You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I am no Lance defender just trying to put a bit of balance into the discussion.
How did lance intimidate say someone like Frank Schleck ?
You typed Franck Schleck, probably should have typed Simeoni, y'know the one that retired with his face covered in his own tears and the spit of the rest of the peleton.
No I know what I typed, the treatment dished out to Simeoni was despicable and indefensible. Armstrong led that and should be ashamed of his actions.
People were cheating before Armstrong and they have been cheating since he left.
Additionally to what Junkyard has mentioned.
'According to Tylers book (make of this what you will) The 2005 French national doping testing labs retrospective study of the 1999 tour Lance tested positive from samples for Stages 1,9,10,12, and 14.
These are the positives Lance claimed to be tampered with. Countered by Dr Micheal Ashenden stating that tampering would be beyond astronomical.
Of the other 81 samples from the rest of the peleton 7 tested positive 8.6%'
The Festina affair was probably Grand Tour cyclings best (albeit perhaps slim?) chance for going clean. Lance ensured(arguably with others) that to win, you had to dope.
The problem is his clean results are average [ for a pro and he did not even complete a TdF before winning it*]
In his defence, he was World Road Race Champion when he was 21 (1993). That was before cancer but given the history and revelations, he was almost certainly on steroids/testosterone then as well.
After cancer, he'd lost a huge amount of weight so that helped him become a grand tour contender. He'd finished high up in the Vuelta before he won the Tour. Yes, doped obviously but the example still stands.
You don't win the World Championships by being average.
However arguments about "he was the best doper, they were all on it" don't wash because people react differently to drugs - what gives one rider a 10% boost might only give a 2% boost to another rider so it's still not a level playing field by any means.
For accuracy I am not saying he was utterly rubbish just that his Grand tour results were not good
TBH there was another thread on this and One day racers /stage winners dont tend to convert to GC winners with his record - imagine cav for Gilbert or Cancellera winning the TdF.
He was a very good one day rider but his Tours were poor. We then argued about training methods etc.
I dont think you can quote a doping result to show how good he was without dope
My view is we cannot know for sure but he did not show form that he would dominate the tour like he did
Here is against the big Mig pre doping in a TT during a tour[94] for example as to how much he improved.
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/what-would-a-clean-lance-have-been-like
Was Miguel Indurain clean? Not wanting to cause an argument but just wondering if there were any rumours about him?
Most hardened (cynical) fans regard Big Mig as dodgy....EPO taking hold of the peloton seemingly overlapped with the latter of his tour wins. Lemond say that all of a sudden the peloton was going along at warp speed in 1995....
Indurain got discussed as well - he was found guilty of using an inhaler - as for the rest there are no actual rumours about him but , given the period, we would have to say who knows
It is clear Indurain was a bit of freak physiologically with his low heart rate and huge VO2- I would be more inclined to think he could have done it clean than LA - I m not saying Indurain was not clean just that most of cycling was tainted.
he'd lost a huge amount of weight
This was another myth that was perpetuated, his starting weights were practically the same.
Indurain got caught using salbutamol although at the time I don't think it was actually illegal in the strictest definition of the word.
The problem here is that the few cyclists out there with no doping history or record are now under suspicion as well. How can he have won clean if everyone else was doped? Lemond, Indurain, Cippolini.
??
Hence why this goes far deeper than just LA, this is the whole sport from domestic pros right up through World Tour to the UCI itself.
So what are we going to get tomorrow? Verbruggen resigns and UCI accept the USADA report? Does anyone think the Lance will eventually admit to it for it the sake of the book and film rights down the line:)
one more bump 🙄
and again
Good God, even Phil Liggett has accepted it!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/phil-liggett-i-had-no-reason-not-to-believe-lance-8219480.html
Although he still seems to be using the "well they were all on it" argument.
Not only did Lance not finish the TdF before his first win, he was effectively considered a makeweight, not good in the mountains, not good at time trials so effectively a windbreak to keep your important riders fresh on the flat stages rather than a super domestique who could help make a GC victory happen (see Froome for this).
There was nothing, pre-cancer, to suggest he was going to be anything other than a domestique with the occasional one-day or short stage-race win.
He was pretty highly rated as a stage hunter in the TdF and as a one day rider wasn't he? He was world champion in 1991.
and the other riders who have converted from one day races to grand tour winners with a record of not completing them is ???
I dont think anyone is saying he was rubbish just that his pre drugs record is not stellar in comparison to his post drug record- particularly in relation to grand tours]. It gave no indication of what was to come and it is a large leap to assume he could have done it without drugs and we should not assume he would have. However we will never know for sure but I am not convinced.
I was posting in response to atlaz making out that he was a no hoper pre cancer-he was still a heavyweight of the peloton. As of tomorrow I'd guess that his palmares pre cancer will look pretty rosy compared to his post cancer one 🙂
they will but I agree with Atlaz. His results were Good for one day /a stage win and very mleh for a grand tour- not unlike Millar is , to complete the circle
You are aware that he was a stage winner in the TdF pre cancer and not just the gifted win either. I'm not defending him (I'm a bonafide hater) I just think you may be slightly under estimating his perceived value pre cancer...,he was on huge money at Motorola and Cofidis. Oh and how about Tommy V for one dayer who can't climb to fighting for the win and winning the polka dot jersey at the tour?! I'd be amazed if he's done that clean given how dodgy his team are.
I mentioned tour wins above so yes I know but have you seen the vid of mig destroying him above?
What about his TT,mountain and GT stamina transformation I cannot think of another.
As for Tommy that would be the 10 day wearing Mallot Jaune Rider on his fist tour [finihing 18 th]we are discussing? The one who has still not won a Grand Tour?
As i said I cannot think of anyone else who has done the transformation LA did
Either way we will never know but his pre drug record is not good enough we could say he definitely would have. Its my view it is not even good enough to shows signs he could have.
I agree wasn't a realistic GT contender couldn't cut it in the mountains etc. It was just his being portrayed as being useless by Atlaz that I thought was wide of the mark. He was reasonable as a TTer pre cancer too-sixth in Atlanta in 96 for instance. Oh and I notice that I've claimed 91 for the worlds above-it was 93.
As i said I cannot think of anyone else who has done the transformation LA did
I gave you a whole list on the last thread on this.
The best example probaby being big Mig himself, who did about 10 tours without even troubling the top 100...
Nah Mig was in the top 20 a few times before he won....he would probably have been on the podium the year before his first win if he hadn't have waited for his team leader.
I gave you a whole list on the last thread on this.
You didnt but it seemed pointless to debate a list of riders as the point is nothing in his early career* when he did not do drugs indicated he would win 7 TdF or even compete for the GC. If people want to take this as proof that without drugs he would have been the best then that is their choice but i dont find it compelling.
* big mig was always a superb TT and lost 10 kg from his early years to be able to defend in the Mountains. He was also a super domestique for Delgado [ winner in 88 iirc who failed a drug test for a masking agent. He got 45 th,17th and 10th [ lost time protecting delgado or he would have been higher] 1988-90. This is probably challenging the top 100 and not bad if you are not the team leader. A slightly better record than not finishing a tour before drugs and winning 7 in a row after.
The are not equivalent and neither were the others on your list
It doesn't appear there was a pre-drugs phase. Given the list he reeled off in the hospital when was diagnosed with cancer his entire career is tainted, not just his grand tour wins.I dont think anyone is saying he was rubbish just that his pre drugs record is not stellar in comparison to his post drug record
Bjarne Riis has to be the biggest cheat though doesn't he? Haemotacrit of over 60 and going from an average journey man to TdF winner....obviously he only got the one win, but I reckon he improved more than lala.
Lance was far from an also ran, he was very young in the early 90's and the grand tours really need more that youthfull enthusiasm to win.
It takes a lot o win any tour one of he keys is a top team, and lance was always in the best team, with the most money and best other riders. Look at wiggo this year.
Lance lost weight after the cancer and probably trained harder than anyone else.
Yet again another pointless what if argument.
Isn't the weight loss thing a myth? As for 'trained harder' lol!
Lance was far from an also ran, he was very young in the early 90's and the grand tours really need more that youthfull enthusiasm to win.
Like finishing them as the starting point
You missed the drug taking part whilst explaining his transformation 😉
It's fairly moot trying to work out if Armstrong would have been any good if cycling was clean, it's impossible to know.
However, it's ridiculous to claim being the best cheat was some sort of honour. Being the best cheat in a sport full of cheats is like being the biggest *head at a party full of *heads.
He may have been the best without the drugs and only taking them to keep up, he may have been the best suited to the drugs or he may have just taken more drugs than anyone else, who knows? But what is for sure is that he was the biggest ****head at the party.
However, it's ridiculous to claim being the best cheat was some sort of honour. Being the best cheat in a sport full of cheats is like being the biggest *head at a party full of *heads.
+1 well said
Isn't the weight loss thing a myth? As for 'trained harder' lol!
True, think it was one of the interviews with Ashenden where he delved into it a bit and declared it just didn't happen.
MrSmith - Member
MrSmith - Member
MrSmith - Member
MrSmith - Member
Hora so have you had enough time to ponder my question?
so do you still think he's innocent and didn't dope?
just wonderin like.
POSTED 22 HOURS AGO #
Well?
POSTED 19 HOURS AGO #
Well?POSTED 2 DAYS AGO #
Well?
POSTED 2 DAYS AGO #
Well?
Lance actually finished in 36th place in his 3rd tour (1995). He didn't complete it the following year, but was diagnosed with cancer shortly afterwards.
Indurain took 5 tours to achieve a result better than 36th.
I'm not really defending Lance here, just disagreeing with your point. I don't think it's really possible to make a judgement of what "might have been" based on his early career results. In fact, I think it's fairly probable that he was doping before the cancer too, so there's really no basis for before/after or with/without doping.
Oh, and I've just spotted there was a genuine typo in my previous post, meant to say troubling the top 10, not 100! This is not an Edinburgh defense...
This is not an Edinburgh defense...
Brilliant, which of you had time to kill then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Defense
by a mainly tandem riding individual
Brilliant, which of you had time to kill then?
[img] 
[/img]
😆
I miss TJ... I wish I'd thought of the Wiki entry though!
Isn't the weight loss thing a myth? As for 'trained harder' lol!
Oh that's right I forgot, he was an unfit fatty and after 1 vile of epo he won his first tour. You have to laugh at how well informed folk are on here, i mean here we have Tom who actually helped weigh lance on a weekly basis, and he also trained with lance since he had his cancer.
You must have some great stories Tom, tell us some more.
[i]You have to laugh at how well informed folk are on here, i mean here we have Tom who actually helped weigh lance on a weekly basis, and he also trained with lance since he had his cancer.[/i]
Perhaps a little research into the history of the whole sorry saga is required rather than insulting people. It's all out there.
Eh? You're the one who claimed that he weighed less. Did you help weigh him on a daily basis? You also claimed that he probably trains harder than anyone else. Did you regularly train with him post cancer then Steve?
You must have some great stories Steve, please share.
Anyone throw this one in the ring yet but any questions being raised over Armstrong having cancer at all? I would question everything that man has ever been part of, he's built a myth around him, time to rip it down. I'm going for epo induced heart failure.
Why do you do this hyperbolic ranty stuff steve?
It seems somewhat childish and does not really help what is a largely polite if academic[ i.e. pointless] discussion.
Oh that's right I forgot, he was an unfit fatty and after 1 vile of epo he won his first tour.
Straw man no one has said this
You have to laugh at how well informed folk are on here
Ah so you are the real expert - do tell us your inside information 🙄
Straw man, i mean here we have Tom who actually helped weigh lance on a weekly basis,
and he also trained with lance since he had his cancer.
Staw man and irrelevant
You must have some great stories Tom, tell us some more.
Well onceo n the internet I made this point about Armstrongs' weight and you will never guess what happened next....
Interesting discussion between a couple of non cycling but v good athleates (track) friends of mine on FB about doping, if what they are saying is true, it makes you wonder how much of the whole doping scandal is politically motivated
Nick Andrews
I don't know much about drugs in cycling , however what I do know about blood doping is that at high performance it may not necessarily improve performance, there are many considerations and factors to assertain this . Also , on a broader note , it seems that great performance is the result of some kind of ergogenic aid nowadays with people forgetting the obvious ! . Well let's state the obvious then . There is absolute no substitute for Intense training and mental agility and the desire to win . Lance Armstrong is what he is because of those two biggest factors . Any other intervention would 'perhaps' and its a big 'perhaps' would serve to give him an edge, that's all , however with everyone else on doping methods, if convicted it would just mean its nice to know that he was not at a disadvantage and so he was in a fair position from the start. I can't see a reason why they would strip his titles over this ??? And if not convicted perhaps blood doping actually gives athletes a disadvantage ! Karma for you 😉
Like · · 7 hours ago via Mobile ·
4 people like this.
Mark Rogers Exactly right mate. He was the best at the time they were all doping. That is why he is suffering more than the dopers he was up against. He was one of the greatest cyclists and athletes that has ever lived- physically and mentally- anyone that argues that is talking rubbish. If he, and everyone was clean, he'd have still dominated. It's just a shame that doping went on (and still does). If people feel that strongly about doping in cycling, they should turn their anger and critisism to the UCI- not so much Lance Armstrong, as he was just a small part of the promoted doping culture.
6 hours ago · Like
Nick Andrews Hey man Yeh , I know bud . Just seems crazy that people just don't understand that he's the best because of all the important attributes . Plus doping actually has a lot of negative effects and not everyone tolerates its effects on the body in the same way . An improved oxygen carrying capacity comes at the cost of increased plasma volume , high blood pressure and increased strain on the cv system , plus the blood is more viscous and the bodys cooling system doesn't operate effectively . This is probably the most limiting factor as if you start to overheat then your performance declines rapidly .
6 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Mark Rogers It's the way everything is explained in the media mate. They thrive off disgracing people, when the ignorant journalists don't present any of those points you've made- they make it sound as if doping could turn a couch potato into a world champion. People believe this crap too. The people that argue with me about this, are generally people that don't know the first thing about cycling and sport and what it takes to be at the top. It was the very top athletes that doped- and it wasn't a case of doping to get to that level. One theory is that the UCI promoted doping to get more spectacular one-off performances in the Tours to make cycling a more appealing sport to the masses. Thats all doping could do- it inconsistantly improves recovery, meaning that some performances would be 'a bit better than usual'.
6 hours ago · Edited · Like
Nick Andrews Man ! It doesn't suprise me mark . After all sport like most things in a capitalist society is just as much as a business as everything else . Your right , they make it sound as though drugs are a magic potion that will give you superhuman powers . It's just not the case and its an art to get the extra edge . I wonder whether the action of such things merely act as a placebo effect . And the media ... well they got to sell the papers ! Crazy world
being good track athletes clearly doesn't equate to properly understanding biology or the history of doping in cycling 🙂
Non of that sounds even remotely true Hustler. I'm no doctor, but looking at how fast Pantani, Armstrong, Ulrich etc rode up Alp d'Huez then seeing that the fastest riders were going up there 4 or 5 minutes slower in 2011 leads me to believe that doping makes a huge difference.
Glitch bump
Glitchy bump
Whats the Straw man Junkyard keeps going on about?
Steve you've gone very quiet.....come on, explain this whole weigh loss and training stuff to us.
however what I do know about blood doping is that at high performance it may not necessarily improve performance
Then they wouldn't bother would they, surely?
Additionally, they are forgetting that the desire for a clean sport is initially driven by cycling fans. It's certainly not driven by the UCI or pro cyclists. Otherwise it would just be an accepted part of the sport, like cheating/new designs in Formula 1.
It's the way everything is explained in the media mate. They thrive off disgracing people, when the ignorant journalists don't present any of those points you've made- they make it sound as if doping could turn a couch potato into a world champion.
This particular statement is both stupid and insulting. I do not know anyone who thinks that Lance was not an exceptional athlete, some question his Grand Tour ability. But NO ONE thinks he was a "couch potato"
they should turn their anger and critisism to the UCI
There is an awful lot of anger and criticism aimed at the UCI, they are frequently viewed as at least complicit in the whole sorry affair, they should read the USADA documents for a start.
The more worrying aspect of there conversation is that they are very good track athletes (and there is no shortage of dark clouds hanging over that sport)
As for the political motivation, where was that then? I missed it. Can you provide a reasonable hypothesis that doesn't involve an Anti Doping Authority going after an athlete they believe they have good evidence doped!?
A couple of comments on recent posts:
There was nothing, pre-cancer, to suggest he was going to be anything other than a domestique with the occasional one-day or short stage-race win.
That's a bit of a dangerous assertion, easy to shoot down, because very few occasional winning domestiques get one of these...
[img] 
[/img]
Of course, if we're to believe various witnesses, e.g. those from the hospital treatment room (and I do) then we get a pretty good idea of how he got it.
Anyway, the_hustler, I think your friends are very very wrong about the effects of doping, particular oxygen vector doping.
If it doesn't work, how come the average speeds got so high under it? How come teams like USPS arrived in the midst of EPO-fuelled Europe and were blasted off the back for a year until they got themselves a stash?
Sorry to your mates but I'd much rather listen to the reasoned scientific thinking of Ashenden et all than their "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" confident but misplaced assertions
@ crazy-legs
I like this one...
[img] 
[/img]
UCI response due today.
UCI response due today.
Will be a definitive "Sitting-on-the-fence" statement I'm sure.
I think they will burn him now, they will be more concerned with defending themselves.
MSP - Member
I think they will burn him now, they will be more concerned with defending themselves.
Me too.
12 noon for the decision I believe.
Walsh was interesting on R4 this am - very scathing of McQuid
Said he should resign, but that the UCI were nothing if not unpredictable
I think they will burn him now, they will be more concerned with defending themselves
The problem may be that if they were really complicit in the doping (early warning of tests etc.) then just dumping him may not be an option without his agreement. It's gonna be messy
Ooops 😳
What a typo - McQuaid
I seem to have said McQuid... 😆
My guess is that they'll want to defend their position, but not look utterly stupid...
= ratify USADA decision on LA but ask for some parts to be refered to CAS as a technicality...eg UCI allegations???
They'll agree with the judgement.
"this page cannot be found" 😆
hora - jumps off the fence with a quick edit...?
I think they'll agree too - the only way they can be really harmed is if LA actually 'fesses up & takes them down with him. From what I've seen of him over the years, this is very unlikely.
Have you had time to ponder Mr Smith's question yet hora? 🙂
There's a great picture of Lance here:
I wonder when the announcement will come that he has been dropped by Oakley, but has signed a new endorsement contract with Deal Extreme.
Have you had time to ponder Mr Smith's question yet hora?
Yes Hora, he does seem to want an answer.
MrSmith is a tad weird. I've already said that when George came 'out' that its impossible for him to be clean. If someone who has never tested positive admits to doping then its a world of shit.
I seem to have said McQuid...
McSquid - invertebrate.
so do you think lance doped or not? a simple yes or no will do.
Hora you do realize that a huge amount of doping bans in cycling are handed out to people that haven't tested positive. As Hamilton said, it really is an IQ test as much as a drug test. EPO becomes undetectable overnight.
hora - Member
I've already said ... its impossible for him to be clean
I think you can take that as Hora saying that he thinks he doped...
I think you can take that as Hora saying that he thinks he doped...
no it's not the same thing, that's the same as lance's "tough week" "these allegations" etc.
Does it really matter... it's just a silly ego thing now for you guys isn't it...
no, just interested in how the staunch supporters/enablers react to the news, you only have to see the way ligget is carrying on and the reaction of glitterati at the livestrong do the other day.
i guess facing the reality that your idol is a fraud and a cheat is a bitter pill to swallow, or not?
That's a bit of a dangerous assertion, easy to shoot down, because very few occasional winning domestiques get one of these. << Pic of Rainbow Jersey wearing Lance >>
So everyone who wins the world road championship goes on to win grand tours? Sure, there ARE people who do that but there are plenty who don't. I can't find the quote but at least one of his former teammates who saw him ride before cancer said he wasn't a long stage-race sort of rider as he lacked the TT and climbing ability.
It's not like I'm saying he was awful you know, just that people around him never expected him to end up where he did. Which, given what we know about his doping, is a fair comment.
you only have to see the way ligget is carrying on
You reckon Liggett is going to apologise to all the people he called liars including the US govt investigators who he said were paying people to lie in court about Lance?