Why won't people acknowledge that lance was dirt

lance makes me sick that he can have the nerve to give out about other riders taking drugs but he never opened his mouth when his bum chums tyler and flyod were found with their dirty washing let out to dry.

The boy is a lier to us, the country and to himself

why don't people realize that your mom is the illigitimate child of hitler

AC wrote:

But that's the whole problem: the testing is useless. Read Willy Voet's book (below) and I'm sure the Lance believers will change their views.

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Chain-Drugs-Cycling-Story/dp/0224060562

If the testing is usless, then are landis and hamilton innocent? Both of them had positive tests and are saying that the tests were wrong.

from lance to landis.......... get it

A better word than useless would be "flawed". In two senses. One in that there appears to be ways to contest the findings (see earlier threads on letsrun for detail) and highlight uncertainties in the results. And two, that the tests can be beaten and took so many years to develop that many cheats have gone undetected. A sad state of affairs.

Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:

I like to think that LA was clean, but it seems so unlikely. However, a lot of letsrunners are convinced that he is dirty. Fine. What throws me for a loop,though, is that every year, for 7 straight years, nearly all the other rider were supposedly doing the same drugs, yet LA was still able to come out on top. Do posters really think that LA merely had a superior medic, or is it impossible for haters to give credit where it's due? I'm sure an admission would go a long way with these people, but by all accounts of the "they're all on drugs" clan, the playing field was level.

There is also the matter that Lance had 1 race on his mind and all his preparation was geared toward that one race whereas most bike racers do not do that. They race the fall classics and have a long season. Lance would skip a lot of those races and focus all his energy on the Tour.

Runningart2004 wrote:

On a similar vein, some studies have shown that 5-12% of high school boys are taking roids......

Alan

Intramuscularly, not intravenously.

Lance has one of the highest VO2s ever tested. Lance was biking about 2-3 hours more per/day, 7 days per/week than any of the other guys. Lance always had a great team to help him win. Do you all not watch the tours?

Lastly, the psychi of taking drugs is doing things the easy way to get results, without doing all of the work. Do half of what Lance is doing, take drugs, be somewhat close. The diference in those 7 victories was that Lance was stronger, but he always had a better team!!!

Can't they also infuse epitestosterone to maintain close to a 1:1 ratio? And my understanding is they do test total testosterone as well as beta-human chorionic gonatropin. Interestingly enough, if Lance had testicular cancer, his b-hcg would be on the order on 16-32000 ng/ml instead of the usual 1-5 ng/ml. So if they were really monitoring that they would have picked up his cancer before it became so widespread. Hcg stimulates the testes to produce testosterone and has been used to jumpstart the bodies own testosterone production after a period of steroid use. Any endocrinologists out there?

observing the demise wrote:

Sure Lance was a great cyclist and would have been without doping, but it's hard to overlook:

his relationship with Dr. EPO (Michelle Ferrari)

he had so many lesser teammates (Hamilton, Heras, Landis) who were doping

he absolutely dominated the tour for 7 years over riders who were doping

the Andreu's court statement under oath

etc, etc, etc

That's just it! Lance had LESSER teammates! Teammates that were on drugs, and yet they did not win? Is it possible that Lance, with his determination and rigorous training, could overcome dopers who took the drugs for granted, and did not train much because they relied so much on drugs and could not possibly match Lance's iron will? I'm not saying for sure that he is clean, but I look to resolve another case used against him. I mean, look at his marathon. Do you think he used drugs for that, too? I just don't see how someone like him could live with the shame of being a doper with such a story. There are still many suspicions, but there are also many reasons to believe he didn't use drugs, such as the fact that he was the most tested rider in the Tour, and he never really got caugt, but he won 7 times. Think about it...

FU wrote:

Lastly, the psychi of taking drugs is doing things the easy way to get results, without doing all of the work. Do half of what Lance is doing, take drugs, be somewhat close.

On the contrary, the "psychi" of taking drugs is doing ALL the work, and adding drugs to push your performance over the top. Most of the "great" confirmed dopers, like Ben Johnson, were prodigiously hard workers who used drugs to allow them to work even harder in training. Drugs aren't an easy shortcut to results -- they're a recovery aid that allow you to, say, train for a couple hours longer each day than your competitors without breaking down.

