Is Lance Doping?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by birdman23
This contradicts what you have previously said. From some of your earlier statements you allude that gradual progress can't be valid. They must have incredible "palmares" right from the get go.

Fine, Big Mig was documented with great physical characteristics long before he started winning the tour. But so did LA. He was beating professional triathletes at the age of 16 because of freakish Vo2 capacity.

So it's OK for Mig to gradually progress but not LA? I don't recall but was Lance the designated GC contender for Motorola pre-cancer?

Gradual progress is valid.
I compared and contrasted the two methods of progress.
I never said that gradual progress was not valid.

I stated that LA did not steadily progress - his record between
1992-1996 is barren when compared to those like Indurain who
progressed toward his first TDF win.

Armstrong had no record of stage racing ability prior to his return
from cancer.
This is why I question his ability to dominate a race which he was
singular incapable of performing in, prior to his illness.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
I don't accept the explanations that Lance Armstrong has provided to explain his ability to win the TDF.

I don't accept that a successful one day rider - who contracts cancer and survives it - can then go on to become a great stage race in the way LA has.

I don't accept that a rider who had no ability to win stage races
(apart from two moderately rated national tours in the USA)
can improve to the extent that Lance Armstrong has done during the period 1998-now.

His explanations for his improvement simply do not ring true.

And you would be an MD in sports medicine?

You can believe whatever you want.

Man, I try to believe everyday that a silver-spooned fundamentalist dimwit could never become president of the United States, but I keep waking up and seeing his name in the papers.

Life happens.

More broadly, where's the outrage? I'm surprised not to see any yet.

Me: I think this book is outrageous, disgusting, and worthy disdain. Whatever credibility Walsh may have had as a sports journalist (and Limerickman indicates that it was substantial) is completely washed by this book. As Walsh himself says, he can't prove anything. To publish this inflammatory book -- and Walsh obviously knows how it will play in France -- on the eve of the Tour is disgraceful.

If Walsh had the goods, if he had good evidence that LA was and/or is doping, then by all means, bring it out. But to publish five-year-old, second-hand circumstantial evidence (and mostly insinuation, at that) at the start of the Tour is disgusting. That's not journalism. It's pure sensationalist trash.

Of course, everyone shouts, "He can sue!" But Walsh, in pure weasel fashion, closes that option as well, by refusing to stand behind any of the limited evidence he plans to publish. We're supposed to decide for ourselves -- he just lays out the case.

Could there be anything lamer? To offer a collection of lightly sourced second hand testimony from only a couple of sources and pretend that it stands up against years of intensive testing? Even if LA is an inveterate doper, this book mars the sport and Walsh's name.

Does LA dope? Walsh doesn't know. No one on this forum knows. Until someone has evidence -- either on face convincing or worthy an investigation, the point is moot. If Walsh had something, he'd take it to UCI. He doesn't, so he's decided to make a buck on a book.

Serious and respected journalists don't resort to this sort of thing, especially when they publish it at just the moment to sting.

Disgraceful.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tcklyde
And you would be an MD in sports medicine?

You can believe whatever you want.

Man, I try to believe everyday that a silver-spooned fundamentalist dimwit could never become president of the United States, but I keep waking up and seeing his name in the papers.

Life happens.

Well you know what way to vote next November !

No, I'm not a medical doctor.
Does one have to be a medical doctor to hold an opinion ?

I have watched this sport for many years - competed as well.
I know that 1992-1996 is more reflective of Armstrong's real ability.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
Well you know what way to vote next November !

No, I'm not a medical doctor.
Does one have to be a medical doctor to hold an opinion ?

I have watched this sport for many years - competed as well.
I know that 1992-1996 is more reflective of Armstrong's real ability.

Limerickman, you're right, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't mean this in a snarky way: you have a much better grasp on race performance history than I do.

