Will Riis be next ??

[strummer_fan]

And on Lance ....

The extraordinary improvement from Riis since 1993 was linked to EPO, what about the other extraordinary improvement made by Lance ARMSTRONG ? Oh yes, he had lost weight, his big chess and had increased his pedaling rate !

I'd say that there is additional pressure on Landis as well. Not a good week to be the former TdF winner in a drugs case, when former Yellow Jersey and Green Jersey winners are all giving teary-eyed press conferences.

I'm happy to see the admissions. This is a beautiful sport, and I hope it survives the storm. It takes courage to admit that you cheated, even so many years after the fact. I want to see more people step forward and clear the air.

 

[DV1976]

If Ullrich admitted EPO use he would do far worse damage to Armstrong than he ever managed to do on the road...

 

[poulidor]

The future President of USA is in danger now ! or next Governor ?

 

[Bro Deal]

I'd say that there is additional pressure on Landis as well. Not a good week to be the former TdF winner in a drugs case, when former Yellow Jersey and Green Jersey winners are all giving teary-eyed press conferences.

Not going to happen. Landis has taken the Armstrong route: Deny until the day you die no matter how foolish you look.

 

[sopas]

If Ullrich admitted EPO use he would do far worse damage to Armstrong than he ever managed to do on the road...

Why?

 

[JRMDC]

Why?

Isn't it obvious? He rarely defeated A. on the road. But his admitting EPO use would make it even clearer than it is now that Armstrong must have been on EPO, if even the multi-second place guy was using it and couldn't beat him.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

Not going to happen. Landis has taken the Armstrong route: Deny until the day you die no matter how foolish you look.

Armstrong cannot admit doping because of insurance fraud issues. He just sued the insurance company that paid his bonus from one of his Tours. During the arbitration he testified, presumably under oath, that he didn't dope. If this turns out to be incorrect, he can go to jail for insurance fraud and for perjury. Floyd might not be able to admit it now either because he would have the same perjury concerns.

 

[alibat]

Pressure's on Jan.

The threat of prosecution is going to have to be lifted first surely. I know there was talk about the possibility of this happening but I've not heard any further news.

 

[kennf]

Isn't it obvious? He rarely defeated A. on the road. But his admitting EPO use would make it even clearer than it is now that Armstrong must have been on EPO, if even the multi-second place guy was using it and couldn't beat him.

It would also do away with the "never tested positive" line that we've heard from a lot of riders.

 

[sopas]

Isn't it obvious? He rarely defeated A. on the road. But his admitting EPO use would make it even clearer than it is now that Armstrong must have been on EPO, if even the multi-second place guy was using it and couldn't beat him.

Ok, I see your point. But both these riders passed all the EPO tests clean since year 2000 when EPO test became available.

Ulrich most likely was on EPO from 1996-1999 just like Riis, but not from 2000 onwards. Also have you noticed that 2000-2005 Ulrich was never the same as the 1996-1999 Ulrich? If Ulrich was doped in his later years it must have been with a drug other than EPO, otherwise it would have been detected.

As, for Lance the same. He passed all post-2000 controls. (His 1999 samples are suspicious though). So if Lance doped it must have been other way.

 

[JRMDC]

change my "admitting EPO use" to "admitting PED use"

And it isn't clear to me that EPO use was impossible in 2000+. Given what I know of this forum, I am SURE someone will chime in on the matter.

 

[DV1976]

Ok, I see your point. But both these riders passed all the EPO tests clean since year 2000 when EPO test became available. Ulrich most likely was on EPO from 1996-1999 just like Riis, but not from 2000 onwards. Also have you noticed that 2000-2005 Ulrich was never the same as the 1996-1999 Ulrich? If Ulrich was doped in his later years it must have been with a drug other than EPO, otherwise it would have been detected.

As, for Lance the same. He passed all post-2000 controls. (His 1999 samples are suspicious though). So if Lance doped it must have been other way.

So did Millar, Gaumont and probably the majority of the peloton. Do you seriously think that this is an argument anymore?
How many cyclists have been caught using the EPO test since 2000? I can think of Heras. Does this mean that only Heras used it? TEsts don't work! Period. Conte said as much the other day and if someone would know it'd be him.
And it's not just about EPO. If Ullrich ever admitted doping then I would like to have it explained to me by a certain Mr Armstrong how a 34year old managed to beat by a total of 11 minutes two self confessed dopers using Gatorade and OCLV carbon (no offense to Trek just trying to make a point) in 2005. And not just two dopers. One was the ET of cycling (as Simoni put it) and the other the uebertalent of European cycling. And how he did it year after year. And I'd bet I wouldn't be the only one asking the same questions... For me it's just a rhetorical question anyway.

 

[kennf]

Ok, I see your point. But both these riders passed all the EPO tests clean since year 2000 when EPO test became available.

Ulrich most likely was on EPO from 1996-1999 just like Riis, but not from 2000 onwards. Also have you noticed that 2000-2005 Ulrich was never the same as the 1996-1999 Ulrich? If Ulrich was doped in his later years it must have been with a drug other than EPO, otherwise it would have been detected.

As, for Lance the same. He passed all post-2000 controls. (His 1999 samples are suspicious though). So if Lance doped it must have been other way.

We already know Ulrich was doping with transfusions after 2000 through Dr. Feuntes. As for EPO after 2000, David Millar used EPO after 2000, never tested positive. Johan Museeuw used EPO after 2000, never tested positive. I'm sure there are other examples, but my point is, riders learned to use masking agents (such as Aranesp?) that defeated the EPO urine test.

(Edit: DV1976 beat me to this)

 

[doctorSpoc]

Ok, I see your point. But both these riders passed all the EPO tests clean since year 2000 when EPO test became available.

Ulrich most likely was on EPO from 1996-1999 just like Riis, but not from 2000 onwards. Also have you noticed that 2000-2005 Ulrich was never the same as the 1996-1999 Ulrich? If Ulrich was doped in his later years it must have been with a drug other than EPO, otherwise it would have been detected.

As, for Lance the same. He passed all post-2000 controls. (His 1999 samples are suspicious though). So if Lance doped it must have been other way.

WRONG!

Millar was using EPO when he won the world TT championships in 2003.. he admitted it, and took a 1 or 2 year ban.. and yet he never tested positive... it's called micro doses. the only thing that is limited now is hematocrit at is limited to 50% (this is why you see riders sucking down bladder popping amount of water at the end of races since they are riding the 50% bubble as closely as possible thanks to micro doses of EPO which don't get detected by the test) but in addition there are now agents that carry oxygen in the blood plasma that are completely undetectable. riders still maximize oxygen carrying in red blood cells with EPO micro dosing and then supplement with the perfluoro carbons etc, etc that allow the plasma to carry oxygen as well... nothing has changed since 2000 except the amount of EPO you can take (because of the 50% hematocrit limit) and the method which is now to take micro doses of it so as to not be detected... this is old news.

[Edit] and also from Puerto we see that transfusions have come back into fashion for the VERY cautious since with microdose method you still at some point need to take larger amounts of EPO and then just top it up with micro doses... still chance of and out of competition positive... transfusion there is no chance... unless your heamatologist is being watched by the spanish police that is [Edit]

Ullrich's results changed because he became less undisciplined and gained lots of weight... as a young rider he just followed orders and was hungrier to win.

 

[fscyclist]

Riis deserves a lot of credit. But you can't compare him to a current rider. They have their whole livelihood to think of. Riis just got the green light from his sponsors to talk about doping, guaranteeing their continued support.

If the same offer was made to Basso and others, we would be getting a lot more truth

I disagree. Riis has much to lose. Admitting you won the Tour while using PEDs will always stain his win. As I asked earlier, what TDF winner has taken such a bold step?

