RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Racing


Archive Home >> Racing(1 2 3 )


Anyone want to claim this guy as one of your own?(30 posts)

Anyone want to claim this guy as one of your own?Roadiepartycrasher
Jul 22, 2002 10:09 PM
Found this guy spamming his Lance bashing screed in our MTBR board. He claims his opinion is representative of this board. Anyone want to opine? Thought you might enjoy it.

MerlinMan Jul-21-02, 05:12 AM
"I think I'm gonna hurl......."
.......all of you who believe Lance is drug free are poorly informed. Yes, I root for lance to win, but I understand the nature of cycling and the performance differences between a doping cyclist and a drug free cyclist. Try posting your "Lance is my drug free hero" crap over in the racing section of road bike review and the responses will be a bit different. I'm not saying that I am more intelligent than you guys here, I just have more experience here.
Oh....my response....Roadiepartycrasher
Jul 22, 2002 10:12 PM
pompous, arrogant bluster but no substance to your argument...all show, no go.
If you understand the nature of cycling so much, and are privy to so much behind the scenes information, then you at least have the obligation to elaborate with evidence when you throw those charges out there.

The doping charges against Lance don't make sense for several reasons:

As I mentioned before, Lance has been tested perhaps more than any other cyclist the last three years, and of course, he's never tested positive for any banned substances. Does he take supplements of some kind provided they aren't harmful? Probably. Does he use an oxygen tent, a device beyond the means of most cyclists? Yes. But according to the objective clinical evidence of perhaps dozens of tests, your "experience" is absolutely, flat out garbage.

He's also been investigated, spied on really, by any number of foreign press outlets, including Le Monde and others, who would like nothing more than to lay claim to that elusive "gotcha" in journalism. They've followed him around, they've dug through his garbage bins, and Lord knows what else. Again, nothing.

By the medical standards of twenty years ago, he should be dead right now, and near death experiences have a way of making one grounded and mature in one's outlook. He's got other things that are more important to him than racing, notably his health and his wife and kids. Having already gone through the trials of chemotherapy and near death, why would he jeapordize his health in any way, even remotely, for a fame that cancer has made irrelevent to him? He's said before that he doesn't ride for the fame, or the money, or other people, he does it because he loves the thrill of competing against the best in the world. Drugs would only detract from his primary motivation for riding and would make the thrill and accomplishments he gets from racing hollow and meaningless.

He's been asked more times than he can count whether he dopes or not, and he has said he does not. To believe he's a doper, you also have to believe he's perpetual liar; that he's lied when asked the question directly, and that he's living a lie as a spokesman for cancer research or just as an inspirational role model. He would have to risk all of that if he were lying. And that's a pretty huge risk, because the nature of any conspiracy or lie is that eventually, and this is always so, the truth will come out. It always does. So you would have to believe that he would be willing to jeapordize all of that for the very likely probability that he would be exposed as a fraud, and would let down everyone who drew inspiration from him. That makes no sense.

Again, how 'bout evidence to substantiate your "experience" and show us how well "informed" you are. And by that I don't mean that thread you read in roadbikereview about the friend of the friend of your riding buddy who heard somewhere about a guy who swears he saw Carmicheal injecting Armstrong with something. I read that board too, and it's mostly sour grapes from a bunch of egotistical roadie posers and wanna bes. Scroll down a few threads and you can read some testimonials here about road riders general antipathy towards Lance.

so, Merlinguy (Geez, that bike screams poser), why don't you go "hurl" some more and come back when you have something substantive to say. If not, stick with hanging out in you roadie boards.
I read about some questionable garbageishmael
Jul 23, 2002 5:22 AM
The Garbage of the postal team supposedly had some bloody terniquites and drug viles found by some French reporters. I read this in the most recent article of cyclesport mag. It doesnt say any more about the evidence than that, not what the viles had contained or what became of this evidence. Anyone know more about this?
Nothing ever became of itRoadiepartycrasher
Jul 23, 2002 7:18 AM
If I remember, it got as far as an official investigation, but it was dropped for lack of evidence.
I read about some questionable garbagekaiser
Jul 23, 2002 8:05 AM
All postal will admit to is not "using banned substances"...That does not mean they do not seek out the very latest in what is not technically banned yet. Be it drugs, drinks, vitamins

Unfortunately, no reporter has had the guts to ask them, specifically, what they do take to aid in performance and recovery that might be considered potentially unsportsmanlike. Postal had the opportunity to come out and say they were clean. Instead, they chose to only say that they were not dirty.

Do I think lance takes illegal drugs? No. Do I think Lance is on a program of taking things not normally prescribed for a healthy male with no real corresponding medical need? Prolly.

I just wish a reporter would ask exactly what he DOES take...I mean, he uses the PR image of just being so genetically gifted 9and transformed by cancer). But any reporter knows not to even tread on such territory if he ever wants to be 'in the loop' again with lance.

and it is a fair question: What stuff DO you take?

If he's just so gifted, then he should not be so evasive when anyone dares to ask him about his medical program.
what stuff do you take?DougSloan
Jul 23, 2002 8:10 AM
That's why I think they should change the rules; instead of having a "banned" list, have only an "approved" list of everything you can put in your body. At least the honest riders would be prohibited from using "legal" but unknown substances, then. Testing would still be a problem.

Doug
what stuff do you take?ishmael
Jul 23, 2002 8:17 AM
I thought they were at the point where anything taken is not permisable. We've got Simoni and cocaine and Ulrich with what I thought was ecstacy. Are they on a list somewhere? I agree with you the list should be what is allowed, it would make things simplier and more clear-cut.
what stuff do you take?kaiser
Jul 23, 2002 1:43 PM
The golden rule has always been "no substance that specifically enhances performance". Similar to the rule that states "no device that's specifically designed to reduce drag". Both rules have been on the books for decades. One is easier to enforce than the other.

The idea was that they never HAD to identify anything bad....but it seems that when accused, people would just be like Clinton and say "define performance enhancing".....And hence the era of specific outlawed substances. They don't even bother applying the older, general rule anymore, because it is so easily dodged. But this is why Lance is so hush on the stuff he does take (and the others too...not to blame lance exclusively)

But the riders and their doctors are now 4-5 years ahead of the uci in finding new substances to pump into their veins. None of them yet branded illegal by the banned substance list.

BTW, no one would ever have bothered to expose EPO use in cycling until several riders died of heart attacks. EPO was not on the banned list yet, but it was clearly a performance enhancer.

So hence, the UCI has been transformed into the DEA.
what stuff do you take?kaiser
Jul 23, 2002 8:17 AM
I like this idea even better:

Make it ALL legal (or rather, de-regulate it). But force everyone to divulge their regimen (IE, I take EPO, vitamin b, caffein pills, etc).

I don't want to see Virenque in jail, but I do want to have it be known that he attributes part of his success to drugs. I don't think the UCI should have to be in the biz of drug enforcement. I'd rather them stick to improving the sport itself.
no deregDougSloan
Jul 23, 2002 9:03 AM
I don't like dereg. What is does is force some to take potentially dangerous substances to compete with others who choose the drugs. So, everyone risks dying of overdoses or complications?

Doug
What happened to the Libertarian?Len J
Jul 23, 2002 10:28 AM
I don't see where it "forces" anyone to do anything.

BTW, I agree that deregulation would ruin the sport as you would have people going to extremes in drug taking to win.

Len
this isn't the governmentDougSloan
Jul 23, 2002 1:01 PM
This is a private event in which participants and organizers are free to make their own rules. If you don't agree to the rules, you don't have to play. Much different than the government mandating something.

Of course, in some countries the private/government distinction may not be as clear as it is here.

Doug
no deregkaiser
Jul 23, 2002 10:36 AM
Not my job to prevent one from being an idiot. I just wanna know what he's taking so I can proclaim myself "drug-free" and mean it...and to show how much more class I have than the guy who 'charges'.

