No doubt that Landis was on something.
I've always liked to think that Armstrong was clean, but it's a bit hard to with all the recent revelations. As well as Riis' admissions, Basso has admitted guilt in the Operation Puerto affair. A former German rider (not Ullrich) has just come out and said that basically his former teams were all systematic doping. His teams included CSC, Team Mobile and ONCE. This means that any cyclist who was able to get within ten minutes of Armstrong in the tour was doped to the gills.
Ullrich is almost certainly guilty (his team from the '90's has had six men test positive to EPO or admit guilt). Basso, Landis, Hamilton, Beloki, Mancebo all GUILTY. I'm a fan of Vinokurov (who isn't?) and Klodden but both rode on Ullrich's teams for many years and made suspicious major improvements at a late age. Sastre has been with CSC for a while. The only decent performers who don't have obvious drug links are Valverdje, Evans and Rogers. Or maybe I am biased, being an aussie.
I still love the tour anyway. It's easily my favourite sporting/chemistry event. If Lance was clean then he is EASILY the greatest sportsperson of our time.
Armstrongs improvement was abnormal. Winning the road race at the World Championships is nothing like contending for the tour de france. The cancer did dramatically change his body shape which enabled him to become a much stronger climber. You could argue that he was able to subject himself to greater pain then his rivals because of what he had to go through to beat cancer. I think it's very much a matter of opinion as to whether Lance was on EPO. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.
But then I think of Alp duez 2001. 'The look'. Could a clean rider (no matter how great) destroy a guy as talented and doped up as Jan Ullrich by two minutes? He rode nearly all of that 13 km ascent on his own. Ullrich was at his peak in 2001..............
Any comments?
I think you'll find that the speed by the elite TT'ers in the long TT's varies far more than 49-51. It's more like 46-54 depending on the terrain, course, and weather. Prologues are much more consistently in that range, although Cancellara did 53+kpm today. Prologue courses are almost always technical and a significant proportion of the time trial is spent getting up to speed, which are the factors that really slow the speed down.
not a soy expert wrote:
I personally don't think Armstrong doped. That guy has heart.
Bullshit. You've watched too many Rocky movies if you think "heart" can get you that far. Grow up.
Good post. A couple questions though....
Why do you say Beloki and Mancebo are guilty, but Valverde isn't? Valverde is as knee deep in Puerto as Mancebo and Beloki. Evans and Rogers spent years on T-Mobile/Deutsche Telekom, a team that was riddled with doping. Evans finish +12 min (8th overall) on Armstrong in 2005 and +5 minutes of Landis in 2006 (5th overall). If were deciding whether a guy dopes or not by the level of his success, I'm afraid you have to put Evans with the dopers.
Armstrong blew away Ullrich every year in the mountains, so I'm not sure why 2001 was so significant. Ullrich's main problem was his lack of professionalism in his training. He gained too much weight every winter then spent the spring trying to shed it while the rest of the peloton were sharpening their form. Anyone else with Ullrich's palmares could be considered a glorious success, but in light of Ullrich's immense talent, one can only sigh and regret such talent squandered.
I think that you need to grow up and accept the fact that people who achieve something that you cannot are not necessarily cheaters.
Arch Stanton wrote:
I think that you need to grow up and accept the fact that people who achieve something that you cannot are not necessarily cheaters.
Right. Cause that's the reason I don't believe Armstrong. Because I couldn't win the Tour seven times. No other reason.
Moron.
hypnotoad wrote:
Right. Cause that's the reason I don't believe Armstrong. Because I couldn't win the Tour seven times. No other reason.
Moron.
You make 5 attempts to form a complete sentence and fail every time. You wrote "Cause". Who's the moron?
If I specifically meant Armstrong, I would have said so. I was referring to everyone who achieves when you fail. You know, all the cheaters.
Why is Levi supposedly doped to the gills?
I think a rider from team Denkal has a good shot this year . . .
Good post 60secsurge.
I would also like to think that Lance was clean, but it is hard to imagine that he easily beat other very talented athletes that were doped if he was not. At that level of competition that is virtually impossible.
I am of the opinion that Lance was the best cyclist, but EVERYONE doped including him.
--Clay
Clay wrote:
Good post 60secsurge.
I would also like to think that Lance was clean, but it is hard to imagine that he easily beat other very talented athletes that were doped if he was not. At that level of competition that is virtually impossible.
I am of the opinion that Lance was the best cyclist, but EVERYONE doped including him.
--Clay
Thank you for sharing your "wisdom" with us. Great contribution to the conversation.
Lance was doped.
You make some good points Arch.
I don't think that Valverde was involved in Puerto. He was allowed to start the tour last year but had to pull out after injuring his collarbone in about the third stage. Anyone who potentially had anything to do with Dr. Fuentes was not allowed to start last years tour. I think he's clean or at least there is no evidence to suggest he's doping. Beloki and Mancebo were both named. This doesn't mean that they're guilty but I mentioned that team ONCE (who Beloki led strongly in 2001, 2002 and 2003) were systematic doping. This claim was made by German rider Jorg Jansjch (spelt something similar) only a week or so ago. So Joseba is gone unfortunately. Not sure about Mancebo.
I think last year was Rogers' first with T-mobile. Didn't he ride for Veronque's team before that? Though that isn't exactly a good defence! Maybe I should suspect him. I'd forgotten that Evans had ridden for T-mobile a few years ago, though he never actually rode for them in the tour de france. One year he broke his collarbone. The other year he was in decent form but surprisingly wasn't selected for the team. Us aussies thought this was unfair and suspected that Ullrich was concerned about Cadel's climbing abilities. Maybe Cadel simply wasn't toeing the T-mobile company (production) line?!
Regarding Ullrich vs. Armstrong. 2001 was not significant. I just used it as an example. You're right. Armstrong almost always blew Ullrich away in the mountains. It's true that Jan wasn't the most dedicated of riders but he was always in form come July. You can't finish fourth or better in eight tours just on talent. Some people say that Ullrich wasn't a good climber. He was actually an outstanding climber. Take the 2001 tour. He consistently beat everyone else in the mountains except Armstrong. This includes Beloki who everyone regarded as a real mountain goat.
Ullrich did have a great career, no question. But even with total dedication for twelve months a year he might not have defeated Armstrong. Apart from 2003, Lance was a superman.
Aha, but see the problem is, I WAS talking about Armstrong, so if you were NOT referring to him, your reply would be completely nonsensical.
But it doesn't really matter. You obviously had nothing to say either way. You just didn't like what I said about the naivety of Armstrong fans, so you thought you'd attempt some lame dig at my motivation. And then you tried to attack my writing because that's all you had left. What's next?
Reasoning with you is like walking through mud.....
Look up the word "specifically" before you post again. I'm certain you don't know its meaning.
60, Valverde is as implicated as Mancebo and Beloki in Puerto. One of the accounts in Fuentes blood bank was called 'Valv' or 'Piti', the latter being the name of Valverde's dog. Recall that Basso's Puerto name was 'Birillo', also the name of his dog. Furthermore, Fuentes was the team doctor of Kelme, the team for which Valverde rose to prominence. So far, punishment for involvement in Puerto has varied drastic and seemingly unrelated to the degree of evidence proving a rider's involvement. Ullrich was presumed guilty almost instantly when the case broke, suspended, and facing legal proceedings. By contrast, Oscar Sevilla, who was filmed coming and going from the bad doctor's office is competing this week at the UCI sanctioned Tour of Austria.
Yes, last year was Rogers first with T-Mobile. Last year was the final year of T-Mobile's management by the corrupt regime that has been at the heart of the most recent revelations of systematic, approved doping within the team. That management, by the way, has moved into the new team Astana, which is the remnants of ONCE/Liberty Seguros, and riding exceptionally well all season long. Back to Rogers though - he spent several years with Quickstep, which has had its own share of doping allegations this year, not to mention the doping suspension of the greatest Mapei/Quickstep rider, Johann Museeuw. I'm not saying Rogers is dirty, but if the standards for calling a guy a doper are 1) he wins big races (Rogers is world TT champ x3), and 2) he's associated with teams with known doping past (Quickstep and T-Mobile), then I'm afraid one can only reach one conclusion about Mr. Rogers. Evans and just about everyone else who's ridden professional can be convicted of doping by the same means, which is the great pity of it all.
I agree with you about Evans and his days at T-Mobile. What a waste! He should have been on their Tour teams, but those teams were all about Ullrich. Cadel was left out of some big races during his prime. He was right to leave.
Blah blah blah... and you STILL haven't made a point.
How about you idiots saying "emm yeah I, I uhh, I think Lance was doping because he won seven times.." or anything like that, shut up.
No one cares about your opinion, because you aren't scientist of a damn anti-doping agency. You don't know anything and have no proof. So, quit with the accusations, based off of your imaginary bullsh*t.
Wht is it so hard to believe that guys like Roger Federer, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods, Emil Zatopek, Mark Spitz, Teofilo Stevenson,
Lemond, Bobet, Thys, Indurain, Hinault, and any other dominant athlete can do what they've done without doping?
It's pretty well established that most of Armstrong's rivals were doped. No outstanding athlete is so outstanding that he or she can dominate against an entire field of people with unfair advantages.
Nice belligerence, but you need to take a sip of reality.
