UKC

Armstrong - No smoke without fire?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 DaveHK 20 May 2011
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-says-he-saw-armstrong-use-epo

So another one comes out of the woodwork.

Apparently if the Federal investigation can prove he used US postal funds to buy drugs he could get 25 years for using government money for illegal purposes.

I know he inspires strong feelings. Does anyone think he's innocent?
 Toby S 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

Yes. Until proven guilty
 andy 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: Well if he's not he's the most astoundingly lucky or skilled drug cheat ever - all these other people get caught but the most tested athlete in history has got away with it.

Does the thing about using "government money" apply to American postmen who buy a bit of weed? Is there a source for that?
 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

No.

He may never have failed a drug test in or out of competition but it's a fact they found EPO when they retested his old samples as a research excersise for the new EPO test back in 99. The wada docs on this are crystal clear unlike the media fog around it all.

So, no I don't think he's innocent much as I loved watching him race and enjoyed the spectacle he put on I think this is going to sink him. I think this is a shame while removing his titles etc for cheating would be in order (perhaps) going to jail for 25 years because of who sponsored the team when you'd need to drop to 13 position or so to find the next clean rider seems harsh.

Cheers

Toby
 andy 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W: So was the new EPO test brought in before he won his first Tour?
 frankbabs 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:

Armstrong uses very clever semantics regarding doping; he never states he's been caught; only that he's never failed a doping test!!! I've been a fan since he started in Austen Texas all those years ago but, like a lot of disapointed people I fear this is one scandal too many and he finally will be brought to book. A sad timing prior to this years' Tour but calculating nonetheless.
 the power 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: compusory drug TACKING in sport = no cheating
 Tiberius 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> ...you'd need to drop to 13 position or so to find the next clean rider seems harsh.

From those days I doubt you'd find a clean rider no matter how many places you dropped. All of Armstrong's competitors were admitted drug users. Pantani, Uhlrich...every one. So I find it difficult to label him a cheat as he wasn't really getting any unfair advantage over his competitors.
 Tiberius 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

Everyone denigrates Armstrong while praising other riders like Merckx, but don't forget Merckx was thrown out of the giro for doping
OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> Everyone denigrates Armstrong while praising other riders like Merckx, but don't forget Merckx was thrown out of the giro for doping

What's your point caller?

fxceltic 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> No.
>
> He may never have failed a drug test in or out of competition but it's a fact they found EPO when they retested his old samples as a research excersise for the new EPO test back in 99. The wada docs on this are crystal clear unlike the media fog around it all.
>

this doesnt necessarily prove he was doping when winning from 99 onwards, when he was heavily tested for EPO usage.

I dont know how old those samples were you are referring to, but they must have been something like pre 97/98 at least, at which point EVERYONE was on EPO if they could afford it. That doesnt make it right, but equally doesnt condemn his later and more important victories.

Ive always taken the view that hes innocent until proven guilty. One of the last posters mentions merckx, which i think is fair because Lance seems to inspire vitriol in some people who hold the cannibal up as a saint, when its an undisputed fact that the cannibal doped regularly. Double standards.

Removed User 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

Can't we just re-instate EVERYONE's title because it's quite clear that the whole fecking bunch of em are doped up like Iggy Pop on a Saturday night in Berlin.

It's already an even playing field.
 tim000 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: the "i never failed a test dos`nt wash. how many riders never failed a test but have since owned up? . ulrich , basso, miller, riis. all never failed a test.
 Banned User 77 20 May 2011
In reply to tim000: Thought ulrich and miller did?

Hamilton has new book coming out, this isn't new - ex team mate claiming he doped - but there is simply no proof, so nothing changes.

Those who like him will support him those that don't will blieve Hamilton..
OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
>
> It's already an even playing field.

It's not that simple. It's an even playing field for those who buy into the doping thing. What about those that don't want to? It shouldn't have to be that way.

I believe there are clean riders in the pro bunch today, but it's hard to be sure which is a shame.

How far back do you think we'd need to go to get a clean tour winner? Lemond?
 hcaw 20 May 2011
In reply to the power:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr) compusory drug TACKING in sport = no cheating

I heard this was a huge problem in sailing competitions
 hang_about 20 May 2011
In reply to IainRUK:
I really hope he hasn't doped. I'm not a cyclist but read 'It's not about the bike' which I found truly inspirational. The book convinced me he was innocent - he'd be a massive charlatan if he could write that book and had doped.
 tim000 20 May 2011
In reply to IainRUK: ulrich was caught out during operation puerto, bags of blood in a docter fridge. and miller confessed when police searched his flat and found an empty vial that had contained EPO. no possitive tests.
 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic:

They were the samples from the 99 tour so he was on EPO during that TDF.

It's hardly worth debating this though as people tend to be either haters of LA or live in some sort of fairy land.

I loved watching him race in every TDF. I also would bet my house that he was doping in them. I think he's povided some superb racing moments.

I think this will sink him as now it's a federal investigation so anyone who lies and is found out will go to jail. So we have Hamilton, Landis and two as yet unkown former team mates who have spoken out in this investigation. Remember Marion Jones went to jail for lying under oath not for cheating.

I'd be sad if he goes down for this as I don't really care just so long as they get Contador who is still competing.

Cheers

Toby
 Swirly 20 May 2011
A couple of facts:

The EPO positive sample of LA was from 1999 and retested in 2001. The UCI said the retest wasn't valid, WADA disagree.

LA also failed a test for corticoids in 1999 but was later cleared for having a prescription as it was low levels. I guess this is similar to clearances for Petacchi and others who suffer from asthma and have failed for Salbutamol.

A half fact:

Ullrich was banned for being implicated through Puerto, mainly because he was linked to blood samples kept by Dr Fuentes. I'm not sure he actually failed a test. Similarities to LA come from his time at Telekom where most of his team mates have since admitted doping.


Some opinion:

In my view he's probably guilty at some point mainly because everyone was doing it and even by tour specific training I very much doubt he was good enough to consistently thrash a group of riders who were doped up. Also if half your team were doped what chance the leader wasn't too?
What to do about it? what does it matter? it'd be nice to have a definite answer, although that might never come out, but if you take away the titles then who gets them given it's likely 2nd - wherever were doing the exact same thing. In fact Riis has been given his back after losing it albeit with a little *.
It would be nice to draw a line under the whole sorry mess but then you still won't stop the arguments between the fans and the doubters. (His response to these allegations on twitter was quite amusing though).
 tim000 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: the samples were as you say from 1999. they were stored by the french testers and retrospectively tested in 2005. there was no test for EPO in 1999 only a check on the blood levels.armstrong got very angry when the results were published.
 Swirly 20 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:

> The EPO positive sample of LA was from 1999 and retested in 2001. The UCI said the retest wasn't valid, WADA disagree.
>


Should read retested post-2001 which is when the new test was developed. The story was broken by L'Equipe in 2005 and the UCI declared it invalid in 2006.
 3leggeddog 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

Armstrong was clean because he was clean to the standards of the day. Retro testing should be regarded as inadmissible evidence. How far back do you want to go with the retro testing? dig up some of the old timers and test their remains?

Doping in sport is a bit like playing rugby on the wing; you keep pushing on until the ref catches you out, you dope within the testing parameters. Energy drinks and gels, vitamins, caffiene, taurine and whatever the latest wonder supplement is. Doping is a game of cat and mouse. The Lance cat was not caught even with sometimes punitive testing. Not caught = clean

Lances old team mates may be short a few bucks now they are no longer riding his gravy train, these tales could be their pension.

I am no great fan of Lance, he courted the publicity and so gets the media attention and scrutiny he deserves but the whole retro testing thing is just wrong. Play to the rules/testing standards of the day
In reply to andy:

****SIDE-NOTE HIJACK*****

>
> Does the thing about using "government money" apply to American postmen who buy a bit of weed? Is there a source for that?

Probably not, since once the postie has been paid as part of their normal salary it's no longer Federal money, it's his. If said postie was being paid as a contractor then the case 'may' be different, as it would be if they were buying weed whilst working.

Armstrong, as team owner/manager, was not an US Postal employee but being paid on a contract; also he was breaking the law in actual pursuit of that contract (EPO is not a recreational drug).

The rules about use of US federal funds are very strict, very complex and very rigidly enforced. I know of at least one NASA project manager serving a 2 year sentence for a cock up which, if he worked for NERC in the UK, would AT MOST have resulted in dismissal.
In reply to andy:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr) Well if he's not he's the most astoundingly lucky or skilled drug cheat ever - all these other people get caught but the most tested athlete in history has got away with it.
>


There's a lot more money (and therefore expertise) in evading drug tests than in enforcing. And Armstrong did have so very much money to spend on the issue. Not saying he's guilty, just saying that his confident restatement that he has never been caught (note the wording, I don't know if he's ever explicitly denied taking drugs) is not necessarily the proof that it should be.

In reply to Tiberius:

>Everyone denigrates Armstrong while praising other riders like Merckx, but don't forget Merckx >was thrown out of the giro for doping

I think what got up the Peloton's nose so much was his vocal criticism of drug taking - all part of the image sold over here of a good ol' clean cut American Boy beating the Frenchies at their own game. Kind of like when vocal social conservatives in the USA get arrested for taking coke of a rent boys chopper.
OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to 3leggeddog:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> Retro testing should be regarded as inadmissible evidence. How far back do you want to go with the retro testing? dig up some of the old timers and test their remains?

If you're going to set up a ridiculous straw man like that then lets go even further and say that DNA evidence shouldn't be admissible in crimes that happened before it was invented.


> Play to the rules/testing standards of the day

The rules in 1999 were the same, doping = cheating.


You could get a job in banking with a moral code like that!

Ian Black 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: Innocent til proven guilty. This keeps rearing its ugly head. Bottom line Lance has been immense, recovering from the cancer and being at the top for so long. Many with a lesser will to survive would never have been heard of again. Epo or no EPO, his achievements are awesome. Hamilton has come out of the woodwork after being caught, hardly credible evidence...
In reply to 3leggeddog: So you are saying that if you don't get caught cheating you are not cheating. A bit like saying if you don't get caught for stealing/murdering/raping then you are not a thief/killer/rapist.
OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to Ian Black:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr) This keeps rearing its ugly head.

Perhaps there's a reason for that?
Ian Black 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
> [...]
>
> Perhaps there's a reason for that?





There is! Its called cheats trying to implicate him.

 steev 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

Isn't Hamilton the guy who said hos blood level results were from ingesting his unborn twin in the womb?

Of all the evidence and opinion floating around about Armstrong and doping, I'm sure we can place this guy's testament to the bottom of the pile.

 Yanis Nayu 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: No smoke without fire? I'm not sure, but there sure is a lot of smoke.
 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to Ian Black:

Did you really just say the people who die from cancer aren't trying hard enough to beat it?

> cheats trying to implicate him

Yes that's right because when they had everything to lose (like Lance) they lied and lied that the were clean. Now with nothing to lose and the threat of a hefty jail term if they lie they're just out to get him.

Or is the term of the moment that they have no credibility.

Cheers

Toby
OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to steev:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> Isn't Hamilton the guy who said hos blood level results were from ingesting his unborn twin in the womb?

Had he been reading 'The Troublesome Offspring of Cardinal Guzman'?
 MJ 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:

"Did you really just say the people who die from cancer aren't trying hard enough to beat it"?

I read his comment as meaning many others wouldn't have returned to competitive cycling.
 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to steev:

Yep, that's in the top ten of great doping excuses along with

i. I was shagging my girlfriend when the testers arrived hence my massive testostorone levels.
ii. The EPO is for my sick dog
iii. I'm just all MAN and had had lots of Jack Daniels (Floyd)

Oh and of course I had a dogy beef steak.

Cheers

Toby
 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to MJ:

Ah, I'm sure that's it.

Cheers

Toby
Ian Black 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
>
> Did you really just say the people who die from cancer aren't trying hard enough to beat it?





Read the post again you clown! Armstrong didn't just survive, he went on to achieve what many thought(including his medics) impossible. Fact! some people have a better will to survive than others. My Mother recently died of bowel cancer, but it doesn't mean she gave up without a fight. Now go and give your head a shake!!!

 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to Ian Black:

Yes sorry about that post above yours.

Clown, maybe. I take it you got all your information from Lances book.

You may find this a valuable resource in that case:

www.facts4lance.com

I'm giving my head a good shake.

Cheers

Toby
Ady Short 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: The Pantani biography is enlightening, drug taking in that era was endemic, all the way through amateur level they were taught what to do and were using blood centrifuges, maybe a lot of the blame lies with the sport, the way it was managed and the money associated with it. I couldn't stand Lance when he was riding at his best but understood the level playing field element and he was just better at that time regardless of whether he was on drugs, he was Shumakeresque (probably has the same tarnished reputation, the comeback parallels are similar as well) in his dominance of the sport and you don't get that just by being on drugs. The Willie Voets book about the Festina drug taking and even before that Paul Kimmage's book all allude to the same thing, you didn't have a chance if you didn't do it and the powers that be turned a blind eye to it until the police got involved with Festina. It was only really the French that started to sort it out as they weren't winning anything and something needed to be done about it, they still aren't winning that much so not sure it has helped.
 Tobias at Home 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: Whenever the subject of Lance comes up I always post the same thing

There's is no way he was not doping - how can someone be so much better than the rest of the world best (who were doping) legitimately?

However, they all trained hard and suffered equally and to be honest, I don't think it takes away from his victories.

youtube.com/watch?v=7THIhZEP4QM&

inspiring regardless.
Ian Black 20 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
>
> Yes sorry about that post above yours.
>
> Clown, maybe. I take it you got all your information from Lances book.





I wasn't that bothered about the Lance part. I'm sure we could discuss it all night and there would be two camps. I was irked that you twisted what I said about cancer. I'm sure myself and many on here have been personaly affected by the non discriminatory curse that is cancer. Apology accepted.

OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to Ady Short:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr) I couldn't stand Lance when he was riding at his best


That's pretty much where I'm coming from. I hate what he did to cycling, focussing on just one race and nothing else devalued the sport. His book 'It's not about the bike' is well named. It's all about him, cycling was just the vehicle he chose.

This is why I really wanted to believe in Contador as he was a breath of fresh air to me. His hunger for wins right through the season was a throwback to Lemond and really refreshing after the Armstrong era.
 tim000 20 May 2011
In reply to 3leggeddog:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> Armstrong was clean because he was clean to the standards of the day.
not true E P O was ilegal back then. the testers just didn`t have a test to prove it`s use.
 Toby_W 20 May 2011
In reply to Ian Black:

Yes sorry, you came across a little strong and I've read too much guff about this on the other cycling forums. Bowel cancer sucks, three in my family.

Have you read that thread on single track from a while back on pico lax?

Cheers

Toby
 Taba 20 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

I am a massive fan of Lance Armstrong.

I believe Lance Armstrong used drugs.
OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to Taba:

I'm assuming that your fandom is not tainted by his drug use? If that's the case could you explain your reasoning? Genuinely curious.
 Padraig 20 May 2011
In reply to Taba:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> I am a massive fan of Lance Armstrong.
>
> I believe Lance Armstrong used drugs.

I also am a massive fan of Lance Armstrong.

I DON'T believe Lance Armstrong used drugs.


The French just couldn't believe someone could be THAT good!


OP DaveHK 20 May 2011
In reply to Padraig:
> (In reply to Taba)
> [...]
>
> I DON'T believe Lance Armstrong used drugs.


Perhaps soon it wont be a matter for belief. Until then, I do like to speculate!
 The New NickB 20 May 2011
In reply to Padraig:
> (In reply to Taba)
> [...]
>
> The French just couldn't believe someone (who wasnt French) could be THAT good!

 Tiberius 20 May 2011
In reply to Padraig:
> The French just couldn't believe someone could be THAT good!

I think it's more that the power output he sustained wasn't physically possible, but hey ho, it's all in the past now.

There's a brill interview with him:

'I've never failed a drug test'

he goes on:

'No drugs have ever been found in my possession'

and on:

'I've never missed a test'

and on....

... but he never actually denies taking drugs

Bottom line, most cyclists don't like him. Most non-cyclists do, I doubt you'll change anyone's opinion of him. My view, anyone who thinks he never took drugs is pretty naive about cycling in general, but like all opinions, it's mine, take your own.
 3leggeddog 21 May 2011
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to 3leggeddog) So you are saying that if you don't get caught cheating you are not cheating. A bit like saying if you don't get caught for stealing/murdering/raping then you are not a thief/killer/rapist.

I am saying that you play to the parameters of the day. Take swimming as an example. Hydrosuits were allowed, now they are not, EPO was undetectable, now it is.

FWIW I don't doubt that most top pros pre 1999 used epo but I do not believe that someones winners jersey from 1998 should be stripped due to retro testing.
 Jim Lancs 21 May 2011
The 60 Minutes program on CBSis reporting that George Hincapie has testified to the federal authorities that he and Lance Armstrong used to supply each other with EPO and used it together.

Armstrong described Hincapie as being 'like a brother' and his most loyal domestique. If the CBS report is true (and their lawyers must be convinced it's true), then this admission can hardly be dismissed as vengeance from someone who the UCI only grades as a '1' on their druggies scale, has never been caught doping, and is still a professional rider.
KevinD 21 May 2011
In reply to 3leggeddog:

> I am saying that you play to the parameters of the day. Take swimming as an example. Hydrosuits were allowed, now they are not, EPO was undetectable, now it is.

which seems a rather bizarre argument. Hydrosuits were openly allowed whereas drugs in general were banned. If you stop retro testing you guarantee an arms race between the testers and drug makers (assuming there is some decent profit in it) who can take the current tests and give a pass guarantee. If you allow retro tests it becomes a lot riskier to feel confident it will remain untestable for x years as opposed to the next few months.
 Worcester_Ash 21 May 2011
In reply to Captain Fastrousers:

Lol, amphetamines and the like are a bit different to the EPO, HGH, and testosterone etc that are used today all of which have been shown to have at least small significant and biologically meaningful effects upon aerobic performance. Don't think the drugs of the 60s can be placed in the same bracket.
OP DaveHK 21 May 2011
In reply to Jim Lancs:
> The 60 Minutes program on CBSis reporting that George Hincapie has testified to the federal authorities that he and Lance Armstrong used to supply each other with EPO and used it together.

This is big news (if it's true). Hincapie is still riding and has never tested postive (to my knowledge) so they can't smear him as a bitter alcoholic with a book to sell.

If lance goes down it will break peoples hearts as lots of folks have put a lot of faith in him. Lemond got it right "If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud."

In reply to DaveHK:
> If lance goes down it will break peoples hearts as lots of folks have put a lot of faith in him. Lemond got it right "If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud."

It's still (one of) the greatest comebacks ever. Wining the tour would be the high point of 99% of pro cyclists careers. Wining five tours is a big deal. Winning five tours back to back is bigger. Wining seven tours back to back is bigger still. Seven back to back tours after a horrific battle with cancer is the stuff of legends. Wining seven back to back tours against a field who where, in the most part, doped to the eye balls without using any yourself is a bridge too far in my eyes.

I think we should judge them by the standards of the era they raced in. And in this respect the fact that Contrador is still not banned rankles far more than whatever Lance did or didn't do 6-11 years ago.
 Toby_W 21 May 2011
In reply to a concerned citizen:

Totally agree with you.

That is big news about GH.
Cheers

Toby
 PeterM 21 May 2011


Quote from Cycling News:
"Cyclingnews attempted to contact both Hincapie and his BMC racing team but all calls went unanswered. He said on Twitter, "I can confirm to you I never spoke with 60 Minutes. I have no idea where they got their information." "

So is GH denying the accusations of witnessing LA doping or just denying that he spoke to 60mins?
 Timmd 21 May 2011
In reply to Worcester_Ash:
> (In reply to Captain Fastrousers)
>
> Lol, amphetamines and the like are a bit different to the EPO, HGH, and testosterone etc that are used today all of which have been shown to have at least small significant and biologically meaningful effects upon aerobic performance. Don't think the drugs of the 60s can be placed in the same bracket.

Amphetamines would have still given somebody an unfair advantage in the 60s though, like EPO would have throughout the 90s.

As far as i'm aware Merckx only failed one test, and strongly protested his innocence and was retested and found clean. Unless he's since admitted to doping, which is something i'm unaware of.

Cheers
Tim
OP DaveHK 21 May 2011
In reply to PeterM:
>
>>
> So is GH denying the accusations of witnessing LA doping or just denying that he spoke to 60mins?

Denying that he spoke to 60 mins.

As someone pointed out above the 60mins lawyers would have to have been pretty sure to let 'em broadcast that. Which doesn't make it infallable but...

Maybe someone involved with the hearings has leaked it?

 r0b 21 May 2011
In reply to a concerned citizen:

I am ambivalent to whether Lance doped or not (and I'm pretty sure he did). My problem is the way he has bullied, trampled and ruined people who dared not to toe the party line.

If Hincapie has spoken out then we might be reaching the end-game. Landis and Hamilton are easy to discredit; Hincapie is not.
 Tiberius 21 May 2011
In reply to Timmd:
> As far as i'm aware Merckx only failed one test

He failed 3. The first was controversial and he denied it, most in the sport blame the Italians for removing Merckx.

The second was for a substance that has since been removed from the banned list, I can't remember what it was, but I think it was something in a cough syrup.

The 3rd time he admitted, but blamed his doctor.
 mark s 21 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: I rate him as 1 of the greatest athletes ever.wether he took drugs or not I'm not bothered in the slightest.he's still an inspiration
 3leggeddog 21 May 2011
In reply to a concerned citizen:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
> [...]
.
>
> I think we should judge them by the standards of the era they raced in. And in this respect the fact that Contrador is still not banned rankles far more than whatever Lance did or didn't do 6-11 years ago.

In essence this is what I was trying to say about retrotesting
 PeterM 21 May 2011
In reply to 3leggeddog:

Maybe there should be some sort of 'statute of limitations' on testing...otherwise thay'll be retesting samples as tech gets better...maybe even posthumously...
Removed User 21 May 2011
In reply to mark s:
> ...he's still an inspiration

..or perhaps the greatest advert for performance enhancing drugs that the world has ever seen.

 Timmd 21 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:

He did pretty well to come second considering his age I thought, when Contador beat him and he stood next to him looking fed up.

Assuming he was clean on that tour...

Cheers
Tim
 Timmd 21 May 2011
In reply to PeterM:

Test and test and test again I think, regarding retro testing, it might act as a deterrent for people competing now (perhaps a slim chance), if they don't know what science will be able to do in the future, and it means the truth can be known about winners taking drugs, or not as the case may be.

Tim
 Tiberius 21 May 2011
In reply to Timmd:
> ...the truth can be known about winners taking drugs, or not

and people are concentrating on 'taking drugs' a little. That's really quite a crude form of blood doping, there are more sophisticated means. Don't forget epo is not a performance enhancing drug per se, it's purpose is simply to increas the haematocrit (i.e. more red blood cells).

The same can be done directly by transfusions, homologous our autologous. i.e. transfuse blood (well RBC's usually), either a donor's or your own, removed months before and frozen. This wasn't actually illegal until the mid/late 1980's and was used quite openly by the American cycle team in the 1984 Olympics.
Ian Black 21 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Ian Black)
>
> Have you read that thread on single track from a while back on pico lax?
>
> Cheers
>
> Toby






Aye it sure does suck...No not read it.


Regards,
Ian
 mark s 21 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> (In reply to Removed Usermark s)
> [...]
>
> ..or perhaps the greatest advert for performance enhancing drugs that the world has ever seen.

Not really,try ronnie coleman.
Lance armstrong is still an amazing athlete.
Removed User 21 May 2011
In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> Not really,try ronnie coleman.
> Lance armstrong is still an amazing athlete.

Well what we don't know is how much of his amazing athletic prowess is down to him and how much is down to medical science.


 Timmd 21 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> and people are concentrating on 'taking drugs' a little. That's really quite a crude form of blood doping, there are more sophisticated means. Don't forget epo is not a performance enhancing drug per se, it's purpose is simply to increas the haematocrit (i.e. more red blood cells).

It is perfomance enhancing, if there's more oxygen carrying red blood cells available for use, or athletes wouldn't inject the chemical known as EPO? I'm not clear on your point?

> The same can be done directly by transfusions, homologous our autologous. i.e. transfuse blood (well RBC's usually), either a donor's or your own, removed months before and frozen. This wasn't actually illegal until the mid/late 1980's and was used quite openly by the American cycle team in the 1984 Olympics.

That's interesting to know.

Cheers
Tim
 Tiberius 21 May 2011
In reply to Timmd:
> It is perfomance enhancing

My point was that it's not the EPO that improves performance directly, not like say amphetamines. EPO increases your RBC and that increase improves performance as you say. EPO is generally undetectable after a couple of days, so it's use is generally tested by indirect means, e.g. an abnormally high haematocrit, but the problem here, what is too high?

A normal level is 41-50% in adult men and 36-44% in adult women. EPO can raise it to as high as 70%, so what figure would be cheating? 51%? How would you know it wasn't just a freak measurement?

An easier test of course is to find 'foreign' red blood cells...but that means that nobody who has had a transfusion could take part. Hardly fair, but then anyone who has had a transfusion will have a non-normal haematocrit for a few days anyway, should they be banned too?

Don't forget, no drugs have been taken here (it's still 'cheating' but no drugs are needed).
 Swirly 21 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

> A normal level is 41-50% in adult men

No way is a Hc of 50 normal for an average adult male.


Also transfusions aren't allowed and what do you mean by "foreign" red blood cells.
 Worcester_Ash 21 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

And how do amphetamines directly affect performance? They may increase arousal, and increase sympathetic nervous system action, but how does that link to aerobic performance?? Many studies show that they do not have an ergogenic effect. If you believe that fatigue is regulated centrally by the brain and that the interplay of afferent feedback between the periphery (muscles etc) and the central nervous system regulate endurance performance, then they may dampen one's perception of fatigue and thus increase time to exhaustion. Nonetheless totally speculative and as yet unproven!
Removed User 21 May 2011
In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> Not really,try ronnie coleman.

Is this Ronnie Coleman: http://www.demotivatingposters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Penis-e130285...
 Frank4short 22 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

> A normal level is 41-50% in adult men and 36-44% in adult women. EPO can raise it to as high as 70%, so what figure would be cheating? 51%? How would you know it wasn't just a freak measurement?

Which is why professional cyclists have blood passports in which their red blood cell figures are measured regularly. Should a particular athlete have highly irregular readings then they will be subject to greater suspicion & scrutiny as has been leaked in recent TdF documentation.
 lost1977 22 May 2011
In reply to Frank4short:
> (In reply to Tiberius)
>
> [...]
>
Should a particular athlete have highly irregular readings then they will be subject to greater suspicion & scrutiny as has been leaked in recent TdF documentation.

or sometimes the readings can appear far too regular
 Tiberius 22 May 2011
In reply to Worcester_Ash:
> ...they may dampen one's perception of fatigue and thus increase time to exhaustion. Nonetheless totally speculative and as yet unproven!

