Road Bike Racing - Is Lance Armstrong on drugs...?

So Jan Ulrich tested positive...does that really suprise anyone?
The worlds second best cyclist, olympic gold medal winner, uses preformance enhancing drugs. This brings me to my question. Does Lance Armstrong use preformance enhancing drugs? I did not believe for a momement (until yesterday) that Ulrich would ever be that stupid, now we know. Is Lance that good that other riders on dope can't beat him. Are we all fools for believing that he is "clean", or do profesional cyclists know something we do not?
My personal believe is that most profesional cyclist use illegal drugs to a certain degree increase their changes of winning, hoping to escape detection either by using masking agents or faking injury before major races to name but a few options...
Combine this with a clever team doctor and you could have a winning formula. Does anyone know the name of Lance Armstrongs doctor? - Dr. Ferrari. He is known in certain circles....

I think we have to go with the principle, innocent until found guilty, but having said that I wouldn't be surprised if more riders than have been found 'non-negative' in tests use or have used drugs at some point in their career.

With Ulrich, I suspect what they found was recreational (Ectasy for example is often mixed with speed) or possibly an attempt at weight loss rather than for racing performance, as he isn't racing at the moment...

Richard

Does anyone know the name of Lance Armstrongs doctor? - Dr. Ferrari. He is known in certain circles....
I believe that the association between LA and Dr. Mabuzzi
(which is the name I believe you are referring to)
is one of consultant. Lance/USPS does not use Ferrari as the
primary team doctor but have used him as a consultant on diet,
hypobaric and altitude training etc.

Ullrichs amphetamine usage, for whatever the reason, isn't
performance enhancing as he isn't performing, at all.

The more I think about this thread the more pissed off I get.

This is the same type of innuendo and whispered hints that
starts all sorts of rumors and wild accusations without
ever really stating anything concrete.
And please, don't hand me the bull**** line that
I'm naive and turn a blind eye towards LA.
All I'm saying is that until someone has proof, and comes
forward with it I don't buy it.

Marty

And the sad thing is, they took Lance in Europe and just recently tested the hell out of him in an effort to see if he was using any illegal drugs. I believe they even charged him with using drugs, and until the tests came back as negative, they refused to drop the charges. They interrupted his training routine weeks before the tour and forced him to go through this inconvenience until they couldn't find anything and released him. At least, this is the story I read about when I was in Europe.

What more does this guy have to go through to prove he ISN'T on drugs? Maybe throw the race and lose the next Tour so that everyone can leave him alone? Get cancer again and go through more chemotherapy and get sicker? This is just getting stupid. I'm getting tired of the speculation, personally. *****, if this is what you have to go through just because you are at the top, I feel sorry for people who excel to be the best in their field.....

People need to seriously get over it... come on!


*****....


Koffee

(excuse the profanities, I'm just sick of this crap)

I agree with Lotek here. Let's not cast aspersions at Armstrong. In fact, I'd say that Ullrich, Garzelli and Simoni also deserve the benefit of the doubt. There's definitely something strange here when riders test positive for non-performance-enhancing drugs out of competition, or for trace amounts of a non-performance-enhancing-but-banned drug that no one has used for a decade.

With that in mind, I think that there could very well be some drug cop or UCI fonctionnaire who'd love to make his career by bagging the biggest fish of all. Armstrong is protected to the extent that cycling can't afford to alienate the growing American sudience, but I do hope Armstrong is cery, very careful with where is food comes from and where his samples go.

If Europeans choose not to believe Lance is really that good, well, I choose to believe that all this anti-Lance sentiment emanating from the Continent is just petty, small-minded sour grapes over not being able to accept an American beating Europeans at "their" sport.

There is more evidence for my belief than there is for theirs.

Maybe Ullrich is just stupid. Certainly his recent drunk-driving conviction would support that contention.

RichC

Originally posted by Koffee Brown
And the sad thing is, they took Lance in Europe and just recently tested the hell out of him in an effort to see if he was using any illegal drugs.

... but do you think this will help or hurt Lance in terms of his resolve? They are truly just stoking the flames of the Armstrong furnace.

:D

Originally posted by Richard D
With Ulrich, I suspect what they found was recreational (Ectasy for example is often mixed with speed) or possibly an attempt at weight loss rather than for racing performance, as he isn't racing at the moment...Richard

Yup, and here's a quote from Mr Leblanc that seems to confirm that thought:

"I'm surprised and very disappointed," Leblanc told the French wire service AFP. "You have to ask why an athlete who is not competing needs to take drugs."

"I'm disappointed because if it's confirmed that it was a substance close to amphetamines that's probably connected to a moral crisis which relates to what we were told by Ullrich when he had his drunk driving accident."

I beleive Lance goes through more medical and blood tests than probably anyone else in the peloton. If he was on anything it would have surely have been discovered by now.

i think it's pretty clear that Lance doesn't use any of the drugs banned - he and his team should know better and he's constantly tested and he knows that.

On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that the team has some other performance-enhancing drug that nobody else knows about and isn't detected in the tests because it's totally unlike any other drug. but then even this is unlikely, because as in Olympic xc skiing this year, some athletes used a new drug that wasn't specifically banned, but they were disquailified anyway b/c it was found to be performance-enhancing.

i think the pressure to use performance-enhancers is much stronger for those not on the top - i.e. not Lance - b/c he has more to loose if caught and less to loose if he doesn't (he'll probably win w/o drugs unless someone else uses them)

anyway, while it's sad that there's such a huge scandal and all the athlete harassment and i feel sorry for Lance when he has to do all those tests (i hate getting blood taken - i can't imagine doing it for non-medical reasons) - i think it's really good that the precedent has been set that cycling must be a CLEAN sport. as far as i know no other sport (maybe the Olympics) tests as much as cycling - and as far as i know most sports only test for recreational rather than performance-enhancing drugs which i think is really pointless. (who cares what they do on their own time, but cheating is a different matter)

and i'm only spectulating, but my guess would be that Lance would agree: that 1) he would like people to know he wins b/c he's good not b/c of some drugs and 2) he doesn't want others to have an unfair advantage by using performance-enhancers

on Ullrich:

