Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > Other Stuff > Doping
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29-01.-2005, 10:06 AM   #17
tcklyde
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,428
Send a message via AIM to tcklyde
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer
You will not be disappointed when your favorite rider gets busted at a border check, or threatens to kill his wife, like Frank Vanderbrucke did recently, or commits suicide, like Thierry Claveyrolet did after retirement, or go bankcrupt like Eddie Planckaert just did, or get a 4-ban/suspensions like Jo Planckaert & Johan Museeuw just got, or die alone at age 34 like Marco Pantani did, the last man to win the TDF, not named Armstrong!

Lowering your expectations of elite athletes to what is reasonable means enjoying the action without any childish assumptions about "work ethics".


On the contrary, no matter what I think about performance enhancing doping, I will always be disappointed in situations like the ones you mention. You don't need to dope to threaten your wife, go bankrupt, or be a depressed and possibly suicidal cocaine addict. Was I disappointed when Pantani died? Yes, and a lot more. It was a great tragedy. But he didn't die because he used EPO. He died because he was depressed and addicted to an extremely dangerous drug. It was almost certainly an awful death.

I will never lower my expectations of athletes. I expect them to perform clean. I expect vigorous testing. And I support harsh bans. "Tout dope" is a sad attitude (but not suprising I guess, considering France's run of luck). It's rationalization. And while it may have been depressingly true in 1998 or 1997 or even 1990 or 1970, I for one, think the cycling has become more serious about testing.

I think you're right, Flyer, to be angry and disgusted about doping (though I disagree with making LA the focal point). We need to be angry, especially after last year. Keep the pressure on. Let the cheaters know that they will not get fan support. But I also support recognizing and enjoying the athletes who work hard and test negative. I'm not ready to believe my heros, O'Grady, Zabel, Ekimov, etc., and yes, LA, are dopers. As long as they continue to test clean, I'll have faith and save my scorn for people like Hamilton.
__________________
Harry
tcklyde is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29-01.-2005, 12:46 PM   #19
birdman23
Registered User
 
birdman23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 571
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

You can't be serious about these comments Micron. Yes there are racists, bigots and sexists in the USA but you are a fool if you think it is isolated to America. Show me a country that doesn't have racists, bigots, and sexists and I will tell you that country is located on the moon. In other words that country doesn't exist.
America tolerates? Again which country doesn't???? Ummm let me see...Virenque is a freakin' national hero in France, Pantani was/is idolized by the Italians. Shall I continue the list cause I can and it would be a LONG list and would probably be represented by athletes from every country. Does this mean all citizens of France and Italy feel this way? NO.
If you are going to make comments like this than Micron you are a pot calling the kettle black. Oh great, I used a colloquialism that has no racial connotation whatsoever, however because it has the word "black" in it and I am an American you are probably going to call me a racist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by micron
Espada, by all means construct an argument as to why we cycnical Europeans should learn to stop worrying and belive Armstrong - but to think we all envy you Bush and living in a country that despise blacks, gays and women and tolerates sporting heroes, like Carl Lewis and Barry Bonds, who are blatant dopers - Espada, you're welcome to it.
__________________
May the road you ride be a good road!
birdman23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29-01.-2005, 01:44 PM   #20
davidbod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 712
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer
Wouldn't it be great to listen to what Greg Strock, Erich Kaiter, David Francis & Gerrik Latta had to say?

A rebuttal perhaps?

Rene Wenzel, Chris Camicael & Angus Fraser were all in the hotel rooms togeher when the 3-4 injection a day were required.

On August 22, 1990, Greg implies that Carmichael injected him personally.

Greg implies because he is NOT permitted to use Carmichael or Lance's name in this doping of 17 & 18 years old juniors. Settlement requirements.

Check it out at: (corrected link)

www.velonews.com/news/fea/79.2.html

Or if you only prefer to read corporate scripts--the abovementioned quotations are perfect for the blissfully ignorant.


