Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

[meb]

.....
If I had a friend being accused of something. I would defend that friend too, and if possible, I would make it my job to ensure that some punk didnt get a stage win.

Like the folks who defend their friends by vandalizing witnesses’ homes or business who testify against their friends in trials?

I think most people would.

Most people in civilized society would not take the law into their own hands.

..... If lance was guilty, why would he make such a public risk/move to chase him down?

May have been that this was his only opportunity, he may have wanted to send a message to any other potential whistle blowers that he is not going to tolerate such singing and is strong enough and determined enough to ruin or damage their careers. May also have been caught surprised to see Simeoni chasing down a breakaway consisting of bunch of weaker riders.

It seems more dangerous if he was guilty because it attracts unnecessary attention. So, chasing down Simeoni could support Lance's innocence as well.

So are you contending that Simeoni was committing perjury in the court proceeding so given such perjury in the courtroom Lance was justified in taking the law into his own hands? And such action supports innocence of witness intimidation-a charge that had no basis but for the act in the TDF?

 

[meb]

....
REAL witness intimidation, and I know something about this, is secretive, clandestine, subtle, and done in ways that can be plausibly denied. It is not generally done on international live TV, in front of hundreds of spectators etc.

Should Lance have chased Simeoni down? No it was reckless.

Is it illegal? Hardly. In every race, some team or racer etc gets flicked from the long memories riders have if someone screwed them over in the past.

You don’t often have a rider take action to his detriment toward winning the TDF chase down a witness in a criminal trial to damage the witness’ cycling career by precluding his winning a stage-a stage the intimidator didn’t even have a desire for or make an effort toward winning himself.

....
This is how Feraari got implicated and this is why Lance is furious with Simeoni. The extent of Lance's anger to me is more an indication of Lance's honesty. If Lance were really working with Ferrari with illegal methods or thought Ferrari were doping athletes, dont you think he would stay a million miles away?

No-he’d stay away from the witness in the criminal case if he were clean rather than interfere with the judicial process outside the process. There are proper ways to inject oneself into a judicial process. Ferrari’s attorneys would have welcomed any relevant testimony from a witness having information aiding in exoneration of their client.

The LA Enterprise Inc. is worth far more than one person's friendship or work to him.

So with this stated motive, are you flipping your position?

 

[bobke]

Indeed, we had to listen to LA waffling about this.
LA also lectured us about Bassons and called him unprofessional too, didn't
he ?
LA shouts the odds when anyone raises the spectre of drug taking in cycling.
For an allegedly innocent man, he's a mite too defensive.



Rubbish.

Revisionism.

1992-1996 doesn't denote a superior athlete - or anything for that matter.
1992-1996 shows a man who was nowhere close to being a superior athlete,
cancer or no cancer (and he didn't have cancer between 1992-1995 because
his medicals surely would have shown his illness).




The Giro.

LA has never shown any interest in the Giro.
There was no guarantee that he would take part at any future date.

LA interferred with a prosecution witness.

The Court accepted testimony and found Ferrari guilty.
LA, because of his own stupidity, has by his own actions, excluded himself from racing in Italy.

For a person called limerickman your posts are decidedly lacking in humor, wit, and panache. You are either trolling for an argument or severely lacking in perspective. Take a deep breath, count to ten, and nursey will be right along with you medication (we all hope.)

 

[bobke]

You don’t often have a rider take action to his detriment toward winning the TDF chase down a witness in a criminal trial to damage the witness’ cycling career by precluding his winning a stage-a stage the intimidator didn’t even have a desire for or make an effort toward winning himself.




No-he’d stay away from the witness in the criminal case if he were clean rather than interfere with the judicial process outside the process. There are proper ways to inject oneself into a judicial process. Ferrari’s attorneys would have welcomed any relevant testimony from a witness having information aiding in exoneration of their client.





So with this stated motive, are you flipping your position?

No, just observing that LA has the big picture in mind and that if Ferarri is damaging to him, he;d cut him loose as he HAD to do when Ferarri was convicted.

The point is that Lance can be pretty matter of fact in letting associates go- F. Andrieu, K Livingston, etc etc, so I'm assuming Ferarri was actually worthy of Lance defending him or he would not work with him in the first place, not stay with him etc, and not defend him against Simeoni unless he had good, legitimate reasons to do so. Lance's reputation is a valuable as his cycling, so if he really thought Ferarri were trouble and possible involved in doping I think he would have sold him down the river far earlier.

