whitemax

I just got done watching The Armstrong Lie and it talked about how in his later years, he blood doped because it was virtually impossible to detect. The question is, if it was as he stated, that all the top pros were on PEDs, why was Lance (and his team) so much better than the rest? Why weren't they blood doping as well given it was so hard to detect?

jyl

He and his team were doing a better job of doping.

cruiserhead

You can't cherry pick his lies and assume it's true.
It's not as he stated, and he is a pathological liar that will say anything in his best interest.
That has been proven time and time again.

whitemax

I should have been more clear about that. He said it and most of the pundits believed it was going on by the others as well. That begs the question, how was he able to be that much better, enough to win 7 TDFs, than the others. And if blood doping was "virtually impossible to detect" why weren't the others using that method?

cruiserhead

It wasn't going on with everyone.
You keep asking the same question, assuming his statement is true.
It isn't.

fietsbob

You wont get caught if you use Your own Blood store it in a transfusion bag , let your body naturally replace your red blood cells ,

then put the saved bag back in , But you wont be competitive in the time between , so Nobody waits that long ,

they get other red cells transfused from a Donor, and the foreign DNA is a Give Away.

hueyhoolihan

lies or not, of the dopers, SOMEBODY and SOME TEAM will always be the best among them.

chasm54

This is an unproductive discussion, because we can't know who was doping, who wasn't, how systematically, and so on.

And it's important to remember that even if everyone were doping - which they almost certainly weren't - that doesn't mean everyone was doing so with equal intensity or efficiency. If you read David Millar's account, the process by which he got involved, the dosages etc seem pretty arbitrary.

And autologous transfusions may be undetectable by testing the athlete, but driving around with all the paraphernalia - including litres of team members blood in bags - isn't risk free. People see things, people talk, cars get searched...

bassogap

you have to remember that even as a teen doing triathlons, he was unusually talented....he just got greedy and wanted to much farther than his natural talent could take him.

dbf73

I thought one of the ways they caught this was detecting the presence of the particular type of plastic they use in the bags in the blood tested.

himespau 

Being able to pay the most to have the best supporting riders (who also have to be on the best doping regimen in order to stay on your team) doesn't hurt either.

asgelle

Not true. Ever hear of the bio passport?

I have never heard of anyone using a donor or identified from a DNA test.

asgelle

There is no such approved test.

fietsbob

still gonna be anemic after the red cell draw, if its your own blood you're doping with .

fietsbob

ill leave this to the credentialed MD's Do identify your status..

whitemax

I didn't say everyone but in case you didn't get the implication, I meant many of the others.

Let's see....Vinokourov,Virenque,Zabel,Miller,Pantani,Simeoni,Leipheimer,Basso,Hamilton,Roux,Moreau,Dufaux ,Zulle,Caminzind, O'grady,Heras,Herve',Rumsas, ....that's just a short list of those that caught; need more? I could go on and on. Stands to reason that there were more that didn't get caught. To think that many of the others weren't cheating as well, is just plain wrong.

mapeiboy

Jacques Anguetil ( first 5 times tour winner ) : You can not win the tour on mineral water alone . 2) Everyone in cycling dopes themselves and those who claims they don't are liars . Those statements are still true to this date .

McBTC

All of his competitors knew Lance was doping because they were doping and Lance was still beating them...

If no one had been doping, Lance would have won.

If Lance had not doped, other dopers would have won.

McBTC

Tyler Hamilton (stripped of his Athens Olympic gold medal), Floyd Landis (doper/whistleblower)...

RomansFiveEight

Over the years watching Mark McGwire smash the home run record everyone knew he was using steroids; and so were all of the big power hitters. When he finally 'admitted' it years later it didn't really surprise anyone. However, what was often said by his fans was that "steroids only made his 400 foot homers 500 foot homers". While not entirely true (he did hit double the home runs of today's best hitters), there's at least some truth in the fact that, as with any athlete, it's not as simple as taking drugs, or doping, and suddenly being the best there ever was. It does take skill, strength, and fitness to win; even when doping. (Apologies for the Baseball analogy in a Bicycling forum)

I suspect, ultimately, that's what you're looking for someone to say. Yes, he was a talented rider and a fit human being. He worked very very hard. He also cheated to put himself beyond his own physical limitations.

However, doping is still doping. It is going to affect everyones body differently. Whether the team was better at doping, whether his body was more receptive (I'm not a physician, but I've read, somewhere, at some point, a physician suggesting that his body would've gotten more benefits from blood doping that a 'typical' person), or whatever else is moot. And the fact that "everybody was doing it" is no more an excuse now than when Lance makes that claim himself. For me, I'm less concerned about we can still call Lance a 'winner' because he out-doped the other dopers. I'm more concerned about the talented, hard working riders who spent their careers in 15th place because they couldn't compete with dopers. Or who perhaps genuinely had a claim to numerous titles, but because of the suspicion placed on them for merely being successful during that time period, they'll never achieve those titles. (Most of Lances titles, for example, weren't transferred. They were simply stripped. Even the UCI maintains that Lance was not the only one doping, I don't think that's really a contested fact. Though not contested, it IS indeed moot.)

And that's ultimately the damage doping does. It means that other guys needed to dope to compete with Lance, and those who chose not to fell behind. Those who followed the rules, worked hard, and earned it; didn't get what they deserved because of guys like Lance.

And we haven't even begun to address all that he did unethically outside of doping... but I digress.

So; tl;dr- Yes, Lance was still talented. Yes, he bested other dopers while doping. No, that doesn't matter one iota.

himespau 

whitemax

[QUOTE=McBTC;18394365]All of his competitors knew Lance was doping because they were doping and Lance was still beating them...

If no one had been doping, Lance would have won.

Can't say that with certainty. Ullrich was a very talented cyclist and may have been able to beat him in the absence of PEDs on both sides. Perhaps as many have speculated, he was using at the same time Lance was and the methods he used were't as good at what Lance was doing.

McBTC

[QUOTE=whitemax;18394781]So, you're saying you don't believe Jan Ullich was doping...

whitemax

[QUOTE=McBTC;18394824]
I don't know how you drew that conclusion, read the post again.

McBTC

[QUOTE=whitemax;18395603]It's in Germanglish...