Riis just killed pro-cycling.....

  • Thread starter Crescentius Vespasianus
  • Start date



On May 26, 6:03 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 26 May 2007 17:49:27 -0700, Kurgan Gringioni
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The most talented riders benefit from performance enhancing drugs just
> >as much as average riders.

>
> It depends on the drug.




Dumbass -


Ya, but the point was that very talented riders can benefit from PEDs
as much as average riders.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On May 25, 5:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 25, 7:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
> > Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
> > were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
> > interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
> > this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
> > cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that **** about these
> > guys going up grades >8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
> > Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
> > had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
> > shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
> > to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
> > We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
> > the century called pro-cycling.

>
> I hope your wrong...but after all that's transpired the last couple of
> weeks, I sure ain't gonna argue!!!
>
> One of the really sad parts is that this quote from Riis:
>
> "When I was a rider in the 1990s, I worked extremely hard to get my
> results. I worked extremely hard, day in day out and I sacrificed a
> lot just even to be part of the best."
>
> is basically true. Just as it is for every other member of the
> peleton


PelOton, please, please......



(even Floyd). Those guys are super-human athletes without EPO
> or any other drugs. A lot of the non-cycling public now thinks that
> these guys are just no-talent, average-joe lazy bums that are just
> willing to take a needle. This slight probably even carries down to
> amateurs and wanna-bes who are out there paying their dues at their
> own level. I think whoever said drugs can't turn a donkey into a
> racehorse got it right. Too bad the talented men and women of future
> peletons will have an even tougher fight against an already-jaded
> public.
 
On May 26, 4:56 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> So, really, the results aren't "unequal." With the seeming exception of
> Armstrong and the Tour, since 1995 or 1996, when virtually all the top teams
> had comparable doping programs, no one or a few teams or riders dominated as
> in the pre-1990s.


....except for seven years out of twelve...

Is that your version of a virtual fact?

R
 
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 26, 4:56 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> So, really, the results aren't "unequal." With the seeming exception of
>> Armstrong and the Tour, since 1995 or 1996, when virtually all the top
>> teams
>> had comparable doping programs, no one or a few teams or riders dominated
>> as
>> in the pre-1990s.

>
> ...except for seven years out of twelve...
>
> Is that your version of a virtual fact?
>
> R
>


Reread the first part of the post that you snipped. You just don't get it
or want to get it.
 
On May 27, 9:25 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > On May 26, 4:56 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:

>
> >> So, really, the results aren't "unequal." With the seeming exception of
> >> Armstrong and the Tour, since 1995 or 1996, when virtually all the top
> >> teams
> >> had comparable doping programs, no one or a few teams or riders dominated
> >> as
> >> in the pre-1990s.

>
> > ...except for seven years out of twelve...

>
> > Is that your version of a virtual fact?

>
>
> Reread the first part of the post that you snipped. You just don't get it
> or want to get it.


I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
viewpoint.

When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone else -
your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.

R
 
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 27, 9:25 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > On May 26, 4:56 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:

>>
>> >> So, really, the results aren't "unequal." With the seeming exception
>> >> of
>> >> Armstrong and the Tour, since 1995 or 1996, when virtually all the top
>> >> teams
>> >> had comparable doping programs, no one or a few teams or riders
>> >> dominated
>> >> as
>> >> in the pre-1990s.

>>
>> > ...except for seven years out of twelve...

>>
>> > Is that your version of a virtual fact?

>>
>>
>> Reread the first part of the post that you snipped. You just don't get
>> it
>> or want to get it.

>
> I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
> your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
> pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
> viewpoint.
>
> When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone else -
> your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
> Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.
>
> R


So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight, hard
training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!
 
On May 27, 10:38 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
> > your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
> > pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
> > viewpoint.

>
> > When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone else -
> > your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
> > Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.

>
>
> So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight, hard
> training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!


