merlinextraligh

Again I won't contend for a fact that Armstrong doped, because I don't know that as a fact. However, the reasonable suspicion he did is way more than just trash talk.

Consider the context: Richard Virenque, and the entire Festina Team; Marco Pantani, David Millar, Roberto Heras, Jan Ullrich, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Alexandre Vinokourov, Bjarne Riis, Ivan Basso, Santiago Perez, Jorg Jaksche, Michael Rasmussen, Frankie Andreu, Iban Mayo, Pascal Herve, Dario Frigo, Nicola Chesinal, Roberto Sgambelluri, Faat Zakirov, Raimondas Rumsus, Setfano Casagrande Martin Hvastija, Cedric Vasseur, Cristian Moreni, etc, etc, etc.

All admitted or adjudicated dopers. And many of that list never tested positive for PED's, or if they did, passed numerous tests before they finally tested postive.

Given that all evidence indicates that numerous people in the Peleton took PED's, particuarly in the early 90's before there was an effective test for EPO, that Armstrong's B samples did in fact test postive for EPO(after an effective test became available), that Armstrong only avoided a postive test for steroids with a backdated prescription, and that at least 3 individuals have stated they have first hand knowledge of Armstrong's drug use (one testifying under the penalty of perjury), the idea that Armstrong just might have used drugs is way more than just an idle accusation.

Face it, in the time Armstrong was racing the use of PED's was rampant in the Peleton. It's not a stretch to believe that Armstrong might have been using them also.

oldspark

I have to agree with merlinextraligh, if you follow cycling very much at all it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that he doped at some point in his career.

BostonRoadee

Merlin, you just about nailed it. This is the long version of what I said earlier.

However, I will still decline to tell ppl who *don't* follow the sport closely that I think "He doped, end of story." No solid proof is no solid proof, and defaming somebody based on circumstantial evidence is pretty low. (Not that you defamed him, Merlin, I'm just making a separate point.) The sport has enough troubles as it is.

kosherdave

I think he was clean. Innocent until proven guilty. Plus, there is always someone who will come along and be... just... awesome at something. I think no one can believe anyone could be that good, so that makes them think it is impossible and that he cheated. Personally, I just think he is that good. He sure trains enough!

wagathon

... and that brings the conjecturing full circle, i.e., at least apply a little reason and reasonably conclude that if everyone is doing it, then maybe Lance was unbeatable for so long precisely because he wasn't everyone.

Mambwe

He's Clean!! As crappy as ALL sports are now there are always those athletes who are far better than the rest. Not every athlete who excels in their sport are doping. He took too many tests without ever being found guilty of doping. Show me the proof that he doped and maybe I will think otherwise.

Keith99

Your post shows your gross bias. If Lance was far better than the rest why didn't he ever even try anything other than point to one race? Why no Tour/ Giro double? And in the TDF why no 2 jersey results? Why no TDF worlds double? Anyone far better than the rest would not only have tried for these he would have accomplished them.

Lance was focused, he set a goal and accomplished it. And a very impressive goal. But he did not ever establish credentials anywhere close to those who dominated in the past.

chewa

As an Ulle fan i was gutted when he was implicated. Gutted when Basso found out too (though did think he had doped watching him ride away from Simoni in the Giro)

Lance destroyed the best cyclists in the world (he has been quoted as rating Ulle as the best- just didn't have the work ethic- and they have now been shown to have been doping. His recovery in mountain stages was superhuman. I hate to think it (though I'm no fan of LA - too focussed for me) but suspect he doped at some time.

Mambwe

I do realize that Lance might not be the most dominating or the best cyclist ever. I also never said he was. His season was based around one race; the Tdf. His competition also put an emphasis on this race. Lance didn't race in the one-day classics or Tour of Italy/Spain. He rode to win the Tour. He wasn't alone in this strategy. While he wasn't the only one using this strategy; he was the only one to win 7 consecutive Tdf.

Lance wouldn't have gone for two jerseys on the tour. He always maintained it was not his style. He always shared the wealth a la Pantani with the exception of Kloden. There is only one jersey that matters at the end of the race.

While I realize there was a lot he didn't do in terms of other races. I still say he is far better than the rest of the cyclists in his day. He also did it clean. Unlike most of the others.

islandboy

Yes, I believe! Why? You ask. Simple. At 47 I was diagnosed with cancer, operated on and spent a while recovering. Cancer does something to your mind. It is like playing Russian Roulette with your own life. Chamber empty you get to play on. Gives you a new "crisp" attitude. Over the past year I have out cycled anything I had done previous. Everything becomes important, intense. So could Lance do what he did, absolutely.

Oh, and follow the money. Nay sayers are geting rich/attention on publishing their thoughts.

GGDub

While I don't doubt that his overcoming cancer played a huge role in his winnings, your money trail point holds no water.

Betsy Andreu, for example, has made nothing off of her testimony in a court of law, and in fact has been thoroughly smeared. Neither has Prentice Steffen, who lost his job (then was rehired) for telling journalists what went on at US postal. Fillipo Simeoni was ostracized by the peloton (and threatened by Armstrong) for testifying Armstrong's doctor gave him (Simeoni) EPO, he didn't say a thing about Armstrong and look what happened.

If you follow the money trail, its the people who are defending Lance who are getting rich (Ferrari, Nike, Oakley, Trek, Carmichael, Stapleton and of course the UCI), the people who have come forward have done so for ethical reasons (i.e. not lying under oath) and definetly not monetary.

I still have a humungous amount of respect for LA's accomplishments and what he's done for charity, but if you've followed cycling seriously for the past 50 years (hell, since its inception), you know that virtually every dominant rider has had some connection to PED's.

marin1

All pro cyclists train enough, they just don't have people filming them every time.

passion vision

People seem to forget that Lance and his trainer were pioneers of a new training/riding paradigm. At the least, they were faithful adherents to a forgotten method that was practiced by no other riders.

Lance's training method are perhaps most easily understood by comparing them to the methods of other riders like Ulle. By comparison, for example:

Lance fought body weight all year long, not just every riding season;

Lance established watt budgets for every winning leg of every stage of every TdF;

He developed a stratgegy for compiling the lowest overall time for each race; and,

He trained his body generate the required watts using a relatively high rpm.

The high rpm style that everyone knew Lance was using wasn't the product of drugs. The style was the produc t of planning and a whole array of techniques to objectively measure the results of training methods to the plan.

Lance's riding style is a method that actually puts Lance in the gonzo class of cycling competitors. Despite that, his detractors mistakenly think of him as a *****, because in stark contradistinction to the heavy pushers like Ulle et al.--who did do drugs--Lance did not excel by mashing big gears.

marin1

No they weren't. Lance simply changed his style when he came back from cancer. Ullrich and Lance are completly different cyclists but Lance is not the only cyclist to spin at a higher rpm to generate his power.
It's spinners vs. mashers and it never went away and Lance did not reinvent it.
As far as Lance being a ***** because he spins, I personally like to mash the pedals only because spinning seems to hurt more. So no I don't think lance is a *****, he just had some pharmacutical help.

Keith99

Would that be the same Pantani who won Both GC and KOM in hte Giro in 98 and also the TDF that year?

Actaully Lances focus on one race was fairly unique, at least in degree. Lance was in a unique situation. His sponsers cared about the U.S. market and for that the TDF is pretty much all that matters.

passion vision

Lance admitted that winning the TdF was his primary focus. However, that preoccupation of thought did not exclude all other races, e.g., winner of the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, winner of the Dauphiné Libéré in 2002 and 2003, winner of the 2004 Tour de Georgia.

Lance probably got to the point where he didn't have to race for the money. He was able to call the shots, as far as what races he would and would not compete in, which makes it difficult to compare him with most other riders, past or present.

Gar Vanderosa

If Lance was clean, why the Christophe Bassons incident?

Any supporters care to take a crack at this one?

Good luck.

calamarichris

No one can say if he did or if he didn't, (just as none of us could say it about Riis until he confessed, or about Basso when he was cornered.) But I don't like Lance Armstrong. Why? Because there are people in here who insist that he's innocent because he's American, who are the same ones who look for ANY loophole for Landis, however improbable.
On top of that, I don't like the fact that LeMond was threatened by Trek (and therefore with Armstrong's complicity if not authorization) when Greg let it slip about Ferarri.
AND I didn't like the obvious fan involvement on D'Huez (probably people with the same sentiment as dim patriotic bulbs in here) who obstructed the road for everyone except Armstrong in '06.
And finally because he dumped his wife and started screwing the tabloid bimbos like Cheryl Crow and the Thompson Twin (OWTF her name is.) 'Lance' mainstreamed cycling here when I was perfectly happy with my obscure little pastime in this country, before my neighbors starting calling me "Lance". ('Sorry I still have both gonads and I don't use drugs.')
I also wonder how well he would do now that The Doping Era is supposedly history.

acoldspoon

Image aside and cancer aside, I have a simple question. Can anybody here speak up and say that they've spent quality time with Lance racing or socializing, and that he's struck you as a warm, friendly, and honest person? Because there are a lot of people with stories to the contrary. Do I have court worthy evidence he doped, heck no. Do I think he's the type of person that would consider cheating or hurting others to get what he wants, absolutely.

rbrsddn

Talk about beating a dead horse! Lance may have cheated, but he never failed a drug test. He was tested a rediculous amount of times, at all hours of day and night. Some people just can't deal with the fact that he was ahead of everyone due to his training schedule and singlemindedness to win the TDF. Was/ is he a great person? How the heck do I know? But he was awesome to watch when he won 7.

acoldspoon

I guess I just liked it more when a nice American won, like Greg Lemond. I tend to root for more likable pros. Lance was never one of them. Just not a fan. Heck, I had a thousand times more fun watching guys like Bob Roll, John Tomac, Andy Hamptsen, and Davis Phinney race than watching Lance race.

calamarichris

Ahh... the past was indeed idyllic and simple. Whatever you do, DON'T go back and watch the old Coors Classic footage. Phinney was a pathetic crybaby when he got smoked by the Badger (who cheated by drafting apparently[?]), the commentators were ridiculously biased, and the unsportsmanlike childishness between 7/11 and the Grewal brothers on the Crest team resembled more of a '70's rumble between rival BMX gangs than an international cycling contest between professionals.
Alexi Grewal: The Past is in the Past.

Another thing I always loved about Lemond: almost always Mr. Sportsman. So many times after he'd gotten beaten in a sprint, he'd be shaking hands with or patting the back of whomever beat him. Now everyone *****es about his saying anything remotely disparaging about Armstrong.

dissemination

PATH

Don't know about Lance but I believe Rasmussen took something for the Tour last year. He blew Leipheimer and Contador away like he had a rocket up his posterior. Hey look, I know he is a great rider, but you have to be sheeting me. That was my reaction when I saw him run away from those guys the way he did!

Lance, like LeMond is history! Life moves on and past Lance. All glory is fleeting. Who cares at this point? I am more interested in seeing the Contador and Leipheimer ride this year!

Donegal

Everybody loves to hate Armstrong. I believe he was clean. One of the side effects of EPO is the possiblity of tumor growth. Not too smart, Lance is no dummy.

The B samples that supposedly tested positive were also tested at the Chateau Elementary School Lab.
Read the Landis transcripts, who knows if he doped or not? The science used tells us nothing but that lab is a total waste of time. Changing of baselines in experiments, no manuals, lack of training, lifting magnets left on magnetic resonance machines. What a joke. By the way, why was the story dropped?
Because the scientist that helped develop EPO made a direct statement to the validity of the test. EPO in a sample frozen for 6-7 years would totally have disappeared. Somehow we found it?

This sport has enough problems, let's not contribute to them. The nightly news only shows fires, accidents and crime in our major cities. Are we that desparate for suffering that we have to trash everybody and everything? Is there nothing good going on out there?

Cycling should be about talent, hard work and the race of the day. I am tired of listening to doping allegations, team exclusions, politics and other B.S. Why watch the race if the winner's allways dope?