What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

[DV1976]

You can't be serious about these comments Micron. Yes there are racists, bigots and sexists in the USA but you are a fool if you think it is isolated to America. Show me a country that doesn't have racists, bigots, and sexists and I will tell you that country is located on the moon. In other words that country doesn't exist.
America tolerates? Again which country doesn't???? Ummm let me see...Virenque is a freakin' national hero in France, Pantani was/is idolized by the Italians. Shall I continue the list cause I can and it would be a LONG list and would probably be represented by athletes from every country. Does this mean all citizens of France and Italy feel this way? NO.
If you are going to make comments like this than Micron you are a pot calling the kettle black. Oh great, I used a colloquialism that has no racial connotation whatsoever, however because it has the word "black" in it and I am an American you are probably going to call me a racist.

This forum and topic is about cycling not each other's beliefs about the US/Europe. Keep it that way. If you haven't got any better arguments than this then just keep your mouth shut (and this goes to you Espada).
Now about what it would take me to believe that Lance is clean: It comes down to this: I have heard/read many people explaining in detail why it is not possible to win a Grand Tour WITHOUT dope. And it sounds pretty convincing. On the other hand, I have never ever heard of someone explaining how it is possible to win without dope. And I mean specifics, nutrition, recovery, supplementation and how these work. With scientific evidence to back them. The closest I've come is in reading Armostrong's book a paragraph about their wizard-masseur and his ointements... Nothing else.
With the exception of the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards I have never heard of a champion that was not connected to doping. Hell, most of them were even caught. Why should Lance be any exception in a sport that is probably the most demanding that there exists.
It is proven that the professional peloton (most of it) is doped to the gills. How come then and Lance destroys them every year? I could believe it if he was the most physically gifted (high crit, VO2 max) but he is not. Evidently there are quite a few cyclists that are more talented in that respect. Yet, Lance beats them year in year out. Why? Is it the iron will of a cancer survivor? Sorry but we entering the realm of paranormal now and I don't buy it. Not for 6 years in a row.
There are many more reasons. All of them have been outlined earlier, mainly by Flyer.
It is not that I don't want to believe the guy. Hell, I started cycling because of him (I come from a country with no tradition in cycling whatsoever), the first books I bought were his and I really wish I could buy into his story. But I just can't...

 

[rule62]

Dozens of random tests with negative results. Oh wait, he has already done that. Never mind.

 

[Virenque]

It depends what kind of test! Blood tests are very new and done very rarely while urine tests can`t show a lot! I really don`t understand riders who were positive for EPO before or at the race..

 

[micron]

has Armstrong competed since the test for homologous blood doping started to be used?

By my count, if he was tested 22 times last year, then 12 of them were at the Tour de France alone - and if you know you're going to be tested it's far easier to evade the testing procedure. My point is, these are not 22 tests taken at random, but the bulk were taken over a concentrated period.

 

[birdman23]

Oh I've got plenty of better arguments althought I particularly liked my snippet about the colloquialism. Anyway, when someone makes an ignorant and overly generalized comment I take action. If you haven't noticed DV this forum has a lot of opinions on many diverse topics. Don't get your panties all up in a bunch because someone speaks their mind.

This forum and topic is about cycling not each other's beliefs about the US/Europe. Keep it that way. If you haven't got any better arguments than this then just keep your mouth shut (and this goes to you Espada).
Now about what it would take me to believe that Lance is clean: It comes down to this: I have heard/read many people explaining in detail why it is not possible to win a Grand Tour WITHOUT dope. And it sounds pretty convincing. On the other hand, I have never ever heard of someone explaining how it is possible to win without dope. And I mean specifics, nutrition, recovery, supplementation and how these work. With scientific evidence to back them. The closest I've come is in reading Armostrong's book a paragraph about their wizard-masseur and his ointements... Nothing else.
With the exception of the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards I have never heard of a champion that was not connected to doping. Hell, most of them were even caught. Why should Lance be any exception in a sport that is probably the most demanding that there exists.
It is proven that the professional peloton (most of it) is doped to the gills. How come then and Lance destroys them every year? I could believe it if he was the most physically gifted (high crit, VO2 max) but he is not. Evidently there are quite a few cyclists that are more talented in that respect. Yet, Lance beats them year in year out. Why? Is it the iron will of a cancer survivor? Sorry but we entering the realm of paranormal now and I don't buy it. Not for 6 years in a row.
There are many more reasons. All of them have been outlined earlier, mainly by Flyer.
It is not that I don't want to believe the guy. Hell, I started cycling because of him (I come from a country with no tradition in cycling whatsoever), the first books I bought were his and I really wish I could buy into his story. But I just can't...

 

[DV1976]

Oh I've got plenty of better arguments althought I particularly liked my snippet about the colloquialism. Anyway, when someone makes an ignorant and overly generalized comment I take action. If you haven't noticed DV this forum has a lot of opinions on many diverse topics. Don't get your panties all up in a bunch because someone speaks their mind.

1) We don't know each other so I could do without your snippets... Sorry if this sounds rude I don't mean to be but what may be a funny remark to you may be a sarcastic one to me... So to avoid misunderstandings...
2) Micron was not the first to make "an ignorant and overly generalized comment" but you chose not to notice that...
3) Let's stick to cycling. This is not a place for politics or each other's views about Europe/USA.

 

[birdman23]

You are correct, you don't know me. So keep your mouth shut before you tell me to keep my mouth shut. If my remark sounded sarcastic to you then I applaud your intelligence and my writing skills because sarcasm is exactly what I was trying to convey. You have chosen not to notice my other posts on this forum as well. I will call out anyone who makes ignorant, generalized comments. If you haven't figured it out I was trying to keep the post to cycling by shutting up the ignorant comments. Take a look at the thread and see if Micron rebuttled? He didn't because I was right and he probably recognized it and was gentleman enough to retract.

1) We don't know each other so I could do without your snippets... Sorry if this sounds rude I don't mean to be but what may be a funny remark to you may be a sarcastic one to me... So to avoid misunderstandings...
2) Micron was not the first to make "an ignorant and overly generalized comment" but you chose not to notice that...
3) Let's stick to cycling. This is not a place for politics or each other's views about Europe/USA.

 

[Flyer]

Hey Flyer that was a response to the posts about LA not categorically denying doping and the one asking how many times he actually is tested in a year. I find your arguement a little puzzling though. Most people who argue that LA is doped point to his so called mediocre palmeres before cancer and how he dominated after cancer as the basis for their conjecture. You seem to claim that he has doped all along from day one. If so then how do you explain the difference pre to post cancer, or do you think his comeback is not out of the norm or unusual. Its kind of an either or thing; either he doped all along and something else must explain his miraculous comeback or he only doped after he faded during his initial comeback in 98'. Maybe you and Lim could argue this point as you seem to have contradicting arguements.

Get it straight.

The doping has been persistent throughout the 15 years.

1) The dosage, frequency and type of dope is modified and/or increased as the organism adapts to the old drug levels or types.

2) Chemo, radiation & surgery have a catabolic adverse effect. In this case, the 1997 was a miracle because a) he survived and b) his altered state when from a one-day rider, to a lighter version for climbing.

He developed the TTing by focusing on that disciple for grand touring. It was not a priority pre-cancer.

What is does prove is: Drugs can work--although NOT in every case. 1 out of 3. Lance recovered, but Greg & Erich did NOT. So it is a 33% success story.

No contradiction whatsoever with Lim or my position.

Not sure what your's is?

 

[Shreklookalike]

. . .
It is proven that the professional peloton (most of it) is doped to the gills. How come then and Lance destroys them every year? I could believe it if he was the most physically gifted (high crit, VO2 max) but he is not. Evidently there are quite a few cyclists that are more talented in that respect. Yet, Lance beats them year in year out. Why? Is it the iron will of a cancer survivor? Sorry but we entering the realm of paranormal now and I don't buy it. Not for 6 years in a row.
There are many more reasons. All of them have been outlined earlier, mainly by Flyer. . . .

Lance doesn't destroy the rest of the peloton throughout the entire season. For six years his training has been designed solely around peaking to win the TdF, and from what I understand it's only during the TdF that he's been dominant.

Most Americans don't know Jack about pro cycling. Before joining this forum I couldn't have named ANY other cycling race besides the TdF. So doesn't it makes sense that a cycling team with primarily American sponsorship would concentrate it's efforts on the one cycling race that Americans might pay some attention to?

 

[Flyer]

Lance doesn't destroy the rest of the peloton throughout the entire season. For six years his training has been designed solely around peaking to win the TdF, and from what I understand it's only during the TdF that he's been dominant.

Most Americans don't know Jack about pro cycling. Before joining this forum I couldn't have named ANY other cycling race besides the TdF. So doesn't it makes sense that a cycling team with primarily American sponsorship would concentrate it's efforts on the one cycling race that Americans might pay some attention to?

Yes, this is all true. (it's not the whole story--but is does factor in)

Pre-cancer Team Motorola needed to split its time between a Euro & USA schedule for best exposure for a North American sponsor.

This has been a Thom Weisel Tailwinds production since 1991, Sunbaru/Montgomery.

Thom has always shared the costs with others.

It's not about sports, it about winning.

 

[GIFF07]

I beleive that the reason why Lance is able to win the TDF year after year is due to:
1) His team of hand picked riders. That is built around him and his winning of the TDF.

2) His ability to preview each important stage and design a strategy on when and where to attack.

3) His teams scouting of other teams and riders.

4) His director sportif Johan Brunel (sp.) that budgets the team resources allowing Lance to do all of these things and putting the priority of the team on winning the TDF.


As far as if Lance is on dope or not:

I feel that he is innocent until proven guilty, but I do have my doubts.

 

[DV1976]

You are correct, you don't know me. So keep your mouth shut before you tell me to keep my mouth shut. If my remark sounded sarcastic to you then I applaud your intelligence and my writing skills because sarcasm is exactly what I was trying to convey. You have chosen not to notice my other posts on this forum as well. I will call out anyone who makes ignorant, generalized comments. If you haven't figured it out I was trying to keep the post to cycling by shutting up the ignorant comments. Take a look at the thread and see if Micron rebuttled? He didn't because I was right and he probably recognized it and was gentleman enough to retract.

I did not tell you to keep your mouth shut. I was not referring (and I made it clear) to you so what's your ****ing problem? If you want it to pursue this any further send pm. Lets not screw the topic...

 

[birdman23]

My post was in your reply, the one where you said "shut your mouth" and no you did NOT make it clear as to whom you were speaking.

I have no problem but apparently you do when you are rebuked a little. No I do not want to waste my time PM'ing you about this. You need to chill out because you will soon see that this entire forum is full of opinions and every thread gets off topic.
I repeat I was trying to bring the thread back to topic by stopping the anti-american statements. READ other threads on this forum and you will see that someone makes some derogatory comment about another country and then the whole thread goes right down the drain as people try to defend their country.

Any other long-timer on the forums want to back me up on this.

So as far as I am concerned DV this is over and you can get back to the purity of this thread.

I did not tell you to keep your mouth shut. I was not referring (and I made it clear) to you so what's your ****ing problem? If you want it to pursue this any further send pm. Lets not screw the topic...

 

[DV1976]

birdman23 here is my quote. I believe that is clear that I was not referring to you (btw sorry Espada it was a bit strong).

This forum and topic is about cycling not each other's beliefs about the US/Europe. Keep it that way. If you haven't got any better arguments than this then just keep your mouth shut (and this goes to you Espada).

Happy?
No hard feelings I hope.

 

[birdman23]

My mistake. I thought you were directing it at me because my post was in your thread. No hard feelings.

In response to the thread title:

He admits it or is caught cheating. Other than that he remains innocent in my book. "Caught or Confession"

birdman23 here is my quote. I believe that is clear that I was not referring to you (btw sorry Espada it was a bit strong).

Happy?
No hard feelings I hope.