Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

niceonetom

Mr. Presentable

petethedrummer wrote: »

She tested positive for being Irish. It was just a bit of whiskey lads.

Exactly! It was an American that screamed "cheat" and that was enough to ruin her because she came from a small country. But you dare not accuse an American; they are paragons of virtue - Carl Lewis, Flo-jo et al? Mere abherrations.

the one thing that always comes back is one you quoted

If everyone else is cheating, how could Lance beat them all seven times in a row?

SACH Central

Junior wrote: »

I'll be honest Humphries blows hot and cold on a lot of topics....sometimes so badly wrong....

Ah yes the auld la tactic comes into play again - dis-credit the individual criticising la.

The article in the Times is basically a summary of the 'affair' thus far. I think his 'angle' is just to lay out the facts as we know them today, with maybe an undercurrent of; I hope they nail the ba$tard too!

Tom Humphries has been outspoken on the whole doping issue for a long time now. While he may not be an expert on the sport of cycling, he can certainly write with great authority on all matters 'doping'

Diarmuid

nipplenuts wrote: »

Exactly! It was an American that screamed "cheat" and that was enough to ruin her because she came from a small country.

Are you joking?
. Before she even got to the Olympics Gary O Toole pretty much hinted that she was doping and as soon as she won the medals, Kimmage outted her. She was ruined because she was a doper, not because he came from a small island. The only disgrace is that she got to keep her medals.

Junior

SACH Central wrote: »

Ah yes the auld la tactic comes into play again - dis-credit the individual criticising la.

The article in the Times is basically a summary of the 'affair' thus far. I think his 'angle' is just to lay out the facts as we know them today, with maybe an undercurrent of; I hope they nail the ba$tard too!

Tom Humphries has been outspoken on the whole doping issue for a long time now. While he may not be an expert on the sport of cycling, he can certainly write with great authority on all matters 'doping'

Not at all man, I believe LA is a doper, I just don't like Tom Humphries. I don't like his writing, his style or his pieces, sometimes he hits a topic right, but more than not it's something of a small field of knowledge that he has, nothing else.

SACH Central

Junior wrote: »

Not at all man, I believe LA is a doper

Cool! Me too!!

Junior

I'll happily say the same if he wrote the same sort of rehashed **** about Landis ..

davyjose

Junior wrote: »

Not at all man, I believe LA is a doper, I just don't like Tom Humphries. I don't like his writing, his style or his pieces, sometimes he hits a topic right, but more than not it's something of a small field of knowledge that he has, nothing else.

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Afterall, that's not what's important about cycling, what's important is what the judgemental, reactionary, clueless hacks tell us to think. The irony is, cycling only matters when they want it to.

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.


Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Harrybelafonte

But isn't point that for some of those you mentioned that they're trying to bring an end to the doping element and raise the sport up again, seen as UCI seem to be incapable of doing it. What about the harm people like la are doing it?

Captain Havoc

The problem with that mentality is that, people like me can't cheat, I can't take away a shot when I play golf, I can't handle the ball on the soccer field, I just can't cheat. I'm assuming some professionals have the same mentality, if you're going to win, do it honestly, there's no point in fooling yourself that you haven't cheated, because you have, it's irrelevant if the other guy cheats or not, you can call him a cheat and nobody will doubt you when they know you're not a cheat. Is it fair on people who can't cheat that they have beat a cheater?

Cycling will not fall down and disapear over night because a cheat is exposed, even if that cheat is a seven time Tour de France winner. What will happen is that there will be an overhall, the UCI may fall to ashes if they're exposed as having tolerated or even assisted in this systematic doping that is talked about and I'm assuming that a few people will be disgraced and a few will be jailed. Perhaps it is an opportunity for an organisation like ASO or AIGCP to form an alternative Pro-tour with real doping tests. Cycling will continue and maybe people will be happier watching it, knowing that it's been overhauled.

petethedrummer

davyjose wrote: »

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Cycling news doesn't sell papers. Arguably the largest doping story in cycling history will. Market forces.

davyjose wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

Is this the same David Walsh who in his younger years noted that Sean Kelly's exploits were being criminally under reported and sought to rectify this? And who wrote Kelly's biography?

