely lead to more furtive measures, and, hence, more guilt, which will lead to more use. Simple addictive cycle. I don't have the answers, but I have to reject current measures.

This is part of a longer article by Irish journalist Feargal McKay, Angels with Dirty Faces, referred to by Flyer for those posters who naively believe a long stage race can be won without resorting to illegal chemistry.

"In the eyes of many cycling fans the biggest crime is not doping. It is the claims of many that there is no doping in cycling, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Cycling has never been a clean sport, and it will probably never be a clean sport. Everyone who has followed cycling, even at a distance, knows the role drugs play in the sport.

"Jacques Anquetil (Tour winner 1957, 1961-64) admitted that "you don't win the Tour de France on mineral water." He had led a riders' revolt in the 1966 Tour when drug tests were introduced: "We find these tests degrading. Why do cyclists have to be suspected and controlled while any other free man can do what he likes and take what he likes?"

"Questioned about the role of amphetamines in cycling and whether he had used amphetamines, Fausto Coppi (Tour winner 1949 and 1953) replied "Only when necessary." Asked how often that was, Coppi replied "Almost all the time." Go back to the 1924 Tour and remember the words of Henri Pelissier: "Do you want to see how we keep going? That's cocaine to go in our eyes. Chloroform for our gums. This is ointment to warm the knees. And pills, do you want to see the pills?" His brother, Francis, added: "We keep going on dynamite. In the evenings we dance around our rooms instead of sleeping."

"No one forgets the death of the English rider Tom Simpson on Mount Ventoux in the 1967 Tour. Simpson, dosed up with a mix of alcohol and amphetamines, collapsed on the side of the sun-scorched volcano and died. Ten years earlier the French philosopher Roland Barthes described the Ventoux thus: "The Ventoux, thrusting abundantly skywards, is a god of Evil to whom sacrifice must be paid. A true Moloch, a despot of cyclists, it never pardons the weak and exacts an unjust tribute of suffering." In those pre-Ben Johnson days, Simpson's death elevated him to the status of hero. His death was seen as a sacrifice to the gods of cycling, it didn't condemn him to the status of villain.

"No one cannot but be aware of Paul Kimmage's 1990 book, 'A Rough Ride', in which he told the story of drugs in sport as he had witnessed it in his own professional career during the Roche-Kelly years. Other riders have come out with similar books, including Freddy Maertens' 1988 book 'Niet van Horen Zeggen' (translated in 1993 as 'Fall From Grace') and Erwann Mentheour's 2000 book, 'Secret Defonce: Ma Verite sur le Dopage'. But many choose to be blind to the blindingly obvious. Stephen Roche's condemnation of Kimmage for spitting in the soup - taken with Roche's own links to Ferrari and doubts over his own miraculous return from a career-crippling knee injury - demonstrates the attitude of most cyclists. Denial.

"We have long since passed the point of the naive young baseball fan who faced down Shoeless Joe Jackson with his "say it isn't so, Joe" at the height of the Black Sox scandal in baseball. It's time everyone stopped treating fans as if they were naive kids and admitted the truth. It would be nice if, the next time a rider was asked the simple question of whether he has ever used drugs in his cycling career, he told the truth and listed all the drugs - the legal and the illegal - he has used and left the fans to decide for themselves how clean that makes him, instead of persisting with the myth of a clean sport.

"The time has come for the riders to stop hiding behind masking agents and Clintonesque semantic games over the meaning of the word drugs. To stop pretending that if it hasn't been detected by the dope controls, then it isn't a drug. Or that if it isn't currently on the UCI's banned list then it isn't a drug (Pedro Delgado's defence in 1988 when he tested positive for probenecid, then commonly used as a masking agent to hide steroid use). Or that if it has been found by a dope control, that it doesn't count if it can be excused by the use of a back-dated prescription for a saddle-sore cream (Armstrong) or an asthma inhaler (Miguel Indurain). Or that the drugs found in their possession were for their wife, their grandmother or their mother-in-law (Ferrari). Or that, all other excuses failing, there was an error in the test (Marco Pantani). The sport may never be clean but it's high time that the riders came clean and admitted what's really going on. They may be able to convince themselves that they are innocent victims but they cannot convince the sport's fans."

 

[Flyer]

The professional athletes are tickered with just as NASCAR entries are: motor, air/fuel intake/exhaust, suspension, and fuel.

Great read!

This is part of a longer article by Irish journalist Feargal McKay, Angels with Dirty Faces, referred to by Flyer for those posters who naively believe a long stage race can be won without resorting to illegal chemistry.

"In the eyes of many cycling fans the biggest crime is not doping. It is the claims of many that there is no doping in cycling, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Cycling has never been a clean sport, and it will probably never be a clean sport. Everyone who has followed cycling, even at a distance, knows the role drugs play in the sport.

"Jacques Anquetil (Tour winner 1957, 1961-64) admitted that "you don't win the Tour de France on mineral water." He had led a riders' revolt in the 1966 Tour when drug tests were introduced: "We find these tests degrading. Why do cyclists have to be suspected and controlled while any other free man can do what he likes and take what he likes?"

"Questioned about the role of amphetamines in cycling and whether he had used amphetamines, Fausto Coppi (Tour winner 1949 and 1953) replied "Only when necessary." Asked how often that was, Coppi replied "Almost all the time." Go back to the 1924 Tour and remember the words of Henri Pelissier: "Do you want to see how we keep going? That's cocaine to go in our eyes. Chloroform for our gums. This is ointment to warm the knees. And pills, do you want to see the pills?" His brother, Francis, added: "We keep going on dynamite. In the evenings we dance around our rooms instead of sleeping."

"No one forgets the death of the English rider Tom Simpson on Mount Ventoux in the 1967 Tour. Simpson, dosed up with a mix of alcohol and amphetamines, collapsed on the side of the sun-scorched volcano and died. Ten years earlier the French philosopher Roland Barthes described the Ventoux thus: "The Ventoux, thrusting abundantly skywards, is a god of Evil to whom sacrifice must be paid. A true Moloch, a despot of cyclists, it never pardons the weak and exacts an unjust tribute of suffering." In those pre-Ben Johnson days, Simpson's death elevated him to the status of hero. His death was seen as a sacrifice to the gods of cycling, it didn't condemn him to the status of villain.

"No one cannot but be aware of Paul Kimmage's 1990 book, 'A Rough Ride', in which he told the story of drugs in sport as he had witnessed it in his own professional career during the Roche-Kelly years. Other riders have come out with similar books, including Freddy Maertens' 1988 book 'Niet van Horen Zeggen' (translated in 1993 as 'Fall From Grace') and Erwann Mentheour's 2000 book, 'Secret Defonce: Ma Verite sur le Dopage'. But many choose to be blind to the blindingly obvious. Stephen Roche's condemnation of Kimmage for spitting in the soup - taken with Roche's own links to Ferrari and doubts over his own miraculous return from a career-crippling knee injury - demonstrates the attitude of most cyclists. Denial.

"We have long since passed the point of the naive young baseball fan who faced down Shoeless Joe Jackson with his "say it isn't so, Joe" at the height of the Black Sox scandal in baseball. It's time everyone stopped treating fans as if they were naive kids and admitted the truth. It would be nice if, the next time a rider was asked the simple question of whether he has ever used drugs in his cycling career, he told the truth and listed all the drugs - the legal and the illegal - he has used and left the fans to decide for themselves how clean that makes him, instead of persisting with the myth of a clean sport.

"The time has come for the riders to stop hiding behind masking agents and Clintonesque semantic games over the meaning of the word drugs. To stop pretending that if it hasn't been detected by the dope controls, then it isn't a drug. Or that if it isn't currently on the UCI's banned list then it isn't a drug (Pedro Delgado's defence in 1988 when he tested positive for probenecid, then commonly used as a masking agent to hide steroid use). Or that if it has been found by a dope control, that it doesn't count if it can be excused by the use of a back-dated prescription for a saddle-sore cream (Armstrong) or an asthma inhaler (Miguel Indurain). Or that the drugs found in their possession were for their wife, their grandmother or their mother-in-law (Ferrari). Or that, all other excuses failing, there was an error in the test (Marco Pantani). The sport may never be clean but it's high time that the riders came clean and admitted what's really going on. They may be able to convince themselves that they are innocent victims but they cannot convince the sport's fans."

 

[sgthartman]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Lance is doping. How is it that after 6 TDF wins, no cyclist has been able to copy his doping routine and achive the same results?

 

[VeloFlash]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Lance is doping. How is it that after 6 TDF wins, no cyclist has been able to copy his doping routine and achive the same results?

To copy the doping routine, assuming LA dopes and did not evolve into an athletic freak from 1998 onwards, would require control, access, opportunity and money.

