Is Lance Doping?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by sdorrity
Here is a proven winner -
spend years building up a fairly heavy sports physique geared to swimming, running and cycling.

convert to cycling but with a physique that is not ideal (too top heavy)

get cancer and lose ALL of your conditioning with the possible exception of genetic stuff like VO2 max and max heartrate.

then spend a couple of years building up on your strengths. specifically cardio/vascular system and VO2max. which were less affected by the treatment.

It probably is a sure fire winner but who would do it out of choice? would someone who is performing reasonably well take the risk of losing all conditioning, or would they just try to build on what they had already achieved.

Armstrong is a unique athlete who has been dealt a fairly unique set of cards if you take into account his background, mental approach, level of maturity, physical attributes and cancer.

I find it quite irritating that the stock answer is always "drugs"

Here is a scenario, some take illegal drugs some don't, the peleton travels at a certain speed, some drug cheats are thrown out, the peleton will go at the same speed because 'some' DID NOT TAKE THE DRUGS they can STILL ride at the same speed.

There will be more riders coming through but hopefully fewer on drugs only those that can compete will get to the top, there may be fewer or they may be different to the ones that got through prior to the drugs crackdown. BUT they will come through.

I also find the "European's hate Armstrong cos he's American" diatribe irritating, the French may not like him but then the one thing about the French is, that they are not not prejudiced - they hate everyone.

Please don't believe what you read in the press, the vast majority of my cycling mates are pro Armstrong, as am I and I am looking forward to a good tour this year - with Armstrong in yellow!

Regards

Steve D

Well, can you offer an opinion as to why Individual Time Trial (ITT) times have in recent years got faster compared to the period up to 1998 when the peloton could administer EPO without fear of being detected?

I believe LA set the fastest average recorded speed in an individual time trial (Tour de Suisse?) only a few years ago.

Also, as far as road racing -

"The record for fastest average speed in a professional road race stage victory - a blistering 58.874kph - was set in 2001."

I understand the author of 'LA Confidential' has been raising this issue for some years. Why are speeds increasing post 1998 when the incidence of drug use in the peloton is claimed to have been significantly reduced due to specific detection procedures?

The arrogance of top athletes pales in comparison to the arrogance in asserting that the only explanation for increased performance is drugs. There are any number of reasons that performance in cycling can increase, from better techniques to better equipment to better cyclists, or all of the above. Implied in all of this is that there is no way some Texas redneck could possibly clobber the best, year after year, especially when some of the best have been juicing themselves up.

Then comes the utterly absurd argument that chemotherapy strengthened him. Chemo is poison - designed to kill the cancer quicker than it kills the patient. It does not strengthen you in any way. I hope the people making that ridiculous assumption never have to learn how wrong they are.

And to put things in perspective...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/tour01/news/jul23newsa.shtml
This is the press conference at the conclusion of the 2001 TDF. Walsh and his questions are clearly identified. You can see that even three years ago, his only agenda was 'Lance is doping'. He offers no evidence other than an association with Ferrari, and Lance pretty much tells him to shove off. (the bit about the molecular filter was rather amusing) And I don't blame Lance - if you just won the TDF three times in a row, the last thing you need is some negative little muckraker dictating who you can associate with.

Two years later, and Lance has two more TDF wins, while the best Walsh can do is a fired soeignor delivering boxes that could have contained anything, and half of a phone conversation related secondhand that could possibly be interpreted as hinting at doping. Not exactly stellar results. Perhaps Walsh is a lousy journalist, or perhaps he couldn't find any evidence of doping because there wasn't any doping going on.

In any case, banning doping won't slow Lance down. If you want Lance to lose, you'll have to ban hard work.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
Well, can you offer an opinion as to why Individual Time Trial (ITT) times have in recent years got faster compared to the period up to 1998 when the peloton could administer EPO without fear of being detected?

Many are of the opinion that the ONLY way to go fast is by using drugs. My point is that some may use drugs but others do not, those that are caught or stop using drugs through fear of being caught will fall off the bottom and won't perform, but those that performed well because of genetics and training, better identification etc will still perform at the same level.

Australia is a prime example - The Australian swimming team was/is awsome is that because of drugs? or because they spend money on identifying talented youngsters and on research into training methods and diets, recovery etc?

And new knowledge does come forward I at 45 am now performing as well as pros of 50 years ago. Why? because I don't smoke, have a better diet, I have a HR monitor and some idea of how to use it, zone training, better equipment, etc, etc. Hell I am performing better now than I did at 25!

I really do not believe that we have reached the limits of the human body. To bring up a point made earlier 50 years ago only the elete could climb Everest, now I could on my summer hols. It would take hard work and commitment (and a lot of cash) but I could do it. 20 years ago, when I was climbing a lot, I could only dream of such things. I was simply not good enough, now I could, mostly because thanks to the knowledge filtering down from the pros I am in better shape than I was at my 'peak' and because the professional guides are better at getting average climbers to the top with modern gear.

Regards

Steve D

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by JohnO
The arrogance of top athletes pales in comparison to the arrogance in asserting that the only explanation for increased performance is drugs. There are any number of reasons that performance in cycling can increase, from better techniques to better equipment to better cyclists, or all of the above. Implied in all of this is that there is no way some Texas redneck could possibly clobber the best, year after year, especially when some of the best have been juicing themselves up.

Then comes the utterly absurd argument that chemotherapy strengthened him. Chemo is poison - designed to kill the cancer quicker than it kills the patient. It does not strengthen you in any way. I hope the people making that ridiculous assumption never have to learn how wrong they are.

And to put things in perspective...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/tour01/news/jul23newsa.shtml
This is the press conference at the conclusion of the 2001 TDF. Walsh and his questions are clearly identified. You can see that even three years ago, his only agenda was 'Lance is doping'. He offers no evidence other than an association with Ferrari, and Lance pretty much tells him to shove off. (the bit about the molecular filter was rather amusing) And I don't blame Lance - if you just won the TDF three times in a row, the last thing you need is some negative little muckraker dictating who you can associate with.

Two years later, and Lance has two more TDF wins, while the best Walsh can do is a fired soeignor delivering boxes that could have contained anything, and half of a phone conversation related secondhand that could possibly be interpreted as hinting at doping. Not exactly stellar results. Perhaps Walsh is a lousy journalist, or perhaps he couldn't find any evidence of doping because there wasn't any doping going on.

In any case, banning doping won't slow Lance down. If you want Lance to lose, you'll have to ban hard work.

You are entitled to your opinion.
I do not happen to agree that Armstrongs performances are the result of hardwork, talent, luck etc.
It’s a question of credibility at the end of the day – is Walsh more credible than Armstrong ?

Like a lot of people who have watched this sport over the years, we wonder how a good one day cyclist could have become unbeatable in the hardest three week endurance event there is.
In this particular circumstance, the questions are being asked of Lance Armstrong.
The same questions could be put to a substantial amount of others in the peloton too.
But in this case, it is Armstrong that is being quizzed about just how he managed to
improve so dramatically.
The improvement in his palmares since his recovery from cancer is implausible, if we
are expected to believe that this improvement is solely based upon ability and hard work, in my opinion.
Many professional cyclists train as hard if not harder than Lance Armstrong.

You are half correct when you say Walsh has an agenda.
In this specific instance, Armstrong is the target.

However Walsh has written about other cyclists and other drug issues too throughout his entire journalistic career.
If you care to read back issues of the Sunday Tribune newspaper and the Sunday Times newspaper going back to 1983 and 1992 respectively, you will see this.
Throughout his articles, Walsh states that what concerns him about all sport, is the credibility of athletic performances and the credibility of athletes.
In other words, is what we see purely the result of talent and hard work ?
Or is it down to who has obtained the best drugs ?

If Walsh has stated an untruth about Armstrong, Armstrong, I am sure, can and will sue Walsh in open court.

Armstrong has been the subject of numerous articles written by Walsh in the Sunday Times, where he openly questioned the integrity of Armstrong.
At no time after the publication of these articles, did Armstrong sue Walsh or the Sunday Times.

Time will tell if Armstrong will sue Walsh over this new book.

Until Walsh has been proven to have lied in his new book, the charges against Lance Armstrong stand.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by sdorrity
Many are of the opinion that the ONLY way to go fast is by using drugs. My point is that some may use drugs but others do not, those that are caught or stop using drugs through fear of being caught will fall off the bottom and won't perform, but those that performed well because of genetics and training, better identification etc will still perform at the same level.

Australia is a prime example - The Australian swimming team was/is awsome is that because of drugs? or because they spend money on identifying talented youngsters and on research into training methods and diets, recovery etc?

And new knowledge does come forward I at 45 am now performing as well as pros of 50 years ago. Why? because I don't smoke, have a better diet, I have a HR monitor and some idea of how to use it, zone training, better equipment, etc, etc. Hell I am performing better now than I did at 25!

I really do not believe that we have reached the limits of the human body. To bring up a point made earlier 50 years ago only the elete could climb Everest, now I could on my summer hols. It would take hard work and commitment (and a lot of cash) but I could do it. 20 years ago, when I was climbing a lot, I could only dream of such things. I was simply not good enough, now I could, mostly because thanks to the knowledge filtering down from the pros I am in better shape than I was at my 'peak' and because the professional guides are better at getting average climbers to the top with modern gear.

Regards

Steve D

I read with interest your reply but I take issue with the context upon which you premise your argument,

If we take your climbing analogy – comparing climbing in Edmund Hillary’s day to
todays climbers, while making a point, does not reflect what is at the heart
of the issue.
Of course nutrition, equipment and training has progressed in all fields in a 50 year
time gap.
It would be ridiculous to argue otherwise.
But the issue here is more complex.

What we are being asked to accept is that an athlete whose record between 1992-1996 was very average in stage races (he was successful as a one day racer), can make quantum improvements following a life threatening disease and utterly
dominate the toughest endurance stage race in the world.

We are being asked to accept that within a 10 year time frame, that technology, training, nutrition have improved to such an extent, that a clean rider can ride more quickly than his (catalogued) drug fuelled colleagues in that 10 year time frame.

We are told that his quantum improvements are explained by better training, nutrition, technology.
We are being asked to accept that a rider who could barely complete a TDF between
1992-1996, can now utterly dominate this race and all the various disciplines in this race such as climbing within that race.

We are being asked to accept that the quickest TDF time in history (2003) was performed by athletes who have no recourse to performance enhancing drugs.

This is what we are being asked to accept.

I don’t accept it – I don’t accept that the basic raw material that LA had in 1992-1996
can be altered to such an extent to see what I have seen since 1998.
I simply do not believe his explanations.

Talent defines manifests itself pretty quickly in life.
In cycling the greats don’t just get good – they’re invariably are good from the start (Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Ullrich, Cunego) or they progress steadily and improve (Anquetil, Bobet, Indurain) year on year.

Until Walsh has been proven to have lied in his new book, the charges against Lance Armstrong stand. [/B][/QUOTE]

Have there been charges filed? I thought there were only acqusations at this point.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jhuskey
Until Walsh has been proven to have lied in his new book, the charges against Lance Armstrong stand.

Have there been charges filed? I thought there were only acqusations at this point. [/B][/QUOTE]

Charges/accusations/allegations made by Walsh against Armstrong, in his book, LA Confidential.
If Armstrong is clean, he will sue Walsh for defamation, libel etc.

Armstrong has had his integrity questioned by Walsh in the Sunday Times for the last few years.
Armstrong has never sued Walsh or the Sunday Times for defamation or libel.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman


This is what we are being asked to accept.

I don’t accept it – I don’t accept that the basic raw material that LA had in 1992-1996
can be altered to such an extent to see what I have seen since 1998.
I simply do not believe his explanations.

Talent defines manifests itself pretty quickly in life.
In cycling the greats don’t just get good – they’re invariably are good from the start (Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Ullrich, Cunego) or they progress steadily and improve (Anquetil, Bobet, Indurain) year on year.

For some reason the last few sentences of the above message
appear to be formatted incorrectly (moderator ????).

Should read :
"Talent, by definition, usually manifests itself pretty quickly in life.
In cycling the greats don't just get good - they're invariably good from the start (Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Ullrich, Cunego) or they progress steadily and improve (Anquetil, Bobet, Indurain) year on year.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
Have there been charges filed? I thought there were only acqusations at this point.

Charges/accusations/allegations made by Walsh against Armstrong, in his book, LA Confidential.
If Armstrong is clean, he will sue Walsh for defamation, libel etc.

Armstrong has had his integrity questioned by Walsh in the Sunday Times for the last few years.
Armstrong has never sued Walsh or the Sunday Times for defamation or libel. [/B][/QUOTE]

I would agree with the terms accusations and allegations but the author has no authority to charge anyone with anything. As to statement that cyclist or any athlete has to be great from the beginnning I would remark that 1st they are not recognized when they are ordinary and secondly cycling like anything else done well requires a lot of mental stamina(heart if you like) to be great. If you subscibe to the thought that Armstrong under went a live changing event during his cancer then you might account for another element in the equation that made him great.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
Until Walsh has been proven to have lied in his new book, the charges against Lance Armstrong stand.

And until Lance is proven to have lied when he says that he has not illegally doped, the accusations that the contents of the book are B.S. stand as well.

The allegations that LA has been doping are just what you called them; "charges". And from what it looks like, there's no concrete evidence whatsoever to prove their validity.

Funny about the timing of the release of the book. Don't you think?

[.

The allegations that LA has been doping are just what you called them; "charges". And from what it looks like, there's no concrete evidence whatsoever to prove their validity.

Funny about the timing of the release of the book. Don't you think? [/B][/QUOTE]

Like I said before almost everyone loves a Soap Opera. Bad news is much more interesting than good. Probably good for ratings.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jhuskey
Charges/accusations/allegations made by Walsh against Armstrong, in his book, LA Confidential.
If Armstrong is clean, he will sue Walsh for defamation, libel etc.

Armstrong has had his integrity questioned by Walsh in the Sunday Times for the last few years.
Armstrong has never sued Walsh or the Sunday Times for defamation or libel.

I would agree with the terms accusations and allegations but the author has no authority to charge anyone with anything. As to statement that cyclist or any athlete has to be great from the beginnning I would remark that 1st they are not recognized when they are ordinary and secondly cycling like anything else done well requires a lot of mental stamina(heart if you like) to be great. If you subscibe to the thought that Armstrong under went a live changing event during his cancer then you might account for another element in the equation that made him great. [/B][/QUOTE]

J,

I agree - Walsh has chronicled a series of allegations that have surrounded LA since his return to the peloton in 1998.
The allegations have been documented throughout Walsh's articles in the Sunday Times and through his contributions to other media such as radio, television etc.
Essentially he has gathered them in to one book.

In relation to the grand champions - if you look at the career of the great champions, they can be divided in to two categories.
1.You have the great champions who on their professional debut
win a grand tour and go on to repeat this success year after year.
2.Or you have cyclists who debut at a very high level and progress year on year to the a great palmares.

None of the great champions ever had as weak a palmares in a
career - of similiar duration - to that of LA for the four year period
1992-1996.
Nor have they shown the quantum leap of improvement that LA underwent when comparing 1992-1996 to 1998-now.

So we're being asked to accept that in a sport where talent
manifests itself in one of two ways - that no, there is a third way.
This third way asks us to believe that one can dominate the toughest event in the world, based on unique training, talent and
having no performance enhancing drugs ?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by meehs
And until Lance is proven to have lied when he says that he has not illegally doped, the accusations that the contents of the book are B.S. stand as well.

The allegations that LA has been doping are just what you called them; "charges". And from what it looks like, there's no concrete evidence whatsoever to prove their validity.

Funny about the timing of the release of the book. Don't you think?

Well I think that Walsh has enough information to write a book about the whole peloton and what has been alleged.
I want to make it clear that Walsh has stated that the majority of the peloton are using drugs.
He has always contended this.

In this instance he has selected the most prominent cyclist and has gathered verifiable accusations with named people for his book.

The timing of his book - well, naturally he is going to launch a book when the sports most prominent race is going to start.
Look at the Centenary TDF, and the books that were launched
just before it commenced.
Is there a better time to launch a book about cycling at any other
time of the year ?
The TDF attracts an audience and naturally a publisher will want people to read his/her book when the main event of a sport is taking place.
It's reciprical.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
Many professional cyclists train as hard if not harder than Lance Armstrong.

