In 2000 US Postal was filmed throwing away empty vials of injectable Actovegin. Here the basic timeline:

Postal denies throwing away anything etc.

It was not a banned substance, and Team Captain Lance Armstrong said he had never heard of it, and was unable to pronounce it. Calling it Acto something etc...

Later it is revealed that the Team did bring it into France with them, Team Manager Mark Gorski (see notes at bottom) said it was for treating skin abrasions, and to treat a staff member who had diabetes (skin ulcers) There are two holes in this story, 1st nycomed made a cream for the skin abrasions, but postal was tossing out vials of injectable solution. 2nd the Alleged diabetic was never identified.

No one really knew what it was for, even the manufactures was vauge, it apparently helped oxygen uptake in tissue, but some said yes, some said no, some mentioned that plenty of racers give doctors money for stuff that does nothing. Maybe its placebo etc.... Its not approved by the FDA for use on humans anyway.

But Thanks to Postals sloppy disposal, it was added to the banned substance list, then debated over, and almost removed, becuase no one really knew what it was.

Then some Olympic Swimmers were caught with it, but they werent diabetic, and they didnt get road rash.

Then it turned up more often in cycling raids, Jesus Manzano mentioned it in his tell all as well. But by then, everyone was worried about EPO etc..

Lance puts in his book that its not a doping product.

And now today, when you type Actovegin into google, you find out that it in fact does speed up oxygen absorbtion, elevates the utilization of glucose, and decreases the formation of lactic acid. It is prescibed now for people who don't get enough oxygen flow to their brain, cerebral hypoxia.

I'd say thats a doping product of substantial worth.

If its not illegal (becuase its unknown) is it doping?


(Gorski was a member of the 1984 Olympic Cycling team, which openly blood doped, as it was unethical, but not illegal at that time. Gorski won gold in the 1000m Sprint, whether he transfused or not, I have no idea)

In 2000 US Postal was filmed throwing away empty vials of injectable Actovegin. Here the basic timeline:

Postal denies throwing away anything etc.

It was not a banned substance, and Team Captain Lance Armstrong said he had never heard of it, and was unable to pronounce it. Calling it Acto something etc...

Later it is revealed that the Team did bring it into France with them, Team Manager Mark Gorski (see notes at bottom) said it was for treating skin abrasions, and to treat a staff member who had diabetes (skin ulcers) There are two holes in this story, 1st nycomed made a cream for the skin abrasions, but postal was tossing out vials of injectable solution. 2nd the Alleged diabetic was never identified.

No one really knew what it was for, even the manufactures was vauge, it apparently helped oxygen uptake in tissue, but some said yes, some said no, some mentioned that plenty of racers give doctors money for stuff that does nothing. Maybe its placebo etc.... Its not approved by the USDA for use on humans anyway.

But Thanks to Postals sloppy disposal, it was added to the banned substance list, then debated over, and almost removed, becuase no one really knew what it was.

Then some Olympic Swimmers were caught with it, but they werent diabetic, and they didnt get road rash.

Then it turned up more often in cycling raids, Jesus Manzano mentioned it in his tell all as well. But by then, everyone was worried about EPO etc..

Lance puts in his book that its not a doping product.

And now today, when you type Actovegin into google, you find out that it in fact does speed up oxygen absorbtion, elevates the utilization of glucose, and decreases the formation of lactic acid. It is prescibed now for people who don't get enough oxygen flow to their brain, cerebral hypoxia.

I'd say thats a doping product of substantial worth.

If its not illegal (becuase its unknown) is it doping?


(Gorski was a member of the 1984 Olympic Cycling team, which openly blood doped, as it was unethical, but not illegal at that time. Gorski won gold in the 1000m Sprint, whether he transfused or not, I have no idea)

USDA approval?

USDA approval?

FDA< my bad, its 4 am here, lol

FDA< my bad, its 4 am here, lol

Get some sleep before you miss the Prologue.

If its not illegal (becuase its unknown) is it doping?



"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it fall.... did it make a sound?"

My humble opnion:
Any product (not approved by doctors for medical purposes) used in competive gain over another is doping.

With new drugs constantly being made, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone was on something.... and rider's knew what was being tested and what was not.

Where are all the Lance fans now?

Where are all the Lance fans now?

Now do you understand Aesop's fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? The next lesson is Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" where the monster turns it's wrath on it's creator.

Seriously, get over it. Go out and ride.

Smoothie, for more credibility, try posting citations.

In any case, you say it wasn't illegal. So where's the problem? High altitude training has similar effects. Where's the moral outrage over that? Drinking beer helps with stress. So why aren't you condemning Lance as a known beer drinker?

My credibility in here has been in place for years before you joined this forum. Seems as if you are too lazy to do your own research on a subject you claim to be well versed in, and allegedly passionate about.

Drinking Shiner Bock Beer is not the same as possesing and injecting a bovine based blood substitute, especially one sold only in Russia, and not approved for use in humans.

Also does lying about its existance and acting naive towards its performance enhancing effects fit well with your image of someone who never doped?

It stands to reason that the 'testers' are always going to be one step behind the dopers. How can you test for something that you don't even know exists or that the dopers (in the case of blood doping) are doing. Peckerheads like that 'Balco' dude are coming up with new drugs every day. Its even harder to detect 'products' that occur naturally in the body anyway...that's why they have 'acceptable levels' of this stuff....the downside is it also allows cheats like Hamilton et al, to mount some sort of legal mumbo jumbo arguements about being genetic freaks etc etc. Cycling will never be drug free whilst there is any money or prestige attched to 'winning'. The best we can hope for is that they get caught, rubbed out & personally humiliated...perhaps we should lock the cheats in 'stocks' in the town square & we could all throw tomato's at them!...works for me

Drinking beer helps with stress. So why aren't you condemning Lance as a known beer drinker?

Lance drinks beer?

I didn't know that.

NOW he's my hero.

My credibility in here has been in place for years before you joined this forum. Seems as if you are too lazy to do your own research on a subject you claim to be well versed in, and allegedly passionate about.
I'd like to research it. That's why I asked for citations. It has nothing to do with your credibility.

Or is this more of Euro's "truth known to all right-thinking persons"?

Drinking Shiner Bock Beer is not the same as possesing and injecting a bovine based blood substitute, especially one sold only in Russia, and not approved for use in humans.
Obviously it's not the same. But both are putting chemical substances into the body with the intent of improving performance.

Kindly explain why you think one is okay and the other isn't.

Don't get me wrong on this, btw. I'm not advocating doping. I'm saying that if you condemn someone for a legal and apparently common practice, you ought to have good reasons. I'd like to hear what they are.

My credibility in here has been in place for years before you joined this forum. Seems as if you are too lazy to do your own research on a subject you claim to be well versed in, and allegedly passionate about.

Drinking Shiner Bock Beer is not the same as possesing and injecting a bovine based blood substitute, especially one sold only in Russia, and not approved for use in humans.

Also does lying about its existance and acting naive towards its performance enhancing effects fit well with your image of someone who never doped?

Take a deep breath, quit being an ***hole, and go back to college to learn how to write a convincing thesis. No one is saying your wrong but hell anyone can come here and claim whatever they want. The fact that you ride a lot, and post a lot, does not give you the right to just be a jerk let alone expect everyone to take what you say as the words of god. You can’t even spell possessing or existence and we’re just suppose to listen to you like you are the great enlightener of biekeforums.net.

Get over yourself.


And for what it's worth, i am a big fan of Lance Armstrong, and there is little doubt that he is not entirely honest.

Take a deep breath, quit being an ***hole, and go back to college to learn how to write a convincing thesis.

Perfect irony all wrapped up in one sentence.

Anyone who can't see that the pro peloton has been up to its eyeballs in dope for the past decade in being wilfully blind.

Athletes point to never having tested positive as concrete proof of their cleanliness. But nearly every time a cheater has been caught, it's been with a carload or hotel-roomful of substances and/or supplies. They're caught by the police, not by the chemical testing of blood and urine. Of course, up until that day, that particular athlete could point to a list of negative tests as long as his arm as a reason to believe he was clean. It just goes to show how utterly ineffective the testing procedures are.

What the sport needs are permanent and retroactive bans for any proven doping. You get caught doping this year, you never race again. Your doping gets found out after the fact and you disappear from the record books forever. Like it never even happened. Because honestly, it didn't.

Pseudobrit...you're not going to have a hard time convincing me that lance armstrong or ray lewis doesnt use drugs to help themselves advance in their field.

Hey timmy, This isn't supposed to be a thesis, ******bag.
It's an informal online discussion forum. God forbid someone mispell something.

I must warn you, I don't know if there are any typos in the following links, so watch out! I'd hate for you to have an aneurysm. (I spelled it right!)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/dec00/dec17news.shtml

http://archive.sportingnews.com/other/articles/20001212/280095.html

http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/riders/2000-November/000145.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm

People on these forums constantly ask "if they are doping, how come they don't get caught?"

This Thread was in response to that, to show that a cycling team had obtained a rare performace enhancing substance before the testing authorities even knew it existed.

And while the substance it self was not banned at that time, if used, it would have constituted "chemical or pharmalogical manipulation of the blood" which was prohibited. There was no way to prove it was used, therefore they escaped persecution.

We do know that it was a still only a research drug, not yet approved for human use, and that Postal took extra time to drive the waste to a motorway rest stop in order to dispose of the empty packets.

Either the riders were taking it to enhance their oxygen uptake and decrease the amount of lactate produced. Or the staff was treating a still unknown member for diabetes, with an untested, unapproved derivative of cows blood that was only sold in Russia.

Hey timmy, This isn't supposed to be a thesis, ******bag.

the·sis Audio pronunciation of "thesis" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thss)
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.

Really?

What would you call it?

I dont have a problem with your position on the topic...in fact i agree with you. What i have a problem with is that you make the argument then when someone asks for proof you tell them that because you've been a member since october of '03 you dont need to provide that proof.

I'll give you that, going back and reading it, i did come off as an A-hole. But he could have said "where did you get your info?" instead of ordering me to build my credibility with him. I felt it was more of him telling me i was full of sh*t, than really asking for information.

Having followed Smoothie's posts over the last two years and cross checking his statements I'll take his word over an obvious Lance lover any day. Smoothie has shown to be well versed in both the history of the sport and the history of doping in the sport.

BTW people who point out grammar and spelling errors on an forum like this are just as big as A-holes as anyone else.

Smoothie has shown to be well versed in both the history of the sport and the history of doping in the sport.
Shouldn't that be "well-versed"?

Having followed Smoothie's posts over the last two years and cross checking his statements I'll take his word over an obvious Lance lover any day. Smoothie has shown to be well versed in both the history of the sport and the history of doping in the sport.

BTW people who point out grammar and spelling errors on an forum like this are just as big as A-holes as anyone else.

Well red devil...having seen his posts over the past two years, having not crossed checked his posts, i can't just assume anything.

I'm not suggesting he has to cite a post in a message board but when someone asks for a little proof i think the worst response is "Trust me, i've been a member of these message boards a long time".

The truth is that i didn't doubt a single one of his words until he typed that.

"Why is that so?"
"Because i say it is"

Thats not a very strong argument.

Furthermore, the spelling doesn't bother me, my spelling is not good at all. But i work for newspapers and if you can't even edit your own writing then how am i suppose to take your words for the truth?

Was i trying to be an ***hole? Yes...to prove a point. I think everyone, that matters, is on the same page now.

Shouldn't that be "well-versed"?

Damn you.....you....you...Devil ;)

Well red devil...having seen his posts over the past two years, having not crossed checked his posts, i can't just assume anything.

I'm not suggesting he has to cite a post in a message board but when someone asks for a little proof i think the worst response is "Trust me, i've been a member of these message boards a long time".

The truth is that i didn't doubt a single one of his words until he typed that.

"Why is that so?"
"Because i say it is"

Thats not a very strong argument.

Furthermore, the spelling doesn't bother me, my spelling is not good at all. But i work for newspapers and if you can't even edit your own writing then how am i suppose to take your words for the truth?

Was i trying to be an ***hole? Yes...to prove a point. I think everyone, that matters, is on the same page now.

Well to be honest what do we know? Nothing that we can say is absolute fact. I told a story here about a year ago about a local Austin Cat 1. He had spent some time in Belgium and Italy racing as a pro. He came home because he wouldn't dope. I got lit up by the BF membership all claiming he was just a whiner and couldn't cut it so used doping as an excuse. I know this guy and he is an honest and good person. He has little in what I call 'racer's ego'.

After hearing his stories and doing more research I came to the conclusion that it isn't the odd rider who is doping but that doping is prevalent in the sport. I made my peace with the idea and decided I could accept that even these gifted athletes needed to boost their performance. What I couldn't accept was the fact that the busted riders were the only ones to get penalized while the real bad guys kept getting away. Now I hope that will change and those who facilitate the doping will go down as well as the riders who get caught.

This was posted by Bockman in the Bike Racing Forum under "They all Dope" thread. Thought it had some relevance to this discussion.



One of the best articles I have ever read on the subject of performance enhancing drugs and competitive cycling:

Waiting for the day when 'I've never tested positive' may mean something

By Prentice Steffen, MD, FAAEM
This report filed September 29, 2004

"I've never tested positive."

We've all heard this statement (or some variation) from any number of athletes. A lot of athletes and their supporters seem to think this is a meaningful argument. Certainly many people seem to be persuaded by those four simple words. But it's sad to say that these days, the statement "I've never tested positive" is very nearly meaningless.

So far, that is.

There are signs of progress that may some day give real meaning to the claim of never having tested positive. Of course some athletes move from this falsely persuasive argument to outright lies of denial of doping. That I won't be able to explain, except to say quite simply that there is a lot of money and prestige on the line in these situations.

The key to understanding all of this is knowing the key doping substances used, how they work, how they are tested for (if they even can be), and how the testing is inadequate. What follows may appear to be an athlete's "how to dope" primer, but in fact this information is such common knowledge to sports insiders that there's little risk that it will corrupt anyone. None of this requires a Ph.D in anything to understand ... just a certain amount of thought, an open mind, and a willingness to understand this critical aspect of doping.

Three important doping substances to consider are erythropoietin (EPO), growth hormone (GH), and the anabolic steroid testosterone. I'll stick to these three as a good start. There are certainly many others, such as synthetic oxygen transporters, masking substances, and good old fashioned blood transfusions (much has been written on this relating to Tyler Hamilton's recent positive result in the Vuelta). For a truly frightening description of the future of doping, read the recent article on gene doping in Scientific American

Current testing for these substances is inadequate for one or all of three main reasons:

* No tests exist for the drug.
* The performance-enhancing effects of the drugs last well after the time it takes for the body to flush them out.
* The substances are identical to those produced naturally by the body, so thresholds must be set to levels that are clearly dangerous and/or unnatural.

Natural EPO, for example, is produced by the kidneys and stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells. Red blood cells carry oxygen to working muscles. More red blood cells equal increased endurance. Synthetic EPO is produced in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells grown in culture, using recombinant DNA technology. For nearly 10 years after its introduction, there was no anti-doping test for synthetic EPO.

In 1997, a limit was put on how high an athlete's blood count could be as a replacement for a direct test of synthetic EPO use. This measurement is called the hematocrit, and the limit was set at 50 percent. The hematocrit is the percentage of volume in a sample of blood that is taken up by just the red blood cells; the rest is taken up by serum and other blood-cell types. More red blood cells equal a higher hematocrit, which equals increased endurance. The 50 percent cut-off was set somewhat arbitrarily.

The important point here is that the average hematocrit for a professional cyclist is 42-43 percent, which leaves a considerable margin for manipulation up to the 50 percent cut-off. Competing with a hematocrit of 50 percent instead of 42 percent can constitute a significant enhancement of one's performance.

In 2001, a urine test was introduced that could detect the very subtle structural difference between natural EPO and synthetic EPO. Scientists know that the electrical charge of synthetic EPO is slightly different from that naturally produced by the human body. The test, developed in France, measures the charge of those isoforms. If too many in a sample show up with the incorrect charge, it is flagged as a positive.

The problem is that the test is only reliable for two or three days after the synthetic EPO is injected, while the lifespan of a red blood cell is six to eight weeks. In other words, the effect of synthetic EPO persists long past our ability to test for it. Indeed, some, more sublte, methods would allow a well-informed athlete to clear traces within 12 to 24 hours, allowing someone to continue to using EPO and still not test positive, even in multi-day events like the Tour de France.

Growth hormone is produced by the pituitary gland and has many effects throughout the body. The primary benefit, at least as it relates to athletic performance, is its ability to increase muscle size and strength. Until very recently, there has been absolutely no way to detect the use of growth hormone. Reportedly, such a test was implemented during the recent Athens Olympics, but the anti-doping authorities are intentionally (and I believe quite appropriately) mysterious about the introduction of new tests, so very few know the particulars of this method.

Finally, testosterone is an anabolic steroid that increases muscle mass and strength. The synthetic anabolic steroids (stanazol, norandralone, etc.) are molecules that are distinctly different from anything the human body produces and are consequently fairly easy to test for.

Testosterone, on the other hand, is a quite simple molecule and is easily synthesized. Even the synthetic version is absolutely identical to the testosterone produced by a human male's testicles. Consequently, detection is difficult, and authorities have been forced to rely on an indirect - and quite ineffective -method to test for the use of synthetic testosterone.

Natural testosterone, like all substances in the body, is eventually metabolized and eliminated. The body breaks testosterone down into a substance called epitestosterone. Both testosterone and epitestosterone are eliminated by the kidneys into the urine. At any point in time, if these two substances are measured in the urine, a ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone can be calculated. This "T/E ratio" averages about 2.5:1.

The use of synthetic testosterone should change this ratio. Somewhat like the 50 percent hematocrit cut-off established to watch for synthetic EPO use, anti-doping authorities have set a cut-off level for the T:E ratio at 6:1. Again, that leaves an awful lot of latitude, giving a dishonest athlete an upper limit to aim for. Even within that 6:1 T/E ratio there are significant performance benefits to be gained.

So what's to be done? The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was formed in 1999 as the international agency charged with setting anti-doping policy and implementing anti-doping testing. Up to that point, individual sports' governing bodies were expected to test their own athletes; this resulted in fairly obvious conflicts of interest in which positive test results were suppressed to avert bad publicity for the sport involved.

Some of this conflict of interest seems to survive among some sports governing bodies and national anti-doping agencies, but the formation of WADA is a huge step forward. WADA has shown itself to be aggressive in its mission - it serves as a neutral and objective agency to oversee anti-doping and is structured to be free of all conflicts of interest.

August 13, 2004, the opening day of the Athens Summer Olympics, was day one of WADA's control of anti-doping efforts. Embarrassingly enough, our sport's own Union Cycliste Internationale became the last international governing body to sign. It was only under threat of exclusion from the '04 Games that the UCI signed, and it did so only on the very last day possible. Talk about a reluctant participant.

The WADA Code adopts several fundamental changes in the approach to fighting doping in sports. For example, it emphasizes targeted out-of-competition testing rather than random testing during competition, when most athletes are obviously ready for the increased scrutiny. Under the new rules, an athlete's entourage (physician, coach, trainer, etc.) are held more responsible for their actions when an athlete tests positive. Of course, considerable effort and resources will be invested in research to improve current anti-doping testing.

The WADA Anti-Doping Code is a lengthy, complex document, but these are the types of changes WADA has incorporated in its code; changes that have begun to make a real difference. WADA president Dick Pound and everyone actively involved in the anti-doping effort are to be praised for their victories at the Athens Olympics. Never before has the effort been so obviously successful.

If WADA is allowed to honestly carry out its mission, there may come a day when an athlete states that he or she has "never tested positive," it actually means something."

Dr. Prentice Steffen, board-certified in both Emergency Medicine and Sports Medicine, served this year as team physician for the Heathnet/Maxxis and TIAA-CREF/5280 Magazine teams. He has served as team physician for several teams over the years including Prime Alliance, Mercury, Spago and U.S. Postal. Steffen has also served as medical director and event physician for major races, including the Tour Du Pont, New York City Marathon and the Tour de Trump. Steffen also serves as the sports-medicine section editor for the Journal of Emergency Medicine. His services are outlined in detail at www.pdssportsmed.com

You should be a lawyer!

I'll take his word over an obvious Lance lover any day. That's not the choice here. I'm not advocating a position. On another thread I said that there was no hard evidence that Lance doped. That is true, and I suspect that even you and Smoothie will admit it if pressed.

Smoothie invited me to read and consider his Example. I did so and asked two simple questions: 1) where did this information come from and can it be verified? 2) how should one distinguish bad performance-enhancing practices from good performance-enhancing practices, assuming both are legal? (Well, okay, maybe the second one isn't that simple.)

Nevertheless, from you and Smoothie and Euro (et al.) it's becoming apparent that unless one is willing to join the "Lance doped!" chorus on this forum, one is not due even common courtesy.

Think about that, please.

That's not the choice here. I'm not advocating a position. On another thread I said that there was no hard evidence that Lance doped. That is true, and I suspect that even you and Smoothie will admit it if pressed.

Of course you can never prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The rest of the bushel is rotten, and L'Equipe's EPO exposé and the Actovegin find puts enough of a bruise on his apple.

Take a deep breath, quit being an ***hole, and go back to college to learn how to write a convincing thesis. No one is saying your wrong but hell anyone can come here and claim whatever they want. The fact that you ride a lot, and post a lot, does not give you the right to just be a jerk let alone expect everyone to take what you say as the words of god. You can’t even spell possessing or existence and we’re just suppose to listen to you like you are the great enlightener of biekeforums.net.

Get over yourself.


And for what it's worth, i am a big fan of Lance Armstrong, and there is little doubt that he is not entirely honest.Thank You. and he doesn't ride alot. ;)

I always find the doping discussion interesting.

Let's get to the root of generally what being a world class endurance athlete means. Chime-in if you disagree, but I think to be a competitive athlete you have to be borderline obsessive-compulsive with an ego to match and a competitive streak longer than a runway. Everything has to come second to you riding a bike. It consumes your life - when you're not riding, youre recovering. Everything you put in your mouth becomes important. When you're not riding, sleeping or eating, your on a bus or plane.

So imagine you've devoted your entire waking and sleeping life to riding a bike, but you're only top 200 in the world. Just ahead of you 20 meters up the road are guys earning 20 time what you earn, date weather girls and establish charities in their own name.

You know they take 'performance enhancing drugs'.

You know EVERYONE takes something to some degree.

Your team has asperations and quietly wants you to get in on the act. The sponsors want bang for their buck. They want wins, not 25th placings.

So what's an obsessive-compulsive super competitive freak with no life outside of riding a bike going to do?

So of course, the majority of riders 'dope' to some degree. I believe all or most sports people do, and I don't care that much whether they do or don't. I also don't really care if they feel they have to save their public face by denying it right up to the end, because they know as well as I do, everyone loves a "I did wrong, but now I'm back" story.

Top level bike racing is a freakshow - nothing more, nothing less - and because it's so, I assume everyone is presumed guilty, and as long as nobody is hurt and the racing is entertaining, I say 'bring it on'.

If you're after role models however, I suggest Gandhi or Chomski might be a better bet though. :)

That's not the choice here. I'm not advocating a position. On another thread I said that there was no hard evidence that Lance doped. That is true, and I suspect that even you and Smoothie will admit it if pressed.

Smoothie invited me to read and consider his Example. I did so and asked two simple questions: 1) where did this information come from and can it be verified? 2) how should one distinguish bad performance-enhancing practices from good performance-enhancing practices, assuming both are legal? (Well, okay, maybe the second one isn't that simple.)

Nevertheless, from you and Smoothie and Euro (et al.) it's becoming apparent that unless one is willing to join the "Lance doped!" chorus on this forum, one is not due even common courtesy.

Think about that, please.


First I'm a huge fan of Lance, I believe that on any level playing field he was still best Tour rider over the last 7 years. What I'm able to do, and what the Lance Lovers are not able to do, is to accept the reality that Lance may have (more than likely) doped. Some like Walter can't handle the idea that this sport, like most major sports in the world, has a doping problem. To me this attitude is what has led to the continued and what I believe to be the widespread use of PED's.

Every time cyclist is busted it's always proclaimed by the UCI and even Lance as an isolated incident. The real bad actors never get busted, until now. Saiz is going down and he isn't the only DS who is doing this kind of stuff. The teams are complicit, and until this part of the equation is addressed then the doping will continue.

Thank You. and he doesn't ride alot. ;)

And you know this how?

El diablo rojo, mi amigo..los siento, tengo en la clase de espenol y nessisito practicar muchos.

Right...anyways, the story of your friend doesn't shock me. Barry bonds has enlightened me to the idea that professional athletes dope. Not all of course, but in certain sports...people at the peak of their game, they have to. The simple truth is that if they didn't then they wouldn't be where they were.

Football players have gotten bigger
Pitchers have gotten faster
Balls have flown longer
Cyclists can hide all this behind the cloak of technology (bikes have come a hell of a long way).

Does it bother me? Yes...but i view it the same way i do communism. It would be great if everyone could just be honest and play nice but the truth is that it just doesn't work. Human nature is what it is.

EPO's or any other drugs or not...lance armstrong is going to be better then 99% of the world on a bike. Thats why i watch him, not because he's better then Jan. Because deep in my heart i know that if Lance Armstrong has extra chemicals in his body that his body didn't make, so did jan. So in a sense it's really all relative.

Lets pretend for a moment that we know for a fact that Greg Lemond was 100% clean during his reign. If that is going to be the case then so was his competition. If Lance Armstrong won a record 7 TDF's and was doping, then so was his competition...maybe not all of them but for statistics sake we can assume the ones that would be able to compete anyways are...and if everyone is doing it and a winner still comes out on top then really who is the best?

What i'm saying is that it is the nature of the beast. If you can't accept that pro athletes in most, if not all sports, well then Thomas More has a place for you.

If you can accept it and don't like it then you need to find a new pastime (IE enjoying sports). Not that I like it.

EPO's or any other drugs or not...lance armstrong is going to be better then 99% of the world on a bike. Thats why i watch him, not because he's better then Jan. Because deep in my heart i know that if Lance Armstrong has extra chemicals in his body that his body didn't make, so did jan. So in a sense it's really all relative.

Lets pretend for a moment that we know for a fact that Greg Lemond was 100% clean during his reign. If that is going to be the case then so was his competition. If Lance Armstrong won a record 7 TDF's and was doping, then so was his competition...maybe not all of them but for statistics sake we can assume the ones that would be able to compete anyways are...and if everyone is doing it and a winner still comes out on top then really who is the best?

I don't buy the "level playing field" argument. Not all riders dope equally and not all riders get the same results from the dope. So it doesn't just take their baseline stats and give 'em all +3 across the board.

If we accept doping, at what point does it become all about who has the better dope? Or, instead of who has the better cardiovascular system and/or legs, it's about whose legs and cardiovascular system respond better to that dope?

What I'm able to do, and what the Lance Lovers are not able to do, is to accept the reality that Lance may have (more than likely) doped. We're not really in disagreement on anything you've said. However, I more often run into Lance Haters who are convinced that the only reason he won anything is because he doped more than anyone else. At least Lance Lovers, unrealistic as they may be, have the publicly known facts on their side.