Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 69 of 71 FirstFirst ... 19596768697071 LastLast
Results 1,701 to 1,725 of 1760
  1. #1701
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Modesto,California
    My Bikes
    Cannondale T600, Scattante R-660, Diamond Back Response Sport
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can see it all now the future of the O show:

    Oprah: We don't want to use any meth crystals, do we boys and girls?
    Peanut gallery: Noooooooo!
    Oprah: We want mommy to bring home Oprahs prayer crystals from the store don't we?
    Peanut gallery: Yeesssssss!
    "We unfurled upon an alpenstick the small silk"-Allen and Sachtleben, 4 July 1891 mid-tour atop Ararat.


    Bruce Gordon BLT.
    Diamondback LWB MTB.
    Hennessy Hammock Deep Jungle.
    Garmin Legend CX computer/GPS.

  2. #1702
    Senior Member Jed19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,847
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Feds are in with Landis' suit against Lance.

    http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/...is-suit_275504
    Regards,

    Jed

  3. #1703
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    428
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since we arent allowed to discuss politics here, I will just say I really hope the federal government fails.

  4. #1704
    Senior Member Commodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Posts
    4,144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...tleblower-case

    "We will say there was enough information (about doping on the USPS team) to put you (the government) on notice, and you should have filed a false claim before."
    So...he basically just called everyone who believed him, and defended him, an idiot.

  5. #1705
    Senior Member mprelaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arms...tleblower-case



    So...he basically just called everyone who believed him, and defended him, an idiot.
    He also admitted (maybe without realizing it) that he brought a host of baseless lawsuits, and the lawyers who represented him were either fellow idiots, or unethical.

  6. #1706
    Senior Member Commodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Posts
    4,144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Olden Crow View Post
    I can see it all now the future of the O show:

    Oprah: We don't want to use any meth crystals, do we boys and girls?
    Peanut gallery: Noooooooo!
    Oprah: We want mommy to bring home Oprahs prayer crystals from the store don't we?
    Peanut gallery: Yeesssssss!
    uh...I've ignored this thread for a while now but hopefully in the interim you've stepped away from whatever narcotics you were using. O.o

  7. #1707
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    My Bikes
    Trek5000
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mprelaw View Post
    He also admitted (maybe without realizing it) that he brought a host of baseless lawsuits, and the lawyers who represented him were either fellow idiots, or unethical.
    Anybody know if these are the same attorneys he used in his previous lawsuits?

  8. #1708
    pan y agua merlinextraligh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Jacksonville
    My Bikes
    Wilier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Co-Motion Robusta; Schwinn Paramount; Motobecane Phantom Cross; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er
    Posts
    27,395
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mprelaw View Post
    He also admitted (maybe without realizing it) that he brought a host of baseless lawsuits, and the lawyers who represented him were either fellow idiots, or unethical.
    I notice there's pre law in your name.
    You could fall off a cliff and die.
    You could get lost and die.
    You could hit a tree and die.
    OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.

  9. #1709
    Senior Member mprelaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by merlinextraligh View Post
    I notice there's pre law in your name.
    The pre part is the first 3 letters of my last name.

    There's nothing unethical about a lawyer defending someone who is guilty, in a criminal prosecution (which is the kind of law that I've done for close to 30 years). However, bringing a libel suit against a party who is known to be telling the truth, is, well, at least borderline. I prefer to think that his lawyers were just idiots who drank the Kool-Aid with everyone else.
    Last edited by mprelaw; 02-26-13 at 08:58 PM.

  10. #1710
    pan y agua merlinextraligh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Jacksonville
    My Bikes
    Wilier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Co-Motion Robusta; Schwinn Paramount; Motobecane Phantom Cross; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er
    Posts
    27,395
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mprelaw View Post
    The pre part is the first 3 letters of my last name.

    There's nothing unethical about a lawyer defending someone who is guilty, in a criminal prosecution (which is the kind of law that I've done for close to 30 years). However, bringing a libel suit against a party who is known to be telling the truth, is, well, at least borderline. I prefer to think that his lawyers were just idiots who drank the Kool-Aid with everyone else.
    They advanced Armstrong's interests pretty effectively. Those actions now clearly appear to have been baseless on the information that is currently known. That by no means establishes that Armstrong's attorney's knew they were baseless then, or breached any ethical duty.

    And simply taking a diffent position in a different case years later isn't unethical.

    As the story goes, Abraham Lincoln argued 2 cases before the same court on the same day, taking opposite positions in the cases. The Judge asked Lincoln in the afternoon wether he'd argued the exact opposite that morning. Lincoln responded that this morning I thought I was right; this afternoon I know I am.
    You could fall off a cliff and die.
    You could get lost and die.
    You could hit a tree and die.
    OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.

  11. #1711
    Senior Member Jed19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,847
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by merlinextraligh View Post
    They advanced Armstrong's interests pretty effectively. Those actions now clearly appear to have been baseless on the information that is currently known. That by no means establishes that Armstrong's attorney's knew they were baseless then, or breached any ethical duty.

    And simply taking a diffent position in a different case years later isn't unethical.

    As the story goes, Abraham Lincoln argued 2 cases before the same court on the same day, taking opposite positions in the cases. The Judge asked Lincoln in the afternoon wether he'd argued the exact opposite that morning. Lincoln responded that this morning I thought I was right; this afternoon I know I am.
    <Slaps forehead>

    So, that is how the "honest Abe" moniker came to be. Who would have guessed?
    Regards,

    Jed

  12. #1712
    Velo Club La Grange Cat4Lifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MDR, CA
    Posts
    1,215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer View Post
    Keep in mind that steroids were not at all in existence during Eddie's time. so there's no way he could have possibly used them. So as the BF experts note, doping in his era had "minimal effect," which of course is why they did it.
    Quote Originally Posted by LarDasse74 View Post
    Are you joking? Eddy retired in he late 70s. Steroids had been in use by athletes for ~20 years by then. I don't know what he took or didn' take, but he certainly had access to steroids if he had wanted to take them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer View Post
    Actually, yes, I am joking. It's just funny to me to read all the definitive statements made by BF' self-appointed doping experts. You know what I mean, the geniuses that say the steroids of Eddie's time had minimal effect on performance, while the steroids in Armstrong's era had maximum effect. I agree with what you're saying, I was just mocking the foolish idea that PEDs of the 70s had minimal effect on performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
    Please, I am interested to see some research suggesting that the doping practices of this time were especially effective. I await your learned response.
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    What's unquestionable though is that the steroids of Merckx's era don't compare to EPO (not a steroid) in increasing the body's ability to move oxygen.

    Science is science.

    It's also true that sometimes guys on internet forums actually know what they're talking about because they're old, and have been involved in sports for 3 or 4 decades.
    It's also true that sometimes -- probably most times -- guys making definitive statements about the effect of doping in different eras on internet forums don't actually know what they're talking about, but believe they do because they're old and have puttered around on their bikes for 3 or 4 decades.

    Why does the role played by transfusions in the years before Gen-EPO matter? Why does the role played by transfusions during Gen-EPO matter? It matters because it alters our perception of what happened in those years. Many cycling fans have a somewhat rose-tinted view of doping in the years before Gen-EPO, comparing the two eras to pop-guns versus howitzers…You can compare EPO to howitzers if you want, but you cannot say that transfusions were just pop-guns.

    The path from transfusions to EPO is clear and unambiguous. In one you inject red blood cells into the body, in the other you inject a hormone that stimulates the production of red blood cells. For the men who worked with transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, the progression to EPO was as natural as upgrading your smart phone. One might be more powerful than the other, or at least easier to use, but the two are, in essence, the same thing….

    Hormone rebalancing, blood transfusions, EPO, they really aren't all that different. The members of Gen-EPO, were they really all that different from the generations that went before them? Scapegoating them for doing the same as the generations that had preceded them had done, does that really make sense? But they're the ones who are going to be held accountable. They're the ones who we are clamouring for truth from. While we sit back and watch the generations who preceded ride off into the sunset in glorious silence, never to be held to account for the role they played in creating Gen-EPO. Because they were only playing with pop-guns.
    Last edited by Cat4Lifer; 03-08-13 at 06:20 AM.

  13. #1713
    Velo Club La Grange Cat4Lifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MDR, CA
    Posts
    1,215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
    Even though Eddy was caught doping, he is still highly respected as a cyclist. Regardless of LA's character flaws (and lack of conscience), he's still one hell of cyclist. However, people seem quite ready to write him of as the guy who couldn't even balance on two wheels except that he took a "TdF Victory Pill" (coming soon to a pharmacy near you).
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    Nor is it reasonable to compare the kind of doping Merckx did with that of the modern era.
    Why is it not reasonable to compare blood transfusions of the 70s with blood transfusions of the "modern era"?
    Last edited by Cat4Lifer; 03-08-13 at 06:24 AM.

  14. #1714
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by himespau View Post
    The nice thing about all this is that that if you want an inexpensive early 00's CF bike and don't care what it says on it (or have access to a can of spray paint), now might just be the time to get your best deal as all the people who bought those post office special editions start putting them on the market.
    Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be looking for a great deal - I'm not so shabby with a can o' paint either.

  15. #1715
    Trek 500 Kid Zinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Spokane WA
    My Bikes
    '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
    Posts
    2,462
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer View Post
    Why is it not reasonable to compare blood transfusions of the 70s with blood transfusions of the "modern era"?
    Good question but Merckx tested positive for amphetamines on a few occasions. I don't think they used transfusions back then that I'm aware of. I guess he means that amphetamines have limits and a downside in long stage races that EPO doesn't have. The downside of EPO is dying of a heart attack in your sleep if you don't know what you're doing with it.

    Btw, I know that Armstrong admitted using EPO to his doctor in front ofBetsy Andreu in '96 or '97 so I'm wondering how long he was boosting while riding with Motorola. I really liked the guy back then but kind of started putting 2 and 2 together about 10 years or so ago when he started dominating the Tour. I just stopped watching European cycling for awhile back then so I'm for cleaning it up. If they can just get a handle on the blood/oxygen boosters I'll be happy because that's what blows the whole race out for the less financed underdog teams......I think that's the point gsteinb was making.

  16. #1716
    Velo Club La Grange Cat4Lifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MDR, CA
    Posts
    1,215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, from what I've read the performance benefits of blood doping were well known by the 70s. Considering what we're finding out today about the propensity of pros to dope, it would be foolish to believe that at least some cyclists weren't blood doping in the 70s.

    Here's what Hinault said about blood doping in the early 80s:

    "Moser made use of auto-transfusion. So he was playing with his own blood. He did no more no less that the Finnish athletes, Lasse Virén and the others. It suffices to take some of one's own blood during the Spring when it is rich, hyper-oxygenated, and to re-inject it when one is fatigued. Is that really doping? Maybe not, except if the blood is placed into a machine to re-oxygenate it to the maximum."

    Just saw a really good doc "30 for 30: 9.79*" on Netflix about doping in track and field during the 80's
    HGH was first used by T&F athletes in the mid 80s!; T&F doping results (including positives) from the 1984 Olympics were lost/destroyed;
    Dr. Don Catlin years after the '84 Olympics, for his own curiosity it seems, tested saved samples and found more & more evidence of doping, so much so, he thought it better to stop testing. Didn't feel it would do any good to publish who tested positive years after the fact.

  17. #1717
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    As things progressed guys were transfusing doped blood. It's what Contador got popped, and had his wrist slapped for. If Eddy was transfusing blood so be it. It still wasn't the prevalent doping methodology of the period, which largely centered around energy. It wasn't until the late 70s/80s that steroids for recovery became prevalent, and around the end of the Lemond era that blood manipulation really became the norm. What you're posting confirms an increasing sophistication in doping methodologies.

  18. #1718
    Senior Member mprelaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    As things progressed guys were transfusing doped blood. It's what Contador got popped, and had his wrist slapped for. If Eddy was transfusing blood so be it. It still wasn't the prevalent doping methodology of the period, which largely centered around energy. It wasn't until the late 70s/80s that steroids for recovery became prevalent, and around the end of the Lemond era that blood manipulation really became the norm. What you're posting confirms an increasing sophistication in doping methodologies.
    Up until 1986, anyone who was transfusing wasn't utilizing a banned method of enhancing performance. I only consider illegal methods as "cheating".

  19. #1719
    Velo Club La Grange Cat4Lifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MDR, CA
    Posts
    1,215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    It wasn't until the late 70s/80s that steroids for recovery became prevalent
    Source?

  20. #1720
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Depending on your use of the word prevalent, one could argue I'm a couple-5 years off. They weren't even illegal until 1975.


    http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/vie...ourceID=002366

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ine/index.html


    but if you look at the 1976 and 1983 highlights it certainly supports the timeline offered.

    1976 East German swimmers are deceived into taking anabolic steroids by their coaches and trainers. They win 11 out of 13 swim events at the Montreal Summer Olympics that year.

    1983 Seventeen athletes, including two from the United States, test positive for anabolic steroids at the Pan American Games in Caracas, Venezuela, and are disqualified. Eleven others leave the games in protest.

  21. #1721
    Velo Club La Grange Cat4Lifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MDR, CA
    Posts
    1,215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    Depending on your use of the word prevalent, one could argue I'm a couple-5 years off. They weren't even illegal until 1975.


    http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/vie...ourceID=002366

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ine/index.html


    but if you look at the 1976 and 1983 highlights it certainly supports the timeline offered.

    1976 East German swimmers are deceived into taking anabolic steroids by their coaches and trainers. They win 11 out of 13 swim events at the Montreal Summer Olympics that year.

    1983 Seventeen athletes, including two from the United States, test positive for anabolic steroids at the Pan American Games in Caracas, Venezuela, and are disqualified. Eleven others leave the games in protest.
    The legality isn't at issue. What was being discussed, if I remember correctly, was the potency of PEDs (Merckx Era vs. Armstrong Era).

    Now as far as you supporting your claim that steroids weren't used prevalently (even occasionally used or used at all) for recovery until the late 70's/early 80's--you haven't. What you have provided are sources that delineate a timeline of athletes testing positive for anabolic steroids.

    As far as I have read, anabolic steroids have been available to athletes since the 50's. It seems unlikely to me, especially considering what we're now learning about doping and pro-cycling, that elite athletes would forgo the use of potent PEDs for some twenty or so years. Here is excerpt from Ferrari about testosterone, anabolic steroids, and "blood doping":

    TESTOSTERONE and ANABOLIC STEROIDS have been available from the 50's and 60's, and it is very likely that athletes have made wide use of those, but tests for the probable intake of exogenous testosterone were approved only in 1986, while specific tests for the numerous anabolic drugs were developed as new molecules were coming on the market.

    I asked a Grand Champion of the 70's which drugs were used in his time. "Amphetamines, cortisone" he said. "Decadurabolin, durabolin, sustanon?" I added. "Ah yes, those too..." (he had not even considered them as doping...).
    and
    The first scientific publication on the effects of blood TRANSFUSIONS over aerobic performance dates back some 67 years ago! (Science 1945, 102:589-591). It's very likely that endurance athletes have used it since the 60's, though only a decade later we had contextual certainty. As of today, there is no test that can demonstrate autologous blood transfusion.
    Since doping, even in the 60s and 70s, has (had) the tendency to be done secretly, I am left to wonder how anyone (an "outsider") can intelligently, honestly, and correctly say, imply, or even hint that the use of anabolic steroids began many years after they were first available. So what I'm wondering: if these performance enhancing drugs and practices (and knowledge of there effectiveness) have been around at least since the 50's, why are you so sure that they weren't used "prevalently" (or at all?) "until the late 70s"?
    Last edited by Cat4Lifer; 03-30-13 at 02:37 AM.

  22. #1722
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,351
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer View Post
    The legality isn't at issue. What was being discussed, if I remember correctly, was the potency of PEDs (Merckx Era vs. Armstrong Era).
    Doesn't really matter what hte potency is, Merckx got busted more times for PED violations while actually cycling than Armstrong did.

    But never forget Merckx is a hard-assed hero while Armstrong is a cheating imposter.

    Now as far as you supporting your claim that steroids weren't used prevalently (even occasionally used or used at all) for recovery until the late 70's/early 80's--you haven't. What you have provided are sources that delineate a timeline of athletes testing positive for anabolic steroids.
    Steroid use was pervasive in US college football by the early 1980s.

    Period.

    Guys I went to high school with and were recruited by upper level Div I schools were told by coaches whose name you'd recognize that they'd be EXPECTED to use steroids.

    I played Div III ball and there were guys using steroids even at that level.

    As far as I have read, anabolic steroids have been available to athletes since the 50's. It seems unlikely to me, especially considering what we're now learning about doping and pro-cycling, that elite athletes would forgo the use of potent PEDs for some twenty or so years. Here is excerpt from Ferrari about testosterone, anabolic steroids, and "blood doping":


    and


    Since doping, even in the 60s and 70s, has (had) the tendency to be done secretly, I am left to wonder how anyone (an "outsider") can intelligently, honestly, and correctly say, imply, or even hint that the use of anabolic steroids began many years after they were first available. So what I'm wondering: if these performance enhancing drugs and practices (and knowledge of there effectiveness) have been around at least since the 50's, why are you so sure that they weren't used "prevalently" (or at all?) "until the late 70s"?
    No, he's probably right. Well, almost, anyway. I'd put the date somewhat earlier - more like early 1970s. Can you say "Pittsburgh Steelers"? I knew you could.

    Look at all the NFL stars from the 1960s that are still with us. Look at all the NFL stars from the 1970s that have already died from weird stuff - Lyle Alzado et al. There sure seems to be a lot more strange deaths from 1970s NFL players. Walter Payton, for another. And a whole bunch of those Steelers...

  23. #1723
    Velo Club La Grange Cat4Lifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MDR, CA
    Posts
    1,215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by achoo View Post
    Guys I went to high school with and were recruited by upper level Div I schools were told by coaches whose name you'd recognize that they'd be EXPECTED to use steroids.
    Oh.

  24. #1724
    Trek 500 Kid Zinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Spokane WA
    My Bikes
    '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
    Posts
    2,462
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    A lot of this is speculation but when I read of riders boosting for uncontrolled one day races back then, or support riders not likely to be randomly tested needing recovery, I'm reading accounts of amphetamines. Not that much had changed on the road since Anquetil's decade I don't imagine.

  25. #1725
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer View Post
    Why is it not reasonable to compare blood transfusions of the 70s with blood transfusions of the "modern era"?
    BTW, in Armstrong's recent interviews even he acknowledged that the doping methods changed from 'low octane' to 'high octane,' and it would be impossible to compete without getting on board.

    LA: [Laughs] That’s what I mean, more or less. Again I don’t know what others did or didn’t do, and I don’t want to get into the details, but at some point cycling switched from low-octane to high-octane. I don’t know who had made that switch to high-octane first. In Motorola, we had not in 1993. It’s well documented that we did make that switch in 1995, but in the years before, we were low-octane [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.] That worked okay in 1993 but it did not work okay in 1994. In that winter between '93 and '94, there was a tectonic shift.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...terview-part-1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •