Armstrong...EPO in 99 tour?

He came clean after he was done racing. Maybe Lance will do the same.

flanders wrote:

Oh, that is why all of these scientist are lying.they will never be as cool as a seven time tour de france winner. Thus they must put their jobs in jeopardy to bring down the stud they are so jealous of.

Which "scientists" have declared Armstrong a cheat?

Debating whether Armstrong doped or not with Armstrong fanboys is a lot like debating whether the theory of evolution is valid with religious wackos.

Everybody with any degree of common sense knows the score, but they choose to ignore all relevant facts.

did anyone posting actually read the article?

huh? wrote:

did anyone posting actually read the article?

Yes, and it took a long fricking time but was well worth it.

I also don't want to delve into the debate with the Lance fans. The analogy with the theory of evolution is dead on in my personal opinion.

jkjkjkjkjkjkjk wrote:

(and a proven asshole)

And what proof do you have that he's an asshole. I've sat down, drank beer with the guy following the NYC Marathon at a post race party a couple years back. He sure as hell didn't seem to be an asshole then, especially when he was picking up the tab for the whole night. In fact, he seemed like a regular beer guzzlin' Joe American out having a good time. I was more shocked he didn't show up with one of the Olson twins more then that he stayed around to toss back some brews with us.

KidStallyn wrote:

In fact, he seemed like a regular beer guzzlin' Joe American out having a good time.

And this is supposed to show that he is NOT an asshole?

Pwned.

Intergalactic wrote:

KidStallyn wrote:

In fact, he seemed like a regular beer guzzlin' Joe American out having a good time.

And this is supposed to show that he is NOT an asshole?

Pwned.

What are you, some kind of commie pinko fag?

If he is doped how does he avoid getting caught.

The evolution analogy is spot on for lance fanboys, but an equally valid analogy could be made between these french doping labs and captain ahab. They will do anything to catch this guy, using any dubious methods, because they hate him that much.

I couldn't care less about lance. He made people interested in cycling, so I respect that. Lots of people in his era doped, so there is a good chance he did too, and I take that into account. In the end, I won't throw him under the bus without some really legit tests (WADA/UCI, not AFLD or the other french labs). As an american, he's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Intergalactic wrote:

KidStallyn wrote:

In fact, he seemed like a regular beer guzzlin' Joe American out having a good time.

And this is supposed to show that he is NOT an asshole?

Pwned.

that one was too easy. however, some might say i am just jealous of your comeback skilz.

quack wrote:

The evolution analogy is spot on for lance fanboys, but an equally valid analogy could be made between these french doping labs and captain ahab. They will do anything to catch this guy, using any dubious methods, because they hate him that much.

I couldn't care less about lance. He made people interested in cycling, so I respect that. Lots of people in his era doped, so there is a good chance he did too, and I take that into account. In the end, I won't throw him under the bus without some really legit tests (WADA/UCI, not AFLD or the other french labs). As an american, he's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He doped. A lot of guys around that time doped too. A lot of them admitted it. Some of them didn't. Now he's made a very smug, self-righteous comeback.

How do you expect people to react? The guy is really too much.

I read the whole article. Very enlightening.

I believe Lance was doped to the gills.

However, I am also somewhat appalled by the tactics and seeming vendetta against him. I am also concerned for a fair process and protection of Athletes rights and it seems as though some are willing to overlook that in Lance's case.

It is interesting how other people are starting to [pick up on all the inconsistencies in Lance's stories through the years.

I pointed out earlier how his epic 2x4 hour mountain training session was reduced to only 2x1 hour in a recent publication.

SMJO wrote:

It is interesting how other people are starting to [pick up on all the inconsistencies in Lance's stories through the years.

I pointed out earlier how his epic 2x4 hour mountain training session was reduced to only 2x1 hour in a recent publication.

With as much shit as this guy has been doing over the past 2 decades how the hell are you suppose to remain consistent on where you were on April 12, 2002 at 14:34?

Everything we hear about Lance seems to focus on his unique physiology and epic training regime. Now we hear that there really isn't anything unusual about his physiology, the efficiency theory has been debunked and the truth about some of his training has been stretched beyond belief.

I was just curious as to why he would change a story about an 8 hour ride which would be very inspiring and motivational to a simple two hour ride which anybody could do without thinking much of it.

That's like saying you run 200 miles per week when you actually run about 50.

I wonder if Sally Jenkins convinced him to make things sound more dramatic.

Maybe Greg Lemond can grill him on this at a press conference.

These stories of super human powers are put about to build an aura of invincibility. And guess what? it works.

Do you remember the stories about Miguel Indurain having 3% bodyfat and a VO2max of 88 as well as a huge lung capacity?

It was bullshit, but even the other riders in the peloton believed it.

Back in 99, maybe 18 of the top 20 finishers were using EPO, growth hormone etc, but none of them could bet Lance, he was by far the best of his generation. Cycling has always been a sport of many dopers. Is it any different now?

SMJO wrote:

Everything we hear about Lance seems to focus on his unique physiology and epic training regime. Now we hear that there really isn't anything unusual about his physiology, the efficiency theory has been debunked and the truth about some of his training has been stretched beyond belief.

I was just curious as to why he would change a story about an 8 hour ride which would be very inspiring and motivational to a simple two hour ride which anybody could do without thinking much of it.

Did he change his story or did some other journalist, years later report the same story incorrectly? Can someone show me an actual quote where he said some session was 2 x 4 hours and then one where he said it the same session was 2 x 1 hours?

In Lance's book you can clearly find the part where he says he biked for four hours up a mountain, didn't like how he felt about it and drove back to the bottom and did it again. He distinctly states this and it sounds like his words.

In the foreword to Bruyneel's new book Lance describes the exact same training session but shrinks it to just one hour of climbing and then repeating it.

The "journalist" is this case is Lance and he screwed up the story.

You can find these two books in any book store and compare these baffling discrepancies.

Another one is his description of collapsing going up a small rise in the road when he was out for an easy ride during treatment. However, one of the guys participating in that actual ride claims that they were going fast and Lance lost a sprint to the city limit sign.

It's almost like he can't decide if he wants to be heroically strong or vulnerable and human.