In addition to cycling, I'm a huge baseball fan. I remember rooting for Mark McGwire to break the homerun record ... a feat no one had manged in decades. McGwire broke the record. Then he piled a few more homeruns on top. It seemed improbable, almost impossible. But that, to me, was the joy of sport. Like breaking the four minute mile. Or watching LA glance back at JU in the 2001 Tour right as he took off on that amazing climb. Or 47-year-old Navratilova winning the first round of Wimbledon.

Sport is great when athletes summon a will and strength stronger than statistics, stronger than the inner strength any of us mortals know, and show just what the human body, when in perfect harmony can achieve.

LA may dope, I don't know. If he does, it will profoundly depress me. But the history of sport testifies to the ability of the truly great to surpass the odds and carve out a unique and sublime spot in history.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
How come that too didn't power him to win any stage races between 1992-1996 ?

Ignorance is bliss.

Armstrong had TdF stage wins in 1993 and 1995

Please educate yourself at

http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/career

You still aren't getting the difference between multi-stage wins and one day wins and why they happen. Its a totally different style of riding, but you've already shown you don't know much about the Tour so its expected that you don't understand what it takes to win.

Even Lance himself admits that he was a poor stage racer in the early 90's, but it wasn't strength or endurance that was the problem. It was discipline. He was given to charging off early in the ride and flaming out. Fine for one day events and sprints, but death in a sophisticated stage race, where a mistake one day hurts you the next. He became a better stage racer when he learned discipline and tactics.

Anyone who has ever ridden a century knows how tricky it is to judge one's available energy, and just how far they can push it without going totally flat. Judge it wrong, and you won't make 50 miles.

Thus the danger of pulling raw facts and trying to fit them to a preconceived notion. Some times, you overlook the obvious.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
Ignorance is bliss.

Armstrong had TdF stage wins in 1993 and 1995

Please educate yourself at

http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/career

You still aren't getting the difference between multi-stage wins and one day wins and why they happen. Its a totally different style of riding, but you've already shown you don't know much about the Tour so its expected that you don't understand what it takes to win.

With due respect, Limerickman said "to win any stage races." A stage win is one stage of a stage race. Armstrong did not win the 1993 and 1995 TdF's.

LA's record is clear. He won no important stage races (ie overall GC winner) in Europe 1993-96.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tcklyde
More broadly, where's the outrage? I'm surprised not to see any yet.

Your post is outrage. And, understandably, all the outpourings of outrage are there coming from one side of the Atlantic pond. All based on speculation and presumption.

Why not wait and read the book instead of passing judgment in advance.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by JohnO
Even Lance himself admits that he was a poor stage racer in the early 90's, but it wasn't strength or endurance that was the problem. It was discipline. He was given to charging off early in the ride and flaming out. Fine for one day events and sprints, but death in a sophisticated stage race, where a mistake one day hurts you the next. He became a better stage racer when he learned discipline and tactics.

Maybe you might make tactical errors through inexperience for a few initial races but not for 4 years!

Motorola was a team. Teams have management and directors who are accountable to sponsors. Sponsors want results. Teams also have meetings and discuss strategies and tactics throughout stage races. Teams also have communication between riders and team cars (I believe Motorola may have pioneered radio communication to and between riders). No matter who a team leader is, he would be brought to heel if he stupidly ran his own race to the detriment of the team and disobeying instructions.

LA was grateful that two experienced and successful pros, Steve Bauer and Phil Anderson, accepted him into the team in 1993 as team leader. He valued their advice. I am sure they would not have set back and allow a tactically inexperienced LA to self destruct over those initial years.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
With due respect, Limerickman said "to win any stage races." A stage win is one stage of a stage race. Armstrong did not win the 1993 and 1995 TdF's.

LA's record is clear. He won no important stage races (ie overall GC winner) in Europe 1993-96.

My bad I miss read it.

Though, winning other GTs is not indicative of a TdF winner, so that argument is still erroneous.

Indurain won no important stage race before winning the Tour, I grant you that after he did he went on to win the Giro twice. Lemond won 3 tours but didn't in any other GT. Ullrich Tour first. Hinault didn't win a GT until '78 when he one both the Vuelta and TdF. Fignon won 2 TdFs before winning another GT. Or Flipping it Tony Rominger won 4 GT's but never won the TdF.

TdF is the most important race and is the single event on which Armstrong focuses.

For a good reference of results go here:
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rrankings.asp

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
It is illegal to participate in a sporting fraud.

In only a very few countries. Can you name them?

Quoted post said:

Clearly, there is a lot of money involved in cycling, not to speak of the trust the crowds place in riders to ride clean. So what I meant was that she was participating in a coverup if she suspected that the vials contained substances banned by the sporting authorities as illegal doping substances. She claims not to know what was in the alleged syringes, and then the book seems to imply that it was something illegal, at least as the press is presenting the story to us. So this is how she was breaking the law. If Walsh is correct and Lance is guilty, she was breaking the law by aiding and abetting. Her type of story is about as injurious as a story can be out of this incident if the whole story is false because she completely avoids prosecution. This is because she says she doesn't know what was in those syringes. If she would have found out they were substances allowed, like vitamins, then she would be slandering Lance now by inferring that they may have contained banned substances. But that she says she doesn't know is also a defense against slander. Well, why didn't she find out? Her story is pretty weak because she didn't follow through.

I have not seen any rider who has been suspended by the UCI for drug use charged with a crime. There maybe incidences relating to different legal jurisdictions but I cannot recall.

[censored] Voet, the Festina Soigneur, and Edith Rumsas ended up in jail for drug trafficking. None of the Festina riders, to my knowledge, were incarcerated.

To be an accessory there must be a crime. So how can Ms O'Reilly be involved in covering up criminal acts if no crimes were committed?

Quoted post said:

[/B]I wouldn't be surprised if she has consulted with an employer/employee relations attorney before pulling this stunt. The attorney would have advised her that she can get away with these allegations without fear of reprisal. She may have said that if she wanted to inflict maximum damage against USPS and Lance, simply make these allegations and let the story swirl in the world press. The attorney wouldn't have been able to do much for her in court. So this may have been offered as a consolation prize, and it sure has generated a lot of publicity. [/B]

How would this matter have anything to do with employer/employee relations and, by your implications, being immune against civil damages?

Ms O'Reilly will be called to give evidence in court, if LA proceeds. It will be for the court to decide whether her evidence is credible in relation to the references to her information for the book. How would her attorney be unable to assist her in court?

When [censored] Voet issued his book about the Festina Affair ("Breaking the Chain"😉, he named names involved in the cycling drug scene. A lot of those names threatened libel action against Voet and the publishers. None proceeded.

LA's legal team will be calling their own witnesses.

If i was Miss O'Reilly i would be worried.

Isnt it strange that NOT ONCE in the book does it actually say Lance took EPO??

As i said in an earlier post, its an insult to my intelligence for someone to release a book based entirely on circumstancial evidence and expect me to draw the same low level inference.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
How come he never won a classment jersey in any of the big tours between 1992-1996 ?

Zabels a points god but he's never won a big tour. Virenque was a 6 time mountain winner but has never won a big tour. Most overall winners aren't classment winners first.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
In only a very few countries. Can you name them?




I have not seen any rider who has been suspended by the UCI for drug use charged with a crime. There maybe incidences relating to different legal jurisdictions but I cannot recall.

[censored] Voet, the Festina Soigneur, and Edith Rumsas ended up in jail for drug trafficking. None of the Festina riders, to my knowledge, were incarcerated.

To be an accessory there must be a crime. So how can Ms O'Reilly be involved in covering up criminal acts if no crimes were committed?



How would this matter have anything to do with employer/employee relations and, by your implications, being immune against civil damages?

