How many TdF Lance will win?

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by yayaya
I bet if you asked 20 Euro cyclist if they could win either the points championship or the TDF I'm willing to bet the greater percentage would chose the TDF. The tour is in a league of its own in regards to other races, the racers themselves say so. However you may be one of the ones who would say no to the tour and that your opinion and I respect that, I just think the majority would chose the Tour. He has won a couple of major races pre- tour years, lets see,Midi Libre - 1st
Dauphine - 1st -2002,
- Jun 19-28 Tour of Switzerland: GC Winner-2001,Aug 27 GP Eddy Merckx, Belgium: 1st (teamed with teammate Viatcheslav Ekimov of Russia), Sep 16 GP Des Nations, France: first-2000,Winner, Fleche Wallone-1996, ok not a win but 2nd place, Liege-Bastogne-Liege -96,Winner, Classica San Sebastian-1995 1993-Winner, World Championships ,2nd place, Championship of Zurich 1992 -first year as a pro.

The guy has never really foused on any races other than the tour since 99, thats the one he wants. Do you really think if the guy focused on other races like say San Sebastion or other classics races every year that he wouldn't have won a least some percentage of them? No, I dont think he is the greatest cyclist ever, imho Mercx is in a league by himself. Do I think LA is the best Tour rider ever?, maybe its hard to compare differnt eras, defineatly one of the top 3 I would say. Just my humble opinion.

We are having our own conversation over many threads..

I would rather be a great rider thru out the entire season, then just 3-4 days in the TdF. But this is me.

So only 1 win in '02, none this year. Wow what a great rider? I still believe Lemond was the better American in TdF.

We each have different goals........

Memph

 

[yayaya]

Originally posted by Memphmann
We are having our own conversation over many threads..

I would rather be a great rider thru out the entire season, then just 3-4 days in the TdF. But this is me.

So only 1 win in '02, none this year. Wow what a great rider? I still believe Lemond was the better American in TdF.

We each have different goals........

Memph

Your right its me and your everywhere

The mid liber and dauphine were in 02 with his tour, and he won the dauphine again this year leading up to the tour, so 2 but thats all he really focused on. All im saying is if he FOCUSED on other races I'd like his chances in those others as well. Lemond was a good tour rider not only obviously did he not win as many tours but he didnt win as many stages. Lemond was an execptional tt but was just good enough in the moutains(not dominant) whereas LA has made most of his time in the moutains and also managed to put in some exceptional itts, I mean he did put a minute into Ulrich a couple of years back in a tt.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by yayaya
Your right its me and your everywhere

The mid liber and dauphine were in 02 with his tour, and he won the dauphine again this year leading up to the tour, so 2 but thats all he really focused on. All im saying is if he FOCUSED on other races I'd like his chances in those others as well. Lemond was a good tour rider not only obviously did he not win as many tours but he didnt win as many stages. Lemond was an execptional tt but was just good enough in the moutains(not dominant) whereas LA has made most of his time in the moutains and also managed to put in some exceptional itts, I mean he did put a minute into Ulrich a couple of years back in a tt.

TdF would not be what it is now was it not for Lemond. Well not go into what ifs for Lemond. Just yet another opinion we differ on......

Memph

 

[Roy Gardiner]

Originally posted by Memphmann
TdF would not be what it is now was it not for Lemond. Well not go into what ifs for Lemond.

Lemond was a great champion and innovator; tri-bars, team radio, proper rewards for professional cyclists, to name just a few. Tri-bars were brilliant and won him a tour, and although they were an idea which would shortly have been adopted anyway - he was first.

But I can't think how he changed the face of the Tour. He did not invent total team dedicaction, concentration on the TdF to the exclusion of other races, nor intelligent, strength-saving riding, or anything I can think of. What did he do that was new?

And the if-game can be played both ways. Sure the hunting tragedy maybe stopped him winning 6 or 7 TdF, but it can be equally argued that if Chiapucci hadn't ridden like a total idiot, if Hinault had been on another team, if Fignon had not had a boil on his backside, Lemond would not have won any.

 

[Tuschinski]

Originally posted by yayaya
No, I dont think he is the greatest cyclist ever, imho Mercx is in a league by himself. Do I think LA is the best Tour rider ever?, maybe its hard to compare differnt eras, defineatly one of the top 3 I would say. Just my humble opinion.

If you look at palmares lance isn't in the top 3. Jacques Anquetil, Bernard Hinault and Eddy Merckx all won five tours and a lot more stages than Lance (I know, different times, but thats the fun of these things)

If he wins six he does have some right to call himself the greatest TdF racer ever

My prediction? Pfffff....... maybe 6... maybe no more than 5 (heh). The problem Lance will have is that he has shown his first weaknesses and this encouraged the competition. This happened with Greg and Miguel as well). So even if Lance becomes stronger as this year, the competition will be more daring and persistant. It will be quite a challenge to overcome this.

 

[yayaya]

Originally posted by Tuschinski
If you look at palmares lance isn't in the top 3. Jacques Anquetil, Bernard Hinault and Eddy Merckx all won five tours and a lot more stages than Lance (I know, different times, but thats the fun of these things)

If he wins six he does have some right to call himself the greatest TdF racer ever

My prediction? Pfffff....... maybe 6... maybe no more than 5 (heh). The problem Lance will have is that he has shown his first weaknesses and this encouraged the competition. This happened with Greg and Miguel as well). So even if Lance becomes stronger as this year, the competition will be more daring and persistant. It will be quite a challenge to overcome this.

Yeah who really knows huh? If we only had a time machine...

 

[silly]

I don't think Lance will win another TDF. If you look at the competition he will have next year:
1. Ullrich+Vinokourov+Botero+Savoldelli
2. Heras
3. Hamilton
4. Beloki

It could be possible ofcourse (with Azevedo) but I think his best days are over.

 

[cchongkit]

Boy, & this goes for all of these long threads in all the cycling forums...IF YOU GUYS COULD RIDE WITH AS MUCH TALENT & CONVICTION AS YOUR MOUTHS DO IN THIS FORUM, LANCE/ULRICH/TYLER/ALL-DIVISION-1-RIDERS WOULDN'T STAND A CHANCE!!!

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann
You have two great points, but these can be agrued.

First the USA had another athlete on the world scene which everyone disliked. He claimed not to use enhancement drugs and insulted anyone that did. Like Canada's Ben Johnson. Carl Lewis was finally found out to be a lair. Could this be the case with Lance? We may never know.

Second, if Lance had to keep up and knew others were using, would he not also use? He has some of the finest doctors $ can buy.....

Memph

The record shows that indeed Carl Lewis never did use performance enhancement drugs. I don't know how many times I've read your reference to Carl Lewis on this thread, but it's been quite a few. If you dig deeply into the controversy that was swirling in this regard, you will see that use of a banned substance has to have a dosage level, otherwise it cannot be considered a "use" of the drug. For example, if the tests were strong enough, you could walk through a crowded hallway and accidentally inhale some crack smoke, and this would show up in your blood. But the dosage or quantity in your bloodstream would be very, very low. They would conclude that the dosage was not high enough to be considered a violation, and the results probably would be hidden from the press. Hopefully, they would. I don't think anyone would want a huge controversy about drug use from the situation I just described when the Olympics were only months away. Just think how this would frazzle your nerves. And for what? Accidentally walking down the wrong hallway?

In Carl's case, he took some over the counter cold medicine which happened to have some drugs in it that were on the banned list. I have seen no indication that he did this with the intention of a performance boost. The doctors detected this in his blood sample, and because the dosage was so small, concluded that first of all, this amount would not result in a performance boost, and secondly, the dosage was too small to be considered a violation. Because of these facts, they also concluded there was no conclusive evidence of intent on the part of Carl Lewis to enhance his performance with drugs. Here is an excerpt from "Slam Sports", 4/24/03. The article is entitled "IAAF Calls for probe of Carl Lewis".




Baaron Pittenger, who was executive director of the USOC in 1988, said Tuesday that an investigation at the time concluded the level of banned stimulants found in Lewis' system - mostly ephedrine -was not significant enough to be performance-enhancing. That prompted the USOC to reverse its decision.

"The rules at the time called for us to determine intent. These levels were less than 10 micrograms per milliliter, consistent with accidental use," he said.

Pittenger noted if a test found the same levels in an athlete today, it would not even require the lab to notify doping authorities. He also said Lewis and Santa Monica Track Club teammates Joe DeLoach and Floyd Heard told the USOC before the Olympics they were not taking cold medication, but were using a supplement that included the Chinese herb Ma Huang. The active ingredient in Ma Huang is ephedrine.

Two years ago, the International Olympic Committee said tests finding ephedrine levels at 10 micrograms per milliliter or higher would be considered positive.




Comparing Carl's traces of herbal over the counter cold medicince with the full blown doping with dianobol, a prohibited steroid, that the Canadian Ben Johnson used and then blowing it completely out of proportion seems to be drawing conclusions from something other than the facts. I watched the race at the Olympics, Seoul, 1988. I could see the drugs in the eyes of Ben Johnson. He had a scary look. I also heard that he was drinking the steroid solution in an oversized plastic cup all the way up to the time of the race. Carl did nothing like that. His trace cold medication was found during testing for the 1988 Olympic Trials, not the Olympics. They were dismissed. He tested 100% clean at the Seoul Olympics where he was awarded Gold after the disgraced Ben Johnson was stripped of his world record and Gold medal after testing for not trace amounts of steroids, but very high levels of the banned steroid.

As for Lance using performance enhancing drugs, I seriously doubt it. You should read his book, "It's Not About the Bike". A guy who goes out and gets range-fed chicken instead of buying the kind that has been raised in pens and fed hormones and whatever other kinds of artificial foods they feed them is probably not the guy who is going to put harmful drugs or other chemicals in his body. That's what he eats: range fed chicken. The hospital didn't have any on hand, so his mother went to the store and bought it herself for him. Even he admits, his health is still fragile from the cancer. The advantage he has in this regard over the other riders is that he probably is a whole lot more cautious about what he eats. He's been through complete and total hell and come back from it all.

Many great champions have unique advantages that average riders don't. He has the long femurs that the greats have. And he also has very rare DNA that enables him to train above the anaerobic threshold without generating much lactic acid. Both of these are tremendous advantages, but cancer also helped him to lose something like 8 kg of body mass when he was already down to 6% body fat. As you probably know, Eddie Merckx told him before he came down with cancer that he could win the Tour de France, but he had to lose some weight, that he was built like a linebacker. He did lose the weight, but it sure was a draconian way to lose it. This and the fact that he trained with a lot more heart and discipline after the illness have all combined to make him a grand champion, not drugs.

I was glad to have seen the drug scandal in the 1998 Tour de France because it cleared the air and put everyone on an even keel in 1999, when they had to go up against Lance without the help of the drugs that Lance would not take.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by gntlmn
The record shows that indeed Carl Lewis never did use performance enhancement drugs. I don't know how many times I've read your reference to Carl Lewis on this thread, but it's been quite a few. If you dig deeply into the controversy that was swirling in this regard, you will see that use of a banned substance has to have a dosage level, otherwise it cannot be considered a "use" of the drug. For example, if the tests were strong enough, you could walk through a crowded hallway and accidentally inhale some crack smoke, and this would show up in your blood. But the dosage or quantity in your bloodstream would be very, very low. They would conclude that the dosage was not high enough to be considered a violation, and the results probably would be hidden from the press. Hopefully, they would. I don't think anyone would want a huge controversy about drug use from the situation I just described when the Olympics were only months away. Just think how this would frazzle your nerves. And for what? Accidentally walking down the wrong hallway?

In Carl's case, he took some over the counter cold medicine which happened to have some drugs in it that were on the banned list. I have seen no indication that he did this with the intention of a performance boost. The doctors detected this in his blood sample, and because the dosage was so small, concluded that first of all, this amount would not result in a performance boost, and secondly, the dosage was too small to be considered a violation. Because of these facts, they also concluded there was no conclusive evidence of intent on the part of Carl Lewis to enhance his performance with drugs. Here is an excerpt from "Slam Sports", 4/24/03. The article is entitled "IAAF Calls for probe of Carl Lewis".




Baaron Pittenger, who was executive director of the USOC in 1988, said Tuesday that an investigation at the time concluded the level of banned stimulants found in Lewis' system - mostly ephedrine -was not significant enough to be performance-enhancing. That prompted the USOC to reverse its decision.

"The rules at the time called for us to determine intent. These levels were less than 10 micrograms per milliliter, consistent with accidental use," he said.

Pittenger noted if a test found the same levels in an athlete today, it would not even require the lab to notify doping authorities. He also said Lewis and Santa Monica Track Club teammates Joe DeLoach and Floyd Heard told the USOC before the Olympics they were not taking cold medication, but were using a supplement that included the Chinese herb Ma Huang. The active ingredient in Ma Huang is ephedrine.

Two years ago, the International Olympic Committee said tests finding ephedrine levels at 10 micrograms per milliliter or higher would be considered positive.




Comparing Carl's traces of herbal over the counter cold medicince with the full blown doping with dianobol, a prohibited steroid, that the Canadian Ben Johnson used and then blowing it completely out of proportion seems to be drawing conclusions from something other than the facts. I watched the race at the Olympics, Seoul, 1988. I could see the drugs in the eyes of Ben Johnson. He had a scary look. I also heard that he was drinking the steroid solution in an oversized plastic cup all the way up to the time of the race. Carl did nothing like that. His trace cold medication was found during testing for the 1988 Olympic Trials, not the Olympics. They were dismissed. He tested 100% clean at the Seoul Olympics where he was awarded Gold after the disgraced Ben Johnson was stripped of his world record and Gold medal after testing for not trace amounts of steroids, but very high levels of the banned steroid.

As for Lance using performance enhancing drugs, I seriously doubt it. You should read his book, "It's Not About the Bike". A guy who goes out and gets range-fed chicken instead of buying the kind that has been raised in pens and fed hormones and whatever other kinds of artificial foods they feed them is probably not the guy who is going to put harmful drugs or other chemicals in his body. That's what he eats: range fed chicken. The hospital didn't have any on hand, so his mother went to the store and bought it herself for him. Even he admits, his health is still fragile from the cancer. The advantage he has in this regard over the other riders is that he probably is a whole lot more cautious about what he eats. He's been through complete and total hell and come back from it all.

Many great champions have unique advantages that average riders don't. He has the long femurs that the greats have. And he also has very rare DNA that enables him to train above the anaerobic threshold without generating much lactic acid. Both of these are tremendous advantages, but cancer also helped him to lose something like 8 kg of body mass when he was already down to 6% body fat. As you probably know, Eddie Merckx told him before he came down with cancer that he could win the Tour de France, but he had to lose some weight, that he was built like a linebacker. He did lose the weight, but it sure was a draconian way to lose it. This and the fact that he trained with a lot more heart and discipline after the illness have all combined to make him a grand champion, not drugs.

I was glad to have seen the drug scandal in the 1998 Tour de France because it cleared the air and put everyone on an even keel in 1999, when they had to go up against Lance without the help of the drugs that Lance would not take.

Just as I thought, a typical answer from another american who doesn't want to see their athletes disgraced. American athletes never cheat. Sure they do, just the best at hiding it.

So you where there in person to see Ben run? I can honestly say that I was not. I watched the same race as millions of others. He kicked Carl's **** & they were both on drugs. They had the same advantage, but Ben was faster. America needs an excuse when they lose.

Like years ago. We all know that the fastest man title goes to the winner of the 100m. Canada had that title, but all of a sudden the US gave that title to the winner of the 200m. Guess which country he was from? Then there was a race of 150m between the two athlete's. Once Micheal was behind, he pulled up with a fake ham injury. Another excuse. If LA would have lost the TDF last year. Which excuse would he have used. The break up of marriage, relapse of cancer, etc....

Memph

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann
Just as I thought, a typical answer from another american who doesn't want to see their athletes disgraced. American athletes never cheat. Sure they do, just the best at hiding it.

Memph

This is called the "fallacy of illicit minor". The conclusion is greater than the premise allows.

"I saw one rider ride through a red light the other day. Therefore, all riders ride through red lights." This is a fallacy. The observation that one rider rode through a red light does not provide the evidence that supports the conclusion, that "all riders ride through red lights".

Your conclusions follow the same type of fallacy. First you make a claim that I did not make, "American athletes never cheat." I never said that. What I said was that Carl Lewis was never known to have had a performance enhancing level of a banned substance in his body. That's just a fact. You claim that because he took some cold medicine once, and this showed up in trace amounts in his blood test, that he must have been doing drugs. Again, this is the "fallacy of illicit minor". The conclusion, that Carl Lewis was using drugs to enhance performance, does not follow from the observation, that Carl Lewis was once found to have trace levels of banned drugs in his system but they were not high enough to enhance performance. You're using a fact limited in scope to illogically support a broader conclusion. This does not follow.

The same is true about saying that I am claiming that "American athletes never cheat." I make the statement that Carl Lewis has not been proven to be a cheater. You conclude that it follows that I am saying that American athletes never cheat. Again, the fallacy of illicit minor. The conclusion, "that American athletes never cheat" cannot be made from the observation that "Carl Lewis has not been proven to be a cheater." Maybe Carl Lewis did cheat, but I see no reason to point a finger at him any more than any other athlete who has passed every single drug test, just like he did, no matter what country they are from. I am in favor of continued drug testing in all professional and Olympic events, but not exclusively limited to these situations.

