fosmith

I'm going to agree that we disagree. And that's ok. Because if everyone thought exactly the same, the world would be a boring place. This subject has proven to be a great source of entertainment for me. Thanks Reid! I mean that, seriously. I'd be so bored at work....

fosmith

Oh Reid... Will we see you at Superweek, or the Midwest Dairyland (whatever the hell its called) series? We'll have to have a beer...

USAZorro

Correcting Reid on two counts here from post #44:

1. Jones failed a test. Read
2. So did Pantani. Source

Quote:

Pantani was the last man to win the Tour before American Lance Armstrong embarked on a record-equalling five straight victories.
But his career went into free-fall when he was ejected from the 1999 Giro while in the lead after failing a test for haematocrit - an indicator, though not proof, of the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Reid Rothchild

https://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tracka...ory?id=2576909

Marion Jones tested positive for the banned endurance enhancer EPO on June 23. The backup test, conducted at the same UCLA lab using the same sample, came back negative, however, meaning the sprinter has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

The b sample was negative for Marion Jones, and Pantani was ejected from the Giro but was not banned, because as you point out, it's an indicator but not proof.

Reid Rothchild

You may be thinking I'm someone I'm not. Initials MD. Very good guy by the way. He'll tell you some stories, let me tell you.

Reid Rothchild

What's well thought out and logical? I'm posting the mountains of evidence that Pharmstrong doped.

"Chris" is disputing that evidence but then goes on to say the he believes everyone including Armstrong doped.

What kind of logic is that?

"Chris" believes he doped but what evidence would "Chris" point to, to support his belief? He has a feeling?

It should be obvious that that kind of charge without anything to back it up is a slander.

This is the most circular illogical argument possible.

I point out the evidence, he disputes it, but then readily states Pharmstrong is well.... Pharmstrong.

The argument for you people then becomes, it's ok because everyone is doing it.

Evidently Pharmstrong is fulfilling some kind of emotional dependence for you guys.

I'll leave you guys to your illogical support of Pharmstrong.

Later. Oh, one last thing.







Pharmstrong

Reid Rothchild

Well , ok.

But what exactly is it that you disagree with?

That Armstrong doped?

That it's not ok, even if everyone else was?

That he's not superhuman?

chrisvu05

No I'm disputing the fact that there is evidence. Everything you spout off about who he surrounds himself with and what you believe are sure signs that he doped still don't make him guilty of doping. The only tests I have seen that have been negative are the fact that he was taking a corticoid in 1999 and produced a medical waiver for it and admitted to using EPO while undergoing Cancer treatment. These are the only FACTS that he at one point did indeed use drugs that have been prohibited.

As far as my logic of whether he doped or not, every single one of the big contenders he beat in the Tours have since been shown to have doped. This is where my logic takes hold...it doesn't matter if he doped or didn't dope...he still beat the dopers that were surrounding him. If he didn't dope than he beat athletes who were equivalent or better than him (Ullrich had a VO2 of 85 I believe) who were doping. If he doped he was a better doper than those surrounding him. It is very logical to say that I believe he doped because he beat athletes who on paper were stronger than him who were also doping. It is also very logical for me to believe that just because you are a better athlete on paper doesn't always mean you are the better athlete.

My honest opinion of Armstrong is that Cancer was the best thing to happen for his career. Undergoing cancer treatment was so unimaginably painful that when he got back into cycling....things like going up mountains were just not as painful as they used to be. Combine this pain tolerance with the will to win that guys like Ullrich just didn't have and maybe some drugs like the rest of his contenders were taking...you have an athlete that beats guys he isn't supposed to beat. The doping playing field was level and thus it doesn't really matter if he was doping or not.

chrisvu05

Read the book if you have not(because that's what it sounds like)...if you are a fan of cycling you'll enjoy it and you might come away with something. The entire book Parkin (besides racing) talks about the incessant and rampant use of drugs in the Belgian race scene. He talks of people all around him popping pills and shooting up...he even talks of a teammate that would take anything you handed to him despite not knowing what it did (in this case it was a narcotic that made him loopy and slow to react and he ran into the back of a parked car but still asked for more of the drug the next day). In most circumstances he says he took the moral high road and did not partake in the use of PEDs except for one instance where he had a stomach ache and the coach told him to take some sort of chalky drink during a race to make him feel better. Needless to say he didn't know what it took but he felt and raced like a madman.

The one thing that struck me about the book is that if Belgian racing (the hub of racing as we know) was as drug crazed during his time there...I highly doubt that it just up and changed.. I think the drugs just got better. It also showed that despite one's moral convictions even a clean rider (if what he says about himself is true) had indeed been forced into doping.

I think by the time these guys get to the pro level they have all at some point taken something to enhance their performance....and i'm fine with that because they all are doing it.

Reid Rothchild

You really don't have any idea of what evidence is.

Evidence is analogous to a rope, not a chain. You add threads of evidence and the more threads are added, the stronger the rope is. Evidence is not like a chain where you throw out the chain with one broken link. Do you think the burden is to recreate crimes in real time, with all the pieces intact. 5 or 6 pieces of physical evidence is a huge amount. Most people are sent to prison on cases that are almost entirely circumstantial and circumstantial evidence can be very strong. Ted Bundy was sent to prison the first time on a microscopic fiber that he said was planted in his trunk. He was sent to death on somewhat equivocal, novel, bitemark evidence and a sole eyewitness id, in a dark hallway. Eyewitness id has the reputation of being very weak.
When someone testifies against you in court, that is evidence. Witness statements are evidence.

When the majority of Armstrong's team subsequently is banned for doping or admits to it, THIS IS EVIDENCE.

There is the evidence of Pharmstrong's long association with Ferrari which was a secret for almost 6 years.

There is direct evidence like LA testing positive for corticoids and checking off none on the form where they ask him if he has a TUE. You've either believed the Armstrong mythology about the saddle sore or got some second hand information here, but Armstrong was confronted by a LeMonde reporter at the time of the positive and asked why he denied having a TUE for 2 weeks. That's when all this French tabloid gutter press nonsense started appearing. Pharmstrong's response to the LeMonde, reporter's question was, "Mr. LeMonde, are you calling me a doper or a liar"?

The six EPO positives from '99.

The statements against Pharmstrong who have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose.

There's tons of this stuff.

Some of these pieces of evidence may be dismissed individually, but in totality they add up to a damning case that Armstrong was jacked to the sky.

The whole idea that there is a "smoking gun" out there somewhere is absurd.

IF the standard for guilt was as high as it seems you need it to be NO ONE WOULD EVER BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING.

Your take on the situation that there is no evidence is so naive it's absurd.

I'm not a fan of pro cycling. I posted that in this thread. It's currently a drug infested cesspool and apparently most are ok with that.

I had talent and I'm relatively honest. Why would I be a fan of guys who are cheating? You're in grad school? Is it ok to plaguerize and cheat and steal other people's work? Your school has a code of conduct, doesn't it

Parkin was on ADR's B team, LeMond's team, but never rode with him. His talent was light years less than LeMond's yet you choose to smear LeMond and others with the broad brush that everyone doped because it took place in some Belgian back alley of cycling. Parkin was in the minor leagues of cycling.

Paul Kimmage made it to the big time and wrote "Rough Ride." He's Irish and exposed Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche. You think he would have hesitated a second to indict LeMond if there was any evidence or talk he doped? In fact he's friends with LeMond now, because there is nothing on LeMond from anyone, except the Pharmstrong threats, which never materialized. There's nothing on Bassons or Charly Mottet, who was the number 1 rider in the world for a time in the 80's.

I don't think you understand at all that it's complete bs to say, "they all do it." They don't and the fact that you believe it's necessary to do drugs says a lot about you in many ways.

Here's an excerpt from Willy Voet's book, Voet was the guy who was stopped at the French border in the Festina scandal of '98.

https://www.randomhouse.co.uk/catalog...ata=0224061178

Mottet: one clean cyclist

In 1989 Voet joined the RMO team. A year later the French rider Charly Mottet,who twice finished fourth in the Tour de France, joined the team.

The arrival of Charly Mottet helped to clean up the team. He was the teamleader, he had more influence than anyone on the way his teammates thought andhe never wanted to know about drugs. When he arrived at RMO, we knew hardlyanything about him. We knew he had the ability to win the Tour de France, but wedidn't know what means we had to put at his disposal to help him get there. Itwas only as the races went by and we ate with him and spent time with him thatwe worked out what kind of a fellow we were dealing with. This was one cleancyclist. An iron supplement or an injection of an anti-oxidant (Iposotal) andthat was as far as he went.

You could honestly say that Mottet was a victim of drug-taking right through his career - of other riders' drug-taking. If he had used some stuff to help him recover, perhaps only now and then, the list of races which he won - already a long one - would have been considerably longer. Who knows if he might not have won the Tour? As it was, he was a rider who was said to fall apart in the final week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charly_Mottet

During his professional cycling career, Mottet had a reputation within the peloton as being a totally clean rider who never used performance enhancing drugs[1][2].

The guy came in 4th in the Tour and 2nd in the Giro in '90 without any PED's. Then Indurain and EPO came along and swept Mottet, LeMond, and any other clean rider out of the competition.

You missed my point about an 8th grader lacing up his shoes and running 4:40 for a mile. If you don't have the talent, no amount of drugs is going to enable most people to do that.

Facts are important. You should get yours together and stop making up narratives to suit your wishes or prejudices.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.

merlinextraligh

Your rants are so long, and you grab any piece of evidence to refute every point point by point (regardless of whether the point you make at the time is the oppositie of the pint you made a minute before.) You end up contradicting yourself, and just what the heck your position is becomes unclear, other than you have a hard on for Armstrong.

chrisvu05 takes the position, like many of us, that in the era we're discussing it's likely most all of the GC contenders doped.

Yet you somehow contend that this makes him a Lance fanboy.

What I'm having trouble understanding is the intense dislike for Armstrong in particular, if you're willing to concede that all his major rivals doped as well.

I'm really not a fan of Armstrong. And I think doping in sports is unfortunate for a number of reasons. However, I don't think Armstrong is deserving of condemnation, moreso than the vast majority of his contemporaries.

And at the end of the day, he won those 7 Tours, under the rules as they existed, inculding the drug testing rules, and you can post till the cows come home and its not going to change that. It is what it is.

40 Cent

I like the story about Mottet, yet you swiftly bunch Lemond in there, here and elsewhere, as if his peers had showered him with the same respect as that for Mottet, and exonerated him from the drug-taking that was rampant up to and throughout his era too. I wouldn't mind all the lecturing to disabuse us of our starry-eyed view of Lance Armstrong -- a view none of us in fact have -- if it weren't for the fact that your Lemond worship seems much stronger than any Armstrong idolotry displayed here.

USAZorro

I suspect this is someone who knows Greg quite well. Greg does live in the greater Minneapolis area, and who knows - he may own a place in Jackson Hole as well.

Fat Boy

You know, as weird as this sounds, this could very well be Greg. The guy was a hell of a cyclist, but he's just kind of dropped off the deep end mentally.

Oh ya, and he sucked driving a racecar. The guy would piss himself on the grid waiting to start the race. I'm not making this up. It was kind of like a dog that gets in a fight that he knows he's going to lose.

Reid Rothchild

Show me where I contradicted myself. Like the invented contradiction you posted where I was somehow excusing the doping of Ullrich, Pantani, Hamilton, Mayo. With the exception of Hamilton, those guys have left the scene and didn't try to destroy others to protect their fraud.


From Indurain on most GC contenders doped. Chris also goes on to reiterate the myth that Pharmstrong is a genetic freak, when in fact, he is gifted for a mere mortal, Not for a pro. Chris goes on to cite a book about minor league Belgian cycling, and thinks he can implicate everyone in doping. I read a short interview with the guy, and even though he was on the same team as LeMond, I don't think he ever rode with him.

Fanboy, schmanboy. The issue is that cycling is a polluted doping cesspool which was cleaning up its act. Then you have this psychologically disturbed Pharmstrong getting back into the mix, a major major protagonist in the doping culture. Most people around cycling think he's a dick. Not a nice guy. The people who read the hagiography of LA believe this utter nonsense that he is superior physically to the other riders. It's just not so and LA's water carrier Coyle's study has been debunked.

They're not portraying themselves as the living embodiment of hope, are they? I guess you don't know about Stephanie McIlvaine

I do. He has been at the forefront blackmailing and threatening anyone who tries to tell the truth about doping. He told LeMond that he had 10 people who would say he used r-EPO. He told Bassons in '99 during the tour that he should find another job and then told him during the same conversation, "Eff you" when Bassons wouldn't submit to his directives when LA became the patron in '99. This is because Bassons was known as Mr. Clean in the peloton. If LA was antidoping why would he give a rats ass if Bassons was speaking out?

No he didn't and your lack of understanding on that fact is the problem. Just because you don't get caught, doesn't mean you didn't cheat.

Marion Jones won in Sydney under the rules as they existed. Her EPO positive A sample didn't happen until about 4 years later.

Riis won the Tour under the Rules? Even he admits he's not a worthy champion even though he's still officially the winner of the '96 Tour. This guy has higher standards than you do evidently. How many of these people do you want me to list who didn't test positive?

Jeez, I'll bring OJ up here. Were you correcting your friends who you spoke to that "remember OJ is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?

Your arguments or assertions, or whatever you like to call them are off the charts absurd.



Funny set of morals you have. So, fraud is only illegal if you get caught? When you cheat on your taxes be sure to tell the IRS that everyone takes these deductions.

I like how, as a last resort, you types are so concerned with the way other people spend their time. Public perception of Pharmstrong is changing. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's exposing the low moral standards of the audience.

Thanks for that profundity.

Reid Rothchild

Just the way you speak of these guys, shows you have respect for them while in fact they're completely undeserving.

What lance is going to do in the Giro, or Basso. Who cares? They're frauds. To speak of Lance as some superhuman physical specimen. It's complete bs and has been proven to all but the sycophants which I admit are high in number.

LeMond was one of the greatest cyclists to ever live and that's proven by his palmares and results from the time he was 15 years old. The guy truly is a Roy Hobbs type figure in more ways than just his athletic prowess, including the tragedies in his life.

However, anyone who would trade places with him is nuts, in light of all the crap he's been through.

Most of you guys seem to be middle aged wanna be's based on your acceptance of the fraud that is pro cycling in general, and Pharmstrong's return in particular.

Anyone who is close to the sport and not a chamois sniffer, sees through all the marketing bs, and knows a lot of these guys that are the subject of your worship are nothing.

Find me one citation, or accusation of LeMond doping, other than this nonsense of him getting an Iron shot in front of a reporter at the Giro in '89. Anything.....

Reid Rothchild

You're speaking again!

We've got Sherlock Holmes here.

Dropped off the deep end mentally?

You see, this is where the Pharmstrong fanboy stuff comes in. This drops off the deep end/ he's bitter stuff comes right out of LA's playbook and he's counting on the chamois sniffers to repeat it.

The guy has had his difficulties no doubt, but where has he been wrong regarding anything he has said about cycling?

Now that you've come out of your blah mode, really, provide one instance at all where he has been wrong in anything re cycling.

He made a fool of himself at the Interbike press conference?

I saw Catlin pulling the mic away from lance when lance tried to shut LeMond up.

Where is Catlin now? It was too expensive and logistically impossible? Armstrong makes 20 mil a year and I'll bet someone would have picked up the cost anyway.

Transparency my eye!

USAZorro

Think you mean someone else here.

Reid Rothchild

Zorro, you're so clever.

Don't you get it. You're just as wrong about this as you are about Marion Jones and Pantani testing positive.

Reid Rothchild

Damn, you're right about something. I obviously meant LeMond.

Thanks, I corrected it. I didn't want fatboy to get excited and make a mess of his keyboard.

USAZorro

Get what?

Pick a sport. Pick a form of entertainment. If you hold them up to scrutiny, they all have warts. Some you have to look harder at than others to see them, but they're there. That's to be expected, since everyone involved is a human being.

Yes. Cycling has had its share of black eyes, but if you're going to go back in time and revise the list of winners, how do you know that the guy who finished second and wasn't tested was worthy to win? Frankly, it's impractical to engage in revisionism like this, and it's morally wrong to go about it selectively. Everyone should be held to the same standard - period.

So what are the choices? We can give up and walk away from the sport, we can go out and tilt windmills that have long since been replaced, we could throw our hands up and say "let them do whatever", or we can make sensible improvements, and try to enjoy the spectacle of man and machine attempting to persevere in the face of adversity. I see the latter as the only practical choice. Life is too short to become totally fixated on bringing somebody else down.

It doesn't mean that I don't care. It doesn't mean I am worshipping heroes. It doesn't mean I'm somehow morally deficient. It doesn't mean that I'm incapable of or disinterested in hearing truth - but I've long ago learned that there are at least two sides to every story. Maybe I am getting information through a filter - but I suspect there are filters on every side of that story, and in a forum where people are anonymous, the assertion: "because I have no stake in things" is virtually impossible to discern.

Me? Yeah, I'm middle aged. Turn 50 tomorrow. I was a runner, and never raced bicycles - although looking back I kind of wished I had. I never cheated, and I guess deep down, a part of me would like to know whether I could have hung with LeMonde. But so what? What does this have to do with anything? I seriously do not understand the passion that you, and a number of others have here. Maybe if I were to meet you, and had the opportunity to better evaluate where you're coming from, I'd be swayed - but that seems not to be in the cards, so I guess you'll have to accept my analysis of "insufficient information", because unless I can place stock in the information you claim is true, that's the only conclusion a moral person could reach.

chrisvu05

So I get it...you are a Lemond Fan Boy. And like most Lemond Fan boys...(I know plenty) you idolize and hang on to everything he says.

I didn't mention Lemond did I? You did! but you accuse me of lumping in Lemond with the dopers. If you READ THE BOOK the team was full of dopers as described by Parkin. The fact that Parkin was on the B team does not mean he couldn't be on the A team. They had an A team that had riders who specialized in grand tours and they had a B team with riders who specialized in the classics (parkin chose the B team). I agree that Lemond was a much better talent than Parkins but he was surrounded by the same guys and particularly they had the same team director. And this is where you lose your argument...you say part of the EVIDENCE of that Lance is a doper is the fact that his teammates have all been caught or admitted and he associated with Ferrari. Well I hate to tell you but the guy who gave Parkins the drink to calm his stomach was the team director, Jose De Cauwer. De Cauwer was implicated in supplying drugs to his team and police even found illegal substances in a syringe at his home. So by if guilty by association is your angle....and Lemond had the same team director. You do the math.. Lemond was a doper by your definition of evidence. Johan Museeuw was on the 1989 tour de france team with Lemond....he's since been convicted of doping...

We can argue until we are both blue in the face....but honestly I think you have an agenda. You can see your posts all over the internet. For some odd reason you are fixated on this conspiracy and you need to find a hobby.

Reid Rothchild

Fair enough. Just a couple of comments. You do seem to accept some of the unsupported claims of some of LeMond's detractors although there's not any evidence.

The problem is it's not just warts. Ball Four by Jim Bouton or the Bronx Zoo by Sparky Lyle contained warts. No, this is systemic and it's perpetuating a fraud with public health consequences on top of it. If you doubt this, look at the PED problem in HS and lower.

You have Armstrong hiding behind the halo of cancer crusader. Stephanie McIlvaine, LA's Oakley rep and friend was disgusted by this. Knowing what I know about LA, if one of my relatives had cancer and I happened to run into him, I'd call him on his bs to his face.

True, I have a major problem with Armstrong, Landis, and to a much lesser extent Hamilton. These guys have engaged in poisonous recriminations, fraud and outright extortion. Landis with the LeMond child molestation stuff.

Guys like Ullrich who have just slinked off and basically admitted to it, I am much more understanding and forgiving of it.

I'm not interested in revising anything other than maybe a little public opinion. If LA falls to the level of Barry Bonds, that would be an acceptable outcome.

Apparently you haven't noticed but the "sport" is in critical condition and with Pharmstrong's return, it took a turn for the worse. What gets me is that insiders like Kimmage and LeMond are mocked by the fans on internet forums. Why would anyone want to join the group that mocks the truth tellers?

If you're that interested in the truth it's out there. I have a problem with people just making stuff up about things that have no clue about. Every time someone has presented some Armstrong hagiography, I have shot it down here, but the problem is the facts take time, effort and length to present and then one is ranting. Here's a fact. Armstrong has said many times he's the most tested athlete in the world. I have posted here, and on the "Armstrong violated the rules" thread, that that is an absolute lie, and I've backed it up with the actual statistics. Now you can cling to your beliefs or see that it's a lie and then go on to investigate Pharmstrong's other representations. When you start to see lie upon lie, it dawns on one that LA is well, a liar. Here's the OOC's for Armstrong and Marion Jones. You can look them up using the link.

It is pretty easy to find the number of OOC tests he has has, just go here
https://www.usantidoping.org/what/stats/history.aspx
Plug in your heroes name and you get this

Cycling - 2001
Lance Armstrong - 2
Cycling - 2002
Lance Armstrong - 1
Cycling - 2003
Lance Armstrong - 1
Cycling - 2004
Lance Armstrong - 5
Cycling - 2005
Lance Armstrong - 3

Now put in Marion Jones.
Track & Field - 2000
Marion Jones - 2
Track & Field - 2001
Marion Jones - 2
Track & Field - 2002
Marion Jones - 4
Track & Field - 2003
Marion Jones - 3
Track & Field - 2004
Marion Jones - 6
Track & Field - 2005
Marion Jones - 2
Track & Field - 2006
Marion Jones - 5

Marion beats him....notice how the number of OCC jumped when WADA came in charge. He used to complain about getting OCC all the time but he only would receive 1-2 a year.

You can also go to the UCI and see this his tests from in competition.(podiums, jersey wearer, stage winner)

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes, 14 négatifs)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (tous négatifs)
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs). 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse (négatif)

Check out the 1999 results....so much for "Never Tested Positive" Even the UCi counts that as a positive.

Eric Zabel, Mario Cipollini....all were tested more becuase they raced, and won, more then one race a year. Check out Mario's Palmeres. He is tested after each of these wins, before each GT, and each day in the jersey.
* World Road Cycling Championships (2002)
* Flag of Italy Italian National Road Race Championship (1996)

* Giro d'Italia: Career: 42 stage wins (Giro record); 3-time points classification winner (maglia ciclamino)
o 1989: 1 stage win
o 1990: 2 stage wins
o 1991: 3 stage wins
o 1992: 4 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner
o 1995: 2 stage wins; 1 day in maglia rosa
o 1996: 4 stage wins
o 1997: 5 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner
o 1998: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 4 stage wins
o 2000: 1 stage win
o 2001: 4 stage wins; Azzurri d'Italia classification winner
o 2002: 6 stage wins; Maglia ciclamino winner; Azzurri d'Italia classification winner
o 2003: 2 stage wins

* Tour de France: Career: 12 stage wins; 6 days in maillot jaune; 2 days in maillot vert
o 1993: 1 stage win; 2 days in maillot jaune;
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 1 stage win
o 1997: 2 stage wins; 4 days in maillot jaune; 1 day in maillot vert
o 1998: 2 stage wins
o 1999: 4 stage wins
* Vuelta a España: Career: 3 stage wins
o 2002: 3 stage wins
* Milan-Sanremo (1.HC): (2002; 2nd 1994, 2001)
* Gent-Wevelgem (1.HC): (1992, 1993, 2002; 2nd 1991)
* Paris-Nice (2.HC): Career: 7 stage wins
* 1992: 3 stage wins
* 1993: 2 stage wins
* 1994: 2 stage wins
* Tirreno-Adriatico (2.HC): Career: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 1 stage win
o 2002: 1 stage win
o 2003: 2 stage wins
* Tour de Romandie (2.HC): Career: 12 stage wins and 1 points classification
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 3 stage wins
o 1997: 3 stage wins
o 1999: 1 stage win
o 2000: 2 stage wins; Points classification winner
o 2001: 1 stage win
* Volta a Catalunya (2.HC): Career: 11 stage wins
o 1995: 3 stage wins
o 1996: 2 stage wins
o 1998: 4 stage wins
o 1999: 2 stage wins

Other one-day and stage races

* E3 Prijs Vlaanderen (1.HC): (1993)
* Grote Scheldeprijs (1.1): (1991, 1993)
* Memorial Rik Van Steenbergen (1.1): (1993)
* Three Days of De Panne (2.2): (1992, 1 stage win)
* Four Days of Dunkirk (2.2): (1992, 3 stage wins and Sprint classification)
* Vuelta a Aragon (2.3): Career: 6 stage wins and 1 points classification
o 1996: 2 stage wins; Points classification winner
o 1997: 2 stage wins
o 2001: 2 stage wins
* Vuelta Valenciana (2.3): Career: 6 stage wins
o 1995: 2 stage wins
o 1996: 2 stage wins
o 1997: 1 stage win
o 2000: 1 stage win
* Tour Méditerranéen (2.3): Career: 14 stage wins
o 1993: 2 stage wins
o 1994: 2 stage wins
o 1995: 3 stage wins
o 1996: 1 stage win
o 1997: 2 stage wins
o 1998: 1 stage win
o 2000: 1 stage win
o 2002: 1 stage win
o 2004: 1 stage win
* Giro di Puglia (2.3): (1992, 2 stage wins; 1991, 1 stage win)
* Trofeo Luis Puig: (1995, 1999)
* GP de l'Escaut-Schoten: (1991)
* Giro della Provincia di Siracusa: (2001)
* Regio Tour: (1987)
* Gran Premio della Costa Etruschi: (1998, 2000)
* Tour de Georgia (2.1): (2004, 1 stage win)
* Tour of Qatar (2.1): (2005, 1 stage win)
* Settimana Siciliana (2.3): (1994, 1 stage win)

* Giro della Provincia di Lucca (1.1): (2005)
* Cala Millor - Cala Rajada (1.4): (1999)
* Manacor - Manacor (1.4): (1999)
* Monte Carlo - Alassio (1.4): (1995)

I would post Zabel's Palmares but that would make this the longest post ever..... and it still would not change the mind of the believers of the myth.



Happy Birthday.

I was the one who said it didn't mean anything if I could or could not hang on another poster's wheel. Of course it means nothing in this discussion.

If you got cheated out of a job, or an honor, or money, you'd worked hard for, you'd understand the passion some people have regarding these issues.

Your analysis of 'insufficient information" is kind of lame because there are mountains of information if you really wanted to know about it and it directly contradicts LA's claims.

You claim to be interested in bike racing, but the biggest determinant of the most succesful TdF rider ever has been PED's and one can't claim you are seeking the truth if you stick your head in the sand.

David Walsh is an award winning journalist for the Sunday Times who also exposed Michelle Smith. Michelle Smith was a National Heroine in Ireland and Walsh was hated. Turns out Walsh was right. Ever wonder why Pharmstrong calls Walsh an "effing troll?"

You don't think Frankie Andreu would have a nice career in cycling if the hospital room incident was never mentioned?

If you said that you didn't have the info to participate in this discussion, I'd have a lot more respect for you and the other members of these forums. But to just dismiss stuff you have no idea about is ridiculous. I can't remember exactly what you posted so I'm speaking more to the others.

If you really want info you can read the Walsh book, From Lance to Landis. Before you dismiss it without even picking it up. I have no problem with you dismissing it. Just don't pretend to be informed about the conversation.

40 Cent

For example.

Reid Rothchild

Wow, like Astana has one director and no assistants.

Ferrari had a special relationship with Pharmstong and is the most notorious doctor in the biz.

You implied LeMond was as dirty as everyone else if you didn't come out right and mention him.

Nice stretching, EPO wasn't even used until the Indurain era, something to calm your stomach is a little different.

Anyway, have to go. don't have any agenda and have enough hobbies. If you want to know about the sport you claim to love so much that you are arguing till you're blue in the face, read From Lance to Landis, if you don't want to know don't read.

Stop grading your own paper, LA has been shown conclusively to be a doper. LeMond, not a shred of a whisper. Go on rooting for Lance, he'll need it if he even makes it to the tour after the Giro.