Doesn't this feel good? I'm so happy for you. Just like old times!
You can take any opportunity to twist things into being about Lance
doping. Cycling is bigger than Lance. Cycling is bigger than
doping. Well...maybe not in your world.

I'm serious. Plan B time. Don't be the grasshopper, grasshopper.

R
 
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 27, 10:38 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> > I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
>> > your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
>> > pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
>> > viewpoint.

>>
>> > When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone else -
>> > your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
>> > Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.

>>
>>
>> So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight, hard
>> training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!

>
> Doesn't this feel good? I'm so happy for you. Just like old times!
> You can take any opportunity to twist things into being about Lance
> doping. Cycling is bigger than Lance. Cycling is bigger than
> doping. Well...maybe not in your world.
>
> I'm serious. Plan B time. Don't be the grasshopper, grasshopper.
>
> R


This is funny. You DO still believe.
 
On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:57 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On May 27, 10:38 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> > I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
>>> > your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
>>> > pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
>>> > viewpoint.
>>>
>>> > When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone else -
>>> > your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
>>> > Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight, hard
>>> training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!

>>
>> Doesn't this feel good? I'm so happy for you. Just like old times!
>> You can take any opportunity to twist things into being about Lance
>> doping. Cycling is bigger than Lance. Cycling is bigger than
>> doping. Well...maybe not in your world.
>>
>> I'm serious. Plan B time. Don't be the grasshopper, grasshopper.
>>
>> R

>
>This is funny. You DO still believe.


And what in hell is it that you believe?

That Lance has some magic pill he won't pass on to his team or friends?

What?

You can't just say that he doped. THe rest of them doped, so why's he beating
them?

Did he dope better? Perhaps, then why are there no successors showing up. Is it
your theory that Lance is a super genius endocrinologist who knows things about
doping nobody else does and he'll take it to his grave?

He didn't dope more because he would've been busted.

Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons he would
have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are pretty well
known and are significant.

Ron


Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
 
On May 27, 12:40 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Oh, your sarcasm is devastating. How will I ever go on?!


Much like a broken record.

> I'll wager that
> you still believe in Lance, Tyler, Floyd, Ullrich and Basso. You are such a
> ******. LOL


What exactly am I not supposed to believe in? Which ones weren't
supremely gifted athletes whether they, or anyone else in the peloton,
doped? In the first place, I never believed that random people with a
gift for cycling are somehow paragons of moral erectness. They ride
fookin' bicycles, you maroon. Surprisingly enough, I also don't care
what Rosie O'Donnell or Charlie Sheen have to say about 9/11.

Society periodically goes through such expansion and contraction of
social mores. Popping pills for whatever ailed you was typical in the
50's and 60's. Your mom did it. Your mom, if she had any common
sense, smacked your ass when you were just a little complainer that
got out of hand. If she did those same things nowadays, your mom
would be in rehab, up on child endangerment charges and Child
Protection would have put you in a foster home. I'm not saying that
would have necessarily been a bad thing in your case, merely pointing
out that being a sanctimonious a-hole who can't, or won't,
differentiate between entertainment and vital matters, and is obsessed
with a retired rider, is detrimental to your mental health.

Now the question becomes, do you call the cops on your own mom because
she spanked you, or do you realize that even a mom is human and can
make mistakes, and move past it? You could always tell yourself that
you were helping her and it was for her own good if it would make it
easier to make the call.

We're in a similar transition period in cycling.

Plan B. Seriously. You'll thank me.

R
 
"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:57 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On May 27, 10:38 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> > I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
>>>> > your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
>>>> > pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
>>>> > viewpoint.
>>>>
>>>> > When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone
>>>> > else -
>>>> > your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
>>>> > Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight, hard
>>>> training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!
>>>
>>> Doesn't this feel good? I'm so happy for you. Just like old times!
>>> You can take any opportunity to twist things into being about Lance
>>> doping. Cycling is bigger than Lance. Cycling is bigger than
>>> doping. Well...maybe not in your world.
>>>
>>> I'm serious. Plan B time. Don't be the grasshopper, grasshopper.
>>>
>>> R

>>
>>This is funny. You DO still believe.

