Lance learns the truth...

Mark Hickey wrote:

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.

A little harsh, but, if we want to take your analogy and run with it, if
I was consistently hanging out with paedophiles and child abusers, the
finger of suspicion would certainly be raised at some point.

And of course, you'd have to find somebody who found me a good role
model in the first place

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 can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of
rampant drug abuse in professional cycling. The fact that advances in
performance-enhancing practices are always one step ahead of detection
(and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught
have alluded to the widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't
and no longer compete also allude to it. The fact that anyone that
follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
widespread. Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of
medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in 2000, containing
hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked
with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.

I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly
the possibility that Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

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.

Erm, all of those are in the last 5 years. If you want to go back to
'88, you can throw in Abdujaparov, Bugno, Chiapucci, Brochard, Zulle,
Delgado, Theunisse, etc, etc...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

bomba wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

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.

A little harsh, but, if we want to take your analogy and run with it, if
I was consistently hanging out with paedophiles and child abusers, the
finger of suspicion would certainly be raised at some point.

OK, let's pretend you are a teacher or a priest (oi vey!). Now we can
cast suspicion with impunity - even though you have no history of any
problems... (in fact, this is very much the case, particularly for
priests lately). And it's sad, because obviously the vast majority
don't have anything to hide.

And of course, you'd have to find somebody who found me a good role
model in the first place

Heh... good point!

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 can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of
rampant drug abuse in professional cycling. The fact that advances in
performance-enhancing practices are always one step ahead of detection
(and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught
have alluded to the widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't
and no longer compete also allude to it.

There can be other reasons for that. If I get caught, of COURSE I am
going to say "everyone does it, I had to just be be competitive". If
I'm retired I can allude to the fact that I would have kicked
everyone's butt all the time "had they not been doing drugs". Basic
psychology (sandbox edition) 101.

The fact that anyone that
follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
widespread.

I would not have disagreed 6 years ago. I do today.

Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of
medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in 2000, containing
hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked
with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.

There are a lot of very valid (and legal) uses for syringes - let's
not forget that many riders are rehydrating intraveniously (sp?), and
no doubt taking other (legal) supplements in the most effective manner
as well. The riders are also under constant monitoring by their
handlers, including frequent blood chemistry testing (also requiring a
syringe).

I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly
the possibility that Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.

The new of you and that 12 year old girl will trump it though... ;-)

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

On 22 Jul 2003 10:25:51 -0700, (Paladin) wrote:
bomba wrote in message news:bfir4d$fef35$1@ID-
147573.news.uni-berlin.de...
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

Head up the ass. 29" wheels. Riser bars.

--
J'm Sm'th

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:47:47 GMT, Super Slinky wrote:
Mark Hickey said...

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.

But isn't it true that not all performance enhancing drugs are
detectable?

Without making too broad a statement, as the Official a.m-b Stand-Up Chemist, I
would say that *all* performance enhancing drugs are detectable. It's a matter
of how much money you want to spend to detect things, which things you think are
the worst offenders, who's going to pay for the analysis, how long the analysis
takes, etc.

Keeping in mind all the time that 'you can't measure zero'.

--
J'm Sm'th

Mark Hickey wrote:

I can write that based on the large amount of evidence and hearsay of
rampant drug abuse in professional cycling. The fact that advances in
performance-enhancing practices are always one step ahead of detection
(and as someone pointed out, doesn't the USPS have the largest resources
at their disposal?) The fact that almost all those who have been caught
have alluded to the widespread drugs culture, and even those who haven't
and no longer compete also allude to it.


There can be other reasons for that. If I get caught, of COURSE I am
going to say "everyone does it, I had to just be be competitive".

So why have cheats from other sports never said the same thing? It does
seem to be a recurring theme from cyclists.

If
I'm retired I can allude to the fact that I would have kicked
everyone's butt all the time "had they not been doing drugs". Basic
psychology (sandbox edition) 101.

What about the people that did the butt-kicking? People like Merckx,
Lemond and Boardman have all mentioned it.

The fact that anyone that
follows the Tour with any interest generally accepts that drug abuse is
widespread.


I would not have disagreed 6 years ago. I do today.

Ok. Of course, none of the top riders have failed a drugs test in the
last 6 years. Oh, hang on, wait, yes they have.

Then of course, there was the seizure by French police of
medical refuse, dumped suspiciously by the USPS in 2000, containing
hypodermics and bandages, and the admission by Armstrong that he worked
with Dr Ferrari who is known to have promoted the use of EPO.


There are a lot of very valid (and legal) uses for syringes - let's
not forget that many riders are rehydrating intraveniously (sp?), and
no doubt taking other (legal) supplements in the most effective manner
as well. The riders are also under constant monitoring by their
handlers, including frequent blood chemistry testing (also requiring a
syringe).

I agree, but there's the lingering question of why they tried to dump it
secretly on a back road.

I realise that it's all circumstantial, but I think there's certainly
the possibility that Armstrong could one day be caught in a drugs scandal.


The new of you and that 12 year old girl will trump it though... ;-)

Hey, she said on e-mail that she was 19 and just wanted a trip to Paris
/topical

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

wrote:

Well, I'm a chemist too, by coincidence, but I don't claim to be an
expert on drug testing. I have heard in the past that some things are
not detectable, like human growth hormone and EPO. Perhaps there are
others. But maybe the real question is if there are performance
enhancing drugs that aren't tested for.


That is no doubt much more relevant. I'm sure new performance enhancing substances are being
'discovered' all the time, and it's a difficult task to keep up with them, from an analytical
standpoint.

My understanding is that the drug-detection business is mainly a
reactionary affair.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

Chris Phillipo wrote:
Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the
top 10 or what? I mean could the winner be clean but the guy who draged
him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked directly to his
heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?

I don't *know*, but I suspect they pull the winners plus random
finishers from the field every day.

--
--
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.

Raptor wrote:
Chris Phillipo wrote:

Does anyone know who they test during the tour? Is it random, or the
top 10 or what? I mean could the winner be clean but the guy who
draged him there with the Camelbak full of steroids hooked directly to
his heart finish 50th place so they both come out clean?


I don't *know*, but I suspect they pull the winners plus random
finishers from the field every day.

I heard (on Usenet...) that the top six from Tyler's stage win were
tested, and for LANCE's win Monday.

--
--
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.