Lemond comments during giro
#26
SLJ 6/8/65-5/2/07
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that neither LeMond nor Armstrong care an awful lot about anonymous internet posts.
__________________
“Life is not one damned thing after another. Life is one damned thing over and over.”
Edna St. Vincent Millay
“Life is not one damned thing after another. Life is one damned thing over and over.”
Edna St. Vincent Millay
#27
Senior Member
Who says he has "no talent"?
That wasn't even the original post or my response.
What I'm saying about 09 is that Lance was not doped up as much as usual, until the chips were down and he definitely doped.
All that shows is how much doping can skew results.
My logic, while i'm assuming is clear to others, is simple. I'll just repeat it:
-LeMond is not being hypocritical for stating Pantani is talented (see above)
-LeMond is not a hypocrite for speaking the truth. When you speak the truth, it's called being honest.
-LeMond has never doped
-LeMond's god-given physiology has never changed. As that is naturally impossible, it makes sense.
-LeMond has only defended himself and spoken the truth, even when it was unpopular to do so.
-Lance is a liar, cheat, bully and fraud. All proven and admitted to.
I find it laughable to defend Lance and all the fanboy arguments are ones you would never accept from a 5 yr old child
"everyone did it", "Greg was a jerk too"
Sorry to be the bearer of reality, but Lance did far more and he did hurt a lot of other people.
If you were on the receiving end of a ruined career, or internationally character assasinated,
I doubt you would be so accepting of his inexcusable behavior.
That wasn't even the original post or my response.
What I'm saying about 09 is that Lance was not doped up as much as usual, until the chips were down and he definitely doped.
All that shows is how much doping can skew results.
My logic, while i'm assuming is clear to others, is simple. I'll just repeat it:
-LeMond is not being hypocritical for stating Pantani is talented (see above)
-LeMond is not a hypocrite for speaking the truth. When you speak the truth, it's called being honest.
-LeMond has never doped
-LeMond's god-given physiology has never changed. As that is naturally impossible, it makes sense.
-LeMond has only defended himself and spoken the truth, even when it was unpopular to do so.
-Lance is a liar, cheat, bully and fraud. All proven and admitted to.
I find it laughable to defend Lance and all the fanboy arguments are ones you would never accept from a 5 yr old child
"everyone did it", "Greg was a jerk too"
Sorry to be the bearer of reality, but Lance did far more and he did hurt a lot of other people.
If you were on the receiving end of a ruined career, or internationally character assasinated,
I doubt you would be so accepting of his inexcusable behavior.
#28
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Another terrific post.
Let's evaluate greg's TDF career. He won three tours in 86/89/90, but would also have won in '85 had he not been ordered not to assist roche in stage 17. Greg also lost two opportunities to win the tour in his physical prime in 87/88 due to the shooting accident.
Had he not been sabotaged by how own team director and teammate in '85, and had the accident not happened, there's a very good chance that greg could have won six straight tours ALL COMPLETELY CLEAN.
Greg was an absolute freak of nature, with an optimal physique and physiology for GC riding. He was the real deal. Put yourself in his shoes: his legacy as a competitor, champion, and his ability to create a brand for himself after his racing career were all undermined by a sociopathic, criminal doper.
Although greg is now vindicated, he is unable to retrieve all of those years where lance was able to capitalize on his "victories" as a "champion," promoting his brand to the hilt as "america's greatest cyclist," all titles which legitimately belong to lemond.
I completely understand where greg is coming from and have no sympathy for lance whatsoever.
Let's evaluate greg's TDF career. He won three tours in 86/89/90, but would also have won in '85 had he not been ordered not to assist roche in stage 17. Greg also lost two opportunities to win the tour in his physical prime in 87/88 due to the shooting accident.
Had he not been sabotaged by how own team director and teammate in '85, and had the accident not happened, there's a very good chance that greg could have won six straight tours ALL COMPLETELY CLEAN.
Greg was an absolute freak of nature, with an optimal physique and physiology for GC riding. He was the real deal. Put yourself in his shoes: his legacy as a competitor, champion, and his ability to create a brand for himself after his racing career were all undermined by a sociopathic, criminal doper.
Although greg is now vindicated, he is unable to retrieve all of those years where lance was able to capitalize on his "victories" as a "champion," promoting his brand to the hilt as "america's greatest cyclist," all titles which legitimately belong to lemond.
I completely understand where greg is coming from and have no sympathy for lance whatsoever.
Armstrong raced against the best dopers in history and he beat them........7 times.
#29
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Armstrong had access to the highest quality, and most advanced drugs in the peloton. It was still not a level playing field.
#31
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Name the drugs he did that other people couldn't get.
#33
Tiocfáidh ár Lá
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
Yup, and they truly hate anyone saying good things about Pantini. After all that puts the lie to the idea that Lance was competing in a totally different world where the Double was no longer possible and where multiple Jersies in a Single Tour or Giro was out of the question. (Pantini 98).
#35
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,562
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2904 Post(s)
Liked 382 Times
in
307 Posts
At the risk of being labeled anything but a casual fan of Armstrong during his streak, do you guys suppose the field might've been juicing in '98? The OP has a point. If you're going to hate on juicers you might as well spread it around.
The hypocrisy is self evident in this one. If you wanted to be competitive in that era you juiced and you lied about it to protect your investment in your career. There is a certain degree of nationalism at work here to give a pass to Pantani when everybody was aware that he juiced and gave him a pass for it while scrutinizing Armstrong.
Personally I'm glad this went down if it means cleaning up the sport but I'm not going to be scapegoating one person for it and that's kind of what happens here whether people want to admit it or not.
The hypocrisy is self evident in this one. If you wanted to be competitive in that era you juiced and you lied about it to protect your investment in your career. There is a certain degree of nationalism at work here to give a pass to Pantani when everybody was aware that he juiced and gave him a pass for it while scrutinizing Armstrong.
Personally I'm glad this went down if it means cleaning up the sport but I'm not going to be scapegoating one person for it and that's kind of what happens here whether people want to admit it or not.
Last edited by Zinger; 05-19-14 at 02:41 PM.
#36
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
At the risk of being labeled anything but a casual fan of Armstrong during his streak, do you guys suppose the field might've been juicing in '98? The OP has a point. If you're going to hate on juicers you might as well spread it around.
The hypocrisy is self evident in this one. If you wanted to be competitive in that era you juiced and you lied about it to protect your investment in your career. There is a certain degree of nationalism at work here to give a pass to Pantani when everybody was aware that he juiced and gave him a pass for it while scrutinizing Armstrong.
Personally I'm glad this went down if it means cleaning up the sport but I'm not going to be scapegoating one person for it and that's kind of what happens here whether people want to admit it or not.
The hypocrisy is self evident in this one. If you wanted to be competitive in that era you juiced and you lied about it to protect your investment in your career. There is a certain degree of nationalism at work here to give a pass to Pantani when everybody was aware that he juiced and gave him a pass for it while scrutinizing Armstrong.
Personally I'm glad this went down if it means cleaning up the sport but I'm not going to be scapegoating one person for it and that's kind of what happens here whether people want to admit it or not.
Read more: Lance Armstrong not only used performance-enhancing drugs, cyclist pushed banned substances on teammates: U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report - NY Daily News
I'm still looking for details on this, but if you think that the quality and efficacy of doping across teams and riders was equal, you are dead wrong.
Lance was experimenting for a very long time, and used EVERY drug possible to gain the largest advantage.
#37
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,562
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2904 Post(s)
Liked 382 Times
in
307 Posts
^^^
Guy Armstrong did the same as everybody else and used the same substances. USPS might've had it down to a fine art but the doping was rampant and all of Armstrong's runners up were dopers.
Once again the hypocrisy is evident. Pantani's career was made on doping just like Armstrong's.
Guy Armstrong did the same as everybody else and used the same substances. USPS might've had it down to a fine art but the doping was rampant and all of Armstrong's runners up were dopers.
Once again the hypocrisy is evident. Pantani's career was made on doping just like Armstrong's.
#38
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
^^^
Guy Armstrong did the same as everybody else and used the same substances. USPS might've had it down to a fine art but the doping was rampant and all of Armstrong's runners up were dopers.
Once again the hypocrisy is evident. Pantani's career was made on doping just like Armstrong's.
Guy Armstrong did the same as everybody else and used the same substances. USPS might've had it down to a fine art but the doping was rampant and all of Armstrong's runners up were dopers.
Once again the hypocrisy is evident. Pantani's career was made on doping just like Armstrong's.
Last edited by roadandmountain; 05-19-14 at 03:03 PM.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 775
Bikes: 2019 KonaLibre- 2003 Litespeed Vortex -2016 Intense Spider Factory Build -2008 Wilier Mortorolio- Specialized Stumpjumper Hardtail converted to bafang 750 mid drive -1986 Paramount 2014 - --- Pivot Mach 429c
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times
in
11 Posts
So I know I am a fanboy as the term will come across again. But let the record be clear I am a fan of Lance, Greg and Marco and many others. Lance did much of his own damage by being a jerk. An example is how he claimed to have given Pantani the victory on Ventoux. His vendettas were vicious and well documented at this point.
Your argument of degrees is very weak. It is a black and white issue.
I prefer to let this pass over and am not interested in a witch hunt of past champions. I think the evidence is pretty clear of the rampant use of ped in cycling for many years by many cyclists from many countries.They all did them for the same reason to enhance performance.
#40
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
really? So the other guys doping and using drugs were not using them for the same reasons? were not using the same drugs? how did these degrees differ so much as that it is ok that other doped?
So I know I am a fanboy as the term will come across again. But let the record be clear I am a fan of Lance, Greg and Marco and many others. Lance did much of his own damage by being a jerk. An example is how he claimed to have given Pantani the victory on Ventoux. His vendettas were vicious and well documented at this point.
Your argument of degrees is very weak. It is a black and white issue.
I prefer to let this pass over and am not interested in a witch hunt of past champions. I think the evidence is pretty clear of the rampant use of ped in cycling for many years by many cyclists from many countries.They all did them for the same reason to enhance performance.
So I know I am a fanboy as the term will come across again. But let the record be clear I am a fan of Lance, Greg and Marco and many others. Lance did much of his own damage by being a jerk. An example is how he claimed to have given Pantani the victory on Ventoux. His vendettas were vicious and well documented at this point.
Your argument of degrees is very weak. It is a black and white issue.
I prefer to let this pass over and am not interested in a witch hunt of past champions. I think the evidence is pretty clear of the rampant use of ped in cycling for many years by many cyclists from many countries.They all did them for the same reason to enhance performance.
Lance was relentless, experimenting with everything: transfusion, epo, hgh, testosterone, and many other drugs and procedures. He had team doctors fired who tried to follow protocol, even superficially. He pushed for USPS to hire the most corrupt doctors who would green light anything and everything.
I'm still gathering the details but your notion that drugs and doping are all equivalent, all or nothing is completely false. There are different degrees of cheating and lance was the biggest cheater.
You can't compare a shoplifter who steals a pack of gum for 50 cents with enron which engaged in tens of billions of dollars worth of fraud.
Last edited by roadandmountain; 05-19-14 at 03:46 PM.
#41
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,562
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2904 Post(s)
Liked 382 Times
in
307 Posts
So providing, for the sake of argument, if they had breaking the rules down better than the competition than that doesn't mean the other team's doping programs were any more legit than were US Postal's. I'm not arguing who had the most talent here because the whole era was tainted and there's no way to really pin it down.
How would Tygart even know what the other team's doping programs were anyway since USADA didn't actually have a decent track record of busting much of anybody in their testing procedures at the time......as Tyler Hamilton points out.
Travis Tygart, btw, gets huge amounts government grant money based on the publicity generated by going after Armstrong so there's a certain amount of justification he has to do for focusing on Armstrong and pretty much ignoring the violations of everyone else.
And USADA is quickly gaining a lack of credibility in the sport of boxing, btw, for allowing fights to take place whereas one of the combatants, on more than one occasion, has tested positive for PEDs. So there are accusations of corruption being leveled against USADA in what is already a poorly and often corruptly regulated sport. Fighters are either asking why they weren't notified that their opponents tested positive or why the decision is left to them to have to cancel lucrative fights when that's a career killer for them to have to make the decision instead of USADA.
Really, Tygart is the last person that gets a clue as to wtf goes on in cycling.
#42
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
LOL, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with lanceophiles.
Common sense: the degree makes a difference.
Slapping someone is less harmful than shanking them.
Stealing a nickel from someone is less harmful than stealing their life's savings.
Drinking one cocktail a month is less harmful than drinking a bottle of vodka every night.
It's easy to figure out. Unless you worship lance.
Common sense: the degree makes a difference.
Slapping someone is less harmful than shanking them.
Stealing a nickel from someone is less harmful than stealing their life's savings.
Drinking one cocktail a month is less harmful than drinking a bottle of vodka every night.
It's easy to figure out. Unless you worship lance.
#43
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,562
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2904 Post(s)
Liked 382 Times
in
307 Posts
LOL, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with lanceophiles.
Common sense: the degree makes a difference.
Slapping someone is less harmful than shanking them.
Stealing a nickel from someone is less harmful than stealing their life's savings.
Drinking one cocktail a month is less harmful than drinking a bottle of vodka every night.
It's easy to figure out. Unless you worship lance.
Common sense: the degree makes a difference.
Slapping someone is less harmful than shanking them.
Stealing a nickel from someone is less harmful than stealing their life's savings.
Drinking one cocktail a month is less harmful than drinking a bottle of vodka every night.
It's easy to figure out. Unless you worship lance.
I've been a fan of the sport before I even knew who Lemond was. I watched him go by in Manitou Springs in '79 and didn't yet know who he was. I stopped following Armstrong's career when his TDF "winning" got too boringly predictable and I knew he was juicing back then. Hell anybody following the sport knew what was going on back then since several people were outing him at the time.
But if you insist on blaming him for the sins of the sport people are simply going to call you on it.
#44
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
BS
I've been a fan of the sport before I even knew who Lemond was. I watched him go by in Manitou Springs in '79 and didn't yet know who he was. I stopped following Armstrong's career when his TDF "winning" got too boringly predictable and I knew he was juicing back then. Hell anybody following the sport knew what was going on back then since several people were outing him at the time.
I've been a fan of the sport before I even knew who Lemond was. I watched him go by in Manitou Springs in '79 and didn't yet know who he was. I stopped following Armstrong's career when his TDF "winning" got too boringly predictable and I knew he was juicing back then. Hell anybody following the sport knew what was going on back then since several people were outing him at the time.
Learn to stay on topic, brah.
#45
Senior Member
There will always be an excuse to cheat. There always is, and the cheaters always have one.
These arguments go round and round.
The only difference is the defense of LeMond has never changed because the truth doesn't change.
Why character assassinate and parrot lies against LeMond? Because that's easier than dealing with the truth of what he's saying.
Lance has gone from "clean, everyone is a liar" to the "everyone was doing it" and whatever it will be next month, year or whenever he has another round of press tours to thwart a pending case.
It's that slippery slope of tactics and semantics to justify cheating. It's a disease.
You want to see the aftermath of what cheating in sport does? Just look at this thread.
He's not a victim.
He's a cheat being punished for his actions.
Back to the OP. It's not hypocritical what LeMond said.
When you listen to the things LeMond has said, and he is very knowledgeable about physiology and training,
it's clear he does not endorse doping.
These arguments go round and round.
The only difference is the defense of LeMond has never changed because the truth doesn't change.
Why character assassinate and parrot lies against LeMond? Because that's easier than dealing with the truth of what he's saying.
Lance has gone from "clean, everyone is a liar" to the "everyone was doing it" and whatever it will be next month, year or whenever he has another round of press tours to thwart a pending case.
It's that slippery slope of tactics and semantics to justify cheating. It's a disease.
You want to see the aftermath of what cheating in sport does? Just look at this thread.
He's not a victim.
He's a cheat being punished for his actions.
Back to the OP. It's not hypocritical what LeMond said.
When you listen to the things LeMond has said, and he is very knowledgeable about physiology and training,
it's clear he does not endorse doping.
#46
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,562
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2904 Post(s)
Liked 382 Times
in
307 Posts
The comparisons are hypocritical because both built their careers on doping.
And arguing who was better is one of the fun things about the history of sports. I do it myself when comparing fighters of different eras. Joe Gans vs Roberto Duran or Duran vs Mayweather Jr. Fun alright but at the end of the day it's speculation at the top levels of any sport.
So if you're going to compare the accomplishments of Armstrong & Pantani you're going to have to do it in the context of two drug cheaters during the EPO era because those are the undeniable facts.
And arguing who was better is one of the fun things about the history of sports. I do it myself when comparing fighters of different eras. Joe Gans vs Roberto Duran or Duran vs Mayweather Jr. Fun alright but at the end of the day it's speculation at the top levels of any sport.
So if you're going to compare the accomplishments of Armstrong & Pantani you're going to have to do it in the context of two drug cheaters during the EPO era because those are the undeniable facts.
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 775
Bikes: 2019 KonaLibre- 2003 Litespeed Vortex -2016 Intense Spider Factory Build -2008 Wilier Mortorolio- Specialized Stumpjumper Hardtail converted to bafang 750 mid drive -1986 Paramount 2014 - --- Pivot Mach 429c
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times
in
11 Posts
LOL, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with lanceophiles.
Common sense: the degree makes a difference.
Slapping someone is less harmful than shanking them.
Stealing a nickel from someone is less harmful than stealing their life's savings.
Drinking one cocktail a month is less harmful than drinking a bottle of vodka every night.
It's easy to figure out. Unless you worship lance.
Common sense: the degree makes a difference.
Slapping someone is less harmful than shanking them.
Stealing a nickel from someone is less harmful than stealing their life's savings.
Drinking one cocktail a month is less harmful than drinking a bottle of vodka every night.
It's easy to figure out. Unless you worship lance.
here let me help you
Given
Pantani doped to improve performance when illegal to do so
Lance doped doped to improve performance when illegal to do so
therefore we conclude they both Armstrong and Pantani cheated.
with the above given information being valid the conclusion is valid.
To paint either cyclist in a different light without proof is not logical.
To support one and not the other is hypocritical which was the OP point
So support your argument with simple logic that it was not hypocritical of Greg Le Mond to support Pantani and not Armstrong
While I am sure you will have many fallacies including the red herring, appeal to probability, circular reasoning.
I want to thank you for your answer in advance as I reason that there is no point in my further participation.
#49
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Nope. Wrong again, bucko.
Lance cheated to a greater degree than anyone else in the peloton.
Also, greg simply said pantani was talented. He didn't say that pantani never cheated.
Additionally, greg or anyone can criticize armstrong all he or anyone else wants. Lance gave them tons of ammunition and will continue to do so simply as a result of his being a grade A doushebag.
We've only seen the tip of the iceberg revealed as of yet.
Lance cheated to a greater degree than anyone else in the peloton.
Also, greg simply said pantani was talented. He didn't say that pantani never cheated.
Additionally, greg or anyone can criticize armstrong all he or anyone else wants. Lance gave them tons of ammunition and will continue to do so simply as a result of his being a grade A doushebag.
We've only seen the tip of the iceberg revealed as of yet.
ye of little syllogism if you are going to refer to logic "strawman argument" please provide validity to your above statements. Explain your proofs.
here let me help you
Given
Pantani doped to improve performance when illegal to do so
Lance doped doped to improve performance when illegal to do so
therefore we conclude they both Armstrong and Pantani cheated.
with the above given information being valid the conclusion is valid.
To paint either cyclist in a different light without proof is not logical.
To support one and not the other is hypocritical which was the OP point
So support your argument with simple logic that it was not hypocritical of Greg Le Mond to support Pantani and not Armstrong
While I am sure you will have many fallacies including the red herring, appeal to probability, circular reasoning.
I want to thank you for your answer in advance as I reason that there is no point in my further participation.
here let me help you
Given
Pantani doped to improve performance when illegal to do so
Lance doped doped to improve performance when illegal to do so
therefore we conclude they both Armstrong and Pantani cheated.
with the above given information being valid the conclusion is valid.
To paint either cyclist in a different light without proof is not logical.
To support one and not the other is hypocritical which was the OP point
So support your argument with simple logic that it was not hypocritical of Greg Le Mond to support Pantani and not Armstrong
While I am sure you will have many fallacies including the red herring, appeal to probability, circular reasoning.
I want to thank you for your answer in advance as I reason that there is no point in my further participation.
#50
Trek 500 Kid
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 2,562
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2904 Post(s)
Liked 382 Times
in
307 Posts
I'm not understanding the logic here. EPO is the drug of choice and the one that makes the difference as Tyler Hamilton, for one, has stated.
Report: Pantani, Ullrich, among 1998 Tour positives - VeloNews.com
And EPO is what Armstrong and his main competitors all used.
Report: Pantani, Ullrich, among 1998 Tour positives - VeloNews.com
And EPO is what Armstrong and his main competitors all used.