What would it take to convince you Armstrong is clean?

[antoineg]

I agree that if a rider knows something about another team or rider as regards doping, it should be reported, but not openly and to the general public. That would do more harm than good.

Do more harm than good to whom? To the young kids who are pressured to use EPO because there's this huge silent culture of doping, and who risk dying in their sleep?

Do more harm than good to the cottage industry of pharmacists, doctors, trainers, coaches, teams, and federations who support and benefit from the doping culture?

Do more harm than good to the clean cyclists who choose to compete without doping?

I normally find your posts well-reasoned, even if I don't agree, but I have to say that you are part of the problem.

 

[cleff]

Do more harm than good to whom? To the young kids who are pressured to use EPO because there's this huge silent culture of doping, and who risk dying in their sleep?

Do more harm than good to the cottage industry of pharmacists, doctors, trainers, coaches, teams, and federations who support and benefit from the doping culture?

Do more harm than good to the clean cyclists who choose to compete without doping?

I normally find your posts well-reasoned, even if I don't agree, but I have to say that you are part of the problem.

Well, if the allegation turns out to be true, then news of it will definitely come out. Publicly announcing things like this would be like if I saw someone steal something, and then instead of notifying the authorities, I just gossip about it, telling everyone who I think did it. What if it was dark, and I didn't see the face right, or what if it wasn't actually theft, but my misunderstanding? It's no one's business to go around defaming people like that. If they have a problem, they should take it up with the governing body that regulates whatever rules or laws they think have been broken.

 

[limerickman]

But of course. There could not possibly be truth in any this, and it explains nothing. It is all just a thinly disguised fabrication that involves the cooperation of numerous unrelated parties, and was conjured solely for the purpose of covering up what must be a huge doping scandal. It's all propaganda, all lies.

Meanwhile, everything Limerickman has posted is just the purest, most honest, unbiased truth. Just listen to Limerickman and you'll learn why everyone hates LA and why you should too. You'll never see Limerickman post any good news about LA, simply because there isn't any. In fact, anything you may read that appears to be supportive of LA is only propaganda and lies. Furthermore, if you read such things more carefully (using Limerickman's techniques), you will really see that they in fact criticize and expose LA for the loser he really is, and rightfully so.

Now pardon me, but I have to go...just got a phone call from Santa Claus.

By posting Carmichaels revisionist urban myth - you the one that is spreading propoganda.
All of Carmichaels bilge about VOmax, heart size etc - all applied in 1992-1996, as it dies to 1999-2004.
Yet our friend was unable to win a stage race apart from the Tour du Pont.

Also another urban myth that was posted earlier was that LA was No1 rated
cyclist in the world in 1996 - once again, this is only partially true.
He was No1 for ONE MONTH IN MAY 1996 ONLY.
Laurent Jalabert was the No 1 cyclist in 1996.
When I read this lie about him being No 1 in 1996, I recalled a book that I have by the International Herald cycling journalist Sam Abt.
Abt is a respected (American) cycling journalist.

In this book, Abt followed the peloton for the year 1996.
Page 45 of the book is worth reading.
Armstrong "Jalabert is some cyclist - I prepared really well over the winter.
I targetted Paris-Nice as a race to win and I clocked up serious mileage in training.
I was speaking with Tony (Rominger) and he and Jalabert were on the Toshiba
team in 1989/1990.
Tony says that Jalabert is a great talent.
I prepared specifically for Paris-Nice but Jalabert just blew me away"

Move to the Tour du Pont - Abt states "the Tour Du Pont while not being
on the same level as a European stage race such as Paris-Nice, it is growing in popularity and is helped by the presence of Tony Rominger who at 35
is coming toward the end of his career"
Rominger "our team were asked to participate and I am delighted to be here,
my wife can go shopping while I compete" (sounds really competitive doesn't, it ?).
Rominger "this trip to America is relly interesting, I like visiting new places and
learning about a new culture" (is he more interested in a holiday or racing ?)
Robbie McEwen Rabobank "we're here to compete - although this race isn't at
the same standard as in Europe, hopefully in a few years it might be stronger"

