Road Cycling - what's with all the drug cheating ?

[HundredthIdiot]

Pow!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5948/Astana-insi...

[ewenm]

Have more Astana riders been caught than other teams?

[raf_gti]

HundredthIdiot said:

Lance doped, I'm convinced of it.

I don't like him, but that has nothing to do with my opinion on whether he's cheated. It's just a balance of probability thing. In the era that he competed it was not believable to beat a bunch of dopers whilst staying clean.

And there's all the Simeoni stuff...

Bure surely if <everyone> else has been caught how has he been the only one who has escaped detection?

I'm under the impression that as one of the most heavily tested riders out there he must be incredibly lucky to have not been caught.

[Uriel]

The "most tested man in history" thing is a myth. He has been caught, just after the fact and not as part of regular race testing. And according to people inside the peleton, the reason so many of them are prepared to dope is because they know that the chances of getting away with it are so high (though it seems that those chances are reducing as time goes on).

[raf_gti]

Uriel said:

The "most tested man in history" thing is a myth. He has been caught, just after the fact and not as part of regular race testing. And according to people inside the peleton, the reason so many of them are prepared to dope is because they know that the chances of getting away with it are so high (though it seems that those chances are reducing as time goes on).

But surely if almost every other Tour champion of the psat 10 years or so has been caught (before, during or after) then how come Armstrong has somehow managed to avoid being found out? Especially as he had the one of the longest continuous spells at the top of his game.

[Rocksteadyeddie]

raf_gti said:

Uriel said:

The "most tested man in history" thing is a myth. He has been caught, just after the fact and not as part of regular race testing. And according to people inside the peleton, the reason so many of them are prepared to dope is because they know that the chances of getting away with it are so high (though it seems that those chances are reducing as time goes on).

But surely if almost every other Tour champion of the psat 10 years or so has been caught (before, during or after) then how come Armstrong has somehow managed to avoid being found out? Especially as he had the one of the longest continuous spells at the top of his game.

There is an awful lot of suspicion about hushed up results. Those that can't be connected directly with him (i.e. they didn't have a large LA label on them). Oh, and he has lots of money and VERY aggressive lawyers.

I would be amazed if he wasn't at it with the rest of them. The physiological claims that he makes just don't stand up to any degree of scientific scrutiny. All very sad.

[mrandy]

99 tour was the year Lance has been tested positive for EPO http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/mich...

[Dick Seaman]

Mars said:

Parsnip said:

The Armstrong debate is a bit of a non starter - no-one in history has been tested more than him and he has never came back dirty - there is speculation, but no proof - so the accusations mean exactly fk all, and are usually spouted from the mouths of people who just hate Lance - that dhead Paul Kimmage for example.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. What I don't understand is why people still accuse him.

It's true that there's plenty of vitriol out there from the haters. But I don't agree that the debate is a non starter.

Here's where I stand;
Love Lance, love the whole story, amazing athlete, incredible achievements in the face of adversity, fascinating and complex character, successful, powerful, influential and a tireless philanthropist.

I also love road cycling, could happily watch every pedal stroke of Le Tour, have ridden a fair few Cols, done an Etape etc etc.

However, having read almost everything relating to Lance and the sport over the last fifteen years or so, from newspaper articles to autobiographies, I have to conclude that he must have been getting involved in all the various performance enhancing techniques.

I could be wrong, but, reluctantly, I don't think I am. To say that he's never tested positive is a bit of a red herring. Possibly he had the influence and financial clout to suppress any iffy test results? He was always far bigger than the sport. But, far more fundamental than that is the fact that the cheaters are always (at least) one step ahead of the testers.

[mrandy]

Dick Seaman said:

Mars said:

Parsnip said:

The Armstrong debate is a bit of a non starter - no-one in history has been tested more than him and he has never came back dirty - there is speculation, but no proof - so the accusations mean exactly fk all, and are usually spouted from the mouths of people who just hate Lance - that dhead Paul Kimmage for example.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. What I don't understand is why people still accuse him.

It's true that there's plenty of vitriol out there from the haters. But I don't agree that the debate is a non starter.

Here's where I stand;
Love Lance, love the whole story, amazing athlete, incredible achievements in the face of adversity, fascinating and complex character, successful, powerful, influential and a tireless philanthropist.

I also love road cycling, could happily watch every pedal stroke of Le Tour, have ridden a fair few Cols, done an Etape etc etc.

However, having read almost everything relating to Lance and the sport over the last fifteen years or so, from newspaper articles to autobiographies, I have to conclude that he must have been getting involved in all the various performance enhancing techniques.

I could be wrong, but, reluctantly, I don't think I am. To say that he's never tested positive is a bit of a red herring. Possibly he had the influence and financial clout to suppress any iffy test results? He was always far bigger than the sport. But, far more fundamental than that is the fact that the cheaters are always (at least) one step ahead of the testers.

I agree but also made my mind up that he was still the best at his game,take everybody off drugs he would still have come out on top doesnt make it right but its true
I only hope they clean the sport up for the newer crop of young riders,the past is the past

[HundredthIdiot]

mrandy said:

take everybody off drugs he would still have come out on top doesnt make it right but its true

I don't know why that should be true. The relative performance improvement from EPO (for instance) varies hugely from person to person.

For me, his achievements in the 2009 tour were the most impressive. With the continuing improvements in testing, I think in '09 they were probably just down to rest day refills.

[mrandy]

HundredthIdiot said:

mrandy said:

take everybody off drugs he would still have come out on top doesnt make it right but its true

I don't know why that should be true. The relative performance improvement from EPO (for instance) varies hugely from person to person.

For me, his achievements in the 2009 tour were the most impressive. With the continuing improvements in testing, I think in '09 they were probably just down to rest day refills.

In 09 there was no set level for EPO so it was a free for all,he was still the best rider im my opinion and every other bugger was on it anyhow
He was a brilliant cycling talent very early on after he gave up being a triathlete,with or without drugs he is a naturally gifted althlete.So the arguement EPO gave him a more than normal advantage over other riders isnt a strong point to me as he was head and shoulders above them anyhow.Also consider his preparation and tactics were brilliant in every tour he rode

[anonymous-user]

mrandy said:

99 tour was the year Lance has been tested positive for EPO http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/mich...

just anohter person trying to be "the guy that nailed lance"....in the medical world its become the holy grail. guaranteed personality and fame for a few months. his "analysis" was broadly gcse level chemistry... i'm not a lance fan per se, i respect his achievements but this sort of interview just makes me side with lance even more because its laced with the individulas own personal agenda

[mrandy]

pablo said:

mrandy said:

99 tour was the year Lance has been tested positive for EPO http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/mich...

just anohter person trying to be "the guy that nailed lance"....in the medical world its become the holy grail. guaranteed personality and fame for a few months. his "analysis" was broadly gcse level chemistry... i'm not a lance fan per se, i respect his achievements but this sort of interview just makes me side with lance even more because its laced with the individulas own personal agenda

I also agree with you ,im not a big fan of him as a person but still think hes an amazing athelete.
I still think its naive to think he didnt use gear when racing at his level.I also dont see what bringing up old drug tests and nailing Lance will achieve