He's also the DS of the best team in cycling, and even though his sponsors may say something today, bad press can change corporations to change their mind rather quickly. However, if I were CSC, I would also back Riis because he's doing the right thing and it makes their team look better in the end. I still think TMob and CSC are winning the PR battle by standing up for something. Disco is hosed and I doubt they will find another good sponsor after the Basso debacle (which they deserve). As long as Brunyeel is at the helm, I can't imagine a large corp. getting behind that team.

 

[musette]

He's also the DS of the best team in cycling, ... Disco is hosed and I doubt they will find another good sponsor after the Basso debacle (which they deserve).

No, Riis is not the DS of the "best team in cycling". Obviously, that would be Bruyneel.

Anyhow, I agree that DC is not assisted in finding a new sponsor by all of this publicity on cyclists' doping, but then I also think it's not really because of the Basso situation alone. Clearly, Basso's Puerto doping occurred before he was on DC and in fact while Basso was the leader of a team that was a major rival of DC. So, I think it's the general emphasis on cyclists' doping in today's press that might be hurting DC, more than their having hired Basso at the time they did.

 

[earth_dweller]

No, Riis is not the DS of the "best team in cycling". Obviously, that would be Bruyneel.

Anyhow, I agree that DC is not assisted in finding a new sponsor by all of this publicity on cyclists' doping, but then I also think it's not really because of the Basso situation alone. Clearly, Basso's Puerto doping occurred before he was on DC and in fact while Basso was the leader of a team that was a major rival of DC. So, I think it's the general emphasis on cyclists' doping in today's press that might be hurting DC, more than their having hired Basso at the time they did.

You know, on a purely human factor, I do worry how Musette will survive once it finally comes out that Bruyneel doped while he was a rider, and the DC riders also doped (yep they are no better or no worse than the others).

Do you think she'll have to resort to ...gulp... drugs?

 

[poulidor]

No, Riis is not the DS of the "best team in cycling". Obviously, that would be Bruyneel.

Anyhow, I agree that DC is not assisted in finding a new sponsor by all of this publicity on cyclists' doping, but then I also think it's not really because of the Basso situation alone. Clearly, Basso's Puerto doping occurred before he was on DC and in fact while Basso was the leader of a team that was a major rival of DC. So, I think it's the general emphasis on cyclists' doping in today's press that might be hurting DC, more than their having hired Basso at the time they did.

Sure it's not only Basso, but it's the repeated lies from many years which have forced reporters, Justice, fans, ... to investigate more far the end of their noses. I stated many times that "we" are tired by all those liars which treat us as foul.

Along this saga, DC has taken big risks which coub be fatal for them.

 

[doctorSpoc]

No, Riis is not the DS of the "best team in cycling". Obviously, that would be Bruyneel.

Anyhow, I agree that DC is not assisted in finding a new sponsor by all of this publicity on cyclists' doping, but then I also think it's not really because of the Basso situation alone. Clearly, Basso's Puerto doping occurred before he was on DC and in fact while Basso was the leader of a team that was a major rival of DC. So, I think it's the general emphasis on cyclists' doping in today's press that might be hurting DC, more than their having hired Basso at the time they did.

since the existance of the proTour in 2005 CSC has been the #1 team in the ProTour and as of today is the #1 team in the proTour.. think that's a pretty good margin of the best team in cycling Disco has not been higher than 4th and today stand at 7th in the ProTour rankings

http://www.uciprotour.com/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MjE5OA

 

[fscyclist]

No, Riis is not the DS of the "best team in cycling". Obviously, that would be Bruyneel.

Anyhow, I agree that DC is not assisted in finding a new sponsor by all of this publicity on cyclists' doping, but then I also think it's not really because of the Basso situation alone. Clearly, Basso's Puerto doping occurred before he was on DC and in fact while Basso was the leader of a team that was a major rival of DC. So, I think it's the general emphasis on cyclists' doping in today's press that might be hurting DC, more than their having hired Basso at the time they did.

CSC is the #1 ranked team for the past 2 years. Because Disco is #1 in your mind doesn't make it true.

Do you actually believe what you write or are you just trying to get a rise?