Moving on through the book - Motorola Armstrongs team announce that they
will not be renewing their contract to stay in the sport in August 1996.
Armstrong "well we knew that Motorola were undecided and that is why I was
anxious to get results so that I will be able to get another cycling contract.
Fabio's (Casartelli) death makes me realise that life goes by. I would be lying if I said I get up each morning and that I am thinking about Fabio but when Motorola hadn't made up their mind to commit to this team and coupled with
Fabio's death, I had a lot on my mind in winter (1995).
I trained hard - very hard - no days off, spending hours on the bike in order to get results, so as to make myself marketable, if the worst came to the worst.
I respect Jim Ochowicz and I have told him that I want to stay part of this team and I will try to delay moving to another team for as long as possible.
I have made tentative enquiries - my people contacted Banesto (Indurains
team at the time) but they're not interested at all.
I've spoken with some others - Festina wanted an answer before the end of July but I wasn't prepared to commit and let Jim down in case he got a new
sponsor.
Festina then faxed me to say that they were no interested - shows how much they were interested, don't it ?
Cofidis have been very enthuasiastic and if it comes down to it, I will sign with them but I want to see can we get a sponsor to keep this team together.
I will delay signing until I know that Jim hasn't got any sponsor"

Abt's book is a contemporaneous record of 1996 :
Abt records Armstrongs thoughts, the strength of races during the season,
riders impressions of races.

Ted B quotes a retrospective statement of revisionism by Carmichael.
As with Armstrong's two books and Carmichael's statements, I think that
figures and statements have been made to create a perception post 1998,
which is contradicted statistically (1992-1996) and by Samual Abt and by
Cycling Sport and other contemporaneous accounts, as well as actual live
video footage from Eurosport 1992-1996 of LA just not being able to
cycle like he does 1999-2004.

If we are to take Carmichaels statement about LA as being truthful - why
didn't all those natural gifts propel LA to win stages races ?
How come these gifts only secured LA a rating of No 1 in the world for one month ?
If these natural gifts were so apparent how come Lance Armstrong wasn't bought immediately by other teams knowing that this great engine was going
to be on the market ?
How come LA finished 1hour 26secs behind Miguel Indurain in the 1995 TDF
if he had these great gifts as Carmichaels purports ?

 

[meehs]

Yeah, any one of my reasons when looked at on its own can be criticised and I accept that.

But when looked at as a whole (as most thinking people would) you see the big picture.

The increase in PCV's you mentioned are correct, but, however you do it, the UCI will ban you if it is too high because of the danger to your heart.

Whatever method that is used to increase PCV, it seems a bit dodgy (I read it somewhere, can't remember and you can criticise me for it) that there are so many pro cyclist hovering just below the limit.

Obviously, when you look at the evidence you can go either way, but in the wake of the denial of and subsequent busting of so many cyclists over the years there is a high level of suspicion when you take everything into account.

And, no, I'm not just suspicious of Armstrong. But he's the one profiting mostly from it.

WHAT??? The poster shot holes in each of your flimsy arguments but you're saying that if a "thinking" person looks at them as a whole we'll see the big picture??? Yeah, the big picture is that your case doesn't hold water. Not a drop!

What amazes me is that there are so many "thinking" people on this forum that are conviced beyond a doubt that Armstrong is a doper based on what adds-up to nothing more than speculation, rumor, accusation and inuendo. It's unbelievabel to me! The man is guilty until proven innocent in your eyes.

 

[grattorney]

If we are to take Carmichaels statement about LA as being truthful - why
didn't all those natural gifts propel LA to win stages races ?
How come these gifts only secured LA a rating of No 1 in the world for one month ?
If these natural gifts were so apparent how come Lance Armstrong wasn't bought immediately by other teams knowing that this great engine was going
to be on the market ?
How come LA finished 1hour 26secs behind Miguel Indurain in the 1995 TDF
if he had these great gifts as Carmichaels purports ?

Limerickman,

You obviously have strong feelings on this subject and I do not pretend to believe that I (or anybody else for that matter) will change your opinion. However, I post only to point out something for you to ponder, as it may help you crystalize your thinking.

As far as I can tell, your primary argument (but not your only argument) as to why LA is doping is that his record pre-cancer does not justify his record post-cancer. These are the statistics to which you often refer. In plying your argument in this regard, you necessarily discount or fail to factor in the affect cancer had on LA. Fighting a deadly disease and, in the process, facing death, can tend to make one more motivated once successful.

And that, rather than drugs, is the quality that separates LA pre-cancer and LA post-cancer. You stop at the assumption that his physical attributes are the same pre and post-cancer and, as such, his success must be attributable to doping. However, what can clearly be different (and what can easily account for his success post-cancer) beyond the physical is that he is a much more passionate, highly-motivated individual.

There is a clear example of what motivation can do for somebody. I think all agree that Ulrich has great physical abilities. Yet he has placed second five times and missed the podium this year. Why? I think the general concensus is that Ulrich lacks the discipline to push himself from a great rider to a repeat TDF winner. What Ulrich lacks, LA has in spades. A insatiable passion and motivation forged by cancer.

The body is a vessel, and the fact that LA's body was the same pre and post cancer proves nothing. What fills the body is the spirit, and LA's spirit is clearly different. That is a non-doping alternative that can explain the difference between his pre and post-cancer records and is something you might want to factor in to your thoughts.

Thanks for being challenging and making everybody think harder. Don't let anybody give you any shine about your opinions. You have a right to them.

 

[Ted B]

Ted B quotes a retrospective statement of revisionism by Carmichael.

Ah yes, a mere journalist such as Abt knows far more about the inner workings of Armstrong than the coach who has stuck by him for many years. But in your convoluted world, anything that supports LA is all lies, and anything that even could remotely be construed or twisted into something that appears even remotely contrary is almost certainly of the highest credibility.

The only thing I see proven here is the fact that you've already chosen to believe LA is a fraud and even God himself could not convince you otherwise.

 

[limerickman]

Limerickman,

You obviously have strong feelings on this subject and I do not pretend to believe that I (or anybody else for that matter) will change your opinion. However, I post only to point out something for you to ponder, as it may help you crystalize your thinking.

As far as I can tell, your primary argument (but not your only argument) as to why LA is doping is that his record pre-cancer does not justify his record post-cancer. These are the statistics to which you often refer. In plying your argument in this regard, you necessarily discount or fail to factor in the affect cancer had on LA. Fighting a deadly disease and, in the process, facing death, can tend to make one more motivated once successful.

And that, rather than drugs, is the quality that separates LA pre-cancer and LA post-cancer. You stop at the assumption that his physical attributes are the same pre and post-cancer and, as such, his success must be attributable to doping. However, what can clearly be different (and what can easily account for his success post-cancer) beyond the physical is that he is a much more passionate, highly-motivated individual.

There is a clear example of what motivation can do for somebody. I think all agree that Ulrich has great physical abilities. Yet he has placed second five times and missed the podium this year. Why? I think the general concensus is that Ulrich lacks the discipline to push himself from a great rider to a repeat TDF winner. What Ulrich lacks, LA has in spades. A insatiable passion and motivation forged by cancer.

The body is a vessel, and the fact that LA's body was the same pre and post cancer proves nothing. What fills the body is the spirit, and LA's spirit is clearly different. That is a non-doping alternative that can explain the difference between his pre and post-cancer records and is something you might want to factor in to your thoughts.

Thanks for being challenging and making everybody think harder. Don't let anybody give you any shine about your opinions. You have a right to them.

I don't discount anything that you have said here - LA's will is iron clad.
I have absolutely no doubt that he pours every last drop of sweat in to preparing himself mentally and physically.
His books say as much - I think he says that no matter how hard a stage is,
it is NOTHING compared to throwing up for three days, then having two days off, then throwing up for the next three days.
And yes facing death does simplify ones outlook if one is lucky enough to get a second chance.

But that will was there before his got that terrible disease.
That determination was there before he got that disease - maybe cancer
crystallised it but those "spiritual" "personal fighting" qualities were there.
His contemporaneous statements between 1992-1996 all show a guy training very hard, killing himself trying to stay with Jalabert in Paris-Nice in 1996
in Samual Abt's book for example.
Or the Cycle Sport article in 1995, where LA states that he trains like he's never trained before.
Or David Walsh's book "Inside the TDF" in 1993 where he says that even though traithletes are tough people - "cycling is on a much higher, harder"
level.

Maybe you are right - maybe cancer and his will transformed him.
For me, the contemporaneous words - recorded by people with no agenda - carry more weight than Armstrong or Carmichaels views.
I could be wrong - but based on what I have read, I believe that I am right.

