Lance admits to doping...
- Thread starter bobke
- Start date
You speak from experience, eh?stevebaby said:
You know what? I think this deserves it's own thread and a poll (no pun intended).
Greg was considered "one" of the best junior riders in the country. There were a few others who were his equal.... I was there to see other riders win races when Greg was racing. . But yes, he was a talent. And beyond that he was focused and had the foresight to see a way to take it to another level.helmutRoole2 said:
But my point was this ...... There were several guys who won as many races as Lemond did, but had their careers fizzle because they stayed in the US. Lemond went on to Europe that offered what he needed to suceed. It was hard on riders from the US in Europe.
On the road, the US is way behind Europe as far as cycling knowledge goes. Of course that may be because they have actual organized doping systems. Nah..... .cycling simply has a higher profile in Europe.
EPO was not in fashion during the Lemond years. Speed and blood boosting was where it was at....... I personally think that there were many TDF leaders test positive for dope during it's span of years. But it is not good for the image to bring it to the publics attention...... So the TDF looked the other way.
The TDF was wise to look the other way. It is a business, not a sport. A sport is where riders ride to see who is the fastest. A businesss is where riders ride to win to earn a living..... Big difference. And beyond that we have many different bodies and international races in which to get a consistent policy towards drugs. Hey, it is enertainment.
We are attracted to it because we cycle and like to compare ourselves to those guys. But we really do not have anything in common with these guys. We live in two different worlds.
And the book that is written by Walsh is not doing anything positive to the sport. It offers no solutions, offers no inside look at the politics behind many cycling decisions, and most of all, like LA says, it "cherry picked" what it needed to make a point. That is what the basis of propaganda is all about..... Cherry picking to make a invalid point valid.
The intervention of WADA and the success of LA has brought doping to the headlines in cycling. And while everyone was poking at LA to find a chink in his story, what they didn't realize was how this was going to bite themselves in the ass. Basso and JU is now paying the price for the witchhunt on LA. And that is exactly what it is, a witch hunt.
{ By the way, has anyone ever gone on a real witch hunt? what do you do when you catch a witch? Do you eat them? Do you mount them and hang them on your wall? Just curious.}
We are attracted to it because we cycle and like to compare ourselves to those guys. But we really do not have anything in common with these guys. We live in two different worlds.
Not true! Jan and I both love good food and good beer. Well there is no really bad beer.
Not true! Jan and I both love good food and good beer. Well there is no really bad beer.
jhuskey said:
I beg to differ. I once bought a 6-pack of Schmidt's... It was so bad, I even hesitated to pour it down the drain for fear of what it might do to the plumbing.
Hmmm... like who? Hampsten, Weaver, Phinney, Kiefel... those guys? Just curious. I was getting into the sport at that time, around 1982.wolfix said:
You burn them at the stake.wolfix said:
poulidor said:
Interesting.
When you discuss Lance Armstrong, you dismiss any notion that his equipment, training, preparation, and other factors had anything to do with his 7 TdF wins, and instead accuse him of being a doper.
Yet now you claim that "Greg" (are y'all on a first-name basis?) beat a doper simply by having better equipment?
In this part of the states he is referred to "Greg" on many occasions, as everyone knows who "Lance" is.... Even though I have been in his presence several times in social situations, I am not on a first name basis with him. But he is "Greg" to me.wineandkeyz said:
I remember the ride of Lemonds. And have read many articles about since. The bars did take him to victory....but it was a fabulous ride anyway. Maybe the greatest ride in TDF history. They say the bars saved him about 10 seconds when the margin of victory was 7 seconds....
But it is true that the anti LA people never want to give LA credit for anything. They love to claim he only won because of dope...... But other convicted riders won races because they had "talent." They like to point out how he had no talent in the first few years..... They forget to mention the time he dropped several major riders when he solo'ed to vicory in the Worlds at a very early age. Just a fluke.....
