Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

[Flyer]

My credibility is doing fine.

Velo Flash has used on 'out-of context sarcastic remark' as a feeble attempt to hide horse growth hormones.

EquiGen & Testicomp were still used at AIS---no matter what your credibilty or his is.

I have utter suspicion and contempt for your and your doping apologist agenda.

My racing experience is sound---but also not related to professional cyclsits abusing illegal drugs.

Your opinions do not alter the facts. Doping is widespread, athletes are sicka nd dying and corruption and fraud rule the day.

LA Confidential reveals Lance to be a liar and a cheat.

Shoot the messenger is the natural instinct of a doping apologist.

Check out what Australia World swimming Champion team Leader says:

Drug testers could be left in the cheater's wake!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050721/wl_canada_afp/swimworlddopingaus_050721203917

btw: Did I mention that I loathe doping apologists as much as I loathe cheaters?

Very interesting ... if true. Where can I find a reference of this claim?

If it is true, then the names of the doctors, the approximate date of this alleged confrontation will be known as well as the name of the person(s) making the claim. Assuming the person was present s/he can decribe exactly the substance of the conversation and how it is s/he was present for the conversation. If the person was not present but is passing along second-hand information, s/he still will be able to name the person present who made the firsthand observation.

"It is believed that Lance admitted it". Believed by whom? There should be no belief involved. Either someone heard him admit it and that person is known and credible and has confirmed it, or not. If not, then it's a belief without basis.

The more I read though your posts, Flyer, the more I have questions about your credibility. I ask simple questions which you don't answer. It seems you have made conflicting claims about your own racing experience.

Here's your chance to demonstrate that you're a credible source of information.

 

[Flyer]

Entities do not grant TUEs.

Your friendly team doctor writes them up.

In the case of LA---on a as needed basis, in the case of a lessor rider--in advance--and must be declared prior to competiton.

Laurent Brochard (1997) and Lance Armstrong (1999) are examples riders who have failed to follow this policy--but had TUEs accepted after the fact.

This policy is not strictly enforced--as we now know do to whistleblowers and sworn testimony.

Such is show business.

VF, where can someone like me find out what TUEs have been granted to a particular racer? If, for example, I wanted to see what TUEs have been granted to George Hincapie, is there a place I could find that information?

How does the TUE process work? Presumably a rider has to file a written request that isn't granted automatically just because it's asked for, no? So, what governing body approves TUEs? Is it a race by race thing, or once you've received a TUE, it's good for as long as you race? Or is it good for a limited period of time (i.e. one racing season), and they you'd have to re-up?

Last, about the asthma drug you refer to, what is it called and where can I go to read up on it -- where I'll find info explaining how it increases muscle volume by 50% and what other drugs it might mask? From the little I know about asthma medications, they do contain adrenaline, which I can understand as a nice boost agent, and presumably they would open the bronchi to permit greater oxygenation of the blood too.

Circling back to the approval process ... whatever entity grants TUEs, what has to be proven to them in order to grant an exemption for powerful asthma medications? Is a doctor's note really sufficient? Is there some objective measure of impairment they need to show in order to demonstrate a "need" for the drug?

Hopefully you can help me get a better grip on this seemingly huge "back-door" around the PED rules and barrier. TIA.

 

[Biscayne]

I know for a fact that my doctor was able to detect EVERYTHING (100%) I ever put into my body (and it wasn't much). When I went through my struggle with cancer, they were able to tell me everything about my medical history through the tests I was given. So for you to say that they can not detect these drugs, sounds like BS to me. If they can find things they are not looking for (my cancer), they sure as hell can detect any foreign matter in an athletes system. From there, the detection can be used to identify the foreign matter/substance in the system.

Snyper -- you need to do some reading up on this stuff

1. While testing is good, it is only going to find what it specifically searches for. So if you're using an experimental drug or compound the chemical structure of which is not specifically tested for, you are not going to test positive. This issue is hit on in this informative piece ...
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200507/drugs-in-sports-1.html

2. There are plenty of compounds, notably the various forms of human growth hormone, for which there still has not been a test derived.