Ms O'Reilly will be called to give evidence in court, if LA proceeds. It will be for the court to decide whether her evidence is credible in relation to the references to her information for the book. How would her attorney be unable to assist her in court?

When [censored] Voet issued his book about the Festina Affair ("Breaking the Chain"😉, he named names involved in the cycling drug scene. A lot of those names threatened libel action against Voet and the publishers. None proceeded.

The event in question, the Tour de France, is televised worldwide to every country in the world. It is the biggest sporting event in the world as far as viewership goes. How is it that you are nit picking about which countries? Even you admit it is illegal in some. So enough with that point because you have agreed with me by your statements.

The crime I was talking about is defrauding the general public and the sponsors, not the crime of doing drugs which may or may not be illegal with the governments of the various countries.

You sum up very aptly the ultimate weasel approach that Ms. O'Reilly has taken to discredit Lance.

"To be an accessory there must be a crime. So how can Ms O'Reilly be involved in covering up criminal acts if no crimes were committed?"

This is precisely the point I was making. She did not investigate the facts at the time of their occurrence because she wanted to have the opportunity to use this fact against Lance and the team later without having to worry about whether there is any truth to the implications. If she would have gone to the authorities immediately, as she should have done, this whole thing would have played out differently. If she had known that the vials contained banned substances, then she would have been concealing a crime, the crime being a defrauding of the parties mentioned above. She chose not to make any waves, to keep her job and suck her paycheck off the employer while biding her time to present this "evidence" at the most opportune time, which turns out to have been long after she was fired (or dismissed) from USPS and shortly before the Tour de France.

The reference to employer/employee relations has to do with the fact that she used to work for USPS as a masseuse. Therefore, there was an employer/employee relationship. As a former employee who may have been canned by USPS, she may have felt a grievance and was thus disgruntled. She may have then gone to an attorney to find out if legal action might be taken against USPS, and the attorney would tell her no. But as a consolation, she may have also mentioned suspicious vials and asked what can be done with that information. And from there, this whole thing about disclosing something which she claims to have had but didn't know what it was, etc. came out. It's pretty weak as far as believability, but it sure has a maximum impact on the team and Lance. And what cost to her? Probably none, and she is generating a lot of publicity for herself. I wouldn't be surprised if she makes at least some money out of this situation.

I know that in this country, the USA, it is very, very difficult to sue successfully a publisher for what an author writes in a book. That's why they can get away with only a few people to point to as sources. These sources may completely lack credibility, but they don't care. They proceed to conjure up a whole bunch of nonsense that people eagerly buy and some even believe it. But that's the way it goes.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tcklyde
Limerickman, you're right, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't mean this in a snarky way: you have a much better grasp on race performance history than I do.

In addition to cycling, I'm a huge baseball fan. I remember rooting for Mark McGwire to break the homerun record ... a feat no one had manged in decades. McGwire broke the record. Then he piled a few more homeruns on top. It seemed improbable, almost impossible. But that, to me, was the joy of sport. Like breaking the four minute mile. Or watching LA glance back at JU in the 2001 Tour right as he took off on that amazing climb. Or 47-year-old Navratilova winning the first round of Wimbledon.

Sport is great when athletes summon a will and strength stronger than statistics, stronger than the inner strength any of us mortals know, and show just what the human body, when in perfect harmony can achieve.

LA may dope, I don't know. If he does, it will profoundly depress me. But the history of sport testifies to the ability of the truly great to surpass the odds and carve out a unique and sublime spot in history.

I wasn't trying to be short or offensive toward you.
I too would like to think that what we see is authentic - but
I'm simply cannot believe that in Armstrongs case that what we see is authentic.

I think that the majority of the peloton are using perfromance enhancing drugs, by the way.

The joy of sport has you rightly point out is precious - it should be
based on talent, hardwork (and perhaps a little luck too !).
I am not really familiar with baseball, I have to confess, but i have heard of MarkMcGwire.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
Ignorance is bliss.

Armstrong had TdF stage wins in 1993 and 1995

Please educate yourself at

http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/career

You still aren't getting the difference between multi-stage wins and one day wins and why they happen. Its a totally different style of riding, but you've already shown you don't know much about the Tour so its expected that you don't understand what it takes to win.

I don't know who you are - or your depth of cycling knowledge.
But here goes.

I never denied that Armstrong won STAGES in a stage race.
What I said was that LA did not win any of the major stages
races for the period 1992-1996 (major stages would include :
Dauphine, Midi Libre, Paris-Nice, Four Days of Dunkirk or any of the European national tours in France, Italy, Spain or Switzerland).
I also stated that LA did not threaten the podium in any of this races.
I also stated that LA did not even threaten to win a classment
jersey in any of these races.
Now if you can bring some facts to the table that contradict any of this information, please feel free to do - for the period
1992-1996.

I did say that Armstrong was a one day racer primarily between
1992-1996.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lutenegger
My bad I miss read it.

Though, winning other GTs is not indicative of a TdF winner, so that argument is still erroneous.

Indurain won no important stage race before winning the Tour, I grant you that after he did he went on to win the Giro twice. Lemond won 3 tours but didn't in any other GT. Ullrich Tour first. Hinault didn't win a GT until '78 when he one both the Vuelta and TdF. Fignon won 2 TdFs before winning another GT. Or Flipping it Tony Rominger won 4 GT's but never won the TdF.

TdF is the most important race and is the single event on which Armstrong focuses.

For a good reference of results go here:
http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rrankings.asp

You are the one who is erroneous.

You state that Indurain did not win any stage races before winning his first TDF.
What about Indurains two consecutive victories in the Paris-Nice
1989 and 1990 ?
Or how about Indurains winning of the Tour of Catalonia in 1988 ?
Or his winning of the Criterium International in 1989 ?
Indurain won his first TDF in 1991.

LeMond :
In 1982 he won the Tour De L'Avenir.
1983 Dauphine Libre.
1984/1985 LeMond finished in the top 10 in the following races :
Giro di Lomabardi, 4th Tour of Switzerland, 5th Tirreno Adriatico,
2nd in the TDF (and best young rider award), 3rd in the 1985 Giro.
LeMond won his first TDF in 1986.

Hinault :
1977 won the Dauphine Libre
1975 French Champion
1976 3rd in the Mide Libre.
1976 10 in the four days of dunkirk.
1978 Hinault won his first TDF.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
You are the one who is erroneous.

You state that Indurain did not win any stage races before winning his first TDF.
What about Indurains two consecutive victories in the Paris-Nice
1989 and 1990 ?
Or how about Indurains winning of the Tour of Catalonia in 1988 ?
Or his winning of the Criterium International in 1989 ?
Indurain won his first TDF in 1991.

LeMond :
In 1982 he won the Tour De L'Avenir.
1983 Dauphine Libre.
1984/1985 LeMond finished in the top 10 in the following races :
Giro di Lomabardi, 4th Tour of Switzerland, 5th Tirreno Adriatico,
2nd in the TDF (and best young rider award), 3rd in the 1985 Giro.
LeMond won his first TDF in 1986.

Hinault :
1977 won the Dauphine Libre
1975 French Champion
1976 3rd in the Mide Libre.
1976 10 in the four days of dunkirk.
1978 Hinault won his first TDF.

Who out of all of these riders lost a dramatic amount of body weight between their first professional races and their more memorable victories? I don't think any of them did. But Lance did, and he dropped a lot.

Do you see why your arguments about stage race GC victories hold no water? It's because GC success would be most favorably improved with weight loss. Occasional one day stage races are not quite as hard to win with extra body weight. Lance would win those. But remember in his early days of Tour riding that he would complain that he thought he might never win the Tour de France? It was because he was packing way too much weight for the Tour. He didn't realize he could be a great GC contender until the Vuelta de Espana in 1998 where he was a top contender on GC. I think he got 3d. That was when he realized that the weight loss would allow him to win the Tour de France. The rest is history.

So you see, a strong rider should not give up hope if he's carrying excess weight. Look how good Lance did after he dropped it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
You are the one who is erroneous.

You state that Indurain did not win any stage races before winning his first TDF.
What about Indurains two consecutive victories in the Paris-Nice
1989 and 1990 ?
Or how about Indurains winning of the Tour of Catalonia in 1988 ?
Or his winning of the Criterium International in 1989 ?
Indurain won his first TDF in 1991.

LeMond :
In 1982 he won the Tour De L'Avenir.
1983 Dauphine Libre.
1984/1985 LeMond finished in the top 10 in the following races :
Giro di Lomabardi, 4th Tour of Switzerland, 5th Tirreno Adriatico,
2nd in the TDF (and best young rider award), 3rd in the 1985 Giro.
LeMond won his first TDF in 1986.

Hinault :
1977 won the Dauphine Libre
1975 French Champion
1976 3rd in the Mide Libre.
1976 10 in the four days of dunkirk.
1978 Hinault won his first TDF.

First when you say big tour I think GT. Also when you say win I assume you mean 1st place rather than top 10. But I'm willing to play your game.

You discount the wins and placements at the Tour DuPont if the Tour Dupont was only a middle class race then how did he win versus european riders whom you hold in such high regard. He even beat other Americans who have become big names in the sport. He beat Rominger who had previously won Paris-Nice and Tirreno - Adriatico, both more than once. At that time the Dupont was considered the premier race in America. In 1996 the Dupont was upgraded by the UCI to 2.1 making it in the same class as the Midi Libre, Four Day of Dunkirk, Tour of Catalonia, and Criterium International. Additionally, in 1996 Paris-Nice, Tour of Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico, and Dauphine Libre were all ranked 2.1, they were then subsequently and deservedly raised to 2.HC. Tour De L'Avenir is a 2.5 meaning it wasn't anywhere in the league of DuPont. I can hear it now the DuPont was not as difficult, maybe your right what does the UCI know.

I also wonder why you list the Giro di Lombardia under Lemond since your argument has to do with stage races, rather than one day races which GdL is. If you want to talk Coupe du Monde how about LA in Meisterchaft von Zurich (1992-2nd, 1994-9th, 1995-10th), Liege-Bastongne-Liege (1994-2nd, 1995-6th,1996-2nd), or may San Sebastian-San Sebastian (1994-2nd, 1995 - 1st).

Of course it means nothing to you that he did show steady progression from Amatuer to National to World Champion, or wins in Classics since those were only one day races. So, since you're going out of the Winner category and are using examples as wide as 2.5 to HC so will I, and help you with LA stage racing record.

1993 LA 9th Paris - Nice (2.1)
1993 LA 2nd Tour DuPont (2.3)
1993 LA 1st West Virginia Mountain Classic (2.5)

1994 LA 7th Tour de Suisse (2.1)
1994 LA 2nd Tour DuPont (2.2)

1995 LA 4th TdF Under 25 Competition
1995 LA 1st Tour DuPont (2.2)
1995 LA 10th Vuelta A Burgos (2.2)
1995 LA 1st Kmart Classic (2.4)

1996 LA 2nd Paris - Nice (2.1)
1996 LA 1st Tour DuPont (2.1)
1996 LA 2nd Ronde van Nederland (2.2)

1998 - Year after Cancer
1998 LA 4th Vuelta a Espana (GT)
1998 LA 1st Ronde van Nederland (2.1)
1998 LA 1st Tour of Luxembourg (2.2) and won Mountain Comp.
1998 LA 1st Rheinland-Pfalz Runbdahrt (2.4)

I won't go into his wins post 1998 since you believe he was doping by then.

You know limerickman after looking at it, you're right clearly no natural progression there.