Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

LOL! You really beleive that??? I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Meehs quote was in response to: "Originally Posted by VeloFlash
However, as an example, of the 1998 Festina riders who doped only one rider was seeking authoritative advice. Richard Virenque was consulting Dr Ferrari."

It was not dope alone that made the rider but the cocktail of dopes in conjunction with a training program. That is why Virenque consulted Ferrari.

Extracts from Willy Voet's book "Breaking the Chain."

"Even back as far as 1994, Virenque took an interest in how the EPO and growth hormone operation was proceeding. 'Do we have enough? Have you spoken about it with the doctor?' He asked so many questions, especially in the build-up to his principal aim, the Tour de France. Obviously it was in his interests that the team be as strong as possible to help him win the race, which always slipped from his fingers but which is where he became a celebrity. Virenque knew perfectly well what he was doing. His infamous 'without my knowledge of my own free will' -which is what he answered when asked if he took drugs - is a scandalous untruth.

"To sum up, there was nothing I didn't know about what was going on in the other teams. There were other soigneurs who boasted about it, who thought they were big shots, convinced that they could make or break a champion. There were some who were on big bonuses from the riders whom they prepared. One of these was the Spanish masseur who had worked alongside many world-class cyclists and had offered his services to Alex Zulle at Festina. The Spaniard never made up to riders like Bassons or Medan. He had big ideas, and swore by the methods of Dr Michele Ferrari - Rominger's Italian trainer, who is now under investigation by Italian police for supplying banned substances. It was always Ferrari this and Ferrari that. I ended up having big shouting matches with him, as did Rijckaert, who was, in spite of everything we did, a believer in a certain amount of moderation.

"You have to understand that by now training sessions were determined by the doses of banned drugs that riders were ingesting rather than the other way round. As soon as our backs were turned, there were Festina riders who were tiptoeing into the Spaniard's room. They just wanted to go 'faster, higher, stronger', in the words of the Olympic motto. Thus it was that Richard Virenque paid a visit to Ferrari at his home in Ferrara at the start of 1996. One consultation was enough. Richard came back in a rather perplexed state. Being prepared by the Italian would have worked out very expensive. What's more, teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing.

Don't offer me the Brooklyn Bridge! I am aware it has, uniquely apart from any bridge in the world, a long list of former owners. :)

Meehs quote was in response to: "Originally Posted by VeloFlash
However, as an example, of the 1998 Festina riders who doped only one rider was seeking authoritative advice. Richard Virenque was consulting Dr Ferrari."

It was not dope alone that made the rider but the cocktail of dopes in conjunction with a training program. That is why Virenque consulted Ferrari.

Extracts from Willy Voet's book "Breaking the Chain."

"Even back as far as 1994, Virenque took an interest in how the EPO and growth hormone operation was proceeding. 'Do we have enough? Have you spoken about it with the doctor?' He asked so many questions, especially in the build-up to his principal aim, the Tour de France. Obviously it was in his interests that the team be as strong as possible to help him win the race, which always slipped from his fingers but which is where he became a celebrity. Virenque knew perfectly well what he was doing. His infamous 'without my knowledge of my own free will' -which is what he answered when asked if he took drugs - is a scandalous untruth.

"To sum up, there was nothing I didn't know about what was going on in the other teams. There were other soigneurs who boasted about it, who thought they were big shots, convinced that they could make or break a champion. There were some who were on big bonuses from the riders whom they prepared. One of these was the Spanish masseur who had worked alongside many world-class cyclists and had offered his services to Alex Zulle at Festina. The Spaniard never made up to riders like Bassons or Medan. He had big ideas, and swore by the methods of Dr Michele Ferrari - Rominger's Italian trainer, who is now under investigation by Italian police for supplying banned substances. It was always Ferrari this and Ferrari that. I ended up having big shouting matches with him, as did Rijckaert, who was, in spite of everything we did, a believer in a certain amount of moderation.

"You have to understand that by now training sessions were determined by the doses of banned drugs that riders were ingesting rather than the other way round. As soon as our backs were turned, there were Festina riders who were tiptoeing into the Spaniard's room. They just wanted to go 'faster, higher, stronger', in the words of the Olympic motto. Thus it was that Richard Virenque paid a visit to Ferrari at his home in Ferrara at the start of 1996. One consultation was enough. Richard came back in a rather perplexed state. Being prepared by the Italian would have worked out very expensive. What's more, teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing.

Don't offer me the Brooklyn Bridge! I am aware it has, uniquely apart from any bridge in the world, a long list of former owners. :)

Interesting. I guess I misunderstood your post. I apologize. Don't worry, I don't really have any bridges for sale. :D

Wow!! How convincing?

Did you attend a Johnnie Cochran school of alternative story telling, unrelated to the facts of 1) professional cycling customs and doping practices 2) the specific 14 year history that is Lance and his close associations with dopers and doping physicians or are you on the payroll of Lance, Inc & Sally Jenkins PR consulting?

As far as empathy;---let's see do I use proven blood doping doctor/trainers when I wish to avoid drugs? Hmmmmm---

Do I abandon the weekly injections of EPO or Ananesp, plus HGH, plus Interlukin-3 after they have brought me back from the dead?

Do I engage in Grand Stage Racing if I am concerned about my health??

Do I admit to the possession of corticosteroids,Actovegin & Insulin when I claim never to use such products?

Do I ignore the use of HBOCs in my competitors---believing that I can crush them on my "work ethic"?


Sorry, the logic of the Lance behaviors is that he will do or say anything to: WIN AT ALL COSTS, as many champions do, INCUDING doping to high levels.

Tyler Hamilton, Alex Zulle, Oscar Caminzend, David Miller, Marco Pantani, and Richard Virenque are a very few examples of Lance's peer-driven doping behavior. Lance will never escape the belief that he is a drug addcited cyclist---because too many insiders know him to be one. What makes Lance unique---is the high endorsement revenue he has collected. That's impressive, and that is his chief success.

If I behaved like Lance does--I would expect people to think I cheated in the same way as my peer group. Surprisingly, only 24% do.


Stay tuned---your absolute truth requirement will be revealed eventually. After the LA advertising theme ends---the truth will be allowed to seep out.

Trust me, if you saw my pay checks, you'd know I'm not on the Armstrong payroll.

Have you ever associated with anyone you knew to be using illegal drugs? Marijuana, Ecstasy? Tobacco or alcohol perhaps, among peers too young to use such substances? If so, you then must be guilty, right?

You seem to be incredibly fond of the law (though not altogether familiar with it)...
(snip)

I think it prudent for you to consider the possibility that you're either over-stepping here or are mistaking a difference in legal practices where you live with those where I live. I work in the legal profession and have done so for over 21-years. I'm regarded as the most knowledgeable in regard to legal statutes within my division as is noted on a number of my yearly evaluations.

I could just be making all of that up. But I think you know me well enough by now to feel assured that such is not the case.

Roadie: Nutrition is important, I agree. However, the PEDs added to proper diet & rest, training, hydration, minerals, vitamins, essential fats etc... make the GREATEST DIFFERENCE.

Far beyond 10%.

You offer the following to support your belief in a 500% or nearly 500% gain.

1) training time is doubled---without loss of quality. Doubled = 200%
2) power/strength goes up 10--15% in just 10 weeks. "10%--15%" equals 10% - 15%
3) sustainable power output can double/triple (ie 60-90 minutes at AT vrs just 30 minutes) Doubled = 200%, tripled = 300%
4) repeated intensive bursting efforts can be quadrubled. Quadrupled = 400%
5) overall stamina increases tremendously. "tremendously" is non-quantitative.

If one tried to quantify it---a 500% performance gain is much closer to the truth than is 10%. It is gains in POWER, SPEED, and SUSTAINABLE POWER/stamina that increase, not just one element of performance. Wouldn't a 500% gain result in a rider about twice as fast as a non-doping rider?

The now honest and financially bankcupt Eddie Plankaert attibuted EPO alone with a performance gain of 12-15%. Just EPO alone.

When you add the stimulants, the insulin/glocose, HGH/B-12, the IGF-1, the HBOCs, the Interlukins, the saline feeds, the pain-killers---you move far away from "organic performance limits". By a factor of five, I say.

That's wht Phil Leggitt refers to them as "Superhumans". They are---and it ain't because of their good work ethics.

Even PEDs and POOR diet & rest can achieve short-term performance gains.

I'm still at a loss as to where the 500% figure comes from.

You seem to be of the belief that the human body can be pushed almost without limits, assuming the proper banned substances are used. I find this difficult to believe when you see the number of athletes which we may assume are clean which cause themselves debilitating injury through training beyond the limits of their bodies.

Insofar as 500%, I was estimating on the LOW end for your benefit. Come ride with me and Nardello next week---and you will swear he is at least 1,000% stronger on "sustainable wattage output".

He can ride for hours at 375-425 watts and accelerate violently at will. For shorter efforts, he can produce much more power.


If Nardello had a 1000% increase in sustainable power, and the power figures you quote are accurate, that would mean his initial steady state threshold was no higher than 42.5W. 42.5w is a laughably small number - probably below my mother's threshold and in the region of a seventh of my drug free threshold. No doubt that if Nardello is on drugs he will be a stronger rider, but not 1000% better sustainable power. Not 500% either. Even assuming he is only moderately genetically talented (~top 2% rather than top 0.001%), he would likely have a threshold of 300w when clean and well trained, which would mean that drugs gave him about a 35% increase in sustainable power. Even this figure is probably on the very high side because Nardello, irrespective of drug use, is likely to be very well endowed genetically.

You are using linear and absolute measures when it is geometric increases in power and stamina that I refer to.

If you don't have an absolute objective measure you can't make a claim like '500% increase in performance'.

The difference beteen and a newly doped athlete who is now 10-15% stronger---without sufficient years of base building would be destroyed by a Nardello or Armstrong in hour #1, that still leaves another 4-5 hours to fall further and further into the abyss.

The dramatic increase in power, speed and repeats are monsterous. 500% does not mean 5 times faster speed, it means, quicker, faster, torquier, and longer----accumulating to superior overall performance on flats, into wind, rollers and long climbs. Motorcycle-like output.

500% means 5 times more as a matter of grammar, logic and common usage. I'm not disagreeing that the gains made from PED's make a huge difference (in all terrain over almost all time periods), but you still haven't made any reference to a measurable standard which can actually be said to improve by 500%. What you are talking about now sounds most closely related to overall energy expenditure over a long period of time - this is directly related to lactate threshold or critical power, neither of which increase by 500% with the use of PED's.

The difference beteen and a newly doped athlete who is now 10-15% stronger---without sufficient years of base building would be destroyed by a Nardello or Armstrong in hour #1

I agree with this - the reason underlying it is that both Armstrong and Nardello have extremely good underlying genetic traits and are highly trained. If they have used PED's to enhance recovery in training, that will contribute significantly to their ability to become highly trained, yes. When you add this to the ~10%+ you might get from EPO, other blood boosters and acute performance enhancers like cortico-steroids, lactate buffers, phosphate [legal] and stimulants [some legal some illegal], it might be more than 15%. It still doesn't make them 500% better on any measure.

The logic of what you have written also doesn't make sense. A newly doped athlete would be expected to be destroyed by LA or Nardello under my assumptions. The underlying physiological parameters of the newly doped athlete is not as good as a pro so their performance gain from PEDs is smaller on an absolute scale and their performance after PEDs is much lower.

Eg: Cat 4 rider has 250w threshold.
Post EPO 8-10% gain would have ~270-280w threshold.

Highly trained professional has 380w threshold.
Post EPO 8-10% gain would have ~410-420w threshold.

The post-EPO professional has a ~ 50% higher threshold than the Cat 4 rider post-EPO, but much of this is attributable to underlying genetics, highly trained state and long term training adaptions (which may be facilitated partly by recovery enhancing drugs and PEDs that increase capacity to work in training). The ratio of the Cat 4s threshold to the pros is the same if they are both clean or if they are both on the gear. However, the Cat 4 on the gear will get completely smashed by the pro on the gear or not.

I think it prudent for you to consider the possibility that you're either over-stepping here or are mistaking a difference in legal practices where you live with those where I live. I work in the legal profession and have done so for over 21-years. I'm regarded as the most knowledgeable in regard to legal statutes within my division as is noted on a number of my yearly evaluations.

