Why won't people acknowledge that lance was dirt

cycling fan wrote:

That's the most illogical analysis I've seen in quite some time...

Then you obviously haven't been reading this thread. Consider the fact that Lance Armstrong has never had a positive drug test but some of his competitors have either tested positive or have admitted using, people on this thread have asserted that Lance must also have been on drugs. That is sensible logic?

Furthermore, I do know cycling, so I don't need you to explain the strategies employed by the riders. The remains that the Tour is a race of both endurance and strategy. Individual stages that result in "crushing" of an opponent by GC contenders can often be attributed to bad strategy of those being crushed.

I'm not sure why I bother, because you seem to be purposefully obstinate. A doping positive consists of a positive A AND B sample. That is why they have two samples! Therefore, Hamilton did not test positive at the Olympics. He did test positive at the Tour of Spain, not at the Tour of France which you ignorantly claimed before.

Armstrong did not test positive for EPO in 1999 or ever. Naturally, you erroneously claim that the tests were refuted by "his publicists". In fact, the tests were proven bogus by an independent investigation sanctioned by the UCI. Read it here, unless you prefer your current opinion based on prejudice and ignorance.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9933.0.html

The conclusions of the report that completely exhonerated Armstrong have never been refuted. The supposed science that enabled the lab to test frozen 7 year old urine samples for EPO, which no one else ever had luck testing for even a few weeks later has never been heard about since. It's been two years since the story was published, but you never hear anything about retroactive testing for EPO. Whenever a new test is developed they rush it onto the testing circuit, but this new revolutionary test has faded away. People wanted to believe the accusations so they did without the tedious burden of critically evaluating them.

Actually, you're the type bent on raising 'reasonable' suspicion, because when it come to objective proof you're woefully under supplied. I'm the type that inconveniently points out logically flawed opinions and outright factual errors.

Sagarin wrote:

Uhh, well, first of all, five minutes over acknowledged drug users on average is quite astonishing, and secondly, I was really making reference to some of the individual time trials and legs in the mountains.

Was Indurain Dirty? I don't follow the sport closely enough to know. I've not heard that he was, but the Big Mig absolutely dominated time trials, more than Lance did. Mountain results weren't as dominating, and Indurain was criticized for lack of panache since he simply stayed with the climbers, looking comfortable. Then during ITT he simply destroyed the field.

One other item no one else has cared to point out is that Armstrong donated large amounts of money to the doping agencies to aid them in their fight agaisnt doping. Hardly the behavior of someone trying to hide something.

Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:

Furthermore, I do know cycling, so I don't need you to explain the strategies employed by the riders.

Hey, I wasn't the one who added up all of LA's minutes on the bike for 7 years, his margin of victory, and the percentage of difference... as if that indicates he just barely beat his opponents.

I just love how everyone wants to believe that Rasmussen is doping, and yet the man that is hammering him on the mountains, Contador, is supposedly clean!? Right, a clean rider hammering a doped rider. Makes sense to me.

Armstrong was guilty of blood tranfusions, just like the entire GC of the Tour. It is the lifestyle. The rewards are so high, that's why they cheat. You would think that in 2007, after Armstrong, Landis, Ulrich, Basso, Pantani, everyone, after knowing you would have to pay your entire salary back if caught doping, the public image issue, the devastation of a career, that NO ONE would cheat.

And yet, the riders choose to cheat, and those that don't are way in the back, struggling. Props to guys like Freddy Rodriguez and that Estana rider that was swerving his way up the mountain a couple of stages ago. Ride clean. Ride pure.

Case in point: have you ever had 23 consecutive days of great training, let alone great racing? Never!!! Yet this is what the GC men do day in and day out, supposedly without drugs. Such a shame.

One other item no one else has cared to point out is that Armstrong donated large amounts of money to the doping agencies to aid them in their fight agaisnt doping. Hardly the behavior of someone trying to hide something.

exact behavior of someone who is trying to hide something,that money is nothing to the man just pennies he is one of the richest sportsmen in america.

So every one of your points was refuted so you jump to Rasmussen and Contador. Two people that were never part of the analysis in the first decussion. Bravo, well played.

any fans of innocent lance read tour de force. brilliant book where the author follows lance and his postal team around in the lead up to the tour and his postal team mates and gives inside info on ferrari, flyod,tyler and the "make up", you have to dead it guys, youll be convinced lance is dirty and thats not even the point of the book anything but, the guy is a friend of lances but his book brings a dark cloud over AL s head BIG TIME

I just love how everyone wants to believe that Rasmussen is doping, and yet the man that is hammering him on the mountains, Contador, is supposedly clean!? Right, a clean rider hammering a doped rider. Makes sense to me.