 

[micron]

No, just observing that LA has the big picture in mind and that if Ferarri is damaging to him, he;d cut him loose as he HAD to do when Ferarri was convicted.

The point is that Lance can be pretty matter of fact in letting associates go- F. Andrieu, K Livingston, etc etc, so I'm assuming Ferarri was actually worthy of Lance defending him or he would not work with him in the first place, not stay with him etc, and not defend him against Simeoni unless he had good, legitimate reasons to do so. Lance's reputation is a valuable as his cycling, so if he really thought Ferarri were trouble and possible involved in doping I think he would have sold him down the river far earlier.

'He told me that I was wrong to say what I had, that my team probably wasn't going to continue, that I would do better to think of my own interests. I said that I was thinking of the next generation of cyclists above myself. He said 'why don't you leave, then?'' I said I wasn't going to leave until I had tried to change cycling.'

This is not Armstrong talking to Filippo Simeoni but to Christophe Bassons who set out to ride the 99 Tour 'a l'eau claire' i.e. without doping help. Bassons great error? To denounce the doping practices he saw in the Pro peloton. Armstrong later visited Bassons hotel room and told him to leave the Tour. Ironically enough, he had the above conversation when chasing down Bassons after he had attacked (see a pattern emerging?)

bspeedy, subaru et al: a question. Bassons was speaking out against doping practices from the perspective of being a totally clean rider (unlike Simeoni who is a convicted doper). Why wouldn't Armstrong - who is a self-avowedly totally clean rider - stand shoulder to shoulder with Bassons and speak out about doping in the peloton? Why would he want to side with the peloton against a clean rider? This is the incident that first made me sit up and think twice about the Armstrong miracle.

So I'm interested in your comments - and what would you have done as cyclists who are, I presume, anti-doping?

 

[oldnbusted]

I admit i am skeptical as to exactly how Armstrong became the machine he is now, not necessarily through drugs. Suffice to say, my thoughts are that rather than worrying about Lance, the more pressing issue is the next generation of riders coming up now, surely the best place to eradicate drugs effectively would be in the up and comers, although i know this is next to impossible.

Just out of curiosity, someone mentioned insulin earlier in the thread, how the hell do you cheat with that?

 

[micron]

Just out of curiosity, someone mentioned insulin earlier in the thread, how the hell do you cheat with that?[/QUOTE]

It's easy to obtain, it increases stamina and, best of all, its undetectable.


Insulin the new dope

 

[micron]

Just out of curiosity, someone mentioned insulin earlier in the thread, how the hell do you cheat with that?[/QUOTE]

It's easy to obtain, it increases stamina and, best of all, its undetectable. And I believe Armstrong has admitted to having it in his medical kit.


Insulin the new dope

 

[bobke]

'He told me that I was wrong to say what I had, that my team probably wasn't going to continue, that I would do better to think of my own interests. I said that I was thinking of the next generation of cyclists above myself. He said 'why don't you leave, then?'' I said I wasn't going to leave until I had tried to change cycling.'

This is not Armstrong talking to Filippo Simeoni but to Christophe Bassons who set out to ride the 99 Tour 'a l'eau claire' i.e. without doping help. Bassons great error? To denounce the doping practices he saw in the Pro peloton. Armstrong later visited Bassons hotel room and told him to leave the Tour. Ironically enough, he had the above conversation when chasing down Bassons after he had attacked (see a pattern emerging?)

bspeedy, subaru et al: a question. Bassons was speaking out against doping practices from the perspective of being a totally clean rider (unlike Simeoni who is a convicted doper). Why wouldn't Armstrong - who is a self-avowedly totally clean rider - stand shoulder to shoulder with Bassons and speak out about doping in the peloton? Why would he want to side with the peloton against a clean rider? This is the incident that first made me sit up and think twice about the Armstrong miracle.

So I'm interested in your comments - and what would you have done as cyclists who are, I presume, anti-doping?

Here is the news on Bassons:
from BBC 1999:

"Mr. Clean

Bassons: Self-styled Mr Clean quit the Tour on Friday
One French rider, Christophe Bassons, believes the leading riders are still taking performance-enhancing drugs.