I could just be making all of that up. But I think you know me well enough by now to feel assured that such is not the case.
We're not talking about legal profession

You offer the following to support your belief in a 500% or nearly 500% gain.

Doubled = 200%
"10%--15%" equals 10% - 15%
Doubled = 200%, tripled = 300%
Quadrupled = 400%
"tremendously" is non-quantitative.

Wouldn't a 500% gain result in a rider about twice as fast as a non-doping rider?

I'm still at a loss as to where the 500% figure comes from.


He is talking about subjective difference.

exactly, I am in the same boat as you. As a fan of cycling, I find it extremely hard to believe that lance is doping. But when credible people (people who are in the know of cycling) start talking about lance doping (i.e. team doctor, lemond, etc), then things get questionable.
you guys talk about these people being credible. who says they are?
just because they worked for the team does that mean that what they are saying is gospel?

I think it prudent for you to consider the possibility that you're either over-stepping here or are mistaking a difference in legal practices where you live with those where I live. I work in the legal profession and have done so for over 21-years. I'm regarded as the most knowledgeable in regard to legal statutes within my division as is noted on a number of my yearly evaluations.

I could just be making all of that up. But I think you know me well enough by now to feel assured that such is not the case.

I outlined precisely why I thought your comments were strange. What exactly is your job? You are in the legal profession but not a lawyer. Are you police? Law clerk? Parking inspector?

He is talking about subjective difference.

It doesn't make sense to talk about subjective difference in this way. Performance is measurable and the use of a precise figure like 500% suggests a measurable quantity. If he is talking about a subjective, hyperbolic statement like 'riders feel 500% stronger when on PEDs', that's ok, but not really informative at all. I feel 500% better after a good nights sleep and a rest day. I feel 1000% better when I'm on holiday. If he's talking about a subjective difference he should say that - then it is ok that his figures are strange because they have little real meaning.

It also seems strange that when I suggested some possible measures of human cycling performance, he didn't say which one he was using or state explicitly he wasn't using one. He also mentioned threshold power which is objective, mesurable and not increased by 500% by PEDs.

meehs: Fortunately, there are many others who do GET IT.And based on this poll at this point, 3 who "don't get it" for everyone who does.

IT is about doping practice disclosure---not "nailing one rider".That may very well be your point but it's not what the topic of the thread suggests.

The point is to highlight the widespread nature that is doping in sports---in virtually all sports.According to you and some others which, if this poll is any measure, are in the significant minority.

It is impractical to set up a doping post for every rider as there are too many of them. Lance is the perfect choice as he has proven that drugs do work insofar as cancer recovery---and in preparation for grand tours.Again, an assertion stated as if it were proven fact.

If Lance were at all concerned about his personal health or longevity of life--he would not participate in grand tours. Such activity is unhealthful without trauma drugs and insulin, IV feeds, etc.... let alone with the help of PEDs.Again, assuming he is using PEDs.

Lance is a metaphor for doping and hence he has been chosen to host this board.In your opinion and the 25% that share your opinion.

Stay tuned, the general media is slowly catching up on disclosure. The advertisers and doping apologists cannot prevent the weekly deaths of footballers, soccer players, baseball players, and cyclists. We will stay tuned and if the media finds and reports what you suspect, I'll be there to tell you that you were right and I was wrong.

Doping and doping protocols have never been more powerful or lethal than they are today. Records are broken with the same pace as mortality rates increase.An interesting and possibly telling observation. Do you have the numbers which show this?

We're not talking about legal profession
If you went back to the post from which I quoted, you'd know what I was talking about.

Answers: 1) Yes, I attended High School along with dopers and aspiring alcoholics. 2) WRONG.But associating with them was your choice as associating with Dr. Ferarri was Armstrong's choice.

Children have little choice in attending school. If the kids smoke out back by the pool--then they risk being painted with that brush.If you associate with the kids smoking then you risk being thought of as a doper whether you actually partake or not. Guilt by association is very often inaccurate.

Adults have more choices, discretion and judgment. That is the difference.And many adults associate with people they know partake of illegal drugs but many don't themselves use the drugs.

The reputation you carry is the sum total of your choices, judgments and personal associations.The reputation others cast upon you is the sum total of their bias, prejudices and assumptions.

Lance's actions speak louder than his words. to wit:

1) Lance choose to have a 10 year professional relationship with Michele Ferrari--now a convicted for malpractice doping performance coach.An association you proclaim proves guilt. Such as the guilt you carry for having associated with drug users in school. Hence, you are a doper and so is Lance. Or does it only apply to professional athletes you choose not to like?

2) Lance associates with Chris Carmichael, another person accused of doping junior athletes in 1990. Carmichael recently settled his case for an "undisclosed amount" and can now be released from the upcoming Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter USA Cycling & Rene Wenzel lawsuit. These former Lance teammates all (Lance, Greg & Erich) contracted dread diseases.Lance has been more successful under Carmichael than at any other time in his career. Perhaps this strengthens your assertions or perhaps it explains why Lance has remained with him despite questionable accusations. Perhaps Carmichael is behind the doping concoctions you claim Armstrong is using. Perhaps it's nothing more than very effective training methods. Chris and Lance know for sure. You and I don't.

3) Lance admitted to using both EPO and corticosteroids but won't say when he quit using them, if ever.There is no "admission" to using drugs when such drug use is prescribed and proper to save one's life. His choice not to disclose he date he quit using them may be suspect or it may be his right to privacy or a concern about not having the exact date readily available which would only fuel the fire for more partially supported accusations.

4) Lance admitted having Actovegin and insulin in USPO possession in 2000. Lance said that they had lots of medical stuff and the Actovegin was for treating abrasions, the insulin was for an unnamed diabetic USPO staffer. Now we now Actovegin is a HBOC blood booster. Hmmmmmm.... (btw: Actovegin was not banned in 2000, now it is) Insulin was banned, still is.So he had in his possession, substances that were not banned, (if properly prescribed), at the time and had appropriate medical uses. I'll bet he had some aspirin or ibuprofen as well. Perhaps even some mouthwash. Your suspicions here have merit if that's the whole story. But they fall short of proof.

5) Lance befriends admitted dopers David Miller & Richard Virenque whilst berating Richard Pound (WADA), Christophe Bassons and Filippo Simeoni. What's up with that behavior??When Lance became friends with David Millar, he was not know to the masses as a doper. Whether or not Lance knew can be little more than speculation for the masses. Lance objected publically to Mr. Pound's insinuation that the majority of the peloton was doping. That would include Lance so he was simply denouncing another unsubstantiated claim. You'd do the same if you were continually accused of something you weren't guilty of. Perhaps you'd also protest if you were guilty. Perhaps you would remain silent and seek to be less conspicuous.

6) Lance has his thugs threaten lawsuits or advertising revenue with any newspaper who dare print negative doping stories---and mention his branded name.Examples of such threats would be far more compelling than suggestions in the absense of specifics. Would these thugs be attorneys perhaps? And who was it that prosecuted Dr. Ferarri? Was it attorneys or "thugs"? The lack of objectivity is prominently noticeable.

It goes on and on.As does this debate.

Lance is the product of his actions and associations.As you choose to interpret them or as I choose to interpret them. Either way, it's the interpretation that we're discussing since neither of us knows for sure.

If we were in High School I would write that Lance appears to be more of a "parkie" than a "preppie".

Don't ya think?
To me he appears to be an incredible athlete whether what you believe is true or whether what I believe is true. If he's smashing the competition and they're all doping, then he's clearly superior for some reason. If he's not doping and they are, then he's even more superior. If very few are doping and he is, then he's still superior to that few.

Hey meehs: Were you under the impression that those of us who openly discuss Lance's magical and utterly successful medical program---somehow do not believe that his peers/competitors also use and abuse PEDs?

We do.

It is just that Lance is such a metaphor for doping. No athlete is better qualified to frame the doping debate. Lance has proven to everyone, that drugs can work!!!

Lance knows dope. He's da man.

The others can only dream of how to get the same medical performance out of thier bodies. Luck (good and bad) does play a role with PEDs and peak results.

Keep it real.

Judging by the fact that some of you guys seem desparate to nail Armstrong as a doper, while pretty much ignoring the fact that the rest of the peleton is just as guilty, it's easy to see how one could perceive you to be under the impression that he's the only one who's guilty. But I don't know. Put it this way: It's obvious that, despite the fact that doping is quite likely an epedemic in pro cycling, Armstrong is the one rider that many of you are so desparate to prove guilty. And it obvious you guys are angry and bitter about Armstrong in particular. If you nail him, will you be just as anxious to persecute whoever is next in line? I strongly doubt it.

meehs: Way!!! Guess again.

btw: I will be riding with Danello Nardello (T-Mobile) this week. I'll be sure to ask him what is off-season HCT is.

I know what his was one year ago---and it was not 43%.


Guess what Lance's is? Not counting HBOC supplementation.

Be good.

What you said was that a doped athlete (following your perscribed method) would have 73% greater endurance than an undoped athlete with a crit level of 43%. I stand strongly by my "No F'ing way" remark (even though I admit the language was probably uncalled for :o ). If this were the case the "juiced riders of today" would be crushing the times of hte "pre-doping" riders by far greater margins than they are. If you want to beleive that it's true, knock yourself out.

No hard feelings Flyer. Definitely nothing personal. You and some others have made some very compelling and interesting arguments.

So he had in his possession, substances that were not banned, (if properly prescribed), at the time and had appropriate medical uses. I'll bet he had some aspirin or ibuprofen as well. Perhaps even some mouthwash. Your suspicions here have merit if that's the whole story. But they fall short of proof.

The explanations for the products that Armstrong gave (if Flyer reports them accurately) are not at all credible. They don't have a conceivable medical use in the circumstances. Perhaps one of the members of the USPS entourage was diabetic, in which case why not say so (and say who so it is actually credible)? Otherwise insulin especially has no medical use in the context of professional bike racers that doesn't involve doping (specifically IV glucose/insulin mix to increase muscle glycogen and IGFs).

Also, ibuprofen, aspirin and mouthwash are non-prescription. Fallacious analogy.

The explanations for the products that Armstrong gave (if Flyer reports them accurately) are not at all credible. They don't have a conceivable medical use in the circumstances. Perhaps one of the members of the USPS entourage was diabetic, in which case why not say so (and say who so it is actually credible)? Otherwise insulin especially has no medical use in the context of professional bike racers that doesn't involve doping (specifically IV glucose/insulin mix to increase muscle glycogen and IGFs).

Also, ibuprofen, aspirin and mouthwash are non-prescription. Fallacious analogy.

"If" indeed, Flyer's reports are accurate. Since what was provided by him is lacking any kind of detail, it's very difficult to know. It sounds very much like rumors passed from mouth to mouth with an unknown level of accuracy retained at each step.

So you equate the fact that the name of the diabetic wasn't given to there being no diabetic and therefore no need for the insulin? There is a substantial gap to cross in arriving at such a conclusion. As you say, "otherwise", insulin has no medical use. But the "otherwise" is still an unknown. You have made the leap from "Perhaps one of the members of the USPS entourage was diabetic...", indicating, of course, that perhaps there was no diabetic, to; "The explanations for the products that Armstrong gave... are not at all credible." A statement made as fact, but later shown to rely on the outcome of a supposition, the outcome of which is an unknown. Are we to believe that if Armstrong were found to be in possession of insulin or EPO, he could just tell whatever officials were involved that "someone" on the USPS crew was undergoing diabetic treatment or chemotherapy and no more questions would be asked? I find such an argument somewhat incredulous.

Indeed ibuprofen, aspirin and mouthwash are non-prescription but sometimes the arguments go to incredible lengths to attempt to provide some kind of thread to follow, leading to guilt on Armstrong's part. People are still using the fact that Armstrong was found to have 1/10th the allowable amount of cortisone in his blood in 1999 as some kind of evidence of doping. If any other rider had been tested and found to have 5-times that level, nothing would have been made of it because it would still have been half the allowable limit. When such stretches are made, it's hard to know where the lines are drawn in the minds of those wishing him to be guilty.