3. It should be clear on the surface that there are doped athletes testing negative -- there are a number of guys who have admitted straight out that they were doped when they took tests which showed them to be clean. The names are numerous. David Millar is one. Even now, we see guys getting booted out of races not because they've tested positive, but because they're caught with suitcases full of dope in their cars, campers or with their wives. Obviously they tested clean, but were doping. Unless you believe all the drugs were for after the race, or "for my mother."

4. There are plenty of methods athletes use to beat the system, not the least of which is submitting bogus samples. It may sound quaint but the oldest method of evading detection is still in use. Festina soigneur ***** Voet detailed a couple methods the Festina team used to test clean even though he was doping them to the gills. It's kind of a joke, sure, but the Whizzinator and dried clean urine the Minnesota Vikings running back Ontario Smith got caught passing through airport security is a reminder.

 

[Flyer]

And the best PEDs are run through the 'front door' because they are undetectable.


No TUE or corruption required.

The life science and pharmaceutical communities run downfield blocks to expedite secret research and to protect future profits. (assuming a new drug or application gets approved)

The athletes win, the drug companies win--and the team Sponsors get results without technically understanding any of it.

It is the perfect crime.

Back doors are for losers!

 

[Biscayne]

Entities do not grant TUEs. Your friendly team doctor writes them up. In the case of LA---on a as needed basis, in the case of a lessor rider--in advance--and must be declared prior to competiton.

Laurent Brochard (1997) and Lance Armstrong (1999) are examples riders who have failed to follow this policy--but had TUEs accepted after the fact.

This policy is not strictly enforced--as we now know do to whistleblowers and sworn testimony.Such is show business.

That doesn't pass a common sense test. According to your explanation, anything goes so long as you have a team doctor write a "note" and turn it in to race officials before the race. If a race entity did not have any power of approval, then we'd have team doctors claiming a minor muscle tear and listing nandrolone or other steroid as a "necessary" TUE.

 

[Flyer]

What does commonsense have to do with racing bikes on a commercial level?

You act as if compliance was a key element. It is not, only a pretence.

If a doctor writes a TUE--it will be accepted--no questions asked!

It is a policy seldom followed in practice. It is all just for show.

Do not take doping tests, compliance seriously. The riders certainly do not.

Both Armstrong & Brochard used illegal steroids--which neither declared in advance. But neither was sanctioned. Their cover stories were accepted.

How is that for common business sense?

That doesn't pass a common sense test. According to your explanation, anything goes so long as you have a team doctor write a "note" and turn it in to race officials before the race. If a race entity did not have any power of approval, then we'd have team doctors claiming a minor muscle tear and listing nandrolone or other steroid as a "necessary" TUE.

 

[Biscayne]

My credibility is doing fine.

Velo Flash has used on 'out-of context sarcastic remark' as a feeble attempt to hide horse growth hormones. EquiGen & Testicomp were still used at AIS---no matter what your credibilty or his is.

I have utter suspicion and contempt for your and your doping apologist agenda.

My racing experience is sound---but also not related to professional cyclsits abusing illegal drugs.

Your opinions do not alter the facts. Doping is widespread, athletes are sicka nd dying and corruption and fraud rule the day. LA Confidential reveals Lance to be a liar and a cheat.

Shoot the messenger is the natural instinct of a doping apologist.

btw: Did I mention that I loathe doping apologists as much as I loathe cheaters?

Am I reading this right? You are expressing "utter contempt" for ME, and calling ME a dope apologist? You are WAY out of line. And I'm slowly beginning to see a pattern here. I ask a perfectly reasonable question, you duck the question (I am now beginning to suspect, because the question is perceived as exposing you as having made an exaggeration or claim for which there is no support or reference), and instead elect to "divert" by attacking me.

If you have no interest in good faith discussions and wish to sling mud, that's fine. I'll move on and leave you to post another thousand posts to yourself here.