Also, your conclusion that because you were doing drugs and getting away with it, and others you knew at your level of racing were doing drugs and getting away with it, that all athletes must be doing drugs simply does not follow. Again, it is the fallacy of illicit minor, making a broader conclusion (all athletes do drugs) that does not follow from the limited facts (that you have done drugs and have observed many other athletes doing drugs).

The argument you make is a fallacy. You imply that because Carl Lewis was found to once have traces of cold medicine in his blood, and even though these results are below the threshold that the doctors have set to indicate drug use, the doctors must be wrong. There must be a conspiracy. Carl Lewis was doing drugs because Carl Lewis is an American, and Americans can get away with anything while the rest of the world is held to higher standards simply because they are not Americans. In other words, you are making the claim that even though Carl Lewis was never found to have a high enough dosage of any performance enhancing drug in his system ever after years and years of exhaustive testing, he must have been doing drugs because he was an American, and he was winning. This is a very weak argument. It simply doesn't follow from the facts.

I can make a reasonable argument about why Carl kept winning. In biking, having long femurs (thigh bones) is an advantage. In the 100 meters on the other hand, having long tibia (calf bones) is an incredible advantage. Carl Lewis has long tibia. This is why he would pull away from the pack during the last 50 meters, and it's also why someone who has lost his feet and gets prosthetic extensions can record a faster time in the 100 meters after losing his feet, especially if the extensions are long enough. This is one of the reasons why Carl Lewis was so dominant in his sport. Another was that he focused on the big meets and avoided competing too often, similar to Lance Armstrong focusing on the Tour de France instead of every race he could enter.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann


So you where there in person to see Ben run? I can honestly say that I was not. I watched the same race as millions of others. He kicked Carl's **** & they were both on drugs. They had the same advantage, but Ben was faster. America needs an excuse when they lose.

Memph

Here it is again. The fallacy of illicit minor. You conclude that even though Carl Lewis passed every single drug test that was ever given to him subject to threshold level, that because he was found to have traces below the threshold several months before this race at the Olympic Trials, that he was on drugs during the Olympic 100 meters. Your logic is flawed. The only one you can claim was on drugs that day out of the two was Ben Johnson. He's the one that flunked the lab tests, not Carl Lewis.

That I may legally apply for dual Canadian/American citizenship based on my heritage does not change my conclusion about athletes and drug use. If they're doing drugs, they don't deserve the win. I was actually disappointed to have seen that Ben's accomplishment resulted from drug use because I love to see an individual, regardless of national origin, soundly trounce the competition, not by a little bit, but by such a huge margin. I felt very let down at the time. It felt like a step back for mankind. But I'm glad they stripped him of the record and the gold medal. It is also a very public example of what an advantage drugs can give contestants and why we should keep testing for them to keep them from killing themselves trying to outdo anyone else.

By the way, you probably already know that Ben Johnson was born in Jamaica and spent the first 14 years of his life there. As I said, it doesn't matter that he moved to Canada instead of the USA, he didn't deserve that 100 meter win in Seoul.

As for the rest of your comments, I think I've said enough. I'll let someone else respond to them.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by gntlmn
Here it is again. The fallacy of illicit minor. You conclude that even though Carl Lewis passed every single drug test that was ever given to him subject to threshold level, that because he was found to have traces below the threshold several months before this race at the Olympic Trials, that he was on drugs during the Olympic 100 meters. Your logic is flawed. The only one you can claim was on drugs that day out of the two was Ben Johnson. He's the one that flunked the lab tests, not Carl Lewis.

That I may legally apply for dual Canadian/American citizenship based on my heritage does not change my conclusion about athletes and drug use. If they're doing drugs, they don't deserve the win. I was actually disappointed to have seen that Ben's accomplishment resulted from drug use because I love to see an individual, regardless of national origin, soundly trounce the competition, not by a little bit, but by such a huge margin. I felt very let down at the time. It felt like a step back for mankind. But I'm glad they stripped him of the record and the gold medal. It is also a very public example of what an advantage drugs can give contestants and why we should keep testing for them to keep them from killing themselves trying to outdo anyone else.

By the way, you probably already know that Ben Johnson was born in Jamaica and spent the first 14 years of his life there. As I said, it doesn't matter that he moved to Canada instead of the USA, he didn't deserve that 100 meter win in Seoul.

As for the rest of your comments, I think I've said enough. I'll let someone else respond to them.

You haven't said enough. Everything you wrote, I expected. Lewis is a cheat just like the rest, just better at hiding or keeping it under wraps. Every pro athlete has to in order to keep up & have the advantage. We could argue this til our fingers fell off. But there are only a few who really know the truth, & you & I are not them. Also you shall never change my mind on this topic or how the US thinks that there are better then everyone else in not just sports, but every area of life.

See you did not touch mike johnson faked ham pull. Then again what can really be said about that. He was a baby & lost like one. I could go on & on......

Memph

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann
But there are only a few who really know the truth, & you & I are not them.

Memph

It's nice to see that you admit that you do not know that these athletes are doing drugs. And I have already said that I cannot prove that they were not. That they are beating the drug tests and performing under the influence of banned drugs may be true, but it's hardly fair to point the finger at those who do pass all the drug tests, like Carl Lewis and Lance Armstrong. The reasons you seem to single them out is because they are champions and because they are Americans. That's hardly grounds for accusing them of doing drugs.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by gntlmn
It's nice to see that you admit that you do not know that these athletes are doing drugs. And I have already said that I cannot prove that they were not. That they are beating the drug tests and performing under the influence of banned drugs may be true, but it's hardly fair to point the finger at those who do pass all the drug tests, like Carl Lewis and Lance Armstrong. The reasons you seem to single them out is because they are champions and because they are Americans. That's hardly grounds for accusing them of doing drugs.

Those two reasons seem like great grounds to me. First, would we really care if non-champions really took banned drugs?

Second, it seems like every American athlete always has an excuse for why they losts. Except for the truth that the other athlete was better. Take great joy when I find out that these athletes fall. They step themselves up for it.....

Memph

couple i.e. Jordan getting his dad killed due to gambling. US olympic hockey team losing & destroying hotel. Carl Lewis. NFL & NBA players with law troubles, etc.....

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann
Those two reasons seem like great grounds to me. First, would we really care if non-champions really took banned drugs?

Second, it seems like every American athlete always has an excuse for why they losts. Except for the truth that the other athlete was better. Take great joy when I find out that these athletes fall. They step themselves up for it.....

Memph

couple i.e. Jordan getting his dad killed due to gambling. US olympic hockey team losing & destroying hotel. Carl Lewis. NFL & NBA players with law troubles, etc.....

I'm beginning to wonder whether all those performance enhancing drugs you claim to have taken are perhaps affecting your reasoning. I never took any performance enhancing drugs, not ever. But then again, I wasn't trying to make a career out of sports either. It's not more than a hobby for me.

If grounds for accusing people of using drugs is whether they win, as you say, then why watch any sports at all? All the winners, under your line of reasoning, are automatically drug users no matter which country they are from or represent. This means that every time someone who has won this year in biking who is not from the USA was under performance enhancing drugs when they did it. There were many wins in Europe last summer by non Americans, even more than there were by Americans. According to your reasoning then, other countries are doing more drugs than the Americans because they win the biking events more often. I'm only following your line of reasoning. But I don't buy it. I think you're insanely jealous of American sports heroes, and you don't care whether what you say has a grain of truth in it or not as long as it trashes the reputations of the Americans.

By the way, Ben Johnson admitted under oath in testimony in June 1989 during hearings to having taken performance enhancing drugs for 6 years starting in 1983. His team doctor, Dr. Mario Astaphan, corroborates that story and admits to injecting steroids into Ben Johnson and other athletes on the Canadian team for years. He even stated that if it weren't for the performance enhancing drugs that the Canadians were taking, the athletes would not only not come in first place, they wouldn't even come in last. In other words, they wouldn't even qualify for the finals.

As for deriving great joy and pleasure when you see Americans fail in sports, there is nothing illegal about that. If that's what gives you thrills, so be it. But I don't think any professional athlete likes to lose. It doesn't matter what country they're from. In fact, I bet you don't like losing either. By the way you talk, I don't see you taking it that well either. Let's face it, everyone would prefer to win, but there's only one top platform on the podium. Only one gets to stand there at the end of the day.