>
> And what in hell is it that you believe?
>
> That Lance has some magic pill he won't pass on to his team or friends?


Hardly. I believe he followed the training preparation of Dr. Ferrari to
the letter.

>
> What?
>
> You can't just say that he doped. THe rest of them doped, so why's he
> beating
> them?


Because his dope and doctor (Ferrari) combined with his work ethic made him
just slightly better than guys like Ullrich?
>
> Did he dope better? Perhaps, then why are there no successors showing up.
> Is it
> your theory that Lance is a super genius endocrinologist who knows things
> about
> doping nobody else does and he'll take it to his grave?


No successors yet. But please do consider that Lance looks very much like
Indurain's successor. Do you believe Indurain was clean, coming from a team
that came out of the old Reynolds team that had a history of drug use dating
back to Delgado and the use of a former team doctor from the old Peugeot
team--the one who pumped Thevenet up with corticoids to the point where he
pretty much fell off his bike during the 1978 Giro?

The on the record statements and findings of a WADA lab, the statements,
under oath, of the former heart and soul of Postal (Emma per mark Gorski),
statements of former teammates about drug discussions, the backdating of a
steroid prescription (for a different drug than the one found in his
system), the moto riders delivering blue ice chests to the Postal hotel in
the middle of the night, the statement of a former Postal soigneur
(Dutch--not Belgian mafia) that Spanish doctors followed Postal staying in
the same hotels but on different floors-----there's more but you may recall
it----all tends to make me rather skeptical of your super genius
endocrinologist theory. He may take it to his grave unless people who no
longer owe their jobs to him, continue to come forward to tell what they
know.
>
> He didn't dope more because he would've been busted.


Interesting but strange statement. Oh, well.
>
> Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons he
> would
> have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are pretty
> well
> known and are significant.


You have absolutely no way of knowing that any more than what riders such as
Hampsten and Motet (as examples) might have done without the drug culture in
cycling.
 
On May 27, 7:14 pm, "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I DO believe in Lance, Tyler, Floyd, Ullrich and Basso. Great riders. And
> I'm serious.
>
> Benjo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Agreed Benjo. They were all playing by the unwritten rules and all
performed great feats. In another era none of the doping would've
mattered much. The quality of the competition, the event, and the
great performances would've set them apart in any era.
Many of the great artists, composer and writers were NOT great
people, and not above some cheating here and there, but that doesn't
diminish the beauty, importance, and power of their works.
The event, as it unfolds, is unique a unique and seperate entity from
the other concerns which may influence it as do a million other
factors. Those factors also make each event individual despite the
same participants.
If you see cycling, or athletics as nothing more than a cut throat
business then doping and every other nasty trick is par for the
course, as it is in big business. Seems to have worked well for
Microsoft, Barry Bonds, and others.
I see an art, story, and beauty to the sport that really isn't all
that related to the results. Results are what they race for, but doing
it well and beautifully is important to those of us watching.
That's not a Protestant work ethic, North American attitude though.
More French, Italian, and European I'd say.
For the most part they live better than we do, and by choice. I was
thrilled to see Wal-Mart fail miserably in Germany.
Bill C
 
On 27 May 2007 04:44:19 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> is basically true. Just as it is for every other member of the
>> peleton

>
>PelOton, please, please......
>

Different sprot.
 
in message <[email protected]>, RonSonic
('[email protected]') wrote:

>>Not true, Rick.  According to Dr. Eddie Coyle (supported by our own Dr.
>>Coggan), it is possible with years of training to develope the efficiency
>>needed to climb mountains at 26 kph.  Lose weight as Armstrong and George
>>are alleged to have done, and you can climb even though you're a classics
>>man.  Look at Indurain.  All he had to do was lose weight and suddenly
>>his climbing and time trialing became world class.  It's all hard work,
>>diet and the efficiency created by years of selfless training.  You
>>believe me, don't you? ;-)

>
> So, what makes the difference.
>
> Everyone can train hard and lose weight. Everyone can buy drugs. So why
> such inequal results. Do you suppose the guys in the back are skimping on
> the drugs or on the miles?


Different people have different genetics, which respond to both miles and
drugs in different ways. But, more important, different people have
different psychology, different self belief, different ability to deceive
and to persuade, and different will to win. People who win bike races -
people who win a lot of bike races - are as much psychologically
exceptional as they are physically exceptional, whether you're talking
about Obree (who is one of the few people in modern cycling one can say
with certainty did not dope) or about Armstrong.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.
 
On May 27, 5:15 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:

> ... merely pointing
> out that being a sanctimonious a-hole who can't, or won't,
> differentiate between entertainment and vital matters,...


Speaking of "the need" to attend to vital matters and not waste time
with trivia and simple entertainment (bike racing), how many "dope
posts" have been made to rbr in the last month?
 
On May 25, 4:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
> Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
> were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
> interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
> this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
> cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that **** about these
> guys going up grades >8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
> Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
> had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
> shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
> to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
> We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
> the century called pro-cycling.


In 2045 they'll still be racing Milan-San Remo and the Pogio will
still play prominantly into the final results. OP, Riis, Birillo et
al. will fade much faster then the insitition of professional
cycling.
 
On May 25, 4:14 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Riis just killed the sport known as pro-cycling. The European police in
> Italy and France were in the end correct and the people who criticized them
> were wrong. I think David Millar was the first to crack under those warm
> interrogation lights. In the end he told them all they needed to know about
> this cycling-Mafia. Kudos to all of the European police agencies, in
> cracking this Mafia wide open for all to see. All that **** about these
> guys going up grades >8% at 26 mph were simply an illusion. Where does
> Carmichael go now, when people now know it wasn't his training, but what he
> had in the medicine bag. What about Liggett, will he now return to being a
> shoe salesman? Trautman can now compare his steroid perfected Yankee team
> to the EPO perfected CSC team. It was the perfect illusion,......all of it.
> We should all give them a giant round of applause for this magic trick of
> the century called pro-cycling.


In 2045 they'll still be racing Milan-San Remo and the Pogio will
still play prominantly into the final results.
 
>> Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons he
>> would
>> have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are pretty
>> well
>> known and are significant.

>
> You have absolutely no way of knowing that any more than what riders such
> as Hampsten and Motet (as examples) might have done without the drug
> culture in cycling.


I see a few options here-

#1: Nobody doped, and Lance won because he was the better rider.
#2: Many other riders doped but not Lance, who won because he was the better
rider.
#3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he doped.
#4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because he was the
better rider.

Does that pretty much sum things up? Of is it the case that, *if* Lance had
been doping, it was somehow more insidious, more evil than the rest of them?
Perhaps because he won?

Near as I can tell, Lance didn't have a monopoly on anything but the state
of his mind and body. Those are the two things, probably the only two
things, that nobody else could have had during those 7 years he won the TdF.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nLq6i.1644$J76.1617@trndny03...
>
> "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:57 GMT, "B. Lafferty"
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On May 27, 10:38 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> > I get the fact that you have a bug up your ass about Armstrong, and
>>>>> > your view/opinions are seriously skewed due to said bug. You cherry
>>>>> > pick facts, create virtual facts, whatever it takes to support your
>>>>> > viewpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> > When Lance finally croaks you'll be blubbering more than anyone
>>>>> > else -
>>>>> > your personal windmill will be getting buried along with him.
>>>>> > Probably time to invest in a "Plan B" so you're not caught short.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you still believe the Lance return from the dead, lose weight,
>>>>> hard
>>>>> training/efficiency myth. ROTFL!
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't this feel good? I'm so happy for you. Just like old times!
>>>> You can take any opportunity to twist things into being about Lance
>>>> doping. Cycling is bigger than Lance. Cycling is bigger than
>>>> doping. Well...maybe not in your world.
>>>>
>>>> I'm serious. Plan B time. Don't be the grasshopper, grasshopper.
>>>>
>>>> R
>>>
>>>This is funny. You DO still believe.