My question above concerning the source of your claim about doctors asking Lance about steroid use and his alleged admission that he had, still awaits your response.

And if you'd like to clarify, you've posted previously that you've raced with (on your team) and against those who have admitted to you doping, and "taught" you how it's done and given you insight into that. Is that not true? And if so, could you clarify, are these current teammates? Are they people racing in USCF races? Also, having referred to yourself as a former Cat 1 racer, I'm wondering when you held your Cat 1 license?

 

[Biscayne]

What does commonsense have to do with racing bikes on a commercial level?

You act as if compliance was a key element. It is not, only a pretence.
If a doctor writes a TUE--it will be accepted--no questions asked!
It is a policy seldom followed in practice. It is all just for show.

Do not take doping tests, compliance seriously. The riders certainly do not.
Both Armstrong & Brochard used illegal steroids--which neither declared in advance. But neither was sanctioned. Their cover stories were accepted.

How is that for common business sense?

Flyer, if you don't know the answer to the question, that's fine, just say so. Otherwise, please point me to the source that will confirm for me that any team doctor can write a TUE for any substance he wants, and it WILL (or must) be accepted. I will believe any claim you make that you back up with a source. Otherwise, frankly, your credibility is rapidly approaching ZERO. Shouting, using pejoratives, attacking people personally, attempting to bully and name-call, none of that advances your credibility.

So, either you are talking out your **** about TUEs, speculating in the absence of real knowledge, or you can lay out the specific adminsitrative process and rules and a reference where I can confirm them. If it's the former, you'll respond with an ad hominem, diversion, or not at all. If it's the latter, you'll simply provide the information.

Those with the facts and references on their side don't need to berate, name call or otherwise bluster. When I see you go off like a 12-year old in the middle of a tantrum, there isn't anyone who doesn't know what the score is.

 

[Flyer]

Asked and answered.

It is not my job to read bedtime stories to you each and every night.

Read LA Confidential. It is in there. As is the phony TUE cover story.

In addiction you put weight on the TUE filing process as if it was relevant for complaince.

Armtrong & Brochard obviously ignore that policy. They always write down NONE---even if the true answer would require ten pages.

My posts have understated the problem. It is much, much worse.

Am I reading this right? You are expressing "utter contempt" for ME, and calling ME a dope apologist? You are WAY out of line. And I'm slowly beginning to see a pattern here. I ask a perfectly reasonable question, you duck the question (I am now beginning to suspect, because the question is perceived as exposing you as having made an exaggeration or claim for which there is no support or reference), and instead elect to "divert" by attacking me.

If you have no interest in good faith discussions and wish to sling mud, that's fine. I'll move on and leave you to post another thousand posts to yourself here.

My question above concerning the source of your claim about doctors asking Lance about steroid use and his alleged admission that he had, still awaits your response.

And if you'd like to clarify, you've posted previously that you've raced with (on your team) and against those who have admitted to you doping, and "taught" you how it's done and given you insight into that. Is that not true? And if so, could you clarify, are these current teammates? Are they people racing in USCF races? Also, having referred to yourself as a former Cat 1 racer, I'm wondering when you held your Cat 1 license?

 

[Flyer]

Sorry pal. If you want eye witness testimony, I will wheel them out in a deposition. Not before.

Did you know that USA Today is available in the Doping Control Van?

It is for killing time when "no testing today is the policy". But you are not dismissed for 10 minutes.

My personal racing history for me to know--and you to wonder about. I certainly am not interested in yours.

Flyer, if you don't know the answer to the question, that's fine, just say so. Otherwise, please point me to the source that will confirm for me that any team doctor can write a TUE for any substance he wants, and it WILL (or must) be accepted. I will believe any claim you make that you back up with a source. Otherwise, frankly, your credibility is rapidly approaching ZERO. Shouting, using pejoratives, attacking people personally, attempting to bully and name-call, none of that advances your credibility.

So, either you are talking out your **** about TUEs, speculating in the absence of real knowledge, or you can lay out the specific adminsitrative process and rules and a reference where I can confirm them. If it's the former, you'll respond with an ad hominem, diversion, or not at all. If it's the latter, you'll simply provide the information.

Those with the facts and references on their side don't need to berate, name call or otherwise bluster. When I see you go off like a 12-year old in the middle of a tantrum, there isn't anyone who doesn't know what the score is.

 

[Biscayne]

Asked and answered. ...

No Flyer, ducked and dodged. Question after question. Just about every one of them.

If you have even an ounce of credibility remaining, you'll at least answer this question:

And if you'd like to clarify, you've posted previously that you've raced with (on your team) and against those who have admitted to you doping, and "taught" you how it's done and given you insight into that. Is that not true? And if so, could you clarify, are these current teammates? Are they people racing in USCF races? Also, having referred to yourself as a former Cat 1 racer, I'm wondering when you held your Cat 1 license?


That is the one question I know you must have personal knowledge of, and the only reason you'd duck it again is if you've lied and fear that might come out. If it's the truth, you won't have any trouble answering the question and telling us a few of the races you raced in as a Cat 1 and some of the racers you raced against.

 

[Flyer]

Biscayne, you are not for real. You have an agenda to discredit and apologize for dopers. You are a fraud and your tactics will not stand. Just as Velo Flash pretended to stand for anti-doping in Europe, only to deny it in his own backyard--so too is your sudden fascination with doping links and discrediting research appears supicious. Instead of doing honest work, you seek to discredit the message and messenger.

Not clear on how our federations works?

First of all the USCF went bankcrupt in the EDS scandal. My data records there with Norba & USCF license points, rankings are lost to me.

USA Cycling is now the not-for-profit entity which controls licensing in most (not all parts) of the country.

USA Cycling has pressed hard to regain lost members due to a wholesale lack of trust. The jury is still out on whether USA Cycling is not still corrupt.

Notwithstanding my concerns, I do possess a valid USA Cycling domestic license and a points ranking and category for both track & road. I have even raced in Europe numerous times WITHOUT holding an International USA Cycling license. I was entered with my infamous friend's help (he just asked the promoter for a favor and it was done)

You press me into a corner because if I answer, I will unwittingly reveal my peer group. I won't do that.

I refuse to names names.

If you put together my racing schedules, my results and who finished ahead or behind me--who would recognize many names.

I will not do reveal that information.

Nor will I name retired pros who no longer ride bicycles, but who have stronger feeling on doping than I do.

I have furnished you with lots of links (I see you are now sharing them as your own) That's fine.

Links are not as effective as witnesses---but that is reserved for another forum.

In any case, LA fans will never believe a link, nor Greg Lemond, nor Emma O'Reilly, Stephen Swartz, Mike Anderson, Prentice Steffen, MD, nor my posts.

They believe in fairy tales, nothing less.

I merely point out the obvious, the open secret within the community. If anyone speaks out---they are blackballed. It is very simple. No more access to anything, no more team renewals.

Some people are on drugs at local races. At TDF level--it would be 100% despite so-called testing.

So go ahead and call me names--it won't change the doping truths. PEDs are rampant.

If your game is the truth---go get it. It is right in front of your nose. If your game is in denial and pandering to a corrupt industry---you are the enemy.

No Flyer, ducked and dodged. Question after question. Just about every one of them.

If you have even an ounce of credibility remaining, you'll at least answer this question:

And if you'd like to clarify, you've posted previously that you've raced with (on your team) and against those who have admitted to you doping, and "taught" you how it's done and given you insight into that. Is that not true? And if so, could you clarify, are these current teammates? Are they people racing in USCF races? Also, having referred to yourself as a former Cat 1 racer, I'm wondering when you held your Cat 1 license?


That is the one question I know you must have personal knowledge of, and the only reason you'd duck it again is if you've lied and fear that might come out. If it's the truth, you won't have any trouble answering the question and telling us a few of the races you raced in as a Cat 1 and some of the racers you raced against.

