[Closed] Phil Ligget - Credulous idiot

sputnik - I thought Marion Faithful was doing Mars Bars? Well it was in the papers so it must be true.

Remember a drugs test has a set procedure to protect both sides in any case. Everyone is subject to those rules even Lance, he is not subject to rules from people who have an axe to grind (possibly correctly) and nore should he be. Now if we want to doo people retro spectively with long term stored samples lets get some rules written that also protect the testers and the ahtletes from the conspricy (spelling?) people (I am not defending Lance).
There are former athletes out there who have been very badly treated by the testing system, so rules for both sides are very important no matter how much it hurts some jornalist who was kicked out of a Lance press conference. Remember a justice system is there to protect the innocent no matter if that sometimes lets the guilty go (I'm not saying Lance is Guilty). sorry for the ramble

See above quotes from Junkyard.

Why 12 years later would you allow samples to be tested?

because you have nothing to hide?

You don't know if they have been stored correctly, tampered with, contaminated.

If they tested clean, then so what, it would not stop the doubters, and if not as above they could have been contamintaed/tampered with. Nothing to win, plenty to lose

The debate will rage because neither side can have a great deal of certaintity'/proof on their view

There seems to be thought amoungst some on these threads that think that various drugs turn you into some sort of super hero. They don't. They might to varying degrees help you train harder/recover quicker but they are not the miracle juice that's inferred by some. Also remember that LA targetted the Tour very specifically and built the team for that very job whilst others did the rounds of the Giro, Classics etc so maybe didn't need as much assistance.

54 % seems quite handy to me
[url= http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html ]

Do you have a scientific study which shows little benefit?

I must admit I mis-read the title too and thought "well I've always liked Thin Lizzy but Phil Lynot never struck me as overly gifted in the brain dept"

DOH!

PL - I think he just wants to think the best of the sport he loves and has filled his life. To the point where he maybe lacks perspective. I'd still take a Phil and Paul commentary over anyone else.

But my point was that the Marion Jones thing is just a retort really. It doesn't mean Armstrong isn't doping, and it doesn't mean he is.

But him having had lots of drug tests without testing positive doesn't mean he isn't doping and it doesn't mean he is. Invoking Ms Jones is just one of the simplest ways of making that point.

There seems to be thought amoungst some on these threads that think that various drugs turn you into some sort of super hero. They don't. They might to varying degrees help you train harder/recover quicker but they are not the miracle juice that's inferred by some.

Is there? I know that a clean LA would whop my ass, no matter how many PEDs I took. However it can be the difference between coming 1st and 2nd in big races.

Someone posted this in the Contador thread yesterday:-

Bear in mind, Ventoux doesn't drop to less than 8% all the way up. Quite ridiculous.

It seems now the burden is on a clean person to prove they are clean, and even then there will still be doubters.

Its the nature of the sport as it has been tainted throughout the years. Could LA be the only/first clean winner, and then multi record winner at that? Possible. Sometimes there can be one that is so far ahead in their sport that it beggers belief. Ed Moses, Phil Taylor, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer.

There seems to be thought amoungst some on these threads that think that various drugs turn you into some sort of super hero. They don't.

That might have been true in the 60's 70's and 80's as it was just Amphetamines, HGH and a few steroids. These basically were stimulants and pain masks. Then EPO came along and the game changed completely. To quote people at the time "they turned a cart horse in to a race horse". People were had led grand tours suddenly couldn't keep up on with the peloton on flat stages.

There was an interesting article in Pro-Cycling a couple of months ago with the lady who is the chief Dr in the Tour. She said there are effective drugs out there now from China which there is no current test for and these are as effective as EPO. So cyclists are cheating now with very little chance of detection and the same was true in LA's day. There were masking drugs which could not be detected at the time and indeed there was no test for EPO, they just went on a heamocrit level of 50%. So stay below that level and you were officially "clean". The fact he never (officially) failed a drugs test is absolutely no proof that he didn't take drugs.

I really wanted to believe him, but I just can't. From his associations with Ferrari, to the '99 re-tests to the fact he beat other riders who were subsequently found to have been cheating. It just doesn't stack up to me.

Could LA be the only/first clean winner, and then multi record winner at that? Possible. Sometimes there can be one that is so far ahead in their sport that it beggers belief. Ed Moses, Phil Taylor, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer.

According to the Ashenden interview ( http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden) Armstrong improved [b]his own[/b] performance by 18%.

Why 12 years later would you allow samples to be tested? You don't know if they have been stored correctly, tampered with, contaminated. If they tested clean, then so what, it would not stop the doubters, and if not as above they could have been contamintaed/tampered with. Nothing to win, plenty to lose

That sounds like Contador's steak defence...

wallace1492 - Member
It seems now the burden is on a clean person to prove they are clean, and even then there will still be doubters.

As you say, the sport is tainted, and the dominance of one individual is bound to raise questions, even without the various testimonies/tests etc.

It seems now the burden is on a clean person to prove they are clean, and even then there will still be doubters.

Only if there's lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting guilt.

There seems to be thought amoungst some on these threads that think that various drugs turn you into some sort of super hero. They don't.

Ever seen before and after pictures of Ben Johnson? He went from normal sprinter into some sort of "super hero" body builder.

Ed Moses, Phil Taylor, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[i]Only if there's lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting guilt.[/i]
Like winning a lot?

look at pantani an exceptional cyclists

from reading "the death of marco pantani" I came away with the view that he was an average cyclist with an exceptional capacity for EPO and cocaine, and who owed all his successes and achievements in cycling to EPO.

feenster - totally agree with you. You missed out the bit about underlying mental illness. Pantani, a truly sad case. That bit of vid above is awsome though drugs or not.