LA says he is the most drug tested athlete in the world......Maybe, but I do know he is the most examined player in public forums in the world.....
wolfix said:
Sorry, wolfix, my comment about "Greg" wasn't aimed at you. I realize that a lot of athletes and other famous people are often referred to by their first names.
My beef was with poulidor who, like you said, assumes that Armstrong must have doped to win, while other riders do so because of their talent, or equipment, etc.
Yes, I remain it! Everyone can easy understand that because of riders used handlebars only on TT. So this way can't explain the 20% around rider's power increasing.wineandkeyz said:
And the roads have the same quality as in 1985! Sometimes they are new, but they are only fresh one year for 4or 5. Little climbs were sometimes worst as now, but it was rarely final climbs!
Yes, a very little part of the 20% results from improvements, but that can explain the big step done in 2or 3 years...
If PEDs as Growth Hormone, Genetics and so don't replace EPO and blood dooping, we will see decrease performance, and it will be the proof , that was not new training methods , which are normaly repeatable, but this year we have seen DC sank. Why ? Oh yes, the chief was not here! Sorry, but cyclism is a sport team, but not as basket, soccer and so for which a good maestro is important.
poulidor said:
Right. Because we ALL know that training methods, nutrition, equipment (does the term "carbon fiber" mean anything to you?), coaching, etc., etc., etc., have all remained EXACTLY THE SAME since 1985. And that the asphalt industry has made absolutely NO improvements in over 20 years!
Why did DC sink in the TdF this year? Partly because, unlike the past 7 years, they didn't have a rider that was truly strong enough to win it. There was no clear leader, so the team ended up looking like T-Mobile in years past, where Ullrich was SUPPOSED to be the leader, but his teammates were too focused on themselves to work to ensure his victory.
Your opinions MIGHT have made sense if you had stuck with your stance that the only reason Armstrong won is because (in your opinion) he doped. But then you say that Lemond beat a doped rider simply because he had better equipment.
So was Lemond doped, too? Or are you now admitting that it's possible for a clean rider to beat a doped rider?
Asphalt improvements concerns water evacuations through revetement, to have more grip when snow or frost are present.wineandkeyz said:Right. Because we ALL know that training methods, nutrition, equipment (does the term "carbon fiber" mean anything to you?), coaching, etc., etc., etc., have all remained EXACTLY THE SAME since 1985. And that the asphalt industry has made absolutely NO improvements in over 20 years!
But this improvements don't make the road very easier for us. During a few years (80's), new roads were smooth surface, it was pleasant to ride them but it was too dangerous for cars.
And, in average, mountain past are not easier as in the past. Maybe, a very little, because I am older
With or without a leader, good or bad coaches, if you are good and strong, you can just follow the others in mountain stages. Generally, it's enough to have good results. Easier when you have less work to do to protect your leader.wineandkeyz said:
In 2005, all DC (not LA) riders bonked while climbing "Col de La Schlucht" , a very little Col (4%), and the next stage, they all recovered. I can understand that 1,2 or 3 riders can recovering, but all ! Very certainly some fresh blood carried by motorcycles. As the stage was not a mountain stage, DC undervalued the difficulty, and had programmed the food of fresh blood a stage too late!
Without PEDs or less, results are not the same, days off (?) are more frequent!
poulidor said:
Just curious: Do you toss around such asinine, unsubstantiated accusations this freely in your real life?
Yes, when the clean rider as Lemond were very strong and the doped rider were just strong, the clean river can beat a doped rider! Between two riders with same level, the doped river wins!wineandkeyz said:
But with EPO a "decent" rider can beat all riders.
You are right, I am going too far, motorbicycles could be cars, vans... the fresh blood could be PEDs,...wineandkeyz said:
I have sometimes some difficulties with english conditionnal (you can correct me), but I am confident with my opinion.
When you see the facts, bonked and all recovered, we can have more than reasonnable doubts.
Remember you Landis: many teams, DS and riders were surprised that he can finished the stage and didn't bonk in last climb after his worst precedent stage! So recovering after a stage commonly is not the most frequent case.
Similar threads