 

[VeloFlash]

VF, where can someone like me find out what TUEs have been granted to a particular racer? If, for example, I wanted to see what TUEs have been granted to George Hincapie, is there a place I could find that information?

Not that I am aware.

How does the TUE process work? Presumably a rider has to file a written request that isn't granted automatically just because it's asked for, no? So, what governing body approves TUEs? Is it a race by race thing, or once you've received a TUE, it's good for as long as you race? Or is it good for a limited period of time (i.e. one racing season), and they you'd have to re-up?

The TUE process is in the UCI antidoping rules at their website http://www.uci.ch/

Last, about the asthma drug you refer to, what is it called and where can I go to read up on it -- where I'll find info explaining how it increases muscle volume by 50% and what other drugs it might mask? From the little I know about asthma medications, they do contain adrenaline, which I can understand as a nice boost agent, and presumably they would open the bronchi to permit greater oxygenation of the blood too.

It is called salbutamol. The reference I had was from Euro Cycling News but, unfortunately, that reference now has been truncated. Here is a reference to that article off Velonews about comments made by Indurain's former medico:

http://www.velonews.com/phorum3/read.php?f=2&i=81209&t=81208

The UK parliament have noted the ergogenic benefits of asthma medication at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmcumeds/499/499we10.htm

It states: Beta-2 agonists are drugs such as clenbuterol, salbutamol and fenoterol that were designed to relax muscles in the airways of asthma sufferers when inhaled. But when injected, the drugs can build muscle mass and reduce body fat. Side effects (dizziness, nausea, headaches and muscle cramps) stem from the drug constricting blood vessels in the brain and elsewhere.

I have found in the past and will look again for references about masking, that nearly all of the past TdF winners are "asthmatics" and the reference to 70% of the pro peloton having asthma medications on their TUE's.

Circling back to the approval process ... whatever entity grants TUEs, what has to be proven to them in order to grant an exemption for powerful asthma medications? Is a doctor's note really sufficient? Is there some objective measure of impairment they need to show in order to demonstrate a "need" for the drug?

This may explain the process:

http://www.nsw.cycling.org.au/files/News/2005/Jan/antidoping110105.htm

but it may be noted the Australian Cycling Federation now only will accept certificates relating to asthma from accredited medical practitioners.

 

[VeloFlash]

My credibility is doing fine.

Velo Flash has used on 'out-of context sarcastic remark' as a feeble attempt to hide horse growth hormones.

EquiGen & Testicomp were still used at AIS---no matter what your credibilty or his is. <snip>

Flyer, you are making all these claims about your elite cycling past (Olympic medals [note: plural], Cat 1 rider, European pro, coach, etc.) to give authority to your posts. However in your prolific, frenetic and emotional posts you got caught out contradicting yourself and being inconsistent and exposed yourself as a (pathological? inveterate? chronic?) tamperer of the truth.

Just as a witness under cross examination has been caught out being dishonest, your testimony/opinions/facts will be totally discredited in front of the judge/jury/forum.

No, the remark was not out of context. You said "my Olympic medals" in "my safe". Must have been 1984 LA, Flyer. That was the only Olympics that US riders won medals. Were you blood doping also and denying it?

My racing experience is sound---but also not related to professional cyclsits abusing illegal drugs.

But only at Cat 2 level. Remember, work, study, motorcycles and injuries prevented you from being a winning Cat 1 rider. Here is an excerpt from that post:

My racing went bicycles, motorcycles, nothing, bicycles. Breaks in between and injuries too.

Business & school ongoing at all times, hence my inability to be a winning Cat 1 rider--which is how you upgrade from #2.

Perhaps this work conflict saved my life. I might have become a doper?

 

[MJtje]

Oke, here I go:

I talked about Marc lotz, Hamilton the book of Gaumont........now I'm gonna talk about Lemond! How come he constantly bashes on LA, yet his recovery after that accident was also somewhat suspicious.......

AND in LA confidential he let his wife talk........because he has a business to run.......There are certainly more stories then LA........

For a person who does not care about anemia and trauma doping---you sure do get around.

Have you not gianed any insight on PEDs and how they have altered the elite game--in all sports????

Instead of taking cheap shots--why don't you contribute some substantive material?

Do you know anything about doping or addiction?

 

[snyper0311]

Snyper -- you need to do some reading up on this stuff

1. While testing is good, it is only going to find what it specifically searches for. So if you're using an experimental drug or compound the chemical structure of which is not specifically tested for, you are not going to test positive. This issue is hit on in this informative piece ...
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200507/drugs-in-sports-1.html

2. There are plenty of compounds, notably the various forms of human growth hormone, for which there still has not been a test derived.

3. It should be clear on the surface that there are doped athletes testing negative -- there are a number of guys who have admitted straight out that they were doped when they took tests which showed them to be clean. The names are numerous. David Millar is one. Even now, we see guys getting booted out of races not because they've tested positive, but because they're caught with suitcases full of dope in their cars, campers or with their wives. Obviously they tested clean, but were doping. Unless you believe all the drugs were for after the race, or "for my mother."

4. There are plenty of methods athletes use to beat the system, not the least of which is submitting bogus samples. It may sound quaint but the oldest method of evading detection is still in use. Festina soigneur ***** Voet detailed a couple methods the Festina team used to test clean even though he was doping them to the gills. It's kind of a joke, sure, but the Whizzinator and dried clean urine the Minnesota Vikings running back Ontario Smith got caught passing through airport security is a reminder.

All I am stating is that I don't think that it is/should be that hard to detect PED's. Although I do agree that cheaters do their best to hide their results, someone out there can catch them. If that was not the case, we would not be hearing about the ones getting caught.

I know that I am not an expert on doping-I have never claimed to be. But, I think that we (as cycling fans) need to have some faith in the guys that do earn their living on the bike.

 

[Biscayne]

All I am stating is that I don't think that it is/should be that hard to detect PED's. Although I do agree that cheaters do their best to hide their results, someone out there can catch them. If that was not the case, we would not be hearing about the ones getting caught.

Yes, I got that the first time. I understand you think it shouldn't be hard to detect PEDs. But you are just plain mistaken. Did you bother to read the article I provided the link for? If you do, you'll see that what seems logical to you, isn't the way it is.

And again, you're arguing that the detection system must work if it's catching a rider or two every now and then. That's a conclusion that requires an enormous (and very flawed) assumption. It should tell you something that the only two riders thrown out of this year's Tour never tested positive for a PED. One had a hematocrit level over 50%, making it clear he was using a PED that the system could not and did not detect, and the other (Frigo) tested completely clean, but was booted because a small warehouse worth of PEDs was found in his wife's car. Other than that, not a single rider has tested positive.

And yet ... read this article and listen to racers themselves making it clear they think other guys in the peloton are doping ...
http://velonews.com/tour2005/news/articles/8503.0.html

Do you figure all those guys are just expressing sour grapes? Do you figure guys who rode and placed at the top suddenly can't hold the pace is just because they lost fitness suddenly?

 

[Biscayne]

VF - thx for the info on the asthma drug, and TUE administrative process. It's nice to see someone who doesn't exaggerate and fabricate, and is willing to answer a simple question with useful information to advance knowledge on the board. Then again, since you don't make claims you don't have a factual basis for, you have no reason not to be friendly and helpful, and simply provide the facts, letting them speak for themselves and letting smart people draw their own conclusions. Flyer could certainly learn a thing or two from you.

 

[Flyer]

Flyer could certainly learn a thing or two from you.


No doubt, like how to cover up a doping scandal involving EquiGen & TestiComp in a taxpayer subsidized dorm room.

Just deny it happened.

You apologists are really clever.

 

[spokeking]

Flyer could certainly learn a thing or two from you.


No doubt, like how to cover up a doping scandal involving EquiGen & TestiComp in a taxpayer subsidized dorm room.

Just deny it happened.

You apologists are really clever.

Would anyone happen to know what the average Hematocrit level of Lance has been during this Tour? I read that normally, his is only about 42.