Page 8 - Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

21-01.-2005, 06:00 AM	#106
kennf Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 508	Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!! The article on the VeloNews website has the following statement: "Armstrong is also involved in an ongoing legal dispute with his U.S. insurers over a $5 million bonus the company has withheld since "L.A. Confidential" was published." Does anyone know what the heck that is about? Why would an insurer owe Armstrong $5 million?

21-01.-2005, 09:34 AM	#110
DiabloScott Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mt. Diablo, California Posts: 2,249	Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!! Armstrong didn't "test positive", his results showed traces of steroid that were below the threshold for a positive test - there is also a threshold level for caffeine, etc. As for the insurance issue - I'm a little unclear on the details but apparently he had a clause in his contract for a big sum of money if he won five Tours (or six Tours?) and his employer took out an insurance policy to pay it if he did and therefore reduce their own financial risk. The insurance company is refusing to pay until certain court cases involving his alleged doping are resolved. Armstrong is suing the insurance company to make them pay now. __________________ http://diabloscott.blogspot.com

21-01.-2005, 09:41 AM	#111
larryb Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Salisbury, MD Posts: 105	Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!! Oh No! just when i thought it was safe. that all the facts on this thread were really true. what do you mean lance is 5ft10 rather than 5ft4! that blows my how reasoning that he had women legs transplanted. how could it be that i'm wrong. that just doesn't happen. not me. gosh, what will i do. lance isn't doping.... and i was sooo sure that the had to be... i mean, just look at the facts that were presented. true tabloid quality. cu, larryb

21-01.-2005, 10:02 AM	#112
Perro Loco Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 121	Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!! Both Kenacort and what Armstrong tested "positive" for is the same drug Triamcinolone. The half life is 18-36 hours. 10 to 20 mg twice a day or even once a day is a lot. Either Willie is lying or has his dosages really mixed up or they didn't test for Corticosteroids in 97 and 98 or the test was not accurate. That amount over a 3 week period would have significant side effects- muscle weakness, fluid retention etc.

21-01.-2005, 10:31 AM

#115

Perro Loco

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 121

Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

That's why I used the term "massive amounts" insofar as Zulle, Virenque et al were concerned.

It was 10 milligrams at 10 pm, then 20 milligrams at 9:30 to 10 am, 12 hours later.

Bear in mind that one drug begets yet another. Festina was found with a trauma & anemia drug supply for a large MASH unit.

The benefits of the corticosteroids were for 1) turning off adrenal function during sleep.

2) eliminating muscle soreness

3) eliminating feeling of pain or sufferring during racing.

This was hardly the only drugs used in tantum.

They also had EPO, Asaflow (blood thinner), oral testosterone, Human Growth Hormone flasks, the Belgian Mix (heroin, cocaine, morphine compound w/o corticosteroids).

Could not many of these products act as a diaretic when racing with high heart rates for many hours?

Fluid retention might be yet another benefit?

30 mg a day- I would be astounded this would not give a positive test.
With an 18- 36 hour half life even with exstensive exercise.
I suspect tests for corticosteroids may not have been used until 99.
That dosage would potentialy cause muscle weakness. The fluid retention may be a benefit.

I will see if I can find any data regarding testing when it came on board etc.

21-01.-2005, 12:46 PM	#117
hombredesubaru Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 997	Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!! Micron must refer to the size of your sexual organ or brain. Flyer has taken one, a flight of fancy into the netherworld. Y'all are so off in your own worlds that respomses are not necessary, in fact contraindicated. So deal wit it. You are wong, wrong headed and useless. I wont go ino th metabolsm of skin cream for saddle sores but figure it out boys.

21-01.-2005, 01:09 PM

#118

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,306

Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

I think this argument will go on and on- and never be settled to everyones satifaction
As I said in another thread
Like conspiracy theories, the loch ness monster, bigfoot we all seem to want to believe something mysterious is out there.
.

Yes, but you are prepared to accept LA's waffle - so you have nailed your colours to the drug debate concerning LA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

.
I have always fiound it quite interesting that people claim Armstrong was mediocre and made great by drugs.

Regarding Armstrongs Mediocre Results previously
In 96 at the age of 24 he was 2nd in Paris Nice *, and liege, won Fleche, Tour dupount. Previous to this he was one of the youngest world champions (this back when the WC was targeted more than today due to when it is held), Won San Sebastian, 2nd in sevaral other, Stage winner in tour at 21...

*(a week before he suffered a heavy crash at the Tour of Valencia-during this time the director of ONCE felt he was the strongest rider including his own Jalabert who would win Paris Nice
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/.../feb96/val.html
At the age of 23, loosing 6 minutes to Indurain is a lot but consider the day before he won a stage in a breakaway and several days earlier a teammate died. No matter what is said I doubt this was a typical perfermonce.

Comparing to Jan at a similar age niether Stacks up as far as tour performance goes. But then again Jan was not competitive throughout the spring in 96, he was focused on the tour.
Just to stir things up, remember Jan came up through the East German Sports schools- experts at doping and in his first two tours rode with Mr. 60%- how come no talks about him being tinkered with?

Regarding the weight issue Armstrong was a little heavy upper body before, chemo. When Armstrong signed with Cofidis, in an interview in Velonews Guimard is qouted as saying to the effect that Armstrong can win the Tour but he must be convinced that he can. Merckx thought Armstrong was a little to heavy to ever win....
Also Armstrongs work ethic has improved dramaticly post chemo.
He has also benifited tremendously by riding for a US sponsered team. This allowed him to concentrate exclusively on the tour in 99.

play with this calculator and see what dropping a few Kilos does to speed uphill. It's a lot of fun. I now convinced to drop some kilos
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

.

The comparison with JU is valid.
Earlier the question was asked if anyone could show how a young rider could debut strongly in this modern era, against a reigning champion.
I introduced JU's debut as evidence of how a rider can debut at the top of the sport.

Both LA and JU debuted in the TDF at approximately the same age - yet JU's
debut obliterates anything that LA was able to do in the four years between
1992-1996.

The 6 mins that LA lost to Indurain in the 1994 TDF, on the contrary shows how far behind LA was in having any chance of challenging for the TDF, overall.

On the one had you say that his muscular build, pre-cancer prevented him from climbing, yet this same muscular build prevented him from time trialling in the TDF, pre-cancer !
You can't have it both ways.

LA's loss of 6 mins, contrasts with Jan Ullrich's beating Indurain in the final ITT of the 1996 TDF (in JU debut !).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

.

Also Armstrongs work ethic has improved dramaticly post chemo.
He has also benifited tremendously by riding for a US sponsered team. This allowed him to concentrate exclusively on the tour in 99.

Once again if you believe Lance is doping/has been doped/altered etc there is no evidence absolute evidence proving you wrong - on the other hand the converse is true.. there is no absolute evidence that he is or has been.

Lance was working to maximum capacity between 1992-1996.
In his interview with David Walsh, an entire chapter is devoted to LA and contains an interview with him - the chapter is called Neopro, in the book
"Inside the TDF" published in 1993.

In it LA says that he trains far harder than in his triathlete and goes on at length about the sacrifies he makes to try to compete.

21-01.-2005, 03:58 PM	#119
Matt N Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 35	Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!! I've read in several places that LA has consistently denied any form of doping, etc. However, the only direct statements I can find turn out to be somewhat qualified statements about being the most tested sportsperson on the planet, not currently taking drugs, etc. Can anyone point me to a categorical, unqualified statement by LA that he does not now and never has used any banned substance or method? Cheers

21-01.-2005, 08:29 PM

#120

tcklyde

Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2003

Location: Portland, OR

Posts: 1,428

Re: Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyer

And you must believe that Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten are liars--as well as, Bassons, Simeoni, O'Reily, Swartz, Lance's 1990 junior teammates.

That is a lot of lying. Apparently Lance knows plenty of liars.

One thing is for sure, somebody is lying!

No, you don't have to believe those people are lying. You only need to recognize that they have no way of knowing. Not one of the people you mention claims to have first hand knowledge that LA ever doped. They are all speculating. Even Walsh's book is nothing more than 2nd hand speculation. Even Emma's claims are speculation based on cryptic comments. No one has claimed that they have seen or have proof that LA doped. Really: LeMond, Hampsten, O'Reilly,Bassons, Simeoni: so much conjecture, no reliable evidence. Contrast it with no positives and seven years of consistent performance with never an unusual hemocrit.

__________________
Harry

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode