Professional Cycling - Do you still believe Lance was clean in all 7 Tours?

Do you believe Lance was clean in all 7 Tours?

nope.

It doesn't matter, if he did, he got away with it.

Every bit as clean as Ulrich, Pantani & Basso.

It doesn't matter, if he did, he got away with it.
So if he did it and got away with it, that doesn't matter to you?

No

So if he did it and got away with it, that doesn't matter to you?

Why would it he still won.

And that seems to be the philosophy in the peloton: if you dope and get away with it, it doesn't matter.

What is the alternative?

The alternative is: it matters.

It matters to me. It's the Tour de Fake. The French have been right all along. They just have been at it longer, and so learned sooner.

In the end, does it matter PERSONALLY to you?
I'll still keep riding. Still preach the gospel of health, fun and all the other benefits of cycling.
I suspect most you will too.

But, from the fan aspect, it's sickening.

Hell no.

It doesn't matter because I can't prove it and because I enjoy the sport regardless of the chemistry involved. I am not under the delusion that sport must be clean to enjoy it.

Well, as long we fans don't care, then it will not get clean.

Well, as long we fans don't care, then it will not get clean.

This is true, but I think the team sponsors are just as much to blame. They *could* do a lot better job preemptively but they usually choose to stand by their men until there's no shadow of doubt remaining, then drop 'em. And sometimes other sponsors will still pick them up. Somebody smells money, and that odor is a lot stronger than the idea of having a clean sport.

I'm also kind of on the fence about following pro cycling. Haven't been following it for long but what I see, I don't like. Better to just stick with being my own hero :o

Professional Cycling should go the way of Professional Wrestling ..

Let 'em dope. Enjoy the races, and mourn them when they die. As long as I'm not related to 'em, they're grown people ..

I have very little doubt that Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs/medication. They may not have been on the list of banned substances at the time though.

In the end, does it matter PERSONALLY to you?
As much as it means when any major international public figure makes money out of lying to children.

As much as it means when any major international public figure makes money out of lying to children.

Which ones don't?

Which ones don't?
Jenna Jameson.

Jenna Jameson.

Wow, honest to goodness humor from EURO. He does have a human side. ;)

(In all fairness, I got nothin against you bud, you tell it how you see it, and while I may not agree with you always, you've always been at least semi-level headed)

As far as Lance goes, he's now retired and as long as he's not out pulling a 'Lemond' every 15 seconds I'm happy believing he did it on his own without doping. Where Lemond thrusts himself into the center of every doping stage in cycling, it seems Lance just gets dragged in kicking, screaming and cursing.

As far as Landis goes, my faith is wearing thin. I want to believe he did it, but the evidence speaks louder than words. As long as the evidence isn't comprimised, thats what I'll believe. Of course, there's no way of really knowing if it is or not. There's lots of terms for such a situation - most of them have language which would get me banned. :rolleyes:

This whole issue is why people are starting to say cynically that we should just open the floodgates and let everyone take whatever they want, and just be honest with ourselves... it would be a s**t situation, but at least we'd be honest with ourselves.

That being said, it would be great to know that the athletes involved wouldn't feel the pressure and need to risk their health and well being to be on a "level playing field" with other elite competitors.

Unless everyone gets put in a restricted fenced camp and monitored full time you can never absolutely guarantee that they are being honest about what they take... but it's important to try and contain the doping.

That being said, with teammates of Armstrong's from the Postal years getting caught as they are I find it hard to believe that he was the one truly great rider who didn't take a shortcut and still completely decimated the field for 7 straight years. It beggars the imagination to think that it's true.

Sad, but I can't help reaching that conclusion.

This whole issue is why people are starting to say cynically that we should just open the floodgates and let everyone take whatever they want, and just be honest with ourselves... it would be a s**t situation, but at least we'd be honest with ourselves.

That being said, it would be great to know that the athletes involved wouldn't feel the pressure and need to risk their health and well being to be on a "level playing field" with other elite competitors.

I'm not sure I buy the "level playing field" bit. PEDs like any dope affect different people in different ways. Just because everyone has access to use them doesn't mean they will get the same benefit from them. And I'm really not interested in supporting the pharmaceutical industry any more than I already do.

A "level playing field", to me, would be one free of cheating. But I'm pretty skeptical that will ever happen. The system is set up to encourage and reward it.

Professional Cycling should go the way of Professional Wrestling ..

Let 'em dope. Enjoy the races, and mourn them when they die. As long as I'm not related to 'em, they're grown people ..

Unfortunately, if you believe some published reports, they're not grown people. Rising juniors that show potential to compete at the International level are put under great pressure to dope, allegedly with the aid or encouragement of the powers that be (or at least were).

I'm not sure I buy the "level playing field" bit. PEDs like any dope affect different people in different ways. Just because everyone has access to use them doesn't mean they will get the same benefit from them.

Definetly.
And even... there are obvious ways that show it doesn't keep it 'level'.
Like the hematocrit level. One rider may naturally be 47%. Another rider may naturally be 40%. Each rider takes EPO to get to 49%.... the rider who originally had a lower HCT is going to get more benefit than the one with the natural 47%

As long as doping controls keep doping expensive enough so that only really sponsored athletes can beat the tests the danger to rising kid athletes is minimal. Zero tolerance doesn't seem to be working but rather subverting justice (a worse problem). Does anyone know how much Fuentes was charging people- I read it weeks ago and can no longer remember.

As long as doping controls keep doping expensive enough so that only really sponsored athletes can beat the tests the danger to rising kid athletes is minimal. Zero tolerance doesn't seem to be working but rather subverting justice (a worse problem). Does anyone know how much Fuentes was charging people- I read it weeks ago and can no longer remember.
I would think the money does not determine whether one dopes, but, rather, the effectiveness of the doping that he uses.

The rising kids still can afford relatively cheap doping programs, they're just not quite as effective as the sophisticated programs administered by the likes of Ferrari and Fuentes that can be afforded by Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong, Landis...

The less costly methods get caught thus nullifying their effectiveness and convincing others to avoid that which will get you caught. The same controls are used throughout the various levels of sports and amongst the different sports.

How expensive is blood doping? How do you get caught blood doping with your own blood (unless you make a mistake and use some else's blood a la Tyler!)?

Are the steroid patches that expensive? As long as you take a dose that keeps your T/E ratio below 4:1, how would you get caught?

Where can you buy steroid patches? Seriously. Do they get them prescribed by a doctor, or buy them in some country with loose controls (and questionable quality controls) over such things?

There are legitimate uses of steroids, so I suspect, but don't know, that you can get them from any doctor.

There are legitimate uses of steroids, so I suspect, but don't know, that you can get them from any doctor.

Yes, there are legitimate uses, but idiotic big brother FDA/DEA and other federales outlawed MANY of them years ago. Clenbuterol was a good treatment for asthma . . . not anymore. They all went psycho on the "steroids are killing our kids" BS.

Which is why I suspect the anabolic roids are mostly gotten from outside the US.
Which is interesting considering Flandis is American.
Will he have to worry about the DEA kicking in his door?
Of course the source of the testosterone, whether natural (caused by anabolic steroids) or synthetic from a patch or otherwise, is still not defined.

I cruised some roid rage weighlifting sites, and they all laugh at the ineffectiveness of testosterone patches.

As long as doping controls keep doping expensive enough so that only really sponsored athletes can beat the tests the danger to rising kid athletes is minimal.

Wow you're really out of touch with competive cycling... I guess I understand why you think LeMond is so out of line now.

So up and coming athletes can use cheap methods of doping and get away with it when their tests are sent to the same WADA certified labs as all other athletes? I didn't know WADA only applied the better tests to better pros- nice of you to inform me of that.

It doesn't matter, if he did, he got away with it.

I think that's exactly right.

So up and coming athletes can use cheap methods of doping and get away with it when their tests are sent to the same WADA certified labs as all other athletes?

"Cheap" doesn't necessarily mean 'more likely to get caught'. It may be something less effective but still unlikely to get caught. When do those riders actually get tested, anyway?

Really, WADA doesn't test for less effective doping products like caffeine? Doping tests are pretty automated and simple for most simple substances. The real issue is ratio testing which requires human interpretation of the results.

The governing bodies of specific sports affiliated with the IOC test athletes under specific guidelines established by WADA. Most of the National programs take anti-doping efforts pretty serious for their athletes- even collegiate. Many high school athletes are tested for substances and thus know how to avoid being busted. When you create a system under which simple binary doping products (rather than techniques) you eliminate testable PEDs as an option. Staying ahead of WADA is expensive and most rising athletes are not independently wealthy. Well funded teams can afford to dope but normally you cannot trust more than one person to keep a secret.

Jenna Jameson.

Well, with Jenna I can think of two things that are not the natural truth. :rolleyes:

(And thinking about them isn't all that bad, either. :D )

How expensive is blood doping? How do you get caught blood doping with your own blood (unless you make a mistake and use some else's blood a la Tyler!)?

Are the steroid patches that expensive? As long as you take a dose that keeps your T/E ratio below 4:1, how would you get caught?The drugs themselves are not expensive at all, even for EPO (which is available without Rx in several countries in Europe). It's the consulting fees that get expensive. And the human body still has enough variables to produce anomalous results and get them caught anyway.

Tyler didn't mistakenly take someone else's blood. He had at least 5 different people's blood in his veins the year he was caught. They had not announced that they could detect homologous transfusions so he thought he could get away with it. When they met with him that spring and told him to knock it off the % of foreign blood dropped from more than 10% down to the 1+% it was at when they nailed him. Hence his indignation - he did what they said and still got in trouble.

I'm more inclined to believe Armstrong than others, partly because he seems to be physiologically different from other competitors -- with respect to greater lung and heart capacity, etc. Landis, on the other hand, is physiologically different in that his hip is rotting off. So it's a whole lot harder to swallow Landis' story.

Note well: this does not mean that I think Armstrong was squeaky clean. It's just easier to explain how he could have won clean as opposed to other riders. Heck, if LeMond can win clean -- and obviously he was, right? -- why not think Armstrong can, what with all his physical prowess?

Well, blood or EPO doping would allow you to get greater lung and heart capacity by allowing you to train harder and longer than others. That's one of the reasons this is so sad. They still do the work but this little thing they do for an extra edge negates all that work.

"Cheap" doesn't necessarily mean 'more likely to get caught'. It may be something less effective but still unlikely to get caught. When do those riders actually get tested, anyway?

I'm not sure I agree on that. I do think that "cheap" does not necessarily mean more (or less) likely to get caught; the problem I see with cheap is in quality control. I think it's much more dangerous for amateurs, kids, etc. to get into doping on the cheap...increased chances that you have no idea what you're really getting, who knows what kind of stuff an unscrupulous dealer will put in there to stretch his supply to maximize profits.

I'm more inclined to believe Armstrong than others, partly because he seems to be physiologically different from other competitors -- with respect to greater lung and heart capacity, etc. Landis, on the other hand, is physiologically different in that his hip is rotting off. So it's a whole lot harder to swallow Landis' story.

Note well: this does not mean that I think Armstrong was squeaky clean. It's just easier to explain how he could have won clean as opposed to other riders. Heck, if LeMond can win clean -- and obviously he was, right? -- why not think Armstrong can, what with all his physical prowess?
You've bought into the Armstrong propoganda, as I did for years.

Turns out all that greater capacity stuff is comparing Armstrong to the general public, not to the pro peloton, where he might be above average, but not off the charts. Landis and Ullrich, for example, tested with higher VO2 Max capacity than Armstrong.

All the guys in the pro peloton are off the chart when compared to the general public.

You've bought into the Armstrong propoganda, as I did for years.

Turns out all that greater capacity stuff is comparing Armstrong to the general public, not to the pro peloton, where he might be above average, but not off the charts. Landis and Ullrich, for example, tested with higher VO2 Max capacity than Armstrong.

All the guys in the pro peloton are off the chart when compared to the general public.

Interesting. If this is the case, then I stand corrected with respect to the capacity stories. Are there any fairly objective places to read about it?

That Landis tested better than Armstrong I got from the Coyle book... Armstrong's War (highly recommended)
I forget where I got the Ullrich testing better than Armstrong info.
The part about all the guys in the peloton being off the chart when compared to the general public is just logical extrapolation from the fact that they can keep up with the guys who are known to be off the charts.

That Landis tested better than Armstrong I got from the Coyle book... Armstrong's War (highly recommended)
I forget where I got the Ullrich testing better than Armstrong info.
The part about all the guys in the peloton being off the chart when compared to the general public is just logical extrapolation from the fact that they can keep up with the guys who are known to be off the charts.

Thanks for the reference. I've seen that book talked about here and there: I'm now convinced that it's a must-read. Sounds like a reasonable extrapolation too. +1 for good thinking!

I do still maintain that the rotting hip and binge drinking is harder to swallow than any of Armstrong's stories, so I'm not AS convinced re: Armstrong. All the allegations really have me wondering.

Oh, and I just read "Game Of Shadows" about the BALCO scandal. Excellent stuff there, detailing how Conte and his doctors cooked up programs to stay one step ahead of the testers. I also heard, recently, that the main source for that book was actually Conte himself! He's such a wacko, I can believe that.

Interesting. If this is the case, then I stand corrected with respect to the capacity stories. Are there any fairly objective places to read about it?

All the pros riding at the Tour are basically superhuman in terms of endurance cycling. Just compare their abilities to the low level pros, and the low level pros compared to the cat 1s, and the cat 1s to the cat 2s, and so on.
There is no direct evidence that shows that Armstrong is so much more naturally gifted than all of his competitors that he could dominate the Tour de France for so many years. What I mean is... even if he is simply that good, there is no reason to assume that that is the case.

Jenna Jameson.

You really think those O's were real?

Well, with Jenna I can think of two things that are not the natural truth. :rolleyes:

(And thinking about them isn't all that bad, either. :D )

ha! you beat me to it!