All well and fine, but Rasmussen hammered Contador, Contador never dropped Rasmussen. You make many points, this is not one of your best.

Who's saying Contador is clean or dirty? In rhetoric, that is called a strawman. So all doped riders would drop all clean riders. Makes sense to you.

"Armstrong was guilty of blood tranfusions." You certainly do not know if this is true. It is the product of your fantasies.

A general thought on the biking circuit now is that you are guilty until proven innocent. The absolute opposite of our nations thoughts that you are innocent until proven guilty. With this you would have to say that Lance was clean because he was tested and shown to be innocent. I personally do not think he was clean because I think it is impossible to dominate a sport like he did. Just like I think most of the top players in the MLB, NBA, NFL, and Track and Field are all dirty. When it comes to it though I am happy that Lance doped and won as much as he did. Two reasons for this it was fun to watch and in the process he has raised tons of money for cancer research which has helped to save lives. Atleast he did something with his success instead of throwing it down the drain dog fighting, gambling, or spending it.

1) Donating money to the anti-dopening agencies IS the action of someone trying to cover up. It makes it look like you're trying to help.

2) A lot of his former teammates have gotten caught after leaving Motorola, USPS, and Disco. Likely because their new team didn't quite have the ability to disperse and cover up as effectively.

3) Lance Vo2max was not "off the charts" it was 83 ml/kg/m, google it.

4) He was NOT the only cyclist going 3-4 hours a day and 6 hours on the weekends. Excerpts of his training and his team's are on the internet. He did roughly 3-4 hours/day during the week and upwards of 6 hours for a long ride. It's ignorant to think his rivals did not also train 3-4 hours a day or more when they are freaking racing that long per day on the tour.

5) To his credit, and his sponsor's pocketbook, he was able to train JUST for the Tour while other teams had to make money and get their image out there with other Tours and races. That I believe is the benefit of having American companies sponsor teams: more money. Also, to think other riders just took months and months off is also ignorant. I see teams in Lousiville riding every single day of the year.

6) It's VERY likely the drugs he took during his Motorola days, his World Championship days, led to his cancer. The circumstances and riders surrounding that team have proven to be very fish at best. It all starts with Motorola.

Alan

Read the book, loved the book, but regarding Ferrari it just showed how he tested to get the most out of the rider. Landis never used him as a trainer nor coach after he left Discovery. To me the book just showed Armstrong's disdain for people that make accusations without having any proof or evidence.

You're wasting your breath. I am well aware of both the science and the skepticism of lab protocol. Both Landis and Hamilton have made second careers out of challenging lab protocol. And where did I ever claim Hamilton tested positive at the TDF? What I said was isn't it amazing that he tested positive at one but not the other? Why not the other? It is my firm belief that the testing is well behind doping techniques and is easy to circumvent as it has been for years (though it is now tightening up). Again, this is a dead argument. The overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence and common sense is enough for me, just as it is to convict Barry Bonds.

Well put.

From the man (Dr. Ed Coyle) who actually did the measuring and I think knows a "little" more of the physiology than you do:

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php

Dr. Coyle also has a paper about the matter in the Journal of Applied Physiology that goes into more detail.

It all goes into why he didn't need to dope. But, of course, this is letsrun and actual facts don't matter here. Character assination, without any facts behind it, is more important.

One other thing for you Kool-aid drinkers.

I am a coach, had a runner at the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista a few years back for a Jr. Elite Development camp.

We spent one evening talking about PED's. There were two presenters that night, one a top Div. 1 coach, the other an Olympic committe Dr. from texas. They laughed at lance's association with ferrari, they referred to him as Dr. 49. This was because he was able to have the hematocrit level's of his athletes at 49, just below the acceptable level to pass a test. This was the guy Lance worked with, same guy that Vino works with. He is a well known doper, Dr. 49 is his nickname in the cycling community for a reason. Lance could afford to pass any test with his resources.

BTW, if Lance is innocent where are the law suits against all these books? Would you let your name be tarnished if you were innocent? Just like Bonds, no lawsuits because they are all true.

It's common knowledge that Lance was very disciplined in all factets of his training but no one has mentioned the fact that he was "helped" by a hyperbarbic chamber here in this thread. Maybe that is why he hasn't tested positive for something "synthetic" ( EPO, HGH, etc. ) in his body, in and out of competition. Using one has a similar effect to taking EPO, so I think the worst thing he did post-cancer is to monitor his hematocrit levels ( < 50% ). I for one believe he did took something synthetic before his cancer days but so did everyone else.

I remember reading somewhere that Dick Pound was trying to get this tent thing on the banned list, so does anyone know what happened with this?

Just throwing this out there to prolong this thread.