Genghis wrote:

Big Mac Attack wrote:

He's got at least one nut left.

How else could he rail Sheryl Crow?

I wonder if he had specially made

testosterone patches for his half sack?

Wouldn't Lance be eligible for a donor testicle?

Skeet Ulrich wrote:

Agreed. To think that a clean rider could not just win, but dominate one of the dirtiest sports on Earth for 7 years... it doesn't seem realistic, even if you disregard any circumstantial evidence that points to Armstrong's drug use.

I mean, is it really plausible that a clean Lance was THAT much better than a dirty Jan Ullrich? A dirty Vinokourov?

Exactly. It sucks to be cynical, but it's hard to believe Lance was clean. Let's face it, with the ever-growing number of steroid strands and alterations, you have to be an idiot to get caught. Unfortunately, in cycling, most are presumed guilty and can never be "proven" innocent because there will never be a test for every substance. They've done it to themselves.

What's wrong with good, honest, clean competition? Geez.

Landis did not work with Dr. Ferrari.

Dr. Ferrari has never been convicted of anything.

Lance has never tested positive for anything.

Hundreds of cyclists have been caught doping by drug testing, therefore drug testing is effective to some degree.

Armstrong was the most tested athlete ever and the most persecuted athlete ever (by anti-doping agencies, cycling organizations, media organizations, muck-raking writers) and from all that effort, the only proof of doping they could come up with was a.) he won the Tour de France many times, and b.) accusations from disgruntled former colleagues seeking money.

Armstrong's FORMER teammates who were later busted for drugs performed at a far greater level for their new teams than when they competed on Armstrong's teams. The fact is, cyclists who leave US Postal/Discovery for other squads see their performances improve dramatically, e.g., Dave Zabriskie, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis and best of all Tom Boonen, who went from mediocrity to the best classics rider and elite sprinter in the less than two years under the tutelage of dope-king Johan Museeuw.

Eddy Merckx was the greatest rider of all-time when the cycling world consisted of only France, Spain, Italy and Belgium and ALL riders raced a lot throughout the year. Don't forget, Merckx had a doping positive at the Tour of Italy in 1969.

Why is Armstrong clean in my book? Simply because he has too many people out to get him. At some point with all the testing over 7 years he would have to slip. He was and is constantly hounded by the media and others looking for a misstep. Therefore if he weren't clean, at some point he would have made and error causing a positive test.

Don't believe Lance is clean, no way. I knew a rider who rode with lance on the Motorola Team with Lance, nuff said.

BTW, Barry Bonds never failed a test either. Heck, Canseco never failed a test.

If you want to talk cycling, Riis never failed a test and either did Uhlrick.

People still believe in Santa Clause... Fat guys think they aren't and you think you are are going to score a hot babe one day.

Its called naive.

i knew a guy once who's brother dated a chick with a cousin who said she heard a rumor he was actually an alien from another galaxy

nuff said.

Arch Stanton wrote:

b.) accusations from disgruntled former colleagues seeking money.

Frankie Andreau was not seeking money. Anyone who thinks Lance was clean is in complete and utter denial. Tyler Hamilton did not test positive for both the tour and the Olympic games. Was he just amazingly clean for one and jumped to the dark side for the other? Highly unlikely. Testing protocol was simply easy to circumvent most of the time. Of course, it's always much easier to raise reasonable doubt and suspicion regarding testing, lab protocols, etc, than to get a clean indictment. Kind of funny how former Armstrong teammate Jonathan Vaughters is so extremely adamant about getting drugs out of the sport and running a clean shop. Geee, and just why would he be so HELL BENT on purifying the sport? Is it possible that he knows how prevalent drug use is in the peloton? Gee, ya think?

I don't really blame Lance though. He was still the most talented cyclist in the field. If they were all clean and on a level playing field, he still would have kicked their butts. Why concede millions of dollars to a guy you know you are better than, but who has enhanced his performance with drugs?