# Lance Armstrong?



## Kovu (27 Aug 2007)

I'm sure this might have been a topic before, but I have never seen it so I thought i might bring it up. I recently read Lance Armstrong's book 'Its not about the Bike' and it brought up many relations about when he was accussed of taking drugs. I researched it a little more and found quite a few intersting things about it. I personally don't think he took them, but what do you guys think about it?


----------



## Will1985 (27 Aug 2007)

I don't think that he doped at all. His cancer obviously had a positive effect on his physique and mental attitude.
Also, you can look at Tiger Woods with his different attitude towards training for golf as a reason for his massive success - there is no reason why it cannot be the same for Armstrong with his attitude towards training and the team which was built up around him (I would use this argument to defend his first couple of wins, but once other teams caught up he must have had to pull something new out of the hat).
The same can be said for England's 2003 Rugby WC success - they employed sports science techniques and sports psychologists when the other teams didn't; having the mental edge is often touted as the difference between winning and losing.

Recently I have been thinking about something - Armstrong and Contador have both had brain surgery, and I wonder if that may have had any influence on other things. (Don't attack me on this, because it is just a question and I doubt any amount of current medical expertise could ratify or reject it.)


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Aug 2007)

Recent tests on Armstrong's blood samples from the 1999 tour using modern methods showed evidence of EPO. As there is an eight year statue of limitations on doping offences it was not investigated further. Several people have made statements claiming that Armstrong privately admitted to doping, how true that is no one knows.

If he was, he wasn't doing anything all his rivals weren't doing too. We are talking about an era when doping was the norm rather than the exception, and taking them merely meant you stayed on a level playing field.


----------



## Jonathan M (27 Aug 2007)

I read an interview with him in a freebie gym magazine, probably lifted from a US equivalent. He refused to be drawn on any questions about doping, but then unless he does a Riis in the future, he can't, can he? And that isn't saying that I think he has doped, but I'm open to the idea of any pro cyclist doping.


----------



## yello (27 Aug 2007)

Whether he did or he didn't is not important to me now. He's SO last year darling.


----------



## MichaelM (27 Aug 2007)

Just off the top of my head....

He consistently beat Ulrich, Pantani, Basso, Mayo, Vinokourov, (possibly Millar in the TT's too?).

Team members included Landis, Hamilton, Heras.

Must have been bloody good to beat that lot every year for seven years.


----------



## Kovu (27 Aug 2007)

yello said:


> Whether he did or he didn't is not important to me now. He's SO last year darling.



I think that is irrelavant to the whole topic there. I am not discussing that in way or form. I am merely inquiring what the seven winner of the Tour (without doubt has been said as one of the greatest) did drugs or not. I talked with some friends of mien about Tom Simpson the other day, his death was 40 years ago, and that was about drugs.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2007)

*Proof?*

The interesting claim that the samples were positive is unsound to say the least.

The tests were carried out on anonymous samples independent of the LAb's normal practice to "validate a test". Leaving aside the possibility of fale positives that can occur in these validations, someone from the UCI "just happened" to have a list of names that showed these samples were Armstrong's, and of course there is no "B sample" testing to prove the positive result.

Using this report to suggest something that fails to meet any professional standard and shows a complicity between the Lab, the UCI and the press is unacceptable.

One could even question the motives of each of these participants, and what they gained from this debacle.

If he doped, then let's prove it legally and with good professionally obtained evidence, not this unsound, devious, machiavellian tripe.


----------



## starseven (27 Aug 2007)

MichaelM said:


> Just off the top of my head....
> 
> He consistently beat Ulrich, Pantani, Basso, Mayo, Vinokourov, (possibly Millar in the TT's too?).
> 
> ...



Quite, and you can bet they all shared the same diet etc. 

He could only compete in the sport as it was, what more could he have done?


----------



## Dave_1 (28 Aug 2007)

Smokin Joe said:


> Recent tests on Armstrong's blood samples from the 1999 tour using modern methods showed evidence of EPO. As there is an eight year statue of limitations on doping offences it was not investigated further. Several people have made statements claiming that Armstrong privately admitted to doping, how true that is no one knows.
> 
> If he was, he wasn't doing anything all his rivals weren't doing too. We are talking about an era when doping was the norm rather than the exception, and taking them merely meant you stayed on a level playing field.



In August 2005 the LNDD WADA approved Lab did a study of 40 or so urine samples left over from the 1998 and 1999 Tour De France and a clever journalist managed to get the dope control forms from the UCI for the 1999 TDF by asking for Lance´s persmission to go to the UCI HQ to a D Zorzoli and get the control forms to check Lance TUEs-theraputic use exemptions from 1999. Lance gave his permission and Zorzoli was tricked by the journo who then was able to compare the numbers on all of Lances control forms with the samples that LNDD tested...and Armstrong came up positive 6 times out of 14 days...5 were mountain stages and one was the prologue time trial, though there was a negative on the Besancon TT he won...to some it looked like EPO micro dosing as Lance was under the limits of isoforms-electrical charge% in urine I think- on the other days and over the limits on 6 days. The problem was that only Lance´s B samples were tested as the A samples had been used up in the year 1999...LNDD was only supposed to be doing a blind test of its new EPO urine test for WADA, who had commissioned LNDD to do this work in refining their own EPO urine test...the question was how did a Lequipe journo get the bacode numbers from Lance samples to match with the control forms? It looked like WADA did a number on Lance, or LNDD working with Lequipe. The cred of all was damaged. I am not hugely confident in Armstrong but there is no proof he doped


----------



## yello (28 Aug 2007)

Chill Kovu. You asked "what do you guys think about it?" I gave my opinion.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (28 Aug 2007)

Aye calm yer breeks Kovu.