Yes, unproven. Probably one of the reasons they're not used much nemore, apart from the fact that they are easily detectable.
 Tiberius 22 May 2011
In reply to Frank4short:
> Which is why professional cyclists have blood passports

Which leads us to the current situation, where doctors are employed to decide what is the level they can get away with. To help them dope to the point that it could be regarded as a 'statistical' blip rather than a definate case of doping.

A study at the olmypic games in 1996 (Atlanta) showed that 16% of elite athletes claimed to suffer from athsma. For cyclists the proportion was actually 50%. neone want to postulate why?
 Jim Lancs 22 May 2011
I find myself agreeing with much of this article. Sadly.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/lance-armstrong-the-endgame-b...
 Chris the Tall 22 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: Laurent fignon, shortly before his death, acknowledged his history of doping. So was he stripped of his two tdf wins ? Does this mean the great finale in 1989 didn't happen ? What about coppi, anquetil and mercx ?

We all know lance took epo as part of his recovery from cancer. I'm sure he continued to use it for longer than he should, but who knows how many other riders took it in 1999. 5%, 50%, or 95% ? My guess is the latter.

This is a side show. Cycling should concentrate on cleaning up the sport today, not go chasing shadows from a decade ago
 Graham T 22 May 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Agreed, the first thing they should do is take a long hard look at the apologists in the spanish cycling federation for contador and the contaminated steak issue.
Wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong doped, but this all smacks of a witchhunt to me
 Tiberius 22 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:
> No way is a Hc of 50 normal for an average adult male.

It was heigher than I thought. I once wrote software that does mathamatical models with it during heavy bleeding and fluid/platelet transfusions, but I couldn't be arsed finding it so I took the figure from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping

> ...what do you mean by "foreign" red blood cells.

From a different unit of liveware. As far as I'm aware, there is currently no way to detect transfusions that used the patients own blood.
 Swirly 22 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:
> (In reply to Swirly)
> [...]
>
> It was heigher than I thought. I once wrote software that does mathamatical models with it during heavy bleeding and fluid/platelet transfusions, but I couldn't be arsed finding it so I took the figure from here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping
>

Me too, I thought the normal healthy adult male figure was around 40* although it would be higher in elite athletes. The cut off of 50 was originally introduced as a safety measure (although I doubt it would be cynical to say in response to EPO abuse) and the penalty was a 2 week removal from competition to allow it to drop. Given the normal response to the exertion of a grand tour would be a lowering of the HCT due to cell exhaustion perhaps a better solution would have been to make them ride each stage twice!
The test for EPO proper was developed at the same time as I was studying protein modification during my degree. It involved looking at sugar modifications added to the EPO protein. Briefly, most mammalian proteins are modified by the addition of sugars (glycosylation). Depending on the species of origin the pattern (in this case length of individual sugars) changes, medical EPO is made in cells from hamsters and has shorter sugars so is identifiable as different to human EPO. Of course this was overcome by micro-dosing, which was then measured by the addition of a tracker with a longer half-life to medical EPO. As a result transfusions became used showing just one example of the so-called dopers v testers arms race.

* I don't have a source to hand, but it is covered in detail and with numbers in the Marco Pantani biography.

> As far as I'm aware, there is currently no way to detect transfusions that used the patients own blood.

Comparison of mature red blood cells to immature ones (reticulocytes) discrepancies in numbers, specifically a signicantly higher mature cell count, indicates a transfusion. Contador had plastcisers in one of his samples but this test is unvalidated as of yet. I guess the no needles rule introduced recently means any injection marks become suspect now.

 stewieatb 22 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:

I did wonder about the plasticiser thing - if the use of saline bags for rehydration was common until this year, wouldn't most people test positive for plasticisers? Or are they only used in materials for blood bags and the like, which are going to be stored?
 Tiberius 23 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:
> Comparison of mature red blood cells to immature ones (reticulocytes) discrepancies in numbers

Yeah, I shoulda said there's no 'accepted' method. We know what's going on, but there's always an excuse. Can't remember the details, but didn't someone have hormones in their body that are only produced naturally by women? Claimed it was from oral sex with his gf

There's always an excuse. Like there is no way that 50% of cyclists really are athsmatic, that's just silly.
 Enty 23 May 2011
In reply to Ian Black:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> There is! Its called cheats trying to implicate him.

So why has Geaorge Hincapie (like a brother to Lance) come out of the woodwork to implicate him - let me think...if you lie to the Feds you get Jail, that's why.

E

 lowersharpnose 23 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

What is the advantage of being asthmatic when it comes to taking/masking drugs?
fxceltic 23 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: If it is true that Hincapie has implicated him then I'd say its got to be true.

Of course, that could be total bollocks from CBS
 Swirly 23 May 2011
In reply to stewieatb: Plasticisers aren't part of the bag, they're added to the blood to help store it. Common misconception.
 Swirly 23 May 2011
In reply to lowersharpnose: Asthmatics use Salbutomol to open their airways. Given getting more oxygen to tissues is the main focus of a lot of doping asthmatics have a reason (and more importantly are pretty much exempt) for failing a Salbutomol test. There have been quite a few that have used being asthmatic as a reason for failing this test, most famously Pettachi.
 lowersharpnose 23 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:

Thanks. So, some cyclists get friendly doctors to diagnose them as asthmatic.
 Jim Lancs 23 May 2011
<<So, some cyclists get friendly doctors to diagnose them as asthmatic>>

Some? Fifty percent are asthmatic.
 lowersharpnose 23 May 2011
In reply to Jim Lancs & Swirly,

50%! So, clearly bogus diagnosis.

Thinking about salbutamol, for asthmatics it opens the airways that their condition constricts. For a non-asthmatic, wouldn't their airways be open anyway?

Does salbutamol have some other effect?

I found this article which suggests a near 2% performance boost for non-asthmatic cyclists over.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/salbutamol.html

They can offer no explanation for this increase in performance, which was not explained by changes in plasma concentrations of free fatty acids, glycerol, lactate and potassium during exercise, or by changes in ventilatory parameters at rest and after exercise.

Fascinating. Perhaps I fascinate easily.
 Toby_W 23 May 2011
In reply to Jim Lancs:

MMmmm I get excercise induced asthma, if it weren't for humid days and riding up hills like a loon I'd never have felt the effects.

I was told that asthma drugs can act as a masking agent for other drugs.

My hct was 48 or 49 when I was tested which means with a little dehydration I'd fail the UCI health test. It does mean I can race up hills like a loon though.

Whatever happens with the federal investigation perhaps now would be a good time for a doping amnesty. Allow people to fess up and provide details of how and when they did it without sanction. Then toughen up dope testing and punishment, maybe add a few new Euro laws so people go to jail for cheating in sport?

Cheers

Toby
 Swirly 23 May 2011
In reply to lowersharpnose: I don't know enough about its mode of action. It's a long time since I studied this stuff and while I found the EPO thing interesting I was less bothered about direct pharmacology (shame as I know we covered Salbutamol as a specific example). I'll try and get hold of a copy of the original research paper though.

> Fascinating.

I agree.
 MRJ 23 May 2011
In reply to Captain Fastrousers:
> Kind of like when vocal social conservatives in the USA get arrested for taking coke of a rent boys chopper.

I was under the impression that it was crystal meth.
 highcamp 23 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

Here's a link to the CBS interview with Tyler Hamilton. That he saw LA dope isn't news to me, what *is*, however, is that he reports on LA failing a test at the Tour de Suise in '01 and the UCI "made it go away." There are two parts to the interview, links on the right, plus some extras on the bottom.

http://bit.ly/lvd1AQ
 RBK 23 May 2011
In reply to highcamp: The truth coming out about the UCI involvement in all this is just as important as Armstrong finally being brought to some sort of justice. Nothing will ever change until they are made to explain why they accepted donations of $25K and $100K from LA. Hopefully the federal investigation will finally have the leverage to follow the money as this will ultimately provide the proof that backs up the testimony of Hincapie, Hamilton and the rest.
 Chris the Tall 23 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:
Does the Hincapie statement appear in the programme. As others have said that could blow LA out of the water, but with GH denying it, it weakens the case considerably
 Toby_W 23 May 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:

GH has denied talking to 60 minutes but not what they've said about his testimony to the grand jury.

Cheers

Toby
 Chris the Tall 23 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
I thought 60mins claimed he'd spoken to them, but it looks like I was mistaken on that
fxceltic 23 May 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall: nope, unless hes lying and they didnt take any footage of the conversation.

If its all true, the very worst thing about it is not the sporting achievements/ UCI stuff (though granted thats pretty bad), but the whole livestrong/ cancer survivor/ my body is a temple thing, thats what'll hurt the most for most people I think.

You'd think if he was doping then he would have had some shame about it and refused to get involved in the non-cycling stuff.

Then again I suppose its a great cover.
 highcamp 23 May 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:

No, 60Mins never made a claim that GH spoke to them, just that they had a lead that he gave that info to the grand jury. Hincapie's replies of "never spoke with 60min" are very telling, as he did not say "never said i saw LA dope". Now while GH testifying is the nail in the coffin for most cycling fans' opinion of LA, it doesn't matter how many Posties the Feds line up to say they saw LA dope, without hard evidence there is no case. But word is Novitzky, the Fed guy who's leading the investigation (and who was the one that busted Marion Jones and that whole ring), he's been collecting samples from Italy, France, and Switzerland pertaining to LA. So we'll see.

I think Hamilton's question of "what would you do?" in terms of doping to get to that final step of your dream, in the face that everyone on that step is doping and that without it you have no chance... it's an interesting thing to ponder. Especially when every minute of every day up to that point has been devoted to reaching that goal.

Still, that the UCI squashed a neg drug test is what really bothers me. That LA was the fastest among the dopers is one thing, that the UCI gave him preferential treatment though is not cool.
 Chris the Tall 23 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:
> Still, that the UCI squashed a neg drug test is what really bothers me. That LA was the fastest among the dopers is one thing, that the UCI gave him preferential treatment though is not cool.

That allegation, if true, would do as much damage to the UCI than LA. Not that the UCI has much credibility in the fight against doping, but the level of collusion required would be extraordinary. National authorities have been known to cover up drug tests - eg US athletics in the 80s, East Germany at everything, but I don't think any major governing body has been proven to do it

fxceltic 23 May 2011
 Swirly 23 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic: would have been nice if they'd shown some compulsion to investigate the claims, but a not unsurprising response.
 RBK 23 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic: The UCI make FIFA look like a reputable sporting body so this doesn't mean too much.
 highcamp 23 May 2011
In reply to Kendal47:

Not even close. I'd say out of ALL the governing bodies of sport, the UCI has done the most to combat doping. I'd rank FIFA in line with the NFL (american football) and MLB (baseball) here in the US as the worst... they don't care one bit about doping. I have several friends that play professionally in those leagues, and even in high school (14-18 yrs old) they were doped to the rafters. They've only gotten bigger, stronger, and faster since... and college didn't care how they got that way, and the pro teams sure don't care, as long as they win games.
fxceltic 23 May 2011
In reply to highcamp: I agree, FIFA are the worst by miles.

the UCI proposing an investigation would be pointless, they know if they did it or not.

Theyve gone on the record to deny it, I dont think they can do much more, any investigation would need to be external to be credible.
 Mike Highbury 23 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:
> (In reply to Kendal47)
>
> Not even close. I'd say out of ALL the governing bodies of sport, the UCI has done the most to combat doping.

That may well be true. Probably because cycling's participants have historically been a bunch of slack jawed farm boys that, in the public imagination, it has become synonymous with drug use; leaving the UCI to balance between control and losing the sport in its entirety.

 Tiberius 23 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic:
> You'd think if he was doping then he would have had some shame about it and refused to get involved in the non-cycling stuff.

Not sure I follow your logic. Pretty much every GC cyclist at that level from that era will have been doping. It had been part of cycling for the entire 20th century and the cyclist would have seen it as part of the job.

It's people's reactions that surprise me tbh. It's like they think he took some wonder drug that turned him into superman and it was easy for him. That's not the case.

He doped at a similar level to pretty much all his competitors. He still rode for 2 weeks at an exertion level that put him in continuous pain for several hours. He still rode at a level that involved him losing weight over the entire tour, no matter how many calories he ate. His body fat was already below a level considered healthy so most of the weight loss came from muscle and bone.

I wouldn't do it for any money, I certainly wouldn't criticise him for putting himself at a disadvantage over the other cyclists by not doing something they were all doing.
 RBK 23 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic: FIFA may be corrupt but at least you can still watch a game of football and enjoy it once they've taken the bribes for the venue. Professional cycling has been a farce for decades and nothing has been done about it despite repeated investigations and scandals that have proved institutionalised doping. The current Giro and the just finished Tour of California sum it all up. A proven cheat is winning one as it would have damaged viewing figures if he wasn't there and two ageing Americans have mysteriously beaten specialist climbers on a mountain stage in the other. The UCI are unwilling to sort out either situation.
 Mike Highbury 23 May 2011
In reply to Kendal47:
> (In reply to fxceltic) FIFA may be corrupt but at least you can still watch a game of football and enjoy it once they've taken the bribes for the venue. Professional cycling has been a farce for decades and nothing has been done about it despite repeated investigations and scandals that have proved institutionalised doping. The current Giro and the just finished Tour of California sum it all up. A proven cheat is winning one as it would have damaged viewing figures if he wasn't there and two ageing Americans have mysteriously beaten specialist climbers on a mountain stage in the other. The UCI are unwilling to sort out either situation.

The mountain stage in the Tour of California the other evening? Even knowing exactly what was going on didn't lessen it for me. We are talking about Andy Schleck after all.
 Toby_W 23 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic: I think there's still wiggle room in that statement from the UCI and it doesn't deny that the meeting with the lab manager happend. Also why throw in the "it was so long ago nothing legal can be done about it anyway". It sounds strong and catagoric but look underneath and the chasis is rusty.

Cheers

Toby
 Mike Highbury 23 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:
>
> Not sure I follow your logic. Pretty much every GC cyclist at that level from that era will have been doping. It had been part of cycling for the entire 20th century and the cyclist would have seen it as part of the job.
>
> It's people's reactions that surprise me tbh. It's like they think he took some wonder drug that turned him into superman and it was easy for him. That's not the case.
>
> He doped at a similar level to pretty much all his competitors. He still rode for 2 weeks at an exertion level that put him in continuous pain for several hours. He still rode at a level that involved him losing weight over the entire tour, no matter how many calories he ate. His body fat was already below a level considered healthy so most of the weight loss came from muscle and bone.
>
And that gets to the nub of the case. Why do even his ex-team mates hate him so much? Why do they rat on him when Indurain and others whose performances illustrate doping to an extraordinary degree get off scot-free?

 Henry Iddon 23 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

"Guilty. Take him down."

The sad thing is he 'inspired' a lot of seriously ill people - but he didn't did he. He cheated which makes it all the worse.
 andy 23 May 2011
In reply to Henry Iddon:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> "Guilty. Take him down."
>
> The sad thing is he 'inspired' a lot of seriously ill people - but he didn't did he. He cheated which makes it all the worse.

Explain? Anyone who'd been helped by the work Livestrong has done now wished they hadn't? Bizarre.
 Tiberius 23 May 2011
In reply to Henry Iddon:
> He cheated which makes it all the worse.

I would define cheating as gaining an unfair advantage. That's not the case is it. Everyone was taking the same performance enhancing measures. It's a bit like saying Lewis Hamilton has an advantage by having fuel in his car.

He was inspirational, he came back from cancer to win probably the toughest race in the world seven times, anyone who thinks he took an easy route just has no idea of what is involved in pro cycling.

Now, I agree there seems to be a lot of evidence that suggests he's not a very nice person, but that's not what we're arguing about is it?
 Swirly 23 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:
>Everyone was taking the same performance enhancing measures.

We don't know that, indeed from the programme last night Hamilton suggests that different team members were given different things and different amounts.

I'm not that bothered about the fact he doped (if he did, there is still a little doubt) but more the way he has acted about it since. I read recently that Livestrong spends $9 million on helping cancer sufferers and $11 million on legal fees, running costs are on top of that again. No doubt there would be enough of that cash still going into the many other cancer charities.

Also the idea that as everyone doped it levelled the playing field is patently untrue. Rather than measuring the cycling ability of the athletes you are now measuring which good cyclist shows the biggest response to doping, a small but significant difference. That assumes that doping was level across the field which is a fairly big assumption.

That said I seen no point in stripping titles, everyone in that era is now tainted so just do what was done with Riis and put a * by his name.
 Mikkel 23 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:
> (In reply to Tiberius)

> That said I seen no point in stripping titles, everyone in that era is now tainted so just do what was done with Riis and put a * by his name.

Not really related to this thread, but didn't they actually remove him from the list completely, then late put his name back in there with the comment about doping?
 Fatboyteesside 24 May 2011
I seem to remember a quote (can't remember where from) : "Lance Armstrong achieved more with one testicle than most men could with three". NO direct relevance, but it made me smile.

I hope the man didn't cheat. It looks like he did. That's sad. Unfortunately, being not found guity of something means just that- you're not guilty.

I'm not sure how far back retrospective testing should go. Coca Cola used to have pretty unpleasant stuff in it, and RAF pilots were big into Benzidrine. Does this make my gran a drugs fiend, or pilots any less heroes?

I think the best balance is to be judged by the standards of the time the offence took place. This may, retrospectively, lead to disppointment. But if you can't prove a breach of the rules, it shouldn't be a rule, otherwise folk will do what they have to do in order to win.

It's not right, but it's probably true.
 Henry Iddon 24 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

I've raced a top level domestically and worked behind the scenes at pro teams so I know what is involved. And I have friends in pro tour teams

"He was inspirational, he came back from cancer to win probably the toughest race in the world seven times."

Yes he did win it seven times and it inspired people because 'they' - the uninformed general public thought he'd done it the tough way. Where as in fact he used performance enhancing drugs. (I'm convinced of that) Its the perception he gives of the plucky cancer survivor who gritted his teeth and then trained hard to win 7 times myth that annoys me.
Granted he had 'luck' on his side in the races - avoiding crashes mishaps etc. As I understand it from a senior Dr with cycling he was also fortunate to benefit from a new chemo that didn't 'scar' his lung tissue.

He is / was a very talented cyclist who will have used 'support' up to the legal limits, and probably beyond leaving no paper trail.

As has been said everyone else was using ' support' at the time - but he made them look like 3rd cat chipper riders. It doesn't add up.

 Henry Iddon 24 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

I've raced a top level domestically and worked behind the scenes at pro teams so I know what is involved. And I have friends in pro tour teams

"He was inspirational, he came back from cancer to win probably the toughest race in the world seven times."

Yes he did win it seven times and it inspired people because 'they' - the uninformed general public thought he'd done it the tough way. Where as in fact he used performance enhancing drugs. (I'm convinced of that) Its the perception he gives of the plucky cancer survivor who gritted his teeth and then trained hard to win 7 times myth that annoys me.
Granted he had 'luck' on his side in the races - avoiding crashes mishaps etc. As I understand it from a senior Dr with cycling he was also fortunate to benefit from a new chemo that didn't 'scar' his lung tissue.

He is / was a very talented cyclist who will have used 'support' up to the legal limits, and probably beyond leaving no paper trail.

As has been said everyone else was using ' support' at the time - but he made them look like 3rd cat chipper riders. It doesn't add up.

Peterpumpkineater 24 May 2011

I went to Ireland to watch the 98 prologue in Dublin and the Tour through Ireland. That was the year of the big drug bust up when it arrived in France to continue, and was virtually abandoned.

Chris Boardman was racing then.

He used to win the time trials. He said he was clean and did it naturally.
But he had no impact on the overall tour ie overall high finishing place. I believe he was clean.

Why?

Because, as I recall, he said there was no way he could sustain the pace needed for three weeks to do so unaided. He basically said he would need to drug enhance to have any chance of keeping his performance going for that length of time and stay in contention at the level they rode to win overall and he wasn't going to do so.

He basically inferred the high players were all enhanced.

Therefore he was a superb TT man, but possibly could have been one of the rivals to the top 10 riders overall if they matched his clean playing field.

We'll never know.
 Banned User 77 24 May 2011
In reply to Henry Iddon:
> (In reply to Tiberius)
>
> I've raced a top level domestically and worked behind the scenes at pro teams so I know what is involved. And I have friends in pro tour teams
>
> "He was inspirational, he came back from cancer to win probably the toughest race in the world seven times."
>
> Yes he did win it seven times and it inspired people because 'they' - the uninformed general public thought he'd done it the tough way.

drugs or not these guys do it the hard way...Idon't think you can state that any pro athlete, especially in a sport like cycling didn't do it the tough way.

As most say 99% of riders dope, so to get there you still have to work you arse off.

Personally I hope he didn't. If he did it wouldn't change how I perceive him that much. It certainly wouldn't wipe out the significance of his victories or where he came back from.
 Henry Iddon 24 May 2011
In reply to IainRUK:

I'm convinced he doped - and probably more so / in a more sophisticated way than the rest.

Ted was the greatest cyclist ever and I'm sure he did to - but some how its different. Its Armstrong is a great marketeer / myth maker. Anyone who survives cancer has my respect.

Inspiration - look at Matt Brammeier a friend of mine at HTC -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Brammeier

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/8046537/HTC-Columbia-h...
 Mr Fuller 24 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK: So, what do we believe about the current crop of riders? Contador's a 'special case', but of the guys in the top ten last year, were they all doped up? If not, then how come the riders can win the races now, and couldn't ten years ago? Is the pace slower? Are Wiggins, Cavendish and the other Brits drugged up?
 Banned User 77 24 May 2011
In reply to Mr Fuller: Don't thinK Wiggins is, he's massively anti-doping.

Of the current top athletes I honestly believe Paula Radcliffe and Wiggins are as clean as a whistle..
 Toby_W 24 May 2011
In reply to Mr Fuller: Wiggins came of the back of his track stuff with power and lost some weight. He fought like mad and with a bit of luck managed to hang on to get 4th. A year later without team politics and people watching him and perhaps having lost weight to try and stay with the likes of Andy S and his brother and Contraband he didn't even register.

Yes I do think Andy and his brother both dope, and Contador.

Cavendish, sprinter so rather like Boardman he can win those but will never content for the GC.

The Aussie chap who's name has gone out of my head I think is clean, the way he rides breaking himself and suffering just to hang on to the Schlecks before the ride off without breaking a sweat.

All this is just my opinion, I'd like to think there are more and more clean riders and that makes doping now even worse. I don't know if it would be good for (whatever body is left after this) to declare a year zero and have an amnesty and try to break the cycle and toughen the penalties for doping.

Cheers

Toby
 Horse 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Mr Fuller)
> The Aussie chap who's name has gone out of my head I think is clean, the way he rides breaking himself and suffering just to hang on to the Schlecks before the ride off without breaking a sweat.
>

Do you mean Cadel Evans, he does seem to do suffering quite well.

 Swirly 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W: This is danger of veering off topic but anyhoo.

> Yes I do think Andy and his brother both dope

Frank Schleck has "never met nor taken advice from Dr Ferrari" but did reportedly pay him €7000. Nice work if you can get it.


IRT Henry Iddon: Do you have anything to do with Liverpool Century?
 Toby_W 24 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:

Oh yes that was it. "But it was for a training plan and when I realised he was a bit dodgy I didn't use it".

Horse, yes thats the guy. Got to admire that sort of grit even if he's not my fav rider.

Cheers

Toby
Removed User 24 May 2011
In reply to Mr Fuller: As above IMHO Cav, Swift, Thomas etc absolutely clean. I think Gilbert, Pinotti, Evans clean as well, plus Chavanel and Voeckler, Farrar.

Would wonder about Schleks(Frank has previous), maybe even Cancellara unfortunately. Euskatel in the Giro this week!!!!
 Mr Fuller 24 May 2011
In reply to Removed User: Okay, cheers all. I have similar thoughts. I think Cancellara is clean too (and so does the UCI, judging by that leaked list!). Not sure about the Schleks.
fxceltic 24 May 2011
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Mr Fuller) Don't thinK Wiggins is, he's massively anti-doping.
>
> Of the current top athletes I honestly believe Paula Radcliffe and Wiggins are as clean as a whistle..

I would agree, but was surprised to see the UCI suspicious list from before last years TdF, where I think Wiggins got a 5 out of 10, same as Contador?

Be interesting to know why that was the case. I think Geraint Thomas got a 6!
 Swirly 24 May 2011
In reply to fxceltic:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I would agree, but was surprised to see the UCI suspicious list from before last years TdF, where I think Wiggins got a 5 out of 10, same as Contador?
>
> Be interesting to know why that was the case. I think Geraint Thomas got a 6!


They got those numbers because there was more variation than some (most?) in the results of their blood passports. There could be many reasons for this, changes in diet, training, illness etc. The only things you can take from it are they showed variation and this variation was within legal limits. I think the UCI have gone the wrong way about this and people doping would be more inclined to post similar test values but then again maybe the UCI also think this and the list is actually one of people who have displayed consistently similar values.
 shaggypops 24 May 2011
In reply to Swirly:
Would I be nIeve in thinking a lifetime ban for any proven case of performance enhancing would be a stronger deterrent. The grand tour peletons are riddled with riders who have served bans. Even commentators have served bans.
I cannot get enough of the cycling on telly but I'm suspicious of virtually every rider.
David Harmon and Magnus Backstedt seem to openly slate dopers yet David sits alongside Sean Kelly who has failed tests, they are even best mates.
2x winners in consecutive stages.....fairy tell or suspicious.
Radioshak having their hotel and vehicles searched at the giro and their Chris Horners feats in California.
It is constant bad press but I still love it.....the cycling bit that is.
 Toby_W 24 May 2011
In reply to shaggypops:

Yep, the whole thing is a great drama and I can't wait for this years tdf.

Cheers

Toby
 Swirly 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W: The Giro has been awesome so far BUT the rider who has made it so is Beefy Bertie. If the CAS find him guilty, and I can't how how they can't, I can't see the Tour being anywhere near as exciting. That said hopefully I'll be able to watch a couple of stages out there (AdH and the ITT).
 r0b 24 May 2011
In reply to shaggypops:
> David Harmon and Magnus Backstedt seem to openly slate dopers yet David sits alongside Sean Kelly who has failed tests, they are even best mates.

The thing is there is a big difference between doping in Kelly's era and doping in the EPO era. Pre-EPO doping did not make carthorses into thoroughbreds. Not that I'm condoning any doping though.

Incidentally, anyone see the Tour of California last week? Radioshack were doing a very good impression of the old US Postal/Discovery train on the mountain stages. Make of that what you will.
 Tiberius 24 May 2011
In reply to Henry Iddon:
> Yes he did win it seven times and it inspired people because 'they' - the uninformed general public thought he'd done it the tough way.

Generally I notice that neone who has a direct or indirect association with cycling states they're 100% confident most GC cyclist are doping...AND doing it the touch way (i.e. it's not easy, even with doping).

The general public I speak to seems to be split around 50/50, although they don't recognise the difference between GC cyclists and the sprinters, so they classify everyone together.
In reply to r0b:
> (In reply to shaggypops)

> Incidentally, anyone see the Tour of California last week? Radioshack were doing a very good impression of the old US Postal/Discovery train on the mountain stages. Make of that what you will.

I think that was more to do with targeting races, Radioshack wanted to do well as it's their back yard where as others will be thinking about peaking in July .
 Chris the Tall 24 May 2011
In reply to r0b:
> The thing is there is a big difference between doping in Kelly's era and doping in the EPO era. Pre-EPO doping did not make carthorses into thoroughbreds. Not that I'm condoning any doping though.

The big issue with EPO was that it undoubtedly caused the death of a number of cyclists (a quick google suggests 18 professionals)

Pre EPO doping probably didn't have the same dangers - Tommy Simpson aside - but I do remember the very curious case in 1991 when the whole PDM team went down sick overnight with "a fever". Only the riders were affected - which rules out food poisoning - and none were able to continue the race. And who was in that team ?
 highcamp 24 May 2011
In reply to IainRUK:

None of us want to think the folks in our own camp are dopers, but there is no doubt in my mind that Wiggins was on the juice in '09. Coming off the track to grab 4th in a HILLY TdF is beyond reasonable belief. Folks can say he was in shape from the track and especially after an olympic yr, but the reality is it's an entirely different kind of training required for the pursuit vs. hanging with the GC mountain goats on Ventoux in the final week. No way. NO way.

And saying he is massively anti-doping, or saying anyone is massively anti-doping is a laugh. Hell, LA gave the UCI $100K to promote anti-doping.
 Rubbishy 24 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

What happened to the good old days when a rider would potter into the doping control with a bag full of toddler piss.
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> What happened to the good old days when a rider would potter into the doping control with a bag full of toddler piss.

And who can forget Sean Kelly using his mechanics piss only to find, with the help of doping control, that his mechanic was whizzing his tits off.
 Mark Reeves Global Crag Moderator 24 May 2011
In reply to lowersharpnose:
> (In reply to Jim Lancs & Swirly,
>
> 50%! So, clearly bogus diagnosis.
>
> Thinking about salbutamol, for asthmatics it opens the airways that their condition constricts. For a non-asthmatic, wouldn't their airways be open anyway?
>
> Does salbutamol have some other effect?
>
> I found this article which suggests a near 2% performance boost for non-asthmatic cyclists over.
>
> http)//www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/salbutamol.html
>
> They can offer no explanation for this increase in performance, which was not explained by changes in plasma concentrations of free fatty acids, glycerol, lactate and potassium during exercise, or by changes in ventilatory parameters at rest and after exercise.
>
> Fascinating. Perhaps I fascinate easily.

I am pretty sure I read that the placebo effect can have an around 2% effect on performance. Maybe thats the culprit! 2% is quite a boost at the top level!

 Toby_W 24 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:
I have to disagree with you, Wiggins was in top form and just about hung on for that 4th place, nearly fell off his bike up Ventoux. The other teams were a shambles due to the divisions in Radioshack and the Schlecks waiting for each other. Had that not been the case Wiggins would have been toasted. Had he been doping he'd have been top 3 and made it look easier.

Cheers

Toby
fxceltic 24 May 2011
In reply to Swirly: SPOLIER ALERT:

Having just witnessed the mountain time trial theres no way alberto isnt on something
 highcamp 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:

Ok, what about 5th to Verbier... when everybody was gunning it to limit losses to AC? It's just not realistic that a pursuit specialist is consistently climbing with the likes of Schleck, Nibali, and dropping Sastre (yr after he won the boucle) and Cadel. Is there any other remotely comparable success story from riders who made/tried the switch (pursuit -> mountain goat)?.... Brad McGee, Obree, Boardman, Ekimov? Nope.

I dig Wiggins, but no way he was clean that year.
 Rubbishy 24 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:

what about this year? his Paris - Nice performance was pretty good.
 Toby_W 24 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:

There is not one hint of suspicion around Wiggins, one reasonable performance which he could not repeat a year later coming back even lighter. As to the 5th, it's one day. As to going track to mountain goat, it's all about build what was his nick name, Twiggins?
Also you need money to dope and connections and he had neither of these things that year.
If I was him and I had doped I'd be asking for my money back.

If you can point to one single thing that links him directly to a dope scandal or Dr I'll slide him down my scale a bit until then 100% clean in my eyes at this time.

Cheers

Toby
 Toby_W 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:

Wait scrub the 100% make it 99% nothing is 100% especially in pro cycling.



Cheers

Toby
 Tiberius 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> There is not one hint of suspicion around Wiggins, one reasonable performance which he could not repeat a year later coming back even lighter.

Yeah, first year he lost a lot of weight to become a climber and put in a performance probably around the limit of a non-assisted rider. Seems he gathered that lighter was the way forward, lost even more weight and just wasn't as effective.

As climbers we're probably more aware than most sportsmen of the strength/weight issue. It's like Chris Sharma slimming down to Adam Ondra build. It almost certainly wouldn't improve his performance.

> If you can point to one single thing that links him directly to a dope scandal or Dr I'll slide him down my scale a bit until then 100% clean in my eyes at this time.

I agree, I think he was about as good as you could have been without doping...i.e. he was slightly off the pace of the people who were going to win it.

As mentioned in another post, there were a lot of issues in the other teams too. Armstrong/Contador fights, Andy always waiting for his brother, Evans riding without a real team. Any other year Wiggins would probably have finished outside the top 10.
 highcamp 24 May 2011
In reply to Tiberius:

With all due respect, if Wiggins were American or Spanish, would you hold the same opinion?

To say that 4th in the TdF is the limit of non-assisted rider is a far stretch, most especially when that rider isn't a grand tour specialist. Here's a run-down of the top 10 in 2009:

1. Contador (implicated, positive result)
2. A.Schleck (implicated)
3. Armstrong (implicated)
4. Wiggins (clean as virgin snow)
5. F.Schleck (implicated)
6. Kloden (implicated)
7. Nibali (seemingly clean so far, stage race specialist, won Vuelta in 2010)
8. Vande Velde (suspicion, was on US Postal for 1999 and 2001 wins)
9. Kreuziger (seemingly clean so far, stage race specialist, +8min down on Wiggins)
10. Le Mevel (seemingly clean so far, stage race specialist, +8min down on Wiggins)

If Wiggins had gotten that placing via a breakaway that no one bothered to chase down (a la Pereiro 2006), then that's one thing, but over the course of the 3 week Tour he was consistently in the tops on the TT's AND the mtn top finishes,.... a drome specialist! If he had a history in his younger years of breaking legs in endurance events (i.e., Armstrong) then it might be believable, but he doesn't.

> There is not one hint of suspicion
Level 5, UCI suspicion list... right along with Contador, Vino,

Again, if Wiggins was an American or Spaniard would you afford him the same opinion?

Anyway, it's a sad state that so many within the sport are tainted with drug suspicion, either directly or by proxy.
 Tiberius 24 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:
> With all due respect, if Wiggins were American or Spanish, would you hold the same opinion?

Difficult to say. The basis for my opinion comes from two strands. First in 2009, most of the other teams were disorganised so not performing as well as they could. Take the year before when saxobank were beating Evans up, nothing like that really happened in 09. Armstrong and Contador were squabbling over top dog. Andy was hanging back to support brother Frank, Evans had no support. So it was easier to get in there amongst the top, even if he was never going to actually win it. Contador won the tour pretty much on his own. Shows how poor the teams were, normally a rider with a team behind him will win, ala Sastre the year before.

Second, Wiggins was never going to win it. Even given the other teams in disarray, 4th was as high as he was going to get. He found a weight that seemed to be just about perfect for him (as I said, he misjudged it the following year). I 'think' that was about the top level for a non-doped rider. However I admit I may be wrong, maybe the leading non-doped rider was way back in 20th place, but I don't think the doping gives such an advantage reeli.
 Henry Iddon 24 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:

Yup the year Wiggo was up there was unique. A great ride but a very controlled race as well.
 Henry Iddon 25 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

For a cycling view on the matter - forum with the most whit...

http://www.veloriders.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=97923&postdays=0&...
Removed User 25 May 2011
In reply to Henry Iddon: Could this be the most likely outcome for Contador?

"The 28-year-old could be back in competitive action next week after the Court of Arbitration for Sport accepted that Baxter had retrospectively served two months of his ban in the previous skiing season.

The CAS also announced that the ban would be lifted tomorrow.

Baxter was stripped of his bronze medal in the Winter Olympics after failing a drugs test and was then given the temporary ban by skiing chiefs in June"

Contador stripped of his TdF title, nobody really bothered as it was last year, ban already been served i.e 3 months. Gets to keep results from this season so far and is cleared to ride Tdf.More likely to be "clean" now and UCI save a little bit of face?
 Mike Highbury 25 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:

> Contador stripped of his TdF title, nobody really bothered as it was last year, ban already been served i.e 3 months. Gets to keep results from this season so far and is cleared to ride Tdf.More likely to be "clean" now and UCI save a little bit of face?

Why would the ban be for as little as 3 months?
Removed User 25 May 2011
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> (In reply to IainFP)
>
> [...]
>
> Why would the ban be for as little as 3 months?

Unable to prove it was deliberately ingested, but was in his system therefore minimum ban? Just a thought........

 Toby_W 25 May 2011
In reply to highcamp:

Would make no difference to me where he came from, I think you see where I stand at this time regarding Wiggo. If he rode a Schleck off his wheel this year to win the tdf then it would up end my scale but I'd then switch to "I'd like to believe he was clean" while thinking he couldn't possibly be.
I mentioned it above and am curious as to your view on Cadel Evans. You may be un-surprised to hear I think he's clean, maybe not as sure as with Wiggins so perhaps a very much would like to think he's clean.

Cheers

Toby
 Mike Highbury 25 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to highcamp)
>
> Would make no difference to me where he came from, I think you see where I stand at this time regarding Wiggo. If he rode a Schleck off his wheel this year to win the tdf then it would up end my scale but I'd then switch to "I'd like to believe he was clean" while thinking he couldn't possibly be.
> I mentioned it above and am curious as to your view on Cadel Evans. You may be un-surprised to hear I think he's clean, maybe not as sure as with Wiggins so perhaps a very much would like to think he's clean.

Since it's based on numbers and not what one would like to believe, the UCI index of suspicion is as good a place to start as any other. As a group the BMC team was high on the list, so too were other teams that should surprise none of us.

Ignoring Geraint T's high score because he has had his spleen removed. Interesting was Sky, particularly several of its new recruits; a matter that Brailsford would have known before they were recruited.


 Toby_W 25 May 2011
In reply to Mike Highbury:

The UCI index is a bit of a joke, you'd expect a normal rider who was not doping to have a variation in the blood values whereas a doped rider will have very little change due to the meds keeping it flat.
If I did a long race I would expect my high hct of 48 to plummet over the course of the race and my other blood stats to vary as well.

I must go and look to see where Cadel Evans was on the list now.

Cheers

Toby
 Mike Highbury 25 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Mike Highbury)
>
> The UCI index is a bit of a joke, you'd expect a normal rider who was not doping to have a variation in the blood values whereas a doped rider will have very little change due to the meds keeping it flat.
> If I did a long race I would expect my high hct of 48 to plummet over the course of the race and my other blood stats to vary as well.
>
> I must go and look to see where Cadel Evans was on the list now.
>
Well yes and no. Indices included: a 'sudden drop in hemoglobin one month before the summer of 2010 which could point to an important loss of blood possibly destined to be re-injected during the Tour; suspicion of EPO use during the 2009 Giro; hematocrit, hemoglobin or stimulation index superior to 2010 values, which could have led to a start ban before the UCI rules were changed; and low parameters off-race.'

Of course this could all be bollocks but I'm prepared to consider it a start when it gives scores of Kloden (7), Tony Martin (7), Michael Rogers (7), Matthew Lloyd (8) and Popovych (10). BTW Cadel, LA, Levi L and Millar were all 4.
 TobyA 25 May 2011
In reply to Mike Highbury: You lot might be interested in court case that is slowly winding its way through the Finnish courts currently: http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Prosecution+witnesses+in+doping+trial+alpi... (and see links at the bottom).

Very quick background:

a) Once, Finnish sports heroes are all as white as the snow they ski on.
b) Even if everyone else is, they of course wouldn't.
c) 2001 Nordic World Championships Finns do quite well, then once fails a drug test.
d) Press conference where he admits it, and says he acted completely alone, is watched by more Finns than the 9/11 attacks some months later.
e) Other's start failing drug tests, and it becomes obvious that most have doped and coaches and doctors helped. Also turns out the first guy was paid a millions marks by the national ski association to take the rap.
f) National innocence is lost.
g) Journos accuse various officials of having arranged doping for years previously, they sue for defamation and win substantial damages.
h) Now, a decade on, it is revealed they lied and lied and are now are being sued for that fraud (winning damages by lying).

At least most think cyclists cheat, here the XC skiers have gone from heroes to zeros and everyone now understands what plasma expanders do!
 Toby_W 25 May 2011
In reply to Mike Highbury & TobyA, cheers for that, all very interesting.

I find all this very interesting, as other have said I have little interest in the outcome for Armstrong himself although it is quite a drama but what it will mean for the UCI. They have come out with some crazy statements about all this especially when there may be a paper trail and sworn statements from the people at the lab involved in the Tour of Switzerland tests.
My favourite so far has to be this one:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-says-armstrong-never-never-never...

Never, never, never, never ever doped.

Now ref my above I wouldn't even say that about Wiggins, I cannot possibly know.

Cheers

Toby
Removed User 25 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Mike Highbury & TobyA, cheers for that, all very interesting.
>
> My favourite so far has to be this one)
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-says-armstrong-never-never-never...
>
> Never, never, never, never ever doped.
>
thats a stunner, notice LA has never denied doping, has only ever affirmed "never failed a test". Which is something very different.

Far to many big time dopers as DS'?
 Rubbishy 25 May 2011
In reply to TobyA:

Were the Finns really that stunned?

Bakc in the 70's Vaniio and Maaninka had been caught doping and Viren was repeatedly accused of blood packing.

Add that to the fact EPO first came to prominence when Scandanavian xc skiers and bi-athletes started using it and it seems a sad but ineviatble conclusion

 Mike Highbury 25 May 2011
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> Were the Finns really that stunned?

I wouldn't be surprised. National pride, hero worship, wilful amnesia and so on, all seem to conspire against sober assessments of what is required for success in sport.
 TobyA 25 May 2011
In reply to John Rushby:

> Were the Finns really that stunned?

Absolutely. I remember I had just moved here, and my workplace like every other one, just stopped to watch the first press conference where Isomestä fessed up, and then the second one where it came clear that Mika Myllyla was also implicated - he had got a gold in the 98 winter olympics so was a real star.

> Bakc in the 70's Vaniio and Maaninka had been caught doping and Viren was repeatedly accused of blood packing.

Before my time, I know about Viren (he was an MP until recently) - but were the other two track and field athletes as well? As opposed to skiers? I do remember that some athletes had been caught, including one who bizarrely claimed that he had been injected by his apartment building janitor or something very believable like that!


 Green Porridge 25 May 2011
In reply to DaveHK:

I guess the thing that bothers me is not really that he doped - but that he's been such an arse towards anyone who's dared to suggest it, undermining the Armstrong legend.

He's a rider from an era where everyone was doping, and he should be judged by his era, I think. I don't hold anything against Indurain, or Pantani, or Ullrich, or any of the others from that era, that's simply how it was. In my eyes, it doesn't really make Armstrog any less of an exceptional rider. I think if you were to take the top fifty riders of that time, and take them all off EPO, they'd still be pretty much the top 50 riders in the world. Some people would doubtless shift their rankings slightly, due to having better or worse pharmacists than others, but there's no doubt that they'd still be top riders. The thing that leaves the worst taste in my mouth is Armstrong (and his fans, most of whom are Lance fans first, and cycling fans second) denies and denies and denies what is plainly obvious - not because people inside the cycling world would greatly judge him for doping, but because poeple outside would. It seems that the money, and the publicity have all become far more important than the sport, and the truth, and that gets my back up. He wants so desparately to be a hero, and he will grind down anyone who suggsts that he's not all that he claims. The fact is, the man came back from cancer and won the TdF, and on dope or not, that's an incredible achievement.

Tim
 Mutl3y 25 May 2011
In reply to Removed User:

Alright, imagine I've got a betting slip saying "Scarponi to be Giro d'Italia 2011 GC winner @ 25/1". Scarponi finishes second but CAS gives Alberto a 12 month ban, retrospective from when he ate that bad beef burger.

Do you reckon the bookies would respect that they lost the bet and pay out?

It looks like a plan with no drawbacks but... there must be a drawback...
Kipper 25 May 2011
In reply to Mutl3y:
>
> Alright, imagine I've got a betting slip saying "Scarponi to be Giro d'Italia 2011 GC winner @ 25/1". Scarponi finishes second but CAS gives Alberto a 12 month ban, retrospective from when he ate that bad beef burger.
>
> Do you reckon the bookies would respect that they lost the bet and pay out?
>

I'll be behind you in the queue getting my winnings from last years TdF.

 highcamp 26 May 2011
In reply to Toby_W:

I too would like to think Cadel is clean. I enjoyed reading that quote from his coach, Aldo Sassi, about how Cadel is just genetically gifted, exceptionally so (this was in an interview where Sassi was also talking about Basso, and he didn't say the same about IB). Armstrong, for better or worse, falls into that exceptionally gifted pool as well... perhaps there's the difference right there between an exceptionally genetically gifted rider who's clean and one who's not.

Unfortunately, there's a cloud of suspicion over the entire peloton, so who knows.
 Tobias at Home 29 May 2011
In reply to Mutl3y: In some ways I would like Contador to be allowed to ride this years TdF. The French crowds will be deliciously hostile to him. Would make for interesting watching even if nothing to do with the cycling.
 Henry Iddon 30 May 2011
In reply to Green Porridge:

Well said Tim.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...