Honest Opinions Sought - Is Lance Juiced?

when he had cancer his doctors were using epo to keep his body from withering away or falling apart...thats what i heard...and that would explain why everyone insists he juices.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

EPO was developed as a cancer fighting drug, I believe it helps the body recover from chemo...but don't quote me on that.

The EPO/Cancer thing is not the main reason fingers are pointed at Lance. Fingers are pointed at Lance because,

1. Most cyclists are using something.

2. Lance is better than most cyclists..quid pro quo.

3. Lance is not French.

4. Lance used to be a peleton rider with no indications of great latent talent, now he is the best in the world with legitimate claims to be the best ever.

5. Lance has had associations with coaches/medical professionals who have been busted for drug offenses.

All that aside, Lance Armstrong IS the greatest cyclist in the world. As a clean cyclist he could beat any other clean cyclist on the planet...and if they are all on drugs, he can beat them at that game too.

waz wrote:

their hemocratic level is not tested every day.

The stage winner and Yellow Jersey holder along with randoms are checked. Both for urine and 'crit.

nl wrote:

I read somewhere that there is a legal limit of 49????for epo or so in the tour de frace and every athlete is right on the boarder...but epo isnt the reason he is better because all of them are at the same amount

For men the UCI limit is 0.50. It really has to be >0.510 since there is a 1 percentage point allowance for error of measurement. There are some finer points to this, but they are rare.

It is true that some athletes are close to 0.50. It is odd since endurance athletes typically LOWER their hematocrit with training (plasma volume expansion).

The UCI is very clear that the 'crit test is not for rhEPO, it is a health/safety issue (but we all know what led to the limit).

kent wrote:

so why do you think Trek doesn't make his bike ?? in fact it might be easier for them to make a uniquely customed bike just for him since they obviously have all the materials, manufacturing equipment, resources, etc. he could just as easily tell them as anyone to change this or tweek that in a way that he likes.

i don't think you're naive enough to believe they're just being "kind" by putting the stickers on the bike, even if it WAS manufactured by someone else.

bike manufacturing cost - around $12k,

endorsement contract - more than i'll earn in a lifetime,

exposure for Trek during the month of July - priceless.

A few years ago Lance rode a Litespeed. Now he rides a Trek. At the time Trek was not set up for his special demands as a rider. Now they are.

Lance won a World Championship in 1993. He was considered a great one day racer in those. Carmichael changed his training to fit the Tour.

He might not be the best in the world since he peaks for one event. Some in the cycling world consider those who do the Classics well and race in more than one Grand Tour to be better.

Lance is on his way to being the best TdF rider ever.

luv2run,

a great series of posts. i especially agree that, having befriended some serious cyclists here in lance's "home" of austin (i know, he's really french now), are more impressed with some of the continual racing achievements over a full season of other riders than lance's one shot deal.

also, it is certainly a fact that lance was, in his earlier TdF incarnation, more of a power/sprint rider, with excellent power outputs, but not a great power:weight ratio. cancer, in its own odd way, "solved" that. having lost a great deal of 'noncritical' muscle mass (see early 90's pictures of his upper body) would certainly assist his climbing abilities. in addition, under carmichael, his training was vastly different than prior to cancer.

now, i'm not stating any of this as solid defense against the drug accusations. i just think that many posters have been incredilbly immersed in tunnel vision looking only at a single variable (EPO), rather than the completely different rider lance is now v. before.

it's especially funny, because:

a) if the pro-lancers are right, and he's clean, he's the greatest long tour cyclist in the world.

b) if the anti-lancers are right, and he's dirty, he's still the best, since most of the anti-lancers claim he's one of the boys, and since they're all dirty and he's still beating them, he's the greatest long tour cyclist in the world.

i, for one, am most impressed with tyler hamilton. balls to the wall, and having to stay in the saddle on climbs because of that collarbone puts greater strain on his energy reserves, as he cannot vary his recruitment patterns as much to use different glycogen stores. and it doesn't matter if he's clean or dirty, the bone's still broken, and that MUST hurt...

Lance himself in 2001 on his relationship with Michele Ferrari:

"For many years now, dating back to 1990, Chris Carmichael has been my coach and most important technical and training advisor. Others who work with Chris include Johan Bruyneel, my director sportif, John Cobb, in charge of aerodynamics, Dr. Luis del Moral, our team physician and Jeff Spencer my chiropractor.

Also included are my close friends, former Belgian champion Eddy Merckx and former Motorola team director Jim Ochowitz.

Chris and I met Michele Ferrari during a training camp in San Diego, California, in 1995. His primary role has always been limited. Since Chris cannot be in Europe on an ongoing basis, Michele does my physiological testing and provides Chris with that data on a regular basis. Chris has grown to trust Michele's opinion regarding my testing and my form on the bike. And lately, we have been specifically working on a run at the hour record. I do not know exactly when I will do that, only that I will in the near future.

He has also consulted with Chris and me on dieting, altitude preparation, hypoxic training and the use of altitude tents, which are all natural methods of improvements.

In the past, I have never denied my relationship with Michele Ferrari. On the other hand, I have never gone out of my way to publicize it. The reason for that is that he has had a questionable public reputation due to the irresponsible comments he made in 1994 regarding EPO."

What I want to know is how come Lance gets a free pass on associating with a known "drug doctor" while Tim and Marion got raked over the coals for getting coaching advice from the admitted "drug coach" Charlie Francis. You heard almost the same kind of comments from Montgomery when he was trying to justify working with Francis, and he got no end of grief and finger-wagging.

Mikeswift wrote:

I agree Lance is not doping but if you really thnk Lance is riding a Trek you need some educating... Lance rides a custom hand built bike made by an independant company.

I'm pretty sure he rides a Trek. For his first Tour win in '99 he rode a Litespeed with Trek graphics, but since then I think they've all been trek manufactured bikes.

As for whether he is doping or not:

Cycling was no doubt dirty in the past. It was part of the culture, and to the point where it wasn't even though of as cheating. It was just what you needed to do to make it through the grueling races. I know guys who doped as juniors, and didn't really think anything of it.

Fast forward to 2003. With all of the raids in '98, the development of more accurate testing, and above all, an increased sophistication in training, cycling culture is completely different. Eddy said that drugs were NEEDED to finish a race like the Tour, because the training done in the day wasn't quite sufficient. Competitors would smoke cigarettes and drink wine after each stage...a far cry from Armstrong's measuring of each gram he eats and monitoring his HR and watt output like it's his lifeline.

So, either most cyclists are still doping, or most aren't...only they know for sure. Either way, Armstrong is on a level playing field with his competitors. I highly, highly doubt that Armstrong is doping and everyone else is clean. First of all, Armstrong has too much respect for his body after what he has gone through. Second, if Armstrong was doping, all his competitors would know about it, and get on the stuff as well. Bottom line, the discussion of whether Armstrong is doping or not is irrelevant and diminishes his absolutely incredible accomplishments.

What were Ferrari's comments on EPO in 1994? And whatever happened to the court case he was involved with.

i have to say, this thread is one of the most enjoyable ones i've read in a long time. pretty much everyone is bringing up intellegent and thoughtful points and i hope it stays around for a while.

In response to an earlier post, 'A Rough Ride' just talks about Stephen Roche and the fun the top riders had at Criterions at the end of the season, the author says that all of the cyclists knew when they looked at each others eyes whether they were on the juice or not. The author took amphetamines twice and he said that the difference in his performance was startling and actually frighteened him.

If all of these top riders from the past were on the juice and its an open secret and they are still held in such high regard within the world of cycling I have to question whether anything has actually changed for the better, after all you don't see Ben Johnson picing up too many past achievement awards or doing a whole lot of guest speaking and commentary on the athletics circuit do you?

waz wrote:

If all of these top riders from the past were on the juice and its an open secret and they are still held in such high regard within the world of cycling I have to question whether anything has actually changed for the better, after all you don't see Ben Johnson picing up too many past achievement awards or doing a whole lot of guest speaking and commentary on the athletics circuit do you?

I would actually argue that this is evidence that the doping environment in cycling is much healthier than in track. Cyclists from the days of widespread doping are still highly regarded because everyone was doping...every one was equal, and the Stephen Roches and Eddy Merckxs of the world won. No one points any fingers...they just acknowledge that everyone participated, and that's how it was.

In track, on the other hand, pretends that very few athletes dope, and scapegoats are constantly made to "prove" that those who aren't caught are clean. Ben Johnson's name and image will be forever linked with "cheating", while Carl Lewis goes down as an American hero (I think very few people are aware that he doped). If the sprinters of the day were to come out and say "Hey, we were all doped up in those days, and Ben was still better than us", he would have a different legacy.

It is very hard to compare the two sports, becuase too many people discount the role of performance-enhancers in cycling's history. It was so deeply rooted in the sports culture, that the athletes themselves didn't view it as cheating. And, ultimately, that's what should matter. If there is an unspoken agreement among all competitors that, for example taking amphetimines is okay, it shouldn't be considered cheating, health issues aside. If your competitors don't feel you a cheating, why should the public care?

However, at least in cycling there is much better transparancy when it comes to the whole drug issue. It is a sport that has given an honest effort to reassess itself and has done something publicly about it. And I also believe that cycling at one point relied upon drugs because knowledge of training and physiology had not enabled them to prepare for the races that they were required to compete in. Keep in mind, back in the day the TdF was roughly 50% LONGER, and competitors had to ride up the mountains on heavy steel bikes with one or two gears. Given training science at the time, it probably WAS necessary to use performance enhancers just to finish. Now things are drastically different, and drugs are not as vital to being able to complete the Tour.

Speculation, suspicion and inuendo.

Show me the PROOF.

Until you do, you ain't got a case.

CASE DISMISSED.

Ok so you are saying that in the last 10-15 years things have changed in cycling to a point where what used to be common practice is now rarely practised in terms of drug use? That the incidence of EPO, amphetamines and other performance enhancing techniques has reduced considerably and is no longer ingrained in the make up of the sport? If this was the case would we not have seen a decrease in the levels of performance? A drop off in times, a higher incidence of drop outs during the tour?

Fact is we aren't, we are seeing them rider quicker and harder over equally demanding courses. Armstrongs performances in the mountains over the last few years have been from another planet, he isn't just beating people he is destroying them, making a mockery of them, taking minutes out of them over a few kilometres, and these are the guys who are getting caught cheating! Come on!

Mere suspicion.

REHEARING DENIED!

waz wrote:

and these are the guys who are getting caught cheating! Come on!

Then does it really matter if Armstrong is doping as well? I don't think he is, but philosophically it doesn't matter.

Either everyone is, or everyone isn't. Either way, the playing field is level and that is what matters.

The playing field is not level, his doctor is clearly more talkented than those of the other riders`!

hey, waz. I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but you haven't offered up one shred of hard evidence proclaiming lance to be a doper; all of your arguments are circumstantial, and can be simply be negated by circumstatial evidence to the contrary. why waste your time?