I would like to believe that Uncle Lance was clean, but I simply cannot believe that any more. Seven consecutive victories in the world's greatest bike race, which is known to have huge associations with drugs, and those seven wins sandwiched in between Festina and OP. Plus as Joe pointed out almost every single one of his major rivals AND main team mates has been exposed.

I'm not sure how much I believe about the retrospective testing, but the above makes it impossible for me to believe he was clean.

That said I acknowledge that there is no actual evidence that he did, only circumstantial, but in pro cycling, for me that's enough these days.

One of the greatest bike riders in history? Yes, absolutely. But not clean. Just like, IMO, Merckxx, Anquetil, Hinault and Indurain.


----------



## steviesch (28 Aug 2007)

no one has mentioned Dr Ferrari...and why should they?!


----------



## niedermeyer (28 Aug 2007)

steviesch said:


> no one has mentioned Dr Ferrari...and why should they?!



I'm sure you're being 'ironic' but in case the OP isn't aware .......
Because anyone (like Lance) who places his medical programme in the hands of Dr Ferrari has to automatically become suspect, given the man's almost open advocacy of supervised doping programmes. Armstrong's shameful bullying of Simeoni when the latter dared to testify against Dr F is further circumstantial evidence. Armstrong sticking the knife into Bassens in 99 when he was trying to expose systematic doping is another black mark. We also have the testimonies of former team-mates Vaughters and Andreu, the team soigneuse and others that Lance was less than clean. Andreu has admitted doping himself during his time on USP, and as GT racing is essentially a team event, then even if he did not use himself (and I think it takes a very stubborn refusal to see the truth to believe that in light of the tests on the 99 B samples) then Armstrong certainly benefited from others' use.


----------



## niedermeyer (28 Aug 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> The interesting claim that the samples were positive is unsound to say the least.
> 
> 
> If he doped, then let's prove it legally and with good professionally obtained evidence, not this unsound, devious, machiavellian tripe.




Well, unless he comes clean, there's about as much chance of that as legally proving OJ Simpson guilty. But I know what I think about OJ, and the weight of circumstantial evidence against LA certainly influences my thoughts regarding his _bona fides_.


----------



## yenrod (28 Aug 2007)

The juries still for me and will be till he _ever_ does a riis...


----------



## andy_wrx (29 Aug 2007)

What is striking is Lance's _extremely_ litigious approach to any suggestions he may have doped.

From many sources, Lance comes-over as a not very attractive personality - aggressive, control-freak, disfunctional personal relationships, etc.

Read 'Tour de Force'/'Lance Armstrong's War' or quite a few other books about him - but avoid the cloying sentimental thing his mother wrote...

But is this very surprising ? He was at the top of a major professional sport for a significant time.
Was, say, Michael Schumacher 'a nice man' ? 
Other top-of-the-tree athletes, footballers, boxers, etc ?

The qualities which get you to the top of a sport, enable you to stay there against allcomers, mean you're going to be ruthless, aggressive, obsessive, etc - without these qualities (in addition to your genetics, skill, training, etc) you wouldn't get there or stay there.

'Nice guys' tend not to win, although their PR may make them appear 'nice guys' on the surface

Lance, at least in the States, is not just a 'nice guy', he's almost a saint. 
As a cancer-survivor-turned-worldbeater, he had (still has) a huge number of fanatical fans, many not cycling fans but cancer sufferers or relatives, who view him in almost religious awe.

The possibility he may have doped would bring their worlds crashing down.


----------



## Kovu (29 Aug 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> From many sources, Lance comes-over as a not very attractive personality - aggressive, control-freak, disfunctional personal relationships, etc.



I see what you mean there. I was reading his book he wrote, and although I could tell it was more of 'I am very nice and the best person.' But the stuff he wrote, still made me think that he wasn't the nicest person ever. 

I'd like to think he is clean, not because of the whole cancer thing etc, just because it'd say something to those who took drugs and he won it 7 times. 

I know the evidence says various things, but you guys have brought up alko of good points i didnt consider.


----------



## fuzzy29 (29 Aug 2007)

Sadly, the evidence saying he doped is a lot stronger than the evidence saying he was clean. The excuse that he was "the most tested athlete in the world" is like saying "I've never crashed" if you only drive when drunk. If he was clean, then after beating all those guys on EPO, he should have gone for the hour record. I bet he would have pushed it over 100km...


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2007)

*Evidence?*

Interesting use ofthe term "evidence"

With the array of reporters, rivals and opponents, how come no-one has ever come up with any?

As before - not hearsay, gossip, but actual evidence that would stand up to scrutiny and be admissible in a court.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (30 Aug 2007)

Cuno is correct as usual. I base my views purely on circumstantial. Do you think he was clean Cuno?

Here's another point (possibly stretching it a bit!) for consideration. Due to Armstrong's dominance for all those years, it's possible his success pushed his competitors into looking for underhand measures to help them compete.

Let's face it, Lance is to blame for every single doping report since 1999! I'm joking. No smilies in quick reply box.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2007)

Personally I have the prehaps naive view that with the people who are after Armstrong ifthere was any evidence it would be out there by now.

Otherwise I have seen people recover from Cancer and other serious diseases with a single minded dedication that allows them to complete feats that others would not manage. Look at Jane Tomlinson for one.

It is possible and hopefully the case that Armstrong is clean, but until the evidence is established we should give the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## steviesch (31 Aug 2007)

slightly off topic - but is blood transfusion using your own blood detectable? Could I go to altitude,train like crazee,syphon off some of my own highly trained and presumably red cell enriched blood? I could then return to sea level,taper,pootle about in a few shorter stage races. I could then whack in the good stuff produced in my altitude training phase and then go and blitz round the prologue of the TdF whilst everyone is saying "how does he do it?"....and i would still test clean!...would anyone do such a thing??


----------



## Tetedelacourse (31 Aug 2007)

yes it is detectable but less easily detected than homologous (receiving someone else's). It's called autologous blood doping. Trouble is when you donate your blood for later doping, your performance suffers for some time as a result of making the donation, so homologous is more attractive.

Good accessible article here:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7027.0.html


----------



## mr_hippo (31 Aug 2007)

Watching a trailer for the Larry King talk show on CNN -
King "Have you ever taken an illegal substance?"
Armstrong "I have never doped."
Read into that what you may.

Blood has a shelf life and will degenerate and these changes can be seen under a microscope. They will also contain preservatives which will show up. You can freeze red blood cells but it is expensive and, again. the preservative will show up.


----------



## steviesch (31 Aug 2007)

Merci monsieur..informative stuff..i wonder how much random, out of competition blood testing goes on nowadays..amd when did it start...I recall LA bitching about the testers turning up at breakfast..but i think he only had to pee in a bottle. L'equipe et al would have us believe epo can be thus detected but i wonder if auto or homologous transfusions would show up in a urine sample.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (31 Aug 2007)

I think they might need a blood sample - but I may be wrong!


----------



## John Ponting (31 Aug 2007)

mr_hippo said:


> Watching a trailer for the Larry King talk show on CNN -
> King "Have you ever taken an illegal substance?"
> Armstrong "I have never doped."
> Read into that what you may.
> .



did he ever use "recreational" drugs when growing up? I have no idea either way but recreational drugs are illegal substances but many people have tried a bit of smoke in their youth.


----------



## Steve Austin (1 Sep 2007)

steviesch said:


> Merci monsieur..informative stuff..i wonder how much random, out of competition blood testing goes on nowadays..amd when did it start...I recall LA bitching about the testers turning up at breakfast..but i think he only had to pee in a bottle. L'equipe et al would have us believe epo can be thus detected but i wonder if auto or homologous transfusions would show up in a urine sample.



no, you would need to look at the blood to test for autogolous doping. and even then it is very very very difficult to detect


----------



## Tim Bennet. (1 Sep 2007)

I used to be a huge admirer of Armstrong. (Obviously not huge enough to actually buy a US Postal shirt, but pretty huge-ish.) I spent hours around the time of his early Tour wins justifying his dominance by highlighting the rigour of his training, the fact he even trained on Christmas Day, his focus on only a few specific events, the amount of research he did on his aero position in the wind tunnel, the fact his team only had one objective and knew who was boss, that they actually practised for the team time trial, that his opponents seem to have quit before the race even started and seemed reluctant to attack him, etc, etc...

Sadly I no longer feel confident enough to offer anything in his defence. If it every came out he was a doper I would still be sad, but also accept that deep down, it's probably what I've believed for a while now.


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2007)

Tim Bennet. said:


> I used to be a huge admirer of Armstrong. (Obviously not huge enough to actually buy a US Postal shirt, but pretty huge-ish.) I spent hours around the time of his early Tour wins justifying his dominance by highlighting the rigour of his training, the fact he even trained on Christmas Day, his focus on only a few specific events, the amount of research he did on his aero position in the wind tunnel, the fact his team only had one objective and knew who was boss, that they actually practised for the team time trial, that his opponents seem to have quit before the race even started and seemed reluctant to attack him, etc, etc...


All correct, whether or not he was on the sauce. That's the odd thing about stage races, even being on the cheeky juice won't give you the nous, the courage or the sheer willpower to win. If Landis was ripped to the tits I still admire the way he won that stage. That's one of the problems that cycling has, it's possible to admire people _despite_ the drugs.


----------



## paulbuckle (3 Sep 2007)

My 0.2p on this:

There is absolutely no reason to think that Lance would have to have doped to have been consistently beating other very good riders. Theres no conclusive evidence to say that he doped either. Just because an athlete out performs others consistently doesn't mean they are cheating.

Think of it this way....He trained in spain for months leading up to the Tour de France and made frequent trips to France to fully analyze and ride key parts of the upcoming Tour de France course. Since he focused solely on the Tour de France and seldom competed in other major races, he was able to train 180 days per year for the 23 days of the Tour, a significantly greater training time than riders who compete in other races.

Look at other sports like Golf where Tiger is completly dominant, or F1 where Michael Schumacher was the same. You will generally always get one outstanding performer in a sport in generation.

Just my opinion


----------



## MichaelM (3 Sep 2007)

paulbuckle said:


> My 0.2p on this:
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to think that Lance would have to have doped to have been consistently beating other very good riders. Theres no conclusive evidence to say that he doped either. Just because an athlete out performs others consistently doesn't mean they are cheating.



But he didn't just consistenly beat a lot of other very good riders. 

He consistently beat a lot of other very good riders who have since tested positive somewhere along the line (I'll use that to cover blood doping as well). Not only that, he consistently beat them with the help of a team that included Hamilton, Herras, and Landis and under D.S. (with a bit of a dodgy background himself) who was prepared to sign Basso after his Giro victory.

Good - yes.
Best of the bunch? - yes.
But as for there being _absolutely no reason to think that Lance would have to have doped _ is bit far fetched ...IMO of course.


----------



## niedermeyer (18 Sep 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> What is striking is Lance's _extremely_ litigious approach to any suggestions he may have doped.



What is even more interesting is the fact that few of his litigations hve gone to trial, and none AFAIK to a judgement. "Lance sues detractors" = news; "Lance quietly drops case" doesn't get a mention.


----------



## Abitrary (21 Sep 2007)

A bloke at work yesterday said that Lance could take out a category 3 rider, on a bmx

He works in marketing, and constantly bamboozles people with stuff like that.

But it's been burning a hole in my brain. Is this possible?


----------



## Noodley (21 Sep 2007)

Abitrary said:


> A bloke at work yesterday said that Lance could take out a category 3 rider, on a bmx
> 
> He works in marketing, and constantly bamboozles people with stuff like that.
> 
> But it's been burning a hole in my brain. Is this possible?




As you started another thread re this I suppose I am now wasting my time referring you to it.....

He would piss all over a cat 3 - on a unicycle


----------



## Abitrary (21 Sep 2007)

I started that thread, and realised straight away that be-suited marketing gimp might have been pulling my chain.

But like they say: There are no stupid questions, only stupid bastards who ask them.

So what category could Lance Armstrong take on a BMX?


----------



## flattythehurdler (22 Sep 2007)

Lance quietlt dropped numerous libel cases when the court date approached. lance was doped up to the eyes for his entire career. Anyone who believes otherwise is in complete denial. He was a bully to boot, but no more so than Hinault etc.


----------



## toontra (22 Sep 2007)

Having just read his other book, "Every Second Counts", I came away with two conclusions. Firstly, he's about the most arrogant, humourless git I've ever read an autobiography of.

Secondly, I think he took drugs. The reason? Basically he spends the whole book saying he didn't! All sorts of convoluted reasons for come-backs when he appeared out of it - mainly that he was pretending to perform badly to trick the other teams.

But my main reason for suspecting his guilt is that most of the last half of the book (written in 2004) is taken up with extolling the virtues of a certain Floyd Landis! He claims to have taken this rough diamond in his youth and mentored him as a brother, imparting him with all his knowledge, not only about the practicalities of the sport but also the psychology and morality. They were inseparable buddies, according to the book.

And Landis is a proven cheat.


----------



## postman (23 Sep 2007)

Simply the best.The media ought to put up or shut up .The French are p----d off because he won the race so many times.And press are a bunch of shite .One min praise,praise then dig dig in the dustbins.He won because he is a one off and had a great team behind him.


----------



## Frazer (23 Sep 2007)

toontra said:


> But my main reason for suspecting his guilt is that most of the last half of the book (written in 2004) is taken up with extolling the virtues of a certain Floyd Landis! He claims to have taken this rough diamond in his youth and mentored him as a brother, imparting him with all his knowledge, not only about the practicalities of the sport but also the psychology and morality. They were inseparable buddies, according to the book.
> 
> And Landis is a proven cheat.




Ok, i havent read the book in a long time, but my understanding of it was that Landis and Armstrong never really saw eye to eye, and though Armstrong knew Landis had talent, they were never really 'inseparable buddies'. But i may be wrong or have gotten the wrong end of the stick..ill read it again soon.

Personally i don't believe he doped, just because he beat guys who were on drugs doesnt mean he cant be better than them naturally. Im sure there were cyclists doping during the days of Mercx and Indurain but nobody is always saying how they must have been doping or they wouldnt have been so dominant. Innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Sep 2007)

Frazer said:


> Ok, i havent read the book in a long time, but my understanding of it was that Landis and Armstrong never really saw eye to eye, and though Armstrong knew Landis had talent, they were never really 'inseparable buddies'. But i may be wrong or have gotten the wrong end of the stick..ill read it again soon.
> 
> Personally i don't believe he doped, just because he beat guys who were on drugs doesnt mean he cant be better than them naturally. Im sure there were cyclists doping during the days of *Mercx *and Indurain but nobody is always saying how they must have been doping or they wouldnt have been so dominant. Innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.



The great Edward himself has admitted so on several occassions. Indurain hasn't but his reaction to Riis' confession spoke volumes for me. 

IIRC Frazer is closer in describing the relationship between Lance and Floyd.


----------



## Frazer (24 Sep 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> The great Edward himself has admitted so on several occassions.



wow, i never knew that...its funny how your opinion of someone can change in a flash.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Sep 2007)

Hinault too. Both distanced themselves from Festina-onwards-revelations by the nature of what they took - the argument about physiological versus mental gains made.


----------



## romeo (2 Oct 2007)

So apart from Fankie Andreau saying they were all encouraged by LA to dope, Steve Swart saying the same thing, Jonathan Vaughters explaining how USPS/Discovery bring in the blood by motorbike on rest days, Actovegin syringes being dumped by the team secretly midway through TdF, his personal assistant alleging steroid use, his soigneur detailing how a positive drugs test was magiced away with a phoney prescription, Betsy detailing the HGH Cortisone, Testosterone, EPO hopsital drug admission, his actions against whistleblowers Bassons and Simeoni, one of his best friends conveniently being in charge of USA Cycling and responsible for Out of Competition drug testing or its lack of, him and his team mates selling their houses in france and moving to spain when france started getting heavy on drug cheats, his coach Chris Carmichael being involved in doping junior riders and making them sick, his team employing 4 (four) of the dodgiest cycling doctors possbible at the same time, having epo retrospecitvely found in his urine dating from a period when there was no test for epo and using the expertise of blood boosting doctor michele ferrari.

So, apart from all that, lets get one thing straight... Lance Armstrong definitely did NOT use drugs


----------



## itisaboutthebike (2 Oct 2007)

So who was "Cowboy 2003" from OP ?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (2 Oct 2007)

I'm sure there must be a 'Doper's Handbook' somewhere as all the excuses seem to be the same irrespective of the sport. This from the recent America's Cup sailing event:



> A test of the A sample of urine from Simon Daubney was completed on 9th July 2007 and, after a request by Simon Daubney, a test of the B sample
> commenced on 8th August 2007. Simon Daubney did not accept that the evidence that had been found in his sample was in his body at the time of the test and he contended that *the custodial procedures were not in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories.*



He then went on to use 'Standard Excuse No 2' and claimed that something must have been put in his drink.


----------



## andy_wrx (2 Oct 2007)

Simon Daubney 
http://www.cowes.co.uk/zonexml/story?cp=0;story_id=3402



> It has been widely reported that the drug in question is cannabis



So the 'something put into my drink' excuse in America's Cup context probably reads 'I had 16 pints and a few spliffs' ?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (2 Oct 2007)

Widely reported , but wrong. It was apparently cocaine.

So rather than beer and spliffs it was more likely rum and coke.


----------



## romeo (2 Oct 2007)

for those that have followed the SCA case, stefanie (oakley) testimony and the sh*t Betsy Andreau went through when she told what she said was the truth about LAs admission to his doctors that he had taken HGH, EPO, Cortizone etc


Turns out Stefanie heard the same thing but didnt want to risk her job at oakley where both her and her husband worked as she has an autistic son to provide for...

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3



recorded in a "one party consents" state
bear in mind greg had to tape everything then as LA had threatened to find 10 people who would claim hed taken epo and that Trek who were the main beneficiaries of LAs (fraudulent?) success would drop his Lemond bike brand


----------



## Abitrary (14 Oct 2007)

I think everyone here has made some very valid points...

I'm a sometime follower of the pro game, and maybe not one who's best placed to offer an opinion but I'd have to go with Cunobelin on this one...


----------



## Frazer (14 Oct 2007)

errrr.....what?? Most random post ive ever seen


----------



## romeo (17 Oct 2007)

Out of competition tests are carried out by the national federation. When the national federation has gone bust and your best mate buys the remains of it and runs it like his own private company you can be certain he won't send the out of competition testers for you too hard... (and especially if you sell your house in france when the french police start clamping down on doping and move to a country thats not really bothered)

EPO couldnt be detected in a urine test... which was all the riders had to realistically give when LA was winning his TdFs. Fast forward to a time when EPO can be tested in urine and whoops...theres all sorts of controversy about some samples someone gave from 98.
When it became apparent that testing for blood doping was being bought in for the Olympics and all of a sudden someones swansong plans of leaving the sport changed rather rapidly. Just as well... things didnt go too well for buddy Tyler.

As of yet there is no approved test for doping using your own blood. There is one in the pipeline but it has to be tested, gain acceptance and then be implemented by WADA, UCI etc. So for someone who went out of his way to use the services of blood doctor Michele Ferarri in addition to his own coach who had plenty of experience of doping young riders in the past (Strock et al) and whose team (ie who you ride for and part own) hires 4 (FOUR) of the dirtiest doctors in cycling simutaneously to oversee this stuff youve got a pretty good chance of never testing positive. Especially when contrary to popular belief no one is really testing you properly anyway...

Thats how you take doping to the next level.


----------



## gillan (17 Oct 2007)

a ringing endorsement of Bruyneel from Yates

"Of course Astana has had some bad press," he told the BBC. "But Johan Bruyneel has never had a positive test with a team he has been involved with. And I am confident that we will not have any problems in the future."


you may as well just say he's a crafty bu**er who employs, or makes sure his riders employ, all the best techniques


----------



## itisaboutthebike (25 Oct 2007)

"Persoanlly I don't think he took them "

So what planet have you been on for the past umpteen years ?


----------



## Abitrary (25 Oct 2007)

actually half way through his book, 'it's not about the bike', and it is excellent

It's weird because you think he is actually going to bang on about his bike, but the technical stuff comes from like a kind of dream, when he is describing what a bicycle is to his chemo-therapy nurse, and then that's the start of the love-hate relationship with the bike.

Anyway, I'm almost finished it, which is more than the Donna Tartt I've been struggling with for the last 2 years


----------



## monnet (25 Oct 2007)

Abitrary said:


> *actually half way through* his book, 'it's not about the bike', and it is excellent
> 
> It's weird because you think he is actually going to bang on about his bike, but the technical stuff comes from like a kind of dream, when he is describing what a bicycle is to his chemo-therapy nurse, and then that's the start of the love-hate relationship with the bike.
> 
> Anyway, *I'm almost finished it*, which is more than the Donna Tartt I've been struggling with for the last 2 years



Is it a really short book then?


----------



## romeo (25 Oct 2007)

I think its worth remembering that the book, especially in its later forms, is a vehicle for promoting Brand Armstrong and suppressing any ideas of foul play that might come to tarnish it in the future. It will have been written in such a way as to emphasise the huge amounts of training , the single mindedness and the mountain climbs on xmas day angle. I suspect its purposefully light on why he used his power to silence antidoping whistleblowers Bassons and Simeoni or indeed the real ins and outs of why he needed the services of prominent blood doctor Michele Ferrari. 

Maybe if read Its Not About the Bike and then From Lance to Landis we'd come to a more balanced conclusion somewhere between the two?


----------



## Blue (18 Nov 2007)

yenrod said:


> The juries still for me and will be till he _ever_ does a riis...



Does this not mean that you think he did cheat and you are waiting for him to confess??


----------



## Tetedelacourse (21 Nov 2007)

romeo said:


> I think its worth remembering that the book, especially in its later forms, is a vehicle for promoting Brand Armstrong and suppressing any ideas of foul play that might come to tarnish it in the future. It will have been written in such a way as to emphasise the huge amounts of training , the single mindedness and the mountain climbs on xmas day angle. *I suspect its purposefully light on why he used his power to silence antidoping whistleblowers Bassons and Simeoni *or indeed the real ins and outs of why he needed the services of prominent blood doctor Michele Ferrari.
> 
> Maybe if read Its Not About the Bike and then From Lance to Landis we'd come to a more balanced conclusion somewhere between the two?



I agree with the jist of your post but it's also worth remembering that he wrote the book the bulk of the book was written before these events occurred!


----------



## andy_wrx (21 Nov 2007)

Clearly he didn't write the book 
(aside - I'm amused that my copy of It's Not About the Bike is 'by Lance Armstrong', whereas Every Second Counts is 'by Lance Armstrong with Sally Jenkins' ) ​in that he didn't get busy with the typewriter himself, but I bet it involved interview sessions with tape recorder, drafts of the book, reviews and edits, next draft, another review, etc until it said exactly what he wanted it to say, in the way he wanted it said : Lance would be far too control-freaky to do anything else...

(so it perhaps does class as 'writing it' in a way that, say, Wayne Rooney's 'autobiography' doesn't...? )


----------



## Tetedelacourse (21 Nov 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> Clearly he didn't write the book
> (aside - I'm amused that my copy of It's Not About the Bike is 'by Lance Armstrong', whereas Every Second Counts is 'by Lance Armstrong with Sally Jenkins' ) ​in that he didn't get busy with the typewriter himself, but I bet it involved interview sessions with tape recorder, drafts of the book, reviews and edits, next draft, another review, etc until it said exactly what he wanted it to say, in the way he wanted it said : Lance would be far too control-freaky to do anything else...
> 
> (so it perhaps does class as 'writing it' in a way that, say, *Wayne Rooney's 'autobiography'* doesn't...? )



Have you read this? Any good? Is it full of stuff like "Today I went to the chip shop. I like chips." and "Thank God for velcro boots"?


----------



## andy_wrx (21 Nov 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Have you read this?



No I haven't read it (f*ck off! )

What I have done is seen the picture on the front 
(in a display in Waterstones)​which is probably all he's done as well 
(with a big fat cheque inside the sample copy).​


----------



## romeo (21 Nov 2007)

Bassons was 99, most of the revisions of that book have come out since then


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Nov 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> *No I haven't read it (f*ck off! )*
> 
> What I have done is seen the picture on the front
> (in a display in Waterstones)​which is probably all he's done as well
> (with a big fat cheque inside the sample copy).​


----------



## andy_wrx (22 Nov 2007)

Hmm Tete, is that avatar of yours having sex with an invisible bike ?


----------



## Dave_1 (22 Nov 2007)

funny clip of Lance and Johan Bruyneel...jokes on Jan


----------



## Steve Austin (24 Nov 2007)

Pfft Could have easy ridden that!


----------



## andy_wrx (7 Feb 2008)

Read the to-ing and fro-ing between Betsy Andreau and Lance's lawyer on here
http://tinyurl.com/3xthbf 

The fact that Lance is paying his lawyer to indulge in a slanging match with here on this paper's forum rather than simply taking her to court says something...


----------



## StHuck (29 Sep 2008)

yello said:


> Whether he did or he didn't is not important to me now. He's SO last year darling.



Bona point! Could not agree more, Simply don't care about Lance Armstrong.


----------



## maurice (29 Sep 2008)

Erm, newsflash?


----------



## PaulB (29 Sep 2008)

Suggestions he may not be able to compete being bandied about today. Apparently cyclists need at least six months drug free accreditation before they can compete and he certainly won't have that before some of the events he's targetted for the run up to his big come back. How ironic would it be that a drugs issue stood in the way of his ambitions?


----------



## mondobongo (30 Sep 2008)

He's already squealing about inconsistent rules citing Cipollini's return as an example.


----------



## maurice (30 Sep 2008)

The UCI are making themselves out to look a right bunch of idiots "we don't know how long he's been on the blood passport" etc. Perhaps they should find out.


----------



## mondobongo (30 Sep 2008)

They are actually playing right into his bleeding hands were he can manipulate things to his advantage. This will show once more how weak willed and ineffective the UCI are.

I have very little doubt in my mind that armstrong will be on the start line for the Tour Down Under


----------



## Chuffy (30 Sep 2008)

mondobongo said:


> He's already squealing about inconsistent rules citing Cipollini's return as an example.


Didn't Cipo's 'return' (ha ha) pre-date the blood passport regs?

I'm guessing that the TdU organisers will be desperate to have him there, so the UCI are probably getting it in the ear from two sets of lawyers right now.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I'm guessing that the TdU organisers will be desperate to have him there



What makes you guess that? Personally, I'm not so sure. I'm certainly prepared to believe they can see pluses and minuses to it. He's doubtless going to attract more interest (therefore money, so I'm sure the ASO accountants are keen!) but it's not like the TdF is short of income as it is. 

I have no idea but would think opinions are divided and the only official is the 'if he's got the drug test paperwork in order' line already given. Of course, there's always the get out of not inviting Astana - neatly side stepping the question.


----------



## Chuffy (30 Sep 2008)

yello said:


> What makes you guess that? Personally, I'm not so sure. I'm certainly prepared to believe they can see pluses and minuses to it. He's doubtless going to attract more interest (therefore money, so I'm sure the ASO accountants are keen!) but it's not like the *TdF *is short of income as it is.


I was referring to the Tour Down Under dear boy. I'm sure that they will be eager to have him. 

TdF will be much more ambivalent though.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I was referring to the Tour Down Under dear boy. I'm sure that they will be eager to have him.



Well, as I said in another post, my mother told me (from NZ) that a number of Aussies are not too keen on it. Don't know why and it could just be NZ media spin.


----------



## HLaB (2 Oct 2008)

Sorry if this has been bounded about before, but the BBC were reporting today that the French anti doping agengy want to retest LA's 1999 samples.

Edit: it has on this thread


----------



## kennykool (2 Oct 2008)

The French have it in for Lance cos he's won THEIR tour so many times!!!

The tests will never happen!


----------



## yenrod (2 Oct 2008)

Will1985 said:


> I don't think that he doped at all. His cancer obviously had a positive effect on his physique and mental attitude.
> Also, you can look at Tiger Woods with his different attitude towards training for golf as a reason for his massive success - there is no reason why it cannot be the same for Armstrong with his attitude towards training and the team which was built up around him (I would use this argument to defend his first couple of wins, but once other teams caught up he must have had to pull something new out of the hat).
> The same can be said for England's 2003 Rugby WC success - they employed sports science techniques and sports psychologists when the other teams didn't; having the mental edge is often touted as the difference between winning and losing.
> 
> Recently I have been thinking about something - Armstrong and Contador have both had brain surgery, and I wonder if that may have had any influence on other things. (Don't attack me on this, because it is just a question and I doubt any amount of current medical expertise could ratify or reject it.)



If I was to post a comment it'd be this !

So I'm a - believer


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2008)

Looks like Vino could be joining Lance at Astana....:?:

No English link available yet, but it's in l"Equipe.


----------



## Keith Oates (4 Oct 2008)

If that happened I can't see Astana or Armstrong in the TdF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> Looks like Vino could be joining Lance at Astana....:?:
> 
> No English link available yet, but it's in l"Equipe.


Oh come on! Bringing back a nasty whiff like Vino would be like Gordon Brown bringing, say, Peter Mandelson back into the cabinet!

Oh......


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> The French have it in for Lance cos he's won THEIR tour so many times!!!


Right then. I'm going to start a drinking game based on every time a fan-boy trots out this line to explain away why people don't like Armstrong...:?:
We'll be blotto by teatime.


----------



## spandex (4 Oct 2008)

LA can't be done for doping as he was taking loads of anti cancer drugs and they mess up the testing!!!!


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2008)

Ok, excuse my translation skills, but here's roughly what the web article says:

After announcing his retirement in December, Alexander Vinokourov announced his return to competition according to Saturday's l'Equipe. Suspended for doping until last July 24, the Kazakh will probably carry the shirt of "the team of his heart", Astana. The former conqueror of the Vuelta would therefore become the teammate of Lance Armstrong but should not participate in the Tour de France.


http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/index.html


----------



## justAl (6 Oct 2008)

Why is professional cycling allowing LA to bulldoze his way in? His latest rant is about not ever being caught doping along with 25 riders who helped him. How many of those 25 have since failed a test or have suspicions against them? The racing calender is what it says, RACING, not a sportive to raise money for charity. And as for Astana, I thought they wanted to be taken seriously and shed their past skin. "A new age for cyling" I think not


----------



## kennykool (6 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Right then. I'm going to start a drinking game based on every time a fan-boy trots out this line to explain away why people don't like Armstrong...
> We'll be blotto by teatime.




Ok then Chuffy - whats your explanation for it...let me guess...Oh.....he's arrogant etc etc blah blah blah

Heard it all before!!!!


----------



## Crackle (6 Oct 2008)

justAl said:


> Why is professional cycling allowing LA to bulldoze his way in? *His latest rant is about not ever being caught doping along with 25 riders who helped him.* How many of those 25 have since failed a test or have suspicions against them? The racing calender is what it says, RACING, not a sportive to raise money for charity. And as for Astana, I thought they wanted to be taken seriously and shed their past skin. "A new age for cyling" I think not



Yes I read that with a twinkling of amazement. I think I'd just keep schtum about half my former teamates being caught up in doing scandals.


----------



## yello (6 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Heard it all before!!!!



Likewise. There are blinkered views everywhere... and Chuffy's isn't one of them!

I am unnerved by Armstrong's desire to take his cancer message to the public via cycling events. I can understand his passion and don't doubt his motivation (well, maybe a bit!) but he has no remit to make it the TdF 'Ride for Cancer Research', no matter how noble the cause.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Oct 2008)

yello said:


> Likewise. There are *blinkered* views everywhere... and Chuffy's isn't one of them!


I think the phrase you want is 'rosy-tinted'. And the likes of me, Noodley, Girofan etc etc don't have the enviable ability of the fan-boys to filter out all of the reasons why LA is not such a decent, upright sporting icon...


----------



## kennykool (6 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I think the phrase you want is 'rosy-tinted'. And the likes of me, Noodley, Girofan etc etc don't have the enviable ability of the fan-boys to filter out all of the reasons why LA is not such a decent, upright sporting icon...




I honestly can't see why there is such a huge amount of cycling fans who do not like LA!

Maybe we "fan-boys" do see LA through rose tinted glasses - who cares. Better that than the "sceptical Specs" that you seem to wear! Filling the forums with doom and gloom about who will be caught doping next and how bad everyone is!!!!

Get over it and move on. Lance is coming back and there is nothing you can do to stop it!!!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (6 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> I honestly can't see why there is such a huge amount of cycling fans who do not like LA!
> 
> Maybe we "fan-boys" do see LA through rose tinted glasses - who cares. Better that than the "sceptical Specs" that you seem to wear! Filling the forums with doom and gloom about who will be caught doping next and how bad everyone is!!!!
> 
> Get over it and move on. Lance is coming back and there is nothing you can do to stop it!!!!



I sit somewhere in between you two, and it's a good job too - stop you nipping each other at storytime. 

I don't think it will bring le tour and / or pro cycling to its knees or set back the fight against doping. 

But I'm not a fan of his any more and actually on hearing the Vino news, it's signalled the opening of a few issues that I thought had been laid to rest.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Get over it and move on. Lance is coming back and there is nothing you can do to stop it!!!!



No, but I can at least make you see sense  How long do I have?


----------



## mondobongo (6 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Get over it and move on. Lance is coming back and there is nothing you can do to stop it!!!!



Maybe not.

However he is not on the start line yet and Vino could well be a fly in the ointment.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Maybe we "fan-boys" do see LA through rose tinted glasses - who cares. Better that than the "sceptical Specs" that you seem to wear! *Filling the forums with doom and gloom about who will be caught doping next and how bad everyone is!!!!*


Yeah, quite right. We should do as Lance tells us, believe these cyclists and stop worrying our pretty little heads about doping.


----------



## kennykool (7 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Yeah, quite right. We should do as Lance tells us, believe these cyclists and stop worrying our pretty little heads about doping.




Thats more like it Chuffy


----------



## kennykool (7 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> No, but I can at least make you see sense  How long do I have?




All the time in the world Noodley...maybe you can try and get me to see sense next time we are riding next to each other 

Thats if I don't get a flat again!!!!


----------



## Chuffy (7 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Thats if I don't get a flat again!!!!


That's God's judgement on you. 

...and the P*nct*re Fairy is French.


----------



## kennykool (7 Oct 2008)

Ha Ha Thats funny Chuffy.

Does that mean that the French P*nct*re fairy attacked me cos I like LA???


----------



## rich p (7 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Ha Ha Thats funny Chuffy.
> 
> Does that mean that the French P*nct*re fairy attacked me cos I like LA???



That was retribution from on high for defending Schumacher back in the summer, Kenny


----------



## kennykool (7 Oct 2008)

Ha Ha - I was waiting for someone to bring that up...Cheers Rich. I was actually close to saying something myself but managed to try and let it pass! 

Ach well, I still maintain that I allow folks to be innocent until proven Guilty.....I enjoyed Schumachers performances at the Tour....now he is guilty and they should throw the book at him!!!!! 

I don't support doping. I don't condone doping. But you've got to admit doping has given us some terriffic performances....all the way back to Pantani in 98.

Cue a barrage of comments about LA's performances 99 through 05 .....Chuffy the stage is yours!!!


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> Ach well, I still maintain that I allow folks to be innocent until proven Guilty.....I enjoyed Schumachers performances at the Tour....now he is guilty and they should throw the book at him!!!!!


That's what guts me about it - it makes you cynical, and unwilling to believe in people that DO just have a good day. I enjoyed Ricco's attack. I liked Schumacher's breakaway - and that gets snatched away with the realisation that it wasn't guts, or bloody mindedness that spurred them on, it was chemicals.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Oct 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> That's what guts me about it - it makes you cynical, and unwilling to believe in people that DO just have a good day. I enjoyed Ricco's attack. I liked Schumacher's breakaway - and that gets snatched away with the realisation that it wasn't guts, or bloody mindedness that spurred them on, it was chemicals.


I've said it before, I still can't help but admire Landis on Morzine. Drugs won't make a donkey into a race horse and they don't give you guts, courage or tactical nous. But that's not the point and we have to keep reminding ourselves that these people are cheats.


----------



## Crackle (7 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I've said it before, I still can't help but admire Landis on Morzine. Drugs won't make a donkey into a race horse and they don't give you guts, courage or tactical nous. But that's not the point and we have to keep reminding ourselves that these people are cheats.



Actually I need to write to Mr.Landis. I was in the midst of France at the time of his attack on Morzine with no access to telly or 'owt. My only method of news was to use my PDA to connect to the tour website via my phone and follow the newsflashes - the bill for that day came to £40


----------



## TheDoctor (7 Oct 2008)

It was particularly galling seeing Landis going up Coulombiere (sp?) and remembering how long it took me when I did it...


----------



## Chuffy (7 Oct 2008)

TheDoctor said:


> It was particularly galling seeing Landis going up Coulombiere (sp?) and remembering how long it took me when I did it...


So you'd have beaten him if he wasn't on drugs then?


----------