I would be curious to know of ANY other pro who will ride Alpe d'Huez multiple times before the tour let alone multiple times in one day for training. Who exactly trains harder than LA?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jhuskey
I would agree with the terms accusations and allegations but the author has no authority to charge anyone with anything. As to statement that cyclist or any athlete has to be great from the beginnning I would remark that 1st they are not recognized when they are ordinary and secondly cycling like anything else done well requires a lot of mental stamina(heart if you like) to be great. If you subscibe to the thought that Armstrong under went a live changing event during his cancer then you might account for another element in the equation that made him great.

I understand Walsh has made no charges or accusations. He has just laid the facts out for the readers to judge for themselves.

If Walsh has not expressed an opinion, LA's attack would have to be on the accuracy of the information by attacking the informant's credibility. I think he has fired the first salvo, unwisely in public, by stating the Ms. O'Reilly was cashiered out of the USPS team relating to "inappropriate issues" that apparently affected the whole team. This new information by LA runs counter to previous advices from the team.

I also understand the book was 3 years in the making. Walsh appears to me not to be a hack journalist but a feature writer who is not under an editorial obligation to meet a time schedule. That is where libel can inadvertently occur by journalists having insufficient time to corroborate their informants' stories.

With a book like this you can be certain that all concerned that could be on the wrong end of a defamation suit have recovered all evidence that could be available to ensure informants' statements can be corroborated. Credit card and mobile/cell phone activity are well known pieces of evidence that can identify location and time - like trips to Spain.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman


Until Walsh has been proven to have lied in his new book, the charges against Lance Armstrong stand.

Whatever happened until "Innocent until proven guilty" ? Man am I glad to live in a country where that is the accepted rule of thumb.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by meehs
And until Lance is proven to have lied when he says that he has not illegally doped, the accusations that the contents of the book are B.S. stand as well.

The allegations that LA has been doping are just what you called them; "charges". And from what it looks like, there's no concrete evidence whatsoever to prove their validity.

Funny about the timing of the release of the book. Don't you think?

In regards to the timing of the book release...

I read an interview today on VeloNews.com with David Walsh.

Here is what he had to say

VN: Why release the book now, on the eve of Armstrong's attempt to win Tour No. 6?

DW: We're not in this to make a bunch of money and we're not going to make a bunch of money. This is the time of the year when people are most interested in cycling. We're not just going to release the book at a time when it is convenient to someone else. We wanted to put it out there when it would get the most attention.

I read elsewhere that the book will officially be available in France on July 3. I can't put my finger on it but that seems to be the day of some big event in France.

Those tactics are pretty below the belt but what do you expect. Oh well, I just hope Lance responds the way he usually does when he gets [censored] and kicks some serious a$$.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by birdman23
I would be curious to know of ANY other pro who will ride Alpe d'Huez multiple times before the tour let alone multiple times in one day for training. Who exactly trains harder than LA?

I have been involved at top level in two sports so I consider I have some exposure to comment.

The fact is that any athlete can only train to a limit that enables the body to recover and adapt. Train over that limit and you will find you will not fully recover and you impede/prevent adaption.

Ever heard of the terms "over training (OT)" and "plateau of despair"? Are you imputing that LA has some inhuman uniqueness that avoids him going into an OT state or stagnant progress and this really is the secret of his success?

sda

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
I have been involved at top level in two sports so I consider I have some exposure to comment.

The fact is that any athlete can only train to a limit that enables the body to recover and adapt. Train over that limit and you will find you will not fully recover and you impede/prevent adaption.

Ever heard of the terms "over training (OT)" and "plateau of despair"? Are you imputing that LA has some inhuman uniqueness that avoids him going into an OT state or stagnant progress and this really is the secret of his success?

Of course I have heard of OT and your sarcasm is rather boring. I am not "imputing" that LA is not prone to "OT". Of course he is. Limerickman made a statement about other riders who train harder and I would simply like to know who.

What I am saying is that LA has an indomitable will to succeed. You can never underestimate human will power.