From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France (H

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by thunder, Jun 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.


  1. C'dale Girl

    C'dale Girl New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, you believe that a book with a title that infers that doping in cycling is a distinctly American problem has more credibility? The truth probably falls somewhere in the middle, no? It seems both are probably fictionalised. From Walsh's title, it does not sound as if OP ever even happened. It is just as bad to buy completely into the Walsh account as it is to buy into the Armstrong or Landis account imo.
     
  2. ad9898

    ad9898 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lance must be laughing is arse off....unless he confesses to it.....the bottom line is nobody will ever know if he doped or not......there a lot of people on forums saying he did.....he must have, to have beaten all the other doped cyclists that he was pissing on in his career... but would you put your house on it seriously ???? and that includes all the media.

    some people say on this forum that he got cancer from doping.......that would be funny if it wasn't so serious.......i have had testicular cancer and its just fu**ing offensive to suggest PED's caused it....THE FACTS ARE THERE ARE NO FACTS TO THE CAUSE, end of story.

    We will never be able to prove a negative as far has doping is concerned, and to say "well he must have because he pissed on everyone else" is such a piss poor argument.

    Think about this.....is there just a chance that he just was better than everyone else at the time ??? Look at it this way their are many people out there that can do some extra-ordinary things on a mental level with their minds....i mean i have seen a woman who can multiply 2 13 digit numbers together faster than a computer.....did she cheat or take PED's to achieve this ??? or does her brain just do different things to mine or yours ???

    Can anyone remember Michael Johnson hit 19.32 for 200m world record...he made everyone in that race look like a joke over that distance....was he doped or just better than everyone else.

    What is the point of making any sacrifices in your life to push boundaries....if when you do push them everyone accuses you of cheating to get there

    Lance won 7 TDF's in a row, its not going to change, he passed all the tests that were put in front of him at the time....what more can anyone want.....its time to move on
     
  3. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    And have nothing to live for? Oh no, there is so much evidence out there that he did dope, it's just not provable. We hav'nt convinced the world yet that we have such insight to the sport that we are just amazed that no one else can see what we see and know.

    There is the guy in the cubicle next to us who knows LA through LiveStrong, Nike ads, and an occasional plug on TV who really believes the guy when he says he didn't dope. Even though he is so sick of us rambling on with our perceptions of the sport, a sport he really doesn't care about , he knows in the end, we will have convinced him too.

    We have to bring this LA guy down. He's just too popular. Just this week in my backwater town a teenage boy was operated on for testicular cancer. This summer when Lance shows up to do a week long ride across my state, this boy gets facetime with Lance. We want our hero's to be on "Wanted Posters" like JU is at this moment. We do not want them to suceed.

    Continue...........
     
  4. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought we were talking about cycling and PED's not cancer ? - oh course if you do good off the bike and bring yourself in 12 million a year then you are clean..... and what of the other cyclists ? the clean ones ? the ones who could have won and achieved higher salaries ? Do there families go hungry because Lance helps sick people ? and of course creating awareness for cancer is more noble than being honest. Come on Wolf !

     
  5. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where are these 'clean' cyclists? If OP and the 90's confessions tell us anything, it is that doping runs to the highest levels of cycling, and it's pretty much the entire peloton.

    Can't have it both ways. You want to claim that cycling is mostly a Euro sport, then their conduct becomes a Euro issue as well. Walsh is an utter hypocrite to disregard the greatest doping scandal in cycling, while trying to divert attention toward the Americans. Typical sports writer - cater to the home crowd by overlooking their team's shortcomings while demonizing the opposition. That's not even yellow journalism. It's brown journalism. If you buy into that, then you buy into the same 'head in the sand' post Festina attitude that led to Puerto.

    It wasn't the evil, scheming Americans who started the doping. It was your own. Long before LA rose to prominence, Riis was blasting EPO, so was Ullrich, and probably Pantani as well. That's three TDF winners in a row. Blaming the Americans is just making excuses. Worse than that, it won't solve the problem. Get all of the nasty Americans out of cycling, and you'd still have a serious doping problem.

    No, LA isn't helping hungry people. He's helping a lot of desperately ill people who have a life threatening disease. Out of public, he's an arrogant, self serviant cretin. In public, he has raised a lot of money for cancer research, raised a lot of awareness about the need to pursue cancer research, and given hope to a lot of desperate people. For that, I can probably overlook his somewhat caddish personal life.

     
  6. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    WBT..I'm so disapointed in you........You used to be the best poster here with that surreal attitude you have......
    Work on it....... This forum is starting to be a repeat of 2004,2005, 2006. ...... You get my point.
    Nobody goes hungry when there is doping in sport. The doctors have to employ runners and researchers. The UCI gets bribed at the back door, the journalists sells books. Has anyone ever really thought about how cycling is in the news more then ever? The money still flows.......
     
  7. adamastor

    adamastor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Finally a book, that describes the whole controversy. Anyone of you name me one book, ONE single book in English that ever put in doubt Armstrong's integrity in winning the Tours.

    There are loads of evidence he might (I confirm "might") have doped, but not one single English speaking book showed them. I read "LA Confidential" and "LA Officiel" from Walsh in French. Even if you don't believe he doped, read the book. Trust me !
     
  8. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sure, we will. He tested positive six times for EPO.

    No, there is not. The advantage of EPO and blood doping is huge. Pro races are won by differences of a few percent. He would have to be naturally 10% to 15% better than everyone else to have raced clean. If that were the case then it would have been evident in the first half of his career. Instead he was only moderately successful, was not able to climb in the high mountains, and was not even able to finish the Tour before he encouraged his Motorola teammates to use EPO in1995.

    To believe that Armstrong was not doping and still beat all the other doping pros then you have to believe that he suddenly turned into superman half way through is career. This, of course, takes place in an era where the way people are turned in supermen is by doping.

    What is your explanation for Armstrong's sudden transformation?
     
  9. Andrija

    Andrija Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    5
    You have right here...
    Negative marketing is still marketing.
     
  10. obxbes

    obxbes Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    5
    When you look death in the face and beat it what else can scare you.
     
  11. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    What does that have anything to do with anything? Do you suddenly sustain 60, 80 , or more watts after cancer? I didn't.
     
  12. thunder

    thunder New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    no meltdowns, EVER.

    anyone suspicious? Lance never bonked, cept maybe Sheryl.
     
  13. ad9898

    ad9898 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is just ridiculous, their is NO evidence otherwise Armstrong would be in the same boat as Basso, Heras, Hamilton, Riis. The plain fact is he is not. What do you know or anyone on this forum, what inside information do you have.....if you have something take it to the WADA, or better still mortgage your house and take him to court for "sporting fraud" , the first thing you could ask him under cross examination is "What is your explanation for your sudden transformation".

    He would then trawl out more doctors than you have fingers that could give you this explanation, none of it unless your a expert in the field you could understand.

    Doesn't anyone understand that without evidence that would stand up in a court of law the case is a non-starter.

    Evidence that comprises of "I read on the internet" isn't going to hold much water.....in fact no water at all, and lets face it the internet is full of more sh*t than your average sewage works.

    Where did you hear he tested positive six times for EPO, errrr on the internet. If this is correct why isn't it front page news, why hasn't he been sanctioned he hasn't because i believe his "B" samples had been destroyed......well end of story then because the procedures that have been laid down have been broken.

    Another point, which i admit is pure speculation but is worth mentioning non the less.....Why was he better in 2000, 2001, 2004 than he was in 1999, when EPO testing was in full swing ??.......oh i know it must have been something else he took or something else he did.....well with that kind of evidence the judge is sure to come down on your side......NOT.

    Forums are for opinion and discussion, they are not used in court and as far as i'm aware are not admissable evidence. Just except it Lance Armstrong was better than everyone else in the TDF between 1999-2005, if evidence to the contrary arises I will be the first person here to say i was wrong.
     
  14. ad9898

    ad9898 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Other reasons regarding why he was better later in his career

    1 Some people develop later in their career

    2 He weighed less than earlier in his career , now everyone knows weight IS the biggest hurdle when it comes to climbing...just 3kg's more on Alpe du 'Huez i believe would cost you 3 minutes for the same power output

    3 I suffered testicular cancer had chemo and all the rest of it.....and you know i was better on the bike around 6 months onwards after my treatment and you know i have no explanation for this and i had been injected with Bleomicen, which is a chemo drug that does effect the lungs in a bad way....Armstrong by the way didn't use this drug for this reason, he chose an alternative.

    On a lighter note i think i was quicker on the bike because i had had one of my huge testicles removed it must of weighed a couple of kilos :D
     
  15. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    It was front page news, stupid.
     
  16. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    This has been shown to be a cover story by Armstrong to explain his radical increase in performance. Dr. Coyle's data shows that Armstrong's Tour weight from the early 90s to the end of his career only varied by 1 - 2 kilos. Armstrong's 2005 weight was 75 kilos, which is more than he weighed in some of the early 90s Tours.

    I know all about Bleomycin (note the correct spelling)...
     
  17. ad9898

    ad9898 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh L'Equipe.....that bastion of righteous journalism....well forget everything i said it must be true.

    Calling people stupid is immature, by all means if you have counter argument lets hear it....thats what forums are for.
     
  18. ad9898

    ad9898 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know all about Bleomycen (note the correct spelling)...
    __________________
    "I'm completely f***ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans

    Oh now we are getting petty.....perhaps i should trawl your posts for slight grammer mistakes.

    I don't think anyone including yourself has ever believed everything on the front page of a tabloid newspaper....and of course L'equipe were in full knowledge of the facts at the time, and they weren't just sensationalising a story.

    The bottom line is... at this stage arguments on whether Lance took drugs or not are pure conjecture....until he confesses or evidence is found that has not currently been found.....the record will stand , he won 7 TDF's in a row. Only the two points i have just made will ever change that.
     
  19. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yup, L'Equipe, a very respected newspaper that was able to uncover the Armstrong EPO positives with some crack investigative reporting. The information was then carried all over the world. You would know this if you had been following the sport for more than a month.

    Okay, cheap shot, but you left a hole you could drive a truck through. You are the one that started blathering about how there is no evidence Armstrong doped (completely uninformed), claiming the fact that Armstrong tested positive for EPO is just a Internet rumor (Have you been living under a rock?), and then topped it off with some sort of sympathy play because you had cancer (as if that makes you an expert in doping in cycling, a sport that you obviously don't follow).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...