scroz

And what of LA's well publicised VO2 Max? Or has he synthsised a totally undetectable drug that elevates that for him as well?

lotek 

ok, I'm not damning or accusing anyone of anything
but David Millar never tested positive for any known
doping product. But he did admit to EPO use after evidence was
found in his home.

Read this, very interesting article.
https://www.racelistings.com/rzone/ar....asp?recid=329


Marty

velocipedio

like it or not, our sport at the highest level is completely run through with dopers. [the recent articles in velonews should have been enlightening.] i don't think that anyone would argue that doping is endemic. so, if all of armstrong's competitors are using doping products that elevate their performance by 10-20%, how is it possible that armstrong could beat them and still be clean? sorry guys, he's good, but not 25% better than everyone else.

so it works out like this, either all of armstrong's competitors are clean and he's clean, or all or most of his competitors are doping and he's doping. from all of the evidence, the drug raids, the confessions, scenario #1 is pretty much beyond the realm of possibility.

and... you have to wonder why armstrong would risk a criminal charge to protect dr. michele "epo is no more dangerous than orange juice" ferrari.

Feltup

So Armstrong is the best because the playing field is level. If everyone is doping than what else is he doing to be able to kick everybody's ass like he does? Could it be his training? His genetics? His bike? His team? He still stands out among the others.

classic1

Oh yes he has....post mortem

doctorSpoc

performance enhancing drugs... does everything have to be spelled out <shaking my head> cocaine will actually hurt your performance, not help it. it's banned for moral and safety reason not because it's going to improve performance.. you really gotta figure some of this stuff out yourself...

Feltup

Yeah he did cocaine but wouldn't touch EPO. I think it shows character. I could be wrong but didn't they find EPO in his system too?

classic1

I don't think so. My hazy recollection was that the coroner speculated that there would be bone marrow problems, kidney problems etc indicitive of EPO use, but the autopsy did not show up anything. Someone may be able to shed further light on this.

tomcat

what a bunch of speculation without any proof. Let me say that I speculate that alot of people on this thread have some serious penis problems and need to get over themselves. Geezzz. I sure feel sorry for some of your girlfriends.


tommy

doctorSpoc

Feltup, you're not catching my drift.. let me try to simplify this for you:

I think Pantani was doing EPO, insulin etc., all of the circumstantial evidence points to that, but as one Lance fan put it when refering to Lance though, there is not one "scintilla" of hard evidence to prove that. Pantani at the time was one of the top racers in the world and at the time was probably the most tested rider on the planet.. but never tested positive for PERFORMANCE enhancing drugs.

Just like I think Lance is doing drugs, all the circumstantial evidence points to that too... i find the abrupt change in the level of Lances riding and the type of rider he became after almost DYING of cancer to be very complelling and obvious, circumstantial evidence of his doping. it is so obvious that is laughable to me that anyone can't see it

Millar too, he didn't test positive for anything either, they found the EPO vial and he broke down and admitted he had done EPO... here is a guy who WAS doing EPO, we know that for a fact, how well did the tests work on him?

and yes, on a level playing field Lance shines for all the reasons you stated... but i would also add that he concentrates on one race for the year and has a very short season, that helps too.

i said earlier that in all likelyhood Lance was clean before cancer (all the circumstantial evidence points to that too) and was able to be not a half bad racer against people that were on dope. add EPO, blood tranfusion etc. to a rider like Lance was adding 15% performance to that and Boom we have the Lance of today.

what i'm saying is you are using circumstantial evidence to blow others off and there is just as much circumstantial evidence on Lance, that in some ways is even more complelling and obvious, but you dismiss it

just look at velocipedio analysis, it is very good.. it's IS actually impossible that Lance is that good, and add that he got that good in ONE year... again, it's very obvious people need to get their head out of the sand

classic1

Nope, all in working order here pal. Thanks for your concern. Is everything ok at your end?

Laggard

I'm pretty sure our dog has fleas which is weird since we're not yet in flea and tick season.

And my allergies are kicking in already. What could be in the air when it's 20 degress every day? Could be a long summer.

tomcat

Please, let's not discuss your penis and my end in the same discussion.

tommy

scroz

Ok, so the change in performance and results might not have anything to do with that fact that his body shape and weight completely changed after his illness leading to a shift in his cycling, i.e. sprinter to climber (read, allrounder). It couldn't have had anything to do with that at all could it.....

doctorSpoc

to that extent... what are you kidding me!! you fell for that smoke screen they put up there... You think if riders like Freire, Bettini or Boonen (who are infinitely better riders than Lance was pre-cancer) dropped 5 or 10 pounds they'd start winning the Tour de France?? i don't! what is it with you guys? just deal with reality... as they say, truth is sometimes a bitter pill... but come on!!

anyways guys it's been a slice but i'm outa here... i'm going to extricate myself from this tread before i go insane trying to make these diehards Lance fans deal with reality... yeah, yeah, yeah the world is flat, the sun rates around the earth and Lance Armstrong is clean... oh, and by the way i have some ocean front property in Kansas that i'd like to sell you.

divekrb

I know the rest of the world thinks the US system of innocent until proven guilty is Ludacris...

So here's a contextual question:

Why is Merckx such a god to folks who completely ignore three failed drug tests?

Yes, yes, I know he won all those races and was the dominant rider of his day. But: his palomares would be quite a bit shortend had he been subject to the penalties of today. Yet if you point out the test positives to an EM fan they wander off without comment. People dump all over the Millars and others who came up positive or were busted in other ways yet I'm the only one I've ever seen on this forum who has mentioned EM's positives.

Some of the same people who hammer Lance for "suspected" drug use with zero proof get all teary and wet themselves singing the praises of Merckx, who got popped not once, not twice, but THREE times.

Is it an overiding love of Belgian waffles? A hatred of Ocana? A lobotomy? A failure of our educational system?

Feltup

Its Arizona not Kansas.

Michael Jordan was on EPO too. He did the samethings Lance has done but in a different sport.

roadwarrior

I'm thinkin' you'll be hearing from Laggard....

Details, details.....

roadwarrior

so there ya go....forty zillion tests all negative and an anonymous dude on the net knows better...

I LOVE the internet....

Laggard

A horse once stepped on my foot. It was a brown horse.

I didn't take it personally.

Feltup

Yeah but if you had your ass beat 6 times in a row; you might state taking it personally.

scroz

These clowns are so quick to point out that everyone at the top of their game in cycling are taking drugs, with the obvious exception of those that they use to make their "point" about natural ability...

KrisPistofferson

I don't know if people here are really anti-Lance, or if they just know they'll get 6 pages of replies in a day or two. Look, if the only proof you've got that the guy's doping is that "everyone does it", then he's STILL the best.

Crack'n'fail

they need a yawning smily face for this tired old argument that will rage on forever and ever.

velocipedio

i think the word you're looking for is "ludicrous."

and, it's worth pointing out that the presumtion of innocence applies only to criminal cases tried under common law [as in britain, australia, canada, etc.]. armstrong is not before a criminal court; we are discussing the possibility that he is a doper. consequently, whether or not he is presumed to be innocent in a criminal proceeding is irrelevant.