Lefevere to vomit or head of doping ring ?
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
Well "unnamed" sources are not the be all and end of our judicial process... remember this is the press not a high court ! However I do agree somewhat.... If there "unamed" souces don't come forward then he can sue the **** off the paper...... or they will have to print a retraction.... the damage is done thou and that was the idea.... its good to see we get upset how Floyd is treated by the media but we think this is a good thing !!!!?????wicklow200 said:
Where's the proof you ask? Well thats what some of us have been shouting from the rooftops for a while now re Basso, Ullrich and OP.whiteboytrash said:Well "unnamed" sources are not the be all and end of our judicial process... remember this is the press not a high court ! However I do agree somewhat.... If there "unamed" souces don't come forward then he can sue the **** off the paper...... or they will have to print a retraction.... the damage is done thou and that was the idea.... its good to see we get upset how Floyd is treated by the media but we think this is a good thing !!!!?????
As a result Im likely to take these Lefevre allegations just as seriously as Lefevre takes the Basso and Ullrich allegations.
Why shouldnt there be a suspension for a DS if there are allegations hanging over his head? Oh yeah, sorry, thats not possible because Lefevre is head of the pro teams union.
And finally, you are suggesting implicitly that someone was out to discredit Lefevre for their own end.Who and why? As for me, perhaps it was by someone who cares about the sport and wants to call attention to the bigger picture that cycling is rife with dopage, and not just a problem of one team or a handful of OP suspects.
I agree with you.... this is all good stuff..... the more we get out in the open and even if its in unfashionable ways then so be it... its a good thing.... Lefevre wanted to vomit over Floyd but maybe the peleton could vomit on him ?..... this is not the last of it...... its only going to open a can of worms against other DS's and riders..... Mr.McQuaid is watching patiently to see the fall-out... to then claim that he fixed doping in the peleton !
One last point thou... do we trust Floyd Landis positive test (11-1) or a man on 3 seperate murder charges who's been in the clink for 10 years ? Don't bother responding because I know your answer....
One last point thou... do we trust Floyd Landis positive test (11-1) or a man on 3 seperate murder charges who's been in the clink for 10 years ? Don't bother responding because I know your answer....
wicklow200 said:
Yes, now the DSs are being smeared, who knows where it will lead.whiteboytrash said:I agree with you.... this is all good stuff..... the more we get out in the open and even if its in unfashionable ways then so be it... its a good thing.... Lefevre wanted to vomit over Floyd but maybe the peleton could vomit on him ?..... this is not the last of it...... its only going to open a can of worms against other DS's and riders..... Mr.McQuaid is watching patiently to see the fall-out... to then claim that he fixed doping in the peleton !
One last point thou... do we trust Floyd Landis positive test (11-1) or a man on 3 seperate murder charges who's been in the clink for 10 years ? Don't bother responding because I know your answer....
It will lead to the fans? Heras will claim that a crazed roadside fan injected him with EPO as he rode by. Other fans will be revealed to have drunk large doses of coffee, excessive amounts of beer and some even to have smoked the odd bit of grass (usually before starting threads on this site).wicklow200 said:
That is a good line of questioning. If cycling acts like a typical bureaucracy then there will be a move to shut down or limit the fight against doping. Throwing the random serf to the mob is one thing; when it affects the aristocracy, that is another.wicklow200 said:
"The difference is that EPO actually works while the benefits of amphetamines and steroids for aerobic sports is questionable."...Bro Deal said:
Questionable? There is no question they were performance enhancing. I know first hand they elevated perfomance....... [speed]. I never used in competition, but I did try the stuff. It is really helpful, As far as steroids go, they turn a mule into a race horse..... Go to a local gym and tell me otherwise.
"It severs the link between me as a non-doping amateur and the pros."
I can understand exactly how you feel about that. There are many things that seperate a amateur and a pro. And the level of expertise in doping is one of them....... I don't know where you race, but I imagine many of your competitors you would like to think are clean are using.
Where I draw the equivalant between then and today is that doping products were used then to get a competitive edge, and were as part of the sport , as they are today... It was just accepted then within th esport as it is today....
I am not sure how you entered the sport, as a fan first , or a competitior. I entered as a competitior, brought into the sport by several very good riders.....[Locally] I spent some time with them at a few major races...... [I rode in a different catagory] What I saw opened my eyes. But then as I read about Europe.....nothing was different over there.
EPO has elevated the possible danger to riders over time..... And I think everyone on this board wishes dope was not part of the sport. But it is so ingrained, I do not think we will ever see a clean sport. {and other sports are dirty too. I actually heard of a local golfer pumping himself up on roids]
Disliking Discovery is natural, But wanting them or anyone else to "implode" is not wanting the best for the sport...... The sport has been damaged enough. We are aware of the problems. Now it must move forward. Otherwise it will be brought down to it's knees.
I do not like TM anymore....... [Because of the way they treated Zabel and possibly JU ] I wish them bad luck on the road...... I hope they never win again. {They will } But I do not like what happened to them in the JU case.And I would hate to see JU guilty......
Point to a study showing amphetamines or steroids have anywhere near the effect of EPO (+10%) for aerobic sports. I don't care about body building at a gym. It doesn't matter how big your muscles are if you cannot give them more fuel (oxygen) to produce power. The point is that clean riders could compete in the 70s and 80s, they cannot compete now because of the immense effect of EPO.wolfix said:
Well, testosterone alone has a huge synergistic effect. First, it creates a hugely uneven stasis on the outside of the muscle cell membrane, which pushes nutrients, glycogen and oxygen across at a much faster pace during rest and exercise. It promotes protein synthesis and prevents catabolism. It also increases rbc's significantly in most people and then pushes them across the cell membrane at a much quicker rate during exercise.Bro Deal said:
My belief is, a seasoned Cat. 2 athlete running 250mg/week of testosterone for 12-15 weeks, in three to four cycles (about a year and a half) he will be able to compete against most professionals in North America. Compete meaning, finish in the pack, get in a few moves, place every so often.
But, if you take a testosterone regiment like the one above and stack HGH and IGF-1 (two compounds proven to INCREASE the number of muscle cells), run some steroid similar to Deca (a very detectable strength builder), throw in some Anavar (short-term steroid capable of building strength without mass) and EPO, well then you've got today's Pro Tour athlete.
Wolf, Bro, you guys are arguing the same point ref. drug use. It's not that they weren't using back in the 80s and 90s, or that the compounds weren't effective, it's just that now they taking everything they can think of including legal supplements. And, they're monitoring their blood and keeping them right on the edge of detection and the whatever short-term health perils they might face.
I am not arguing that EPO is not highly effective. My argument is that a rider who used PED's of any form back in the day was cheating, just like today.Bro Deal said:
Speaking of GT winners, I cannot think of any rider[yellow jersey] who probably was clean. Lemond says he was....... but no one in the peleton has ever said anything to back him up....... But let's look at the list of highly suspected riders........
2006 Floyd Landis, USA Poster boy
2005 Lance Armstrong, USA Clean? Right.....
2004 Lance Armstrong, USA
2003 Lance Armstrong, USA
2002 Lance Armstrong, USA
2001 Lance Armstrong, USA
2000 Lance Armstrong, USA
1999 Lance Armstrong, USA
1998 Marco Pantani, ITA Clean?
1997 Jan Ullrich, GER Clean?
1996 Bjarne Riis, DEN Mr 60%
1995 Miguel Indurain, ESP Lemond says he was a doper......
1994 Miguel Indurain, ESP
1993 Miguel Indurain, ESP
1992 Miguel Indurain, ESP
1991 Miguel Indurain, ESP
1990 Greg Lemond, USA He was superman.... he didn't dope,
but he manhandled all the dopers. Oh yeah, he rode with
several convicted dopers, and as whiney as Greg is, I'm sure he
would have whined about that unless.............. Wait , he did whine
about the dopers of the future, never about the ones "HE " rode with.
And his miracle recovery just in time to win the TDF was "iron shots."
1989 Greg Lemond, USA
1988 Pedro Delgado, ESP Just masking agents.......
1987 Stephen Roche, IRE I would like to think he was clean,
but I though Sean K was until Lim pinted it out to me. And to beat
the doped up Ti-Raleigh boys at all the major races?
1986 Greg Lemond, USA
1985 Bernard Hinault, FRA Suffered from the "dopers injury."
1984 Laurent Fignon, FRA Convicted
1983 Laurent Fignon, FRA
1982 Bernard Hinault, FRA
1981 Bernard Hinault, FRA
1980 Joop Zoetemelk, HOL Convicted
This list would make up a "Who's who" of top ranked riders who are clean.
Just ask them.
It was the Delgado incident that made the news that started the talk about doping.
By the time the Festina affair hit, doping was old news.
In order to win a GT at any time, I think doping would have been required.
I think everyone enjoyed the sport anyway knowing the doping was going on.......
They still had to suffer up the Alps,they still had to attack .......
They could just do it with a little more juice.......
And to the guys who race that want to identify with a pro rider......... Quit your job,
ride 6 hours a day, get a world class coach, and have equipment tossed your way.Have
the right parents for genetic reasons too...
And get on a reliable doping schedule.wolfix said:
A friend of mine, who has hinted to me that he's doping, riding for a team here in N. America with a reputation as being doped was riding at a high Cat. 2 level three years ago. He's 41 now and he's winning pro 1-2 races easily and competing against N. American pros.
There are very few professional athletes who won't dope. It's just that, they want it that bad.
Additionally, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Hamilton was doping his ass off during his suspension. Steroids, HGH, IGF-1 and testosterone. Why wouldn't he? It's not like they were testing him anymore. And those compounds produce long-term results that don't go away. Plus they are available on the internet. Floyd will do the same.
wolfix said:
I'm not aware of a single rider that's accused Lemond of doping (except, apparently Armstrong). And I think that at the time he took iron shots, his hematocrit was in the upper '20s-low '30s? (How dare he take an iron supplement!) I don't think Lemond is a whiner, I think he has had a lot of legitimate gripes, from getting screwed over by his French teammates (Hinault in particular), and getting screwed over by the cycling media for having the audacity to question the Armstrong/Nike/Bristol-Myers miracle story.
When Lemond was training for the '91 Tour, he said he was in better shape (based on his own measure, not against other riders) than he was in '90. But he was off the back come race time. He wasn't "manhandling" the dopers, he was watching the EPO-laden pack ride away from him.
Lemond wasn't on EPO, but he was on everything available at the time. Had he stuck around longer, he would have made an EPO connection.kennf said:
Plus, how can you think (not being personal here) that Armstrong doped but Lemond didn't. They're both champions and champions dope. Champions don't beat doped athletes clean. They're doped.
Some stuff : calculated power on the last mountain passe of a long stage.
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2433
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2523
alleged weight for every rider + bike : 78kg !
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2433
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2523
Greg manhandled the dopers from the beginning of his career..... The fact he was winning races when we know there were great riders who did dope....... The Peter Post boys were known to digest a few times, and they were very difficult to beat. But Greg beat them...kennf said:
In the end...... the riders were shooting by him because he had medical problems that led to his retirement.
The part I have a hard time with is this........ When you read his bio, it will lead you to believe he won everything in America everytime he raced. He didn't. I witnessed times when others such as Greg Allison [Demegan} Jeff Bradley and a few others won too. He went to Europe and he became very fast......
I was at a few races where Greg was whining before he was old enough to mis-pronounce Hinaults name. And yes, he did have a hard time in Europe. He did get screwed a few times. He was a great rider. And he will tell you exactly why he didn't win 5 or more TDF's if you want to listen......
Big fan of Greg as a rider.
Why would the riders from back then point at Greg and say he was a doper????
But I could care less if he did....... or any of them for that matter. The point I was trying to make was dope seemed to have it's head pretty deep into GT winners pockets........
I don't know if Lemond doped or not, and I doubt anyone knows except for Lemond. That said, I think it is possible that Lemond didn't dope. Prior to EPO, I don't think a GT champion had to dope, although I'm sure many of them did. Why do I think it was possible Greg didn't dope (or didn't have to)?helmutRoole2 said:
1. He was a superstar from the beginning. As a junior he was riding at a pro level. He clearly had the right combination of talent and genetics.
2. Prior to EPO and GH, the primary doping drugs were amphetamines and steroids. Amphetamines may be great for a one day race or if you're only interested in a single stage of a GT, but for the guy who has to perform every day, they can be a disaster. That effort you produced the day before because of speed, you will be certain to feel the next day. There's no way around it. When you stress your muscles at that level you will pay the price and need time to recover. The exception to this may be the rider who's "addicted" to speed and needs it just to ride at his norm. If he doesn't take it, he'll ride like ****. I also don't think Greg used steroids. Why? Look at his body habitus and compare it to a current tour rider. Lemond always had the look of a guy with a little "baby fat" compared to today's riders' chiseled appearance. Steroids do a lot of things, but one thing they do the best is allow you to maintain muscle mass while you lose body fat. Look at a lot of older tour riders and you'll find the same thing. Compare a picture of Stephen Roche, Lemond, or even Merckx to a current tour champion. It isn't "better nutrition" that makes people look that much different.
3. His precipitous decline in the early 90's makes me think he was never introduced to EPO while wheel suckers suddenly started winning. Dopers dope, that's what they do. If a better substance comes along, they're going to take it. There's no evidence Greg used EPO, and more evidence to suggest he didn't.
The doping we see now has completely changed cycling and that is what Lemond objects to. Prior to the early 90s it was possible for non-dopers to win. Not only have the drugs become much more powerful, but we now have "doctors" that provide constant monitoring and advice on the best methods. The Italian contingent revolutionized performance enhancement. It went from black magic to a skilled science.
