Lance learns the truth...

[Raptor]

bomba wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
>> there have been a couple/few others.
>
>
> Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

Since 1988.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

 

[Bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>>No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance could be caught using
>>drugs. At that point, many will have to consider whether he still constitutes a good role model.
>
>
> Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether
> you still constitute a good role model.

A little harsh, but, if we want to take your analogy and run with it, if I was consistently
hanging out with paedophiles and child abusers, the finger of suspicion would certainly be raised
at some point.

And of course, you'd have to find somebody who found me a good role model in the first place

> You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
> children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
> scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up 100%
> negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of rampant drug abuse in
professional cycling. The fact that advances in performance-enhancing practices are always one step
ahead of detection (and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources at their
disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught have alluded to the widespread drugs
culture, and even those who haven't and no longer compete also allude to it. The fact that anyone
that follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is widespread. Then of
course, there was the seizure by French police of medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in
2000, containing hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked with Dr
Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.

I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly the possibility that Armstrong
could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Bomba]

Raptor wrote:

>>> Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I recall, though I'm sure
>>> there have been a couple/few others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...
>
>
> Since 1988.

Erm, all of those are in the last 5 years. If you want to go back to '88, you can throw in
Abdujaparov, Bugno, Chiapucci, Brochard, Zulle, Delgado, Theunisse, etc, etc...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[jmsmith]

On 22 Jul 2003 10:25:51 -0700, [email protected] (Paladin) wrote:
> bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<bfir4d$fef35$1@ID-
147573.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Paladin wrote:
> >
> > >>You may one day come to eat those words...
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is there any aspect of the
> > > statement in particular you're focusing on? More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a
> > > good one? ??
> >
> > I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are deeply competitive and it
> > pays to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any
> > unfounded claims, but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
> > performance enhancement.
> >
> > I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness during the Festina trial
> > testified that it was physically impossible for a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in
> > 2000(?) in the time that Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.
>
>
> There are always those claiming something can't be done getting passed by those actually doing it.
> The 4 minute mile. Man on the moon.
>
> Paladin

Head up the ass. 29" wheels. Riser bars.

--
J'm Sm'th

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
> children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
> scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up 100%
> negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
>
> I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of some
> banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even
> though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used contained the
> substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
>

If Lance is not using something, then he's a chump. With that kind of money at stake, and with
everyone else on something, it would be stupid not to. By the way, there is the whole question of
what caused his testicular cancer in the first place.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, myarse247 @hotmail.com says...
> Super Slinky wrote:
>
> >>I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as I suspect, everyone is
> >>in on it, then spilling the beans on one could bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
> >
> >
> > Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think that there would be
> > plenty of people willing to blow the whistle on him if there was any dirty laundry lying around.
>
> I think that's naive. There are probably less than 10 people that have any positive evidence on
> any one cyclist. In the case of Armstrong, you're looking at his fellow team mates, his manager,
> doctor and, bearing in mind the case of Rumsas, possibly his wife. Now, why would any of those
> blow the whistle? The closest you'd get is a domestique in a minor team making allegations that
> 'everybody's doing it', at which point the entire sport closes ranks and labels the cyclist a
> liar. He makes a bit of cash from selling his story, but his team (including his friends) are
> indicted and he never works in the industry again.
>
> I think it's one of those things that's probably generally accepted within Tour circles, but never
> referred to.
>

Besides, what whistle is there to blow? If they aren't detecting anything, then they obviously
aren't testing for the right thing, and therefore that thing is not on their list of banned
substances. Which means, if he's using something, it is something technically not banned from use in
the tour and who is going to go blabbing about their secret weapon? I noticed Roland Green turned
into superman after hooking up with Lance's doctor too.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Mark Hickey]

bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>>No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance could be caught using
>>>drugs. At that point, many will have to consider whether he still constitutes a good role model.
>>
>> Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether
>> you still constitute a good role model.
>
>A little harsh, but, if we want to take your analogy and run with it, if I was consistently
>hanging out with paedophiles and child abusers, the finger of suspicion would certainly be raised
>at some point.

OK, let's pretend you are a teacher or a priest (oi vey!). Now we can cast suspicion with impunity -
even though you have no history of any problems... (in fact, this is very much the case,
particularly for priests lately). And it's sad, because obviously the vast majority don't have
anything to hide.

>And of course, you'd have to find somebody who found me a good role model in the first place

Heh... good point!

>> You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
>> children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
>> scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up
>> 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
>
>I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of rampant drug abuse in
>professional cycling. The fact that advances in performance-enhancing practices are always one step
>ahead of detection (and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources at
>their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught have alluded to the widespread
>drugs culture, and even those who haven't and no longer compete also allude to it.

There can be other reasons for that. If I get caught, of COURSE I am going to say "everyone does it,
I had to just be be competitive". If I'm retired I can allude to the fact that I would have kicked
everyone's butt all the time "had they not been doing drugs". Basic
psychology (sandbox edition) 101.

> The fact that anyone that follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
> widespread.

I would not have disagreed 6 years ago. I do today.

> Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by
> the USPS in 2000, containing hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he
> worked with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.

There are a lot of very valid (and legal) uses for syringes - let's not forget that many riders are
rehydrating intraveniously (sp?), and no doubt taking other (legal) supplements in the most
effective manner as well. The riders are also under constant monitoring by their handlers, including
frequent blood chemistry testing (also requiring a syringe).

>I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly the possibility that
>Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.

The new of you and that 12 year old girl will trump it though... ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>If Lance is not using something, then he's a chump. With that kind of money at stake, and with
>everyone else on something, it would be stupid not to. By the way, there is the whole question of
>what caused his testicular cancer in the first place.

Everybody always cheats, and everybody always lies, eh?

Must be a paranoid place you live up there... ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[jmsmith]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:47:47 GMT, Super Slinky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Hickey said...
>
> > Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider whether
> > you still constitute a good role model.
> >
> > You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
> > children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
> > scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up
> > 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
> >
> > I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of some
> > banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this,
> > even though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used contained
> > the substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.
>
> But isn't it true that not all performance enhancing drugs are detectable?

Without making too broad a statement, as the Official a.m-b Stand-Up Chemist, I would say that *all*
performance enhancing drugs are detectable. It's a matter of how much money you want to spend to
detect things, which things you think are the worst offenders, who's going to pay for the analysis,
how long the analysis takes, etc.

Keeping in mind all the time that 'you can't measure zero'.

--
J'm Sm'th

 

[Super Slinky]

[email protected] said...

> Without making too broad a statement, as the Official a.m-b Stand-Up Chemist, I would say that
> *all* performance enhancing drugs are detectable. It's a matter of how much money you want to
> spend to detect things, which things you think are the worst offenders, who's going to pay for the
> analysis, how long the analysis takes, etc.
>
> Keeping in mind all the time that 'you can't measure zero'.
>
> --
> J'm Sm'th

Well, I'm a chemist too, by coincidence, but I don't claim to be an expert on drug testing. I have
heard in the past that some things are not detectable, like human growth hormone and EPO. Perhaps
there are others. But maybe the real question is if there are performance enhancing drugs that
aren't tested for.

 

[jmsmith]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:43:29 GMT, Super Slinky <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] said...
>
> > Without making too broad a statement, as the Official a.m-b Stand-Up Chemist, I would say that
> > *all* performance enhancing drugs are detectable. It's a matter of how much money you want to
> > spend to detect things, which things you think are the worst offenders, who's going to pay for
> > the analysis, how long the analysis takes, etc.
> >
> > Keeping in mind all the time that 'you can't measure zero'.
> >
> > --
> > J'm Sm'th
>
> Well, I'm a chemist too, by coincidence, but I don't claim to be an expert on drug testing. I have
> heard in the past that some things are not detectable, like human growth hormone and EPO. Perhaps
> there are others. But maybe the real question is if there are performance enhancing drugs that
> aren't tested for.

That is no doubt much more relevant. I'm sure new performance enhancing substances are being
'discovered' all the time, and it's a difficult task to keep up with them, from an analytical
standpoint.

--
J'm Sm'th

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >If Lance is not using something, then he's a chump. With that kind of money at stake, and with
> >everyone else on something, it would be stupid not to. By the way, there is the whole question of
> >what caused his testicular cancer in the first place.
>
> Everybody always cheats, and everybody always lies, eh?
>

Close, everybody sometimes cheats, everybody sometimes lies.

> Must be a paranoid place you live up there... ;-)

You are what your neighbors make you I guess.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:47:47 GMT, Super Slinky <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mark Hickey said...
> >
> > > Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many will have to consider
> > > whether you still constitute a good role model.
> > >
> > > You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no proof that you molest
> > > children. Of couse, I could also ask how you could write what you did even though the intense
> > > scrutiny Lance has been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have come up
> > > 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
> > >
> > > I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for a miniscule trace of
> > > some banned substance. The French press (and some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about
> > > this, even though it was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used
> > > contained the substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten into his blood stream.
> >
> > But isn't it true that not all performance enhancing drugs are detectable?
>
> Without making too broad a statement, as the Official a.m-b Stand-Up Chemist, I would say that
> *all* performance enhancing drugs are detectable. It's a matter of how much money you want to
> spend to detect things, which things you think are the worst offenders, who's going to pay for the
> analysis, how long the analysis takes, etc.
>
> Keeping in mind all the time that 'you can't measure zero'.
>

You also can't check for or measure soemthing that has not yet been identified. Oh we know for sure
he's not on Crack or X, so lets keep narrowing it down

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Bomba]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>>I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of rampant drug abuse in
>>professional cycling. The fact that advances in performance-enhancing practices are always one
>>step ahead of detection (and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
>>at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught have alluded to the
>>widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't and no longer compete also allude to it.
>
>
> There can be other reasons for that. If I get caught, of COURSE I am going to say "everyone does
> it, I had to just be be competitive".

So why have cheats from other sports never said the same thing? It does seem to be a recurring theme
from cyclists.

If
> I'm retired I can allude to the fact that I would have kicked everyone's butt all the time "had
> they not been doing drugs". Basic
> psychology (sandbox edition) 101.

What about the people that did the butt-kicking? People like Merckx, Lemond and Boardman have all
mentioned it.

>>The fact that anyone that follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
>>widespread.
>
>
> I would not have disagreed 6 years ago. I do today.

Ok. Of course, none of the top riders have failed a drugs test in the last 6 years. Oh, hang on,
wait, yes they have.

>>Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by
>>the USPS in 2000, containing hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he
>>worked with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.
>
>
> There are a lot of very valid (and legal) uses for syringes - let's not forget that many riders
> are rehydrating intraveniously (sp?), and no doubt taking other (legal) supplements in the most
> effective manner as well. The riders are also under constant monitoring by their handlers,
> including frequent blood chemistry testing (also requiring a syringe).

I agree, but there's the lingering question of why they tried to dump it secretly on a back road.

>>I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly the possibility that
>>Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.
>
>
> The new of you and that 12 year old girl will trump it though... ;-)

Hey, she said on e-mail that she was 19 and just wanted a trip to Paris </topical>

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Bomba]

[email protected] wrote:

>>Well, I'm a chemist too, by coincidence, but I don't claim to be an expert on drug testing. I have
>>heard in the past that some things are not detectable, like human growth hormone and EPO. Perhaps
>>there are others. But maybe the real question is if there are performance enhancing drugs that
>>aren't tested for.
>
>
> That is no doubt much more relevant. I'm sure new performance enhancing substances are being
> 'discovered' all the time, and it's a difficult task to keep up with them, from an analytical
> standpoint.

My understanding is that the drug-detection business is mainly a reactionary affair.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>Well, I'm a chemist too, by coincidence, but I don't claim to be an expert on drug testing. I
> >>have heard in the past that some things are not detectable, like human growth hormone and EPO.
> >>Perhaps there are others. But maybe the real question is if there are performance enhancing
> >>drugs that aren't tested for.
> >
> >
> > That is no doubt much more relevant. I'm sure new performance enhancing substances are being
> > 'discovered' all the time, and it's a difficult task to keep up with them, from an analytical
> > standpoint.
>
> My understanding is that the drug-detection business is mainly a reactionary affair.
>
>

Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the top 10 or what? I mean could
the winner be clean but the guy who draged him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked
directly to his heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Raptor]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the top 10 or what? I mean could
> the winner be clean but the guy who draged him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked
> directly to his heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?

I don't *know*, but I suspect they pull the winners plus random finishers from the field every day.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

 

[Raptor]

Raptor wrote:
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the top 10 or what? I mean could
>> the winner be clean but the guy who draged him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked
>> directly to his heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?
>
>
> I don't *know*, but I suspect they pull the winners plus random finishers from the field
> every day.

I heard (on Usenet...) that the top six from Tyler's stage win were tested, and for LANCE's
win Monday.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.