Lance learns the truth...

bomba wrote:

Paladin wrote:

You may one day come to eat those words...



Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??


I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
performance enhancement.

I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the
sport) may be using performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the
officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most participate in).
Is that the claim?
How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you sure you
are not getting Mr. Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not
sure I consider Mr. Ullrich a bad role model, I tend to agree with Mr.
Liggett states that Jan just went through "typical" growing pains, or
something like that.)

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove ".nospam" to reply)

bomba wrote in message ...
Paladin wrote:

You may one day come to eat those words...


Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??

I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
performance enhancement.

I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.


There are always those claiming something can't be done getting passed
by those actually doing it. The 4 minute mile. Man on the moon.

Paladin

bomba wrote:
Paladin wrote:

You may one day come to eat those words...



Sure, no doubt it's possible, as it happens fairly regularly, but is
there any aspect of the statement in particular you're focusing on?
More roadies are good role models? Lance isn't a good one? ??


I think one has to accept that the higher echelons of road cycling are
deeply competitive and it pays to have a healthy scepticism when it
comes to their performance. I'm not going to make any unfounded claims,
but history has shown that 'Le Tour' is rife with those capitalising on
performance enhancement.

Since the Festina affair in 1998(?), doping has been a huge taboo in the
Tour de France. I almost said "pro cycling," but I'm not so sure about
other venues.

Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and
suspicious were raised high. His wife was jailed for many months after
the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping material, but all
blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail.
Recently, Rumsas was caught with tainted blood and is currently
suspended. I don't know if he has been stripped of his second place.

The Tour de France has rigorous doping controls in place, but it's the
usual race between doping and anti-doping that keeps the question open
as to how many of the top riders are getting chemical or biological help.

Many top pros live in Spain, and Italy is rumored to have lots of
doped-up riders and racers in the lower ranks. It's speculated that
Spain doesn't do as much doping control over athletes, in or outside of
active competition, and that's why lots of pros live there.

OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so
it's clear that he has tremendous natural gifts.

Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I
recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.

I forget the name of the doctor, but a specialist called as witness
during the Festina trial testified that it was physically impossible for
a human to have climbed the Alpe d'Huez in 2000(?) in the time that
Armstrong did, without 'help'. Just worth bearing in mind.

Dr. Michel Ferrarri, most likely. LANCE suffered a minor media scandal
a couple years ago because he's liked with Ferrarri. The fact that
Ferrarri is still LANCE's real coach/medical adviser seems to be
somewhat of an open secret. But that doesn't mean he's feeding LANCE
anything more than medical and performance-enhancing expertise.

Regarding the equipment issue, last year LANCE was fond of pointing out
that he won on stock Trek bikes. Apparently that's changed this year.
Cannondale provides Saeco their rides. A week or so ago, they
publicized pictures of their team bikes with small weights glued to them
to bring them above the lower weight limit. The riders wore "protest"
jerseys that read, "Legalize my Cannondale," and all got fined for it.
Presumably, the sponsor took care of the fines.

But the road bikes they ride are pretty common. Yes, most pros have
custom frames, but they're otherwise off-the-shelf. The time trial
bikes are the real expensive high-tech ones, but they're only used in 3
stages.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Bob M wrote:

As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you
don't get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without
some sort of credence.



You just call yourself an expert (at least in the US). That's all it
takes to be an expert in a trial.

Well, the trial was high profile in France...

Craig Brossman wrote:

So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the
sport) may be using performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the
officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most participate in).
Is that the claim?

No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance
could be caught using drugs. At that point, many will have to consider
whether he still constitutes a good role model.

How about Mr. Ullrich, who has been found to use drugs. Are you sure you
are not getting Mr. Ullrich confused with Mr. Armstrong? (BTW, I'm not
sure I consider Mr. Ullrich a bad role model, I tend to agree with Mr.
Liggett states that Jan just went through "typical" growing pains, or
something like that.)

I'm not getting confused at all - in fact, you're helping me demonstrate
my point. Consider that along with Ullrich, last year's 3rd place,
Rumsas has also been banned, the current polka dot jersey holder,
Virenque, was banned along with the rest of the Festina team, then
there's Pantani, Del Olmo and so on. I think everyone's on it, and
those that are caught out are merely 'unlucky'. If Lance was unlucky
one day, do you think he would still be considered as a positive role model?

Super Slinky wrote:

I think most want to prevent a repeat of the Festina affair, and if, as
I suspect, everyone is in on it, then spilling the beans on one could
bring the whole house of cards crashing down.


Maybe, but considering Lance's domination of the Tour, one would think
that there would be plenty of people willing to blow the whistle on him
if there was any dirty laundry lying around.

I think that's naive. There are probably less than 10 people that have
any positive evidence on any one cyclist. In the case of Armstrong,
you're looking at his fellow team mates, his manager, doctor and,
bearing in mind the case of Rumsas, possibly his wife. Now, why would
any of those blow the whistle? The closest you'd get is a domestique in
a minor team making allegations that 'everybody's doing it', at which
point the entire sport closes ranks and labels the cyclist a liar. He
makes a bit of cash from selling his story, but his team (including his
friends) are indicted and he never works in the industry again.

I think it's one of those things that's probably generally accepted
within Tour circles, but never referred to.

I think the quality of his bike is totally irrelevant.


I think that his one of a kind, wind tunnel tested parts could easily
account for the tiny advantage he has over the other riders if they
don't have access to similar engineering muscle.

********. You think Trek is the only team that has access to a wind
tunnel? You think Trek has more financial clout than Giant? The
differences at that level between equipment is minimal to say the least.

Mind you, they calculated that Lemond's use of an aero helmet in the
final stage of the '89 tour, as opposed to Fignon's pony tail, caused
enough of an aerodynamic difference to decide the winner.

As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't
get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without some
sort of credence.


But besides being ridiculous at face value, in a scientific sense the
statement is unprovable, and therefore only so much hot air. Scientific
opinions based on thorough and careful research come and go faster than
teenaged fashions. Such a sweeping generality could never even begin to
be researched and it means nothing except that one scientist got paid to
shoot his mouth off. Who knows, maybe Lance is a genetic freak who has
an extra muscle in his ass, or maybe he was bitten by a radioactive
spider. Yes, I'm being silly, but the point is that we are all different
and any so-called scientist who makes such an asinine statement is not
an unbiased source of information.

I agree to a certain point. World records are broken all the time, but
there must be some evidence to justify his claim. Anyway, I'm just
repeating the story, not trying to scientifically justify it. It was
accepted as valid evidence in the trial and although it doesn't act as
definitive proof of drug abuse by Armstrong, it's worth bearing in mind.

Dave W wrote:

I don't know under which criteria the claim was made, but I'm sure there
was sufficient basis for his opinion.


*cough cough BULL**** cough*

If a doctor actually said this, then it only reveals his personal

bias, and it says a lot more about this doctor than it does about Lance
Armstrong.

As I say, I don't know the ins and outs of the statement, but you don't
get to be an expert witness in a trial of that magnitude without some
sort of credence.


**cough cough BULL**** cough cough**

Yep, sorry, I can't back it up. I read it in the paper at the time of
the trial.

Raptor wrote:

Last year, Raimondas Rumsas came out of nowhere to take second, and
suspicious were raised high. His wife was jailed for many months after
the Tour because she was caught with a ton of doping material, but all
blood tests of Rumsas were clean. AFAIK, she's still in jail. Recently,
Rumsas was caught with tainted blood and is currently suspended. I
don't know if he has been stripped of his second place.

No, he won't be stripped of his second place.

OTOH, LANCE was kicking adult triathlete butt when he was a teenager, so
it's clear that he has tremendous natural gifts.

I'm not saying you can reach the top just by being drugged up.

Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that I
recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.

Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

bomba wrote:

Craig Brossman wrote:

So Mr. Armstrong is not a good model because he (and the rest of the
sport) may be using performance enhancement drugs not discovered by the
officals of the TdF (or the Giro or any other race most participate in).
Is that the claim?

No, my original claim was that one day there's a possibility that Lance
could be caught using drugs. At that point, many will have to consider
whether he still constitutes a good role model.

Some day you may be caught molesting a child. At that point, many
will have to consider whether you still constitute a good role model.

You might ask how I could write something like that with absolutely no
proof that you molest children. Of couse, I could also ask how you
could write what you did even though the intense scrutiny Lance has
been under (including many, many blood, unine and hair tests) have
come up 100% negative. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I take that back - in one of the tours (2000?) he tested positive for
a miniscule trace of some banned substance. The French press (and
some miscreants on r.b.r.) made much hay about this, even though it
was clear that the "problem" was that a saddle sore cream he had used
contained the substance and some vanishingly small amount had gotten
into his blood stream.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

bomba wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Rumsas is the only top cyclist who's been caught in recent years that
I recall, though I'm sure there have been a couple/few others.


Pfft... Pantani, Del Olmo, Virenque, Ullrich, Rumsas...

Since 1988.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.