Hey Flyer that was a response to the posts about LA not categorically denying doping and the one asking how many times he actually is tested in a year. I find your arguement a little puzzling though. Most people who argue that LA is doped point to his so called mediocre palmeres before cancer and how he dominated after cancer as the basis for their conjecture. You seem to claim that he has doped all along from day one. If so then how do you explain the difference pre to post cancer, or do you think his comeback is not out of the norm or unusual. Its kind of an either or thing; either he doped all along and something else must explain his miraculous comeback or he only doped after he faded during his initial comeback in 98'. Maybe you and Lim could argue this point as you seem to have contradicting arguements.
davidbod is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30-01.-2005, 01:59 AM   #21
DV1976
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdman23
You can't be serious about these comments Micron. Yes there are racists, bigots and sexists in the USA but you are a fool if you think it is isolated to America. Show me a country that doesn't have racists, bigots, and sexists and I will tell you that country is located on the moon. In other words that country doesn't exist.
America tolerates? Again which country doesn't???? Ummm let me see...Virenque is a freakin' national hero in France, Pantani was/is idolized by the Italians. Shall I continue the list cause I can and it would be a LONG list and would probably be represented by athletes from every country. Does this mean all citizens of France and Italy feel this way? NO.
If you are going to make comments like this than Micron you are a pot calling the kettle black. Oh great, I used a colloquialism that has no racial connotation whatsoever, however because it has the word "black" in it and I am an American you are probably going to call me a racist.
This forum and topic is about cycling not each other's beliefs about the US/Europe. Keep it that way. If you haven't got any better arguments than this then just keep your mouth shut (and this goes to you Espada).
Now about what it would take me to believe that Lance is clean: It comes down to this: I have heard/read many people explaining in detail why it is not possible to win a Grand Tour WITHOUT dope[b]. And it sounds pretty convincing. On the other hand, I have never ever heard of someone explaining how [b] it is possible to win without dope. And I mean specifics, nutrition, recovery, supplementation and how these work. With scientific evidence to back them. The closest I've come is in reading Armostrong's book a paragraph about their wizard-masseur and his ointements... Nothing else.
With the exception of the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards I have never heard of a champion that was not connected to doping. Hell, most of them were even caught. Why should Lance be any exception in a sport that is probably the most demanding that there exists.
It is proven that the professional peloton (most of it) is doped to the gills. How come then and Lance destroys them every year? I could believe it if he was the most physically gifted (high crit, VO2 max) but he is not. Evidently there are quite a few cyclists that are more talented in that respect. Yet, Lance beats them year in year out. Why? Is it the iron will of a cancer survivor? Sorry but we entering the realm of paranormal now and I don't buy it. Not for 6 years in a row.
There are many more reasons. All of them have been outlined earlier, mainly by Flyer.
It is not that I don't want to believe the guy. Hell, I started cycling because of him (I come from a country with no tradition in cycling whatsoever), the first books I bought were his and I really wish I could buy into his story. But I just can't...

Last edited by DV1976 : 30-01.-2005 at 02:22 AM.
DV1976 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30-01.-2005, 08:45 AM   #22
rule62
Registered User
 
rule62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 622
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Dozens of random tests with negative results. Oh wait, he has already done that. Never mind.
rule62 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30-01.-2005, 09:14 AM   #23
Virenque
Registered User
 
Virenque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 1,213
Send a message via MSN to Virenque
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

It depends what kind of test! Blood tests are very new and done very rarely while urine tests can`t show a lot! I really don`t understand riders who were positive for EPO before or at the race..
Virenque is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 30-01.-2005, 10:30 AM   #24
micron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 583
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

has Armstrong competed since the test for homologous blood doping started to be used?

By my count, if he was tested 22 times last year, then 12 of them were at the Tour de France alone - and if you know you're going to be tested it's far easier to evade the testing procedure. My point is, these are not 22 tests taken at random, but the bulk were taken over a concentrated period.
micron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 31-01.-2005, 09:42 AM   #25
birdman23
Registered User
 