It's amazing what a little peer pressure will do. Why doesn't Armstrong share his complete injection regimen? He shared every OTHER medical detail in his life (and most of us paid money to read about it). Lance always says 'no comment' when asked about what he does do...Funny for such a public guy.

What the UCI should pay for, is a regular mandatory test, like every month (with published results), and they can test for a variety of substances (some of which are currently illegal, as well as those at the edge of legal)....Just don't attach any penalties for using.
I've wondered the same thing...Wayne
Jul 23, 2002 8:34 AM
How come no-one asks Armstrong when was the last time you had an injection and what was in it? Why should that question piss you off if you're clean? I wouldn't have any problem answering it.
here's the testkaiser
Jul 23, 2002 10:52 AM
Because his biggest American journalist pal, Sal Ruibal from USA Today, _enjoys_ spending 4 weeks in France each year covering the Tour and getting up-close with Lance and the whole aura that goes with it.

If Sal asks Lance anything harder than a typical 'softball" drug question, you can guarantee he'll never get close again.

I've even personally emailed Sal about this. I simply asked him, to ask Lance about injections. "does he take them?" "Does he take them daily?". No response. He's a chicken-sh** journalist.

But email him and tell him you liked how he wrote about the dish-of-the-day, or how you liked his last article, and chances are, he'll write you back within that day.

Go ahead. test it:
sruibal@usatoday.com

Actually, I'll test it. Here is the text of the message I sent Mr Ruibal:

"I know you write a lot about Lance. You've been covering him for years, and you're obviously very close to him, at least as far as journalists go.

Every year the same old boring drug questions get asked, and Lance of course always denies...Saying "I'm the most tested man in the peloton"...Well we all know that.

Have you ever asked him what he DOES take?

Lance has obviously shared his medical life with the world. His medical history is quite public info. We all know that Lance always tests negative for banned performance enhancing substances. But what about the yet-to-be-banned? Have you ever asked Lance if he takes daily injections? do you feel he'd boot you from the circle if you dared ask such a question?"

So let's wait and see how he replies. If he replies. But I challenge any of you to wrte Mr Ruibal a "tame" email, saying "good job on the story", and I'll bet you get a reply.
Sal Ruibal replieskaiser
Jul 24, 2002 6:09 AM
I'm stunned...But Mr Ruibal did reply:

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by mean by a "yet-to-be-banned" substance. I
don't think anyone has a way of knowing which substances may or may not be
banned in the future. I have asked U.S. Postal to release the list of drugs
they submit to the Tour very year to get permission to bring them into the
country. They have refused to release that list for what they call
competitive reasons. There may be some truth to that, but the real rreason is
more likeley that they don't want to deal with all the questions that would be
raised. They must also ask for waivers for drugs that are on the banned list
but which also have theraputic purposes in limited and defined quantities,
such as Gonzalez Galdeano's asthma medicine. Lance has no waivers on file.
He readily says that the high-altitude tent he uses is a factor in his fitness
as it increases the number of red blood cells. You may remember that Nike
commercial he did a few years back where he asked, "What am I on? I'm on my
bike six hours a day busting my ass." I don't worry about being in or out of
Lance's circle. He responds to USA Today not because of who I am, but what
the paper is: the biggest in the nation.

I hope that helps, but you're really asking a Yet=to-be answered question.

thanks for reading,

sal"
With all due respect...allervite
Jul 23, 2002 3:44 PM
You are not asked the question at every press conference, after each victory, or have it yelled at you as you climb the Ventoux. Every accomplishment is questioned and no one wants to assume it is the hard work, the sacrifice and the dicipline.