Walsh took time off his very highly paid job to write LA confidential and From Lance to Landis and for the sales he made it turns out that in effect he took a pay cut.

davyjose wrote: »

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.

The first man to stand up and write an honest account of cycling and its doping culture and his own dabbling, which has been denied and denied and denied by the UCI. And EVERYTHING he says somehow turns out to be true. Is he really the problem? really? I really don't understand your reasoning.

davyjose wrote: »

Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Lemond the problem? The one GT winner Kimmage has given the benefit of the doubt to? The guy Armstrong hired a Public Strategies PR company to dig dirt on. And not one former teammate or associated even hinted that he doped. A guy who had the nerve to question Armstrong's association with Michele Ferrari. And the guy who has magnamously accepted Floyd Landis' apology for his behaviour in 2006.

Cycling got through Puerto, Festina, T-Mobile scandals and it will get through this. Do you want Pat McQuaid to deal with the doping problem? You might as well let Vince McMahon do it. How many asteriks do you need to see beside results before you realise its in complete mess already.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html

Note that article is old, a few more of the names need to be crossed out.

The worst I can see happening is that cycling might lose a few Tour De France Livestrongers. Boo hoo.

petethedrummer

davyjose wrote: »

a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops)

You could always get a job on Eurosport with David Harmon or on Versus with Ligget and Sherwin.

petethedrummer

I just realised I need to slow down and re-read my posts. Excuse the grammar and spelling errors.

Chips Lovell

davyjose wrote: »

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Afterall, that's not what's important about cycling, what's important is what the judgemental, reactionary, clueless hacks tell us to think. The irony is, cycling only matters when they want it to.

It's a bigger story. Plain and simple. I guarantee you in newsrooms across the world last week editors were deciding they had to cover this and roping in someone to get a story together. As I said earlier in this thread, lots of people don't even know the Giro is on at the moment and don't even care, but they are interested in this. They know Armstrong, know the story and they want to know how it's all going to end.

davyjose wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.

Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Shooting the messenger is really going to solve the problem alright. Kimmage and Walsh probably did more than any other English speaking journalists to expose the problems in pro cycling and they got no end of crap for doing it.

sy

petethedrummer wrote: »

I just realised I need to slow down and re-read my posts. Excuse the grammar and spelling errors.

Your doing just fine, some great posts

MrCreosote

davyjose wrote: »

Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Why should they worry about "repairing" cycling. Pro road cycling from top to bottom is a disgrace! Can't believe anything that comes out of it. Better to show it up for what it is, scare the sponsors and money out of it, and if it recovers fair enough. If it doesn't? Well-too bad.

Junior

People that come on and say 'oh they are all doping' are doing the clean riders a huge disservice. I believe there are more clean riders now than there ever was in the peleton. If there wasn't riders like Dan Martin, Nico Roche etc wouldn't be even comptetive - they would be also rans, donkeys. There are also riders like Gilbert who are classic winners who are staunchly anti doping and you can see him winning, not having domestiques riding away from him.

That's not to bury the head in the sand either and Armstrong is what's right and wrong on equal measure about cycling. He's great for his achievements and his story transcends cycling, his recovery is the greatest American comeback bar none, it is the American dream if you will. This is why he attracts so many column inches. However the bad he represents is the systematic doping programs I believe he implemented across his teams to win and destroy all others at all costs. He saw that goal of the TdF win and took it by the other American method 'by any means neccessary' in doing so hd has destroyed the lives of true believers in recovery, in the idea of the comeback. He has disgarded team mates like used needles, he has used and dropped doctors as he sees fit. His biggest mistake was coming out of retirement - he and whatever he did would have stayed buried. His ego just wouldn't leave him alone.

I understand the point about what do these journalists add to this story only trying to pin their coats to a good story, never have I seen an anti doping story on here's what the uci, wada, usada should do, I see the line lifetime bans trotted out by anti doping authorities as if that's the solution. It isn't.

What Landis has done here is a good thing, yes he'll he may have destroyed the biggest thing in cycling, but he's put that information into the laps of the controlling bodies to do something with it. Now it's up to them to make that cultural change in cycling to rid itself finally of the stigma of doping.

Exclusive*Q&A*with*cyclist*Floyd*Landis*http://bit.ly/96sAiLcuts a lot of horse **** out.

Sorry about all the Edit's - iPhone doesn't like pasting in urls for some reason

Harrybelafonte

davyjose wrote: »

a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops)

It probably has more to do with your inability to spell simple phrases like "shoo-in", but the rest of what said would fit right in with the Daily Mail, use of words like bitter, hydrogen bomb etc.

Do you honestly believe that LA is what keeps cycling alive? You said bringing him down would bring cycling down?

MrCreosote

Junior wrote: »

People that come on and say 'oh they are all doping' are doing the clean riders a huge disservice. I believe there are more clean riders now than there ever was in the peleton. If there wasn't riders like Dan Martin, Nico Roche etc wouldn't be even comptetive - they would be also rans, donkeys. There are also riders like Gilbert who are classic winners who are staunchly anti doping and you can see him winning, not having domestiques riding away from him.

Totally agree with you about it being unfair on the clean riders. The problem is if you apply the "everyone is doping" rule to any individual rider, more often than not you'll be proved right. It's so institutionalised in the sport I can't even give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-doping riders. And it then knocks on to other sports- who can you believe.

The only good thing could be if the anti-doping agencies get good info from Landis, maybe tweak the testing. I'd imagine things have moved on so much in the last 4 years though they'll still be playing catch-up.

And for me I'd believe a rider is clean if he agreed to storage of frequent random blood and urine sample to be stored for future testing, say for up to 10-15 years. Anything else is just bluster, sure even Landis was against doping until last week.

Chips Lovell

Interesting:

The actual substances are not very expensive. The amount you would need for a season for a cyclist is probably $10,000. The advice -- depends who you want it from. If you want it from Ferrari, you pay him 10 percent of your salary.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

Interesting:

Did you paste the wrong link? I can't see that text on that page.

petethedrummer

Its in Junior's link above.

zzzzzzzz

el tonto wrote: »

Interesting:

I think it's supposed to be this link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=5215959

bbosco

davyjose wrote: »

I also have a real fcuking problem with journalists who act like cycling is the most important fcuking sport in the world, when it comes to a "scoop", but I daresay when you flick through the Guardian, or The Sunday Times, or The Independant to see who's leading the Giro de Italia ..... forget about it.

Afterall, that's not what's important about cycling, what's important is what the judgemental, reactionary, clueless hacks tell us to think. The irony is, cycling only matters when they want it to.

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling, and the difference between myself and someone like Walsh, or humphries, is that it hurts me to realise how infected this sport has become. It's not a joyous occasion to scream "I told you so!" And make my name (and $$$) from writing about doping

And Kimmage is a disgrace. He's gotten everything from cycling: a wonderful beginning to his adult life, a career in Sports Journalism (something I aspire to, but don't have the shoe-in name-drops), and all he can do is turn around every six months or so, from (poorly) interviewing Tiger Woods' Caddy, or Jensen Button and give us a load of "I told you so's". Your no fcuking help to the sport of cycling either, Paul.


Now Armstrong might go down, and if he does, so too will cycling. So I ask Kimmage, and Walsh, and fcuking Facepalm Humphries, and even Lemond (I wont include the bitter, single brain-celled Landis), what now, are you going to do to repair the Sport you so-called love? You invented the hydrogen bomb .... now prevent WW3!!!

Sorry, but wtf?
David Walsh was reporting on Irish club cycling when most people on this board were but a twinkle in their father's eye. His love of cycling, and in particular Irish cycling, is simply not in question.
Both Walsh and Kimmage have never made any secret of their growing disenchantment with the sport, because of what it has become. They reflect the attitude and hurt of many genuine cycling fans.
As for their current level of coverage of cycling, well they are now high profile journalists and are expected, by their employers, to cover other, much more popular sports. Yet somehow they "invented the hydrogen bomb" and are now expected to clean up cycling, as if they are the culprits?! Completely and utterly wrong. The culprits are Ferrari, Fuentes, Conconi, McQuaid, Verbruggen, Riijs, Saiz etc (and that's before I get to the riders!). You want to blame a couple of journalists instead?! So telling the story of wrongdoing makes you responsible for the wrongdoing itself? How completely arseways. Kimmage a disgrace?! I can take him or leave him, but how about pointing your ire at the people who are actively fcuking up our sport instead of some journalist?

As for Humphries, I can't stand his smugger-than-thou witterings about how he's better than the rest of us because he spent last Saturday watching the Ballydehob U-14 hurlers and simultaneously keeping alive the spirit of the Gael when the rest of us frauds were watching some foreign game on the tellybox.

Chips Lovell

Ooops, had the wrong link.

Wibbs

Junior wrote: »

People that come on and say 'oh they are all doping' are doing the clean riders a huge disservice. I believe there are more clean riders now than there ever was in the peleton. If there wasn't riders like Dan Martin, Nico Roche etc wouldn't be even comptetive - they would be also rans, donkeys. There are also riders like Gilbert who are classic winners who are staunchly anti doping and you can see him winning, not having domestiques riding away from him.

I agree the problem is they're all under suspicion now. Do I believe there are clean riders? Yes I do, but if I was one of them I'd pretty much give up the notion of ever winning more than a stage in the GT's, especially the TdF. The juicers have just too much of an advantage there. Mad theory alert guys who do well in one day classics, even win them, but are in the middle of the bunch in the GTs are more likely to be clean.

Cycling has always had dopers, mainly because it's one of the most physically demanding and damaging of any sport(if not the most). But the dope of 20,30 and 40 years ago was of a different class. Amphetamines may keep you upright on the bike and push you past the point of exhaustion, but give you an overall advantage in a GT? You're actually more likely to blow out(or die). Things like cortisone aid recovery, so you can fight another day, so again will help. Steroids would have aided muscle bulking, but that would have been only an advantage to certain styles of rider and race.

The early 90's when EPO came along completely changed the landscape. When I followed cycling in the 80's you had more specialists so to speak. That was usually reflected in their physique too. So when the columbians came along to dominate the mountains, you could see why. Skinny little guys with huge lungs. They rarely appeared in the flatter stages sprinting to win in bunch finishes. Then you'd have someone like Kelly. The genetically perfect classics rider and general all rounder. Sure he could keep up with the main bunch in the mountains(through sheer bloody mindedness and insanity on descents), but unless the climbers all had hangovers or missed a break, seeing Sean don the polka dot jersey in Paris would have been a wtf? moment. This given he won every other jersey at one time or another. At one point the points jersey was his for years. They may as well have printed his name on it before the race even started.

If he had been around 10 years later and had "done a lance"? And only have him concentrate on the TdF? I personally have no doubt he would have destroyed LA year after year in the GT's. The blood enhancements would see to that. IMHO out of the box natural? LA is a cut price Kelly(and that's a compliment). Merckx who truly was the ultimate all rounder he aint.

You can't really turn a natural climber into a sprinter with dope. The requirements are different. You certainly cant turn a climber into a sprinter and hope to keep him a climber. With EPO and blood doping, you can turn a sprinter into a climber though. You can make him a sprinter uphill because the blood can supply his engine beyond what is normal. I mean some of these guys are apparently pushing out figures uphill that are in the massively high range on the flat. You can also recover him faster after a balls out effort.

I believe he implemented across his teams to win and destroy all others at all costs. He saw that goal of the TdF win and took it by the other American method 'by any means neccessary' in doing so hd has destroyed the lives of true believers in recovery, in the idea of the comeback. He has disgarded team mates like used needles, he has used and dropped doctors as he sees fit. His biggest mistake was coming out of retirement - he and whatever he did would have stayed buried. His ego just wouldn't leave him alone.

+1 Not unlike the way the eastern bloc had "programmes" in the cold war sporting world. Oh and so did the Americans. If you recall the US Olympic cyclists in 84(IIRC) who admitted to blood doping which wasnt illegal at the time(moser did same in his hour record). To win by any means necessary for the motherland. So LA has this "Go USA!" in his blood. Add in his feelings of rejection by the european teams, throw in the huge financial backing for "team U S A!" and the script was written. So him and his team aimed exclusively at the crown jewels, the TdF. Look how quick they are to accuse the cheese eating surrender monkeys any time they're questioned. Its almost the cold war on carbon wheels.

So how do you stop it? Really really difficult. A reverse sea change would have to happen, but with the serious money involved nowadays I cant see that happening any time soon. Tests can be beaten. It seems quite easily. Even when there is a positive result, if you believe landis when he was caught he was doping, but not using the dope he was accused of. Blood passports help, but even there a decent dope doctor and programme will keep a rider within limits, but consistently enough to win races. Most seem to agree that heamocrit values should drop with the gargantuan efforts these guys put in, but many stay suspiciously normal. So no matter how much they do one day, they're "rested" the next. Its gonna get worse too IMHO. Genetic doping will be the next thing. That's gonna be almost impossible to trace.

Lumen

I don't really understand how it's possible to detect blood doping done carefully.

I understand that the "traditional" way was to take CERA/EPO or whatever for a few days during off-competition then take some blood, to be transfused back in as a "rest day refill". This approach would produce an abnormal reticulocyte profile, since the CERA/EPO boosts cell production.

But surely they can just transfuse "plain vanilla" blood with a normal reticulocyte profile, and effectively boost the red cell count within "normal" limits without producing anything detectable?

Or is there some way to detect blood cell age?

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

Mad theory alert guys who do well in one day classics, even win them, but are in the middle of the bunch in the GTs are more likely to be clean.

Yes and no I'd say. Grand tours are incredibly tough on the body and so much of it is about who can recover quickly. Those doping have a big advantage. But some people are simply more suited to classics. And the classics aren't immune to doping. Look over the winners from the past few years and isn't a lot of riders you can be sure are clean. There were guys like Rebellin, who won a rake of classics, but never really figured in the grand tours.

Lumen wrote: »

Or is there some way to detect blood cell age?

That's how they do it, or at least try to do it, as far as I know.

MrCreosote

Lumen wrote: »

I don't really understand how it's possible to detect blood doping done carefully.

I understand that the "traditional" way was to take CERA/EPO or whatever for a few days during off-competition then take some blood, to be transfused back in as a "rest day refill". This approach would produce an abnormal reticulocyte profile, since the CERA/EPO boosts cell production.

But surely they can just transfuse "plain vanilla" blood with a normal reticulocyte profile, and effectively boost the red cell count within "normal" limits without producing anything detectable?

Or is there some way to detect blood cell age?

Homologous transfusions can be picked up- blood from another person. This was Tyler Hamilton's positive test in 2004.

There's no accredited test for autologous doping (where it's your own blood) as far as I know. The WADA site says they're funding research into this. Only way would be to find the equipment used- storing and ferrying around bags of blood isn't to easy. Or finding stored blood like in Operation Puerto. I think part of the blood passport is to give the anti-doping agencies an idea about who to target with this.

Hermy

davyjose wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of professional cycling...

Your criticism of Daivd Walsh and Paul Kimmage suggests otherwise.

joker77

Paul Kimmage has been very quiet on this so far. I'm a big fan of his journalism, and I know he mostly just does the 'person behind the persona' type pieces now for the times, but would love to read his take on all this.

Wonder if he's getting something ready

Hermy

Junior wrote: »

People that come on and say 'oh they are all doping' are doing the clean riders a huge disservice. I believe there are more clean riders now than there ever was in the peleton. If there wasn't riders like Dan Martin, Nico Roche etc wouldn't be even comptetive - they would be also rans, donkeys. There are also riders like Gilbert who are classic winners who are staunchly anti doping and you can see him winning, not having domestiques riding away from him.

@Junior
What makes you so sure about the likes of Roche and Martin?
I'm not suggesting for one second that they aren't clean but sadly Ireland isn't immune to doping.
I'm just wondering what gives you the confidence that these guys are clean.

petethedrummer

joker77 wrote: »

Paul Kimmage has been very quiet on this so far. I'm a big fan of his journalism, and I know he mostly just does the 'person behind the persona' type pieces now for the times, but would love to read his take on all this.

Wonder if he's getting something ready

He has already been on Newstalk, Pat McQuaid wouldn't debate with him and appeared after. He wouldn't debate with Betsy Andreu on Newstalk last year either.
http://www.newstalk.ie/downloads/floyd-landis-accuses-lance-armstrong/

I think he has written a piece about it too. It should be in amongst the links listed in this thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7473 Edit: Can't seem to find anything myself, so maybe he hasn't written about it yet.

joker77

Cheers yea, sorry should have specified written about it. I listened the newstalk bit last week, I heard he was also on Pat Kenny earlier in the day but haven't listened to that one

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Junior

Hermy wrote: »

@Junior
What makes you so sure about the likes of Roche and Martin?
I'm not suggesting for one second that they aren't clean but sadly Ireland isn't immune to doping.
I'm just wondering what gives you the confidence that these guys are clean.

Because I've seen them race, I saw Nico blow up in the Irish National Championships a few years ago here in Waterford, he was the strongest rider, but he let his head rule his legs and he blew up. I've seen the way they've developed over the past few years, and to be honest, they've been incremental in development and how they've ridden. There's also the fact they've grown up in an era where there are more anti doping voices than ever surrounding them so I think it would be drilled into them more often than not that doping is bad mmmmkay.

Lance spans the decades from when doping was something that was tried, to becoming a science, to becoming a fulltime occupation for some, Roche Martin et al haven't grown into racing with that ethos.

However the real scary thing is the admission from Frei from BMC that he was micro dosing with EPO and he didn't drink the required amount of water that night before the morning test. If this is all it takes to get EPO traces out of the system, we are proper ****ed ..

Lumen

Junior wrote: »

However the real scary thing is the admission from Frei from BMC that he was micro dosing with EPO and he didn't drink the required amount of water that night before the morning test. If this is all it takes to get EPO traces out of the system, we are proper ****ed ..

No, as I understand it the drinking just alters the haematocrit level (proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells). If you're dehydrated then your blood volume is lower, so higher proportional for the same number of red blood cells. Although I imagine you'd need to drink a lot of water to overcome your kidneys ability to get rid of it.

Hermy

Thanks for the response Junior.
I'd agree with you regarding the progress of the Irish lads - it's been gradual and credible.
And I share you're concerns about Frei, not just his admission, but the fact that there are still young riders who chose to go down the EPO road.

Leslie91

Not sure if this makes a difference or matters one jot but, Floyd Landis is an alcoholic.

I still think there is no smoke without fire though when it comes to Lance.

petethedrummer

American Level Alcoholic or Irish Level Alcoholic? What difference would it make anyway?

Junior

Hermy wrote: »

Thanks for the response Junior.
I'd agree with you regarding the progress of the Irish lads - it's been gradual and credible.
And I share you're concerns about Frei, not just his admission, but the fact that there are still young riders who chose to go down the EPO road.

I think one of things with Frei was that his contract was coming to an end and it seems as if there was pressure put on him to improve, not that this excuses it, however it gives it context, if he was put under pressure and the DS looked the other way asking no questions when he started improving then is the DS not as culpable as Frei is ?

And btw it was a very valid and good question.

Lumen wrote: »

No, as I understand it the drinking just alters the haematocrit level (proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells). If you're dehydrated then your blood volume is lower, so higher proportional for the same number of red blood cells. Although I imagine you'd need to drink a lot of water to overcome your kidneys ability to get rid of it.

From Frei himself - Link

Frei says that he was caught by chance, adding that he had taken a micro-doses of EPO the previous day - his first injection in three months. His way of getting around the controls was as simple as hydration.

"If I would have drank 1 liter of water after the injection, I would now be preparing myself for the Giro," he admitted.

Leslie91 wrote: »

Not sure if this makes a difference or matters one jot but, Floyd Landis is an alcoholic.

I still think there is no smoke without fire though when it comes to Lance.

Proof or GTFO ..

Chips Lovell

The only place I've seen the alcoholic allegation is from Armstrong supporters. It's no secret the Landis enjoys a few beers, but I've yet to see evidence that he has a drinking problem.

niceonetom

And anyway, who amongst us can really say they've never had a few too many and woken up the next morning to find out we've drunkenly fabricated a very convincing outline of the doping activities of a true American hero? That's why I no longer drink tequila.

robs1

first of all i want to say im a huge armstrong fan but id be foolish to think he did not dope.all the leading guys dope. they did then and lets be realistic they still do.one of the guys had a graph up earlier,you can get that graph with alberto contadors efforts and his is well beyond any of the riders.remember the saying "you cant win the tour on water alone" i think hinulat said that.landis has no money left and is deperate for a contract that can be said.but why did armstrong come back and risk failing a drug test after years of "dodging" positive test. he came third last year and was the most tested rider on the planet.thats were im torn.i hope it comes out to be just crap from landis and that no drug test come back positive.i believe this will bring down cycling because all riders will have to piss in cups every day till thier caught and if they go back on old tests on armstrong well then will have to go back and test everyone.maybe they will just bring in a tour de france sportive and show us live on eurosport crapping ourselves going up mont vontoux

irishmotorist

So what if he's an alcoholic? I don't get the relevance. All he's doing is affecting his own performances - it doesn't make him an imaginative liar with extra ability to discredit the sports biggest name.

frostie500

robs1 wrote: »

i believe this will bring down cycling

I don't really buy any argument that says Lance failing a test and being outed as a doper would bring down cycling. The sport can not continue to be built on a lie, the foundations of such a move ultimately crumble and the sooner we out riders that have no right to don a yellow, pink, golden or rainbow jersey the better.

We have seen years where cycling got a bad rap for having so many positive tests and most of us fans took the view that there was so many because we followed/partook in a sport that realised it needed to proactively clean up its act and test to a massive degree and to hell with what the outside public thought. Operación Puerto was in my view a great step with somewhere in the region of 150 riders implicated, there have been numerous more investigations such as these and while riders will always cheat we need to continue to fight the good fight.

If nothing comes out of these alegations the good work done with some of the previous investigations counts for nothing. If Lance Armstrong doped-and is found guilty of it-cycling will not beleft ruined, it needs to be seen that the greatest sporting fraud of the last 20 years has been shown for his true colours-as a cheat.

I have, like most, long had suspicions as far as Armstrong is concerned and have hated to see so many with their livestrong bands due to my own views on the man. I would truly love for him to be clean-deep down all of do wish that the most successful rider in the Tour was clean-but what reason is there to believe that he is above board? There is far too much smoke for there to have never been a fire.

If he is found guilty bike racing will survive but it will be in spite of riders not as most of his fans believe because of the hope that riders like him give the general public

petethedrummer

robs1 wrote: »

the most tested rider on the planet.

This is a myth started by Armstrong, perpetuated by the Livestrongs and most recently repeated by Pat Mcquaid, who can't keep his story straight about accepting money from his cash cow.

Eric Zabel has had waaaaaayyyyy more wins (stages and races) and would have been tested after each one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Zabel

Zabel never tested positive but guess what? Zabel admitted to doping.

As for out of competition testing, Armstrong based his European training out of Girona in Spain. Spain, the country that covered up Puerto. And which is still doing F*** all in the fight against doping.

You can make what you will of this thread on the subject...... http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=221034 .....could be dismissed as a load of internet hearsay or it could be a reasonable guestimate as to how it was.

ROK ON

NYTimes reports that feds are considering broadening the Armstrong investigation beyond doping and drug distribution and including fraud and conspiracy.
Focus on whether the team bought PEDS and will also examine the insurance contract with SCA Promotions.

Beasty

ROK ON wrote: »

NYTimes reports that feds are considering broadening the Armstrong investigation beyond doping and drug distribution and including fraud and conspiracy.
Focus on whether the team bought PEDS and will also examine the insurance contract with SCA Promotions.

Link here

joker77

The federales don't have a vested interest, this could be a real chance to blow the whole thing wide open.