birdman23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 571
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Oh I've got plenty of better arguments althought I particularly liked my snippet about the colloquialism. Anyway, when someone makes an ignorant and overly generalized comment I take action. If you haven't noticed DV this forum has a lot of opinions on many diverse topics. Don't get your panties all up in a bunch because someone speaks their mind.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DV1976
This forum and topic is about cycling not each other's beliefs about the US/Europe. Keep it that way. If you haven't got any better arguments than this then just keep your mouth shut (and this goes to you Espada).
Now about what it would take me to believe that Lance is clean: It comes down to this: I have heard/read many people explaining in detail why it is not possible to win a Grand Tour WITHOUT dope[b]. And it sounds pretty convincing. On the other hand, I have never ever heard of someone explaining how [b] it is possible to win without dope. And I mean specifics, nutrition, recovery, supplementation and how these work. With scientific evidence to back them. The closest I've come is in reading Armostrong's book a paragraph about their wizard-masseur and his ointements... Nothing else.
With the exception of the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards I have never heard of a champion that was not connected to doping. Hell, most of them were even caught. Why should Lance be any exception in a sport that is probably the most demanding that there exists.
It is proven that the professional peloton (most of it) is doped to the gills. How come then and Lance destroys them every year? I could believe it if he was the most physically gifted (high crit, VO2 max) but he is not. Evidently there are quite a few cyclists that are more talented in that respect. Yet, Lance beats them year in year out. Why? Is it the iron will of a cancer survivor? Sorry but we entering the realm of paranormal now and I don't buy it. Not for 6 years in a row.
There are many more reasons. All of them have been outlined earlier, mainly by Flyer.
It is not that I don't want to believe the guy. Hell, I started cycling because of him (I come from a country with no tradition in cycling whatsoever), the first books I bought were his and I really wish I could buy into his story. But I just can't...
__________________
May the road you ride be a good road!
birdman23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 31-01.-2005, 12:09 PM   #26
DV1976
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 348
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdman23
Oh I've got plenty of better arguments althought I particularly liked my snippet about the colloquialism. Anyway, when someone makes an ignorant and overly generalized comment I take action. If you haven't noticed DV this forum has a lot of opinions on many diverse topics. Don't get your panties all up in a bunch because someone speaks their mind.
1) We don't know each other so I could do without your snippets... Sorry if this sounds rude I don't mean to be but what may be a funny remark to you may be a sarcastic one to me... So to avoid misunderstandings...
2) Micron was not the first to make "an ignorant and overly generalized comment" but you chose not to notice that...
3) Let's stick to cycling. This is not a place for politics or each other's views about Europe/USA.

Last edited by DV1976 : 31-01.-2005 at 01:46 PM.
DV1976 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02.-2005, 04:41 AM   #27
birdman23
Registered User
 
birdman23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 571
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

You are correct, you don't know me. So keep your mouth shut before you tell me to keep my mouth shut. If my remark sounded sarcastic to you then I applaud your intelligence and my writing skills because sarcasm is exactly what I was trying to convey. You have chosen not to notice my other posts on this forum as well. I will call out anyone who makes ignorant, generalized comments. If you haven't figured it out I was trying to keep the post to cycling by shutting up the ignorant comments. Take a look at the thread and see if Micron rebuttled? He didn't because I was right and he probably recognized it and was gentleman enough to retract.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DV1976
1) We don't know each other so I could do without your snippets... Sorry if this sounds rude I don't mean to be but what may be a funny remark to you may be a sarcastic one to me... So to avoid misunderstandings...
2) Micron was not the first to make "an ignorant and overly generalized comment" but you chose not to notice that...
3) Let's stick to cycling. This is not a place for politics or each other's views about Europe/USA.
__________________
May the road you ride be a good road!
birdman23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02.-2005, 05:40 AM   #29
Shreklookalike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 166
Default Re: What would it take to convince you Lance did not dope?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DV1976
. . .
It is proven that the professional peloton (most of it) is doped to the gills. How come then and Lance destroys them every year? I could believe it if he was the most physically gifted (high crit, VO2 max) but he is not. Evidently there are quite a few cyclists that are more talented in that respect. Yet, Lance beats them year in year out. Why? Is it the iron will of a cancer survivor? Sorry but we entering the realm of paranormal now and I don't buy it. Not for 6 years in a row.
There are many more reasons. All of them have been outlined earlier, mainly by Flyer. . . .
Lance doesn't destroy the rest of the peloton throughout the entire season. For six years his training has been designed solely around peaking to win the TdF, and from what I understand it's only during the TdF that he's been dominant.

Most Americans don't know Jack about pro cycling. Before joining this forum I couldn't have named ANY other cycling race besides the TdF. So doesn't it makes sense that a cycling team with primarily American sponsorship would concentrate it's efforts on the one cycling race that Americans might pay some attention to?
Shreklookalike is offline  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet