Pr*ck

Chips Lovell

Michael Jackson never failed a drugs test.

TinyExplosions

RobFowl wrote: »

Emma O Reilly's an liar.
Frankie Andreau is a liar.
Stephan Swart was just a no-body.
Ferrari just gave training advice.
Tyler only took drugs and blood after leaving USPS
Ditto Floyd
Ditto Vaughters
Ditto Herras
LA never failed a drugs test (apart for the steroids cream)
Those 1999 samples were tampered by the cheese eating surrender monkeys

Hang on, I think this has gone off the issue of me, and moved to someone else... I don't even *know* a Frankie Andreau... *ahem*

el tonto wrote: »

Michael Jackson never failed a drugs test.

Did he take many

petethedrummer

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I think Lance's VO2 max wasn't that high, it was his low lactate threshold that was his strength, thus the high pedalling cadence.

[Armchair Physiology]No, the high cadence is was due to a higher oxygen carrying capacity. Having more red blood cells increases your oxygen carrying capabilities. There are many ways to increase your red blood cell count.

Its actually a high lactacte threshold that he is supposed to have, which I would have guessed would lend itself to using a lower cadence.[/Armchair Physiology]

DirkVoodoo

petethedrummer wrote: »

[Armchair Physiology]No, the high cadence is was due to a higher oxygen carrying capacity. Having more red blood cells increases your oxygen carrying capabilities. There are many ways to increase your red blood cell count.

Its actually a high lactacte threshold that he is supposed to have, which I would have guessed would lend itself to using a lower cadence.[/Armchair Physiology]

Woops, my bad, meant low level. From wikipedia (which is where I read it first):

Armstrong's most unusual attribute may be his low lactate levels. During intense training, the levels of most racers range from 12 μL/kg to as much as 20 μL/kg; Armstrong is below 6 μL/kg. Therefore, lactic acid build up (or acidosis) does not occur as easily in his body. Acidosis, and lactate in general, does not cause fatigue but is a good, testable, marker for the cause of muscular fatigue — muscle cell depolarization. Some have theorized that his high pedalling cadence is designed to take advantage of this low lactate level. In contrast, other cyclists rely on their power to push a larger gear at a lower rate.

petethedrummer

And also research paper by Ed Coyle with the claims of Armstrongs amazing physiology and explaining his 8% efficiency increase is highly disputed. Read this interview with Michael Ashenden, one of the leading anti doping experts.

Kimmage said it best:

Let’s turn the clock back to Armstrong’s last apparition in the sport. The Tour de France 2005. He’s standing on the podium. And he makes this big impassioned speech. Which is basically saying ‘The last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics, the sceptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.’ That was 2005, his last ride in the the Tour de France. And the people flanking him on that podium were Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

And as I've said before, I have nothing against winners (Schumacher is my fave F1 driver) or against Americans (Greg Lemond is my fave cyclist).

petethedrummer

Vélo wrote: »

Surely it would be better to just enjoy the fact that you were there to see one of the greatest cyclists of all time, if not the greatest.

In fairness to Lance he is a hell of an athlete. He did win the world championship in 1993 at 22 years of age. That's 3 years prior to when Steve Swart claims the Motorola team started having a 'medical program'.

RobFowl wrote: »

Those 1999 samples were tampered by the cheese eating surrender monkeys

It was the probably the same people who put whiskey in Michelle Smith's samples. She never techinically tested positive for a bannned substance.

Remember the american swimmer(Janet Evans) who was acused of sour grapes by the Irish media for openly suggesting Smith was on PEDs? Can't take the beating from one of the greatest swimmers the world has ever seen. What a cry baby.

SACH Central

blorg wrote: »

I will concede that many Lance's supporting riders were dopers and cycling is a team sport, it is true... But this was done without LA's knowledge or permission.

That kind of view reminds me of the 'Cash for Passports' scandal with Albert Reynolds in the 90's. He said that he 'gave' this (non-Irish!) geezer an Irish passport. Now, just by coincidence £1,000,000 was lodged into his wife's bank account. As it was his wife's account and not his, he knew absolutely nothing whatsoever about the £1M

Can I take the liberty of calling you naive? How in God's name can a 9 man team (and a 23 squad) of riders systematically dope and LA be unaware. The guy he was rooming with at the TdF (and the other races he bothered to do) was doping, in all likelyhood. Did these guys have to hide the fact that they were doping from LA.

I would say that it was an unwritten/unspoken/given contractural obligation that if you worked for one of his teams you doped.

petethedrummer

SACH Central wrote: »

Can I take the liberty of calling you naive? How in God's name can a 9 man team (and a 23 squad) of riders systematically dope and LA be unaware.

Look the most organised and motivated cyclist in the world, who leaves nothing to chance and can orchestrate 7 wins in a row in the Tour de France, could not possibly know what his teammates are up to.

Harrybelafonte

LA is an arrogant pr*ck. Whether he was doped to the eyeballs winning or whether he's the greatest athlete in the world doesn't matter if you can't win with class and a bit of dignity.

Put it this way. Sean Kelly is more of sportsman and more of a hero.
Merckx is another

Signal_ rabbit

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Put it this way. Sean Kelly is more of sportsman and more of a hero.
Merckx is another

Both tested positive!

Madou

Argh, doping is endemic in cycling, a sport gone over the edge and never coming back!

At least Pantani had passion and Ullirch was always exciting (never knew what sort of Ullrich would show up - 1998 implosion:D). Yeah they all doped, but at least they didn't race like robots. Shame that there will be the victims - Pantani, Vandenbroucke - and then there'll arrogant pr*cks that are just in it for the millions of dollars.

I wish Escartin had won it in 1999.

Running Bing

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

Both tested positive!

Ssshhh!

Dont you know Lance is the only champion cyclist who ever touched drugs?:rolleyes:

This is what annoys me about these debates, the hypocrisy. Dont like Lance? Fine, I can see why. Think all dopers are cheating scumbags? Again no problem, its a more than reasonable viewpoint.

But dont turn around in one breath and call Armstrong a cheating scumbag and in another praise the Sean Kelly's and Eddy Merckx's.

To me Lance is a tremendous athlete and a ferocious competitor who has done a lot of good charity work (and for the right reasons).

He is also human, which means like all of us he has his flaws.

Did he dope? Would be incredibly naive to deny it imo but like I said what great champion has'nt? Kelly, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Armstrong. All great great champions who deserve mountains of respect in my eyes.

petethedrummer

Running Bing wrote: »

but like I said what great champion has'nt?

Well as far as I can tell....Lemond, Mottet and Sastre.

Running Bing

petethedrummer wrote: »

Well as far as I can tell....Lemond, Mottet and Sastre.

When has Lance failed a drug test though?

See its a bad case of double standards. As far as you know Lance has not doped either.

Im a huge Sastre fan but I dont think you could put him up with the greats and Mottet may have been clean but that was a long time ago and never won a grand tour.

uberwolf

ROK ON wrote: »

I wonder will this thread nysteriously disappear like the last Lance thread.

nothing mysterious about it. 2 issues were at play in that 'disappearance'.
1. we've had plenty of threads with a quick rant with no new 'news' to warrant a new thread with an evidence based commentary.
2. This country has libel laws, which are as of yet, not satisfactorily clarified with respect to message boards. - also note the English versions of many books - Voets is the first one that comes to mind - are far less specific because the difference in libel laws.

So I've no interest in hammering on legitimate conversation, but that conversation can only occur on a message board which hasn't been shut down due to legal threats and actions.

I appreciate opinions are many, and this is a topic that many feel strongly about, not least myself. And we'd be naive to believe, much as I watched Landis and wondered and hoped. But there's a world apart from holding an opinion, and stating fact. And dressing statements of fact as opinion in the vague hope that libel is avoided.

So keep conversation to matters that you can provide references to please.

petethedrummer

Running Bing wrote: »

When has Lance failed a drug test though?

In 1999. The full story is here. You need to scroll down to the bottom and read the section that starts....'Before the 1999 Tour de France the International Cycling Union (UCI) announced it would be testing for the banned substances.....'

In brief. Lance had no mention of any drugs on his medical form for the tour. One of Lance's samples during the tour tested positive for Corticoids. This was leaked early to a journalist. Lance was asked in a press conference if he had any TUE's. He said NO. His positive was subsequently made public. UCI accepted a hastily written TUE.

But you should read the whole article. You could say 'well if the explanation is good enough for the UCI then its good enough for me'. But the UCI have never shown any real interest in sorting the drug problem in cycling. You should also read the interview with Michael Ashenden I posted earlier on the re-tested 1999 blood samples. Though it may prove to dull for some people to finish.

Running Bing wrote: »

See its a bad case of double standards. As far as you know Lance has not doped either.

You can't say that, there are tons of athletes for whom its completely obvious they doped and but never tested positive or wangled their way out of punishment. And as for the double standard. It is widely accepted that blood doping from '91 onwards could turn a donkey(Bjarne Riis for example) into a derby winner. Before this, the cream still rose to the top. And its debatable if pre-91 the available doping helped or hindered you on a grand tour but on a one day event it seems it was a help. That's not to excuse it, more to explain the difference. I don't hold any doper in high regard, just in case your lumping me in with the apologists, but I do see a difference.

Running Bing wrote: »

Im a huge Sastre fan but I dont think you could put him up with the greats and Mottet may have been clean but that was a long time ago and never won a grand tour.

You mentioned Sean Kelly and he never won a grand tour, so I mentioned Mottet. I must have had Robert Millar in my head. Mottet was a pro from 83-94 which coincides with Kelly's career, so its not that long ago.

You need to read to up a bit on drugs in sport to realise its really not just a matter of black and white, fail a drugs test or not. I find the subject fascinating. When I started reading up on it I was a big Indurain fan and really didn't want to find out that he doped. But the evidence seems to suggest that he did, so I just found new heroes.

As for the argument that others have put forward that 'well its ok everyone doped', What about Sonia O'Sullivan in 1993?
She was beaten by 3 unknown Chinese athletes in the 3000m meters who were later caught(or mysteriously disappeared) but it still stands on the record books that she came 4th. She was also beaten by another unknown Chinese in the 1500m, who also disappeared. The chinese at the time were being coached at the time by former East German coaches. Was that fair?

TinyExplosions

Running Bing wrote: »

When has Lance failed a drug test though?

See its a bad case of double standards. As far as you know Lance has not doped either.

Im a huge Sastre fan but I dont think you could put him up with the greats and Mottet may have been clean but that was a long time ago and never won a grand tour.

From above, but worth saying again:

Bjarne Riis
Jan Ullrich
Ivan Basso

None of the above have failed a drug test, yet all are dopers. At the end of the day, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Lance having doped. The evidence is out there for all to see.

THat doesn't mean he's not a great athlete, but what grinds my gears is the holier than thou attitude he has to the issue. If he didn't keep banging on about it, people would be less harsh imo

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

You mentioned Sean Kelly and he never won a grand tour

Not sure if I mis-read, but Sean won the Vuelta a Espana

petethedrummer

Raam wrote: »

Not sure if I mis-read, but Sean won the Vuelta a Espana

ooops yes, for some reason I had it in my head that he came second..... who has egg on his face now?

nitrogen

petethedrummer wrote: »

It is widely accepted that blood doping from '91 onwards could turn a donkey(Bjarne Riis for example) into a derby winner. Before this, the cream still rose to the top. And its debatable if pre-91 the available doping helped or hindered you on a grand tour but on a one day event it seems it was a help.

The argument where if they're all on the same substance, doesn't it still make the playing field equal? Let's take Indurain as an example. A cyclist with a big build is a hindrance in the mountains, but with EPO is a huge advantage. A lot of the Columbian riders that were big in the 80s disappeared over night when EPO came on the scene. Their body size wouldn't be an overwhelming advantage with EPO. Does this mean everyone is in the same boat? Hell no!

Harrybelafonte

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

Both tested positive!

So did LA

Running Bing

petethedrummer wrote: »

In 1999. The full story is here. You need to scroll down to the bottom and read the section that starts....'Before the 1999 Tour de France the International Cycling Union (UCI) announced it would be testing for the banned substances.....'

In brief. Lance had no mention of any drugs on his medical form for the tour. One of Lance's samples during the tour tested positive for Corticoids. This was leaked early to a journalist. Lance was asked in a press conference if he had any TUE's. He said NO. His positive was subsequently made public. UCI accepted a hastily written TUE.

But you should read the whole article. You could say 'well if the explanation is good enough for the UCI then its good enough for me'. But the UCI have never shown any real interest in sorting the drug problem in cycling. You should also read the interview with Michael Ashenden I posted earlier on the re-tested 1999 blood samples. Though it may prove to dull for some people to finish.

Believe it or not I was actually aware of that incident in 99. The levels were below the positive range. He did'nt test postivie for squat.

Again if you read my post I have stated it would be naive to think he did'nt dope. My argument is not that he is a clean rider.

You can't say that, there are tons of athletes for whom its completely obvious they doped and but never tested positive or wangled their way out of punishment. And as for the double standard. It is widely accepted that blood doping from '91 onwards could turn a donkey(Bjarne Riis for example) into a derby winner. Before this, the cream still rose to the top. And its debatable if pre-91 the available doping helped or hindered you on a grand tour but on a one day event it seems it was a help. That's not to excuse it, more to explain the difference. I don't hold any doper in high regard, just in case your lumping me in with the apologists, but I do see a difference.

So its a case of getting a little bit pregnant? You either cheat or you dont. So EPO may not have been around back then....but that meant it was not around for anybody full stop!

You need to read to up a bit on drugs in sport to realise its really not just a matter of black and white, fail a drugs test or not. I find the subject fascinating. When I started reading up on it I was a big Indurain fan and really didn't want to find out that he doped. But the evidence seems to suggest that he did, so I just found new heroes.

Please dont be condescending. I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of drug abuse but I know enough to make an informed opinion and debate the subject on a message board!

As for the argument that others have put forward that 'well its ok everyone doped', What about Sonia O'Sullivan in 1993?
She was beaten by 3 unknown Chinese athletes in the 3000m meters who were later caught(or mysteriously disappeared) but it still stands on the record books that she came 4th. She was also beaten by another unknown Chinese in the 1500m, who also disappeared. The chinese at the time were being coached at the time by former East German coaches. Was that fair?

I consider myself a bigger athletics fan than cycling fan so this is one issue where I have done my "reading".

I think the situations are very different. They are different sports with different cultures and different principles. As hard as that is to accept it is the truth. Paul Kimmage is spot on when he says he doesnt blame the riders it is the governing bodies who are to blame. They are the ones that allow it to happen which means we are at a stage now that if a cyclist wants to be competitive, to win things, they must dope. Its not like that in Athletics and the reason why the Chinese incident was so unfair was because it was'nt accepted practice to dope, the majority of athletes where not on anything and the Chinese girls had a huge advantage.

petethedrummer

Running Bing wrote: »

So its a case of getting a little bit pregnant? You either cheat or you dont. So EPO may not have been around back then....but that meant it was not around for anybody full stop!

I agree with you, but I can see why some people are more forgiving of the 70's and 80's riders.

Running Bing wrote: »

Please dont be condescending.

Not my intention, I used your post to respond more generally.

Running Bing wrote: »

I consider myself a bigger athletics fan than cycling fan so this is one issue where I have done my "reading".

I think the situations are very different. They are different sports with different cultures and different principles.

Well athletics has had its doping problems too. Weren't the Norwegians blood doping in the 70s(though it wasn't illegal at the time)? The Americans, East Germans and Russians in the 80s had steriods etc. And the Chinese and a number of athletes from all nations doped in the 90's and 00's? But I would agree it was probably not as common place as in cycling.

So were largely in agreement, what exactly are we arguing over again?

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

And also research paper by Ed Coyle with the claims of Armstrongs amazing physiology and explaining his 8% efficiency increase is highly disputed. Read this interview with Michael Ashenden, one of the leading anti doping experts.

Excellent interview, well worth the (long) read.

Ashenden wrote:

Something that sits at the forefront of my mind, a discussion that I had with a group of cyclists, I'm not going to say who they were, and I said to them, "Look, guys, if you tell me what you're doing, I don't need names, so I can go away, develop that test, and come back here and remove that particular doping problem once and for all."

And their response is still a guiding light to me. They said, "If you can come back to us with a test that captures everyone so that we can all stop, you can expect us to support it. But if you come back with a test that only captures a quarter of the people, and those quarter are punished but then they're replaced by another quarter and the problem keeps going, don't expect us to support it. Because you're destroying careers and families and livelihoods, and you're not getting rid of the problem." And I've always held that as an ultimate goal.

bcmf

Lumen wrote: »

Excellent interview, well worth the (long) read.

Just read that interview. Very good and very interesting. To me it confirms what a lot of people suspect.

Chips Lovell

I think a lot of people's problem with Armstrong is not necessarily about what they think he may have done, but rather about his attitude and his aggressiveness towards people who have spoken up about doping in cycling. The way he behaved with Christophe Bassons and Filippo Simeoni was disgraceful. These were guys who hadn't even criticised him personally, but had just been frank about doping. The 2004 Tour was one of the lowest moments in a sport littered with low moments.

Chips Lovell

Going back to the OP, while he sounds totally obnoxious, I think his words were more for his own benefit rather than our own. I get the impression that he thrives on conflict and that having a lot of people rooting against him will only motivate him more.

lukester

el tonto wrote: »

I think a lot of people's problem with Armstrong is not necessarily about what they think he may have done, but rather about his attitude and his aggressiveness towards people who have spoken up about doping in cycling.

+1

If you listen to the interviews with David Walsh and Greg LeMond (credit to petethedrummer) you get an idea of how the man wields his power to try to enforce an omerta amongst those who would speak against him. 'Tour de Force' by Dan Coyle gives a good insight into how he has turned on even those closest to him.

He's an unpleasant and scary man. Stephanie McIlvain who worked closely with him describes him as egomaniacal.

He also seems to derive motivation from conflict.

Diarmuid

el tonto wrote: »

Going back to the OP, while he sounds totally obnoxious, I think his words were more for his own benefit rather than our own. I get the impression that he thrives on conflict and that having a lot of people rooting against him will only motivate him more.

True. Having read his first book the over riding impression was of a guy who could really hold a grudge. It was always a case of how he was going to show someone or make them pay for their slights against him etc... His second book was so bad I couldn't even make it half way through/

Raam

I gave his first book to my mum to read. She was interested in the cancer story as opposed to the cycling part. She said by the end of it she really didn't like him.

Malari

Raam wrote: »

I gave his first book to my mum to read. She was interested in the cancer story as opposed to the cycling part. She said by the end of it she really didn't like him.

What does that say about you that you can't even come across as a likeable or even admirable person in your autobiography?

blorg

Malari wrote: »

What does that say about you that you can't even come across as a likeable or even admirable person in your autobiography?

That you are the greatest champion the world has ever known, so great that the ordinary Joe just can't relate to the drive, dedication and ruthlessness necessary for you to succeed?

Malari

blorg wrote: »

That you are the greatest champion the world has ever known, so great that the ordinary Joe just can't relate to the drive, dedication and ruthlessness necessary for you to succeed?

Necessary for Pharmstrong, but not any other great champion? That just tells me he's not even a worthy champion.

lukester

Malari wrote: »

Necessary for Pharmstrong, but not any other great champion? That just tells me he's not even a worthy champion.

Do you love cancer?

Malari

lukester wrote: »

Do you love cancer?

Is that what we're calling him now?

TinyExplosions

Malari wrote: »

Is that what we're calling him now?

If you hate Lance, you must love cancer... you poor thing

alfalad

blorg wrote: »

That you are the greatest champion the world has ever known, so great that the ordinary Joe just can't relate to the drive, dedication and ruthlessness necessary for you to succeed?

Just because he has done amazing things in cycling doesn't mean he has to act the way he does. There are many great champions across many sports who are extremely driven but yet have the people on their side. Tiger Woods, is a nice guy and although driven on the course is respected by everyone, Jack Nicklaus like wise a true gentleman. Pele, is clearly a well liked person and is possibly the best soccer player ever. Look at tennis, Nadal and Federer, both top players, neither have a bad rep! Back to cycling, Lemond, 3 time winner and due to injury prob would have won one more, is a nice guy and because he has spoke out about drugs he has got in trouble!

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

Those characteristics are necessary but not sufficient to make a man great...



I know it's not Friday, but we haven't had a decent Godwinning recently

The main difference between Armstrong and Hitler is that Armstrong is a winner.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

The main difference between Armstrong and Hitler is that Armstrong is a winner.

Bugger, you quoted me before I had time to censor my inadvisedly ambiguous post.

In case it wasn't screamingly obvious, I wasn't suggesting for a picosecond that Hitler was a great man. :pac:

alfalad

blorg wrote: »

The main difference between Armstrong and Hitler is that Armstrong is a winner.

Only history (and tests) will judge if he truely is a winner!

kennyb3

not getting involved in the debate but thanks to all who posted the relevant articles which made excellent reading.:)

Chumpski

lukester wrote: »

He's just calling a spade a spade. When you fight cancer and beat it down, you learn that life is about winning, and speaking the truth.

When you survive getting sick with cancer you learn that life is all about winning? Are you pulling the piss or what?

Chips Lovell

Just think, blorg was lecturing TimAllen about trolling yesterday and he's now providing us with a masterclass.

Captain Havoc

I still believe in inocent until proven guilty, I think it's part of our constitution, could be wrong about that.

alfalad

jerseyeire wrote: »

I still believe in inocent until proven guilty, I think it's part of our constitution, could be wrong about that.

Regardless of cheating, which so far he has not been found guilty of, he has done many things which make him not liked by the public and therefore not a great champion!

blorg

jerseyeire wrote: »

I still believe in inocent until proven guilty, I think it's part of our constitution, could be wrong about that.

Indeed. I am not trolling.

Chumpski wrote:

When you survive getting sick with cancer you learn that life is all about winning? Are you pulling the piss or what?

I don't think Armstrong sees it that way. He didn't survive cancer passively, he beat it the same way he later beat Ulrich. Through his preparation and willpower. The drugs in each case were secondary.

In fairness many cancer patients approach it the same way although studies have found that emotional state actually had no influence on survival.

Captain Havoc

blorg wrote: »

Indeed. I am not trolling.

I haven't come here to troll and I apologise if that last statement seems that way.

lukester

Chumpski wrote: »

When you survive getting sick with cancer you learn that life is all about winning? Are you pulling the piss or what?

He didn't survive cancer, he beat cancer.

He then took the fight to two wheels, and beat his rivals.

He takes the same approach to his critics. He beats them, with the truth.

The truth is, he has never been sanctioned for doping.

He's still winning battles, every day.

Funkyzeit

kennyb3 wrote: »

not getting involved in the debate but thanks to all who posted the relevant articles which made excellent reading.:)

Oi! No fence sitting allowed when it comes to Lance....;)

horizon26

The 2008 tour was not the best.I think much more people will want to watch the 2009 tour because of Lance Armstrong.Even if you dont like him he is box office.So he is playing mind games whats wrong with that.This is professional sports,I think Lance is much stronger mentally than Contodor and Sastre.He has NEVER failed a drug test.Roll on the tour,Lance I think can win i hope he does.