Ludwig said: "The problems with his knee permitted neither training nor competition, so any intention of manipulating performance can be clearly excluded."http://www.ananova.com/sport/story/sm_621909.html?menu=sport.cycling
i haven't followed it all, but it doesn't seem like this was an attempt to gain any performance advantage... it sounds like he was found positive for soe non-performance-enhancing but illegal drug -- amphetamines, ectasy, maruihana, etc... not sure exactly what is disallowed

anyway, this is a whole different 'moral' issue: using performance-enhancing drugs to gain a performance advantage is clearly wrong while using recreational drugs is, in my opinion, a personal choice --- so this seems more like the Canadian who won the Olympic Gold medal in snowboarding (was that 1998? or earlier) who tested positive for marijuana --- so what? did it help him win? no. did he cheat? no. is it wrong? depends on who you are.

i think there are way more performance-enhancing drugs out there in professional sports than most people think -- it appears as though heavy doping was a basic part of almost all of the training plans of many eastern block athletes in skiing, swimming, weight lifting, etc. and also i bet that US profesional sports like football, baseball and basketball also have major doping but we just don't hear about it -- i think for the most part if someone is found guilty (if there are even rules agianst it - i think i remember baseball having no banned substances other than cocaine - i may be wrong here since i don't follow baseball as i find it boring) no one hears about it b/c the US owners and advertisers stand to loose too much money from the bad publicity.

at least cycling will remain a clean and fair sport not determined by who has the best doctors and best drugs!

Man, I am so sick of the Lance on drugs subject. Lance is NOT on drugs!!!! His coaches have his performance down to a science book. Does Jan train as hard a Lance? Does Jan measure every ounce of food he puts into his mouth? Does Jan know exactly how many calories he will burn on any given stage? Well, if he does I haven't heard about it.
At one of the hospitals in Texas Lance went to, he still has the record for the highest V02 max ever recorded there. Just think about the fact that he even recovered from cancer( he was one of the worst cases the docs had seen). Have you ever seen someone who is suffering from cancer??? It is terrible, and if you haven't seen it(Someone with suffering from cancer), I don't think you can really imagine it.
Concerning Dr. Ferrari, did you read in Velonews what Lance said about Ferrari? Basically, Dr Ferrari has never actually been convicted of giving cyclists drugs. A rider employing him just said he(Dr. Ferrari) administered him(the cyclist) drugs as a cover up. Everything else about Dr Ferrari is untrue. And in America, with an unbaised justice system, Dr. Ferrari's trial would never have happened. There isn't sufficient evidence to convict him. In fact, there is no evidence. So Lance has decided to stick with Dr. Ferrari because Lance is a loyal person, and isn't scared by the stupid press spreading stupid "Drug abuse" stories about him.

there are 5 americans leading teams this year at TDF. americans are having more of an impact on this sport as well as soccer...so the international media had better get used to it. lance is racing like a man who has looked death in the eye, has seen that nothing is that painful or mentally & physically challenging and now is the consumate professional.

European culture is very different from that here in america. remember, this race is in FRANCE. i'll leave it at that.

I too had my suspicions about Lance back when he won his second TDF. To win one TDF is huge. To win two in a row, this guy is immortal. To win three in a row, and to have survived cancer?? Lance is a true badass, pure and simple. I hear rumors all the time, some people even say the drugs are what gave him cancer. This is all pure fiction as far as I'm concerned.

I say yes, LA is really that good. Innocent until proven guilty. The only thing Lance is guilty of is beating the Europeans at their own game. :D
-BT

Let me start by saying that I don't believe Lance Armstrong is dpoing any more than I believe that Jalabert, Museeuw or whoever else is doping.

However, let's turn it around; if all of the big names are doping, why would Lance Armstrong, the winner of three Tour de France and probably the winner of a fourth, be an exception? The point here is that, if you believe that cycling is dirty, that doping is endemic, and that all of the leading athletes are using performance-enhancing substances -- and this is clearly what the French and Italian authorities believe -- then it is perfectly normal to conclude that Lance Armstrong, the top of the top, is doping.

Yes, he's tested constantly, but so is every one of the top fifty or so cyclists in the peloton, and the others are tested only slightly less. All that means -- according to the line of reasoning above [please to attribute it to me] -- is that he's very good at covering it up.

Armstrong says he doesn't dope, and that he would never do something like that, something that would open his children to ridicule if he was caught? That's not very convincing to a French investigator. Richard Virenque denied doping for years afer the Festina bust.

Lance, doping? Get over it.:irritated

Originally posted by WoodyUpstate
Lance, doping? Get over it.:irritated
The point is that the French and Italian authorities aren't getting over it -- about Armstrong or anyone else. The problem is the widely-held belief that cycling as a whole is dirty. And if it is, why not Armstrong?

What I find irritating is not so much the people who believe that Amstrong is doping, but those who believe that cycling is rotten to the core and that everyone is doping except Armstrong. You see a lot of the former in the European media and a whole lot of the latter in the American media.

I prefer that the authorities and UCI stay vigilant. They must to maintain public confidence. However, in order to stay vigilant they must test with the idea that every rider is guilty. Sad, but true. They cannot say, "well, Lance (or Jalabert, Pantani, Virenque, etc.) is the best, so we don't need to test him." Lance must be tested to maintain the sport's credibility. He has done that, again and again. That's fine with me.

The problem is that the european (especially, french & italian) media ASSUMES that if a rider is successful he must be doping, and that the sport is fundamentally unclean. This implies that the UCI is as crooked as the riders themselves.

If the riders are doping, the sport has lost credibility. If the UCI is crooked, the sport is in serious jeopardy of failing alltogether.

Le grapes, zey eez zo sour, non?

-Pepe le RichC

Originally posted by Rich Clark
Le grapes, zey eez zo sour, non?
Strange as it may seem, it's European racers, in Italy, France and Belgium, who are being hassled more than Armstrong. I know some Americans would like Armstrong to be exempt from suspicion because he's the great American hero, but it doesn't work that way. Everyone is under suspicion; the higher your profile, the more public the suspicions. It's as simple as that.

If said rider hasn't been proven guilty, then in my book they're clean. My biggest pet peeve( ha ha) is rumors.

Lance has been investigated and tested repeatedly. The results have been innuendo and an approved steroidal saddle sore ointment.

The sport of professional cycling has been tainted with doping scandals for years. Because of the scandals, cycling probably polices itself better than any other sport. As a result of the self-policing, there is probably more attention given to the pro-cyclists who dope than there would be otherwise. This only increases the public perception that the whole sport is dirty and that no clean rider can win.

As an aside, the policing is frequently silly and hypocritical. It seems overzealous in petty instances and seems to give only lip service to major infractions. Still the investigation goes on and gains publicity.

As a fan, I like to believe that Lance is indeed riding clean. If I were the UCI, however, I would keep up the investigations and testing and assume that everyone is dirty.

As for Ullrich, he tested positive while not competing. He has had a bad season. I'm sure he is feeling low. He was busted for drunk driving. Might he have been using the amphetemines recreationally? Or, since we know he tends to put on weight when he is not competing, might he have been taking them as a diet aid? Ullrich is a gentleman. I hope that he, too is competing clean.

Well, you know what they say when you assume...

There are going to be people who say Lance is doping no matter if they have evidence or not. Until someone shows me proof of a positive test result I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. To say that he is "covering up" without one ounce of factual evidence is an assumption and an uninformed statement as far as I'm concerned.

Do you give everyone else in pro cycling the benefit of the doubt, or just Armstrong?

I am not so naive as to believe that no one in the peloton is taking drugs or doping. I give all riders the benefit until they give me reason to believe otherwise. I am not 100% positive that LA is clean, but from what I have read and seen, he is.

Do you give everyone else in pro cycling the benefit of the doubt, or just Armstrong?
Everyone. If they test clean, they're clean. If they test positive
well its pretty hard to talk your way out.
And I'm not talking about something like Garzelli (who I believe
DID NOT dope at Giro), or the Italian rider (name slips me) who
the french banned even tho he was using Steroid for bronchitis
and it was recorded by his doctor.
Recreational use (ala Ullrich), different matter, not sure what
to do about that one.

Marty

Marty, I agree with you one hundred percent on all three points.

But I think you knew that.

Originally posted by lotek
[quote]
Recreational use (ala Ullrich), different matter, not sure what
to do about that one.

Ullrich is now saying that he was using drugs recreationally. The German civil authorities can press charges. He may be suspended from competition for up to a year. Since this is not about performance enhancement, I think that letting the police do their job is the UCI's best course. If Ullrich is found guilty in a civil court, the UCI should then impose whatever penalty they specify for criminal activity that does not affect performance.

News flash. Ulrich phoned Bjarne Riis a few days ago. Will he be
joining CSC TISCALI? Even if the UCI does not ban him, TELEKOM is under no obligation to re-hire him.....
It helps to be in the thick of things here in Europe for cycling news.

There are lots of rumours...
I heard some of them yesterday on Eurosport. It was said that Ullrich might go to Coast, CSC Tiscali or some other teams. On the other hand, Olaf Ludwig stated that Telekom will hold on Ullrich. No one really knows yet.
But back to Lance Armstrong. If you ask me, I can´t imagine that Armstrong doesn´t use any doping substances. When I see him flying up the ramps on mountain stages with this amazing padalling frequency I can´t believe him not using any drugs. He won the Tour against riders who later were found guilty having used doping (Pantani, Simoni etc.), without using any kind of drugs. He must be superman if so. But until now, he was not tested positive.

even before his illness, lance was a pretty good cyclist. not as good in the hills due to his weight./ his illness made him lose > 25 lbs of muscle and fat and he re-taylored his body after it lay wasted.

so let me get this straight. a guy is on his deathbed. he is given little chance for survival. he guts it out and fights literally for his life. during the course of his recovery, he meets the love of his life but the cancer could come back at any time. it is scary. the cancer was pretty invasive. it may kill him yet.

is this the time when he said to himself.....i need to poison my body just to compete in racing again? (remember, he didn't know then he would go on to win races) so he gets his first win. then he gets greedy. coming back from death and winning one tour isn't enough. i'm going to dope again, and again and again he says.

i hope that lance goes on to win 6 tours in a row......and USA beats france and italy in world cup in 2006 & 2010, etc.... let's test them too.

and all of USA armed forces dating back to WWII should be tested too. (there is no way a fighting force could come all the way over there and fight like that.....sense of purpose shurpose... test 'em all)

man.....i have to get out of the afternoon sun!!!

oh, and by the way. every rider on the tour agrees that his training schedule is the most grueling they have ever seen. lance still gets plenty of grief for focusing on the glamor TDF while skipping the important classics. that is why he is not considered the greatest rider of his generation.....he certainly the greatest TDF rider in recent memory.

Lance the greatest in recent memory...that must be a really short memory.....I remember a certain Spaniard who won 5 in a row. That is what I call recent - less than a decade

Originally posted by RiPHRaPH
so let me get this straight. a guy is on his deathbed. he is given little chance for survival. he guts it out and fights literally for his life... <snip> is this the time when he said to himself.....i need to poison my body just to compete in racing again?
RiPHRaPH, read my posts above. I'm all for giving racers the benefit of the doubt, and there has been no evidence except innuendo that Armstrong uses illegal performance-enhancing substances. That's good enough for me.

However, this argument that Armstrong survived cancer and thus knows the true value of health, and could thus never poison his body with dope is complete and utter nonsense and utterly spurious!

It could equally be argued that Armstrong, whose life was saved largely thanks to advances in pharmacology and chemotherapy, knows the value of drugs and doping. Remember the vast majority of advanced blood boosters are, in fact, chemotherapy drugs and it is probable to the point of certainty that Armstrong was treated with some form of EPO when he was sick. Hey, maybe he liked the way it made him feel and realized that with his new connections in the medical world, as a result of his illness, he could get access to ever-improved versions of these drugs.

Personally, I think that whole argument is nonsense, too, but it is no more nonsensical than the argument that "Lance would never do that to himself because he was on death's door."

[Incidentally, at this point in his life, Armstrong's likelihood of remission is actually very low.]

Whether or not LA is doping is not relevant and totally speculative. If he's doping, he'll be caught. It's the UCI's job to assume every racer is guilty, not the media or the fans. Our purpose is to enjoy the spectacle, cheer our favorites and rely on the referrees to maintain fair competition.

Hey folks, turn the Lance Armstrong story around..----!!!

I think there may be a perception that somehow there is a residual effect of his cancer treatment that somehow make him superior cyclist. I don't think that is true.

No doubt, Chemotherapy is blood doping to the "nth degree".

Lance's chemotherapy experiences may have "trained" him "mentally" to withstand pain (lactate and exhaustion) better than anyone else. That's Lance changing, not his blood....

I think the kind of will-power, perseverance and talent that produce the cycling prowess of Lance Armstrong comes from the soul of Lance himself.

Is it "just a coincidence" that he is a cancer survivor also???

I think not.

hey, i'm not calling anyone out here.....this is an intriging subject. even hollywood couldn't come up with it. i personally don't think that he is doping.

would any rider trade lance's life battle for that opportunity to dope to the 'nth power'?

what really separates these incredible athletes. after racing for 3+ hours, what makes a guy stand and sprint like he's got fresh legs?! is it sheer will? what is that 'X' factor that makes someone victorious.

yes, he had epo-type substances to boost his blood cells.

does anyone remember his achievements before his illness? his wins?

RiphRaph...

I am NOT saying that Armstrong is a doper and learned to dope as a result of the treatment of his illness, only that that argument is just as plausible as the one that says he doesn't dope because of what he went through. Personally, I think he's as entitled to the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone else in the peloton -- and vice-versa.

agreed. maybe he is just endorphin-induced (hahaha) do they test for that?

I cant say that I have read all of the posts but just a few of them starting, obviously, with the first. First off, Popoulla, you sound ignorant. No offense intended. Heres the thing, the USA has many many more sporting events than Europe combined... even though most of them bore me to death. In almost every sporting event in the US, be it baseball, basketball, football, etc, there is an athlete(s) who stand far above the rest and do so for a couple, few and sometimes several years. No one can keep up with them. Thats just the way it is... and lets face it, we have so many people in the US to pick from. Look at Micheal Jordon, Jerry Rice, blah blah blah. Well this is where Lance is now, love him or hate him, he is going to be on top for maybe another 5 years until someone else comes and takes it away. The way he came back from his cancer and basically shoved his ex sponsers noses in the ***** pile, you can better believe that all the drug testing nazis out there are out to get him and will continue to hound him until he starts to fall and stay back in the peloton, in a matter of speaking. I mean look at what the French press tried doing to Lance last year and the year before. Speaking of which, can anyone tell me when the last time a Frenchman won the Tour? Or when a Frenchman won anything at all??!!

Originally posted by TLN
Speaking of which, can anyone tell me when the last time a Frenchman won the Tour? Or when a Frenchman won anything at all??!!

Bernard Hinault, one of the greats, was the last French national to win the Tour. Without checking my facts, I think it was 17 years ago.

TLN...

No offense, but you sound ignorant.

Erope has a very highly developed professional sports culture. While it's true that they don't have American football and baseball, there is cycling, soccer and rugby, not to mention pro basketball and hockey. In fact, when you add in Britain's cricket, Spain's Jai Alai, alpine and nordic skiing [which barely register on the pro sports radar in the US] and track cycling, the truth is that Europe has a much richer pro sports culture than the US.

It may come as a surprise to you, but Armstrong isn't "hounded" more than anyone else in the peloton. Everyone is subject to rather arbitrary searches, unannounced visits with doping cops carrying cups. Armstrong isn't exempt from that. Personally, I find that he does whine about it a whole lot more than other racers, but that might just be that the media report his whining more than other racers' whining.

If you honestly believe that Armstrong "is going to be on top for maybe another 5 years until someone else comes and takes it away," then I suggest that you have yourself tested. I can only surmise that your understanding of the sport of cycling is about as deep as your understanding of European sports. The odds against Armstrong winning five Tours, let alone eight, are astronomical. Won't happen.

It's also worth noting that Armstrong is a single-race specialist. He's like what Tiger Woods would be if he won only the US Open every year. The Tour de France is neither the only or even the most difficult race. Arm strong is impressive, but when you say he's on top, you have to remember, he's on top of one race. [And personally, I think Johan Museeuw would kick his skinny Texan butt in any of the cobbled classics.]

The reason why I'm coming down on you so hard is that nothing offends me wuite like hypocrisy: You weigh in here calling Poullula "ignoran" and then display your ignorance. I personally welcome your comments -- just make sure they're well informed.

The last Frenchman to win the Tour de France was Bernard Hinault in 1985.

I figger Lance does well for these reasons.
1. He trains just for this race.
2. His team is picked to support him.
3. His team rides to protect his position in the standings.
4. He knows who wears the yellow after the Tour is remembered more than who wore it during.

That said Idd like to see sombody from Postal on the podium soon, the other 8 deserve a little lime light if only for a 3rd place for that day. I was thrilled to see Postal ride well in the team time trial, with all 9 finishing together they all move up in the standings nicely, and one has to admit Lance is the engine that pulled them there.

One wonders if Lance had not won the last few years would there even be a Postal team? A real incentive for his team mates to support him.

Is Lance on something? No I don't think so, he has to much to lose, testing positive would end his carear. The french investigation dragging on so long for apparent pubilicity perposes didn't help. A result in France not having a great champion right now? Plenty of good riders but no Delgado or Armstrong to glory in.
Heres hoping for a compleatly clean Tour no matter who wins!!!
Kevin

Only stating the obvious, but someone has to be the winner. Does being the winner correlate into being a drug user?, I would hope not. It would be quite sad to actually believe one is the causation of the other when Lance has passed all of the tests requested of him. Does not the often quoted "Guilty until proven innocent" apply? If not, blame it on television, the commentators and the "experts".

Hey velocipedio, did I hit a nerve? Sounds like you are a bit touchy about the "Frenchman" comment. I do apologize about the statement about the USA having more sporting events than Europe combined. That came out wrong. What I should have stated instead was that USA can throw more billions of dollars into their sports because of their outlandish revenue and merchandising and THAT just may attract more kids into trying to become the next Tiger, Michael or whoever. I think the same thing happens over in Europe but I also think that it happens over here more.

As far as my statement about Lance winning the next 5 Tours, hey anything is possible. I can cheer for whoever I feel like it.
If you think what you said was actually "coming down hard on me"?... think again. Your opinions about me or about what I think are nothing to lose sleep over. You have to be some kind of real panty waste to actually think that I would really care about what you say. I said Poloulla (sp?) was ignorant. He is for the fact, if he really thinks this, that Lance is guilty of using enhancement drugs, doping or other. Not giving someone the benefit of doubt, is to me being ignorant. Im not saying Im perfect but I am just calling him/her to that point. But at least he isnt an idiot, which I cant say about you. People who read things into something that actually isnt there, need to grasp reality. The next time you TRY to insult me try to do it right and not half-assed, like your spelling. Jesus, where the hell did you get your education, K-Mart? Ill be eaiting on pins for your next intellectual outburst...

Originally posted by TLN
Hey velocipedio, did I hit a nerve?
You did, indeed. I'm kind of touchy about people who call others "ignorant" and then go on to display their own ignorance.

Sounds like you are a bit touchy about the "Frenchman" comment.
Not at all, although I do speak the language fairly fluently.

I do apologize about the statement about the USA having more sporting events than Europe combined. That came out wrong. What I should have stated instead was that USA can throw more billions of dollars into their sports because of their outlandish revenue and merchandising and THAT just may attract more kids into trying to become the next Tiger, Michael or whoever. I think the same thing happens over in Europe but I also think that it happens over here more.
I'm inclined to agree that American professional sport is much better funded than professional sport elsewhere in the world. I don't personally think this is a good thing. It's difficult to say whether all the money in American sport produces better athletes since, with the exception of basketball and hockey, Americans don't tend to participate in the same sports the rest of the world participates in.

As far as my statement about Lance winning the next 5 Tours, hey anything is possible. I can cheer for whoever I feel like it.
I never said you couldn't. And I agree that anything is possible, right down to Eddy Merckx coming out of retirement and winning all three Grand Tours next year. But that's a game for morons.

I presume you read my post, though you don't seem to have understood it. I said that the odds against Armstrong winning the Tour eight years in a row are astronomical. For me, that is virtually the same as impossible. You may have less rigourous standards.

If you think what you said was actually "coming down hard on me"?... think again. Your opinions about me or about what I think are nothing to lose sleep over. You have to be some kind of real panty waste to actually think that I would really care about what you say.
My apologies. I was merely trying to be civil. I can see that was wasted.

I said Poloulla (sp?) was ignorant. He is for the fact, if he really thinks this, that Lance is guilty of using enhancement drugs, doping or other. Not giving someone the benefit of doubt, is to me being ignorant. Im not saying Im perfect but I am just calling him/her to that point. But at least he isnt an idiot, which I cant say about you. People who read things into something that actually isnt there, need to grasp reality. The next time you TRY to insult me try to do it right and not half-assed, like your spelling. Jesus, where the hell did you get your education, K-Mart? Ill be eaiting on pins for your next intellectual outburst...
Look, let's not turn this into name calling. I will, however, direct your attention to a number of points:

1. You misspelled Poullula despite the fact that you had just read the nickname and despite the fact that you could have copied and pasted it. You even knew that you misspelled it. I must presume that you are either exceptionally lazy, barely literate, dyslexic or all three.

2. You do seem to have serious difficulties with reading comprehension. Poullula did not write that he believed that Armstrong is using performance-enhancing drugs. He posed the rhetorical question: "Is Lance that good that other riders on dope can't beat him. Are we all fools for believing that he is "clean", or do professional cyclists know something we do not?" He then offered the opinion -- one widely held in the cycling world -- that most professional racers use performance-enhancing drugs "to a certain degree." Nowhere did he accuse Armstrong of using performance enhancing drugs. [And you accused me of reading things into what other people write?]

3. I was not trying to insult you, although you do not seem to be showing me the same courtesy. I should remind you that personal attacks are not tolerated on BF. You should clean up your act.

4. I apologize for my spelling, or rather my typing. I am not a very accurate typist and, since this is recreational rather than professional writing, I don't bother to proof my copy. As for my education, I attended Concordia University in Montreal, where I studied History at both the undergraduate and graduate level. [I also want to point out the irony that you are complaining about my spelling despite the fact that you can't seem to spell "I'm" or "isn't" correctly. No apostrophe?]

TLN, you have an attitude problem. Try to cool it a bit.

Well done Velocipedio!!!!!:D :beer: ;)

You seem to be one of the very few forum members in this thread who actually read it correctly. Maybe it is the "Lance Factor" that makes people extremely emotional. You are 100% correct, I did not accuse Lance, I only posted the question. Hell, I am a big fan of him myself, but I felt that doping should be discussed from this angle as well.
May this be a lesson to all of us to carefully read our threads before going ballistic!
Velocipedio, thanks for providing us here in Denmark with a good laugh, your response to TLN was very entertaining.:beer:

Lastly, none of the pro cyclist that I am aware of, are asking for tougher measures to clean up their sport. None of them are suggesting voluntary blood/urine samples. No one is coming forward (except maybe for Mr. Voet) handing over positve proof of substance abuse. If cycling is to reclaim its reputation as a clean sport, it should come via this avenue, from the riders themselves who no longer tolerate cheaters.

I know this is an old thread, but I had to get my .02 in.



I don't even know where to start, how bout the beginning?




The drive to compete and win is as old as humankind. Athletes throughout history have sought foods and potions to increase their performance. Greek wrestlers ate huge quantities of meat to build muscle. The Norse warriors of the Berserkers ate hallucinogenic mushrooms to gear up for battle. Greek gladiators took dope to help make their fights sufficiently vigorous and bloody. Chariot racers would feed their horses a mixture of dope to make them run faster. For as long as competitive sports have existed athletes have tried to get any edge the competition. They desire to be more successfull at any cost.

Cycling is no dirtier than any other professional sport, It seems that it is, but thats becuase they are tested more frequently, and its always in the news. In the U.S. they test NFL player once or twice a year, but they let them know when the test is coming, and they have plenty of time to prepare in advance, and there is no real interest in catching them, the League would rather turn a blind eye, than slow down the players and the game.

How many MLB players are on some sort of juice? hell, in the last players strike, one of the issues in dispute was should they or should they not be tested for steroids, but even when they agreed to be, its meaningless, because the tests are outdated and won't pick up new generation pharmecueticals like Human Growth Hormone. The International Olympic Committe has acknowledged that it wont be able to test for HgH until 2004 anyways, so till then its a free for all. Its almost as silly as the EPO test that the UCI uses in the peleton.


Cyclists have been doping since before the tour began in 1903 and its still going on. Amphetemines, strychnyne, cocaine, heroin, Human Growth Hormone, Corticosteroids you name it.... In 1967 Tom Simpson died on Ventoux all amped up. Two-time tour winner Bernard Thevenet went to the hospital with a steroid-rotted liver in 1977.

In 1984 the US Olympic Cycling team was admittedly "blood boosting" freezing their own platelets and sticking them back in later. They won 9 medals that year.

1998 Tour Winner Pedro Delgado tested postive for probenicide, a common steroid masking drug. It was banned under the IOC (International Olympic Committee) but not the UCI, The UCI decided to clear him. (more on this later)

And I remember in 1991 "The intralipid affair" when the PDM squad all got sick from a "tainted recovery agent" and had to pull out of the tour with 3 men leading in the GC. But In 1998 it all came crashing down when Willy Voet working for the Festina Team got caught with something like 300 vials of HgH, and 250 ampules of EPO. 7 of the 9 riders that year including Virenque travelled with their own centrefuge.

For those of you who didn't follow the tour that year...WOW! Cops busting into hotel rooms at night, Entire teams thrown out, others leaving before they could get caught. The riders protesting on the start line. It was a mess. Read "Breaking the Chain" by Willy Voet, or just do a web search for some excerpts, It's quite shocking. I can't think of any European Division 1 pro teams who have not been caught doing something, or are currenly employing previous doping offenders.

During the 2000 Tour de France, US Postal was caught on film discarding medical waste containing seveal empty bags of Actovegin. It was not banned at that time, but has since been added to the UCI's and the IOC's listof banned substances. Actovegin is manufactured in Norway, and contains deproteinized extracts of calf's blood. Injected into the body, it improves the circulation of oxygen in the blood in a manner similar to EPO, or erythropoetin, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

US postal Team officials said the Actovegin was to treat minor skin abrasions and for one treating a crew member who was diabetic. They had tossed enought to treat 100's of abrasions, and the "Diabetic" never came forward.

Some Olympic teams brought Actovegin to the Sydney Games in 2000 with the approval of Australian customs, which did not consider the product illegal.

Even simple hormones like testosterone are tested on a ratio system to epitestosterone. It should be 1 to 1 but is allowed to up to 10 to 1 for natural variation.
This can easily be controlled by a physician.




But wait.. I have a prescription....

Many riders are actually permitted to use many of the key items on the banned list, including corticoids (which reduce stress and soreness) and anti-asthmatics (which aid breathing), provided they have a doctor's prescription. Needless to say, there are quite a few diagnosed asthmatics in the pro peloton. Exercised induced asthma affects roughly 3% of the US population. Amazingly over 60% of the Olympic team has been diagnosed with exercise induced asthma, and is prescribed some sort of bhroncial dialator, usually clenbuterol. Clenbuterol? WTF is that? hahaha. Its a Livestock Steroid used to fatten up beef cows. Its also undectable after 5 days for those that didn't get a prescription in time.

Beating the Doping Controls.

There are rumors of a test which can detect synthetic EPO from naturally occuring EPO even past the current 3 day window. But until it shows up, all they can do is measure the hematocrit. And when it is too high you are simply declared "unfit or unsafe for sport" But all the press and public will know the truth. EPO is old school anyways, they have Aranesp now, Which is like super EPO, it lasts longer, so you don't have to shoot it as often, which helps you avoid the tests.


So synthetic EPO/Aranesp is undectable after 3 days of administration. Sure they can check the hematocrit percentage, and anyone over 50% is declared "unfit to race" for health reasons. But you have to be pretty stupid or unlucky to get caught. The World Anti Doping Agency or WADA, recently published an article on the anti-doping procedures employed in the most recent Tour de France.

WADA pointed out that the anti-doping procedures are open to manipulation, in particular letting athletes know whether they would be tested or not before the end (and sometimes before the start) of each stage. In the prologue, "the athletes were notified five minutes before their start" that they would be tested, meaning that "others had the opportunity to take stimulants before they started, as they would be certain of not being controlled (unless they won!)."

In the road stages, the riders to be tested were announced 20 minutes before the end of the stage, again allowing the opportunity for some to take a fast acting stimulant.

Other negative procedural points include letting riders who were notified for testing get changed in their team buses after the stage finish, "...sometimes for more than 20 minutes...a manipulation was possible."


With the UCI maximum hematocrit level @ 50% you can still dope yourself up to 49.9% The UCI has admitted that the average rider's hematocrit has risen 5 percentage points since 1992. If you are over?

You can get blood thinners like Coumadin in a pill, or use HES or Hemopure. Neither of which are on the were UCI's list of banned substances for years.

HES and Hemopure are plasma volume expanders, they were banned last year by the International Olympic Committee. BUT NOT THE UCI

Plasma volume expanders are used to maintain circulatory system fluid volume and blood pressure after significant losses of blood occur during surgery or trauma. Prior to HES plasma volume expanders included general intravenous fluids and albumin. HES, though, is more physiologically similar to plasma.

Because HES expands the amount of plasma circulating it therefore lowers the red blood cell count on a percentage basis (hematocrit). So, if a cyclist was taking EPO, causing his hematocrit to jump to, say, 52%, HES would lower the hematocrit without reducing the total amount of red blood cells. Its a temporary dilution.


These artifical hemoglobin products are the lateset addition to the UCI list of banned substances. And here is why......It takes about 18 minutes on an IV drip of artificial hemoglobin to temporarily reduce the red blood cell percentage 10 points.

The latest drugs that we know about are Repoxygen and RSR13, another blood/oxygen enhancer. It is a brain cancer drug, and I believe there is no test for it yet. This is what the French claim that Lance Armstrong is on. I read that he was given this as well as EPOgen during his treatment. RSR-13 has the ability to over oxygenate tissue which makes cancer cells more vulnerable to the chemo. RSR-13 and Repoxygen are at the moment undectable, there is no test for several of the new drugs as of yet, as there is no real need for it, since they arent scheduled to be approved medially for years!! I don't buy the "Lance would never take any kind of pharmecueticals after lying on his death bed" It was the Science of Medicine and the Drugs he was given that saved his life. His answer to the question "Did you believe in a higher power re: your recovery"? was...."I believed in my doctors"

Its your typical one-up game. New drug, new test, newer drug, newer test. The Drugs are always several steps ahead, These guys are getting caught with drugs that are still in the clinical trials, and not approved for sale yet. (some not till 2007). Stuff like that doesnt come cheap, so its the bigger budget teams that can afford it, but how and why are they getting it? Its simple, Money...

They Sponsors demand stage wins, and the riders need results to get contracts, and they need the contracts to keep food on the table.

in the U.S. we tend to view cycling as a mid to upperclass hobby, Group rides are full of Successful Career types riding the latest in Italian Bike Jewelry. But in Europe, the Pro Peleton is quite different. These guy are professional athletes, and while there is the occaisonal renissance man, or Business Phenom who got tired of the rat race and wanted to race bicycles for a living, they share a lot in common with pro athletes in this country. Coming from working class neighborhoods, rough upbringings, Dropping out of school early, and having few to no marketable skills other than a tremndous athletic ability. (Which I do envy so much) Put youself in his shoes....You dropped out of highschool several years ago to concentrate on your riding, you are doing well, have a family at home and are now making 10,000 a month racing, but the Director Sportif and Team owner have just told you that you are getting cut back to 3,000 a month becuase you have not produced results. you see guys that are winning and beating you who shouldn't be, but they are doping, and getting away with it. What would you do?

But its more than just the Sponsors and the Riders, Sometimes it's the Government.....

I mentioned earlier that Pedro Delgado tested positive for Probenicide, It was banned by the International Olympic Commitee, but not by the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) which had not updated its list quick enough.

The UCI is a french organization, and the final ruling lay with them. Like all powerful organizations, they are skilled in political influence, palm greasing etc.

The Spanish Govt. was in the process of buying TGV highspeed trains from the French. Rumor has it that the Frenchies made a few more francs, and the Spanish got their Champion. Delgado is lucky that the best Frenchman that year was only in 5th.

2001

Stage 2 of the 2001 Tour went from Calasis to Antwerp in Belgium. The stage winner would recieve an audience with the King and Queen, the usual victory accolades and the stage prize since they were in Antwerp was $20,000 in diamonds. The Belgians wanted to win this stage very, very much. How much?

As the Tour entered Belgium for the first time, an order came from the Flemish Government that they would take over drug testing at the finish in Antwerp, replacing the standard UCI controls.

Any samples that were taken went to Gent for analysis, rather than the French national anti-doping laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry. This means that no EPO testing could be carried out, as the Gent laboratory is not accredited to do so.

Contrary to the UCI's practice, the winner of the stage Marc Wauters did not have to be tested. He was after all, Belgian.
In fact, the UCI noted that no Belgian riders on any team were tested that day.

Pretty slick.


And the excuses.... I had some cough drops in a 3rd World Country, My Mother in law is sick, and needs 300 vials of Hgh. My Dog is a diabetic... I had it but didn't use it. I took some supplements that I found at a picnic..... c'mon........

how wide spread is it? I think every almost every team has been charged at one point. The list of riders who have tested positive or been a member of a team with a documented doping program reads like the GC classification at a major tour. Pantani, Frigo, Gonzales De Galdeano, Rumsas (his wife went to jail for haveing HgH and EPO in the trunk of her car) but he continues to race hahhaha!! Meusseuw, Jalabert, Zulle, Moreau, Virenque, Simoni, There are dozens more.......AND THE BEST PART???? EVERYONE IS PISSING CLEAN, BUT WHEN THE COPS SHOW UP TO RAID THE HOTEL, STUFF IS FLYING OUT THE WINDOWS LIKE A PRISON RIOT!!!

Which brings us to Lance. USPS, as all the teams have a team doctor. His job is not to pass out flu medication or put bandaids on boo boo's. His job is to "medically prepare" the racers for competition, within the legal limits. Some obviously go over the limits but what is meant by legal?

If Lance is given a "recovery agent" that is not on the UCI or IOC banned list because the Govenring bodies don't know it exists yet, or it is too new to have been tested/evaluated yet.

is he cheating?

We'd all like to think the Tour is won on a Turkey Club Sandwich and a can of TAB. But it's not.

These guys have accses to the best and newest technologies when it comes to equipment, why should we expect that they wouldn't put the same R&D into their training and recuperation programs.

Read the books by Paul Kimmage and Willy Voet. The system is corrupt. There is no incentive for change. The riders, staff and management of the teams stand to benefit if they win. The UCI depends on the riders for their survival. Not everyone is a cheat. However, everyone is guilty if they know somebody else is on dope and remain silent. Riders who do speak up, are black listed amd treated poorly by the others.

But All thing considered........Lance is still one Bad Dude. I plan on heading over there to watch him try to win his sixth. Despite all this BS, I am still, and will always be a Cycling fan.

In Lances' new book he has a whole paragraph on the Actovegin...and ill copy it...
"The investigation gathered momentum in December, and so did the press reports. Their focus was a mysterious substance called Actovegin, an empty box which had been found in our roadside garbage. Almost all of the reports were sensational and erroneous: Actovegin was variously described as an experimental Norwegin medication and as calf's blood, and, according to one especially silly report in the Times of london, it had never been ussed oh humans before.
I had never heard of it.
I'd never used it, and to this day I still haven't. On checking, none of my teammates had heard of it, either. Still, the press chattered on: it was a red-blood booter (it wasn't), it was banned (it wasn't), it emulated the effects of the banned erythropoietin (it didn't)."

It goes on a few more paragraphs but you get the jist. I think people are bitter that Lance works his ass off everyday and wins. And until he is proven to use drugs, then he is the best cyclist in the world

very interesting article, many of the drugs we use routinely. However, clenbuterol, if it is a bronchodilator, must be a beta agonist, since steroids are not bronchodilators (They reduce intrabronchial inflammation but are not bronchial dilators). My freind, a vet at Martha's Vineyard uses it to treat breathing problems in some large animals, it has a cross over adrenergic effect and probably makes the "show animals" more "cut" with regards to muscle definition. I have no doubt lance and all the other riders may or may not be using the skills of physicians who are very adept at these practices.

PS just found a link http://www.clenbuterol.com/

very interesting article, many of the drugs we use routinely. However, clenbuterol, if it is a bronchodilator, must be a beta agonist, since steroids are not bronchodilators (They reduce intrabronchial inflammation but are not bronchial dilators). My freind, a vet at Martha's Vineyard uses it to treat breathing problems in some large animals, it has a cross over adrenergic effect and probably makes the "show animals" more "cut" with regards to muscle definition. I have no doubt lance and all the other riders may or may not be using the skills of physicians who are very adept at these practices.

PS just found a link http://www.clenbuterol.com/

Beta-2 agonist. ;)

Also, it has no androgenic effects. It was touted as having anabolic effects after studies on mice, later being discovered it had no corresponding effect on human tissue. It is not approved for use in the US (and Australia) due to it's relatively long half-life. It is, however, used widely throughout Europe as a bronchodilator. It is also used by many athletes (bodybuilders in particular) to aid in body fat losses, very similar in action to ephedrine but with much more profound effects. Another effect is it depletes intra-muscular taurine deposits, leading to severe cramping. It also needs to be taken with ketotifen to stop downregulation of the receptors, which makes the patient quite drowsy. For these reasons I can't really see it's application in cycling.

As an aside, I think there is a huge 'us versus them' intra-debate going on here rather than rational thinking about the topic. I understand LA is a champion and hero to a lot of people, and hence they get a bit edgy. Conversely, I can see Europeans jumping on the doping bandwagon to appease themselves.

In any sense, I think it is naive to think professional sports people are not going to do everything in their power to win. It's pure market economics, if the pro-peleton didn't, the thousands just nipping at their heels would.

Technically, the are not taking banned substances. But in the IOC mandate it states '...and any substance taken to potentiate athletic performance'. A substance like rIGF-1 Long is currently doing the rounds. It is a insulin like growth factor which helps with recovery. It is not approved for human testing, yet it can be readily purchased in the US for 'labratory use'. In fact, you can purchase it over the net or even buy it in bulk direct from the manufacturer! Can you test for it? No. It has a half life of a few hours (you can get the pure IGF-1 which has a half life of minutes). It is in and out of the body overnight.

Again, economics. How much money is being spent developing performance enhancing drugs as opposed to the money being spent to develop tests for these substances? That poses the question, what is the market for the company that develops a particular test? Almost nothing...

Pro-sport is full of drugs. That's why it is pro-sport. If, one day, there was a book published collaborating all of the drug use in a wide array of sports, we would become a huge bunch of cynics (more so than now).

Ignorance is bliss. :)

Lance claims that he nor his teamates had ever heard of Actovegin, Yet U.S. Postal said its team doctor had been authorized by the French medical control board to bring Actovegin into the country for the race.

The Team Doctor said none of the riders had ever used it, but Why where they throwing away empties?

It wasn't banned at the time, but it is now.


Something stinks......

What exactly it, and what does it do? No one seems to really know, the reports are all conflicting or vague. If they are using it to "treat skin abraisions" why not use the 5% cream that is manufactured for that purpose, and not vials of the stuff.

The Diabetes journal says It improves the utilization of oxygen and promotes the uptake of nutrient media into cell tissue.
The Manufacture claims it impoves oxygen delivery to the brain.

The Press is split:

Part of the contents of the report were revealed by “Le Canard Enchaîné” in the Wednesday 8 November edition. The garbage can contained packages of Actovegin, produced by the Nowegian lab Nycomed, which is usually used to treat arterial deficiencies.

Used in vial form, it contains calves’ blood that has been depoteinized and filtered to remove prions and other bacteria. Actovegin allows better oxegenization of the blood without elevating hematocrit levels. It has properties approaching those of EPO, according to Jean-Pierre de Mondenard, a former Tour de France doctor who was interviewed by Le Canard enchaîné. Actovegin “facilitates the circulation of oxygen in the blood while avoiding the blood clotting issues caused by EPO.”

Even if Actovegin was not reported on the UCI’s list of banned substances, the practice of blood doping (defined by the following: “administration to an athlete of blood, red blood cells, artifical oxygen transporters or manufactured (?) blood products”) is formally on the list.

According to Jacques de Ceaurriz, director general of the National Laboratory for Doping Elimination, Actovegin is “ an ill-defined product that is not marketed in France because it is of animal origin. It is a product without formal identification of the active ingredient.” ......Usually produced in the from of a gel, it is used in particular to improve blood circulation, but also claims to help other problems (?).

“in my opinion, it’s bottom-of-the-barrel, marketed in the East and Asia, a preparation made from calves’ blood serum, with all sorts of claimed virtues. I can’t say it’s charlatanism, but the claims are very wide.” (professor de Ceaurriz)

A Parisien sports doctor, speaking under the condition of anonymity, has an opinion of mixed scepticism and fatalism: “ anything is possible. But the placebo effect of doping exists as well. There are lots of doctors that make racers pay a lot of money for products that don’t do anything”


Actovegin is manufactured by the Norwegian company Nycomed. The substance has been suspected of improving the circulation of oxygen in the blood in a manner similar to the banned drug EPO, or erythropoietin.

But Schamasch said Tuesday that Actovegin apparently does not transport oxygen.

"The explanation of the manufacturers is very vague," he said. "We have asked for more investigation to find out why athletes are taking a product which cannot transport oxygen, to find out if it has any other special effect."

The IOC said a number of teams brought Actovegin with them to last year's Sydney Olympics, thus raising suspicions that the product could be used for unethical reasons.

The IOC is working with the world governing body of cycling to make a definitive ruling on Actovegin. "According to the IOC medical code, we are entitled to ban a product either if it is performance enhancing and/or harmful to the health of the athletes," Schamasch said.



Which brings me back to my original Question, If you taking "recovery agents" which are not banned becuase they are unknown to the UCI, or are still in clinical trials and not even published yet.... Are you cheating?


Todays News flash from cyclingnews.com

Star Canadian rider Geneviève Jeanson will not take the start in the Elite Women's road race at the World Championships in Hamilton, Canada, declared unfit to race by the UCI. This morning from 7:30-8:00am the UCI conducted regular health checks for the Dutch, German, and Canadian national teams. Jeanson was found to have a haematocrit level higher than the accepted limit and thus will not be permitted to contest the Elite Women's race.

Buy your EPO here.

http://www.walgreens.com/library/finddrug/druginfo.jhtml?particularDrug=Epogen