Geraint Thomas had his spleen removed
Mmmh - maybe removal of organs should count as some form of doping, after all it seems to have worked for Armstrong 😆
Mmmh - maybe removal of organs should count as some form of doping, after all it seems to have worked for Armstrong
It must save a few grams.
Geraint Thomas had his spleen removed. He's going to have “recurring anomalies” and “enormous variations” in his tests because of it.
Do you not think that maybe the UCI know about that, and took it into account? Obviously i don't know either way, but balance of probabilities would suggest they do.
Jamie - MemberMmmh - maybe removal of organs should count as some form of doping, after all it seems to have worked for Armstrong
It must save a few grams.
Better saddle clearance?
A sure that there was an article some time ago in France (Forget which paper) which intimated that Armstrong's cancer and subsequent treatment was "deliberate" and he'd done it to improve his performance. 😕
However, it's often said that you should judge a man by the company he keeps. There are a LOT of people around Armstrong who are tainted. As said on the earlier page, does that mean that he was so awesome that everyone else had to dope to keep up with him? Or is it a case of smoke/fire etc?
Its a possibility Armstrongs cancer was caused by doping - and the treatment he had for it included EPO and steroids ( fully declared) in a combination that is very unusual for cancer treatment.
or everyone round him doped to keep him in contention for the win ....
Do you not think that maybe the UCI know about that, and took it into account? Obviously i don't know either way, but balance of probabilities would suggest they do.
This is the UCi we're talking about here. Balance of probabilities would suggest that they picked the names out of a hat and assigned random numbers based on the number of birds visible from the office window. 🙂
In all seriousness, i really don't think Thomas is a doper his performances are just too credible. That list did throw up some oddities though. I can't be bothered to look it up but I seem to remember that Millar got a few points against his name and surely given his stance and history he must be the cleanest rider going.
Hamilton lost the plot a while ago with the twins facade. He's far from a reliable witness.
As for Lance, I want to believe him, but I'm still not 100%. What I struggle with, if he was a cheat how does he sleep at night knowing that he's conning the Livestrong / LA Foundation and all the people that idolise him? If he is a cheat, then he's one dark mutha. I can't believe someone could be that dark.
and the treatment he had for it included EPO and steroids ( fully declared) in a combination that is very unusual for cancer treatment
iirc did he not do some of ithis was to avoid the risk of damage to his lungs to allow him to return to racing? the cancer had spread to his lungs and brain and he did not use one of the usual drugs as it damaged lung tissue...again not that surprising a choice for a sportsman and indicatve of nothing in particular except how driven and focused he was.
As if on cue, Lance's latest tweet:
20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.
20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.
He never actually denies taking drugs, he always just says he's never failed a test.
But then again neither did David Millar or Marion Jones.
What I struggle with, if he was a cheat how does he sleep at night
Never underestimate the power of denial.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
...or good sleeping pills.
If you're going to dose, you might as well be consistent.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
"Everyone else was doing it so I wasn't cheating by also doing it"
along with
"people outside the pro sport don't understand it"
allows for athletes to dope and not question that it's cheating.
cha****ng you make a good point and think the crucial one is highlighted perfectly by finbar:
testimony from washed-up doping liars
If someone's been caught doping, then they are automatically untrustworthy? They are the ones who will have seen others doping, but we can never trust them?
Sorry but that's too black and white/naive for me - I suspect the majority of pros are doping, not the other way round.
Anyway why isn't Lance instgating libel and slander proceedings?
May I suggest those who havn't, read 'In Search of Robert Millar: Unravelling the Mystery Surrounding Britain's Most Successful Tour De France Cyclist' do so. It has a thought provoking 'take' on cycling/drug taking...things have become tangental since those days with respect 'simple' tissue repair and 'performance enhancement', but an interesting read nonetheless and one can understand how the 'spectre' has evolved.
Out of all the cycling books I've read; the LA's series and others that include this and the one where the entire book is just one race (can never remember the name) then the latter two are about the best...for me, with Robert Millar topping out. Insidentally, he was years ahead of the game with respect to diet...yet, pooh-poohed by his 'steak-muncing' euro-peers.
"The Race" 😛
This is the UCi we're talking about here. Balance of probabilities would suggest that they picked the names out of a hat and assigned random numbers based on the number of birds visible from the office window.
Touche 😆
If someone's been caught doping, then they are automatically untrustworthy? They are the ones who will have seen others doping, but we can never trust them?Sorry but that's too black and white/naive for me
it is not that they are automatically untrustworthy but they are a know liar. It becomes difficult to trust the word of someone who is known to be untrustworthy [ with a book to push]. It would be naive to ignore this but it does not make what he is saying now automatically untrue but it does introduce greater doubt.
Wiggins went from a near podium finish one year to a bit of a disaster the next - perhaps he got wind of the UCI's suspicions and stopped doping? Seems to be about as much evidence against him as there is against Armstrong.
Mogrim - there is loads of evidence against Armstronmg - sworn statements, retrospective blood tests, many of his co riders arenow known to have doped etc etc
JY I agree but that's not how it's usually presented.
IMO it's more likely that Lance doped than Hamilton is lying.
- Not actually evidence, though.sworn statements
- guilt by association? I can see that standing up in court.many of his co riders arenow known to have doped
evidence not proof CFH
Here we go again... TJ, like it or not Armstrong is [b]innocent[/b] until proven otherwise. There's circumstantial evidence, finger pointing (usually from those with an agenda of their own) but nothing concrete at all. In any court of law as it stands, he is innocent.
You may [b]think[/b] he's guilty, you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion but don't go spouting it off as though it's fact.
As I said before, this crusade to prove Armstrong guilty is doing far more damage to the sport that a concerted campaign to get rid of doping full stop and to catch the "lesser" riders.
Crazylegs - I said evidence not proof. You admit there is evidence so why attack me?
And despite what you say a lot of the evidence is pretty strong.
the evidence is inconclusive [you can put a credible case fwd for either position] but at this time he has not been found guilty so he has to be assumed to be innocent..his return certainly showed he was a phenomenal athlete and the winner may have cheated.
I am not sure but nothing a lieing cheat says will convince me one way or the other
We are so obsessed in our fully black vs fully white western mentalities that as soon as some measure of discredit falls on one party then that party can no longer be right in any way shape or form. And that's just nuts. Tyler Hamilton was a doper, and has been caught - that doesn't mean [i]everything[/i] he says is a lie!
So anyway, never mind Armstrong, is Tyler's book any good? 😉
Setting aside the doping, which personally I am certain that all the winning riders have been part of, he did of course race on in the Tour 2003 with a broken collarbone - and won a stage in that condition. Hard.
that doesn't mean everything he says is a lie
of course not but it does mean that not everything he says is true
i neither no nor care about LA really but if it is so implausable for someont to be better than the others for so long then surely Nico and anne caroline were off their chops on something for most of their careers?
[img] 
[/img]
Why can't you just leave Lance Armstrong alone
My issue with all this - is it is much much harder to prove that you are clean.
I personally think that a cleaner cycling is slowly getting there, but it will never be erradicated.
Lance is a good well known target and that is why people go after him - but deep down I don't think he is the mastermind behind all cycle doping which some parties are makign him out to be.
As for who is clean - well people liek certain riders and think that thier own personal heros are good and the others bad. Be it the British riders like Bradly & Geraint - who a lot on the continent think are'nt that squeeky, to the older generations like Greg LeMond even (He who shouts loudest often are ones having something to hide).
I hope they do find real evidence (not hearsay) that a cheater has cheated - which is where the UCI must get thier house in order.
The same must also happen in other sports - athletics is well tested, but look at tennis , football, rugby etc - the federations there are still too keen to cover up issues and point the finger at cyclign (just like Greg Lemond does to Lance in my eyes).
IMO it's more likely that Lance doped than Hamilton is lying
yep, spot on cynic-al
Armstrongs denials are very cleverly worded. Never failed a test, never used illegal substances - well in 1999 there was no test for EPO and I am not sure it was on the banned list.
So if we banned something orange juice tomorrow and went back through old samples and found traces of orange juice then everyone would be a drugs cheat? Whilst I don't agree with the pushing of limits to what is legal/illegal, surely if something wasn't banned then you can hardly implicate someone for actually using it?
thats my point breatheasy.
So if we banned something orange juice tomorrow and went back through old samples and found traces of orange juice then everyone would be a drugs cheat? Whilst I don't agree with the pushing of limits to what is legal/illegal, surely if something wasn't banned then you can hardly implicate someone for actually using it?
If orange juice had a proven positive effect on performance that wouldn't be there for non-orange juice drinkers, yes.
You can't enforce a ban on a performance-enhancing drug for which there is no test available. That doesn't mean that use of the performance-enhancing drug is fair, does it?
He never actually denies taking drugs, he always just says he's never failed a test.
Still means that he was ahead of the game whether it was with substances or not and, knowing that most of the other riders were probably using at the same time, still puts him ahead of the game? I don't agree with cheating, or even trying to find drugs that are not yet banned etc so I'd hate to find out he did, but I find it slightly irritating that a man can't achieve greatness without everyone automatically questioning his honesty and judging him guilty until proven innocent.
I think that it is wrong to say EPO wasn't banned in 1999
here is a definition of doping from the 1960s
"The administration of or use by a competing athlete of any substance foreign to the body or any physiologic substance taken in abnormal quantity or taken by an abnormal route of entry into the body with the sole intention of increasing in an artificial and unfair manner his/her performance in competition. When necessity demands medical treatment with any substance which, because of its nature, dosage, or application is able to boost the athlete's performance in competition in an artificial and unfair manner, this too is regarded as doping.".[
if Armstrong to EPO as a systematic atempt to boost cycling performance he broke the rules as they were then
not geing able to test for something is not the same as being allowed to do it
If you were allowed to take EPO why did Pantani get a 2 week suspension for his red blood cell count (in 1999)?
I think UCI dealt with EPO poorly back then as they admitted they couldn't test for EPO and therefore monitored red blood cell count which didn't carry the coreect messages
so no its not like retrospectively banning orange juice
You can't enforce a ban on a performance-enhancing drug for which there is no test available
Surely you can? Blood testing is not the only way of catching people doing illegal stuff...?
But how would you prove it?
If team X is careful with how much EPO they have with them, and how syringes and empty packs are disposed of, i.e. no one outside the team has any idea that doping is going on in team X, how would you enforce a ban? Team Y says they're doping, and that's all the proof needed?
You could still bust them with the stuff on them, using old fashioned detective work like they did the other day.
Not as effective but still possible to do. Might as well add the drug to the list.
EPO was banned but enforcement was difficuilt
but it was banned so if it now turns out that you were using it its reasonable for people to say "you were cheating"
Bjarne Riis admitted using EPO and handed back his 1996 tour win. think Armstrong would do the same?