The rider - who styles himself as cycling's "Mr Clean" - pulled out of the Tour on Friday.

On Saturday he said he had no regrets about leaving after the La Francaise des Jeux team asked him to stop talking to the media.

"I just felt I had an obligation to leave the Tour," explained Bassons."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/tour_de_france/397095.stm

So get it straight for a change you Lance detractors!

Bassons was a paid journalist, writing entries into the French newspaper Le Parisien during the Tour de France 1999, who were looking for a rider on the inside to give them the scoop after the Festina scandal of 1998. So they had Bassons. His TEAM FdJ asked him to stop speaking out on behalf of the anti-doping crusader!! Maybe Lance did too. The guy was just looking for publicity or money. It seems that he was despised in the peloton and even by his team members who all felt he was casting doubts on everyone.

And as to whether Bassons was clean, who knows? He rode for Festina right 1996-1998, hmmm interesting time to ride for Festina?

I think the best way to fight doping is for riders to compete without doing drugs. Writing columns about how you know you are clean but everyone else dopes is stupid, dishonest, and ineffective. If I were riding with that guy, I would stick a water bottle in his front wheel, because that's what he is doing to the peloton and the sport as a whole.


But you dont have to believe me, here's what Richard Virenque says about M. Bassons during the 1999 TdF in L'Equipe:

On Christophe Bassons, sensitive readers please skip this paragraph: "He was used to create a polemic. I hope he will now be able to concentrate on his sports career. He became a professional to ride a bike. Before going and making declarations about others whom are in my profession, I would try first to get to the top of my field. If I thought certain things about riders who have more class than me, I would keep my comments to myself."

 

[micron]

It's interesting that you chose to completely ignore my question but instead sought to rubbish the reputation of Christophe Bassons.

I lived in France from 1997 to last year so have followed the Armstrong Tour years at first hand. I read Bassons columns, Equipe, Velo etc etc. during the 1999 Tour and, until Armstrong visited his hotel room and ordered Bassons off the race, I was quite prepared to buy into the fairytale. I'd been in Cholet the previous year and had spoken to Virenque and Herve hours before Bruno Roussell was arrested. I remember painfully the devastation that the Festina affair wrought (and ***** Voet states categorically that Bassons was clean and refused to participate in the doping regime) and how much we all needed cyckling to be clean. So the 'comeback of the century' was what we all wanted, whatb the race needed. And then you notice stuff - like the race having the highest average speed ever when we've all been told that, in a 'clean' Tour, we can't expect fireworks or high speed. And Armstrong represents the wishes of the peloton by ordering a known clean rider off the race. What is he representing? A rigorous moral anti-doping stance? Or is he simply upholding the code of silence? He seems to make a habit of shutting up whistle blowers...

And your search for Bassons should have apprised you of the fact that he did not profit from his stance and retired a few years ago to go back to college. He has not become a rent a hack and does not pop up every 5 minutes voicing his disapproval of Armstrong.

So I repeat my question. Why was Armstrong's stance & upholding of the code of silence right in your opinion? And if Bassons is 'stupid, dishonest and ineefective' what is a man who take every opportunity to trumpet his innocence and 'cleanliness' as Armstrong does?

I do think your anger at Bassons speaks volumes, though...

 

[tcklyde]

It's interesting that you chose to completely ignore my question but instead sought to rubbish the reputation of Christophe Bassons.

I lived in France from 1997 to last year so have followed the Armstrong Tour years at first hand. I read Bassons columns, Equipe, Velo etc etc. during the 1999 Tour and, until Armstrong visited his hotel room and ordered Bassons off the race, I was quite prepared to buy into the fairytale. I'd been in Cholet the previous year and had spoken to Virenque and Herve hours before Bruno Roussell was arrested. I remember painfully the devastation that the Festina affair wrought (and ***** Voet states categorically that Bassons was clean and refused to participate in the doping regime) and how much we all needed cyckling to be clean. So the 'comeback of the century' was what we all wanted, whatb the race needed. And then you notice stuff - like the race having the highest average speed ever when we've all been told that, in a 'clean' Tour, we can't expect fireworks or high speed. And Armstrong represents the wishes of the peloton by ordering a known clean rider off the race. What is he representing? A rigorous moral anti-doping stance? Or is he simply upholding the code of silence? He seems to make a habit of shutting up whistle blowers...

And your search for Bassons should have apprised you of the fact that he did not profit from his stance and retired a few years ago to go back to college. He has not become a rent a hack and does not pop up every 5 minutes voicing his disapproval of Armstrong.

So I repeat my question. Why was Armstrong's stance & upholding of the code of silence right in your opinion? And if Bassons is 'stupid, dishonest and ineefective' what is a man who take every opportunity to trumpet his innocence and 'cleanliness' as Armstrong does?

I do think your anger at Bassons speaks volumes, though...

I'll start with my usual preface: I don't know if LA is doping. No one here does. And in 1999, Bassons did not know whether or not LA was doping.

My only reason for posting here is to suggest an alternate reading of why LA might have confronted Bassons on stage 9 (or whatever stage, I forget).

LA is winning his first Tour. The ultimate moment of glory after coming back from cancer. Bassons, meanwhile, is reporting, with no direct evidence, that the leaders of the Tour are probably doped up. If you were Armstrong, and you were clean, wouldn't some guy impugning your credibility **** you off to the core? And this is Armstrong, remember. The guy doesn't exactly know when to shut up. Instead of enforcing a code of silence, perhaps he was sticking up for himself? It is an equally probable motive for his actions. And since, like I keep saying, none of us know for sure whether LA is doping, seems like a good reason to me.

Perhaps it was a code of silence. I don't know. But neither does Bassons.

 

[bobke]

It's interesting that you chose to completely ignore my question but instead sought to rubbish the reputation of Christophe Bassons.

I lived in France from 1997 to last year so have followed the Armstrong Tour years at first hand. I read Bassons columns, Equipe, Velo etc etc. during the 1999 Tour and, until Armstrong visited his hotel room and ordered Bassons off the race, I was quite prepared to buy into the fairytale. I'd been in Cholet the previous year and had spoken to Virenque and Herve hours before Bruno Roussell was arrested. I remember painfully the devastation that the Festina affair wrought (and ***** Voet states categorically that Bassons was clean and refused to participate in the doping regime) and how much we all needed cyckling to be clean. So the 'comeback of the century' was what we all wanted, whatb the race needed. And then you notice stuff - like the race having the highest average speed ever when we've all been told that, in a 'clean' Tour, we can't expect fireworks or high speed. And Armstrong represents the wishes of the peloton by ordering a known clean rider off the race. What is he representing? A rigorous moral anti-doping stance? Or is he simply upholding the code of silence? He seems to make a habit of shutting up whistle blowers...

And your search for Bassons should have apprised you of the fact that he did not profit from his stance and retired a few years ago to go back to college. He has not become a rent a hack and does not pop up every 5 minutes voicing his disapproval of Armstrong.

So I repeat my question. Why was Armstrong's stance & upholding of the code of silence right in your opinion? And if Bassons is 'stupid, dishonest and ineefective' what is a man who take every opportunity to trumpet his innocence and 'cleanliness' as Armstrong does?

I do think your anger at Bassons speaks volumes, though...

I am not angry at Bassons at all. It was the entire peloton that was angry at him. Yes if he was stating that the leaders were doping and Lance was the leader it doesnt take rocket science to figure out why Lance went to talk to him. Then Bassons tries to play the pity card, how the riders were isolating him, and flicking him, how unhappy he was, at which point Lance reportedly says, if you are so unhappy, you could always leave, which he did. But really, he brought it on himself.

So no, Lance did not order him off the race. Lance was not the boss back then. It was not a code of silence Lance was talking bout, it was a rider in the peloton constantly bringing doubt about Lance's accomplishments without reason. Lance had a lot of reason to try and counter negative statements which were unfounded, that is his right.

Check your facts. Yes, Bassons did try to turn a profit. The next year he writes a book, "Positif" about the whole affair. If he didnt turn a profit, I suppose its because no one thought he was woth listening to. Yes, I think that is trying to turn a profit by talking about doping, because he was never before or after the 99 Tour going to make much money on the bike since wasnt such a great rider.

 

[DV1976]

I am not angry at Bassons at all. It was the entire peloton that was angry at him. Yes if he was stating that the leaders were doping and Lance was the leader it doesnt take rocket science to figure out why Lance went to talk to him. Then Bassons tries to play the pity card, how the riders were isolating him, and flicking him, how unhappy he was, at which point Lance reportedly says, if you are so unhappy, you could always leave, which he did. But really, he brought it on himself.

So no, Lance did not order him off the race. Lance was not the boss back then. It was not a code of silence Lance was talking bout, it was a rider in the peloton constantly bringing doubt about Lance's accomplishments without reason. Lance had a lot of reason to try and counter negative statements which were unfounded, that is his right.

Check your facts. Yes, Bassons did try to turn a profit. The next year he writes a book, "Positif" about the whole affair. If he didnt turn a profit, I suppose its because no one thought he was woth listening to. Yes, I think that is trying to turn a profit by talking about doping, because he was never before or after the 99 Tour going to make much money on the bike since wasnt such a great rider.

Really? Whereas LA wrote his books for charity (and he has written many). You are very quick to attack people that try (according to you) to discredit LA yet you have no problem whatsoever to discredit Bassons. And the funniest thing of all is that you quoted Virenque to support your arguments. A self-confessed doper. BTW Bassons was not the only one to be ostracized. Read what Kimmage has to say on the matter (if you haven't read it).
The way I see it either you accept that the whole peloton is clean (at least the top riders) and there is no doping in TDF or you accept that doping exists and is an integral part of TDF and that includes LA. There are no two ways about it.

 

[bobke]

Really? Whereas LA wrote his books for charity (and he has written many). You are very quick to attack people that try (according to you) to discredit LA yet you have no problem whatsoever to discredit Bassons. And the funniest thing of all is that you quoted Virenque to support your arguments. A self-confessed doper. BTW Bassons was not the only one to be ostracized. Read what Kimmage has to say on the matter (if you haven't read it).
The way I see it either you accept that the whole peloton is clean (at least the top riders) and there is no doping in TDF or you accept that doping exists and is an integral part of TDF and that includes LA. There are no two ways about it.

I do not know but do not think Lance's first book was for charity, or the second. I belive those are the only books he has written. And he wasnt writing a book about how everyone dopes but him, blah blah blah like Bassons and Simeoni. He has a compelling story to tell, neither of those two riders do or did. End of story.

No, there are more nuanced and balanced ways of understanding the doping problem instead of what you suggest that everyone does it or no one does it. I think the reality now is the vast majority of riders do not do it but some still try to get away with it and some get caught while others dont.

I am not attcking anyone, just stating opinions. Yes

 

[DV1976]

I do not know but do not think Lance's first book was for charity, or the second. I belive those are the only books he has written.

Actually I was being a little sarcastic there

And he wasnt writing a book about how everyone dopes but him, blah blah blah like Bassons and Simeoni. He has a compelling story to tell, neither of those two riders do or did. End of story.

No but he wrote a book (at least the 2nd the one that I have read) about how great his training is, how hard he trains, how bad the French are, how nice his Girona house is, what great teammates he has and what a good masseur that manages to have them rested between stages using herbal concoctions, blah, blah... Not only that but I bought his performance programme expected to be taken aback by its sophistication and see for myself why nobody trains like Lance (as he so often implies). Well, to say that I was dissapointed at the end would be an understatment (probably Kloeden has read the same book). Sorry I don't buy it.

No, there are more nuanced and balanced ways of understanding the doping problem instead of what you suggest that everyone does it or no one does it. I think the reality now is the vast majority of riders do not do it but some still try to get away with it and some get caught while others dont.

.
Well I don't know how you can say that bearing in mind what happened in 98 and 01. Do you really think that cycling changed that much in 3 years (unless you believe that there was not much of a problem to start with). The truth is that doping has been a big part of cycling since its birth (as a sport). Wherever there is money involved there is widespread doping and that includes all sports not just cycling. Now I could go on citing examples like Flyer does but I suspect that it wouldn't do much good as you are not likely to change your mind.

 

[Perro Loco]

I think this argument will go on and on- and never be settled to everyones satifaction
As I said in another thread
Like conspiracy theories, the loch ness monster, bigfoot we all seem to want to believe something mysterious is out there.
I have always fiound it quite interesting that people claim Armstrong was mediocre and made great by drugs.
So why haven't others benefited from this?
Medical and biological research does not occur in a vacuum as one see's in movies and in novels. There are no isolated labs comming up with earth shattering breakthroughs. The breakthroughs touted in the press are actually small advancements that that progress from other works done by scores of researchers from multiple institutions.
If such a cocktail existed it would taken an army of researchers, clinical trials to have developed it. Try keeping that under wraps.
Is Armstrong Dopping, I really don't know. If he is it is no more than others.

Regarding Armstrongs Mediocre Results previously
In 96 at the age of 24 he was 2nd in Paris Nice *, and liege, won Fleche, Tour dupount. Previous to this he was one of the youngest world champions (this back when the WC was targeted more than today due to when it is held), Won San Sebastian, 2nd in sevaral other, Stage winner in tour at 21...

*(a week before he suffered a heavy crash at the Tour of Valencia-during this time the director of ONCE felt he was the strongest rider including his own Jalabert who would win Paris Nice
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/feb96/val.html

Armstrong did not start. He's badly bruised on the sides and shoulders. ONCE Directeur-sportif reckoned Armstrong "the race's strongest man." To which Jalabert said: "Maybe he was the strongest, but I was at least as strong. One against one I think I could have won. But one against five, what could Armstrong do?" Next encounter: Paris--Nice March 10-17

At the age of 23, loosing 6 minutes to Indurain is a lot but consider the day before he won a stage in a breakaway and several days earlier a teammate died. No matter what is said I doubt this was a typical perfermonce.

If you look at Indurains results at the tour at a similar age 23, you will see similar results.
Comparing to Jan at a similar age niether Stacks up as far as tour performance goes. But then again Jan was not competitive throughout the spring in 96, he was focused on the tour.
Just to stir things up, remember Jan came up through the East German Sports schools- experts at doping and in his first two tours rode with Mr. 60%- how come no talks about him being tinkered with?

Regarding the weight issue Armstrong was a little heavy upper body before, chemo. When Armstrong signed with Cofidis, in an interview in Velonews Guimard is qouted as saying to the effect that Armstrong can win the Tour but he must be convinced that he can. Merckx thought Armstrong was a little to heavy to ever win....
Also Armstrongs work ethic has improved dramaticly post chemo.
He has also benifited tremendously by riding for a US sponsered team. This allowed him to concentrate exclusively on the tour in 99.

play with this calculator and see what dropping a few Kilos does to speed uphill. It's a lot of fun. I now convinced to drop some kilos
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Once again if you believe Lance is doping/has been doped/altered etc there is no evidence absolute evidence proving you wrong - on the other hand the converse is true.. there is no absolute evidence that he is or has been.
I'll close with a qoute from from Jens Voigt

JV: That’s what makes him so good (discussing how hard Armstrong works). I mean, I still believe to this day that Jan Ullrich has the bigger engine, but Lance is the more dedicated driver of the engine. Lance may be a little less naturally gifted than Ullrich, but he makes up for any tiny difference by dedicating everything to knowing the race inside out. He knows the course, he knows his body, he looks at his team, and gets the strongest possible team around him, and keeps to his regime in a way that he knows will make him the best. You know, maybe Lance has five horsepower less than Ullrich, it’s not much at their level. You can’t be at that level and have 50 horsepower less, look at me, I have 50 horsepower less, but between them, there is a really small difference, and Lance makes it up by making all the conditions perfect for himself. And that’s how he wins.

 

[Flyer]

I am not angry at Bassons at all. It was the entire peloton that was angry at him. Yes if he was stating that the leaders were doping and Lance was the leader it doesnt take rocket science to figure out why Lance went to talk to him. Then Bassons tries to play the pity card, how the riders were isolating him, and flicking him, how unhappy he was, at which point Lance reportedly says, if you are so unhappy, you could always leave, which he did. But really, he brought it on himself.

So no, Lance did not order him off the race. Lance was not the boss back then. It was not a code of silence Lance was talking bout, it was a rider in the peloton constantly bringing doubt about Lance's accomplishments without reason. Lance had a lot of reason to try and counter negative statements which were unfounded, that is his right.

Check your facts. Yes, Bassons did try to turn a profit. The next year he writes a book, "Positif" about the whole affair. If he didnt turn a profit, I suppose its because no one thought he was woth listening to. Yes, I think that is trying to turn a profit by talking about doping, because he was never before or after the 99 Tour going to make much money on the bike since wasnt such a great rider.

Hmmmm? But it was big mouth arrogant Lance Armstrong who declared during an interview at a Hotel in Aix les Bains, France, in May 1999 BEFORE he won the July TDF, that doping was "finito" in the peloton. That the previous year's 1998 Team Festina scandal "had played itself out" The reporter politely, disagreed, and Armstrong scoffed, "finito.".

How embarrassed Lance would be just the very next day just prior to riding off Classique des Alpes, upon learning that GC Leader Marco Pantani, with two days until Milano, was DQed for a too high hematocrit level. Armstrong WRONG again.

Two years later in 2001 the Giro was nearly canceled after the San Remo Hotel drug raids incriminating 85 riders, including Jan Ulrich and then leader Gilberto Simoni.

Again, what Lance says has proven to be the reverse of what the truth is.

But if you are a big fan, it hardly matters.

If you rely upon Lance's public versions of doping---you will be incorrect as to the reality.

 

[Flyer]

Really? Whereas LA wrote his books for charity (and he has written many). You are very quick to attack people that try (according to you) to discredit LA yet you have no problem whatsoever to discredit Bassons. And the funniest thing of all is that you quoted Virenque to support your arguments. A self-confessed doper. BTW Bassons was not the only one to be ostracized. Read what Kimmage has to say on the matter (if you haven't read it).
The way I see it either you accept that the whole peloton is clean (at least the top riders) and there is no doping in TDF or you accept that doping exists and is an integral part of TDF and that includes LA. There are no two ways about it.

That is logical and reasonable, however, emotions and passion dominates so the rubbery position taken by 'friends of Lance" is:

Everyone except Lance and a few of my other favorite riders take drugs to race and train. But my guy is clean---despite having special experiences with powerful anemia drugs which help save his life. Upon returning to life--the legend Lance presumably stopped using the magic drugs and/or got a Therapuetic Use Exemption for testosterone and a few other hormones. Whatever, it is medical privacy so we are not entitled to know the truth--only the explanations.

My guy is so talented and hard working that he can recover faster than athletes using anabolic products and anemia drugs---ya he is just that amazing.

No matter how you slice Lance's public quote re: doping and sport, the one fact that cannot be disputed is:

Lance has been consistently incorrect re: the widespread abuse of doping in his chosen profession and this continuing lack of knowledge has in no way altered or influenced his periodic public messages on the subject. (eg: Cycling is just more public about doping, or we have done more testing than other sports, or we are a clean sport, bla, bla bla)

Given Lance's 15 years of elite experience in cycling and 6 TDF vicories, he is either a moron, or he is a bald face liar.

No comment would be Lance's best public utterance.

 

[kennf]

That is logical and reasonable, however, emotions and passion dominates so the rubbery position taken by 'friends of Lance" is:

Everyone except Lance and a few of my other favorite riders take drugs to race and train. But my guy is clean---despite having special experiences with powerful anemia drugs which help save his life. Upon returning to life--the legend Lance presumably stopped using the magic drugs and/or got a Therapuetic Use Exemption for testosterone and a few other hormones. Whatever, it is medical privacy so we are not entitled to know the truth--only the explanations.

My guy is so talented and hard working that he can recover faster than athletes using anabolic products and anemia drugs---ya he is just that amazing.

No matter how you slice Lance's public quote re: doping and sport, the one fact that cannot be disputed is:

Lance has been consistently incorrect re: the widespread abuse of doping in his chosen profession and this continuing lack of knowledge has in no way altered or influenced his periodic public messages on the subject. (eg: Cycling is just more public about doping, or we have done more testing than other sports, or we are a clean sport, bla, bla bla)

Given Lance's 15 years of elite experience in cycling and 6 TDF vicories, he is either a moron, or he is a bald face liar.

No comment would be Lance's best public utterance.

And again, one can only conclude that Lance stole Flyer's lunch money as a small child.

 

[Flyer]

And again, one can only conclude that Lance stole Flyer's lunch money as a small child.

And also that doping enthusiasts everywhere, enjoy Lance's brand of corporate speak and blissful fancy.

Don't check Lance's public remarks since 1999, you will only get bogged down in contradictions.

Instead, live in corporate sponsored bliss.