It becomes annoying and then it starts pissing you off ESPECIALLY if you are clean.
With all due respect...kaiser
Jul 24, 2002 5:48 AM
They never ask him what he _does_ take. They only ask if he takes the obvious illegal stuff. How can he get pissed-off at a question he's never even asked?
That is simply not true.allervite
Jul 25, 2002 4:46 PM
They (The press) have asked him what he is on in at least a hundred different ways. If you go back and read the archived interviews on cylclingnews.com you will see the question asked several times. Especially after the news crew saw the garbage dumped by the postals. You know, the calf's blood derivative.
Hey... I like my Merlin (nm)Kyle
Jul 23, 2002 7:24 AM
nm
No offense, they're nice bikes :) (nm)Roadiepartycrasher
Jul 23, 2002 8:11 AM
Gee, I have a Litespeed.... am I a poser too? (nm)JSchneb
Jul 25, 2002 6:55 AM
re: Two wordsantoine
Jul 23, 2002 12:09 PM
Dr. Ferrari.

Since Dr. Ferrari is fallowing Lance, it is clear that he is taking something to enhance is performance. It's probably not illegal or even dangerous for you, but for sure it is the latest in sport medicine. By the way taking a substance only to improve your performance is doping. To not get couth for doping, you don't need to not do it, you need to be smart about it and Lance probably has the smartest people surrounding him.
I do not believe Lance is doping.allervite
Jul 23, 2002 3:20 PM
Because:
He has never tested positive.
He is afraid of harming himself with unproven substances.
No one else Ferrari works with comes close to Lance and saying that just because Lance works with him makes Lance a doper is way over simplified.

I know that the riders have a good idea who is on something and who is not and I have not heard anyone credible even hint at the possibility.

Lance is not my favorite cyclist. He has done some things that do not make me proud, but I do not think he is doping.
Allervite..he's done some things that don't make you proud?Roadiepartycrasher
Jul 23, 2002 10:00 PM
Just curious, but could you elaborate a little on that.
Sorry. . .allervite
Jul 24, 2002 12:33 PM
I cannot. Suffice it to say that some things go on in a race that the public does not see or hear. LA has that Jet Fighter sort of arrogance that a lot of great champions have.
I do not believe Lance is doping.kaiser
Jul 24, 2002 6:06 AM
Conconi is who you went to for testing and training advice. Ferrari is who you went to for medically administered doping programs. Well known within the peloton.

Lets put it this way. Lance doesn't need to trek to Italy to get good training advice. Lance only admitted to visiting Ferarri because he knew his name would come up in Dr Ferarri's trial eventually. If Ferarri was not in trouble, Lance prolly would have denied knowing him.
Ferrari definately has a suspicious past when it comes to dopingallervite
Jul 24, 2002 12:42 PM
but you have to remember that cycling was once like American Football. Most (not all) of the riders were on something. It was accepted. Festina was not an exception, they were just the team that happened to get caught. You name a team doctor, director, coach etc. that was in cycling in the last 10 years, and you can almost be sure that they were in some way involved in doping. Conconni has been accused also.

However, as I said above, not all riders were doping, though they were surrounded by people that were involved in it. This is one of the reasons that riders who jumped on the soap box and crowed about how they were always clean and everyone else was dirty were ostrtacised. They alienated most of their peers.

I don't neccesarily believe Lance never doped, but I believe he is not now.
Ferrari definately has a suspicious past when it comes to dopingkaiser
Jul 24, 2002 1:03 PM
I agree.

actually, go to groups.google.com and do a search for some threads by scott mckinley (his email was smac69@aol.com)....Scott was an olympian and euro pro....he spelled things out pretty well, and this was during lance's "pre-cancer" time period. I wouldn't be surprised if Lance was wrapped up in the illegal culture...and I'm pretty sure he stays away from that now. as far as pushing the edge of what's legal....He comments so little, I just don't know what to believe anymore. I'm dissapointed at how evasive USPS is on what they DO take, however.
I agree.allervite
Jul 25, 2002 4:54 PM
I think it is a case of the kid who takes his ball and goes home. Postal and Lance feels persecuted, and rightly so. Because of this they have said, "You journalists have picked on us so much, we are not going to deal with you anymore! So there!" This of course makes them look suspicious when someone asks for the thousandth time, "What are you on!" and the postal camp says, "We won't discuss that subject anymore."

It may be politicaly stupid, but I don't blame them.