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

I usually just read but I feel compelled to post here.
Did Michael Jordan get this much **** about doping?
What about Wayne Gretzky?
Every once in a while an athlete totally dominates his sport. He/she is usually admired becuase his/her actions are viewed as advancing the sport, raising the bar etc. I just don't understand why so many ppl don't see Armstrong like that. Why the hate, the need to find something other than skill and hard work as the cause of his greatness.
If they get LA's **** and blood right after a race, in front of everyone and analyze it right then and there, the Lacne is a doper crowd would remain unconvinced.

we cant compare amstrongs cases with nobodys else, because he suddenly turned into God after his sickness when he had done nothing before it ( world championship doesnt make a tour winner of you )

 

[grattorney]

we cant compare amstrongs cases with nobodys else, because he suddenly turned into God after his sickness when he had done nothing before it ( world championship doesnt make a tour winner of you )

Exactly. The other "great" athletes did not have to endure what LA did. His outlook and attitude post cancer can be what propelled him - rapidly - to the level where he is.

As long as we are making our entire case simply on circumstantial evidence, consider this: LA has done all of the things you would not do if you were trying to perpetrate a successful fraud.

You would not show incredible improvement, as that would only arouse suspicion. You would win more gradually and build your winning resume slowly to make it look natural. You would want to avoid being the target of attention.

When you do achieve your goal and reach the zenith of your sport, you would lose every now and then to make it look more real. You would not continually pound everybody into the ground. To do so would only invite more attention, more accusations, and more testing.

You would certainly not defend those accused of doping or accused of assisting those who do. You would remain as quiet as possible and would only speak on such an issue when absolutely necessary. You would stay away from all lawsuits.

You would not draw attention to yourself by chasing down and publicly humiliating one of your accusors, as that would only draw more attention to yourself and give your critics fodder for their assertions that you are doping and were simply acting that way to quiet those who might expose you.

Of course, if you were clean, you would be free to do all of those things . . .

 

[antoineg]

Exactly. The other "great" athletes did not have to endure what LA did. His outlook and attitude post cancer can be what propelled him - rapidly - to the level where he is.

As long as we are making our entire case simply on circumstantial evidence, consider this: LA has done all of the things you would not do if you were trying to perpetrate a successful fraud.

You would not show incredible improvement, as that would only arouse suspicion. You would win more gradually and build your winning resume slowly to make it look natural. You would want to avoid being the target of attention.

When you do achieve your goal and reach the zenith of your sport, you would lose every now and then to make it look more real. You would not continually pound everybody into the ground. To do so would only invite more attention, more accusations, and more testing.

You would certainly not defend those accused of doping or accused of assisting those who do. You would remain as quiet as possible and would only speak on such an issue when absolutely necessary. You would stay away from all lawsuits.

You would not draw attention to yourself by chasing down and publicly humiliating one of your accusors, as that would only draw more attention to yourself and give your critics fodder for their assertions that you are doping and were simply acting that way to quiet those who might expose you.

Of course, if you were clean, you would be free to do all of those things . . .

This is quite possibly the worst abuse of logic that has ever been perpetrated on this board.

 

[davidbod]

we cant compare amstrongs cases with nobodys else, because he suddenly turned into God after his sickness when he had done nothing before it ( world championship doesnt make a tour winner of you )

He wasn't just world champion, he was the youngest cyclist to be crowned world champion in history. There is a difference. Do any of you consider what might have come of his career had he not had cancer. He would be more like Ullrich, major talent but not motivated to make the most of it.

 

[grattorney]

This is quite possibly the worst abuse of logic that has ever been perpetrated on this board.

Really? Interesting. Here is my logic, spelled out for you.

Premise A: LA needs to dope to win the TDF.
Premise B: LA does not want to get caught doping.

Assuming both A and B, how would LA act in order to achieve both? My experience is that people perpetrating frauds do not like to draw attention to themselves. You want to be successful but forgettable. You want to be under radar. You want to be believeable, not unbelievable.

LA has been both very successful (to the point of unbelieveability) and rather loud about it. Those are not the actions of someone who has something to hide.

And, in any event, you are correct. My logic may be absurd. But the point of my post was that when you are dealing only in circumstantial evidence, logic takes a back seat to conjecture and you find yourself seeing things that just are not there.

 

[RedSky]

He wasn't just world champion, he was the youngest cyclist to be crowned world champion in history. There is a difference. Do any of you consider what might have come of his career had he not had cancer. He would be more like Ullrich, major talent but not motivated to make the most of it.

If LA had not gotten cancer, he would have spent the three years before his first TdF win gaining more and more palmares, much like Indurain. It wouldn't seem like such a drastic improvement.

Remember, Indurain was not really doing much until 1998, three years before his first TdF win. Lance spent the three years before his first TdF win being diagnosed with and recovering from cancer.

 

[Dermo]

Let's not loose sight of the most important fact here.

Nobody gives a flying **** about Limerickman's views. They are unsubstantiated and not a little disingenuous.

If you are right Limerickman I will hold up my hands, but until then why dont you just shut up with all the unsubtantiated allegations and spoilers.

 

[i2ambler]

If LA had not gotten cancer, he would have spent the three years before his first TdF win gaining more and more palmares, much like Indurain. It wouldn't seem like such a drastic improvement.

Remember, Indurain was not really doing much until 1998, three years before his first TdF win. Lance spent the three years before his first TdF win being diagnosed with and recovering from cancer.

As much as I am impressed by Lance Armstrong's ability to come back from cancer and win the tour 6 times in a row : He really doesnt seem to compete in anything else. He specifically trains for the Tour de France.

I do not think his 6 wins overshadow Indurain's great career of winning multiple stage races a year. I tire of people saying that Lance is the greatest cyclist ever, blah blah etc.. He is the greatest Tour de France winner - yes. However, he far outclassed by indurain, mercx, etc al.

As far as doping - I dont think he has been doping since he got off chemo. Cancer has greatly increased his threshold for pain.. He trains specifically for the tour, and wins it.

 

[wheresullrich?]

What's religion got to do with this? If you wanna talk about the "miracles" of religion, then bring it on. We can start with how many people Pope Pius III and Pope Innocent V had slaughtered in the name of Christ, just for the kickoff. But that should take place in a more general forum.

However, this board is about cycling. To answer the title of this thread, I don't know? It's obvious the peloton has a long history with drug use. I suppose there will be a cloud hanging over the sport for sometime to come? THG wasn't known or detactable either, and most of us know how that whole thing has begun to unwind?

Now, from what records (lack of) that MLB has disclosed about their infant drug testing program, it would seem Barry Bonds is as clean as a slate. 99% of SF Giant fans believe it to be true. Just look at the guy, I'm pretty damn sure he's pumping something.

Someone can't remember who said there were no such things as miracles in sport

If this is true then what about

1. Bob champion and Aldanti winning the grand national in 1981 -Bob after having cancer and being given 8 months to live and Aldanti who was pretty much crippled
2. Steven Gerrard the footballer had an awful childhood but has gone on to great things.
3. John ameichi the basketball player for the knicks was bullied so badly at school it made his life hell, was fat and was told he would never make it as a basketball player but has done.
4. Lance Armstrong best cyclist in the world! lol thought ide add that one need i tell the story?!
5. For anyone who rides horses aswell as bikes Nick Skelton had a fall and told he could never ride again but is competing in the olympics and such this year.
6. Every paralympics athlete that there has ever been- whatever their story it's amazing that they can achieve their dreams of winning in their sport

Need i go on?
There are so many more
There are miracles in sport

 

[Dermo]

How come LA finished 1hour 26secs behind Miguel Indurain in the 1995 TDF if he had these great gifts as Carmichaels purports ?

How come Indurain finished 3 hours behind Roche in 1987 but won the first of his tours in 1991?

What a stupid argument you present.

 

[cleff]

he won a one day race - called the world road race title.

With respect one day races are a vastly different to stage races.

The analogy : Michael Johnson 400m champion Atlanta 1996.

Carmichael, Bryneel and the rest of the USPS apologists ask us to consider
Michael Johnson winning the 400m im 1996 and then coming back to Sydney in 2000 to win the marathon.

This is what we are being asked to accept, in a cycling context, with regard to Armstrong.
(1992-1996 Michael Johnson : 1999-2004 Haile Gabersalaisse).

Wasn't Indurain in that one day race too? He did pretty well in it too, right? So wouldn't that be like someone who wins the gold medal in the olympics for the marathon, and in the same year compete well in a 400m race. That would be impossible, right? So maybe your analogy doesn't work so well.

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

How come Indurain finished 3 hours behind Roche in 1987 but won the first of his tours in 1991?

What a stupid argument you present.

a handicapped would understand it better, but i am not going to write indurains progression in the tour of france, or any other riders and comparing it with lances

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

a handicapped would understand it better, but i am not going to write indurains progression in the tour of france, or any other riders and comparing it with lances

i am tired already of doing it, if limerickman wants to do it again??