>>
>> And what in hell is it that you believe?
>>
>> That Lance has some magic pill he won't pass on to his team or friends?

>
> Hardly. I believe he followed the training preparation of Dr. Ferrari to
> the letter.
>
>>
>> What?
>>
>> You can't just say that he doped. THe rest of them doped, so why's he
>> beating
>> them?

>
> Because his dope and doctor (Ferrari) combined with his work ethic made
> him just slightly better than guys like Ullrich?
>>
>> Did he dope better? Perhaps, then why are there no successors showing up.
>> Is it
>> your theory that Lance is a super genius endocrinologist who knows things
>> about
>> doping nobody else does and he'll take it to his grave?

>
> No successors yet. But please do consider that Lance looks very much like
> Indurain's successor. Do you believe Indurain was clean, coming from a
> team that came out of the old Reynolds team that had a history of drug use
> dating back to Delgado and the use of a former team doctor from the old
> Peugeot team--the one who pumped Thevenet up with corticoids to the point
> where he pretty much fell off his bike during the 1978 Giro?
>
> The on the record statements and findings of a WADA lab, the statements,
> under oath, of the former heart and soul of Postal (Emma per mark Gorski),
> statements of former teammates about drug discussions, the backdating of a
> steroid prescription (for a different drug than the one found in his
> system), the moto riders delivering blue ice chests to the Postal hotel in
> the middle of the night, the statement of a former Postal soigneur
> (Dutch--not Belgian mafia) that Spanish doctors followed Postal staying in
> the same hotels but on different floors-----there's more but you may
> recall it----all tends to make me rather skeptical of your super genius
> endocrinologist theory. He may take it to his grave unless people who no
> longer owe their jobs to him, continue to come forward to tell what they
> know.
>>
>> He didn't dope more because he would've been busted.

>
> Interesting but strange statement. Oh, well.
>>
>> Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons he
>> would
>> have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are pretty
>> well
>> known and are significant.

>
> You have absolutely no way of knowing that any more than what riders such
> as Hampsten and Motet (as examples) might have done without the drug
> culture in cycling.
>
>
>
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email protected]...
| >> Whether or not he doped, he beat the other guys for the same reasons he
| >> would
| >> have beaten them if nobody ever doped. Most of those reasons are pretty
| >> well
| >> known and are significant.
| >
| > You have absolutely no way of knowing that any more than what riders
such
| > as Hampsten and Motet (as examples) might have done without the drug
| > culture in cycling.
|
| I see a few options here-
|
| #1: Nobody doped, and Lance won because he was the better rider.
| #2: Many other riders doped but not Lance, who won because he was the
better
| rider.
| #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he doped.
| #4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because he was
the
| better rider.
|

#5 Most riders, including Lance, doped and Lance won because he was the
better doper.
 
> | #1: Nobody doped, and Lance won because he was the better rider.
> | #2: Many other riders doped but not Lance, who won because he was the
> better
> | rider.
> | #3: Lance doped but none of his rivals did, so Lance won because he
> doped.
> | #4: Most riders, including Lance, doped... and Lance won because he was
> the
> | better rider.
> |
>
> #5 Most riders, including Lance, doped and Lance won because he was the
> better doper.


I doubt that's the case; it's probably very difficult to be the "better
doper" and not leave a trail of crumbs for others to follow. To be the best
at doping would require more outside help than might be wise (as we have
seen lately!). If Lance did indeed dope, he was extraordinarily careful
about it, even from the earlier days before he was a household name.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com