Did lance take drugs when he was the top ranked under 19s US national triathlete when he was 16, or the US national champion at the age of 18?

you are being very unkind to him with that assesment
Grand tour winner, 3rd in his first tour, one tour de france and the giro in the same year
he never failed a drug test either FWIW
A bit better than an avergae cyclist

Junkyard - did Pantani not get kicked out of the Giro an over high red blood cell count. Was there also not an admission or infered (once retired) of drug taking in his youth and junior racing?

Sometimes there can be one that is so far ahead in their sport that it beggers belief. Ed Moses, Phil Taylor, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer.

All bar one of them are not great comparators as they are skill / technique based sports rather than cardiovascular.

I cant believe I've just referred to darts as a sport.

Find these Armstrong threads bizarre. Many opinions being voiced have a level of belief that borders on religion.

Spin - Member

Sometimes there can be one that is so far ahead in their sport that it beggers belief. Ed Moses, Phil Taylor, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer.

All bar one of them are not great comparators as they are skill / technique based sports rather than cardiovascular.

I cant believe I've just referred to darts as a sport.

AH YES, HE CAN ONLY BE COMPARED TO THE GREAT PHIL TAYLOR (APOLOGIES FOR CAPS)

this thread gets better and better.

Them darts players are all on beatablockers. It's true because they never failed a test.

did Pantani not get kicked out of the Giro an over high red blood cell count.

you are being very unkind to him with that assesment
Grand tour winner, 3rd in his first tour, one tour de france and the giro in the same year
he never failed a drug test either FWIW
A bit better than an avergae cyclist

I don't mean to be unkind to him, his story is truly tragic, and very complex, but one of the things that I took from the book was that early in his career as an amateur he was in no way a standout cyclist, and it wasn't until he started doping, pretty much from the start that he started to get results. If if wasn't for EPO we wouldn't know his name I don't think. I suppose you could say it was a level playing field they were all on it, but it wasn't, he took enough EPO in his career to stun a T-rex. He is the perfect answer to those who say just legalise doping to level the playing field - the athletes would destro themeselves. Anyway, it's fairly conclusive to me, his entire cvareer was built on EPO, and he wouldn't have had the results he did without it.

feenster - by reference to the book I take it you mean the Life and Death of Marco Pantani? The point the book makes is - you will never know how good a cyclist he would have been without the EPO since the effect of treatment varied from cyclist to cyclist. And due to this, a level playing field is never a possibility. Pantani was also not on drugs (EPO or Cocaine) at the start of his career. I think there is a point in the book where the author subjectively points out when this - in all probability began.

he never failed a drug test either FWIW

The test he failed was the haemocrit test. Which basically measures the levels of red blood cells. An elevated red blood cell count being an indicator of EPO.
There was no direct drug test for EPO at the time.

Incidently, Bjarne Riis winner of the 1996 TdF when questioned over evidence of his blood doping - famously replied - "I have never tested positive".
He was also nicknamed "Mr.60%" ~ apparently the level of his haemocrit.
(Panatani was tested at 52% in his failed test).

Fignon's book - makes insight into the changes in the peloton in the 80s to the 90s. It's fair to say, when on-form he was an exceptional rider. But he discovered in the 90s - he simply could no longer keep up.

I always remember David Duffields commentary on Pantani, I think it was one of the times he was flying up Alp D'Huez. He said that Pantani was a fantastic climber but he couldnt string together day after day of great performances needed in order to win a tour. Then his game steps up and suddenly he can. I doubted his ability from that time on. Having read the book of his life, just such a sad story. I think he was doomed from the outset, I got the distinct impression that the doping culture was endemic from his earliest days on a bike. Still while I still believed he was clean it was always a thrill to watch him climb.

Did lance take drugs when he was the top ranked under 19s US national triathlete when he was 16, or the US national champion at the age of 18?

did pantani when he was 20 and winning the amateur Giro?
yours is a spurious question, plenty of promising young athletes have fallen by the wayside with or without drugs. performance as a junior gives no indication of drug use (or not) in later life.

Find these Armstrong threads bizarre. Many opinions being voiced have a level of belief that borders on religion.

the 'believers' carry on blindly worshiping, everyone else feels cheated.

I neither blindy believe or feel cheated.

I like to explore the possibilities, see all sides, question the evidence both for and against and weigh up the facts.

So, either he did take the "juice" as everyone else did, and still won an unpresedented 7 in a row, or didn't take it and still won against those that did.

I think there is a point in the book where the author subjectively points out when this - in all probability began.

What was that point? It's a while since i read the book, and at times I got a bit lost in the technical detail and complexity, but what I took away was that he didn't start making a name for himself until after the EPO began, until then he did nothing to stand out. Is that wrong?

Maybe your posting was ambiguous? And I've misread it. I've read it as Pantani having access to the drugs throughout his career (amateur and professional).
Regardless, it's impossible to say whether he would have achieved what he did without the drugs.

HTTP4040, genuinley open to correction here not trying to lock horns with you.

My opinion of him is based on my perception that he didn't stand out until he started EPO, which was very early in his career, so what I want to get straight is whether that's right or not.

What was the point that his doping probably began, and what was his status/achievements up to that point?

I'll agree that it's impossible to say if he would have achieved what he did without EPO.

His doping began in all probability with Team Carera(?) which were on those dodgey Italian laboratory records. And this was his first Pro-team - which he won the Giro with.
He was however a very promising rider beforehand with wins on the amateur Giro.
His fastest ascent of Alp d'huez will not be beaten for a long time.
And LA getting within a second of it ...

Phil Ligget would make a shit Bladerunner. Can't even run the (Jens) Voight-Kampff test properly. pffft.

Gotta love his work before commentating...