 

[Memphmann]

Originally posted by gntlmn
I'm beginning to wonder whether all those performance enhancing drugs you claim to have taken are perhaps affecting your reasoning. I never took any performance enhancing drugs, not ever. But then again, I wasn't trying to make a career out of sports either. It's not more than a hobby for me.

If grounds for accusing people of using drugs is whether they win, as you say, then why watch any sports at all? All the winners, under your line of reasoning, are automatically drug users no matter which country they are from or represent. This means that every time someone who has won this year in biking who is not from the USA was under performance enhancing drugs when they did it. There were many wins in Europe last summer by non Americans, even more than there were by Americans. According to your reasoning then, other countries are doing more drugs than the Americans because they win the biking events more often. I'm only following your line of reasoning. But I don't buy it. I think you're insanely jealous of American sports heroes, and you don't care whether what you say has a grain of truth in it or not as long as it trashes the reputations of the Americans.

By the way, Ben Johnson admitted under oath in testimony in June 1989 during hearings to having taken performance enhancing drugs for 6 years starting in 1983. His team doctor, Dr. Mario Astaphan, corroborates that story and admits to injecting steroids into Ben Johnson and other athletes on the Canadian team for years. He even stated that if it weren't for the performance enhancing drugs that the Canadians were taking, the athletes would not only not come in first place, they wouldn't even come in last. In other words, they wouldn't even qualify for the finals.

As for deriving great joy and pleasure when you see Americans fail in sports, there is nothing illegal about that. If that's what gives you thrills, so be it. But I don't think any professional athlete likes to lose. It doesn't matter what country they're from. In fact, I bet you don't like losing either. By the way you talk, I don't see you taking it that well either. Let's face it, everyone would prefer to win, but there's only one top platform on the podium. Only one gets to stand there at the end of the day.

Where did I ever write that I took performance enhancement drugs? When I was hardcore racing. Saw many a suspect thing & the rumours. Have to be in that deep to truly understand.

Pro athletes have an oath like cops. Never to report each other. Until 1 actually stands up, like Canseco in Baseball.

Yes, I realize that Ben admitted his use. I give him my highest respect for telling the truth unlike so many others (Lewis).

If our athletes where so weak without drugs. Which kinda makes sense, since all american athlete are on. How did our 4x100 relay team beat the heavily favoured US? Both past the drug tests. How about, us having the fastest 100m man?

I enjoy all sports. Even if all athletes are drugged. Still enjoy watching and finding out who shall win. They should just make all banned performance drugs legal. If an athlete desires to win that BAD & have a shorter lifespan or side effects. Then let them. These dugs are out there, now lets truly see them in action.

Please name me a few Canadian athletes that act as poorly as most US athletes? Be hard to come up with a list.....

Memph

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann
Look, how far up the ranks are you in cycling? I was Cat2, almost Cat1, and all of us were using some form of performance enhancing drugs. Why would i stop at the pro level, when there are better drugs, better ppl (coaches) to help mask them. Cycling is anything but clean.

Memph

Here's where you admit to performance enhancing drug use. Maybe that's why you used them--because you thought everyone else was.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann
Yes, I realize that Ben admitted his use. I give him my highest respect for telling the truth unlike so many others (Lewis).
Memph

Ben "admitted" his use only when he went under oath in June, 1989 during hearings about drug use in Canadian Track and Field. He would have gone to jail if he would have been caught lying, and there were many people involved. He probably would have gone to jail if he didn't admit it. He did not admit it to reporters after the Olympics at any time for that entire year before these hearings. So yes, it is nice to think that he would have admitted it eventually on his own without threat of incarceration, but I doubt that that would have happened.

He blamed the doctor for not telling him the risks of his long term drug use. He said that he would never have done it if he had known these risks. But the future would tell a different story for Ben.

He wanted very much to have another chance to prove that he was a great runner and that he would have been a great champion anyway without the drugs. They gave it to him in the form of only a 2 year suspension which expired in 1990. He could have been banned from running for life.

When the ban was lifted, he competed for a while, but he had nowhere near the luster that he used to. He was not close to his drug enhanced form. So he took up the drug habit again, and this time they banned him for life when he tested positive.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Memphmann

I enjoy all sports. Even if all athletes are drugged. Still enjoy watching and finding out who shall win. They should just make all banned performance drugs legal. If an athlete desires to win that BAD & have a shorter lifespan or side effects. Then let them. These dugs are out there, now lets truly see them in action.
Memph

I laugh at this, and then catch myself because you really are serious about this. You're too much, man.