Look at Festina's systemic doping to 1998. It was carried out on a team basis funded from prize money. Professionally unqualified soigneurs were providing the advice and administration. Richard Virenque, who would have been one of France's most highly paid athletes, sought personal consultation with Dr. Ferrari (aka "Schumi") to go to a higher level. Virenque could not afford Ferrari.

Lance Armstrong must have Ferrari on a significant retainer. He can call him up on his team radio during a race on a mountain stage and flies him to and provides secret hotel accommodation at his training bases (refer deposition of LA personal assistant). Only Armstrong, who distinguishes his wealth from other elite riders with his corporate jet travel, body guards and gifts of Rolex watches, could afford the unique full time expertise that Ferrari provides.

Armstrong is the only elite rider that totally dominates and controls his team. Other riders are mere employees. Armstrong selects the team and can pick and choose the events he will compete. This provides an opportunity to synchronise with a program.

To be on a doping program requires partial drug testing avoidance during the big hit, which is followed by undetectable micro dosing. The way to avoid being tested and be within the rules is to notify your whereabouts to be in a location that would be inconvenient for the testers. I note in his personal assistant's deposition that LA trains in the Canary Islands. Why the Canary Islands?

 

[MJtje]

To meet 'Schumi'........nice setting, no press etc.

Why the Canary Islands?

 

[dhenderson85]

Here is a quote from good bro "limerickman". Gets you thinking!

Could it be that Armstrongs drop in weight from a tour weight of about 170 to 158, along with "smarter training", could make such a HUGE difference in his performance in the tour? NOT!

Here's the good quote.

"Putting it very coarsely - the guy was a donkey, he's now a thoroughbred.
Donkey's don't become thoroughbreds.
The tapes prove it - 1995 TDF where did he finish ?
1 hour 30 mins behind Indurain.
Says it all really - and that was his third TDF.

Look at the other greats - Ullrich, Merckx, Hinault : they had won their first TDF in the first, second, attempts respectively.
Yet Armstrong in his third TDF is still 1 hour 30 mins behind the eventual winner."

I am not lance's number one fan, but to compare his performance in pre-cancer tours is unfair. He was a much larger cyclist who was hunting stage wins. After cancer he dropped a lot of weight and also became a much more dedicated and focused rider. I don't think it is a fair comparison, they are two different men.

 

[Tejano]

I find LA's explanations for his improvement to be unbelievable - quite simply.

The statistics are there for everyone to access.
I have watched cycling for more years than I care to remember and the explanations given by LA to explain his success as a stage race rider since 1999, and after having suffered cancer, do not ring true to me.

If Armstrong´s turnaround after cancer was the result of EPO, HGH, steroids... That means he was a clean cyclist before cancer! If he was doped pre-cancer then how does one account for the his "turnaround"?

And if Armstrong was clean from´93 to ´96 I think his palmares (already very impressive for a young
American learning the ropes) is even more impressive because he was competing against a peloton that was doped!

You´ve expressed that EPO can improve performance by 10-15%! This means Armstrong was the real deal at the tender age of 24!

My question is when did LA start using dope?

 

[Flyer]

If Armstrong´s turnaround after cancer was the result of EPO, HGH, steroids... That means he was a clean cyclist before cancer!


No, it does not mean that. There are many other factors (doping & training and weight/power) which cloud the miracle of transformation from 'one-day rider' to a time-trialing grand tour athlete.



My question is when did LA start using dope?


Asked and answered many times.

I suspect the key years were 1989/1990.

Certainly, 1990 was when his younger Junior National teammates admitted to daily injections.

Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter, Gerrik Latta, David Francis.

So if Lance did not participate in the Rene Wenzel/Chris Carmichael/Angus Fraser medical treatments----he would have been the ONLY 'A' team player not fully committed to bike racing. Fat chance of that happening.

btw: the definitions of dope change over time--as do the methods. But Testosterone/clomid, Nandronlone or Deca, insulin, corticosteroids would have been in the mix from the start. Later anemia, chemo-recovery dope, renal failure dope and other research-only stuff gets funnelled in based on connections & infamous corrupt doctors (Ferrari)

btw: somebody always wins the yellow jersey in the TDF. Since the deceased Marco Pantani last did so in the disgraced 1998 Tour, Lance Armstrong has won the TDF six times.

Super specialization, targeted financial funding by willing sponsors, a fancy and corrupt Doctor (1995-2004), dodging dope control twice in 1999 & 2000 with Actovegin, Insulin & corticosteroids, all helped influence the recorded outcomes.