Landis on Armstrong - the gory details

This is the most damning quote from the article:

Chad Gerlach, who rode with the U.S. Postal team before Messrs. Armstrong and Landis were on it, said he's inclined to believe Mr. Landis's account of widespread doping based on what he saw during his own career. "I believe it because I have seen it personally," he said. "I am not ready to out my friends or provide names. I just saw it. It's just a systematic thing."

US Postal was systematically doping everyone before Armstrong even got there, and I'm supposed to believe he was the lone clean guy? After several of his teammates have tested positive? No way, no how he didn't at least know about it. And since teams are vitally important to winning the TDF, doping teammates is effectively cheating, which calls his wins into question anyway.

If I were Usain Bolt, I'd be watching my back. Landis is going after him next.

Here's a good compilation of Armstrong evidence: http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html

JoeGarland wrote:

I may have missed it, but in this do you give the basis for your statement that Armstrong "DROPPED 25 pounds"?[quote]Sagarin wrote:

No, not in that economic treatise. Frankly, I thought it was common knowledge that Armstrong dropped a pretty good amount of weight and raced leaner. I suppose one would need to find pre-race bios and weigh-ins going back to 22 years of age and then again at 27 and beyond. But I wasn't in any way dismissing the pile of circumstantial evidence and former teammates who have implicated Lanced. I don't think anyone couldn't dope and still make the top ten. Here's a quote from Phil Sherwan after Armstrong's seemingly final TDF about his weight:

PAUL SHERWEN: Well I think it's had two profound effects on Lance really. When he had the cancer and went through chemotherapy before he was a very good specialist at one-day events but the cancer and the treatment made him lose around about 20 pounds in weight. But he was very lucky in that he actually retained the majority of his strength and the majority of his lung capacity because the cancer had actually got into his lungs and the treatments that he had actually was able to keep most of his lung capacity intact. And I think the important thing then is that he went on to really prove that he was a major specialist. He learned how to enjoy training because before -- I knew Lance Armstrong before he had cancer and he used to race to get fit. Once he'd had cancer, once he'd looked death in the eyes I think all of a sudden he enjoyed his training; he enjoyed life. Every day was a bonus.

Forgot the link:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/july-dec05/lance_7-25.html

Sagarin wrote:

No, not in that economic treatise. Frankly, I thought it was common knowledge that Armstrong dropped a pretty good amount of weight and raced leaner.

If you looked at the two items to which I linked you would see that it may be "common knowledge," but that there is no proof of this. As noted in the Science of Sport column, David Walsh gets into this in detail in his book "From Lance to Landis" about this particular red herring.

Here are those links again; search for "weight":

I agree that there's no proof (just as there's no "proof" of doping) without getting official weigh-ins before the TDF in say 1993, and then again in 1999 and beyond. Interesting that Wikepedia captures three different weights from 1993-2009, varying by roughly 10 lbs (though that's not 20+ to be sure). Only the most recent weight is posted as part of the bio, with a "3" citation. Lance sure looked thinner in his upper body in the years after his cancer. Also check out the allegations part in Wikipedia. Can't see why so many would go to so much trouble to condemn Lance lacking ample suspicion:

"Lance Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weight, 1993: 79 kg (174 lb) 1999: 74 kg (163 lb) 2009: 75 kg (165 lb) ... He went on to win the Tour de France each year from 1999 to 2005, ..... with the indirect help of UCI and Lance Armstrong on the samples with those on ..... "Every Second Counts" Armstrong casts doubt that Ullrich did, in fact, wait for him. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong "

If it is on Wikipedia, that is the smoking gun. I am surprised WADA hasn't discovered that yet and used it against him. The only thing more accurate than Wikipedia is an infomercial.

Just one example:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/01/kennedy_the_latest_victim_of_w.html

If somebody wants to change his weight to 450 pounds in wikipedia, they can do it. And you suckers would see it and comment on the reason Lance improved is because his weight changed.

I note that the first two pages of Matt Fitzgerald "Racing Weight" is built around the weight-loss canard of Armstrong, and in RoJo's interview with Fitzgerald, RoJo bought into it too.

Most people who get chemotherapy gain weight, particularly muscle. Armstrong supposedly LOSES weight on chemo treatment! Very, very suspicious. Good catch, JoeGarland.

JoeGarland wrote:

I note that the first two pages of Matt Fitzgerald "Racing Weight" is built around the weight-loss canard of Armstrong, and in RoJo's interview with Fitzgerald, RoJo bought into it too.

Fitzgerald is generally a bit short on facts and does precious little research to confirm the claims he reports.

I just spewed barf all over my computer screen.

Sagarin wrote:Once he'd had cancer, once he'd looked death in the eyes I think all of a sudden he enjoyed his training; he enjoyed life. Every day was a bonus.

B33R G0GGLES wrote:

I just spewed barf all over my computer screen.

Sagarin wrote:Once he'd had cancer, once he'd looked death in the eyes I think all of a sudden he enjoyed his training; he enjoyed life. Every day was a bonus.

+1

Sagarin just exposed himself as being a total Armstrong nut-barnacle.

"I really like cycling" is right on. Virtually everyone in last year's top 10 have ties to drug use, not to mention pvs. rivals like Jan, Vino, and Basso.

Other former teammates/rivals such as Hamilton, Heras, and Landis also proved to be dirty, so I don't deny the circumstantial evidence.

I'm not justifying blood doping, EPO, etc. but even if Lance were dirty, the rivals proved to be dirty as well.

Furthermore, you don't just sit on your ass, inject some blood, and SHAZAM, win the TDF. Dirty or not, LA was the best bike rider at those 7 TDFs. (not best overall-never won other GTs...but best at TDF)

U guys that think Lance was clean for all seven of his victories are out of your minds.

Level playing field wrote:

I'm not justifying blood doping, EPO, etc. but even if Lance were dirty, the rivals proved to be dirty as well.

That is no justification at all for Armstrong's (presumed) actions.

if all your friends jumped off wrote:

Level playing field wrote:

I'm not justifying blood doping, EPO, etc. but even if Lance were dirty, the rivals proved to be dirty as well.

That is no justification at all for Armstrong's (presumed) actions.

Which is presumably why he prefaced his post with "I'm not justifying blood doping."

I am of the belief that Armstrong is a unique individual and situation. This situation being that there is enough evidence to support/convince that he isn't on drugs and there is enough to support/convince he is. It is really what side of the fence people want to be on. People aren't going to change their opinions until more/lack of substanial evidence is provided.

Enjoy your holiday.

It's because they are so artificially enhanced that they could probably breathe underwater.